Does Marxist thinking create a Kakistocracy - Page 3 - 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.
#14858869
RhetoricThug wrote:Information warfare is not a conspiracy theory (but you know this). Check out Yuri Bezmenov and KGB psychological warfare. Cultural Marxism is not a meme, it's a subversive tactic used to covertly/overtly modify a foreign nations milieu. I suppose Cultural Marxism is a misnomer.


I have no idea what you mean by Cultural Marxism after that last sentence, but let me just ask you for proof. I've provided a lot of citations in this thread, and you have not been able to provide anything.

Dude, all humans have feelings, stop being a weirdo. You act as if you're a major player in the socialist scene


Sure. But I use citations, evidence, proofs instead of my feelings to construct an argument. It is sometimes useful to point out when someone else refuses to do so.

... Sure, socialists are down with Technocracy, cool beans. I'm talking about today, TIG. The 4th Industrial revolution is about biological evolution, not political revolution. You're seeing things from 'one side,' because of your dogmatic persistence, yet this evolution is bigger than our petty politics.


As I have mentioned several times, I have not attempted to make a Marxist argument as I don't think you'd understand it. You started this thread to make a commentary on Marxism which has yet to provide any lasting evidence in any way whatsoever.

You may note, from looking at this thread, you attempted to make a "one side" argument, have failed, and because of your "dogmatic persistence" have continued. It seems, objectively, that you are the one that is involved in "petty politics" and for some reason are projecting that upon me.

How rude, that is not constructive criticism, TIG. :roll: Capitalism will be absorbed by highly evolved data processors... If you look at Wallstreet, or global stock markets, computers augmented capitalism a long time ago. Technology is the main driver of change in human society. Eventually, our human systems will be out of our control. Technology will obsolesce conventional bureaucracy and transhumanism will replace humanism. Can you say 'artificially intelligent public relations campaign?' Machines will not be socialists, they will not be communists, they will not be capitalists... They will be machines motivated by quantum computations and real-time data analysis. Machines will build new social theories and new societies. Solutions to problems beyond our comprehension.


I'm presuming you didn't read the citation I posted. But why would you when you are obsessed with these "petty politics" instead of any kind of truth?
#14858895
The Immortal Goon wrote:I have no idea what you mean by Cultural Marxism after that last sentence, but let me just ask you for proof. I've provided a lot of citations in this thread, and you have not been able to provide anything.
From my perspective, cultural Marxism is a soft-power tactic, thus I describe it as a form of information warfare. Misnomers often arise because something was named long before its correct nature was known, or because the nature of an earlier form is no longer the norm. I think Cultural Marxism follows the latter description, and popular culture has changed its definition, in response to our current political climate.


You did provide some citations, thank you. I'm reading “New Soviet Man” Inside Machine: Human Engineering, Spacecraft Design, and the Construction of Communism, right now. Interesting, yet it is composed from a Marxist perspective, concentrating on the 20th century space-race. This is old material, neglecting to highlight the origins of 'machine man.' For Machine man is our biological evolution, and the technological proprietors of the future are not interested in political science, they're interested in the biological evolution of mankind. Political scientists simply integrate technological trends into their existing ideological framework. "New Soviet Man" is just that, a soviet perspective, its vision limited by its operating system/socioeconomic ideals. It should read "New Man," because technology is not political.


Sure. But I use citations, evidence, proofs instead of my feelings to construct an argument. It is sometimes useful to point out when someone else refuses to do so.
I prefer dialogue over second-hand thoughts. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish when you start targeting 'feelings' as invalid features of argument. Emotions play a large role in critical thinking, it's a safeguard (sometimes for the better or worse), to make sure we do not dehumanize the situation. Thinking and feelings are intertwined, it's important to recognize how powerful feelings can be, and it's equally important to recognize how irrational feelings can become. People are not wired to think like 'Spock,' engaged in detached analysis, completely devoid of emotion. :hmm: As for citations and evidence... I'm using speculation to probe the future. I'm not going to construct a proper academic argument because the future is NOW and yesterday is an illusion. Lastly, my ignorance may be as good as your knowledge because we're entering uncharted territory. Yes, you read that correctly, I'm arguing from ignorance because the future doesn't need evidence, evidence of the future is happening right now. If you go forth into the future with conceited knowledge, you're bound to repeat its past. In other-words, you found a conclusion, I found a process. I have faith in the present and cling to the notion 'nature doesn't produce conclusions,' because life is a process. The death of dogma is the beginning of morality. Political history is an unethical infringement upon the conscience of ignorance, motivated by the illusion of knowledge and conclusions. Or as my home boy Napoleon said:' History is a set of lies agreed upon.' As long as you're arguing from a Marxist perspective, you'll never see life as an infinite evolution scheme. You're weaponized through thought-forms that control your perception of reality. Therefore it would be a waste of time and energy to provide you with evidence or citations, because you found something better- evidence, citations, conclusions, etc.

As I have mentioned several times, I have not attempted to make a Marxist argument as I don't think you'd understand it. You started this thread to make a commentary on Marxism which has yet to provide any lasting evidence in any way whatsoever.
Marxism failed throughout the 20th century.

You may note, from looking at this thread, you attempted to make a "one side" argument, have failed, and because of your "dogmatic persistence" have continued. It seems, objectively, that you are the one that is involved in "petty politics" and for some reason are projecting that upon me.
I'm an apolitical contributor, trying to show you how irrelevant politics will be in the future.



I'm presuming you didn't read the citation I posted. But why would you when you are obsessed with these "petty politics" instead of any kind of truth?
See, you want me to reach a conclusion... But that, dear TIG, is impossible. :)
#14858903
RhetoricThug wrote:From my perspective, cultural Marxism is a soft-power tactic, thus I describe it as a form of information warfare. Misnomers often arise because something was named long before its correct nature was known, or because the nature of an earlier form is no longer the norm. I think Cultural Marxism follows the latter description, and popular culture has changed its definition, in response to our current political climate.


Words and concepts have meanings. Just because you feel like Cultural Marxism means anything doens't mean a thing. And there is no reason to engage with you if your feelings about certain matters are just going to change all over the place as is convenient.

You did provide some citations, thank you. I'm reading “New Soviet Man” Inside Machine: Human Engineering, Spacecraft Design, and the Construction of Communism, right now. Interesting, yet it is composed from a Marxist perspective, concentrating on the 20th century space-race. This is old material, neglecting to highlight the origins of 'machine man.' For Machine man is our biological evolution, and the technological proprietors of the future are not interested in political science, they're interested in the biological evolution of mankind. Political scientists simply integrate technological trends into their existing ideological framework. "New Soviet Man" is just that, a soviet perspective, its vision limited by its operating system/socioeconomic ideals. It should read "New Man," because technology is not political.


That work was not written by the Soviets, nor was it (to my knowledge) written by a Marxist. It is a record of something that had occurred which undermines your premise that Marxism is incompatible with technocracy.

I prefer dialogue over second-hand thoughts. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish when you start targeting 'feelings' as invalid features of argument. Emotions play a large role in critical thinking, it's a safeguard (sometimes for the better or worse), to make sure we do not dehumanize the situation. Thinking and feelings are intertwined, it's important to recognize how powerful feelings can be, and it's equally important to recognize how irrational feelings can become. People are not wired to think like 'Spock,' engaged in detached analysis, completely devoid of emotion. :hmm: As for citations and evidence... I'm using speculation to probe the future. I'm not going to construct a proper academic argument because the future is NOW and yesterday is an illusion. Lastly, my ignorance may be as good as your knowledge because we're entering uncharted territory. Yes, you read that correctly, I'm arguing from ignorance because the future doesn't need evidence, evidence of the future is happening right now. If you go forth into the future with conceited knowledge, you're bound to repeat its past. In other-words, you found a conclusion, I found a process. I have faith in the present and cling to the notion 'nature doesn't produce conclusions,' because life is a process. The death of dogma is the beginning of morality. Political history is an unethical infringement upon the conscience of ignorance, motivated by the illusion of knowledge and conclusions. Or as my home boy Napoleon said:' History is a set of lies agreed upon.' As long as you're arguing from a Marxist perspective, you'll never see life as an infinite evolution scheme. You're weaponized through thought-forms that control your perception of reality. Therefore it would be a waste of time and energy to provide you with evidence or citations, because you found something better- evidence, citations, conclusions, etc.


This is nothing but post-modernist feeling mongering. There is no reason to engage in this, especially as it has nothing to do with any point that has been brought up in this thread.

Marxism failed throughout the 20th century.


Your premise from this is that it is your feeling that it has. You have provided no evidence or context to this. As such, nobody cares about your feelings.

I'm an apolitical contributor, trying to show you how irrelevant politics will be in the future.


You are apparently, at least, anti-Marxist. When you make an argument at all, I will be able to weigh the merits of it. Whining about how your feelings matter is not compelling factual data.

See, you want me to reach a conclusion... But that, dear TIG, is impossible. :)


Facts are not a conclusion, but the only means of achieving a conclusion.
#14858922
RhetoricThug wrote:I'm an apolitical contributor

You are apparently, at least, anti-Marxist and pro-Capitalism ("capitalism is biologically appropriate").

trying to show you how irrelevant politics will be in the future.

Why do you think politics will be irrelevant in the future,

and

what future are you speaking of? Tomorrow, the day after, next month, within a year, a decade..... sometime in the next millenium.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 03 Nov 2017 22:07, edited 3 times in total.
#14858928
RhetoricThug wrote:Does Marxist thinking create a Kakistocracy?



Communism is a kakistocracy because the workers of the world aka the profane masses are incapable of governing themselves, and that is why a criminal class of people (kelptocracy) end up becoming the state's ruling party.


The answer to your question isn't as simple as it should if we think in a broader sense than Marxism, regarding exclusively to Marxism, which is your actual question, the simple answer is YES. Democracy isn't always fair, being that a neoliberal, liberal, Socialist Democratic, Capitalism, Capitalism with Welfare State (modern socialist democratic), communism. I do think Communism and Socialism are the worst of them all.

The truth is most people are bellow average, character wise and IQ wise. That's why some need instructions to open bottles. In between the bellow average and above average people we have folks who are seriously disturbed. Which brings us to a crossroad: more often than not the ones in power who are intellectually capable are the worst in terms of character, is even worse when they are intellectually challenged and have a very disturbed character.

The rare ones are intellectually capable with a decent character. In resume, more often than not, we have the worst type of people in Government.

Take Venezuela as an example. In terms of intellect I think Maduro is really bellow average, borderline retarded. Not that Chavez was a genius, but at least Chavez was charismatic enough to be semi tolerable. Than we have people like Hilary, Tony Blair, Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger, Condoleza , people of the worst kind but intellectually capable.

Bush...is...well, more like Chavez.

The thing with Democracy is you can Impeach those bastards, when you have a Socialist Government like Venezuela for way to long, is nearly impossible that major sects of the Government don't become part of the corrupted body, in another words, nearly impossible to get rid of the bastard (aka maduro is still Venezuela's President while Brazil managed to impeach Roussef and is about to arrest Lula)
#14859428
Politiks wrote:The truth is most people are bellow average, character wise and IQ wise.


Image

And:

Image

The thing with Democracy is you can Impeach those bastards, when you have a Socialist Government like Venezuela for way to long, is nearly impossible that major sects of the Government don't become part of the corrupted body, in another words, nearly impossible to get rid of the bastard (aka maduro is still Venezuela's President while Brazil managed to impeach Roussef and is about to arrest Lula)


In fairness, this still isn't a criticism about "Marxist thinking."
#14859498
Describe or prescribe, asked a scribe.

The Immortal Goon wrote:Words and concepts have meanings. Just because you feel like Cultural Marxism means anything doens't mean a thing. And there is no reason to engage with you if your feelings about certain matters are just going to change all over the place as is convenient.
Yes, TIG, words compress and convey meaning- connotation, denotation, intonations, etc; influence the interpretation of environmental sensation. The human mind operates through sensation-perception-cognition (encode, decode, feedback loop). Thinking is an automatic filtering process, but sometimes thinking filters out important processes (do you think about breathing?). The art of argument is a modern hangup, because argument will always pretend to understand tactile sensation by abstracting meaningful patterns of information from a field of never-ending processes. Humans exist inside a process called reality, in a state of active interplay with the mind-matter interface, forced to produce neural impressions as a perpetual reaction to the bio-chemical field of 'being' in order to keep on keeping on. Perceptual configuration is a side-effect (data dump) of being present. I explore this conundrum over in 'Impregnating the stars, data-dumping-dosing and getting high off ignorance.'

The human mind is a linear operator, practical, and completely enveloped in a polycentric cloud of sensation.

I guess you think therefore believe the filter and its conclusion(s) take precedence over existential 'happening.' For RT, the words and concepts we use to organize space-time tend to bend/curve around an individual's perspective (limited degree of awareness) or perception of reality. Of course, this is a good thing, since we need different notes to make beautiful music. It's highly unlikely any one dead or living musician (t(h)inker) had or has the keys to the music of the spheres. I'm very suspicious of any cult of conceit, for they forget or down-right ignore- effects are perceived whereas causes are conceived.

"Unable to explore actual processes perceptually from every side, the conceptual man apprehends only visual goals. For example, the conventional ideas of 'evolution' and 'technology' are illusions engendered by the visual bias of literate cultures. Such cultures translated the 'chain of being' metaphor from the astral to the biological plane. For the use of the 'missing link' idea we are indebted to a missing inventor. So far nobody has appeared as originator of this phrase. The gap created by the 'missing link' has sparked more exploration and discovery than the established links in 'connected' science. Conceptual choices, like 'natural selection,' can come only after the fact. The 'origins' of all species vanish in rear-view perspectives, while the music goes round and round."

That is why I asked, why do Marxists focus on efficient cause and ignore the rest of reality? I mean, causality is not merely reciprocal action but complementary process. Science organizes knowledge, not ignorance, labels rather than processes... So what's your point TIG? It's better to 'see' causality as a probe, instead of a program.

That work was not written by the Soviets, nor was it (to my knowledge) written by a Marxist. It is a record of something that had occurred which undermines your premise that Marxism is incompatible with technocracy.
All (re)sources of human intelligence will be compatible with Technocracy, because highly involved data processors become the past-present-future simultaneously. Again, tribal peoples tend to live and breath surface tension, the physical dialectic of A-B-C sensation. The computer is not limited by locality or physicality, the computer will be Marxist, it will be Capitalist, it shall be all available data sets, and yet it shan't be any SINGLE datum point, because it doesn't have a morphological tendency to be tribal. Tribal man will need such a transcendent tool to escape its hardwired desires/sinsations. Man can only reach so far intellectually, and he will always be limited by the locality of his awareness. The sacrifice of self (along with our tribal antiquities), adaption and augmentation through Technology, shall grant mankind non-local awareness. :borg:


This is nothing but post-modernist feeling mongering. There is no reason to engage in this, especially as it has nothing to do with any point that has been brought up in this thread.
I enjoy creative word rhythm, 'feel-mongering,' good one. :lol: Have no fear, TIG, we're indeed post-modern. After-all, the conceited time clock reads 2017.



Your premise from this is that it is your feeling that it has. You have provided no evidence or context to this. As such, nobody cares about your feelings.
Feelings can be strange, ask Nikola Tesla:

On an afternoon which is ever present in my memory, I was enjoying a walk with my friend in City Park, and reciting poetry. At that age I knew entire books by heart, word for word. One of these was Goethe's Faust. The sun was setting, and reminded me of the glorious passage:

"Sie ruckt und weicht, der Tag ist uberlebt,
Dort eilt sie hin und fordert neus Leben.
Oh, dass kein Flugel mich vom Boden hebt
Ihr nach und immer nach zu streben!
Ein schoner Traum idessen sie entweicht,
Ach, zu des Geistes Flugeln wird so leicht
Kein korperlicher Flugel sich gesellen!"


As I uttered these inspiring words, the idea came like a flash of lightening, and in an instant the truth was revealed. I drew with a stick on the sand the diagrams shown six years later in my address before the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, and my companion understood them perfectly. The images I saw were wonderfully sharp and clear, and had the solidarity of metal and stone, so much so I told him- "See my motor here; watch me reverse it." I cannot begin to describe my emotions. Pygmalion seeing his statue come to life could not have been more deeply moved. A thousand secrets of nature which I might have stumbled upon accidentally I would have given for that one which I had wrested from her against all odds, and at the peril of my existence.



You are apparently, at least, anti-Marxist. When you make an argument at all, I will be able to weigh the merits of it. Whining about how your feelings matter is not compelling factual data.
We are incapable of sifting through 'compelling factual data,' that is why we created computers. Feelings matter, because thoughts may be a subtle form of matter... Sensation is tactile.


Facts are not a conclusion, but the only means of achieving a conclusion.
Conclusions are not always facts, but the only means of sustaining a fleeting feeling. ;) Nature doesn't produce conclusions, and that is why human conclusions create a Kakistocracy (nature ruled by the worst kind of persons).


You are apparently, at least, anti-Marxist and pro-Capitalism ("capitalism is biologically appropriate").
Please note- I said biologically appropriate, not sustainable. Hedonism is a human problem, and self-restraint is a personal issue.

what future are you speaking of? Tomorrow, the day after, next month, within a year, a decade..... sometime in the next millenium.
The future is now. :eek:


EDIT:
The Immortal Goon wrote:You have yet to advance an argument against Marxism, and every argument you have tried to make has crumbled upon a glance.
Marxism is a pipe-dream, trickling down a narrow pipe of perception. Conclusions are limited by your attention and mental bandwidth, TIG. It doesn't matter how you feel about my feelings, your political positions sound sociopathic. I got a new political slogan for your revolution, Marxism, because misery loves company :excited:




-One Love, RT OUT!
Last edited by RhetoricThug on 06 Nov 2017 18:22, edited 6 times in total.
User avatar
By The Immortal Goon
#14859502
RhetoricThug wrote:Yes, TIG, words have many meanings- connotation, denotation, intonations, etc; influence the interpretation of environmental sensation. The human mind operates through sensation-perception-cognition (encode, decode, feedback loop). Thinking is an automatic filtering process, but sometimes thinking filters out important processes (do you think about breathing?). The art of argument is a modern hangup, because argument will always pretend to understand tactile sensation (while on the podium of conceited content) by abstracting meaningful patterns of information from a field of never-ending processes. Humans exist inside a process called reality, in a state'being' in order to keep on keeping on. Perceptual configuration

...I guess you think therefore believe the filter and its conclusion(s) take precedence over the existential 'happening.' For RT, the words and concepts we use to organize space-time tend to curve around an individual's perspective.


We are incapable of sifting through 'compelling factual data,' that is why we created computers. Feelings matter, because thoughts may be a subtle form of matter... Sensation is tactile.


It should be plainly obvious to everyone that your post was a long and profoundly boring defense of ignorance. An argument that I should be compelled to your side because of your feelings, and known facts shouldn’t count against your feelings.

Obviously, even if I were to agree that logic had no place in a discussion, I could not be compelled to share your precious feelings.

What of it?

You have yet to advance an argument against Marxism, and every argument you have tried to make has crumbled upon a glance.
By RhetoricThug
#14866724
The Marxist bubble and intellectual redundancy.
The Immortal Goon wrote: and every argument you have tried to make has crumbled upon a glance.
We see with our brains, not with our eyes. You're running the Marxist program. As long as you identify with fictional thought programs, you'll never be able to see reality for what it is, because your perception is compromised. Hence why you mistrust thought files that come online and try to tell you that your perspective is always limited by what you think you know. Why muddy mucky waters? We all swim in the noosphere.
#14866935
The rocket as a phallic-sociopathic archetype? :lol:

^Sociopaths are plagued by emotional abnormalities, making them empty shells. They experience “shallow” feelings, which means that virtually all of their emotions are fleeting, if they have them at all. They seem to feel rage and envy in full force, which fuels aggressive behavior in many of them.

Will the Kakistocracy have sociopathic tendencies? TIG, as an example of Marxist thought, persistently suggests that human feelings are irrelevant. Of course, he's blasting off with cold-calculated logic, pretending to be a rational negotiator, dehumanizing the whole situation. Unfortunately, as history would have it, cold-calculated logic can lead to horrific tragedy. We must protect humanity from this kind of left-brain perception. We must find balance and dance together.

-One Love :hippy:

EU is not prepared on nuclear war, but Russia,[…]

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]