Log in

View Full Version : Further Critique of Marxism



condor
29th December 2015, 19:35
Preface-

If you can only make statements without examples to back it up, don't bother engaging me in argument.

Definitions

A material condition: something science can measure and test
Non-material condition: something only mathematics and art can test; this does not mean the supernatural
An idea: something with no parallel in nature
Thus, if Marxism is true, science can explain everything
If it is not, then art and mathematics can explain some things better than science, like the golden mean or the Fibionacci series in nature.
Nobody is disputing Marxism's validity in explaining society as a whole but it's ability to explain individual phenomena and conciousness of individual people.

General Faults

Repeating plausible soundbytes (like people don't learn from books) without any proof..
Arguing for equality for equality's sake..
Not realising that capitalism could expand infinitely if it could fund space colonies;
Spending time understanding a society that will have changed beyond all recognition once you have finished understanding it
Even something as simple as chess has been found to have no true rules, how can society, something infinitely richer, possiblly have?
The more global travel becomes cheaper, the less any particular environment has any chance of making a foothold in consciousness.
 
 
 
Dogmas of Marxism

Dogma 1: all reformism must fail.
Dogma 2: the French revolution was doomed to be bourgeois; how do you know this if you haven't bothered to test this?
Dogma 3: material conditions ultimately determine consciousness in every occasion; an ugly house will turn someone mad just as much as a cold one. How can science test ugliness; it can't.
Ugliness, an idea, can send someone mad.
Many people commit suicide from existing in a soulless society rather than anything material like debt or illness...Once again, how can science test soullessness, it can't, soullessness is not a material condition yet it determines consciousness in the greatest proof of all: life or death.
Dogma 4: people don't learn from books; I suppose people stumble on Pythagorean theory while exploring life. The idea that people do not learn from books is vulgar philistine thought. For many people, books are more powerful than any sermon or political event...
Dogma 5: by explaining the motivation of an idea, you somehow rob it of its power
Dogma 6: people have merely misunderstood Marxism; Marxism is flexible. Well, it's not flexible enough. Marxism turns every materialist element into a materialist rule.
In fact, it is the opposite, Marxist misunderstand the criticisms of it; people do not dispute that material conditions determine society's ideas as a whole, but that they determine consciousness for every individual or household...
Dogma 7: anyone unorthodox is an adventurer: another example of Marxism's cheap tendency to label instead of concretely disprove.
Dogma 8: sneer at everything bizarre or revolving around sex
Dogma 9: people won't understand, people are conservative; this is a failure to see conservatism as a neurosis from sexual jealousies whereby people reject any theory that does not solve all their problems;

Faults in reasoning:

Fault 1: only present one side of the story or use folk tales to lull the mind into submission
Fault 2: if something cannot be found in a library, it doesn't exist....
Fault 3: all idealism must be false because Marx disproved one form of idealism: the German ideology. Marxism ignores the fact that hunger and cold's ability to stymy creativity can be overcome through meditation and other mental activities such as mindfulness.
Fault 4: life teaches. As Gore Vidal explains, we have the United States of Amnesia; people forget more than they remember.
Fault 5: use buzz-words like material that can be twisted into any meaning you want
Fault 6: that life teaches anything; history teaches; life doesn't. If something feels right, it must be right. This is the erroneous theory of life.
Fault 7: there are material conditions and then there are ideas; in practice there are many that are both; such erroneous conclusions arise from using long-winded dictionary English; using formal language will end with you using formal logic, no matter what

Failures of political Marxists

Failing 1: to explain homosexuality
Failing 2: to predict global warming
Failing 3: to explain how to give up smoking
Failing 4: to even properly define what material conditions and ideas are
Failing 5: to understand that the purpose of leaders is to eliminate the need for leaders...Marxists must exist as the collective consciousness of the working-class: historians and nothing more. Put simply, because power corrupts
Failing 6: to conduct even one sociological study to prove their ideas. Political Marxism tests nothing and thus knows nothing, only the bleating mantra of "life teaches" lulls people into the belief that unimaginative failures can teach us anything more than the natural dream-state of mankind
Failing 7: to develop any symbology or invented words to explain chaos theory, we end up with cantankerous long-winded sentences, much like in Capital, fit for nothing...
End
If you're wondering what will replace Marxism, it is obvious: chaos theory and coded language to surmise this
Ultimately Marxism fails because it explains how failure works, failure of the human imagination to know when to meditate and when to practice mindfulness, nothing more. The best ideas and the best surroundings are equally important to forming healthy consciousness of a child.
Lastly, Marxism could do without the snobbery. The amount of times middle-class is used as an insult is disturbing.

Appendix: simple reasons why materialism is not always correct

lack of interesting ideas causes people to overeat more than the other way round
if marxism really were flexible, it would not have to state that it is
if capitalism can be understood scientifically, then revolutionary situations should have occurred in every country but they haven't. In Israel, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, no revolutionary situations have occurred.
The internet, an idea that has changed the world more than any event in the past 25 years, did not come about through any new material being discovered or synthesised.

Vladimir Innit Lenin
29th December 2015, 22:40
You have asked a lot of questions, but not provided any evidence to support your points, so it's hypocritical if your main accusation is that Marxism too is not supported by evidence. Even if your point holds true, why should we take your critique seriously if you haven't bothered to

a) provide any evidence to support your point;
b) explained in a bit more depth each of your points.

Plus some of your points don't make any sense. Troll. Next.

Guardia Rossa
29th December 2015, 23:14
Did you really took all the effort to create such an inharmonious composition?

Tim Cornelis
29th December 2015, 23:20
Should I move this to chit chat?

Rafiq
29th December 2015, 23:23
Should I move this to chit chat?

Please. I was hoping users wouldn't take the bait.

The Feral Underclass
29th December 2015, 23:25
It feels like this is some kind of chapter plan for a book.


Failing 1: to explain homosexuality

Here is the explanation (http://new3.fjcdn.com/pictures/Fabulous+bear_471713_3696908.jpg)

GiantMonkeyMan
29th December 2015, 23:30
My favourite part is that a lack of interesting ideas causes people to overeat.

Vladimir Innit Lenin
30th December 2015, 00:56
From the maker of the new language: http://www.revleft.com/vb/my-attempt-world-t194727/index.html?p=2861558#post2861558

:laugh:

Luís Henrique
30th December 2015, 17:17
Dogmas of Marxism

Dogma 1: all reformism must fail.

What does this exactly mean? And how is this a "dogma" of Marxism?


Dogma 2: the French revolution was doomed to be bourgeois; how do you know this if you haven't bothered to test this?

What else could it have been?


Dogma 3: material conditions ultimately determine consciousness in every occasion; an ugly house will turn someone mad just as much as a cold one.

I am sorry, I completely fail to understand what you mean here. Material conditions ultimately determine consciousness. This means that they do not determine consciousness in every occasion.

And what have you been reading that you seem under the impression that ugly houses will turn people mad? And worse, that stating so is a "dogma of Marxism"?


How can science test ugliness; it can't.

Well, why not?


Ugliness, an idea, can send someone mad.

I don't think a sane person can go mad because of ugly things (otherwise we would all be mad, because there is no shortage of ugly things in this world). A person would have to be pre-psychotic to go actually mad because of "ugliness".

Besides, "ugliness" is an idea, ie, a concept, but it is also whatever makes ugly things ugly. No one is affected by the concept of ugliness; if people are affected by ugliness, it is by the material fact that some things are ugly.


Many people commit suicide from existing in a soulless society rather than anything material like debt or illness...

That "soullessness" is a very material phenomenon, as much as debt or illness.


Once again, how can science test soullessness,

Well, first, why not? And second, since when something has to be scientifically testable to be a material phenomenon?


it can't, soullessness is not a material condition

Yes it is.


yet it determines consciousness in the greatest proof of all: life or death.

You are being sloppy. Soullessness doesn't "determine" life or death; some people kill themselves out of despair due to the perceived soullessness of society. But at the same time most people experience the same soullessness and live to fight another day, so there can be no such crude "determination" that you are talking about.


Dogma 4: people don't learn from books; I suppose people stumble on Pythagorean theory while exploring life.

I fail to see where "people don't learn from books" is a Marxist dogma. Marx wouldn't have written so many if he believed such stupidity.

But yes, I suppose Pythagoras at least has had to stumble upon his theorem while exploring life, because no one had written about it before.


The idea that people do not learn from books is vulgar philistine thought. For many people, books are more powerful than any sermon or political event...

So? What is valid for "many people" is not necessarily valid for everyone, and anyway books are powerful because they refer to a reality people experience everyday. If a book talks about something that people never see, hear, or smell, odds are that people won't find that book impressive.


Dogma 5: by explaining the motivation of an idea, you somehow rob it of its power

And since when this is a dogma of Marxism?

It looks like you have invented a set of sentences that you deem false (and some of which are even quite evidently false) and labeled them "dogmas of Marxism", with little, if any, base for doing so.


Dogma 6: people have merely misunderstood Marxism; Marxism is flexible.

This is certainly not a dogma of Marxism.


Well, it's not flexible enough. Marxism turns every materialist element into a materialist rule.

What does this mean?


In fact, it is the opposite, Marxist misunderstand the criticisms of it; people do not dispute that material conditions determine society's ideas as a whole, but that they determine consciousness for every individual or household...

If people dispute that, in the belief that they are disputing "Marxist dogma", then they have necessarily misunderstood Marxism, because Marxism is certainly not about material conditions determining consciousness for every individual.


Dogma 7: anyone unorthodox is an adventurer: another example of Marxism's cheap tendency to label instead of concretely disprove.

And this supposed dogma comes from exactly where? What book, what text, what divine revelation?


Dogma 8: sneer at everything bizarre or revolving around sex

Erm...

Sorry to tell you, but this is a complete fantasy of yours. We do not sneer at everything bizarre, and much less at anything revolving around sex. Sex is good, healthy, and everybody should do it when they want and have a willing partner.


Dogma 9: people won't understand, people are conservative; this is a failure to see conservatism as a neurosis from sexual jealousies whereby people reject any theory that does not solve all their problems;

Er? What do you mean here? That Marxists misinterpret conservatism as a neurosis, or that conservatives are neurotics?

It is false on both counts and it is by no means a Marxist dogma.

Seriously, get some more information about Marxism, because you seem to be completely in the dark.

Luís Henrique

Бай Ганьо
30th December 2015, 17:44
From the maker of the new language: http://www.revleft.com/vb/my-attempt-world-t194727/index.html?p=2861558#post2861558

:laugh:

Condor is bad kwomilern. Zrek sosilern, srep it on condor's head because vyenish saliem daliat. :komibat: Easy language.