butchersapron
Bring back hanging
You prefer the ongoing terror and sheer violence that rarely effects you. We understand.
Neo Marxism
- Thread starter Shevek
- Start date
gorski
customised free radical
Yeah, I prefer the terror against which I have a chance of standing up to. Your lot, on the other hand, has God Stalin on their side... or Trotsky or Mao or whomever... What's the big difference with Hitler and Mussolini and Franco and....?!? What is the big difference when it's all about gaining dictatorial -> totalitarian type of power and nothing else?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That's right, it's 1950 and Totalitarian theory is all the rage. It was all so simple.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
One lot lost and one lot is still winning yet you prefer the second lot because it's impossible to win against the first lot but possible against the second.
Once again, history pisses in your cornflakes gorksi.
The politics of 'let me in, i'll be good' i think they call it.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
For you, by comparison to me, it is all so simple, yes! Hence, scary stuff!!!
For you, by comparison to me, it is all so simple, yes!
Any change of telling me this means bjorn?
gorski
customised free radical
No, it's the politics of I know which ones are worse and which ones are the lesser of evils one actually stands a chance against...
For instance, a number of parties on the left had no idea whom to oppose when Hitler and militarism loomed and a possibility of a WW came...
Sad, the lot of yous, not being able to see the wood for the trees!!!
For instance, a number of parties on the left had no idea whom to oppose when Hitler and militarism loomed and a possibility of a WW came...
Sad, the lot of yous, not being able to see the wood for the trees!!!
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Gorski - there's this new artist, jackson polich or something - i hear he's real good. Real kinetic man. Meet you at the milk bar?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Do i need remind you which one got overthrown? You seem confused.
Wow, a grealy apt historical point with no reference or supports as well, Thanks bjorn, you do spoil us these days.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
No, thanx, I carefully choose whom to mix with...
That's right, you're a careerist.
[Sad.
]butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That's right, you're NOT a careerist. You don't seek to cloister yourself.
gorski
customised free radical
No, stupid: which one got a chance to cook up the WWII, for instance, and why exactly?!?
Oh, by the way, you wish you lived in Sweden and had such a strong Union movement to fall back to, to be protected by and the benefits that entails...
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Mao will win btw.
gorski
customised free radical
You really are extremely stupid, mean, really evil and really can't help yourself... You really do seek blood...
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
You really are extremely stupid, mean, really evil and really can't help yourself... You really do seek blood...
Which is why you and other priests like you deserve to be my master. For the general good.
I can't even tell which one you think is material and which one you think is metaphysical. They could both be spun either way.
Marx was not into philosophical spin doctoring.
A rose is red. That doesn't mean roses are the same as red. If capital is the same as alienated labour-power all this means is that Marx had no use for the concept of 'alienated labour-power'. Of course that is silly - Marx was not interested in this type of philosophical game playing. He gives numerous characterisations of capital - why should it be analysed in such simplistic terms as you give?
((Or something!)) Quoting Engels' (whom you dismiss as a materialist) formulation. Engels' clumsy phrase was due to trying to find dialectical 'laws' which generalise the behaviour of matter. That is it is about causality, not logic. Engels was not making the elementary idealist error of confusing the motion of thought with the motion of matter even if you are. But in that case you should talk about the 'unity of opposites' ie. the Hegelian phrase.
What makes you think that they are opposite poles? Even Hegel doesn't give it this treatment, why on earth would Marx?
Stop borrowing from Engels then!
gorski
customised free radical
You have no idea!!! You are just a bloodthirsty, sad, mean old fart with delusions of grandeur...
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Give him a job befitting his talents, someone!
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Ot at at least a nationality. ( already we know he love his racist typolgies)
Luther Blissett
Nomadologist
The difference in meaning between those two quotes is vast.
Who was Kautsky, when was Kautsky, and what was Kautsky's position (politically) ? Never heard of him before.Spion said:
So Trotsky is justifying his position of non-violence here? Is Kautsky's side attacking Trotksy's side second 1917 Russian revolution?Spion said:
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I actually bothered spending some time doing some reading on stuff related to this exchange (or at least the thread's main topic) but since it's degenerated phil arguing with everyone and gorski slagging off the 'Anglo-Saxon' mindset I shouldn't have bothered really.
Its an unfortunate fact but what's fun to reply to and what's interesting to read do not necessarily coincide. I would like to read what you have to say, but I suspect I would prefer to reply to Phil's candyfloss philosophy. But in any case don't assume that lack of discussion equates to lack of interest or vice versa.
Spion
I hear ya
I'm keen to hear what you have to say too
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
What did you read kyser?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
OK, well here's a couple of thoughts...
Spion - how sure are you about the ending of witchcraft? I suspect you're thinking about a Macbeth style trio, not the actual idea. I'd say that not only did the belief in witchcraft never die out, but more than it's been forced to engage (as have all the mystical/faith based parts of our socities and psychology) with modernism on modernism's terms. I've just finished reading 'Bad Science' by Ben Goldacre, and am specifically thinking about homeopathy, and how that's changed in reaction to the medical professions increasing reliance on evidence-based, empirical research and the ending of theory-based medicine; 'allopathic' medicine has moved from the theoretical, understanding of mechanism model to empiricism, if it works we don't need to know why approach...which is where homeopathy was when it started, looking solely at outcomes rather than mechanism. The reasoning for this - a combination of marketing, the moving of the whole playing field to evidence based medicine which left the homeopaths floundering, despite their starting that process in medical research!!
The world is not the deeply rational place you want it to be, so to dismiss withcraft as having gone away in any society is deeply, deeply premature.
However, I would apply the same criticism to phil's argument that witchcraft is making a comeback, or in decline, in developing socities - it never went away anywhere, so
My issues with the use of Satan is, as I said, it's too centred around specific cultural origins. It's clearly a Hegelian argument - the 'spirit' of humanity but the bad, evil part of us - but by using an exclusively Xtian view, you're not only ignoring much of the world, but also this stupid argument that 'only' specific types of philosophy could have produced it; rubbish! Our culture is the sum of all our creations - modern capitalism is the result of ALL of the European traditions, not just the anglo-saxon! FFS, the whole notion of 'markets' as some kind of entity is Hegelian, and it's talked about blithley by 'anglo saxons' all the time.
So while I agree with the concept of capital=Satan, and think that long term you're right about materialist Marxism having to re-engage with 'spiritual' issues in some way (Marxism is never going to help you cope with a loved one dying) but restricting your Hegelian argument to a Judeo-Xtian image is wrong IMO.
Spion - how sure are you about the ending of witchcraft? I suspect you're thinking about a Macbeth style trio, not the actual idea. I'd say that not only did the belief in witchcraft never die out, but more than it's been forced to engage (as have all the mystical/faith based parts of our socities and psychology) with modernism on modernism's terms. I've just finished reading 'Bad Science' by Ben Goldacre, and am specifically thinking about homeopathy, and how that's changed in reaction to the medical professions increasing reliance on evidence-based, empirical research and the ending of theory-based medicine; 'allopathic' medicine has moved from the theoretical, understanding of mechanism model to empiricism, if it works we don't need to know why approach...which is where homeopathy was when it started, looking solely at outcomes rather than mechanism. The reasoning for this - a combination of marketing, the moving of the whole playing field to evidence based medicine which left the homeopaths floundering, despite their starting that process in medical research!!
The world is not the deeply rational place you want it to be, so to dismiss withcraft as having gone away in any society is deeply, deeply premature.
However, I would apply the same criticism to phil's argument that witchcraft is making a comeback, or in decline, in developing socities - it never went away anywhere, so
My issues with the use of Satan is, as I said, it's too centred around specific cultural origins. It's clearly a Hegelian argument - the 'spirit' of humanity but the bad, evil part of us - but by using an exclusively Xtian view, you're not only ignoring much of the world, but also this stupid argument that 'only' specific types of philosophy could have produced it; rubbish! Our culture is the sum of all our creations - modern capitalism is the result of ALL of the European traditions, not just the anglo-saxon! FFS, the whole notion of 'markets' as some kind of entity is Hegelian, and it's talked about blithley by 'anglo saxons' all the time.
So while I agree with the concept of capital=Satan, and think that long term you're right about materialist Marxism having to re-engage with 'spiritual' issues in some way (Marxism is never going to help you cope with a loved one dying) but restricting your Hegelian argument to a Judeo-Xtian image is wrong IMO.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Oh, i thought you meant you'd read up on neo-'marxism' - whatever that is.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Corinthians, a few bits of Karen Armstrong I wanted some reminders on. Re-read an old A-level sociology essay on Hegel. Not much TBH, and I've inadvertently built this up into something potentially interesting...sorry all...
I knew I should have just written a long post in word and dumped it up here first thing...
