Marxism and Philosophy/ Karl Korsch

[Stanley]

Suki:

I am not going to rehash with Tovarish my views on communism. However, i wanted to point out to you the behaviors that I find offensive among some forum members.

And if he does what he usually has done in the forum, which is run away like a coward

These type of comments are not necessary and after that I seriously doubt theat POV will try to engage Tovarish.

I hope this helps

[POV]

Originally posted by Eddier1
Suki, POV is probably a military officer who is a cog in the military machine for indoctrinating new recruits in the Army against Marxism. And if he does what he usually has done in the forum, which is run away like a coward from any theme that he feels uncomfortable with, he will probably not reply to your excellent rebuttal of his dogmatic post about Marxism which is the scientific socialist Philosophy known as dialectical materialism.

Eddie Eddie Eddie. Getting personal, eh?

You see, I have a life outside of this forum. I don't live for it, I don't live by it. Nor do I have the time to tend personally and in detail to each one of your imbecilic, narcissistic posts. So, there. That's why.

The concepts or ideas of dialectical materialism in relationship to the social conditions, involving power struggles in the world, produce the social consciousness of the masses, and it has proved the truth of the adage that nothing is more powerful in the world than a system of ideas, like Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, whose time has come. On the other hand, all that POV has are texts from others that function as templates for brainwashing against Marxism, and all that he says regarding Marxism are merely notions that are spin-doctoring 'tersgivizaciones' and not valid concepts that are truth.

That's "tergiversaciones," Eddie. Or may be that word is not on your latest edition of the Newspeak dictionary.

Marxism is just a monotone, monothematic, monologue. It doesn't deserve the term "philosophy" for it ignores on purpose big fields of philosophical investigations. To keep themselves relevant, consumate practioners like you just blab blab blab, enamored of what they have to say while simultaneously blinding themselves to the destruction that Marxism has brought to the societies where it has been unleashed.

Which shows once again what we can expect from Marxists in general and from you in particular: narcissistic pseuderudite jargon-babble.

P.

[POV]

Originally posted by Suki
What are relationships between human beings?

Well, among the positive ones, I may mention Love, Friendship, Cooperation, Compassion, Understanding, Comraderie, Companionship, Help...

In an economic sense it is a relationship about POWER....and economic profit and exploitation if it is in capitalism?

No, not always. Because within capitalism human beings are free to associate to pursue Love, Friendship, Cooperation, Compassion, Understanding, Comraderie, Companionship, Help...

Do you think workers in capitalism are not dehumanized?

Frequently. But not always, nor as a rule.

Do you think there are no nefarious power play interests in capitalism?

Show me another system, say, "socialism," that is "pure" and then show me that you have more power to change things for the better in that system that in "capitalism."

How about the hiearchical and pyramid structure of a capitalist economy?

I would reply that you should expand your readings away from the 19th century and into the 20th. There's no longer such hierarchy nor rigidity, not since the beginning of the Post-Industrial Age.

How about the dehumanizaton of workers all over the world....?

Most of the world doesn't live under capitalism, but either in pale versions that some call "state capitalism" or under socialist systems. So I don't think that your argument jives with reality.

Let us look and see if there are dehumanizing, exploitative and power relationships that are unbalanced in capitalist countries? Would keeping PR a colony of the USA be considered in your opinion an unbalanced power relationship?

It is an unbalanced power relationship. And as soon as Puerto Ricans vote to do away with it one way or the other, it will change.

How about the Roman Catholic church...with the Pope and then the Cardinals, and the Archbishops, and etc...all the way to the local priest. Nuns will never be Popes...is that cuz the power structure between men and women in the church is not BALANCED...

An interesting question. In this specific instance, I don't know what kind of answer you would like to hear from me. From the viewpoint of reason the question is fair, but would reason accept an answer from the viewpoint of faith? More concretely, would you? This is another subject, for another discussion. I'll stick with Marxism for the time being.

if Marxists study power relationships between peoples and nations and societies it is because IT EXISTS....

"It (sic) exists." Interesting. A categorical statement on existence hung up on the perceptions of Marxists. Surely you notice the myriad problems with this assertion?

Somewhere in the world there might be a taxonomist of unicorns and pegasii, of elves and leprecaums; if s/he studies them, THEY EXIST. See it now?

and must be dealt with...because if it is not...social change of any kind is stagnant.

A flimsy conclusion based on a questionable premise which proves my original point: Marxists, be they academics, chair-bound sympathizers like you, or incompentent dabblers like Eddie, find it very difficult to exact a single ontological argument that would establish Marxism on a stable philosophical foundation. Like you have demonstrated, Marxists breezely sketch a vague philosophical premise and jump directly into perceived effects and consequences.

Like conservatives love to do. Stagnate things and keep everything the same as long as a small group are benefitting from the stagnation.

Wrong again. Conservatives are not against change of any kind. We just question the pace of change. You'll find me very patient in many things, and impatient on others. I want Puerto Rico a state NOW; I want abortion to end NOW; I want the Puerto Rican subculture of machismo gone NOW. But it can't happen NOW. So we work at it. Conversely, I would like to see the advent of a more equitable economic system, but systems are not machines; they are made of people. Hence, people's minds, "souls" if you prefer, need to change before the "system" changes. Rather than having destructive "revolutionary" change that would lead to untold suffering and disruption, I favor a "go slow" approach and advocate the right and the duty to change peoples minds, to call them to "conversion" and them await the results.

You see, coming back to "philosophy" again, if you had taken into consideration the fallacy of generalization, you wouldn't have painted conservative with such a wide stroke. Is not reason, but rather prejudice, what motivates your statement above.

In families POV do the children have the same say so and power as a parent? Do they? Why not? How about between husband and wife? Etc. ALL HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS have power structures built in to it. If you fail to recognize this and criticize Marxists for recognizing that reality...the one with no sense of any real philosophy is YOU.

Suki Suki Suki (giggle). What I didn't say that Marxists don't study power relationships, what I said was that's the main thing, if not the only thing, that Marxists care about. They reduce everything else, every human experience, every other notion, into a reductive mechanicism.

For Marxists, humans are but cogs in a big machine and what matters to them is not to free the humans from this machine, but to conquer and take over the machine. Power is what they want and in this they're not different from anyone else. Power is to them the only worthy attainable goal. I can't speak for everyone else but in my case, that's the difference between them and me.

P.

[Eddier1]

Originally posted by POV

Eddie Eddie Eddie. Getting personal, eh?

You see, I have a life outside of this forum. I don't live for it, I don't live by it. Nor do I have the time to tend personally and in detail to each one of your imbecilic, narcissistic posts. So, there. That's why.

That's "tergiversaciones," Eddie. Or may be that word is not on your latest edition of the Newspeak dictionary.

Marxism is just a monotone, monothematic, monologue. It doesn't deserve the term "philosophy" for it ignores on purpose big fields of philosophical investigations. To keep themselves relevant, consumate practioners like you just blab blab blab, enamored of what they have to say while simultaneously blinding themselves to the destruction that Marxism has brought to the societies where it has been unleashed.

Which shows once again what we can expect from Marxists in general and from you in particular: narcissistic pseuderudite jargon-babble.

P.

So! POV you rear your ugly head once again, and belie that you are a "gentleman". You didn't respond to the excellent post of the Puertorriquena Suki, who rebutted your erroneous notions, and tried to open you up to wider horizons than your narrowminded and now invective notions reveal.

Your post to me is a diatribe in personalisms; it excuses yourself, so you believe, by saying your don't have the time to be responsible for what you say, and answer replies to those who take issues with what you say. I don't think you are lazy, so it must be that you don't schedule your time with precision. If you are going on the offensive against the Commies you should be prepared for an offensive counterattack by them to what you "opine". You prove nothing but that you are capable of being a low-life, who has run away from the replies of others to what you have demagogically thrown on this forum. Your vicious asides, i.e. personalisms, and claiming I have been personal towards you are all untrue. Personal about you? NO TRUE!

Why didn't you spend your time in rebutting, if you can, the position I took on the Peoples' Republic of China, concerning your position that Marxism makes people lose their national identities and dehumanizes them? The Chinese Communists are still Chinese, and Red and Expert in their application of Marxism, Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought to the concrete conditions of their country. Discuss that which I challenged you to do, but which instead you ignore and issue a verborrea of insults towards me which are much more than offensive personalism. They are SLANDEROUS! Come on, hombre, be a spelling cop if you want too. I always use s and z interchangeably in Spanish. But you got the message of what twisting notions around means in your behalf. So what's the real beef Mister POV? Answer the challenge with reason and responsibility for what you said, or shut up and forever hold your peace. It is much better than what you are doing now by throwing out on this forum a plethora of slanderous personalisms towards me, instead of doing your duty and being responsible for what you say. And Stan? do you really need him to 'limpiar tu fundillo despues de evacuar la pila pestosa en contra el Marxisimo' Is he your father or mother, VAYA, are you a child who needs someone else to clean you up, VAYA?

Be rational and socially responsible for what you say, and address the Pasionaria Puertorriquena for what she replied to you, if you aren't a coward really and will stop running away from the important issues like she and I posted about your diatribe of demagoguery.

[Joshue]

The biggest enemy of Marxism is Marxism itself.

It seriously ignore human nature, which greed and individualism are important elements of it, while individualism is positive and essential for personal growth, Greed is a massive flaw that lead to horrible things. Ignoring greed as a flaw that need to be seriously monitored and the removal of individualism, is the first step to a human rights disaster. This is being observed over and over, communist countries sink in economical Inflation, human rights violation, and massive corruption. Over and over and over this is being going on.

Why and How it happened? Why it always happened? Why the pattern appear time and time again? Russia and all it's satellites nations, China, North Korea, etc. why the same pattern over and over again? Is coincidence? is a capitalist conspiracy to undermine it? I already said this There is one peace of construction in the system, that give America an edge, is the a structure design against absolutism. Meaning you don't give too much power to a few individuals. That goes back to the whole political dilemma of Rome itself, the very famous Emperor or the Senate dilemma, Augustus was a great leader, but Caligula, Nero and the rest, were horrible Demons that eventually brought the doom to Rome. That is why fascism is the most corrupt of all. There were some founding father Of America that were really aware of this, and even were against creating A president Office. The Issue here is that the economical construct of Communism, poses a huge contradiction, By giving all the property to the government, they cock the gun of greed which lead to corruption. why? because who is going to administer the human resources? a selective few. BZZZZZZ bra!fart. A system that is design to get rid of classes or privileged ones, finish creating an absolutist pseudo fascist state, with an all powerful privilege ones. In the end, all they have done is replacing the privileged minority with some private property, for a selective few that have control of all the state property and even the law. Of course they call it the people republic or some other euphemism, but it a pseudo fascist state. That is when the ones that the cause was for, the proletariat, finish victims, and not priorities; the biggest Bra!nfart in the construct of Marxism. Another Flaw is The banishment of individual rights, this destroy the human concept of self belonging, It all get enmaskerated in the "the people" statement. The People is not one entity, the people or the Masses is a huge bunch of individuals, simple logic will teach you that, of course there is a mass, but we live our life as individuals, not as a mass, we go to work as individuals, we go to the bathroom as individuals, go to eat as individual, we get born as individual, and we die naturally as individuals. The abolition of individual rights, is the first step to the violation of human rights. Millions of individuals get their human rights pierced in the name of the so call the people republic. The reality is that the leaders are just defending themselves. This is the nexus point of the issue, the transition to true communism is dead wrong, stup!dly wrong if you want me to be more specific. Another thing that i see with the majority of Marxist is the inflexibility of thoughts, I propose in forums including this one, and in college to eliminate the Dictatorship transition and replace it for a legal code. All i received was insults or strong nonsense defenses from every single one of them. I think that inflexibility plays it parts in the self destruction of communism itself. Also the true communism stage, or the last, that apparently and magically the state is going to wither away, some say is the most beautiful state that humans are going to be. This is nothing new, this already happened, when Rome fell the the state wither away, AND THE DARK AGES BEGAN the Marxist construct is seriously ignoring human nature. Greed is what makes the dark ages happened. As a conclusion, I think is a dinosaur, that could not adapt, in the end, is going be extinct.

[POV]

Originally posted by Eddier1

So! POV you rear your ugly head once again, and belie that you are a "gentleman". You didn't respond to the excellent post of the Puertorriquena Suki, who rebutted your erroneous notions, and tried to open you up to wider horizons than your narrowminded and now invective notions reveal...

Etc.

Apparently the rules you seek to enforce apply to everyone else but yourself. Let us add "hypocrisy" to your ever-growing list of character flaws.

Frankly, speaking clearly, you're not worth my time. Do you understand me? I am not going to lower myself to your level. Get it?

You are an ignorant, you are sophomore, and probably, small in stature (emotionally if not physically). You can't teach anyone about "courage" (by calling other people "cowards") nor question other people's manners (by denying they are "gentlemen) because you lack these and numerous other virtues.

Go ahead, opine away. I'll continue to ignore you. I know it enrages you...but that's what you earned here, the right not to be taken seriously.

P

[Eddier1]

Listen POV, it is you who continue to veer away from the theme of discussion which Comrade Camano began. He posted a screed so long, that it seems you believed that you could tuck away your opposition to Marxism and its place in relationship to Philosophy by tagging unto to the end of the thread. I am not going to say a personalism to you about that! We saw what you did and responded; call it big brother or whatever you wish but we called you on it. And you didn't like what I said about you running away from discussions and now changing them into a personalistc 'dime y direte'.

Your last post to me again shows that you will run! But at least I see that you have answered Suki's post, be that as it may. Sticking to the theme of this thread, I want to correct you on Ontology or the study of Being qua Being. We dialectical materialists reject such metaphysics as abstract fallacies; it is not something we ignore like you said. But I will not hear anymore from you addressed to me, and will equally treat you the same way but without any HYPROCRISY, which is the last slander you threw at me. I will give you my email address, to wit: us103_eddier@hotmail.com. If you want to continue with the personalisms, insults, and downright bad manners that you have displayed to me and all on this forum, then use the email for that, if you dare!

Why I give you my email address is simply to save this thread for what it should be, i.e., a philosophical disquisition on Marxist Philosophy and the diverse views as to whether or not dialectical materialism has put Philosophy on the shelf of obsolescence for the future. I think it doesn't and take issue with what the Marcuses and other German socialists opine about that.

Nevertheless, I can't trust you not to disrupt this thread with what you have already showed on this topic, and if you want to hurl more INSULTS at me because I am a scientific socialist, I suggest you use my email address above to do it. But I advise you that if you stay "discussing" here in the manner you have, I will counterattack you on all fronts, even if you are addressing someone's else's post.

You, by the way, contradicted yourself, amongst making typos too, on the use of generalizations. You support Ontology and yet you don't support the validity of generalising. Don't you realize that generalizing is the sole method of Metaphysics and produces bare abstractions that have no relationship to the world of praxis nor the world of real politik. You put Suki down for generalizing but yet you support Ontology which in the main is based on generalizations.

However, that may be, you have my email address, and if you are not a hacker after my IP, and wish to be personalistic about me, then write, if not then be prepared for anything from me and others whom are scientific socialists (and as Stan has said, hard-core ones, too; he's correct on that!). He isn't always wrong. Valgame!

AGARRA EL DIA BORICUA, VENCEREMOS1
SOY PUERTORRIQUENO Y PUNTO; Y REALISTA SOCIAL.
EDDIE R.