Open Questions For A Marxist/communist

[Lilllabettt]

What is the possible alternative to political ideology? The only alternative I can envision is the Augustinian refusal to participate in political matters.
 

 

 

Well the alternative is you could give up ideology's fixation on purity. You could be like Jesus, and take this sinful world as it is, not as you would have it. You could embrace the idea that perfection can be the enemy of good. If political scientists did these things they would kill fewer people. But for them it lacks romance.

[4588686]

Well the alternative is you could give up ideology's fixation on purity. You could be like Jesus, and take this sinful world as it is, not as you would have it. You could embrace the idea that perfection can be the enemy of good. If political scientists did these things they would kill fewer people. But for them it lacks romance.

I think that's a caricature.  I don't think that being classifiable as a Marxist makes somebody inherently an ideological purist.  I would say the same thing about libertarians.  Now do I think that moderate Republicans are immunity from ideological purity.  

[John Ryan]

I really thought this would all be resolved in one page.

 

I'm going to build a shoeshine stand and work weekdays. I'll oppress someone by renting it out on the weekends to another worker.

 

Resolved? It is not the purpose of such a thread to be resolved. It is not my intention to try to prove Communism/Marxism, or convert others to my ideology. I am merely attempting to give an exposition of the Marxian perspective.

 

Do you have any personal experience of life in a socialist/communist system?

 

I do not think that anybody alive today has experience with a communistic system.

 

You are the vilest of scum. How dare you benefit from your own effort.

 

I would not quite agree that rent = effort. There was a time when usury, charging interest on idle money loaned out, was considered to be a sin by the Roman Catholic Church. I do not even think the Vatican has revoked its moral condemnation of usury. I think it is a warped sort of thinking that comes out of a culture saturated with a philosophy of possessive individualism that you speak of. I think the idea that I am only willing to allow others in the community to use something, I have absolutely no intention of using, if they pay me rent would appear very strange in human history. 

 

What are your thoughts on Hegel's views on Christianity?

 

It's been a few years since I've studied him, but it seems to me that Hegel's God is pantheistic, the main difference separating his conception from, say, Spinoza's being that it is entirely temporized - the God/the world is still 'unfolding' in history.

 

Well, Spinoza and Hegel were panentheists. While I reject much of Hegel's theology, I do affirm a panentheistic understanding of God. In some sense, I do believe the world to be the Body of God. For me, God is the very process of love, truth, beauty and goodness in the world.

 

I am not romantic about capitalism, but I don't see how it can be denied that it has SOMETHING going for it in the domain of freedom and happiness. Certainly, this is not just due to capitalism but also to political factors...the pursuit of happiness is part of the American political tradition.

 

And I agree that industrialization was a watershed in Western history. But it is a watershed for both capitalism and communism. Both have to make that jump, because they are both modern industrial systems. But in the context of Western civilization, capitalism has proven more in keeping with classical virtues like democracy and culture. And that's an understatement...Communist societies have not proven to be compatible with Western civilization, and the modern world order arose out of Western civilization.

 

Simply because the Founding Fathers mentioned the idea of the "pursuit of happiness" does not make it a truth of our political system. I am not convinced that our system is founded on the any sort of happiness or freedom. Soviet leaders preached democracy in their authoritarianism, but that did not make it true. 

 

And, I do not think communism has ever been tried. From a classical Marxian perspective, the Soviet Union is still capitalistic. The essence of capitalism is alienated labor as wage labor. All the Soviet system did was make the State the monopoly capitalist. Monopoly/State Capitalism is not Communist, just as the Chinese Communist Party is state capitalist, not communists.

[John Ryan]

Well the alternative is you could give up ideology's fixation on purity. You could be like Jesus, and take this sinful world as it is, not as you would have it. You could embrace the idea that perfection can be the enemy of good. If political scientists did these things they would kill fewer people. But for them it lacks romance.

 

Josef Stalin was the ultimate pragmatist. He gave up on the Marxian ideal of a stateless society and decided to rule as a good old fashioned dictator. I really do not know how to respond further to your challenge. There is no reason at all for me to believe that idealism kills more than pragmatism. Was the war between Japan and the United States idealist or pragmatic? I don't even know how to begin to answer that question. The Invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union appeared very pragmatic decisions.

Edited September 16, 2013 by John Ryan

[Lilllabettt]

I think that's a caricature.  I don't think that being classifiable as a Marxist makes somebody inherently an ideological purist.  I would say the same thing about libertarians.  Now do I think that moderate Republicans are immunity from ideological purity.  

 

engrish?

[4588686]

engrish?

 

 

That was in English.  I don't see why he's any more of an ideologue than you are.  Or why you have this weird view that political scientists are conqueror of lands and destroyer of worlds.  

[PhuturePriest]

I do not think that anybody alive today has experience with a communistic system.
 

 

What's that say about the life expectancies of people in communist societies?

 

;)

[Lilllabettt]

Josef Stalin was the ultimate pragmatist. He gave up on the Marxian ideal of a stateless society and decided to rule as a good old fashioned dictator.

 

so, who made Josef Stalin possible?

[Apteka]

 

I do not think that anybody alive today has experience with a communistic system.

 

I was born in a socialist nation and many have lived under Communist regimes, so I take your answer to suggest you would challenge the degree to which any modern nation actually achieved socialism or communism. But my question is have you lived under any socialist or communist system to any degree?

[4588686]

so, who made Josef Stalin possible?

 

 

The Whites?  

[PhuturePriest]

The Whites?  

 

Jesus. The answer to every question is Jesus.

[4588686]

Right.

[Selah]

Right.

 

Left.

[4588686]

Carl Schmitt

[Lilllabettt]

That was in English.  I don't see why he's any more of an ideologue than you are.  Or why you have this weird view that political scientists are conqueror of lands and destroyer of worlds.  

 

well let me explain myself re: political scientists. some of them write books, play intellectual games about ideal societies that will not, cannot ever exist. We all need a hobby. It becomes sinister when the political scientist decides that progress is impossible until his vision is achieved.  Or when he takes steps to erect his perfection on the real world. Or when he is long dead, somebody picks up his silly book and decides to have a go.  Now he is writing on flesh instead of paper. It goes badly 99% of the time. Intellectuals get pregnant with some idea, bring forth a revolution, which stillborn or not, devours the poor. Our friend here sighs that a "real" communist system has never been tried. why do we suppose that is? why has a "real" communist society never been tried?