Time to Rid the World of Marxists and neo-Conservatives

[Krazykat]

Jacob, so you agree that need is largely created by producers now, since you say I have still not derailed the means of production argument, is that the only argument I have not derailed!?

I think where your problems largely lie are that you are mistaken in what Marxism is. Communists or Marxists blame the strucutre of society for the woes of mankind, not the industralists. It is the means of production that are at fault per se but rather the way society is strucutured i.e Capitalism and the way the ruling class own the means of production. It is postmodernists (in a general sense) who blame industralists for the woes of mankind to a great extent.

The proletariat does not live under the same conditions at all under communism. You must be getting your ideas from the `supposed` communist societies I mentioned before.

Communism would ensue an equality of power and resources.

 

[Jacob Creutzfeldt]

Jacob, so you agree that need is largely created by producers now, since you say I have still not derailed the means of production argument, is that the only argument I have not derailed!?

This is a fundamental necessity of communism, to control means of production. I never agreed that need is created by producers, I stated the communists never produce anything.

I think where your problems largely lie are that you are mistaken in what Marxism is. Communists or Marxists blame the strucutre of society for the woes of mankind, not the industralists. It is the means of production that are at fault per se but rather the way society is strucutured i.e Capitalism and the way the ruling class own the means of production. It is postmodernists (in a general sense) who blame industralists for the woes of mankind to a great extent.

What don't I understand about Marxism? This is the same meaningless line I hear time and again. There is nothing complicated about Marxism. Private property is abolished. Traditional family is abolished. Who owns everything? The state. Who dictates the distribution of wealth? The state.

The proletariat does not live under the same conditions at all under communism. You must be getting your ideas from the `supposed` communist societies I mentioned before.

So Castro, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were not attempting to create communist states? What were they doing then? If the failing must be with those individuals, then the same can be said of capitalism. The system functions perfectly except for dissenters.

Communism would ensue an equality of power and resources.

We agree then that communism caters to the lowest common denominator. After all in this system an idiot in a wheelchair with a helmet can play king for the week, as he is as fit to administrate as anyone else.

 

[Krazykat]

Er firstly Jacob, could you be more careful in qutoing me, since you have put your own arguments in with my quote.

Now, Jacob you have quoted something which is wrong it is beyond belief. Private property abolished, yes, traditional family abolished - well pretty much, but too not necessarily as you see it and too complicated to discuss here.

Who owns everything, the state. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. In communism as proposed by Marx the state does not exist. `True` communism I repeat has no state. So clearly you argument stem from a completly false beginning.

Also you wheelchair comment is pretty offensive, and there is no king is communism. Out of curiousity from is your background to understanding Marxism, I have a feeling it is an economic one.

 

[Krazykat]

gotta bump it

 

[atlantabiolab]

We agree then that communism caters to the lowest common denominator. After all in this system an idiot in a wheelchair with a helmet can play king for the week, as he is as fit to administrate as anyone else.

Is it just me, Jacob, or do you read in the ridiculous nature of ardent Marxists? There is no practical application of their system, since it is logically impossible, and all they can do is spew the fantasy ideas of "equality for everyone". Ask one to elaborate on how their system would be instituted into a country without force and all they can do is refer to Marx's fictional system.

 

[atlantabiolab]

I refer you back to my previous quotes,

`man makes his own history`.

`It is no history which uses men as a means of acheiving - as if it were an individual person - its own ends. History is nothing but the activity of men in pursuit of their ends`.

Yes communism is seen an inevitable, which is cannot be proved nor deemed a scientific notion.

The above quotes do not remove the determinism inherent in Marx and Engels ideology, many socialists conceed this.

Socialism does not give primacy to the collective. A dictatorship of the people, and a residing concept of each individual.

As you quoted

"To each according to his ability, for each according to his needs"

does this stress the collective, over the individual?

This is but a one line, it does not deny the idea of communism. Can I become a "bourgeousie" in true Communism, if I so desire? If not then I am not "free", but then again Marxism denies natural rights and claims that these are social constructs.

Your notion that private property is intrinsic to man is ethnocentric, and unfounded.

Thank you for proving my point. A true Marxist, being one who rejects logical reason, and only accepts scientific rationalism, would make this argument. Thus Marx's reasoning for the dissolving of the State in the final stage of Communism: states have not always existed, so they don't need to be. The negative disproves the idea.

By your rationale, and the failings of Communists, rights do not exist for you cannot scientifically prove them, thus man is only granted priviledges by the state. Slavery existed, thus "freedom" is not a right of man, for we can show that man has been not free.

If I do not have any scientifically provable "rights", and as you stated, they are "ethnocentric" concepts, then what would prevent others from enslaving me? -removing all of my possessions? -anything that could be done using force?

To think that the consumer is at the heart of a free market, is so ridicolously, I am sorry to say ignorant is beyond belief. Where do consumer`s needs come from? Whilst not a one process by any means, they come a great deal from the producers. People are made to want things, they are almost brainwashed into doing so. I suggest you read about the media and the political economy. The everyday layman is quite aware about how say pop stars are shoved down their throats, almost until they are forced to like them. This is in effect a forcing of need.

Thanks again for proving my original arguments. True Marxists do not believe in the abilities of man, his capacity to think, to reason, to choose. Your retarded statement that producers "force a need" is pathetic. If producers "force" this need onto the public, then why do you not accept it? Why do I not buy into every fad? Why do I prefer generic products to save money and not buy the products of the mega-corporation, who spends millions on "brainwashing" me?

The everyday lay man, is no different than you and I, he simply chooses not to think. He has every ability to reject what he sees, if he so chooses, and to accept it, if he so chooses. This is freedom, this is his right. To a Marxist, his freedom to choose what you despise is specious proof that he is brainwashed. It is not that he always chooses it, but that he chooses what you hate.

In a communist society it is the needs of the consumer (a redundant concept in a communism) would create needs, I refer you to your quote again!

"To each according to his ability, for each according to his needs"

Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, and other economists destroyed the concept of a "true socialist" society, and demonstrate why it is logically impossible. If you wish to read why read their works.

Consumers do not create their needs, entreprenuers create their products and the consumer decides if they meet their needs. In a free market, it is only one man who conceives a product to produce, and not a simultaneous "intuition" of this product by the masses. How would a communist society calculate the benefit of producing say a Hummer? Of course we know that such luxuries are not conceivable in Communist societies, but for instance, how would the "proletariat" determine effectively that this product was desirable to devote resources to manufacture?

No matter, for it is not wants that you get in a Communist society, but needs: those things that keep you alive, nothing more, for resources could not be squandered for projects of desire.

Communism is about an equality of power and resources.

Sure. In fantasy land.

I can only think that you are seeing Marxism as the so called `communist` societies that the world has seen. USSR, Cuba etc.

Those are the only manifestations of Communism, for it is an irrational idea which won't exist.

 

[Krazykat]

atlanta are you jabob?

anyway, well I will make a brief point and that is that consumers do not merely accept what producers make. Nor do they simply choose from what is provided. The process is complex and sophisicated, seemingly beyond your comprehension. I again advise reading about the media, political economy, different views of the relationship of the media and society and so forth. Basic stuff, but you simply don`t know any of it. I am not saying that humans are irational or anything like that, and Marx certainly didn`t say it either.

Its pointless writing to you jacob, atlanta whoever you are since you are completly bought into the notion of a free market. Dismissing all sorts of complexities of how this works. Please, please, please read about this. It may well make you think further than you are at the moment. I stressed it is not a one way process, but rather two and fro from producer to consumer and vice-versa. Anyone who thinks that the consumer is the sole driving force, or indeed that the producer are beyond ignorant on the matter. Sorry but this is true.

Let me pose this to you, where do needs come from? Answer a mixture of producer created need and consumer created need and the complex interplay between them. My god, this is the basics!

What on earth is your background in sociology!!!?!?!??!

 

[atlantabiolab]

atlanta are you jabob?

anyway, well I will make a brief point and that is that consumers do not merely accept what producers make. Nor do they simply choose from what is provided. The process is complex and sophisicated, seemingly beyond your comprehension.

No. Only those who thrive on "word-fetishism" to describe a very basic idea of production and consumption, like to think it is complex. Something Marx enjoyed with his use of esoteric words such as "exploitation" and "surplus value".

I again advise reading about the media, political economy, different views of the relationship of the media and society and so forth. Basic stuff, but you simply don`t know any of it. I am not saying that humans are irational or anything like that, and Marx certainly didn`t say it either.

Do you mean I don't know anything about this topic, or that I don't agree with your ideology that man is a pawn of the producers and that his consumption is controlled by the mega-industrialist, as opposed to his own personal desires?

I have read Marx and Engels.

Its pointless writing to you jacob, atlanta whoever you are since you are completly bought into the notion of a free market. Dismissing all sorts of complexities of how this works. Please, please, please read about this. It may well make you think further than you are at the moment. I stressed it is not a one way process, but rather two and fro from producer to consumer and vice-versa. Anyone who thinks that the consumer is the sole driving force, or indeed that the producer are beyond ignorant on the matter. Sorry but this is true.

Well since you never elaborate on your concepts beyond their Utopic end result, then, no, you will sway me little.

Let me pose this to you, where do needs come from? Answer a mixture of producer created need and consumer created need and the complex interplay between them. My god, this is the basics!

I never stated that there are not things of need that all men require, which producers provide, but in an economy a large part of consumption is in items that are not essential and purely personal. How many clothing stores are there in the US? Why do we "need" every combination of colors and styles, when the sole purpose is to clothe the person? We don't. We WANT them. A designer has an idea, creates it and then attempts to sell it to the public. He/she will succeed or fail based on the acceptance of his/her product by the public. Those we want, survive, those we don't, fail.

In a planned community, where resources are earmarked for planned products, this will not occur, because resources will not be allocated to those things not deemed "necessary". Not to mention the problem of mis-allocation of resources, such as happened in Communist Russia and China, which in the case of China, caused the death of hundreds of thousands by starvation.

 

[Krazykat]

Ok, I can see now that you are not well read at all. I am honestly not trying to belittle you too much, but you are not.

Try reading about the poltical economy, Adorno, Althusser and start from there.

Do you really think products are simply made and then chosen by the consumer?

Look, I never said that people are passive receptors having needs created in a simple way. As I have stated before, it is a complex two way process.

Quote

I never stated that there are not things of need that all men require, which producers provide, but in an economy a large part of consumption is in items that are not essential and purely personal. How many clothing stores are there in the US? Why do we "need" every combination of colors and styles, when the sole purpose is to clothe the person? We don't. We WANT them. A designer has an idea, creates it and then attempts to sell it to the public. He/she will succeed or fail based on the acceptance of his/her product by the public. Those we want, survive, those we don't, fail.



Tell me why do people then choose what they want? Where do these needs come from because they certainly aren`t born with them. Answer, a complex web of socialisation, and environmental influences of which the media itself helps to create needs and wants.

The layman is aware that Justin Timberlake and Chrstina Agulieria are shoved down their throats, and almost made to like them. Children are an easy example they sap up commercialism, taking on the current fad.

Your notion of a simple lets see what the public wants, make something, try and sell it, it people want it great, if not fail.
What is advertising about, not just showing a product but selling an image, creating yes a `need` or `want`.

Products can be cool, and why they are cool is a tremdously complex phenomenon. Which is in part created. Don`t you see where your arguments fail.

Its seems pointless to try to convince you further, but out of interest is reading Marx and Engels really the limit of your understanding of Marxism and sociology more generaly?

Please, please re-read my previous posts and your will see your replies do not make sense even by your rational, as I have answered your questions. I have carefully read yours, I understand your position. If you like you can email me at [email protected]. As I am not always on this board.

 

[musclebrains]

Gross over-simplification and reduction of Marx to economism. Marxism is also a very useful tool of cultural analysis and, in fact, Marxism (including Engels) begins with a critique of ideologies and demonstrates how culture is constructed from ideas, ideologies, that legitimate the domination (economic welfare) of the ruling class and perpetuate existing institutions.

Thus the feudal lords valued piety and bravery. Capitalists value individualism, etc. Marx made the point these ideologies, since they follow rather than precede the ruling class' autonomy, attempt to naturalize existing culture and minimize the naturally inherent conflicts and complexities of human societies. What is naturalized becomes the basis of governing -- like competition and individualism. And because the ideologies become naturalized they are almost always called "common sense" -- we see that a lot here -- and basically function invisibly without much criticism.

As a lens of cultural analysis, Marxism -- despite its relative failures as an economic policy -- remains quite useful. Indeed, much lit crit has developed around it, including the work of Georg Lukacs, Bertolt Brecht, demonstrating how literary culture too replicates ideologies that reinforce the status quo. "The Dialectic of ENlightenment," can't recall the authors, is a brilliant Marxian-based analysis of the way media culture reinforces the ideologies of the ruling class. And it was written before 1950 -- already exposing the myth of the "liberal media."

Marxism -- like the other isms of cultural analysis, including feminism, queer theory, psychoanalysis, deconstuction -- is useful but not in any dogmatic way. Indeed, the idea that Marxism in its more contemporary form necessarily implies economism (economic determinism), or even humanism in its classic sense, is passe and has been since Althusser's rejection of the Hegelian essentialism underlying original Marxist theory.