|
Aswad -> RE: Unemployment down to 8.6 percent! (12/6/2011 9:35:29 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
The anti-intelectuals on the board like to toss out drivel like "marxists talking points" while having absolutely no knowledge of marx or anything he wrote.
In all fairness, the term marxism extends- in colloquial use- beyond the opinions Marx and Engels voiced. One might argue Marx' thoughts are among the few substantially socialist views that are not represented in the colloquial idea of what marxism is. I think that might be taking it a bit far, but not by much.
quote:
With your more than six thousand posts here I am sure you are acquainted with which posters are interested in discussion and which are only interested in posting snark.
There is that. Then there is giving people a chance.
quote:
Which aspects of marxism do you find particularly offensive?
The inversion between individual and social superstructure is probably the single greatest offense.
Rather than seeking to regulate the gains from network interaction in the superstructuree (those gains are arguably an effect of the superstructure, though I would say compartmentalization on a voluntary basis should be permitted in the intermediate 'slot' in the 'ladder'), the superstructure is elevated over the substrate it rests upon, and allowed to reach down into it. As such, it also assumes the role of the aristocracy, ironically enough validating the models it has criticized, while entrenching them far more profoundly than historical aristocracies. Effective diffusion of responsibility and dismissal of values as a worthwhile apragmatic pursuit is also rather offensive to my sensibilities.
Actually, first and foremost, it is the implementations that offend. Marx would no doubt be in agreement there.
Some of his analysis is solid, but works within assumptions that are not necessary, and some that are frame of reference related (i.e. in a constant relationship between entities, you can choose which ones to fix and which ones to float, so the floating ones are implied in the chosen frame of reference, not really independent of it; a dangerous trap for analyses). I see some serious QA opportunities that were missed here and a lot of people seizing on the beta and rolling it out, while fewer do the legwork required to patch it up as far as I can tell. Socialist democracies have inherited most of the mistakes, and very few of the insights, is my impression.
Incidentally, the currently governing party (technically a block of three, but one party is absoluely dominant in the block, and they've been so almost without interruption as long as I've been around) inherited a lot from its roots as a labor movement with Marxist-Leninist elements, then absorbed the Communist Party and the Red Party, then was later significantly influenced by the USSR, and currently most closely resembles a less competent version of the Chinese communist party. They didn't crush their opposition by carrying out the executions on their death lists (for the existence of which some muttered apologies were briefly in the news), nor by using the material from their extensive surveillance of political enemies (quite the scandal in its time, but ultimately impotent), but simply by effecting massive voter apathy and other 'civilized' means (cf. Manufacturing Consent, etc.).
Much of this is also an artifact of the electorial system, a problem that should be intimately familiar to voters in the USA. They are not polarizing enough to get displaced and votes count positives only. If we were to have an election asking the question if they should be evicted, the result would be a full majority in favor. But one does not vote parties out in this type of parliamentary 'democracy'. One votes them in. The issue of changing that system to either introduce 'second place votes' or negative votes so as to more accurately reflect the desires of the voters (i.e. the best compromise for all) was raised in parliament. It was voted out by the governing block in a private session (i.e. they discuss it, vote internally, get a consensus, then deliver a block vote in line with the internal consensus while the parliament votes on a seat by seat basis). Despite a system that has a complicated weighting system that favors regions where they are popular, they've been displaced for two consecutive sessions by a coalition of all the non-socialist parties, but that coalition lost when the labor party teamed up with two of the three remaining parties that had been sidelined by the coalition and traded votes with the third one on key issues in return for the necessary support, forming the current governing block where the labor party is essentially the dominant party by far. The result caused a brief outrage and then disillusionment and apathy.
Nobody in their right mind disputes that capitalism has problems, or that some of those are actually rather inherent in the idea itself, but marxism is neither necessary, nor adequate, to address those, and they can be adequately addressed using regulation solely of the cooperative gains from the network, without the state appropriating the individuals for which it should (IMNSHO) exist.
My apologies if the above was a bit of a rant and far from the decent answer the question deserves; I'm quite drunk, for the first time in several years, while sentimentally parting with most of my joys in life as a consequence of post-7/22 political persecution, at the hands of precisely the aforementioned party. Terrorist attacks are a unique opportunity for such people.
quote:
What person with a three digit iq would?
I wouldn't be quite that harsh. There are legitimate reasons why otherwise intelligent people get sucked into ideas that are not. Of course, I'm not saying that's the case here, but it is needlessly depressing to assume the contrary. The majority of people are reasonably decent folk, and the average is of average intelligence, both of which support the notion that one can modify Hanlon's razor to a continuum form: do not ascribe to a greater fault that which can be ascribed to a lesser one.
Or, in a crossover form: do not needlessly multiply sources of frustration.
quote:
I have heard that phrase a lot but have yet to hear a meaningful discription of what it means.
In this case, it meant a lightweight government that does little to interfere with the lives of citizens and keeps spending and beurocracy to a minimum with well researched and established methodologies for doing so. Administration with minimal politics involved, and maximum independent autonomy.
In practice, that also means that efforts to provide services, health care, welfare and the like are founded on the notion of maximizing the utility of the network gain and preventing crime by ensuring the life outcome expectancy is higher for peaceful coexistence with other citizens. The horse before the cart, so to speak, with as little of a policy aspect to politics as possible. If one wants police, welfare is a given. If one wants fire departments or armies, health care is a given. Such things are logical conclusions that follow from the same premises. But that's a seperate debate, I figure.
quote:
There is little to differentiate the republicrats from the demopubs. They all shit in the same bucket.
Thus has been my impression, as well. The difference seems to be with the voters, moreso than the parties.
Again, a bit more salt is needed with this post than usual.
Speaking of... [sm=chug.gif][sm=buddies.gif]
Health,
al-Aswad.
|
|
|
|
