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.
so you are saying that it is possible that all people happen to value the same things — ChatteringMonkey
Why not (for a sufficiently specific definition of x)? — Isaac
"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
"...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
"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
"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
"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
Yet you said the “the greatest socialist country that has ever existed on the face of the earth” — NOS4A2
human nature would be aggressive in one way in nature and in a different way in history, if it existed at all. — David Mo
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
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
And the will and strength would come from where, if not human nature? — Isaac
evolving along with other primates, have no characteristics arising from their genetic heritage — Bitter Crank
Marx's theories are social, political, and economic primarily. They're not legal. — Isaac
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
:up:you could stand a refresher course in attitude. — Bitter Crank
The question is how do we go about preventing ourselves from becoming learned fools? — JerseyFlight
Do you believe in Meliorism? — Monitor
I can sum up other examples.... — ChatteringMonkey
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
Why? I don't care if you are conservative or liberal. After all, I'm not going out for a drink with you.I was asking because I didn’t want to assume that you were. — NOS4A2
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.That seems irrelevant, it would still be human nature. — 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.And the will and strength would come from where, if not human nature? - Space? Aliens? God? — Isaac
This statement may contain gobbledegook. — Bitter Crank
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.