Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Intro


Attention:

Sad things happened to this board and this community has moved to the new place. If you lost touch with us, please find us at www.sogayshidae.com.
First 10 pages of the new Forum Discussions thread should fill you in with the details of this drama.

This forum was restored and frozen for archive purposes.

Add Reply
Chat OT
Topic Started: Jan 30 2013, 10:20 PM (722,920 Views)
Rexie
Member Avatar
Your friendly neighborhood T-Rex
K@!rowe
Jun 24 2013, 11:24 PM
I really don't want to go to work today... or tomorrow...... or the day after...

Uni Hurry up and start :(
when are you starting uni?? I'd prefer working than going to classes, doing assignments and battling datelines tbh :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
orangedaffodils
Member Avatar
Let ε <0
Die Zicke
Jun 24 2013, 11:30 PM
I start law school in the fall and they've already sent me my book list. I'm kind of grossed out about it. Plus, that reminds me that I'm gonna have to move soon and leave this beautifully fucked up place behind.... no me gusta.

On the other hand, I'm excited to start law school. Just not excited enough to start thinking about it during June lol.

@ Orange - Are they bros? Seems like this place has been overrun with bros lately.
OMG!! That's so exciting! :D I mean, not the summer reading but the whole going to law school in the fall. Where are you moving to? I hope it's not somewhere too cold :P

No, they're not bros. just a bunch of annoying nerds, not unlike myself but I don't think i'm this annoying and certainly not this disgustingly bigoted.

Random thought as i'm looking at the dining hall menu for supper: who the hell would name an apple a "Red Delicious Apple"? I mean, I guess I understand the marketing aspect to it but like...what if we named everything like that? Like, "Yellow Sweet Banana" or "Green Amazing Cucumber". idk, I think it's a bit excessive. :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Die Zicke
Member Avatar
Caffeine is good for you.
orangedaffodils
Jun 24 2013, 11:43 PM
Die Zicke
Jun 24 2013, 11:30 PM
I start law school in the fall and they've already sent me my book list. I'm kind of grossed out about it. Plus, that reminds me that I'm gonna have to move soon and leave this beautifully fucked up place behind.... no me gusta.

On the other hand, I'm excited to start law school. Just not excited enough to start thinking about it during June lol.

@ Orange - Are they bros? Seems like this place has been overrun with bros lately.
OMG!! That's so exciting! :D I mean, not the summer reading but the whole going to law school in the fall. Where are you moving to? I hope it's not somewhere too cold :P

No, they're not bros. just a bunch of annoying nerds, not unlike myself but I don't think i'm this annoying and certainly not this disgustingly bigoted.

Random thought as i'm looking at the dining hall menu for supper: who the hell would name an apple a "Red Delicious Apple"? I mean, I guess I understand the marketing aspect to it but like...what if we named everything like that? Like, "Yellow Sweet Banana" or "Green Amazing Cucumber". idk, I think it's a bit excessive. :lol:
I'm not moving too far, just up 35 a little ways. I originally wanted to go to a school in Washington state and was accepted at all the schools I applied to.... but damn out of state is expensive. I ain't made of money. My family is glad I'm staying in-state though.

Yellow Sweet Banana sounds like a drag queen name lol.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rexie
Member Avatar
Your friendly neighborhood T-Rex
Die Zicke
Jun 24 2013, 11:51 PM
Yellow Sweet Banana sounds like a drag queen name lol.
:rofl: :rofl:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
orangedaffodils
Member Avatar
Let ε <0
Die Zicke
Jun 24 2013, 11:51 PM
I'm not moving too far, just up 35 a little ways. I originally wanted to go to a school in Washington state and was accepted at all the schools I applied to.... but damn out of state is expensive. I ain't made of money. My family is glad I'm staying in-state though.

Yellow Sweet Banana sounds like a drag queen name lol.
Spoiler: click to toggle


True that, ugh. which is why i'm 5ever jealous of Cali kids b/c they have the best public unis in the country that's cheap for them to attend but costs an arm and a leg for anyone else to attend :dramaqueen:

LOL does it? Idk, most drag queen names I know of are like...real names but just flavored up a bit. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Die Zicke
Member Avatar
Caffeine is good for you.
Spoiler: click to toggle



Gross. No nononnononononono hell no to that place. North of that, where actual people are lol.

I think it would make a good drag name for like a southern queen :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Artichoke
Member Avatar
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
orangedaffodils
Jun 24 2013, 11:06 PM
Ah ok.

I'm not, Conservatism is the foundation for conservative political parties (the implementation is different, but the core reactionary views stem from that philosophy). Like I said, i'm not going to support an ideology that results in oppression sooo...

I quoted organic because you used it in a context that was a fancy way of implying a slow pace which I felt was an unnecessary masking of what it actually is. We must have differing ideas on what Conservatism as an ideology really is. I feel like it's a reactionary idea that stems from wanting to return to a more traditional time period, which typically is a time period with very negative views on different, oppressed groups of people. Also, you don't have to be actively involved with systematically oppressing people to be doing so, which would still allow oppression to flourish in a system that already has it in place.

I imagine you're going to respond with more explanations about the abstract of Conservatism, which is fine I guess, but i'm not going to change my opinion of it; regardless of whether or not political parties adhere to their fundamental ideological tenants or not, that ideology results in a lot pure hatred and irrational intolerance that I can't support.

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lw0fhsD9og1qagn3lo8_250.gif
Nah, I see your points, and I agree with them to some extent, but I don't like dismissing a whole ideology because there's been a mistranslation of its core concepts and those mistranslations have occasionally been manipulated by lunatics with too much power. For the same reason, I'm 100% supportive of religion - it's been used for some bad things in the past, and extremists haven't given it the best reputation, but I think that at its core it's a very lovely idea and I'll speak up for it because of that.

The fact that these have persisted is mainly because of popular perception; Conservative parties have been understood in a certain way, so as to not confuse their message towards the less politically savvy masses, they stick to that understanding, even if it isn't wholly accurate. They hold one Conservative value, which is a regard for tradition, but they don't actually comply with the Conservative ideal, which would be that they don't restrict any negative liberties beyond the very bare minimum, and modern Conservative governments really don't abide by that in the slightest.

Not only that, but a support for state-fulfilled education would give the opportunity to implement those social changes for the positive that you're talking about. Education is about informing and teaching you to make rational decisions, and a Conservative education wouldn't incorporate societal prejudices into the syllabus because that would also be too much of an interference in personal freedom, which should cancel out indoctrination in the form of teaching that certain groups would be inferior to others. In addition, any bias on the parts of the policy makers would be irrelevant, because the moment the government attempts to control aspects of your life, that government ceases to be Conservative and starts to hedge towards Socialist.

Also, by your reasoning, if you won't support ideologies that could potentially result in oppression and/or perpetuating intolerance, you also don't support Liberalism, Anarchism, Socialism, Marxism etc. and hold even more contempt for those as well, since their freedom can spawn regimes just as brutal, if not even more so? Also in talking about "pure" ideologies I realised that I missed out my good buddy Milliam's Rule Utilitarianism, which is probably the best "pure" ideology, not Conservatism. Oops. :$

Conservatism is a respect for tradition, not a manic clinging to it. It puts a lot of emphasis on the past, true, but only in that it says we shouldn't dismiss things so easily based on reactionary politics and should instead examine whether or not it would be sensible. Being reactionary is the complete antithesis of Conservatism.

tl;dr I personally believe that, for the reasons above, Conservatism is an ideology of rational and moderate societal progression. Like religion, the name can be twisted and used to oppress people, but uninformed nutcases and fringe groups who misuse and mislabel their ignorance shouldn't disrupt what it actually is. ...Which, like everything, is up for debate, so...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yuwree
Member Avatar
Official Pine Tree
Rexie
Jun 24 2013, 11:41 PM
K@!rowe
Jun 24 2013, 11:24 PM
I really don't want to go to work today... or tomorrow...... or the day after...

Uni Hurry up and start :(
when are you starting uni?? I'd prefer working than going to classes, doing assignments and battling datelines tbh :lol:
If I get accepted (praying to soofany) I start 22nd of July.

That's what I originally thought but I really dont like the culture of my job, im a trainee but im already doing 3/4 of the work the salaried clerks do, and im only grtting paid half with no rdo's or accumulated leave, It's really inconvenient in the sense that I dont have time for anything anymore; cant collect parcels, cant go to gym, im eating badly and its getting a bit stressful =/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rexie
Member Avatar
Your friendly neighborhood T-Rex
Bae caught me rottin' (warning: open at your own risk) :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rexie
Member Avatar
Your friendly neighborhood T-Rex
K@!rowe
Jun 25 2013, 12:21 AM
Rexie
Jun 24 2013, 11:41 PM
K@!rowe
Jun 24 2013, 11:24 PM
I really don't want to go to work today... or tomorrow...... or the day after...

Uni Hurry up and start :(
when are you starting uni?? I'd prefer working than going to classes, doing assignments and battling datelines tbh :lol:
If I get accepted (praying to soofany) I start 22nd of July.

That's what I originally thought but I really dont like the culture of my job, im a trainee but im already doing 3/4 of the work the salaried clerks do, and im only grtting paid half with no rdo's or accumulated leave, It's really inconvenient in the sense that I dont have time for anything anymore; cant collect parcels, cant go to gym, im eating badly and its getting a bit stressful =/
awwwww, hang in there bb :alright:

:hug:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
orangedaffodils
Member Avatar
Let ε <0
Artichoke
Jun 25 2013, 12:10 AM
Nah, I see your points, and I agree with them to some extent, but I don't like dismissing a whole ideology because there's been a mistranslation of its core concepts and those mistranslations have occasionally been manipulated by lunatics with too much power. For the same reason, I'm 100% supportive of religion - it's been used for some bad things in the past, and extremists haven't given it the best reputation, but I think that at its core it's a very lovely idea and I'll speak up for it because of that.

The fact that these have persisted is mainly because of popular perception; Conservative parties have been understood in a certain way, so as to not confuse their message towards the less politically savvy masses, they stick to that understanding, even if it isn't wholly accurate. They hold one Conservative value, which is a regard for tradition, but they don't actually comply with the Conservative ideal, which would be that they don't restrict any negative liberties beyond the very bare minimum, and modern Conservative governments really don't abide by that in the slightest.

Not only that, but a support for state-fulfilled education would give the opportunity to implement those social changes for the positive that you're talking about. Education is about informing and teaching you to make rational decisions, and a Conservative education wouldn't incorporate societal prejudices into the syllabus because that would also be too much of an interference in personal freedom, which should cancel out indoctrination in the form of teaching that certain groups would be inferior to others. In addition, any bias on the parts of the policy makers would be irrelevant, because the moment the government attempts to control aspects of your life, that government ceases to be Conservative and starts to hedge towards Socialist.

Also, by your reasoning, if you won't support ideologies that could potentially result in oppression and/or perpetuating intolerance, you also don't support Liberalism, Anarchism, Socialism, Marxism etc. and hold even more contempt for those as well, since their freedom can spawn regimes just as brutal, if not even more so? Also in talking about "pure" ideologies I realised that I missed out my good buddy Milliam's Rule Utilitarianism, which is probably the best "pure" ideology, not Conservatism. Oops. :$

Conservatism is a respect for tradition, not a manic clinging to it. It puts a lot of emphasis on the past, true, but only in that it says we shouldn't dismiss things so easily based on reactionary politics and should instead examine whether or not it would be sensible. Being reactionary is the complete antithesis of Conservatism.

tl;dr I personally believe that, for the reasons above, Conservatism is an ideology of rational and moderate societal progression. Like religion, the name can be twisted and used to oppress people, but uninformed nutcases and fringe groups who misuse and mislabel their ignorance shouldn't disrupt what it actually is. ...Which, like everything, is up for debate, so...
I guess you're right in some aspects, I can see the flaw in my argument; I don't think I know enough about the overarching branch of religion and political theory to really say much to that comparison, tbqh, but I totally get what you mean with that comparison; I probably should've worded my previous response a little bit differently, but I meant in the context of purely political ideologies I don't support if, fundamentally, they're lacking in the social justice department. Religion is a completely different topic. I'm not going get too much into it, but while misconstrued to cause grief and hurt to people, religious texts are written by men who are flawed and bigoted/hold values by their society at the time the text was written, and I don't believe that the fundamental aspect of religion (ie; the intrinsic faith) is oppressive.

Artichoke
 
Not only that, but a support for state-fulfilled education would give the opportunity to implement those social changes for the positive that you're talking about. Education is about informing and teaching you to make rational decisions, and a Conservative education wouldn't incorporate societal prejudices into the syllabus because that would also be too much of an interference in personal freedom, which should cancel out indoctrination in the form of teaching that certain groups would be inferior to others. In addition, any bias on the parts of the policy makers would be irrelevant, because the moment the government attempts to control aspects of your life, that government ceases to be Conservative and starts to hedge towards Socialist.

i'm...not quite sure why you're telling me what the meaning of education is? The opposition to modern widespread reform would result in a bias in textbooks and syllabi as to ensure that drastic change won't occur. And no, i'm not opposed to all of the ideologies you've given examples of, I do like the idea of Marxism (Marxism was never actually practiced either; other forms of Communism emerged and evolved from the Marx-Engels definition/form which have pretty notable differences and have become an ideology in their own right, although they're not always "pure"). I don't think any pure ideology is going to be effective, but I also don't claim to know every single form of philosophical thought so I can't really say if I support most of those or not.

Merp, I don't think I need a tl;dr. I think I wrote pretty succinctly. :P

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Die Zicke
Member Avatar
Caffeine is good for you.
I'm highly entertained and fascinated by the back and forth between Orange and Arti. Quite a stimulating conversation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Artichoke
Member Avatar
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
orangedaffodils
Jun 25 2013, 12:34 AM
I guess you're right in some aspects, I can see the flaw in my argument; I don't think I know enough about the overarching branch of religion and political theory to really say much to that comparison, tbqh, but I totally get what you mean with that comparison; I probably should've worded my previous response a little bit differently, but I meant in the context of purely political ideologies I don't support if, fundamentally, they're lacking in the social justice department. Religion is a completely different topic. I'm not going get too much into it, but while misconstrued to cause grief and hurt to people, religious texts are written by men who are flawed and bigoted/hold values by their society at the time the text was written, and I don't believe that the fundamental aspect of religion (ie; the intrinsic faith) is oppressive.
I don't believe Conservatism is fundamentally lacking in aspects of social justice; I think it's the opposite. :P
There are more than enough ways to edit officialdom to remove an inequality of rights in Conservatism, even though those inequalities wouldn't actually exist in officialdom bc that defeats the whole point of Conservatism.

orangedaffodils
Jun 25 2013, 12:34 AM
i'm...not quite sure why you're telling me what the meaning of education is? The opposition to modern widespread reform would result in a bias in textbooks and syllabi as to ensure that drastic change won't occur. And no, i'm not opposed to all of the ideologies you've given examples of, I do like the idea of Marxism (Marxism was never actually practiced either; other forms of Communism emerged and evolved from the Marx-Engels definition/form which have pretty notable differences and have become an ideology in their own right, although they're not always "pure"). I don't think any pure ideology is going to be effective, but I also don't claim to know every single form of philosophical thought so I can't really say if I support most of those or not.
No, I don't believe it would. Like I said, Conservatism isn't opposed to evolution of thought, it's just opposed to reactionary politics where people disregard sensible older policies simply because of an emotional outbreak or revolutionary drama, even if it's for a legitimate reason. For something to have gone on for so long, there must be something about it that's attractive in some way, and Conservatism says that, rather than a complete overhaul, you should improve individual components. It respects tradition, it doesn't blindly defend it. The syllabi would be appropriately updated with new knowledge as it was discovered. A Conservative education system would inform, not indoctrinate.

Also, I'm not even going to get into detail Marxism, because that's the most oppressive and unrealistic regime out there. idk if you've ever looked or critically examined the original Marxist manifesto, but Marx himself stated that there had to be a period of extreme state control wherein you oppress the people until they become used to their social goods being redistributed. There's no freedom at all under a Marxist regime, because Marx believed that freedom came through removal of individuality, not through... actual freedom.
Plus, there's something to be said for the fact that all attempts to reach a Marxist state have failed and ended up in brutal despotism, tyranny and oppression.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Random Snippets
Member Avatar
Aficionado of Yuri's Wiggly Eyebrows
Die Zicke
Jun 25 2013, 12:50 AM
I'm highly entertained and fascinated by the back and forth between Orange and Arti. Quite a stimulating conversation.
x2!

Also, congrats on getting into law school! :) A fun dumblr

edit: totes forgot to censor it -_-
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Die Zicke
Member Avatar
Caffeine is good for you.
Random Snippets
Jun 25 2013, 12:53 AM
Die Zicke
Jun 25 2013, 12:50 AM
I'm highly entertained and fascinated by the back and forth between Orange and Arti. Quite a stimulating conversation.
x2!

Also, congrats on getting into law school! :) A fun tumblr
Thanks girl! :thumbsup:

I'm enjoying my brain and my sanity while I still have it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Guest
Unregistered

Random Snippets
Jun 25 2013, 12:53 AM
Also, congrats on getting into law school! :) A fun tumblr
not even a law student, but that tumblr :rofl:

Spoiler: click to toggle
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Random Snippets
Member Avatar
Aficionado of Yuri's Wiggly Eyebrows
Guest
Jun 25 2013, 01:19 AM
Random Snippets
Jun 25 2013, 12:53 AM
Also, congrats on getting into law school! :) A fun dumblr
not even a law student, but that dumblr :rofl:

Spoiler: click to toggle
I actually really like the dumblr. Its applicability is universal

Gl anon. How's the swotvac-ing going for you?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
orangedaffodils
Member Avatar
Let ε <0
Artichoke
Jun 25 2013, 12:52 AM
Also, I'm not even going to get into detail Marxism, because that's the most oppressive and unrealistic regime out there. idk if you've ever looked or critically examined the original Marxist manifesto, but Marx himself stated that there had to be a period of extreme state control wherein you oppress the people until they become used to their social goods being redistributed. There's no freedom at all under a Marxist regime, because Marx believed that freedom came through removal of individuality, not through... actual freedom.
Plus, there's something to be said for the fact that all attempts to reach a Marxist state have failed and ended up in brutal despotism, tyranny and oppression.
Sorry, I was eating dinner (stole a few apples and an orange too! :lol: ) I have a copy of the manifesto with commentary so that question came off as a bit condescending...

And you're misinterpreting the text, yeah Marx said that but his philosophy doesn't do that; he was stating the prerequisites required for revolution. ie; until the "higher" phase of communism is to arrive, socialists are to demand the strictest control by society and by the state over the measure of labor and the measure of consumption; but this control must start with the expropriation of the capitalists (with the establishment of workers' control over the capitalists) and must be exercised not by a state of bureaucrats, but by a state of armed workers. It's a means of revamping current economic policy to the benefit of everyone (turning the capitalists into employees, redistribution of goods and services, etc) as opposed to the condemnation of a group of people based on uncontrollable and unalterable reasons.

Like...it's completely different. You really can't equate the two. Furthermore, Marx thought that the oppression of blacks by whites or of women by men divides the working class, and the policy of divide and rule strengthens the power of the capitalists; he would never allow any sort of oppressive structure exist in his ideology - he even explicitly mentions that the bourgeois only view women as a means of production (but perhaps he wasn't as well versed in gender relations to speak more on the subject). Regardless, the fundamental themes of social criticism that Marx puts forward (such as alienation, domination, inequality, and exploitation, and a critique of the social relations that give rise to these conditions) have clear implications for a theory of gender/racial equality and emancipation. In every form of communism, there are specific efforts to mobilize women for emancipation and involvement for the good of the state.

I would like to know where you're getting your communist info from so I can send them a strongly worded email about how they need to reexamine and reevaluate the information they're disseminating about Marxism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Die Zicke
Member Avatar
Caffeine is good for you.
orangedaffodils
Jun 25 2013, 02:10 AM
Artichoke
Jun 25 2013, 12:52 AM
Also, I'm not even going to get into detail Marxism, because that's the most oppressive and unrealistic regime out there. idk if you've ever looked or critically examined the original Marxist manifesto, but Marx himself stated that there had to be a period of extreme state control wherein you oppress the people until they become used to their social goods being redistributed. There's no freedom at all under a Marxist regime, because Marx believed that freedom came through removal of individuality, not through... actual freedom.
Plus, there's something to be said for the fact that all attempts to reach a Marxist state have failed and ended up in brutal despotism, tyranny and oppression.
Sorry, I was eating dinner (stole a few apples and an orange too! :lol: ) I have a copy of the manifesto with commentary so that question came off as a bit condescending...

And you're misinterpreting the text, yeah Marx said that but his philosophy doesn't do that; he was stating the prerequisites required for revolution. ie; until the "higher" phase of communism is to arrive, socialists are to demand the strictest control by society and by the state over the measure of labor and the measure of consumption; but this control must start with the expropriation of the capitalists (with the establishment of workers' control over the capitalists) and must be exercised not by a state of bureaucrats, but by a state of armed workers. It's a means of revamping current economic policy to the benefit of everyone (turning the capitalists into employees, redistribution of goods and services, etc) as opposed to the condemnation of a group of people based on uncontrollable and unalterable reasons.

Like...it's completely different. You really can't equate the two. Furthermore, Marx thought that the oppression of blacks by whites or of women by men divides the working class, and the policy of divide and rule strengthens the power of the capitalists; he would never allow any sort of oppressive structure exist in his ideology - he even explicitly mentions that the bourgeois only views women as a means of production (but perhaps he wasn't as well versed in gender relations to speak more on the subject). Regardless, the fundamental themes of social criticism that Marx puts forward (such as alienation, domination, inequality, and exploitation, and a critique of the social relations that give rise to these conditions) have clear implications for a theory of gender/racial equality and emancipation. In every form of communism, there are specific efforts to mobilize women for emancipation and involvement for the good of the state.

I would like to know where you're getting your communist info from so I can send them a strongly worded email about how they need to reexamine and reevaluate the information they're disseminating about Marxism.
I think Marxism is a fascinating philosophical exercise in thought, but since we've never seen it work in the real world in it's purest form we can only speculate as to efficacy. Moreover, history has called into question whether it can be practically applied without deviating into some form of tyranny, as Arti said. Don't get me wrong, I loved reading Das Kapital and Das Kommunistische Manifest but sincerely doubt it's practical applicability amongst a general population. I believe that both Marx and Engels overestimated humanity.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
orangedaffodils
Member Avatar
Let ε <0
Die Zicke
Jun 25 2013, 02:30 AM
I think Marxism is a fascinating philosophical exercise in thought, but since we've never seen it work in the real world in it's purest form we can only speculate as to efficacy. Moreover, history has called into question whether it can practically applied without deviating into some form of tyranny, as Arti said. Don't get me wrong, I loved reading Das Kapital and Das Kommunistische Manifest but sincerely doubt it's practical applicability amongst a general population. I believe that both Marx and Engels overestimated humanity.
It really is! In high school, I bought a lot of books on socialism and communism during summer breaks. I did academic decathlon in high school and I found out that right after my senior year, the theme was the Russian Revolution and I was like "gdi, why couldn't this be our theme instead of the Great Depression or Age of Imperialism??!?!?!" cause those topics are super dry and just...meh. :P

Yeah, we'll never know about the praxis of Marxism but I do think that it's interesting and I like talking about it. Like I said, I don't believe any "pure" ideology will ever work out in practice; as far as Marxism is concerned, yeah...a little too altruistic for humanity, sadly. -_-

The main problem I had with Arti's interpretation is that the economic transformation talked about by Marx was equated with a systematic social oppression which is literally the opposite of what they were trying to accomplish.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Die Zicke
Member Avatar
Caffeine is good for you.
orangedaffodils
Jun 25 2013, 02:39 AM
Die Zicke
Jun 25 2013, 02:30 AM
I think Marxism is a fascinating philosophical exercise in thought, but since we've never seen it work in the real world in it's purest form we can only speculate as to efficacy. Moreover, history has called into question whether it can practically applied without deviating into some form of tyranny, as Arti said. Don't get me wrong, I loved reading Das Kapital and Das Kommunistische Manifest but sincerely doubt it's practical applicability amongst a general population. I believe that both Marx and Engels overestimated humanity.
It really is! In high school, I bought a lot of books on socialism and communism during summer breaks. I did academic decathlon in high school and I found out that right after my senior year, the theme was the Russian Revolution and I was like "gdi, why couldn't this be our theme instead of the Great Depression or Age of Imperialism??!?!?!" cause those topics are super dry and just...meh. :P

Yeah, we'll never know about the praxis of Marxism but I do think that it's interesting and I like talking about it. Like I said, I don't believe any "pure" ideology will ever work out in practice; as far as Marxism is concerned, yeah...a little too altruistic for humanity, sadly. -_-
When it comes to a jurisprudential standpoint... I've looked at all sorts of isms only to determine that any particular ism doesn't really mean shit. There are only a few main basic components that successful systems of government have displayed over the course of human history.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ihla
Member Avatar
I need insoles
Jeccica
Jun 24 2013, 11:06 PM
The stuff I ordered from Korea came in the mail today! fangurlemo
I'm a happy girl now.
Pics are required.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Artichoke
Member Avatar
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
orangedaffodils
Jun 25 2013, 02:10 AM
Sorry, I was eating dinner (stole a few apples and an orange too! :lol: ) I have a copy of the manifesto with commentary so that question came off as a bit condescending...

And you're misinterpreting the text, yeah Marx said that but his philosophy doesn't do that; he was stating the prerequisites required for revolution. ie; until the "higher" phase of communism is to arrive, socialists are to demand the strictest control by society and by the state over the measure of labor and the measure of consumption; but this control must start with the expropriation of the capitalists (with the establishment of workers' control over the capitalists) and must be exercised not by a state of bureaucrats, but by a state of armed workers. It's a means of revamping current economic policy to the benefit of everyone (turning the capitalists into employees, redistribution of goods and services, etc) as opposed to the condemnation of a group of people based on uncontrollable and unalterable reasons.

Like...it's completely different. You really can't equate the two. Furthermore, Marx thought that the oppression of blacks by whites or of women by men divides the working class, and the policy of divide and rule strengthens the power of the capitalists; he would never allow any sort of oppressive structure exist in his ideology - he even explicitly mentions that the bourgeois only view women as a means of production (but perhaps he wasn't as well versed in gender relations to speak more on the subject). Regardless, the fundamental themes of social criticism that Marx puts forward (such as alienation, domination, inequality, and exploitation, and a critique of the social relations that give rise to these conditions) have clear implications for a theory of gender/racial equality and emancipation. In every form of communism, there are specific efforts to mobilize women for emancipation and involvement for the good of the state.

I would like to know where you're getting your communist info from so I can send them a strongly worded email about how they need to reexamine and reevaluate the information they're disseminating about Marxism.
I was reading up on some financial news, so we're even. :P

I'm not misinterpreting it. You say yourself that Marx requires a period of extreme state control, "the strictest", regarding the redistribution of social goods, and that this would be forced until humanity has "learned" the Communist way and shares automatically. That sounds awfully like oppressive indoctrination to me, idk.

In any case, you're talking only about social injustices, such as unfair distribution of positive rights amongst different demographics, whereas I'm talking about oppression in its broadest form - the state having absolute control over an individual's life and property, and enforcing its own views on that individual, which is the fundamental driving principle of Marxist ideology, as the whole point of it is to force everyone to be equal whether or not they actually want to be equal. It strips away negative liberty because it believes that freedom can only be achieved through absolute equality, which is removal of individuality, rather than the ability to make your own choices free of state interference, which is what Anarchism/Liberalism/Conservatism/Utilitarianism to an extent believes.

Your entire argument against Conservatism is based on the fact that it perpetuates oppressive practices, which in reality, it doesn't and isn't supposed to, since that goes against all that Conservatism actually stands for. However, you simultaneously espouse Marxism, which says that oppression is necessary for a Marxist state to flourish, so you're making two conflicting statements. One, that oppression is bad and I can't support an ideology that results in oppression, and two, I support oppression insofar as it's required for removal of negative liberty to achieve absolute positive liberty under a Marxist state.

Not only that, but you say that oppressive and brutal regimes in the past, such as Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Kim Ilsung's North Korea, and Stalinist Russia, are irrelevant to Marxist doctrine because they don't accurately represent Marxist doctrine. On the other hand, in condemning Conservatism, you say that the misinterpretation and inaccurate portrayal of it is irrelevant, because you say that it's been associated with stagnant social values in the past, thus you cannot condone the ideology because of that association.

Again, two conflicting statements. One, that you can't support an ideology that's been associated with regimes that're defined by backwards inequalities in demographic positive rights, regardless of how incorrect a portrayal of that ideology those regimes are, and two, that you support Marxism as an ideology despite the regimes associated with it being brutal, bloody, and full of oppressive tyranny because that isn't an accurate portrayal of Marxism.

In regards to your comment about sources, my philosophy class read Das Kapital *and the accompanying manifesto, which should've gone without saying, but clarifying just in case* (translated, obviously :P ) for the year we studied political philosophy and critically assessed it and the implications of adopting that ideology + whether or not it actually can be adopted (did the same for Conservatism, Milliam's Rule Utilitarianism and Bentham's Utilitarianism, Liberalism, Anarchism and philosophical explanations about humans in the state of nature, wherein I found the amazing quote in my signature), and my politics class focused on ideologies for the latter half of the year I took it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dyslexia
Member Avatar

Rexie
Jun 24 2013, 11:07 PM
:blinkwide:

this breed is apparently called Selk!rk REX *seriously, check it out ;) * . First time seeing it, so gorgeous

Posted Image
If I had one, I'd call it Shakira.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Die Zicke
Member Avatar
Caffeine is good for you.
So I sent my cousin a recent selca because he lives in Berlin and I haven't seen him in ten years and he wrote back "are you sick?" Matti, that's just another way of saying that I look like shit. Thanks a million, jerk face lol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Artichoke
Member Avatar
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
Die Zicke
Jun 25 2013, 03:37 AM
So I sent my cousin a recent selca because he lives in Berlin and I haven't seen him in ten years and he wrote back "are you sick?" Matti, that's just another way of saying that I look like shit. Thanks a million, jerk face lol
LOL. I shouldn't laugh, but... :rofl:

Naw, I'm sure you don't look as bad as that statement implies. I'm always willing to confirm as a recipient of a selca. :gaypimp:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Die Zicke
Member Avatar
Caffeine is good for you.
Artichoke
Jun 25 2013, 03:42 AM
Die Zicke
Jun 25 2013, 03:37 AM
So I sent my cousin a recent selca because he lives in Berlin and I haven't seen him in ten years and he wrote back "are you sick?" Matti, that's just another way of saying that I look like shit. Thanks a million, jerk face lol
LOL. I shouldn't laugh, but... :rofl:

Naw, I'm sure you don't look as bad as that statement implies. I'm always willing to confirm as a recipient of a selca. :gaypimp:
You'll get a brand spanking new one Arti!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Artichoke
Member Avatar
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
Die Zicke
Jun 25 2013, 03:50 AM
You'll get a brand spanking new one Arti!
Well, gosh. I don't know what to say. :$
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Die Zicke
Member Avatar
Caffeine is good for you.
Artichoke
Jun 25 2013, 03:51 AM
Die Zicke
Jun 25 2013, 03:50 AM
You'll get a brand spanking new one Arti!
Well, gosh. I don't know what to say. :$
It'll be me at my ugliest. Au naturel and I actually am fighting something atm so my cousin wasn't entirely wrong lol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
orangedaffodils
Member Avatar
Let ε <0
Artichoke
Jun 25 2013, 03:22 AM
I was reading up on some financial news, so we're even. :P

I'm not misinterpreting it. You say yourself that Marx requires a period of extreme state control, "the strictest", regarding the redistribution of social goods, and that this would be forced until humanity has "learned" the Communist way and shares automatically. That sounds awfully like oppressive indoctrination to me, idk.

In any case, you're talking only about social injustices, such as unfair distribution of positive rights amongst different demographics, whereas I'm talking about oppression in its broadest form - the state having absolute control over an individual's life and property, and enforcing its own views on that individual, which is the fundamental driving principle of Marxist ideology, as the whole point of it is to force everyone to be equal whether or not they actually want to be equal. It strips away negative liberty because it believes that freedom can only be achieved through absolute equality, which is removal of individuality, rather than the ability to make your own choices free of state interference, which is what Anarchism/Liberalism/Utilitarianism to an extent believes.

Your entire argument against Conservatism is based on the fact that it perpetuates oppressive practices, which in reality, it doesn't and isn't supposed to, since that goes against all that Conservatism actually stands for. However, you simultaneously espouse Marxism, which says that oppression is necessary for a Marxist state to flourish, so you're making two conflicting statements. One, that oppression is bad and I can't support an ideology that results in oppression, and two, I support oppression insofar as it's required for removal of negative liberty to achieve absolute positive liberty under a Marxist state.

Not only that, but you say that oppressive and brutal regimes in the past, such as Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia and Stalinist Russia, are irrelevant to Marxist doctrine because they don't accurately represent Marxist doctrine. On the other hand, in condemning Conservatism, you say that the misinterpretation and inaccurate portrayal of it is irrelevant, because you say that it's been associated with stagnant social values in the past, thus you cannot condone the ideology because of that association.

Again, two conflicting statements. One, that you can't support an ideology that's been associated with regimes that're defined by backwards inequalities in demographic positive rights, regardless of how incorrect a portrayal of that ideology those regimes are, and two, that you support Marxism as an ideology despite the regimes associated with it being brutal, bloody, and full of oppressive tyranny because that isn't an accurate portrayal of Marxism.

In regards to your comment about sources, my philosophy class read Das Kapital (translated, obviously :P ) for the year we studied political philosophy and critically assessed it and the implications of adopting that ideology + whether or not it actually can be adopted (did the same for Conservatism, Milliam's Rule Utilitarianism and Bentham's Utilitarianism, Liberalism, Anarchism and philosophical explanations about humans in the state of nature, wherein I found the amazing quote in my signature), and my politics class focused on ideologies for the latter half of the year I took it.
Once again, you are misinterpreting that: In praxis, Marxism requires strict economic control before true communism can come about - carrying this measure out will deprive financiers of both their wealth and their power to direct the economy. With exclusive control of corporate facilities, the state can decide what parts of the economy should be expanded and by how much; it's about centralization of market, not about squeezing every last dime from the denizens of the state (that would make for a shit economy). Actually, Marx believed that realization of the individual is achieved through the victory over the division of labor - which is a key tenant of his theory.

Yes, I don't like Conservatism. I think it's a shit philosophy because it's fundamentally opposed towards social change and equality - and I made that clear, so i'm not sure why you're bringing that up. And I don't support Marxism as a cause (like both I and Die Zicke said, it's not practical; I don't believe people are inherently good enough for it) You gave me a list of "pure" ideologies, suggesting that I must be completely opposed to all of them, which I am not. I like some aspects of Marxism, the aspects of which i've already mentioned, and when you're not relaying those topics effectively, i'm going to defend them.

And no, I said they're separate ideologies in their own right (Maoism especially because it literally goes against the cardinal axiom of Marxism in that revolution does not start with the proletariat) and I also made that clear. And besides, i'm talking about Marxism, not the overarching political and economic entity of communism. If I was, then you'd be right.

You are conflating my thoughts and opinions on Conservatism with my opinions and thoughts on Marxism. They're not the same.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Guest
Unregistered

Excuse the randomness, but I was browsing redd1t when suddenly...Yoona
Posted Image
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Artichoke
Member Avatar
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
Die Zicke
Jun 25 2013, 03:55 AM
It'll be me at my ugliest. Au naturel and I actually am fighting something atm so my cousin wasn't entirely wrong lol
lol, that pose. :rofl:
I guess I owe you one, now.

orangedaffodils
Jun 25 2013, 03:56 AM
Once again, you are misinterpreting that: In praxis, Marxism requires strict economic control before true communism can come about - carrying this measure out will deprive financiers of both their wealth and their power to direct the economy. With exclusive control of corporate facilities, the state can decide what parts of the economy should be expanded and by how much; it's about centralization of market, not about squeezing every last dime from the denizens of the state (that would make for a shit economy). Actually, Marx believed that realization of the individual is achieved through the victory over the division of labor - which is a key tenant of his theory.
You're repeating what I said. We both are talking about redistribution of social goods.

orangedaffodils
Jun 25 2013, 03:56 AM
Yes, I don't like Conservatism. I think it's a shit philosophy because it's fundamentally opposed towards social change and equality - and I made that clear, so i'm not sure why you're bringing that up. And I don't support Marxism as a cause (like both I and Die Zicke said, it's not practical; I don't believe people are inherently good enough for it) You gave me a list of "pure" ideologies, suggesting that I must be completely opposed to all of them, which I am not. I like some aspects of Marxism, the aspects of which i've already mentioned, and when you're not relaying those topics effectively, i'm going to defend them.
Because your reasons for disliking Conservatism matter - you dislike things that it isn't, for example - especially when you seem to like Marxism for the same reason you dislike Conservatism. I don't understand why you dislike aspects you perceive to be in one, and then simultaneously admire those very same aspects that are present in another.

orangedaffodils
Jun 25 2013, 03:56 AM
And no, I said they're separate ideologies in their own right (Maoism especially because it literally goes against the cardinal axiom of Marxism in that revolution does not start with the proletariat) and I also made that clear. And besides, i'm talking about Marxism, not the overarching political and economic entity of communism. If I was, then you'd be right.
But the Conservative parties that've acted in the way you've described aren't Conservative, in the same way that Mao's China isn't representative of Marxism. Conservative parties don't represent the ideology of Conservatism, but you dismissed that by saying that the mere fact that they claim the name of Conservatism means that you believe they're somewhat representative of it, but then turn face and claim that non-Marxist states that claim the name of Marxism have no bearing on Marxism because they're not Marxist. Conservative parties are also not Conservative - by your logic, they're also irrelevant to the ideology of Conservatism. Yet, you say they aren't.

orangedaffodils
Jun 25 2013, 03:56 AM
You are conflating my thoughts and opinions on Conservatism with my opinions and thoughts on Marxism. They're not the same.
They're not separate, either. It doesn't make sense to me that you'd condemn certain principles you think are in in one ideology but welcome and espouse them in another, and that you say that merely being associated with an ideology, however incorrect or tangential that association might be, is enough to taint it, but you also say that the very same incorrect association doesn't affect another ideology because it's similarly incorrect.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Guest
Unregistered

random
Spoiler: click to toggle
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Die Zicke
Member Avatar
Caffeine is good for you.
Artichoke
Jun 25 2013, 04:07 AM
Die Zicke
Jun 25 2013, 03:55 AM
It'll be me at my ugliest. Au naturel and I actually am fighting something atm so my cousin wasn't entirely wrong lol
lol, that pose. :rofl:
I guess I owe you one, now.
I send a selca and the woman laughs at my pose? Worse than my cousin. I'm gonna go drink now....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Artichoke
Member Avatar
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
Die Zicke
Jun 25 2013, 04:12 AM
I send a selca and the woman laughs at my pose? Worse than my cousin. I'm gonna go drink now....
Gurl, you know that pimptastic pose is funny in its pimptasticness. Don't try and deny it. :gaypimp:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Banner design by Taetum