What's wrong with the US founding fathers, bill of rights and constitution

[liberlict]

It's easier to use the North Sea/Channel corridor than the Baltic; we were never invaded by the Golden Horde; we developed centralised nation-states faster because of the Hundred Years War; Spain's exploitation of the New World developed its colonial territories in the Low Countries which contributed hugely to the development of trade between England, France and Flanders... some of these are essentially historical accidents, others are geographical determinants. What if Spain's royal family had lands in Sicily instead of Flanders, would Palermo have been a southern Amsterdam? But even if it were, there's no way the Poles or the Muscovites were going to colonise Peru, whatever else might have happened.

And the Jews have been eternally persecuted and decimated since antiquity, driven from their natural homeland and scattered by flight and trade, mobbed by the people and robbed by the kings, and nearly exterminated during WW2, yet these people has maintained its unity and growth.

If you look at the misfortunes of any polity you will find reasons to victimize them. But it requires selective reasoning to explain prosperity by economic class conflict alone.

[consuming negativity]

I don't think anybody around here is over-relying on Weber's ideas. They just aren't considering them at all.

You can also compare non-national communities. For example, I would bet everything I own that no matter where the Amish or Jews lived they would prosper.

I don't mean to suggest that prosperity is a measure of worth ... but as for class conflict's explaining prosperity ... no it's just not true.

Um.

There's this thing called the holocaust that happened fairly recently...

And also these other things called pogroms and the state of Israel, and well...

Are you out of your mind or trolling?

---

Also, Weber was mostly wrong.

[Lord Testicles]

To be ignorant I don't know much about the Lesotho peoples. But a lot of nations/communities/territories have done a lot better with their resources than others. So there must be cultural forces in play. What other variable explains why the Anglo Europeans developed much quicker than the Slavs?

You admittedly don't know much about other geographical locations but you can still say with confidence that "America had no natural advantages on any other part of the world"? Makes sense.

[Rafiq]

I brought up Weber's "protestant work ethic" a couple days ago to demonstrate some of historical materialism's explanatory deficiencies

I don't think anybody around here is over-relying on Weber's ideas. They just aren't considering them at all.

The only thing worth considering is that it is utterly wrong. It is absolutely ridiculous to attribute a "work ethic" to the rate of social development for a country, or a state. Such causal philistinism has no place in Marxism. Rather than "demonstrating explanatory deficiencies", Max Weber's work could only ever strengthen the argument for historical materialism's validity, though he got it backwards. By the time of the protestant reformation, capitalist development had already begun - as a matter of fact, the reformation actually signified the first embryo of capitalist ideology in retrospect to feudalism. It is beyond stupid to attribute capitalist development to theological differences - in reality these differences coincided with capitalist development.

As for whether this was even remotely a factor in the "rapid rise of America" - this is ridiculous! The United States was by no means the only country with a protestant demographic majority, and certainly, by the time the United States declared it's independence, Protestantism had existed for many centuries both in Europe and the new world - I have no idea how you could make this argument. This kind of infantile idealism is indicative of a recognition that there is a correlation between dominant religious trends, and the direction a society is going in - what it fails to take into account is the relationship between these religious trends and society. Why was confucianism dominant? Why was shintoism dominant?

Religious ideology for capitalism is comparable to a process of natural selection - when it is unsuitable, it is scrapped - thereby the ones that remain and endure are suitable. If what you say holds up, why then did countries like Turkey, in its social development, essentially scrap Islam at least from the domain of the state? Catholicism in France? Using this kind of logic, shouldn't Catholic countries remain Feudal, considering Catholicism is essentially a feudal ideology?

More importantly, however, I would really like to hear Lantz's proposed "deficiency" in historical materialism. It is pathetic, time and time again ideologues attempt desperately find holes and problems in historical materialism - as they do in Marxism in general. They cannot believe that something can be true that exists outside of the discourse of the ideological apparatus.

[The Disillusionist]

It's not my fault that you don't know how history works, outside of your narrow, outdated approach to social theory. That's one of the main problems with materialism, there are SO many important factors that exist outside of materialisms narrow "ideological apparatus", including religious beliefs (no other country was founded by Protestants besides the US).

And finally, I don't know how I'm being the idealist here, I'm not the one desperately clinging to, and restricting myself to, a single mode of thought that hasn't been significantly improved in 150 years. The idea that multiple important factors exist and that as many of them should be considered as possible in order to understand how things work is realistic, not naive.

[Lord Testicles]

(no other country was founded by Protestants besides the US).

The Dutch Republic.

[Rafiq]

It's not my fault that you don't know how history works, outside of your narrow, outdated approach to social theory. That's one of the main problems with materialism, there are SO many important factors that exist outside of materialisms narrow "ideological apparatus", including religious beliefs (no other country was founded by Protestants besides the US).

And finally, I don't know how I'm being the idealist here, I'm not the one desperately clinging to, and restricting myself to, a single mode of thought that hasn't been significantly improved in 150 years. The idea that multiple important factors exist and that as many of them should be considered as possible in order to understand how things work is realistic, not naive.

Again, the bourgeois ideologues are unable to actually make arguments - or provide any examples as to why we are wrong. Instead, we are given this mystical, vague heap of "may-be"'s. No one denies that there are more complicated factors outside what liberals call 'economics' - but the point is YOU'RE the one whose being so narrow minded as to phrase the term "ideological apparatus" within the paradigm of your UTTERLY NARROW and IDEALIST world-view! You don't know how DEEP such a phrase actually goes - THAT's the point! For you, "ideological apparatus" probably simply means that which is taught in a US high school - or that which we get to see on the news. But it is SO much more complicated than that! It concerns EVERYTHING, from academia to the sciences - that which is legitimized and incorporated into our every day routines, that which is held as "common sense" even by the standards of the scientific apparatus. The notion that something like historical materialism is true - but is not commonly accepted, pondered upon, or delved upon by intellectuals, anthropologists, or historians - means that there is a mystical justification for its absence, for these ideologues.

To you, there has to be some kind of just reason for it - because the ideological apparatus is JUST to you, it is legitimate. Think of a more complicated form of the just-world fallacy. This is the logic you employ.

You claim my approach is outdated - no, you're just a degenerate. We do not substitute Darwin's evolution for creationism because Darwinism is "outdated" (let's assume Darwinism was not incorporated into scientific discourse). But the mere fact that it WAS incorporated for you is alone justification for its validity. Since Marxism was not - it is automatically 'outdated' and 'wrong'.

You are not superseding historical materialism, or improving upon it. You are making arguments which Marx himself could have easily wiped his ass with, had you lived during his time. You aren't even making a new, or affirmative case against historical materialism - there is NOTHING outdated about historical materialism as such - the only thing outdated is our understanding of capitalism derived from historical materialism. We need to, recognizing the validity of materialism - UPDATE our understanding of capitalism, not our mechanisms of understanding.

But you provide no other example. You express an utterly anti-scientific form of logic. Even if the US was the only country founded by protestants - CORRELATION does not imply CAUSATION, as you should know - so what the fuck is the point? You aren't demonstrating the relationship between Protestantism and the rapid growth of American capitalism - you aren't explaining how protestant logic PRECEDED the social foundations of capitalism in America - you aren't explaining how Protestantism gave birth to capitalsm - even though capitalist development and the bourgeois class already was pre-maturely developing before Protestantism.

Once again, historical materialism is shown to be invincible - but it cannot be accepted by the enemies of Marxism. To them, it is "outdated' or "too rigid". In reality, their own ignorance makes them greatest culprits of narrow-mindedness and rigid thinking. The only different is that they are not conscious about it.

[Rafiq]

Yes, yes, let's forget five decades of fleshed out cultural theory in substitution for "protestant worth ethic" as an understanding of our societies. Apparently, no Marxist has existed since Marx. Marxist theory has been dead for 150 years, according to Lantz.

[The Disillusionist]

Again, the bourgeois ideologues are unable to actually make arguments - or provide any examples as to why we are wrong. Instead, we are given this mystical, vague heap of "may-be"'s. No one denies that there are more complicated factors outside what liberals call 'economics' - but the point is YOU'RE the one whose being so narrow minded as to phrase the term "ideological apparatus" within the paradigm of your UTTERLY NARROW and IDEALIST world-view! You don't know how DEEP such a phrase actually goes - THAT's the point! For you, "ideological apparatus" probably simply means that which is taught in a US high school - or that which we get to see on the news. But it is SO much more complicated than that! It concerns EVERYTHING, from academia to the sciences - that which is legitimized and incorporated into our every day routines, that which is held as "common sense" even by the standards of the scientific apparatus. The notion that something like historical materialism is true - but is not commonly accepted, pondered upon, or delved upon by intellectuals, anthropologists, or historians - means that there is a mystical justification for its absence, for these ideologues.

To you, there has to be some kind of just reason for it - because the ideological apparatus is JUST to you, it is legitimate. Think of a more complicated form of the just-world fallacy. This is the logic you employ.

You claim my approach is outdated - no, you're just a degenerate. We do not substitute Darwin's evolution for creationism because Darwinism is "outdated" (let's assume Darwinism was not incorporated into scientific discourse). But the mere fact that it WAS incorporated for you is alone justification for its validity. Since Marxism was not - it is automatically 'outdated' and 'wrong'.

You are not superseding historical materialism, or improving upon it. You are making arguments which Marx himself could have easily wiped his ass with, had you lived during his time. You aren't even making a new, or affirmative case against historical materialism - there is NOTHING outdated about historical materialism as such - the only thing outdated is our understanding of capitalism derived from historical materialism. We need to, recognizing the validity of materialism - UPDATE our understanding of capitalism, not our mechanisms of understanding.

But you provide no other example. You express an utterly anti-scientific form of logic. Even if the US was the only country founded by protestants - CORRELATION does not imply CAUSATION, as you should know - so what the fuck is the point? You aren't demonstrating the relationship between Protestantism and the rapid growth of American capitalism - you aren't explaining how protestant logic PRECEDED the social foundations of capitalism in America - you aren't explaining how Protestantism gave birth to capitalsm - even though capitalist development and the bourgeois class already was pre-maturely developing before Protestantism.

Once again, historical materialism is shown to be invincible - but it cannot be accepted by the enemies of Marxism. To them, it is "outdated' or "too rigid". In reality, their own ignorance makes them greatest culprits of narrow-mindedness and rigid thinking. The only different is that they are not conscious about it.

You're a skilled pseudo-arguer. I can tell because you fill your posts with empty accusations meant to sound as if they mean something. I mean, what better way to discredit something than call them bourgeoisie...? Doesn't matter if that doesn't make sense whatsoever, it sounds smart, and people tend to agree with you.

First paragraph: This whole paragraph is just putting words in my mouth and sprinkling them with "nuh-uh, you are" nonsense.

End of First Paragraph/Second paragraph: I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here, because none of it directly addresses anything I really said. Historical materialist theory is too narrow because it only considers society as a product of a very narrow list of factors. I'm not talking about who uses it, I'm talking about "it" itself.

Third paragraph: Degenerate? Nice. Again, meaningless but smart sounding. (Although it does reveal a bit of your elitist attitude.) Darwin's evolution IS outdated. It was basic and crude, and he didn't know how genetics or epigenetics worked, or how kinship worked, or all of the factors that shaped natural selection. Historical materialism is the same way, it did what it was needed for, 150 years ago, but we have better, more diverse tools available at our disposal nowadays. Using materialist theory to explain society nowadays is like building a model ship using only a hammer.

Second to last paragraph: It's being unscientific to account for all variables? I never claimed that the Protestant Work Ethic explains everything, both it and materialism explain quite a lot. The Protestant Work Ethic, along with the material conditions of the US and various other factors, I'm sure, played a hand in the formation of the individualistic, capitalist American culture. By the way, correlation is all that materialism can produce either. There is no scientific experiment capable of testing the relationship between means of production and society, social theory is all about inductive reasoning.

Final paragraph: Invincible? Really? Well, you've made it pretty obvious that you are not open to new ideas, that is pretty much the definition of narrow-mindedness. People like you are typical in times of scientific progress, the conservatives who hold on to traditional values. While the rest of us move on to more fruitful pastures, you will stay in your meager little ditch, insisting that nothing will ever be better than what has already been. That kind of atttitude is the antithesis of progress.

Edit: Skinz, the Dutch Republic's history of religion is not quite that clear, though to be fair, the US's history of religion isn't all that simple either.

Also, I never claimed that Marxism was dead. Clearly it isn't, as you are doing your best to keep the body on life support as long as possible.

[Hexen]

Simply put it: The "Founding Fathers" were slave owning bourgeoisie white men who created a system for bourgeoisie men (the whole "American Revolution" was really about Bourgeoisie White Men breaking away from a Feudalist colony to get even more wealthy via imperialism especially) hence everything they've written (Constitution, Bill of Rights) was actually written for under the context of Wealthy White Males and everyone else are excluded.

That's wrong with them.

[Rafiq]

Historical materialist theory is too narrow because it only considers society as a product of a very narrow list of factors. I'm not talking about who uses it, I'm talking about "it" itself.

Darwin's evolution IS outdated. It was basic and crude, and he didn't know how genetics or epigenetics worked, or how kinship worked, or all of the factors that shaped natural selection. Historical materialism is the same way, it did what it was needed for, 150 years ago, but we have better, more diverse tools available at our disposal nowadays. Using materialist theory to explain society nowadays is like building a model ship using only a hammer.

Second to last paragraph: It's being unscientific to account for all variables? I never claimed that the Protestant Work Ethic explains everything, both it and materialism explain quite a lot. The Protestant Work Ethic, along with the material conditions of the US and various other factors, I'm sure, played a hand in the formation of the individualistic, capitalist American culture. By the way, correlation is all that materialism can produce either. There is no scientific experiment capable of testing the relationship between means of production and society, social theory is all about inductive reasoning.

Well then, enlighten us as to your knowledge with regard to historical materialism: what are these exclusive "factors" that historical materialism considers, and what are the factors that it does not consider? You're just declaring things. You don't know anything about historical materialism, simply by merit of your phraseology - historical materialism doesn't concern telling us what "causes" a society to form, or in other words - historical materialism does not posit that society is a product of something as such. Rather, historical materialism reveals to us the active relationship between these different factors and how they ACTIVELY and CONTINUALLY compose our society. But again, let all of us in on this hidden knowledge. You cannot. The idea that historical materialism 'doesn't consider other factors' stems from a povert understanding of what historical materialism actually constitutes as, and ignorance as far as a materialist understanding of our present condition here in the 21st century (it DOES exist). You claim that there have been developments in capitalism which materialism simply "hasn't caught up with" - even though it has, from Gramsci to Althusser. The reason why you adhere to this kind of reasoning is simply because Marxism itself does not form a legitimate component of the ideological apparatus - unlike Darwinism. THAT was my fucking point: I said that the only reason you find Darwinsim legitimate is BECAUSE it has been incorporated into the scientific apparatus - if it hadn't been, there's no telling that you wouldn't adhere to a kind of creationism. That was my analogy. So then - how do we explain your alleged "homage" to the old Marxism which apparently was able to explain the world, for it's time? Because a conceptualization of Marxism by legitimized discourse actually exists, i.e. Non-Marxists have put together their own explanation for the so-called "phenomena" of Marxism as it existed before. This is all Marxism will ever be to you, Marxism can never exist in the 21st century for you because it would be a giant monstrosity for your ideological universe.

While materialism describes correlation, we can CERTAINLY recognize whether the chicken or the egg came first in respective historical epochs. Simply by recognizing that ideas alone are impossible to exist if they are not socially contextual. There has never on Earth been an idea that has existed which was not socially contextual. One example might be that we can clearly recognize that capitalist development preceded the protestant reformation. We can also recognize that the enlightenment began with, and after the emergence of the bourgeois class. Ideas have an important role in history - but history does not exist solely because of ideas. We recognize now that we are animals, and certainly animals are not beings which exist as a result of ideas, or beings which exist because of ideas. We can even recognize that linguistic complexity coincides with social complexity, and psychologists can tie ideas to mere language. Ideas are therefore representative of our social relationships to production - the constant reproduction of life, survival, or whatever you want.

Ideas cannot exist in a vacuum. Classes do not exist because someone willed them to exist in the form that they do. It is true that there is no other means by which these social groups can express their condition besides through ideas and language, but that does not mean ideas and language precede their condition.

Are you a child? I'm not trying to insult you, but judging by how you conduct yourself, you sound like a child. You might be mentioning the numeric order of my paragraphs, but you are not responding them. You are not conquering them. I know you might feel better by conducting your posts in this manner, but you really haven't demonstrated shit. You accuse me of calling you "bourgeoisie" - again, infantile phraseology. You cannot call someone a "bourgeoisie". I'm calling your logic bourgeois not simply because I disagree with it, but because there is such a thing as a consistent paradigm of bourgeois logic and thought. I couldn't call a Taliban landowner's ramblings bourgeois, because it simply isn't.

[Lord Testicles]

Edit: Skinz, the Dutch Republic's history of religion is not quite that clear, though to be fair, the US's history of religion isn't all that simple either.

It's pretty clear that you were wrong in your assertion that

"no other country was founded by Protestants besides the US"

When there were countries founded by protestants nearly two hundred years before the US declaration of independence.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Or the third-world conditions that persist on still-shrinking reservations. Or forced and non-consensual sterilizations that were endemic as recently as the last generation, and still continue albeit on a smaller scale. Or . . . or . . . or . . .

(For the record, I feel the same way about "Canada". I don't mean to single out Amerikkka here. Fuck "Canada".)

Or the continued use of the death penalty. Or, again, the bloated prison population. The status of indigenous populations in the New World, not only the US/Canada but also very much in Latin America, is something that until the last couple decades was nothing but spectacularly abysmal and something that will be addressed.

But America is a conglomeration of all types of peoples and when I declare my love for her (and her being the aforementioned shit) I of course include the aspects of native culture that have become part of the culture in general and the struggle to secure equal rights. I claim the Navajo code talkers during the war and their effort to speak their language freely which, until it became a military necessity and in many ways after, was openly discriminated against.

Some people will point to slavery for instance, while ignoring the fact that the slaves themselves have become Americans and have tremendously influenced what America is today at least as much as the 18th and 19th century slave owners did and by this point can easily claim so. Much of modern music today for instance can easily trace its roots and foundation to African American music that developed in the US from slave songs onwards through jazz and blues and soul all the the way through hip hop and rap. And I claim all of that when I say America is the shit.

America and American culture today is probably at least as defined by the efforts to end slavery as it was by the effort to get the british out, as odd as that may seem to some on first glance.

[Sinister Intents]

Or the continued use of the death penalty. Or, again, the bloated prison population. The status of indigenous populations in the New World, not only the US/Canada but also very much in Latin America, is something that until the last couple decades was nothing but spectacularly abysmal and something that will be addressed.

But America is a conglomeration of all types of peoples and when I declare my love for her (and her being the aforementioned shit) I of course include the aspects of native culture that have become part of the culture in general and the struggle to secure equal rights. I claim the Navajo code talkers during the war and their effort to speak their language freely which, until it became a military necessity and in many ways after, was openly discriminated against.

Some people will point to slavery for instance, while ignoring the fact that the slaves themselves have become Americans and have tremendously influenced what America is today at least as much as the 18th and 19th century slave owners did and by this point can easily claim so. Much of modern music today for instance can easily trace its roots and foundation to African American music that developed in the US from slave songs onwards through jazz and blues and soul all the the way through hip hop and rap. And I claim all of that when I say America is the shit.

America and American culture today is probably at least as defined by the efforts to end slavery as it was by the effort to get the british out, as odd as that may seem to some on first glance.

Are you a patriot?

[Illegalitarian]

Nevermind any of that, the unsubstantiated notion that the protestant work ethic is the material and not a result of material conditions is wholly absurd in and of itself.

[The Disillusionist]

Nevermind any of that, the unsubstantiated notion that the protestant work ethic is the material and not a result of material conditions is wholly absurd in and of itself.

So is the idea that you could possibly have an opinion not completely dictated by your material conditions, according to hardcore materialism. So clearly this is just your economic position talking.

Oh, and Skinz, I'll admit, you're right. However, I still stand by the protestant work ethic as a significant factor in the development of US capitalism.

Rafiq, you could say a lot more and write a lot less, but I don't think you've really got much to say. And a lot of that post is still just empty namecalling and baseless assertions. But sure, I'm a child, and a bourgeoisie idealist, and a devourer of souls, and a filthy capitalist, and whatever else, I don't give a damn. Also, I'm not trying to discredit materialism, it's still a significant foundation for more developed modern theories, it just doesn't explain things well enough. It was innovative for its day, but it's time to move on. You realize that ALL social theories attempt to explain correlation between different factors of society and how they shape society? That's the nature of social theory. Cultural materialism, essentially Marxism materialism without the Marxism, that is, the idea of the dialectic, is still a relatively valid theory, and has made significant scientific progress since the 60's and 70's, though it's still a bit naive in its assumption that it can explain everything. I can see that many people on this website are way too attached to historical materialism, and that's not really my problem, but it's not likely to make any new innovations.

[Illegalitarian]

So is the idea that you could possibly have an opinion not completely dictated by your material conditions, according to hardcore materialism. So clearly this is just your economic position talking.

It doesn't " completely determine" it as if historical materialism is deterministic, that's a very totalistic approach. Of course anyone could holy an idea independent of their class interests, or any other such idea that they may want to hold, but that doesn't mean that this idea is divorced from material realities.

The idea is that there is no such thing as an idea that exists independent of historical context. This work ethic, too, is nothing more than the product of its own historical epoch, and was symptomatic of the same context that caused the US to develop the way that it did, existing within the base of this new epoch, rather than being a driving force within itself, in a vacuum

[consuming negativity]

Weber liked to overgeneralize and state conclusions that he didn't have enough good evidence for, but he wasn't always wrong, and there's no reason to think that ideology didn't influence the material world in the same way that the material world also influenced ideology. This entire argument is based on a false dichotomy. Reality is more complex than just "yes" or "no".

[Illegalitarian]

No one is saying ideologies don't influence the world, just that ideas don't exist in contexts outside of material conditions and that ideas cannot be counted among the material or presuppose material change.

[liberlict]

Um.

There's this thing called the holocaust that happened fairly recently...

And also these other things called pogroms and the state of Israel, and well...

Holocausts and pogroms would retard growth wouldn't they?