Economics and China

[FireIceTalon]

<yawn tunes out ignores rant...>

No surprise there. Probably the best thing for right-wingers to do when confronted with inconvenient facts and overwhelming evidence that is contrary to their ideology. If there is anything about reactionaries that I've learned, its that they really do NOT like facts From my perspective, you remind me much of a climate change denier or bible thumper. No amount of facts or contradicting evidence will make these people change their minds, and the same seems true for apologists of the capitalist system.

So... No examples then?

Well, considering that the working class of the world consists of approximately a FEW BILLION examples, and constitutes the vast majority of the human population, I'd say I am more than covered in that department

You haven't, and cannot, produce even a shred of evidence to counter the fact that capital exploits labor, and therefore capitalists exploit workers through coercion. There is no voluntary exchange as you believe, since 1. The workers either sell their labor power to a capitalist, or face starvation, imprisonment or whatever form of violence the state deems necessary; and 2. once the worker sells their labor power to a capitalist, they are compensated a mere fraction of the value they produce, while the capitalist pockets the rest for themselves - this is called surplus value, and therefore the profits represent the UNPAID value of the working class. Both of these things are real world social processes that you probably want to conveniently ignore, since it translates to capitalism being little more than legalized robbery - which is exactly what it is.

Just face it: All capitalists and their state representatives are criminals, many of which probably deserve to drown in their own blood for their crimes against humanity.

But make no mistake about it, a day of reckoning will come when the workers come to work armed, and not to labor, but to tell the bosses that the place no longer belongs to them, and that their little system of privilege, power, exploitation, and coercion is fucking history.

[kandrathe]

<yawn tunes out ignores rant...>

No surprise there. Probably the best thing for right-wingers to do when confronted with inconvenient facts and overwhelming evidence that is contrary to their ideology. If there is anything about reactionaries that I've learned, its that they really do NOT like facts From my perspective, you remind me much of a climate change denier or bible thumper. No amount of facts or contradicting evidence will make these people change their minds, and the same seems true for apologists of the capitalist system.

Name calling always helps. Let's just make this personal, shall we? I'm exhausted by your claim to 100% truthiness, without ever defending your position. I point it out, and ask you to defend your claims, and you respond by saying it is up to me to debunk your philosophical leftist world-view. But, when it gets down to it, you have no realistic action plan. I don't see the point of tilting at clouds here.

You haven't, and cannot, produce even a shred of evidence to counter the fact that capital exploits labor, and therefore capitalists exploit workers through coercion.

I believe I could get up early, make some doughnuts, brew some coffee and sell them for a small profit to commuters on their way to wage jobs. Or, a thousand other ways people earn money self-employed. Is that enough of a shred to explode your woe, woe, woe narrative?

It is pointless for you to come here to converse if you continue to frame our conversation thus;

• It is INDISPUTABLE fact...
• If there is anything about reactionaries that I've learned...
• If anything, the onus is on you to prove...
• Just face it...

I'm not going to "defend" capitalism, not because it is indefensible, but because I have no interest in doing so, and if I were so inclined, it wouldn't be with a person who doesn't debate. What we do here is irrational pseudo argument, but it is pointless since you offer nothing but unsubstantiated rhetoric, insults, aspersions, and vitriol.

The only solution you've proposed is violence;

"All capitalists and their state representatives are criminals, many of which probably deserve to drown in their own blood for their crimes against humanity."

Joe Stalin would be so proud of you.

[FireIceTalon]

There's nothing philosophical here that I am saying, though, and this isn't about debunking a 'worldview', but about you being able to demonstrate real world observations made in regarding how capitalism works to be incorrect or false (which so far, you have been unable to do). Perhaps if I was an Anarchist, there would be some philosophical or moral/ethical point behind all of this, and my views would be structured around such a premise. But I'm not an Anarchist. I am a 'Scientific Socialist' of the Marxist tradition, using the materialist conception of history (a very useful tool I must say) to make sense of the world and the sociological processes that encompass it, again, independent of any political or moral judgements. That said, I DO have my own set of values, and personal tenets that one might call "ethics or morality", but that is neither here nor there when talking about capitalist social relations - I will leave that to the Anarchists to critique capitalism from the slippery slope of an ethical or philosophical lens - I prefer to avoid that subjective rabbit hole. Capitalism has no morality or ethics, and objectively operates completely independent of subjective abstracts like morality or ethics - the only internal logic it has is the accumulation of more capital and larger profits, at the expense of everything else. Therefore, I prefer a more scientific, concrete approach to understand the workings of the system. Lastly, me calling you a reactionary isn't 'name calling', its just me stating an observation - that you hold views which are reactionary - just as me being a Marxist has the logical conclusion of me also being a communist. Not sure why that offends you, since many people in the world hold such views, whether they are right or wrong isn't the point here. Either way, people with right wing views I have noticed, do not like facts - especially those facts which don't jive with their worldview. That is all I was pointing out.

I haven't backed up my claims? I've already backed them up by providing two well known, understood features of capitalism (workers forced to sell their labor power to survive, and then, workers not paid the full value or even close to what they produce). Those aren't unsubstantiated claims or rhetoric my friend, but real-world conditions that make the system what it is, and the reality that workers (and capitalists) have to face each and every day. There is nothing unsubstantiated about them since they have been and can be materially observed, quite easily in fact. Two facts that you seem very keen on avoiding if not flat out denying, because they provide inconvenient evidence that is counter to your personal ideology, or how you think things work. Nobody wants to acknowledge that they hold views which are on the wrong side of history, since for many people personal values and ideology is more important than truth. But one day we all have to face the music somehow. To be a Marxist, is simply to be one who has already faced that music - and that music is that capitalism by its very nature is exploitative, oppressive, and extremely violent - and there is no reforming it, the only alternative is to destroy it.

Then, you have the gall to complain that my only solution is violence, when capitalism, which came into the world drenched in blood, fire and ash (and it still drenched in these things), is probably the most violent epoch of history that humanity has had to endure; responsible for more human suffering, death and misery than probably just about anything else one could think of. I'm sorry if that is too much for you to stomach. But please, spare me the whole 'holier than thou' high road of being anti-violent, when the very system you advocate for is violent in the most utterly ruthless and extreme of ways; doing so only makes you hypocritical at best.

And no, your little example isn't even relevant, let alone sufficient evidence to refute the fact that capitalism is coercive and exploitative. Why? Because your "small" profit is meaningless and insignificant when you are up against Starbucks and Krispy Kreme (who own more capital than you do, and thus do what you do but far better and more efficiently), you wouldn't last a day in the market, at least not in terms of survival. Making a few extra bucks on the side isn't the same thing as surviving (many workers have to work 2 or even 3 full-time jobs just to make ends meet, and its even worse for students saddled with debt). Workers aren't trying to make profits of any kind, they are trying to SURVIVE. Further, this doesn't even address the exploitative and antagonistic relationship of capitalist and worker (regardless of how much the worker is paid), nor is the point for socialists in making money. We want to abolish wage labor and the money system entirely, since those are things that are conducive only to capitalism.

You are good with twisting the facts around and parroting the same capitalist propaganda that buffoons like Friedman and Hayek spewed, that people accept(ed) as truth for their own enslavement - this much I will merit you with. Every capitalist and fascist dictator, from Thatcher to Pinochet, would love you. Pseudo irrational arguments?? LOL. You aren't even at square one yet in demonstrating how anything I've said thus far is irrational or "pseudo" in any way, and very clearly you are frustrated by this. Besides, I'm not the one arguing here, I am simply explaining why I am right since an "argument" would somehow indicate that everything I've said is possibly untrue, but thats not the case now is it? But I'm done here for now. *Smooches*

[kandrathe]

<blather> But I'm done here for now.</blather>

If only it were true.

You are good with twisting the facts around and parroting the same capitalist propaganda that buffoons like Friedman and Hayek spewed, that people accept(ed) as truth for their own enslavement - this much I will merit you with.

Um, well, I hardly think I deserve to be compared to *real* economists who have both won the Nobel prize in economics. I think your disparaging them is more a reflection on your prejudices, rather than their competency within the field. I only propose that if there were more merit to the ideology you espouse it would be more broadly embraced.

But in fact whether it be economists or philosophers, as it is widely understood throughout the world, they have found both prescience and failures in Marx.

You can read the above in full, but it sums up my view in detail.

But the fact remains that on everything that mattered most to Marx himself, he was wrong. The real power he claimed for his system was predictive, and his main predictions are hopeless failures. Concerning the outlook for capitalism, one can always argue that he was wrong only in his timing: in the end, when capitalism has run its course, he will be proved right. Put in such a form, this argument, like many other apologies for Marx, has the advantage of being impossible to falsify. But that does not make it plausible. The trouble is, it leaves out class. This is a wise omission, because class is an idea which has become blurred to the point of meaninglessness. Class antagonism, though, is indispensable to the Marxist world-view. Without it, even if capitalism succumbs to stagnation or decline, the mechanism for its overthrow is missing.

[FireIceTalon]

I think your disparaging them is more a reflection on your prejudices, rather than their competency within the field.

This topic was already covered

I "disparage" them because they put ideology over scientific, real-world analysis. NCE resembles religion much more than it does economics, in that sense they are extremely competent. They are idealists. And idealism has almost no explanatory power compared to a materialist perspective. The problem isn't in their competency, Kandrathe, but in the very framework in which they are "competent".

Um, well, I hardly think I deserve to be compared to *real* economists who have both won the Nobel prize in economics.

And I think therein lies part of the problem. You are willing to take their analysis as gospel without challenging it even in the slightest, whereas I won't. I couldn't care less if they won a million Nobel Prizes. If their conclusions don't reflect real world circumstances, they can, and should be, called out on it. Saying one shouldn't be compared to them is just 'Great man theory' mumbo jumbo if you ask me.

On another note, did you just inadvertently admit that economists twist around facts and spew propaganda?

I only propose that if there were more merit to the ideology you espouse it would be more broadly embraced.

This is an appeal to nature/authority fallacy - based on a premise of: if it is widely accepted it must be good or have merit, therefore if something is unpopular, conceptually esoteric, or less known, it must have little or no merit. There was a time when slavery was widely embraced, mind you, while abolitionism was considered fringe and radical. The idea that the world was round instead of flat was also once a radical notion, that could result in imprisonment or even death if you embraced it. The point is, popularity or acceptance has little if any bearing on whether a particular idea/framework has merit.

A second problem with this, in a ironic sort of way, is that it helps to confirm Marx correct. Correct at least, when he said that the ruling ideas of society are always the ideas of the ruling class. Only ideas that are conducive to capitalisms' internal logic are socially acceptable, and anything that critiques or threatens the system must be either demonized/misconstrued or kept off the discussion table entirely so as to keep the debate within a certain framework. As I've said many times before, capitalism relies on specific ideologies and narratives for its every existence, in this sense it is literally fighting for its life every day. The moment these narratives become jeopardized or falsified entirely, the system becomes extremely vulnerable. So then it has to find new ideologies and narratives.

There is actually a 3rd problem, which is that Marxism isn't even an ideology to begin with, but more on that below.

But the fact remains that on everything that mattered most to Marx himself, he was wrong. The real power he claimed for his system was predictive, and his main predictions are hopeless failures. Concerning the outlook for capitalism, one can always argue that he was wrong only in his timing: in the end, when capitalism has run its course, he will be proved right. Put in such a form, this argument, like many other apologies for Marx, has the advantage of being impossible to falsify. But that does not make it plausible. The trouble is, it leaves out class. This is a wise omission, because class is an idea which has become blurred to the point of meaninglessness.

Oh yes, lets use the most blatant source of capitalist propaganda to discredit Marxism! The Economist, the Holy Bible of capitalism, says Marx was wrong, so it must be true! Aw, if only it were that simple...

Clearly, this Economist author views Marx as some sort of 'social historic Nostradamus' (a mistake many self-proclaimed Marxists also often make, at least ones newer to his theories), when he was nothing of the sort nor did he intend to be. So it follows logically, that Marxism as a system isn't to be used to make predictions, but rather to explain the larger historical processes and social forces that have shaped the material world, past and present. In this respect, it does a fine job. The author is trying to put a square peg in a round hole. The foundations of the argument are faulty, therefore this critique of Marx is w/o merit - Marxism isn't a predictive system of analysis, it is an explanatory one. Now, I will dismantle the rest of the authors points right before your very eyes.

Marxisms legitimacy does not hinge on whether or not it is falsifiable - that is irrelevant. The whole fetishism of Karl Popper's idea that something cannot be scientific if it isn't falsifiable has long been discredited, largely in part because he also called Darwins Theory unfalsifiable but then later retracted this statement; in effect admitting his whole theory of falsifiability in regards to whether or not something is scientific to be bogus.

But, even if that was a requirement, I still fail to see how this is incompatible with any science. Stuff being falsified or the changing of conclusions about a particular event or historical outcome generally help to make a framework more solid, not destroy it. One of the beauties of science, whether social or not, is that it is self-correcting. For instance, Marxism can account for why the Bolshevik Revolution didn't spread outside of Russia, or why revolution failed in Germany at the same time. Beyond snapshots of history, it is also useful in understanding larger, more broad concepts; such as the symbiotic relationship between institutionalized racism and the development/accumulation of private capital; and how this relationship is conducive to the profit system. This doesn't discredit Marxism, on the contrary, this makes it a solid theoretical and cohesive framework.

Your view, and that of The Economists, that Marxism is even an ideology to begin with is part of the problem and why the foundations for your dismissal of it lack merit. You see, Marxism isn't an ideology - it is in fact the RUTHLESS critique of ideology, and more importantly the ruthless critique of the present order of things - the current material conditions - which are foundational to ideology itself.

Class antagonism, though, is indispensable to the Marxist world-view. Without it, even if capitalism succumbs to stagnation or decline, the mechanism for its overthrow is missing.

But, the working class does in fact exist, and so to does class struggle. If it didn't, we wouldn't need a heavy handed state, police, military, welfare system, labor unions, or other institutions that enforce this social relation between classes. Just because capitalism hasn't been overthrown yet doesn't mean the mechanism for its demise doesn't exist, it simply means the working class hasn't turned itself into a conscious political force, yet. It's like saying the Earth hasn't been hit by a cataclysmic asteroid in over 65 million years, so there are no asteroids in space anymore and it can't or wont happen ever again. That is the same deterministic logic this author is using! The truth is, the working class is becoming more and more apprehensive about their existence under the current social order, as well as the future of their children under it. There is no scientific validity that social systems are unchangeable, as emperors and monarchs learned so harshly; and capitalism is no exception to this.

I guess if one wanted to discredit Marxism entirely, they would have to somehow undermine its explanatory power. But good luck with that. Climbing Mt. Everest is probably an easier task. For all the bourgeois talk of Marxism being dead, they sure feel the need to remind us of this supposed fact every day. Perhaps its not as dead as they would like to believe, and that its theoretical foundations are much more rock solid than they thought

[kandrathe]

I think your disparaging them is more a reflection on your prejudices, rather than their competency within the field.

This topic was already covered

I "disparage" them because they put ideology over scientific, real-world analysis. NCE resembles religion much more than it does economics, in that sense they are extremely competent. They are idealists. And idealism has almost no explanatory power compared to a materialist perspective. The problem isn't in their competency, Kandrathe, but in the very framework in which they are "competent".

Oh, so you scoured the internet and found one economist who said something you interpreted to be supportive of your claim that economists are biased. Then, you stepped up your "argument" to then determine since one economist said economists are biased, you could then toss out the entirety of Economics as unreliable.

Robert Johnson serves as the Executive Director of the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) and a Senior Fellow and Director of the Global Finance Project for the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute in New York.

Johnson is an international investor and consultant to investment funds on issues of portfolio strategy. He recently served on the United Nations Commission of Experts on International Monetary Reform under the Chairmanship of Joseph Stiglitz.

Previously, Johnson was a Managing Director at Soros Fund Management where he managed a global currency, bond and equity portfolio specializing in emerging markets. Prior to working at Soros Fund Management, he was a Managing Director of Bankers Trust Company managing a global currency fund.

Johnson served as Chief Economist of the US Senate Banking Committee under the leadership of Chairman William Proxmire (D. Wisconsin). Before this, he was Senior Economist of the US Senate Budget Committee under the leadership of Chairman Pete Domenici (R. New Mexico).

Johnson was an Executive Producer of the Oscar winning documentary, Taxi to the Dark Side, directed by Alex Gibney, and is the former President of the National Scholastic Chess Foundation. He currently sits on the Board of Directors of both the Economic Policy Institute and the Campaign for America’s Future.

Johnson received a Ph.D. and M.A. in Economics from Princeton University and a B.S. in both Electrical Engineering and Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

I won't point out the obvious points of bias in Rob Johnson, nor your circular logic.

P.S. I changed my mind, because you seem to have trouble comprehending the written word. Rob Johnson is one economist, within the system of "buffoons" mostly Keynesian economists you are criticizing. He gave an opinion, which is very likely a controversial, and biased opinion, and it is not a fact because he said it. Why do you think his opinion is the overwhelming, and most accurate opinion? ANDYou missed the most important conclusion of that thread, being Jester telling you "You're ignorant, you're not listening, and whatever I say is apparently proof that the opposite is true. Nothing much left after that." To which I can only conclude that not much has changed in two+ years.

Um, well, I hardly think I deserve to be compared to *real* economists who have both won the Nobel prize in economics.

And I think therein lies part of the problem. You are willing to take their analysis as gospel without challenging it even in the slightest, whereas I won't. I couldn't care less if they won a million Nobel Prizes. If their conclusions don't reflect real world circumstances, they can, and should be, called out on it. Saying one shouldn't be compared to them is just 'Great man theory' mumbo jumbo if you ask me.

On another note, did you just inadvertently admit that economists twist around facts and spew propaganda?

There is no possible way anyone would derive your conclusions from what I wrote. To be entirely clear;

1. I am not an economist, but merely a hobbyist. I read and comprehend what people are writing. I don't even take the Gospel as Gospel.
2. You misunderstand the "Great Man" theory and it's criticism if you think it applies to people who achieve earned merit. Peer recognition for actual work is what earned certain people recognition above their peer scholars.
3. I did not intentionally, or inadvertently say anything akin to economists twist around facts and spew propaganda. I employ critical thinking, comprehension, and logic to discern probable truth from probable fallacy.

I do believe that we mostly all have skills, with which in practice and expression may make us "great" at something. There is just not a Nobel prize for hosting an excellent party, social skills, or for many of the artistic expressions.

I only propose that if there were more merit to the ideology you espouse it would be more broadly embraced.

This is an appeal to nature/authority fallacy - based on a premise of: if it is widely accepted it must be good or have merit, therefore if something is unpopular, conceptually esoteric, or less known, it must have little or no merit. There was a time when slavery was widely embraced, mind you, while abolitionism was considered fringe and radical. The idea that the world was round instead of flat was also once a radical notion, that could result in imprisonment or even death if you embraced it. The point is, popularity or acceptance has little if any bearing on whether a particular idea/framework has merit.

A second problem with this, in a ironic sort of way, is that it helps to confirm Marx correct. Correct at least, when he said that the ruling ideas of society are always the ideas of the ruling class. Only ideas that are conducive to capitalisms' internal logic are socially acceptable, and anything that critiques or threatens the system must be either demonized/misconstrued or kept off the discussion table entirely so as to keep the debate within a certain framework. As I've said many times before, capitalism relies on specific ideologies and narratives for its every existence, in this sense it is literally fighting for its life every day. The moment these narratives become jeopardized or falsified entirely, the system becomes extremely vulnerable. So then it has to find new ideologies and narratives.

There is actually a 3rd problem, which is that Marxism isn't even an ideology to begin with, but more on that below.

Let me rebut;

1. What is an appeal to nature fallacy? Good try, but no cigar. To be more clear; many learned people have attempted to consider critically Marxism for over 100 years now, and have not found enough of it to regard merits implementation. There are a few political implementations which imposed it by force on population, which have failed.
2. Your 2nd point is illogical because it says, your proposition is either "correct", or because of denial, it is therefore "correct". You rely on some demon, "Capitalism" fighting for its life by intentionally deceiving us by denying truth (of ideologies or narratives). However, you either believe economic systems exist, or do not exist. These are not merely ideas, or stories, they are processes, such as employment, money, ownership of property, and banking. *Real* change would require *real* understanding of these processes, and proposals on how to do it differently. If it could be done, the grand decades long experiment of Cuba should remove all doubt as to whether it works or does not work. Once the Soviet feeding tube was removed, their system based on Marxist ideas crashed.
3. Good. I can't wait to discover what you believe Marxism really is... To me, it seems very much like, "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy."

From the 'The Economist'; But the fact remains that on everything that mattered most to Marx himself, he was wrong. The real power he claimed for his system was predictive, and his main predictions are hopeless failures. Concerning the outlook for capitalism, one can always argue that he was wrong only in his timing: in the end, when capitalism has run its course, he will be proved right. Put in such a form, this argument, like many other apologies for Marx, has the advantage of being impossible to falsify. But that does not make it plausible. The trouble is, it leaves out class. This is a wise omission, because class is an idea which has become blurred to the point of meaninglessness.

Oh yes, lets use the most blatant source of capitalist propaganda to discredit Marxism! The Economist, the Holy Bible of capitalism, says Marx was wrong, so it must be true! Aw, if only it were that simple...

The Economist, is not the Holy Bible of capitalism. That would be "The Wall Street Journal". :-) "The Economist" publishes entertaining articles about Economics, which is read by hobbyists such as me. *Real* economists would seek to publish in some limited distribution peer reviewed journal, such as; Journal of Economic Perspectives - Boyer, George R. 1998. "The Historical Background of the Communist Manifesto." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(4): 151-174.

Clearly, this Economist author views Marx as some sort of 'social historic Nostradamus' (a mistake many self-proclaimed Marxists also often make, at least ones newer to his theories), when he was nothing of the sort nor did he intend to be. So it follows logically, that Marxism as a system isn't to be used to make predictions, but rather to explain the larger historical processes and social forces that have shaped the material world, past and present. In this respect, it does a fine job. The author is trying to put a square peg in a round hole. The foundations of the argument are faulty, therefore this critique of Marx is w/o merit - Marxism isn't a predictive system of analysis, it is an explanatory one. Now, I will dismantle the rest of the authors points right before your very eyes.

Well, other than you made up the author's "point of view", then used that fiction to debunk the article. If you read the article, it clearly discusses the man's strengths and weaknesses in great detail, none of which conclude he is "some sort of 'social historic Nostradamus'".

Marxisms legitimacy does not hinge on whether or not it is falsifiable - that is irrelevant. The whole fetishism of Karl Popper's idea that something cannot be scientific if it isn't falsifiable has long been discredited, largely in part because he also called Darwins Theory unfalsifiable but then later retracted this statement; in effect admitting his whole theory of falsifiability in regards to whether or not something is scientific to be bogus.

Nay, you did not understand the context of falsify here. The author was only speaking in relation to the ultimate demise of Capitalism.

The central paradox that Marx emphasised—namely, that its own colossal productivity would bring capitalism to its knees, by making socialism followed by communism both materially possible and logically necessary—turned out to be false.

And, I must note also that "the fetishism of Karl Popper's idea" is just jargon-ese nonsense. His thoughts, and recanting on the topic of falsifiability of "Natural Selection" really have nothing to do with our discussion. You say "... in effect admitting his whole theory of falsifiability ... to be bogus", as with Robert Johnson, you declare that if Mr. Popper ever made an error, his body of work was all mistaken. Does that apply to the elitist slurs opined by Marx, and Engels? You have learned some words, but have no idea how to string them together into meaningful discussion, prose, or argument.

The relevancy of Popper is in what he actually said about Marxism,

“The Marxist theory of history, in spite of the serious efforts of some of its founders and followers, ultimately adopted this soothsaying practice [making its predictions so vague that they become irrefutable]. In some of its earlier formulations (for example in Marx’s analysis of the character of the ‘coming social revolution’) their predictions were testable, and in fact falsified” (Popper 1957, section II).

So, there you have it. Karl Popper said some of Marx and Engels "earlier formulations" were in fact scientific hypothesis, testable, and found to be false. I wonder really if you really believe the stuff your write, only because you write it? This "discredited" Karl Popper is described as, "He is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century."

But, even if that was a requirement, I still fail to see how this is incompatible with any science. Stuff being falsified or the changing of conclusions about a particular event or historical outcome generally help to make a framework more solid, not destroy it. One of the beauties of science, whether social or not, is that it is self-correcting. For instance, Marxism can account for why the Bolshevik Revolution didn't spread outside of Russia, or why revolution failed in Germany at the same time. Beyond snapshots of history, it is also useful in understanding larger, more broad concepts; such as the symbiotic relationship between institutionalized racism and the development/accumulation of private capital; and how this relationship is conducive to the profit system. This doesn't discredit Marxism, on the contrary, this makes it a solid theoretical and cohesive framework.

You misunderstand again. It does matter, because you can make any claims you like if the possibility of testing them to be true is impossible. You can have opinions as to why "the Bolshevik Revolution didn't spread outside of Russia", but without a time machine, and some control over 19th century politcs we would really be able to test alternative realities. Your conclusion, "on the contrary, this makes it a solid theoretical and cohesive framework." is wishful thinking at best. Hypothesis that are testable are scientific, otherwise, they are psudeo-scientific opinions pretending to be real theories.

Your view, and that of The Economists, that Marxism is even an ideology to begin with is part of the problem and why the foundations for your dismissal of it lack merit. You see, Marxism isn't an ideology - it is in fact the RUTHLESS critique of ideology, and more importantly the ruthless critique of the present order of things - the current material conditions - which are foundational to ideology itself.

Context is important; Letter from Karl Marx to Ruge, Kreuznach, September 1843 -- However opaque Marx's language here, he is clearly speaking of moving from Philosophy to Action, and namely political action. You can say that a Rose is not a flower, but that does not make it true. Probably the worst combination I can marry would be Marx's opacity in writing with your lack of reading comprehension. I can see why you are so confused.

Class antagonism, though, is indispensable to the Marxist world-view. Without it, even if capitalism succumbs to stagnation or decline, the mechanism for its overthrow is missing.

But, the working class does in fact exist, and so to does class struggle. If it didn't, we wouldn't need a heavy handed state, police, military, welfare system, labor unions, or other institutions that enforce this social relation between classes. Just because capitalism hasn't been overthrown yet doesn't mean the mechanism for its demise doesn't exist, it simply means the working class hasn't turned itself into a conscious political force, yet. It's like saying the Earth hasn't been hit by a cataclysmic asteroid in over 65 million years, so there are no asteroids in space anymore and it can't or wont happen ever again. That is the same deterministic logic this author is using! The truth is, the working class is becoming more and more apprehensive about their existence under the current social order, as well as the future of their children under it. There is no scientific validity that social systems are unchangeable, as emperors and monarchs learned so harshly; and capitalism is no exception to this.

You didn't grasp the the most important idea; "Class-antagonism", no one here claimed there are not workers, or maybe even as Marx might describe " a working class". It is just that "the mechanism" which Marx relied upon for the demise of Capitalism is a myth. The workers did not unite, they instead received stock options, bought houses, education, and cars with their earnings and aspired to become middle class bourgeois, or owners of capital themselves. It is the well understood concept of social mobility. After your compulsory high school education, (provided by the socialist State) you enter the poor class, and then get a job and aspire to improve your position through investing in your own future.

I guess if one wanted to discredit Marxism entirely, they would have to somehow undermine its explanatory power. But good luck with that. Climbing Mt. Everest is probably an easier task. For all the bourgeois talk of Marxism being dead, they sure feel the need to remind us of this supposed fact every day. Perhaps its not as dead as they would like to believe, and that its theoretical foundations are much more rock solid than they thought

But, this is only in your mind.

How does a Marxist with critical thinking skills frame the issue?

It is with apprehension but also conviction that I defend Marxism today- apprehension because we live in a period that is suspicious of visions of alternative futures, skeptical of grand historical narrative, dismissive of materialist explanations, rejecting of class analysis while tolerating capitalism's defects and pathologies as unavoidable and natural; conviction because we live in a period that ever more closely conforms to Marxist prognoses of a capitalist juggernaut, a period that cries out for a critical Marxist consciousness. While every plank in the Marxist framework is under siege, the critical intellect is in desperate need of Marxism's refusal to identify what could be with what is.
...
We can dredge up whatever images, whatever lost opportunities we like but compared with a century ago it is simply harder to be a socialist. Then, it was more plausible to believe the end of capitalism was at hand and so the theoretical pressure to formulate the meaning of socialism was correspondingly less. Then, working-class organization was ascendant and so one could leave it to the movement to generate spontaneously its own vision of an alternative future. Then, there were no examples of socialism's success, but more importantly there were no examples of its failure. Today Marxist intellectuals have to work much harder to convince others that "they have a world to win" not just after capitalism, but after communism too.

{linky} I may not agree with Professor Burawoy, but at least he recognizes present reality versus zealous and wishful thinking.

Let's reconsider your argument technique using an economist Robert Johnson to persuade us of the error of economists; I will rebut with a former Marxist, economics professor, and author Thomas Sowell, and namely in his book Marxism: Philosophy and Economics, you will remember the main point Robert Johnson was making which you keyed upon... Namely that some economists leading up to the great recession were wound up in their theories, which supported the aims of their "evil capitalist overlords", rather than scientifically basing their theories upon observed phenomena,

Many observers have seen these developments as mere betrayals of Marxist ideals, missing the more fundamental point that a crucial false assumption must be corrected in practice if people are to survive. Its continuing sacredness in theory can only produce hypocrisy. The betrayal may be real, but in Marxian terminology, “no accident.” A similar process is occurring in China, to which many Western Marxists transferred their hopes after disillusionment with the Soviet Union. This too is seen as simply a betrayal of Mao by Deng, rather than a nation’s painful learning from experience that a key assumption of Marxian economics is false (193-4).

Philosophic materialism, in its social environmental version, also provides ways of dismissing ideas according to their supposed origins–”bourgeois,” for example–instead of confronting them in either factual or logical terms. Grandly dismissing opposing views as “outmoded” or consigning them to “the dustbin of history” eliminates the need to think about them or to meet their challenge to one’s existing presuppositions. Such practices have spread well beyond Marxists. Much of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many–inside and outside its ranks–to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of its enduring strengths as a political doctrine, as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways (208-9).

You and so many other communist sympathizers imply that “true” communism was never put into practice and these false regimes ought to be rejected as examples. But clearly the ideals of communism, that of collectivism, dialectical materialism, the evils of capitalism, the idea of labor as the source of all surplus value, the goal of reshaping of man’s nature, the principle of “from each according to his ability to each according to his need,” and so on — were substantially put into practice by the communist regimes of the 20th century. The result in every case was widespread starvation, forced labor camps, unbearable misery, political corruption, totalitarian police states, and mass death. Why would any rational person applying scientific thinking be led in any way that a more consistent application of Marxist ideas would result in another better outcome?

[kandrathe]

Redirect back to China, it's economy and how it impacts the world.

From the WSJ, (aka. the Holy Bible of Economics) -- China’s Economy Shows Further Signs of Fragility

"China’s economy decelerated to a 6.9% growth rate in the third quarter, its slowest since 2009 despite pro-growth efforts taken by Beijing to prop up the world’s second-largest economy."

I still sense some pain coming, which in the US, through Fed tricks, we might be able to stave off for a year until after the election. China's increased military encroachment in the South China Sea is probably a political maneuver to "wag the dog".



The difference between the price crash in 2008/9 compared to today is that our low price today is more likely to combination of more supply, and less demand. Whereas, in 2008/9 the price crash was evidence of the overheated economy breaking. Our low price now is a deflationary pressure.


Why oil prices keep falling — and throwing the world into turmoil
I wish it were due to conservation, but more likely oil prices are an indicator of the global economy.

[Mavfin]

After looking at the last half of this thread, this comes to mind:

Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.

--Mav

[FireIceTalon]

Due partially to the fact I have had to work a grueling amount of hours this past week, producing value for a parasitic capitalist, and also due to the fact I have had to make preparations for the upcoming holiday, I haven't had time or energy to sit down and type out a refutation to your prior post Kandrathe. But it is chock filled with strawmen fallacies and misconceptions; and believe me, a retort of epic proportions will come soon enough.

[kandrathe]

...But it is chock filled with strawmen fallacies and misconceptions; and believe me, a retort of epic proportions will come soon enough.

It will be interesting to see what you consider to be a "Strawman". Might it be;

• A video of Robert Johnson, then using an out of context statement he said to discredit his entire profession?
• When you make false statements, such as "You are willing to take their analysis as gospel without challenging it even in the slightest"
• When you conflate rejection of the ideology of communism to flat earthers, or embracing slavery
• When you make up the author's "point of view", then used that fiction to debunk the article
• When you try to point to Popper's view on Darwin as reason to dismiss the importance of Popper's work on falsifiability in science.
• "It's like saying the Earth hasn't been hit by a cataclysmic asteroid in over 65 million years, so there are no asteroids in space anymore and it can't or wont happen ever again."

It is hard for me to know if you are intentionally intellectually dishonest in this, or just so fanboi, omg, zealot -- that you cannot allow the possibility of fallibility in your worldview.

Just maybe the reason for all your suffering in this life is not "them", maybe the problem is also you.

[FireIceTalon]

I'm afraid it is only you that is engaging in intellectual dishonesty here, but more on that in a bit. Firstly,

[quote]Oh, so you scoured the internet and found one economist who said something you interpreted to be supportive of your claim that economists are biased. Then, you stepped up your "argument" to then determine since one economist said economists are biased, you could then toss out the entirety of Economics as unreliable.[/quote]

Ideology trumping science for capitalist economists isn't news, its been a feature in their works from day 1, long long before I made that thread. I merely pointed out that it has become so blatantly obvious that even their own advocates are having a hard time denying it now, nothing more nothing less.

[quote]I won't point out the obvious points of bias in Rob Johnson, nor your circular logic.

P.S. I changed my mind, because you seem to have trouble comprehending the written word. Rob Johnson is one economist, within the system of "buffoons" mostly Keynesian economists you are criticizing. He gave an opinion, which is very likely a controversial, and biased opinion, and it is not a fact because he said it. Why do you think his opinion is the overwhelming, and most accurate opinion? ANDYou missed the most important conclusion of that thread, being Jester telling you "You're ignorant, you're not listening, and whatever I say is apparently proof that the opposite is true. Nothing much left after that." To which I can only conclude that not much has changed in two+ years.[/quote]

I never said his opinion was the most valid or accurate, once again I merely used it as an example to show that even to some of their own apologists, that capitalist economic theories are completely tied up in ideology. It was like this long before, it has just gotten to a point that it has become utterly ridiculous, so much so that even some who espouse it understand and admit this.

Jester, you, or anyone can say whatever they like. It doesn't change the fact that NEC is pseudo-science and ideologically driven. That being said, to Jesters credit I always found his arguments far more interesting and tougher to crack than yours - which to put it nicely are a complete joke the majority of the time.

[quote]I don't even take the Gospel as Gospel.[/quote]

But, you do, whether you realize it or not.

Earned merit?? In the eyes of who? Capitalist scum and their state overlords?

[quote]I employ critical thinking, comprehension, and logic to discern probable truth from probable fallacy.[/quote]

You do anything but that, I am afraid. What you employ is propaganda, denial and twisting of historical fact (such as the fact that you deny that 'class antagonism exists, when it most certainly does - but more on that later), parroting of popular and conventional rationales and narratives that are the natural consequence of the prevailing material conditions and thus lack any critique of it, and logical fallacies/intellectual dishonesty.

[quote]Good try, but no cigar. To be more clear; many learned people have attempted to consider critically Marxism for over 100 years now, and have not found enough of it to regard merits implementation. There are a few political implementations which imposed it by force on population, which have failed.[/quote]

And a perfect example of your intellectual dishonesty right here. Firstly, Marxism is a mode of analysis - not a political or economic system (it does have components for analyzing political and economic systems to be sure, but is in itself not one), and therefore it cannot be imposed on anything or anyone. Secondly, even if it could be, if the praxis is not conducive to or bears little or no theoretical continuum to the framework at hand then stating otherwise is intellectual dishonesty, or a gross misunderstanding of some type. In your case, I suspect its a bit of both but more the former.

You cannot attribute the failings of the Soviet Union to Marx or the Marxist framework anymore than you can attribute Darwin and the theory of Evolution to neo-Nazis and white supremacists for their use of 'social darwinism' or 'natural selection' to explain and justify their racism and the continued inferior social and economic position of minorities. Well, I suppose you could, but not w/o being intellectually dishonest and looking like a complete idiot.

You seem to either willfully neglect, or maybe just don't understand (not sure which), the Marxist view of the State. The truth is, Marxists hate the state as much as we do capitalism. We don't hold the conventional view that the State is merely a neutral, arbitrary institution designed to uphold the safety of society and resolve arising conflicts. No, for us, the State is a instrument of class rule, a necessary agency developed to protect and manage the affairs of the dominant class. It doesn't matter who it is or what country it is, they all serve the same purpose. It doesn't matter to us how much lip service Uncle Joke Stalin paid to Marxism, not only because his policies AND thought was anti-Marxist, but his VERY position itself (independent of his policy or ideology) makes him anti-Marxist. It's the same reasons Obama cannot be a Marxist by default, despite what many brain-dead, American Tea Partiers think.

You can deny it all you want, but you made the argument that the legitimacy of an idea rests on its popularity, and I provided a couple examples that refute your logical fallacy. Not only close, and not only a cigar, but a BIG PACK of cigars for me (even though I don't smoke).

[quote]You rely on some demon, "Capitalism" fighting for its life by intentionally deceiving us by denying truth (of ideologies or narratives). However, you either believe economic systems exist, or do not exist. These are not merely ideas, or stories, they are processes, such as employment, money, ownership of property, and banking. *Real* change would require *real* understanding of these processes, and proposals on how to do it differently. [/quote]

This doesn't even make the least bit of sense. No one said that employment, money, private property and banking are just ideas. But they have little to do with the point I was making about the sociological role that ideology has.

The narratives of the capitalist system do intentionally work to deceive us - because they HAVE to as a inevitable consequence of capitalisms' internal logic. Think about it: if the dominant narratives of the system admitted to its real workings, this would not be logical or conducive to the systems perpetuated existence. ALL systems of class oppression (not just capitalism) require certain ideas, narratives, and other subjective criteria to legitimize and re-enforce the life of the given predominant system. One really does not have to be a Marxist to understand this concept, as it is the logical conclusion of any given social system: the prevailing ideas, narratives, attitudes, and general perceptions have to be a reflection that is conducive to given material conditions. The moment any particular idea or narrative isn't conducive to those material conditions, it is then discarded and replaced with something else that is conducive to it.

Take for instance, institutional racism in America, and how it went from slavery to segregation post Civil War. The reason for the war was not because the North was less racist than the South and morally opposed to slavery, but because slavery was NOT conducive to the industrialization of America. Northerners were almost as shitty and racist as southern Confeds were, but unlike their southern counterparts, they realized hired and employed slaves were for more beneficial economically than 'forced' slavery was. Or, even more likely, the southerners did realize this, but were against the industrialization as this was a threat to their privileged circumstances, since after all the ending of slavery means they couldn't sit on their stank asses anymore while a bunch of slaves did all the plantation work for them, and instead were working in factories for wages (however shitty that wage was). The Civil War was a bourgeois 'civil war' with the idea of a capitalist America being the future from the perspective of the north, as opposed to the antiquated southern feudalism that characterized the economy prior, and the bourgeois was victorious. Ofc, this didn't end racism, it just changed the structure of it and made it conducive to the new arising material conditions - the idea of slavery wasn't compatible with industrialization and so it had to be discarded (even if it required a civil war to do it). So there is a solid Marxian analysis of an example of how ideas and narratives must be conducive to material conditions.

[quote]If it could be done, the grand decades long experiment of Cuba should remove all doubt as to whether it works or does not work. Once the Soviet feeding tube was removed, their system based on Marxist ideas crashed.[/quote]

Well firstly, again, the Soviet system, nor the Cuban system, was not a praxis or theoretical continuum of the Marxist framework. What they called themselves doesn't matter in the slightest. I can call myself a 3-head purple alien from outer space, but that doesn't make it so.

But that is the least of your statements problems. So Cuba is a failure huh? Do you happen to mean the same Cuba that has a higher literacy rate AND lower infant mortality rate, and at least an equal life expectancy to that of the US? All this, while having a 50 year or so embargo placed on its economy by the largest, most powerful imperialist nation on the planet - a nation that also happens to geographically be in Cuba's front yard and has on at least one occasion (probably several) tried to invade it. You mean that Cuba? But hey if Cuba IS a failed state, surely this aforementioned factor isn't anywhere near as substantial a factor as the 'Soviet feeding tube' being removed now, is it? RolleyesRolleyes

[quote]Nay, you did not understand the context of falsify here. The author was only speaking in relation to the ultimate demise of Capitalism. [quote='The Economist article FIT failed to read']The central paradox that Marx emphasised—namely, that its own colossal productivity would bring capitalism to its knees, by making socialism followed by communism both materially possible and logically necessary—turned out to be false.[/quote]

Except, Marx never said socialism was inevitable - only necessary for the emancipation of the proletariat. Just because it is necessary though doesn't mean it will happen. If that were the case, workers would not need to form themselves into a political force and would just let history unfold itself, but that's not how things work.

By the same token, history is still in progress, so nothing has yet turned out to be false. Again, just because the workers have not net formed themselves into a political force, and by extension class, doesn't mean that it can't or won't happen happen. Only time will tell. In the grand scheme of things, capitalism is a very young system and it's already bursting at the seams.

In the quoted text you provided, the author stated "The real power he claimed for his system was predictive, and his main predictions are hopeless failures", did he or did he not? He did, and I pointed out that this is untrue by illustrating that Marxism's power lies in its ability to explain things, not predict them. That is the power of science in general.

[/quote] You say "... in effect admitting his whole theory of falsifiability ... to be bogus", as with Robert Johnson, you declare that if Mr. Popper ever made an error, his body of work was all mistaken.[/quote]

By trying to call Darwins theory unscientific by saying its unfalsifiable then later retracting the statement, does this not affect the credibility of the premise which something is scientific or not when discussing other frameworks? Of course it does....

http://www.isreview.org/issues/58/gasper...nism.shtml (scroll down about a 3rd of the way to get to the part about Popper if you don't want to read it all)

[quote]You misunderstand again. It does matter, because you can make any claims you like if the possibility of testing them to be true is impossible. You can have opinions as to why "the Bolshevik Revolution didn't spread outside of Russia", but without a time machine, and some control over 19th century politcs we would really be able to test alternative realities. Your conclusion, "on the contrary, this makes it a solid theoretical and cohesive framework." is wishful thinking at best. Hypothesis that are testable are scientific, otherwise, they are psudeo-scientific opinions pretending to be real theories.[/quote]

By your logic, if something cannot be put in a lab with all interacting variables and factors controlled, then it cannot be scientific - so in effect you cannot have a scientific understanding of history, since history cannot be tested. This is pure hogwash.

In the case of history, the understanding and explanation of given material conditions can be enough, because then you have the benefit of hindsight, when during the process you do not. A big reason the Bolshevik Revolution didn't spread outside Russia for instance, was because of the civil war when Russia was invaded by the white imperialist powers following the revolution - the international bourgeois, although they were defeated in the civil war, ended up doing their long term job to make sure the revolution didn't spread. By understanding and acknowledging this fact, that doesn't make it psuedo-scientific, that makes it a legitimate explanation for understanding why the revolution didn't spread.

[quote]However opaque Marx's language here, he is clearly speaking of moving from Philosophy to Action, and namely political action. You can say that a Rose is not a flower, but that does not make it true. Probably the worst combination I can marry would be Marx's opacity in writing with your lack of reading comprehension. I can see why you are so confused.[/quote]

Not sure what your point here is, since no Marxist denies that there is a component to it which does call for workers to take political action, at some point, to emancipate themselves. But for that to happen, workers must not only understand socialism and want it, they also must understand CAPITALISM, and why it isn't in their objective interests. Any praxis for political action requires theory.

[quote]You didn't grasp the the most important idea; "Class-antagonism", no one here claimed there are not workers, or maybe even as Marx might describe " a working class". It is just that "the mechanism" which Marx relied upon for the demise of Capitalism is a myth. The workers did not unite, they instead received stock options, bought houses, education, and cars with their earnings and aspired to become middle class bourgeois, or owners of capital themselves. It is the well understood concept of social mobility. After your compulsory high school education, (provided by the socialist State) you enter the poor class, and then get a job and aspire to improve your position through investing in your own future.[/quote]

But it's not a myth. Class antagonism is very, very real; alllll too real in fact. Let me lay down some cold hard, facts for you that you will not like but are nevertheless true: Capitalists want to maximize profits. In order to do this, they need to pay the workers as little as possible, and have them work as many hours as possible - to extract the maximum surplus value out that they can. Workers want the highest wages possible, and to work as few hours as possible. This is a fact of capitalist social relations, not a myth, and it is the essence of 'class antagonism'.

If class antagonism was a myth, we wouldn't need a State, police or military force, or perhaps most obviously, labor unions. All these institutions exist in order to preserve class antagonisms, not eliminate them as you seem to think. Without these things, class antagonism would escalate pretty quickly, and you would have a revolution faster than you can say "oh shit".

The concept of social mobility? FUCK social mobility. Social mobility is assimilation into bourgeois hegemony. Socialists don't want to assimulate into bourgeois hegemony, we want to destroy it. Especially since social mobility is granted to only a very, very select few. The overwhelming majority of the capitalist class was born into it, not brought into it through mobility. If social mobility was as grand a concept as apologists for capitalism make it out to be, most of us would be capitalists by now, but that isn't the case now, is it? Nope, it's not.

Social mobility is also a flawed concept due to the fact that it inherently suggests inequality and all the social problems associated with it, is acceptable. Politically, philosophically, AND sociologically, this is an untenable position.

As for the workers not uniting and buying into bourgeois hegemony, I think this is only your 1950's rosy view of capitalism talking. That era of capitalism is long gone. All the promises the free market made using buzzwords like 'freedom', 'democracy', and 'equality' failed.

Now, all workers have is stagnant wages (while profits for the parasite class continue to reach all time highes) despite being more productive than ever, depletion of savings and pensions/retirement funds, austerity and gutting of social programs that previously made living standards more acceptable, fighting of terrorist wars with counter-terrorism and an untold death of millions as a result, increased financial insecurity for workers everywhere, insurmountable student loan debt coupled with fewer job opportunities, (and the few opportunities that are available are usually shitty low-wage jobs that no one can survive on), destruction of the environment, Islamaphobia, the police war on minorities - these, and much more, are what capitalism has to offer. The American Dream is a complete sham, and one of those narratives I described earlier that derives from capitalisms' need to use such things to justify and protect its existence. The sooner most workers realize it is a sham and that they are being duped, the better off they will be.

The free market did succeed in one way though: increasing the profits for a very tiny portion of society, at the expense of everyone else. So to that I say, working exactly as intended. And you call this system fair and just? Fuck no, this system is complete shit.

Also, you want one to go to college and "earn their way" in the world, but you also want to saddle them with tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, with few prospects for employment (or shitty employment) to do it - all so a select privileged, unproductive few can live their decadent lifestyles. This is pretty fucked and mean spirited, don't you think? The very fact you would want (or even be ok with) anyone EVER being poor and oppressed, and all the misery that comes along with it, says much about your character: that is it rotten to the core. But I wouldn't expect anything less from someone who holds conservative views.

[quote]But, this is only in your mind.[/quote]

You fucking wish it was only in my mind. Fact is, Marxism still remains a solid and viable critique of the capitalist system, and that Marx is considered one of the founding fathers of sociology and the first thinker to attempt to understand history through an objective, materialist lens - after centuries of only metaphysical or idealist perceptions spinning their wheels in the mud. If there was anything Marx got wrong, it was his inability to see that capitalism was to be more adaptable than he had thought. But this doesn't discredit Marxism, it just means that us Marxists need to find more ways to understanding these developments and how to counter them. But perhaps more importantly, capitalism hasn't endured or adapted because of any merit it may have, it endured because the state has propped it up or saved it every time it falls on its ass. Socialism, on the contrary, will exist and operate on its own merit w/o a heavy handed state apparatus to prop it up.

Capitalists and their apologists have greatly underestimated the resilience of Marxism. It is a framework that has literally been put through the wringer and has come out virtually unscathed every time, because the life of Marxism is linked to the life of capitalism. As long as capitalism remains the predominant social order, Marxism will be there to attack and critique it in every aspect. If capitalism is destroyed and overthrown, Marxism too, is gone as there would be no point in being a Marxist anymore.

[quote]I may not agree with Professor Burawoy, but at least he recognizes present reality versus zealous and wishful thinking.[/quote]

I read most of the article, and while I agree with most of what he said, he does overstate some things (in particular calling the Communist Manifesto the Bourgeois Manifesto), and he doesn't say much that most Marxists already don't know. Not sure how this really strengthens your argument. *shrugs*

[quote]Let's reconsider your argument technique using an economist Robert Johnson to persuade us of the error of economists; I will rebut with a former Marxist, economics professor, and author Thomas Sowell, and namely in his book Marxism: Philosophy and Economics, you will remember the main point Robert Johnson was making which you keyed upon... Namely that some economists leading up to the great recession were wound up in their theories, which supported the aims of their "evil capitalist overlords", rather than scientifically basing their theories upon observed phenomena, [quote='Thomas Sowell']Many observers have seen these developments as mere betrayals of Marxist ideals, missing the more fundamental point that a crucial false assumption must be corrected in practice if people are to survive. Its continuing sacredness in theory can only produce hypocrisy. The betrayal may be real, but in Marxian terminology, “no accident.” A similar process is occurring in China, to which many Western Marxists transferred their hopes after disillusionment with the Soviet Union. This too is seen as simply a betrayal of Mao by Deng, rather than a nation’s painful learning from experience that a key assumption of Marxian economics is false (193-4).[/quote]

Sowell's book is well known to have many contradictions in it, but what is more is that the last chapter he goes on ad-hominem emotional rant that discredits anything decent he might have had going earlier in the book. But either way, I've read this guys viewpoints outside of the book and he is a blatant fascist, so I would take anything he says on Marxism, good or bad, with a grain of salt at best, or better yet not take him seriously at all.

But further, you trying to use Sowell as a way of trying to discredit Marxism in the same way I discredit capitalist economists, does not work for you unfortunately. You see the difference is, Marxism is critical not only of capitalism, but also of both the Cultural and Bolshevik Revolutions and so-called revolutions that called themselves "Marxist". There are plenty of well informed Marxists over at revleft that have superb materialist critiques of these events, maybe you should go over there and have a look, or ask some questions. It doesn't use ideology to try and justify these revolutions (as capitalist economists do to support the goals that are conducive to capitalist hegemony), it critiques them fair and square. Luxemburg, was one of many German Marxists who warned of the inherent dangers of Bolshevism and the possibility of its transformation into a totalitarian state long before Stalin ever came to power, and was highly critical of Lenin and his theoretical distortions of Marx.

[quote]You and so many other communist sympathizers imply that “true” communism was never put into practice and these false regimes ought to be rejected as examples. But clearly the ideals of communism, that of collectivism, dialectical materialism, the evils of capitalism, the idea of labor as the source of all surplus value, the goal of reshaping of man’s nature, the principle of “from each according to his ability to each according to his need,” and so on — were substantially put into practice by the communist regimes of the 20th century. The result in every case was widespread starvation, forced labor camps, unbearable misery, political corruption, totalitarian police states, and mass death. Why would any rational person applying scientific thinking be led in any way that a more consistent application of Marxist ideas would result in another better outcome?
[/quote]

Blah, blah *strawman fallacies* blah blah blah *same old tired anti-communist drivel that has been refuted 1000's of times both here by me and Marxists at large*.

Your intellectual dishonesty reached new heights with that one, almost to the point where I think you are just trolling now.

There is no such thing as "true" or "untrue" communism (or capitalism). Something is either capitalist or communist, or it isn't. The Soviet Union and all similar examples were capitalist - 'state capitalist' to be sure, but capitalist nonetheless. They had market economies, wage labor, commodity production, and most importantly, they had a STATE, AND they had CLASSES - all these things are features of a capitalist economy. Those are all traits of a capitalist society, so everything you just used a strawman there, to try and debunk Marxism, you ended up falling on your face instead. Perhaps if you were arguing against Stalinism, your points would have some merit, but that isn't the case. Your argument is against Marxism, which bears no theoretical consistency to Stalinism - regardless of how much lip service he paid to Marx and his ideas.

Part of the problem is that you fail to differentiate between 'system of government' and 'mode of production'. There is no such thing as a 'communist system of government' or a 'capitalist system of government' - communism and capitalism are both modes of production defined by a certain set of social relationships. The communist mode of production will have no state, the capitalist mode of production requires a state and it can take any form - whether a social democracy like in Sweden, a theocracy such as Iran, a federal system as in the US, state bureaucracy as in the former SU, or whatever else there is - which of these types of governments it chooses does NOT change the mode of production and is irrelevant in that context.

Lastly, communism isn't something 'put into practice' or a 'set of affairs' to be established. Rather, it is the material conditions which would be born out of the present social order, the negation of capitalist social relations.

[quote]Maybe the reason for all your suffering in this life is not them, maybe the problem is you.[/quote]

This victim blaming is a popular capitalist narrative among right-wing douche canoes to demonize workers and the poor. It doesn't really accomplish anything for you though, other than showing the true rotten-to-the-core character, and in general the shitty human beings that most conservatives are at heart (oh wait, you guys don't have hearts, - my bad). You capitalist rodents and your State henchman are all fucking criminals, on the wrong side of history, period.

Destroying you was a pleasure, as usual, but after your last quoted comment I am not interested anymore, since my time would probably be better spent explaining the ideas to people who can be reached, and more importantly to people who aren't morally bankrupt and/or lack empathy.

[kandrathe]

I'll just ignore the parts where you are in essence saying, "Nuh, uh. The opposite is true." without any reasoning.

And a perfect example of your intellectual dishonesty right here. Firstly, Marxism is a mode of analysis - not a political or economic system (it does have components for analyzing political and economic systems to be sure, but is in itself not one), and therefore it cannot be imposed on anything or anyone.

Secondly, even if it could be, if the praxis is not conducive to or bears little or no theoretical continuum to the framework at hand then stating otherwise is intellectual dishonesty, or a gross misunderstanding of some type. In your case, I suspect its a bit of both but more the former.

When you say, "praxis is not conducive to or bears little or no theoretical continuum", I know you lifted this phrase from some other source you have not referenced. In translation from this muddled jargon-ese would be you are saying (i.e. "even if it could be") that IF Marxism were a political and economic theory, then the implementation was not correct. Ok, so what did they get wrong in implementation? Wait. Your first point was that this is not a political and economic theory, merely a form of historical calculus.

You cannot attribute the failings of the Soviet Union to Marx or the Marxist framework anymore than you can attribute Darwin and the theory of Evolution to neo-Nazis and white supremacists for their use of 'social darwinism' or 'natural selection' to explain and justify their racism and the continued inferior social and economic position of minorities. Well, I suppose you could, but not w/o being intellectually dishonest and looking like a complete idiot.

I could use a false equivalence, but I wouldn't want to risk "being intellectually dishonest and looking like a complete idiot. "

You seem to either willfully neglect, or maybe just don't understand (not sure which), the Marxist view of the State. The truth is, Marxists hate the state as much as we do capitalism. We don't hold the conventional view that the State is merely a neutral, arbitrary institution designed to uphold the safety of society and resolve arising conflicts. No, for us, the State is a instrument of class rule, a necessary agency developed to protect and manage the affairs of the dominant class. It doesn't matter who it is or what country it is, they all serve the same purpose. It doesn't matter to us how much lip service Uncle Joke Stalin paid to Marxism, not only because his policies AND thought was anti-Marxist, but his VERY position itself (independent of his policy or ideology) makes him anti-Marxist. It's the same reasons Obama cannot be a Marxist by default, despite what many brain-dead, American Tea Partiers think.

But, here is where we agree. I like community, and even communism when it is freely exercised by free people in small local groups. They need to have the freedom to walk away from it. They need to also be free to own property, sell their labor, save money, invest in risky ventures and engage in free commerce, without being labelled as "evil" by those same small communities of communists.

You can deny it all you want, but you made the argument that the legitimacy of an idea rests on its popularity, and I provided a couple examples that refute your logical fallacy. Not only close, and not only a cigar, but a BIG PACK of cigars for me (even though I don't smoke).

It is not a fallacy to point at the 150 years people, (the workers, and even scholars) have had to pick apart every sentence written by those early communists. In all that time, he has been given credit for his writings, where credit is due. He was a revolutionary, and he (along with other communist thinkers )spear headed a movement from Germany that eventually led to the Russian revolutions. The world has had 15 decades to thoughtfully consider these ideas, and some people have tried to implement them by force. You say that the day is coming, and I say poppycock. I'm fine with that disagreement. Look. Even you admit you haven't figured out how to live in a commune, as a communist, and you are one of them. I have some friends who live in a commune, so why can't you? If you really believe, then walk your talk.

I see no "class" cohesiveness or consciousness as envisioned by them, except in some extreme times, in some extreme places. My own father was a life long Teamster, and I've worked in some extremely unionized places, like on the railroads. I have decades of experience in the trenches, with the workers. The reality of "Life in America" is that we workers do pretty well in this political-economic system, even if it is not entirely fair. It is fair enough to prevent social discord, and at times when "the workers" organize they either get their way, sometimes lose or they destroy their nemesis.

Destroying you was a pleasure, as usual, but after your last quoted comment I am not interested anymore, since my time would probably be better spent explaining the ideas to people who can be reached, and more importantly to people who aren't morally bankrupt and/or lack empathy.

You are a petulant little boy. Grow up.

[FireIceTalon]

Truth be told I could really care less if you are anti-Marxist. Neither of us will ever convince the other of who is right or not, which is fine - I can live with that. It is impossible to convince each and every person of any given idea, and given this, my time would be better spent conveying them to people who are more receptive to them. No big deal.

But outside of that, you make some comments at times that are truly mean spirited and lack any empathy toward those who are poor and/or oppressed. I don't know if this is really a reflection of how you truly feel, or if its just a poor selection of words, but it really pisses me off. Victim blaming and demonizing anyone who is oppressed (whether workers, the poor, women, minorities, refugees, those who have gay/lesbian/bi/or transgender orientations, etc) is one of my hot buttons, perhaps my biggest one. Additionally, while I realize that is a cold harsh reality that people hold these deplorable views, it is nevertheless unsettling if not downright depressing to me.

[kandrathe]

But outside of that, you make some comments at times that are truly mean spirited and lack any empathy toward those who are poor and/or oppressed. I don't know if this is really a reflection of how you truly feel, or if its just a poor selection of words, but it really pisses me off. Victim blaming and demonizing anyone who is oppressed (whether workers, the poor, women, minorities, refugees, those who have gay/lesbian/bi/or transgender orientations, etc) is one of my hot buttons, perhaps my biggest one. Additionally, while I realize that is a cold harsh reality that people hold these deplorable views, it is nevertheless unsettling if not downright depressing to me.

I don't. It is some fiction you've invented, or misinterpreted what I've said.

[Taem]

I wasn't meaning to talk specifically about the rain-forest, but point out how pollution and deforestation both have been proven to cause less rainfall. The links you provided dispute my theoretical concepts on the grounds of pollution /where/ it has been measured in the past, but not deforestation on a world-wide scale, nor world-wide air pollution rates, especially in developing nations. Taking all this into consideration, I cannot however overlook the possibility that, as you pointed out, the world is in a warming trend not fully explained by our glutton waste or pollution. I guess time will tell. In any event, I think there's nothing left to debate on this subject. And regarding the "despot" dictator overlord, I think we can both agree that's an impossible and undesired notion. Thanks for the indulgence.

[Taem]

But outside of that, you make some comments at times that are truly mean spirited and lack any empathy toward those who are poor and/or oppressed. I don't know if this is really a reflection of how you truly feel, or if its just a poor selection of words, but it really pisses me off. Victim blaming and demonizing anyone who is oppressed (whether workers, the poor, women, minorities, refugees, those who have gay/lesbian/bi/or transgender orientations, etc) is one of my hot buttons, perhaps my biggest one. Additionally, while I realize that is a cold harsh reality that people hold these deplorable views, it is nevertheless unsettling if not downright depressing to me.

I don't. It is some fiction you've invented, or misinterpreted what I've said.

You want to know something funny Kath? I originally thought FIT was a pseudonym you posted under to keep the forums "alive" and "fresh" with debate. I've come to realize that's far from the truth. I really dislike how every thread FIT posts in eventually devolve into the merits of Marxism vs Capitalists; I think I'll make it a new law called 'FIT's Law', similar in principle to Godwin's Law, that states, "any thread in which FIT posts in, given enough time, will eventually devolve into..." you get the idea.

@FIT: I very much dislike how you refuse to Reply to the poster directly instead of the thread so I can't see the thread properly in threaded view, but I suppose this is just a matter of preference.

I really don't want to engage in /this/ frivolous sub-thread conversation... again, so peace out my brothers. I just wanted to mention my observations while they were fresh in my mind.

[FireIceTalon]

You want to know something funny Kath? I originally thought FIT was a pseudonym you posted under to keep the forums "alive" and "fresh" with debate. I've come to realize that's far from the truth. I really dislike how every thread FIT posts in eventually devolve into the merits of Marxism vs Capitalists; I think I'll make it a new law called 'FIT's Law', similar in principle to Godwin's Law, that states, "any thread in which FIT posts in, given enough time, will eventually devolve into..." you get the idea.

@FIT: I very much dislike how you refuse to Reply to the poster directly instead of the thread so I can't see the thread properly in threaded view, but I suppose this is just a matter of preference.

I really don't want to engage in /this/ frivolous sub-thread conversation... again, so peace out my brothers. I just wanted to mention my observations while they were fresh in my mind.

What gave you the idea that Kandrathe and me were ever possibly the same person? LOL.

As far as I know I do directly reply to the poster? But may be I am wrong, usually I hit the reply button directly under the given post. I don't view the forum in threaded format, so I wouldn't know.

@ Kandrathe, yes you do - whether you realize it or not. You have made several posts recently as well as in the past that come off with the typical snarky and smug attitude that conservatives have toward working and low-income people, which is all part of the capitalist narrative that these people are uneducated, lazy and their misery is their own fault. One of many reasons why I can't stand right-wingers, or their mentality in general.

You are a petulant little boy. Grow up.

And with this, now you are guilty of ageism.

[kandrathe]

Taking all this into consideration, I cannot however overlook the possibility that, as you pointed out, the world is in a warming trend not fully explained by our glutton waste or pollution.

This trend is most definitely exacerbated by the direct and indirect actions of human activity. It's not the one thing, it's the combination of carbon displacements (forests, fertilizers, fossils) all together changing the chemical balance of our oceans (lakes), land, and air. These natural cycles are normal, but our unique contribution will probably push weather into extremes not seen on our planet in millennia. Perhaps it's natures(systemic) way of restoring the equilibrium, but that has yet to be discovered. The "evil" though is not corporate, other than in the sense of the "body of mankind" and all our combined activities. The difference between now, and one thousand years ago is the energy used by each person, and the now 6+ billion people using this available energy. It's that the Eskimo's or African tribes can use snowmobiles, or ATV's to get around. We've learned how to make advanced technology very cheaply, and the consumption of it all is killing the planet. But, I don't think the answer is to kill off 90% of the humans, and return us to the stone age.

{linky}

Population growth does not alone explain CO2 emissions. We're all producing more CO2 as the "equality" of technology access becomes global.

[kandrathe]

@ Kandrathe, yes you do - whether you realize it or not.

1 2 3 4 I declare a thumb war. Wait, I will not descend to your childish level here.

You have made several posts recently as well as in the past that come off with the typical snarky and smug attitude that conservatives have toward working and low-income people, which is all part of the capitalist narrative that these people are uneducated, lazy and their misery is their own fault.

Cite an example. What I suppose is that while I oppose stateism, you assume I do not propose an alternative to aid the suffering. In fact, I'm usually gobsmacked at how far your conclusions leap.

One of many reasons why I can't stand right-wingers, or their mentality in general.

This is your intolerance to whatever you declare to be to the right of you, which is most everyone. You're preferred method of argument is to label (strawman) your opponent, then "destroy" the strawman. You've accused almost everyone here of being right wing, even when they are most assuredly not.

I'm not even the most "right wing" person here, just the one that perhaps overly tenaciously challenges your BS. In many ways I'm extremely liberal. Most of the "lurkers" here are just tired of both of our unending bickering. For my part, I just have to resist the compulsion to "fix the internet". Our discussions can go nowhere, in the most part because, as with your statement above, you do not provide sources or examples. You tend to bloviate and regurgitate the same cud.

You are a petulant little boy. Grow up.

And with this, now you are guilty of ageism.

HA, nope. Just intolerant of people who act out in tantrums, and are generally churlish. Questioning your maturity level is not ageism. You've been temp banned on this forum numerous time due to your maturity level, not your age.

[FireIceTalon]

[quote='kandrathe' pid='211974' dateline='1449507170']1 2 3 4 I declare a thumb war. Wait, I will not descend to your childish level here.

No, what you will descend into is more insults, douchebaggery, and being guilty of ageism yet AGAIN. But more on that later.

This is your intolerance to whatever you declare to be to the right of you, which is most everyone. You're preferred method of argument is to label (strawman) your opponent, then "destroy" the strawman. You've accused almost everyone here of being right wing, even when they are most assuredly not.

In memory of the time I gave a damn

Indeed, I am intolerant to racism, sexism, narratives that teach hatred and victim blaming of the poor and working class, religous bigotry and discriminatory views towards marginalized groups as a whole. Like it or not, those views are the rule among right-wingers, not the exception - so there is no strawman there. I am intolerant of those views, and will continue to be so because right wing hegemony needs to be challenged head on. Nor do I make any apologies about it. What, you don't like that? Cry me a river, build a bridge, and you know the rest.

I'm not even the most "right wing" person here, just the one that perhaps overly tenaciously challenges your BS. In many ways I'm extremely liberal. Most of the "lurkers" here are just tired of both of our unending bickering. For my part, I just have to resist the compulsion to "fix the internet". Our discussions can go nowhere, in the most part because, as with your statement above, you do not provide sources or examples.

LOL, yes, our discussions going nowhere is entirely on me, and me alone. You are not part of the problem . The truth is, we simply will never agree because the foundations of our views are diametrically opposed, no ones fault there. But aside from that....

I provided many examples in our "debate" a couple weeks ago, most which you glossed over or dismissed with "blah blah blah" - probably because you had no refutation to them. But as I stated before, right-wingers tend to not like facts - especially those facts that provide inconvenient truths to their deplorable worldview. No one ever wants to admit they hold such views, but as I stated before, you have to face the music one day.

Not that I care much for liberals either, but you are not a liberal (except in the sense you dream of a utopian, unbridled free market - which will never, ever happen - and even if it did, the place would be an utter shithole). I look at libertarianism as nothing more than a trendy form of right-wing hipsterism, having a few tenets that appeal to some political liberal principles/issues (legalization of pot, support of same sex marriage, and perhaps an anti-war stance in some cases) but is really just another rotten, right-wing ideology in its core - which can easily be found once you go below the surface a little bit and start deconstructing it. Libertarianism is the right-wing appeal to "political correctness", with a shot of conspiracy theory rhetoric thrown in. Or, in a word, garbage.

You tend to bloviate and regurgitate the same cud.

Pot + Kettle = black

HA, nope. Just intolerant of people who act out in tantrums, and are generally churlish.

Um, wrong again. You referenced to the state of being a child as a negative or derogatory. That is ageist, regardless if its context is implicit rather than direct. To further my point....

If you say "stop acting like a woman" that is sexist, is it not? Or by your logic, "stop acting like a Jew" or "stop acting like a black person" aren't racist statements? They are extremely sexist and racist, respectively. Just as calling something or someone "retarded" (whether that person is or not) is extremely derogatory to those who have a cognitive disorder or special needs. And calling someone childish is also ageist for the same reasons - because it is used an insult to imply that children and/or their opinions are worthless, shouldn't be paid attention to, are short-sighted or otherwise inferior in some way; coupled with the fact it is generally children who suffer most from the inequalities and oppression of capitalism and are often the most voiceless due to ageist attitudes toward them.

The whole purpose of using the term is to dehumanize the person being called that by reducing them or their view to a perceived brain state. It works much in the same way as when many gay/lesbians/transgender teens or young adults are told by their elders "its just a phase, you will grow out of it" - that is also ageist.

I've seen the term "childish" most often used in political debate as a slur to try and bring others down whose views they disagree with - and almost always it is a reactionary saying it to someone with leftist views (whether bourgeois leftist or radical leftist), as is the case here. Your logic is the same crap I hear from racists who spew "I don't hate all black people, just the ones who act like thugs".

So with all that being said, you are in fact ageist. But moreover, you're just a complete asshat in general. Back on ignore you go (not sure why I ever removed you in the first place, silly me), so don't even bother with a reply.