(11-09-2011, 07:34 PM)FireIceTalon Wrote: But my point is, false consciousness isn't a "you are dumb, listen to me I know whats best for you" arrogant proposition that assumes the worker is a mindless hamster. Rather, it is a methodology used by the bourgeoisie to mislead the proletariat into being an indentured servant.
It's a belief that the Proles clearly don't know what their best interests are, because they believe someone who isn't a Marxist. A priest. A politician. The "bourgeoisie," whatever that means anymore. Marxists, though, they know what's really best, because what they know is based on what passed for solid social science, back in the 1840s. If the proles don't see it, it's not because it isn't true, but because they're being deceived somehow.
It privileges one viewpoint over others, for no solid reason. Marx thought he was in possession of capital-T Truth. (Also, about Capital-C-Capital!) Surely we do not believe this anymore, that dialectical materialism is objectively true?
Quote:Given that, I think your views that Marx was some authoritarian, undemocratic douche bag are hostile, and a bit unfairly grounded. It almost seems like you view an authoritarian government as being necessary to maintain a communist society, that there is no other way such a system can operate. I think that is where we disagree at.
You have no examples of communism being created or maintained without authoritarian violence, because you disown all "communist" societies to date as not really communist, because they are authoritarian and violent.
Thus, you have neither historical examples of what you are claiming, nor (as far as I have heard) any convincing model for how such a society would operate - when pressed, you claim to "not have all the answers." If you have no historical evidence, and no plausible theory, then what do you have?
I can tell you exactly why I believe as I do, that Marxism is outdated at best, and dangerous at worst. Why should we believe you? On what grounds do you believe what you do?
-Jester