ckaihatsu wrote:Whatever. I don't recall it.
But I recall you
claiming that was Stalinism
Unfortunately you're *bourgeois*, though, so there's still that discrepancy of historical appropriateness, especially relative to *socialist* ideals and goals.
Socialism recognizes and acknowledges that *industrial* production is how modern commodities get produced, while *your* politics is stuck in the agrarian-only past of the 18th century.
Garbage unrelated to anything I wrote. I am not responsible for your refusal to know the fact that just as production and population have moved from rural to urban, so has land value.
Marxism is a 'big picture' *social science*,
It is a religion, not a science.
and does not concern itself with the individual.
Like I said: not a science.
You think that capitalism is perfectly meritocratic,
No. I have stated many times that I oppose capitalism, and that it is not meritocratic. It is merely -- faint praise -- better and more meritocratic than socialism.
and that workers are appropriately rewarded for their labor contribution, by the piece of the total production 'pie' that they receive, when this is *not* the case.
No. I have stated many times that capitalism robs workers in several different important ways:
1. By making them pay private landowners for permission to use what nature provided for all;
2. By taxing their production and consumption to fund subsidies for the privileged;
3. By denying them the opportunity to produce and benefit from desirable public services and infrastructure that could be provided to the community if their value were not all taken by private landowners;
4. By removing their liberty right and options to sustain themselves, thus placing them in a disadvantageous bargaining position vis-a-vis employers;
And under modern finance capitalism,
5. By making them pay interest to private bankers on the money supply they have to use to participate in the economy;
6. By making them pay IP monopolists for permission to use knowledge and ideas that would otherwise be in the public domain;
Ownership is disproportionately rewarded, and that's why we have billionaires who don't produce *any* goods or services while those who *do* produce goods and services receive meager wages, barely enough to live on.
You again, like all socialists and capitalists, refuse to know the difference between ownership of what one CONTRIBUTES and ownership of others' RIGHTS.
Marxism doesn't dispute the theory of evolution,
It just ignores it.
and your invocation of the reactionary 'social Darwinism' interpretation of evolution is apples-and-oranges with what Darwin was describing.
I did not invoke social Darwinism, and you cannot accurately describe my interpretation of how evolution affects social science.
People should receive from society's productive output according to their *needs*, and not according to their individual labor inputs - -
No, they should receive rewards commensurate with their contributions and pay costs commensurate with their deprivations of others because that is justice
, which gets the incentives right.
this principle has been *in practice* and working for the rich for centuries now.
No, it self-evidently and indisputably hasn't. In what sense have people or the rich been receiving output according to their needs?? You are talking utter nonsense.
The terminology is *beside* the point because you're continuing to single-out a particular monotheistic religion for your opprobrium, Islam, while ignoring the historical barbarities of the *other* monotheistic religions, particularly Christianity.
No. I'm fully aware that Judaism (if we can believe the biblical accounts) and Christianity have been atrocious and barbaric. I'm singling out Islam only because it is still
Marxism *isn't* a 'hard science' so it's not subject to this criterion.
Yes it is.
The social sciences, including Marxism, must adhere to *empirical* realities, and so they begin by acknowledging real-world facts and dynamics, like class.
But Marxism -- like capitalism -- fundamentally misinterprets class by ignoring the difference between owning one's own contributions
and owning others' rights
You're trying to hold Marx and Marxism to the skewed genetic standards of your eugenicist 'social Darwinism'. Darwin was *not* a 'social Darwinist'.
I haven't advocated eugenics or social Darwinism, just scientific realism.
Marxism doesn't recognize any fixed or idealist component of 'human nature'. We're *all* *socially* determined, for the most part, due to the prevailing class regime of commodity-production.
That IS the fixed, idealist component: economic determinism. And it is anti-scientific claptrap.
Darwinism, a 'hard' science of genetic determination, doesn't translate to the 'soft', *social* sciences of how human society operates.
Yes it does, just in a very complex way that we can't expect fully to understand.
Human society is *not* genetically determined, either from individual activities or otherwise.
Its tendencies and limiting parameters are determined by the genetic make-up of its members, not how production is organized. That fact is fundamental to any genuine empirical science of society.
'Social Darwinism' is *not* a science, either 'hard' or 'soft' - - it is a socio-political *ideology*.
And one that I have not advocated.
So then what does *genetics* have to do with political (nationalist) leadership, according to your subscribed eugenicist theory?
It determines people's potential, and a large part of their personalities, attitudes and choices. Google "University of Minnesota Twins Study" and start reading.
You indicated that genetics determines the full personality of an individual,
It sets the limits of how one can develop. Obviously there are also environmental factors.
so it follows in your cockeyed ideology that those in leadership positions of power must be *genetically predisposed* to such, but you haven't specified *how*.
We know there is a large genetic component in personality, including intelligence, extroversion, narcissism, conscientiousness, emotional resilience, agreeableness and openness, and that people at the tops of hierarchies tend to be intelligent, extroverted, conscientious, emotionally resilient, narcissistic, and disagreeable.
It's your cockamamie theory, so maybe *you* should be the one to describe how genetics works in a known personage like Napoleon.
As with other gifted military commanders, genetics gave him exceptional intelligence, charisma, creativity, emotional resilience, conscientiousness and narcissism.
What has Marxism said that is historically incorrect?
That capitalism would turn into socialism, and socialism into communism.
No, again, Marxism's strength is not in any purported *predictive* power (that's the *hard* sciences), but rather its power is in its *descriptive* abilities, like pointing out class rule throughout the millennia.
But Marxism gets that completely wrong, and merely misinterprets
historical events to make them fit the Marxist narrative.
Marxism is what *identified* class, although others did prior to Marx.
No, Marxism mis
identified class by associating it with ownership
rather than privilege
You're expecting the social sciences to be as precise and exacting as the *hard* sciences - - and they *are* very robust in analyzing society - - but they do not presume to make detailed predictions over very complex, messy social dynamics, the way the hard sciences do over predictable, consistent physical materials.
Genuine, empirical social science would have predictive power. Marxism doesn't.
I'm saying you would be better off sticking to recognizing *social* factors, like the Enlightenment ideals influencing the election of Jefferson, rather than using your *geneticist* premises for an analysis of the same - - since you're *not* using eugenics to analyze Jefferson’s political power, it looks like you're smart enough to at least not-believe your own bullshit.
You are just pushing a false dichotomy fallacy. Both personal gifts and Enlightenment ideals were necessary to Jefferson's election and successful leadership.
Bigotry and racism, as from the Nazis, is *apparent*, and, on the mass scale, doesn't *require* sincerity.
Nonsense. They couldn't have done much if they hadn't been sincere.
Plenty of people went along with Nazism at the time, despite personal reservations, because that was the prevailing set of ideas at the time
No, they went along because they were afraid they would be physically attacked if they defied them.
- - 'the ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of its ruling class' (paraphrasing).
But few would have guessed in 1930 that Germany's ruling class had such ideas -- because they didn't. They supported the Nazis only because they assumed it would be an expedient way to get rid of the communists, not because they believed Hitler's nonsense.