abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Calling someone a marxist 15 times and insisting everything they say is marxist does not make one a marxist.
How can Anarchocapitalism break monopolies?
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
Calling someone a marxist 15 times and insisting everything they say is marxist does not make one a marxist.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
This is what you get when you say things like "Sociology is not science".
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
actually i am willing to discuss political ideologies extensively, but you prefer to argue against EVERYTHING while taking no position which might require defense, you hide your personal ideology behind nebulous phrases, trite slogans and ad hominems, and dodge every attempt to squeeze a specific answer out of you.
YOU are the cause of my entirely rational determination that you are a Marxist (of the ugliest sort in many ways), not any particular desire on my part to ascribe Marxism to those with whom i disagree on political issues.
i have already demonstrated REPEATEDLY that i actually LIKE some of Marx's ideas, and support SOME Socialism in my mostly Capitalist pie with Liberty filling.
you however remain a riddle wrapped in an enigma, crusted with Chompsky crumbs, and slathered in Marxist gravy.
clarify your position and we can discuss how my position differs openly, until then, i must assume that you are in fact a Crypto Marxist Socialist Autocrat, or, in the common parlance, a Zapatista.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Libertarian socialism.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
liberty is way down south, advancing on total anarchy in the extreme (the REAL KIND)
socialism remains, as it always has, on the left with collectivism, and in the north with authoritarianism.
you cannot be both an authoritarian AND a libertarian whether you like capitalism or collectivism.
if you ride in the middle between authoritarianism and liberty, you are a straight collectivist, which you aint.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Oh look, kkkynes is trying to redefine words again.
The state exists to serve the ruling class and protect private property.
The state exists to serve the ruling class and protect private property.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Labor plus means of production is defined (iirc) by Marxians as factors of production. So I see two problems there: not talking about the same thing, and not escaping the Marxian paradigms/definitions.
I disagree. There are signally Shakespearean turns of phrase ("to sleep, perchance to dream" or "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune") but they are specific. To try to drag all of English into category is disingenuous at least, and it is certainly deliberate obfuscation. Discussing "____ of production" marks the interlocutor as a Marxian or a post-Marxian. It immediately semaphores doctrinal alignment.
I mean "recognized" in the sense of one from a different edifice of faith. A fine litmus test would be offending, say, Noam Chomsky.
see4
Well-Known Member
And so would anyone. Factors of production are labor [who will produce it] and the means of production [how will it be produce and what will aid in the production ]. This is not Marxian, this is as basic as the composition of air.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Whoa Nellie now! Since when is fresh seal with some fight still in it garbage? Hmpf!
I counter your analysis by pointing out that it fails to properly convey the subtext of, say, fundamentalism. It has little to do with the dictionary definition of fundamental at this point.
An authoritarian, slave-run society e.g. Sparta in Leonidas' day meets your italicized condition while being dramatically not Socialist.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
It is still a matter of opinion. Simply using a phrase does not belie ones views.
Try to find a definition of capitalism that does not make use of any dog whistles. Whether you like it or not, 'means of production' is in the lexicon.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I am not saying it isn't in the lexicon. However so is the Sacred Heart of Jesus, but you won't find many Methodists who avail themselves of it. Nomenclature bespeaks philosophical inclination.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Raaaawrrrr... munch munch...
"an extension of democracy into the industrial sphere and to communities"
[video=youtube;K4Tq4VE8eHQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ[/video]
The cunning linguist does have a good point; the word socialism has been abused to the point where it is practically devoid of meaning.
EDIT: I had to find some proof that your kin are rummaging through trash...
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Yet you said yourself you seek a definition devoid of the phrase. This implies you don't know of any. Furthermore your example fits my argument. Capitalists who are wary of a buzzword are wary of its use for ideological reasons. They are subjectively opposed because of philosophical inclination for reasons similar to Methodists not using some religious phrase. Where the example falls short is its obscurity. Means of production is not an obscure phrase. Not only marxists use it and few alternative phrases exist to describe a concept so central to economic discussion.
(You) are the one with an inclination if you object to the use of a common phrase.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I reject that the phrase is common outside the denomination. I acknowledge but do not accept your disagreement. I posit that the phrase comes bundled with a belief (as articulated by Noam above) that Socialism ... true Socialism no less! ... is both practicable and a desideratum.
My specific cavil with the idea of socialism as articulated above is with the entity "the worker", a synecdoche for a collective, not an individual or individuals. Am I a worker? What is the extent and precise shape of my workerness? How is my contribution and title to the collective benefit administered? I see a reliance on a sort of universal team spirit that my experience tells me is optimistic. I consider it axiom that the individual, not any collective, is the standard unit of any science of human behavior, including social, cultural, politicoeconomic. I become restless when I see an incomplete conceptual bridge made from the individual starting point to a necessary collective premise. But hey; that's me.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
It seems to me you reject it specifically because you wish to associate socialism with collectivism while specifying the individuality of capitalism. Socialism does not contain a necessary collectivist premise. Authority does. Authority is not socialism. Authority is authority. Capitalism can also be collectivist and authoritarian. Austerity is collective misery.
Furthermore it is the means of production and natural resources which we all rely upon. This reliance is collective whether they are privatized or not. To omit the phrase from the concept simply suits your desired inclination.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I don't see how socialism can be extricated from collectivism. The utopian's requirement for an unspecified team spirit seems fully in play. i am attentive to cogent, nondoctrinal counterpoint.
My reliance on the products of industry is decidedly not collective. My purchases and subscriptions are individual. You could argue that using money is an invocation of the collective, but it is too vage an argument to have much if any power of delineation imo.
Must dash. I had fun; thanks y'all
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
That is because you are trying to redefine socialism into a synonym of authoritarianism which it is not.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
so.. socialism is NOT authoritarian, and also NOT collectivist...
THEN WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU PROPOSE IT IS???
since the word obviously does not mean what everybody else thinks it means (an authoritarian system of collectivism described by Marx as a middle ground between Bourgeois Capitqlism and Utopian Communism) and it is clearly also not what the lefties say it is (which IS collectivism, with authoritarianism hidden under a blanket) then what the hell do you pretend it is in Chompsky Land?
define the word (since all the others are clearly wrong) or stop using it and make up some new word from scratch, with no other meanings.
here, ill do it for you:
Flebbletarianism: (insert your definition here and we will lock that motherfucker down for you)
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I didn't word it that way. I said socialism is not a synonym of authoritarianism. Socialism can be authoritarian or libertarian as can capitalism. Capitalism can also be collectivist.
Socialism is antonymous with capitalism. Socialism is simply opposed to privatization of means of production and natural resources.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Natural resources yes. Means of production, maybe not. If a person manipulates a natural resource, like a piece of wood into a spear, I contend he "created something" and has mixed his labor with a natural resource. The spear maker then "owns" the spear right? Whether a spear or a tilled field, it is the act of mixing labor with natural resources that creates things and some would argue creates an ownership claim. A collective need, does not mean that everybody in the collective "created" the means to satisfy the need. Who tilled the field? Who speared the game?
