Why do they have to be so goddamn Frenching French about everything?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
If you wish.

When do you abjure humanism then?

When I was in college there were intense question about the Early vs the Late Marx, the weight within the cannon that should be given to recently found or translated manuscripts, etc. I cant seem to recall the same sense of cannon wrt "humanism".

Note that I am here assuming the ideology you are discussing is Marxism.

I still prefer the usage "marxian socialism" or just "Marxism", and reserve the usage "communism" for Leninism. Apparently even several ex-Communist parties in europe share that usage. Leninism of course is a 20th century ideology. Im not sure if the French Communist Party has abjured Leninism or not.

[Kuciwalker]

Er, do you mean canon?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I still prefer the usage "marxian socialism" or just "Marxism", and reserve the usage "communism" for Leninism. Apparently even several ex-Communist parties in europe share that usage. Leninism of course is a 20th century ideology. Im not sure if the French Communist Party has abjured Leninism or not.

I don't know about it. I don't remember having read about leninism anywhere in our core text.

We're clearly of marxist tradition (duh). But like any political party, we are the ones who determine our program, something like every 3 years.

We have undergone a grave identity crisis (which isn't over yet, unlike what I previously thought) in recent years, and had to find a new set of core values and aims that federates us. We found it. The result isn't suprising from a Commie party, but it doesn't derive its legitimacy from canon.

I've met a few comrades who enjoy intellectual ****ing about the canon. That's nice but they're a minority: most comrades are either interested in current pressing issues, or in political action. As to those who indulge in more abstract thinking, most of their effort is spent analysing current society and suggesting solutions. The thinking is obviously influenced by the corpus of Commie thinking before that (Marx, Lenin, Gramsci, Bourdieu to name a few), but it doesn't rest on a "canon".

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor
If you wish.

When do you abjure humanism then?

I have been looking for a single good reason to do so for the last fifty years and I am still searching unsuccessfully.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
I have been looking for a single good reason to do so for the last fifty years and I am still searching unsuccessfully.

What? You mean its oldness isn't enough for you to abjure it?


Well, now maybe you understand why I don't think any less of communism for having been first elaborated in the 19th century

[Fake Boris]

DAVOUT.

A good sign of something being an ideology is when people pass it as not being one. cf. Roland Barthes.

[DAVOUT]

Re: DAVOUT.

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
A good sign of something being an ideology is when people pass it as not being one. cf. Roland Barthes.

This argument can help to decide if something is an ideology or not, but alone it is not strong enough to conclude. And I dont know if Barthes contended it vas an absolute truth.

[lord of the mark]

Re: DAVOUT.

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
A good sign of something being an ideology is when people pass it as not being one. cf. Roland Barthes.

My copy of Baldurs Gate 2 is not an ideology.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't know about it. I don't remember having read about leninism anywhere in our core text.

We're clearly of marxist tradition (duh). But like any political party, we are the ones who determine our program, something like every 3 years.

We have undergone a grave identity crisis (which isn't over yet, unlike what I previously thought) in recent years, and had to find a new set of core values and aims that federates us. We found it. The result isn't suprising from a Commie party, but it doesn't derive its legitimacy from canon.

I've met a few comrades who enjoy intellectual ****ing about the canon. That's nice but they're a minority: most comrades are either interested in current pressing issues, or in political action. As to those who indulge in more abstract thinking, most of their effort is spent analysing current society and suggesting solutions. The thinking is obviously influenced by the corpus of Commie thinking before that (Marx, Lenin, Gramsci, Bourdieu to name a few), but it doesn't rest on a "canon".

Well I was thinking of academic Marxists, more than members of a viable political party, since no viable Marxist political party exists in the US. But to me what you state implies only that the Communist Party is not rigidly Marxist. You might therefore say that you believe in a 21st c ideology, that of the French commies, which is influenced by older ones. It still does not, I think, answer my claim, which is that Marxism per se is more of an ideology than "humanism" is.

[Fake Boris]

Re: Re: DAVOUT.

Originally posted by lord of the mark


My copy of Baldurs Gate 2 is not an ideology.

You can do better.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: DAVOUT.

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


You can do better.

Perhaps.

So can you.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
It still does not, I think, answer my claim, which is that Marxism per se is more of an ideology than "humanism" is.

Well, I'll try to give you a marxist answer to that (which is gonna be poor, as I'm no marxist):

- "Marxism isn't an ideology, it's a science". This line of thinking is very close to those who pretend the current mainstream economic science is just that, science. This line of thinking is also what spontaneously popped to my mind when Davout argued enlightenment was just a method, not an ideology. But I don't want to threadjack this thread to make it about the nature of enlightenment (especially since Davout and I are both pro-enlightenment, despite different flavours)

- Marxism is an ideology, and hence it's a science. "Ideology", which was also a word coined in the 19th century, refers to the science of ideas. As such, ideologies can be seen as elaborate ideas, that were created through a harsh and unforgiving method, for maximal internal consistency. 19th century ideologies (communism, liberalism, some brands of nationalism, and even some brands of racism) have some scientific characteristics, that give credence to them.
But above all, the science in these ideologies allow for later thinkers to analyse the reality with concepts and analytical tools, that are consistent with the corpus of the ideology. Neoclassical economics and Marxist economics fit that idea.

I don't know any academic marxist, but I suppose they are mostly in that second part. Remember also that there have been many marixsts who improved on the original Marxist concepts, just like there have been many psychologists who improved upon the original Freudian concepts (there are still some who do refer to Freud as canon).

-------------

I don't think humanism can be considered canon by anybody. Humanism doesn't take its source in a few hugely influencial authors, unlike 19th century ideas (Marx and Lenin, Smith Ricardo and Stuart Mill). It was more of a diffuse Zeitgeist that pervaded the philosophical, scientific and literary world of the time. At least, that's my uninformed opinion, which is based on nothing but ignorance and prejudice.

[Spiffor]

Disclaimer: I have drunk a bit, so please forgive any typis, or irrelavant argumentation

[Fake Boris]

Re: Re: Re: Re: DAVOUT.

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Perhaps.

So can you.

Davout was talking about the Enlightenment. You're counter-arguing with a computer game box.
I could have been wrong myself. In any case, though, you're off-topic.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor
- "Marxism isn't an ideology, it's a science". This line of thinking is very close to those who pretend the current mainstream economic science is just that, science. This line of thinking is also what spontaneously popped to my mind when Davout argued enlightenment was just a method, not an ideology. But I don't want to threadjack this thread to make it about the nature of enlightenment (especially since Davout and I are both pro-enlightenment, despite different flavours)

- Marxism is an ideology, and hence it's a science. "Ideology", which was also a word coined in the 19th century, refers to the science of ideas. As such, ideologies can be seen as elaborate ideas, that were created through a harsh and unforgiving method, for maximal internal consistency. 19th century ideologies (communism, liberalism, some brands of nationalism, and even some brands of racism) have some scientific characteristics, that give credence to them.

Indeed, otherwise liberalism would also be a science, and not an ideology. Ideology would then not be a factor in the reproduction of capitalism.