16th July 2015, 20:59
|So, in reality, the trajectory of socialism is for real, live workers to have rejected what you refer to as their 'spiritual sophistication'.|
|Part of that time wasting would involve an active confrontation with the singular problem that Marx himself defined as the theme of capital and tried like hell to resolve: how labor as a commodity defines prices. That's more or less, on the average, only socially necessary labor,|
|Kola lived long enough to see his prediction come true: because Marxism's only use was that of an official ideology of a terrorist state, American and European Philosophy would cease in their curiosity once the USSR was gone.|
|Whereas 40 years ago a robust coteri|
|Re Ricardo: say something of content and I'll be happy to respond. ie what false assumptions?|
|Re Lenin: actually, yes, he fought f|
|The Feuerbach Thesis vindicates his practical stupidity.|
Originally Posted by Qbill HarrisBoth movements center upon a particular group as the only real producers. For Marx, of course, it's the proletariat, or those who derive compensation from owners of the means of production.
|This group includes such heterogeneities as NBA starz, sweatshop slaves in China, oil rig workers at $1000/day, and pre-accident Niki Taylor at four contracts at 5 million each|
|as long as they stay the hell out of the philosophy department.|
|because we have our own ‘paradigm, thankyou.|
|That this can obviously be traced back to Marx is an ‘influence’, not a working paradigm. Ditto the issue as to whether those men in indigo are exploiting anyone.|
|Marx gave the impoverished a sense of dignity and outrage by creating a counter-narrative of evolution in which they would abolish capitalism forever.|
Originally Posted by Qbill HarrisBut at least she understood that a totally naturalist account of human behavior was impossible—that in some way any system that describes human behavior must account for volition.
|Not having the proper ‘class consciousness is ‘false consciousness’….as if this weren't real data.|
|I’m ‘objective’ and you aren’t”, etc. What’s missing are accurate predictions and testable hypotheses, which defines what science really is.|
|presupposes not only that the contradictions that synthesize are real, but also that the teleology is understandably real, as well|
|conflicts between humans occur in many dimensions, not just one. Therefore, the opening remarks of the Manifesto are patently false. Or as Kola taunted, ‘Go ask the Winged Hussars if the struggle against the Islamic hoards wasn’t real”.|
|an unsupported notion of a classless, communal society, somewhere in the future.|
|So does this ‘epistemology’ cohere? Well, obviously not. As the distractions of utopianism are obvious, we’re far better off without it. So here, the similarity with Rand's "Capitalism, the unknown ideal" is strikingly obvious.|
|Going beyond Kola, my point is to inquire what, exactly does a marxist mean by 'science'? Standard bourgeois-positivist usage means 'quantifiable', 'offering predictive value', and 'subject-independent'--or 'objective'. Now since its obvious that marxist science is none of the above|
|marxoid daffynitions have absolutely no chance of altering standard bourgeois-positivist usage.|
|against the existentialists who believe that free-will is unconditional.|
|Yes, by definition as to what (bourgeois-positivist science means.|
|just as it's possible to be half-pregnant|
Said 'fluidity' is the capacity to weasel out of doing real scie
Marxoids can subject 'them' to 'scientific criteria' based upon what marxists consider to be science. This is as interesting as saying astrology has set, 'criteria;, too.
What said 'social processes' are is indeed a matter of hypotheses.
|By its results. This includes offering a capacity to predict by 'calculation'.|
|Dialectics is such a 'new form' of logic that only Marxoids know how to use it. By 'retrospective; i suppose you mean to indicate 'no predictive value'.|
|No, antagonisms were understood as existing within a society at least as far back as the ancient Greek politician, Solon. What Marxism is supposed to do is offer a solution.|
|The military science behind the formation of the hussars was to form a unit that was capable of slaughtering turko-islamic armies because Poles want to be Polish and Catholic.|
|Bold face aside, what do marxoids mean by 'epistemology if not DM?|
We also observe that people organize themselves by nationality in order to fight an invader; to a great extent, this common bonding, when successful, results in the formation of a national ideology.
|Josef Polaki, small landowner near Krakow, in 1638, sent his son to join the Winged Hussars to kill Turks. These foreigners, he reasoned, would be far more oppressive than the local parasites in Krakow that, at least, spoke his language and worshipped the same god.|
|That they normally involve conflict between economic classes is rather obvious.|
|“So why can’t this ‘marxism’, which calls itself a ‘science’, predict the outcome of our struggle against the fascists? In light of the fact that they’ve got superior weapons, that sure would be nice to know”.|
|On the other hand, real-world, cosmopolitan German intellectual life was laying the mathematical groundwork for what we call modern science: Gauss, Riemann, et al….|
|Marx was simply not bright enough to do the real stuff|
As for volition, or ‘agency’, I’m afraid you’re totally confused. What is means in terms of real (ie bourgeois-positivist) Philosophy is subject-dependency. To this end, science is said to be meaningfully doable to the extent that volition does not exist in the particular case at hand.
Otherwise, people would revolt at a given, measurable ‘level of oppression’ with predictable regularity—because that’s how science works. Any real scientist who was a contemporary of Marx could have informed him of that, although it’s clearly doubtful if he would have listened.
|Again, he basically lacked the smarts. Being math-deficient (as clearly evinced by his bungling of his own 'Transformation problem')|
|InFind me one concept of Marx that's scientifically valid in a testable, measurable, quantifiable sort of way.|
|Likewise, can they demonstrate how their own criteria of realness make any sense?|
|First, we have the incorrect use of the word ‘abstract’. For example, the beliefs and ideologies of a group are not ‘abstracted’ from their particular economic infrastructure. Rather, according to the Marxist theory which says that thought-superstructures are caused by material realities, the correct term is ‘alienation’.|
|But then again, in terms of content, Marx is telling us nothing new. For the last 5000 years or so, we’ve always assumed that ideas could possibly be more or less related to either material interests or means of subsistence: ‘The golden rule means that he who’s got the gold, makes the rules’.|
|Moreover, in doing so, he’s left the absurd impression that those who talk post-Hegelian jibberish possess the predictive/quantitative insight that science affords.|
|This, they’ve been doing since the Latinish days of the Late Middle Ages|
|When transcribed into the reality-driven language of the real world, such buffoonery is called 'pretense'.|
Spencer was the father of the concept of evolution, as admittedly taken from Darwin himself. Here it’s important to note, however, that while Spencer’s social evolution had a definite teleology—“Survival of the fittest’—Darwin’s ‘Natural selection emphatically denies this.
In other words, Marx simply refused to admit that his ‘system’ consisted of nothing more than standing Spencerian teleology on its head; the evolutionarily ‘fittest’ are now the proles, rather than the capitalists.
This is of crucial importance because Darwin’s entire theme is ‘lack of teleology’ within nature on the largest scale. Marx simply wasn’t smart enough to understand this.
|Of course, this is a major blunder on his part—on par or equal to both his idiotic ‘four modes of production’|
|and his inability to resolve his own proposed ’transformation’ of labor values in to prices by means of simple arithmetic.|
|Marx, in short, was so bad that it could only serve as the ideology of a terrorist state.|
|Kola’s book demonstrates that within his particular world of give-and-take polemic—which we call ‘philosophy’—Marx doesn’t even pass the laugh test. Ditto for his ‘economics’.|
|we all know that he wrote that there’s a causal relationship between the superstructure of ideas and the infrastructure of …whatever he designated it to mean at any particular moment.|
|Kola’s point was that within the confines of said terrorist state apparatus, the marxoid posit of base/superstructure causality was declared ‘true’ at the point of a gun.|
|For example, while Bloc attempted to demonstrate the economic roots of the French Revolution, Furet countered with an explanation rooted in the proliferation of ideas.|
Therefore, to discuss superstructure that’s de-contextualized from its causal referent of ‘infrastructure’’ is called ‘alienation’, at least in the Hegelian sense.
So yet again (!), ‘abstraction’ only designates ‘generality’, whether correct or not. Therefore, for a Marxist to say, “The superstructure is abstracted from its infrastructural base” is to speak nonsense: well, of course it is, because that’s what the word ‘abstract means.
|But then again, so did Spencer’s ‘survival of the fittest’.|
|What’s also obvious is that to declare oneself ‘Darwinian’ is to attempt to place the ruminations of the humanities on a level of biology, as a ‘science’. Again to be ‘Marxist’ is to accept this nonsense as true; this we already know about you people.|
|Althusser’s written history of Marx’s attempt to develop a scientific method does not –by virtue of its writing—establish whether or not Marx succeeded in his endeavor.|
|Actually, many of us in the 70’s were saying, “Well okay, this turn to science was pure junk and Althusser’s a crank; so let’s go back to the younger Marx who established a viable critique of capitalism on realistically humanist grounds.”|
|In Fact, my own prof, Deleuze, claimed that we’re all Marxist in the sense that he was the first to develop a critique of the commoditization of daily life and culture. This I can accept, despite the emergence of the Grundrisse that clearly indicates the young Marx as a closet-case Hegelian-dabbler.|
|However that might be, what seems to emerge in not only the posthumous papers of Deleuze but also in the works of Zizek, Badiou and Negri is a Spinozan, early Marx of pure immanence. The teleology emerges only later in the middle ‘scientific’ period as some sort of mental disorder—then recedes as Marx got more into practical organization.|
|No, it represented what it always was: a subcurrent of a subcurrent of the worker’s movement. For example, Eleanor Marx made her father’s work appear interesting through the hard, heroic, coalition-building work her father refused to do.|
|No, without the interests of the Soviet state, Marx simply disappeared. A good example of this is that what we know of Marx through the majority of his published works came from the USSR.|
|Given the conditions of 19th century evolution as an intellectual fad, it was inevitable that a labor militant would reply to Spencer’s nonsense on his own rhetorical terms.|
|Kola’s point is that Marx is junk as far as philosophy goes, which is his domain.|
|Otherwise, you’ve failed to offer any criteria for ‘science’ other than that of Humpty-Dumpty.|
|Moral implications, yes, as does Marx. Read the last sentence of The Manifesto.|
|Absolutely not. Natural Selection means that ‘fitness’ is contingent upon conditions exterior to the organism itself.|
|Your parallel is the unsupported claim|
|Louis’ idea of what makes a ‘science’ was to claim that any encumbrance upon free will represented an objective ‘natural’ state; to study these states was to indulge in ‘science’. This, in so many words, is the infamous ‘Marx vs humanism’ critique.|
|But as Kola wrote of Althusser|
Bourgeois Revolution occurred a long time prior. Ridding France of its king was a minor act within the larger process of establishing a secular democracy. This took all of the 19th century.
In other words, the Bourbons were just another front for the moneyed interests. This is obviously clear by the events that took place even during Marx’s own lifetime: in 1830, 1848, 1852 and 1871, the French Bourgeoisie accepted the legitimacy of the crown.
|No, it claims that behind the veil of commoditization lies LTV.|
|‘Dictatorship of the proletariat’ was taken seriously—which brings us back to Humpty-Dumpty: Marxist concepts are taken just as seriously as anyone wants to take them in order to prove any point of the particular moment. According to Kola, this either makes Marxism a just-so tale or a recipe for red fascism.|