|
hemophilia posted:Hey this seems like a cool thread to ask this. Why are so many socialists dogmatic and treat this poo poo as doctrine akin to the way a holy man reveres his holy books? Man, you sure got us!
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:16 |
|
|
Alright, so I was wondering something that doesn't really require me to provide a breakdown critique of Marxism-Leninism to respond to, so i'll have to ask you to try without. You're being dismissive and clearly not really wanting to deal with the only thing I'm wondering about, which is why there are so many many radical leftists lacking any ability to analyze and reflect on their chosen philosophy. Leaning on Marx and Lenin's writings in the exact same way a preacher does with the Pauline epistles makes you an idiot, but tons of people do it. Lenin's ideas were not working as he lived and breathed. You can track this in his writings posted at places like marxists.org. I'm not going to do it for you, but you are free to do it. Too few willing to question the philosophy behind the foundation of these states. It usually begins and ends with whining about U.S./western containment policies, covert actions, and state sponsored coups. Legitimate gripes for sure, but does not change or override the problem i'm talking about, if you want a Leninist style soviet state in TYOOL 2016 you're kind of retarded. Too much has changed in 100 years. No self reflection, instead dogmatic worship of very flawed men with no grasp of the modern world, which is an interesting parallel to people who similarly worship enlightenment thinkers and the founding fathers. PSL seems no different, and people practicing and preaching a marxist-leninist dogma are never going to be the ones to bring us all communism in time for Christmas, much as im sooo sure you'd all love it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
hemophilia posted:You're being dismissive hemophilia posted:Why are so many socialists dogmatic and treat this poo poo as doctrine akin to the way a holy man reveres his holy books?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Marxism is not a set of dogma, it's an evolving field of study. If people are quoting or referring to parts of Marx or Lenin's writing, it's because they believe it has some kind of relevance to the world today. If you do not agree, that's your prerogative, but your framing off the bat as "it's a 100 years old ITS WRONG" ignores that poo poo like The Wealth Of Nations (240 years old) and The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (60 years old) still form the foundation of modern study, even if they are not absolutely correct in every detail, or themselves offer a 'complete' understanding of economics, as practiced today. This doesn't mean that the fall of the USSR is ignored in modern leftism, history is a continuous process that must be learned from, but the challenges faced by both Marx and Lenin are similar to the ones we still face today, and it would be pointless to throw away everything already learned because of, what, some baseless objections on your part of 'no self-reflection' or 'hero worship'. So, I'll repeat: do you have any substantial objections, that you would like to rationally discuss, or are you just going to whinge and moan?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
hemophilia posted:Alright, so I was wondering something that doesn't really require me to provide a breakdown critique of Marxism-Leninism to respond to, so i'll have to ask you to try without. You're being dismissive and clearly not really wanting to deal with the only thing I'm wondering about, which is why there are so many many radical leftists lacking any ability to analyze and reflect on their chosen philosophy. Leaning on Marx and Lenin's writings in the exact same way a preacher does with the Pauline epistles makes you an idiot, but tons of people do it. I personally don't know any proponents of early 20th century Leninism. If you genuinely deal with people like that, I would be interested to hear their positions, because to be honest, the only times I encountered them so far (at least since the 90s) was as strawmen. So, I would be honestly happy to get some quotes from people who genuinely practice this worship you are talking about. Most people I have met who consider themselves to see the world in a Marxist tradition look at Marx the way you would look at Newton: Brilliant insights and a foundation for further explorations, but naturally limited to what a man of his time could achieve. Newton had been proven wrong in many instances and his theories had to be modified in order to work with discoveries and disciplines from after his death. It's the same with Marx: He was a brilliant analyst of industrial capitalism in the 19th century and developed many theories and basically the foundation for modern social sciences. But of course he didn't know about psycho-analysis, post-industrial capitalism, or the way leaders like FDR used Marxist theories in order to prevent his predicitons from coming true. Marxist social sciences have lead to many fruitful approaches, such as structuralism or Lacarnian psychology. Especially in continental Europe, those have shaped the academic discourse. And that can only happen because Marx, Lenin, etc. are not viewed as religious leaders or the way the founding fathers are enshrined in the US, but as inspired thinkers who added their bit to the whole of human insight and knowledge. That doesn't make them immune to criticism. Ibogaine fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Jun 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
rudatron posted:
Yea, that would be really out of place for a leftism thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
hemophilia you might want to try actually READING marxist-leninist works as they universally emphasize the necessity of criticism and self-criticism and the importance of continuing development of revolutionary theory in response to material conditions. it's not called scientific socialism because people think it sounds nice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
hemophilia posted:Alright, so I was wondering something that doesn't really require me to provide a breakdown critique of Marxism-Leninism to respond to, so i'll have to ask you to try without. You're being dismissive and clearly not really wanting to deal with the only thing I'm wondering about, which is why there are so many many radical leftists lacking any ability to analyze and reflect on their chosen philosophy. Leaning on Marx and Lenin's writings in the exact same way a preacher does with the Pauline epistles makes you an idiot, but tons of people do it. *hasn't read any Marxist literature and knows nothing about modern Marxist theory* why don't you guys take my abstract no nothing non-criticism seriously
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
God, Marxism is so retarded guys
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Ibogaine posted:I personally don't know any proponents of early 20th century Leninism. sup, rep the immortal science everyday
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
speaking of which happy father's day everyone
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
our father who art embalmed in Red Square
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:hemophilia you might want to try actually READING marxist-leninist works as they universally emphasize the necessity of criticism and self-criticism and the importance of continuing development of revolutionary theory in response to material conditions. it's not called scientific socialism because people think it sounds nice. tbf the bible says not to preach how awesome of a Christian you are and that didn't work out too well
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:it's not called scientific socialism because people think it sounds nice. Yes it is. Marx used "scientific" in the same way that Nietzsche did, and it doesn't have much to do with science.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Marx used "scientific" in the same way that L Ron Hubbard did, and it doesn't have much to do with science.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
people who don't know the first thing the science of marxism leninism are pretty funny when they say things that are wrong
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Purge this no nothing traitor who didn't append immortal
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
so, uh, socialism is all about raising taxes right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
G.C. Furr III posted:so, uh, socialism is all about raising taxes right? i thought it was about gulags
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
hemophilia posted:Alright, so I was wondering something that doesn't really require me to provide a breakdown critique of Marxism-Leninism to respond to, so i'll have to ask you to try without. You're being dismissive and clearly not really wanting to deal with the only thing I'm wondering about, which is why there are so many many radical leftists lacking any ability to analyze and reflect on their chosen philosophy. Leaning on Marx and Lenin's writings in the exact same way a preacher does with the Pauline epistles makes you an idiot, but tons of people do it. the great thing about the immortal revolutionary science is it's true whether or not you believe it
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twLl_fNK2OE
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
agreed
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Al! posted:agreed 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
Epic user name/post content combo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
this person is correct in the main - MTWism is a dead end, though its a bit weak in overall analysis and has an EU flag flying behind lol; jason unruhu get mad pls
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
when the glorious revolution comes, necks will no longer be needed
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Do you have any actual substantive objections to either Lenin or Marx that you want to talk about, or are you just here to whinge and moan? The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is one of the most retarded ideas in history. The idea that an authoritarian state would just fade away into anarchist paradise ignores everything we know about human beings and power politics. Violent revolution rarely results in peaceful, stable states with one major exception. Basically, the only parts Marx got right were the critiques of capitalism. Too bad his proposed solutions suck. It's like the medieval doctor who accurately and meticulously diagnoses your cancer and then prescribes bloodletting via leeches and hard labor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is one of the most retarded ideas in history. The idea that an authoritarian state would just fade away into anarchist paradise ignores everything we know about human beings and power politics. Violent revolution rarely results in peaceful, stable states with one major exception. But yeah. People desire power for its own sake, and the dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't really work without a party, or committee, to rule the state. And once that happens you have a new class distinction, and a new ruling class which rules despotically. Marx was also enthralled by his own ability to predict the future in a deterministic direction, which owes to his Hegelianism. That is monstrous hubris, and the personality cult that developed around him is ironic considering that Marxists tends to downplay the role of individuals in history.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
I didn't expect to but I actually got to vote Gloria La Riva in California (PFP got her on the ticket) and I would like to live in the world where she is the president of the united states She is a cool cat and a good candidate
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
actually the dictatorship of the proletariat is one of the greatest ideas of now
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
hemophilia posted:Hey this seems like a cool thread to ask this. Why are so many socialists dogmatic and treat this poo poo as doctrine akin to the way a holy man reveres his holy books? because no serious marxist actually does this despite bourgeois critics portraying marxism this way. one of the primary points of marxism is a ruthless criticism of everything existing, including its own analysis. in large part owing to this outlook and the strength of critical analysis it imparts, people still quote lenin, etc. because of how highly relevant their teachings remain especially in understanding the world today. and this is done knowing they derive from flawed human beings who were sometimes wrong but comparatively more often right than others.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
hemophilia posted:Hey this seems like a cool thread to ask this. Why are so many socialists dogmatic and treat this poo poo as doctrine akin to the way a holy man reveres his holy books? This is a fine question to ask and all, however, I would remind you that if you're American you live in the society that created Hamilton.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is one of the most retarded ideas in history. The idea that an authoritarian state would just fade away into anarchist paradise ignores everything we know about human beings and power politics. Violent revolution rarely results in peaceful, stable states with one major exception. Also Marx himself did not propose solutions, in that there is very little in the way of a 'socialist schematic' laid out by Marx. It was all very abstract for him, and I think even he'd agree with that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:This is a fine question to ask and all, however, I would remind you that if you're American you live in the society that created Hamilton.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
You know marxist concepts would be great for a film involving vampires.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:You know marxist concepts would be great for a film involving vampires. rip Mcaine
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Also Marx himself did not propose solutions, in that there is very little in the way of a 'socialist schematic' laid out by Marx. It was all very abstract for him, and I think even he'd agree with that. Which is sort of a mixed bag. There's things like universal education, progressive income taxes, a national bank. Then it's got some crazy stuff like centralizing the means of transport and communication into the hands of the state, abolishing the distinction between urban and rural, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 10:32
|
|
|
Wikkheiser posted:Then it's got some crazy stuff like centralizing the means of transport and communication into the hands of the state, abolishing the distinction between urban and rural, etc. Except those ideas are good. You'll notice that public transit, postal delivery and telecoms are less poo poo, universally, when they are nationalised. Abolishing rural poverty of opportunity is also a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:16 |
|
|
Wikkheiser posted:I thought he did, though. The Communist Manifesto? The Manifesto contains ten planks of a platform for the political party for which he wrote it. It's not so much a blueprint for socialism so much as a list of things a communist party in power could immediately work towards. This is clear from context, as immediately before this list it says: quote:The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. "Seize the means of production and put it under the control of the worker's state" is kind of like the "lol my thesis" version of a plan for Marxian socialism. After that he comes out and says that this isn't something that happens overnight, but will require numerous individual steps which will vary in nature by the nation in which the revolution occurs. The ten points are offered as an example of the first few steps. A lot of the zanier points probably made a lot more sense in 1848 than now. What's worth noting are some of the implicit assumptions behind the more familiar ones. For example, a progressive income tax presupposes income inequality. Confiscation of the property of "emigrants and rebels" as an explicit suggestion indicates that those who neither rebel nor emigrate won't have all their property seized, which is also implicit in provisions for the seizure of specific kinds of property or property rights (i.e., rent collection, infrastructure, credit). None of them recommend the seizure of the means of production. The closest is point 7, which is about increasing the scope of state-owned industries and factories. The real tip-off, though, is that point 10 ends with "etc. etc." This is not a blueprint in any fashion, it's a list of suggested policy measures for immediate adoption once the party is in power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 14:24
|
|