Marxism : setting the record straight.

This is a forum for discussing philosophical theories of government and social structure. It is not a venue for partisan rants or plugging favored candidates.

Marxism : setting the record straight.

Postby hyksos on January 1st, 2019, 7:09 pm 

Forward Disclaimers.
  • This article should not be taken as advocacy of Marxism, Communism, Egalitarianism, nor of Anarchism
  • The purpose of this article is to promote historical accuracy.


Why this article is needed : Two years into the Trump Era , Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro are coming to dominate the political dialog on the internet. A growing number of people are falling prostrate at the feet of Peterson, asking for his advice about life, and purchasing his books. The problem is that Peterson is distorting the history of Political Theory and his distortions run afoul of the facts of history. There is a danger that in being such a public figure, Peterson may be inadvertently engaging in historical revisionism.

220px-Jordan_Peterson_June_2018.jpg
.
Shapiro.jpg


In his more lucid moments, Jordan Peterson uses the word "Marxism" to refer loosely to an ideology of Utopian Egalitarianism. In his more deranged moments, Peterson simply tosses the word "Marxism" around carelessly, to the point at which "Marxist" is a catch-all phrase that substitutes for "anyone who disagrees with me."

To be fair to history, we must list those topics where Peterson is correct. The reader should not be seduced by this. Peterson is wrong about history more often than when he is correct.

Utopianism in the 19th C
The 1800s were a time of severe levels of political ideologies centered around utopianism. Historians would say it was, intellectually speaking, a "radical time" in politics of Europe. There was Communism going around for certain, but there was also Anarchism, and likely other egalitarian ideologies promising a utopia on earth. Anarchism, in particular became violent at this time, and so history has the "bomb-tossing anarchist" as a famous caricature. One Anarchist Utopianist chased the Tsar of Russia down the street, trying to shoot him with a revolver. Separatist movements by underground societies became violent, culminating in the assassination of Archduke of Austria, Franz Ferdinand. Karl Marx himself was active during the middle of the 19th century, and it is factual that he was a utopianist. His own words in writing betray this. Peterson is correct (in this small point) that Marxism is a utopian ideology.

Anarchism is not Marxism
Anarchism is the ultimate form of egalitarian ideology -- and is very distinct from Marxism both in content, and in the people in history who adhered to it. Consider the following facts in support of this.

Mikhail Bakunin was an exact contemporary of Karl Marx, and was perhaps the most famous Anarchist in all of Russian history. Bakunin hated Marx, and expressed this hatred in clear writing.

220px-Bakunin_Nadar.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin

Anarchist revolutionaries fought Communists in open warfare. Southern Ukraine had an Anarchist movement that became organized enough to have military battalions. The Anarchists led by Nestor Makhno, fought in battles against the Soviet Red Army in Ukraine. Trotsky himself called for Makhno's assassination.

nestorMakhno1921.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno

Screeching "Marxism!" at the first signs of any kind of egalitarian political statements (a la Peterson) is a distortion of history. Worse, one gets the impression that Peterson is always ever talking directly to someone who could immediately enact legislation -- which is never the case in any of his interviews. There is a sense that any such egalitarian statements shalt not be "uttered in his presence" lest it start killing people and trampling liberty. The screeching of "marxism!" then becomes a kind of social blocking tactic, rather than an actual point or any attempt at a reasonable conversation.

As we will find below, Marx himself was not even egalitarian (even worse for Peterson's rantings).

Communism is not Marxism
Communism was around in the world prior to the birth of Karl Marx. Communes existed in France likely before Marx's father was born. The bulk of Marx's writing is 99.99% centered around economics. As any actual historian will admit, Marx was the first modern economist , in the sense that he wrote of metrics now casually used on modern television , such as what we now call the "unemployment rate".

The degree to which Karl Marx was related to communism is a difficult historical topic, requiring the academics break down into discussion groups to fully grasp the issue. The Communist Manifesto, largely attributed Marx as its primary author, does not represent the bulk of his writing. It is likely the case that Marx became bewitched by communist revolutionaries and was in some way coaxed by them into authoring the Manifesto. More generally, Marx never called for communism to be immediately enacted by force or violent revolution. Instead, in all of his other writing, Marx only said that some kind of communism would be the very far future end-result of history. This descriptive writing is now referred to as "Marxist Historicism." Again, it should be emphasized that Marx never wrote this predictive history from a prescriptive standpoint. There are little or no "shoulds" in Marx's primary writing. Further -- even when Marx was saying that communism was some kind of "end stage" of history, he was specifically referring to Germany and its late industrial development. Marx's historical writing was never referring to a "generic nation" in the abstract.

The idea that Marx prescribed that revolutionaries take up arms, overthrow all existing governments, and enact communism in the very near term is absurd. This is exactly what communist revolutions looked like everywhere they happened, from Russia to Korea, to China, and Cambodia. The idea that Karl Marx somehow wrote a 9-step "recipe" for those revolutions is absurd. 99.99% of Marx's writings on paper are descriptions of economics.

On a more personal note, the way in which The Communist Manifesto is written stylistically, is not even in the style or voice of Marx. Karl Marx was a German Economist. He was not a gun-toting revolutionary living in the woods with his revolutionary communist comrades. He spent most of his days living in a library. He wrote many articles on economics, some of which were published in The Economist magazine (which existed at the time too).

Marx was not Egalitarian
karl-marx-wikimedia-commons.jpg

As demonstrated above, Karl Marx was deeply at odds with the Anarchist Utopianists of the 19th century, some of who expressed disdain towards him publicly. Marxism is not anarchism. Furthermore, Marxism is not just another form of egalitarian utopianism. Marx used the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" in over two-dozen places in his writing (likely more than that). Notice that Marx wrote here a dictatorship of the proletariat ... not a dictatorship of academics. What did Marx mean by this phrase? In more modern parlance, a "dictatorship of the proletariat" means that skilled workers and craftsman become very politically powerful in a nation. "Proletariat" are contractors and tradesmen like electricians, bakers, construction workers, butchers, farmers, and any other person working in a trade that involves bodily labor. The idea was that those particular people would become so powerful as a political force, that they would remove and replace all existing governments with themselves. To further emphasize what this "dictatorship" means in practice, we must clearly see what it does not mean.

A Dictatorship of the Proletariat does not mean :
  • ...a dictatorship of Marxist intellectuals.
  • ...a dictatorship of academics.
  • ...a dictatorship of welfare queens.
  • ...a dictatorship of military men.
  • ...a dictatorship of political bureaucrats.
  • ...a dictatorship of unemployed artists.

Perhaps the most ironic aspect of Marxism is the Soviet system in Russia. Communist Russia under Trotsky and Lenin set up a dictatorship of bureaucrats. The proletariat became a sort of side-bar in the entire affair. The inner members of the communist party watched ballet and drank Crimean wine, while the proletariat mined rock in frozen Siberia.

(But back to the central point --) Karl Marx unambiguously was not an egalitarian. He clearly thought, wrote and expressed his core belief that the worker was of a higher moral and political caliber than any other member of society. The laborers and tradesmen were deified in the writings of Karl Marx. Scientists, doctors, academics, soldiers, and politicians occupied a much lower position on the Marxist totem pole -- far below that esteemed position occupied by the most-beloved proletariat. (workers appear to occupy a position in society above mothers) In whatever way Marx may be interpreted today, this cannot be egalitarianism. There is no possible way to interpret Marx any other way. This is not a small sticking point gleaned from quote-mining him. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a central core tenet of Marxism.
Last edited by hyksos on January 1st, 2019, 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
Lomax liked this post


Re: Marxism : setting the record straight.

Postby hyksos on January 1st, 2019, 7:11 pm 

Communism in the USSR
As said above the Soviet system was centered around what might be facetiously called a "Dictatorship of the Bureaucrats". Consulting the history of Russia, a grand emotional sense of egalitarianism among Comrades only existed in the excited and heady times directly after the revolution, and only persisted for about 3 months. The word "Soviet" is the Russian word совьет simply means "advisor". Russian Communism in practice, had little to do with social egalitarianism and a lot to do with how physical property is viewed by the society's laws. The entire bulk of industry in Russia was brought immediately and swiftly into government-managed monopolies. The near-overnight elimination of the private sector industries now stands as the key defining characteristic of "Communism" as that word would appear in high school textbooks.

A deeper elaboration on Russian Communism would delve into how Russian society was structured prior to the October Revolution.

Several key aspects to consider in that elaboration would be ,
1. the near complete lack of private land ownership in the late Tsarist period.
2. the weak and ineffective judiciary in the Tsarist period.
3. the lingering persistent problem of illiteracy in the Russian populace.
4. What Vladimir Lenin actually wrote and what he thought he was trying to accomplish.

These issues should be expanded upon in book-length expository. That will not be done here in this article. In any case, the idea that Russia was a "thriving democracy with a large educated middle class who owned their own land" until one fateful day, the evil communists came along and "took it all away". That sentiment is absolutely at odds with the facts of history.

Joseph Stalin did not have magical powers. Stalin weaponized the judiciary against any who imposed his tyranny (... a tactic previously employed by the monarchs of Europe). Marxist ideology did not imbue Stalin with any manner of magical evil. Stalin instead took over a country that already had a wobbly, ineffective and nearly-dead judiciary sector. The courts, in other words, were ripe for Stalin's usurping.

Illiteracy in Russia was a recurring problem. This topic requires elaboration on the Russian language itself, in particular its alphabet, which was still being modified when Lenin was in power. (compare to German, which was completely standardized by about 1730) The Russian people of the late Tsarist period can be (more cynically) described as illiterate peasantry living under a monarch. Land ownership was still magisterial. Marx's writing had little or nothing to say about such a context, as his writing was primarily concerned with the highly-developed Germany.

lenin-speaking-in-1919-cropped-700x390.jpg


We know that Lenin read Marx. We can state, with certainty of fact, that Lenin was opposed to a free press. But Lenin's opposition to free markets and a free press were mostly his own inventions, and any connection to Marx's writing runs thin. Lenin did not come in and destroy the legislative branch like a bloody tyrant. Instead, prior to the October Revolution, the Duma had been sacked up to four times, and none of those incidences had anything to do with Lenin. Lenin, in fact, was not even living in Russia during the four sackings of the Duma. The legislative branch of Russia was not a "solid institution" (such as what is seen in modern USA). The Bolsheviks entered into political power on top of a government that had decayed into rubble. Today we call these things a "failed state".
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
Lomax liked this post


Re: Marxism : setting the record straight.

Postby Serpent on January 1st, 2019, 7:33 pm 

Heaven forfend anyone should accuse of egalitarianism!
Excellent article(s); thanks.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3418
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Marxism : setting the record straight.

Postby -1- on January 1st, 2019, 8:12 pm 

It is true that Marx did not have Russia as the model for his Utopian proletarian rule. It was the developed West that Marx had his eye on for the communist revolution.

I am not aware of any time frame Marx had put on the arrival of the revolution. But during the 1948 uprising in Paris, France, he and his comrades, as well as the proletarian world, declared that the uprising was a communist revolution. They even called it the "Paris Commune".

Marx's literary style may have been different to his own style later or earlier. To earlier, because he lived his entire life up to his youth in Germany, that was his mother tongue, and he only wrote in that language. When he settled in England, he became more proficient in English as time went by. The Manifesto was written by him (and by others) in the early time of his learning English. This pits his own style then against his own much later on.

Any ESL person will testify and you can check their written words over a span of time, that style, precision and expressiveness in English usually improves with prolonged use. Marx was no different in this, hence the "difference in style".

It is not true which you did not say, Hyksos, but implied, that factory workers and low-level, poorly paid and starving labourers were not part of the body of demographic Marx called "proletariat". Journeymen, bakers, wheelers, coopers, that is, skilled self-employed manual labour, were in the minor minority of all that Marx would call proletarians. In Marx's theories, the ruling class, the burgers, were pitted against the proletaroans. The independent workers were not in the employ of the burgers. That part of your thesis is wrong, or in the least, misleading.

Finally: technically you are right, that Marxism is not communism. But Marxism predicts communism as the end result of history of civilization. In his time, and beyond, up to the second half of the twentieth century, Marxism was the only political economic theory with thrust and any amount of credibility, that predicted a necessary culmination of history in egalitarian communism.

While Lenin espoused and created a centrally planned economy, it was an idea of Marx. Marx saw the imbalance in the economic cycles of industrial countries, and his solution to it was to actually have economies abandon free market, and become centrally planned. Basically, Marx realized that competition would lead to price drops, and competition and price drops would lead to overproduction and lowering of income for a bulk of the economic demography, and therefore 1. a huge segment of the economy would lose their buying power, and 2. therefore the manufacturers of goods would go bankrupt. This, in Marx's mind, could only be allayed by centrally planned economies.

In the meantime economic science realized that overproduction can't be avoided, except when a bulk of the production produces goods that are useless (weaponry, basically), but wages and incomes must not diminish, not just for humanitarian / philanthropic reasons, but also to have purchasing multitude that keeps the rich rich.

So this is what we have today: In the US of A, we have a strong military that sucks a lot of wad (wad being dough or buying power, as in "Wad of money") out of the economy, and the USA also has almost full employment, BECAUSE not all jobs that produce goods produce goods that fill the need of consumers. (Compared to countries that have 40-60 percent unemployment.) In the rest of the West, we have social programs that inject via taxes or otherwise, money to the unemployed or underemployed, including the retired, retarded and incapacitated echelons of society, who can this way not only avoid starvation and an undignified life, but can help sustain an economy.

So Marx's theory of the origin of the ill was right (overproduction, loss of buyers of goods, everyone goes bankrupt) but his remedy (centrally planned economies) was a failure, for reasons other than just what's inherent in one. His successors in the capacity of advisers to the state, created goods-draining but productive economies (USA with its weaponry) and it created goods-preserving and producing, but reduced-labour economies, where the money is circulated via the masses to the goods to the masses again.

In fact, we (well, some of us) are seeing an emergence of centrally planned economies, and that is happening in Europe. The European Union has stringent division of production of goods among its member states, and quotas are given to be kept.
User avatar
-1-
Member
 
Posts: 247
Joined: 21 Jul 2018


Re: Marxism : setting the record straight.

Postby Serpent on January 1st, 2019, 8:51 pm 

I think it might be useful to distinguish "planning", "control" and "regulation" of economy.
First: I'm quite skeptical of any industrial nation's politically insecure and continually changing governing bodies being able to - or even attempting to plan anything (except their campaign slogans) a year in advance.
I very much doubt they can control any single globally-mobile corporate entity, let alone any interdependent economies dominated by such corporate entities.
Varying degrees of regulation are possible, patchily implemented and partially successful.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3418
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Marxism : setting the record straight.

Postby BadgerJelly on January 2nd, 2019, 1:22 am 

Marixism is certainly not Communism. Marxism was a bery prominent factor in the political theories of the time leading to the rise of Communism.

From what I’ve read I’d say Das Capitial most important work he produced (although it’s far to long to read for me becasue it’s dull as hell). It that work he outlined a number of problems with capitalism. He didn’t offer a reasonable soluton though.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5576
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Marxism : setting the record straight.

Postby -1- on January 2nd, 2019, 5:22 am 

Serpent » January 1st, 2019, 8:51 pm wrote:I think it might be useful to distinguish "planning", "control" and "regulation" of economy.
First: I'm quite skeptical of any industrial nation's politically insecure and continually changing governing bodies being able to - or even attempting to plan anything (except their campaign slogans) a year in advance.
I very much doubt they can control any single globally-mobile corporate entity, let alone any interdependent economies dominated by such corporate entities.

Varying degrees of regulation are possible, patchily implemented and partially successful.

Central planning is happening in Europe. It does not get into the news, and definitely not into the American media.

Hungary has excellent, fertile ground and superb weather conditions for growing fruits, vegetables and wheat. The Union has allotted Hungary the agrarian role of growing soy. This has thrown the local economy back, because of the lack of know-how, and the lack of lucrative crops. The prices of sales are set even, they can't offer it to the highest bidder, as there are no bidding processes.

In my recent trip to Hungary I was shocked to see that veggie and meat prices EQUALLED those in Canada. Historcially, in the communist era they were 1/10th the price, and since communism was toppled, the prices were 1/4. Now they are equal. They are equal, because they need to import almost all their non-soy food stuff to the cities in the least.

Converesly, a Milka chocolate bar costs four and a half dollars in Canada, plus sales taxes, while in Hungary the same product is one dollar. ONE DOLLAR. Of course this can be again explained by the division of labour as allotted by a centrally directed market and manufacturing / producing system.



Americans ought to wake up to the manifold facet of the world. Complexity is buoyant, and Americans have been known to misjudge foreign civilizations precisely because Americans are extremely superficial on one hand when it comes to acquaint themselves with customs and way in life in foreign lands (the "ugly American" syndrome), and Americans are extremely self-oriented on the other hand. Whatever is strange to them, they easily discount it, reject it or simply don't even notice it.

Stringent regulations are possible, in a centrally planned economy, even in a capitalist country, and not at all patchily implemented and only partially successfully. In Canada the dairy production (milk and milk products) are restricted and allotted. Dairy farmers don't just make milk and then try to sell it. They buy quotas from the government that allows them to produce X litres of milk per quota. Their selling price is guaranteed, and it is high, so they are not suffering. The milk, cream, etc. prices are three to four times in Canada compared to the prices in the USA. This hurts the consumer, but not the economy. But more importantly, the green house effect is less damaging coming from the Canadian system, because there is much less waste, not just in milk that American producers regularly throw away, but also because fewer cows are needed to produce less milk, which eat less feed, which creates less carbon footprint. Fewer cows also produce less methane.
User avatar
-1-
Member
 
Posts: 247
Joined: 21 Jul 2018


Re: Marxism : setting the record straight.

Postby -1- on January 2nd, 2019, 5:31 am 

BadgerJelly » January 2nd, 2019, 1:22 am wrote:Marixism is certainly not Communism. Marxism was a bery prominent factor in the political theories of the time leading to the rise of Communism.

Nobody said Marxism = Communism. I even made an honest attempt to make it painfully clear how the two relate. It seems that for you it is extremely important an issue. Why? This is not an argument or a challenge; instead, I am genuinely interested why to you the separation of Communist movement from Marxism is so important. There has got to be a reason, not just a purism in expressions in general.
User avatar
-1-
Member
 
Posts: 247
Joined: 21 Jul 2018


Re: Marxism : setting the record straight.

Postby hyksos on January 2nd, 2019, 9:58 am 

Thanks everyone for replies. Your posts are above-and-beyond high quality.

I wanted to complain about something unrelated to this forum. I posted this article on a place on the internet dedicated to Socialism, and the article caused me to be banned outright on short notice.

Some comments were left on the article prior to the ban being set on me. I'm going to have to paraphrase, but the comments were like mini-lectures on how Stalin wasn't so bad. Anyone sent to the gulags were sent there for "very good reasons". The general gist was that life In the USSR was all puppydogs and rainbows for its entire existence. Getting that comment spew on top of being banned makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

The forum here doesn't really have a History section. In an attempt to restore my own sanity, I am going to post a list of what I believe are historical facts. If I have misread something or misheard something, I welcome corrections.

  • Stalin began his career as a gang member of organized crime. In rough summary, he basically robbed banks.
  • Stalin weaponized the judiciary against his political enemies by convicting them of false crimes in "Show trials".
  • Stalin was by all accounts a dictator of Russia. He controlled the press ruthlessly and started a Cult of Personality around himself.
  • Stalin murdered the very people that helped him rise to power in the first place. His motivations may have been removing any challengers to his own power. Historians call these murders "Stalin's Purges". (c.r Great Purge. c.r. Great Terror. c.r. "Yezhovshchina")
  • Forced collectivization was implemented by Stalin in Ukraine. This was not meant to raise the Ukrainians out of poverty or free them from the shackles of capitalism. Nor was it an accidental failure of central organization. Instead, from the outset the goal was to starve the Ukrainians, weaken them, and then oppress the region by force.
  • Stalin deported a lot of Ukrainians to southern Kazakhstan, and entire cities of Russian speakers exist there today. (e.g. Almaty)
  • Stalin "carved up" the borders for Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in a way that is uncorrelated with the languages and ethnics groups that actually live there.
  • Mao Tse-Tung received an enormous amount of logistical help from the Kremlin, but this "help" came at a steep price. Stalin believed that Mao was his puppet in China. When Stalin died, Mao was in some respects liberated from Stalin's control and micromanagement.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
Lomax liked this post


Re: Marxism : setting the record straight.

Postby BadgerJelly on January 2nd, 2019, 10:37 am 

-1-

I never read your post and still haven’t (will do after this is posted). I was replying to the OP and I assume both agreeing and disagreeing with hyksos for a change. Marx didn’t create Communism. Communism certainly did gather potential using Marxist ideas (be it in a disengenuous representation or otherwise).
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5576
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Marxism : setting the record straight.

Postby Serpent on January 2nd, 2019, 10:51 am 

Hyskos -
You'll get no defense of Stalin from me!
(Of course those people were sent to the Gulag, or insane asylum, for a very good reason: they were perceived as a threat to the power-structure. No different in intent from any other regime, just more rabid than most.)
If it makes you feel any better, I was banned from a Democratic forum for making a joke.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3418
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Marxism : setting the record straight

Postby BadgerJelly on January 2nd, 2019, 11:13 am 

I’ve never joined a poltical forum ... thought about it then decided it probably wouldn’t be worth my time. Tend to get enough of it on philosophical forums and there it is mostly displayed with a more questioning, leveled and cool attitude.

I do sometimes find it quite funny that Peterson has fallen foul by marking out some leftists as being “Marxists” when they’re not, yet accusing others of misrepresenting him ... who isn’t guilty of mislabelling someone out of ignorance and/or short-sightedness?

The worry is when people double-down and the ire starts to rise.

Hyksos -

Did you see that British movie about Stalin? “Death of Stalin”. I’d recommend it because it was banned in Russia for one thing ;)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5576
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Marxism : setting the record straight.

Postby PaulN on January 2nd, 2019, 2:31 pm 

Important in the west is the tension between anarcho-syndicalism, which is more oriented towards the independent individual and away from heirarchies ("power corrupts"), corporate behemoths....

...and collectivism, which is about the positive power of the group and a Marxist-Leninist state structure and the glorification of the person who is self-sacrificing for the good of the group.

Anarcho-syndicalists are sort of like "smart, competent hippies" who desire to have the fewest possible openings for power grabs. It usually means eliminating money, and having labor notes or some other scrip instead, so that your buying power is in proportion to how much you actually choose to produce. (Trump would be a pauper, in such a system)

Many western Leftists, like Noam Chomsky, tend to be anarcho-syndicalist - but are often confused by those on the Right with collectivists - which they really aren't at all. I mean....that's such a common putdown from reactionaries: that Leftists are all collectivists who disparage individuality and want to impose totalitarian rule of some kind. This is, to me, a weird sort of accusation, given that it's the Left that originally were the champions of individual expression and the right to be different and follow a different drummer. (that's why PC strikes me as a sort of transient aberration on the Left, almost a cryptofascist attack on free speech and free dialogue)
PaulN
Member
 
Posts: 77
Joined: 30 Dec 2018
Location: Albuquerque


Re: Marxism : setting the record straight.

Postby Serpent on January 2nd, 2019, 2:48 pm 

PaulN » January 2nd, 2019, 1:31 pm wrote:Anarcho-syndicalists are sort of like "smart, competent hippies" who desire to have the fewest possible openings for power grabs. It usually means eliminating money, and having labor notes or some other scrip instead, so that your buying power is in proportion to how much you actually choose to produce. (Trump would be a pauper, in such a system)

Which, btw, is the only plausible kind of economic arrangement, once automation has taken full effect. It's easy to exploit workers who fear losing their livelihood; with full unemployment, where is the leverage?
Also, of course, production and distribution will be planned and controlled by computer, so the only competition for power will be hacking attempts.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3418
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Marxism : setting the record straight.

Postby BadgerJelly on January 2nd, 2019, 2:56 pm 

PaulN -

From my understanding it is more about the naivety of some harder left leaning views that can lead to loss of individual expression by pushing hard for more freedom of individual expression.

Like many things in life if you push too hard for something you end up producing the opposite effect. Sadly we never really now in the moment if we’re pushing too hard or too soft until the problems occur somewhere down the line. The best we can do is remain on guard and juggle this -clumsily - with enough self-convinction in order to avoid paralysis.

I’m an anarchist myself. In the sense that I often defy or baulk against authority. That said I perfectly understand that authority is necessary for human society.

There are points in every political ideology that have weight to them. I don’t think it sensible to back an idea because it has some good points anymore than I think it sensible to dismiss all ideas simply because the overreaching project is bad. The only reason ANY ideas gain traction is because they address something important to people and society - usually indirectly given that en masse people tend to flock around the most convenient narrative rather tha digging for an uncomfortable truth that may shake their ideals.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5576
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Marxism : setting the record straight.

Postby PaulN on January 3rd, 2019, 2:33 pm 

Yes, there's no pure system that is going to be a panacea. Maybe the most basic freedom has to be the freedom to test out all systems in fairly controlled conditions - like the Canadian town that tried a basic living income payment. Work out the bugs on a small scale, then scale up from there if it seems feasible. Both Right and Left have ways of suppressing the voice of their opposition - the Right uses voter suppression tactics, the Left more often uses PC at an institutional level to crush dissenting opinions. I tend to favor the egalitarian approach, which is that the best way to contest free hateful speech is with more free speech. I.e. you can say anything you want, so long as you respect my right to reject and condemn it.
PaulN
Member
 
Posts: 77
Joined: 30 Dec 2018
Location: Albuquerque


Re: Marxism : setting the record straight.

Postby Serpent on January 3rd, 2019, 3:00 pm 

PaulN » January 3rd, 2019, 1:33 pm wrote:Yes, there's no pure system that is going to be a panacea. Maybe the most basic freedom has to be the freedom to test out all systems in fairly controlled conditions - like the Canadian town that tried a basic living income payment. Work out the bugs on a small scale, then scale up from there if it seems feasible.

And were about to do that very thing, when along came a spider.

Both Right and Left have ways of suppressing the voice of their opposition - the Right uses voter suppression tactics,

Effective.
the Left more often uses PC at an institutional level to crush dissenting opinions.

Isn't it amazing how silent right-wing views have become?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3418
Joined: 24 Dec 2011



Return to Political Theory

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests