Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Time to Rid the World of Marxists and neo-Conservatives
- Thread starter 2Thick
- Start date
atlantabiolab
New member
Krazykat said:
Again, are you saying that I am not well read at all, or simply not in Marxist ideology? From your writings it seems obvious that you have read little aside from Marxist authors. Have you read anything from pro-capitalist authors, say Rothbard, Friedman, von Mises, Weber, Hayek, any author who does not believe that man is an automaton who is programmed by the "bourgeousie"?
Thank you for the references, I will look further into them. Now how about simply elaborating on these concepts that are so complex that only the few intelligent Marxist authors and yourself can understand? They must be of the ruling elite, for as we know, all social standards and thought mystically derive from only this class.
Then elaborate. Your skirting the issue and simply responding that the concept is so complex is a great example of a weak ideology.
It comes from the individual, who is a combination of a multitude of factors, but he is the controller of his actions, unlike the idea that you are insinuating which is that he is a drone programmed by the "powers that be" with no ability to decipher reality from fantasy. This is the basis of the scientific rationalism that Marx espouses: statistical correlation. Simply because I can show a correlation between two events does not equate causation. Marxists use correlations to prove their point, denying the idea of causation.
Coca Cola sells more Coke than other competitors. Coke spends more in advertising than other companies. Therefore man buys Coke because he has been "programmed" by the mega-industrialist company through mind control and the creation of "needs".
Nowhere in the whole equation does the autonomy of man and his rational capability enter into the equation, because to you man is not a thinking creature, but a pawn of outside influences. Man obviously did not "choose" to buy Coke because he prefers it, for look at all the statistical evidence we can show, he obviously has been forced, without his knowledge, to be a Coke consumer.
psychedout
New member
Sushi X said:
No one will save the world.
Based on Einstiens chaos theory, we are all evolving towards chaos..... nice outlook eh??
Seriously though, humans are destruction in there nature... I don't think any one group can save the world.
What can I say atlanta? I am a bit confused here because first I was discussing with Jacob, and now Atlanta but anyway.
I have read quite a bit more than Marx, and fellow Marxists. I am not denying the autonomy of man.
But are you saying that the idea of companies, and the media coercing people in buying products, beleving ideas and so forth is completly false?
By the way, the idea that Weber is strictly pro capitalist is false.
I can see you are a supporter of new right ish thinking. And you imagine that capitalism are all hunky dory and mainstream norms and values are there because people choose them. Do you support the idea that the nuclear family is natural?
Let me give you one extreme rather crass example of what I am talking about,
Silvio Berlusconi who owns Finevest, has a virtual monopoloy of Italian tv was elected prime minister after his barrage of campagining on his own television - what a suprise!
Products provide idenity, people think that by purchasing a product it is giving them some particular worth. Or a product may be cool or sophisicated, of course in reality these notions are abstract and yes created! Why is one brand seen as good. This is turn creates certain needs. At least you don`t dispute that this sort of thing occurs with children, do you really think adults just switch off to this influence?
I have read quite a bit more than Marx, and fellow Marxists. I am not denying the autonomy of man.
But are you saying that the idea of companies, and the media coercing people in buying products, beleving ideas and so forth is completly false?
By the way, the idea that Weber is strictly pro capitalist is false.
I can see you are a supporter of new right ish thinking. And you imagine that capitalism are all hunky dory and mainstream norms and values are there because people choose them. Do you support the idea that the nuclear family is natural?
Let me give you one extreme rather crass example of what I am talking about,
Silvio Berlusconi who owns Finevest, has a virtual monopoloy of Italian tv was elected prime minister after his barrage of campagining on his own television - what a suprise!
Products provide idenity, people think that by purchasing a product it is giving them some particular worth. Or a product may be cool or sophisicated, of course in reality these notions are abstract and yes created! Why is one brand seen as good. This is turn creates certain needs. At least you don`t dispute that this sort of thing occurs with children, do you really think adults just switch off to this influence?
OK, let me give you another example.
A company, I think called MAC who produces make up products created a lipstick. They used Naomi Cambell to front the product and when this was established it was instantly sold out. The colour was not unique, the brand itself wasen`t particularly popular but by using the supermodel it created a need or want, call it what you will. It is not consumers simply choosing products that will prosper or fail.
A company, I think called MAC who produces make up products created a lipstick. They used Naomi Cambell to front the product and when this was established it was instantly sold out. The colour was not unique, the brand itself wasen`t particularly popular but by using the supermodel it created a need or want, call it what you will. It is not consumers simply choosing products that will prosper or fail.
atlantabiolab
New member
Krazykat said:
I did not know that Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke, Jefferson, Grotius, etc. were the "new right ish thinking".
As natural as the car. Anything that is created by man is natural, for man is of nature and it is in his nature to create. Simply because you can show me that some Bushmen in Africa don't have the same concept of family as Western society does not discount the family as a natural construct of human thought.
Poor choice of example. Italy, being a Socialist country, controls the media industry, and Rai television. Since I despise socialist control of industry, your analogy shows a problem with state domination of the means of production. But from reading about this issue, I see that Berlusconi is an advocate of tax cuts, which is always a popular issue, especially in the over taxed, socialist nations. So, you still have not proved your point, for you have failed to address a major point, which is human choice. Do you really believe that the people could not willfully choose this man, or are you so brainwashed in Marxism, that human choice is negligable in his actions? You continue to state that you don't deny human autonomy, yet you never consider it.
People choose it for many reasons, but they choose it willfully, not through mental coercion as you wish to believe. Your statements continue to expose your, and Marxists', ideology that those who don't think like you are "brainwashed" by the evil corporations, and you think that this pseudo-scientific crap of social correlations proves your ideas. You simply despise the idea that others don't agree with your anti-intellectual, -and Marx was a major anti-intellectual, -garbage.
People may act as stupid and unthinking as they wish. If they accept everything that comes from TV that is their right. Man is a rational being he can choose to think or not to think, this does not mean that man is simply a computer being programmed by the world and responds at the touch of a key. All of your arguments leave out the first variable, which is the individual, and simply looks at the stimulus.
bwood
Banned
atlantabiolab said:
i believe that most marxists overlook the power of the free market economy to stimulate research and development versus the marxist model...
it is quite simply the power of avarice (keeping up with the joneses) that drives creativity in coming up with new ideas and technologies to solve problems and increase all individuals' standard of living ...
marxism relies on ideology and nationalism to drive its technologic innovations and new ideas, and as such, falls behind...witness the race to the moon and how the U.S. crushed the soviet union in the cold war...
quite simply, do top notch scientists and researchers want corvettes or medals???
Atlanta I repeat for you, my last post.
OK, let me give you another example.
A company, I think called MAC who produces make up products created a lipstick. They used Naomi Cambell to front the product and when this was established it was instantly sold out. The colour was not unique, the brand itself wasen`t particularly popular but by using the supermodel it created a need or want, call it what you will. It is not consumers simply choosing products that will prosper or fail.
As for what you say about what is deemed natural. What I mean is in the Functionalist sense of the word, i.e natural as unviersal, ineveitable, functional and necessary. In other words the nuclear family is not natural in as much it is a man made creation and so more natural or less natural than any type of family. It is ineveitably the `right` form of family, nor the most functional or it is necessary. This is what I am talking about.
OK, let me give you another example.
A company, I think called MAC who produces make up products created a lipstick. They used Naomi Cambell to front the product and when this was established it was instantly sold out. The colour was not unique, the brand itself wasen`t particularly popular but by using the supermodel it created a need or want, call it what you will. It is not consumers simply choosing products that will prosper or fail.
As for what you say about what is deemed natural. What I mean is in the Functionalist sense of the word, i.e natural as unviersal, ineveitable, functional and necessary. In other words the nuclear family is not natural in as much it is a man made creation and so more natural or less natural than any type of family. It is ineveitably the `right` form of family, nor the most functional or it is necessary. This is what I am talking about.
Last edited:
plornive
New member
atlantabiolab and Krazykat -
It seems like you both would agree on this point:
Consumers' and producers' behaviors are determined by the decisions of consumers and producers, which are interdependent. Do you agree?
atlantabiolab -
It seems that by your definition of causality, I cannot cause you to like me by being likable. Instead, you might say that you could cause yourself to like me by choice. Is this right? I would consider myself a classical liberal for the most part, with some exceptions. I prefer to allow oblivious people to be somewhat manipulated, rather than disallow the forces that manipulate them. But this is a preference. In reality, people are to some extent caused to do things by outside forces, as well as individual decisions.
Krazykat -
I don't think there is any natural paradigm with which to look at consumer and producer behavior. I don't know enough about marxism (allthough I have read some of Marx's writings) to debate with you over the fine points. But I want to ask you something - How would the state melt away, when power begets the attempted aquisition of more power in all instances we know of? Isn't competition for social power, the desire to dominate over others in a generally hierarchical fashion, natural and organic to society? What I mean is that in almost all instances we know of, hierarchy defines society. Lower classes have less options and/or less knowledge of their options. But if they had the same options, how would hierarchies exist when the most mundane of tasks are simply undesireable? I know some people prefer to be subordinate. But given more options, would they still have this preference?
It seems like you both would agree on this point:
Consumers' and producers' behaviors are determined by the decisions of consumers and producers, which are interdependent. Do you agree?
atlantabiolab -
It seems that by your definition of causality, I cannot cause you to like me by being likable. Instead, you might say that you could cause yourself to like me by choice. Is this right? I would consider myself a classical liberal for the most part, with some exceptions. I prefer to allow oblivious people to be somewhat manipulated, rather than disallow the forces that manipulate them. But this is a preference. In reality, people are to some extent caused to do things by outside forces, as well as individual decisions.
Krazykat -
I don't think there is any natural paradigm with which to look at consumer and producer behavior. I don't know enough about marxism (allthough I have read some of Marx's writings) to debate with you over the fine points. But I want to ask you something - How would the state melt away, when power begets the attempted aquisition of more power in all instances we know of? Isn't competition for social power, the desire to dominate over others in a generally hierarchical fashion, natural and organic to society? What I mean is that in almost all instances we know of, hierarchy defines society. Lower classes have less options and/or less knowledge of their options. But if they had the same options, how would hierarchies exist when the most mundane of tasks are simply undesireable? I know some people prefer to be subordinate. But given more options, would they still have this preference?
Plornive,
I agree that as I have repeatedly stated, there is a complex two way process between producers and consumers. I can only ask you to re-read my old posts for more on this.
Interesting critism of Atlanta, which I basically agree with. To him people just make decisions, and producers have nothing to do with creating wants and needs.
Your last point really means that you should have a look at more Marxist writings. But briefly, Marxists would argue that a desire of hierarchical power is not an innnate element of the human psyche. Rather it is created through inequality.
Let me give you an example, slightly off the point but I think you will get it.
A group of tramps are invited to a dinner table in which a feast is laid out. Firstly the tramps stuff their faces, but over time when they realise that the food is always there they eat only what they want, and talk to the other people.
The point is that in this instance what is seen as innate by many - greed, the desire for more and more and more is actually created by the lack equality of resources. On a side note, actually many people should be more greedy in as much as not being content with what they have, because this is part of what will lead to an upturning of capitalism.
In communism there is no hierarchy, no classes. The mundane tasks you talk of would be performed according to Marx through the development of technology. Far fetched you may think, but think about how many low paid jobs could be performed through some technological way.
Its takes a completly different view of the world to understand communism, in it people would work in what they wanted to work in. So much of current society has jobs created through captialism itself, they tick it over but really need not be there if we were in a communist one.
I agree that as I have repeatedly stated, there is a complex two way process between producers and consumers. I can only ask you to re-read my old posts for more on this.
Interesting critism of Atlanta, which I basically agree with. To him people just make decisions, and producers have nothing to do with creating wants and needs.
Your last point really means that you should have a look at more Marxist writings. But briefly, Marxists would argue that a desire of hierarchical power is not an innnate element of the human psyche. Rather it is created through inequality.
Let me give you an example, slightly off the point but I think you will get it.
A group of tramps are invited to a dinner table in which a feast is laid out. Firstly the tramps stuff their faces, but over time when they realise that the food is always there they eat only what they want, and talk to the other people.
The point is that in this instance what is seen as innate by many - greed, the desire for more and more and more is actually created by the lack equality of resources. On a side note, actually many people should be more greedy in as much as not being content with what they have, because this is part of what will lead to an upturning of capitalism.
In communism there is no hierarchy, no classes. The mundane tasks you talk of would be performed according to Marx through the development of technology. Far fetched you may think, but think about how many low paid jobs could be performed through some technological way.
Its takes a completly different view of the world to understand communism, in it people would work in what they wanted to work in. So much of current society has jobs created through captialism itself, they tick it over but really need not be there if we were in a communist one.
Similar threads
