Presidential Election

60,229 Views | 1209 Replies | Last: 24 days ago by Tswizsle
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dermdoc said:

Sapper Redux said:

dermdoc said:

Sapper Redux said:

Quote:

but when a fortune 500 company can lose investors simply by not being woke enough, you control the means of production.


Do you not understand what the means of production refers to? Getting investors, who by definition have money to invest, to switch who they invest with, has nothing to do with the actual means of production. I'm sensing that Marxism is just a boogeyman for you.
It is certainly a boogeyman for me. It is evil.


Finding it in every politician or policy you dislike shows how imaginary the issue is. Like the boogeyman.
Fair enough. And I have not done that.

Let me ask you this, is today's mainstream Democratic Party more to the left than say 30 years ago? Is it okay for conservatives to point that out without resorting to the Marxist label?

And what are we "progressing" to?

One last question, do you think Marxism is evil?
More to the left on what? Social issues? Yes, broadly speaking. Economic issues? Not really. Maybe compared to Clinton, but not historically for the party. The goal would be a society with equal rights under the law and basic needs provided for to encourage human flourishing. As for Marxism, do I think the political philosophy is evil? I think it's absurdly naive and has resulted in great evil across the world.

I don't find the academic arguments of Marx, visa vis historical materialism evil. They are extremely valuable insights and influential across almost every field of study.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wait until Wind City Ag finds out that Newtonian Physics encompasses ideas that weren't actually originated by Isaac Newton.

His ****ing head is gonna explode.
Windy City Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Since I have to drag this stubborn donkey to water and literally force it to drink,

here you go:

I will provide you many others if needed.

https://www.history.com/news/socialism-communism-differences


Quote:

Key Differences Between Communism and Socialism

Under communism, there is no such thing as private property. All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on what they need. A strong central governmentthe statecontrols all aspects of economic production, and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.

By contrast, under socialism, individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.

Another key difference in socialism versus communism is the means of achieving them. In communism, a violent revolution in which the workers rise up against the middle and upper classes is seen as an inevitable part of achieving a pure communist state. Socialism is a less rigid, more flexible ideology. Its adherents seek change and reform, but often insist on making these changes through democratic processes within the existing social and political structure, not overthrowing that structure.

In his 1875 writing, Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx summarized the communist philosophy in this way: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." By contrast, socialism is based on the idea that people will be compensated based on their level of individual contribution to the economy.

Unlike in communism, a socialist economic system rewards individual effort and innovation. Social democracy, the most common form of modern socialism, focuses on achieving social reforms and redistribution of wealth through democratic processes, and can co-exist alongside a free-market capitalist economy.

https://mises.org/mises-wire/american-socialism-isnt-marxism-its-still-problem

Quote:

Not All Socialism Is Marxism

How can Marxism be distinguished from representatives of other socialist currents? First of all, Marxism is an extreme and particular flavor of socialism that is usually called communism. Communists adhere to the materialist conception of history and the labor theory of value and surplus value. They claim to represent the "proletariat" class and believe in the exploitation of labor by capital. To them, this exploitation leads to the aggravation of class struggle and, as a result, instigates the socioeconomic change of society, which some would call a revolution. After the revolution, the victors would establish a proletarian dictatorship and start a socialist transformation of society, namely the collectivization of private property and consciousness. The founder of Marxism envisioned that the communist revolution would take place in all industrial countries at once. After the formation of a "new man"who does not know the concept of individualismand the achievement of economic prosperity and equality, the state would wither away. Society would then become genuinely communist.

Now, ask yourself, who in the Democratic Party shares such a view? Apparently, no one, not even openly socialist Bernie Sanders.

The question is, what kind of socialism involves the leftist elements of the Democratic Party? First of all, modern socialists do not adhere to a single coherent socialist theory or create something anew; instead, they recycle old slogans about economic equality and fairness, which have been known from time immemorial, long before Marx.


https://stevelalla.medium.com/marx-didnt-invent-socialism-nor-did-he-discover-it-8d924d97552c

Quote:

There's no debate that Marx didn't invent socialism. As co-editor of a French-German radical newspaper by 1843, a young Marx would have read the term "socialism" used by French author Pierre Leroux (17971871) generally credited with coining the term or the German Lorenz von Stein (18151890). England's Robert Owen (17711858) had bandied the word about as early as 1835. French philosopher Victor d'Hupay (17461818) called himself a communist author around 1785, thirty-three years before Marx's birth, and his colleague Nicolas-Edme Rtif (17341806) even used the term to describe a form of government.

In Engels' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific he celebrates "the founders of socialism" Saint-Simon (17601825), Owen, and Charles Fourier (17721837), and refers to the "actual communistic theories" of tienne-Gabriel Morelly and Gabriel Bonnot de Mably.

errard Winstanley, in the 17th century, and Thomas More, who wrote Utopia in 1515, were two other notable Britons who wrote about societies where community came before profit, private property was unknown, and in which workers controlled the means of production.

Incidentally, Marx did not draw a strong distinction between socialism and communism. He implied that communism was a stage beyond that of socialism in The Critique of the Gotha Program, published posthumously in 1891. Lenin and others drew out this distinction in greater detail. In general Marx and Engels used the two terms interchangeably.
Windy City Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Wait until Wind City Ag finds out that Newtonian Physics encompasses ideas that weren't actually originated by Isaac Newton.

His ****ing head is gonna explode.

Trying to understand this one . . . .you tell me that Marxism was the basis for socialism and then provide this? Shouldn't your statement be that Copernicus jumped in a time machine to observe Newton's writings and then went back home to establish heliocentrism?
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I explicitly stated socialist ideas predated Marx. However, Marx wasn't just a random guy that wrote about socialist ideas, he was a pinnacle figure in disseminating those ideas globally. All socialists, communists, Marxists, collectivists, statists, ectcetera after Marx were massively influenced by Marx's writing.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Marx didn't invent the term communism either.

Are you going to tell us it's a mistake to link communism back to Marx? Even after your buddy Sapper insists on using the two terms interchangeably?

You go ahead and tell me which concepts we are and are not allowed to allude to Marx in conjunction with, Professor. I humbly seek to learn from your infinite wisdom.
Windy City Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is what you said . . "Marxism is the underlying structure that begets socialism and communism.


Quote:

Marxism is the underlying ideal structure that begets communism, socialism, modern progresevism, etc. I find Christianity splitting into denominations to be perfectly analogous.

And obviously Marx himself wasn't the first to have Marxian ideals, he just collected, curated, and cultivated them into an organized idea structure.

I have already showed you in endless detail how Marxism was a strange derivative of socialist theory and not vice versa.

But to you point, Marx was absolutely the first and only person to advocate for Marxian ideals. He took the already well established concepts within socialism and blew them out into his vision of armed struggle, dictatorship, and a total banishment of individual rights. The only guy to say, "Yes! That works!" was Lenin who felt it was a half measure and went on to argue for permanent rather than temporary dictatorship and the use of technocrats to speed along violent revolution rather than just sitting around hoping the proletariat gets of their ass.

The rest of the larger socialist diaspora pushed back saying it was all craziness and contrary to historical socialist principles.

The Social Democracy movement was indeed a rejection of Marx's claims of the need for violence, the banishment of the state, and destruction of individual rights. Marxism has always been a radical and narrow vision and that is why he was basically kicked out of his own political action groups towards the end of his life.





Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wait, just a second ago you expounded upon how virtually every country in Western Civilization had Marxist revolutions, and now you are saying only Lenin though Marx had good ideas.

Sooo...which is it?
Windy City Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Wait, just a second ago you expounded upon how virtually every country in Western Civilization had Marxist revolutions, and now you are saying only Lenin though Marx had good ideas.

Sooo...which is it?
Failed Marxist revolutions that were often opposed by other socialist movements in the same countries . . . but that is not the point and a bit irrelevant. The point is you still can't offer up a shred of evidence or make even a slight connection between the extremist ideology of the Marxist wing of socialism and today's progressive party that you viewed as distilling ideas form Marxist leaders.

The only thing that is truly, uniquely Marxist and not just socialism is the call for violent revolution, the belief in the need of a temporary dictatorship, and the goal of a stateless society with no individual rights. You are trying to say that those views have influenced the current progressive movement here, which sounds confused and unserious.

It makes for an easy dog whistle but has no evidence in reality.
Rongagin71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You do know that humans cannot hear a dog whistle?
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You are lying.

I've already stated this, but Critical Theory was created by Marxists and massively influential to Modern Progressivism.

So, what are you contesting here?

That Critical Theory was started by Marxists?

That it exerts massive influence on today's Modern Progressivism?

Just because you refuse to engage with the points I've made doesn't magically erase the fact that I have, indeed, made them.

You don't get to decide what is and isn't Marxism. You are not the final arbiter of truth. Here is what wiki has to say about Marxist philosophy:

Quote:

The key characteristics of Marxism in philosophy are its materialism and its commitment to political practice as the end goal of all thought.


Nothing about dictators. Nothing about violent revolutions.

YOU are insisting on a narrow definition that, quite simply, becomes obviously unworkable when one surveys the rich tapestry of movements that have SELF IDENTIFIED as Marxist.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rongagin71 said:

You do know that humans cannot hear a dog whistle?


Francis Galton invented the Dog Whistle in 1876 (whoop!). People who refer to "Dog Whistle's" when not referring to actual dogs are confused and not to be taken seriously.
Windy City Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

You are lying.

I've already stated this, but Critical Theory was created by Marxists and massively influential to Modern Progressivism.

So, what are you contesting here?

That Critical Theory was started by Marxists?
Critical Theory was created by a weird kluge of people, not just Marxists. It was an attempt to blend certain very specific parts of the Marxist platform regarding scientific socialism with a bunch of other weird crap like Freud's Psycho analytic theory, Max Weber's burgeoning field of sociology, whatever stuff Fredrich Nietzche was pumping at the time and the writings of Emmanuel Kant. Hegel was in there as well. Somehow Kierkegaard got in there as well. Why not,

Max Horkheimer cooked up Critical Theory specifically because he found Marx's whole collapse of the capitalists through violent revolution process to be dumb. He expressly opposed any rhetoric in Frankfurt regarding revolution.

Yes, there were some one time Marxists in there but they were in there because they were disillusioned Marxists who had abandoned the extreme aspects of Marx's beliefs and were looking for a better approach.

So no, Critical Theory is not some clear link to the Progressive movement. It really sounds like a bunch of dope smoking profs riffing in an ever more bizarre way but most of philosophy sounds like that to me.

At best it is described as "Post-Marxist" and most of the Orthodox Marxist and Leninist thinker in the early 20th Century attacked the Critical Theory concepts as a sell-out and heretical to Marxist ideology.


Windy City Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Nothing about dictators. Nothing about violent revolutions.
Go read his actual works. You will learn a few things.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So the Critical Theorists, despite being self described Marxists, weren't actually Marxists.

Man. That's some impressive logic.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Windy City Ag said:

Quote:

Nothing about dictators. Nothing about violent revolutions.
Go read his actual works. You will learn a few things.


Uh huh. Thanks Professor. I'll give that a try someday.
Windy City Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

So the Critical Theorists, despite being self described Marxists, weren't actually Marxists.

Man. That's some impressive logic.
They were admitted disillusioned and lapsed Marxists looking to build something new that actually made sense and in doing so offended orthodox Marxists and Leninists who still stuck to the Marxist playbook.

So yes, they were not Marxists.

And Critical Theory is not some static field. There were three distinct evolutions of it and it had fritted out to weird assaults on artists towards its latter years.

Look, I get that nuance is not your interest but digging into Critical Theory you will find that is basically an attempt to tear down and rebuild the original Marxist thoughts and binning most of what Marx said in the process.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wow.

So Critical Theorists, who self identified as Marxists, who are ALWAYS referred to as Marxist, weren't actual Marxist because Professor Nomenclature says so.
Windy City Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:


So Critical Theorists, who self identified as Marxists, who are ALWAYS referred to as Marxist, weren't actual Marxist because Professor Nomenclature says so.
It is interesting, this rock solid faith of yours in statements that are easily debunked.

Critical Theorists were not ALWAYS referred to as Marxist. You know who the first folks were to say they were not Marxists? The actual Marxists at the time the Frankfurt School started publishing their thoughts.

Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Uh huh. And when Catholics say other denominations aren't true Christians you are equally persuaded?
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No True Marxist would accept anything less then a violent revolution and a dictator.
Windy City Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hey, gotta tend to family stuff and, sadly as much as I want to keep it up, gotta ignore this discussion for awhie.

Thanks for the good back and forth Back to you soon.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Silent For Too Long said:

No True Marxist would accept anything less then a violent revolution and a dictator.
The incredible irony of Kamala's Marxist father living…1 mile from the White House (and never visiting), really makes me laugh.
Rongagin71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I liked your funny memes better this morning,
I mean don't you think Senior Harris slunk by
downtown DC at some time? Was he in jail?
From your F16 post...
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thx, lol. The notion that Marxist pop just happens to reside, of all the places on God's green earth, a mile from the White House, but since he's not on camera or 'close' to her he 'can be dismissed,' despite his ideology/theology (and race) being critical to her upbringing, is sort of amazing to me.

And I grew up in the area, there aren't more than probably a couple hundred or so homes within a mile of the White House. Maybe he lives in a condo off K-street, I dunno. Is he working at the Jamaican embassy somehow still?

But I'm just a 'conspiracy theorist.'
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yes, absent a shred of evidence, this is less than a theory: this is you showing your bias.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yes, I am very based against Marxism. You caught me! Congrats. Full disclosure; I've never even read the communist manifesto all the way through. I found it a stupid waste of time very quickly. Marx and Engels were run of the mill racist, sexist academic bigots/snobs of the 19th century, again. Their writings and theories should rightfully be dismissed as the claptrap garbage they have proven to be, in the intervening century plus.

-read the article. "No evidence." If it were fake news, the Harris-Walz campaign would already have a flier out about where he actually lives.

Something is showing, for sure.
barbacoa taco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Marxism has become such a tired and hackneyed term that it's become almost meaningless. Oftentimes it just means "something conservatives don't like." (e.g. socialized healthcare, taxing the rich, increasing the minimum wage, LGBT rights, support for Palestine). And when used in a historical context, it's rightfully criticized given that most of the regimes that embraced Marxism were oppressive dictatorships. But the fact is, probably 1 in 10 people who condemn Marxism have actually read up on it or fully understand it. It's just a catchall term for negative things.

as far as I'm concerned, pretty much everything is fair game for criticism, including principles we hold dear and sometimes think of as "above" that. Such as the pitfalls of capitalism, the cruel nature of for-profit healthcare, the undeniable fact that the working class has been screwed over and left behind in our current capitalistic system.

I could go on.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nortex97 said:

Yes, I am very based against Marxism. You caught me! Congrats. Full disclosure; I've never even read the communist manifesto all the way through. I found it a stupid waste of time very quickly. Marx and Engels were run of the mill racist, sexist academic bigots/snobs of the 19th century, again. Their writings and theories should rightfully be dismissed as the claptrap garbage they have proven to be, in the intervening century plus.

-read the article. "No evidence." If it were fake news, the Harris-Walz campaign would already have a flier out about where he actually lives.

Something is showing, for sure.


No one gives a **** about where he lives. Can you provide any evidence that Harris has significant contact or ties with him? That he's somehow designed or running her economic platform? He's in his mid-80s and hasn't had a relationship with Harris since she was a kid. And yet you keep trying to argue he's some secret mastermind plotting a Marxist revolution under his daughter. It's a pretty stupid conspiracy theory in general, but you have nothing to back it up.
AggieRain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
barbacoa taco said:

Marxism has become such a tired and hackneyed term that it's become almost meaningless.


Kind of like the term "racist."
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

nortex97 said:

Yes, I am very based against Marxism. You caught me! Congrats. Full disclosure; I've never even read the communist manifesto all the way through. I found it a stupid waste of time very quickly. Marx and Engels were run of the mill racist, sexist academic bigots/snobs of the 19th century, again. Their writings and theories should rightfully be dismissed as the claptrap garbage they have proven to be, in the intervening century plus.

-read the article. "No evidence." If it were fake news, the Harris-Walz campaign would already have a flier out about where he actually lives.

Something is showing, for sure.


No one gives a **** about where he lives. Can you provide any evidence that Harris has significant contact or ties with him? That he's somehow designed or running her economic platform? He's in his mid-80s and hasn't had a relationship with Harris since she was a kid. And yet you keep trying to argue he's some secret mastermind plotting a Marxist revolution under his daughter. It's a pretty stupid conspiracy theory in general, but you have nothing to back it up.


Fact check false. I give a **** that he is living in the White House neighborhood. I'm not the only one.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You have zero proof outside of a 1 off line in a 21 year old article that he doesn't have a personal relationship with her.

My father went to prison when I was 7. I've had maybe a dozen conversations with him since then. I'm very aware of his world view and how it has influenced mine, for better of for worse.

You know his existence is terrible optics politically and you don't want to be seen supporting Marxists so your cognitive dissonance is working in overdrive.

You are a victim of ideological capture and it's pretty obvious to the rest of us.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nortex97 said:

Sapper Redux said:

nortex97 said:

Yes, I am very based against Marxism. You caught me! Congrats. Full disclosure; I've never even read the communist manifesto all the way through. I found it a stupid waste of time very quickly. Marx and Engels were run of the mill racist, sexist academic bigots/snobs of the 19th century, again. Their writings and theories should rightfully be dismissed as the claptrap garbage they have proven to be, in the intervening century plus.

-read the article. "No evidence." If it were fake news, the Harris-Walz campaign would already have a flier out about where he actually lives.

Something is showing, for sure.


No one gives a **** about where he lives. Can you provide any evidence that Harris has significant contact or ties with him? That he's somehow designed or running her economic platform? He's in his mid-80s and hasn't had a relationship with Harris since she was a kid. And yet you keep trying to argue he's some secret mastermind plotting a Marxist revolution under his daughter. It's a pretty stupid conspiracy theory in general, but you have nothing to back it up.


Fact check false. I give a **** that he is living in the White House neighborhood. I'm not the only one.


I hate to be the one to tell you this. But there's a thing called the internet now. You don't have to live next to someone to contact them. Living nearby means nothing. Living far away means nothing. If you're going to make this kind of claim about his influence on Harris, you need to provide actual evidence.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Calls Marxism a "tired and hackneyed" term, the posts this:

Quote:

Such as the pitfalls of capitalism, the cruel nature of for-profit healthcare, the undeniable fact that the working class has been screwed over and left behind in our current capitalistic system.


Sure thing, Karl. Point to the doll where the Bourgouise hurt you.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's perfectly reasonable to assume that a person's father had influenced them, considering that's the normative operation in most cases.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that what happens most of the time isn't happening in this instance.

Also, when she quickly embraces far left positions like Medicare for All, price controls, and open borders, it's reasonable to conjecture maybe her father has been influential after all.

Of course none of us knows for sure. But your vehement protestations are embarrassing to watch. Have a shred of pride in yourself.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.