There is no such thing as a victim

[Elysian]

I had a chat with my cousin. He's pissed off due to his vietnam trip. This is ehat he said, more or less: There are victims, no doubt. For instance, a person who is physically assaulted is a victim. But one who stays with an abusive person despite knowing about the dire consequences ... isn't such a person a willing victim?

In this context, are workers willing victims of capitalism, colonies willing victims of imperialism, and so on?

[Revolution starts with U]

Oh they're willing victims... I guess we can just leave them to their oppression then...

:thumbdown:

[hatzel]

Oh, this is another great opportunity to make an anti-Elysian joke-post:

Well I'm a victim of your shitty threads because I sure as fook didn't ask for them...

[Deicide]

How did I know that you're the OP of this thread?... Instantly... I just knew.

[Railyon]

Thread could use a healthy dose of Marxism

[hatzel]

Thread could use a healthy dose of Marxism

Why would you say that? Can't you read Elysian's user title? He's a Marxist ffs!!! This thread is already nothing but Marxism...

[Railyon]

Something something bunkers bananas

[Manic Impressive]

In this context, are workers willing victims of capitalism,
Yes. Capitalism exists only as long as the working class allow it to exist.


colonies willing victims of imperialism, and so on?
No.

[Railyon]

Yes. Capitalism exists only as long as the working class allow it to exist.

I think that's a bit tricky because it seemingly implies conscious consensus giving and so on, people don't actually do that, capitalism is not some nightmare from which you can just wake up but maybe that's just me.

[Per Levy]

I had a chat with my cousin.

can it be that all your friends and family members are reactionary cynics? if those freinds and family members even exist that is.


For instance, a person who is physically assaulted is a victim. But one who stays with an abusive person despite knowing about the dire consequences ... isn't such a person a willing victim?

there are many reasons to why humans facing abuse in a relatonship stay in that relationship. just saying they are "willing" because they stay is a pretty idiotic thing to say(and also pretty mean spirited).


In this context, are workers willing victims of capitalism, colonies willing victims of imperialism, and so on?

like workers have a choice, we have to sell our labour and our time in order to survive, if we dont we end up on the streets or might starve. and killing a system isnt like a simple choice like if i should wear black or grey underwear today.

edit: yeah i know elysian is a troll.

[Tim Finnegan]

I think that's a bit tricky because it seemingly implies conscious consensus giving and so on, people don't actually do that, capitalism is not some nightmare from which you can just wake up but maybe that's just me.
I think the point is that capitalism isn't something which persists of its own accord, but something that is created and recreated on a constant basis. The working class does not consciously reproduce capitalism, but reproduces capitalism through a participation in capitalist production that is in itself concious.

[OnlyCommunistYouKnow]

Oh Elysian, you never fail to give me a good laugh every now and then.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I had a chat with my cousin. He's pissed off due to his vietnam trip. This is ehat he said, more or less: There are victims, no doubt. For instance, a person who is physically assaulted is a victim. But one who stays with an abusive person despite knowing about the dire consequences ... isn't such a person a willing victim?

In this context, are workers willing victims of capitalism, colonies willing victims of imperialism, and so on?

This is just fucking tasteless for anyone who actually is a victim of interpersonal violence or abuse in relationships. First of all, leaving aside all the emotional baggage and confusion and so on that happens in any abusive relationship, if we only consider practical and non-emotional issues in these situations, people are often in this position because they are trapped. Someone who's a housewife (especially a mother) can't merely walk-out of an abusive situation in most cases because (especially if she has a controlling partner and then probably doesn't have their own income) it would mean losing the only means of support you might have and subjecting yourself (and kids) to a shelter or homelessness if there were no family members who would take you in. This is probably why the groups usually associated with abuse are the elderly, children, and housewives - they all tend to be dependent on the abuser not just through emotional ties, but material ones as well. Children can run away, most wives or husbands just try for a divorce, and the infirmed and elderly are just shit out of luck. This is not to discount the emotional aspect which is obviously a major thing too - it's just that abuse is usually presented as a strength vs. weakness whereas I think it's an situation that comes from a lack of independence.

I don't think this is a very good parallel to working class/colony situations because it's apples and oranges, but in having to put up with bad situations, essentially "not have other readily avialible options" (lack of independence) is true for people who are serially abused in a relationship or colonized people and proletarians.

At any rate I think "victim" misses the mark as far as a Marxist view goes though. Workers are exploited and repressed if they resist and oppressed generally (as well as in specific ways such as sexism or racism). This is the condition of being a worker, but "Victim" implies a passive recipient of a violent act and Marxism is not focused on how workers are victimized, but on how workers can go from being the objects of history and society to the masters of it.

[Railyon]

The working class does not consciously reproduce capitalism, but reproduces capitalism through a participation in capitalist production that is in itself concious.

Yes yes, that's what I tried to say, but regarding the bolded part I have my doubts about capitalism being conscious; I think that capitalism as a mode of production takes the reigns out of the hands of its participants, and that it is motivated by a drive for value that is subconsciously embedded in it. That it is systemic and not (necessarily) conscious, that the master (the capitalist) also becomes its slave.

Capitalist production may be conscious for individual capitalists, but the mode of production is not, at least how I see it.

[Elysian]

Workers worship the rich and attack fellow workers, colonial countries worship their former masters etc. etc. These people are willing victims. Sweatshop workers (and such extreme cases) are victims through no choice of their own.

[Koba Junior]

Workers worship the rich and attack fellow workers, colonial countries worship their former masters etc. etc. These people are willing victims. Sweatshop workers (and such extreme cases) are victims through no choice of their own.

Consider that entire ideologies and worldviews have been constructed to serve the capitalist-imperialist order and that workers and nationals are systematically indoctrinated, whether through compulsory education or by violent coercion, to accept these worldviews and that the capitalist-imperialist order is both benevolent and eternal. Consider, also, that people may adopt reactionary or conservative views as a result of their position in the chain of capitalist-imperialist exploitation or proximity to wealth accumulated through such exploitation. As for worshiping the wealthy or idolizing the powerful, it is only natural to idealize the idea of vast wealth and power; our impulse to survive often does not recognize the difference between "sufficient" and "far too much."

[Tim Finnegan]

Yes yes, that's what I tried to say, but regarding the bolded part I have my doubts about capitalism being conscious; I think that capitalism as a mode of production takes the reigns out of the hands of its participants, and that it is motivated by a drive for value that is subconsciously embedded in it. That it is systemic and not (necessarily) conscious, that the master (the capitalist) also becomes its slave.

Capitalist production may be conscious for individual capitalists, but the mode of production is not, at least how I see it.
I didn't mean that capitalism as such is something that people consciously engage in, but that the immediate, concrete activities which constitute capitalist production- the choice to invest this money here (for a capitalist) or to turn up for work on that day (for the worker)- are in themselves concious actions. Commodity fetishism conditions that production in such a fashion that we are blind to its real social content, but it does not mean that we don't act in a concious fashion within those terms. [Using a very broad definition of "concious" here, of course. I won't pretend to have any grounding at all in psychology.]

Push comes to shove, it's neither a voluntary nor an involuntary participation, because while both descriptions are true at a certain level of abstraction, neither fully encompass the complexities of life under capitalism. The thing to take away, at least in my opinion, is that social revolution (i.e. the shattering of life under capitalism) consists of both non-concious economic forces- the standard Marxian spiel about "internal laws of motion"- and of concious actions- the choice to occupy this building, to participate in this council, to build this barricade- without being reducible to either of them.

[Rafiq]

Perhaps if the myth of "Free Will" existed, this would be absolutely true. Humans exist as products of the mode of production, including revolutionary proletarians.

[Tim Finnegan]

Ohmygodyouareacompletefuckingidiot.

[Rafiq]

Ohmygodyouareacompletefuckingidiot.

Elaborate. No Marxist I know of adheres to the myth of "Free Will".

Or are Proletarians Proletarians out of their own "Free Will"?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Elaborate. No Marxist I know of adheres to the myth of "Free Will".

Or are Proletarians Proletarians out of their own "Free Will"?

There is free will, but one can be forced to do something against his free will.

And, what is this about humans being products of the mode of production, humans created the mode of production, who can they be its products?

[Tim Finnegan]

Elaborate.
You're pedding warmed-over determinism in the terms of Christian theological discourse (of all things), ergo, you are a complete fucking idiot.

[Railyon]

There is free will, but one can be forced to do something against his free will.
"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past."
- K. Marx, 18th Brumaire



And, what is this about humans being products of the mode of production, humans created the mode of production, who can they be its products?

Mode of production is a vulgar marxist shorthand for social relations in production. Humans are not growing up in an isolated chamber; socialization, ideology, "mode of production", they all shape who you are, how you relate to others, and what you (are likely to) accept as normal and proper.

[Rafiq]

You're pedding warmed-over determinism in the terms of Christian theological discourse (of all things), ergo, you are a complete fucking idiot.

Yes, yes, we know Materialists here are always labeled as "Determinists". The over all use of the term, though, is of poor quality.

Like I said, elaborate.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past."
- K. Marx, 18th Brumaire

Mode of production is a vulgar marxist shorthand for social relations in production. Humans are not growing up in an isolated chamber; socialization, ideology, "mode of production", they all shape who you are, how you relate to others, and what you (are likely to) accept as normal and proper.

The Marx quote does not prove the inexistance of free will, it proves that free will is influenced by existing circumstances.

Then what you mean is people are made what they are due to their experiences, the relation to the mode of production should be one of the smallest factors that make you what you are.

[Rafiq]

Alright, whatever. We know Tim Finnegan is incapable of debate, so we'll just assume he's talking out of his ass and is full of shit. Apologia for "Free Will", whether it be theological or secular Idealist, is reactionary in nature. To say all humans have a "Will" that is "Free" implies all sorts of things, and is a clear stepping stone, if not already, to moralism. If Free Will exists, there is no need to abolish capitalism, all we need is moralism and preachers.

[Revolution starts with U]

As long as we all agree that free will and determinism are both bullshit terms :p

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Alright, whatever. We know Tim Finnegan is incapable of debate, so we'll just assume he's talking out of his ass and is full of shit. Apologia for "Free Will", whether it be theological or secular Idealist, is reactionary in nature. To say all humans have a "Will" that is "Free" implies all sorts of things, and is a clear stepping stone, if not already, to moralism. If Free Will exists, there is no need to abolish capitalism, all we need is moralism and preachers.

?

Free will is what makes us fight capitalism.

[Railyon]

The Marx quote does not prove the inexistance of free will, it proves that free will is influenced by existing circumstances.

Yeah, I meant to say that the dichotomy between determinism and free will is ultimately a false one, and that the answer lies between both.

[Tim Finnegan]

Yes, yes, we know Materialists here are always labeled as "Determinists". The over all use of the term, though, is of poor quality.

Like I said, elaborate.
You're peddling a crude parody of Marxism which proposes a series of unempirical, pre-historical abstractions and then attributes all actual historical events to their solemn unwinding. History is no longer a series of complex, particular interactions around which we are able to construct a representational model, but a two-dimensional puppet show dragged unwillingly along by a small band of elemental forces something akin to Olympian deities in their separation from concrete human affairs; in short, a rejection of anything identifiable as Marxian, in the sense of emitting from the pen of Karl Heinrich Marx, if not from one of his self-proclaimed theoretical successors. (The grand irony of this is that the only way you find yourself able to construct something resembling a politics among this granite monstrosity of a theory is by a retreat into the thoroughly idealist conception of the Party as an extra-historical actor more akin to Yehoshuah of Nazareth than to any working class organisation.) To compound this already startling ignorance of how the world has ever actually functioned, you find yourself expressing these assertions in the terms of medieval Christian philosophy, because you apparently so poorly-read that terms like "structure" and "agency" are simply alien to you. Hence, I can only conclude that you suffer from a condition of idiocy that is best characterised as "complete" and "fucking".

That do you, or do we have to spin this farce out for another few posts?

[Rafiq]

You're peddling a crude parody of Marxism

Sais the Bourgeois Liberal Idealist who not only believes "Power corrupts", he now adheres to the nonsense that is "Free Will".


which proposes a series of unempirical, pre-historical abstractions and then attributes all actual historical events to their solemn unwinding.

You may as well, then, quite pretending to be a Marxist and a Materialist, if you're just going to dismiss it as such.


History is no longer a series of complex, particular interactions around which we are able to construct a representational model, but a two-dimensional puppet show dragged unwillingly along by a small band of elemental forces something akin to Olympian deities in their separation from concrete human affairs;

You're just shoving words in my mouth now.


in short, a rejection of anything identifiable as Marxian, in the sense of emitting from the pen of Karl Heinrich Marx, if not from one of his self-proclaimed theoretical successors.

Again, you're just declaring things. Why don't you provide examples and go into detail as to how they correspond to this, you fuck?


(The grand irony of this is that the only way you find yourself able to construct something resembling a politics among this granite monstrosity of a theory is by a retreat into the thoroughly idealist conception of the Party as an extra-historical actor

Link any post in which I have declared such.


more akin to Yehoshuah of Nazareth than to any working class organisation.)

You're doing what most Idealists do: Inventing positions for your enemies, and then going on to destroy these positions.


To compound this already startling ignorance of how the world has ever actually functioned, you find yourself expressing these assertions in the terms of medieval Christian philosophy, because you apparently so poorly-read that terms like "structure" and "agency" are simply alien to you.

I want to have a debate in regards to free will. Perhaps if we did such, you could proceed to fucking declare my so called positions.


Hence, I can only conclude that you suffer from a condition of idiocy that is best characterised as "complete" and "fucking".


More cheap insults.


That do you, or do we have to spin this farce out for another few posts?


No, as a matter of fucking fact, it doesn't. You haven't refuted anything I've said, you've just went in depth into "insulting" me. You haven't pointed out why Free Will isn't complete horse shit, why Human beings don't act in direct response to material conditions and the mode of production within them, and so on.

Really, Tim, you're getting desperate. Why don't you actually formulate an argument instead of resorting to NGNM85-esque snotty Liberal insults? Because you can't. You know I'll fucking destroy you.

[Rafiq]

As long as we all agree that free will and determinism are both bullshit terms :p

In what sense? In the sense of Determinism being all events linear, that our "fate" is pre destined, then yes, it's Idealist horse shit.

But many dismiss what is actually Materialism as determinism. For example, it isn't determinist at all to say that humans and their social interactions aren't influenced by factors external from the material conditions that they have uninetnionally created (As a result of forfilling production process, or through social relations between each other, and so on), as this is perfectly in par with Materialism. To say History is something intentional, i.e. the expression of humanities free will is antithetical to Marxism. Just as beast became man from upright posture in order to better carry supplies, rather then an expression of his "free will" to magically become a human being, Human descision as an expression of the "Will" is constrained by the mode of production within them, and then almost completely influenced by things like, you know, fetishism and so on. The only way this constrained is moved forward is by material forces produced within this very constraint, which later become something beyond themselves.

Users here, such as Tim Finnigen, reject this, as it is a threat to their Idealist convictions. Critics of Materialism, like Tim, hold that the "World" is more "Complex" then what Materialists put forward, i.e. That there exists relations and choice among humans that is external from mateiral conditions, and in social relations, there exist two realms: The Realm of the Material, i.e. Social relations with the mode of production and then the abyss of complexity of human "Thought" and "Creativity, choice" and so on, of which is apparently divorced completely from the former. They like to formulate a fantasy land, in which human relations and behavior somehow can't be explained by science, that there exists a seed within us that "God" put, in which he can only understand.

While in truth, the so-called "Complexity" Tim spouts out is non existent. I fully reduce what is the Human being to the surroundings around him, I fully reduce the brain not to a big other, i.e. Not to some abyss of complexity, but as a direct reflection of the material world. The brain, which is material, is the source of all thought, the product of material functioning (With the brain being an organ, and so on). I fully reduce man to a mere organism, not with some "free will", but an Automata, a mechanical being, if you will, whom in terms of "Complexity" is not so different, if anything of less being, then a Solar System.

Tim, you worthless pile of dog piss, this is directed at you. I'd like to have a debate now, I'm not here to play the game of Liberal sneer shit. Sorry us "Boisterous Americans" (As Tim put it in another thread) do not have the sensitive capacity as you Advanced, enlightened and more mature Europeans. Perhaps, if this bothers you, you can go ahead and go fuck yourself.

[Tim Finnegan]

things

more things
Did you really need that many words to say "no, you fuck off"?

[Koba Junior]

Ohmygodyouareacompletefuckingidiot.

I personally don't believe in free will either. That isn't to say I don't find the paradigm of personal responsibility useful, but I don't believe choice is free from the constraints of the material universe.

[Tim Finnegan]

Who is saying that it does?

[Koba Junior]

Who is saying that it does?

Who is saying what does what?

[Rafiq]

Did you really need that many words to say "no, you fuck off"?

We get it, you lose. Now piss off, and go enjoy the "complexities" of your wonderful spirit, of which controls the Human body like a ghost in a machine, in which this ghost exists external from both the Material World, and the Material conditions and relations that Man makes.

Of course, the phrase "Men and Women make history, but not as they fucking please" to you means "Well, we all create things intentionally, but sometimes we can't because we're limited by the laws of nature such as gravity". What a joke. What a fucking joke.

What it really means is simple: Men and Women do in fact produce what is history, but not as an expression of their will or thoughts in an intentional sense, but with the relations and material conditions that they produce, generate things beyond themselves which they later catch up with in terms of Art, and so on, which later "Produce History".

Why don't you fucking learn some materialism, you worthless shit?

[Rafiq]

Who is saying that it does?

You.

You adhere to the notion of "Free Will".

[Rafiq]

Yeah, I meant to say that the dichotomy between determinism and free will is ultimately a false one, and that the answer lies between both.

While I will not doubt for a second both are Idealist horse shit, it doesn't lie between both. It lies beyond both, external from this realm of Idealist thought.

[Rafiq]

What a pathetic little worm Tim Finnigen is. What a dismissive piece of shit. He isn't, by any means capable of debate.

I suppose Materialism offends his liberal sensitivity. It offends his humanist convictions. Sorry, shove your moralism up your ass, Tim.

[Tim Finnegan]

You.

You adhere to the notion of "Free Will".
Nah, I'm more in line with the existentialists on that, particularly Merleau-Ponty. (Sartre was a bit of an arse.) Body-subject, movement-as-engagement, all that good stuff. "Free will" is a holdover from the wrangling of Christian theologians which I'm honestly kind of baffled to see being drudged up, because it's not actually a term that you'll see in modern philosophy in anything other than a critical sense.


What a pathetic little worm Tim Finnigen is. What a dismissive piece of shit.
There's irony for ye.

[SpiritiualMarxist]

Not workers, I would say workers who aren't revolutionary are willing victims of capitalism.


There's always the alternative of going off the grid or being a lumpen proletariate.

[Railyon]

While I will not doubt for a second both are Idealist horse shit, it doesn't lie between both. It lies beyond both, external from this realm of Idealist thought.

Yeah, I realized the folly of it after I posted it, because "between both" still acknowledges the dichotomy instead of pushing beyond it. So in that regard you're right.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

..ok this thread had far more responses than is necessary for a blatant troll

And I've just added to it...guess I'm a willing victim too, of sorts