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.
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 thatâs viewed by everyone.
You also failed to give a reason for your strong âhatredâ.
Kindly post your blog-response for discussion, here. I did just read it, but would like to comment only on ta text thatâs viewed by everyone.
You also failed to give a reason for your strong âhatredâ.
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 Roslingâs âDebunking third-world myths with the best stats youâve ever seenâ). So my question is: Isnât 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.
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 Roslingâs âDebunking third-world myths with the best stats youâve ever seenâ). So my question is: Isnât 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 âseeâ is a shrinking of the middle class back into the proletariat.
To this end, Piketty labeled his work after MarxââCapital in the 21st Centuryâ, 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 itselfâthe 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.
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.
@Ilya,
Instead of stating that you âhateâ Marxism, you should instead state that you are âa humanitarian who hates a totalitarian philosophy which has led directly to the killing of between 75 and 100 million people in the 20th-centuryâ according to âThe Black Book of Communismâ by StĂ©phane Courtois.
2 Likes
Isnât 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 itâs coming from Ilya, I like DâAnconiaâs response better.
The right question to ask here would usually be why these fictional classes need to be integrated, at all. However, since itâs coming from Ilya, I like DâAnconiaâs 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.
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?
1 Like
There are Objectivists resorting to actual violence in debates with Marxists?? Where!!!??? When!!!??? Should I get the popcorn?
Thatâs the point: there are no debates between Objectivists and Marxists. This means that there can be only violence between them.
Thatâs the point: there are no debates between Objectivists and Marxists. This means that there can be only violence between them.
Why not talking very loudly? That makes more sense! Iâm not sure if anyone really debates Marxists anyway.
1 Like
Why not talking very loudly? That makes more sense! Iâm 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 âincommensurabilityâ.
âincommensurabilityâ
If you understood what Kuhn and Fayerabend actually mean by the silly theory then you wouldnât waste your time talking words that cant possibly mean to your âdiscourseâ opponent what they mean to you. After all you live in a different âworldâ constructed by your socially determined ânarrativeââŠ
1 Like
âincommensurabilityâ
If you understood what Kuhn and Fayerabend actually mean by the silly theory then you wouldnât waste your time talking words that cant possibly mean to your âdiscourseâ opponent what they mean to you. After all you live in a different âworldâ constructed by your socially determined ânarrativeââŠ
I fully well understand incommensurability. Incommensurability is an evil, a âmonsterâ, as Randy Allen Harris wrote on p. 118 of Rhetoric and Incommensurability (2005).
Why embrace this invalid âevilâ by claiming it with âourâ?
1 Like
Why embrace this invalid âevilâ by claiming it with âourâ?
The context was:
my efforts to overcome our âincommensurabilityâ
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.