Marxism revealed - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14803235
If one day robots take over the world, I agree that Marxism would work very well amongst them.

They might even name the head robot "Karl" and let it have the most lubricating oil.
User avatar
By Rugoz
#14803286
The biggest issue with communists, is that they cannot convincingly argue for Marx' economic theories and the conclusions Marx draws from them. At least I have never met one who can.
Last edited by Rugoz on 08 May 2017 16:15, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#14803302
@Rapperson

Critique can't be partisan in my opinion. The best critique of capitalism is produced by Marxists because their whole agenda is in discrediting capitalism in a scientific manner.

In full honesty the best critique of communism is produced by "liberals" or "capitalists" also so it goes both ways. (For the same reasons by the way)

You can't simply use capitalist argument to dispute communism but at the same time ignore communist arguments because they were produced by communists and not capitalists. There is not much interested within the communist community to critique themselves and the same goes for capitalism. There are rare exceptions though which usually don't deal with existential problems within both systems though.

The article that I provided, although written by pro-communist website, still brings a valid point. The serfdom in its natural form was removed by it was replaced by other means.

To everybody else:

Do not get sidetracked. This topic is not about supremacy of communism over capitalism. Capitalism is possible right now and communism is not. Perhaps in the future it will be but to date, all communist attempts have failed. Even the Soviet Union did not claim itself communist but socialist.

This topic is about how capitalism came to be or more specifically did violence play a very important role in establishment of capitalism? If it did then to what degree? Do you consider capitalism still evolving? Does the violence still happen if capitalism is still evolving?
User avatar
By Rapperson
#14803313
The Immortal Goon wrote:History has also shown that capitalism is, or very soon becomes, a violent dictatorship. It is an oppressive government that curtails many human rights, notably freedom of speech.


No it doesn't.

@MememyselfandIJK

What is the really big problem with capitalism that marxism solves? What is the first thing you'd mention?
Last edited by Rapperson on 08 May 2017 15:06, edited 1 time in total.
By Pants-of-dog
#14803316
Rapperson wrote:No it doesn't.


Yes, all over the developing world, capitalism has been a part of dictatorships.

Even in the developed world, capitalist governments will use oppressive state police tactics against certain segments of the population in order to maintain control of land and resources.
User avatar
By Rapperson
#14803317
JohnRawls wrote:@Rapperson

Critique can't be partisan in my opinion. The best critique of capitalism is produced by Marxists because their whole agenda is in discrediting capitalism in a scientific manner.



Clearly this conversation can never go anywhere, I see that now. You are after critique while I'm after truth. Sorry.
By Pants-of-dog
#14803326
Those are not mutually exclusive goals. In fact, one can arrive at truth throuhh critiques.

Back to the topic, capitalism is still being imposed at gumpoint. Just ask the indigenous people at Standing Rock whether or not the oil companies had the help of government when it came to imposing their economic model on the people in the area.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#14803329
Rapperson wrote:Clearly this conversation can never go anywhere, I see that now. You are after critique while I'm after truth. Sorry.


Truth is something that is true under any interpretation. Critique provides those other interpretations. If the statement is false under any interpretation then the statement itself is either partially true, partially false or false. (This is basically the definition of logical truth)

You think that you are after the Truth but in reality you want to justify your position without adhering to any rules to what truth itself might be.

@Pants-of-dog

Not all aspects of capitalism are enforced at gunpoint. There are also examples of parts of capitalism that are not enforced at gunpoint and developed naturally. It is different in all countries though. Some aspects are adopted because they beneficial and some aspects are indeed enforced at gunpoint. An example of this is abolishment of Slavery. In the US it was done at gunpoint but in majority of Europe it was done in a peaceful way.
#14803330
Rapperson wrote:No it doesn't.


This is, unfortunately, a common response.

You came in here, provided no citations, specifics, or evidence for your claims. When confronted with the possibility that your precious snowflake feelings may not have been the final authority on a subject, you have a three word response that removes the possibility. No citation. No clarification. No logic. Just that there's no possibility that your feels aren't the centre of the universe.

This is something that is common in the West, however. There have been countless programs made in an attempt to force you to think that socialism is impossible and that everybody has always been capitalist, and that is good. Even if you join a movement skeptical of this, you may be playing right into their hands--Like the old National Student Association:

The New Yorker wrote:First, the N.S.A. [National Student Association] was used as a cutout. The C.I.A. funnelled financial support to favored foreign-student groups by means of grants ostensibly coming from the N.S.A. Second, the N.S.A. was a recruitment device. It enabled the agency to identify potential intelligence sources among student leaders in other countries. And, third, N.S.A. members who attended international conferences filed written reports or were debriefed afterward, giving the C.I.A. a huge database of information.

The C.I.A. did not buy into the adage that the student leader of today is the student leader of tomorrow. It calculated that the heads of national student organizations were likely some day to become important figures in their countries’ governments. When that happened (and it often did), the American government had a file on them. “Over time, witting staff reported on thousands of foreign students’ political tendencies, personality traits, and future aspirations,” Paget writes. “They submitted detailed analyses of political dynamics within foreign student unions and countries.”

This may seem benign enough, but there was a problem. It had to do with the “State Department bad guys, C.I.A. good guys” routine. The State Department deals with nations with which the United States has diplomatic relations. Having diplomatic relations with a foreign government prohibits you from negotiating with, or acknowledging the legitimacy of, groups committed to that government’s overthrow. This is why it’s convenient to have an agency that operates clandestinely. The C.I.A. could cultivate relations with opposition groups secretly, and this permitted the American government to work both sides of the street.

Paget thinks that, in some cases, the information the C.I.A. gathered about students who were political opponents of a regime may have ended up in the hands of that regime, which could then have used the information to arrest and execute its enemies. She suspects that this may have happened in several countries where the American government was involved in regime change, including Iraq, Iran, and South Africa.


Regardless, it seems pretty evident that you are unthinkingly following a line of emotions without any kind of evidence or rational logic applied to it.
By Pants-of-dog
#14803332
@JohnRawls

I would go farther and say that whether or not capitalism is imposed at gunpoint also depends on the people involved. The rich do not have capitalism imposed upon them at gunpoint.
User avatar
By Rapperson
#14803336
The Immortal Goon wrote:This is, unfortunately, a common response.

You came in here, provided no citations, specifics, or evidence for your claims. When confronted with the possibility that your precious snowflake feelings may not have been the final authority on a subject, you have a three word response that removes the possibility. No citation. No clarification. No logic. Just that there's no possibility that your feels aren't the centre of the universe.

This is something that is common in the West, however. There have been countless programs made in an attempt to force you to think that socialism is impossible and that everybody has always been capitalist, and that is good. Even if you join a movement skeptical of this, you may be playing right into their hands--Like the old National Student Association:

Regardless, it seems pretty evident that you are unthinkingly following a line of emotions without any kind of evidence or rational logic applied to it.


You made the claim, I refuted it. There's no need to be insulted. Can you provide, say, a list of nations whose history supports your claim?



JohnRawls wrote:
Truth is something that is true under any interpretation.




No it isn't. The truthfulness of a statement hinges on the interpretation of its meaning, and this meaning must be established when the statement is made.
Last edited by Rapperson on 08 May 2017 16:18, edited 1 time in total.
By Pants-of-dog
#14803341
@Rapperson

Please note that you have yet to provide any evidence at all for any of your claims.

So no, you have not refuted any claims. In fact, you have actually ignored evidence that contradicts your claims.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#14803370
Rapperson wrote:

No it isn't. The truthfulness of a statement hinges on the interpretation of its meaning, and this meaning must be established when the statement is made.


This is subjective Truth.(Subjective meaning that you are choosing your personal interpretation or favoured interpretation) A statement can have several interpretations which you are trying to ignore. By rules of logic, a statement is true when it is true under any interpretation.

Choosing your personal or favoured interpretation has a flaw that your interpretation might not be the same as somebody elses interpretation. So in this case the Truth becomes subjective to you, because you choose to have 1 interpretation of the statement while other people will have either more than 1 or 1 totally different interpretation.

Here is the core of the problem. Most of the people on this website do not acknowledge subjective Truths because we have more or different interpretations of history, situations etc. So to prove something is "Fully True" you need to prove that it is true under any interpretation. This is severely hard to do but most will even accept mostly true statements as the truth also.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#14803374
Pants-of-dog wrote:@JohnRawls

I would go farther and say that whether or not capitalism is imposed at gunpoint also depends on the people involved. The rich do not have capitalism imposed upon them at gunpoint.


I believe this to be the case also. But not all instances of capitalism benefit only the rich, which is my point to a degree. Profit seeking for example is something that is not inherent only to the rich. This benefits all of the classes. It becomes a problem only when over accumulation happens which is presented as the "evil" of the upper classes by communism while at the same time communism ignores the benefits of this for the other classes.
User avatar
By Rapperson
#14803382
JohnRawls wrote:This is subjective Truth.(Subjective meaning that you are choosing your personal interpretation or favoured interpretation) A statement can have several interpretations which you are trying to ignore. By rules of logic, a statement is true when it is true under any interpretation.

Choosing your personal or favoured interpretation has a flaw that your interpretation might not be the same as somebody elses interpretation. So in this case the Truth becomes subjective to you, because you choose to have 1 interpretation of the statement while other people will have either more than 1 or 1 totally different interpretation.

Here is the core of the problem. Most of the people on this website do not acknowledge subjective Truths because we have more or different interpretations of history, situations etc. So to prove something is "Fully True" you need to prove that it is true under any interpretation. This is severely hard to do but most will even accept mostly true statements as the truth also.


Show me a statement that is true under any interpretation.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#14803387
@Rapperson

Molecules consist of Atoms for example.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#14803390
@Rapperson

Pardon me? Are you trying to imply ad absurdum? This is not going to get you anywhere.

Ireland joins South Africa in the charges of genoc[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Everything is good here, @wat0n :)

Sounds like perfect organized crime material ex[…]

Commercial foreclosures increase 97% from last ye[…]