But it's even worse because the defenders of capitalism play with two cards: neo-Darwinism and contractualism. When it suits them, they appeal to the contractualist card to show off capitalism's pacifying virtues (Steve Pinker). When things don't work out, they claim the competitive Darwinian basis of capitalism. — David Mo
So why would we shy away from criticism? — NOS4A2
What has Marx to do with democracy?
Marx isn't talking about democracy, especially not as an safety valve for society, but as a means for proletarian dictatorship in the class struggle. Proletarian dictatorship is a way to eradicate private property, the final goal for Marx. Marx doesn't give a shit about democracy, only if it furthers the exact cause of the proletariat: — ssu
American is actually the greatest socialist country that has ever existed on the face of the earth. This is not my opinion, this is an empirical fact. America redistributed 4.5 Trillion dollars into the stock market. And the Pentagon cannot account for a whopping 21 Trillion dollars! — JerseyFlight
"Only by forcible overthrow" doesn't seem like this "disappearance" would be peaceful. Stop trying to make Marx some kind of benign social democrat when he clearly isn't one. — ssu
Marx would be rolling in his grave over this stance. Socialism does not equal government intervention tout court. — Maw
Even if he's not I can assure you that you are a socialist, and would never pack up your goods and move to a purely capitalist country. American is actually the greatest socialist country that has ever existed on the face of the earth. This is not my opinion, this is an empirical fact. America redistributed 4.5 Trillion dollars into the stock market. And the Pentagon cannot account for a whopping 21 Trillion dollars! But you know, a medical system for your aging grandmother is too expensive, it could end up costing 1 Trillion dollars! America has engaged in more wealth redistribution than all the Marxist and Socialist countries combined!
by the way, no one is forcing anyone to respond to NOS — Maw
Human Nature" does not exist, human brains exist, and they are exceedingly sensitive, what your brain experiences and how it develops determines who you are and what you become — JerseyFlight
Democracy is also perverted when it is controlled by a social group. If all the candidates for elections represent the interests of the industrial-military complex, as Eisenhower called it, and the possibilities of an alternative are blocked by the system, democracy is nothing but a sham. We elect the same people to do what others we have not elected demand of them. This is capitalist democracy, according to Marx. Was he right? In large part, I'm afraid.We have had a lot of experience of these "other democracies" and how democracy is killed by this method when there isn't actual representation of any others than those firm believers of the right cause. — ssu
You live in the Land of Cocaigne, surely. All the efforts of the conservative parties in Europe, especially since the fall of the communist bloc, are aimed at widening the gap between the rich and the poor, at degrade working conditions and at dismantling social services. To put it euphemistically, this is the neoliberal programme. According to reports from international bodies, this is exactly what is happening.All I have to do is to look at my conservative party in this country and how it supports the welfare state — ssu
If you don't read what the rest of us write, the debate becomes a Marx's dialog -- Groucho Marx,of course. I repeat:"Only by forcible overthrow" doesn't seem like this "disappearance" would be peaceful. — ssu
But he did not think that the process would be very peaceful. Exploiters don't like to have their means of exploitation taken away from them and they have enough power to defend themselves violently. The way he had done it in Europe (France especially during the communes of 1848 and 1871) made this very clear. — David Mo
Marx wanted class distinction to disappear by adjusting social and economic rules in such a way everyone becomes part of the same class. — Benkei
If they defend capitalism, they can't be Marxists. It would be contradictory to everything Marx wrote and predicted. Whether or not they benefit from it is another matter. We're discussing whether Marx was right, not whether he was honest. Don't get off topic.They may benefit from the current economic hegemony, — NOS4A2
Why do you want to know? Would anything happen if I was? I think you should know from what I've written. There are some things I think Marx was right about and some things I don't. Does that make me a Marxist?Are you a Marxist? — NOS4A2
The fact is that functioning capitalist societies have not impoverished the physician, the lawyer or even the man of science (with poets I don't know). — ssu
America has engaged in more wealth redistribution than all the Marxist and Socialist countries combined! — JerseyFlight
Do you have any ideas on how this could be countered? — JerseyFlight
↪Bitter Crank I think the problem with arguments that stem from “human nature”, the objection to such arguments, is that the picture of “human nature” being put forth is usually hopelessly simplistic. “Competition is human nature” vs “cooperation is human nature” arguments are dumb because humans are a complicated bag of nature and nurture that includes both competition and cooperation in a very nuanced and ever-changing way. Sure you can do science to human behaviors as a species, but the patterns you come up with aren’t going to be so simple as “humans are naturally x”, for any x. — Pfhorrest
Isn't it strange that I would be arguing this point, as a moral constructivist, against a moral objectivist ;-) — ChatteringMonkey
Only if you think moral objectivism has anything to say about what people do in fact value as part of "human nature", which it doesn't necessarily. — Pfhorrest
I don't understand the relationship.It seems quite relevant. The argument against Marx is rarely "we don't want a fairer society", rather it is "such a system wouldn't/hasn't work(ed)". — Isaac
If the gene for aggression exists you can't stop husbands from hitting women. Therefore, let's make gender violence be legal.
A bit strange logic, isn't it? — David Mo
So if he says "situation x will bring about situation y" he's relying on assumptions about the responses of human beings to situation x. It's their behaviour which will (or will not) bring about situation y, and so his theory's success hinges entirely on whether those assumptions are right. — Isaac
All this assumes that, even if human nature exists and is violent, the impulse to exploit is like the abuse of women: it can be corrected and ultimately repressed. All that is needed is the will and the strength to do it. — David Mo
If they defend capitalism, they can't be Marxists. It would be contradictory to everything Marx wrote and predicted. Whether or not they benefit from it is another matter. We're discussing whether Marx was right, not whether he was honest. Don't get off topic.
I denied that those parties that call themselves communist a) are communist (that is, to defend the communist revolution); b) have the slightest power to do so.
Why do you want to know? Would anything happen if I was? I think you should know from what I've written. There are some things I think Marx was right about and some things I don't. Does that make me a Marxist?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.