Watched a decent Netflix piece on Russian Revolution Last Night

creepycoug

Says Lenin wasn't too impressed with Stalin when he first met him, forgot he even met him a year later, and then dismissed him as "that useful Georgian" goon who would do whatever Lenin needed him to do to keep his hands from getting dirty.

@DerekJohnson , true?

GrundleStiltzkin

¿Qué es el nombre de la película?

HoustonHusky

See...true communism still has never been tried. Hear Antifa has a successful version they want to and should be allowed to implement.

creepycoug

GrundleStiltzkin said:

¿Qué es el nombre de la película?

GrundleStiltzkin said:

¿Qué es el nombre de la película?

Como?

La revolución de Rusa.

creepycoug

HoustonHusky said:

See...true communism still has never been tried. Hear Antifa has a successful version they want to and should be allowed to implement.

Either or both of you and @UW_Doog_Bot has read the Manifesto and the German Ideology.

So what say you for REAL Marxist theory? Prediction of human evolution or revolutionary interventionist. And the rules of the game are you can't be bofe.

NorthwestFresh

Statue still stands update.

creepycoug

NorthwestFresh said:

Statue still stands update.

of Lenin? I presume so.

Swaye

GrundleStiltzkin said:

¿Qué es el nombre de la película?

Jokes on you! We don't speak Mandarin here!

Bob_C

Stupid Russian-French-Italian triple alliance fucked up the whole world.

Sledog

Doesn't Seattle have a statue of him? I'm betting it hasn't been torn down.

UW_Doog_Bot

creepycoug said:

HoustonHusky said:

See...true communism still has never been tried. Hear Antifa has a successful version they want to and should be allowed to implement.

Either or both of you and @UW_Doog_Bot has read the Manifesto and the German Ideology.

So what say you for REAL Marxist theory? Prediction of human evolution or revolutionary interventionist. And the rules of the game are you can't be bofe.

I've read it. It's been a long time but I bothered getting through a lot of his verbose German mouth diarrhea(which all German philosophers suffer from).

Plainly, there are just a number of contradictions and non-starters within socialismo that will never play out.

Primary among them, the idea that any group of people is so benevolent or knowledgeable that "redistribution" will be "equitable". Those concepts are also horribly subjective and even were we to have some sort of perfect AI that could distribute goods "to each according to his need" that AI would have to assign value in a manner that would require omniscience.

Further, his Law of Value or labor value theory as others have tried to resuscitate it fails to account for supply and demand, which, basically dooms it from the start.

It really is asinine to bother writing a thesis refuting Marxism, if it weren't for politicians pushing it and the loud minority of economists that they support it would already be at the bottom of the dustbin of history.

creepycoug

UW_Doog_Bot said:

creepycoug said:

HoustonHusky said:

See...true communism still has never been tried. Hear Antifa has a successful version they want to and should be allowed to implement.

Either or both of you and @UW_Doog_Bot has read the Manifesto and the German Ideology.

So what say you for REAL Marxist theory? Prediction of human evolution or revolutionary interventionist. And the rules of the game are you can't be bofe.

I've read it. It's been a long time but I bothered getting through a lot of his verbose German mouth diarrhea(which all German philosophers suffer from).

Plainly, there are just a number of contradictions and non-starters within socialismo that will never play out.

Primary among them, the idea that any group of people is so benevolent or knowledgeable that "redistribution" will be "equitable". Those concepts are also horribly subjective and even were we to have some sort of perfect AI that could distribute goods "to each according to his need" that AI would have to assign value in a manner that would require omniscience.

Further, his Law of Value or labor value theory as others have tried to resuscitate it fails to account for supply and demand, which, basically dooms it from the start.

It really is asinine to bother writing a thesis refuting Marxism, if it weren't for politicians pushing it and the loud minority of economists that they support it would already be at the bottom of the dustbin of history.

All true, but recall that central to the theory of Historical Materialism is that we are always limited by our state of technology at a particular point in time. So I think it's fair to say that if you read Marx as a guy predicting the future, rather than a revolutionary paper hanger, then you'd argue that he would argue that utopia is still ways off because human beings haven't been able to eliminate scarcity at their current state of evolution. You'd argue that he'd argue that we don't move past el capitalista until we eliminate the need for market forces to do the work of eliminating scarcity.

Just an argument. Don't twist.

UW_Doog_Bot

creepycoug said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

creepycoug said:

HoustonHusky said:

See...true communism still has never been tried. Hear Antifa has a successful version they want to and should be allowed to implement.

Either or both of you and @UW_Doog_Bot has read the Manifesto and the German Ideology.

So what say you for REAL Marxist theory? Prediction of human evolution or revolutionary interventionist. And the rules of the game are you can't be bofe.

I've read it. It's been a long time but I bothered getting through a lot of his verbose German mouth diarrhea(which all German philosophers suffer from).

Plainly, there are just a number of contradictions and non-starters within socialismo that will never play out.

Primary among them, the idea that any group of people is so benevolent or knowledgeable that "redistribution" will be "equitable". Those concepts are also horribly subjective and even were we to have some sort of perfect AI that could distribute goods "to each according to his need" that AI would have to assign value in a manner that would require omniscience.

Further, his Law of Value or labor value theory as others have tried to resuscitate it fails to account for supply and demand, which, basically dooms it from the start.

It really is asinine to bother writing a thesis refuting Marxism, if it weren't for politicians pushing it and the loud minority of economists that they support it would already be at the bottom of the dustbin of history.

All true, but recall that central to the theory of Historical Materialism is that we are always limited by our state of technology at a particular point in time. So I think it's fair to say that if you read Marx as a guy predicting the future, rather than a revolutionary paper hanger, then you'd argue that he would argue that utopia is still ways off because human beings haven't been able to eliminate scarcity at their current state of evolution. You'd argue that he'd argue that we don't move past el capitalista until we eliminate the need for market forces to do the work of eliminating scarcity.

Just an argument. Don't twist.

That would, IMO, be part of the not accounting for supply and demand. Post-scarcity in Marx's view was just across the horizon where everyone would have enough to meet Maslow's first few steps i.e. food, clothing, shelter

He didn't really envision that further supply would create further demand and that people would evolve up the pyramid to the point where we call people with all of modern technology and housing "living in poverty".

Post scarcity, as Marx most likely envisioned it, has already essentially been reached. Either that, or it never will be. Whichever you prefer.

UW_Doog_Bot

That all said, we could imagine a world now where we all live in a simulation and programming for said simulation allows for "post scarcity". It's an interesting line of reasoning but I'd argue that time, creativity, and knowledge in such a world would become paramount commodities with prestige or other "value stores" becoming the monetary exchange. Look no further than Chins my good creep to have an idea of such a thing. I could also draw examples from burning man where a gift economy has been experimented with for over two decades and yet still...commerce sneaks in.

creepycoug

UW_Doog_Bot said:

creepycoug said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

creepycoug said:

HoustonHusky said:

See...true communism still has never been tried. Hear Antifa has a successful version they want to and should be allowed to implement.

Either or both of you and @UW_Doog_Bot has read the Manifesto and the German Ideology.

So what say you for REAL Marxist theory? Prediction of human evolution or revolutionary interventionist. And the rules of the game are you can't be bofe.

I've read it. It's been a long time but I bothered getting through a lot of his verbose German mouth diarrhea(which all German philosophers suffer from).

Plainly, there are just a number of contradictions and non-starters within socialismo that will never play out.

Primary among them, the idea that any group of people is so benevolent or knowledgeable that "redistribution" will be "equitable". Those concepts are also horribly subjective and even were we to have some sort of perfect AI that could distribute goods "to each according to his need" that AI would have to assign value in a manner that would require omniscience.

Further, his Law of Value or labor value theory as others have tried to resuscitate it fails to account for supply and demand, which, basically dooms it from the start.

It really is asinine to bother writing a thesis refuting Marxism, if it weren't for politicians pushing it and the loud minority of economists that they support it would already be at the bottom of the dustbin of history.

All true, but recall that central to the theory of Historical Materialism is that we are always limited by our state of technology at a particular point in time. So I think it's fair to say that if you read Marx as a guy predicting the future, rather than a revolutionary paper hanger, then you'd argue that he would argue that utopia is still ways off because human beings haven't been able to eliminate scarcity at their current state of evolution. You'd argue that he'd argue that we don't move past el capitalista until we eliminate the need for market forces to do the work of eliminating scarcity.

Just an argument. Don't twist.

That would, IMO, be part of the not accounting for supply and demand. Post-scarcity in Marx's view was just across the horizon where everyone would have enough to meet Maslow's first few steps i.e. food, clothing, shelter

He didn't really envision that further supply would create further demand and that people would evolve up the pyramid to the point where we call people with all of modern technology and housing "living in poverty".

Post scarcity, as Marx most likely envisioned it, has already essentially been reached. Either that, or it never will be. Whichever you prefer.

That's really it right there and your point about further supply creating further demand. I suppose if one wanted to really defend Marx to the end, you'd say we don't really know what the world and human condition, and thus human experience and expectations, would look like then. To which I'd respond, "well then let's start talking about Star Trek, because this is no longer a useful discussion so let's have some fun while we're at it."

Ken Clatterbaugh, a wonderful man and great academic at UW's criminally underrated Philosophy Department (just up one floor and down the hall from your old group in Savory), was/is a card carrying Marxist. I was not. This was in department and in the day when you could write a paper tearing up a faculty member's favorite theory and still do well if you did the work and made a coherent point. He was one of three letter writers for me to get into law school.

We would chat about this shit for hours. Again, a bygone era when academics and academia was for the student and people respectfully debated each other. This guy could have intellectually torn me a new asshole whenever he wanted to, but instead of doing that, he would debate above board and help flesh out some of my own thoughts; and in that way he really taught me how to think.

So anyway, just to make some attempt to take the abstraction out of Marx's vision, he would say that, maybe 500 or more years from now there would be warehouses full of the things that people need (query: also full of the things they want?) and they could just go in and take what they need/ no pay. I asked him how they would account for greed, and his answer was that, perhaps by then, we would have culturally evolved beyond the point where people would hoard and find meaning in getting ahead of their neighbor. In other words, people wouldn't care do that in this new world because they'd find no satisfaction or value in taking more than they need.

So then I asked, how this all squares with Marx's central theory that people are what they do. That is, the farmer is a farmer and lives the life of a farmer. That's who he is. The banker is a banker, and so forth. With no need for anyone to generate value, because technology produces all we need, what will become of people? Who are they? Who's the farmer now?

Anyway, you can see how quickly Marx goes beyond economis or political thought and straight into philosophy.

Sure it's all bullshit, but I've found that most people who despise Marx don't really understand his work.

creepycoug

UW_Doog_Bot said:

That all said, we could imagine a world now where we all live in a simulation and programming for said simulation allows for "post scarcity". It's an interesting line of reasoning but I'd argue that time, creativity, and knowledge in such a world would become paramount commodities with prestige or other "value stores" becoming the monetary exchange. Look no further than Chins my good creep to have an idea of such a thing. I could also draw examples from burning man where a gift economy has been experimented with for over two decades and yet still...commerce sneaks in.

Right. In the end, whatever the mechanism for the value exchange, and whatever the rules may be, there is still this fundamental element in human interaction that prefers/needs/wants some things in some quantities over others, and it varies by time and circumstance and individual. Also goes back to my "people are going to be people" response to Professor Clatterbaugh's simplistic prediction of everyone not minding being the same.

Sledog

We're currently watching the Nazi revolution every day. The Brown Shirts are wreaking havoc and their backers (Dems=Hitler) are helping them by destroying public safety and wanting to rid us of all police.

History repeats itself.

Next is massive gun control push. Book it.