Mikhail and Hodj's Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Log Wizard
<Gold Donor>
85,164
172,397
I'm going to the corner store to get some Arizona Iced Tea and then I'll be back for the rest of this
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
You can read just fine kiddo.

Although I will say this

Yeah, you're right there not bothering to defend your asinine conviction that political marxism is a necessary outcome of a socialist critique of capitalism[/quote[

Is actually gibberish, and a strawman. Political marxism is defined

Political Marxism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Political Marxism (PM) is a strand of Marxist theory that places history at the centre of its analysis. It was developed as a reaction against ahistorical models of Marxist analysis in the debate on the origins of capitalism. The PM critique brought social agency and class conflict to the center of Marxism. In this context, Robert Brenner and Ellen Wood founded PM as a distinct approach to rehistoricise and repoliticise the Marxist project. It was a movement away from structuralist and timeless accounts towards historical specificity as contested process and lived praxis.
Click to expand...
And nothing I've said implies that political marxism is a necessary outcome of socialist critique of capitalism.

Political Marxism is just an operating paradigm that insists history matters, which came about because people like Dumar who are die hard communists claim history doesn't matter at all for the contexts of their critiques. It has nothing to do with this debate. Unless you're trying to apply your own definition to the term "Political Marxism" in which case I will again say, that's fine, but I have the right to reject your redefinition and rely on the traditional definition and I choose to do so.

What I did claim was that human beings are flawed, and attempts to achieve utopian dreams with flawed people is doomed to failure time and time again.

Now, what I did prove, and what I was referring to when I said you can read it all just fine, is my claim that the Marxist Dialectic is a framework from which communists operate, which is why the term Marxism is valid to use when discussing others who operate from the same paradigm. And I did prove that. Several times over. Which left you so mad you could barely contain yourself between all the "IDIOTS" and "RETARDS".

Your argument was that this paradigm was gibberish and that calling Socialism Marxism was incorrect because not only Marx came up with these ideas, wrote books, etc. That has been roundly rejected on its face.
Click to expand...
 
TrollfaceDeux

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
i don't really care what mikhailAmerican Inventortin has to say since none of his ideas matter in the long run.
 
M

Mikhail Bakunin_sl

shitlord
2,199
1
hodj_sl said:
You can read just fine kiddo.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought. You've gotnothing.

hodj_sl said:
Although...
Click to expand...
Sure. I wasn't even aware of the existence that particular substrain of marxism. Feel free to replace political marxism (where I used it) with vanguardism (there's more elements to marx's political philosophy, but that's the really relevant component for your attack).

hodj_sl said:
Now, what I did prove, and what I was referring to when I said you can read it all just fine, is my claim that the Marxist Dialectic is a framework from which communists operate
Click to expand...
1. That's not actually true. Plenty of socialist thought predates Marx or originates from his contemporaries. This kind of blanket claim is just ridiculous.
2. Vanguardism doesn't arise from that.

hodj_sl said:
which is why the term Marxism is valid to use when discussing others who operate from the same paradigm.
Click to expand...
Except that your attempt in using the term Marxism to cover all socialist is to paint them with a political brush that doesn't actually apply by equivocating between Marx's critique of capitalism and his belief that a subset of the populace would have to be given dictatorial power over the economy. You're deliberately using that equivocation in spite of the fact that I've given real world examples of people who held one belief and not the other and put it into practice (proving that it CAN'T be the case that one necessarily follows from the other).

hodj_sl said:
Your argument was that this paradigm was gibberish
Click to expand...
No, "...operate from the Marxist dialectic..." is gibberish. Not that the marxist dialectic is gibberish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.