Arguing with Stupid Leftists

[Sandman]

The relations of production in their totality constitute what are called the social relations, society, and, specifically, a society at a definite stage of historical development, a society with a peculiar, distinctive character.

Another Marx quote, this time from Wage Labour and Capital.

Let's see some quotes which support the idea that Marx held a subtle or nuanced view on the role of culture. For what it's worth, I think you're trying to bootstrap modern views onto him.

As for controlled not equalling conditioned, he also uses 'determines' in the same quote. Is that close enough?

[Ramo]

Ramo - it's your own fault if you let random people search your bags.

I'm not quite that naive. I let the semi-random people look at my passport. Less effort to make sure they don't steal it than dealing with a big argument in a language that one of us is incoherent in, missed train, etc. Various official dudes searched my bags.

[chequita guevara]

What are you doing, looking for a signle word which validates your misconceptions?

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness.

Where does this say that economics controls everything else?

And your quote from Wage, Labor, and Capital only says that it is how society organizes production that determines what type of society it is. That is sociology 101.

Let's see some quotes which support the idea that Marx held a subtle or nuanced view on the role of culture. For what it's worth, I think you're trying to bootstrap modern views onto him.

I already quoted Engels.

[T]here is only one other point lacking, which, however, Marx and I always failed to stress enough in our writings and in regard to which we are all equally guilty. That is to say, we all laid, and were bound to lay, the main emphasis, in the first place, on the derivation of political, juridical and other ideological notions, and of actions arising through the medium of these notions, from basic economic facts. But in so doing we neglected the formal side—the ways and means by which these notions, etc., come about—for the sake of the content. This has given our adversaries a welcome opportunity for misunderstandings. . . .

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by techumseh
The traits that I listed are decidedly NOT characteristic of conservative, non-fascist movements. Conservatives to not routinely eliminate trade unions and left wing parties by force - fascists do. Conservatives do not use state control of the economy to benefit big business - fascists do. Conservatives do not take direct control of media and educational systems in order to propagandize the population - fascists do. Conservatives do not resort to systematic terror in order to silence critics and persecute scapegoats - fascists do.

I must say I am stunned by the passive silence of the conservatives on this forum in the face of Wycoff's slander of conservatives. I don't think you resemble his description at all. Do you?

Modern conservatives in liberal democratic systems don't do this. However, pre-war, interwar, and post war authoritarian conservatives did and still do all these things. Look at Central American history.

[techumseh]

You are just reclassifying regimes according to your own subjective definition. We need a definition based on how a government sits in relation to various classes and groups in society, in whose interests it acts and how it behaves.

The problem with your and Imran's subjective definition, is that fascism has changed. The features of fascism you use to define it no longer exist - they were temporary and secondary. So according to your definition, fascism itself has ceased to exist - a very convenient conclusion for some, a very dangerous conclusion for the rest of us.

[Odin]

To me, Fascist means "totalitarian radical right-winger"

[chequita guevara]

That would not be a scientific definition.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by techumseh
You are just reclassifying regimes according to your own subjective definition. We need a definition based on how a government sits in relation to various classes and groups in society, in whose interests it acts and how it behaves.

The problem with your and Imran's subjective definition, is that fascism has changed. The features of fascism you use to define it no longer exist - they were temporary and secondary. So according to your definition, fascism itself has ceased to exist - a very convenient conclusion for some, a very dangerous conclusion for the rest of us.

No, we're using the definition that's accepted by most historians/ politcal philosophers. While there's not 100% consensus, the majority of academics agree with Imran and myself.

That conclusion doesn't mean that Fascism is permanently locked in the past. The Ba'ath party was pretty Fascist, and it is often argued that the various Talibanesque regimes are modern offshoots of clerical fascism. There are small groups, such as the American Nation of Islam, that are surviving Fascist parties (even if they don't admit it). Fascism isn't prevalent now, but it's not dead. A new Fascism could rise up if the right conditions are met.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Wycoff
No, we're using the definition that's accepted by most historians/ politcal philosophers. While there's not 100% consensus, the majority of academics agree with Imran and myself.

That doesn't make it necessarily valid. A lot of historians and poli sci types are right-wingers who strongly avoid issues of class and related issues. I prefer contempory political activists who struggled against fascism. They had a vested interest in understanding what they were dealing with.

[Cort Haus]

The narrow focus on economism may have prevented the labour movement (while it existed) from developing a political dimension to its power. So, workers were encouraged to only be active in terms of pay and conditions, rather than a broader political outlook on, say, war and imperialism.

This is another way of looking at the misinterpretation of the economic influence on all things.

[Cort Haus]

.(x2 post)

[Sandman]

Where does this say that economics controls everything else?

It's a clarification of the preceding sentence. If you take the two together, it's clear what he means. I doubt Marx has ever said that economics controls everything else - that implies a controller, and he considered history to be impersonal.

And your quote from Wage, Labor, and Capital only says that it is how society organizes production that determines what type of society it is. That is sociology 101.

It also says that means of production are what defines societies throughout history. You could just as easily define them along political lines, if you wished.

As for the Engels quote, whilst you see subtlety, I see backtracking in the face of criticism. They were political activists as well as theorists, so it's no surprise they modified the harsh stance expressed by the Communist Manifesto as needs required. Marx, in a speech in Amsterdam:

"You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries - such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps add Holland - where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means."

Here he explicitly admits that revolution is unnecessary (!) and also isn't exactly dripping with historical materialism either.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
The narrow focus on economism may have prevented the labour movement (while it existed) from developing a political dimension to its power. So, workers were encouraged to only be active in terms of pay and conditions, rather than a broader political outlook on, say, war and imperialism.

This is another way of looking at the misinterpretation of the economic influence on all things.

They weren't encouraged by Marxists not to ignore war and imperialism. Economism was actually a tendency that Marxists argued againt.

[techumseh]

Wycoff:

Whether or not your claim that "the majority of academics agree with Imran and myself", is true or not, it's not a valid argument.

Let's take a few of the characteristics you use to define fascism:

the promise of a utopian future,

the goal of creating an idealized "new man,"

emphazizing the collective above the individual,

And let's ask how this might affect someone's actual conditions of life. They might be fooled into believing some or all of these, thereby giving some support to the regime. Placing the collective above the individual will only apply to the lower classes, in actual practice the very rich get even wealthier under fascist regimes. None of these things really tell us much about how someone's life will be affected, in a practical way, by fascism.

The thing these things have in common is that they are idealogical. They merely serve to legitimize what is going on under the regime. They don't explain what is actually going on.

On the other hand, if we define a type of government by the following things:

elimination of trade unions and left wing parties by force,

using state control of the economy to benefit big business,

taking direct control of media and educational systems in order to propagandize the population,

resorting to systematic terror in order to silence critics and persecute scapegoats,

- we get a very good idea what's going on in the society and how people might be affected by it.

Enriching big business wasn't a goal on the Nazi agenda ... any big business enrichment was a side effect

This just strikes me as incredibly naive. Such a huge transfer of wealth to the rich and powerful - a side effect, an unintended consequence. Really.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sandman
It's a clarification of the preceding sentence. If you take the two together, it's clear what he means.

Yes, he means that the way people get food, shelter, and make the next generation is the real basis of society. Only a great idiot would ignore that. That this foundation is what ultimately underlies everything else in society. As in the example of the Aztecs, a culture which undermines its economic basis fails.

Anthropology also shows us that the way peoples think about the world has a great deal to do with the way they produce their means of life. Ancient religion was organized around hunting and agriculture. It's no accident that all of the major religions in the Northern hemisphere have holidays at almost the exact same time. For example, Easter / Passover / etc. is the planting holiday. Nearly all the ancient religions structures were developed in order to chart the stars and sun.

It also says that means of production are what defines societies throughout history. You could just as easily define them along political lines, if you wished.

If you wished, but in order to understand capitalism you wouldn't do that. It would be like saying, well you can classify dogs by color when someone says that there are certain catagories of dogs defined by their functions. Why terriers, hounds, etc. when we can say yellow, black, etc. It's a meaningless distinction for a particular conversation.

As for the Engels quote, whilst you see subtlety, I see backtracking in the face of criticism.

It was in a private letter to a follower, Franz Mehring. Engels wouldn't need to backtrack for him. There are more letters which say the same thing, but I can't find them yet, because it's been over a decade since I'm had to drag them out. I think I've likely read substantially more Marx & Engels than you, so it's a lot easier for me to understand his overall body of work, while you just look for choice quotes to support your theory.

They were political activists as well as theorists, so it's no surprise they modified the harsh stance expressed by the Communist Manifesto as needs required.

The Manifesto was a political tract produced on the eve of a continent wide coming revolution. You need to learn to distinguish between Marx's political rhetoric and his acutal scientific and philosophical writings.

Marx, in a speech in Amsterdam:

"You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries - such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps add Holland - where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means."

Here he explicitly admits that revolution is unnecessary (!) and also isn't exactly dripping with historical materialism either.

No, he doesn't do that. In the full text, Marx is saying that where the state is not fully developed, America, England, etc., i.e., it might be possible for workers to take power be electoral means. At that time, these countries had no secret police, no large standing armies, etc. There was no means by which an electoral victory could be suppressed. That day passed long ago.