This is true, but tragically his fallacious and emotional approach to this topic is probably the approach of most people, at least in America. I understand the position of the intellectual who sees himself above it, there is truth to it, but it is also a form of arrogance. The Left has been obliterated precisely because its repose to people like NOS4A2, has simply been to declare them ignorant. And no doubt they are, but the error, even though it is incredibly juvenile, must be refuted. Simply dismissing people like him leaves them with with the impression that they have a powerful argument that cannot be refuted. Tragic, and fallacious as it is, it leaves them with the impression that their negative stance is both comprehensive and true. It is simply not good enough for intellectuals to use an ad hominem, believing it gives them an excuse to evade their responsibility of refutation. No doubt, there is a time to walk away and leave ignorance to itself, precisely because it wastes time, but in this case, the very likely fact that NOS4A2's position is common, provides good grounds to refute it.

Yet you said the “the greatest socialist country that has ever existed on the face of the earth”, which is the biggest load of shite anyone has ever written In this thread. You have refuted nothing, unfortunately, and have only solidified my belief in that I am reading pure wind.

so you are saying that it is possible that all people happen to value the same things — ChatteringMonkey

No, I’m saying that moral objectivism isn’t the claim that everybody does value the same thing. It’s not the opposite of descriptive moral relativism, but of meta-ethical moral relativism.

Why not (for a sufficiently specific definition of x)? — Isaac

I meant “x” to stand in for a single word. If “x” can be some arbitrarily long compound phrase, then sure, that’s fine.

I do believe there's wisdom in words from the masters- even those I may not particularly agree with.

"The property in the soil is the original source of all wealth, and has become the great problem upon the solution of which depends the future of the working class." — JerseyFlight

This is hard to refute. Earth elements can make anything from cities themselves to weapons and tools to defend them. Science and innovation has changed this some however. Beyond that you do need space or land to produce crops or raise livestock for food or other purposes. Let's not forget about the oceans or the beasts of the earth and sky now.

But what's some average Joe going to do with thousands of pounds of rock and ore? Either make stuff out of it or sell it. Which is what happens anyway. Granted these companies are ran by those lucky enough to have been born into a wealthy family and have large if not entire control over what's done with it, they usually have government contracts that mandate all or some of it's eventual use in exchange for certain permissions. Allegedly the argument is it adds to the GDP, helps the economy, and creates jobs and opportunity for all. Trickle down economics I suppose. What alternative is there and is it really better or even much different?

"...the advocates of private property... have tried hard to disguise the primitive fact of conquest under the cloak of "Natural Right". If conquest constituted a natural right on the part of the few, the many have only to gather sufficient strength in order to acquire the natural right of reconquering what has been taken from them." — JerseyFlight

Unfortunately, ethics aside. Everyone is the majority lol. This idea would just create infighting for little to no reason other than greed or being jealous of your neighbor or fellow countryman simply because he has more. Basically most would say it wasn't taken from them but (obviously) for them. If anybody can join ie. become a citizen of a certain country regardless of race, religion, etc.- that really throws "conquest" out the window and into irrelevancy.

"In the progress of history the conquerors found it convenient to give to their original titles, derived from brute force, a sort of social standing through the instrumentality of laws imposed by themselves." — JerseyFlight

There are very few if any who weren't doing so under the order of their kingdom, empire, church, or some sort of ruling class. They were essentially foot soldiers.

"At last comes the philosopher and demonstrates that those laws imply and express the universal consent of mankind. If private property in land be indeed founded upon such an universal consent, it will evidently become extinct from the moment the majority of a society dissent from warranting it." — JerseyFlight

You go door to door in any country that has buildings and infrastructure and survey "who wants to give up their house and belongings you toiled for" ... see how that turns out. Granted, the majority don't live in as nice houses as the wealthier minority, so it is plausible. But once examined with logic the fact remains, there are only a few "mansions" relative to normal houses. Who gets an upgrade? Not many. Who has to downgrade? Nobody knows. The average person, unless literally homeless, would probably not want to gamble with an adequate enough situation.

"However, leaving aside the so-called "rights" of property, I assert that the economical development of society, the increase and concentration of people, the very circumstances that compel the capitalist farmer to apply to agriculture collective and organised labour, and to have recourse to machinery and similar contrivances, will more and more render the nationalisation of land a "Social Necessity", against which no amount of talk about the rights of property can be of any avail. The imperative wants of society will and must be satisfied, changes dictated by social necessity will work their own way, and sooner or later adapt legislation to their interests." — JerseyFlight

Only time will tell. Like someone I used to watch would say: "there's a war out for your mind."

Yet you said the “the greatest socialist country that has ever existed on the face of the earth” — NOS4A2

That was, more or less, sarcastic. If “socialism” meant wealth redistribution, not just from those with the greatest means to those with the greatest needs but any kind of wealth redistribution, then America would be extremely “socialist” because it redistributes trillions of dollars all the time... just not toward the welfare of its people, but to wars and corporate bailouts etc.

That isn’t what “socialism” really means, but it is what anti-socialists seem to think it means, without realizing that therefore America is extremely “socialist”... just not in the way that actual socialists want it to be.

That’s fair if it was sarcastic. The word “socialism” is often used wrong in the US. This is not only true of anti-socialists, but of self-proclaimed socialists who point to the Nordic model as socialism, like Bernie Sanders for instance. I suppose then that “socialism” is either a term of abuse or praise (depending on whom it’s coming from) in the United States rather than an economic system. And it’s true, the US is a massive welfare state with astronomical levels of government spending.

human nature would be aggressive in one way in nature and in a different way in history, if it existed at all. — David Mo

That seems irrelevant, it would still be human nature. To respond in such-and -such a way in one situation and some other way in another. I don't see how it gets around the simple fact that it is human behaviour which causes all of the consequences Marx is expecting. You're faced either with seeing human behaviour as random, or if it has statistical trends, then you'll need to know what they are in order to make predictions about the outcomes of circumstance. It's really basic stuff, you have to know the properties of the model you're working with.

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

And the will and strength would come from where, if not human nature? - Space? Aliens? God? Random chance?...

Allegedly the argument is it adds to the GDP, helps the economy, and creates jobs and opportunity for all. Trickle down economics I suppose. What alternative is there and is it really better or even much different? — Outlander

David Mo has already addressed these kind of fatalistic, all or nothing arguments, which seem to be the foundation of all cult-minded-thinking.

The level at which this reply is the result of what is administered, thus rendering its purveyor incapable of standing outside his own culturation, is disappointing to say the least. I do not know how one replies to this, not because it is so incredibly profound, but because it is so incredibly naive. So many countries are doing socially better than the United States (and surely that must be the whole point in establishing a government, to secure social quality). The question, "yeah, but what is there besides plantations and masters?" How does one communicate with this kind of artificial consciousness?

And the will and strength would come from where, if not human nature? — Isaac

Please tell me I am living a nightmare from which I will soon awake. Sir, did you just assert that will and strength are a product of some notion of "human nature?" Do you know what drives your will? Do you know how your personality structure is formed? Do you know what neurological processes are necessary for high functionality? Do you know what happens to your brain if your attachment system is impaired as a child? What you are talking about does not exist. Humans are not predestined by some spiritual phantom which dictates their action and disposition. This is entirely superstitious and indefensible. Humans pass through psychological and physical environments and their quality is determined and shaped by these environments. Part of the genius of Marx is that he understood this at the most concrete level, that humans are filtered through a process of production, and this process, the organization of society, determines the outcomes of man's life and potential.

evolving along with other primates, have no characteristics arising from their genetic heritage — Bitter Crank

Yes, genes play a role, they can offer potential or the lack thereof, but environment is the earth that determines what genes will become and what genes will be triggered. Simply do more research on the topic. Humans have made quite a bit of advances in this area. One of the most interesting things about the advance of the social sciences is that none of them are reaching regressive conclusions, everything is flowing in the direction of the vital necessity of species consciousness. Because we know that the quality of individuals is determined by the quality of their social environment, this includes basic goods such as healthy food and clean water.

Do you then reject Marx's notion of species-being?

Even accepting what you say, does there not remain "an inner ‘dumb’ generality which unites many individuals only in a natural way." (Theses On Feuerbach) ?

If your claim is that we cannot identify an essence that fully determines human actions, this is surely far from saying that there is no human nature at all.

Marx's theories are social, political, and economic primarily. They're not legal. — Isaac

Marx's theories are comprehensive, they span the species, there is massive and profound legal theory associated with Marx. He tried to think about the whole structure of society.

Aligning human nature with capitalism via immutable "competition" is to naturalize a socio-economic system that's only existed for a few centuries. It's another point of propaganda to identify capitalism and capitalist values as ingrained in humanity, while ignoring actual anthropological history that can provide alternative values for modern alternative systems.

Even accepting what you say, does there not remain "an inner ‘dumb’ generality which unites many individuals only in a natural way." (Theses On Feuerbach) No? — jamalrob

Yes there is research to prove this, but as I understand it, and I am not a neurobiologist, some of our ideas of innate cognitive modules are being challenged by empirical findings.

If your claim is that we cannot identify an essence that fully determines human actions, this is surely far from saying that there is no human nature at all. — jamalrob

Yes, the two are different. The idea of human nature that I have discoursed against is a fiction. What we do know is that human's are not genetically determined, genes play a role but not independent of environment. By far the most important factor is the environment. What I accept about human nature is that humans are incredibly stupid creatures, the same premise one finds at the base of Nietzsche.

Load a human with all the genes you want, without the right, qualitative, social interaction, they will develop very poorly and very unintelligently. New findings in Neuroscience are claiming that action comes before perception, which is quite revolutionary.

.

Aligning human nature with capitalism via immutable "competition" is to naturalize a socio-economic system that's only existed for a few centuries. It's another point of propaganda to identify capitalism and capitalist values as ingrained in humanity, while ignoring actual anthropological history that can provide alternative values for modern alternative systems. — Maw

Superb qualification my friend! Pity, I really don't think the objectors will be able to comprehend it.

Fuck yes.

Aligning human nature with capitalism via immutable "competition" is to naturalize a socio-economic system that's only existed for a few centuries. It's another point of propaganda to identify capitalism and capitalist values as ingrained in humanity, while ignoring actual anthropological history that can provide alternative values for modern alternative systems. — Maw

I don't think anybody, or at least I'm not, is arguing for capitalism as it is. This is just a strawman. The question is whether Marxism is a good alternative for capitalism, or if we should look for other solutions.

Another point I would want to make is that anthropological history is not necessarily relevant because the environmental factors are completely different now. One might for instance point to the more equalitarian societal structures of hunter-gatherers, but across the globe societies developed hierarchical and stratified societies independant of eachother as population grew larger after the agricultural revolution. I don't think that was some arbitrary fluke of history. It rather seems like it was a necessity to keep larger societies together.

So what historical systems are we actually talking about that would still be relevant in a highly technological world with billions of people?

David Mo has already addressed these kind of fatalistic, all or nothing arguments, which seem to be the foundation of all cult-minded-thinking.

The level at which this reply is the result of what is administered, thus rendering its purveyor incapable of standing outside his own culturation, is disappointing to say the least. I do not know how one replies to this, not because it is so incredibly profound, but because it is so incredibly naive. So many countries are doing socially better than the United States (and surely that must be the whole point in establishing a government, to secure social quality). The question, "yeah, but what is there besides plantations and masters?" How does one communicate with this kind of artificial consciousness? — JerseyFlight

Hmm... so, in the pursuit of identifying and disproving "fatalistic, all or nothing arguments" as well as "cult-minded-thinking" ... why does one person having more stuff than another person -- perhaps, rather hopefully, due to his or her efforts ie. the fruits of his or her labor -- have to automatically be "plantations and masters"?

The system is not perfect. No worldly system is or will ever be, But someone who say happens to be a genius and excels at say mathematics or physics who from his efforts and endeavors could literally place their nation ahead of the pack, unrivaled in war and innovation, should earn/receive the same as someone who can barely change the oil in their car or its tires? I think this is the main sticking point that myself and many others would refer to whenever discussing arguments against capitalism. Essentially it devalues human ingenuity and I suppose even effort and integrity. Why do all that when I can just flip burgers and live the same life as someone who struggled and strived to achieve from day 1? I'm curious. Help me out here guy. Hey, if I'm mistaken I'm mistaken and should be able to be disproved, logically, rather quickly. To change things you have to influence people, otherwise nothing will ever happen and we'll all just age quietly in a pleasant yet irrelevant echo chamber.

There is a point that trade and capital have been a part of the human experience since prehistoric times.

On these grounds I would argue that trade and capital has never been systematized, and that “capitalism” was always an expression of human nature rather than a system someone invented and convinced people to act out.

I'd like to state for the record -- deep down -- I'm not intrinsically for or against any one socioeconomic system. Eh. Suppose it's a bit of cowardice on my part. I find things "somewhat acceptable"- I guess- rather acknowledge things could be fiendishly worse- somehow- and perhaps like many people, fear change of indeterminate result.

Everything sounds good in your head and even on paper. Every man, woman, and child having a place to live, food to eat, water to drink, clean air- literally given everything you need to survive but nothing more. If you want to upgrade, move to a nicer location, get nice things, you work. And are rewarded accordingly. I think what people are either forgetting or not properly acknowledging is the fact that when Marx was born the world population was around one billion and today it has increased seven-fold surpassing seven billion, soon to be eight billion with no signs of slowing down whatsoever but instead increasing. As times change, what could have been paradise then could turn into Hell on Earth now. It would seem to be the only humane way to aggregate humanity toward a better and brighter tomorrow.

Could be wrong. Eager to be disproved if so. After all we've made unimaginable leaps in science, medicine, and agriculture... who really knows?

There is a point that trade and capital have been a part of the human experience since prehistoric times.

On these grounds I would argue that trade and capital has never been systematized, and that “capitalism” was always an expression of human nature rather than a system someone invented and convinced people to act out. — NOS4A2

Trade probably, capital I doubt it, since we were mostly nomadic (so there was little use in 'owning' land) and there was no currency.

Capitalism maybe wasn't conceived top-down from scratch, but there were obviously people pushing for certain policies and laws that predominately favoured them... and ideologues looking to justify that after the fact. So expression of human nature is maybe a bit to strong, but I do take the general view that culture/ the political and economic systems we have, are never completely separate from quote unquote "human nature" interacting with a certain environment... and so not something you can just replace with any other set of ideas you might have.

That's not to say that there is no room for doing things in different ways, just that it is constrained by "human nature" and environment. The latter is the thing that I think will actually force us to adjust our systems in fundamental ways, because things have change so much over the last couple of decades... without the necessary change to the system. And that is a big part of the political crisis we are feeling all over the western world now I think.

The system is not perfect. No worldly system is or will ever be, But someone who say happens to be a genius and excels at say mathematics or physics who from his efforts and endeavors could literally place their nation ahead of the pack, unrivaled in war and innovation, should earn/receive the same as someone who can barely change the oil in their car or its tires? — Outlander

With all due respect friend, you have much more educating to do. How do you think geniuses are made? Through genes? Where do you think people get skills and the ability for high function? You think people are just born this way? We'll they're not. Every human passes through a social system, the environments to which they are subject shape their individual quality. If you want more geniuses, which you already assume to be a good thing, then you need a more intelligent social structure. No advanced species would ever leave the cultivation of its progeny to chance. This is the main reason it would be an advanced species!

Good lord, you have got to be kidding me? I think you mean, the workers? — JerseyFlight

TRY INTERACTING WITH THE QUESTIONS I POSED IN THE SECOND PRIVATE PROPERTY POST (you can find it on pg4 of this thread). — JerseyFlight

Do you have any ideas on how this could be countered? — JerseyFlight

With all due respect friend, you have much more educating to do. — JerseyFlight

not because it is so incredibly profound, but because it is so incredibly naive. — JerseyFlight

Pity, I really don't think the objectors will be able to comprehend it. — JerseyFlight

You know, you could stand a refresher course in attitude. I'm glad you have immersed yourself in difficult intellectual study. It's dirty work, but somebody has to do it. However, just because you have read much, studied hard, and have accumulated many theoretical insights doesn't prevent you from being a learned fool. I'm not saying you are a fool, learned or otherwise, mind you. I'm just suggesting that you could be--and you wouldn't necessarily know it. It could be that the environment in which you developed led brought you to an unfortunate amount of misplaced self-confidence.

Marx's materialism is neither biological nor psychological. He thought that the laws of dialectics, which in nature were concretized in one way, in history were concretized in another. — David Mo

This statement may contain gobbledegook.

A lot of those in the Bourgeoisie are what basically now belong to the middle class. Marx in his Communist Manifesto argues the following:

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with
reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science,
into its paid wage labourers.

The priest sounds dubious here as belonging to what Marxists see as the intellectual Opium dealers from a bygone era (and Capitalism doesn't reject religion, just look at the US). 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

SSU: how do you define "worker"? Isn't a "worker" someone who is dependent on the wage he or she receives in exchange for labor? The wage, and the ability to labor, is everything to a worker.

A member of the bourgeoisie is not dependent on exchanging labor for a wage. God forbid! The bourgeoisie, at least as I understand it, owns the factory (or warehouse which Amazon rents) and receives the profit from the factory or rent. It isn't that the bourgeoisie do not expend mental and physical effort: some of them work their fingers to the bone, especially during the period of their 'original accumulation'. But if they are wealthy and still driving themselves, maybe they are merely suffering from OCD.

Granted, a lot of people (just about everybody, it seems like) think they are "middle class". Granted, some people occupy class-ambiguous positions. Is an Amazon, Target, Walmart, or Boeing upper-middle-management person really working class? I'm sure they don't think of themselves that way, and they may receive a fat enough benefit package to blur the factivity of their paycheck being tied to their ongoing performance of their work, or the profitability of their product area.

As for the American farmer, blessed be the small farmer with less than 250 acres and only 40 cows to milk, most of them are bourgeoisie. True, they may drive a tractor in the spring and a combine in the fall (both equipped with air conditioning, GPS, computer tracking recording how much corn, soy, or wheat was gathered from each square yard (square meter) of the field) which starting purchase price is around $500,000. Or probably they hire farm workers. But the bigger their land holding, the less likely is it that they are actually laboring in agriculture. What they are doing is much more a managerial function. Selling on the futures market, figuring the angles on government subsidies, deciding when and where to buy more land, and so on. If they have milk cows, it's likely that there are more than a thousand in their herd. Even superman would have trouble tending to the 4000 tits of 1000+ cows, let alone dealing with manure, feed, breeding, diseases, and so on.

But even the small family farmer may be quite well off, IF they own their land, IF it is good land, IF world demand for food is strong, and IF everyone else is not enjoying high yields. At least, on paper they may be worth quite a bit, even though they might have to liquidate the farm to see the cash value in hand.

just because you have read much, studied hard, and have accumulated many theoretical insights doesn't prevent you from being a learned fool. I'm not saying you are a fool, learned or otherwise, mind you. I'm just suggesting that you could be--and you wouldn't necessarily know it. — Bitter Crank

I agree with this. The question is how do we go about preventing ourselves from becoming learned fools? "...wouldn't necessarily know it," what standards could we used to help prevent ourselves from deceiving ourselves?

you could stand a refresher course in attitude. — Bitter Crank

:up:

The question is how do we go about preventing ourselves from becoming learned fools? — JerseyFlight

Ask Sisyphus. When has it been different? Do you believe in Meliorism?

You keep telling people they don't belong in the same room as the adults. Well as a voice from the foyer, just what are you achieving in there that you can hand out so many dunce caps. You talk like a Headmaster. Is this the forum you want?

Do you believe in Meliorism? — Monitor

Last time I checked it wasn't faeries that invented agriculture, medicine and science.

I can sum up other examples.... — ChatteringMonkey

These examples show that there are behaviors that are very difficult to eradicate. They do not prove that they are part of human nature. It may be due to cultural or social reasons. For example, since you quote it: alcoholism, which Western societies have been unable to control, has practically disappeared from many Muslim societies.

Trying to draw a circle around who is or isn’t a Marxist or communist is a fools errand. If people call themselves Marxists or communists, however, it is a good indication that they are or are at least trying to be. — NOS4A2

The thread does not refer to Marxists, but specifically to Marx.

True, the term Marxist, like almost all political terms, is quite ambiguous. But when someone claims to be a Christian, it's quite rare for him to be inspired by the Koran, isn't it? And communists who defend capitalism is a contradiction in terms. These are pretty obvious things. But conservative politicians want to put all communists in the same boat and attribute to them all the barbarities of some. This is very typical of political propaganda. This should be avoided in a serious discussion.

I was asking because I didn’t want to assume that you were. — NOS4A2

Why? I don't care if you are conservative or liberal. After all, I'm not going out for a drink with you.

That seems irrelevant, it would still be human nature. — Isaac

It is not irrelevant, because in one case one type of law will apply and in another case different laws will apply. Only if there are laws in history.

And the will and strength would come from where, if not human nature? - Space? Aliens? God? — Isaac

According to Marx there is no need to go so far. The strength of a class to break its chains (to put it like a pamphlet of the time) would come from the relations between the forces of production and the relations of production. If under these conditions there is a strong and consistent workers' party, the revolution will take place. If there is not, we will have to wait for the next juncture. I would say that it is a game between necessity and chance.

Aligning human nature with capitalism via immutable "competition" is to naturalize a socio-economic system that's only existed for a few centuries. I — Maw

This is the point! You have hit the mark!

This statement may contain gobbledegook. — Bitter Crank

Do you think? It may be my English that is very bad. Because the idea seems to me quite simple and understandable.