Also do you think it can be related to quadra values and/or quadral complexes?
Also do you think it can be related to quadra values and/or quadral complexes?
Last edited by Kiba; 06-17-2020 at 07:50 PM.
I mean more like, what are the motivations of the ppl who believes that marxism is the solution to economic problems.
I think as system is pretty idealistic and doesn't take into account human nature and it results in repression and tyranny. And I think it limits human rights in the most basic levels.
Last edited by Kiba; 06-27-2020 at 06:06 PM.
because they're gay with aids
Not all ppl who believes in marxism or communism are from low income background. But Marx was from low income background. However some atheists believes that an utopy as marxism is possible and desirable for getting a fair and ethical distribution of resources.
Someone becomes a Marxist because they don't understand mathematics.
Model X Will Save Us!
Also, I haven't even gotten into how Keynesian economics fucks up the economy.
Last edited by Hitta; 06-18-2020 at 01:00 AM.
Model X Will Save Us!
You can believe in an economic-reductionist view of history without sharing Marx's vision. That economic reductionism is "marxist," even though many people who reject marx's vision of the future also take this lens. In the same way, you can believe Nietzsche's view of historical values having been split between master and slave, without sharing his master-moralist views, and aligning yourself with slave-morality instead. The framework describes how you believe the world to be ordered as a matter of fact, but you can still apply your own values within that framework. What most people identify as marxists are those who share marxian visions, not all economic-reductionists, which fit under the technical umbrella of "marxism" even if we wouldn't call them that.
Alternatives to economic reduction include religious-reduction like Max Weber's type, and the Great Man theory of history, which is factually wrong and shouldn't require justifying.
Ahem. From someone who sounds like a "Marxist," people from well off backgrounds are not likely to come up with ideas that work because they can only imagine class oppression. Then there are those from lower classes who make it "big" and then sell out. We humans are weak.
More serious answer. I imagine what people are calling Marxism (though that may be the wrong label) has already won. The overlords aren't coming, they are already here. The time to fight them was years ago and the only way to fight them was to do equality better. No one did.
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
bleeding heart, lack of historical perspective & shitty education
It's because I think all that math stuff is over my head that I'm NOT Marxist (or an adherent to any economic system), but having lived all my life under capitalism, its easier to see the flaws and have a soft spot for presented alternatives. And NOT having had exposure to other environments makes it easier to justify or overlook potential flaws. I think this explains the "why," along with more confidence about all that math stuff, lol. I don't wanna dismiss anybody's thoughts by tossing out the phrase "grass is greener," but I think that's part of understanding the motivation.
I'm not a Marxist, but I can describe some of my own motivations for being to the left of social democrats:
I believe in worker ownership for large firms — barring that, some form of worker representation or stake-ownership. I believe that this is desirable to the same extent that representative democracy is a more desirable form of government than benevolent oligarchy.
What is social democracy in a nutshell? Better regulated markets and higher taxes on the rich to fund social programs. That's nice, but social democracy remains a two-tier society with a class of leaders held accountable by shareholders rather than workers. There is a degree of social mobility, but the class of leaders is only accountable to other members of that class, and remains more-or-less hereditary.
Consider how the same logic would be received if it were applied to our political system. Would anyone seriously argue to have an unimpeachable monarch that is 'regulated' by a legal constitution? Politicians worked extremely hard to succeed — just as hard as businessmen — and continue to work hard to pass laws, yet the same argument is never used to justify giving them a permanent or semi-permanent station. There is a democratic premise that politicians can be removed by their constituents on election day; these are constituents by virtue of simply being citizens, not by virtue of being other members of the political class.
Last edited by xerx; 06-21-2020 at 04:57 AM. Reason: Removed unnecessary trailing sentence
you'd be hard pressed to find mainland Europeans who aren't socialist & authoritarian to some degree tho (including me). It comes with the geopolitical situation (constant invasion & war), much like how the British & Americans have a predisposition towards liberty & capitalism (partially or entirely easy to defend island nations with access to the ocean)
Its interesting to see tho how rampant capitalism always warrants a socialist backlash, even in the US.
Last edited by SGF; 06-19-2020 at 08:51 AM.
There's also another kind of Marxist, the one who wants to dominate and rule over others and be the benevolent wise and allknowing Parent or older sibling who occasionally has to punish the children for their own good.
In either case the appeal of Marxism comes from a deep unconscious desire to return to an idealized version of childhood.
I take it that you want the personal motivations of Marxists (or of activists on the radical left). I can give you an anecdotal answer based on the Marxists that I've read and have personally known.
They have tended to be very scholarly individual; better-educated than average, especially in fields like history. They're more likely to be sympathetic to people's suffering, even if it's at an abstract level. They're more opinionated than average, and more willing to dissent. They tend to be more excitable, and quicker to want decisive action against what they regard as unjustness or unfairness. They're more likely to have very rigid convictions about right and wrong.
That's the gist of it. Some of this description may be applicable to radicals of most kinds (Islamist, Anarchist, etc...)
Last edited by xerx; 06-19-2020 at 08:09 PM.
Because that is the push for the near future. Marxism, then communism, worldwide. Its not good and we can see it coming. It's easy to look around and see methods that can be used for this change of regime. It was foretold that without much prayer and without the consecrations of Russia by the Pope and Bishops that Russia would spread its errors throughout the world. That was foretold in Fatima in 1917 and, our infiltrated Church has never allowed that consecration to happen. So now it is easy to see that that is our future. Communism throughout the whole world. That is what the Blessed Mother foretold in Fatima, that day of the biggest miracle witnessed by the most people since the parting of the Red Sea. In the end, her Immaculate Heart will triumph - but not without some very painful times, first. Persecution and much blood of martyrs. Much loss of life.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
As the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset once said: left and right are just two of the many ways for a person to be imbecile.
There are two things: there is Marx and there is Marxism. Marx once said that he was not a Marxist himself. So we can safely conclude that Marxism, like any dogmatic stand in life, is just another way to be imbecile.
With that out of the way, perhaps there is the possibility of giving Marx some credit for some of his ideas, or perhaps for his theory at large. I, for one, am as much an admirer of Marx as I am an admirer of Friedrich Hayek. Only ignorant people with self-serving tunnel vision (which is 99% of humanity) fail to see that both have valuable insights to offer.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
I think we need to turn the free speech debate towards protecting obscenities. If you defend only slurs that serve one's side's interests on the basis of free speech, then one's principle is transparent and self-serving, but once you defend the type of communication that no one would consider moral, then you've protected free speech when it's hard to do so. I don't think enough people care about that.
Some selected works:
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
The Class Struggles in France
The Civil War in France
Principles of Communism
The Communist Manifesto
The Poverty of Philosophy
On The Jewish Question
Value, Price and Profit
Wage Labour and Capital
A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
Critique of the Gotha Programme
I think Isaiah Berlin's 'Karl Marx: His Life and Environment' is a good introduction to those who are new. You can find it on https://z-lib.org/
Main 'Currents of Marxism: Its Origins, Growth and Dissolution' by Leszek Kołakowski I've heard is another good one.
Marx is perhaps the most influential thinker of the 19th century, he is a modern Aristotle.
Capital alone should be mandatory reading today, it really teaches you how to think. The Hegelian influence is very apparent.
He is also perhaps one of the most misrepresented intellectuals who ever lived. The gut reaction he gives to people is really stupid.
You should answer peoples' questions. Don't you want to raise class consciousness?
I come from a poor family, have a soft spot for underdogs and have more faith in first-world, democratic governments than powerful private entities that are under no obligation to be accountable to society as long as their bottom line is secure. Private businesses will almost always cut corners and subject their workers to the most egregious degree possible if they can get away with it and save a few dollars
Last edited by Averroes; 05-27-2022 at 01:18 PM.
If you're an ethnic minority in the US, the federal government has pretty much been the lesser of two evils since the reconstruction era probably. It's obvious who stands to benefit the most from living in a libertarian paradise
Most anarchist and libertarian ideology is a big wank.
Come to the us and you'll see why pretty easily
There is no such thing as an 'ethnic minority' in the US and if there are it's soon to be white people.If you're an ethnic minority in the US
I do think that because man has a religious tendency by virtue of his nature, he winds up deifying things like the state when he becomes an atheist. Consequently, he may become a Communist, Marxist, or Socialist in the absence of a true religious or spiritual tradition.
Socionically, the types that have DA Cognition and Beta values have the greatest tendency toward Marxism.
Just on the border of your waking mind,
There lies another time
Where darkness and light are one,
And as you tread the halls of sanity
You feel so glad to be unable to go beyond
I have a message from another time.
Communism, like some religion does not take into account the human nature and its psychology. The reason why any idealized society model can not work it's because we can't psycho-clone ourselves. We can't for instance control the demographic distribution of TIMs in any given society. We can't guarantee that all our offsprings will blindly accept without exception a given model of society. Absolute conformism is impossible unless we find a way to genetically control the traits and personalities of our descendants e.g. human breeding, producing '"Farm humans" , "GMO Humans".
If we can't control their destiny before their birth, then we must control their development in order to avoid "bugs" in the system. Repression and totalitarianism are a quasi unavoidable direct consequence to such regimes. And so we have propaganda, censorship and cult of the personalities (personality-centered regimes) and the ultimate price is the lost of freedoms. Not one communist Regime has avoided those patterns.
With that said, people will always find a pathway to the pursuit of happiness regardless of the regime because that's also the human nature, we adapt. Even if an Ideal/Utopian model can be appealing to some and worth the fight to see it happening, its implementation would not last very long if it's too dogmatic and/or Liberticide because human nature will always carry the ferment of revolution. As long as we'll exist , all the human nature will express itself the way it's supposed to. We can not create a socion without including all the quadras and their representatives, and the very nature of quadra progression dynamics prevents the lasting of one Quadra values over another.
Note that I don't know what I'm talking about !
Anyway, I think some become a Marxist for the same reason some becomes a Scientologist, a Darwinist, a Buddhist etc.. They are seduced by the concept and it gives them meaning and/or reason to be. Most of this stuff is met at Universities, Academic "milieu" where everyone has to have a political opinion and put into an ideological box or they are seen as dumb or something.
Last edited by godslave; 05-29-2022 at 10:21 PM. Reason: refining , reframing...
ppl like to ignore information staying oblivious to their own cognitive blanks. if u are cognitively blank u end up not processing information as u should. this is why ppl have different definitions of what a marxist is, and why they have the same definitions but think they are talking about something different.
why wouldnt u want everything to be ethical? because u are an unethical person. people who want others to suffer for them dont like marxism. people like that get born out of reality enabling them yet forcing them. u need factors adding up to be born and develop to be a certain way. ppl are evil and flawed. this is not a flaw with marxism, this is flaw with people and reality.
people want serious competition bc they are not processing more important things like love and care.
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
HELLO??? COME BACK!!!!
i'm afraid it will hurt like hell, i am afraid of screaming and i am afraid of crying, i am afraid of forgetting but i'm not afraid of dying.
A system based on unconditional handouts just cannot work. A Social Contract is needed.
It is The Free Market of Capitalism that is ideal, not the one of Socialism.
Without the Profit Motive, any attempt to maximize exploitation of the Earth's natural resources is inevitably going to be sub-optimal.
Santa Clause: your overuse of cheap, elfin labour is concerning. Please get visited by the Ghosts of Christmas (otherwise, you may get a visit from the corpse of Vladimir Lenin).
Marxism is cool if you're a racist. Karl Marx was racist as fuck. All Marxists have fine tuned small dick racist energy.