Various types of Leftism - A list

[sabre]

I think it would be beneficial to our most accomplished members and the new ones amongst our community to have a reference of all of the different types of Leftism, i.e. Marxism Stalinism Maoism Leninism Trotskyism Communal Communism Communism Socialism Democratic Socialism etc.

im sorry i dot have time to write a description of one right now but i will next time im on here

[TheDerminator]

A list of "isms" of the left?

Moskittoism
Voxism
Iron Heelism
La Rainbeauxism
El Cheism
Sabreism

It is all selfism, even Marx was a selfist.
He was the only Marxist.
The only way to go beyond selfism, is to possess a common objective methodology, which everyone can use objectively, rather just spouting subjective opinion.
There is a method on my website, if you want to check it out. Too substantial to give in this forum, it would go on for pages and pages of text.
Nonetheless, all these "isms" apart from socialism are just self-pigeon-holing to coin a word. They make people feel they belong; they have an identity. They are not just Vox or whoever, they are a Marxist, a follower of Karl Marx, who said "all I know is that I am not a Marxist"
Marx was not deny his own philosophy. Marx was saying, all I know is that I am not a selfist, because he possessed a dialetical method, which went beyond any "ism".
Unfortunately, his methodology, revolving around the relationships of different forms of being as connected to the "unity of opposites" was an incomplete method, and Marx did not even bother to write down his own methodology, making it inaccessible to everyone except Marx.
It is not completely inaccessible, you can see the method eluciditate a little in the Dialectics of Nature by Frederick Engels. The emphasis is on the movement between the opposites, because the movement is transition of each interconnection, and you are simply quantifying each transition within the whole movement.
You quantify in relation to the opposites, such as essence and appearance, and in doing so you resolve the contradictions.
That is more or less the dialectical method of Karl Marx, although he would have added the historical development is the subject, and that you can integrate into the method a rationalisation of other Hegelian derminants such as the negation of the negation.
We will never know the level of integration Marx achieved because he did not write down his method, but we know the methodology, was limited to tackling the economic relations, and thus we know it was not an all-sided approach capable of analysing subjective opinions in our complex society.
This lack of all-sidedness, means Marx was still a selfist, although it should be added that if he had left us his methodology, he would have been the least of all selifsts in history. We shouldn't have needed to try to work out his method for ourselves. It should have been at the begining of Capital Volume one.
That is what Descartes would have done.
You show your methodology up front.
There are a lot of ironies between the relationship of Marx to Descartes, "I think, therefore I am" against basically "I am, therefore I think". The favourite maxim of Marx: "in everything have doubts" and ofcourse, the method of doubt by Descartes.
That is a problem with all "isms" except socialism, all doubt goes. All there is the dogma of the selfist leader, transferred into the dogma of the selfist "follower".
Leadership is a complicated question, in that we should wish to possess a leading socialist movement, but at the same time you can never put blind faith in any leader, leaders are only human, and humans make errors.
That is the beauty of an objective method, you are no longer so reliant upon the personal foibles of any leader, everyone can use the method, and help to correct the errors of the leadership.
Rosa thinks only a dog wishes to be led, but we have paralysed socialist non-movement, and part of the reason is the lack of leadership. It is only workerism, that sees leadership as a dirty word, and the workerists are leaving us defenceless in the face of huge odds.
It is no surprise, that some one like Vox shares the workerism, of Rosa. Many left-wing academics subscribe to workerism, the most open that I know of is Dr JD Young who has written many books on history, and who is consistently an organisation "from below" man.
It sounds democratic, but it is naive, and it is leaving us defenceless in the face of huge odds stacked against us.
You want a list? A list of definitions is a shallow list, if all you are defining is some crude selfist leftist dogma in each case.
There is only one "ism" worth defining: Socialism.
I do not use the term "capitalism" to define this society. The economic system is only one part of our Frankenstein societies, and the Dr Frankensteins are the bourgeoisie, so hence it is the bourgeois epoch, not faceless "capitalism". You do not let the Dr Frankensteins off the hook. Not for a nano-second.
My definition of socalism:
An ethical society wherein there is complete equality of social justice for all, and for me that is the essence of socialist freedom.
My definition of the bourgeios "ethos". The complete inequality of social justice serving the interests of the minority at the expense of the majority. We are all expendable to those selfish interests.
You should not wish to be a Sabreist. It is selfism, and I am not a selfist, because, if you or our friends Peaccenick, Vox or El Che gain a good grasp of objective methodology, who am I to say it will not be a better grasp, than my own?
We should be Socialist Socialist Socialists ad infinitum, until the last breadth. The rest is pure selfist egoism.
derminated.

[Moskitto]

Moskittoism is a highly complex philosophy. It includes large elements of populism and combines council communism and christian socialism with social democracy into it's ideas. There can only be 1 Moskittoist because no one can have exactly the same Ideas as someone else.

A list of types of leftism in no particular order

Council Communism
Stalinism
Maoism
Kiminism/Hoxhaism
Marxism
Democratic Marxism
Social Democracy
Democratic Socialism
Castroism
Populism
Afro-Communism
Reform Communism
Anarchism
Trotskyism
Bookchinism
Left-Communism
DeLeonism
Leninism
Populism (can also be right-wing)
Socialist Feminism
Titoism
Shactmanism
Radicalism
Socialism
Communism
Christian Socialism

[red head]

moskitto, usually your posts are pretty intellegent, but lately it seems like you've been accepting the redencyclopedia as gospel and preach it anywhere a thread about types of leftism come up. first off, kimism and hoxhaism aren't the same thing, hoxhaism is closer to stalinism whereas north korea has a more militaristic method. titoism and castroism to me are little more than someone adding an "ism" to the actions of these leaders and not a new political ideology. no one can really be a "titoist" or "castroist" because no one will ever be in their situations again. anarchism, social democracy, maoism, and trotskyism on the other hand are all forms of socialism that existed before marxism or are based on critiques and dialectical changes on marx's ideas. so, in light of the determinators usual pretentious pseudo-intellectual rambling, i'll start the list.

maoism- maoism is an ideology based on the writings and policies of mao tse-tung, leader of the communist revolution and government in china during the 50's, 60's, and most of the 70's. marx thought that the capitalist system would soon topple, and socialism would be built first in the most developed nation. mao saw that the capitalist system wasn't falling, and that the people of the 3rd world were suffering as a result. because of this, mao thought the revolution should start in the 3rd world. he formed an alliance with and modeled his system after that of josef stalin. with the help of stalin, mao instituted industrial reforms such as irrigating land and buying basic farming machinery which his country never had. he also ended the opiun trade in china and greatly reduced crime. to prevent a beauracracy like that which formed under stalin, mao inacted the cultural revolution, in which he encouraged his people-mainly the students-to destroy all signs of bourgeois culture. this was inacted to prevent people from taking advantage of the new government in china. a downside to this was the cult of personality that developed around mao, especially by chinese students. maoists are currently in nepal, the philippines, peru, and others fighting oppresive governments, and mao has become a symbol for solidarity among oppresed people in all nations, and had a strong influence on the black panther party in america.

[sabre]

What exactly is Democratic Socialism??? Its one i cant really figure out.



Derminator - thanks for that insightful post - a very interesting read

[TheDerminator]

Sabre

Undoubtedly, there is a tautology in Democratic Socialism, and there is also the Bad Faith of Jean-Paul Satre; in that if you are a Socialist "power to the people" is a democratic as anyone can get, so the "Democratic" bit ought to be redundant due it being enshrined in the word Socialist.
I am sure you know all this stuff, but you ought to make clear your own views since we have nothing within our socialsist philosophy to hide.
I must admit I temper, my evaluation with the knowledge of how undemocratic primitive "socialism" has been, so if anyone wants to call themselves a Democratic Socialist to distance themselves and socialist philosophy from intrinsically undemocratic primitive socialism, I kind of think; fair dinkums.
All the same, the word Socialist does for me, and I have no Bad Faith!
As for all this "isms" of Moskittoism, I have to say I unimpressed. You forgot to add the Socialist Feminsim, of Joan Smith! It is always the women, who get forgotten in all these "isms"!
As for your Moskittoism, it does not really matter how complex left-wing eclectism, becomes, it still left-wing eclectism, and thus ultimately simplistic subjective opinion.
At the end of the proverbial day, your whole intellect must make a value judgement, and if all your value judgement is based upon is an enclyopeadic knowledge of leftwing socialist writers, and leaders, then your judgements are going to be simplistic judgements.
Marx, did not have an eclectic approach to the economic infrastructure, Marx possessed a methodology, which went beyond subjective opinion, thus he uncovered the static relations of the economic infrastructure.
Without a methodology analysis is poor analysis, and Descartes could tell you that, because he possessed a method, and so did Socrates. Methodology is central to any depth of analysis, and it beats "complex" eclecticism, hands down.
This is why Derrida, has vaunted his crude "Deconstrucuturalism". It is still subjective methodology, incapable of an all-sided analysis. The only way you can provide the latter, is improve upon the foundation laid down by Karl Marx. His essential methodology is given above, and you really only have to raise it to a level of being capable of analsying the superstructure, and the latter is not really as complex as everyone seems to imagine.
Eclectism, is poor theory, it leads to poor practise, and if I am wrong about this, then it kind of makes the whole of philosophy reduntant.
Thales, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes,Kant, Hegel and even Marx, become redundant, because instead of philosophy climaxing in the methodology of Karl Marx, it climaxes in your eclecticism and in everyone elses eclecticism.
Philosophy, becomes useless, and Moskittoism, overtakes all philosophy, it overtakes the methodology of Marx, without ever grasping the method of Marx, and without ever grasping not just the errors of the method, but the nugget of gold in the methodology, too.
We just have empty ecletic Moskittoism, and is pretty empty, because no matter how well intentioned, it is burying philosophy, it is burying Marx, it is burying an objective approach, and it is wallowing in its own subjective introspection.
At the end of that old old proverbial day, what is the difference between ecletic Moskittoism, and eclectic Imperial Powerism? Sounds like your vague socialism, to me. You are pretty similiar though, you are both eclectic selfists, with all the arrogant egoism, that goes along with the territory.
Because, it is arrogant and it is egotistic, not to see that philosophy has a high purpose, and Karl Marx came close to realising that purpose. It is arrogant, and it is egotistical, to replace the objective foundations laid by Marx with well-meaning subjective eclectism, because at the end of that aged aged day, it is an insult to not just to Marx, but to the whole development of philsophy, from Thales.
Ford is said that "History is bunk". Is Philosophy "bunk"? You have to be careful of what you are dumping, and when you embrace eclecticism, you are dumping the purpose of philosophy, big style.
The purpose of philosophy, is to objectively understand the world, and this has been the purpose since Thales separated essence from the cause-essence conception of the world, answered by the word "God".
Do not be too proud to be a Moskittoist, my friend, it is part of the extreme selfist individualism, of the Borgs, such as Imperial Power and Regan Lives. You see that is how they view themselves as free ecletic thinkers, and personally, I want to ram that shallow eclectic shit down their fucking throats, because I am bored, with the non-movement, and it is good practise, in dealing with the Borgs, the supporters of the Bourgeoisie.
Drop, your selfism, please, and join the fight against the Borgs, from a non-eclectic position. Ecletisim means everything to everyone, that is not socialist philosophy, Moskitto. The very opposite, it is a common ethos, a common approach to social justice, it is very far from "common" in the pejorative sense, but you should know what I mean.
derminated.

[Moskitto]

Derminator, I only came up with the term moskittoist as a joke and because there are no 2 people who are alike and illustrate the idea that to copy everything someone else does is sheepish.

I have only met 1 person who is as fanatically athiest as you are. But they were a far right-wing nationalist.

I am not actually a Marxist as I find Marx slightly too authoritarian. I prefer the ideas of Luxemburg or Ball.

Ok here's more types of Leftism not apprearing in Red Encyclopedia

Red Fascism (Or Totalitarian Communism) if you consider that to be left wing
Utopian Communism - See "Utopia" by Thomas More, This ideology, as the name suggests is, fairly imposible

[red head]

out of curiousity mos, how is marx too authoritarian, and more specifically, how is luxemburg better? and for the record, i'm probably about as athiest as determinator. i'm more "athiest" than most athiests i know because i actively oppose religion instead of just not believing it. anyone who believes in god should read god and the state by bakunin.

[Moskitto]

Well maybe it's not that he's too authoritarian, It's just I don't agree with everything he says. Such as where he says "Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production" and the way he relates everything to class struggle in the Communist manifesto. I prefer luxemburg because she seems like a less conspiritalistic figure, Her ideas also relate more to the modern world, particularly her ideas on freedom.

[anarchoveganLAM]

Marx was a genious, and I aggree where he was a bit authoritarian-much like Lenin. I would have to say I aggree with (out of already known philosophers) is Murray Bookchin. But, I like my philosophies the most, and I have written my own manifesto-for the LAM. It is basically Bookchinism with other additives. It has basic lower case anarchocommunism, with an environmental outlook-which is where Bookchin comes in-ecosocialism. Bookchin was originally a Marxist, then he became an anarchist-but gave his own philosophy of eco libertarian socialism. if you want to read my manifesto, IM me at Nopeaceatallaefp on aim, or add me [email protected] on msn.

peace

[TheDerminator]

Moskitto,

"Ofcourse, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production."

I can see that all you see is "despotic inroads"!
Dunno, whether to laugh or cry!
Okay, it is clumsy phraesology, but that is all it is!
As soon as you achieve a socialist democracy, you use the law, just like the bastards used the law to create the bourgeois property rights, and the conditions of bourgeois production; and do you know what we do Moskitto?
We use the authority of democratic law, to stamp out bourgeois property law, and bourgeois conditions of property. We fucking annihiliate those shit laws that cause unfreedom, with our laws that create freedom.
Total annihiliation! Like that word Moskitto?
You would tolerate these bourgeois laws and bourgeois conditions, just like you tolerate the opium of the people. Your "toleration" is unprincipled toleration.
Marx, should have possessed a better notion of democracy: The rule of the majority is a lawful despotism, and the "inroads" are the necessary pre-condition of socialist Freedom.
Marx, was authorative, not authoritarian, and Rosa Luxemburg would be appalled that you and anarchoveganLAM share the same bougeois-liberal view of Marx as the BORGS.
Rosa, did not reject Marx, and I daresay, that when you see the words "the dictatorship of the ploretariat" all you see is the word "dictatorship", spirited socialists see "power to the people"!
I do not mind sharing "fanatical" atheism, with a right-wing conservative, you are sharing his views on Marx and Lenin as authoratarian! I know "toleration" of religious fanaticism, is apart of the genocide of wanton neglect. That genocide that only exists in my head!
Sheepish behaviour? You are the sheep my friend, and you have led into the pastures of anti-Marx, you have been led into the pastures of indifference to the genocide of wanton neglect.
Just what have you being "copying"? Selfism.

derminated

[Moskitto]

Derminator, please notice how I have not actually rejected Marx. Just described him as too authoritarian (Just like you.)

And why can't I tolerate religion when it has the same goal as socialism?

[Rosa]

Dermy: since you've mentioned my name in your elaboration of "isms"...was about leadership:
I'm aware of paralise that socialist movement is in, and the one of reasons for that is a lack of ledership.
And acct. I don't know the exact meaning of word "workerism"(prhbs y couldf exp it to me? would appreciate it, honestly).
And am still straight about that "only dog needs to be led"(in fact it's different than "o d needs a leader"). If one can't do anything without clear instructions from the top, then we should reconsider his awarenes of ideology that he's sticking with. If you know what you want, and why do you want it, every your action will be done in manner that your ideology supports.
And insufficience of leader may be result of "selfisizms" you were talking about. The well known fact in sociology is that ussually ambitious people are not the ones of best quality, and if we know that ALL THE LEFTISTS ARE SMART & CLEVER (he he, correct me if I'm wrong... ), then it is obvious that they won't fall on "fairy tales" of some ambitious guy who wants to be a "leader"...just for prestige, or to be adored, or for practicing the power.
The real leaders always grow in the times of crisis, when quality is really all that matters. (otherwise the movement doesn't survive, and we don't see them as "THE leaders"). Do you think that this have any sense?

[peaccenicked]

isms
are not that useful, they play a part in discussion of individual and universals but when it comes to particular concrete situations, it is better to elaborate on their meaning in context of what part they play in society.
workerism for instance only as meaning in an leftist discussion on the scope of revolutionary work.
Sectarians often seek to dismiss all ideas counter to their own and concentrate only on the immediate struggles of the working class. This is a fetish which that can only cause confusion and not clarity. It alienates socialists from one another and weakens their collective power. I don't see any grounds for accusing
anyone here though I am worried about CB.

[Sasafrás]

Ha, what is La Rainbeauxism? I've never heard of that! :)

I don't believe in naming everything like that. What is the purpose of giving every leftist leader's "style" a different name? Trotskyism, Leninism, Titoism? Why? Nobody ever says "George Bushism" or "John Fitzgerald Kennedyism." All that's just a bunch of bull-jive. In addition to being confusing, -ISMs are just a way to divide people [who typically all have the same goal, in some cases], in reality.

[raisedfist69]

there are also some types of leftism that are not necessarily leftism, such as:
idealism- having a set of priciples, standing by them, etc.

however, i consider myself to be a pragmatist. i use common sense and my principles are just obvious ones, with a couple of leftist ones thrown in.

[Moskitto]

I think I made up the term Moskittoist as a joke with Kamo. I'll stop using it now.

Bye Bye Word.

[TheDerminator]

Rosa,

I agree with you that if a person is only repeating a dogma, that person is being led like a dog.

I will try to explain what I mean by "workerism".

First of all, I have to explain that a problem with workerism, is that practise leads theory, instead of theory leading practise. That is a huge problem with left-wing politics these days.
As soon as an event or incident occurs, the event becomes the issue instead of our socialist cause showing alternative ways forward. It is the tail wagging the dog, and this can happen with national and international issues. Once the issue is no longer in high focus, we move onto another issue without any real gain for the socialist movement.
Theory, must always, always, always lead practise, or the result is poor theory. Experience can be learned from in theory, becuase the theory provides an analysis of all past practise. Learning the hard way, is the unintelligent approach to practise.
You see, my friend part of the reason for the paralysis, is that there is no international socialist movement as such. The socialist movement is mostly organised on a national level.
It is a complex issue. Practicalities dictate that we must organise nationally, but it should not be the only level of organisation. We must organise internationally, and there are two phrases we can borrow the bosses management theory.
Instead of just issue by issue, we must have "consistency of purpose". We must relate every issue to socialist ethos against BORG ethos.
It has to be put in ethical terms, because that is how we distinguishing good from bad, and good from evil. We will make no in roads unless we place the emphasis of our approach upon ethos. We cannot give a mechanicistic analysis. We have to place judgement values upon our analysis or people will not understand our ethics.
That is consistency of purpose.
The other phrase we have to borrow is "maximise resources".
You see we are up against huge forces, my friend, and they have huge resources, which completely overshadow our resources.
You see, my friend, say we just have decentralisation, it could be that the local people involved in the local party in your town or city are well-intentioned good people, but organisation is a skill, a big skill, an important skill, requiring capable people who possess the appropriate skills, and why not use your best most skilled people all the time to help you organise locally, rather than people who just do not possess the same level of skills.
Decentralisation, sounds very democratic, but it is naive. We cannot afford to be naive. Too much is at stake, as the end of Allende showed.
We need our best theorists, to give us the best practises, and we should not be too proud to ask for their help time and again, because all the only difference in the level of skills is expertise.
You go to the experts for advice, just like in any profession, because the experts are the most professional in their approach, and that is what you need. We are up against real ruthless professional bastards, and we cannot respond with naive decentralisation. It is leading the workers to the slaughther, as Allende did. He was a poor leader.
There is no secret to inner party democracy, my friend, you can build in protection within a constitution, and even that can be achieved internationally. You have to think big, the enemy is big, and the enemy is global.
When you jettison, centralisation, you only have thinly resourced decentralised pockets of isolated socialists, as we are ourselves. That is our reality my friend. That is our reality. It is banging your head against a brick wall, and that is all you damn deserve, if you are so naive as to go down this well-worn path.
You see, that is where Vox is coming from. It is well intentioned socialist democracy, but it is completely naive. The odds against us are just to big, you have to organise internationally, you have to have a central leadership of high expertise, and this decentralisation, is as Dr JD Young would say is "organisation from below". That is the end product of Vox and anti-centralisation, and it is playing into the hands of the enemy, because it is not how the bastards organise themselves, and you have to learn from the bastards, they know the beauty of effective centralisation, have no doubts about that fact.
Decentralisation, organisation only from below, that is the essence of workerism, and it is an appalling strategy. It is complete fucking disaster. It is the negation of leadership. It is the negation of responsibility, it is shooting the movement in the head to put out if its paralysis.
You are mistaken to believe we can wait for a crisis. That is naive my friend. That is naive. You have to be prepared or the crisis can go towards fascism, rather than socialism. We cannot pin our hopes of crisis my friend. I have heard that old chestnut many times before, and it is extremely naive, it is a cry from helplessness.
It is the cry of the paralysed leftwing, when it breaks out of paralysis, because that is all it is doing crying about the coming crisis, when the leadership will be thrown up. You should want to vomit my friend, because it is a sick fucking joke. Unless, we are prepared we gain nothing, but suffering from crisis. Do not look forward to crisis my friend. Without us being prepared, it will be pure bitter tragedy.
Hope, that is a good enough explaination, my friend. You know the value of leadership, so you are not a workerist.

Moskitto. Your ends the same as the ends of religion. The same as the genocide of wanton neglect. Sounds, like old ground we have covered. Can't be bothered regurgitating it.
Glad you dropped Moskittoism. Not much of a joke. Is like when some exclaims "Oh God!" and another person says just call me President Bush! The old jokes are the worse.

May the Force be with U

Resistance is Futile!

Be afraid, be very afraid...

derminated

[Xvall]

Oooh!!
Anarcho-Communism!!

- Drake Dracoli

[TheDerminator]

Drake Dracoli,

I agree, Chomsky, would find it hard getting his head around that one!

Oooh! Probably does it justice!, but even more so
Aaargh!

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[peaccenicked]

anarcho capitalists
is a flash name for Libertarians,(not to be confused with libertarian socialists or anarchists)
who are neo liberals,
who are capitalist pigs,


(Edited by peaccenicked at 4:59 pm on Mar. 2, 2002)

[Rosa]

to Dermy: thank you, my friend. (for the explanation)
P.S. I don't think that we CAN WAIT for a crisis to get a leader, just think that population of possible "leaders" would be halved in times of crisis. Chickens, and undeterminated pretendents which wanted to be leaders just for "status" would run the hell away.Bcs crisis takes a great responsibility of a leader. And a risk (...even for a life). So, just am convinced that in times of crisis there's less chance for making a mistake when choosing a leader.
I'm aware that we need a leader, just am hard when it's about trusting to someone.

[TheDerminator]

Rosa,

Rosa, we can only trust a single leader, when we all share the same method for analysing errors.
You see, I am not for selfism.
You see Marx, possessed a method of analysis. A method any person could use in relation to the infrastructure, although, okay not just anyone could use it to the same extent as Marx.
However, it is really no different as a proposal from the fact all these philosophy professors can use the Socratic method, and all these scientists can use the empirical method.
You see, I believe, perhaps wrongly that a method Marx called "rationale dialectics" in his introduction to Capital can be improved upon, and for me, I call this Objective Methodology. The methodology is aimed at giving an objective analysis of any subject, you care to mention. No exceptions.
Now, you may well doubt that this is possible. Fair dinkums, but you have to admit, that the method used by Marx, went into the relations of capital deeper than any other previous philosophy, and that the latter reflects a certain power in his method. It must have been one hell of a method to yield such a depth of analysis.

You see that is the thing. If a method is accessible to everyone who has the intelligence to understand it, then we do not need to have blind faith in any leader. We only need trust that our best leader can explain to us every decision, and we can analyse the rationale behind those explanations ourselves without the help of the leader.
You see my friend, without a common method, we rely too much on the leader, and I would not worry about rats deserting the ship too much in a crisis, if the movement is strong enough, we hold the ship together and the rats will drown in their own sewers.
Only dogmatists rely upon blind trust, and only selfist egoists desire that blind trust. You can check out the method in website, and if you want to correspond about it, you can get my Email address from the website.
You just need to click on TheDerminator to get my website address.
You see my friend, no one cannot be affected by subjective historical development, and if some leader pretends otherwise, you know they are a phoney socialist. If I was a leader, I would not want you to trust me too much!
May the Force be with U!
derminated.

[Rosa]

it feels so noble when you call me "my friend".
"NOBLESS OBLIGE".
...will take a look on that site of yours.

[vox]

Hey,

I am not a voxist.

There, now that it's in print perhaps it can be quoted, and perhaps TheDerminator would kindly contextualize the statement by Marx to which I refer.

Also, I'm not sure that anyone here, and certainly not me, ever said that Marxism doesn't include a methodology. Indeed, this is precisely what separates Marx from "God," in that one gives us a method and the other demands faith. Marx understood this, and I believe that most people here understand that.

What I don't quite get, and perhaps it's just me, is how "objective" methodology is an improvement.

vox

[TheDerminator]

Vox,

You may not see yourself as a selfist, but unless you have a practical methodology for objectively analysing the superstructure of society, all you possess is the inter-subjective critique, or intersubjective deconstructionalism, or as I would call it: destructionism!
It is all intersubjective discourse, the stuff El Che is lord and master of, as you should know by now.
Intersubjectivity, in whatever form is not objective methodology, and if the method is not a method to objectify human history; then what the hell is the purpose of the method?
The purpose, can only be to objectify human history!

You see my friend, if you study the beginning of Das Kapital, (as Gramsci points out), Marx is very specific about how he describes his method.
Not only is it the "rational dialectic", but it is the "ontological" approach, and Marx emphasises that is "ontological" several times.
There is a problem herein, in that by its own defenition, the method is only dealing with different forms of being, or to be more exact the forms of being involved in the money relationships wikthin the economic infrastracture.
It is not enough, it is not enough.
Surely, if a method really is an all-sided methodology, it should be capable of objectifying any subject, including the whole superstructure of society, including the scientific superstructure, and such a method should replace simplistic empiricism.
You see my friend, "God" and even "Freedom" are abstract ideas, as are all the determinants, that Marx used in his methodology: essence, contradiction, necessity, the unity of the opposites, and even the word dialectic is an abstract idea.
Surely, you must see the importance of these abstract ideas, and how they inter-connect to reality, and how they interconnect to methodology.
Surley, you must see that ontology has no capacity, to show the historical development of abstract ideas, and it is only through an understanding of that development, can you create an objective method, that goes beyond ontology.
The method is on my website, just simply click on The Derminator, if you are interested in a methodology, with the power to objectively analyse every single subect you care to mention, because there can be no exceptions.
You cannot argue against something, you have no knowledge about, the proof is always in the pudding!
Until you grasp, objective method, you are only giving subjective opinion, like peaccenick, like El Che, and like Marx, on the supestructure. Read his Theses on Feurbach, it ends up in what Gramsci called "praxis".
Strange thing about praxis, not so long ago, there was a US TV series called the War of the World's, very loosely based on the HG Well's story, but it was pure BORG propaganda. The "aliens" were from the Planet Praxis!
Getting my satire on science fiction yet?
Yep, the evil from Planet Praxis. You have to think about that one! You see subjective opinion is very unethical, because it cannot objectify, its own ethos.
Morality! The last refuge of some scoundrels, don't we know it! Evil versus good. Absract concepts in historical development.
What is the difference between the validation through practise of Chomsky, and the Theses on Feurbach? Nothing. It is still simplistic empiricism. Proof from experience - proof from practise. Simplistic stuff Vox. Crude subjective methodology, and not the approach of Marx to the infrastructure.
You should see the difference, and that all that is essentially subjectivism, is selfism, and that even goes for empirical science.
Ofcourse, the subjective contains the objective, but that is looking at it upside down. You begin with obejective methodology, and you analsyse the objective within the subjective upon that basis.
Everything else is essentially a subjective approach.
Now, I know the reaction is that no one can be completely objective, but you have to think of Das Kapital yet again.
You see, my friend, the content is objective, and even some of the form is essentially objective because, the form relates to the rational structure of the analysis, and also to the fact that, okay the exact text contains the subjective, but words have meaning, and Marx would have had to have used a very similar form of text to convey the same meaning.
It is impossible to separate form and content. Romeo and Juliet - Westside Story. The same essential story, but the form is vastly different.
I hope you will check out my website, the method is too large to explain in this forum. My threads are large enough as it is!
However, that is the thing with all-sidedness, it tends to be a bit exhuastive! Still, you can easily drop, the inessential, and the method explains that too.
I will do a Moskitto!
No method = intersubjectivity
Intersubjectivity = selfism.
Objective methodology = non-selfism

May the Force be with U!

Resistance is Futile!

Down with Praxis!

Down with Planet Grime Praxis!

Be afraid, be very afraid...

derminated.

[El Che]

I have to disagree, or perhaps agree to do the same. heh. Marx, wiser than thou does not dare tackle with what he knows he can not. This does not render his methodolgy subjective! You mention the first chapter of das kapital, is there anything more objective then his methodogy ,there-in, in action? I think not! He objectivly objectifies all the relations, all that is going on, in the micro-level of comodity form and transaction. Because he doesnt tackle everthing he is subjective? nae wise. You would wish perhaps, that entered in to essence of linon, into the essence of that which is material? But you dont understand that when tackling such questions all objectivity is lost. Why? because the method can not apply. Your answer to this non applyence is to disregrad the subject matter you can not sudy as non existent. This is a grave mistake, and whats more it can not be fundament on anything, because you have no ground on which to base any conclusion. Any conclusion presented with regrad to such matters, abstract concepts, is what is truly subjective. Not, I daresay, dialectic materialism. Linon exists, coat exists, no use you tackling what you can not, such an effort is futile, resistence is futile! Rather it exists, in the immediate sense, in the perception-given-to-you-by-your-senses, sense. From there you objectivly determine all which is possible and for-go that which is not, resistence is futile!

No subjectivness here, all subjectiveness there.

You say you can takle any subject, and yet, to my understanding fail to do so to this date. We could go back to the discussion on god theard, im all for it an ill stick with it even if it takes a year to go through all the points and issues raised and even if i have to read something or orther in between.

You mustn´t say you can, you must show you can, for i am certain you can not. Marx, wiser than thou doesnt tackle in places where objectiveness holds no sway. Think on it.

(Edited by El Che at 11:32 pm on Mar. 3, 2002)

[TheDerminator]

El Che,

All you see in subjective development is subjectivity, but this is an error. Within subjective development, there is a necessary form of power relationships. Marx outlined the economic relations of the different epoch, but each epoch has necessary essential political structures. There is a tribal strucuture, there various types of dynastic structures. The large slave dynasties, the small slave State dynasties within Greece, the feudal dynasties in the East, the monarchial dynasties of Europe, and finally the bourgeois epoch.
There was the transatlantic slave trade, but this was born in the feudal epoch, during the fifteenth century, and ultimately the bourgeoisie in the US saw it as a barrier to Free Trade.
Christianity, complicated things, only a little in Europe, wherein until Henry VIII, there was dual power between monarchies and the vatican.
These power structures are essential to historical development, and as the class division, within those power structures.
The essential, can always be obectified, because by its very nature, the essential is necessary to historical development.
Marx put economic determinism, before the power structures, and the Communist Manifesto, shows that he did not quantify the role of the powers structures in creating the economic conditions.
Human existence is conscious existence, and any word in your consciousness, proves your existence.
All human creation is conscious creation, except what we create in our dreams.
We created the economic sytems in our consciousness, and all we needed to possess was a functional knowledge of how they work, and that is the purpose of bourgeois economics, and bourgeois management techniques.
Abstract concepts are purely subjective?
Nope. Cause means the reason for why something happens, and the meaning of cause is an absolute for all eternity, as long as there is any language.
Your "relativism" is a poverty of thought, and a poverty of understanding. It cannot even attach an absolute to the reality of human poverty. I can attach an absolute human ethical objective value judgement, to the degredation of material poverty: A human made evil.
I much prefer, my objectivity to your mystification of human knowledge through dogmatic relativism.
You are repeating the same shit all the time, without answering any arguments.
Your own consciousness proves beyond all doubt the absoluteness of your own existence, and it is an absolute until you die, and even then, if some one records you on video, we have the definitive proof that you existed!
Your non-reality is only in your head, and all you need to do is to inflict some pain on yourself, to feel the pain inside your head, and that pain has causation outside of yourself, pain you yourself caused, and you know absolutely that you stabbed yourself in the foot or whatever.
It is ludicruous laughable shit that you cannot prove anything exists outside your head. It goes against all common-sense. It is totally fucking infantile, and when I told a large group of lay people about your position on this today, the result was laughter, because they do not know what fucking planet you are on, and neither do you!
It is an extreme position you are taking, and it is the denial of your own existence, as well as the denial of every absolute, such as evil.
You see, you cannot gloss over it. Is genocide, not absolute evil? You think not. You moved onto "abortion" to avoid the issue, because you think abortion is a greyer ethical area, but it only reflects a lack of ethos to put the right's of the phoetus, or the rights of the father, above the right's of the woman.
I thought on it a long time, and I know there are essential power relationships, and essential class divisions in each epoch, and I know these can be objectified, because they are necessitated.
Every word that in its universal form, is attached to an absolute universal meaning differentiating it from non-tautological universals. An absolute unchanging universal, and every language develops in the infrastructure on an abstract level. Maths and arithmetic stem from abstractions. No absolutes related to abstract concepts. You have absolutely no understanding of why we create abstract concepts. You have no concept of the absolute, no concept of objectivity, on subjective relativism, related to the non-reality of your own non-existent consciousness.
Sounds like you ought to be a Professor of Philosophy! Enough there to fill a few hundred books!

Resistance is Futile!

Be afraid, be very afraid...

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[TheDerminator]

History repeats itself...

(Edited by TheDerminator at 3:03 pm on Mar. 31, 2002)