Edited by jools ()
Lessons posted:thirdplace posted:point by point i don't see anything remotely objectionable in that piece because it boils down to "don't be wrong, be right" but otoh i don't really get how one could look at actually existing marxism in 2013 and conclude that What Is Wrong With Marxism is that it isn't sufficiently academically analytical
but then what do I know? I'm a liberal nowof course you can answer that with "well these issues need to be resolved ~in practice~" but a) i've yet to see an analysis along those lines that says anything and b) it might be a good idea to have some concept of what you're actually try to change ~in practice~ and what you want to see ~in practice~ before you actually go out and do it.
I'm actually a newtonist which means I think that A. It is good to do sex for money on non westerners and B. we should have a revolution first and then worry about the rest.
babyhueypnewton posted:yes what the naxalites need is more honest academics and the support of historians to publish dense studies of land reform in 19th century India.
this isn't whats wrong with marxism, this is mccain writing about why he wants to be a marxist academic and why he considers actual politics unimportant compared to historical research. thats fine for him, but if you don't know mccain personally why would you care what he thinks about his own project as a marxist PHD candidate?
Except that this is missing the laughable claims that history and socialism are sciences and just how god damn boring mccaine is
jools posted:what on earth is history if it isnt a science
fiction
Goethestein posted:jools posted:what on earth is history if it isnt a science
fiction
history and science are both fictions what's your point
corey posted:aaaaa after ten thoused years of contemplation i'm free: marxism needs more painstaking deliberation of irrelevant minutiae. time to conquer earth!
im glad Internet Jokemen are here to guide us away from the irrelevant minutiae of basic Marxist thought
Matthijs Krul maintains that Keen, while broadly accurate in his criticism of the neoclassical synthesis, generally misrepresents Marx's views in Debunking Economics and in earlier work when asserting that, in the production of commodities, machinery produces more value than it costs.
Panopticon posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Keen#CriticismsMatthijs Krul maintains that Keen, while broadly accurate in his criticism of the neoclassical synthesis, generally misrepresents Marx's views in Debunking Economics and in earlier work when asserting that, in the production of commodities, machinery produces more value than it costs.
lol
for all your sinistral flank steak needs
Panopticon posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Keen#CriticismsMatthijs Krul maintains that Keen, while broadly accurate in his criticism of the neoclassical synthesis, generally misrepresents Marx's views in Debunking Economics and in earlier work when asserting that, in the production of commodities, machinery produces more value than it costs.
thought this was about commander keen
Edited by blinkandwheeze ()
corey posted:aaaaa after ten thoused years of contemplation i'm free: marxism needs more painstaking deliberation of irrelevant minutiae. time to conquer earth!
That's true. Communism first needs to be accepted as science. Communism would have to begin with a literature that spelled out how it would work, a literature that made its feasibility plausible, to focus on how production is organized and what would the transitional steps look like. Communist economic engineering would have to become an identified theoretical science even though the ruling class did not support it.
The fabled highly sophisticated Marxist conspiracy conjured in right-wing nightmares needs to be actually realized.
It won't be the catharsis of wounded leftists and the poor, with a religious promise of the return of Arcadia - the communist idea has been poorly served by leftist folklore which has promised that the “new dawn” will easily reconcile the private and the social person, abolish all risk of usurpation, grant everyone every wish they can conceive. Even worse, what's left of the Left - what hasn't been bought or murdered en masse - has become a cheering squad for ancient religious positions which are the polar opposite of what the Left originally promised.
I do accept that there is a class in power which has to be divested of its power, that direct action by the dispossessed is necessary to shake loose the existing property relations, that a successful revolutionary movement would have to expropriate the means of production immediately, because the capitalist class would have to be defeated and dispersed and so on.
However, communism won't arrive as an intuitive goal of the mob, rooted in bearded indignation and moral superiority or the like. Communism is counter-intuitive and highly sophisticated, and will have to be introduced or smuggled into the turmoil by a conspiracy. Perhaps also taking advantage of further world federation under capitalism and of technocrats who for some reason desire something beyond a monopolistic and paternalistic reinforcement of capitalism - we are under no danger of libertarianism anyhow, as it only benefits the petty bourgeois and not the ruling class. Transition would involve parallel market and non-market economic coordination, anticipating the abolition of many markets. Also, though piecemeal automation would be a burden, it's necessary as it is the easiest way to allow socialism to abolish markets and menial labor.
COINTELBRO posted:That's true. Communism first needs to be accepted as science. Communism would have to begin with a literature that spelled out how it would work, a literature that made its feasibility plausible, to focus on how production is organized and what would the transitional steps look like. Communist economic engineering would have to become an identified theoretical science even though the ruling class did not support it.
The fabled highly sophisticated Marxist conspiracy conjured in right-wing nightmares needs to be actually realized.
It won't be the catharsis of wounded leftists and the poor, with a religious promise of the return of Arcadia - the communist idea has been poorly served by leftist folklore which has promised that the “new dawn” will easily reconcile the private and the social person, abolish all risk of usurpation, grant everyone every wish they can conceive. Even worse, what's left of the Left - what hasn't been bought or murdered en masse - has become a cheering squad for ancient religious positions which are the polar opposite of what the Left originally promised.
I do accept that there is a class in power which has to be divested of its power, that direct action by the dispossessed is necessary to shake loose the existing property relations, that a successful revolutionary movement would have to expropriate the means of production immediately, because the capitalist class would have to be defeated and dispersed and so on.
However, communism won't arrive as an intuitive goal of the mob, rooted in bearded indignation and moral superiority or the like. Communism is counter-intuitive and highly sophisticated, and will have to be introduced or smuggled into the turmoil by a conspiracy. Perhaps also taking advantage of further world federation under capitalism and of technocrats who for some reason desire something beyond a monopolistic and paternalistic reinforcement of capitalism - we are under no danger of libertarianism anyhow, as it only benefits the petty bourgeois and not the ruling class. Transition would involve parallel market and non-market economic coordination, anticipating the abolition of many markets. Also, though piecemeal automation would be a burden, it's necessary as it is the easiest way to allow socialism to abolish markets and menial labor.
COINTELBRO posted:
lmao who are you, how did you reach any of those conclusions
COINTELBRO posted:corey posted:aaaaa after ten thoused years of contemplation i'm free: marxism needs more painstaking deliberation of irrelevant minutiae. time to conquer earth!
That's true. Communism first needs to be accepted as science. Communism would have to begin with a literature that spelled out how it would work, a literature that made its feasibility plausible, to focus on how production is organized and what would the transitional steps look like. Communist economic engineering would have to become an identified theoretical science even though the ruling class did not support it.
The fabled highly sophisticated Marxist conspiracy conjured in right-wing nightmares needs to be actually realized.
It won't be the catharsis of wounded leftists and the poor, with a religious promise of the return of Arcadia - the communist idea has been poorly served by leftist folklore which has promised that the “new dawn” will easily reconcile the private and the social person, abolish all risk of usurpation, grant everyone every wish they can conceive. Even worse, what's left of the Left - what hasn't been bought or murdered en masse - has become a cheering squad for ancient religious positions which are the polar opposite of what the Left originally promised.
I do accept that there is a class in power which has to be divested of its power, that direct action by the dispossessed is necessary to shake loose the existing property relations, that a successful revolutionary movement would have to expropriate the means of production immediately, because the capitalist class would have to be defeated and dispersed and so on.
However, communism won't arrive as an intuitive goal of the mob, rooted in bearded indignation and moral superiority or the like. Communism is counter-intuitive and highly sophisticated, and will have to be introduced or smuggled into the turmoil by a conspiracy. Perhaps also taking advantage of further world federation under capitalism and of technocrats who for some reason desire something beyond a monopolistic and paternalistic reinforcement of capitalism - we are under no danger of libertarianism anyhow, as it only benefits the petty bourgeois and not the ruling class. Transition would involve parallel market and non-market economic coordination, anticipating the abolition of many markets. Also, though piecemeal automation would be a burden, it's necessary as it is the easiest way to allow socialism to abolish markets and menial labor.
that s what i always say
+ rehashing Paul Krugman arguments from 1993