Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How much I hate Marxists

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Follow my thread Integrating the proletariat and bourgeoisie at The Home of the Revolutionary Left. Your contributions to the discussion are welcome. There is going on much violence and entertaining engagement.

Kindly post your blog-response for discussion, here. I did just read it, but would like to comment only on ta text that's viewed by everyone.

 

You also failed to give a reason for your strong 'hatred'. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kindly post your blog-response for discussion, here. I did just read it, but would like to comment only on ta text that's viewed by everyone.

 

You also failed to give a reason for your strong 'hatred'. 

There is a lot to it now. The hatred developed from the responses by Subversive, which I will not post here. My OP was this:

I know that there are these two classes into which all of humankind is divided by Marxists. The reasoning is that the first is exploited by the second, so they are different, like slave and master. The issue in our post-industrial era, after the advent of the Internet and the related restructuring of labor, is that the boundaries between the proletariat and bourgeoisie have become transparent. In developing and developed countries, a large sector of population is the middle class, whether already established or on the rise (e.g., see, on TED, Hans Rosling's "Debunking third-world myths with the best stats you've ever seen"). So my question is: Isn't there a way to integrate the classes without exploitative or dominative behavior from either side? The point is to internalize a classless consciousness through integration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot to it now. The hatred developed from the responses by Subversive, which I will not post here. My OP was this:

I know that there are these two classes into which all of humankind is divided by Marxists. The reasoning is that the first is exploited by the second, so they are different, like slave and master. The issue in our post-industrial era, after the advent of the Internet and the related restructuring of labor, is that the boundaries between the proletariat and bourgeoisie have become transparent. In developing and developed countries, a large sector of population is the middle class, whether already established or on the rise (e.g., see, on TED, Hans Rosling's "Debunking third-world myths with the best stats you've ever seen"). So my question is: Isn't there a way to integrate the classes without exploitative or dominative behavior from either side? The point is to internalize a classless consciousness through integration.

With all due respect, you have every right to justify your strong sentiments by publishing what made you so angry. 

 

Otherwise, Marxists are such because they believe in precisely what you assert no longer exists: exploitation based upon class. Moreover, the dynamic they 'see' is a shrinking of the middle class back into the proletariat. 

 

To this end, Piketty labeled his work after Marx--"Capital in the 21st Century", although his own analysis is somewhat different. Owners of the means of production increase inequality because they pull their own profit out prior to increasing production itself--the basis of increasing salaries for workers. 

 

Here, the solution is different than that of Marx: simply tax profits to ensure a fair distribution of production.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How come you know so much about Marxism? Were you a Marxist before, Andie? I never knew Marxists were so evil until I visited that forum. It is unfortunate that I thought of myself as a Marxist when I first joined this forum. I view Communism as harmonious and creative, not destructive and antagonistic like Marxists tend to believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

@Ilya,

 

Instead of stating that you "hate" Marxism, you should instead state that you are "a humanitarian who hates a totalitarian philosophy which has led directly to the killing of between 75 and 100 million people in the 20th-century" according to 'The Black Book of Communism' by Stéphane Courtois.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't there a way to integrate the classes without exploitative or dominative behavior from either side?

The right question to ask here would usually be why these fictional classes need to be integrated, at all. However, since it's coming from Ilya, I like D'Anconia's response better.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites

The right question to ask here would usually be why these fictional classes need to be integrated, at all. However, since it's coming from Ilya, I like D'Anconia's response better.

 

And here I can see why Objectivists are unable to resolve conflicts with Marxists without resorting to violence. I am just patiently waiting when you would finally rid each other from this world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And here I can see why Objectivists are unable to resolve conflicts with Marxists without resorting to violence. I am just patiently waiting when you would finally rid each other from this world.

 

There are Objectivists resorting to actual violence in debates with Marxists??   Where!!!???  When!!!???   Should I get the popcorn?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not talking very loudly? That makes more sense! I'm not sure if anyone really debates Marxists anyway.

Talking very loudly without escalating into violence? Unlikely.

 

As the OP shows, I debate Marxists. The debate is inconclusive, however, but it stopped escalating to violence due to my efforts to overcome our "incommensurability".

Link to post
Share on other sites

"incommensurability"

If you understood what Kuhn and Fayerabend actually mean by the silly theory then you wouldn't waste your time talking words that cant possibly mean to your "discourse" opponent what they mean to you. After all you live in a different "world" constructed by your socially determined "narrative"....

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to post
Share on other sites

"incommensurability"

If you understood what Kuhn and Fayerabend actually mean by the silly theory then you wouldn't waste your time talking words that cant possibly mean to your "discourse" opponent what they mean to you. After all you live in a different "world" constructed by your socially determined "narrative"....

 

I fully well understand incommensurability. Incommensurability is an evil, a "monster", as Randy Allen Harris wrote on p. 118 of Rhetoric and Incommensurability (2005).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why embrace this invalid "evil" by claiming it with "our"?

 

The context was:

 

my efforts to overcome our "incommensurability"

 

Yes, there was evil in the beginning of that thread and it was escalating to even more evil, but I was able to overcome it, not embrace it. The idea is to see where you opponent is coming from and thus to converse through each other rather than at each other, since screaming at each other only strengthens your positions and does not allow understanding the position of you opponent. Whenever you debate with radicals of beliefs different from yours you start with facing their evil by accepting the debate and argument with them to later try to overcome or reshape such evil by understanding reasons behind it that may stop seeming so evil in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...