Page 28 of 42 FirstFirst ...
18
26
27
28
29
30
38
... LastLast
  1. #541
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    No, my point is that what Endus was describing wasn't Marxism and that you have a warped conception of it regardless.



    And you're repeating his errors as a result.

    Love that for you.
    Yeah, I don't have the years it would explain it to you in terms you would understand, so I'll skip it. Have a nice life. You are welcome to think whatever it is, just don't be surprised when it doesn't work out like you think it will.

  2. #542
    Banned Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Berenstein Timeline
    Posts
    54,805
    Quote Originally Posted by agm114r View Post
    Yeah, I don't have the years it would explain it to you in terms you would understand, so I'll skip it. Have a nice life. You are welcome to think whatever it is, just don't be surprised when it doesn't work out like you think it will.
    That's a very verbose way of saying you don't have an argument, lol.

  3. #543
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,139
    Quote Originally Posted by agm114r View Post
    Usually, 'worker-owned means of production' is usually Marxism, so, yes that's what I was talking about.
    Marx's utopia was an abolishment of ownership, not a market-based system of worker collectives.

    Socialist theory neither started with Marx, nor did Marx sum it up. He was just one influential writer with a particular outlook, who's more important for his critiques of capitalism than his own economic theory. If you hear something socialist, and you think to yourself "sounds like Marxism", you don't have even the most rudimentary understanding of socialist theory to understand the conversation .

    You should be looking for names like Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Pierre-joseph Proudhon, and more broadly, John Rawls, if you're trying to get a grasp on market socialist theory.
    Last edited by Endus; 2021-05-30 at 07:26 AM.

  4. #544
    Pandaren Monk
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,877
    Quote Originally Posted by agm114r View Post
    That's all well and good, but if your point is that 'Marxism works if not corrupted', that's all well and good, but, show me the working in-real-life, uncorrupted example first. If that wasn't your point, let me know what it was, or let it go.

    McCarthy is pretty much ignored in my studies of history, too. As he should be. I have far more knowledge of history than most on this forum show.
    The fact that you state underlined at all makes me doubt it. You might have read some popular history books about subjects that interest you. Maybe you've even read some generally seen more academic tomes like Decline and Fall of Roman Empire.
    However, the fact that you go "I know more than you" shows you know rather little, and probably never have looked at primary sources or really started digging in something.

    I also doubt you've read that much Marx. A thing I haven't either, even if I'm currently reading Das Kapital at work (audiobook). Nor any other Socialist thinker before or after Marx.
    - Lars

  5. #545
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Marx's utopia was an abolishment of ownership, not a market-based system of worker collectives.

    Socialist theory neither started with Marx, nor did Marx sum it up. He was just one influential writer with a particular outlook, who's more important for his critiques of capitalism than his own economic theory. If you hear something socialist, and you think to yourself "sounds like Marxism", you don't have even the most rudimentary understanding of socialist theory to understand the conversation .

    You should be looking for names like Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Pierre-joseph Proudhon, and more broadly, John Rawls, if you're trying to get a grasp on market socialist theory.
    Marx is literaly the worst possible person to look after as look model as if it wasnt for Engels which money Marx leeched he wouldnt have time to write his nonsenses because he would have to work .

    he was not influential writer - he was just a leech which works communits used as means to an end to steal from wealthy only to not give it to poor.

    i honestly hope people here who love communistic/socialistic ideas never read Mein Kampf becuase they will honestly start claims that some of the idiocies written there are overall good ideas in theory .

  6. #546
    Pandaren Monk
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,877
    Quote Originally Posted by kamuimac View Post
    Marx is literaly the worst possible person to look after as look model as if it wasnt for Engels which money Marx leeched he wouldnt have time to write his nonsenses because he would have to work .

    he was not influential writer - he was just a leech which works communits used as means to an end to steal from wealthy only to not give it to poor.

    i honestly hope people here who love communistic/socialistic ideas never read Mein Kampf becuase they will honestly start claims that some of the idiocies written there are overall good ideas in theory .
    Go ask any Economist, Sociologist, Anthropologist, or Historian about him being an influential writer.
    Are lots of his conclutions questionable? Is Historical Materialism flawed once you get into the details? Is his solutions to the Capitalist Economy half-baked and half-assed?
    Yes to all of that. Is his critiques of stuff and use of models good tools that's been used by almost everyone in the fields I mentioned in one way or another since his writings?
    Also yes.

    You also seem to miss the fact that for most of his life Marx was a poor journalist jumping from place to place and country to country dodging censorship. Hillariously enough Engels was one of the wealthy, and the way his family made money is why he became against industrial capitalism as it looked during his life.

    You also missed the point of Endus' post. As he wasn't posting a "Marx had a model of society we should aspire to get". He was posting "Marx critique of the Capitalistic Industrial Model of society" was very correct and ground breaking. Meanwhile you just saw "AAAAAAH HE IS FOR MARX!!"
    - Lars

  7. #547
    The Unstoppable Force Belize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gen-OT College of Shitposting
    Posts
    20,730
    Quote Originally Posted by Yadryonych View Post
    Protestant ethics, if you'd like.
    You mean adultery, entitlement, and begging others to give 10% of their salary in return for scaring them or confirming their hateful world views?

  8. #548
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Marx's utopia was an abolishment of ownership, not a market-based system of worker collectives.

    Socialist theory neither started with Marx, nor did Marx sum it up. He was just one influential writer with a particular outlook, who's more important for his critiques of capitalism than his own economic theory. If you hear something socialist, and you think to yourself "sounds like Marxism", you don't have even the most rudimentary understanding of socialist theory to understand the conversation .

    You should be looking for names like Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Pierre-joseph Proudhon, and more broadly, John Rawls, if you're trying to get a grasp on market socialist theory.
    John stuart mill is a rather odd choice there. Wasn't his entire outlook that unless someone was placing themselves in mortal danger or someone else you shouldn't interfer with them?

  9. #549
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    John stuart mill is a rather odd choice there. Wasn't his entire outlook that unless someone was placing themselves in mortal danger or someone else you shouldn't interfer with them?
    Oversimplified, but yes.

    Still self-identified as a socialist and wrote inceasingly on the subject in later editions of Principles.

    If you thought socialism was antithetical to liberty, you don't understand the first thing about socialist theory; it's more concerned with individual liberties than capitalist theory is.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by kamuimac View Post
    he was not influential writer -
    Imagine being this completely out of touch with the academic thinking behind history, economics, and philosophy, and still presuming your opinion holds value.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
    "Marx has been described as one of the most influential figures in human history and his work has been both lauded and criticised.[17] His work in economics laid the basis for some current theories about labour and its relation to capital.[18][19][20] Many intellectuals, labour unions, artists and political parties worldwide have been influenced by Marx's work, with many modifying or adapting his ideas. Marx is typically cited as one of the principal architects of modern social science."

    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/karl-marx.asp
    "He was, without question, one of the most important and revolutionary thinkers of his time."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/histori...arx_karl.shtml
    "A hugely influential revolutionary thinker and philosopher"

    Hell, just the fact that we're still talking about him pretty much explains it.

  10. #550
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    18,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Marx's utopia was an abolishment of ownership, not a market-based system of worker collectives.

    Socialist theory neither started with Marx, nor did Marx sum it up. He was just one influential writer with a particular outlook, who's more important for his critiques of capitalism than his own economic theory. If you hear something socialist, and you think to yourself "sounds like Marxism", you don't have even the most rudimentary understanding of socialist theory to understand the conversation .

    You should be looking for names like Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Pierre-joseph Proudhon, and more broadly, John Rawls, if you're trying to get a grasp on market socialist theory.
    To be clear it was an end to private property which is distinct from possession. Basically marx (and the other socialist anarchist thinkers Bakunin for example) recognized that ownership of the means of production (private property) was anti thetical to freedom as it creates the grossest forms of domination and exploitation. They disagreed on how to approach this. They all basically stem from proudhon.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Oversimplified, but yes.

    Still self-identified as a socialist and wrote inceasingly on the subject in later editions of Principles.

    If you thought socialism was antithetical to liberty, you don't understand the first thing about socialist theory; it's more concerned with individual liberties than capitalist theory is.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Imagine being this completely out of touch with the academic thinking behind history, economics, and philosophy, and still presuming your opinion holds value.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
    "Marx has been described as one of the most influential figures in human history and his work has been both lauded and criticised.[17] His work in economics laid the basis for some current theories about labour and its relation to capital.[18][19][20] Many intellectuals, labour unions, artists and political parties worldwide have been influenced by Marx's work, with many modifying or adapting his ideas. Marx is typically cited as one of the principal architects of modern social science."

    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/karl-marx.asp
    "He was, without question, one of the most important and revolutionary thinkers of his time."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/histori...arx_karl.shtml
    "A hugely influential revolutionary thinker and philosopher"

    Hell, just the fact that we're still talking about him pretty much explains it.
    Economic discourse tends to shy away from discussions around Marx but thats mostly because his conclusions were not particularly good for the ruling class whove more or less coopted the discipline. Marx is HUGE in sociology though.
    The hammer comes down:
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Normal should be reduced in difficulty. Heroic should be reduced in difficulty.
    And the tiny fraction for whom heroic raids are currently well tuned? Too bad,so sad! With the arterial bleed of subs the fastest it's ever been, the vanity development that gives you guys your own content is no longer supportable.

  11. #551
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Glorious Leader View Post
    To be clear it was an end to private property which is distinct from possession. Basically marx (and the other socialist anarchist thinkers Bakunin for example) recognized that ownership of the means of production (private property) was anti thetical to freedom as it creates the grossest forms of domination and exploitation. They disagreed on how to approach this.
    Right, necessary distinction between "ownership of the means of production", which is what economics theory is about, and "ownership of personal property", in general.

    Capitalism conflates the two which is why some people can't grasp the difference too easily. Your house is personal property. Your factory is a means of production. Nothing about socialism means someone's coming to steal your house from you.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Glorious Leader View Post
    Economic discourse tends to shy away from discussions around Marx but thats mostly because his conclusions were not particularly good for the ruling class whove more or less coopted the discipline. Marx is HUGE in sociology though.
    I've said before I'm really not a Marxist in any way; some of his critiques of capitalism were good stuff, but his communist theory? Hard pass.

    But regardless of whether he's pushing what I personally believe, the idea that he's not massively influential is just . . . bananas cuckoo. People are still getting slandered as "marxists" today. Hell, I do on the regular, here. If he wasn't so influential, why does his name keep cropping up?

  12. #552
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    18,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Right, necessary distinction between "ownership of the means of production", which is what economics theory is about, and "ownership of personal property", in general.

    Capitalism conflates the two which is why some people can't grasp the difference too easily. Your house is personal property. Your factory is a means of production. Nothing about socialism means someone's coming to steal your house from you.
    Precisely in fact the socialist thinkers like proudhon were VERY clear the possession was a necessary factor for the emancipation of the working class.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Right, necessary distinction between "ownership of the means of production", which is what economics theory is about, and "ownership of personal property", in general.

    Capitalism conflates the two which is why some people can't grasp the difference too easily. Your house is personal property. Your factory is a means of production. Nothing about socialism means someone's coming to steal your house from you.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I've said before I'm really not a Marxist in any way; some of his critiques of capitalism were good stuff, but his communist theory? Hard pass.

    But regardless of whether he's pushing what I personally believe, the idea that he's not massively influential is just . . . bananas cuckoo. People are still getting slandered as "marxists" today. Hell, I do on the regular, here. If he wasn't so influential, why does his name keep cropping up?
    From an analytical standpoint his criticism of the capitalist mode of production is VERY hard to refute. The eventual end state of what that would lead to is another matter entirely Hes a very good critique of capital even if you don't buy into communism. Hell even the ruling class acknowledges it on some level. Fuckkng 200 years after Marx talked about the reserve army of labor uncle milt comes up with the nairu
    The hammer comes down:
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Normal should be reduced in difficulty. Heroic should be reduced in difficulty.
    And the tiny fraction for whom heroic raids are currently well tuned? Too bad,so sad! With the arterial bleed of subs the fastest it's ever been, the vanity development that gives you guys your own content is no longer supportable.

  13. #553
    Quote Originally Posted by kamuimac View Post

    he was not influential writer
    This forum has a real problem with people that confuse "He was not influential" with "I don't like the things he said".

    The very fact that people still have issues separating Marxism from Socialism is proof of how influential he was... even if that influence is mostly in their heads.

  14. #554
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Oversimplified, but yes.

    Still self-identified as a socialist and wrote inceasingly on the subject in later editions of Principles.

    If you thought socialism was antithetical to liberty, you don't understand the first thing about socialist theory; it's more concerned with individual liberties than capitalist theory is.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Imagine being this completely out of touch with the academic thinking behind history, economics, and philosophy, and still presuming your opinion holds value.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
    "Marx has been described as one of the most influential figures in human history and his work has been both lauded and criticised.[17] His work in economics laid the basis for some current theories about labour and its relation to capital.[18][19][20] Many intellectuals, labour unions, artists and political parties worldwide have been influenced by Marx's work, with many modifying or adapting his ideas. Marx is typically cited as one of the principal architects of modern social science."

    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/karl-marx.asp
    "He was, without question, one of the most important and revolutionary thinkers of his time."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/histori...arx_karl.shtml
    "A hugely influential revolutionary thinker and philosopher"

    Hell, just the fact that we're still talking about him pretty much explains it.
    I don't see it as incompatible I do see it as destructive if not managed very,very carefully though. I see the wages the market sets as self correcting naturally if you have a skill you earn enough to be comfortable if not you earn enough to survive. It applies pressure to those with the ability and motivation to improve while not clogging the avenues of that system by opening the flood gates to those who wouldn't be successful regardless. Is it perfect? No of course not but let's look at what I see as the natural conclusion to your proposition with ubi.

    Most people are not very motivated when you get down to it. They want to coast through life doing the bare minimum. If you make the bare to comfortable you will quickly get a majority work force that is substantially reliant on a every increasing minority to supplement their own contributions. I can't see this ending in any other way then collapse given time.

  15. #555
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    I don't see it as incompatible I do see it as destructive if not managed very,very carefully though.
    And that's just wrong. It's an expression of your lack of comprehension and your empty fear, nothing more.

    I see the wages the market sets as self correcting naturally if you have a skill you earn enough to be comfortable if not you earn enough to survive.
    Objectively and determinably false.

    Without wage controls, wages crater and mass poverty and widespread suffering is the result. We know this, because it was tried, and that's what happened. Ignoring history is not an argument.

    Most people are not very motivated when you get down to it. They want to coast through life doing the bare minimum. If you make the bare to comfortable you will quickly get a majority work force that is substantially reliant on a every increasing minority to supplement their own contributions. I can't see this ending in any other way then collapse given time.
    This is also just a fantasy you invented.

    Most people are motivated in various ways. That's why volunteerism exists, why family and neighbours and friends help each other out, and so on.

    You have no data, and your premises are observably false. A cursory look at reality would show you that. But you prefer the stories you tell yourself inside your head, that let you dehumanize people and justify their suffering on your behalf.

    Because that's all you're doing, here. Identifying the people you think need to be systematically harmed, for your benefit.

  16. #556
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And that's just wrong. It's an expression of your lack of comprehension and your empty fear, nothing more.



    Objectively and determinably false.

    Without wage controls, wages crater and mass poverty and widespread suffering is the result. We know this, because it was tried, and that's what happened. Ignoring history is not an argument.



    This is also just a fantasy you invented.

    Most people are motivated in various ways. That's why volunteerism exists, why family and neighbours and friends help each other out, and so on.

    You have no data, and your premises are observably false. A cursory look at reality would show you that. But you prefer the stories you tell yourself inside your head, that let you dehumanize people and justify their suffering on your behalf.

    Because that's all you're doing, here. Identifying the people you think need to be systematically harmed, for your benefit.
    Or we could say you’re both making broad assumptions about the other’s intentions and motives without any clear evidence and are therefore pissing into the wind instead of debating.

  17. #557
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,139
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    Or we could say you’re both making broad assumptions about the other’s intentions and motives without any clear evidence and are therefore pissing into the wind instead of debating.
    When someone says "I have a magic unicorn that poops delicious ice cream", and my response is "bollocks you do, provide literally any evidence", I'm not the one taking the piss in that conversation.

  18. #558
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    18,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    substantially reliant on a every increasing minority to supplement their own contributions. I can't see this ending in any other way then collapse given time.
    Really? because a rather significant amount of income in this country is paid as capital gains. Income that is entirely divorced from labor.
    https://mattbruenig.medium.com/the-u...580#.k288l4rdg
    The hammer comes down:
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Normal should be reduced in difficulty. Heroic should be reduced in difficulty.
    And the tiny fraction for whom heroic raids are currently well tuned? Too bad,so sad! With the arterial bleed of subs the fastest it's ever been, the vanity development that gives you guys your own content is no longer supportable.

  19. #559
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Getting super tired of the "we have to exploit our staff and provide a shitty product, but you should give us your business anyway!" attitudes in some small businesses. Give me a store with staff who love working there because you pay them really well, and you'll get my business (once the pandemic's over). You were already getting my business (before the pandemic).
    This is a whole different and unique problem, and a little off topic for this thread, and uniquely American, but these same dynamics effect primary care in America. I'm (a family doc) leaving a previously successful well-respected, pillar of the community, private primary care practice, because it's just not viable in America. I can't get paid what I'm worth. I can't afford health insurance. I can't attract staff that are experienced or do a good job. Should people patronize my practice because we do a good job despite not paying our staff well? If they value not being sent for expensive and unnecessary tests, then yes.

    I bring this up because it's the perfect example of the issue not being the small business' fault. We have massive primary care shortages in my part of the country. We are providing a desperately needed service at low cost, but we still can't compete because in the USA we tip the playing field towards giant hospital based primary care which is the lowest of the lowest priorities for those corporations. We'd rather perform heart surgery on people than prevent them from needing it.

  20. #560
    Quote Originally Posted by Glorious Leader View Post
    Really? because a rather significant amount of income in this country is paid as capital gains. Income that is entirely divorced from labor.
    https://mattbruenig.medium.com/the-u...580#.k288l4rdg
    It's more or less the tragedy of the commons but applied to people not cattle of you want my outlook on it. I believe there would be unchecked expansion to collapse.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •