free hosting   image hosting   hosting reseller   online album   e-shop   famous people

Three posts

Otto posted an intelligent post.)

Nona posted, in response to a post by Bullock: "Re: You were drinking last night, weren't you?"

> ...it was funny because Marxism does not involve religeon, and to believe in it (Marxism) takes "faith", because you can't look at it and logically think it would work...

"...because you can't look at it and logically think it would work..."

Why not? Marxism's getting kind of a bad rap here in this thread. I haven't focused on that aspect myself out of annoyance to being labelled. But I think that the further labels of Marxism from you and Drew are perhaps unwarranted.

Marx himself was quite logical in his writings, I would say. Likewise, his writings have inspired a multitude of different thinkers, students, and activists. Are all of these people "faith-based?" I don't think so.

I would personally say that Marx left some factors conspicuously unaccounted for (some others would disagree.) Actually, I'd say that some factors become contradicted within his own writings (again, which some others would disagree.) Other thinkers have attempted to either explain why these unaccounted/contradicted factors do not exist in the original texts, or are resolved through further thought.

In essense, there are a lot of people out there--educated people, "common" people, activists, academics, workers, the like--who advocate Marxism in one form or another (not trying to describe "a lot" as anything close to a majority, in case anyone's wondering.) Obviously, there are myriad opposing schools as well, which hold, essentially, that Marxism, among other things, "would [not] work." But to take the words of Marxism's critics and thereby call Marxism a "religion" seems to me to be derrogatory labeling. Ie., it might take a book, or several volumes, to explore what Marx said, what further schools of Marxism hold, and refute those arguments. These volumes will not reach a large audience. But a buzz statement like "Marxism is a religion" reaches everyone. It's catchy, and in the wake of Ronald Reagan, it's an easy predictor that you'll have people bobbing heads to such a claim...

I just hope that people realize that, to the extent that they *faithfully believe* that Marxism is something to be tossed aside as something as illogical faith-based "religion," well...the self-contradiction speaks for itself I hope.

Otto posted: "Gratuitous Ad Hominem Attack time!!!" (by Otto (Again, I say AD HOMINEM.))

> Marx himself was quite logical in his writings, I would say.

Under most real-life situations it is difficult at best to find a good solution to a problem by means of logic alone (as opposed to empirical evidence). Marx was never as familiar with the psychology of the proletariat as he would believe. Had he actually spent a considerable amount of time AS a factory worker (à la Simone Weil) he would notice that revolution without the aid (and, eventually, rule, with a net change of nearly zero on the part of the proletariat) of the bourgeois - given tolerable conditions the workers would naturally not revolt; given intolerable conditions the workers would be too busy trying to survive to even understand what the hell Marx is saying.

As for the promised ad hominem... Marx never had a "real" job. He never actually HAD to do any financial calculations, he never had an opportunity to see how any of his theories might work in real life, and, judging by the amount of time he spends personally attacking his opponents in his work, he obviously knows at some level that he's not defending his ideas because they're right but because they're HIS ideas. Mind you, I don't doubt Marx's intelligence in the least, I just don't trust his judgement nor his conclusions.

> Likewise, his writings have inspired a multitude of different thinkers, students, and activists. Are all of these people "faith-based?" I don't think so.

The entire world, as far I know, might be a dream, some mad hallucination that I concocted up to defend myself from the cold emptiness and annihilation that is reality. But I don't try to escape from this, and I simply take the world as it presents itself to me, in full faith that what I perceive probably has SOME bearing on the real world. I think one would have to be "faith-based" just to exist.

Uh... I'm not quite sure where I'm getting with all this, but I have faith that it had some relevance to this argument...

And remember that religions, too, have undoubtedly "inspired a multitude of different thinkers, students, and activists" ...

> Other thinkers have attempted to either explain why these unaccounted/contradicted factors do not exist in the original texts, or are resolved through further thought.

In Christianity such writings are known as "apologetics."

> "It might take a book, or several volumes, to explore what ____ said, what further schools of ________ hold, and refute those arguments."

Rather than "Marx" and "Marxism," fill in the blanks with "Christ" and "Christianity"/"Buddha" and "Buddhism"/"Mohammed" and "Islam" and the above sentence is still perfectly valid.

> But a buzz statement like "Marxism is a religion" reaches everyone.

It's popular mostly as a means of ridiculing staunch Marxists who claim to deny all religion but believe in an inevitable uprising of the proletariat and a new, classless society where everyone lives a happy life. In the end all they deny is the role of God.

Next to comparisons with Hitler, "hypocrisy" is the most popular rhetorical method of trying to discredit one's opponent.

> It's catchy, and in the wake of Ronald Reagan, it's an easy predictor that you'll have people bobbing heads to such a claim...

A problem with trying to be "extreme" to encourage change is that it inevitably invites a black-and-white dichotomy of thought - good/evil, Christian/Saracen, civilised/barbarian, left/right. One can quite legitimately and without contradiction oppose the tenets of Communism and capitalism equally...

Reagan was an arrogant, thoughtless diva who was trying to make a Hollywood-style statement against the "bad guy" Commies.

> I just hope that people realize that, to the extent that they *faithfully believe* that Marxism is something to be tossed aside as something as illogical faith-based "religion," well...the self-contradiction speaks for itself I hope.

Amen.

Nona posted: "Great post!"

It's a rare day when I find myself nodding in agreement with the majority of a post on this board. Nicely thought-out and written. A few points:

> As for the promised ad hominem... Marx never had a "real" job. He never actually HAD to do any financial calculations...

Hehehe, yeah I know...I've been trying to convince my parents that they should take the role of fostering (and financially providing for) the same kind of role in me. Thus far it's not going over too well ;-p

On a serious note, and I think you kind of alude to this too, the fact is that Marx/Engels' lack of actual exposure to the factory environment would cast doubt on any analysis they make of the personalities of that class. But to the extent that they provide an economic analysis, their writings should not be dismissed due to lack of manual labor.

In essense, if I say to you "Yeah man, Marx was just a Man of the People! He, like, *understood* them man!" the response might be "Uh, Marx was as insulated from 'the people' as the exploiting class he opposed."

But if I say that Marx created an socio-economic analysis that makes sense, the ad hominem attack becomes just that.

(Again, I think you agree with what I just posted there.)

Also,

> Had he actually spent a considerable amount of time AS a factory worker (à la Simone Weil) he would notice that revolution without the aid (and, eventually, rule, with a net change of nearly zero on the part of the proletariat) of the bourgeois - given tolerable conditions the workers would naturally not revolt; given intolerable conditions the workers would be too busy trying to survive to even understand what the hell Marx is saying.

Actually, I think Marx was very well aware of this, even lacking factory working experience himself.

>The entire world, as far I know, might be a dream, some mad hallucination that I concocted up to defend myself from the cold emptiness and annihilation that is reality. But I don't try to escape from this, and I simply take the world as it presents itself to me, in full faith that what I perceive probably has SOME bearing on the real world. I think one would have to be "faith-based" just to exist.

And remember that religions, too, have undoubtedly "inspired a multitude of different thinkers, students, and activists" ...

> > "It might take a book, or several volumes, to explore what ____ said, what further schools of ________ hold, and refute those arguments."

>Rather than "Marx" and "Marxism," fill in the blanks with "Christ" and "Christianity"/"Buddha" and "Buddhism"/"Mohammed" and "Islam" and the above sentence is still perfectly valid.

Amidst those statements from you, I think that you and I are just approaching the same issue from a different angle. The statement "Marxism is a religion," is meant as a label and an insult. It implies that Marxism is faith-based, which is in turn something less than logic as a tool for understanding.

I attacked that issue by advocating that Marxism need not be any more faith-based than any other philosophy, and that Marx himself was quite logical (as opposed to faith-based.) You come at it by saying that most if not ALL other philosophies, however "logical," involve some degree of faith.

In the end, we're both saying that Marxism need not involve any more faith than any other philosophy.

Perhaps the weakness of my approach was that I accept, ad agruendo, that there IS something "insulting" in calling Marxism a "religion," thereby perhaps accepting that faith is an inferior means of achieving understanding than logic.

You defend the complexity of understandings achieved through means alternative to logic, thereby also implicitly stating that even calling Marxism a "religion," is a hollow insult, to the extent that it insults the philosophy's potential for achieving and creating understanding.

I accept your take on the matter. My own approach was chosen because Marxism IS something that relies on logic. Hence, I'm not attacking faith per se, but focusing on the inapplicability of the insult in necessarilly attributing faith to Marxism (again, faith in a quantity tangibly greater than present in other philosophies.)

> > But a buzz statement like "Marxism is a religion" reaches everyone.

> It's popular mostly as a means of ridiculing staunch Marxists who claim to deny all religion but believe in an inevitable uprising of the proletariat and a new, classless society where everyone lives a happy life.

Yeah, that's what it *should* mean, but the thing is that it has become a statement that applies to all "Marxists" (who themselves basically become a homogenous mass) and the philosophy itself. Look back at Bullock's understanding of the comment. He didn't say that it meant "The overzealousness, and lack of critical thought, of at least some people who consider themselves Marxists." No, it quite simply applied to the whole damn philosophy...

"because you can't look at it and logically think it would work..."

And I think that's precisely what Drew *wanted* Bullock, and others, to come away thinking. That's precisely what the entire Reagan-type propaganda machine created. Communists are faceless enemies, homogenous, devoted to an illogical and evil religion.

Again, great post. I think this is all two different means of achieving the same or similar conclusion. Seeing the two perspectives is interesting.

[ back | home ]