NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I thought it would be fitting to open up a thread to discuss the impact that the Manifesto of the Communist Party has head on the world since its publication 160 years ago today. Regardless of your opinion on the content therein, it is undoubtedly one of the single most important documents of the modern era.

The world of 1848 was vastly different then the world of today. Europe was still in the process of throwing off the shackles of feudalism, the United States was a non-descript, isolationist former colony with very little bearing on the state of European politics. The Imperial Age was soon to begin, when the European powers would carve up the world in a race for dominance.

During this heady year, revolution was in the air, and it looked as though the old aristocratic world order might be done in for good. The 1848 revolutions had just begun, and it looked as though absolutism would yield to a more enlightened era.

In this tumultuous time, a young German expatriate and his patron published The Manifesto. The impact of Karl Marx's theories, however, was not to be felt until many years later. At the time, Marx and Engels were nobodies, writing for a small group of exiled leftists living in London, then one of the more tolerant places in the stifling land that was Europe.

So, NSG, I open the discussion floor to you.

EDIT: Andaras was kind enough to provide links to the Manifesto for those who haven't read it
The Manifesto of the Communist Party (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm)
Youtube Audio Version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EMqMgx03iM)

Shame basically no one on NSG has ever read it, but still feels they know everything about communism.

I've read it. I even still have my copy. I acquired it as a textbook when I took Philosophy 431 - Marx & Engels.

Generally speaking, I disagree with everything in the Manifesto, primarily because I found its moralism baseless and without foundation.

I've read it. I even still have my copy. I acquired it as a textbook when I took Philosophy 431 - Marx & Engels.

Generally speaking, I disagree with everything in the Manifesto, primarily because I found its moralism baseless and without foundation.

In what ways? It seems to me that the Manifesto is making an appeal to the type of common sense morality that everyone pays lip service to in Western culture yet so often do not follow through with fully. In a sense, it is perhaps one of the more constructive aspects of early Classical Marxism, as distinguished with Marx's later over-emphasis on "scientific socialism" and his economistic biases.

I've read it. I even still have my copy. I acquired it as a textbook when I took Philosophy 431 - Marx & Engels.

Generally speaking, I disagree with everything in the Manifesto, primarily because I found its moralism baseless and without foundation.

"But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

Yeah, sure.

"But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

Yeah, sure.

It is not so easy to discard morality wholesale. I do not doubt that Marx discarded the old notions of morality that were rooted in the social relationships of aristocratic Europe, but he did not discard morality wholesale. Just like Nietzsche the "nihilist", Marx's condemnations of capitalism and the bourgeois social came from a moral basis. As Nietzsche proves, just because someone claims to discard morality doesn't mean they have.

"But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

Yeah, sure.

Marx was referring to the extant morality in Europe at the time. He objected to the commonly held moral truths of the establishment, and even those larned by the proletariat. He felt that morality was somehow damaged.

But everything he wanted built after that was based on a concept of what ought be, and that's necessarily moralistic.

Since I'm a big fan of Wittgenstein, I'm never going to accept a moral argument without significant rational justification for every aspect of that morality.

It is not so easy to discard morality wholesale. I do not doubt that Marx discarded the old notions of morality that were rooted in the social relationships of aristocratic Europe, but he did not discard morality wholesale. Just like Nietzsche the "nihilist", Marx's condemnations of capitalism and the bourgeois social came from a moral basis. As Nietzsche proves, just because someone claims to discard morality doesn't mean they have.
In what way was Marx's critique of Capital and bourgeois society moralistic? A clear reading of even the manifesto makes it clear that Marx's view that proletarian relations would replace bourgeois property was a historical current, the same way feudalism overthrew ancient slave economies and bourgeois industry overthrew feudal relations of production. Albeit Marx (as I pointed out in my quote I posted) thought that socialist relations (proletarian relations) were different because instead of a reconstitution of class relations they would result in the abolition of them, rather than constituting them on a new basis, the assumption being that economic socialized relations breeds communal relations in life. That is essentially the Marxist analysis, that material conditions form reality.

In what way was Marx's critique of Capital and bourgeois society moralistic? A clear reading of even the manifesto makes it clear that Marx's view that proletarian relations would replace bourgeois property was a historical current, the same way feudalism overthrew ancient slave economies and bourgeois industry overthrew feudal relations of production. Albeit Marx (as I pointed out in my quote I posted) thought that socialist relations (proletarian relations) were different because instead of a reconstitution of class relations they would result in the abolition of them, rather than constituting them on a new basis, the assumption being that economic socialized relations breeds communal relations in life. That is essentially the Marxist analysis, that material conditions form reality.

At the same time though, Marx speaks in normative terms quite often. He talks of what ought to be as often as he speaks of what is. Normative judgments are the basis of morality and ethics, and those two words should not be profane to leftists, for they are the reason why we are leftists in the first place. We do not believe in socialism because it is inevitable, we believe in it because it is desirable.

Morality has often been used to justify class tyranny. What Marx did was not jettison morality but rather jettison morality that would be used to support tyranny, oppression and exploitation.

Yes he said that the bourgeois brutally exploited the workers and went against notions of fairness and justice, but his critique of bourgeois society was not moralistic, if it was he would have said 'capitalism is wrong and must go', instead what he said was 'the material relations created by bourgeois society have created the class contradictions which will destroy itself', the same way that ancient society created the Christian hierarchical Burgessa's (feudalism) that supplanted that. So Marx's critique was not moral, it was materialistic.
Also, I'll post a link to the Manifesto so people people can decide for themselves:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm

Or also a audio reading of it if you don't want to read it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EMqMgx03iM

At the same time though, Marx speaks in normative terms quite often. He talks of what ought to be as often as he speaks of what is. Normative judgments are the basis of morality and ethics, and those two words should not be profane to leftists, for they are the reason why we are leftists in the first place. We do not believe in socialism because it is inevitable, we believe in it because it is desirable.

Morality has often been used to justify class tyranny. What Marx did was not jettison morality but rather jettison morality that would be used to support tyranny, oppression and exploitation.

Marx's' criticism that capitalism would fall was that it would fall within the framework of normative terms and relations which the bourgeois was set up, in short that bourgeois 'rationalism' has created the contradiction, or indeed the 'method' by which they will allow the proletarians to replace them as the ruling class. You get me?

london was always very tolerant unless you were a republican from any colony in general Ireland in particular. in the period of famine in ireland that occured at about this time the british spent 50 thousand dollars on aiding the irish and 60 MILLION on petty colonial wars to bring more countries under there ruthless colonial, imperialist bootheel. The british suck. and I am proud to say that I am Irish, and that I support the IRA and cheer the actions of such noble men as padraig pearse and michael collins.
:sniper:
:mp5:
Alright mate, a bit off topic.

living in London, then one of the more tolerant places in the stifling land that was Europe.

So, NSG, I open the discussion floor to you.

london was always very tolerant unless you were a republican from any colony in general Ireland in particular. in the period of famine in ireland that occured at about this time the british spent 50 thousand dollars on aiding the irish and 60 MILLION on petty colonial wars to bring more countries under there ruthless colonial, imperialist bootheel. The british suck. and I am proud to say that I am Irish, and that I support the IRA and cheer the actions of such noble men as padraig pearse and michael collins.
:sniper:
:mp5:

Shame basically no one on NSG has ever read it, but still feels they know everything about communism.

You haven't read it Andaras? I'm ashamed.

You can get the general principle without needing to waste all of your time reading, wikipedia is everyones friend.

Marx's' criticism that capitalism would fall was that it would fall within the framework of normative terms and relations which the bourgeois was set up, in short that bourgeois 'rationalism' has created the contradiction, or indeed the 'method' by which they will allow the proletarians to replace them as the ruling class. You get me?

I understand that. To me, that is not a criticism of capitalism per se, it was a criticism of the current understanding of political economy. I understand that the main axis of Marxist materialism is the the understanding that capitalism was creating the conditions that would lead to it's undoing.

At the same time, he tempered his early works especially with normative criticism of the social relationships that the capitalist order had created. This is the unity of theory and action that Marx spoke about.

london was always very tolerant unless you were a republican from any colony in general Ireland in particular. in the period of famine in ireland that occured at about this time the british spent 50 thousand dollars on aiding the irish and 60 MILLION on petty colonial wars to bring more countries under there ruthless colonial, imperialist bootheel. The british suck. and I am proud to say that I am Irish, and that I support the IRA and cheer the actions of such noble men as padraig pearse and michael collins.
:sniper:
:mp5:

I was merely comparing it to the rest of Europe, which was far less tolerant at the time then London, which was by no means a nice place. I do not mean to slight you or the struggles of the Irish people.

At the same time though, Marx speaks in normative terms quite often. He talks of what ought to be as often as he speaks of what is. Normative judgments are the basis of morality and ethics, and those two words should not be profane to leftists, for they are the reason why we are leftists in the first place. We do not believe in socialism because it is inevitable, we believe in it because it is desirable.
And those baseless claims of desirability are why I disagree with the manifesto.

The loss of production alone (which Marx recognised) is reason enough to oppose his suggested economic structure.

He was also hamstrung somewhat by writing in German, which is a farily imprecise language on some important points (like the want/need distinction).

I support the IRA and cheer the actions of such noble men as padraig pearse and michael collins.
If you support the IRA, then you must cheer the killing of such men as Michael Collins.

Shame basically no one on NSG has ever read it, but still feels they know everything about communism.

I think a lot of us have read it. Just because we dont wank off over it doesnt mean we havent read it.

I understand that. To me, that is not a criticism of capitalism per se, it was a criticism of the current understanding of political economy. I understand that the main axis of Marxist materialism is the the understanding that capitalism was creating the conditions that would lead to it's undoing.

At the same time, he tempered his early works especially with normative criticism of the social relationships that the capitalist order had created. This is the unity of theory and action that Marx spoke about.

I agree, but I hope you understand my statement of normative relations within that material context. I think to a degree your being a bit too ultimatist in your previous comment of 'desirable' or 'inevitable', I think Marxism is the synthesis of both. In an overall way material relations make proletarian revolution inevitable(a word I shy away from), but that doesn't excuse action from the workers, the regular men who make this history, in short the light bulb doesn't turn itself, the light bulb may create the material conditions which make it all but inevitable that a group of men will turn it, but history itself doesn't do anything. For example, although the bourgeois overthrew feudalism, that doesn't make it a monolithic event, both sides has ideas and individuals in that class struggle who created the events we call history today. Marxism is not the theory that material relations create change, it's the theory that material relations form the actions that men, men themselves who decide the course of history.

Also, I actually like that flowery 18th century English, I find it quite engaging to read, and also you'll note if you look carefully Marx's wry sense of humor.

I agree, but I hope you understand my statement of normative relations within that material context. I think to a degree your being a bit too ultimatist in your previous comment of 'desirable' or 'inevitable', I think Marxism is the synthesis of both. In an overall way material relations make proletarian revolution inevitable(a word I shy away from), but that doesn't excuse action from the workers, the regular men who make this history, in short the light bulb doesn't turn itself, the light bulb may create the material conditions which make it all but inevitable that a group of men will turn it, but history itself doesn't do anything. For example, although the bourgeois overthrew feudalism, that doesn't make it a monolithic event, both sides has ideas and individuals in that class struggle who created the events we call history today. Marxism is not the theory that material relations create change, it's the theory that material relations form the actions that men, men themselves who decide the course of history.

Then I guess our disagreement is resolved then.

london was always very tolerant unless you were a republican from any colony in general Ireland in particular. in the period of famine in ireland that occured at about this time the british spent 50 thousand dollars on aiding the irish and 60 MILLION on petty colonial wars to bring more countries under there ruthless colonial, imperialist bootheel. The british suck. and I am proud to say that I am Irish, and that I support the IRA and cheer the actions of such noble men as padraig pearse and michael collins.
:sniper:
:mp5:

Depends entirely on your point of view. I, for one, cheer the actions of such noble men as Phillip II of Spain, Charles V of Flanders, El Cid, Fernando of Aragon, and Isabel of Castille, OR
Otto Von Bismark, Otto the Great of Bavaria, Gerd von Rundstedt, and Kaiser Wilhelm II. Plenty of people would call them total scumbags.

You could say that about a lot of people. The British are as decent people as anyone else: Spaniards, Germans, Americans, (possibly) Frenchmen (jk), Italians, Russians, Norwegians, Belgians, Poles, Hungarians, Irishmen, Moroccans, Israelis, etc. Take your pick. They aren't that bad. All countries had that kind of phase. Well, almost all. (C'mon, are you going to say Sir Winston Churchill wasn't a great man?)
The IRA is a terrorist organization. Tell them to accomplish their goals peacefully, or to suck it. Maybe then people will start to listen to them.
Besides, aren't they a radical Protestant group too? If so, tell them to cut the religious fighting too. That's as bad as al-Qaeda. Seriously.


On the actual subject of this thread:
I'll admit I have never read the Communist Manifesto. And as such, I will not pass judgement on the ideas therin as they appear there.
I will say, however, that it has caused a lot more trouble than most documents, and for this reason I at least somewhat disapprove of it.

Shame basically no one on NSG has ever read it, but still feels they know everything about communism.

Whereas you presumably, given you seem to have the same pretentions about the right, have read every right wing document in existence, or at least the more important ones?

Whereas you presumably, given you seem to have the same pretentions about the right, have read every right wing document in existence, or at least the more important ones?

Umm, well 'Capitalism' isn't a monolithic entity, it's simply the outgrowth of bourgeois property relations, their is no Grand Master of Capital sitting in his castle coordinating the actions of the bourgeois around the world. I have read Adam Smith, well I did in high school, if that's what you mean. My comment was that from the comments people make about the Manifesto (and communism generally) seem to indicate that they have never read it, if they did theyr would give a proper critique rather than emotionalist rhetoric.

Whereas you presumably, given you seem to have the same pretentions about the right, have read every right wing document in existence, or at least the more important ones?

Excellent point. Bravo. (Damn, there's no "applause" smiley)

Then I guess our disagreement is resolved then.

This thread will die now then.

This thread will die now then.

No, it's just resting! Beautiful bird, the Norwegian Blue. Lovely plumage!

But in all serious, people are bound to continue posting. It's about Communism, on NSG, a lively debate subject if there ever was one.

Happy birthday to the most troublesome document ever written (in terms of trouble caused by it)(excluding Mein Kampf.).

Happy birthday to the most troublesome document ever written (in terms of trouble caused by it)(excluding Mein Kampf.).

I will avoid providing another document which may have caused more trouble...The Bible/Koran

Of course, it's also important to note that the Manifesto's reach is far greater than the Communist bloc; many of the world's labor movements and the successes they achieved are intertwined with the rise of the socialist ideas pioneered by Marx and other thinkers. It's a work that contains a number of good ideas, but also many that have been (in most cases inadvertently) responsible for great tragedies across the world. It simply isn't something that can be completely condemned or lauded.

Click Stand;13472077']I will avoid providing another document which may have caused more trouble...The Bible/Koran

We don't speak of that document, lest They come for us.

No, it's just resting! Beautiful bird, the Norwegian Blue. Lovely plumage!

That's what they all say.

Look what I can do:
mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Whereas you presumably, given you seem to have the same pretentions about the right, have read every right wing document in existence, or at least the more important ones?
Or just the easy ones? The Road to Serfdom is a very easy book to read, but I suspect most socialists haven't read it.

No, it's just resting! Beautiful bird, the Norwegian Blue. Lovely plumage!

But in all serious, people are bound to continue posting. It's about Communism, on NSG, a lively debate subject if there ever was one.
Yes well it's certainly not going to be debate of the actual content of the Manifesto that keeps it alive, it will just degenerate into another 'teh ebil commies' thread.

Click Stand;13472077']I will avoid providing another document which may have caused more trouble...The Bible/Koran

Excluding anything of religious significance...
oops. I guess the Manifesto and Mein Kampf can't be mentioned either (at least based on the way some people have followed them).

Or just the easy ones? The Road to Serfdom is a very easy book to read, but I suspect most socialists haven't read it.

Oh god, please keep your abstract and inane liberalistic garbage out of this nice clean thread, I was having a nice discussion until you dumped in here.

Yes well it's certainly not going to be debate of the actual content of the Manifesto that keeps it alive, it will just degenerate into another 'teh ebil commies' thread.

But that's half the fun!

stupid commie. (jk)

Or just the easy ones? The Road to Serfdom is a very easy book to read, but I suspect most socialists haven't read it.

I haven't, because I have been unable to obtain a copy of it yet. But I am familiar with the basic thrust of Hayek's argument, and actually agree with certain issues he raises.

I support the IRA and cheer the actions of such noble men as padraig pearse and michael collins.
:sniper:
:mp5:

Thats quite sad.


Anyone who applauds terrorists and murderers of any nationality is disgusting.

Umm, well 'Capitalism' isn't a monolithic entity, it's simply the outgrowth of bourgeois property relations, their is no Grand Master of Capital sitting in his castle coordinating the actions of the bourgeois around the world. I have read Adam Smith, well I did in high school, if that's what you mean. My comment was that from the comments people make about the Manifesto (and communism generally) seem to indicate that they have never read it, if they did theyr would give a proper critique rather than emotionalist rhetoric.

No, it isn't. Capitalism is more the result of economic changes resulting from and in the transition from feudalism to modernity. This process is not as simple as a bourgeois revolution; if anything, the economic process leading to capitalism developed independant of the bourgeois, if indeed it existed in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Which it didn't.

Or just the easy ones? The Road to Serfdom is a very easy book to read, but I suspect most socialists haven't read it.

Of course not. God forbid the same standards they seek to apply to others should apply to them.

Or just the easy ones? The Road to Serfdom is a very easy book to read, but I suspect most socialists haven't read it.

Try reading "Constitution of the United States of America" or something similarly democratic and free-enterprise-ish!

Or, if we're distributing radical ideological materials, may I recomment "The Falange Manifesto) from 1930's Spain?

You mean... the SCOTTISH PLAY???

Macbeth!

Anyway, I wish the Communist Manifesto happy birthday! And may it continue to be a horribly misused document in many petty thread arguments for years to come!

You mean... the SCOTTISH PLAY???

You mean Mac-- *Fanboyists pauses as something grusome and lethal happens to him for even trying to say the title*

God, we just got time-warped again. Why the hell does that happen? *scratches his head*

Click Stand;13472077']I will avoid providing another document which may have caused more trouble...
You mean... the SCOTTISH PLAY???

Try reading "Constitution of the United States of America" or something similarly democratic and free-enterprise-ish!

Or, if we're distributing radical ideological materials, may I recomment "The Falange Manifesto) from 1930's Spain?

Calling the US Constitution "democratic" is quite a stretch.

Calling the US Constitution "democratic" is quite a stretch.

Hardly.

Anyway: I find it hard to celebrate any document that has inspired so many tyrants (Stalin and Mao come to mind, not to mention dozens of lesser villains). Now I know it's not fair to generalize, but at one point you have to ask yourself: if this document is such a good thing, why do such bad people keep using it to justify their horrible atrocities?

One of the most tragic anniversaries in the history of the world.

That specter of unparalleled oppression, theft and human extermination was loosed on the world 160 years ago, and the brutal effects of its wicked litany of horrors is still suffered acutely throughout the world.


The ideology which has as its only claim to fame or accomplishment that it has killed more people, ruined more lives and destroyed more human potential than Nazism.

Hardly.

Anyway: I find it hard to celebrate any document that has inspired so many tyrants (Stalin and Mao come to mind, not to mention dozens of lesser villains). Now I know it's not fair to generalize, but at one point you have to ask yourself: if this document is such a good thing, why do such bad people keep using it to justify their horrible atrocities?

When the US constitution was ratified, only white male landowners could vote. It has been jury rigged into something resembling a democratic document.

Have you ever even read the Manifesto? Nevermind those assholes, there are a bunch of dumbass people who find inspiration to do horrible things in the Bible and the Koran. Does that automatically make them bad? No. And some of the best people have also found inspiration in the Manifesto. People like Eugene Debs, Michael Harrington, Norman Thomas, and Antonio Gramsci, who have found the courage to stand up against injustice in whatever form it took.

You should start a political party, run for parliament, and then set the building on fire. :rolleyes:

Wait... nazis?

One of the most tragic anniversaries in the history of the world.

That specter of unparalleled oppression, theft and human extermination was loosed on the world 160 years ago, and the brutal effects of its wicked litany of horrors is still suffered acutely throughout the world.


The ideology which has as its only claim to fame or accomplishment that it has killed more people, ruined more lives and destroyed more human potential than Nazism.

You know, you're extremely good at making vast, sweeping generalizations that have very little merit whatsoever. You should start a political party, run for parliament, and then set the building on fire. :rolleyes:

When the US constitution was ratified, only white male landowners could vote. It has been jury rigged into something resembling a democratic document.

Indeed. It was the school of thought, in those days, that those who owned the country (read: landowners) should run the country. This was not an ultra-conservative idea, it was the norm.

What do you mean "jury rigged?" The Constitution has been re-written so that all citizens can vote. It took a civil war to make that happen, but it did.

Have you ever even read the Manifesto? Nevermind those assholes, there are a bunch of dumbass people who find inspiration to do horrible things in the Bible and the Koran. Does that automatically make them bad? No. And some of the best people have also found inspiration in the Manifesto. People like Eugene Debs, Michael Harrington, Norman Thomas, and Antonio Gramsci, who have found the courage to stand up against injustice in whatever form it took.

No I haven't; I have neither the time nor the desire. But we have discussed it in several of my government/social studies classes, so I have a fair understanding of it.

I agree - I didn't mean to imply that the Manifesto is inherently bad, and I mentioned that it's not fair to generalize; I meant that I find it very difficult to celebrate a document that calls for bloody revolutions (and causes a great many of them).

I mean that it is held together with chewing gum, duct tape, and hope. Some maddeningly undemocratic features still persist.

Let's drop it or start another thread on this - it doesn't belong here.

EDIT: Holy time-warp, batman!

Wait... nazis?

What? they're the only ones who stomach that kind of absolutism

Indeed. It was the school of thought, in those days, that those who owned the country (read: landowners) should run the country. This was not an ultra-conservative idea, it was the norm.

What do you mean "jury rigged?" The Constitution has been re-written so that all citizens can vote. It took a civil war to make that happen, but it did.

I mean that it is held together with chewing gum, duct tape, and hope. Some maddeningly undemocratic features still persist.

Let's drop it or start another thread on this - it doesn't belong here.

EDIT: Holy time-warp, batman!

K. And Holy time-warp indeed

Um, if you want to continue this, you should start the thread; it looks like Jolt doesn't like me :(

Revolutionaries of 1848, fear the Zundnadelgewehr!

I mean that it is held together with chewing gum, duct tape, and hope. Some maddeningly undemocratic features still persist.

You should know quite well that the Constitution was not written as an instrument whose ultimate goal was greater democracy, it was written for, and I quote, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."

Democratic processes merely have an odd way of being good at achieving these various things.

Shame basically no one on NSG has ever read it, but still feels they know everything about communism.

I made a vow to myself never to read anything with the word 'manifesto' in the title. So far, so good. :)

I made a vow to myself never to read anything with the word 'manifesto' in the title. So far, so good. :)

So sad.

You'll never get to read the Pie-Thrower's Manifesto that I'm working on. :(

One of the most tragic anniversaries in the history of the world.

That specter of unparalleled oppression, theft and human extermination was loosed on the world 160 years ago, and the brutal effects of its wicked litany of horrors is still suffered acutely throughout the world.


The ideology which has as its only claim to fame or accomplishment that it has killed more people, ruined more lives and destroyed more human potential than Nazism.
Nice propaganda, please keep going your funny.

Interesting, so I leave this thread for a few hours, come back three pages later and still no discussion on the actual content of the Manifesto, still mindless rhetoric/emotional ranting from noobs who have never even read it (probably never a book either). Sad really.

So sad.

You'll never get to read the Pie-Thrower's Manifesto that I'm working on. :(

I'm your chief reference. I doubt I need to. :)

I think a lot of us have read it. Just because we dont wank off over it doesnt mean we havent read it.

LOL!

One of the most tragic anniversaries in the history of the world.

That specter of unparalleled oppression, theft and human extermination was loosed on the world 160 years ago, and the brutal effects of its wicked litany of horrors is still suffered acutely throughout the world.


The ideology which has as its only claim to fame or accomplishment that it has killed more people, ruined more lives and destroyed more human potential than Nazism.

I concur.

Nice propaganda, please keep going your funny.

Pot calling the kettle black?

Pot calling the kettle black?

Alright, this is the last one liner from infantile noobs I am going to answer.

No.

Alright, this is the last one liner from infantile noobs I am going to answer.

No.

You are in no position to call anyone "infantile," my dear troll.

You are not exactly the most mature either. Name calling isn't constructive.

Sorry, but it's the truth.

You are in no position to call anyone "infantile," my dear troll.
Look, I have no place for non-people who haven't discovered their own opinions aren't original yet, nor for cheap propagandists who view one-liners as superior to factual arguments. I have discovered that recently the trend to attacking me has shifted to personalized trolling one-liners and a refusal to provide evidence for your 'claims' of 'communist atrocity'.

Please, go back to reading McCarthy and Hitler, I am sure they are great sources for communism.

Look, I have no place for non-people who haven't discovered their own opinions aren't original yet, nor for cheap propagandists who view one-liners as superior to factual arguments. I have discovered that recently the trend to attacking me has shifted to personalized trolling one-liners and a refusal to provide evidence for your 'claims' of 'communist atrocity'.

Please, go back to reading McCarthy and Hitler, I am sure they are great sources for communism.

Nice straw man. Show me where I supported either of those two.

And what would you know about "factual arguments?" It's not as if you ever provided one.

You are in no position to call anyone "infantile," my dear troll.

You are not exactly the most mature either. Name calling isn't constructive.

Sorry, but it's the truth.

I don't care. This thread is for discussion, not flaming.

Interesting, so I leave this thread for a few hours, come back three pages later and still no discussion on the actual content of the Manifesto, still mindless rhetoric/emotional ranting from noobs who have never even read it (probably never a book either). Sad really.
First, what do you expect from NSG?

Second, all you ever do is rail against the Bourgeois (middle-class AKA your average Joe).

Third, what is it with this condescension of yours? You act like anyone who either hasn't read or doesn't worship your favorite books and their author's is inferior and I for one find it very irritating.

The only thing sad here is you.

The Communist Manifesto really isn't that far off the base in a lot of its assertions, and one can certainly understand what Marx was trying to say if they know what Europe was when he was writing, which was basically a steaming pile of explosive, temperamental shit. That being said, his basic premise that a capitalist society couldn't support itself, as well as several other assertions that he made were just plain false. Wasn't really his fault, and it really wasn't his fault that people took what he said to mean that they could kill anyone who didn't follow their specific strategy towards the communist state, or the killing of those who were not part of the bourgeoisie.

Anyway, I'd have to agree with the basic sentiment here, that the legacy of the Manifesto is one of murder and oppression, though I do not agree that this legacy can be blamed on the words themselves.

Certainly a valid point of view, and unfortunately it falls on my comrades and I to change that legacy.

Certainly a valid point of view, and unfortunately it falls on my comrades and I to change that legacy.

good luck, you have a lot of work to do. And the only remaining superpower which is hell bent on opening up the world to "democracy" for some reason.

good luck, you have a lot of work to do. And the only remaining superpower which is hell bent on opening up the world to "democracy" for some reason.

Thanks, I'll need it.

Umm, well 'Capitalism' isn't a monolithic entity, it's simply the outgrowth of bourgeois property relations, their is no Grand Master of Capital sitting in his castle coordinating the actions of the bourgeois around the world. I have read Adam Smith, well I did in high school, if that's what you mean. My comment was that from the comments people make about the Manifesto (and communism generally) seem to indicate that they have never read it, if they did theyr would give a proper critique rather than emotionalist rhetoric.

This has to be one of the most reasonable comments I have ever seen you make AP, bravo :D

I support the IRA ...

If I was you, I wouldn't be proud of favoring terrorists.

Wasn't really his fault, and it really wasn't his fault that people took what he said to mean that they could kill anyone who didn't follow their specific strategy towards the communist state, or the killing of those who were not part of the bourgeoisie.

Well, he also couldn't have really predicted that the middle class would/could become the "normal" status of the average citizen in many countries. A lot of Marxist theory hinges upon the idea of a hyper-polarization of resources, all the wealth being focused in a small group of rich elites and all the labor being focused on the rest of the poor, writhing Everyman.

The communist manifesto has nothing to do with the modern day. Communism is a lame dream for faggots and lazy philosphising welfare cheats.

The communist manifesto has nothing to do with the modern day. Communism is a lame dream for faggots and lazy philosphising welfare cheats.
Im in your countriez, stealing your welfarez

Communism is a lame dream for faggots and lazy philosphising welfare cheats.

Fuck, you've discovered our secret.

The communist manifesto has nothing to do with the modern day. Communism is a lame dream for faggots and lazy philosphising welfare cheats.

It's true, those on welfare and, especially, those who cheat the welfare system do nothing but sit around all day reading Marx, Trotsky, maybe some Sartre. Oh...and then they go to the gay sex party. That's the majority, the rest are usually fat black women with kids, of course. o.O

Anyway, I think you need an emergency kitten (http://a7.vox.com/6a00d4144b50b56a4700d4145063973c7f-320pi) asap.

Fuck, you've discovered our secret.
Indeed, the new Communist plan of attack is lots of gay sex and clogging up the Centrelink lines for the dole.

As a socialist, but not a Marxist.

I appreciate the historical analysis in the Communist Manifesto, even if it isn't entirely precise (students going to school in the USSR were taught about the "Feudal Republic of Novgorod" - even though Novgorod was not feudal - to better fit that bit of reality with Marxian theory). All the same, his general thesis about the progression of history is pretty spot-on. He certainly makes the best use of historical precedent for predicting future development of anyone I've read, regardless of whether his predictions are correct or not; it's difficult to make a case against that part of the Manifesto.

Well, difficult to make an informed case against it.

Where I find Marx falls short is that he is too scientific in his theories. History to him is all about systems, and he looks to the future through the same lens. He discounts the role of individuals in his predictions of the revolution and denies that they have agency to shape their world - they are merely the small moving parts of a great vehicle that's moving toward one future, and one future only. (I find this very ironic, considering it was Marxism that got the ball rolling for individual agency and the school of social history). The down side of the "inevitability" of the "system" he constructed is that it did not deal with the potential problem of certain individuals hijacking the revolution - it was not a question of whether people wanted communism or not, the mechanical inevitability of it all makes it seem (from reading the CM) that he believed there was no reason to even think a phenomenon like Stalin could happen.

Shame basically no one on NSG has ever read it, but still feels they know everything about communism.

Heh. I've read it, so as Das Kapital, also the Compendium of Das Kapital by Cafiero, Die Grundrissen der deutschen Ideologie, also I've read Gramsci, Togliatti, Lenin, Gorbacev, even something by Stalin... and I don't think that I know everything about communism.

Im in your countriez, stealing your welfarez

You win, plain and simple.

his basic premise that a capitalist society couldn't support itself, as well as several other assertions that he made were just plain false.

Well, actually, that's oversimplifying the whole thing a bit too much, don't you think?

Marx said that a capitalist society can support itself ONLY through sheer exploitation of the masses of workers by the proprietors of the means of mass production - and this was based upon an accurate study of the production relationships in a capitalist society.
Marx also assumed some things:
1.the historical process of the human society always moves on to different forms of social organisation.
2.the general tendency in human society has always been a lessening of the conditions of exploitation of man vs man (from totally unprotected slavery, to regulated serfdom, to capitalistic factory conditions...; from despotism through republic to democracy).
3.between the higher, exploiting class (aristocrats in feudal society, bourgoisie in capitalist society) and the lower, exploited class (serfs, underproletariate) rises a middle class (bourgoisie in feudalism, proletariate in capitalism) who has consciousness of the social issues - following the classical hegelian scheme (thesis, antithesis, synthesis).

Combining these assumptions and his (and Engel's) studies through the dialectic materialism (application of left-wing hegelian dialectic to material conditions of the society, as opposed to idealistic dialectic of the hegelian right-wing), it isn't unexpected that one can predict a fall of the capitalistic society, triggered by an internal crisis of capitalism itself, and the rise of the new "middle" class - that is, the proletariate.

Since the history of the development of human society, in marxist terms, is viewed as the history of class struggle between different social classes, the only way of escaping eternal class struggle is to effectively abolish social classes (that would be communism: the end of the history of class struggle... not the end of history itself!)

It's true, those on welfare and, especially, those who cheat the welfare system do nothing but sit around all day reading Marx, Trotsky, maybe some Sartre. Oh...and then they go to the gay sex party. That's the majority, the rest are usually fat black women with kids, of course. o.O

Anyway, I think you need an emergency kitten (http://a7.vox.com/6a00d4144b50b56a4700d4145063973c7f-320pi) asap.

*breaks glass and takes kitten so HRE can't have it*

Well, actually, that's oversimplifying the whole thing a bit too much, don't you think?

Marx said that a capitalist society can support itself ONLY through sheer exploitation of the masses of workers by the proprietors of the means of mass production - and this was based upon an accurate study of the production relationships in a capitalist society.
Marx also assumed some things:
1.the historical process of the human society always moves on to different forms of social organisation.
2.the general tendency in human society has always been a lessening of the conditions of exploitation of man vs man (from totally unprotected slavery, to regulated serfdom, to capitalistic factory conditions...; from despotism through republic to democracy).
3.between the higher, exploiting class (aristocrats in feudal society, bourgoisie in capitalist society) and the lower, exploited class (serfs, underproletariate) rises a middle class (bourgoisie in feudalism, proletariate in capitalism) who has consciousness of the social issues - following the classical hegelian scheme (thesis, antithesis, synthesis).

Combining these assumptions and his (and Engel's) studies through the dialectic materialism (application of left-wing hegelian dialectic to material conditions of the society, as opposed to idealistic dialectic of the hegelian right-wing), it isn't unexpected that one can predict a fall of the capitalistic society, triggered by an internal crisis of capitalism itself, and the rise of the new "middle" class - that is, the proletariate.

Since the history of the development of human society, in marxist terms, is viewed as the history of class struggle between different social classes, the only way of escaping eternal class struggle is to effectively abolish social classes (that would be communism: the end of the history of class struggle... not the end of history itself!)

And how should we respond to the historical occurrence of free radicals, chaos and reformist powerholders? I would easily argue that these concepts are more akin to the rule, rather than exceptions to the rule. Oh, and that's only part of a much, much broader western critique.

How can we account for the situations in non-western societies, where totally different paths were followed, where the centralization of power and behavior of leadership runs directly contrary to the material dialectic?

How about the power and value of ideas, especially in regards to some of Weber's criticisms.

Oh, and of course, the ridiculous labor theory of value. How can we reconcile that with reality in even the slightest possible fashion?

We might also want to consider the post-Marx development of a non-falsifiability of the theory, especially in the form of the constant additions and variations on the theory, to correct for the non-occurrence of predicted events, or the unpredicted behaviors that are arguably related to the theory.

The communist manifesto has nothing to do with the modern day. Communism is a lame dream for faggots and lazy philosphising welfare cheats.

Erm, sorry, you seem to be lost. Stormfront is that way.

Das Manifest is a great source for signature quotes. For instance, I particularly like:

"All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and allowed to live only so far as the interest to the ruling class requires it."

That one sentence strikes me as a stunningly reasonable thing to say. Unfortunately, a lot of the rest of the work, and the rest of Marxism in general, makes my Skepto-Meter smoke and emit brightly colored flames.

Besides, the "revolutionary" language is often too over-the-top. Puts crazy ideas into little minds that result in things like, well, Stalinism.

Okay, so I finally sat down to read the Communist Manifesto.

My first experience with manifestos was several years ago reading Industrial Society and its Future (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future), which I found to be fascinating and insightful, even mind-opening, but it came to the wrong conclusions of course. So I thought that I might be in for a treat with the Communist Manifesto.

Wrong! It sucked. It was so empty-worded and propaganda-riffic, and the actual arguments so sparse and simple that I had to skim through it to keep from getting a headache. I'm hoping that Das Kapital is more in-depth and less fluff.

Oh, and of course, the ridiculous labor theory of value. How can we reconcile that with reality in even the slightest possible fashion?My brother proposed pinning the value of the dollar to a certain temporal amount of unskilled labor, like instead of redeeming ten dollars for a fraction of an ounce of gold at the Ron Paul bank, you could redeem ten dollars for an hours worth of unskilled labor at a "labor bank", or you could show up at a labor bank and work for an hour in order to get ten dollars. It made my head explode trying to figure out how that could possibly work in real life, but as soon as I reinforce my head, I'm going to try thinking about it again.

Okay, so I finally sat down to read the Communist Manifesto.

My first experience with manifestos was several years ago reading Industrial Society and its Future (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future), which I found to be fascinating and insightful, even mind-opening, but it came to the wrong conclusions of course. So I thought that I might be in for a treat with the Communist Manifesto.

Wrong! It sucked. It was so empty-worded and propaganda-riffic, and the actual arguments so sparse and simple that I had to skim through it to keep from getting a headache. I'm hoping that Das Kapital is more in-depth and less fluff.

It's a Manifesto, what did you expect? It's a statement of principles and a polemic, not the end all to be all of Marxist theory.

Woo hoo, 160 years of failing to provide for the masses. :upyours:

Woo hoo, 160 years of failing to provide for the masses. :upyours:

Which is a failing of the people who tried to implement it, not a failing of the theory.

I’m hoping that Das Kapital is more in-depth and less fluff.
It is.

Also, don’t forget to read Marx’s early works, especially the preface to his A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm)), which in a few short paragraphs neatly sums up a lot of Marxist thinking.

You’ve got to separate Marx and Engels at times.

Which is a failing of the people who tried to implement it, not a failing of the theory.

And since people are inherently greedy and stupid, it will never work, even though it is probably perfect in theory.

I'm hoping that Das Kapital is more in-depth and less fluff.

A word of boring: Das Kapital is very boring. So is Wealth of Nations. Unless you have a case of insomnia in need of curing, avoid both.

And since people are inherently greedy and stupid...
Indeed?

Got any non-anecdotal evidence for this?

And since people are inherently greedy and stupid, it will never work, even though it is probably perfect in theory.

Indeed?

Got any non-anecdotal evidence for this?

Well, it's said that you only have the basis of self by which to judge others...
:p

london was always very tolerant unless you were a republican from any colony in general Ireland in particular. in the period of famine in ireland that occured at about this time the british spent 50 thousand dollars on aiding the irish and 60 MILLION on petty colonial wars to bring more countries under there ruthless colonial, imperialist bootheel. The british suck. and I am proud to say that I am Irish, and that I support the IRA and cheer the actions of such noble men as padraig pearse and michael collins.
:sniper:
:mp5:

sorry, could you repeat that , All I heard was London was tolerant unless you were a seditious traitor

Marxism is utter crap and the kind of people that have claimed to be Marxists in the past are responsible for millions of deaths in their vain quests to improve the quality of life for the working class, without exception in countries where there was no working class when they came to power.

Sorry, that just needed to be said. Capitalism is responsible for just as many deaths, but people who imagine that Marxism is some kind of magical way forward for society are wrong on oh so many levels, and I personally find Marxists, who are almost always champagne socialists, to generally be extremely grating and dogmatic.

Marxism is utter crap and the kind of people that have claimed to be Marxists in the past are responsible for millions of deaths in their vain quests to improve the quality of life for the working class, without exception in countries where there was no working class when they came to power.

Sorry, that just needed to be said. Capitalism is responsible for just as many deaths, but people who imagine that Marxism is some kind of magical way forward for society are wrong on oh so many levels, and I personally find Marxists, who are almost always champagne socialists, to generally be extremely grating and dogmatic.

One thing communism has failed to tell me, in part because I've never asked, what the hell's so great about a new world order anyway?

160 years of an unworkable idea. Cheers!:D

Marxism is utter crap and the kind of people that have claimed to be Marxists in the past are responsible for millions of deaths in their vain quests to improve the quality of life for the working class, without exception in countries where there was no working class when they came to power.

Sorry, that just needed to be said. Capitalism is responsible for just as many deaths, but people who imagine that Marxism is some kind of magical way forward for society are wrong on oh so many levels, and I personally find Marxists, who are almost always champagne socialists, to generally be extremely grating and dogmatic.

Amen! :D

Shame basically no one on NSG has ever read it, but still feels they know everything about communism.

Marx is not the only, or for that matter, the best communist/socialist theorist. The fact that the book is 160 years old only underscores that point.

Marx is not the only, or for that matter, the best communist/socialist theorist. The fact that the book is 160 years old only underscores that point.

How does that change anything? Slave and feudal class societies lasted for hundreds of years before being overthrown.

How does that change anything?
Because capitalism, and society in general, has changed dramatically since Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto.

If you didn’t refuse to read (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13470079&postcount=84) everything folks suggest you read, you might better understand this.

Because capitalism, and society in general, has changed dramatically since Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto.


I've long wondered what Zombie Marx and Engels would say if they had a chance to observe a contemporary social democracy. I have no doubt that they would find all kinds of reasons to be critical (the decrepit state of modern trade unions, for example), but perhaps they be far more comfortable with the situation than whey were in the 1800s.

Of course, I also wonder how much of Marxism was actually Marx, and not the interpretation of the various Anti-Revisionist pharisees. As skeptical of Marx as I am, from what I've read or heard in university lectures, I have a hard time believing that he had anything other than strong social democracy/democratic socialism in mind.

I’ve long wondered what Zombie Marx and Engels would say if they had a chance to observe a contemporary social democracy. I have no doubt that they would find all kinds of reasons to be critical (the decrepit state of modern trade unions, for example), but perhaps they be far more comfortable with the situation than whey were in the 1800s.
I think ‘comfortable’ would be pushing it, but they’d have to revise some of their opinions certainly. For a start, modern-day capitalism has accomplished many things that Marx claimed only socialism could accomplish, and is far more involved in the market than was the case back in the 1800s, while the role (some would say existence) of the industrial working class is all but gone from Western society.

That’s not to say that Marx’s work isn’t important; his critique of capitalism, especially his alienation theory, is bang on the mark. It’s just the predictions of the future, the path he and Engels saw society taking, that are really screwed up.

That’s why I put more weight on Marx’s early writings, and am more sympathetic with the modern Autonomous Marxists; rather than their Classical and Leninist counterparts.

That’s why I put more weight on Marx’s early writings, and am more sympathetic with the modern Autonomous Marxists; rather than their Classical and Leninist counterparts.



The term autonomia/Autonome is derived from the Greek "αὐτό-νομος" referring to someone or something which lives by his/her own rule.



I like it already. :D

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=automatos

I like it already. :D

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=automatos



What is the practical difference, if any, between Autonomist Marxism and libertarian/anarchist communism or anarcho-syndicalism?

I've actually never heard about 'autonomist' Marxists, but from even a cursory analysis of Marx it's pretty clear that they are no Marxists, mainly anarchists looking for some intellectual relief.

'to force changes to the organisation of the capitalist system independent of the state'

That is not a Marxist position because it goes against the Marxist analysis of class rule. It assumes that capitalist society can be changed from within, and that reform can work, a dangerous idea which social-democrats fell into. Marx analyzed that only when the working class conquer political power and themselves become the ruling class can relations of production be socialized, after violent revolution.

I myself like to think of myself as a Marxist realist, which means I reject the Ivory Tower airy-fairy nonsense of the anarchists etc.

It assumes that capitalist society can be changed from within, and that reform can work, a dangerous idea which social-democrats fell into. Marx analyzed that only when the working class conquer political power and themselves become the ruling class can relations of production be socialized, after violent revolution.


If the state is presently the tool of ruling class oppression, and Marx asserts that state power is necessary to overthrow ruling class oppression, then does not Marx also "[assume] that capitalist society can be changed from within?"

The difference between Classical Marxists and "anarchists" is not that the anarchist seek change from within and Marxists from without; if Marxists seek control of the state, they are clearly working from within.

Rather, the difference is that "anarchists" seek to smash the tool of ruling class oppression, while Classical Marxists fall into the trap of merely keeping the seat warm for the next ruling class oppressor who happens along.


I myself like to think of myself as a Marxist realist, which means I reject the Ivory Tower airy-fairy nonsense of the anarchists etc.

Anarchism is a popular theory among establishment intellectuals? I've studied politics in the university for going on three years now, and, I don't mean to flamebait or anything, but I have to ask: which planet are you posting from?

I myself like to think of myself as a Marxist realist, which means I reject the Ivory Tower airy-fairy nonsense of the anarchists etc.

Yet you believe in the Marxist theory which in turn believes in some grand "utopia" without spelling out how to get there? double standard much? I grant you Marx had some good ideas and insight but your rigid following of Marxism amuses me.

I've actually never heard about 'autonomist' Marxists, but from even a cursory analysis of Marx it's pretty clear that they are no Marxists, mainly anarchists looking for some intellectual relief.

'to force changes to the organisation of the capitalist system independent of the state'

That is not a Marxist position because it goes against the Marxist analysis of class rule. It assumes that capitalist society can be changed from within, and that reform can work, a dangerous idea which social-democrats fell into. Marx analyzed that only when the working class conquer political power and themselves become the ruling class can relations of production be socialized, after violent revolution.

We've been over this before Andaras: there is no hard demarcation between Marxism and anarchism. Philosophies like Autonomist Marxism blur the distinction even more by seeking to reconcile the bad blood between the two camps, and trying to synthesize the best of both.

There is no reason why someone cannot be both an anarchist and a Marxist. Mikhail Bakunin, the primary influence of collectivist anarchism, accepted all of Marx's theories save one: the conquest of the state's political power by the proletariat. Bakunin felt that rather than tolerate an institution based on class privilege and domination, this institution should be smashed since it opposes the kind of popular power that socialists seek.

For the record, this is why cursory examinations are not good. Autonomist Marxism does not advocate "working within the system". It advocates mass based popular movements and revolutionary direct action to undo concentrations of bourgeois power, and create institutions of genuine proletarian democracy, to use the Marxist term.

Yet you believe in the Marxist theory which in turn believes in some grand "utopia" without spelling out how to get there? double standard much? I grant you Marx had some good ideas and insight but your rigid following of Marxism amuses me.

Quiet yourself, you don't know what your on about. Leninism itself is about realism and practical building of socialism, not the far-flung fantasies of the Left. If you actually bothered to read the Manifesto fool you'd know Marx spells out exactly how to get there.

We've been over this before Andaras: there is no hard demarcation between Marxism and anarchism. Philosophies like Autonomist Marxism blur the distinction even more by seeking to reconcile the bad blood between the two camps, and trying to synthesize the best of both.

There is no reason why someone cannot be both an anarchist and a Marxist. Mikhail Bakunin, the primary influence of collectivist anarchism, accepted all of Marx's theories save one: the conquest of the state's political power by the proletariat. Bakunin felt that rather than tolerate an institution based on class privilege and domination, this institution should be smashed since it opposes the kind of popular power that socialists seek.

For the record, this is why cursory examinations are not good. Autonomist Marxism does not advocate "working within the system". It advocates mass based popular movements and revolutionary direct action to undo concentrations of bourgeois power, and create institutions of genuine proletarian democracy, to use the Marxist term.

Well, that's fine, as long as they don't call themselves Marxist autonomists, I think most of the bad-blood comes the intellectual cherry-picking of the anarchists and their emotional utopianism, rather than scientific basis.

Quiet yourself, you don't know what your on about. Leninism itself is about realism and practical building of socialism, not the far-flung fantasies of the Left. If you actually bothered to read the Manifesto fool you'd know Marx spells out exactly how to get there.

I'm a fool now am I? I've read the Manifesto, twice actually. Funny how you assume anyone who critises Marxism must not have read the Manifesto and that upon reading it they will become enlightened to the truth. On a side note, do you loathe social democrats?

I'm a fool now am I? I've read the Manifesto, twice actually. Funny how you assume anyone who critises Marxism must not have read the Manifesto and that upon reading it they will become enlightened to the truth. On a side note, do you loathe social democrats?

Did you happen to see the 10-points of socialism then?

Also, social-democrats started out well, the parties in Europe were founded on the advise of Marx and Engels are were generally working class organizations. I suppose the first betrayal was in WWI when sided with the bourgeois authorities and encouraged the workers to murder workers from other countries 'for the Fatherland'. Since then it's been all down hill.

Okay, so I finally sat down to read the Communist Manifesto.

My first experience with manifestos was several years ago reading Industrial Society and its Future (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future), which I found to be fascinating and insightful, even mind-opening, but it came to the wrong conclusions of course. So I thought that I might be in for a treat with the Communist Manifesto.

Wrong! It sucked. It was so empty-worded and propaganda-riffic, and the actual arguments so sparse and simple that I had to skim through it to keep from getting a headache. I'm hoping that Das Kapital is more in-depth and less fluff.
From what I've heard, Das Kapital is a much more important economic work than the Manifesto. In it Marx talks about his theory of labor and examines, well, the Capital. It seems to be part of the "Big Three" of economic books (the other two being The Wealth of Nations and The General Theory.)
One thing I've never understood about The Communist Manifesto: if the uprising of the proletariat was inevitable, as Marx seemed to think it was, why did he bother promoting it? I mean, if history really was a class struggle and capitalism was self-destructive, wouldn't the workers have risen up without Marx to egg them along?

One thing I've never understood about The Communist Manifesto: if the uprising of the proletariat was inevitable, as Marx seemed to think it was, why did he bother promoting it? I mean, if history really was a class struggle and capitalism was self-destructive, wouldn't the workers have risen up without Marx to egg them along?

I believe Marx says in the Manifesto, though I misplaced my copy so I can't be sure, is that he an others are needed to to get the ball rolling, i.e. the catalysts for the developing class consciousness, the trumpet blowers for the charge to utopia.

From what I've heard, Das Kapital is a much more important economic work than the Manifesto. In it Marx talks about his theory of labor and examines, well, the Capital. It seems to be part of the "Big Three" of economic books (the other two being The Wealth of Nations and The General Theory.)
One thing I've never understood about The Communist Manifesto: if the uprising of the proletariat was inevitable, as Marx seemed to think it was, why did he bother promoting it? I mean, if history really was a class struggle and capitalism was self-destructive, wouldn't the workers have risen up without Marx to egg them along?

Seriously, go to the first/second page of this thread, read carefully the discussion between me and Trot on this topic, and have your question answered.

The lightbulb doesn't turn itself.

Seriously, go to the first/second page of this thread, read carefully the discussion between me and Trot on this topic, and have your question answered.

The lightbulb doesn't turn itself.

Hmm, that helps. I'm still unconvinced by the logic of it, but that's probably because of my more general disagreements with Marx over how capitalism works. Thanks all the same.

That is not a Marxist position because it goes against the Marxist analysis of class rule. It assumes that capitalist society can be changed from within, and that reform can work, a dangerous idea which social-democrats fell into.

If I read this correctly, you are saying that working toward socialism independent of the state = working toward socialism from within capitalism (aka. "reform"). If so, you're courting a dangerous idea which liberals and conservatives fall into: the binary society, where the only avenues of action and change are the state or the bourgeois market. Both are tools of oppression and exploitation by design; by seizing control of either one, otherwise good-intentioned socialists must necessarily become oppressors and exploiters.

Oh god, please keep your abstract and inane liberalistic garbage out of this nice clean thread, I was having a nice discussion until you dumped in here.
Abstractions work because they're universally applicable. Dealing with concrete examples is a waste of everyone's time.

Leninism itself is about realism and practical building of socialism, not the far-flung fantasies of the Left.
REALISTICALLY, all we can say is that Leninism built the Soviet state, which had a moderately long run and then fell apart. Unless you think that Putin's Russia is the socialist paradise that Marx was aiming for, then it is only HYPOTHETICALLY, in the abstract, that you can claim that Leninism "should have" led to some other result.

rather than scientific basis.

Bull shit. There is nothing scientific about Marxism, amongst other things, it certainly doesn't meet the test of being falsifiable.

I made a vow to myself never to read anything with the word 'manifesto' in the title. So far, so good. :)

*points to thread title*

"The Communist Manifesto is 160 Years Old Today"

;):p

The communist manifesto has nothing to do with the modern day. Communism is a lame dream for faggots and lazy philosphising welfare cheats.

You're not Andaras's Capitalist twin are you? Your debate-strategies seem strangely similar...

My main objection to Marxism is the attempt to claim that it's in any way scientic.

My main objection to Marxism is the attempt to claim that it's in any way scientic.

Is it that you feel being scientific is undesirable in a political philosophy or is it because you feel it doesn't meet the criteria for being scientific?

If it is the latter, what parts specifically do you feel that Marxism fails to meet the criteria for being scientific?

Is it that you feel being scientific is undesirable in a political philosophy or is it because you feel it doesn't meet the criteria for being scientific?

If it is the latter, what parts specifically do you feel that Marxism fails to meet the criteria for being scientific?
I actually believe that Marx was scientific, and most of his stuff that agree with comes from his scientific approach to history and society. He didn't see history as the march of ideals or the chosen path of God, he took an analytical view of it, which I believe is more realistic.
What I disagree with is what he actually claimed to have found. While a reasonable hypothesis, his claim that history is a class struggle is overly simplistic. Also, while human behavior can be analyzed scientifically, people don't seem to act consistently enough for any "laws" to be derived from observation. And of course, I don't think even Marx would approve of the dogmatic status his writing has achieved among many Marxists.

I actually believe that Marx was scientific, and most of his stuff that agree with comes from his scientific approach to history and society. He didn't see history as the march of ideals or the chosen path of God, he took an analytical view of it, which I believe is more realistic.
What I disagree with is what he actually claimed to have found. While a reasonable hypothesis, his claim that history is a class struggle is overly simplistic. Also, while human behavior can be analyzed scientifically, people don't seem to act consistently enough for any "laws" to be derived from observation. And of course, I don't think even Marx would approve of the dogmatic status his writing has achieved among many Marxists.

Certainly all valid points. Shortly before his death, Karl Marx remarked about the German Social Democrat's philosophy that "If that is Marxism, then all I know is that I am no Marxist."

Is it that you feel being scientific is undesirable in a political philosophy or is it because you feel it doesn't meet the criteria for being scientific?

If it is the latter, what parts specifically do you feel that Marxism fails to meet the criteria for being scientific?
Marx's failure to measure human behaviour is a big part of that.

Humans compete. Humans act selfishly. There is no basis for the belief that this will ever change.

Marx's failure to measure human behaviour is a big part of that.

Humans compete. Humans act selfishly. There is no basis for the belief that this will ever change.
I don't know. I think this is just as over simplified as some of Marx's ideas, if not more. Research done by actual scientists shows that humans are naturally altruistic, and society seems to benefit from this altruism. That's not the say people are not ever selfish, but it's a mistake to set it up as an either/or scenario.

I don't know. I think this is just as over simplified as some of Marx's ideas, if not more. Research done by actual scientists shows that humans are naturally altruistic, and society seems to benefit from this altruism. That's not the say people are not ever selfish, but it's a mistake to set it up as an either/or scenario.
Humans are not naturally altrustic. Those studies are overly simplistic.

Humans are not naturally altrustic. Those studies are overly simplistic.

With all due respect, I am going to trust the studies I have seen over what you say.
A link describing Tit-for-Tat, the game strategy that, when used in the Prisoner's Dilemma, "wins" the most (http://journal.ilovephilosophy.com/Article/Can-cooperation-every-occur-without-the-state-/1130)
It has been seen outside humans, too:
True altruism--completely unselfish acts for somebody else's benefit--was until recently considered uniquely human. When animals help, the theory went, they either help relatives, thereby increasing chances of passing shared genes to the next generation, or they count on having favours returned in the future.
And economists recognize its existence:
Theories of commitment, altruism, and reciprocity have been invoked to explain and describe behavior in public goods and social dilemma situations. Commitment has been used to explain behaviors like water conservation and voting. Altruism has been applied to explain contributions to charities and intergenerational transfers and bequests. Reciprocity has been invoked to explain gift exchange and labor market decisions. This paper describes a set of experiments, which distinguish between these competing theories by testing their comparative statics predictions in a linear public goods setting. Results provide strong support for reciprocity theories over either theories of commitment or of altruism. (JEL C9, D64, H41, C72)
I can't give links to the second and third source, but if you have access to infoTrac with any library, you should be able to find them.

Marx's failure to measure human behaviour is a big part of that.

Humans compete. Humans act selfishly. There is no basis for the belief that this will ever change.

Which of Marx's assumptions require humans to be totally altruistic? Do you also deny that human behavior is profoundly influenced by material and social context?

I do not believe that any scientific, as well as even contemplating human nature rationally from a basic perspective, can show that the vast majority of humans are altruistic enough to support something like communism, even if they have a basic amount of altruism.
Oh no, I don't communism as it is described in the Manifesto would work at all. But I think the other extreme is just as wrong. Like I said, it's not an either/or situation: humans are fundamentally altruistic, but they are also fundamentally selfish.
In short, humans are fundamentally human, which shouldn't be too surprising.

Humans are not naturally altrustic. Those studies are overly simplistic.
[/QUOTE]

I disagree. It would be reasonable to assume that humans are naturally altruistic to an extent. Even if you choose to ignore any study, you will still be hard pressed to find anyone who isn't psychotic that would refuse to help any neutral person falling off a cliff when they easily can, as well as the fact that being altruistic would be an evolutionary benefit and thus a likely instinct of ours. However I do not believe we are anywhere near as altruistic as communists claim.

With all due respect, I am going to trust the studies I have seen over what you say.
A link describing Tit-for-Tat, the game strategy that, when used in the Prisoner's Dilemma, "wins" the most (http://journal.ilovephilosophy.com/Article/Can-cooperation-every-occur-without-the-state-/1130)
It has been seen outside humans, too:

And economists recognize its existence:

I can't give links to the second and third source, but if you have access to infoTrac with any library, you should be able to find them.

I do not believe that any scientific, as well as even contemplating human nature rationally from a basic perspective, can show that the vast majority of humans are altruistic enough to support something like communism, even if they have a basic amount of altruism.

True altruism--completely unselfish acts for somebody else's benefit--was until recently considered uniquely human. When animals help, the theory went, they either help relatives, thereby increasing chances of passing shared genes to the next generation, or they count on having favours returned in the future.
Free will requires that altruism can't happen. This study simply isn't measuring all the benefits.

Bull shit. There is nothing scientific about Marxism, amongst other things, it certainly doesn't meet the test of being falsifiable.
Of course it is falsifiable. Unfortunately for Andaras, it has been tested, and falsified. If he were "scientific" about it, he would revise his hypothesis in light of the experimental data.

Of course it is falsifiable. Unfortunately for Andaras, it has been tested, and falsified. If he were "scientific" about it, he would revise his hypothesis in light of the experimental data.

Well, in the initial phase it was somewhat falsifiable, but the constant modifications and addenda, after the fact, when predicted events failed to materialize make it so that it takes on a pseudoscientific feel, almost akin to the teachings of the Seventh Day Adventists. Leninism, for instance, is just one of these varying alterations. By the original hypothesis of Marx, the Revolution should not have, under any circumstances, occurred in Russia, a country so backward and unindustrialized, that it was receiving nearly all of its explosives and gunpowder in 1914 from Germany, that by nineteen-twenty, the number of automobiles in produced in the USSR did not exceed 100, and the number of tractors produced did not exceed 11. Further, the revolution was not carried out by a sense of class consciousness, but out of frustration with the sheer incompetence of the management of the fighting in the World War.

Industrialization programmes were fueled by a combination of natural resources, and the sale of valuables to western countries (such as Mellon's purchases of works from the Winter Palace, art that can now be seen at the National Gallery in Washington), and using the liquid funds derived from these sales to hire western experts and western firms (such as Ford at Gorky) or American experts (such as Hugh L. Cooper at the Dnieper Dam) to build infrastructure for the USSR.

Regardless, Russia should never have been the country that a Marxist revolution would have occurred in. The country where that was supposed to occur would be Germany, although the UK and France stood outside chances of being the location of such. Leninism is just an attempt to bring this discrepancy in line the actual occurrence of events. The Revolution in Germany didn't occur as a result of class consciousness: It resulted as a result of the loss of World War I, and the dividing lines were not proletarian-vs-capitalist, rather nationalists/capitalists/democratic socialists-vs-radicals. Even at that, the Spartakusbund never gained victory, and its leaders were ingloriously executed in an apartment by some hired hyper-right thug. Since then, the indications of even the most remote sorts of worker discontent were expressed in hyper-right ideologies, such as Nazism.

Of course it is falsifiable. Unfortunately for Andaras, it has been tested, and falsified. If he were "scientific" about it, he would revise his hypothesis in light of the experimental data.

Indeed, and the data shows that when true collectivization under worker soviets was achieved, industrial output exploded and the proletariat became strong. On the other hand when market-based reforms were introduced the economy went to hell (Brezhnev stagnation).

One thing communism has failed to tell me, in part because I've never asked, what the hell's so great about a new world order anyway?

Makes you wonder, doesn't it, why Communism isn't or hasn't been able to answer your question...

I don't think there's anything great about a new world order.

Friggin' Illuminati!!:mp5: LOL!:D

Free will requires that altruism can't happen. This study simply isn't measuring all the benefits.

But free will is not a scientific concept. It is in the realm of the theological, not the realm of science.

I would conclude that perhaps our conceptualization of free will is what is in need of revising.

But free will is not a scientific concept. It is in the realm of the theological, not the realm of science.

I would conclude that perhaps our conceptualization of free will is what is in need of revising.

If you can come up with a solid definition of free will that isn't open to debate due to flawless logic, you'll probably win a whole lot of awards and honorary Ph.D. in philosophy from most universities. Free will, to say the least, is a poorly defined concept.

If you can come up with a solid definition of free will that isn't open to debate due to flawless logic, you'll probably win a whole lot of awards and honorary Ph.D. in philosophy from most universities. Free will, to say the least, is a poorly defined concept.

I guess I need to get crackin' then. :p

I wants me my honoarary Ph.D.s and stuffz.

But free will is not a scientific concept. It is in the realm of the theological, not the realm of science.

Metaphysical, not theological. Nothing to do with God.

I would conclude that perhaps our conceptualization of free will is what is in need of revising.

Indeed. Free will is precisely what allows for "altruism" in the strong sense.

If we always do what we want, we are not free: we cannot choose to go against our wants, even if we have strong reasons (like a belief in a duty to help others) to do so.

Edit: For what it's worth, "wanting" to help others is good enough at least as far as altruism goes. It poses more serious problems for the idea of moral duty.

Free will, to say the least, is a poorly defined concept.

Difficult to define. Not "poorly defined." There are some very good definitions.

Metaphysical, not theological. Nothing to do with God.

True. In its most basic form it doesn't involve God. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Free Will was originally a theistic concept in Western culture.

If we always do what we want, we are not free: we cannot choose to go against our wants, even if we have strong reasons (like a belief in a duty to help others) to do so.
Nonsense. We can't have reason to go against our wants - that's what makes them our wants. If you want to help others out of a sense of duty, that's still a want.

Nonsense. We can't have reason to go against our wants - that's what makes them our wants. If you want to help others out of a sense of duty, that's still a want.

Then we have no free will.

We can't have reason to go against our wants - that's what makes them our wants.

What do wants have to do with reason?

Lots of people "want" to believe in God--does that make it rational?

If you want to help others out of a sense of duty, that's still a want.

Sure. But if I think I am obligated to help others as a moral duty, that has nothing to do with "want."

I do not desire it. I think it is right. I recognize that right, not desire, has the first claim in answering the question "What should I do?"

The latter. Marxism is unfalsifiable in the scientific sense, just like all other over-arching political theories, because there are too many variables in a society. Political theories can and should be influenced by science, but they are not capable of being scientific in their own right.

How does that make it unfalsifiable? Certain events and advances in scientific theories have proven certain Marxist assumptions false, and many Marxists have acknowledged this, and have gone back to work revising the theory.

Is it that you feel being scientific is undesirable in a political philosophy or is it because you feel it doesn't meet the criteria for being scientific?

If it is the latter, what parts specifically do you feel that Marxism fails to meet the criteria for being scientific?

The latter. Marxism is unfalsifiable in the scientific sense, just like all other over-arching political theories, because there are too many variables in a society. Political theories can and should be influenced by science, but they are not capable of being scientific in their own right.

How does that make it unfalsifiable? Certain events and advances in scientific theories have proven certain Marxist assumptions false, and many Marxists have acknowledged this, and have gone back to work revising the theory.

But that's the problem: whenever reality contradicts Marxism the theory is simply altered. There is no observation which could truly falsify Marxism in the same way that, for example, fossil rabbits in the Precambrian would falsify Evolution.

But that's the problem: whenever reality contradicts Marxism the theory is simply altered. There is no observation which could truly falsify Marxism in the same way that, for example, fossil rabbits in the Precambrian would falsify Evolution.

You are missing the point of scientific method. The idea is that when we find evidence that contradicts the theory, the first response should be to modify the theory to take the new evidence into account, not throw the entirety out the window. If we shitcanned scientific theories every time there was a contradiction, we'd never get anything done.

If the new evidence proves irreconcilable with the theoretical assumptions, then it is time to reformulate. But fundamentally, scientific method is based on building off pre-existing knowledge.

Then we have no free will.
No, you're just misusing the word "want".

What do wants have to do with reason?

Lots of people "want" to believe in God--does that make it rational?
No. It's not rational to want to believe things, and I don't think that's what people actually want, since belief is outside the realm of conscious control.

What they want is a reason to believe in god. If they're rational, they'll realise they don't have one.
Sure. But if I think I am obligated to help others as a moral duty, that has nothing to do with "want."
But what you actually do does. You behave morally because you want to behave morally. You have the option, but you choose to behave morally.
I do not desire it. I think it is right. I recognize that right, not desire, has the first claim in answering the question "What should I do?"
But why do you do what you think is right? Do you want to behave in a way that is right?

Free will entails the freedom to do what you want to do. You cannot behave otherwise in the presence of free will because you cannot have cause to do so.

You are missing the point of scientific method. The idea is that when we find evidence that contradicts the theory, the first response should be to modify the theory to take the new evidence into account, not throw the entirety out the window. If we shitcanned scientific theories every time there was a contradiction, we'd never get anything done.

If the new evidence proves irreconcilable with the theoretical assumptions, then it is time to reformulate. But fundamentally, scientific method is based on building off pre-existing knowledge.

Marxism is not scientific. Firstly it does not use empirical evidence to make a hypothesis, it uses history to assert that humans are malleable. There is too much speculation about history over a lot of periods about the nature of society (not a lot of shit was written down from the lower classes) to truly call it reliable evidence. But ignoring this, the premise (i.e. that Humans are malleable to the environment and are naturally altruistic) does not support the hypothesis (therefore humanity ought to embrace communism). Indeed, any hypothesis which uses 'ought' is not really a hypothesis scientifically. As is so often mentioned in this forum, 'you cannot deduce an ought from an is'. And I know you will talk about how Marxism does not use oughts, and is in fact about predicting what will inevitably happen in society (proletariat revolution and all that)- two things with this: firstly even if that is what its all about, predicting what humanity will do is flawed and totally unempirical given the chaotic nature of humanity and its unpredictability. Secondly, that isn't what Marxism is about, if anyone is a Marxist, they thing that communism ought to be implemented, you can't be a Marxist and hate communism or any kind of left libertarian style of society.

Marxism is not scientific. Firstly it does not use empirical evidence to make a hypothesis, it uses history to assert that humans are malleable. There is too much speculation about history over a lot of periods about the nature of society (not a lot of shit was written down from the lower classes) to truly call it reliable evidence.

:rolleyes:

History is empirical evidence. How we interpret human history is still up in the air, but the historical record is fairly reliable, enough so to argue causal relationships between certain phenomena.

But ignoring this, the premise (i.e. that Humans are malleable to the environment and are naturally altruistic) does not support the hypothesis (therefore humanity ought to embrace communism). Indeed, any hypothesis which uses 'ought' is not really a hypothesis scientifically. As is so often mentioned in this forum, 'you cannot deduce an ought from an is'.

You are conflating Marxian historical materialism with class consciousness here. Historical materialism says nothing about "oughts", it only speaks of "is" and what "will be". They hypothesis of Marxism is that the material economic environment is the primary driver of human social evolution, and that class conflict is the primary means by which societies change their economic models.


And I know you will talk about how Marxism does not use oughts, and is in fact about predicting what will inevitably happen in society (proletariat revolution and all that)- two things with this: firstly even if that is what its all about, predicting what humanity will do is flawed and totally unempirical given the chaotic nature of humanity and its unpredictability. Secondly, that isn't what Marxism is about, if anyone is a Marxist, they thing that communism ought to be implemented, you can't be a Marxist and hate communism or any kind of left libertarian style of society.

Marx made some startlingly accurate predictions about the future course of capitalist society, predicting both imperialism and globalization long before they appeared in reality. He may have been wrong about certain predictions, but later Marxists have found that these unpredicted events are still within the bounds of Marxist theory. Others have revised Marx's hypotheses to take into account new advances in science and social evolution. Like any model, it is reductionist, but it still has plenty of utility.

One thing that must be stressed is that Marx's normative judgments of what ought to be did not stem from his materialist analysis. Those were separate judgments.

:rolleyes:

History is empirical evidence. How we interpret human history is still up in the air, but the historical record is fairly reliable, enough so to argue causal relationships between certain phenomena.


We can say a lot about many societies in history (I am studying history my self), but is almost impossible a lot of the time to really know the collective feeling of the working class in many periods.


You are conflating Marxian historical materialism with class consciousness here. Historical materialism says nothing about "oughts", it only speaks of "is" and what "will be". They hypothesis of Marxism is that the material economic environment is the primary driver of human social evolution, and that class conflict is the primary means by which societies change their economic models.


And as I already presumptively said, being a Marxist means that you think communism SHOULD be implemented it. And Marx took it way further than just class-conflict, it doesn't take a genius to work out that if a government refuses to reform then class conflict is the only feasible way to change society. He clearly and specifically describes the type of governments that will happen in various stages. It may be a good prediction, but it isn't a scientific one.



Marx made some startlingly accurate predictions about the future course of capitalist society, predicting both imperialism and globalization long before they appeared in reality.

Thats not much of an achievement, at the time of Marx, it was pretty hard not to predict imperialism. But true, he was fairly accurate on certain predictions, but being accurate on certain predictions doesn't mean his all predictions are accurate, most importantly his predictions on communist society.


He may have been wrong about certain predictions, but later Marxists have found that these unpredicted events are still within the bounds of Marxist theory. Others have revised Marx's hypotheses to take into account new advances in science and social evolution. Like any model, it is reductionist, but it still has plenty of utility.


But who can have the authority to really revise Marxism and how far can you really change it? At one point does it become a separate theory if you keep changing it?


One thing that must be stressed is that Marx's normative judgments of what ought to be did not stem from his materialist analysis. Those were separate judgments.

They are still Marxist however.

We can say a lot about many societies in history (I am studying history my self), but is almost impossible a lot of the time to really know the collective feeling of the working class in many periods.

These attitudes can be inferred from the material conditions of the time (like nutrition, which can be determined by analyzing skeletons) and analyzing the records of the ruling class for the kinds of policies they implement. Based on the latter, we can make a pretty good judgment about what the masses were thinking. Like for instance, a policy designed to placate the masses would indicate there was growing turmoil at that time that the leaders wanted to prevent from coming to a head.

And as I already presumptively said, being a Marxist means that you think communism SHOULD be implemented it. And Marx took it way further than just class-conflict, it doesn't take a genius to work out that if a government refuses to reform then class conflict is the only feasible way to change society. He clearly and specifically describes the type of governments that will happen in various stages. It may be a good prediction, but it isn't a scientific one.

The theorists of free market laissez-faire capitalism all believe in the normative superiority of their system. Does that mean that their theories are unscientific? Not necessarily. So long as it passes the criteria of empiricism and testability, then a theory is scientific. Marxism is both.

Thats not much of an achievement, at the time of Marx, it was pretty hard not to predict imperialism. But true, he was fairly accurate on certain predictions, but being accurate on certain predictions doesn't mean his all predictions are accurate, most importantly his predictions on communist society.

At the same time, Marx isn't the end all to be all of communism. Western libertarian Marxists used Marxian theory to predict the downfall of the Soviet Union long before Western anti-communists made such predictions. The subject of the Soviet Union is very well studied in Western Marxian academia, and the conclusion, based on Marxist principles, is that the revolution in Russia was a false start; a revolution based on anti-war discontent rather than mass scale class-consciousness.

But who can have the authority to really revise Marxism and how far can you really change it? At one point does it become a separate theory if you keep changing it?

This is the reason why I hate the term "Marxism". It should have never been identified around the person of Marx, since this has stifled a lot of important revision of his theories. I'm not certain what the brightline between Marxism and a new post-Marxist theory is, but the general academic consensus is that we are not there yet.

They are still Marxist however.

Marxist materialism (the scientific theory) is separate from Marxian humanism (the ethical philosophy). There are those who try to conflate the two, but they should remain distinct and discrete.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it, why Communism isn't or hasn't been able to answer your question...

I don't think there's anything great about a new world order.

Friggin' Illuminati!!:mp5: LOL!:D

I don't think so either.

These attitudes can be inferred from the material conditions of the time (like nutrition, which can be determined by analyzing skeletons) and analyzing the records of the ruling class for the kinds of policies they implement. Based on the latter, we can make a pretty good judgment about what the masses were thinking.

Not often. In fact historians are changing their minds all the time about the feelings of the population, it's one of the most debated topics in history. You cannot speculate based on a policy of the ruling class exactly what the public thought of it.


Like for instance, a policy designed to placate the masses would indicate there was growing turmoil at that time that the leaders wanted to prevent from coming to a head.


But turmoil is not enough information. Also, the further down the time scale you go, the less recorded government policies are and it becomes increasingly difficult to make judgements. The point is, the evidence is not absolute, its alleged evidence, which to me at the very least is a lot less scientific then your standard scientific theory.


The theorists of free market laissez-faire capitalism all believe in the normative superiority of their system. Does that mean that their theories are unscientific?

Well, yes, along with any general political theory. Only certain economic approaches really could be described as scientific, sicne they encorporate logic and modern day statistics to create their hypothesis. But even these economic approaches are up for debate as to how scientific they actually are.


Not necessarily. So long as it passes the criteria of empiricism and testability, then a theory is scientific. Marxism is both.


Not to me, firstly because Marxism includes ought statements, which cannot be falsified. Whether you want to seperate Marxism into seperate categories is irellavent, they are still Marxist. Secondly because the evidence it uses is incredibly shaky.


At the same time, Marx isn't the end all to be all of communism. Western libertarian Marxists used Marxian theory to predict the downfall of the Soviet Union long before Western anti-communists made such predictions.

I'm skeptical of this, since the west were predicting when the bolsheviks took power that they would only last a few years.


The subject of the Soviet Union is very well studied in Western Marxian academia, and the conclusion, based on Marxist principles, is that the revolution in Russia was a false start; a revolution based on anti-war discontent rather than mass scale class-consciousness.


I don't dispute this.


This is the reason why I hate the term "Marxism". It should have never been identified around the person of Marx, since this has stifled a lot of important revision of his theories. I'm not certain what the brightline between Marxism and a new post-Marxist theory is, but the general academic consensus is that we are not there yet.


Ok, but just because a theory can adapt in light of new evidence, does not make it scientific.


Marxist materialism (the scientific theory) is separate from Marxian humanism (the ethical philosophy). There are those who try to conflate the two, but they should remain distinct and discrete.

I am not saying that they are not separate, merely that they are both Marxist. When you attack Marxism, you could be attacking either of those two, or both.

No. It's not rational to want to believe things, and I don't think that's what people actually want, since belief is outside the realm of conscious control.

Thought isn't. Plenty of believers shut off skeptical thoughts. Is that rational?

But what you actually do does. You behave morally because you want to behave morally.

Prove it.

You have the option, but you choose to behave morally.

So? I want to know why you think this choice is a matter of desire.

But why do you do what you think is right?

Because it is right. Like I said, "right" has the first claim. Things that are right are things I should do--they are the only legitimate answers to the question, "What should I do?"

Something that is wrong, however much I desire it, is never a legitimate answer and thus never a rational course of action. Just as choosing to believe that 1 + 1 = 3 is irrational however much I want to.

Do you want to behave in a way that is right?

No. I hate it.

Free will entails the freedom to do what you want to do.

No, it doesn't. Free will entails the freedom to make a free choice. If I must always do what I want, I am not free.

There is no contradiction between "I want to do x" and "I should not do x." If I must choose to go along with the former, I cannot be free.

Thought isn't. Plenty of believers shut off skeptical thoughts. Is that rational?
No.
Prove it.
I shouldn't have to. Every action you take you choose to take it. Regardless of what other forces are acting on you, you choose this action. Why? If you don't want to do it, given all the information you have, you don't do it. You might prefer the available options were different, but you still choose one.

This is why I think selfishness is tautological. Everyone is necessarily selfish all of the time because everyone does what they want all of the time.
So? I want to know why you think this choice is a matter of desire.
Why wouldn't it be? You, presented with the option to behave morally or immorally, choose the moral action. Why? Because you prefer the outcome of the moral action. Perhaps the immoral action brings derision or guilt, and you wish to avoid those. You might prefer the immoral action if all else were equal, but all else isn't equal, so you choose the moral action because you prefer the resulting set of outcomes.

Every choice you make is the result of a cost-benefit analysis.
Because it is right. Like I said, "right" has the first claim. Things that are right are things I should do--they are the only legitimate answers to the question, "What should I do?"
Why do you care about what you "should do"? Given that you do care, does failing to act as you "should" bring consequences you would rather avoid?
Something that is wrong, however much I desire it, is never a legitimate answer and thus never a rational course of action. Just as choosing to believe that 1 + 1 = 3 is irrational however much I want to.
You can't choose belief. It's not just irrational; it's impossible.
No. I hate it.
So why do you do it? What would happen if you didn't?
No, it doesn't. Free will entails the freedom to make a free choice. If I must always do what I want, I am not free.[/quot]
But the nature of choice is you choose as you wish. That's what makes it free. If you are compelled to do things you don't want to do, that's the absence of free will.
[quote]There is no contradiction between "I want to do x" and "I should not do x." If I must choose to go along with the former, I cannot be free.
Yes you can. If you do not choose the former, then you can't have been the one making the choice.

No.

Same reasoning here. Even if I want to do something, it does not follow that it is rational to do it. If I am free, I can go with reason over desire.

I shouldn't have to. Every action you take you choose to take it. Regardless of what other forces are acting on you, you choose this action. Why?

Because it is right. (Among other possible reasons. Or even none at all. Choices can be arbitrary.)

If you don't want to do it, given all the information you have, you don't do it.

That's what you're supposed to be proving.

Why wouldn't it be?

Because we have free will. Or at least we think we do.

However strong my desire, it does not determine my choice. I can choose to go against something I strongly desire to do. "Desire", technically speaking, is not a true reason to do anything: it does not bind my will, because the mere fact that I desire to do something does not mean I should actually do it.

You, presented with the option to behave morally or immorally, choose the moral action. Why? Because you prefer the outcome of the moral action.

No. That's your assumption. You haven't proven it.

Why do you care about what you "should do"?

Because that's the meaning of "should." It is an imperative word: practical, concerned with my choices and decision-making. To say that I should not do something is to say that, rationally, it is forbidden for me to do: if I am purely controlled by reason, I will never do it.

From "I want", it does not follow that "I should." Therefore, "I want" does not, rationally, determine my will. As a rational creature, therefore, if "I want" forcibly determines my will--if I have no choice but to do what I want--I cannot be free.

I have not, of course, shown that there is actually such a thing as a moral imperative ("should not" or "must") that gives us a compelling reason to disregard our wants. That is another argument. But since "I should" does not follow from "I want", and "I should" is necessarily what I must be concerned with, it does follow that if I am free, I cannot be bound by "I want." I must at least have the capacity to deny "want" in deference to a theoretical imperative.

Given that you do care, does failing to act as you "should" bring consequences you would rather avoid?

Maybe. Maybe not.

So why do you do it?

Because I recognize the obligation: I should not do anything else. Since I recognize that truth, I cannot rationally decide to do so: to do so would be in effect to deny that "should not", to deny that it is forbidden for me to act in violation of the imperative.

But the nature of choice is you choose as you wish. That's what makes it free.

No, what makes it free is the capacity to choose without external determination: for the will to determine itself.

If I am bound to "wish", I lack that capacity.

If you are compelled to do things you don't want to do, that's the absence of free will.

If I so compel myself in recognition of a binding reason, that is not the absence of free will. It may be unpleasant, but it is my choice.

Of all the threads on which I have argued about free will--a great many, on several sides of the argument as my view has changed over time--this one has got to be the most inappropriate.

:)

Because it is right.
Do moral judgements necessarily motivate?

I think not. Sure, moral judgements often weigh heavy on our minds, our conscience pushing us to do what we feel is right. But I think Llewdor’s correct here in arguing that we also need to desire to do the right thing before we act; and in agreeing with Llewdor, I’m also agreeing with Hume. (Not to drop a name or anything. :p)

Personally, I can think of times when I’ve known there was a course of action I morally should have taken, yet, in full awareness of my actions and their repercussions, I didn’t.

However strong my desire, it does not determine my choice. I can choose to go against something I strongly desire to do.
But only if we have another desire to do the morally right thing, or to follow duty, or to achieve a goal, etc. I may desire strongly to eat the cake in front of me, even if I’m on a diet. And you’re right in saying that I can choose not to go with that desire and refrain from scoffing the cake. But I’ve also got to have some desire to keep up with my diet (even if that desire is difficult or indirect: I desire not to disappoint my loved one who wishes me to lose weight; I desire not to die from obesity; I desire not to be seen as disgusting by the other folks in the restaurant...) to refrain from doing so.

Because that’s the meaning of “should.” It is an imperative word: practical, concerned with my choices and decision-making. To say that I should not do something is to say that, rationally, it is forbidden for me to do: if I am purely controlled by reason, I will never do it.
Again, I disagree; ‘should’ doesn’t always mean ‘the rational choice’. Think of appeals to politeness or etiquette.

For example, someone says I ‘should’ be polite to the visiting foreign dignitary from a barbaric regime, that I ‘should’ follow rules of etiquette and shake him or her by the hand. I don’t think it’s irrational to question why I ‘should’ do such a thing.

Or take a less extreme scenario: I am invited to a fancy dinner, and it’s made very clear that I ‘should’ turn up wearing a suit and black tie. Again, I don’t think it’s irrational not to do so. I may be wrong; but irrational?

From “I want”, it does not follow that “I should.”
In some sense it does. If I ‘want’ to get home in time for dinner, I ‘should’ take the 6:00 bus home. But this sense of ‘should’ is different from the sense of etiquette-based ‘should’ above. The statement that I ‘should’ get the bus at 6:00 to get home in time appeals to facts about my desires (Q: “Why should I get the bus?” A: “Because it’s the only way you’ll fulfil your desire to get home on time.”), while the etiquette-based ‘should’ appeals circularly to itself (Q: “Why should I be polite?” A: “Because it’s the polite thing to do.”).

Fuck you. I was just about to go to bed. :)

Do moral judgements necessarily motivate?

Yes. That's what it means to make a moral judgment: it is to say that we ought to do it, and the rational person will recognize this as binding upon her actions.

Rationally we cannot will what we ought not to do, however much we may want to do it.

I think not. Sure, moral judgements often weigh heavy on our minds, our conscience pushing us to do what we feel is right. But I think Llewdor’s correct here in arguing that we also need to desire to do the right thing before we act; and in agreeing with Llewdor, I’m also agreeing with Hume. (Not to drop a name or anything. :p)

Well, I'm agreeing with Kant, so....

Personally, I can think of times when I’ve known there was a course of action I morally should have taken, yet I didn’t.

Of course. This is a failure of will. You recognize the "ought", but you fail to follow through.

It does not follow that you could not have acted in deference to right against inclination, merely that you did not.

But only if we have another desire to do the morally right thing, or to follow duty, or to achieve a goal, etc. I may desire strongly to eat the cake in front of me, even if I’m on a diet. And you’re right in saying that I can choose not to go with that desire and refrain from scoffing the cake. But I’ve also got to have some desire to keep up with my diet (even if that desire is difficult or indirect: I desire not to disappoint my loved one who wishes me to lose weight; I desire not to die from obesity; I desire not to be seen as disgusting by the other folks in the restaurant...) to refrain from doing so.

No, you don't need any such desire. Both you and Llewdor make this assumption, and you treat it as obvious, as if it just needs to be stated in different ways instead of justified. But I don't make that assumption. I don't think choice is about going with that which we most desire. Rational choice is about answering the question, "What should I do?" All choice is about deciding, not about calculating cost-benefit--because I can calculate cost-benefit, I can measure my desires, without ever coming to a conclusion about what to do.

There's a basic break between the practical and the descriptive, one touched upon but not quite encapsulated by the is-ought distinction. In making a choice, mere mental states of desire are not enough; they describe what we are, they do not tell us what to do. We must actually decide. And if we are rational, we will not decide against what we understand to be the truth of decision-making: that there are certain decisions we are forbidden to make.

Again, I disagree; ‘should’ doesn’t always mean ‘the rational choice’. Think of appeals to politeness or etiquette.

For example, someone says I ‘should’ be polite to the visiting foreign dignitary from a barbaric regime, that I ‘should’ follow rules of etiquette and shake him or her by the hand. I don’t think it’s irrational to question why I ‘should’ do such a thing.

It's never irrational to question why. It's always irrational to agree (sincerely) that there is an obligation and then refuse to abide by it.

That's what it means to have an obligation: that it binds our will. In recognizing that truth, we recognize the rational necessity of acting in accordance with that obligation just as we recognize the rational necessity of one version of an equation being synonymous with another.

Or take a less extreme scenario: I am invited to a fancy dinner, and it’s made very clear that I ‘should’ turn up wearing a suit and black tie. Again, I don’t think it’s irrational not to do so. I may be wrong; but irrational?

You're equivocating now. "Should" in this context is not being used in the sense of moral obligation; it's just a reference to social expectations.

In some sense it does. If I ‘want’ to get home in time for dinner, I ‘should’ take the 6:00 bus home.

That only works in ordinary language. It doesn't work when "should" is being used in a more technical sense, as here, when I am referring to moral obligation (or at least the lack of a contrary moral obligation.) The fact that you "want" to get home for dinner would not alter your obligation to avoid the bus if, for instance, the bus fare was going to pay for boiling children.

No, you're just misusing the word "want".

In need, freedom is latent. The kinda 'freedom' you espouse in the exclusive freedom of the ruling class, including but most importantly the freedom to exploit others for personal profit, and to vest degree by degree the means of production as private property, ie capital.

Socialism is different from all previous forms of society (feudalism, ancient slavery, primitivism etc) because with it's fall instead of a reconstitution of class on a different basis, with it's fall comes the abolition of class relations rather than simply making new class relations. So when the bourgeois replaced feudalism class relations were radically changed from the aristocratic, Burgess relations to the industrial capitalist relations.

Why is socialism different from all previous forms of society, well firstly because it comes after (and thus is created by) capitalism, and capitalism is different from previous relations because instead of a manifold class relation (e.g. multiple classes like feudalism) it simplifies class relations, ie into two groups, worker and capitalist, and so thus simplifies the antagonism. It makes succinct antagonisms that under feudalism were disguised in the many ranks of feudal society. Thus the two-camp class struggle begins.

To put it simply: a rational creature first considers the reasons for actions.

Moral obligation, by definition, is a reason: if it is justified, it binds our wills. That is what it means to have the status of moral obligation. Desire, because it does not lead to obligation ("I want" does not lead to "I ought"), is not.

If our choices are rationally equivalent, our choice of what to do can be arbitrary... and we generally go with desire (though we need not.) But if our choices are rationally distinct, if we must rationally recognize some as forbidden or required, our own rationality requires us to make some choices and avoid others prior to any consideration of arbitrary factors like desire.

Fuck you. I was just about to go to bed.
;)

Well, I am going to bed. I’ll continue this in the morn.

Though if the thread continues as it has been for the last few posts, perhaps a thread-split is in order?

To put it simply: a rational creature first considers the reasons for actions.

Moral obligation, by definition, is a reason: if it is justified, it binds our wills. That is what it means to have the status of moral obligation. Desire, because it does not lead to obligation ("I want" does not lead to "I ought"), is not.

If our choices are rationally equivalent, our choice of what to do can be arbitrary... and we generally go with desire (though we need not.) But if our choices are rationally distinct, if we must rationally recognize some as forbidden or required, our own rationality requires us to make some choices and avoid others prior to any consideration of arbitrary factors like desire.
Where is your evidence for 'rationality', I think it preposterous to claim that people act on this magical abstract concept of 'rationality', they totally remove human actions from material reality.

Also (back on my topic), Marx notes remnants of feudalism remain to this day, religion is one remnant, which will inevitably be replaced by a 'bourgeois religion', at Marx's time this would have seemed like the 'deism' or rational atheism that came from France. I tend to think differently, I think the whole mixture of Christianity and free-market ideology, and to a more general degree the mixing of conservatism and liberalism in America shows us how the bourgeois will finally do away with the old feudal relations. Monarchies still exist, few wield the power they used to under feudalism but Saudi Arabia is an example.

But most importantly is the middle-lower classes and the peasants, the actual remnants of feudalism itself. These days, through such ideologies as social conservatism, nationalism etc actually support the bourgeois despite the fact that the bourgeois is slowing absorbing them into the growing worker-force, and thus destroying their class relations.

Yes. That’s what it means to make a moral judgment: it is to say that we ought to do it
But why ‘should’ we, or ‘ought’ we to do it?

Rationally we cannot will what we ought not to do, however much we may want to do it.
I ought not to steal my friends chocolate buttons, but I rationalise that: I can easily get away with it; my friend will never find out; there will be no reprisals; my friend has far too many chocolate buttons for him to eat; so I steal one.

A wrong action, one that I ought not to do, but a perfectly rational one.

Well, I’m agreeing with Kant, so....
Philosopher Top Trumps! :p

But I don’t make that assumption. I don’t think choice is about going with that which we most desire.
Not ‘that which we most desire’ necessarily; we simply have to have some desire to fulfil a goal.

Rational choice is about answering the question, “What should I do?”
And is that should a prudential ‘should’ or a moral ‘should’?

All choice is about deciding
Exactly.

And to decide what I want to do I need, at the very least, to desire some goal; even if that desire is to fulfill an obligation, etc., or something else I want to acheive. You’ve got to seperate ‘desire’ from ‘passion’.

In making a choice, mere mental states of desire are not enough; they describe what we are, they do not tell us what to do. We must actually decide.
And how do we decide without the desire/wish/want/will to achieve the (known) outcomes of our decisions?

And if we are rational, we will not decide against what we understand to be the truth of decision-making: that there are certain decisions we are forbidden to make.
One can make wrong, forbidden choices without being irrational.

It’s always irrational to agree (sincerely) that there is an obligation and then refuse to abide by it.
No, it’s wrong to agree (sincerely) that there is an obligation and then refuse to abide by it, but it’s not necessarily irrational.

That’s what it means to have an obligation: that it binds our will.
Hopefully it would bind our will, but this certainly isn’t the case. Obligations don’t necessarily motivate, and this lack of motivation doesn’t always stem from irrationality. It may stem from wrong decisions, but those decisions could still be rational.

That only works in ordinary language. It doesn’t work when “should” is being used in a more technical sense, as here, when I am referring to moral obligation (or at least the lack of a contrary moral obligation.)
One can easily “in a more technical sense” talk about ‘should’ as a piece of prudential advice. The word isn’t the sole domain of morality, even in philosophy.

The fact that you “want” to get home for dinner would not alter your obligation to avoid the bus if, for instance, the bus fare was going to pay for boiling children.
It wouldn’t alter one’s obligation, but if one solely wanted to get home, the rational thing to do would be to get the bus. It would be wrong, certainly, but not irrational.

Sorry for the long due answer... I've had a hell of a week at work.

And how should we respond to the historical occurrence of free radicals, chaos and reformist powerholders? I would easily argue that these concepts are more akin to the rule, rather than exceptions to the rule. Oh, and that's only part of a much, much broader western critique.
I don't see a contradiction here with the marxist analysis of capitalism and bourgoisie. Could you make your point clearer?

How can we account for the situations in non-western societies, where totally different paths were followed, where the centralization of power and behavior of leadership runs directly contrary to the material dialectic?
Totally different paths? Like China? Or Japan? Or India? I can't see why you claim that those run contrary to the material dialectic. Explain better, please.

How about the power and value of ideas, especially in regards to some of Weber's criticisms.
Oh that's a nice point. Power and value of ideas. It depends: how much do ideas affect people? An example: christianity has deeply changed since it became State religion (second half of IV century). So, ideas are changed by material conditions also... while the opposite (material conditions changed by ideas alone) is quite unlikely to happen.
As for Weber, allow me to review his critic, and I'll be back within some days with some kind of answer.

Oh, and of course, the ridiculous labor theory of value. How can we reconcile that with reality in even the slightest possible fashion?
I don't find it ridiculous. Do you think that there is no superprofit in capitalism?

Marxism is utter crap and the kind of people that have claimed to be Marxists in the past are responsible for millions of deaths in their vain quests to improve the quality of life for the working class, without exception in countries where there was no working class when they came to power.


1.The idea of communists isn't to improve the quality of life for the working class. It is to abolish social classes, hence eliminating class struggle. Improving conditions, that's social-democrats.

2.Name a single country without a working class. In history. With the exception of current-day Vatican State, where workers have italian citizenship.

You are missing the point of scientific method. The idea is that when we find evidence that contradicts the theory, the first response should be to modify the theory to take the new evidence into account, not throw the entirety out the window. If we shitcanned scientific theories every time there was a contradiction, we'd never get anything done.

If the new evidence proves irreconcilable with the theoretical assumptions, then it is time to reformulate. But fundamentally, scientific method is based on building off pre-existing knowledge.

I understand the scientific method pretty well thank you, it's you who's missing my point. There's nothing wrong with modifying an existing theory to fit new data, but it must still be falsifiable! There is no observation which could completely falsify Marxism, and therefore it is not scientific. I've given the example of Precambrian rabbits as an observation which would completely falsify Evolution, Newtonian physics have already been falsified and shown to be nothing more than a useful generalisation at certain levels of observation. Evolution and Newtonian physics are scientific, Marxism and other political theories are not.

I understand the scientific method pretty well thank you, it's you who's missing my point. There's nothing wrong with modifying an existing theory to fit new data, but it must still be falsifiable! There is no observation which could completely falsify Marxism, and therefore it is not scientific. I've given the example of Precambrian rabbits as an observation which would completely falsify Evolution, Newtonian physics have already been falsified and shown to be nothing more than a useful generalisation at certain levels of observation. Evolution and Newtonian physics are scientific, Marxism and other political theories are not.

Yes it can be falsified, and certain parts have been falsified on numerous occasions. Like dialectical materialism, for example, was falsified by observation in the field of quantum mechanics.

Where is your evidence for 'rationality',

Where is the evidence for the fact that human beings use reason in evaluating their behavior? I'm sorry, that's pretty plainly obvious.

I think it preposterous to claim that people act on this magical abstract concept of 'rationality', they totally remove human actions from material reality.

So, every view you spout is purely a product of your material reality? We shouldn't treat it as the result of a rational thought process?

But why ‘should’ we, or ‘ought’ we to do it?

That's a different question entirely, isn't it?

I ought not to steal my friends chocolate buttons, but I rationalise that: I can easily get away with it; my friend will never find out; there will be no reprisals; my friend has far too many chocolate buttons for him to eat; so I steal one.

A wrong action, one that I ought not to do, but a perfectly rational one.

Your concept of rational behavior is skewed. You are adopting the logic of instrumental rationality: leaving ends a given (self-interest), will these means accomplish this task?

But this logic leads several aspects wanting. Perhaps most importantly, it presupposes that the rule that binds our will is self-interest: that we should behave in whatever way that maximizes our self-interest. Without this presupposition, the reasoning you present concludes nothing. Yes, I can steal from my friend; yes, it will benefit me and bring no harm upon me. But so what? Where's the critical force of that argument? It has none until it comes to a conclusion (or makes an implicit assumption) about "should": until it can actually tell me what I should do.

Until then, it's purely descriptive. It tells me how the world is. It doesn't tell me to do anything. It's not a rational basis for action.

Not ‘that which we most desire’ necessarily; we simply have to have some desire to fulfil a goal.

If it's not a matter of "most" desire, then you must acknowledge that volition can act independently of desire (because choice is more than going with whatever we want most.) Once you've acknowledged that, how can you deny that we can choose to act against all desire?

And is that should a prudential ‘should’ or a moral ‘should’?

Both. It's a practical "should": practical reason, pure or otherwise.

Edit: Both, and not either/or. Morality alone is insufficient; prudence alone is irrational.

Exactly.

And to decide what I want to do

I am not deciding what I want to do. I am deciding what to do.

I can decide that I want to do x, and then proceed to choose y.

I need, at the very least, to desire some goal;

Why?

And how do we decide without the desire/wish/want/will to achieve the (known) outcomes of our decisions?

We decide according to reason--according to the "ought" that we recognize rationally as binding--or, between rational equivalents, we decide on "arbitrary" bases like desires, wishes, and wants.

One can make wrong, forbidden choices without being irrational.

Not if she knows that the choices are wrong and forbidden. It's a contradiction: the recognition that she should not do something coupled with the decision to actually do it, to answer "What should I do?" with an answer she knows is false.

No, it’s wrong to agree (sincerely) that there is an obligation and then refuse to abide by it, but it’s not necessarily irrational.

You're forgetting the meaning of "obligation." To say that I am obligated is to say that something is required. To willfully act against it is necessarily to deny the obligation, to deny the requirement. Reason cannot tolerate such a contradiction.

Look at it this way. When considering a course of action, I can never rationally say to myself, "I should do this" when I know I should not. Thus, if I fail to meet my obligation, either my consideration violated rational consistency or I went against my rational consideration of my action. Either way, I have acted irrationally.

Hopefully it would bind our will, but this certainly isn’t the case.

We can be bound by something we do not always obey. We are bound by morality. We nevertheless fall short of it.

It wouldn’t alter one’s obligation, but if one solely wanted to get home, the rational thing to do would be to get the bus.

Why? Where's the rationality there?

1. I want to get home.
2. The way to get home is by catching the bus.

The only rational conclusion from that is, "Catching the bus will get me what I want." That doesn't tell me what to do in any logically immediate sense. It just describes reality.

Yes it can be falsified, and certain parts have been falsified on numerous occasions. Like dialectical materialism, for example, was falsified by observation in the field of quantum mechanics.

Parts of it, yes, but Marxism as a whole simply cannot be falsified. If you think it can then please give an example of an observation which would falsify it.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d200/SeanaLyn/commiecat.jpg

Chumblywumbly: would you concede that actions can be irrational?

If you do, what traits do they have that make them irrational?

So, every view you spout is purely a product of your material reality? We shouldn't treat it as the result of a rational thought process?


No, no, Andaras said that the actions of mere "people" are purely the product of material reality. Mere "people" are irrational.

The most exalted mind of the scientific socialist, however, is the height of rationality. And once this highest of minds jails, executes, or starves out of existence a sufficient number of mere people, everyone else left will be perfectly rational too.

(For another example of two-faced elitism, see also Capitalist Libertarians who proclaim the power of individual rationality while simultaneously declaring the democratic masses too "stupid" for their own good, etc, etc.)

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d200/SeanaLyn/commiecat.jpg

CommieCat or secret reactionary infiltrator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Army)?

Needs less "commie" and more "sabo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cat#Anarcho-Syndicalism)."

Parts of it, yes, but Marxism as a whole simply cannot be falsified. If you think it can then please give an example of an observation which would falsify it.

If we were to observe that class conflict does not play a part in driving social evolution, than the entirety of Marxism would come tumbling down like a house of cards. Everything stems from the observation that material class antagonisms play a part in driving social evolution.

Without that observation, Marxism is nothing more than an observation about the alienating effect of wage labor.

Same reasoning here. Even if I want to do something, it does not follow that it is rational to do it. If I am free, I can go with reason over desire.
But you can't ever have cause to do so.

Free will requires that are free to choose. If you want to do a thing you will always do that thing because you have no motive not to do so.

You're applying desire very narrowly.
Because it is right. (Among other possible reasons. Or even none at all. Choices can be arbitrary.)
Only if you want them to be arbitrary.
That's what you're supposed to be proving.
Morals don't override reason. You still choose your actions. Unless you're arguing that obligation overrides free will...
Because we have free will. Or at least we think we do.

However strong my desire, it does not determine my choice. I can choose to go against something I strongly desire to do. "Desire", technically speaking, is not a true reason to do anything: it does not bind my will, because the mere fact that I desire to do something does not mean I should actually do it.
But it does mean you will do it, regardless of whether you should. Desire is not just a reason to do something; it is the only reason.
Because that's the meaning of "should." It is an imperative word: practical, concerned with my choices and decision-making. To say that I should not do something is to say that, rationally, it is forbidden for me to do: if I am purely controlled by reason, I will never do it.
Should is not an imperative word. It is a normative word. It describes what you ought do, but it's not an informative word on its own because it carries with it no motive to obey.
From "I want", it does not follow that "I should." Therefore, "I want" does not, rationally, determine my will. As a rational creature, therefore, if "I want" forcibly determines my will--if I have no choice but to do what I want--I cannot be free.
As I said above, the freedom allows you to choose whatever you want to choose. But as long as you want it, all things considered, you have no reason at all not to choose it.
I have not, of course, shown that there is actually such a thing as a moral imperative ("should not" or "must") that gives us a compelling reason to disregard our wants. That is another argument. But since "I should" does not follow from "I want", and "I should" is necessarily what I must be concerned with, it does follow that if I am free, I cannot be bound by "I want." I must at least have the capacity to deny "want" in deference to a theoretical imperative.
And my point is that you would never do that unless you wanted to.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Perhaps I don't undertstand what you mean by "should". You appear to be describing an irresistable motivation, and insisting that its existence is necessary for free will to be meaningful. Put another way, the ability to choose is contingent upon the possible inability to choose.

That doesn't make any sense at all.
Because I recognize the obligation: I should not do anything else. Since I recognize that truth, I cannot rationally decide to do so: to do so would be in effect to deny that "should not", to deny that it is forbidden for me to act in violation of the imperative.
But then you must want the obligation to bind you. If the obligation bends you against your will, that's the opposite of free will. That's compulsion.

Plus, I'm not sure these obligations you're describing can exist.
No, what makes it free is the capacity to choose without external determination: for the will to determine itself.

If I am bound to "wish", I lack that capacity.
The will is that which wishes.

Faced with two alternatives, you cannot help but choose the one you prefer. If, on some micro level, you choose the one you do not prefer, it must therefore be to satisfy come overriding preference.
If I so compel myself in recognition of a binding reason, that is not the absence of free will. It may be unpleasant, but it is my choice.

Using that description, you're choosing to obey the reason. Why? Because you see it as binding. But why?

If you ask "Why?" enough times, the eventual answer necessarily must be "Because I want to."

But you can't ever have cause to do so.

Reason is not cause?

If you want to do a thing you will always do that thing because you have no motive not to do so.

No "motive" in the desire sense, no. But you might have a reason.

Only if you want them to be arbitrary.

No. Only if you choose for them to be arbitrary.

But it does mean you will do it, regardless of whether you should.

No, it doesn't.

Desire is not just a reason to do something; it is the only reason.

So you've said....

Should is not an imperative word. It is a normative word.

There is no difference. Both proscribe rules of action. To accept them as true is to accept the rule as binding.

It describes what you ought do, but it's not an informative word on its own because it carries with it no motive to obey.

Why not? It tells us what we should do. It gives us a rule for behavior. To go against a rule we recognize as true is irrational: it is to contradict ourselves, to deny the rule we have already recognized. It is to decide what to do on a basis we recognize as illegitimate--to answer a question ("What should I do?") with a non-answer ("I want x.")

As I said above, the freedom allows you to choose whatever you want to choose. But as long as you want it, all things considered, you have no reason at all not to choose it.

Your argument is circular.

"You must always go with 'want' because there is no other reason for action."
"Here's a reason for action: 'should.'"
"'Should' is not a reason for action because it is not a want."

You're just presupposing that we must act based on desire.

Perhaps I don't undertstand what you mean by "should". You appear to be describing an irresistable motivation,

No, it's quite "resistable." It's just that it's irrational to go against it.

and insisting that its existence is necessary for free will to be meaningful.

No. I'm insisting that the capacity to go with it, if it exists, is necessary for free will to be meaningful.

Put another way, the ability to choose is contingent upon the possible inability to choose.

No. Put your way, under the assumption that "want" is the only basis for choice. That's begging the question. It gets tiresome.

But then you must want the obligation to bind you. If the obligation bends you against your will, that's the opposite of free will. That's compulsion.

It doesn't bend me against my will: my will recognizes its binding force and willingly accedes to it. It bends me against my want.

Plus, I'm not sure these obligations you're describing can exist.

If I believe they do, that's good enough in this respect. My belief doesn't have to be true.

The will is that which wishes.

No, the will is that which wills. Your elimination of the distinction is perhaps at the heart of this dispute.

Using that description, you're choosing to obey the reason. Why? Because you see it as binding. But why?

Because it is. Because I have been convinced, not of its desirability, but of its truth.

If you ask "Why?" enough times, the eventual answer necessarily must be "Because I want to."

Why do you see 1 + 1 as equaling 2? Why do you see your computer in front of you instead of an elephant?

because I thought the thread needed some laughs, it had degenerated into an all out shouting contest.

It had?

CommieCat or secret reactionary infiltrator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Army)?

Needs less "commie" and more "sabo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cat#Anarcho-Syndicalism)."

Ein? I posted that photo because I found it hilarious and because I thought the thread needed some laughs, it had degenerated into an all out shouting contest. If there are any obscure references on it, I was unaware.:confused:

Yes, it did.

I argue pretty forcefully sometimes, but I don't think it's akin to "shouting." And my opponents were, if anything, less aggressive.

Trotskylvania and Agenda07 were pretty cordial, too.

If you don´t like the photo, I can erase it.

The photo is fine.

It had?

Yes, it did.
If you don´t like the photo, I can erase it.

I still think you're defining "want" too narrowly.
Reason is not cause?

No "motive" in the desire sense, no. But you might have a reason.

No. Only if you choose for them to be arbitrary.

No, it doesn't.

So you've said....

There is no difference. Both proscribe rules of action. To accept them as true is to accept the rule as binding.
Let's deal with these as a group.

If you have a reason to do something, then there's something about the action that satisfies a condition you deem relevant. The action must produce some outcome you prefer, even if that outcome is simply "you followed the rules you deem important". You following those rules is important to you, and thus you want to follow them.

If you accept a rule as binding, you need to have had some cause to do so.

You're discussing rules of internal origin only, yes? Rules that you feel govern your action regardless of what thinkgs happen outside yourself?
Why not? It tells us what we should do. It gives us a rule for behavior. To go against a rule we recognize as true is irrational: it is to contradict ourselves, to deny the rule we have already recognized. It is to decide what to do on a basis we recognize as illegitimate--to answer a question ("What should I do?") with a non-answer ("I want x.")
I fail to see why "What should I do?" and "What do I want to do?" aren't equivalent questions. I'm not claiming that it's impossible to want to do things that are different from what one should do, but I don't understand how anyone can ever do something other than what one wants.

Your action is driven by your conscious thought, and your conscious thought is driven by preferences.
Your argument is circular.

"You must always go with 'want' because there is no other reason for action."
"Here's a reason for action: 'should.'"
"'Should' is not a reason for action because it is not a want."
It's more that should is always informed by want. What you want determines what you think you should do.

Should isn't an informative word on its own. If I ask myself "Should I do this thing?" I'm inclined to respond "In order to acheive what end?" I can work out whether a given action is prudent or effective at acheiving some goal, but whether that goal, or even prudence or effectiveness, is something worth chasing is beyond the scope of the question.
You're just presupposing that we must act based on desire.
I simply can't imagine on what other basis we might ever act.
No, it's quite "resistable." It's just that it's irrational to go against it.
For a rational agent, that makes it irresistable.
No. I'm insisting that the capacity to go with it, if it exists, is necessary for free will to be meaningful.
I haven't meant to dispute that. I just don't think we'd ever have cause to act other than how we want to act, and thus a rational agent cannot help but do as it wishes in all cases because it cannot have a contrary motive.
No. Put your way, under the assumption that "want" is the only basis for choice. That's begging the question. It gets tiresome.

It doesn't bend me against my will: my will recognizes its binding force and willingly accedes to it. It bends me against my want.

No, the will is that which wills. Your elimination of the distinction is perhaps at the heart of this dispute.
I've eliminated the distinction because there is no distinction. I have never come across a situation where what one chooses is different at all from what one wants to choose, all things considered.
If I believe they do, that's good enough in this respect. My belief doesn't have to be true.
It does if its a rational belief. You'd need to have justification for the belief for it to be rational.
Because it is. Because I have been convinced, not of its desirability, but of its truth.
But why does this truth matter to you?
Why do you see 1 + 1 as equaling 2? Why do you see your computer in front of you instead of an elephant?
The math is axiomatic. My perception is not subject to rational control.