Tweet
No. It's a straw man because it attributes to people you are arguing with positions that they don't hold.
Completely incorrect. If we trace the thread of the conversation back to my comment which spawned the original "Strawman" whine, we find:
My argument is that Marx is really good at bait and switch, and even better at creating his own internal logic, which works just fine till you take it off of the paper and put it into practice in the real world.
A passage which in no way meets the conditions you stated above.
Words. Eaten.
For the 233rd time. No-one cares about names – generic names mask substantial specific differences. I can easily accept that they were communists of a sort and deny that they are the same sort of communist as me.
Is that right? Because unless I'm mistaken, it is team red who trips all over themselves to ASSIGN names to the disasters of the past (calling them anything BUT communism in order to provide some safe distance from them) in order to protect the "good name" of Communism. No...by virtue of your own actions, I daresay you care a great DEAL about names. But of course, only when it works to your advantage.
This is a blatant non sequitur.
The technological sophistication does not yet exist to construct a computer that is 100 times the speed of the current fastest computer. That does not mean that any thoughts about what it may enable us to do are "amorphous" or "merely sceptical".
Similarly, in 1950 space travel was not yet possible. To be sure there was a lot of science fiction about space travel, but there was also a lot of serious thought directed to real possibilities.
It would be if there were any serious thought occurring here to the eventual revolution, but I have asked on numerous occassions for specifics and details about what happens on RevDay1, and so far, I've gotten various versions of "don't worry about that....it'll work this time...we promise." Rather difficult to classify this as "serious thought directed to real possibilities" and my point therefore holds. About all you've been able to do so far is to construct a few pleasant (and some not-so-pleasant) FICTIONS, though I eagerly await some post of real substance in that regard.
What about the anarchisticallly inclined Reds as opposed to the hardcore statists?
Firstly, because the anarchistically inclined Reds are living in a dream world far above and beyond the rest of the Reds, and as such, their musings must be counted as little more than daydreams. The REASON this should be obvious, especially given the failings of previous revolutions, especially when taken together with the non-scalability of communal ideals (which is a longish essay in its own right and I lack the time at present to teach you something you should already know).
What you are saying in effect is that if something doesn't work once, you shouldn't try again with a modified version or wait until circumstances are more favourable. No social change would ever have happened (including the transition to capitalism from its forerunners) if people took your position.
Not so. What I am saying is, in the absence of any semblence of a plan brought forth....in the absence of any details on precisely WHAT will be different, and HOW, and GIVEN the presence of at least some on Team Red arguing from INSANELY totalitarian positions, the only conclusion I am left with is that the differences will be scant indeed.
Given this, it's patently insane to go into something as massive as a social revolution on a global scale with no clear plan, and only a string of failures behind you, and expect an entirely different result.
Why is that so difficult to understand. The burden of proof lies with YOU who want to rip down the existing system. Present some on occassion, and perhaps you'll change a few minds.
But I've already pointed out to you in various threads that the reasons commonly given for the failures of planned economies are often exaggerated rest upon particular historical circumstances that most Marxists believe are just that – i.e. not eternal truths.
Which sounds eerily like "making excuses" if you'll pardon my frankness.
For the vast majority of human history markets did not exist. Markets are sophisticated legal and political creations. For most of human history people have lived in tribal economies.
Markets on the scale we see today are complex as you pointed out, but even the most ancient of civilizations had markets and bazzars where goods were sold and bartered for. It took us scores of centuries to realize that this was just the tip of the iceberg, but we caught on.
So. That does not logically entail that we ought to use them, which is the point under discussion.
Stop us. You can't. You'll never be able to. No matter how tightly you squeeze us, you'll never be able to suppress us.
Tribal societies often tend to trade in terms of fairness rather than "get what you can".
and
Many people are still uneasy about market behaviour, especially aboriginal peoples, whose cuilture tends to be collectivist.
Yes yes...and let us have a look at the mightily successful aboriginal peoples. Their technologic innovation and standard of living is the marvel of the free world. It's good to see a living, breathing example of what you wish to do to the whole of humanity. 'preciate that!
Get it through your heads....communal living works (can work, even then, it is by no means a sure thing) on the micro scale. It is not scalable in its nature WITHOUT the presence of a vast, monolithic state as a pre-requisite, which invariably has a vested interest in its own survival and continuation, which in turn, rattles LOTS of chains on LOTS of ghosts from you past.
Not at all. What you really do is celebrate yourself at the expense of other individuals.
Am I? At who's expense am I celebrating myself? Please, either call them by name, or stop strawmanning...
The communist position on equality is equality of individuals,
If, by equality, you mean "reductionism to the lowest common denominator" then I agree completely.
So, you want to argue with followers of Marx, yet you wish not to take any account of their actual views?
Nope. I have no wish to argue at all. You guys can live in your fantasy world for the rest of your lives if it pleases you. Having read and digested your views, I only stand ready to defend myself from your machinations should your "revolution" ever rear its head.
You're just repeating the point in dispute. That's begging the question.
Dispute? There is no dispute. The market is here. It's working beutifully. (I know, I know, ask the people in the sweat shops in Malaysia....well, your Uncle Marx answered that one for you already, and actually got something right!)
You raise doubts by using badly concocted definitions of capital and inventing entirely new definitions of exploitation. THOSE are the real points of dispute. The rest is just smoke and mirrors.
Then it's jail for you with all the other criminals.
Any time you think you're ready....I'll be waiting.
That's hard to believe since you don't address any of the points to the theory, and quite frankly you don't understand it.
Oh no. I understand it very well. That's precisely why I reject it. Again, you forget, I'm arguing for the power that currently reigns supreme. If you want to prove you have a better system, the burden of that proof is on you. Be my guest.
Umm... yeah, because requiring people to work for the benefits that they recieve is nothing like murdering millions of people and getting as he put it, "life's greatest pleasure" from it.
Chaining people to the state machine = slavery, no matter how you dress it up.
I suppose we could build floating or undersea cities if we really wanted to.. but why would we? They'd be economically worthless; no capitalist would build one, although a floating city could maybe survive as a tourist destination. Colonising the Moon or Mars is even more of a money-sink.
answer: Land. Housing. Self-sufficiency. Adventure. Take your pick. Lots of good reasons for all of the above. Lots of reasons that enterprising individuals will jump at in the same way that wealthy nobles funded expeditions to the new world.
As for increasing the Earth's upper limit through technology... it's far from clear that our current existence is sustainable in the long term. Nor is it clear why people would want to keeping growing for the sake of it.
That's not how it works. We don't sit down on the internet and one day decide to go make lots more babies to push the population higher. But as population continues to increase, it creates its own demand and finding ways to get increasing yields from crops at lower prices, and a whole host of other things that support the increasing population.
As an aside, why are you so insulting in your responses? Half to two-thirds of your posts are nothing but rudeness.
If I get snappy and rude, it's for three reasons:
1) I get tired of being called an evil, whoremongering person with nothing substantial to back it up (you've not done this, and I apologize for my snappishness directed AT you)
2) When people hit me with rude, snotty, snide comments, I tend to hit back exponentially harder, and I don't relent.
3) Many of the proposed "revolutionary" ideas kicked around here have their basis in violence and bloodshed. I am a self-proclaimed capitalist. Thus, the ideas presented here with seriousness, are a direct threat not only to my current way of life, but to my continued EXISTENCE. Yes...that prompts an aggressive stance, in just the same way it would if I suddenly started espousing an ideology whereby we round up all communists and place them in "re-education camps" (or worse).
-=Vel=-
Completely incorrect. If we trace the thread of the conversation back to my comment which spawned the original "Strawman" whine, we find:
My argument is that Marx is really good at bait and switch, and even better at creating his own internal logic, which works just fine till you take it off of the paper and put it into practice in the real world.
A passage which in no way meets the conditions you stated above.
Words. Eaten.
For the 233rd time. No-one cares about names – generic names mask substantial specific differences. I can easily accept that they were communists of a sort and deny that they are the same sort of communist as me.
Is that right? Because unless I'm mistaken, it is team red who trips all over themselves to ASSIGN names to the disasters of the past (calling them anything BUT communism in order to provide some safe distance from them) in order to protect the "good name" of Communism. No...by virtue of your own actions, I daresay you care a great DEAL about names. But of course, only when it works to your advantage.
This is a blatant non sequitur.
The technological sophistication does not yet exist to construct a computer that is 100 times the speed of the current fastest computer. That does not mean that any thoughts about what it may enable us to do are "amorphous" or "merely sceptical".
Similarly, in 1950 space travel was not yet possible. To be sure there was a lot of science fiction about space travel, but there was also a lot of serious thought directed to real possibilities.
It would be if there were any serious thought occurring here to the eventual revolution, but I have asked on numerous occassions for specifics and details about what happens on RevDay1, and so far, I've gotten various versions of "don't worry about that....it'll work this time...we promise." Rather difficult to classify this as "serious thought directed to real possibilities" and my point therefore holds. About all you've been able to do so far is to construct a few pleasant (and some not-so-pleasant) FICTIONS, though I eagerly await some post of real substance in that regard.
What about the anarchisticallly inclined Reds as opposed to the hardcore statists?
Firstly, because the anarchistically inclined Reds are living in a dream world far above and beyond the rest of the Reds, and as such, their musings must be counted as little more than daydreams. The REASON this should be obvious, especially given the failings of previous revolutions, especially when taken together with the non-scalability of communal ideals (which is a longish essay in its own right and I lack the time at present to teach you something you should already know).
What you are saying in effect is that if something doesn't work once, you shouldn't try again with a modified version or wait until circumstances are more favourable. No social change would ever have happened (including the transition to capitalism from its forerunners) if people took your position.
Not so. What I am saying is, in the absence of any semblence of a plan brought forth....in the absence of any details on precisely WHAT will be different, and HOW, and GIVEN the presence of at least some on Team Red arguing from INSANELY totalitarian positions, the only conclusion I am left with is that the differences will be scant indeed.
Given this, it's patently insane to go into something as massive as a social revolution on a global scale with no clear plan, and only a string of failures behind you, and expect an entirely different result.
Why is that so difficult to understand. The burden of proof lies with YOU who want to rip down the existing system. Present some on occassion, and perhaps you'll change a few minds.
But I've already pointed out to you in various threads that the reasons commonly given for the failures of planned economies are often exaggerated rest upon particular historical circumstances that most Marxists believe are just that – i.e. not eternal truths.
Which sounds eerily like "making excuses" if you'll pardon my frankness.
For the vast majority of human history markets did not exist. Markets are sophisticated legal and political creations. For most of human history people have lived in tribal economies.
Markets on the scale we see today are complex as you pointed out, but even the most ancient of civilizations had markets and bazzars where goods were sold and bartered for. It took us scores of centuries to realize that this was just the tip of the iceberg, but we caught on.
So. That does not logically entail that we ought to use them, which is the point under discussion.
Stop us. You can't. You'll never be able to. No matter how tightly you squeeze us, you'll never be able to suppress us.
Tribal societies often tend to trade in terms of fairness rather than "get what you can".
and
Many people are still uneasy about market behaviour, especially aboriginal peoples, whose cuilture tends to be collectivist.
Yes yes...and let us have a look at the mightily successful aboriginal peoples. Their technologic innovation and standard of living is the marvel of the free world. It's good to see a living, breathing example of what you wish to do to the whole of humanity. 'preciate that!
Get it through your heads....communal living works (can work, even then, it is by no means a sure thing) on the micro scale. It is not scalable in its nature WITHOUT the presence of a vast, monolithic state as a pre-requisite, which invariably has a vested interest in its own survival and continuation, which in turn, rattles LOTS of chains on LOTS of ghosts from you past.
Not at all. What you really do is celebrate yourself at the expense of other individuals.
Am I? At who's expense am I celebrating myself? Please, either call them by name, or stop strawmanning...
The communist position on equality is equality of individuals,
If, by equality, you mean "reductionism to the lowest common denominator" then I agree completely.
So, you want to argue with followers of Marx, yet you wish not to take any account of their actual views?
Nope. I have no wish to argue at all. You guys can live in your fantasy world for the rest of your lives if it pleases you. Having read and digested your views, I only stand ready to defend myself from your machinations should your "revolution" ever rear its head.
You're just repeating the point in dispute. That's begging the question.
Dispute? There is no dispute. The market is here. It's working beutifully. (I know, I know, ask the people in the sweat shops in Malaysia....well, your Uncle Marx answered that one for you already, and actually got something right!)
You raise doubts by using badly concocted definitions of capital and inventing entirely new definitions of exploitation. THOSE are the real points of dispute. The rest is just smoke and mirrors.
Then it's jail for you with all the other criminals.
Any time you think you're ready....I'll be waiting.
That's hard to believe since you don't address any of the points to the theory, and quite frankly you don't understand it.
Oh no. I understand it very well. That's precisely why I reject it. Again, you forget, I'm arguing for the power that currently reigns supreme. If you want to prove you have a better system, the burden of that proof is on you. Be my guest.
Umm... yeah, because requiring people to work for the benefits that they recieve is nothing like murdering millions of people and getting as he put it, "life's greatest pleasure" from it.
Chaining people to the state machine = slavery, no matter how you dress it up.
I suppose we could build floating or undersea cities if we really wanted to.. but why would we? They'd be economically worthless; no capitalist would build one, although a floating city could maybe survive as a tourist destination. Colonising the Moon or Mars is even more of a money-sink.
answer: Land. Housing. Self-sufficiency. Adventure. Take your pick. Lots of good reasons for all of the above. Lots of reasons that enterprising individuals will jump at in the same way that wealthy nobles funded expeditions to the new world.
As for increasing the Earth's upper limit through technology... it's far from clear that our current existence is sustainable in the long term. Nor is it clear why people would want to keeping growing for the sake of it.
That's not how it works. We don't sit down on the internet and one day decide to go make lots more babies to push the population higher. But as population continues to increase, it creates its own demand and finding ways to get increasing yields from crops at lower prices, and a whole host of other things that support the increasing population.
As an aside, why are you so insulting in your responses? Half to two-thirds of your posts are nothing but rudeness.
If I get snappy and rude, it's for three reasons:
1) I get tired of being called an evil, whoremongering person with nothing substantial to back it up (you've not done this, and I apologize for my snappishness directed AT you)
2) When people hit me with rude, snotty, snide comments, I tend to hit back exponentially harder, and I don't relent.
3) Many of the proposed "revolutionary" ideas kicked around here have their basis in violence and bloodshed. I am a self-proclaimed capitalist. Thus, the ideas presented here with seriousness, are a direct threat not only to my current way of life, but to my continued EXISTENCE. Yes...that prompts an aggressive stance, in just the same way it would if I suddenly started espousing an ideology whereby we round up all communists and place them in "re-education camps" (or worse).
-=Vel=-
Comment