I just watched 1984 again

The scariest thing about is the movie is the total lack of knowable information about the state of world. The only things we know about Oceania and "the war" are shown as propaganda.

Oceania might occupy far less geographic territory than what is officially said, or far more.

It may be part of a secret world government that controls each super nation (the entire world) and stages war to maintain control.

We don't know if there actually is a war or not.

We don't know specifically how the government became the way it did.

We don't know who controls the government.

There is no way to obtain verifiable information on any of these issues.


This is what happens when government secrecy escalates.

Don't that just add to the excitement? =)

and now if you are masochistic and imagine something poorly done from the loose ends that's your mistake :P

Didn't know there was a movie though? Don't mind me until i've seen it :o

I wasn't criticizing the movie. These were all things I found fascinating.

Hmm, I bet a lot of people have done book reports on this story.

We also don't know if these super nations actually exist in any form, or if they are really called what we call them.

1984 was actually George Orwell's critique of Stalinism, and of Stalin's shift from Germany's ally to its enemy, then "socialist brotherhood" with China but then wary of it, all the time justifying it in restrospect -- so it has to be read as a caricature of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

1984 was actually George Orwell's critique of Stalinism, and of Stalin's shift from Germany's ally to its enemy, then "socialist brotherhood" with China but then wary of it, all the time justifying it in restrospect -- so it has to be read as a caricature of that.

---

You mean as a hypothetical result of that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

You mean as a hypothetical result of that?

---

:? Now you've lost me. I mean that was the context of what he was trying to achieve. Same with Animal Farm, which was a caricature of the Bolsheviks' rise to power in Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

You mean as a hypothetical result of that?

---

:? Now you've lost me. I mean that was the context of what he was trying to achieve. Same with Animal Farm, which was a caricature of the Bolsheviks' rise to power in Russia.

---

Well, you said it was a critique of Stalinism, and I was asking if you meant that the story was critiquing via looking at the longterm consequences of Stalinism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

Well, you said it was a critique of Stalinism, and I was asking if you meant that the story was critiquing via looking at the longterm consequences of Stalinism.

---

Ah. Perhaps, not sure if he ever explained exactly want he intended. I still have to read one book by Hitchens called Orwell's Victory. I think it's both a satyre of Stalinism - Big Brother is very obviously Stalin - and perhaps, yes, a projection of what the world could be like should it ever be spread over the world. At the time, many communists said that world communism would mean an end to war, and Orwell also wanted to say that was rubbish. I think he was basically saying to his fellow leftists, "that is the kind of world you want to take us to, it is the logical consequence", but so :Ni: but also mixed with :Ne: .

The fatal, glaring flaw of communism is that it's based on universal jealousy disguised as universal equality; "No one can have more than me."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

The fatal, glaring flaw of communism is that it's based on universal jealousy disguised as universal equality; "No one can have more than me."

---

I think there is truth in this statement, but I think communism greatly greatly reduces jealousy with elimination of status items and luxuruies. Also, i don't think the motto is "No one can have more than me," as much as it is, "Why have more when you don't need more?" I think it's fatal flaw is its challenge to the nature of man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heath

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

The fatal, glaring flaw of communism is that it's based on universal jealousy disguised as universal equality; "No one can have more than me."

---

I think there is truth in this statement, but I think communism greatly greatly reduces jealousy with elimination of status items and luxuruies. Also, i don't think the motto is "No one can have more than me," as much as it is, "Why have more when you don't need more?" I think it's fatal flaw is its challenge to the nature of man.

---

In practice it does not work this well. Communism has to replace the population's self-esteem with something, and that something is state-worship. In a system where the people are not in control of a large part of their lives, they naturally adjust to this; their creativity falters, their ambitions falter, their pride falters, and in place of these they are told that the purpose of their lives is to better the state, and through several levels of propaganda they come to believe these lies and begin to love the state. This state-love literally becomes state-worship as the government begins to control religion, and people become more and more mindless. Just look at the brain-dead citizens of North Korea. The people are told, in many different ways, that they are worthless as individuals and that the government charitably protects them from the evils of their own selfish nature by "forgiving" them and letting them service the greater good. So we all become self-loathing state-worshippers who are miserable and pathetic. This is inevitable in a communistic society.

The ironic thing is that the leader of this kind of government is always a selfish egocentric tyrant.

But supposing the system works and goods are available to all citizens-- everyone is pathetic, but no one starves to death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heath

But supposing the system works and goods are available to all citizens-- everyone is pathetic, but no one starves to death.

---

Well how about the government just disable all higher brain function and feed us intravenously? We'll all be vegetables, but no one will starve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

The fatal, glaring flaw of communism is that it's based on universal jealousy disguised as universal equality; "No one can have more than me."

---

So how do you account for the fact that most of the modern-day supporters of Communism are from educated, wealthy, upper-middle class families? They're jealous of the .00001% that are richer than they? :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

The fatal, glaring flaw of communism is that it's based on universal jealousy disguised as universal equality; "No one can have more than me."

---

So how do you account for the fact that most of the modern-day supporters of Communism are from educated, wealthy, upper-middle class families? They're jealous of the .00001% that are richer than they? :lol:

---

Since it's not in their interest to give up all their money, I'd say that they're bored/stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

The fatal, glaring flaw of communism is that it's based on universal jealousy disguised as universal equality; "No one can have more than me."

---

So how do you account for the fact that most of the modern-day supporters of Communism are from educated, wealthy, upper-middle class families? They're jealous of the .00001% that are richer than they? :lol:

---

Since it's not in their interest to give up all their money, I'd say that they're bored/stupid.

---

It's in their interest for humanity to live in peace and mutual-prosperity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

The fatal, glaring flaw of communism is that it's based on universal jealousy disguised as universal equality; "No one can have more than me."

---

So how do you account for the fact that most of the modern-day supporters of Communism are from educated, wealthy, upper-middle class families? They're jealous of the .00001% that are richer than they? :lol:

---

Since it's not in their interest to give up all their money, I'd say that they're bored/stupid.

---

lolachoo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KSpin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

The fatal, glaring flaw of communism is that it's based on universal jealousy disguised as universal equality; "No one can have more than me."

---

So how do you account for the fact that most of the modern-day supporters of Communism are from educated, wealthy, upper-middle class families? They're jealous of the .00001% that are richer than they? :lol:

---

Since it's not in their interest to give up all their money, I'd say that they're bored/stupid.

---

It's in their interest for humanity to live in peace and mutual-prosperity.

---

Which makes you wonder why they'd endorse communism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KSpin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

The fatal, glaring flaw of communism is that it's based on universal jealousy disguised as universal equality; "No one can have more than me."

---

So how do you account for the fact that most of the modern-day supporters of Communism are from educated, wealthy, upper-middle class families? They're jealous of the .00001% that are richer than they? :lol:

---

Since it's not in their interest to give up all their money, I'd say that they're bored/stupid.

---

It's in their interest for humanity to live in peace and mutual-prosperity.

---

Which makes you wonder why they'd endorse communism.

---

Not at all, at least Marxism anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KSpin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KSpin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

The fatal, glaring flaw of communism is that it's based on universal jealousy disguised as universal equality; "No one can have more than me."

---

So how do you account for the fact that most of the modern-day supporters of Communism are from educated, wealthy, upper-middle class families? They're jealous of the .00001% that are richer than they? :lol:

---

Since it's not in their interest to give up all their money, I'd say that they're bored/stupid.

---

It's in their interest for humanity to live in peace and mutual-prosperity.

---

Which makes you wonder why they'd endorse communism.

---

Not at all.

---

Oh.

Notice my edit. ^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

Well, you said it was a critique of Stalinism, and I was asking if you meant that the story was critiquing via looking at the longterm consequences of Stalinism.

---

Ah. Perhaps, not sure if he ever explained exactly want he intended. I still have to read one book by Hitchens called Orwell's Victory. I think it's both a satyre of Stalinism - Big Brother is very obviously Stalin - and perhaps, yes, a projection of what the world could be like should it ever be spread over the world. At the time, many communists said that world communism would mean an end to war, and Orwell also wanted to say that was rubbish. I think he was basically saying to his fellow leftists, "that is the kind of world you want to take us to, it is the logical consequence", but so :Ni: but also mixed with :Ne: .

---

Off-topic:
Are you saying here that :Ni: is the observation of a timeline, and compensatory :Ne: is the method by which alternative timelines are considered?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcaudilllg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

Well, you said it was a critique of Stalinism, and I was asking if you meant that the story was critiquing via looking at the longterm consequences of Stalinism.

---

Ah. Perhaps, not sure if he ever explained exactly want he intended. I still have to read one book by Hitchens called Orwell's Victory. I think it's both a satyre of Stalinism - Big Brother is very obviously Stalin - and perhaps, yes, a projection of what the world could be like should it ever be spread over the world. At the time, many communists said that world communism would mean an end to war, and Orwell also wanted to say that was rubbish. I think he was basically saying to his fellow leftists, "that is the kind of world you want to take us to, it is the logical consequence", but so :Ni: but also mixed with :Ne: .

---

Off-topic:
Are you saying here that :Ni: is the observation of a timeline, and compensatory :Ne: is the method by which alternative timelines are considered?

---

That sounds about right. :Ni: uses the experiences of the past in some ways to determine consequences, which gives the appearance of foresight. :Ne: looks more at different possibilities or directions which may exist at a given point in the present. So while :Ni: may appear as a linear timeline, :Ne: would probably be more like branching from a tree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heath

But supposing the system works and goods are available to all citizens-- everyone is pathetic, but no one starves to death.

---

Well how about the government just disable all higher brain function and feed us intravenously? We'll all be vegetables, but no one will starve.

---

Emotional problems are only a reality for people who don't have to struggle to live day in and day out. In cases where basic needs aren't being met people don't have time to complain of being pathetic or to study their individuality. I'm willing to sacrifice my petty emotional diatribes for being pathetic and the elimination of starvation. Of course, this is all idealized thinking, and I am assuming the system actually works as intended, if not better. I think there are many more serious issues to debate in communism besides the loss of individuality. Mostly in the practical implementation.

To the issue of your post: That would not be ideal for a government. A communist's government's purpose is to enable all citizens to have their needs met and provide them work. Who would build the supercars of future politicians if everyone is hooked into life support? They need their supercars, discojoe.

I've never seen it :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heath

Emotional problems are only a reality for people who don't have to struggle to live day in and day out. In cases where basic needs aren't being met people don't have time to complain of being pathetic or to study their individuality. I'm willing to sacrifice my petty emotional diatribes for being pathetic and the elimination of starvation. Of course, this is all idealized thinking, and I am assuming the system actually works as intended, if not better. I think there are many more serious issues to debate in communism besides the loss of individuality. Mostly in the practical implementation.

---

No. Why is it more serious to discuss the implementation of communism instead of how communism is bad and shouldn't be implemented?

"Instead of talking about the petty ups and downs of my shitty system that will make everyone miserable, let's first decide how we're going to implement it."

See, that's shitty backwards thinking.

Quote:

---

To the issue of your post: That would not be ideal for a government. A communist's government's purpose is to enable all citizens to have their needs met and provide them work. Who would build the supercars of future politicians if everyone is hooked into life support? They need their supercars, discojoe.

---

The point is that it's not ideal for the individual, because almost all of his freedoms are placed in the hands of the government, which historically cannot ever decide what is best for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heath

Emotional problems are only a reality for people who don't have to struggle to live day in and day out. In cases where basic needs aren't being met people don't have time to complain of being pathetic or to study their individuality. I'm willing to sacrifice my petty emotional diatribes for being pathetic and the elimination of starvation. Of course, this is all idealized thinking, and I am assuming the system actually works as intended, if not better. I think there are many more serious issues to debate in communism besides the loss of individuality. Mostly in the practical implementation.

---

No. Why is it more serious to discuss the implementation of communism instead of how communism is bad and shouldn't be implemented?

"Instead of talking about the petty ups and downs of my shitty system that will make everyone miserable, let's first decide how we're going to implement it."

See, that's shitty backwards thinking.

---

I wasn't saying practicality was the only issue to consider or that it trumps individuality. But I think if we are going to debate communism's merits we need to look at it's economics and how it will tend to it's citizens practically(which if we consider the system to be well-adjusted, could be a 'good' point), not just emotionally and psychologically. Perhaps, practical implements is a better phrase than practical implementation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heath

To the issue of your post: That would not be ideal for a government. A communist's government's purpose is to enable all citizens to have their needs met and provide them work. Who would build the supercars of future politicians if everyone is hooked into life support? They need their supercars, discojoe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Discojoe

The point is that it's not ideal for the individual, because almost all of his freedoms are placed in the hands of the government, which historically cannot ever decide what is best for everyone.

---

Even if they don't know what is BEST for everyone, they would be capable of providing what is GREAT for everyone-- food!

Anyway, I'm resting now because I have conflict with communism, and am probably incapable of understanding it having been raised in an individualistic society.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dib2-HBsF08[/youtube]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heath

But I think if we are going to debate communism's merits we need to look at it's economics and how it will tend to it's citizens practically(which if we consider the system to be well-adjusted, could be a 'good' point), not just emotionally and psychologically. Perhaps, practical implements is a better phrase than practical implementation.

To the issue of your post: That would not be ideal for a government. A communist's government's purpose is to enable all citizens to have their needs met and provide them work. Who would build the supercars of future politicians if everyone is hooked into life support? They need their supercars, discojoe.

Even if they don't know what is BEST for everyone, they would be capable of providing what is GREAT for everyone-- food!

Anyway, I'm resting now because I have conflict with communism, and am probably incapable of understanding it having been raised in an individualistic society.

---

There is no mechanism for governments to do economic calculation, nor is there any incentive to be efficient. I will argue that if political dynamics were to leave people to live like individuals without manipulation, society would work fine.

If your stance is to take a system such as communism as a possible method to acheiving a better society, then if you would like, I will debate you on that stance.

Read the last sentence I wrote. In fact, you stated my conflict with communism in your paragraph. There is no system of incentive and reward besides 'doing it for fellow mankind.' This collectivist attitude conflicts with my entire(and most americans) upbringing whether at home or in an institution. Given this, it's very hard to concieve communism.

I apologize, I misunderstood what you said

I was gearing up for a semi-formal debate involving economic philososphy

ah no. I am interested in hearing what you have to say and I will debate you from a non-communist perspective. I've been thinking about a truly self-governed society and I have a few concerns: what are the incentives to maintain quality public institutions like roads and education? Would everyone build their own roads and then sell access to them? Do we have people who are born road-builders and remain road-builders/maintenance? How does it organize itself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heath

How does it organize itself?

---

http://www.amazon.com/Leviathan-Peng.../dp/0140431950

It's not a question of implementation -- communism, based on Marxism, is theoretically, fundamentally, bullshit. It's one of the worst jokes played on mankind. Marx wrote an immense number of pages on something that is simply wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

It's not a question of implementation -- communism, based on Marxism, is theoretically, fundamentally, bullshit. It's one of the worst jokes played on mankind. Marx wrote an immense number of pages on something that is simply wrong.

---

Why?

You can find a lot of that on the net, but to me two key points are:

- "scientific" analysis of history, which Marxists claimed gave their views the "inevitability" of history. The concept of class struggle as the key to historical, social, and economic development, as in their Manifesto. That's a typical (sorry) :Ti: concept that is not supported by the facts. To this day, it makes Marxist historians write sheer nonsense about the fall of the Roman Empire or WWI or the economy of Africa under colonial rule etc. Marxist historians insist on attributing the fall of the Roman Empire to its "internal contradictions" such as slavery or imperialism, which is sheer nonsense and clearly disproved as the eastern Roman Empire survived for centuries. Apart from the absence of any meaningful slave revolts under the empire.

By the way, that is a view also defended in movie versions of Spartacus, as a class struggle -- that interpretation of Spartacus's revolt is, again, sheer historical nonsense, it serves as "fix" for the Marxists' illusions.

- the labor theory of value, which makes no sense to anyone who really understands how the market economy works, or even to anyone who actually worked in an industrial plant trying to produce something that customers actually want to buy. And that is the essential explanation why all communist economies failed and stagnated.

Marxism is sheer nonsense, it's not a question of "bad implementation" or whatever. Millions of people were killed, starved, enslaved in a futile attempt to make nonsense work.

It doesn't have to make sense to a market economy if a market economy does not exist. It is also not nonsense because it failed. It's impractical, but not nonsense. You make valid points conveyed with too much rhetoric. As for the Marxist illusion of history-- I don't know much about this, but it seems really interesting. I wouldn't discount it completely. History cannot be explained solely by one school of thought. There have to be multiple perspectives and criteria for such an expansive subject. A marxist who says all history is related to class struggle is just as foolish as someone who discounts class struggle in history altogher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heath

It doesn't have to make sense to a market economy if a market economy does not exist.

---

The problem is that Marx used the labor theory of value to explain the market economy. Marx himself wrote that, in terms of efficiency in producing things, there was nothing like capitalism (the one he knew, of the 19th century). Precisely because he thought he understood it, he believed it could also work under socialism and communism. That is the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heath

It is also not nonsense because it failed. It's impractical, but not nonsense.

---

I think it is sheer, total, utter nonsense and rubbish, with no redeeming feature whatsoever, with as much value as Isaac Newton's attempt to calculate the dimensions of Hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heath

You make valid points conveyed with too much rhetoric. As for the Marxist illusion of history-- I don't know much about this, but it seems really interesting. I wouldn't discount it completely. History cannot be explained solely by one school of thought. There have to be multiple perspectives and criteria for such an expansive subject.

---

If you claim to have one "law of history", it has to survive the test of fitting what really happened. Marxism fails this, although they won't admit it. Other historians do not claim to have found any "law of history" -- they try to explain events individually, or to find general trends that nevertheless do not make Marx's claims of "inevitability".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heath

A marxist who says all history is related to class struggle is just as foolish as someone who discounts class struggle in history altogher.

---

Then you rightly think that Marx and Engels were foolish, because that is what they said in the Communist Manifesto.

Expat, let me just say that I find your position laughable. I would love to talk about it, but you are being entirely too single-minded and dismissive of one of the most important and influential ideologies (as in an ideology which has been incorporated into just about every major branch of social science), so I honestly doubt that you would listen when the subject matters to something you have already declared (in your infinite wisdom and :Te:) to be utter nonsense and rubbish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

Expat, let me just say that I find your position laughable. I would love to talk about it, but you are being entirely too single-minded and dismissive of one of the most important and influential ideologies (as in an ideology which has been incorporated into just about every major branch of social science),

---

A wonderful :Fe: argument, which does nothing to change my PoV. I also think that some major world religions are sheer rubbish, despite being "infuential ideologies".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

so I honestly doubt that you would listen when the subject matters to something you have already declared (in your infinite wisdom and :Te:) to be utter nonsense and rubbish.

---

Actually I would listen, provided you could give me some new argument -- having very thoroughly read about Marxism for decades, when it was taken more seriously in the world, I haven't seen any new argument to really defend it in ages.

Ah, and you're lucky for not having been born in a country, or an age, where those ideas were actually being implemented, rather than being discussed about in an academic atmosphere.

Let it go, Logos.

And Expat, that's an appeal to :Se: without :Te: or :Ti:, not :Fe:.

"It changed things a lot, so it must be good."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilly

"It changed things a lot, so it must be good."

---

Hmmm? What are you talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

Expat, let me just say that I find your position laughable. I would love to talk about it, but you are being entirely too single-minded and dismissive of one of the most important and influential ideologies (as in an ideology which has been incorporated into just about every major branch of social science),

---

A wonderful :Fe: argument, which does nothing to change my PoV. I also think that some major world religions are sheer rubbish, despite being "infuential ideologies".

---

I was not trying to change your point of view with that.

Anyway, I could not help but run this by a friend of mine, whose opinion on these sorts of things has always been something of an interest of mine. I found his response, which I have just received, to be somewhat humorous, so I thought that I would just share it with you.

Quote:

---

It's not a question of implementation -- communism, based on Marxism, is theoretically, fundamentally, bullshit. It's one of the worst jokes played on mankind. Marx wrote an immense number of pages on something that is simply wrong.

the only substantial points are that communism is based on marxism and that communism is theoretically flawed; the question of whether marxism is theoretically flawed is implied but not express (it would be fallacious to impute that point to every writer, actually--but perhaps a sohpisticated writer would allow the innuendo, as written, without the liability of having to demonstrate theoretical problems in marxism--however: not this writer, whose later points support the implication.) there is an astounding error, also, indicating that the writer has not actually read much marx (apart from the manifesto, maybe): most (i.e., 99%) of marx's writings are about capitalism and pre-capitalism. that the writer gets this basic point wrong is a blow contra aristotelian ethos.

---

Quote:

---

You can find a lot of that on the net, but to me two key points are:

relying on the internet resources is pretty whack - probably a freeper who's not read any actual books.

---

Quote:

---

"scientific" analysis of history, which Marxists claimed gave their views the "inevitability" of history. The concept of class struggle as the key to historical, social, and economic development, as in their Manifesto. That's a typical concept that is not supported by the facts. To this day, it makes Marxist historians write sheer nonsense about the fall of the Roman Empire or WWI or the economy of Africa under colonial rule etc. Marxist historians insist on attributing the fall of the Roman Empire to its "internal contradictions" such as slavery or imperialism, which is sheer nonsense and clearly disproved as the eastern Roman Empire survived for centuries. Apart from the absence of any meaningful slave revolts under the empire.

lots here. hard to tell what this writer is discussing, as it alludes to much but substantiates nothing. perhaps the writer means GEM de Ste. Croix's the class struggle in the ancient greek world, which is a classic in the field and does articulate a marxist account of the fall of the western roman empire, and includes minimal discussion of the east also. i do not think that writing, which is the basic marxist writing on rome, supports this writer's characterizations. i also do not think the writer is correct in the assessment of colonial rule in africa vis-a-vis marxist accounts of it; i suspect this is a "two cheers for colonialism" thesis, lurking in the background. for WWI, the basic marxist thesis is that capitalist powers were competing over access to foreign markets and other ancillaries to colonialism. i don't know enough about it to comment, honestly, but i can't see what the alternative position would be; in some respects, marxists arguments about struggles of economic resources are so obvious it's hard to dispute them, which explains why marxism has enjoyed its popularity over the years as a powerful tool of analysis. overall, this writer does not suggest why the marxist arguments are wrong, except to dismiss the class struggle thesis without reason, blithely rejecting a straw man of the class struggle concept. the writer does not seem to like the internal contradictions thesis, but does not explain further. there is potential for an interesting debate on these points, but the writer displays a puerile dismissiveness, sadly.

---

Quote:

---

By the way, that is a view also defended in movie versions of Spartacus, as a class struggle -- that interpretation of Spartacus's revolt is, again, sheer historical nonsense, it serves as "fix" for the Marxists' illusions.

spartacus was intended as a leftwing response to ben hur and other jesus-based roman films, sure. but marxist? a delusion. not sure about the film's accuracy; i suspect that it is more accurate than some, less accurate than others--but surely more realistic than the basic christian account involving miracles and ghosts.

---

Quote:

---

the labor theory of value, which makes no sense to anyone who really understands how the market economy works, or even to anyone who actually worked in an industrial plant trying to produce something that customers actually want to buy. And that is the essential explanation why all communist economies failed and stagnated.

i'd be interested in reading a good critique of the labor theory of value (which originates in smith & ricardo; marxism just takes it to its logical extreme); this writing is not an example of such a critique. rather, it is simply a version of the "every schoolboy knows" fallacy of logic. what is more originally a marxist theoretical contribution is the theory of surplus value, to which this writer may malappropriately be referring. i am not convinced that its alleged falsity is demonstrated merely by observing the production process of consumer goods. another good candidate for critique would be the original marxist position of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall; such has come in for much critique both internally to and externally from marxism; ditto for the equally central theory of the fetishism of commodities and the marxist theory of false consciousness. however, this writer is not interested in those debates.

---

Quote:

---

Marxism is sheer nonsense, it's not a question of "bad implementation" or whatever. Millions of people were killed, starved, enslaved in a futile attempt to make nonsense work.

there are of course errors in marxism, quite apart from any questions of public administration in the USSR or elsewhere--questions, incidentally, that classical marxism does not address, as i noted above; in some important sense, there's nothing in classical marxism for communist parties to implement as systems of governance. this is a fundamental category mistake in this writer's apprehension. the separate question of the death toll in states with nominally communist economies must be assessed as to whether those deaths were on account of the economic policies of communism or on account of political doctrines separate from economics (say, mongolian-tsarist administration residual from the pre-bolshevik period). the number of deaths, important to this writer, is subject to much debate, with the black book attempting to round the figure off at 100M for communism as a whole. i suspect, using the same methods, capitalism has a death toll many orders of magnitude greater--but such moral equivalnce arguments do not justify deaths under stalin or mao--they're just good for knocking these folks off their high horses.

---

Logos, your friends only real complaint is that Expat didn't write a academic article, which he didn't because this not the place to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electric

Logos, your friends only real complaint is that Expat didn't write a academic article, which he didn't because this not the place to.

---

You would think that, but you should see him and the usual bibliography he would attach to a post the size of Expat's. :lol:

Your friend makes a lot of assumptions and reachesd wrong conclusions, but never mind, he couldn't know better :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

the only substantial points are that communism is based on marxism and that communism is theoretically flawed; the question of whether marxism is theoretically flawed is implied but not express (it would be fallacious to impute that point to every writer, actually--but perhaps a sohpisticated writer would allow the innuendo, as written, without the liability of having to demonstrate theoretical problems in marxism--however: not this writer, whose later points support the implication.) there is an astounding error, also, indicating that the writer has not actually read much marx (apart from the manifesto, maybe): most (i.e., 99%) of marx's writings are about capitalism and pre-capitalism. that the writer gets this basic point wrong is a blow contra aristotelian ethos.

---

Analysis: This is a strawman. He's basically saying "he's unsophisticated because he did not explain that Marxism =/= communism, and obviously he doesn't know much" -- that is, he's deciding I'm ignorant of Marx and making his further comments based on his assumption of "having got me". :P

Comment: he's right in that I mixed up two concepts, which, for practical purposes, are often mixed up - one is Marxism as a theory, the other is communism as implemented. I happen to think that both are flawed, independently, but it's true that one does not necessarily lead to the other from a logical PoV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

Quote:

---

You can find a lot of that on the net, but to me two key points are:

relying on the internet resources is pretty whack - probably a freeper who's not read any actual books.

---

---

:lol: Tell him that you can find all of Marx's books, and most (perhaps even all) of his writings, in the internet. Tell him he can save some money.

Seriously, Logos, this comment tells a lot about him. What pathetic attempt at branding me a "whack" is this? Because I mention the internet?

I've been around since before the age of the internet, btw (yes such a time existed, and not that long ago) and read lots of books.

One book I can recommend (which I own and have read - yes :shock: ) is Marx's Revenge by Meghnad Desai -- quite a good book, which makes precisely the point that commumist regimes in the 20th century were non-marxist.

I felt inclined to stop reading there, but let us go on --

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

lots here. hard to tell what this writer is discussing, as it alludes to much but substantiates nothing.

---

Yes, I wasn't intending to write a thesis, you know. Nor do I intend to do it now. Shame on me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

perhaps the writer means GEM de Ste. Croix's the class struggle in the ancient greek world, which is a classic in the field and does articulate a marxist account of the fall of the western roman empire, and includes minimal discussion of the east also. i do not think that writing, which is the basic marxist writing on rome, supports this writer's characterizations.

---

I think it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

i also do not think the writer is correct in the assessment of colonial rule in africa vis-a-vis marxist accounts of it; i suspect this is a "two cheers for colonialism" thesis, lurking in the background.

---

Uhh -- is he going to second-guess the "background" now and make his "suspicions" the base of the discussion? (second temptation to stop reading). Strawman argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

for WWI, the basic marxist thesis is that capitalist powers were competing over access to foreign markets and other ancillaries to colonialism. i don't know enough about it to comment, honestly, but i can't see what the alternative position would be

---

Because he never bothered to read anything else but Marxist books.

Here's a good book - yes, :shock: a book - about that, Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War . Even if he doesn't agree with it, it may open up his mind a little. It's still available in Amazon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

in some respects, marxists arguments about struggles of economic resources are so obvious it's hard to dispute them,

---

Yes, they are obvious if you never bothered to read alternative viewpoints.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

which explains why marxism has enjoyed its popularity over the years as a powerful tool of analysis.

---

Same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

overall, this writer does not suggest why the marxist arguments are wrong, except to dismiss the class struggle thesis without reason, blithely rejecting a straw man of the class struggle concept. the writer does not seem to like the internal contradictions thesis, but does not explain further. there is potential for an interesting debate on these points, but the writer displays a puerile dismissiveness, sadly.

---

Ouch. He got me now, there, didn't he? I can of course say the same about him (uh, I guess I did, above)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

spartacus was intended as a leftwing response to ben hur and other jesus-based roman films, sure. but marxist? a delusion. not sure about the film's accuracy; i suspect that it is more accurate than some, less accurate than others--but surely more realistic than the basic christian account involving miracles and ghosts.

---

When did I say that Ben Hur or The Robe etc more accurate? Strawman argument.

I did not mean that Spartacus, as a movie, is even meant to be a scholarly Marxist analysis. But both the author of the book - Howard Fast - and of the screenplay - Dalton Trambo - had the marxist analysis in mind. Now, if some marxist historian would say "what they wrote has nothing to do at all with the marxist viewpoint", ok, I would take a look at the argument. To me it seems that theirs is a reflection (however simplistic) of that viewpoint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

i'd be interested in reading a good critique of the labor theory of value (which originates in smith & ricardo; marxism just takes it to its logical extreme); this writing is not an example of such a critique. rather, it is simply a version of the "every schoolboy knows" fallacy of logic.

---

I wasn't writing a thesis, you know -- and talk about pot-and-kettle here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

what is more originally a marxist theoretical contribution is the theory of surplus value, to which this writer may malappropriately be referring.

---

I was thinking of both, actually, and I should have been more clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

i am not convinced that its alleged falsity is demonstrated merely by observing the production process of consumer goods.

---

I was not writing a thesis, you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

another good candidate for critique would be the original marxist position of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall; such has come in for much critique both internally to and externally from marxism; ditto for the equally central theory of the fetishism of commodities and the marxist theory of false consciousness. however, this writer is not interested in those debates.

---

Uh -- he presumes to know what I'm interested in from that one post?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

there are of course errors in marxism, quite apart from any questions of public administration in the USSR or elsewhere--questions, incidentally, that classical marxism does not address, as i noted above; in some important sense, there's nothing in classical marxism for communist parties to implement as systems of governance.

---

No, I disagree with that. The management of enterprises in the USSR and elsewhere was based on their understanding of the surplus value theory. Whether they got it right or not, even from a marxist viewpoint, is another story; but it did provide them with a base to justify their theories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

this is a fundamental category mistake in this writer's apprehension. the separate question of the death toll in states with nominally communist economies must be assessed as to whether those deaths were on account of the economic policies of communism or on account of political doctrines separate from economics (say, mongolian-tsarist administration residual from the pre-bolshevik period). the number of deaths, important to this writer, is subject to much debate, with the black book attempting to round the figure off at 100M for communism as a whole. i suspect, using the same methods, capitalism has a death toll many orders of magnitude greater--but such moral equivalnce arguments do not justify deaths under stalin or mao--they're just good for knocking these folks off their high horses.

---

Now he just made me ill. I won't bother to reply to this paragraph.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Your friend makes a lot of assumptions and reachesd wrong conclusions, but never mind, he couldn't know better :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

the only substantial points are that communism is based on marxism and that communism is theoretically flawed; the question of whether marxism is theoretically flawed is implied but not express (it would be fallacious to impute that point to every writer, actually--but perhaps a sohpisticated writer would allow the innuendo, as written, without the liability of having to demonstrate theoretical problems in marxism--however: not this writer, whose later points support the implication.) there is an astounding error, also, indicating that the writer has not actually read much marx (apart from the manifesto, maybe): most (i.e., 99%) of marx's writings are about capitalism and pre-capitalism. that the writer gets this basic point wrong is a blow contra aristotelian ethos.

---

Analysis: This is a strawman. He's basically saying "he's unsophisticated because he did not explain that Marxism =/= communism, and obviously he doesn't know much" -- that is, he's deciding I'm ignorant of Marx and making his further comments based on his assumption of "having got me". :P

Comment: he's right in that I mixed up two concepts, which, for practical purposes, are often mixed up - one is Marxism as a theory, the other is communism as implemented. I happen to think that both are flawed, independently, but it's true that one does not necessarily lead to the other from a logical PoV.

---

Well to be fair, he is going off of a limited perception of you and he does not know you personally, which is something he said in a small snippet I left out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

Quote:

---

You can find a lot of that on the net, but to me two key points are:

relying on the internet resources is pretty whack - probably a freeper who's not read any actual books.

---

---

:lol: Tell him that you can find all of Marx's books, and most (perhaps even all) of his writings, in the internet. Tell him he can save some money.

Seriously, Logos, this comment tells a lot about him. What pathetic attempt at branding me a "whack" is this? Because I mention the internet?

I've been around since before the age of the internet, btw (yes such a time existed, and not that long ago) and read lots of books.

One book I can recommend (which I own and have read - yes :shock: ) is Marx's Revenge by Meghnad Desai -- quite a good book, which makes precisely the point that commumist regimes in the 20th century were non-marxist.

I felt inclined to stop reading there, but let us go on --

---

Well I also thought that was a pretty bad point on your part. Yes, I can find arguments against Marxism and Communism on the internet, but there are also plenty of counter-arguments as well, so telling me that I can find "all the answers" on the internet is a pretty worthless of a comment to make. And I am sure that he knows that the works of Marx can be found on the internet as well, but his "library" of Marxist literature is not, so that he is where he is coming from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

perhaps the writer means GEM de Ste. Croix's the class struggle in the ancient greek world, which is a classic in the field and does articulate a marxist account of the fall of the western roman empire, and includes minimal discussion of the east also. i do not think that writing, which is the basic marxist writing on rome, supports this writer's characterizations.

---

I think it does.

---

And he does not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

i also do not think the writer is correct in the assessment of colonial rule in africa vis-a-vis marxist accounts of it; i suspect this is a "two cheers for colonialism" thesis, lurking in the background.

---

Uhh -- is he going to second-guess the "background" now and make his "suspicions" the base of the discussion? (second temptation to stop reading). Strawman argument.

---

You seem to be ignoring his points. Shame on you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

for WWI, the basic marxist thesis is that capitalist powers were competing over access to foreign markets and other ancillaries to colonialism. i don't know enough about it to comment, honestly, but i can't see what the alternative position would be

---

Because he never bothered to read anything else but Marxist books.

Here's a good book - yes, :shock: a book - about that, Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War . Even if he doesn't agree with it, it may open up his mind a little. It's still available in Amazon.

---

And now you are making baseless assumptions of your own about this person. Shame on you again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

in some respects, marxists arguments about struggles of economic resources are so obvious it's hard to dispute them,

---

Yes, they are obvious if you never bothered to read alternative viewpoints.

---

Cute commentary, but what you are saying is really adding nothing at all of value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

which explains why marxism has enjoyed its popularity over the years as a powerful tool of analysis.

---

Same.

---

Has it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

overall, this writer does not suggest why the marxist arguments are wrong, except to dismiss the class struggle thesis without reason, blithely rejecting a straw man of the class struggle concept. the writer does not seem to like the internal contradictions thesis, but does not explain further. there is potential for an interesting debate on these points, but the writer displays a puerile dismissiveness, sadly.

---

Ouch. He got me now, there, didn't he? I can of course say the same about him (uh, I guess I did, above)

---

I suppose so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

spartacus was intended as a leftwing response to ben hur and other jesus-based roman films, sure. but marxist? a delusion. not sure about the film's accuracy; i suspect that it is more accurate than some, less accurate than others--but surely more realistic than the basic christian account involving miracles and ghosts.

---

When did I say that Ben Hur or The Robe etc more accurate? Strawman argument.

I did not mean that Spartacus, as a movie, is even meant to be a scholarly Marxist analysis. But both the author of the book - Howard Fast - and of the screenplay - Dalton Trambo - had the marxist analysis in mind. Now, if some marxist historian would say "what they wrote has nothing to do at all with the marxist viewpoint", ok, I would take a look at the argument. To me it seems that theirs is a reflection (however simplistic) of that viewpoint.

---

You did not say that, but then again that was not his point. Strawman argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

i'd be interested in reading a good critique of the labor theory of value (which originates in smith & ricardo; marxism just takes it to its logical extreme); this writing is not an example of such a critique. rather, it is simply a version of the "every schoolboy knows" fallacy of logic.

---

I wasn't writing a thesis, you know -- and talk about pot-and-kettle here.

---

But that is generally how he writes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

what is more originally a marxist theoretical contribution is the theory of surplus value, to which this writer may malappropriately be referring.

---

I was thinking of both, actually, and I should have been more clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

i am not convinced that its alleged falsity is demonstrated merely by observing the production process of consumer goods.

---

I was not writing a thesis, you know.

---

Fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

another good candidate for critique would be the original marxist position of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall; such has come in for much critique both internally to and externally from marxism; ditto for the equally central theory of the fetishism of commodities and the marxist theory of false consciousness. however, this writer is not interested in those debates.

---

Uh -- he presumes to know what I'm interested in from that one post?

---

Yes, much like how you presume a great deal about him from his one post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

there are of course errors in marxism, quite apart from any questions of public administration in the USSR or elsewhere--questions, incidentally, that classical marxism does not address, as i noted above; in some important sense, there's nothing in classical marxism for communist parties to implement as systems of governance.

---

No, I disagree with that. The management of enterprises in the USSR and elsewhere was based on their understanding of the surplus value theory. Whether they got it right or not, even from a marxist viewpoint, is another story; but it did provide them with a base to justify their theories.

---

Again, fair enough of an argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

this is a fundamental category mistake in this writer's apprehension. the separate question of the death toll in states with nominally communist economies must be assessed as to whether those deaths were on account of the economic policies of communism or on account of political doctrines separate from economics (say, mongolian-tsarist administration residual from the pre-bolshevik period). the number of deaths, important to this writer, is subject to much debate, with the black book attempting to round the figure off at 100M for communism as a whole. i suspect, using the same methods, capitalism has a death toll many orders of magnitude greater--but such moral equivalnce arguments do not justify deaths under stalin or mao--they're just good for knocking these folks off their high horses.

---

Now he just made me ill. I won't bother to reply to this paragraph.

---

I will let you be ill then. Must be an :Si: PoLR. :P

Now Expat, I do respect your opinion and yourself as a person, so please try and understand mine. While accuse Marxism as being complete rubbish, I do not see it as such. I do believe that Marxism is incredibly idealistic and simple in its ways at times, as Marx's prediction (no real :Ni: and all) of the Communist revolutions have thus far proved highly inaccurate, especially in light of the social welfare reforms which were made after the times of Marx. But Marxism is a system and a window for viewing the world, and it was very much a revolutionary system in its own right. Much like heath, I do not believe that Marxism should be the sole method of viewing history or analyzing social issues, but I do not think that it should be dismissed entirely as you seem to do with it on the grounds of it's original base theory lacking in facts and reality. My recommendation is to break up the Marxist theory into its various parts and pieces and do not look at it entirely from a holistic approach. Because there are still some incredible aspects of Marxist theory which would prove quite practical and useful in just about any area of discourse: an economic perspective of history and social issues, his borrowed use of self-alienation from Feuerbach, the critique of capitalism and the wealthy, and the shift in philosophy that Marxism made ("The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."). So my request, is simply that you expand your :Ne:, not be too dismissive of the theory, and incorporate a little Marx in not so much your views as much as your viewpoints (ie treat the Marxism system as a pair of glasses which can be exchanged for another pair to allow for multiple ways of viewing a situation).

I suppose this is a difference between :Ti: and :Te: here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

Well I also thought that was a pretty bad point on your part. Yes, I can find arguments against Marxism and Communism on the internet, but there are also plenty of counter-arguments as well, so telling me that I can find "all the answers" on the internet is a pretty worthless of a comment to make. And I am sure that he knows that the works of Marx can be found on the internet as well, but his "library" of Marxist literature is not, so that he is where he is coming from.

---

Did I say "all the answers" or even imply that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

i also do not think the writer is correct in the assessment of colonial rule in africa vis-a-vis marxist accounts of it; i suspect this is a "two cheers for colonialism" thesis, lurking in the background.

---

Uhh -- is he going to second-guess the "background" now and make his "suspicions" the base of the discussion? (second temptation to stop reading). Strawman argument.

---

You seem to be ignoring his points. Shame on you.

---

What he said about "two cheers for colonialism" deserved no better answer.

But I will say it briefly here. The problem with the marxist analysis of European colonialism in Africa (although perhaps influenced more by Lenin than Marx himself) is that it does not look at the real figures and facts. It grossly exaggerates the economic importance of most African colonies for the economy of the European powers. An illuminating example is the Congo, which was colonized by the Belgian King Leopold II, in his capacity as an individual entrepreneur (his status as king did help). The Belgian government, bankers and industrialists had no interest in the Congo. It almost bankrupted Leopold before he hit the jackpot with the automotive-induced rubber boom. The Congo eventually enriched Leopold II as an individual, but not the Belgian economy to any significant extent. The same goes for German colonies and Germany. The point is not whether colonialism should be "cheered" or not :8* since those who colonized it in the late 19th century meant neither to do good nor to do evil as a purpose in itself. They were in for the money. That is obvious. The real question is whether African colonies, as business enterprises, were really as important for the European powers as marxists think. They were important for some individuals, which is another story, but in most cases not for the countries as a whole.

Yes, there are complicated cases (South Africa, Algeria, Egypt) but the point is that the blank marixist interpretation for all of Africa does not hold up.

And no, I'm not going to write a "bibliography" here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

for WWI, the basic marxist thesis is that capitalist powers were competing over access to foreign markets and other ancillaries to colonialism. i don't know enough about it to comment, honestly, but i can't see what the alternative position would be

---

Because he never bothered to read anything else but Marxist books.

Here's a good book - yes, :shock: a book - about that, Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War . Even if he doesn't agree with it, it may open up his mind a little. It's still available in Amazon.

---

And now you are making baseless assumptions of your own about this person. Shame on you again.

---

Don't be ridiculous. He clearly said "but i can't see what the alternative position would be". So if he can't even see an alternative (without having to agree with it), then it is not a baseless assumption at all. I do know the Marxist and non-Marxist view, and so could he.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

spartacus was intended as a leftwing response to ben hur and other jesus-based roman films, sure. but marxist? a delusion. not sure about the film's accuracy; i suspect that it is more accurate than some, less accurate than others--but surely more realistic than the basic christian account involving miracles and ghosts.

---

When did I say that Ben Hur or The Robe etc more accurate? Strawman argument.

I did not mean that Spartacus, as a movie, is even meant to be a scholarly Marxist analysis. But both the author of the book - Howard Fast - and of the screenplay - Dalton Trambo - had the marxist analysis in mind. Now, if some marxist historian would say "what they wrote has nothing to do at all with the marxist viewpoint", ok, I would take a look at the argument. To me it seems that theirs is a reflection (however simplistic) of that viewpoint.

---

You did not say that, but then again that was not his point. Strawman argument.

---

I did address the main point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

Now Expat, I do respect your opinion and yourself as a person, so please try and understand mine. While accuse Marxism as being complete rubbish, I do not see it as such

---

Well maybe one day you will change your mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

I do believe that Marxism is incredibly idealistic and simple in its ways at times, as Marx's prediction (no real :Ni: and all) of the Communist revolutions have thus far proved highly inaccurate, especially in light of the social welfare reforms which were made after the times of Marx

---

His predictions were wrong because he did not really understand the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

: an economic perspective of history and social issues,

---

You don't have to rely on Marx for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

So my request, is simply that you expand your :Ne:, not be too dismissive of the theory, and incorporate a little Marx in not so much your views as much as your viewpoints (ie treat the Marxism system as a pair of glasses which can be exchanged for another pair to allow for multiple ways of viewing a situation).

---

The point you miss is that I "dismiss it" because I understand it and have concluded that it's rubbish. Why should I wear glasses that don't work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

Now Expat, I do respect your opinion and yourself as a person, so please try and understand mine. While accuse Marxism as being complete rubbish, I do not see it as such

---

Well maybe one day you will change your mind.

---

Ditto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

So my request, is simply that you expand your :Ne:, not be too dismissive of the theory, and incorporate a little Marx in not so much your views as much as your viewpoints (ie treat the Marxism system as a pair of glasses which can be exchanged for another pair to allow for multiple ways of viewing a situation).

---

The point you miss is that I "dismiss it" because I understand it and have concluded that it's rubbish. Why should I wear glasses that don't work?

---

Because you already seem to be wearing them.

Edit: Let me change that last part. I do not miss your point. I infact addressed it. You apparently do, or at least claim, to understand Marxism and on that grounds you dismiss it as being rubbish. My point is that you should not dismiss it entirely or in its entirety, and at least respect its separated logical parts, though I am sure you will go on to tell me that it is all rubbish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electric

Logos, your friends only real complaint is that Expat didn't write a academic article, which he didn't because this not the place to.

---

You would think that, but you should see him and the usual bibliography he would attach to a post the size of Expat's. :lol:

---

There wasn't much your friend could argue about because Expat's post wasn't really a thesis and it wasn't a thesis because it was only meant to be a forum post. So there was no real justification for him trying to 'rip it apart WITH HIS MIND'. The whole rebuttal just seemed like some unless fucked up ego trip, a lot of nothing described with big words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electric

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electric

Logos, your friends only real complaint is that Expat didn't write a academic article, which he didn't because this not the place to.

---

You would think that, but you should see him and the usual bibliography he would attach to a post the size of Expat's. :lol:

---

There wasn't much your friend could argue about because Expat's post wasn't really a thesis and it wasn't a thesis because it was only meant to be a forum post. So there was no real justification for him trying to 'rip it apart WITH HIS MIND'. The whole rebuttal just seemed like some unless fucked up ego trip, a lot of nothing described with big words.

---

What justification? Whenever I sent the original post to him, all I asked was "What do you think about this?" And he responded in kind like he normally would in a forum post. That is just his style of writing that he has used in the three odd years which I have known him.

A few comments --

- on the Roman Empire, I was probably too harsh in my precise comments on the Marxists' views. But the point remains that their economic interpretations refer to trends that were at least as visible in the eastern half as in the western half, and it seems to me that even the most serious marxist texts on that do not really address the issue of why the eastern half survived, and even prospered, while the western half collapsed. If anyone's interested, I recommend Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire: a New History, a new book, on that (and yes I have read it).

- for what the alternative views on WWI could be, again, Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War.

- as electric may recall, in the British Museum I tried to show the library reading room where Marx did most of his research and wrote his books. I have had an interest in Marx and marxism. I have visited his grave in Highgate Cemetery in London and to his birthplace in Trier, Germany (his family house is a small museum). That does not make me a specialist, but I have had more than a passing interest, especially since, when I was in college, Marxism was much more -- respected than today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

My point is that you should not dismiss it entirely or in its entirety, and at least respect its separated logical parts, though I am sure you will go on to tell me that it is all rubbish.

---

Well it depends then on what is meant with "Marxism". When I use that term, I refer to what I think is its core concepts in terms of understanding history and economics, basically the concept of class struggle, the surplus value and labor value theories, and the laws of history. All of those are, in my judgement, rubbish.

If you extend those to lots of other things, like analysing historical developments from the economic perspective and critique of the wealthy -- fine, but neither of them, especially the latter, are inventions of marxism.

The 18th-century intellectuals - men like Adam Smith and Edward Gibbon - were already aware of the need to consider the economic background to history, and even early Christianism already criticised capitalism and the wealthy.

As for history -- if anything, I usually find marxists at fault in that by looking only at the economics and dismissing the effects of chance, personality, and human stupidity. Socionics shows us that. Perhaps the French Revolution was historically "inevitable", but there was nothing inevitable about how and when it happened. It was sheer chance that Louis XVI happened to be king; can anyone argue that if Louis XVI had been an ESTp, for instance, things would have been different? The same goes for Nicholas II in Russia. Yet Marxist historians are unwilling to pay any attention to such things, regarding them as irrelevant in the context of economic and historical processes. That is a big mistake.

The problem with using Marxism to explain historical change, as Expat said, is that Marxism isn't universally true in every circumstance - it can never be proven to be 'true' either, because any failed attempt at Marxism can be dismissed as an being an incomplete Marxist process - it can only be proved true if every state is Marxist and each state runs 100% efficiently according to Marxist principles, and that everyone agrees this is the case :P .

The Romans (and most civilisations) obviously knew nothing about Karl Marx, and many\most of the concepts he introduced simply did not exist - if Marxism is the obvious explaination for change, and humans have always unconsciously tried to emualte Marxist principles some way, why did Marx need to write a book explaining this? :P

People in many civilisations in the past and present simply don't have any notion of being repressed by the upper classed blah blah blah - they might for example believe they are fulfilling a god-given role (whether equal or not) in that society, by which they are being 'exploited' - but they may genuinely believe that the gods\the environment give much more in return, and look favorably upon them, e.g. making the soils fertile and ensuring rain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subterranean

The Romans (and most civilizations) obviously knew nothing about Karl Marx, and many\most of the concepts he introduced simply did not exist - if Marxism is the obvious explanation for change, and humans have always unconsciously tried to emulate Marxist principles some way, why did Marx need to write a book explaining this? :P

---

While I follow your other arguments, this is something of a logical fallacy. The Romans (and most civilizations) obviously knew nothing about Isaac Newton, and many/most of of the concepts he introduced already existed - if gravity is the obvious explanation for falling objects, and humans have always known that objects fall to the earth, why did Newton need to write a book explaining this?

We all follow gravity whether we like to or not, but not all people consider themselves to be enslaved by their 'oppressors' even if they are (or you consider them to be, which is usually the case with social theories).

You can test gravity through practice - it is unlikely you will experience more than one revolution, and the experience is always subjective - it varies even in people of the same group. How do you test for such things, spanning vast quantities of time, and without the subjective understandings (and therfore varied) of people who actually lived during these times? You can't make 20th century social theories fit ancient social models - though you can make a social theory a self-fulfilling prophecy i.e. if you make Das Kapital your manifesto - but even then, it has never been shown to work flawlessly as gravity has (at least on Earth :P ).

Newton explained how exactly gravity worked, but it didn't change how past societies viewed gravity only ours. Karl Marx explained how social change worked, but he didn't change the way past societies viewed such changes, only contemporary and later societies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subterranean

We all follow gravity whether we like to or not, but not all people consider themselves to be enslaved by their 'oppressors' even if they are (or you consider them to be, which is usually the case with social theories).

You can test gravity through practice - it is unlikely you will experience more than one revolution, and the experience is always subjective - it varies even in people of the same group. How do you test for such things, spanning vast quantities of time, and without the subjective understandings (and therfore varied) of people who actually lived during these times? You can't make 20th century social theories fit ancient social models - though you can make a social theory a self-fulfilling prophecy i.e. if you make Das Kapital your manifesto - but even then, it has never been shown to work flawlessly as gravity has (at least on Earth :P ).

---

I was aware of my own logical fallacy in this example, but I took the risk for the general idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subterranean

Newton explained how exactly gravity worked, but it didn't change how past societies viewed gravity only ours. Karl Marx explained how social change worked, but he didn't change the way past societies viewed such changes, only contemporary and later societies.

---

And that is my point.

Actually the ancient Romans were familiar with the concept of class struggle since their Republican constitution was designed precisely around that, and the historically-conscious Roman of the early empire would fully understand that that was part of the process that made the Republic into the Empire (no, not Star Wars).

Where I think Marxists got it wrong is that they look at that as explaining history as a whole, and that is a big mistake imo.

As for Marxism being "powerful tool of analysis" *shrug*, well, I have no need for it to understand history and economics to my satisfaction. If you feel the need for some "tool of analysis", as to put everything into a system, go ahead. I think it's a mistake and it leads to erroneous conclusions.