Posted on 01/08/2002 1:56:43 PM PST by kattracks
Close enuf for scratch, gfactor. Which may explain the problem you seem to be having.... -- bb.
whats the difference to you between a meterialist and a marxist?
what does this have to do with materialism?
Here's a spelling error. Isn't it supposed to be Sketchaz?
I listened to "Elevate Your View". Lyrically, it's as profound as a cereal box. Musically, pure Casio. And he sings like the guy that recorded "Monster Mash".
"What's the difference between a 'materialist' and a Marxist?"
Come up with a punchline, or be prepared to be mocked, you pretentious twerp.
" In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.
The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. "
thats it. While marxism means revolution, communist manifestoes and dictatorship of the proletariats. thats not what i'm into.
Both share a set of fundamental assumptions about the nature and structure of reality. So there isn't much difference between them. In fact, Marxists are a type of materialist with a certain political doctrine added on. That political doctrine logically depends on materialist assumptions about man and his place in the universe being true. I figure the main reason why historical Marxist organizational "experiments" don't work in practice (and arguably, probably never will) is because the assumption set on which they are founded and from which they articulate their principles is simply not true to reality: It is built on a fallacy and, thus, cannot stand.
Since you claim to be a materialist, I don't suppose I really need to explain to you what your basic assumptions about man and his place in the universe are. But if you'd like to tell me, well -- that would be fine. best, bb.
BTW, I find the use of the term 'experiment' chilling in this context.
I'm thinking Cambodia, the Gulags, you get the picture.
me too.
I'm thinking Cambodia, the Gulags, you get the picture.
chill me too.
But I'd already seen #48, gfactor. Please stop reading that idiotic book. Marxism didn't fail because there never seems to be a wizard around when you need one to make it work right. That is, "poor implementation" problems due to dictatorships, revolutions, etc., is not what prevents the full irruption of the beauties of Marxism into the sphere of human socio/politico/economic life. ("But if at first you don't succeed, then try, try again.")
Marxism failed because it is, simply, a lousy idea: It falsifies reality, personal and social, as actually lived by human beings day-to-day. Worse, it reduces the human person to a cognitive and moral vacuum, and then proceeds to occupy the resulting space with some putative (and highly dubious but) so-called meaningful “social reconstruction” of said human person. All of which pertaining to the goal of the self-perfection of the human race, with its resulting attainment of paradise on earth. Under Marxist management, of course.
Funny thing is, Marx's vision of the optimal order of human society was premised on the model of the modern industrial economy. He believed that a society of that type was the optimal end-state of human history.
SO -- History might just as well stop NOW! So to enable the human race more speedily to get along with its project of self-illumined self-redemption from all the problems of human existence.
In short, Marxism dotes on the man who can be depended upon “to correct” God for his “failures.” And that despite Marx’s considerable attention to the work of Frederick Nietzsche -- who testified to the fact, on pain of his soul, that God is dead; for we have murdered him.
Marxian social organization was also to be the great savior of mankind -- because persons of great genius were to be found (eureka!) to manage the whole in rational ways such that the vast majority of mankind (considered in general, in the mass) would clearly and certainly benefit. (Marx did not much labor over the problems of minorities….)
We must not forget that Marx was, at bottom, an economist. His econometric/social model was the modern industrial state – the type of state that puts a premium on efficiency above all else, and whose “political representative” wants to control the decision-making process respecting all forms of production in the state, public or private, at every level. It turns out, however, that in order to do that, you have to be able to control people in highly effective ways first.
That's where implementations of Marx's hallucination always seem to come up against an immovable object. Marxism is so completely unappealing at the personal level, you need a "dictator" to make it happen. And the mere existence of a dictator presupposes a revolution.
At least it does here, in these United States of America. Or at least I’d like to think so.
Anyhoot, this Marxist "stuff" should be "stuffed" into the "stuffhole" of history. We can always revisit it any time we want to, anytime we feel we need to. But for now, what all of this looks like to me is:
Marx was right: Ideas have consequences. I assume the maxim applies equally to "bad" ideas....
Question: Is Marx even relevant to the problems of post-industrial society – these days already observed to be transitioning to the so-called Information Age?
I dunno. What do you think? Glad for the chat, gfactor. Be well. -- bb.
p.s.: gfactor, materialism is absolutely the worst filter through which to observe and understand your own experience “in this world” (i.e., in the larger reality that both surrounds us and of which each of us is a contributing part) that I can think of.
Except for nominalism!!! Fie!!! And Phooey!!! JMHO. FWIW. Thanks for writing. – bb.
LOL!!
I wouldn't equate Marxism with materialism though. The perfectly respectable objectivism is materialist but denies Marxism at every turn.
That may well be so. In fact, annalex, I'll be glad to comcede the point, just for the sake of argument. But the fact remains: Both doctrines -- materialist and Marxist -- derive from the same source: a source that categorically denies any extension to man beyond purely physical, space-time existence. Both doctrines alike seem to favor a vision of human life condemned to exist within the stifling categories/methodologies that pass for legitimate science these days.
Hey, what else is new? The life of the spirit is equally destroyed via positivist science, or by whatever passes for academic philosophy these days. JMHO. FWIW.
Just to interject a little levity here: I'm not at all convinced that objectivism is "perfectly respectable." :^)
Question: Why should I suppose otherwise? Some of the most "doctrinaire" folks I know are Objectivists/Randians/Libertarians....
Notwithstanding anything else, the bottom-line fact for me is: I'm sick and tired of thinking about "ideologues" of any/every stripe. Why can't we all just get back to living "real life" instead?
God bless and good night, dear annalex. Peace and love -- bb.
Is this a quote from Cornel West?
At least someone corrected the Nietzsche spelling. Concerning the phrase, "deep grasp of a multitude of subject matter", is that improper in some sense?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.