Introduction and Question

[Platonic Sword]

Hi there rev-lefter's. I should introduce myself briefly here since according to your terms of service I should not post in sub-forums other than this one. My politics is not defined by an of the off-the-shelf options but I’d summarize it as a combination of Social Darwinism, European cultural chauvinism, mixed economy and resigned fatalism. I am young and still looking to expand my knowledge especially about worldviews that I am opposed to. I believe it is important to understand the views and motivations of your enemies, I mean really understand, not just know enough to succeed at a straw-man bashing or public rhetorical flourish. To this end i am happy to see a community of hard-line leftists whose passion and erudition I can learn from.

My own knowledge of Marx is quite weak. I've always despised Marxist thought since I was exposed to it at the age of 16 but it was more of a moral and aesthetic distaste for the herd-thinking and hypocrisy of leftist's than an intellectual opposition; I had a visceral dislike for the character, appearance and philosophy of every leftist I met - I felt something was sick in the egalitarian worldview but couldn't quite make it tangible in my mind. Having said all that, I do like Marx. I've committed myself to a self guided study plan to read and plum the depths of Marxist thought, to understand on the deepest level to enrich my own neo-Fascism. I attempted Das Kapital just the other week but unfortunately Marx just lost me with his nomenclature. I've gone back to the beginning with "Engels The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844" and "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", as well as some sympathetic biographies. I'm sure I'll have more technical questions at a later stage but here is a question I have based on readings hitherto:

The biographical sketches provided in summaries of Marx's life such as "Karl Marx: A Life" - by Francis Wheen indicate that he was becoming agitated in his own lifetime about the lack of a proletarian revolution. Now we are at a stage in history where 120 years have passed and no proletarian revolution has occurred. Do leftists think Marx's theory of history fares well given this fact?

Also, where do you consider the optimal starting point for a Marxist study plan to be?

Regards - PS

[cb9's_unity]

Well you said quite a lot there. My suggestion to you is to define exactly your "neo-fascism" because fascism is not tolerated here.

The Communist Manifesto is a good place to start. It is by no means a definitive article of Marxist thought, and even Marx would grow to have criticisms about it. However it is an easy enough read and will get you more comfortable with how Marx thinks. I have just started Das Kapital and it is only impossible to understand if you think you can blow through it. I'm not past the first chapter because I am taking the time to understand every sentence. Marx is creating new language because the normal language isn't precise enough to deal with the economic reality. With patience it is extremely enlightening. If read superficially then the first chapter is entirely useless.


Now we are at a stage in history where 120 years have passed and no proletarian revolution has occurred. Do leftists think Marx's theory of history fares well given this fact?One only has to look at capitalism today and the capitalism in the thought of Marx. The two are undeniably similar. Ernst Mandel has actually said that the capitalism today is more susceptible to Marxist criticism than the capitalism of the 19th century. This is because capitalism has developed along the lines Marx thought it would.

One has to step back and realize that 120 years is not an eternity in the grand scheme of history. Capitalism has survived longer than Marx thought it would, but it is not much more stable than Marx thought it would be. Methods have been created to prolong the life of capitalism, but 120 years of intellectual thought have failed to solve the contradictions within capitalism (and have even created some of their own). Marxist criticism is as fruitful today as it has ever been.

[Black_Rose]

"herd-thinking and hypocrisy [of the left]"

Please elaborate...

[egalitarian worldview but couldn't quite make it tangible in my mind]

you believe that the strong should subjugate the weak; that's what you believe and why you oppose the left, in general, not merely revolutionary leftists, but even mainstream liberals and social democrats who want to assist the poor (who you regard as economically and intellectually unfit, presumably because they lack general intelligence as espoused by HBDers) through social programs. Didn't I describe the essence of your worldview, not merely construct a strawman?

As a revolutionary leftist, I regard you as an enemy that should be incapacitated either through restrictions of freedom of speech (to prevent the propagation of pernicious ideology of social darwinism), intimidation, imprisonment, indoctrination, or physical liquidation. As a Marxist-Leninist, I support a repressive state apparatus that can be merciless to the merciless, like you.

[I believe it is important to understand the views and motivations of your enemies]

I am somewhat sorry for the rude and truculent tone, but it does reveal my views and motivations.

I have to finish composing a letter to a Roman Catholic priest, and you are simply not worthy my time and intellectual effort now.

BTW, would you say that I understand your motivations and views too, or did I misrepresent them?

[MotherCossack]

hello!
well arn't we sounding a tad prick-like today?
are you as huge an arse-hole as you sound...?
and let me be quite clear... we're talking cavenous... grand canyon-scale epic sized butt-cavity!
enough of this scum-speak...what do you really want from us ?
what are you actually hoping to achieve?
and you do sound so unattractively arrogant and sickeningly self-serving that i can no longer resist the instinctive urge to ...wait...no...why bother...

[RevSpetsnaz]

Id like you to describe your neo-facist beliefs.

[Caj]

where do you consider the optimal starting point for a Marxist study plan to be?

Read Wage Labour and Capital, Value, Price, and Profit, The Communist Manifesto and perhaps some of Engels' works like The Principles of Communism and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. If you are familiar with the works of Adam Smith and/or David Ricardo, read the first few chapters of The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. From there, you can move on to bigger things like Capital or other theorists such as Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky, Gorter, and Pannekoek.

Marxists.org is a great site on which you can freely access all of these writings.

Also, please explain what you mean by "neo-Fascism". Fascists are banned on this site.

[Platonic Sword]

Well you said quite a lot there. My suggestion to you is to define exactly your "neo-fascism" because fascism is not tolerated here.

The Communist Manifesto is a good place to start. It is by no means a definitive article of Marxist thought, and even Marx would grow to have criticisms about it. However it is an easy enough read and will get you more comfortable with how Marx thinks. I have just started Das Kapital and it is only impossible to understand if you think you can blow through it. I'm not past the first chapter because I am taking the time to understand every sentence. Marx is creating new language because the normal language isn't precise enough to deal with the economic reality. With patience it is extremely enlightening. If read superficially then the first chapter is entirely useless.

One only has to look at capitalism today and the capitalism in the thought of Marx. The two are undeniably similar. Ernst Mandel has actually said that the capitalism today is more susceptible to Marxist criticism than the capitalism of the 19th century. This is because capitalism has developed along the lines Marx thought it would.

One has to step back and realize that 120 years is not an eternity in the grand scheme of history. Capitalism has survived longer than Marx thought it would, but it is not much more stable than Marx thought it would be. Methods have been created to prolong the life of capitalism, but 120 years of intellectual thought have failed to solve the contradictions within capitalism (and have even created some of their own). Marxist criticism is as fruitful today as it has ever been.

I can certainly appreciate how relevant Marx's criticism of capitalism
remains. But the way I see it, criticism of capitalism is not unique to Marx, either in the horrible times of early industrial society or the much more regulated capitalism of today. Marx's critique is very descriptive and at times emotive, but lots of people criticized capitalism in those times. Hell, I am not a fan of capitalism myself. The unique thing about Marx was his "scientific" theory that Capitalism is a penultimate phase of history according to his view that history is following laws that can be understood. So Marxist though and Marxist theoreticians will be vindicated when/if the revolution occurs. Whether capitalism is good or bad or happy or sad is largely irrelevant to Marx's theory, in the final analysis.

You are right though, 120 years is a short time in the scheme of history at large. But is there any time frame on it? For example, if another 500 years pass and proletarians still haven't taken control of society will Marxists still be rational to believe that capitalism is the third-last stage of history?

Thanks for the tips re reading DK. Ill get the two books by Engels under my belt and if I feel like I've got a decent understanding of them I'll have another dedicated go at it.

[Platonic Sword]

"herd-thinking and hypocrisy [of the left]"

Please elaborate...

[egalitarian worldview but couldn't quite make it tangible in my mind]

you believe that the strong should subjugate the weak; that's what you believe and why you oppose the left, in general, not merely revolutionary leftists, but even mainstream liberals and social democrats who want to assist the poor (who you regard as economically and intellectually unfit, presumably because they lack general intelligence as espoused by HBDers) through social programs. Didn't I describe the essence of your worldview, not merely construct a strawman?

As a revolutionary leftist, I regard you as an enemy that should be incapacitated either through restrictions of freedom of speech (to prevent the propagation of pernicious ideology of social darwinism), intimidation, imprisonment, indoctrination, or physical liquidation. As a Marxist-Leninist, I support a repressive state apparatus that can be merciless to the merciless, like you.

[I believe it is important to understand the views and motivations of your enemies]

I am somewhat sorry for the rude and truculent tone, but it does reveal my views and motivations.

I have to finish composing a letter to a Roman Catholic priest, and you are simply not worthy my time and intellectual effort now.

BTW, would you say that I understand your motivations and views too, or did I misrepresent them?

Hi Black Rose,

Your description of a long way from summarizing the essence of my world view, but that is not your fault - my summary was very brief and it would be impossible for anyone to derive anything less crude. I won't attempt to convince you of any merits regarding my outlook; naturally I'd fail, and I assume if you were interested in the subtleties of my kind of philosophy you would have sought it out yourself. I'll argue my views if they become and obstacle to understanding Marx, though.

[Revolution starts with U]

The biographical sketches provided in summaries of Marx's life such as "Karl Marx: A Life" - by Francis Wheen indicate that he was becoming agitated in his own lifetime about the lack of a proletarian revolution. Now we are at a stage in history where 120 years have passed and no proletarian revolution has occurred. Do leftists think Marx's theory of history fares well given this fact?

Also, where do you consider the optimal starting point for a Marxist study plan to be?



My opinion is that Marx drew incorrect conclusions from his theory. He neglected the impact he himself would have, by revealing the gears.
Remember that during and shortly after their were massive worker uprisings happening.
Capitalists, seeing this hidden in plain sight truth compensated by tacidly making some leeway. This process goes on today; the back and forth between those doing everything, and the fraudsters that claim all the money (bias much?).
This is just going to go on forever until the have-nots disappear, in context not personally, or the whole system collapses into tribalism and/or despotism (probably through some kind of catastrophe, mind you).
Capitalism, in it's primal essence is far superior to what came before it. It opened the reigns to movement and choice. As the merchant class became equal to that of the noblity, the idea of pure monopoly became irrelevant. More people now had a stake in their lives, and were able to express their personal intersts, there was more travel and communication, print became widespread.
Where it failed was in keeping the private property system. The only people with a stake in their lives (or a steak oftentimes) are those who aqquire property.
The nobility is still as wealthy as ever, not much really changed. Sure, everyone is wealthier, but the system still remains one largely of the merit of your birth. People don't like that, they like to run their own lives. So they're going to demand more "money," as it represents their purchasing power, and so largely their ability to control their own life.
We're left with a choice; give the working class (aka 90%+ of the population) control of the workplace, or be stuck with constantly having to fight against them, or shifting your problems around geographically. Short of world wide catastrophie, there are no other options.

Oh, and for your second question; Marx is not the definitive voice of the left. But I would say just read Capital. Get to the source if you really want to know what he is saying. It's a little confusing at first, but just harmonize with his tone, put yourself in his mind so to speak, and read it from that perspective. Remember his big focus is that there is an ever intensive battle between those with and those without throughout known history.

[Platonic Sword]

Read Wage Labour and Capital, Value, Price, and Profit, The Communist Manifesto and perhaps some of Engels' works like The Principles of Communism and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. If you are familiar with the works of Adam Smith and/or David Ricardo, read the first few chapters of The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. From there, you can move on to bigger things like Capital or other theorists such as Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky, Gorter, and Pannekoek.

Marxists.org is a great site on which you can freely access all of these writings.

Also, please explain what you mean by "neo-Fascism". Fascists are banned on this site.


Thanks for the recommendations Anarchy!

For those questioning what I mean by neo-Fascism - I'm certainly not a fascist in any way that term is popularly used. In fact I don't think Fascist's actually exist in any literal way and I'd be interested to know what kind of Fascist's this forum feels like it has a problem with? I idealize a society that nurtures meritocracy but totalitarianism is arbitrary authority (which is oppose ).

[#FF0000]

My politics is not defined by an of the off-the-shelf options but I’d summarize it as a combination of Social Darwinism, European cultural chauvinism, mixed economy and resigned fatalism.

lol

[Black_Rose]

Hi Black Rose,

Your description of a long way from summarizing the essence of my world view, but that is not your fault - my summary was very brief and it would be impossible for anyone to derive anything less crude. I won't attempt to convince you of any merits regarding my outlook; naturally I'd fail, and I assume if you were interested in the subtleties of my kind of philosophy you would have sought it out yourself. I'll argue my views if they become and obstacle to understanding Marx, though.

"you believe that the strong should subjugate/exterminate the weak"

I thought that was the essence of "social darwinism", which you labeled yourself. Want to make it more palatable to the egalitarian left.

[The Young Pioneer]

I'm certainly not a fascist in any way that term is popularly used. In fact I don't think Fascist's actually exist in any literal way...

Fascists never call themselves fascists or "support fascism." Doesn't mean they aren't fascists and fascism doesn't exist.


I'd be interested to know what kind of Fascist's this forum feels like it has a problem with?

Any kind.


I idealize a society that nurtures meritocracy but totalitarianism is arbitrary authority (which is oppose ).

WTF does that even MEAN? :confused:


I call troll. Or just plain old ignorant, pseudo-eloquent fascist.

[cb9's_unity]

The unique thing about Marx was his "scientific" theory that Capitalism is a penultimate phase of history according to his view that history is following laws that can be understood. So Marxist though and Marxist theoreticians will be vindicated when/if the revolution occurs. Whether capitalism is good or bad or happy or sad is largely irrelevant to Marx's theory, in the final analysis.

I have to disagree with you that revolution is the vindication of Marxist economic analysis. Your mixing up Marx's conclusions with his premises. Its actually that capitalism has become the dominant mode of production across the world has been somewhat of a validation of for Marxist theory. Sure there have been other critics of capitalism, but few of them have been as aware of capitalism's strengths as Marx was (and thus few accounted for them like Marx did).

People make far too much about the differences between regulated and unregulated capitalism. Marx was well aware of capitalism's ability to reform itself and how that reform can subtly change the internal dynamic within capitalism. Admittedly, he likely didn't see the extent to which that reform could be done. However, what is becoming more clear is that a bourgeois consensus on how to reform capitalism is impossible. The hope for a stable capitalist system is diminishing and the outlook of even pro-capitalist economists is far less positive than in the post WWII years.

[Solzhenitsyn]

Fascists never call themselves fascists or "support fascism." Doesn't mean they aren't fascists and fascism doesn't exist.


Yes, welcome to Commie fantasy land where people are Fascists because we say they are and people aren't Communists because, well, we say they aren't. No matter how they describe themselves or their ideology, we are the final arbiters of ideological nomenclature.

[Zulu]

I idealize a society that nurtures meritocracy
Don't you think that any society other than a communist one works against the principle of meritocracy due to the initial inequality (of starting conditions) that prevents people from freely demonstrating their own personal abilities?

[#FF0000]

Yes, welcome to Commie fantasy land where people are Fascists because we say they are and people aren't Communists because, well, we say they aren't. No matter how they describe themselves or their ideology, we are the final arbiters of ideological nomenclature.

man you're dumb.

[ColonelCossack]

Fascist's

Your grammar is poor. Why are you using an apostrophe for a plural? Apostrophes are for possesives.

Fool!



:laugh:

[GPDP]

I always wonder: do the people who are self-professed Social-Darwinists always see themselves as one of the strong or fit to survive over the weak?

Unless you're a captain of industry, I don't see how you could subscribe to such a view, unless you suffer from an extreme case of unwarranted self-importance.

[Thirsty Crow]

I always wonder: do the people who are self-professed Social-Darwinists always see themselves as one of the strong or fit to survive over the weak?

Unless you're a captain of industry, I don't see how you could subscribe to such a view, unless you suffer from an extreme case of unwarranted self-importance.
I don't wish to come off as patronizing or insulting (or prejudiced, towards people suffering from mental health problems), but in some cases we might be even looking at a clinical phenomenon, or at least a good challenge for a therapist.


Yes, welcome to Commie fantasy land where people are Fascists because we say they are and people aren't Communists because, well, we say they aren't. No matter how they describe themselves or their ideology, we are the final arbiters of ideological nomenclature. Reality check is in order:


I've committed myself to a self guided study plan to read and plum the depths of Marxist thought, to understand on the deepest level to enrich my own neo-Fascism

Other than that Solzhy, nice buzzwords, wonder if you know actually what they mean.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I always wonder: do the people who are self-professed Social-Darwinists always see themselves as one of the strong or fit to survive over the weak?

Unless you're a captain of industry, I don't see how you could subscribe to such a view, unless you suffer from an extreme case of unwarranted self-importance.
Never cared to have an in depth conversation in real life with someone like that, but Ayn Rand people certainty do see themselves as the "gods" over all the collectivist "slobs".

[Tim Cornelis]

Indeed, elitists always consider themselves deserving of being part of the elite, it is the eulogization of the self--a superiority complex.

Social darwinism is contrary to "human nature". We are soft-wired, that is, we have a natural tendency, for compassion, altruism, sociability, and not aggression, self-interest, and so forth. (source (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g))

Moreover, Kropotkin theorised that inner-species cooperation is usually the norm in organisms (including humans). A hypothesis that has been reinforced by subsequent (evolutionary) biologists.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I am young and still looking to expand my knowledge especially about worldviews that I am opposed to.What appeals to you about your worldview? Aside from not liking leftists you met as people, what is it that you despise about the philosophy?


Now we are at a stage in history where 120 years have passed and no proletarian revolution has occurred. Do leftists think Marx's theory of history fares well given this fact?Yes. Capitalists have repeatedly claimed that wars and economic crisis are a thing of the past - usually just before a World War or a Depression whereas Marxists have repeatedly claimed that such and such revolt would lead to worker's revolution but they failed. One is just plain wrong historically, the other is just over-optimistic but the revolts and crisis that Marx described along with things like globalization have proven to be more true as history progresses - more true than in Marx's day when only a fraction of the globe was capitalist.

And there have been two times workers have taken power, the Paris Commune and the Russian Revolution - one was crushed from without, the other fended off an attack from the outside only to be crushed by internal counter-revolution. These were the brief successes that show what could happen but there have been countless revolts and upheavals that either didn't make it that far or were deflected towards progressive nationalism or state capitalism - these examples again show that the conflicts Marx and others talked about are ongoing in modern society.


Also, where do you consider the optimal starting point for a Marxist study plan to be?Have you read the Communist Manifesto - the first sections go through the Marxist worldview pretty succinctly - some of the later parts are a little more time-specific and talk about other political trends of that era, but it's a quick read and will give a general picture.

[RGacky3]

Also, where do you consider the optimal starting point for a Marxist study plan to be?


RIchards wolffs introduction to Marxian economics.

www.rdwolff.com (http://www.rdwolff.com)

[#FF0000]

I always wonder: do the people who are self-professed Social-Darwinists always see themselves as one of the strong or fit to survive over the weak?

Unless you're a captain of industry, I don't see how you could subscribe to such a view, unless you suffer from an extreme case of unwarranted self-importance.

That is basically what is is.

people who don't understand that they are no better than the lowest of the low no matter what they do are the worst people.

[ColonelCossack]

I've always despised Marxist thought since I was exposed to it at the age of 16 but it was more of a moral and aesthetic distaste for the herd-thinking and hypocrisy of leftist's than an intellectual opposition; I had a visceral dislike for the character, appearance and philosophy of every leftist I met - I felt something was sick in the egalitarian worldview but couldn't quite make it tangible in my mind.

Your criticism is based on nothing, really. You make sweeping generalisations that have little meaning, and most of them happen to apply to you as well, in my opinion, from what I can make of them. I think you should elaborate- all you basically said was, "I don't like you" without anything to support yourself.

Moreover, you describe yourself as a "chauvinist"- a term most often used to negatively describe other people as blindly and violently patriotic, while rarely being used by chauvinists themselves (who're most often ignorant to their chauvinism). In addition, you condemn egalitarianism; however, this is most commonly used as a positive description of a concept that aims to produce or increase equality.

Therefore, I can see that you're probably just a spotty pseudo intellectual teenager who's trying to be different by acting like the biggest arse hole he can. Come back when you grow up a bit... in fact, from your posts, I think that I have a visceral dislike for your character and philosophy... don't know so much about your appearance, but it's probably unseemly from my above insinuation. I feel something is sick in your chauvinist worldview, a worldview which is wholly intangible in my mind.

[MotherCossack]

hey... something has just occurred to me.
We are all the fools.
(sorry, son,i was about to commend you for that sharp comment, but sadly...this is more important....)
as an intelligent body of individuals representing the left [who lets face it get a woefully bad press in all manner of ways] we all have a collective responsibility, surely, to ignore this deliberate attempt to make us all look ridiculous, however tempted we are to go with the pseudo-political dialogue.
in reality, it all means very little....
our man , the pigeon-fancying, metaphorical petticoat-wearing,nonsense-spouting, trouble-maker is trying to poke us with a pointy stick covered in see-through filth.
he wants to do as much damage as he can and get as much attention as he can.

let's rise above his pathetic attempts and keep our focus on the bigger picture....
a level playing field and a more humane world.

[The Stalinator]

I think you've got the wrong idea of what leftists and leftism are like. When I was a bit younger I dabbled in the sorts of beliefs you hold now (they never grew very strong) but as I learned more about humanity, and the way humans work, the way society evolves, etc etc, I began to see humans more as equals, and I began to see the process of human evolution as very different from the same old "survival of the fittest" that we usually think of.

I certainly don't think us leftists are herd-thinkers. If you look on any of the other forums on RevLeft, people hold all kinds of diverse views and standpoints. I see more people who disagree with each other here than people who agree with each other.

I'm a bit of a learner myself so I can't tell you where to start, but the fact that you're open to reading Marx is good. You won't really understand why most people are attracted to Marxism, though, until you see a lot more of humanity. Just talking to homeless people on the streets, shop clerks, and protesters made me realize how much worth the most average human being has, and how much their potential would show in an egalitarian society.

[Revolution starts with U]

I like how only what... 3 of us?... actually answered his question, instead of focusing on himself.

You guys fed the troll :thumbup:

[ColonelCossack]

You guys fed the troll :thumbup:

It's true. MotherCossack said it too.

[Platonic Sword]

Don't you think that any society other than a communist one works against the principle of meritocracy due to the initial inequality (of starting conditions) that prevents people from freely demonstrating their own personal abilities?

In an idealized model of a communist state? Possibly. It's difficult to imagine (for me anyway ) how a communist paradise would operate beyond some very vague principles. If communism could provide absolute equality of opportunity and sustain that fairness over a long period of time I would say that is a much better meritocratic system than capitalism or mixed economy.

I don't really have any problems or objections to an idealized communist paradise. How could I?? It's a form of utopia! The problem I have with it is that I regard it as a fantasy, it will just never happen.

[Platonic Sword]

Your grammar is poor. Why are you using an apostrophe for a plural? Apostrophes are for possesives.

Fool!



:laugh:


That's punctuation. The interesting thing is that the deep grammar we understand is all the same, from culture to culture, idiot to genius. This means that ghetto ebonics and Oxford tongue and as valid as each other. Proper prescriptions of usage as taught in school are and were defined by the nobility and upper class. I mean, prior to the last 20 years or so even linguists thought that the lower classes (i.e. blacks ) were cognitively deficient because they couldn't express their thoughts according to these arbitrary prescriptions. Basically, it's it a form of bourgeois snobbery. Chomsky has actually linked it to political oppression. I am inclined to agree with you though - in that the ability to master the mechanics of English is in some way related to intelligence. But I am not a class warrior so I can do this without a trace of hypocrisy ;)

Anyway, I know the formal prescriptions about where apostrophes go. my typing is horrible and my spelling is mediocre ( as is yours ) and I rely on my browsers checker to fix my errors, its guesses aren't always right though.

*edit* Oh well I tried to post a link to a Chomsky interview where he talks about the class biases inherent in prescriptive grammar, but I don't meet the requisite post count. If any of you would like to read it just ask google for:

Language, Language Development and Reading -Noam Chomsky; Reading Instruction Journal, Fall 1987

[Platonic Sword]

I always wonder: do the people who are self-professed Social-Darwinists always see themselves as one of the strong or fit to survive over the weak?

Unless you're a captain of industry, I don't see how you could subscribe to such a view, unless you suffer from an extreme case of unwarranted self-importance.

Social Darwinism is not a belief system in the way that Christianity or Marxism is it just a biological explanation of why attractive people tend to pair-bond with each other and why intelligent people tend in general to do better economically that stupid people. Capitalism is a competitive system so it is very loosely meritocratic but it is certainly not the whole story. As I said before, there's no reason a socialistc society cannot be meritocratic, if it could provide "equality of opportunity". My own view is that it cannot be done without abolishing freedom because if you leave men free their natural inequalities will multiply.

[MotherCossack]

ever get the feeling that life is a bizarre game that has no end and is riddled with unpleasant episodes that mean very little.

[Platonic Sword]

What appeals to you about your worldview? Aside from not liking leftists you met as people, what is it that you despise about the philosophy?

I suppose my view was in the first place defined by what it wasn't rather than anything else. I wasn't very political when I was younger and that is still the case on the whole. My first clue to the intellectual bankruptcy of leftist thought was when in the last years of high school and and the first years of college (my current position in life) people started signing on to the causes (Trotskyism, Marxism, anarchism ) without having the slightest idea what they were about. They bought their Che Guevara t-shirt and started denouncing the capitalist system of oppression more in the fashion that you would expect young kids to join a Justin Bieber fan club rather than how you might intellectually evaluate and adopt a position. It was basically the exact opposite of education. This didn't teach me anything about the truth or lack thereof of leftist politics but it did teach me that most people got into it for the wrong reasons. I checked out the logical opposition to the leftist bandwagon (neo-Classical economics, Ayn Rand ) on a hunch that since leftists were such tools maybe their opponents had the right answer but all I found there was a bunch of artless and robotic slaves. So I was required to find a third way to reach any level of satisfaction. I found in Nietzsche's doctrine of slave morality an exact articulation of everything I hated about the spirit of leftism ( and capitalism and nationalism), but his master morality is not realistic either. From him I went to Schopenhauer, then to Buddhism and then to apolitical individualism. Theodore Kaczynski's "The Psychology of Modern Leftism" in his essay "Industrial Society and Its Future" is a good explanation of left-wing failures IMO. Sure he's an Eco-terrorist, but hey a lot of the people in your avatars are terrorists too.


Yes. Capitalists have repeatedly claimed that wars and economic crisis are a thing of the past - usually just before a World War or a Depression whereas Marxists have repeatedly claimed that such and such revolt would lead to worker's revolution but they failed. One is just plain wrong historically, the other is just over-optimistic but the revolts and crisis that Marx described along with things like globalization have proven to be more true as history progresses - more true than in Marx's day when only a fraction of the globe was capitalist. I am not an a capitalist theorist but it seems to me economists have always had an acceptance of the fallibility of capitalism. The revolutionary left are always trying to turn every downturn or flicker of discontent into a revolution or evidence of the hopelessness of our organization. If unemployment goes above 6% they'll start complaining that capitalism has failed. I guess it depends on the definition of "failure". Capitalism is constantly failing according to a certain set of criteria, when weighed against utopian fantasies about how happy we should all be. As an economic model, I will support socialism if I can understand how it can actually provide a better standard of living for more people than can capitalism. That's why I need to understand the technicalities of Das Kapital.



And there have been two times workers have taken power, the Paris Commune and the Russian Revolution - one was crushed from without, the other fended off an attack from the outside only to be crushed by internal counter-revolution. These were the brief successes that show what could happen but there have been countless revolts and upheavals that either didn't make it that far or were deflected towards progressive nationalism or state capitalism - these examples again show that the conflicts Marx and others talked about are ongoing in modern society.I fully expect militant leftist's to execute another revolution. More likely in a peasant hellhole than a rich country, and I doubt it will be because of capitalistic failures (at least not solely) - more likely because of social/ecological/military failures and revolutionaries running around radicalizing the malcontent with their fantasies of utopia. I do have serious doubts that they wont stuff it up again by failing to repress the innate urges towards corruption and nepotism. Another age of Soviet style bureaucratic oppression is certainly on the cards (Maybe in Russia all over again! ), but not a communist paradise.


Have you read the Communist Manifesto - the first sections go through the Marxist worldview pretty succinctly - some of the later parts are a little more time-specific and talk about other political trends of that era, but it's a quick read and will give a general picture.No, not yet. I read "Read Wage Labour and Capital" yesterday and I'm going to read "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", probably then brush up on Hegel to get myself into Marx's mindset.

Cheers - PS

[RGacky3]

Your gonna "brush up" on Hagel .... :laugh::laugh::laugh:, common now.

[ColonelCossack]

That's punctuation. The interesting thing is that the deep grammar we understand is all the same, from culture to culture, idiot to genius. This means that ghetto ebonics and Oxford tongue and as valid as each other. Proper prescriptions of usage as taught in school are and were defined by the nobility and upper class. I mean, prior to the last 20 years or so even linguists thought that the lower classes (i.e. blacks ) were cognitively deficient because they couldn't express their thoughts according to these arbitrary prescriptions. Basically, it's it a form of bourgeois snobbery. Chomsky has actually linked it to political oppression. I am inclined to agree with you though - in that the ability to master the mechanics of English is in some way related to intelligence. But I am not a class warrior so I can do this without a trace of hypocrisy ;)

Anyway, I know the formal prescriptions about where apostrophes go. my typing is horrible and my spelling is mediocre ( as is yours ) and I rely on my browsers checker to fix my errors, its guesses aren't always right though.

*edit* Oh well I tried to post a link to a Chomsky interview where he talks about the class biases inherent in prescriptive grammar, but I don't meet the requisite post count. If any of you would like to read it just ask google for:

Language, Language Development and Reading -Noam Chomsky; Reading Instruction Journal, Fall 1987

Your punctuation was still wrong. And I was being ironic. I'll explain it if you really want. herpityderpderpityderp.



Why are you hatin' on me foer mediocre spellin? thats bourgeois snobbery wright their!



I think it's quite obvious that I'm not really being serious... :glare:

[Tim Cornelis]

No, not yet. I read "Read Wage Labour and Capital" yesterday and I'm going to read "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", probably then brush up on Hegel to get myself into Marx's mindset.

Cheers - PS

Yeah, what RGacky3 said. You don't just "brush up on Hegel". I tried it, but I was unable to wrap my mind around his philosophy, it requires extensive reading and background knowledge of philosophy, which is, imo, quite boring. You'd better skip Hegel, and maybe read more extensively on Hegel after you're done reading some Classical Marxist works and are able to make time for it (you will need a lot of it!).

Wikipedia:

Some of Hegel's writing was intended for those with advanced knowledge of philosophy, although his "Encyclopedia" was intended as a textbook in a university course. Nevertheless, like many philosophers, Hegel assumed that his readers would be well-versed in Western philosophy, up to and including Descartes, Hume, Kant, Fichte, and Schelling. For those wishing to read his work without this background, introductions to and commentaries about Hegel can contribute to comprehension, although the reader is faced with multiple interpretations of Hegel's writings from incompatible schools of philosophy. The German philosopher Theodor W. Adorno devoted an essay to the difficulty of reading Hegel and asserted that there are certain passages where it is impossible to decipher what Hegel meant. Difficulties within Hegel's language and thought are magnified for those reading Hegel in translation, since his philosophical language and terminology in German often do not have direct analogues in other languages. For example, the German word "Geist" has connotations of both "mind" and "spirit" in English. English translators have to use the "phenomenology of mind" or "the phenomenology of spirit" to render Hegel's "Phaenomenologie des Geistes", thus altering the original meaning. Hegel himself argued, in his "Science of Logic", that the German language was particularly conducive to philosophical thought and writing.

One especially difficult aspect of Hegel's work is his innovation in logic. In response to Immanuel Kant's challenge to the limits of pure reason, Hegel developed a radically new form of logic, which he called speculation, and which is today popularly called dialectics. The difficulty in reading Hegel was perceived in Hegel's own day, and persists into the 21st century. To understand Hegel fully requires paying attention to his critique of standard logic, such as the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. Many philosophers who came after Hegel and were influenced by him, whether adopting or rejecting his ideas, did so without fully absorbing his new speculative or dialectical logic.

[NewSocialist]

Why do you think your fascist crap would be tolerated here? Jeez

[RGacky3]

honestly, I prefer just to focus on Marx's economics, which can be studied from a purely analytical viewpoint, and forget the hegelian philisophical stuff.

For that I reiterate Richard Wolff.

[Oswy]

...My politics is not defined by an of the off-the-shelf options but I’d summarize it as a combination of Social Darwinism, European cultural chauvinism, mixed economy and resigned fatalism...

But they are just a mixed-bag of reactionary off-the-shelf options. What is your philosophical or theoretical starting point in holding any given political position?

[ColonelCossack]

Brush up on Hegel

Don't act so bigheaded and arrogant!

[Franz Fanonipants]

My politics is not defined by an of the off-the-shelf options but I’d summarize it as a combination of Social Darwinism, European cultural chauvinism, mixed economy and resigned fatalism.

fascist ban pls

[ColonelCossack]

fascist ban pls

Also the fact that he self described as a neo-fascist. I concur.

[Zulu]

and sustain that fairness over a long period of time
That, admittedly, is a bit of a problem. All the more merit for the people who contribute to working it out.




The problem I have with it is that I regard it as a fantasy, it will just never happen.
The same was said about many things. Then they just came about.

Your real problem is with the fully enforced restriction of freedom of being worthless/harmful, which comes along with the attempt to build the true meritocratic system of communism.

[RGacky3]

He's not a traditional fascist, he's the new style, so what, its not gonna break the german law, let him stay.

[ColonelCossack]

He's not a traditional fascist, he's the new style, so what, its not gonna break the german law, let him stay.

Are you serious?

He's a fascist. I thought there was a no platform policy...

[RGacky3]

I really think its arbitrary,

You could have a person that thinks poor people are dumber and deserve to be poor and a guy that thinks black people are dumber.

Both are dispicable, none are necessarily fascist, but the latter gets banned.

If your pro-capitalist+ultra-nationalist, your a fascists, but why does the combination make it any worse?

Look I understand holocaust denial, or actual nazi apologetics. But the definition of fascism becomes so arbitrary you basically include all of the european new populist right.

The guy is a european cultural cheuvanist, lets debate him on that,
A social-darwinist, lets debate him on that (thats an easy one, just some basic scientific research would fix that).
Mixed economy is'nt fascist perse
and neither is fatalism.

I don't know, I'm not a CC guy so I don't have a say, but I just think we should'nt have the definition be so broad.

[Thirsty Crow]

He's not a traditional fascist, he's the new style, so what, its not gonna break the german law, let him stay.
No platform for Fascists. "New style" or old school, nazi or Italian.
This board's not here in order that fascists might be "converted" or shown the error of their ways.

[Platonic Sword]

I'm not a fascist. And any views I have that might be "border-line" according to revleft's definitions I will keep to myself. Like I said before I am here to learn Marxist politics.

Cheers - PS

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm not a fascist. And any views I have that might be "border-line" according to revleft's definitions I will keep to myself. Like I said before I am here to learn Marxist politics.

Cheers - PS
It's funny you should criticize "leftists' hipocrisy" when you describe your views as neo-fascism, and then deny any connection to fascism when no platform positions is being put forward.
So, which is it, yay or nay?

As far as I'm concerned, cultural chauvinism, social darwinism, and an adherence to "mixed economy" speak for themselves, but hey, don't let some hypocritical, herd-minded commie dissuade you from learning about communist politics.

[RGacky3]

First off, definately check out Richard Wolffs online courses for a clear and concise introduction to marxian economics.

Also On this forum I've made a couple "for dummies" guides to different Marxian economic concepts.

Classical/Marxian Labor theor of Value. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/classical-marxian-labor-t164551/index.html)
Class In Marxian economics. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/intro-marxian-class-t162100/index.html)
Tendancy for the rate of profit to fall in Marxian (and some classical) economics. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/rate-profit-fall-t160824/index.html)

[Reed]

I really think its arbitrary,

You could have a person that thinks poor people are dumber and deserve to be poor and a guy that thinks black people are dumber.

Both are dispicable, none are necessarily fascist, but the latter gets banned.

If your pro-capitalist+ultra-nationalist, your a fascists, but why does the combination make it any worse?

Look I understand holocaust denial, or actual nazi apologetics. But the definition of fascism becomes so arbitrary you basically include all of the european new populist right.

The guy is a european cultural cheuvanist, lets debate him on that,
A social-darwinist, lets debate him on that (thats an easy one, just some basic scientific research would fix that).
Mixed economy is'nt fascist perse
and neither is fatalism.

I don't know, I'm not a CC guy so I don't have a say, but I just think we should'nt have the definition be so broad.

You raise some good points but I think this board is the wrong place for him. It's noble to want to help bring him around but I think his self-identification as a fascist and his stated goal of wanting to understand 'the enemy' negates this, particularly by the hostility it's generated against him.

If he wants to learn of Marxism then give him a suggested reading list, after all he can only gain that knowledge through books anyway. Following this he should be banned.

The ban is correct with either possible outcome, whether he embraces Marxism and is welcomed back to the board or if he still opposes Marxism and remains banned.

[Franz Fanonipants]

He's not a traditional fascist, he's the new style, so what, its not gonna break the german law, let him stay.

you're a moron

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'm not a fascist. And any views I have that might be "border-line" according to revleft's definitions I will keep to myself. Like I said before I am here to learn Marxist politics.

Cheers - PS

you're a fascist gtfo

[RGacky3]

you're a moron

Because I want to engage someone?

[citizen of industry]

Because I want to engage someone?

Gacky has demonstrated a very thorough understanding of Marxian economics and consistently presents this in the OI forum backed by modern, well-sourced examples. He's a first-class Marxist as evidenced by his personal activism and is a revolutionary of the highest degree. His position on abortion is faulty, hence the reason why he is relegated to the OI forum, but I have met plenty of revolutionaries of one stripe or another whose position on one thing or another was based on personal experience/tragedy, including myself. We are all human in the end. My personal opinion is that he should be released from his cage so he can contribute to other debates, but that is off topic.

My point is that RGacky is more than capable of debating with anyone on economic issues and presenting a superior materialist argument based on fact. He devotes a lot of time to the OI forum and if he wants to debate with this neo-fascist, who is at least literate and respectful, we shouldn't ban the dude. His arguments are economic child's play and RGacky is more than capable of smashing them.

[#FF0000]

He's a first-class Marxist

-brakes lock-
-record scratches-

[citizen of industry]

-brakes lock-
-record scratches-

Yeah, yeah. Seperate from context and humor to boot. Good job. How many people on this site have never been in a demo, have never been in a union, have never been in a party, have no organizational successes to speak of, etc . He's not one of them.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Because I want to engage someone?

because you want to engage an "intellectual" fascist

[danyboy27]

I've committed myself to a self guided study plan to read and plum the depths of Marxist thought, to understand on the deepest level to enrich my own neo-Fascism. I
Va t'en et décalisse, ont n'accepte pas les fasciste ici.
Translation:
Get off my lawn.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Va t'en et décalisse, ont n'accepte pas les fasciste ici.
Translation:
Get off my lawn.

les voitures (that is the only french i know)

[Revolution starts with U]

J'aime fumer les herbes exotique :cool:

A tu le monde
A tu mes amis
je vois partir

[danyboy27]

J'aime fumer les herbes exotique :cool:

A tu le monde
A tu mes amis
je vois partir
you got it all wrong!
a tout le monde
a tout mes amis.
Je doit partir.

:D

[ColonelCossack]

my spelling is mediocre ( as is yours )

Also what word did I spell wrong?

[Revolution starts with U]

That's what you get having an elementary knowledge of french, but trying to recreate lyrics from memory lol

... I should have known that tout was the right word, not "to you the world" lol.. now I'm embarassed :blushing:

[#FF0000]

baguette croissant

[gorillafuck]

My politics is not defined by an of the off-the-shelf options but I’d summarize it as a combination of Social Darwinism, European cultural chauvinism, mixed economy and resigned fatalism.so basically you're a racist without any guts

[RGacky3]

because you want to engage an "intellectual" fascist

All right ... But the european cheuvanist/mixed economy/social darwinist stuff is basically the bread and butter of the new european far right "peoples parties," I don't see why wanting to engage them is any more "moronic" then wanting to engage an objectivist.

[MotherCossack]

you know i think our chum from afar has inadvertently displayed something approaching a soft underbelly...
- the name he has chosen for himself, [are we allowed to discuss names? if not i claim ignorance, being, myself, very new to all of this] platonic sword ..... so he claims to be a warrior ... but a platonic one... so there is no passion there. so he sees himself as a non-partisan, armed, but in a dispassionate way agent... who has put himself amongst us to learn more. More about what exactly? .. those ideas that we hold dear and put such faith in ? more about the men whose work we respect and admire? i think that is it...
I am trying to be accommodating here, sympathetic, even.....
But his extraordinary arrogant and juvenile naivete almost renders me incapable of coherent thought.

let us try to imagine ourselves doing as he has.... in an attempt to learn about the right seek to join one of their forums.[although having trouble coming up with many great political thinkers on the right.. no matter...] .
who would do that...? not me that is for sure....i've got better things to do with my time.....

and there you have it..... i suspect our teutonic lord has a wealth of time and little substance with which to fill such an expanse.
therefore i pity such an individual and feel it is a shame that his energies are not more productively employed.

[Revolution starts with U]

I actualy pareuse the Mises forums every now and then. It's not unusual to want to be familiar with the arguments of your opponents.

That's funny tho that his name basically does mean; mercenary. Fitting for a capitalist apologist, I must say.

[ColonelCossack]

Finally they got banned.