sorry - don’t know what happened to my text above - i had posted that it was Marx as edited and published by Engels . . although much more better written and with pretty ribbons and all
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
sorry - don’t know what happened to my text above - i had posted that it was Marx as edited and published by Engels . . although much more better written and with pretty ribbons and all[/quote]
maybe I am dumb or something, but what is your point with this?
is it that since engels did edit and publish marx`s works about dialektik, it is a fail to give marx credit for it.
or is it that since engels did publish and edit marx`s works about dialektik, it is an argument against the dialektik-materialisme.
sorry if I seem a bit slow today.
His criticism is a distraction, Florelius. He has nothing to say about the ideas, as usual, but must resort to petty attacks. Who cares whose idea it was? The idea itself is the important thing.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
His criticism is a distraction, Florelius. He has nothing to say about the ideas, as usual, but must resort to petty attacks. Who cares whose idea it was? The idea itself is the important thing.[/quote]
I agree that it is the idea that matters.
I asked him because I did not get his point, and instead of jumping to a conclusion about what he
ment. I wait untill he explains it. and then I know. and the discussion can continue.
maybe it is like you said, a distraction. or maybe he is trying to make a point about something.
Well good luck, I hope he responds, but I still think you’re giving him too much credit.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Well good luck, I hope he responds, but I still think you’re giving him too much credit.[/quote]
well its not about credit, its about giving the guy room to explain he`s wiews and opinions. I hope
others give me the same chance if they dont get my arguments, instead of jumping to conclusion. Maybe I am
to naive and not good at spotting retorical arguments.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Of course, because pat has no idea what Marx said. Illustrated by the fact that he thinks we’ve “tried what Marx said.” What Marx wrote was a criticism of capitalism, not a blueprint for a socialist society.
Idiot.[/quote]
Any nimrod half-wit can criticize. Coming up with real, functional solutions is the key. The reason why Marxism turned in to socialism is because, a little detail that marx left out is you still need central leadership, people just weren’t going to work for the good of the society on their own. Communists soon realized the only way to get this model to even limp along was through oppression and threat.
I repeat, Marx was wrong about everything, period. Sadly, his stupidity ended up costing hundreds of millions of lives. Well, that’s not fair, it was people even dumber than him tried to implement his philosophy, but it was so bad, it had to be enforced by tyranny.
If you don’t like capitalism fine, come up with a better way. Don’t try to rehash an old failed philosophy that has and will never work.
Give me a Marx quote and I will tell you why it’s wrong…Yes, I do think I am smarter than him…By a mile.[/quote]
Can you in depths explain why karl heinrich marx was wrong on everything.
as an example: what makes the dialektik-materialism wrong?
[/quote]
So first, if you take materialism alone as a philosophy, it asserts that all that exists is matter. That means only that which can be sensed by the five senses is what actually exists. If you’ve ever had a thought in your head (which if you believe Marx, you do not) you have already transgressed into the metaphysical. This means that all existence is material. What materialists try to assert is that even metaphysical entities have physical constructs. A thought, for instance, would have a brain chemical physical change associated with it. How ever, the chemical itself, and the matter it acts on and is made of is not the thought itself. Plato, a shitty philosopher himself, already figured this out 3000 years ago with his concept of forms.
Another example is mathematics. We represent mathematics with symbols, but existence of math exists immaterially. Addition, subtraction, division, multiplication, may be represented by physical matter. Their reality exists in the metaphysical world. Even if no one ever expressed a math problems with material, math would still exist.
Bottom line, is that to believe that all that exists is what can be sensed and must be made of physical matter, is fallacious. Hell, if you believe String Theory, physical matter isn’t even made of matter.
So it’s flawed at it’s very coree
Now dialectical materialism is just a method and is Marx’s apparent basis for all his methodology. Apparent conflicts exist in nature and even within material itself (which is a metaphysical construct) and the way to eliminate them was to discover what the source of conflict is. The problem is, according to his own philosophy, is that it is this very conflict that causes ‘stuff’ to move or change. So if you eliminate said conflict in a given piece of matter, it would stagnate. Applying the same methodology to society as nature and material, he felt the inherent conflicts in society were driven purely by class differentiation. He thought resolving this conflict would eliminate class and hence lead to a classless society where everybody is just happy and the bird sing. There are a million things wrong with this of course. As in material and nature, according to Marx, and other materialists, this ‘conflict’ is what makes things move/ change/ progress. You remove the conflict, it stops, according to them. So eliminating conflict in society would like wise cause it to stagnate. Considering how the Cuban’s live, this is clearly what happens. Further, I don’t see sufficient evidence that class is the one cause of conflict in society. As communist societies clearly proved, you could take the material away from the people, but not their desire. According to this philosophy conflict is necessary for progress, yet, he wanted to eliminate conflict.
In a socio-economic sense, a classless society is impossible. The proletariat of the good ol’ USSR, were clearly “more equal than others”.
Soooooo, anybody figure out where communism has worked yet? I am dying to know myself.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Of course, because pat has no idea what Marx said. Illustrated by the fact that he thinks we’ve “tried what Marx said.” What Marx wrote was a criticism of capitalism, not a blueprint for a socialist society.
Idiot.[/quote]
Any nimrod half-wit can criticize. Coming up with real, functional solutions is the key. The reason why Marxism turned in to socialism is because, a little detail that marx left out is you still need central leadership, people just weren’t going to work for the good of the society on their own. Communists soon realized the only way to get this model to even limp along was through oppression and threat.
I repeat, Marx was wrong about everything, period. Sadly, his stupidity ended up costing hundreds of millions of lives. Well, that’s not fair, it was people even dumber than him tried to implement his philosophy, but it was so bad, it had to be enforced by tyranny.
If you don’t like capitalism fine, come up with a better way. Don’t try to rehash an old failed philosophy that has and will never work.
Give me a Marx quote and I will tell you why it’s wrong…Yes, I do think I am smarter than him…By a mile.[/quote]
Can you in depths explain why karl heinrich marx was wrong on everything.
as an example: what makes the dialektik-materialism wrong?
[/quote]
So first, if you take materialism alone as a philosophy, it asserts that all that exists is matter. That means only that which can be sensed by the five senses is what actually exists. If you’ve ever had a thought in your head (which if you believe Marx, you do not) you have already transgressed into the metaphysical. This means that all existence is material. What materialists try to assert is that even metaphysical entities have physical constructs. A thought, for instance, would have a brain chemical physical change associated with it. How ever, the chemical itself, and the matter it acts on and is made of is not the thought itself. Plato, a shitty philosopher himself, already figured this out 3000 years ago with his concept of forms.
Another example is mathematics. We represent mathematics with symbols, but existence of math exists immaterially. Addition, subtraction, division, multiplication, may be represented by physical matter. Their reality exists in the metaphysical world. Even if no one ever expressed a math problems with material, math would still exist.
Bottom line, is that to believe that all that exists is what can be sensed and must be made of physical matter, is fallacious. Hell, if you believe String Theory, physical matter isn’t even made of matter.
So it’s flawed at it’s very coree
Now dialectical materialism is just a method and is Marx’s apparent basis for all his methodology. Apparent conflicts exist in nature and even within material itself (which is a metaphysical construct) and the way to eliminate them was to discover what the source of conflict is. The problem is, according to his own philosophy, is that it is this very conflict that causes ‘stuff’ to move or change. So if you eliminate said conflict in a given piece of matter, it would stagnate. Applying the same methodology to society as nature and material, he felt the inherent conflicts in society were driven purely by class differentiation. He thought resolving this conflict would eliminate class and hence lead to a classless society where everybody is just happy and the bird sing. There are a million things wrong with this of course. As in material and nature, according to Marx, and other materialists, this ‘conflict’ is what makes things move/ change/ progress. You remove the conflict, it stops, according to them. So eliminating conflict in society would like wise cause it to stagnate. Considering how the Cuban’s live, this is clearly what happens. Further, I don’t see sufficient evidence that class is the one cause of conflict in society. As communist societies clearly proved, you could take the material away from the people, but not their desire. According to this philosophy conflict is necessary for progress, yet, he wanted to eliminate conflict.
In a socio-economic sense, a classless society is impossible. The proletariat of the good ol’ USSR, were clearly “more equal than others”.
[/quote]
not bad pat, not bad at all.
but I want to chip in with my toughts here.
about materialisme: well this is a very abstract discussion. as an materialist I must say, how can a tought or an idea like matematik ( I know it is the norwegian way off spelling the word, but you get the point ) exist without humans. so what a materialist would say is that: the origin of matematik is in the material world, because its origins is the human brain who are a material entity.
about dialektik: originally it was introduced by hegel. and hegel thougt that what caused social change was the conflict between different ideas. at his time it would be royalisme vs republicanisme. Marx on the other hand, said that what caused social change is antagonisme in the material aspect of society, that would be the economic aspect. and that political ideas was a product of the different social and economic interrests. he also called it classwar. So as you said, marx believed that changes in a class society was caused by class interrest. you juse the terms progress and stagnation. well stagnation is not by itself negative and progress its not in it self positive. if they are positive or negative depends on the context. I the humans in some future lived in a classless society where they enjoyed individual liberty and where free from poverty, progress in terms that the society changed to an class society would be negative. stagnation in this scenario would be positive offcourse. or as another example: germany and italy changed from capitalisme with democray to fascisme = a mixed economy with a totalitarian state. this is progress, but as we all can a agree its bad. so to send the point home, in a class-society, class antagonisme causes changes or progress as you put it. but in a class less society as the one in the paleolitic era, mesolitic era and in the neolitic era. progress was not caused by class antagonisme. it was caused by for instance the need to survivel. the humans went from the form of society they had in paleoliticum to the form they had in mesoliticum because the big animals ( mammuts etc ) they hunted died away. ( this is one teori in historical circles to way humans went into the mesolitic era ). And again the mesolitic era ended with birth of neoliticum ( it was when humans became full time farmers ). the reasons for this is not know 100% and there are many teories to why. so I am not going into it here. well the point with all this stoneage stuff is that shows that in a class less society, change is still triggered by material causes ( like if a way of production fails, it needs to be changed or abandon for something else ), but not by class antagonisme.
if something was unclear in my post or I missed something, let me know. nice chatting with you 
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
And of course, interpretation of the political class could hardly be counted against socialism, since capitalism also required interpretation of theory by the political class. Unless you’re still clinging to your fantastical interpretation of history.
[/quote]
If communism requires interpretation by the political class then it can never be established as it is theorized.
On the other hand what I propose requires no interpretation but rather only specific moral behavior – mind your own business and keep your mitts to yourself…and if people do that on a very large scale then, voila! we have Anarchism.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
At least I offer something.[/quote]
You offer the opinion of well-kept radical who trashes the very system that enriches him. Any idea what your “job” would in your precious communistic society?
At any rate, sitting around sucking down energy drinks and/or lattes while attempting to resurrect discussion of a failed philosophy with other spoiled beneficiaries while being well-fed on someone else’s nickel ain’t one of them. It would be more like “lifter of heavy bags filled with corn.”
Wise up.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
At least I offer something.[/quote]
You offer the opinion of well-kept radical who trashes the very system that enriches him. Any idea what your “job” would in your precious communistic society?
At any rate, sitting around sucking down energy drinks and/or lattes while attempting to resurrect discussion of a failed philosophy with other spoiled beneficiaries while being well-fed on someone else’s nickel ain’t one of them. It would be more like “lifter of heavy bags filled with corn.”
Wise up.[/quote]
You know better than that thunderbolt - he would be at least a low level political commisar responsible for narc-ing on left-over radicals like us . . .
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
And of course, interpretation of the political class could hardly be counted against socialism, since capitalism also required interpretation of theory by the political class. Unless you’re still clinging to your fantastical interpretation of history.
[/quote]
If communism requires interpretation by the political class then it can never be established as it is theorized.
On the other hand what I propose requires no interpretation but rather only specific moral behavior – mind your own business and keep your mitts to yourself…and if people do that on a very large scale then, voila! we have Anarchism.[/quote]
But, history has clearly shown that populations in general do not like a society regulated by the free market, which is why the state is required to maintain the free market. On the contrary, your system requires constant state supervision, a contention which is corroborated by history.
Oh good, thunderbolt is here! Still peeved of course, that a “well-kept radical” has such an easy time making a fool of him.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Oh good, thunderbolt is here! Still peeved of course, that a “well-kept radical” has such an easy time making a fool of him.[/quote]
Of course I would be peeved at that - but I’m not, since it hasn’t occurred. Say, do you know any “well-kept radicals” you could recommend to do so since you fail miserably at it? I could use the sport of it.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
But, history has clearly shown that populations in general do not like a society regulated by the free market[/quote]
Where is it “clearly shown”? Is this your alternate, fictional Marxian history or are we talking about what actually happened?
Populations do not act. Individuals do. You make collectivist fallacy. Indeed, the entirety of Marxianism is predicated on collectivist fallacy.
There are certainly people that have opposed the free market throughout history. Ironically, they are usually the people that benefited directly from it but they had grown too big to compete so they required the government’s help to protect them from competition.
I do not believe your interpretation is even close to realistic.
In the end the market is vindicated.
(@thunderbolt)
It hasn’t occurred, eh? So you don’t remember your asinine claim that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the housing bubble? Of course not–you’re very good at purging unpleasent facts from your memory. So of course neither do you remember your idiotic claim that Cash for Clunkers was not responsible for the sudden uptick of car purchases on its introduction. To be honest, you probably have no idea what you’ve said.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
But, history has clearly shown that populations in general do not like a society regulated by the free market[/quote]
Where is it “clearly shown”? Is this your alternate, fictional Marxian history or are we talking about what actually happened?
Populations do not act. Individuals do. You make collectivist fallacy. Indeed, the entirety of Marxianism is predicated on collectivist fallacy.[/quote]
Look, I get it. You’re too old to ever change any of your opinions. Hence now, even as your fantasies fall one-by-one you still cling to the same old flawed opinions. But don’t engage in this type of obfuscation. You are so desperate to escape the reaches of Marx’s criticisms, which grow more relevant every day, that you run headlong into absurdity. Hence, your repeated attempts to atomize society and to deny the myriad relations between people and institutions. To deny Marx, you’ve denied society.
The establishment of a free market subjects the society to its regulation. But, since people are NOT commodities, to treat them as if they are causes social dislocation and upheaval. These individuals resisting these new force en masse give rise to society-wide movements that can affect legislation and etc. You have to go to absurd lengths to maintain this subjectivist fantasy, and the consequence is, your theories are completely unable to account for society.
[quote]I do not believe your interpretation is even close to realistic.
In the end the market is vindicated.[/quote]
Ah yes, in the end it is vindicated. Nevermind that no one uses the free-market anymore. Never mind that capitalism is in crisis all across the globe. Your faith is unshaken.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
(@thunderbolt)
It hasn’t occurred, eh? So you don’t remember your asinine claim that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the housing bubble? Of course not–you’re very good at purging unpleasent facts from your memory. So of course neither do you remember your idiotic claim that Cash for Clunkers was not responsible for the sudden uptick of car purchases on its introduction. To be honest, you probably have no idea what you’ve said.[/quote]
Of course I don’t remember claiming that the CRA caused the housing bubble - that’s in large part because I never claimed it. Good try, junior.
As for CFC, the so-called “uptick” was also influenced by other factors (because not everyone could avail themselves of CFC), which was my point - which you knew, and again, are wasting time whining about.
But whining is part of your charm - and so is hypocritically cashing your benefactor’s checks while adding nothing to the collective wealth. Yay, communism for me but not for thee!
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Of course, because pat has no idea what Marx said. Illustrated by the fact that he thinks we’ve “tried what Marx said.” What Marx wrote was a criticism of capitalism, not a blueprint for a socialist society.
Idiot.[/quote]
Any nimrod half-wit can criticize. Coming up with real, functional solutions is the key. The reason why Marxism turned in to socialism is because, a little detail that marx left out is you still need central leadership, people just weren’t going to work for the good of the society on their own. Communists soon realized the only way to get this model to even limp along was through oppression and threat.
I repeat, Marx was wrong about everything, period. Sadly, his stupidity ended up costing hundreds of millions of lives. Well, that’s not fair, it was people even dumber than him tried to implement his philosophy, but it was so bad, it had to be enforced by tyranny.
If you don’t like capitalism fine, come up with a better way. Don’t try to rehash an old failed philosophy that has and will never work.
Give me a Marx quote and I will tell you why it’s wrong…Yes, I do think I am smarter than him…By a mile.[/quote]
Can you in depths explain why karl heinrich marx was wrong on everything.
as an example: what makes the dialektik-materialism wrong?
[/quote]
So first, if you take materialism alone as a philosophy, it asserts that all that exists is matter. That means only that which can be sensed by the five senses is what actually exists. If you’ve ever had a thought in your head (which if you believe Marx, you do not) you have already transgressed into the metaphysical. This means that all existence is material. What materialists try to assert is that even metaphysical entities have physical constructs. A thought, for instance, would have a brain chemical physical change associated with it. How ever, the chemical itself, and the matter it acts on and is made of is not the thought itself. Plato, a shitty philosopher himself, already figured this out 3000 years ago with his concept of forms.
Another example is mathematics. We represent mathematics with symbols, but existence of math exists immaterially. Addition, subtraction, division, multiplication, may be represented by physical matter. Their reality exists in the metaphysical world. Even if no one ever expressed a math problems with material, math would still exist.
Bottom line, is that to believe that all that exists is what can be sensed and must be made of physical matter, is fallacious. Hell, if you believe String Theory, physical matter isn’t even made of matter.
So it’s flawed at it’s very coree
Now dialectical materialism is just a method and is Marx’s apparent basis for all his methodology. Apparent conflicts exist in nature and even within material itself (which is a metaphysical construct) and the way to eliminate them was to discover what the source of conflict is. The problem is, according to his own philosophy, is that it is this very conflict that causes ‘stuff’ to move or change. So if you eliminate said conflict in a given piece of matter, it would stagnate. Applying the same methodology to society as nature and material, he felt the inherent conflicts in society were driven purely by class differentiation. He thought resolving this conflict would eliminate class and hence lead to a classless society where everybody is just happy and the bird sing. There are a million things wrong with this of course. As in material and nature, according to Marx, and other materialists, this ‘conflict’ is what makes things move/ change/ progress. You remove the conflict, it stops, according to them. So eliminating conflict in society would like wise cause it to stagnate. Considering how the Cuban’s live, this is clearly what happens. Further, I don’t see sufficient evidence that class is the one cause of conflict in society. As communist societies clearly proved, you could take the material away from the people, but not their desire. According to this philosophy conflict is necessary for progress, yet, he wanted to eliminate conflict.
In a socio-economic sense, a classless society is impossible. The proletariat of the good ol’ USSR, were clearly “more equal than others”.
[/quote]
not bad pat, not bad at all.
but I want to chip in with my toughts here.
about materialisme: well this is a very abstract discussion. as an materialist I must say, how can a tought or an idea like matematik ( I know it is the norwegian way off spelling the word, but you get the point ) exist without humans. so what a materialist would say is that: the origin of matematik is in the material world, because its origins is the human brain who are a material entity.
about dialektik: originally it was introduced by hegel. and hegel thougt that what caused social change was the conflict between different ideas. at his time it would be royalisme vs republicanisme. Marx on the other hand, said that what caused social change is antagonisme in the material aspect of society, that would be the economic aspect. and that political ideas was a product of the different social and economic interrests. he also called it classwar. So as you said, marx believed that changes in a class society was caused by class interrest. you juse the terms progress and stagnation. well stagnation is not by itself negative and progress its not in it self positive. if they are positive or negative depends on the context. I the humans in some future lived in a classless society where they enjoyed individual liberty and where free from poverty, progress in terms that the society changed to an class society would be negative. stagnation in this scenario would be positive offcourse. or as another example: germany and italy changed from capitalisme with democray to fascisme = a mixed economy with a totalitarian state. this is progress, but as we all can a agree its bad. so to send the point home, in a class-society, class antagonisme causes changes or progress as you put it. but in a class less society as the one in the paleolitic era, mesolitic era and in the neolitic era. progress was not caused by class antagonisme. it was caused by for instance the need to survivel. the humans went from the form of society they had in paleoliticum to the form they had in mesoliticum because the big animals ( mammuts etc ) they hunted died away. ( this is one teori in historical circles to way humans went into the mesolitic era ). And again the mesolitic era ended with birth of neoliticum ( it was when humans became full time farmers ). the reasons for this is not know 100% and there are many teories to why. so I am not going into it here. well the point with all this stoneage stuff is that shows that in a class less society, change is still triggered by material causes ( like if a way of production fails, it needs to be changed or abandon for something else ), but not by class antagonisme.
if something was unclear in my post or I missed something, let me know. nice chatting with you :)[/quote]
Materialism falls apart with some good ol’ fasion epistemology. It’s philosophically problematic because it necessitates assumptions about existence. It all goes to what can you know, and a simple exercise will prove you cannot not “know” anything to materially exist. It was how DesCartes came up with the “I think, therefore I am”. His process being that if he eliminated all possibilities of his senses or his mind being fooled, what can he truly know. He was actually a little wrong, but he was close, that is a side bar though. The problem with materialism is we have certainty to a degree on what exists, meaning that it is impossible to be certain. The idea that the mind can create constructs and there for it gives metaphysical entities a physical property. This is flawed in that the mind cannot create anything, in can take in information, rearrange it, and discover things with a swath of information, etc. What the mind cannot do is create anything that does not already exist. All thoughts, ideas, dreams, etc. are made up of preexisting â??things’. The mind cannot create, it can only discover. If mathmatics where a creation of a person, then it’s rules (which are metaphysical objects) would be arbitrary and they are not.
Man is not wired to stay constant and in fact nothing in life stays the same. A failure to adjust (stagnation) could only have tragic consequences.
Classlessness is also not possible and also have a central leadership. True classlessness would basically be anarchy. I am entitled to your stuff, your entitled to mine. So we just go taking from each other. To prevent that you need rule of law, to have that you have to have a leadership. To have that, automatically begets class. The Soviet Proletariat lived far better than the average Russian citizen.
As far as the prehistoric past, we actually don’t know if there was “class” or not, but I do know this. Somebody always leads and somebody always follows. Somebody always has something somebody else wants. Somebody is always smarter or more gifted. As long as there is desire and jealousy in the world, you’re always going to have strife between folks. You cannot take away this desire simply by taking everything away from people and you cannot ensure that everyone has the same. People aren’t wired to work for the greater good, their wired to take care of themselves. They have to over come their nature to do for others. This cannot be forced from an external source, it must come from with in.
That’s why it’s flaw in principle and that is evidenced by it’s failure in practice