Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

You’re not honest though.

look at what you said in your post just before this. You basically automatically dismiss out of hand any support of capitalism, and refuse to consider any merits. 
There are so many misconceptions in the post about competition that I can’t get into on my phone. 
And your post about saying fuck the wants of first world people is mildly terrifying (as well, I’d add that people in developing nations have the same wants, even North Korea has variety in products, and advertising to sell those products), who would want to live in a world with all decisions on productions made by some central planning committee.

can you point me to the posts that you intended as your argument against marxism? of course capitalism has certain merits. karl "The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part" marx would surely admit this.  but the merits are trivial and nothing in comparison to what we NEED.  not what "we" on WATMM need but what the people of the world need.  look at how well capitalism is doing in india.  they are fucking dying quite literally.  you should agree with me about "fuck the wants of the first world people to have 7 brands of smart phone options" which was the clear context.  i am first world myself you think i want myself to die? im not some posadist.  you are fundamentally not understanding technology if you think these smart phone brands are actually giving us choice, please read Stallman.  capitalism LIMITS our choice.  we can't even get a FOSS phone because of IP law and contractual monopolies on phone part supply chains, how's that for choice. we4 can't even get a FOSS computer without going back to 2004 or whatever it is.  give me a break on this choice shit please, the colors of the plastic case around the same fucking parts is not choice.  youre making things up and misrepresenting my argument which contains much more substance

Edited by cyanobacteria
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you cna't ewven get a computer processor without a LITERAL backdoor coprocessor built into it which cannot be disabled without going back to 2006*

https://libreboot.org/faq.html#intelme

>In summary, the Intel Management Engine and its applications are a backdoor with total access to and control over the rest of the PC. The ME is a threat to freedom, security, and privacy, and the libreboot project strongly recommends avoiding it entirely. Since recent versions of it can’t be removed, this means avoiding all recent generations of Intel hardware.

find another avenue of attack on marxism, this consumer choice shit is literally made up

"oh but you do have c hoice, there's AMD!" you say. oh wait

>

AMD Platform Security Processor (PSP)

haha FUCK capitalism. we literally NEED free and open source software and hardware to be free and capitalism CANNOT FUCKING DELIVER

you know what can deliver? eliminating private property rights and intellectual property rights entirely and making it all open and free.

Edited by cyanobacteria
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

I don’t think that’s the totality of my argument against Marxist thought, cumrade?

I mean, fair. I think it’s quite obvious that things have changed quite a lot since marx’s day. Some of his critiques will inevitably be rendered anachronistic but I don’t think the theory of labor division is as inapplicable today as you’re making it seem. 
 

im literally beginning a shift at a sushi restaurant tho so I gotta pause on the cumvosation

  • Farnsworth 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

in defending capitalism and attacking marxism, socialism, communism, etc, however badly it's done, one betrays their own class and becomes a class traitor.  the bourgeoisie love their unpaid propagandistic henchman who so willingly fight against their own best interests.

Edited by cyanobacteria
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alcofribas said:

 I don’t think the theory of labor division is as inapplicable today as you’re making it seem. 

I think the theory of labour division is fairly inapplicable (most people in the US don’t work in factories), but I think the alienation that Marx discussed is very much applicable, for reasons that he probably couldn’t foresee.

 

1 hour ago, cyanobacteria said:

youre making things up

Considering you’re the one who claimed India hasn’t done much to reduce poverty, this is quite rich. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cyanobacteria said:

haha FUCK capitalism. we literally NEED free and open source software and hardware to be free and capitalism CANNOT FUCKING DELIVER

you know what can deliver? eliminating private property rights and intellectual property rights entirely and making it all open and free.

yo this is totally an aside but are you familiar with the book MP3: The Meaning of a Format by Jonathan Sterne? He basically traces the history of the filetype as a series of topdown private/government funded research projects (skunkworks basically) that built off each other over the course of a century.

no real connection to marxism tbh (I voted for Harambe), just got reminded of this book for some raison

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Cryptowen said:

yo this is totally an aside but are you familiar with the book MP3: The Meaning of a Format by Jonathan Sterne? He basically traces the history of the filetype as a series of topdown private/government funded research projects (skunkworks basically) that built off each other over the course of a century.

no real connection to marxism tbh (I voted for Harambe), just got reminded of this book for some raison

didnt read the book but mp3 is a disgusting format.  stallman recommends ogg vorbis since its FOSS.  i havent transferred my collection to it yet

42 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Considering you’re the one who claimed India hasn’t done much to reduce poverty, this is quite rich. 

always making excuses for capitalists if india had taken chinas path theyd be a million times better off

Edited by cyanobacteria
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, chenGOD said:

I think the theory of labour division is fairly inapplicable (most people in the US don’t work in factories)

ok this is the problem i have with your approach itt: the way you're using the terminology is inconsistent and confusing. for some time you were arguing about specialization, how it is necessary to increase productivity and stated that "division of labor is precisely specialization," and you've supported this claim by describing "division of labor" as just doing different things e.g., payment processing vs voice recognition, building highways vs making music. imo in the "marxist thought" thread this comes across as very misleading, bc this is obviously not what marx was talking about. you claim you know what he was talking about but that was absolutely not clear by the way you were using these terms.

at the same time you are making this extremely broad conflation of "division of labor" with any kind of difference in types of work you are claiming that "division of labor" is "inapplicable" bc it just pertains to factories (?). but you've just argued that "division of labor" is necessary in order to produce "productivity" and "specialization." you're simultaneously claiming marx's "division of labor" theory is inapplicable, mostly bc workers can climb up a ladder in some careers and go from bag boy to shift supervisor or some bullshit, and at the same time arguing that something you're also calling "division of labor" is applicable but it is not what marx was talking about? it's some other thing that you've defined as just having completely different jobs (construction vs making electronic music) and/or dividing labor pretty much exactly as marx described in his theory but in a way that is actually cool bc workers don't have to remain in one particular "specialization" but can work hard and rise to have greater responsibilities and thus more money? i know you can clarify this distinction and i can probably guess what you're getting at but i don't think you were making an attempt to make this distinction clear and some of the examples you were using were quite strange (a sushi chef?)

i'm speculating that you were using the broad, almost meaningless definition of "division of labor" precisely bc you were interested in pwning zeff by getting him to argue against the definition of "division of labor" as simply different jobs or get him to argue that "specialization" is inherently bad. then you can sweep in and say "oh yeah well next time you want to go to the doctor i guess you'll be content to be looked at by the janitor?*" got his ass. idk man, this whole thread seems misbegotten. 

*who actually can make his way up from entry level janitor to building manager in just several short years.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish there was a way to make this thread and the unintellectual thread crash into each other resulting in posts from both mixed together out of order.

  • Like 1
  • Farnsworth 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alcofribas said:

ok this is the problem i have with your approach itt: the way you're using the terminology is inconsistent and confusing. for some time you were arguing about specialization, how it is necessary to increase productivity and stated that "division of labor is precisely specialization," and you've supported this claim by describing "division of labor" as just doing different things e.g., payment processing vs voice recognition, building highways vs making music. imo in the "marxist thought" thread this comes across as very misleading, bc this is obviously not what marx was talking about. you claim you know what he was talking about but that was absolutely not clear by the way you were using these terms.

at the same time you are making this extremely broad conflation of "division of labor" with any kind of difference in types of work you are claiming that "division of labor" is "inapplicable" bc it just pertains to factories (?). but you've just argued that "division of labor" is necessary in order to produce "productivity" and "specialization." you're simultaneously claiming marx's "division of labor" theory is inapplicable, mostly bc workers can climb up a ladder in some careers and go from bag boy to shift supervisor or some bullshit, and at the same time arguing that something you're also calling "division of labor" is applicable but it is not what marx was talking about? it's some other thing that you've defined as just having completely different jobs (construction vs making electronic music) and/or dividing labor pretty much exactly as marx described in his theory but in a way that is actually cool bc workers don't have to remain in one particular "specialization" but can work hard and rise to have greater responsibilities and thus more money? i know you can clarify this distinction and i can probably guess what you're getting at but i don't think you were making an attempt to make this distinction clear and some of the examples you were using were quite strange (a sushi chef?)

i'm speculating that you were using the broad, almost meaningless definition of "division of labor" precisely bc you were interested in pwning zeff by getting him to argue against the definition of "division of labor" as simply different jobs or get him to argue that "specialization" is inherently bad. then you can sweep in and say "oh yeah well next time you want to go to the doctor i guess you'll be content to be looked at by the janitor?*" got his ass. idk man, this whole thread seems misbegotten. 

*who actually can make his way up from entry level janitor to building manager in just several short years.

 

Marx’s theory of division of labour refers to the work done in factories, which I don’t think is applicable. Taylor’s scientific management principles were an extreme view of this, and as I noted, have largely been discounted, precisely because of the negative impact on workers’ mental health and resultant detriment to productivity. 
The division of labour I’m referring to as necessary is based on Durkheim’s theory as explained in his work “The Division of Labour in Society”, which maybe I should have stated. It’s not vague, and I don’t believe the two positions are contradictory. 

I’m not interested in “pwning” zeff, I’m much more interested in hearing his thoughts on how Marxist thought is applicable in the modern era beyond “we need to move to a form of material production as yet unseen”. He’s already agreed that specialization is necessary, but in the discussion around alienation, he keeps referring to the Marxist theory, which as I’ve noted, isn’t particularly relevant in developed nations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

 

always making excuses for capitalists if india had taken chinas path theyd be a million times better off

I agree, if they’d been as capitalist as China, they would be better off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, usagi said:

I wish there was a way to make this thread and the unintellectual thread crash into each other resulting in posts from both mixed together out of order.

some of us are trying

anyway, threadwise: idk shit about Marx's writings really other than the very basics, but it seems pretty disconnected from reality now. he was fighting a losing battle back then during the industrial revolution...but now, 150 years later? whether or not anyone may agree with his thoughts, they sound idyllic in some ways but overall just like a fairy tale. there are people living this more measured and 'simple' existence in some ways now, aren't there? communes and more rural/less developed communities in some parts of some countries, yes?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay so like, why don't more people live in these communities like this? or at least proponents of this lifestyle/governmental style, why aren't they all living there? shouldn't these communities be sought after if those in them are living happier and fuller lives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chenGOD said:

Marx’s theory of division of labour refers to the work done in factories, which I don’t think is applicable. Taylor’s scientific management principles were an extreme view of this, and as I noted, have largely been discounted, precisely because of the negative impact on workers’ mental health and resultant detriment to productivity. 
The division of labour I’m referring to as necessary is based on Durkheim’s theory as explained in his work “The Division of Labour in Society”, which maybe I should have stated. It’s not vague, and I don’t believe the two positions are contradictory. 

I’m not interested in “pwning” zeff, I’m much more interested in hearing his thoughts on how Marxist thought is applicable in the modern era beyond “we need to move to a form of material production as yet unseen”. He’s already agreed that specialization is necessary, but in the discussion around alienation, he keeps referring to the Marxist theory, which as I’ve noted, isn’t particularly relevant in developed nations. 

in any case, one can argue that sean and rob do indeed built highways - veritable superhighways through uncharted realms of the mind.

 

  • Big Brain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, chenGOD said:

I agree, if they’d been as capitalist as China, they would be better off. 

this is not a meaningful statement and drastically misunderstands the historical conditions and political ideology of china.  china is not capitalist.  they are led by their communist party attempting to achieve socialism.  they have strategically used markets and private investment to develop materially.  they however do not sanctify these private property laws above the people and capitalists are told what to do and where and will be punished harshly if they misappropriate the wealth they are overseeing.  a complaint like this sounds like nothing but a bitter statement that a communist country can utilize the tool of capitalism, itself a useful and essential mode of production in the development of socialism, better than the capitalist countries themselves can.  in what way then is capitalism the deciding factor here, when actual capitalist countries fail to compete in development with communist led countries utilizing capitalism?  on the converse, would you suggest china should have been "more capitalist" like India indeed has been recently, and that they would achieve superior material gains to what China has achieved? you could not, because it's quite clearly the CCP's leadership and the communist desires of the governing population that has caused this superior result

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you put Aphex Twin albums on one of those political quadrant maps it'd be RDJ Album in the bottom left, SC Dump Trx in the top left, Come to Daddy EP top right, and 26 Mixes for Cash bottom right

  • Big Brain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, chenGOD said:

Marx’s theory of division of labour refers to the work done in factories, which I don’t think is applicable. Taylor’s scientific management principles were an extreme view of this, and as I noted, have largely been discounted, precisely because of the negative impact on workers’ mental health and resultant detriment to productivity. 
The division of labour I’m referring to as necessary is based on Durkheim’s theory as explained in his work “The Division of Labour in Society”, which maybe I should have stated. It’s not vague, and I don’t believe the two positions are contradictory. 

I’m not interested in “pwning” zeff, I’m much more interested in hearing his thoughts on how Marxist thought is applicable in the modern era beyond “we need to move to a form of material production as yet unseen”. He’s already agreed that specialization is necessary, but in the discussion around alienation, he keeps referring to the Marxist theory, which as I’ve noted, isn’t particularly relevant in developed nations. 

historical experimentation has shown that marx was downright wrong that the socialist revolution would happen in the most industrialized nations.  he was completely open to being wrong and it's part of the dialectical process to experiment and gain information, thus the nature of marxism's goals to develop a "scientific socialism".  time has moved on and forms of labor have developed pretty significantly, with new forms marx never imagined like the gig economy and new forms of feudalism whereby workers are in theory given ownership of the means of production i.e. their cars for uber, but are forced to pay arbitrary feudal dues to a coordinating body.

alienation of the worker exists in ways beyond merely deep division of labor forcing workers to perform meaningless and unsatisfying tasks.  alienation exists inherent to capitalism itself because the worker is alienated from the product of their labor, and this does NOT just mean surplus value.  it means the products of their labor form the capital which exists in rough quote "outside and in opposition to the worker" in other words this capital becomes a constituent part in the class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie since the capital enhances the power of the bourgeoisie to summon more proletariat to work through enabling them to pay wages, and giving them literal material powers such as hiring servants, security guards, and using advanced technologies to track and oppress the workers, in modern times often through the state itself as private contractors enhance state power to oppress workers movements, seen throughout recent history very starkly and especially in foreign actions of capitalist nations

your viewpoint seems to be entirely first world oriented as well, and fails to take into account the fact that because of the interlinked nature of the world economic system, these systems of exploitation make the crude marxist factory line worker alienation and the physical degradation of miners and farmers extremely relevant to anyone in the first world who, despite being privileged and no longer being harmed by these forms of labor due to their privileged position, has something resembling an awareness of the world and a conscience.  the asking alone of these questions betrays the nature of the asker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, auxien said:

okay so like, why don't more people live in these communities like this? or at least proponents of this lifestyle/governmental style, why aren't they all living there? shouldn't these communities be sought after if those in them are living happier and fuller lives?

not sure if you're being sarcastic(?) people live in many kinds of communities, or they just live their lives according to their own values in their own way, "silently", without forming a community, without promoting,.... people identify themselves by their immediate surroundings and ways of life, and are quite dismissive, if not hostile, to anything that challenges their ways, unfortunately. that is a common trait to all disparate schools of thought. so each remain in their own "island", or peering at each other over the protective walls. this fact serves well to those who want to keep the current system in place. it's a powerful tool of manipulation.

i believe we (as a human race, if you will) are well past the ability to steer this huge ship into any kind of meaningful way. in this i'm quite pessimistic. communism is so tainted by history, malpractice, and so skewed through all sorts of propaganda that nobody really knows what it is, how to implement it, if it should be implemented, or if it ever existed. and judging how Inquisition-like are opponents to communism, I'd say their stance is nearer self-interest and repression than a will to form an inclusive (or should i say effective?) system whatever it might be (not necessarily communism or capitalism). so if i'm critical of capitalism, i'm a proponent of communism or vice versa? why do we have to evaluate things in these extremes? isn't there a way to pick good stuff from both theories and find a better solution? learn from mistakes? isn't this a common practice in all other fields of academia? the so-vaunted scientific theory? i believe this would indeed be the case if it wasn't for the wealth power centers that will cling to their power with whatever means necessary. it's quite medieval, "dark-agey" actually.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, cichlisuite said:

not sure if you're being sarcastic(?) people live in many kinds of communities, or they just live their lives according to their own values in their own way, "silently", without forming a community, without promoting,.... people identify themselves by their immediate surroundings and ways of life, and are quite dismissive, if not hostile, to anything that challenges their ways, unfortunately. that is a common trait to all disparate schools of thought. so each remain in their own "island", or peering at each other over the protective walls. this fact serves well to those who want to keep the current system in place. it's a powerful tool of manipulation.

i believe we (as a human race, if you will) are well past the ability to steer this huge ship into any kind of meaningful way. in this i'm quite pessimistic. communism is so tainted by history, malpractice, and so skewed through all sorts of propaganda that nobody really knows what it is, how to implement it, if it should be implemented, or if it ever existed. and judging how Inquisition-like are opponents to communism, I'd say their stance is nearer self-interest and repression than a will to form an inclusive (or should i say effective?) system whatever it might be (not necessarily communism or capitalism). so if i'm critical of capitalism, i'm a proponent of communism or vice versa? why do we have to evaluate things in these extremes? isn't there a way to pick good stuff from both theories and find a better solution? learn from mistakes? isn't this a common practice in all other fields of academia? the so-vaunted scientific theory? i believe this would indeed be the case if it wasn't for the wealth power centers that will cling to their power with whatever means necessary. it's quite medieval, "dark-agey" actually.

forming communes is not useful for achieving communism by itself, though they can be a component of communism.  advocating for the forming of communes is more a quality of communalism than communism and has little revolutionary potential for the exact reasons you laid out.  communists advocate harshly for communism because of the urgency facing the global proletariat.

what someone has to gain by proposing communism depends on their economic position.  likely everyone in the first world would sacrifice some things they consider luxuries in exchange for the freedom of the third world laborers.  third world people advocating communism have everything to gain.  the bourgeoisie have everything to lose, that is on purpose since what they have is by definition at the expense of others.  there is nothing wrong with advocating systems for personal gain, community gain, and collective human gain.  that's the entire point.  it would be counterproductive if everyone was advocating selflessly, it has to be selfish or it won't align with human needs.  i have my personal reasons for communism and others have theirs.  for most people in the world it means enhanced safety and access to food/water/shelter/housing/transportation/education/healthcare/self-actualization.

picking the good stuff and ignoring the bad stuff is the point of marxism.  this is why countries like china using capitalism are still marxist because it is done with the goal of achieving socialism and communism.  but when most people propose this they just mean "let's settle with tepid social democratic reform".  no, communists want revolutionary change because this is a struggle against the bourgeoisie, it's not a battle of ideas, we know it will work if they let us, the challenge is making it happen and defending it against the bourgeoisie.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

alienation exists inherent to capitalism itself because the worker is alienated from the product of their labor, and this does NOT just mean surplus value.  it means the products of their labor form the capital which exists in rough quote "outside and in opposition to the worker" in other words this capital becomes a constituent part in the class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie since the capital enhances the power of the bourgeoisie to summon more proletariat to work through enabling them to pay wages, and giving them literal material powers such as hiring servants, security guards, and using advanced technologies to track and oppress the workers, in modern times often through the state itself as private contractors enhance state power to oppress workers movements, seen throughout recent history very starkly and especially in foreign actions of capitalist nations

does this argument still hold true for very small business, say a worker or two or three, building, designing, marketing, and selling a product of their own? a cabinetmaker shop, say, or whatever really. where is the alienation happening if these workers are custom designing, building, and say even installing, the product? honest question.

2 hours ago, cichlisuite said:

not sure if you're being sarcastic(?) people live in many kinds of communities, or they just live their lives according to their own values in their own way, "silently", without forming a community, without promoting,.... people identify themselves by their immediate surroundings and ways of life, and are quite dismissive, if not hostile, to anything that challenges their ways, unfortunately. that is a common trait to all disparate schools of thought. so each remain in their own "island", or peering at each other over the protective walls. this fact serves well to those who want to keep the current system in place. it's a powerful tool of manipulation.

i'm not being sarcastic in the least (for once!)... some people are surely dismissive of alternative styles of life, but many in my experience are pretty respectful of others choice to live their own lives in whatever way works, even if it's not for them. at least on an individual level: on a societal level there are groupthink kneejerk reactions to countercultures....to your point, this tends to entrench whatever ways are the 'norm' in that area/group/culture. my initial question is partly trying to prod a bit at when does it change from 'individual respect of others ways' to 'that group represents a threat'  ...because i think by focusing on what can work (individual, personal respect for a communal/alternative existence) there might be some ways to move the greater society that is holding the 'norms'

note that of course what i'm saying there^ is exactly contrary to

2 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

forming communes is not useful for achieving communism by itself, though they can be a component of communism.  advocating for the forming of communes is more a quality of communalism than communism and has little revolutionary potential for the exact reasons you laid out.  communists advocate harshly for communism because of the urgency facing the global proletariat.

but, further: 

2 hours ago, cichlisuite said:

i believe we (as a human race, if you will) are well past the ability to steer this huge ship into any kind of meaningful way. in this i'm quite pessimistic. communism is so tainted by history, malpractice, and so skewed through all sorts of propaganda that nobody really knows what it is, how to implement it, if it should be implemented, or if it ever existed. and judging how Inquisition-like are opponents to communism, I'd say their stance is nearer self-interest and repression than a will to form an inclusive (or should i say effective?) system whatever it might be (not necessarily communism or capitalism). so if i'm critical of capitalism, i'm a proponent of communism or vice versa? why do we have to evaluate things in these extremes? isn't there a way to pick good stuff from both theories and find a better solution? learn from mistakes? isn't this a common practice in all other fields of academia? the so-vaunted scientific theory? i believe this would indeed be the case if it wasn't for the wealth power centers that will cling to their power with whatever means necessary. it's quite medieval, "dark-agey" actually.

well you can steer a huge ship, but you have to do it carefully and slowly, but with intention. ....i'm not sure we have the intention down, because there is no one person steering: we're all tugging one way or the other and it's just barely budging one way or the other. 

i'm also quite pessimistic. i agree that the ideas of communism (in as little as i understand them, admittedly) seem to be eternally tainted in the West....and in practice, your implementation points also hold. i think the reality we see happening worldwide is exactly what you're questioning there in the end...picking bits of this and that and using what works, experimenting in places, learning from mistakes, etc. in America, capitalism is 'working' in that it's afforded many leaps in safety and technological innovation (this relates to longevity, etc.), but it's also not 'working' because we've obviously got massive issues directly related to income inequality which perpetuates/conjoins with societal oppressions of many groups and class structure. the current 'wealth power centers' are very medieval in that sense, agreed. 

another point i was getting at by questioning the status of communes/communal-style living in some places is that it seems to be already in a state of existence, to some degree or another...and yet we don't see many people wanting to live that way. the societal 'othering' of those ways of life, even when they're damning, does not try to snuff them out of existence generally (i could be wrong here?) and so i'm questioning why they are not more appealing to anyone, particularly those who promote and rave on IDM forums about them constantly. i'm being a touch snarky here but i'm mostly serious: if communism is great, why don't you (anyone reading this who praises communism/Marxism/etc) live in a commune? i've known at least one person who just up and decided to move to a commune and they stayed there for at least some years after joining. seemed like they enjoyed themselves too....

but that didn't make me want to go live in a commune either, seeing that even if only briefly on social media updates. being intimately connected to work is great, agreed. gaining pride and personal livelihood and worth from sharing skills and knowledge with others? great. seriously. but so is an advanced education, access to opportunities no commune of any size could ever really offer....i think for a more 'modern' society the 'simple' ways of life MUST be abandoned, and the ideas of Marx are irrelevant, insofar as they're actionable on a 'modern' level. the ideas there are relevant in that they need to be readapted with, oh say the last 150 years of advancement worked into them. but for now simply allowing citizens of the world a choice of lifestyle, assuming they've got some basic ability to seek out and join these communities they feel they fit with, is perhaps best. (which is luckily possible for at least some of the world right now, to some extent or another)....so i guess i'm optimistic in this way?

may've lost the track a bit there, but anyway. 

Edited by auxien
words r hard
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, usagi said:

I wish there was a way to make this thread and the unintellectual thread crash into each other resulting in posts from both mixed together out of order.

Start a new thread and just copy and paste the responses in as they are posted. Surely this would be a fulfilling use of your time 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...