Mikhail and Hodj's Political Thread
- Thread starter Araysar
- Start date
- Status
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,318
- 140,074
Wouldn't it be a sign of the inherent weakness of communism that it has to exist in this precious snowflake form and conversely a sign of the strength of capitalism that even as perverse as it can seem it's soldiered on for hundreds of years providing the highest standards of living ever recorded?
Here you go, Araysar. Another shining example of the kind of thinker that accepts the "if it can't survive militarily, therefore it's a problem with the system internally" argument. You're in great company!
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Uh, no I very clearly explained it. You might just be butthurt though.
Which one, the dialectic, or political marxism? Because neither are substrains. Both are pretty important to the scientific field of marxist thought. You know. What actual marxists follow.
Irrelevant to the topic at hand. The point is that the actual marxists in academia and the like actually use this term as a way to describe the full body of socialist theory. You got upset that I was using the term Marxism to describe socialist theory. I explained to you that its a perfectly valid use of the terminology, a use you weren't even aware existed. A use you called "gibberish". You're wrong. Continue being mad about it
There is no blanket claim. There is the fact that the body of marxist thought is referred to as such, even when the ideas are coming from people who lived long after Marx, like Fromm.
Never claimed it does. You're off arguing a strawman semantics argument because you CAN"T STAY ON TOPIC because you were proven wrong on the topic and you're seeking an out.
No, its not. That's another strawman. There is no political brush being used here. I'm using the terminology the way we use it in academia. Thank you.
Well, you're just demonstrably wrong on that. Take a look at the link What is Marxist Dialectical Thinking? I posted about two pages back now and educate yourself. Its exactly the correct terminology to use.
Here let me help you
What is Marxist dialectical thinking? | Workers' Liberty
The core of the socialist-Marxist paradigm is dialectical materialism. When you operate from a Marxist paradigm, you are operating from the Marxist Materialist Dialectic framework or paradigm. So not only are you wrong, but you're dead wrong. On a key point of your own supposed philosophy and world view. Which is why I continue to believe you aren't anything more than a really believable troll when it comes to this issue. The whole picking Bakunin as your avatar and name is all part of the obfuscation. If you don't comprehend that to operate from a Marxist paradigm is to operate within the framework of the materialist dialectic as understood by academics whove spent their entire lives studying Marx, well, you aren't credible on any other part of this debate at that point, as far as I'm concerned.
ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
A system must survive internal and external forces though. A communist society, or at least the one you envision, cannot exist in a vacuum.
We get it Mik. Your utopia is some early 1900's society where the economy is altruistic and the people live in destitution and constant fear of being slaughtered by outside forces. It is a magical place.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Come with me comrade, to a better place! We will eat potato soup, if we've any potatos left after the evil poser communists come and steal them all!
ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
Where would you go if you had a time machine? Mik would go get slaughtered by a superior force, just so the economy he participates in isn't exploitative.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
I dunno man. That's a tough call.
Probably I would go back to pre Empire Rome with chemistry and biology and math books and just find the smartest motherfuckers I could find and start teaching them that shit.
The hope being that Rome would develop technology like we have now, and we'd be a good 2000 years ahead by the time we get back to our current time period.
Probably I would go back to pre Empire Rome with chemistry and biology and math books and just find the smartest motherfuckers I could find and start teaching them that shit.
The hope being that Rome would develop technology like we have now, and we'd be a good 2000 years ahead by the time we get back to our current time period.
ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
Loser Araysar
Log Wizard
- 85,161
- 172,394
The communist's dilemma.
Eat the potato and live for another day, or ferment the potato and forget that you're living in communism for a day
If that were true, you'd prove it (it's just a matter of quoting yourself). You won't, because you've got nothing.
Political marxism (as defined by your link) is a substrain of marxism. It even says so on the page, dipshit.
1. No academic with any degree of familiarity with socialism would use Marxism as a catch-all term for socialism except by accident.
2. It's not legitimate to use it as catch-all when your actual intention is to equivocate between Marx's critique of capitalism and Marx's vanguardism (and thereby implicate socialism with the crimes of states which were just as guilty under Marx's critique of capitalism as any other state).
Here's what you said: "the Marxist Dialectic is a framework from which communists operate." That is absolutely a blanket claim about all communists. It's wrong.
No, retard. Your whole argument for laying the crimes of rhetorically (but not actually) socialist states at the feet of socialism only works if you accept the claim that all socialists are marxists (in the sense of accepting his political ideas about vanguardism).
lol
uh huh.
1. It's not a key point of my supposed philosophy and world view because I'm a socialist (and therefore not a marxist). You're using the terms.
2. Explain what you mean by "operate from a Marxist paradigm" and "operate within the framework of the materialist dialectic." Come on, let's hear it. This is gonna be great.
Right, and then when I say that such a system would have to be willing to engage in as much bloodshed as it takes to defend themselves, your dumbdumb response was to call me bloodthirsty. I'm talking to people who aren't intellectually honest. There's nothing you won't say, no matter how dishonest or illogical. There's no way to win against that.
Loser Araysar
Log Wizard
- 85,161
- 172,394
- Status