Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Marxism

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 6:49:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The essence of Marxian philosophy is this: We are right because we are the spokesmen of the rising proletarian class. Discursive reasoning cannot invalidate our teachings, for they are inspired by the supreme power that determines the destiny of mankind. Our adversaries are wrong because they lack the intuition that guides our minds. It is, of course, not their fault that on account of their class affiliation they are not equipped with the genuine proletarian logic and are blinded by ideologies. The unfathomable decrees of history that have elected us have doomed them. The future is ours.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 8:11:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 6:49:16 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
The essence of Marxian philosophy is this: We are right because we are the spokesmen of the rising proletarian class. Discursive reasoning cannot invalidate our teachings, for they are inspired by the supreme power that determines the destiny of mankind. Our adversaries are wrong because they lack the intuition that guides our minds. It is, of course, not their fault that on account of their class affiliation they are not equipped with the genuine proletarian logic and are blinded by ideologies. The unfathomable decrees of history that have elected us have doomed them. The future is ours.

What exactly do you disagree with? Historical dialectism or the value system associated with the proletariats?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 7:57:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 6:49:16 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
The essence of Marxian philosophy is this: We are right because we are the spokesmen of the rising proletarian class. Discursive reasoning cannot invalidate our teachings, for they are inspired by the supreme power that determines the destiny of mankind. Our adversaries are wrong because they lack the intuition that guides our minds. It is, of course, not their fault that on account of their class affiliation they are not equipped with the genuine proletarian logic and are blinded by ideologies. The unfathomable decrees of history that have elected us have doomed them. The future is ours.

Mind if I plagiarize this to antagonize some commies on another forum?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 8:20:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Was that serious?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 3:06:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 8:20:09 PM, Noumena wrote:
Was that serious?

Yes. Why not? It's not like it's a freaking essay or something.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 3:09:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I already know the communists, and trust me, they aren't out to discuss Marxism rationally or debate people (one of them is a pro-Soviet historical revisionist, the other is a flat-out Stalinist who supports North Korea). Neither can construct a coherent case for their views.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Aned
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 1:01:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Remember that the capitalism that Marx critized was not the one we have in the U.S. nowadays. Keep in mind all the discrimination and abuse that were taking place in the 1800s in Europe and in the U.S. against workers, women, and blacks. Actually, Marxim has helped reshaped capitalism into a more humane system. All social programs the American people currently enjoy did not exist at that time as well as most benefits U.S. workers currently enjoy.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 1:56:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 3:06:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:20:09 PM, Noumena wrote:
Was that serious?

Yes. Why not? It's not like it's a freaking essay or something.

I was confused as to why someone was criticizing one view as not open to discussion and predicated primarily on psycho-analysis of their opponents while simultaneously doing the same thing.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:51:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 1:56:47 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:06:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:20:09 PM, Noumena wrote:
Was that serious?

Yes. Why not? It's not like it's a freaking essay or something.

I was confused as to why someone was criticizing one view as not open to discussion and predicated primarily on psycho-analysis of their opponents while simultaneously doing the same thing.

Hey, I don't agree with this. It'll just infuriate them, the same way they infuriate me by not making coherent arguments for their beliefs. Believe me, I've tried to engage them.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 9:04:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 8:51:16 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/22/2013 1:56:47 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:06:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:20:09 PM, Noumena wrote:
Was that serious?

Yes. Why not? It's not like it's a freaking essay or something.

I was confused as to why someone was criticizing one view as not open to discussion and predicated primarily on psycho-analysis of their opponents while simultaneously doing the same thing.

Hey, I don't agree with this. It'll just infuriate them, the same way they infuriate me by not making coherent arguments for their beliefs. Believe me, I've tried to engage them.

>Meets people who don't argue coherently who identify as Marxist.
>Hurr durr Marxism is so dumb. Those three Marxists I met are derps.

While we're on the subject though I'd be open to a debate on some specific aspect of Marxism. I'm in some level of agreement with a host of Marxist insights. I'd debate the relevancy of the scale of economic predication in society (base -> superstructure type sh1t), defend Marxism against empiro-based refutations (i.e., based on the Soviet experiment in "Communism"), defend historical determinism against the charge of unfalsifiability (qua Popper), etc.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:08:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 9:04:35 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:51:16 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/22/2013 1:56:47 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:06:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:20:09 PM, Noumena wrote:
Was that serious?

Yes. Why not? It's not like it's a freaking essay or something.

I was confused as to why someone was criticizing one view as not open to discussion and predicated primarily on psycho-analysis of their opponents while simultaneously doing the same thing.

Hey, I don't agree with this. It'll just infuriate them, the same way they infuriate me by not making coherent arguments for their beliefs. Believe me, I've tried to engage them.

>Meets people who don't argue coherently who identify as Marxist.
>Hurr durr Marxism is so dumb. Those three Marxists I met are derps.

I don't recall making a statement about Marxism, merely about the two jokers who expound it, but whatever floats your boat (I'm not a libertarian anymore, remember?).

While we're on the subject though I'd be open to a debate on some specific aspect of Marxism. I'm in some level of agreement with a host of Marxist insights. I'd debate the relevancy of the scale of economic predication in society (base -> superstructure type sh1t), defend Marxism against empiro-based refutations (i.e., based on the Soviet experiment in "Communism"), defend historical determinism against the charge of unfalsifiability (qua Popper), etc.

The third one sounds interesting. Gimme something substantive. I'm not in the mood for a really long, time-consuming debate, though, so warn me if that's what you have in mind.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:15:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:08:44 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:04:35 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:51:16 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/22/2013 1:56:47 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:06:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:20:09 PM, Noumena wrote:
Was that serious?

Yes. Why not? It's not like it's a freaking essay or something.

I was confused as to why someone was criticizing one view as not open to discussion and predicated primarily on psycho-analysis of their opponents while simultaneously doing the same thing.

Hey, I don't agree with this. It'll just infuriate them, the same way they infuriate me by not making coherent arguments for their beliefs. Believe me, I've tried to engage them.

>Meets people who don't argue coherently who identify as Marxist.
>Hurr durr Marxism is so dumb. Those three Marxists I met are derps.

I don't recall making a statement about Marxism, merely about the two jokers who expound it, but whatever floats your boat (I'm not a libertarian anymore, remember?).

You seemed to be defending the psycho-analytic reductionism presented above to a point farther than just making fun of two dudes. But more to the point I'd love to meet these fellows. Marxists are so hard to find these days.

While we're on the subject though I'd be open to a debate on some specific aspect of Marxism. I'm in some level of agreement with a host of Marxist insights. I'd debate the relevancy of the scale of economic predication in society (base -> superstructure type sh1t), defend Marxism against empiro-based refutations (i.e., based on the Soviet experiment in "Communism"), defend historical determinism against the charge of unfalsifiability (qua Popper), etc.

The third one sounds interesting. Gimme something substantive. I'm not in the mood for a really long, time-consuming debate, though, so warn me if that's what you have in mind.

Here's one I did with CiRrK a while ago: http://www.debate.org... It should give you a feel for what I'd bring, though the arguments I used I think are a little sketchy. Maybe some revision is in order but this is kind of close to what I had in mind.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:25:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:15:13 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:08:44 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:04:35 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:51:16 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/22/2013 1:56:47 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:06:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:20:09 PM, Noumena wrote:
Was that serious?

Yes. Why not? It's not like it's a freaking essay or something.

I was confused as to why someone was criticizing one view as not open to discussion and predicated primarily on psycho-analysis of their opponents while simultaneously doing the same thing.

Hey, I don't agree with this. It'll just infuriate them, the same way they infuriate me by not making coherent arguments for their beliefs. Believe me, I've tried to engage them.

>Meets people who don't argue coherently who identify as Marxist.
>Hurr durr Marxism is so dumb. Those three Marxists I met are derps.

I don't recall making a statement about Marxism, merely about the two jokers who expound it, but whatever floats your boat (I'm not a libertarian anymore, remember?).

You seemed to be defending the psycho-analytic reductionism presented above to a point farther than just making fun of two dudes. But more to the point I'd love to meet these fellows. Marxists are so hard to find these days.

Here: http://forums.civfanatics.com...

Cheezy the Wiz and ReindeerThistle are the idiots. Traitorfish actually is incredibly smart and doesn't engage in any sort of historical or political revisionism.

While we're on the subject though I'd be open to a debate on some specific aspect of Marxism. I'm in some level of agreement with a host of Marxist insights. I'd debate the relevancy of the scale of economic predication in society (base -> superstructure type sh1t), defend Marxism against empiro-based refutations (i.e., based on the Soviet experiment in "Communism"), defend historical determinism against the charge of unfalsifiability (qua Popper), etc.

The third one sounds interesting. Gimme something substantive. I'm not in the mood for a really long, time-consuming debate, though, so warn me if that's what you have in mind.

Here's one I did with CiRrK a while ago: http://www.debate.org... It should give you a feel for what I'd bring, though the arguments I used I think are a little sketchy. Maybe some revision is in order but this is kind of close to what I had in mind.

Reading.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:29:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:25:07 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:15:13 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:08:44 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:04:35 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:51:16 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/22/2013 1:56:47 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:06:38 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:20:09 PM, Noumena wrote:
Was that serious?

Yes. Why not? It's not like it's a freaking essay or something.

I was confused as to why someone was criticizing one view as not open to discussion and predicated primarily on psycho-analysis of their opponents while simultaneously doing the same thing.

Hey, I don't agree with this. It'll just infuriate them, the same way they infuriate me by not making coherent arguments for their beliefs. Believe me, I've tried to engage them.

>Meets people who don't argue coherently who identify as Marxist.
>Hurr durr Marxism is so dumb. Those three Marxists I met are derps.

I don't recall making a statement about Marxism, merely about the two jokers who expound it, but whatever floats your boat (I'm not a libertarian anymore, remember?).

You seemed to be defending the psycho-analytic reductionism presented above to a point farther than just making fun of two dudes. But more to the point I'd love to meet these fellows. Marxists are so hard to find these days.

Here: http://forums.civfanatics.com...

Cheezy the Wiz and ReindeerThistle are the idiots. Traitorfish actually is incredibly smart and doesn't engage in any sort of historical or political revisionism.

While we're on the subject though I'd be open to a debate on some specific aspect of Marxism. I'm in some level of agreement with a host of Marxist insights. I'd debate the relevancy of the scale of economic predication in society (base -> superstructure type sh1t), defend Marxism against empiro-based refutations (i.e., based on the Soviet experiment in "Communism"), defend historical determinism against the charge of unfalsifiability (qua Popper), etc.

The third one sounds interesting. Gimme something substantive. I'm not in the mood for a really long, time-consuming debate, though, so warn me if that's what you have in mind.

Here's one I did with CiRrK a while ago: http://www.debate.org... It should give you a feel for what I'd bring, though the arguments I used I think are a little sketchy. Maybe some revision is in order but this is kind of close to what I had in mind.

Reading.

OK, no, I'd have to read a lot more of the relevant literature before doing something like that.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:30:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:25:07 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:15:13 PM, Noumena wrote:

Here's one I did with CiRrK a while ago: http://www.debate.org... It should give you a feel for what I'd bring, though the arguments I used I think are a little sketchy. Maybe some revision is in order but this is kind of close to what I had in mind.

Reading.

I'm slightly embarrassed by it actually. At that point both my understanding of historical materialism and Popperian epistemology was a little off. They still might be but I've definitely put more time into understanding both the concepts and their relation to one another.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:32:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:29:34 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:

OK, no, I'd have to read a lot more of the relevant literature before doing something like that.

http://www.myfacewhen.net...
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:37:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:32:38 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:29:34 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:

OK, no, I'd have to read a lot more of the relevant literature before doing something like that.

http://www.myfacewhen.net...

Could you, uh, recommend anything?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 6:55:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:37:53 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:32:38 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:29:34 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:

OK, no, I'd have to read a lot more of the relevant literature before doing something like that.

http://www.myfacewhen.net...

Could you, uh, recommend anything?

Popper's epistemology: http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Historical materialism: http://plato.stanford.edu... (sec 4)

That is of course presuming you don't want full-length book recommendations?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 12:54:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 6:55:43 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:37:53 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:32:38 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:29:34 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:

OK, no, I'd have to read a lot more of the relevant literature before doing something like that.

http://www.myfacewhen.net...

Could you, uh, recommend anything?

Popper's epistemology: http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Historical materialism: http://plato.stanford.edu... (sec 4)

That is of course presuming you don't want full-length book recommendations?

That'll be fine for a start.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."