Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:44 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:08 pmThere are many charlatans and worse, men who want to get power and wealth for themselves. The goal of education is to arm students with their own power to distinguish between good and bad. Students need to be as able as they can be to tell the difference between lies and truths, between superficial and deep, between reason and unreason, between thriving and failing, and between stagnation and progression.
Marxist theory is one heuristic and should be taught alongside others. For instance history of the past three centuries in Europe can be taught using the interpretations of both right wing and left wing historians. There is no place in schools, universities or even training institutes for mechanical engineers, for indoctrinators.
A couple of thoughts:

I am not sure if your definition of education is complete enough. It has become quite difficult to distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' and, in my own view, so many things are confused because of very different (and confused, and conflicting) senses of good and bad and these compete.

In regard to Immanuel Can's perspective (one that I can understand because within my time-constraints I have examined some of the material he has examined) I strongly agree that neo-Marxism's influence today is extraordinary and I would say dangerous and also evil (it will result in very bad outcomes and these I term *evil* and it is now resulting in those things).

How is it that this assessment seems so obvious, and undeniable, but yet others have a completely opposed viewpoint? I would argue that if there were *proper education* that the bad that you identify as needing to be distinguished would be far more obvious and evident. The break-down in proper teaching (of proper materials) has led to the present situation where what is loosely called neo-Marxism gains inroads. An inner barrier is breached.

How this came about is rather complex. And what is needed to reverse it is also not easy to propose.

It is possible to examine Marxist theory and attempt to understand the viewpoints. But some aspects of these viewpoints are quite defective when examined closely. It is highly problematic, and always has been, when Marxism is made into a simplistic platform of activism.
We must distinguish between good and bad. As authentic individuals and as political animals we don't have any other option. Add to my check list if you will. It took me about five minutes to compile what I did and no doubt it's incomplete.

I invite you to say briefly what you mean by Marxism.

What I mean by Marxism is : production of life's necessities is the basic motive force for the existence of societies.

To be fair to IC my own experience as an undergraduate (Humanities and education-related social science 1970s UK) was there was a detectable bias towards Marxism as I describe it, above.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5142
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Belinda wrote: I invite you to say briefly what you mean by Marxism.

To be fair to IC my own experience as an undergraduate (Humanities and education-related social science 1970s UK) was there was a detectable bias towards Marxism as I describe it, above.
Immanuel spoke first of neo-Marxism. The different forms by which modified Marxianesque doctrines or “praxis” became influential. Activist Queer Theory, Activist Gender Theory (geared to manipulation of children), Activist race-based theory. What is too-loosely but not inaccurately described as CRT along with a general anti-White and anti-Occident ideology — these things, right now, are extraordinarily visible and activist.

Marxist economic theory is not hard to grasp. It should be studied of course. Marxist-Leninist writing should be studied (critically). And the history of infiltration by Marxist-Leninist proponents should be studied (critically in my view).

Personally, I have read some Horkheimer and Adorno (and Fromm) and recognize some positive critiques in their positions. Gramsci lays down a working outline for infiltration.

I see these influences playing out today with very negative effects. So I am far more critical than supportive.

Have you listened to any talks by James lindsay?

For example: Paolo Freire’s Politics of Education
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Christianity

Post by henry quirk »

What I mean by Marxism is : production of life's necessities is the basic motive force for the existence of societies.
Recast, for accuracy: Marxism is the control of life's necessities (production of, dissemination of) as a means of directing societies. It's an exercise in domestication and livestock management.
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by promethean75 »

So you're saying that if you aren't allowed to employ wage workers, you become a chicken or a cow or sumthin?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Christianity

Post by henry quirk »

promethean75 wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 12:48 pm So you're saying that if you aren't allowed to employ wage workers, you become a chicken or a cow or sumthin?
Epic fail, right out of the gate.

What you shoulda said: And how is capitalism not about domestication and livestock management?

I, of course, would reply: It is.

Then you: Well that's a surprise, Henry.

Me: It shouldn't be. I've written, in-forum, multiple times of the capitalist's tendency to become a state capitalist. The same impulses to direct are as much in the capitalist as the communist. And I don't see much difference, practically, between them.

Then I'd extol the glories of Free Enterprisers (as I explained how the anarchic Free Enterpriser and the state capitalist are two different animals). And you'd pooh-pooh Free Enterprisers as fanciful without offerin' a real rebuttal.


There, I saved us about five pages of rehash.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9556
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:05 pm

Me: It shouldn't be. I've written, in-forum, multiple times of the capitalist's tendency to become a state capitalist. The same impulses to direct are as much in the capitalist as the communist. And I don't see much difference, practically, between them.

Then I'd extol the glories of Free Enterprisers (as I explained how the anarchic Free Enterpriser and the state capitalist are two different animals). And you'd pooh-pooh Free Enterprisers as fanciful without offerin' a real rebuttal.
It seems to me that whatever system you adopt, it is always going to end up with the majority doing the work, and a minority being in charge of them, one way or another. Those in charge will always get more out of the system than those doing the work. Given human nature, it's inevitable.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Christianity

Post by henry quirk »

Harbal wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:30 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:05 pm

Me: It shouldn't be. I've written, in-forum, multiple times of the capitalist's tendency to become a state capitalist. The same impulses to direct are as much in the capitalist as the communist. And I don't see much difference, practically, between them.

Then I'd extol the glories of Free Enterprisers (as I explained how the anarchic Free Enterpriser and the state capitalist are two different animals). And you'd pooh-pooh Free Enterprisers as fanciful without offerin' a real rebuttal.
It seems to me that whatever system you adopt, it is always going to end up with the majority doing the work, and a minority being in charge of them, one way or another. Those in charge will always get more out of the system than those doing the work. Given human nature, it's inevitable.
Yes, sheep & sociopaths will always be. Not seein' why the rest of us have to cater to their lil s & m shenanigans.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:21 pm
Harbal wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:30 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:05 pm

Me: It shouldn't be. I've written, in-forum, multiple times of the capitalist's tendency to become a state capitalist. The same impulses to direct are as much in the capitalist as the communist. And I don't see much difference, practically, between them.

Then I'd extol the glories of Free Enterprisers (as I explained how the anarchic Free Enterpriser and the state capitalist are two different animals). And you'd pooh-pooh Free Enterprisers as fanciful without offerin' a real rebuttal.
It seems to me that whatever system you adopt, it is always going to end up with the majority doing the work, and a minority being in charge of them, one way or another. Those in charge will always get more out of the system than those doing the work. Given human nature, it's inevitable.
Yes, sheep & sociopaths will always be. Not seein' why the rest of us have to cater to their lil s & m shenanigans.
One of Marxism's fundamental errors -- and it has many -- is to assume people are essentially all the same. A "worker" is the same as other "workers," and they're all basically worthy of our advocacy, and a "bourgeouis" person is the same as every other "bourgeouis" person, and all are worthy of our antipathy. That's so obviously false it should hardly need refutation. But that's the assumption.

The truth is exactly what you both say: that some people are leaders, and others follow. Some are inventors, and some are only consumers of inventor's inventions. Some are generators of new wealth, and others are only beneficiaries of more general social prosperity. And some are investors and risk takers, whereas most are risk-averse and wage-oriented. We might add that smart and stupid people exist in both classes, as to moral and immoral types, and the greedy and the generous, and the selfish and the unselfish, and the lazy and the diligent, and workers and freeloaders...and on, and on, and on.

There are bound to be social hierarchies of all kinds, with some people on the top of each and more people lower down. Not everybody is a Rhodes Scholar. Not everybody is a Bill Gates. Not everybody is a Caesar, a Napoleon or a Churchill. Not everybody is an Olympic athlete. Most people are not any of those things.

And since that is true, hierarchy is inevitable: because to hate hierarchy is to hate quality, to loath achievement, to despise excellence. Equalizing things always amounts to settling for the lowest common denominator, not to pulling everybody up.

So it's not going to be, as H. suggests, just "a matter of the majority doing all the work and a minority being in charge of them," (though it would be that, in Socialism, because it puts big government -- the most inept and useless -- in charge of everybody.) It's going to be a matter of the minority doing everything really advantageous for society, and a majority riding off their coat tails or merely following their lead.

Leaders and followers, in every area of life.

That's life.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Christianity

Post by henry quirk »

Leaders and followers, in every area of life.
In any man's life there are multiple opportunities to lead, follow, or go it alone. It's unnatural a man be cast in one role for a lifetime.

The State (any iteration, with any accompanying managed economy and culture) does exactly this kind of casting.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9556
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Double post
Last edited by Harbal on Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9556
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:38 pm to hate hierarchy is to hate quality, to loath achievement, to despise excellence. Equalizing things always amounts to settling for the lowest common denominator, not to pulling everybody up.
This is where you always go wrong. You always try to apply cold logic to human behaviour, and that simply won't work. I hate hierarchy, yet I love excellence, how does your logic explain that? Hierarchy might be necessary, but that doesn't mean you have to like it.
So it's not going to be, as H. suggests, just "a matter of the majority doing all the work and a minority being in charge of them," (though it would be that, in Socialism, because it puts big government -- the most inept and useless -- in charge of everybody.)
There is no argument that private enterprise is far more efficient than governments at managing the means of production. Not only that, those who the government put in charge of state controlled industry are far more likely to be unmotivated, and also corrupt.
It's going to be a matter of the minority doing everything really advantageous for society, and a majority riding off their coat tails or merely following their lead.
The relationship should be much more symbiotic, and far less parasitic. The ones in charge always take more than their fair share.
Leaders and followers, in every area of life.
Yes, those in charge do like to see themselves as leaders, don't they? I have always worked for other people; they paid me and I did what they required in return. I didn't follow them anywhere. Same with our political "leaders". They try to run the country, usually end up making a hash of it, and we sack them, and then it all goes round again. We don't follow them anywhere.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

Harbal wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:30 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:05 pm

Me: It shouldn't be. I've written, in-forum, multiple times of the capitalist's tendency to become a state capitalist. The same impulses to direct are as much in the capitalist as the communist. And I don't see much difference, practically, between them.

Then I'd extol the glories of Free Enterprisers (as I explained how the anarchic Free Enterpriser and the state capitalist are two different animals). And you'd pooh-pooh Free Enterprisers as fanciful without offerin' a real rebuttal.
It seems to me that whatever system you adopt, it is always going to end up with the majority doing the work, and a minority being in charge of them, one way or another. Those in charge will always get more out of the system than those doing the work. Given human nature, it's inevitable.
I agree. There has never been a society without a ruling elite.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:51 am
Belinda wrote: I invite you to say briefly what you mean by Marxism.

To be fair to IC my own experience as an undergraduate (Humanities and education-related social science 1970s UK) was there was a detectable bias towards Marxism as I describe it, above.
Immanuel spoke first of neo-Marxism. The different forms by which modified Marxianesque doctrines or “praxis” became influential. Activist Queer Theory, Activist Gender Theory (geared to manipulation of children), Activist race-based theory. What is too-loosely but not inaccurately described as CRT along with a general anti-White and anti-Occident ideology — these things, right now, are extraordinarily visible and activist.

Marxist economic theory is not hard to grasp. It should be studied of course. Marxist-Leninist writing should be studied (critically). And the history of infiltration by Marxist-Leninist proponents should be studied (critically in my view).

Personally, I have read some Horkheimer and Adorno (and Fromm) and recognize some positive critiques in their positions. Gramsci lays down a working outline for infiltration.

I see these influences playing out today with very negative effects. So I am far more critical than supportive.

Have you listened to any talks by James lindsay?

For example: Paolo Freire’s Politics of Education
I regret asking you to say briefly what you mean by Marxism. You obviously know a lot more than I do, and that there is too much for me to learn without once more becoming an udergraduate. I suppose the little I know comes under the heading of economic Marxism.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9556
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Belinda wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:35 pm

I regret asking you to say briefly what you mean by Marxism.
Wikipedia says that no definitive Marxist theory exists. I suspect you will get a version of it that does not emphasise its best features.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5142
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Belinda wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:35 pm I regret asking you to say briefly what you mean by Marxism. You obviously know a lot more than I do, and that there is too much for me to learn without once more becoming an udergraduate. I suppose the little I know comes under the heading of economic Marxism.
What I know of activist Marxism is of a critical sort. More properly Marxist-Lenninism. But the Neo-Marxism -- that is another kettle of fish.

I am uncertain if you listen to philosophical talks on YouTube (?) but here is a wonderful talk by a wonderful talker Isaiah Berlin on the impact of Marx on the 19th century. He has, in my view, a balanced view of Marx.
Post Reply