479
Harm Reduction Rule
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
There are no ethical choices under first-past-the-post voting. We must instead make a decision that reduces the most harm.
No, what form of Democracy, and by what metrics? Why do you say bourgeois dictatorships are better?
Again, no. You are entirely missing the point. People will not be swayed by learning Socialism is better, without material conditions matching said ideas.
Listen, I know you're trying your best, but only reading the Manifesto, a pamphlet to energize the workers, does not make you equipped to discissing if Marxism is outdated or not. I'm not even gatekeeping, you are making numerous false assumptions about Marxism that I have tried to point out.
Specifically, you are falling for the well-studied failures of Utopian Socialists like the Owenites, described in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
Again review the countries that exist. Google maps exists. Also call them what they are, liberal democracies, thank you. People fought hard for those democracies.
No, these martial conditions, under neoliberalism, despite matching the material conditions of a worker class oppressed by an owner class, make it harder to learn that Socialism is better. This is why it's hard to even engage people about Socialism. This is the specific part of Marxist theory we are disagreeing about by the way, not Marxist theory in general. Neoliberalism makes it much harder for us to engage people with socialist ideas. Where as people are primed for fascist ideas. This is the problem we face that exists in the modern day. It started with Thacher in 1979 in the UK and Regan in 1980 in the US so as interesting as the Owenites are, they are not relevant.
These statements contradict each other. It's not for you to decide what makes someone qualified to discuss anything. To be clear, I do not have to have read all the theory you have to discuss this topic.
There are many types of democracy. Representative, direct, parlimentary, and so forth. Even as liberal democracies, these were erected in revolutions led by the bourgeoisie alongside the Proletariat against the Aristocracy, and as such serve the Bourgeosie and suppress the Proletariat. You haven't indicated which of these you support, or why they are better.
As for your disagreements with Marxism, by your own admission you have only read the Manifesto, which is an inflammatory pamphlet for workers. Under what pretense could you hope to discuss something you haven't investigated? What is there for us to discuss if we have one person who understands Marxist theory, and someone who rejects it without having read it?
I absolutely agree with you in saying that you do not need to have read theory to have opinions. What I have been trying to say is that you need to read theory to have opinions on said theory. You are rejecting Marxism without knowledge of it, which makes discussion difficult and incomplete, especially because you have been against my clarifications on the topic.
No, I am making a point about one part of Marxist theory that is well known. For all your obfuscation and gatekeeping you have not refuted this point.
Marx said that material conditions like the ones we see in the modern day under neoliberalism would inspire the people to a socialist revolution. The material conditions have not done that. Neoliberalism did not exist when Marx wrote his theories. He could have only guessed the ways in which neoliberalism would condition people to reject the tools of their own liberation. Wealth redistribution is essential to correct the wealth disparity between the top 1% and the bottom 99% of people. But most people would have you know that is, to paraphrase, 'an immoral infringement of property rights'. People think they would be losing wealth when of course they would be the ones gaining that wealth. There are people, usually conservatives, who think that their should be an economic hierarchy. And that a person's place on that hierarchy is justified by the circular reasoning that they are on that place in the hierarchy. This idea is incompatible with wealth redistribution and must be full internalized as an incorrect idea by as many people as possible. Then people need learn that wealth redistribution is an essential part of maintaining a functioning economy.
No, Marx did not say that "material conditions would inspire the people to Socialist revolution." That cuts the entirety of Dialectical Materialism out of the equation.
I cannot stress this enough, you are misconstruing Marx's arguments here.
Marx said that Matter creates ideas. This is the underlying concept of Materialism. However, Marx was not simply a Materialist, but a Dialectical Materialist. You have eliminated the Dialectic from Marxian analysis and additionally added a supernatural element to Materialism in one fell swoop!
The Dialectic is a way of looking at the progression of Matter. What once was seen as a snapshot becomes more valuable when analyzed in motion. Even if people became aware of Socialism individually, the Mode of Production dictates the overarching ideology of society, and the types of ideas that take hold.
The US is additionally not simply Capitalism in decline, but an Imperialist state super-exploiting the third world for domestic super profits. This creates a Labor Aristocracy, a class of Proletarians that are reactionary because their standard of living is inflated by global Capitalism. THAT is why the US is not revolutionary. The Third World will be revolutionary before the US as it shakes off the yokes of Imperialism, a fact we can see in real life.
Neoliberalism isn't something Marx did not predict. He didn't predict the name, but he absolutely predicted the process and ideology. Imperialism was elaborated on by Lenin, but Marxism still allowed for that analysis to be made in line with Marxism.
If you take nothing from this conversation except for this, please listen to the following statements:
You are deeply misinformed on what Marxism is and isn't, and as such none of your points on Marxism hold any water. I can offer recommendations for reading, if you wish, but if nothing else I ask that you refrain from continuing to confidently misrepresent Marxism, as that only adds confusion.
I implore you to address you argument at my argument. Your reliance on directing your argument at me is not effective. I am not the subject of debate. Nor is over complicating a simple issue.
I am not adding a supernatural element. Just that the essential claim is that people will rise up against their oppressors. And specifically that this uprising would be economic in nature and that it would achieve socialist ends. This has happened throughout history. There have been socialist revolutions. I am arguing the people are not going to rise up in a socialist revolution on their own in modern day America. Neoliberalism is actively working against that outcome while at the same time allowing fascism to take root. People who know pro-democracy and socialist ideas have to spread them and fast. The ideas will not spread themselves. Neoliberalism leads to fascism. To achieve a different outcome is to work against people's natural inclination to internalize their societies flaws as values and then implement those values into worse systems. People work with the tools they have been given. We have to give them better tools. Then they can have those tools implemented via democracy.
We are not discussing imperialism. The hundreds of millions of civilians in America aren't oppressing anyone. The US governments actions in the rest of the world are not relevant to the specific topic of Americans forming a political revolution or any revolution at home. The domestic policy is what is relevant. US military spending of course decreases available funding to social programs, but the specific actions of the military are not relevant to this discussion. While wealth was introduced to America via imperialism the boom and bust cycle of capitalism is inevitably extracting that wealth from the working class. The conditions are there but we see a populist christo-fascist movement instead of a socialist movement.
Again ad hominem. Refuting this line of reasoning is trivial.
Your argument is introducing confusion where there need not be any.
I am addressing you at your argument.
You did indeed add a supernatural element, you claimed that Marx claimed Material Conditions force ideas, when that isn't true nor his argument. Base and superstructure, after all.
We are discussing Imperialism, to ignore Imperialism is to ignore Marxism. The United States super-exploits the third world for super-profits domestically, which does inflate lifestyles. No, the average American is not knowingly choosing this, but this is the inevitable endpoint of Capitalism as the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall causes developed corporations to seek higher and higher profits from greater and greater exploitation. Neoliberalism is a side effect of Imperialism.
Yes, the American proletariat is oppressed by the American Bourgeoisie, but the American Proletariat is also the benefactor of American Imperialism and as such is largely reactionary. This is why fascism is rising, not Neoliberalism, not the ideas of Reagan and Thatcher but the Material Conditions caused by Capitalism shifting towards Imperialism.
It is not Ad Hominem to point out over and over that you misrepresented Marx and Marxism. I showed you where and why you misrepresented Marx and you call it Ad Hominem.
If you do not wish to engage with Marxism that's fine, but don't try to pretend you understand it enough to discredit it, that's all I ask. You don't have to take reading recommendations from me, you can find them elsewhere and decide for yourself if they contradict your current understanding.
No, not force, naturally lead to. It is logical for the oppressed to want to overthrow their oppressor.
I'm ignoring both of those things because they are not relevant to the discussion. Only the specifics of the flaw in Marxism we are discussing and domestic policy implications of imperialism are relevant. Your argument is effectively trying to justify the veracity of the Bible with Bible verses. Your argument is self referencing. I addressed the rest of this paragraph in the other comment chain, except the last line.
Neoliberalism is a political invention. You'll notice the UK adopted it as well, a year earlier than the US. Even though the UK's actual empire had collapsed at that point. Imperialism had nothing to do with it. Conservatives needed a new ideology to combat progressives movements that were taking hold in those countries. So they came up with neoliberalism.
This is the part I addressed in the other comment chain again, but here you go. Any benefit they experience is quickly extracted from them. The owner class always wins in the end. The boom and bust cycle is the gradual extraction of wealth. With each bust more American families lose the ability to participate meaningfully in the economy. Where as the owner class is always there to benefit from the next boom.
This is an ad hominem attack in a nut shell. Your argument is directed at me. The veracity of my argument doesn't depend on me.
Ad hominem. Again. What I am doing to refute your argument is trivial. Anyone can do this. I highly recommend you try a different approach.
I'll take recommendations, but Marxist and anarchist theory in general is not relevant to this discussion.