Jump to content

Braintree

Knob Twiddlers
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    13,932

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Braintree

    Marxist thought

    in General Banter

    Posted

    1 hour ago, chenGOD said:

    Socialism doesn’t have a concrete definition. Every link I’ve shown you describes that. You’ve shown nothing except your opinion, and links that say that democracy is possible, but not a necessary condition. 

    Okay dude. You are obviously not interested in looking at the material objectively. I have shown sufficient evidence to support my claims. Your statements in this thread have been largely either irrelevant or specious at best. You have continued to try to change the debate to consider philosophical ideas over agreed upon definitions. You are arguing in bad faith and I'm sick of it.

    Good luck arguing about whatever the fuck you think is tangentially related to whatever topic rears its stupid head.

    /last post

    Marxist thought

    in General Banter

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Cryptowen said:
    3 minutes ago, Braintree said:

    It has a concrete definition. Your philosophizing doesn't change that.

    maybe it would if enough people voted on it

    It does though. No need for a vote.

    Marxist thought

    in General Banter

    Posted

    Just now, cyanobacteria said:

    i gave you a nuanced answer involving many facets of the word democracy in marxism and modern usage of the term, i dont know how you can make such a statement when it's in fact your statements that are lacking nuance and accuracy

    It has a concrete definition. Your philosophizing doesn't change that.

    Marxist thought

    in General Banter

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Cryptowen said:

    in your opinion what are the fundamental distinctions between mob rule & government? (actually not trying to be contrarian or disagree here, genuinely curious to see how this could be formalized for you)

    In the simplest way to express it; because there's no structure in a mob. A government is a structure.

    • Like 1

    Marxist thought

    in General Banter

    Posted

    26 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

    The experiential is highly relevant to people's creation of their world, including definitions. That's just basic sociological thought.

    This is fucking nonsense. The lived experience does not have anything to do with how socialism is defined. You've taken one too many rugby balls to the head.

    Marxist thought

    in General Banter

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

    Dictatorships can be socialist, and if you wade deep enough into zeff territory he’ll start talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat. 
     

    I’m saying that people’s lived experience with socialism in general has been through dictatorships, so it’s hard to fault them if they don’t respond well to the notion, even if it doesn’t align with someone else’s notion of what socialism is. 
    The Wikipedia portal on socialism is quite well done,  it provides a broad overview with a lot of relevant citations. But fine: here’s an article which outlines the differences between a socialist and a democratic socialist. 

    If your appeal to authority is Zeff, then you're off your rocker.

    Again, their experience is not relevant to the definition of socialism. You don't define economic systems by asking joe schmo how he feels about it. That gives you their assumption and not the literal definition of the thing that makes them feel that way. That person is angry about authoritarianism, not socialism as it never existed there.

    Re: your link (which I read when it came out), we're not talking about SocDems vs Socialists. As it relates to this thread directly, Marx thought democracy was pretty rad, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Marxism (I'll repeat here that the efficacy of the theory is not our focus)

    As I've previously mentioned, you won't be able to form a union without democracy. The union is the first step to gaining control of the workplace over the company owners.

    Marxist thought

    in General Banter

    Posted

    All in all, you're trying to change the goalpost for this debate. My argument is that it is established that Burma was not a socialist country. This link that was shared earlier even states it was a dictatorship. Dictatorships are not socialist because of literature I've already cited. It is antithetical to the working class to have a dictator.

    Sorry bud , but you're wrong.

    Marxist thought

    in General Banter

    Posted

    1 hour ago, chenGOD said:

    The lived experience provides for the definition, and transforms the actual experience. 
    This is the interaction between abstractions and the real world as explained by Karl Poppers three worlds.

    What do you think central planning is?

    This is philosophical and not concrete.

     

    1 hour ago, chenGOD said:

    Which, if you read the wiki portal link, is varied. 
    the link you provided merely said it CAN flourish, not that it is a necessary condition.  

    That is a wikipedia article and we know how those go. I gave you something specific. Also, democracy is essential to forming unions. It is an essential component.

    Marxist thought

    in General Banter

    Posted

    2 hours ago, chenGOD said:

    Yeah freedom and democracy can flourish, not that it’s an essential part. 
     

    im reading that first linked article:

    A democratic say in how to allocate resources, to which I have to ask, does the average person have an idea of how commodity supply chains work? Take any craft product you enjoy: beer, coffee, bicycles, local publishing, what have you...think about all the components that go into the manufacture and sale of that product. 
    Do you understand that complete process and can you conduct cost analysis on all those discrete components? I don’t.


    Markets are not anathema to socialist economies, and yet I see very little understanding of how markets work from many people (so called free marketeers and marxists alike). 
    One of the arguments I often hear against capitalism is that managers create inefficiencies. This can be true, certainly I’ve worked with bad managers. 
    But doesn’t the idea that there should be a democratic decision-making process to resource allocation essentially turn everyone into a manager? After all, a managers job is to manage resources in order to complete a project. Do we really want everyone to be a manager?
     

    That article goes on to say:

    Which is not an argument against markets, but more of an argument for good regulation of markets with actual enforcement. As we have seen in so called “communist” countries, government actors and state-owned enterprises also have the ability to bend markets, even more than corporations, as it the government who writes regulation and legislation. 
     

    At the end of the day, I’m not saying that there doesn’t need to be strong protection for workers, universal healthcare, etc. 
    Based on my education, work experience, and general life experience in different countries around the world, I do not think that at a large scale, the type of production the article refers to is the best way to achieve those goals.  

    Our discussion is about the definition of socialism. It has a definition. I looked it up and you can, too (*infomercial music*). Whether it's effective or not is not what we're discussing. You guys go real deep in the weeds with your logical fallacies these days.

    55 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:

    it’s just not a useful analogy imo. we can all understand how experiences* inform our perceptions but idk, I think in the present case it’s just weird to be like “what about blm.” like yes we honor the things people have been through as valid but we can take that to the end of just saying this entire convo is based on zeff’s “lived experiences” and everything is valid as such. 
     

    imo Marxism is useful only if it frees cum from the quotidian pace and converts all surplus cum into hypercum as well as, potentially, cum rapid. 
     

    *not sure why it’s de rigueur to say “lived experience” lol. I feel like this is being used now days to lend weight to people just expressing their opinions. not saying you are doing this, just that it’s a thing. 

    It's comparing apples and doorknobs. This guy doesn't know what socialism is and labels it as authoritarian because the party has the word 'socialist' in it and then surmises that anything with the name 'socialist' must be authoritarian. That is the logical fallacy here.

    52 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

    Sure didn’t seem as if Braintree was doing that. 

     

    It may be useful if it frees me from the lived experience of having gone to see tiesto when the female I was acquainted with expressed her basic human desire to do so. 

    His lived experienced wasn't the topic of debate. The definition of socialism is, which will persist with or without his lived experience.

    Marxist thought

    in General Banter

    Posted

    1 minute ago, chenGOD said:

    I read the investopedia one, which mentions democracy almost not at all? 
     

    As an aside, it mentions Vietnam as a socialist country, but billionaires in Vietnam certainly play an important role in the country’s socio-economic affairs. 

    Yeah, it says at the beginning:

    Quote

    In truth, with communism and socialism, where the distinction between a laboring class and owner class is dissolved, freedom and democracy can flourish; however, there would also be a massive redistribution of wealth.

    They're eluding to unions and cooperatives as far as socialism goes.

    Not sure why they called those states communist, since they're not. You can refer to the first linked article as to why.

    Marxist thought

    in General Banter

    Posted

    Just now, chenGOD said:

    BLM is an analogy for lived experience.
    Again do you think your definition of socialism is the only correct one? The various theories and the voluminous literature would kind of indicate otherwise you know?

    Did you read those articles I linked?

    Marxist thought

    in General Banter

    Posted

    No one can hear the virtues of the working class over the sound of you splitting hairs.

    Just now, chenGOD said:

    My man, would you dismiss the BLM movement in the same way? Policing is not defined by systemic racism, but it exists and that’s their (POC) lived experience with it. 
    Also, I don’t agree there is one consistent definition of socialism. I’m not saying that dictatorship equals socialism (unless you want to discuss the dictatorship of the proletariat), but I don’t think democracy is a necessary component of many definitions of socialism. 

    BLM is not relevant to this conversation either, so yes.

    It is frightening how fast you guys lose focus on the topic at hand.

    Marxist thought

    in General Banter

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

    communism is not a flavor of socialism, socialism is worker control of the means of production. communism is the abolition of private property, the state, and money, that can only come after socialism has been achieved

    To be specific, you're talking about anarcho-communism. I linked an article above that talks about those commonalities and differences.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.