What do you guys have against progress?

[PostAnarchy]

Just wondering, I want to get the right wing POV here and will be as respectful as you are to me.

[Plagueround]

Progress is a relative term. You would have to be more specific and give reasons as to why you think what you propose is progress for someone to respond properly. "What do you have against progress" is a loaded question.

Personally, I'm of the mind most of the OI needs a Durkheimlich maneuver performed on them to cough up and spit out the functionalism they seem to adhere to.

[PostAnarchy]

I agree 100% :)

[BobKKKindle$]

Socialists are in favour of progress, both technological and social. By overthrowing capitalism we will be able to expand the productive forces beyond their current level, and make use of the technology which has been developed under the capitalist system but is currently being used for purposes which are fundamentally hostile to the interests of the exploited majority. The premise of your accussation is fundamentally wrong.

[Plagueround]

Socialists are in favour of progress, both technological and social. By overthrowing capitalism we will be able to expand the productive forces beyond their current level, and make use of the technology which has been developed under the capitalist system but is currently being used for purposes which are fundamentally hostile to the interests of the exploited majority. The premise of your accussation is fundamentally wrong.

He's addressing the OI Bob.

[Bud Struggle]

Just wondering, I want to get the right wing POV here and will be as respectful as you are to me.

Well, just because an idea's time has come doesn't necessarily mean it is a good idea.

[Anti Freedom]

Just wondering, I want to get the right wing POV here and will be as respectful as you are to me.
Umm.... your question is bad. If, as you state in another post:


Morality is something that is totally subjective depending on the individual.
Then why should a certain type of change be called progress? I mean, progress, is basically a good change, we can break the term down even further, but there is no point to doing so. If morality is subjective, and progress is good change, then progress is subjective. Thus the question becomes nonsense, as I cannot imagine a person opposing a change they like/consider morally correct, thus the question is meaningless.

This is not to support the right, or anyone at all, and your question could just be taken as a mocking way to understand the motives of non-lefties.

[RGacky3]

Thats what happens when leftists only talk to leftist, they ask stupid questions. "Why are you against progress," "Are you for wealth redistrobution or are you a racist." "Why do you want everyone to be poor."

You have to convince people that socialism IS progress first.

[RedKnight]

I support social progress. The question is however, how can we best procede towards progress, in our respective country? Do we want to have mutualism, and try to build socialism within the existing system? Or do we want to first establish a welfare state, under social democracy? There are various ways to build socialism, apart from a social revolution. The key thing is to convince the people that socialism is the better way to structure an economy.

[danyboy27]

I support social progress. The question is however, how can we best procede towards progress, in our respective country? Do we want to have mutualism, and try to build socialism within the existing system? Or do we want to first establish a welfare state, under social democracy? There are various ways to build socialism, apart from a social revolution. The key thing is to convince the people that socialism is the better way to structure an economy.

dude, second post that i agree :D:D

[Phalanx]

I don't have anything against change, so long as it's well thought out and hasn't been discredited before.

[JimmyJazz]

I don't have anything against change, so long as it's well thought out and hasn't been discredited before.

Discredited by what? By whom? There's no such thing as a simple, objective analysis of something as complex as an entire socio-economic system. Demands made based on simple justice--like the demand for an end to class society--are never discredited, and never can be. Systematic injustice can't be 'rationally' justified.

If someone criticizes some aspect of the Soviet or Cuban experiences, you should be open-minded. If they try to draw some conclusion from these experiences about the universal impossibility of a society based on cooperative production (i.e. socialism), you should tell them to shut up.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't have anything against change, so long as it's well thought out and hasn't been discredited before.

Great line there! :lol::thumbup:

(And everyone knows what you mean.)

[Plagueround]

Great line there! :lol::thumbup:

(And everyone knows what you mean.)

That's not a great line, that's a great strawman. Discrediting Marx's theories would mean they are no longer accepted as scientific, which they still are.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Is progress our most important product?

No! I say tear down the shopping malls and let the buffalo roam!

[Bud Struggle]

That's not a great line, that's a great strawman. Discrediting Marx's theories would mean they are no longer accepted as scientific, which they still are.

Nah, I take Marx's theories as just that--theories, they may work but we don't really know. For Communism to be science--it has to be tried and found successful in a repeatable framework. I haven't seen that happen yet. Now it MAY, but the attempts so far, for various reasons have not been totally successful.

I don't think that Marx has been discretited by the failures of the SU and China--I personally think those were willful distortions of Communism--so the question is still up in the air.

[Edit] While I'm no Commie, I maybe think that maybe if Trotsky had gotten to run the SU instead of Stalin that things might have worked out better for all involved. I'm no expert, so I'm not sure but I have been reading the position papers of Stalin and Trotsky on Proletarian vs. Permanent Revolution (imagine if American leaders were so literate!) and I'm favoring Trotsky at this point. Who knows.

[JimmyJazz]

...I take Marx's theories...

Can you list some of Marx's theories, and point to where they have played out and been shown incorrect?

(There is, I think, a right answer--but I doubt it will be where you will point to).

[Plagueround]

Nah, I take Marx's theories as just that--theories, they may work but we don't really know.

While I try not to be rude on the subject, my last post was kind of the result of frustration lately with hearing things like that. While people may tend to disagree with them, Marx's theories on the subject of human interaction are every bit as valid as any other theory. I'd list the ones I'm talking about, but JimmyJazz has challenged you to name a few. :)
Personally, from an aspiring sociologist standpoint (and by that I mean I'm jealous of Mrs. Plagueround's sociology degree she's working on and reading all her textbooks) I find him to be much more scientific than Durkheim, and much, much more scientific than those that followed his lead and have such a heavy emphasis on functionalism.
If people don't believe in communism that's fine, but Marx himself remains a relevant and valuable contributor to social sciences, amongst other things.

[BobKKKindle$]

Nah, I take Marx's theories as just that--theories, they may work but we don't really know

The validity of Marx's theories is not determined by whether revolutionary experiments have successfully lead to the attainment of communism, because Marx was notoriously unclear on what communism would actually be like and how it could be attained, but rather to assess Marx's validity we must examine whether capitalism has developed in the way he said it would, and whether class remains the main social antagonism in our societies. This is the basic principle behind any set of ideas which claims to be scientific - we should be able to make predictions based on a hypothetical set of conditions. Marx predicted that competition between firms and the pressure to accumulate capital would lead to the decline of the free market (i.e. a market based on large numbers of small firms which engage in free competition with each other, known as perfect competition in the terminology of bourgeois economics) and the corresponding emergence of monopolies which encompass multiple sectors of the economy and use their position to prevent the entry of new firms. Marx also predicted that the expansionist dynamic which lies at the heart of the capitalist system would lead to firms selling their goods in countries around the world, not just within the borders of the country where they are based, and Lenin built on this analysis to show how capitalism inevitably leads to the economic domination of the developing world and military tensions between the imperialist powers. All of these predictions have occurred in reality, which suggests that Marx can still offer a correct analysis of capitalist society, especially when we combine his own insights with the work of subsequent Marxists.

As usual, TomK shows that he is an idiot who lacks a basic understanding of Marxist ideas.

[Bud Struggle]

Gentlemen:

The problem is that there is no "science" here. Look at Marx's theory of Alienation. It's an "group explanation" in simple human terms the very complex psychology that goes on in EACH PERSON when people work. It's generally interesting and slightly believable at times, but it's like Freud's ego, superego and id--do people really have those things floating around in their heads? Of course not--but it's a simplification that works for some people on occasion and if you "choose" to define the world in those terms you can see some similarities, but is it "real"? is it "science"? Of course not.

You can choose a hundred theories that define the world as well as Marxism, and you can make them if you posit their particular givens, just like you can posit things with Marx's givens. But that's why I NEVER said that Marx was wrong--I just said he had theories that need to be proven. The fact that it just might be impossible to prove them right or wrong--that's not for me to decide.

I NEVER personally believed in the slightest in the whole idea of "class." It's just an artificial 19th century construct that might have fitted 150 years ago, but today is highly out of focus. Both you guys live in America. Either of you gentlemen ever met a peasant? Or a proletarian (at least one that would admit it?) I read plenty of threads in the upper class part of RevLeft arguing over what this kind of worker is or that kind. What the hell is Labor Aristocracy if not a contradiction of terms if there ever was one?

Anyway, my point is that Marx presents quite a reasonable theory of "reality" but it's always a theory and NEVER science. Like all such theories it is only an approximation of reality--not what actually exists. It's great if you are a believer--some fun reading if you aren't.

[Bud Struggle]

My last post wasn't addressed to your points--I was typing as you were posting.


The validity of Marx's theories is not determined by whether revolutionary experiments have successfully lead to the attainment of communism, because Marx was notoriously unclear on what communism would actually be like and how it could be attained, So whatever came about Marx could always be "right." Quite
convenient. So by what you are saying the SU and China WERE the end all of Socialist states. It very much could be that Marxism when translated out of theory looks EXACTLY Llike the Soviet Union. Each and EVERY time.



but rather to assess Marx's validity we must examine whether capitalism has developed in the way he said it would, With all due respect--Marx never in his wildest dreams suggested the triumph of Capitalism over Socialism (no matter how ill formed) as it has in The SU and China.


and whether class remains the main social antagonism in our societies. If you happen to "believe" there is such a thing as class in today's world of Europe and America I guess it is a big help in believeing Marx's theory is true.


This is the basic principle behind any set of ideas which claims to be scientific - we should be able to make predictions based on a hypothetical set of conditions. Marx predicted that competition between firms and the pressure to accumulate capital would lead to the decline of the free market (i.e. a market based on large numbers of small firms which engage in free competition with each other, known as perfect competition in the terminology of bourgeois economics) and the corresponding emergence of monopolies which encompass multiple sectors of the economy and use their position to prevent the entry of new firms. Much of this is pretty obvious, what he didn't predict is the increase of science and how it would change business--he was right that companies that have market share would keep market share--any shop owner in 19th century America could have told you that--what he didn't predict, and it could have been valuable was that science would create whole new and wild opportunities for anyone that wanted to dabble in them. Marx didn't figure on Bill Gates in the least.



Marx also predicted that the expansionist dynamic which lies at the heart of the capitalist system would lead to firms selling their goods in countries around the world, not just within the borders of the country where they are based, and Lenin built on this analysis to show how capitalism inevitably leads to the economic domination of the developing world and military tensions between the imperialist powers. All of these predictions have occurred in reality, which suggests that Marx can still offer a correct analysis of capitalist society, especially when we combine his own insights with the work of subsequent Marxists. I consider this less "predicting" than reporting. (He as a reporter for the New York Tribune.) Imperialism and industrialism were firmly developed when Marx wrote. Wars were already fought between nations for financial interests for hundreds of years before Marx "predicted" them. All Marx had to do was look at Africa and South America.


As usual, TomK shows that he is an idiot who lacks a basic understanding of Marxist ideas. A confession: It's not that I don't understand Marx (but there are definitely things I don't fully grasp about him--I will admit) it's just that I don't BELIEVE him. He is a stepping stone to a better world, I agree with that completely--but he's not the end of the line. And the sure sign of that, WAY too much nastyness everytime Marxism is tried. :)

I have nothing against Marx. He was a guy with some interesting ways of looking at things. I'm not antagonistic--I'm skeptical.

[RGacky3]

If you happen to "believe" there is such a thing as class in today's world of Europe and America I guess it is a big help in believeing Marx's theory is true.

Yeah and I believe faries are gonna bring everyone candy.

How can you not believe in class, by saying that you are saying you don't believe that there are haves and have nots, and by not believing that your making your self more dilerious than someone who thinks that the earth is flat, because it takes a little more observation to see the world is round, it takes barely any observation to see that there are haves and have nots.


Much of this is pretty obvious, what he didn't predict is the increase of science and how it would change business

Science, has'nt changed the power structures of Capitalism at all, its rotated some in and some out, but hte power structure and dynamics of Capitalism are the same.

[Plagueround]

Gentlemen:

The problem is that there is no "science" here. Look at Marx's theory of Alienation. It's an "group explanation" in simple human terms the very complex psychology that goes on in EACH PERSON when people work. It's generally interesting and slightly believable at times, but it's like Freud's ego, superego and id--do people really have those things floating around in their heads? Of course not--but it's a simplification that works for some people on occasion and if you "choose" to define the world in those terms you can see some similarities, but is it "real"? is it "science"? Of course not.

You can choose a hundred theories that define the world as well as Marxism, and you can make them if you posit their particular givens, just like you can posit things with Marx's givens. But that's why I NEVER said that Marx was wrong--I just said he had theories that need to be proven. The fact that it just might be impossible to prove them right or wrong--that's not for me to decide.

I NEVER personally believed in the slightest in the whole idea of "class." It's just an artificial 19th century construct that might have fitted 150 years ago, but today is highly out of focus. Both you guys live in America. Either of you gentlemen ever met a peasant? Or a proletarian (at least one that would admit it?) I read plenty of threads in the upper class part of RevLeft arguing over what this kind of worker is or that kind. What the hell is Labor Aristocracy if not a contradiction of terms if there ever was one?

Anyway, my point is that Marx presents quite a reasonable theory of "reality" but it's always a theory and NEVER science. Like all such theories it is only an approximation of reality--not what actually exists. It's great if you are a believer--some fun reading if you aren't.

Gentleman:

No matter what spin you try and put on it, there are only two highly accepted macrotheories in the entire field of sociology. One is attributed to Durkheim, the other to Marx (symbolic interaction is a third, but is generally not accepted as a macrotheory). To try and knock down either person's as more than just an "approximation of reality" is simple denial (although that is kind of the view I've been developing toward Durkheim...I'll keep stealing Plagueroundina's textbooks as she progresses before I make that full judgement).

Perhaps if you were to develop a new macrotheory (and thus bring the entire field to a new paradigm) or argue from the structural functionalist POV, you would be on to something. From what you know of my posts, I've never claimed Marx to be an infallable god and I constantly challege those that do. However, I also must take objection to his entire works being completely invalidated by the USSR and friends because no other theories are so quickly dismissed in any other field. The dismissal is motivated by political posturing and not actual knowledge of the man's works beyond the communist manifesto (speaking generally and not only at you).

[RedKnight]

Discredited by what? By whom? There's no such thing as a simple, objective analysis of something as complex as an entire socio-economic system. Demands made based on simple justice--like the demand for an end to class society--are never discredited, and never can be. Systematic injustice can't be 'rationally' justified. But if morals are relative, and subjective to personal values, and I'm not suggesting that they are, then anything can be justified. What if someone does not automaticly care about injustice? What would you then say to persuade them that they are wrong, rationaly? Like why is it wrong to kill other people wantonly? And if someone chooses to be unfair to others, what right do you have to try and stop it? It's just like with the abortion debates. A woman is thought to have the right to kill her own unborn baby, because it's her body. And the bossman is thought to have the right to pay his workers substandard wages, because it's his buisness. And human rights be accursed. So the underlying question is, when if ever must personal freedom give way to social justice?

[JimmyJazz]

TomK:

1. I don't think Marxism is a science, I think social science is a contradiction in terms. How can members of society be objective about something they are a part of? They can't. They can be for or against perceived oppression, but not objective.

2. My point in asking you to name where Marxism has failed was because I thought you were going to say that Marxism had failed in Russia, Cuba, China etc. In reality, socialism may have succeeded or failed in those places (that's another debate), but Marxism succeeded, at least in Russia. Marxism doesn't lay out a blueprint for how socialism will work, it lays out a theory of why capitalism will fail. IMO Marxism has failed, but not in Russia; rather in America, Europe, East Asia and so on. Logically speaking Marxism must have failed anywhere where capitalism is both (1) advanced and (2) still standing. So, that's the only place I was going with that.


But if morals are relative, and subjective to personal values, and I'm not suggesting that they are, then anything can be justified.

I was not talking about morals, I was talking about facts. Literally everything the mainstream media spews is either pro-capitalist framing, pro-capitalist agenda-setting (you can wiki those phrases if you need to), or outright lies. Literally everything.

My dad is a well-educated man. He asserted not long ago, with a perfectly straight face, that Lenin killed "millions of people". He is also quite concerned, like any good liberal, about the plight of the poor Chinese and Cubans. Needless to say, the people who live in U.S. ally nations are doing perfectly well, despite some occasional massacres and famines and other small setbacks that inevitably plague free nations. :rolleyes:

Check out Manufacturing Consent or The Real Terror Network: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda for some good analysis and a few good examples of this. There are countless more books, plus simply lots of stuff you will come across by reading history on your own, but those two pop to mind as good intros.

[Bud Struggle]

TomK:

1. I don't think Marxism is a science, I think social science is a contradiction in terms. How can members of society be objective about something they are a part of? They can't. They can be for or against perceived oppression, but not objective.

2. My point in asking you to name where Marxism has failed was because I thought you were going to say that Marxism had failed in Russia, Cuba, China etc. In reality, socialism may have succeeded or failed in those places (that's another debate), but Marxism succeeded, at least in Russia. Marxism doesn't lay out a blueprint for how socialism will work, it lays out a theory of why capitalism will fail. IMO Marxism has failed, but not in Russia; rather in America, Europe, East Asia and so on. Logically speaking Marxism must have failed anywhere where capitalism is both (1) advanced and (2) still standing. So, that's the only place I was going with that.

That's more than fair. The "science" word is more than a misnomer, it's downright confusing. I don't see Marxism as failing either, though I see it doing a different job than you may. I think Marx's prediction that industrial societies were the places Communism would start was of course way off base--it turns out that Communism took hold best in neo-Feudal societies--you can always tell when the Communists take over, a crown goes without a head. (Another good example of this of late is Nepal.)

BUT I see Marxism as a reasonably convenient way for these backward places to jump ahead to industrialization very quickly. Marxism is an alternative way for societies to industrialize--but definitely a legitimate one. The downside here is Marxism always has to be held in place by a police state which isn't part of the Marxists doctrine, I know, but it always see to go hand in hand with Communism. It may be because of outside pressures put on Communism by Capitalism, I'm not sure and maybe Communism can't be blamed entirely for that situation--but the police state has always bee a part of Marxism in the past.

Now the other thing I see--and I'm sure you and other Communists won't agree--is that once these neo-Feudal states reach a level of industrialization they seem to throw off Communism and head toward Capitalism. That seems to have been the trend in the SU and Eastern Europe (quickly) and China (slowly) but that's the trend. I think where a cult of personality is present things move more slowly--and in these states there's an interesting trend toward dynasyism, in Cuba and North Korea which bring it full circle to Feudalism. But that just might be an aberration.

Anyway, I don't think Marxism has failed in the least--I just think it succeeded in a different way than might have been expected.

[JimmyJazz]

Well, you and I more or less agree about the past. But I imagine we couldn't differ more about the future.

I still disagree with your usage of the word Marxism. No experience in any Communist country has ever matched this:


In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:

(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.

(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.
You can argue that Marx would have changed his views had he lived until 1917 (or whenever else), but that's a slippery slope of course.

[Bud Struggle]

But you notice--that when "Communism" fell in Eastern Europe the Communist Party was the party of bureaucrats and was opposed by a party of REAL workers--Solidarity. So the Communist Party wasn't what it claimed to be--a worker's party.

The REAL worker's party brought about Capitalism.

[RGacky3]

But you notice--that when "Communism" fell in Eastern Europe the Communist Party was the party of bureaucrats and was opposed by a party of REAL workers--Solidarity. So the Communist Party wasn't what it claimed to be--a worker's party.

The REAL worker's party brought about Capitalism.

No they brought about the collapse of the soviet state, they did'nt bring about Capitalism, once it collapsed, Party officials and others were able to take over the void.

[JimmyJazz]

But you notice--that when "Communism" fell in Eastern Europe the Communist Party was the party of bureaucrats and was opposed by a party of REAL workers--Solidarity. So the Communist Party wasn't what it claimed to be--a worker's party.

The REAL worker's party brought about Capitalism.

I don't think you got the point of my bolding. In the parts I bolded, Marx seems to be saying that there should never be any such thing as a "Communist Party". In other words, he definitely envisioned a workers' uprising that would be more spontaneous than anything we have ever seen--including in Russia.

So my point is that in places where Communist Parties have taken power, this has not necessarily been Marxism at work. And the fact that every high-ranking member of these Communist Parties can quote long sections of Marx does nothing to change this in any way.

Also, in places where capitalism is most advanced, like American and West Europe, Marx's working class revolution has not ever come close to happening, really; although he would have predicted these places to go first, as they are most industrialized and should have the most clearly defined class lines.

[Ele'ill]

Yeah and I believe faries are gonna bring everyone candy.

How can you not believe in class

From my experience, the lower class has access to more things than it used to. Everything from TV's, Cars, computer games etc. You can still be a consumer even as a member of the lower class.




Science, has'nt changed the power structures of Capitalism at all, its rotated some in and some out, but hte power structure and dynamics of Capitalism are the same.

Science has changed capitalism immensely. Think of agribusiness. Genetically modified seeds. Zombie fruit etc..

[Bud Struggle]

I don't think you got the point of my bolding. In the parts I bolded, Marx seems to be saying that there should never be any such thing as a "Communist Party". In other words, he definitely envisioned a workers' uprising that would be more spontaneous than anything we have ever seen--including in Russia. Indeed, I took it to mean quite the oppoiste of you you intended. Sorry. Never the less--have Communist uprising ever been spontaneous--or were they all well planned events? What is Chavez but a one man circus? Even Fidel is a one man (now one and a half man) show. I don't see the real Marxist Revolution comming to fruition.


So my point is that in places where Communist Parties have taken power, this has not necessarily been Marxism at work. And the fact that every high-ranking member of these Communist Parties can quote long sections of Marx does nothing to change this in any way. You probably have a good point there. But the question is Why? Why does Marxism dissappear right after the Communists take power?


Also, in places where capitalism is most advanced, like American and West Europe, Marx's working class revolution has not ever come close to happening, really; although he would have predicted these places to go first, as they are most industrialized and should have the most clearly defined class lines. This is by far the most important place where Marx missed the mark. And I think this problem answers the questions I have above--Marxism "should be" proletarian, but for some reason all the Revolutions have been by peasents--that very may well change the texture and shape of the Revolution and turn it into something completely different.

[Bilan]

Ask Vanguard1917 why he's against progress. :lol:

[JimmyJazz]

This is by far the most important place where Marx missed the mark. And I think this problem answers the questions I have above--Marxism "should be" proletarian, but for some reason all the Revolutions have been by peasents--that very may well change the texture and shape of the Revolution and turn it into something completely different.

This is something I've really wondered about. Did Marx actually expect worldwide proletarianization? If so, wtf was he thinking? Or was his vision for proletarian revolution basically limited to Europe and America (the "colonial center" nations)? I'm not really sure.

As for the likelihood of a working class (what we are calling "Marxist") revolution, I have absolutely no doubt that it would happen if people were cookie-cutter identical beings in every respect except for their relationship to the means of production. Without other distracting differences besides class, people would not put up with a class-based economy for a minute. However, in a world where people are divided by race, gender, nationality, ethnicity, religion and a myriad of other things besides class, will class society ever be overthrown? I dunno. Probably the contradictions (I say this in the normal sense of the word, not some mystical dialectical sense) will have to worsen significantly before the category of class comes to the fore of people's consciousness, and they realize that class, unlike gender and race and so on, is actually the one thing which divides people that can be totally erased if we choose to do so.

[Dr Mindbender]

Is progress our most important product?

No! I say tear down the shopping malls and let the buffalo roam!

The number of shopping malls is a measure of progress? :confused:

[Rascolnikova]

The number of shopping malls is a measure of progress? :confused:

well. . . I mean, in the local language of OI, progress is economic growth.

*shrugs*

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1473370760428862272&hl=en

Edit: I might add, this site has some serious language problems.

[funkmasterswede]

Due to the simple fact that leftists equate progress with radical egalitarianism, and there is a case to be made that such does not constitute the good.

[Rascolnikova]

Are you saying "I am against progress because"

leftists equate progress with radical egalitarianism, and there is a case to be made that such does not constitute the good.
?

How's about making that case? I'm a nihilist, so if you're smart, I won't reject your arguments; I'll just think you're a douche. :)

Just kidding. What I'm really after here is what you think radical egalitarianism means.

[funkmasterswede]

Are you saying "I am against progress because"

?

How's about making that case? I'm a nihilist, so if you're smart, I won't reject your arguments; I'll just think you're a douche. :)

Just kidding. What I'm really after here is what you think radical egalitarianism means.


What I mean by radical egalitarianism is the idea that progress consists in a society with equality in terms of political and economic power. Or to invoke the principle that social anarchists invoke "having decision making power over decisions to the degree that they effect you."

The problem is totalizing democracy (radical direct democracy) of any kind either requires an authoritarian state, or a change in consciousness of the people in order for it to function. The former (the authoritarian state) leads to a greater inequality in power than previously, while the latter would require a change in behaviour that I do not think we have precedent to expect. I certainly do think that social institutions shape behaviour, but social determinism qua social determinism is an untenable position.

The last was just a pragmatic critique.

[Rascolnikova]

the latter would require a change in behaviour that I do not think we have precedent to expect.

The last was just a pragmatic critique.

So. . . radical egalitarianism isn't good because it isn't practical?

[Plagueround]

So. . . radical egalitarianism isn't good because it isn't practical?

I think that's what they're going for. It isn't practical because it isn't perceived as attainable in the current social paradigm. While I don't know this is the case with the above poster and certainly wouldn't want to project such a large assumption upon them, I see this a lot from people who view the times they live in as the end all be all culmination of human progress. Every change we've gone through was likely thought to be impossible, unimaginable, or impractical at particular points in time.

[Rascolnikova]

I didn't think practicality was the question at hand; I thought the question at hand was ethical desirability, or "goodness."

[funkmasterswede]

I didn't think practicality was the question at hand; I thought the question at hand was ethical desirability, or "goodness."

The critique of egalitarianism is that on an understanding of Marx as an ethical perfectionist, the form of egalitarianism that he favours would not lead to a social system that actualizes man's species being so to speak, and brings it to his highest potentiality. I have fundamental disagreements on Marx on the issue of human nature. I am not sure what the concensus is here but the early Marx was quite Hegelian and seemed to hold to a conception of human nature of man as homo faber along with a positive conception of freedom. Man as a being who creates and builds with intentionality, both at the physical and mental level. Now, I am with Aristotle and specifically Arendt's interpretation of Aristotle on human nature, that what makes man distinct is his political nature, that is his ability to act and interact with other beings not as an instrumental end to create other ends, but as an end in itself. This process is what actualizes the nature of individual human beings, and is the good. The existence of a genuine public sphere requires authority and is somewhat inegalitarian. For discussion of social issues in the public sphere is not the essence of the political life that brings out the best in us. Freedom can only exist once we are free from our needs, we cannot tackle those two issues at once as Marx wishes to do.

I have heard of Kantian justifications for radical egalitarianism but am less familiar with them

[Rascolnikova]

Hey, I was just reading about all this . . or at least, almost all of this. :) Yay for literacy.

However, I'm new to philosophy, so hopefully you'll explain some things?

While I might agree that:

The existence of a genuine public sphere requires authority and is somewhat inegalitarian.I'm not sure what you're saying here:


For discussion of social issues in the public sphere is not the essence of the political life that brings out the best in us. Freedom can only exist once we are free from our needs, we cannot tackle those two issues at once as Marx wishes to do.Might you try to explain it for me?

[Dejavu]

Progress is a relative term. You would have to be more specific and give reasons as to why you think what you propose is progress for someone to respond properly. "What do you have against progress" is a loaded question.

Personally, I'm of the mind most of the OI needs a Durkheimlich maneuver performed on them to cough up and spit out the functionalism they seem to adhere to.

Indeed. Not sure what you mean by functionalism though. Yet another -ism.

[Dejavu]

Freedom can only exist once we are free from our needs, we cannot tackle those two issues at once as Marx wishes to do.

I would say freedom can only truly exist when we are not under ( or the threat of) institutionalized violence. In a system where violence is held as an ideal , it is contradictory to propose that social order is an example of freedom.

[Dejavu]

Freedom doesn't start with politics or collective bargaining, it starts in our individual personal lives.

[Plagueround]

Indeed. Not sure what you mean by functionalism though. Yet another -ism.

Structural functionalism is the other prominent macrotheory in sociology, which had its roots in the works of Emile Durkheim (hence the play on words). The more I study sociology along with my girlfriend, I tend to notice many of the OIers are hardcore structural functionalists whether they know it or not.

Although to be fair to Durkheim, I'd credit most of the problems I have with functionalism to Spencer. Durkheim at least seemed a bit more concern with people's wellbeing.

[Dejavu]

Sorry but you haven't defined what you mean by functionalism in the context of your other post.

[Plagueround]

Sorry but you haven't defined what you mean by functionalism in the context of your other post.

I'm not sure what more you want. Most of the OIers strike me as functionalists. Their arguments and beliefs are very much in line with rhetoric and ideology of functionalism. Certainly, as someone who values individuality and freeing one's self from others, you could take it from there and do so research.

[funkmasterswede]

Hey, I was just reading about all this . . or at least, almost all of this. :) Yay for literacy.

However, I'm new to philosophy, so hopefully you'll explain some things?

While I might agree that:
I'm not sure what you're saying here:
Might you try to explain it for me?

What I was getting at here is a distinction between the social and the political. I disagree with Marx that we can be fulfilled through radical democratic discourse and engagement that aims at the end of providing physical needs of individuals. This is due to our differences in terms of a concept of human nature. When the public sphere is used in such a way such that its r'aison detre of the sphere is meeting social needs, whether through capitalism, socialism or social democracy, we are lead down a road towards survival being the reason for society. Now Marx, defends this reason for the public sphere as an instrument for meeting needs on the basis of a particular conception of human nature, man as a being who intentionally makes and builds thing and would be more fulfilled if he made civilization with others, rather than in isolation. Whereas I see the public sphere as something that needs to be more than just that which meets our social needs, even if the means is participatory and democratic. Action in the public sphere has to be about engagement for its own sake to bring out our humanity, rather than engagement for the sake of life. Action has to be an end in itself, and Marx wanted action in the public sphere to be end directed.

[funkmasterswede]

I would say freedom can only truly exist when we are not under ( or the threat of) institutionalized violence. In a system where violence is held as an ideal , it is contradictory to propose that social order is an example of freedom.


That is negative liberty, which I agree with, but I distinguish freedom from negative liberty. I just posit a moral theory that has both a thin theory of basic rights, and a thick conception of the good that is necessary for fulfillment. What I mean by this is that given that human beings are self-directed beings in order to respect them, negative liberty is a must, it is the most fundamental right. But, rights are not enough for an ethical theory to function, and thus my ideas about freedom are a reflection of a deeper and thicker theory of the good, which can only exist within a community.

Basically, I think that communities are organic and that the individual can only be understood in terms of the process of individuation that occurs socially, but the individual is still the most fundamental public unit, and any speech about the state or the community coming first either engages in a holistic fallacy or conflates the state with society.

Number one priority is individual liberty, but the justification for that liberty is a broadly social and Aristotleian conception of perfectionism.

Nice Avy, by the way.

Tucker was the man.