Question for all anti-communists on this forum

[Spirit of Spartacus]

For the anti-communists, liberals, conservatives and others who post here regularly...

Why do you folks post here at all?

I mean, I'm not telling you guys to leave or anything, I'm just asking what your reasoning/motivation is for posting on a forum run by leftists.

Look at it this way. You guys probably think we're all a bunch of loons who're hanging on to a system which, according to you, failed when the Soviet Union collapsed.

You guys probably think we're a bunch of college kids who don't know shit about "the real world".

Oh and yeah, some of us on this forum are associated with political parties in Third World countries, which are designated as dangerous, even TERRORIST organizations.

So, my question to you anti-communists is, what really motivates you guys to come to a leftist-run forum and debate with us communists?

[Ele'ill]

So, my question to you anti-communists is, what really motivates you guys to come to a leftist-run forum and debate with us communists?

I'm not really specifically anti-communist but I will respond.

Before I was moved to 'Restricted Member' status for thinking, I had time to witness a lot of the conversations on the forum. I noticed a ton of back patting and circular jerk conversations where the same issue was agreed on about ten thousand times.

To answer a question with a question, What can a group of communists possibly discuss into infinity? Wouldn't it make more sense to actually have a discussion; a debate?
By yourselves you simply bring up counter arguments that those opposed to you are making (or aren't making in many cases) so why not actually have the real thing present. Otherwise, it's like talking to your desk; Easy enough to agree, very difficult for real meaty arguments to be brought to your attention (you know because your desk can't talk.)

*I apologize for the sarcasm and such in this post, I just drank a 20oz mug of *fair trade* coffee and I get a little wild.

[colonelguppy]

because if i posted in forums where everyone agreed with me it wouldn't be enjoyable. circle jerk forums are lame.

[Rawthentic]

In our forum debates are far more intense than here. I mean in OI all you do is rant and then we pawn you - because you're wrong and we're right, basically.

[Dr Mindbender]

I think what Spirits point is, we're set in our ways, and you're set in your ways, for whatever reason, be it our life experiences, attitudes etc and it doesnt matter how long we debate, because for us, Capitalism will always seem like a repugnant thing which does nothing but cause poverty and to you communism will always seem like an obsolete ideaology which will never accomplish anything other than a stalinist dictatorship. So what do you hope to achieve? To win us over? Perhaps it would be better for your cause to participate in non-partisan forums where you can explain to waverers why they should subscribe to the 'benefits' of free market economics.

[Publius]

Because some people enjoy disputation for disputation's sake. And some people have a scientific mindset and like to rigorously test their beliefs against opposing viewpoints.

But of course most of you are 'set in your ways', which is to say that out of the entire spectrum of human thought, you think you've managed to hit on the right answer to eternal political and social problems in the first or second try.

And you wonder why I'm a bit leery of doctrinaire Communism.

[People's Councillor]

I laugh.

First, because "doctrinaire communism" is a contradiction in terms invented by people who didn't want to think, and just accepted the "teachings" of one or two philosophers. Second, because the term was later expropriated by the bourgeoisie and other bad people to demonize the Left as a whole. Third because communism is meant to be amorphous, and those who see it as doctrinaire are deluded. Fourth, because many of those who see it as doctrinaire are its most fervent supporters.

Actually, I think I might cry.

[pusher robot]

Two main reasons.

First, because I'm curious. I seek understanding, and I admit that I find the reasoning and rationales of folks here difficult to comprehend. I question and I debate because I honestly don't know what arguments you can or will muster, and I'm curious to find out.

Second, because I dispute your premise. Not everybody is so closed-minded that they can never be persuaded to see another point of view. If my critiques and my arguments cause even a fraction of people to at least reconsider their beliefs, or explore unfamiliar areas of thought - if I can persuade even a few people that my thoughts do not make me worthy of execution - then something has been accomplished.

[IcarusAngel]

"it is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it." --Joseph Joubert.

It's good that there is some diverse opinion here, even though they are a small minority. I don't see the point of the question.

As a leftist, I'm confident enough in my beliefs to the point where I don't feel threatened when somebody else challenges them. I also like to see the destruction close-minded, authoritarian, and regressive beliefs have on the human mind. Colonelgrumpy here primarily posts on a forum where the members have nothing better to die than sit and lie to one another, for example. He's a nobody.

The real problem with right-wingers is their collective apathy, content, and support of the system; individually, they are usually worthless, even to the system them support. Their real strength has been to convince a majority of people that things are going well in the world, to not question the government or the system, to be "content in their chains" (as Rousseau put it), and to get people's minds away from real problems like third world poverty to who's gonna win American Idol or whatever.

The strength of the left, on the other hand, has been to get people to think. It's no accident that democracy, equality and freedom (leftism) are concepts that have been around for thousands of years and people still argue for them. Leftism has withstood the test of time and real leftists are still challenging tyranny of all sorts. Most real leftist movements have been accomplished by means of these.

Thus, leftists try and encourage people to think, and want debate, rightists want people not to think, and to obey, follow orders, and so on. It's like what Hitler said: 'How lucky for those in power that people don't think,' but it may as well be the CEO of Wal-Mart or Bush who said that.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by People's [email protected] 04, 2007 02:54 am
I laugh.

First, because "doctrinaire communism" is a contradiction in terms invented by people who didn't want to think, and just accepted the "teachings" of one or two philosophers. Second, because the term was later expropriated by the bourgeoisie and other bad people to demonize the Left as a whole. Third because communism is meant to be amorphous, and those who see it as doctrinaire are deluded. Fourth, because many of those who see it as doctrinaire are its most fervent supporters.

Actually, I think I might cry.
Yes. It's called "absolutism."

Of course it is true that absolutism does not exist in the social sciences. The only time it exists in the hard sciences is when a theory is so documented and demonstrated that only a fool would deny it, but even then it is only 99% certain. You can't rule out the possibility that someone might have evidence to the contrary, so if they say they do you review it or whatever. If absolutism doesn't exist in the "real" sciences, it certainly doesn't exist in the soft-sciences like politics, where there is no belief that cannot be challenged intelligently by some other belief. Leftists who are certain of their beliefs and do nothing but chat with other leftists, while not trying to spread ideas, are as useless as right-wingers.

Even though JSM was right when he said that "most stupid people are conservative" and that the conservative party is usually "The Stupid Party," nevertheless some conservatives do on occasion make well-thought out rebuttals to leftist theories as well as persuasive arguments for the status-quo and against change. Usually their arguments are about how "good" things are now and how change would just destroy them. Thus their ideas should be debated.

Doctrine anything is ridiculous, and that shows that most Marxists are irrelevant (though Marx himself is not).

But, yeah, most right-wingers are pathetic I think. On a personal level, they really refute the whole idea that "ignorance is bliss" theory. Most rightists spend their lives worrying about their religion being challenged, what's on TV, making money, and so on, but that can't be real happiness. I don't think that this is living. My philosophy is that real happiness comes from being able to think, to critically analyze, to be able to experience a wide variety of emotions and so on, and that necessarily leads to a vested interest in politics and philosophy. Philosophy and critically thinking are the equivalent of doing push-ups for the mind. And all this refutes the libertarian notion that prosperity and convenience = freedom. It's much more complicated than that.

[RGacky3]

I"m actually very glad OIers post, because you need opposing viewpoints to 1. test your own, 2. think of things from a different perspective, 3. be forced to defend your own viewpoints, 4. Before I am an Anarchist or a Communist I am a thinking man, and I try to be a reasonable one, if someone points out a flaw in my thinking that I havn't thought of then I have to seriously think about it, that has happend in the past. There is a difference however between people trying to look at things from a different perspective or trying to test viewpoints and opinions and people who have already decided the answer in their head and their only goal is to argue their point, to win.

I think a lot of the debate here is'nt honest, people are not looking for an answer they already think they have the answer and want to prove other people wrong, the problem is a lot of people on this forum are very proud headstrong people, not humble, honest and open minded.

[graffic]

I'm not anti-communist, I'm a socialist or a disilussioned Labour voter if you like..

But I came on here because the Middle East subject is interesting to debate, plus most people on the right have no clue

[Publius]

The only time it [absolutism] exists in the hard sciences is when a theory is so documented and demonstrated that only a fool would deny it

Try telling that E.O. Wilson.

[Janus]

This question has been thrown around a lot here. The general conclusion is that they really don't have anything better to do.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:31 pm
I'm not really specifically anti-communist but I will respond.

Before I was moved to 'Restricted Member' status for thinking, I had time to witness a lot of the conversations on the forum. I noticed a ton of back patting and circular jerk conversations where the same issue was agreed on about ten thousand times.

To answer a question with a question, What can a group of communists possibly discuss into infinity? Wouldn't it make more sense to actually have a discussion; a debate?
By yourselves you simply bring up counter arguments that those opposed to you are making (or aren't making in many cases) so why not actually have the real thing present. Otherwise, it's like talking to your desk; Easy enough to agree, very difficult for real meaty arguments to be brought to your attention (you know because your desk can't talk.)

*I apologize for the sarcasm and such in this post, I just drank a 20oz mug of *fair trade* coffee and I get a little wild.
I think I have been confused about your case before...and whatever happened I don't remember why exactly you were restricted.

As for your post you make a lot of sense, and I know that I and at least one other member have suggested a "devils advocate" to stimulate debate, and even have set debates, alas with little success...

It isn't really worth mentioning an element of good debate at times seen as how you qualified your post with caffeine so I won't :P

Anyway what was the reason in your case?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

"it is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it." --Joseph Joubert.

It's good that there is some diverse opinion here, even though they are a small minority. I don't see the point of the question.

As a leftist, I'm confident enough in my beliefs to the point where I don't feel threatened when somebody else challenges them.

Yes, exactly. I welcome them, (With the exception of the real lunatics, and CapitalistLawyer) because I think it's dangerous to only concern yourself with politics that back up your own view...

Sometimes I'll go out of my way to do this. I bit my tongue and bought "The Dawkins Delusion?" by Alistair Mcgrath, fully expecting it to be garbage, in order to prevent "circle jerk" atheism. It was garbage, by the way.

-Alex

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 02:43 am
Because some people enjoy disputation for disputation's sake. And some people have a scientific mindset and like to rigorously test their beliefs against opposing viewpoints.

But of course most of you are 'set in your ways', which is to say that out of the entire spectrum of human thought, you think you've managed to hit on the right answer to eternal political and social problems in the first or second try.

And you wonder why I'm a bit leery of doctrinaire Communism.
I appreciate your reasons, and I know what it is to get enjoyment out of what you have described...

One question though, Marxism is arguably the conflict theory. Of course I mean this in virtue of its critical analysis and not the fixed ideas of any of its supposed developers.

Marxism is also a minority perspective; at least in the nations from which this site derives the majority of its membership. Therefore one must consider a Marxist approach to be, in the greater sense (by which I mean in contexts outside of these forums) to be an approach of dissent, of critique and evaluation. This applies not only to some of the main "divisions" within Marxism and the left, but to just about all of them. By this I mean that it is not just internet socialism that I would claim to be a "critical approach" but Stalinism, Nazism, pretty much any of the isms that we have.

In actuallity we may have good reason for finding certain view detestable; but that we, and by we I mean the holders of the consensus view, find Nazism (as it can be assumed here at least) a negative state of affairs means that Nazism acts as a conflicting view.

The point I am not exactly racing towards, is that the conflicting view is that which is not dominant in just about every conceivable case; unless you wish to consider the dominant view as being conflicting insofar as it contradicts the minority view. For ease of illustration I shall maintain that the dominant view is what we would often term the "consensus view" and that the conflict view is afflicted with minority support.

Consequently, whilst you may find yourself in the minority most of the time with regards to the topics raised here, in the real world it is quite likely that the members here are more than likely to be the (or at least "a") voice of dissent.

I am not suggesting for a minute that you do not question "in the real world" but to think that leftists seldom venture outside of their strongholds would be extremely naive. My current halls of residence are by and large inhabitted by the privately schooled, and there is a large capitalist and/or theistic "consensus." The very nature of holding not only a minority view, but one that is actively condemned institutionally (to an extent) is that agreement is often only ever found on certain matters when you go looking for them.

A lot of the members on this board are new to a Marxist approach, even politics generally, and may not have attained the ability to entertain an idea without first accepting it almost unconditionally....this is not the case universally; but it accounts for a level of dogmatism. As a scientist however, I am sure that the existence of auxhilliary hypotheses would negate the point of rejecting an entire background of ideas because there is an aspect that needs worked upon; if you would then I would assume that that is because you would consider a modified theory entirely new, but I am not trying to debate conception of identity right now...

Kuhn thought that theories should be allowed to reach a certain level of dogmatism, it is at this stage that it can be considered strong enough to face the challenges they must face. We would never get anywhere if we dismissed everything outright. By everything I mean the entire background of ideas upon which a thoery is based, eg quantum mechanics being wrong does not negate the atom.

So providing that these members can resolve their beliefs and questions with a Marxist approach more readily than they can with other approaches it makes sense for them to maintain it as a position.

Returning to the membership base; many younger members are still in effect, geographically imobile in a real sense. By this I mean that constraints of society and family etc limit the amount of places where one can seek consensus on issues. This board is good as a resource to acquaint members with several Marxist approaches, anti-Marxist approaches are nothing special...most members experience nothing but, and that is why this board exists...general forums are everywhere. On a forum with a restricted membership what else would you expect but a level of agreement. I would not suggest anyone should adopt an approach until they have studied and considered the criticisms; in relation to the younger members here, would you actually assert "scientifically" that they should only read criticisms and dismissals?

Essentially we are all providing a critical approach on matters when we disagree with the majority, but the majority is contextual. I don't know how long members spend with people with whom they agree with politically, but I bet many spend less time doing that than they do with those with whom they disagree. How about you? (Not a stab at you, just a general question)


What about the religion forum? You have common ground with many Marxists there...so in the contexts of this board even you are of the majority view at times.

I will stop now as I fear I am losing my high and I feel that I have become somewhat disjointed with my response, but I anticipate yours eagerly...

Just as an added twist I won't mention what is genuine argument and what was merely proposed to see if I can presuppose your response. In effect I am bring some thinking outside of the box shit to OI, incase you don't disagree with me at least I can!

[Ele'ill]

Anyway what was the reason in your case?

The reason for being restricted? I am not sure. I enjoy discussing ideas with people who think like me but I also enjoy challenging them with alternatives to see how they react.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:34 pm

Anyway what was the reason in your case?

The reason for being restricted? I am not sure. I enjoy discussing ideas with people who think like me but I also enjoy challenging them with alternatives to see how they react.
It is always worth clarifying when you are simply challenging an idea and when you represent your own approach..then again I don;t know the ins and outs of this.

[Publius]

One question though, Marxism is arguably the conflict theory.

It's a conflict theory.

Social Darwinism is also a conflict theory, I would imagine.


Of course I mean this in virtue of its critical analysis and not the fixed ideas of any of its supposed developers.

There are a lot of conflict theories, I believe.



Marxism is also a minority perspective; at least in the nations from which this site derives the majority of its membership. Therefore one must consider a Marxist approach to be, in the greater sense (by which I mean in contexts outside of these forums) to be an approach of dissent, of critique and evaluation.

Yes, but don't fall for the trap of equating Marxism with dissent, with critique, and with evaluation.

I feel that many of your comrades make this error.


This applies not only to some of the main "divisions" within Marxism and the left, but to just about all of them. By this I mean that it is not just internet socialism that I would claim to be a "critical approach" but Stalinism, Nazism, pretty much any of the isms that we have.

As you absolutely must.



In actuallity we may have good reason for finding certain view detestable; but that we, and by we I mean the holders of the consensus view, find Nazism (as it can be assumed here at least) a negative state of affairs means that Nazism acts as a conflicting view.

Well, Nazism is a conficting view for me too.

I'm sure we all have good enough reasons for opposing Nazism.



The point I am not exactly racing towards, is that the conflicting view is that which is not dominant in just about every conceivable case; unless you wish to consider the dominant view as being conflicting insofar as it contradicts the minority view. For ease of illustration I shall maintain that the dominant view is what we would often term the "consensus view" and that the conflict view is afflicted with minority support.

Consequently, whilst you may find yourself in the minority most of the time with regards to the topics raised here, in the real world it is quite likely that the members here are more than likely to be the (or at least "a") voice of dissent.

I consider myself a voice of dissent as well, and I struggle to see why your claims should be given primacy over mine.

Because you purport to inherit a legacy of Anarchist bombings and Communist revolutions?

I think I'm coming off a bit strong there, but you see my point, I believe.



I am not suggesting for a minute that you do not question "in the real world" but to think that leftists seldom venture outside of their strongholds would be extremely naive.

I don't think you'll find to many Marxists who seriously doubt the LTV, just as you won't find many Christians who seriously doubt the Virgin birth.

There's introspection and then there's identity, if you get what I'm saying.

And this isn't to make a facile comparison to religion, merely to point out that different people accept different axioms.



My current halls of residence are by and large inhabitted by the privately schooled, and there is a large capitalist and/or theistic "consensus."

Well, probably, but then probably most of the people who hold that 'consensus' viewpoint don't know a thing about it.

Most 'capitalists' can't explain capitalism just like most 'Christians' dont know shit about Christianity. Hell, I think I saw a statistic where like 50% of Christians thought Jesus sinned.

In what sense can that person meaningfully be considered 'part of the consensus'?



The very nature of holding not only a minority view, but one that is actively condemned institutionally (to an extent) is that agreement is often only ever found on certain matters when you go looking for them.

A lot of the members on this board are new to a Marxist approach, even politics generally, and may not have attained the ability to entertain an idea without first accepting it almost unconditionally....this is not the case universally; but it accounts for a level of dogmatism.

Which is why I think it should be most important to be a skeptic first and then a Marxist or a capitalist or whatever second.


As a scientist however, I am sure that the existence of auxhilliary hypotheses would negate the point of rejecting an entire background of ideas because there is an aspect that needs worked upon; if you would then I would assume that that is because you would consider a modified theory entirely new, but I am not trying to debate conception of identity right now...

But at some point ideas must simply be tossed aside as faulty, for the good of all.

Pride should have no place in rational discourse.



Kuhn thought that theories should be allowed to reach a certain level of dogmatism, it is at this stage that it can be considered strong enough to face the challenges they must face. We would never get anywhere if we dismissed everything outright. By everything I mean the entire background of ideas upon which a thoery is based, eg quantum mechanics being wrong does not negate the atom.

Quite right, but the reasons for believing in quantum mechanics are obvious and demonstrable, emintently testable.

The reasons for taking up a particular poltical ideology less so.

We wouldn't get anywhere if we dismissed everything outright, that's true, but we do need to realize that we are quite possibly very wrong on most political and social matters. It's an interesting dichotomy (cognitivie dissonance, even), but it's necessary.



So providing that these members can resolve their beliefs and questions with a Marxist approach more readily than they can with other approaches it makes sense for them to maintain it as a position.

Why not utilize a scientific approach and then apply Marxist approaches if and when they are applicable?

There's certainly a lot to be gained by interpreting history via class. But I can't for a second imagine that the only salient tale history tells is that of classes and the material conditions that create them. Can you?



Returning to the membership base; many younger members are still in effect, geographically imobile in a real sense. By this I mean that constraints of society and family etc limit the amount of places where one can seek consensus on issues.

The world is at fault, to quote Thomas Pynchon.



This board is good as a resource to acquaint members with several Marxist approaches, anti-Marxist approaches are nothing special...most members experience nothing but, and that is why this board exists...general forums are everywhere.

"Communism won't work because of the Soviet Union" is 'opposition' only in the sense that a brick wall is 'opposition' to a person ramming his or her head into it.

Taking a dogmatic approach to reasoned critique, however, can serve no purpose.



On a forum with a restricted membership what else would you expect but a level of agreement.

Which makes you wonder about the policy to begin with...


I would not suggest anyone should adopt an approach until they have studied and considered the criticisms; in relation to the younger members here, would you actually assert "scientifically" that they should only read criticisms and dismissals?

No. But it might be useful.

It could be said, rightfully, that reading critiques before you have a sufficient understanding of the material is counter-productive. A marginal critique can best poor understanding any day. But you have balance that against the fear of becoming insular. See, I even watched some guy blather on C-SPAN 'In Defense of the Bush Doctrine.' Heritage Foundation, no less. And while I can't say I agree with him, I was proud that I was able to evince his arguments in real time. This is useful.

And really, what IF we're all wrong about the war in Iraq? Doubtful, of course, but still an option. Luckily I have no problem combating nearly every argument put forth by the pro-war crowd, and I don't say this haughtily. It's just simple fact. I've heard them before.



Essentially we are all providing a critical approach on matters when we disagree with the majority, but the majority is contextual. I don't know how long members spend with people with whom they agree with politically, but I bet many spend less time doing that than they do with those with whom they disagree. How about you? (Not a stab at you, just a general question)

I don't know of anyone that I personally know who thinks as I do. I can say with some certainty that I don't hang around with atheists all day long.



What about the religion forum? You have common ground with many Marxists there...so in the contexts of this board even you are of the majority view at times.

I post at TheologyWeb too, though usually in the Apologetics forum.



I will stop now as I fear I am losing my high and I feel that I have become somewhat disjointed with my response, but I anticipate yours eagerly...

As everyone must.



Just as an added twist I won't mention what is genuine argument and what was merely proposed to see if I can presuppose your response. In effect I am bring some thinking outside of the box shit to OI, incase you don't disagree with me at least I can!

I don't think we disagree too much, but again, disputation for disputation's sake.

Also, I like to write. I think myself quite elegant. And I write well.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:20 am
It's a conflict theory.

Social Darwinism is also a conflict theory, I would imagine.



That is why I accepted Nazism, etc as conflicting, and tried to further qualify my remark.


There are a lot of conflict theories, I believe.

Yes, but by "Marxism" here I am being particuarly vague. In politics, sociology, economics etc Marxism is one of the major ones...the influence is undoubted, a Marxist class analysis has permeated many areas of society, and has had an undoubted influence.


Yes, but don't fall for the trap of equating Marxism with dissent, with critique, and with evaluation.

I feel that many of your comrades make this error.

I don't necessarily equate the two; I am sure you would not equate to thinkers who reached similar conclusions without first comparing their approach and reasoning. However as I went on to say (and will subsequently support...further down) any conflict theory can offer dissen, critique and evaluation...

In the case of Marxism, any real application of it, insofar as it opposes the maintained status quo, will be a dissenting approach. You may argue that the critique is not always there, that Marxism offers another dogma against which we can make a "side by side" but no real comparison, but I disagree.

Question; can we evaluate in "general" terms, or must it always be in virtue of something else?


As you absolutely must.

Then we are on similar wavelengths...and you have possibly presupposed where I am taking this.


Well, Nazism is a conficting view for me too.

I'm sure we all have good enough reasons for opposing Nazism.

We have a good reason for opposing it; we are effectively refuting this theory every moment we live in a favourable state of existence. Yes I realise the problems with this statement, but semantics aside, I think you would agree here.


I consider myself a voice of dissent as well, and I struggle to see why your claims should be given primacy over mine.

Who said it should? Marxism requires opposing ideologies, without any we don't exactly have Marxism...if these opposing ideologies do not consist of stickicking fingers in one's ears a repeating "god and government love me" then there is a good chance that they can, at least potentially, lead to resolving some of the issues that talking amongst yourself cannot.


Because you purport to inherit a legacy of Anarchist bombings and Communist revolutions?

I think I'm coming off a bit strong there, but you see my point, I believe.

I do indeed, but the point you are making is not universal. It relates o a portion of the membership perhaps, and as I have stated I will try and further justify that further down.


I don't think you'll find to many Marxists who seriously doubt the LTV, just as you won't find many Christians who seriously doubt the Virgin birth.

There's introspection and then there's identity, if you get what I'm saying.

And this isn't to make a facile comparison to religion, merely to point out that different people accept different axioms.

This actually makes it easier to move on to a point I wanted to make, yes I see what you are saying.


Well, probably, but then probably most of the people who hold that 'consensus' viewpoint don't know a thing about it.

Most 'capitalists' can't explain capitalism just like most 'Christians' dont know shit about Christianity. Hell, I think I saw a statistic where like 50% of Christians thought Jesus sinned.

In what sense can that person meaningfully be considered 'part of the consensus'?

Most the people do not, in fact I found out recently that a group had declared themselves "tier one" :lol: In fact a number of the girls in it are at risk of being booted because they love hanging round with my all guy block...we are more "ghetto" :P

However, that aside, there are a great deal of people who actually study politics and theology and maintain the status quo. People who actually believe in the true maintanence of an elite. By elite I don't necessarily mean the strong or intelligent, but more often those of a certain wealthy background.

I don't however think that introspection is required; as you said above there are certain things that are assumed within a particular viewpoint. Religion is an interesting case in point: the very nature of religion is that it is based not on the fallible reasoning of man, but on faith in a pure god. Therefore being a critical theist would make you less meaningfully part of the religious consensus.

Marxism is at least supposed to be a critical approach. Therefore a dogmatic Marxist would be like the questioning theist...not meaningfully part of the group. You dismiss most capitalists and theists? I do too, I also dismiss many Marxists, Marx dismissed Marxists. I can see this perhaps coming down to a question about identity...in which case I consider myself an autonomous individual.


Which is why I think it should be most important to be a skeptic first and then a Marxist or a capitalist or whatever second.

I am talking about members that have not developed the ability to entertain, in any real sense, an idea prior to adopting it. Whilst not ideal, some members will never be able to build up an understanding of x whilst x can still be considered true or false..at least during their time here. Intellectual empathy is an useful ability, but I am afraid it is not inate, and many users of this forum are in the earlier stages of their development.


But at some point ideas must simply be tossed aside as faulty, for the good of all.

Pride should have no place in rational discourse.

I agree 100% This "point" needs to be established through rational discourse itself...I think we would agree that big religion should be tossed aside now. As for Marxism, it is obvious that ceratin people do not feel that they have reached a point of no return...some may be clinging on to an identity, but many come to the conclusion as a result of reasoned debate. I am sure you have issues with Marxism, and would always be willing to respond to the best of my ability, but I have had issues with other political theories...and I seldom get satisfactory answers if any at all, hence my justrified position on the left.


Quite right, but the reasons for believing in quantum mechanics are obvious and demonstrable, emintently testable.

The reasons for taking up a particular poltical ideology less so.

I was supposing that all of quantum mechanics is wrong....if this is the case we do not forget other assumptions such as the existence of the atom. Likewise, just because the Washington consensus failed, does not mean that there should not be investment in the developing world. When something goes wrong it is essential to establish exactly which piece went wrong, and then to establish whether or not it is essential to the overall theory. If the world were to end if we abolished hierarchy (even over time) then Marxism would be flawed beyond the point whereby it could be salvaged...other criticisms are not so fatal as it can not be considered a fixed doctrine in almost any case.


We wouldn't get anywhere if we dismissed everything outright, that's true, but we do need to realize that we are quite possibly very wrong on most political and social matters. It's an interesting dichotomy (cognitivie dissonance, even), but it's necessary.

I don't accept that we are right on anything...if we are then we have missed the point. To leftists questioning this I am sure I have qualified this in the philosophy forum at some point, or I am willing to, but I think Publius may understand what I mean by this.


Why not utilize a scientific approach and then apply Marxist approaches if and when they are applicable?

The same criticisms that can be made of a Marxist approach can be made of a scientific approach also.


There's certainly a lot to be gained by interpreting history via class. But I can't for a second imagine that the only salient tale history tells is that of classes and the material conditions that create them. Can you?

Can and have. I think that a class orientated paradigm makes more sense when explaining social conflict than the others I have come across. I will reject it if you can suppose a superior one?


The world is at fault, to quote Thomas Pynchon.
Yes, and the board itself should not take the blame for this.


"Communism won't work because of the Soviet Union" is 'opposition' only in the sense that a brick wall is 'opposition' to a person ramming his or her head into it.

Taking a dogmatic approach to reasoned critique, however, can serve no purpose.

I said I would return to the role of dogmatisism in evaluation so here goes...if incommensurabilty is indeed in existence, and I will only go to lengths to support this shuould you wish to dismiss it, then essentially there can be no objective appraisal. Our observations themselves are theory laden, and therefore comparison becomes very difficult.

If a dogmatic representation of a theory is the best (in terms of strongest and not merely serving an ulterior motive), then that is ok. Not all theories are, in essence, to be considered dynamic; some however are. So just as I challenge materialist objections to solipsism (not because I disagree but because it is fun) in terms of the inability of an incommensurable theory to refute another, I would suggest it here. Refutation requires specific propositional claims, and of those there are only a few upon which Marxists agree...the rest is a mixture of conjecture, but not as an end in itself, rather as part of the development of the "grand narrative" element of Marxism.


Which makes you wonder about the policy to begin with...

if I was around then I was new to the board, and either way it has been so long now that I hardly remember what it was like back then...but it is quite simple. If all the learning about Marxism etc on behalf of the members here is limitted to this site then I would be surprised. Come across a criticism of Marxism is not hard, whilst people develop their identities it helps if they have at least on escape in which they can develop their ideas...

Think about it, peer groups are anti Marxist (quite often), the institution is anti-Marxist, most forms of media...even most forums (stormfront being way bigger). It makes sense to have at least one place to come and discuss issues specifically, I can tell you now that it is often hard to get into deeper debates on general forums where there are a lot of people making a lot of incorrect assumptions shouting you down all at once. Some of my favourite arguments here have been against Catholics, Thatcherites, creationists etc...but that is face to face and not over the internet; as I am sure you are aware the internet can be a little limitted for real discussion.

So this forum exists because of the nature of the views which are upheld by the majority of the membership but not the greater world, and because by doing so it is being unique. I don't see the problem...Anarchist, Leninists, whateverists can argue of various conceptions of the DoP or whatever, but more general questions regarding Marxism as a whole should be limitted to one forum. I used to use this forum a lot, but I did get tired of its nature after a while as most people do, it has the potential to be more than it is, and I hope that chages.

Even on a Christianity board this setup makes sense..."why should I believe" and other criticisms should be held in one forum, otherwise (with the way the internet works) the forum would largely becom about general questions.

When it comes to technical details one should listen to criticism, but this should be reasonable....for example a biologist trying to explain why the eye developed seperately in different species does not need to hear "god did it" a thousand times, specific criticism here is what is needed. Then if biology as a whole can not stand up to the criticisms that is when more general alternatives should be supposed.


No. But it might be useful.

It could be said, rightfully, that reading critiques before you have a sufficient understanding of the material is counter-productive. A marginal critique can best poor understanding any day. But you have balance that against the fear of becoming insular. See, I even watched some guy blather on C-SPAN 'In Defense of the Bush Doctrine.' Heritage Foundation, no less. And while I can't say I agree with him, I was proud that I was able to evince his arguments in real time. This is useful.

Many members here had read animal farm and/or 1984 in school. I was allowed more freedom doing 1984 at college, but when I was 10 and learning about Animal Farm it was explained to me to be the case closed on communism. That was my introduction to and dismissal of an entire political theory.

I adore Camus, so I read Zola...I read the Wealth of Nations before I started any serious reading of Marx (well the first few books)...on all recommended reading lists I have suggested right-wing texts, I see where you are coming from with a lot of what you are saying; you cannot however extend what you say to only reading criticisms....it is only balanced to hear the arguments in favour from a source that believes them.


And really, what IF we're all wrong about the war in Iraq? Doubtful, of course, but still an option. Luckily I have no problem combating nearly every argument put forth by the pro-war crowd, and I don't say this haughtily. It's just simple fact. I've heard them before.

I can't conceive how you could be wrong or right about it as such, both claims are either morally loaded, or would need so much qualification that any instinctive interpretation of these would almost certainly lead to one being very confused...but if we are wrong then we are wrong, lets see it..the pro war crowd are like the religious lot; steeped in dogma. We can refute anything in terms of reason, but that is not the way in which they view the world, the dogma is seen as being superior in many ways, and arguments against it are taken prima facie to be untrustworthy.


I don't know of anyone that I personally know who thinks as I do. I can say with some certainty that I don't hang around with atheists all day long.

I don't know of anyone personally who spends there time only with the like minded....in fact in matters that are of concern to most people I think there is only a certain sheltered portion of society that spends its time solely in conensus. This does not just apply to politics (party support means nothing to the apolitical) but can also apply to football, methodological approaches, lifestyle choices....


I post at TheologyWeb too, though usually in the Apologetics forum.

I might have to check it out...my religious arguments are now officially the shit ;)


As everyone must.

Lose their high, become disjointed, or anticipate your response? Perhaps a combination....also no one picked up on the link between becoming disjointed and losing my high....I don't know why I bother :rolleyes:


I don't think we disagree too much, but again, disputation for disputation's sake.

Also, I like to write. I think myself quite elegant. And I write well.

I find that there are in essentially only ever a few true stickining points between sceptical and questioning minds, but yes disputation is valuable.

I also like to write, I consider myself a bit of a pretentious prick, and I write accordingly :P

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:51 pm




Yes, but by "Marxism" here I am being particuarly vague. In politics, sociology, economics etc Marxism is one of the major ones...the influence is undoubted, a Marxist class analysis has permeated many areas of society, and has had an undoubted influence.


One of them. But it's by no means predominant in sociology or economics.

Most sociologists, for example, nowadays take an eclectic approach. They use Marxism, but they aren't Marxists.

Even Hitchens says Marxist historical analysis has never been bested. But he's not a Marxist anymore.



I don't necessarily equate the two; I am sure you would not equate to thinkers who reached similar conclusions without first comparing their approach and reasoning. However as I went on to say (and will subsequently support...further down) any conflict theory can offer dissen, critique and evaluation...

In the case of Marxism, any real application of it, insofar as it opposes the maintained status quo, will be a dissenting approach. You may argue that the critique is not always there, that Marxism offers another dogma against which we can make a "side by side" but no real comparison, but I disagree.

Question; can we evaluate in "general" terms, or must it always be in virtue of something else?


I'm not sure I fully grasp your question, but I think in order to evaluate you must evaluate specifics. To evaluate is to evaluate something. Generality, not so much.



We have a good reason for opposing it; we are effectively refuting this theory every moment we live in a favourable state of existence. Yes I realise the problems with this statement, but semantics aside, I think you would agree here.

Yes.



Who said it should? Marxism requires opposing ideologies, without any we don't exactly have Marxism

So Marxism is its own negation?


...if these opposing ideologies do not consist of stickicking fingers in one's ears a repeating "god and government love me" then there is a good chance that they can, at least potentially, lead to resolving some of the issues that talking amongst yourself cannot.

Yes, well, look around.



However, that aside, there are a great deal of people who actually study politics and theology and maintain the status quo. People who actually believe in the true maintanence of an elite. By elite I don't necessarily mean the strong or intelligent, but more often those of a certain wealthy background.

There are always the sycophants. But I feel no pressure from them or their ideology because it's discredited in my mind and I can demonstrate why.



I don't however think that introspection is required; as you said above there are certain things that are assumed within a particular viewpoint. Religion is an interesting case in point: the very nature of religion is that it is based not on the fallible reasoning of man, but on faith in a pure god. Therefore being a critical theist would make you less meaningfully part of the religious consensus.

And that, my friend, is why we must, if we want to be rational, dispense with religion entirely.

Not God, perhaps, but religion, certainly.



Marxism is at least supposed to be a critical approach. Therefore a dogmatic Marxist would be like the questioning theist...not meaningfully part of the group. You dismiss most capitalists and theists? I do too, I also dismiss many Marxists, Marx dismissed Marxists. I can see this perhaps coming down to a question about identity...in which case I consider myself an autonomous individual.

You're just a product of your class conditions, right?

What does personal autonomy have to do with it, I ask.



I am talking about members that have not developed the ability to entertain, in any real sense, an idea prior to adopting it.

Well, if they can't do that they can't do much of anything other than parrot someone else's view, and if that's all they're doing it doesn't really matter what line they're parroting.


Whilst not ideal, some members will never be able to build up an understanding of x whilst x can still be considered true or false..at least during their time here. Intellectual empathy is an useful ability, but I am afraid it is not inate, and many users of this forum are in the earlier stages of their development.


Intellectual empathy is the only thing that can prevent the excesses of previous revolutions, French or Communist or whatever.

A clear division needs to be made here: some ideologies, some ideas are closed. Fascism, for example, permits no dissent. It's power. Liberalism, on the other hand, is open. It tolerates criticism and even, sadly, often tolerates fascists who wish to dispense of it.

Which side of the fence does Marxism come down on? How often do you hear of Marxists talking about who they'd have to kill in the revolution? Call it realism if you want, but there's nothing realistic about it. It's all play acting. But that doesn't mean there isn't a serious overtone.

A lot of Marxists would separate me from my ability to think, and they accept this as part of their identity.



I agree 100% This "point" needs to be established through rational discourse itself...I think we would agree that big religion should be tossed aside now.

It should be, yes, but there are certain reasons why it can't be, and those are important too.


As for Marxism, it is obvious that ceratin people do not feel that they have reached a point of no return...some may be clinging on to an identity, but many come to the conclusion as a result of reasoned debate. I am sure you have issues with Marxism, and would always be willing to respond to the best of my ability, but I have had issues with other political theories...and I seldom get satisfactory answers if any at all, hence my justrified position on the left.

Well, most, if not all, political theories are wrong. They're created by individuals at a specific time and place and to extend them too far beyond that time can be problematic.

Is Marxism still applicable?



The same criticisms that can be made of a Marxist approach can be made of a scientific approach also.


Oh, I very much doubt that.

When have you ever had a problem with a person being too scientific? Too rational? Too fair-minded?

Science has its problems, but I think they are very different than the problems Marxism faces.



Can and have. I think that a class orientated paradigm makes more sense when explaining social conflict than the others I have come across. I will reject it if you can suppose a superior one?

Race is useful in circumstances. Sometimes you have to examine social conflicts on racial lines, and no, racial divisions are not all class created.

Sex is important, family is important. I could go on.



I said I would return to the role of dogmatisism in evaluation so here goes...if incommensurabilty is indeed in existence, and I will only go to lengths to support this shuould you wish to dismiss it, then essentially there can be no objective appraisal. Our observations themselves are theory laden, and therefore comparison becomes very difficult.

We see through the lens of our selves.

I think I'm quoting because I'm not that eloquent...



If a dogmatic representation of a theory is the best (in terms of strongest and not merely serving an ulterior motive), then that is ok.

Well, then 'dogmatic fascism' is 'better' than 'teetering fascism'.


Not all theories are, in essence, to be considered dynamic; some however are. So just as I challenge materialist objections to solipsism (not because I disagree but because it is fun) in terms of the inability of an incommensurable theory to refute another, I would suggest it here. Refutation requires specific propositional claims, and of those there are only a few upon which Marxists agree...the rest is a mixture of conjecture, but not as an end in itself, rather as part of the development of the "grand narrative" element of Marxism.

Solipsism is self-refuting, as Bertrand Russell so wittily pointed out. He received a letter from a woman, a logician who lamented that she thought she was the 'only solipsist in her profession.'



When it comes to technical details one should listen to criticism, but this should be reasonable....for example a biologist trying to explain why the eye developed seperately in different species does not need to hear "god did it" a thousand times, specific criticism here is what is needed. Then if biology as a whole can not stand up to the criticisms that is when more general alternatives should be supposed.


That's very true. But then issue isn't criticism, it's poor criticism. That's the point you've made.



I can't conceive how you could be wrong or right about it as such, both claims are either morally loaded,

Well then, argue through morality. Use the common morality of the right in order to defeat the war they so support.

Hoist them by their own petard.


or would need so much qualification that any instinctive interpretation of these would almost certainly lead to one being very confused...but if we are wrong then we are wrong, lets see it..the pro war crowd are like the religious lot; steeped in dogma. We can refute anything in terms of reason, but that is not the way in which they view the world, the dogma is seen as being superior in many ways, and arguments against it are taken prima facie to be untrustworthy.

Well, that's true. Many of their ideas aren't even wrong, they are just incoherent.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 03:17 pm
One of them. But it's by no means predominant in sociology or economics.

Most sociologists, for example, nowadays take an eclectic approach. They use Marxism, but they aren't Marxists.

Even Hitchens says Marxist historical analysis has never been bested. But he's not a Marxist anymore.


I said earlier in terms of its analysis...I never said that only self proclaimed Marxists utilise it, such a claim would be nonsense to anyone that has read any sociology or politics. Appologies for any clarity issues.

Just a side note, this analysis is actually being modified or done away with in part by ceratin Marxists nowadays...so even on of the (if not the) great successes of Marxism do not guarantee any idea a place in the contemporary view..


I'm not sure I fully grasp your question, but I think in order to evaluate you must evaluate specifics. To evaluate is to evaluate something. Generality, not so much.

You did grasp it, I was just interested to see what your opinion was because it is significant in how I should develop my post...I will come to this again when I talk about science and solipsism..


So Marxism is its own negation?

I don't know, is liberty? It is not so much that Marxism can negate itself, but that it exists as a conflict theory...much of it would not make sense in the world wish it seeks to establish. One point that I think "Marx" was wrong on however was a utopia at the end where things stayed fixed forever.....sounds like stagnation to me, and that is not good. I won't claim to be representative of Marxism, because I think anyone that would would be a poor representation. Are you familiar with JS Mill? If so I can describe what I mean in those terms far easier..


Yes, well, look around.

I forget whether this is about the board or the world at large. I know that I have personally benifitted from debating with people from all over the political spectrum, I don't take a romantic approach to things; if I reconcile it sufficiently enough to please myself then I take that as a sign I might be onto something....I am not at all an accepting person.


There are always the sycophants. But I feel no pressure from them or their ideology because it's discredited in my mind and I can demonstrate why.

Intellectually..no challenge, economically and socially they are problematic (more so for me perhaps than you). Simply refuting these social parasites does not cure them.


And that, my friend, is why we must, if we want to be rational, dispense with religion entirely.

Not God, perhaps, but religion, certainly.

It is as if I am listening to myself...I used to be considered soft line with regard to religion by most because I couldn't see a causal link between belief and reactionary behaviour (even in a non-realist sense). Any conception of spirituality if it is to exist should be entirely private. Yeah, smash the church though.


You're just a product of your class conditions, right?

What does personal autonomy have to do with it, I ask.

Again I am not representative, but no I consider myself to be that which I have established through my actions and reactions to the human condition in which I found myself at birth. Class conditions have a role in replicating, and act as a massive influence, but they are not the be all and end all as far as I am concerned.

I am personally autonomous, it is from this consideration that I can begin most of the subsequent ones which comprise my world view.


Well, if they can't do that they can't do much of anything other than parrot someone else's view, and if that's all they're doing it doesn't really matter what line they're parroting.

This is how many people first learn. We learn language by parrotting, the meaning slips in later. We learn social behavior by mimicking actions of those around us. Mathematics...do you think people should evaluate it first, or get the jist of the basic functions first by repeating what someone else has discovered? Once you have read around politics, philosophy etc.. you get to the point whereby you can respond to pretty much anything. When it is all very new and only small parts apply to you at all then it is a different matter.

I feel I could respond philosophically at least (is more my forte) to just about any stimulus...but whilst I always tried to look at things critically, even from the onset, I know that my evaluation of perceptual theories (for example) was nothing until I had learnt how to parrot the main schools of thought, it was at this point that I knew enough to evaluate effectively. Evaluation alone is not enough, and that is saying something coming from me because I am often nothing but..

But yes there is no point to mere parroting, unless it serves to cement ideas that are later to be evaluated. Saying that, this was largely referring to certain younger members...It takes most of us up until approaching our teens before we really start evaluating the state, education, family etc for the first time. It is a little unreasonable that the status quo is given th formative years of a persons life to cement itself before being scrutinised, yet an opposing theory is only to be given seconds? Of course we get better and develop intellectual empathy, and well as power of presupposition.


Intellectual empathy is the only thing that can prevent the excesses of previous revolutions, French or Communist or whatever.

Yes, and that is something I would agree with.


A clear division needs to be made here: some ideologies, some ideas are closed. Fascism, for example, permits no dissent. It's power. Liberalism, on the other hand, is open. It tolerates criticism and even, sadly, often tolerates fascists who wish to dispense of it.

Which side of the fence does Marxism come down on? How often do you hear of Marxists talking about who they'd have to kill in the revolution? Call it realism if you want, but there's nothing realistic about it. It's all play acting. But that doesn't mean there isn't a serious overtone.

Marxism cannot be considered on either side really...well I suppose it can, but it is not fixed at a point in time so its position will change. Communism is obviously on the open side, but it is seen as only being viable after a transition from the current state of existence. It is this transition that I guess you take issue with, and in the instances where you perceive people to merely be repeating dogma this is wholly justified. Everyone here has their own conceptions of revolution, I know that I have mine (although it may well differ wildly from that of others), but that there is disagreement is healthy. If anyone crops up with a "right answer" without regard for others then they should be shot down.

For me the DoP should be in the hands of a squabling proletariat in its entirety over and above an organised vanguard anyday. There is one way people learn to do something, and that is by doing it. I don't think we need a state, I certainly don't consider there existing a just state, and I think that this can only work with co-operation over competition (naturally we are both benevolent and selfish...indeed co-operation often serves selfish ends so no conflict here). Just before anyone jumps at me, I can explain this further if needs must, but I am just trying to reach a level of agreement for now.

As for the play acting, well perhaps in some cases, but I think that you are selling Marxism way way short if you think it stops here. As for "who must die" as far as I am concerned no one. The proletariat should carry on taking legitimate control over an unjust state...conflict will only be in self defence when people get in the way. That is to say Camp X Ray would be emptied peacefully, unless some guard who claims authority despite having no mandate tries to stop this from happening, then everything is conducted in self defence. Most criticisms of revolution begin from the perspective that revolution is wrong and the established order is just.


A lot of Marxists would separate me from my ability to think, and they accept this as part of their identity.

A lot of X do Y and claim it as part of what it is that makes them X. Unless this claim necessitates that X=Y then I don't see the relevance..perhaps you could elaborate on this as I am not sure what you are getting at exactly/


It should be, yes, but there are certain reasons why it can't be, and those are important too.

Those reasons can be overcome...this is a side issue however and a rather complicated one at that, I think we already see eye to eye on religion.


Well, most, if not all, political theories are wrong. They're created by individuals at a specific time and place and to extend them too far beyond that time can be problematic.

Is Marxism still applicable?

You said yourself the analysis is. As for aspects of it, no in my opinion. For much of it I would say yes however. It would be foolish to read a text without regard for the constraints of the time. One can argue quite confidently about how one supposes philosophers would respond to contemporary stimulus in virtue of what they wrote at the time. One just has to look at Marx's own life and then at his ideas to see that there was already a gap.

Because someone had bad ideas does that mean that they had none that were good? Newton the accomplished physicist and the failed alchemist for example.

I don't care for labels much to be honest, and I would consider my self more Marxist than I would any of the other major schools of thought, I also accept some of the major claims...in practice though everything is assessed on its own merit.

As for being applicable in a general world sense; well after rapid liberalisation failed to generate growth in certain developing countries, and with the developed world looking like it will try and maintain itself I do think that the command economy is valid.


Oh, I very much doubt that.

When have you ever had a problem with a person being too scientific? Too rational? Too fair-minded?

Science has its problems, but I think they are very different than the problems Marxism faces.

The problem arises primarily because they consider themselves scientific, rational and fair minded...I admit I am not the greatest scientist but I have read a fair amount on the development of its method and the problems with the claims it makes. Not everyone that sees themselves as scientific has spent much time analysing science. So whilst superior to dogma, it can potentially become very dogmatic itself.

The main problem with science alone is the theory ladenness of the observations involved. Phenomenologists have come up with crazy and crappy sollutions, but essentially science it is not perfect.

Another thing...the failing of science is the failing of the scientist...the failing of the Marxist is the failing of Marxism, why are these considered so differently? (Didn't plan that but came out kind of cool)


Race is useful in circumstances. Sometimes you have to examine social conflicts on racial lines, and no, racial divisions are not all class created.

Sex is important, family is important. I could go on.

Of course others are required, but using a racial, family, gender, sex, religious (etc etc) paradigm on the grandest scale is not as successful as using a class one. When you are looking at specifics another model is going to make more sense.

I see problems with the race paradigm, because it supposes race. Its only application is therfore in dealing with issues resulting from perceived race. In other words it is only actually valid to assess the imaginary divides that were put in place by the invention of race. There are also a lot of links between class and the other paradigms...the race one for example. In this case there is a link between the two, but the class analysis better explains the race divide overall than the race divide explains a class divide. Of course I am not saying that I am stuck in my ways here, I would use any analysis I thought useful, I just find that the lowest common denominator is most often class.


Well, then 'dogmatic fascism' is 'better' than 'teetering fascism'.

At representing the itself, and at providing evaluation of for anti fascist approaches? Yes. Teetering theories are already evaluated in some way (in most cases) where as a well developed dogmatic theories offer a strong contrast to other theories.


Solipsism is self-refuting, as Bertrand Russell so wittily pointed out. He received a letter from a woman, a logician who lamented that she thought she was the 'only solipsist in her profession.'

Everyone knows solipsism is self refuting, but as I have tried to point out before the standard refutation is not actually applicable. In fact it is very hard to truly get to grips with solipsism in any real sense (at least in my experiece), but I will not go through the whole rigmarole of trying to "justify" (in the eyes of others) a position which I do in effect reject. The basic argument is that because solipsism is a denial of truth, it makes no sense to propose whether or not it is true or not. In suggesting solipsism one cannot make a truth claim (this much is true) without refuting it. Imagine however you come across someone with no conception of truth, statements they make would not be propositional....essentially this can be extended but the problem is that this view cannot be assessed in terms of one that requires truth, they both presuppose the invalidity of the other.

Suppose for a moment a theory that claims the existence of aether as was commonplace not too long ago. How would one go about truly comparing this with another theory that does not accept that aether exists? When it comes to the unobservable (at least) theories can be so different in their assumptions that a side by side is impossible. This is one of the problems with science.


That's very true. But then issue isn't criticism, it's poor criticism. That's the point you've made.

Did not mean to make such a strawman out of the creationist :P... anyway having been on this board since late 2002 and actively posting (on and off at times) since the start of 2003 I have seen a fair amount of traffic pass through this site. In all the time here you have been one of, if not the most intelligent restricted members. This is not as much of a compliment as it might first appear....the thread diversity and the range of objections are so incredibly limitted it is unreal. There was a member some time ago I tried to discuss seriously with, but eventually we had to rely upon PMs because threads were treated as a joke.

I think it is a certain sort of person that goes to a board where they know they will not be met with agreement. Unfortunately most of these people are not the same in terms of method or approach as you are...they are as bad if not worse than the very worst members "on the left."


Well then, argue through morality. Use the common morality of the right in order to defeat the war they so support.

Hoist them by their own petard.

Oh I highlight inherent contradictions, just as I do within religion...but I will not accept a moral argument as one that I will ever resolve to (unless it is for a great amount of "good")


Well, that's true. Many of their ideas aren't even wrong, they are just incoherent.

Exactly. Logical positivism is shit, but its take on religion is not.

[Never Give In]

If I was an Anti-Leftist, I would post here to debate with the Leftists.

Plain and simple to me. I also kind of agree that alot of threads in RevLeft are pretty repetiteve and circle jerk, but we have some real good debates some times. I gotta say, I enjoy debating with Anti-Leftists alot because they actually argue instead of "Yeah man I tooootallly agree."

[Coggeh]

The reason threads are repetitive is because of new members who want to know something or want to discuss something . if you throw an old thread at them they'll lose interest .

[RNK]

A similarly good question is why communists feel the need to post here in OI :D

[MarcX]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 03, 2007 11:57 pm
I think what Spirits point is, we're set in our ways, and you're set in your ways, for whatever reason, be it our life experiences, attitudes etc and it doesnt matter how long we debate, because for us, Capitalism will always seem like a repugnant thing which does nothing but cause poverty and to you communism will always seem like an obsolete ideaology which will never accomplish anything other than a stalinist dictatorship. So what do you hope to achieve? To win us over? Perhaps it would be better for your cause to participate in non-partisan forums where you can explain to waverers why they should subscribe to the 'benefits' of free market economics.
Maybe me who first considered myself far to the left. I was inspired by the Ranting on this forums i see my view balanced by the leftist and people on the right.

i Came into this fourm with what i thought as socialist views and come now beliving in a balance that no Theory aims for communism socialism and capitalism have there strong points in my eyes.

So i think i read this forums to see counter points to my mind set and i like to actually keep an open mind and sometimes adapt to what makes sense

And sometimes i find people in arguing the same as i think i believe but do it in such a radical way i see the error in my thoughts..

well that is why i read this fourm

[The_Anti_Kike]

I wanted to tear seven stripes out of leftists in arguments, they tend to ban anyone with a solid argument and evidence to back it up though