[Daktoria]

I understand now. It took me long enough, but I finally got why socialists are who they are.

Historical materialism looks very different from analytic and synthetic perspectives. From an analytic perspective, historical materialism looks very oppressive. It disregards subjectivity and claims that people can only do what they've been programmed and cast out to do...

...but from a synthetic perspective, historical materialism is just proto-game theory, assuming people will defect. It actually embraces subjective theory of value, but in disguise. It admits that people can't read each other's minds. It admits that utility judgments cannot be assumed...

...but it doesn't care.

The socialist doesn't care because one knows that despite how utility judgments cannot be assumed, people will suggest to assume them anyway...

...and calculations will be made.

Regardless of whether or not those calculations are accurate, they will be made... and yes, they will be made selfishly. They will bias towards certain forms of labor over others...

...because nobody cares... because... that's what it takes to dominate social hierarchy.

The socialist knows the working class is familiar with this already. It's an emotional craving. Emotions ARE synthetic after all because they depend on a posteriori, objective influence. Even at a panpsychist level (this might sound a little bizarre, but just go with it), the subatomic particles which "win" are those with inductive, synthetic intentions. By definition of any hierarchy, synthetic intentions centralize within analytic intentions.

I understand where emergence comes from now. It comes from these particles behaving in a game theoretic manner...

...and all Marx did was extrapolate this to the social level.

He was actually rather genius in this regard. Even with regards to pleasure, he admitted that pleasure is inherently sadistic. In order for stimulus to happen, one particle must subordinate another. There must be chaos, entropy. There must be conviction of one side giving up vainly in cooperative innocence.

I understand why socialists are moral relativists now. They view the rules of engagement as just another layer of subjectivity, another layer dependent on subordination. There is no right or wrong to a socialist. There really isn't. Everything is a power struggle.

My only remaining question is "Why?" Why does the socialist perspective exist? I can't be a socialist. It's very hard to explain, but the according intuition isn't in me...

...but why is it in them? Why does it exist?

Would it not exist if it was simply not believed in? Would the universe stop with sadistic hierarchy if it was organized...

...or is that just impossible? Is the universe just drawn to chaos...

...or is that analysis knocking again? Wouldn't synthesis imply a perpetual "gray" between organization and chaos...

...is, is, is, is...

...no ought. The more "ought" believed in, the less competitive you are.

There is historical materialism, and that's it.

[Gletkin]

Soooo...Thomas Hobbes was a socialist?

[Lightman]

(this might sound a little bizarre, but just go with it)

This disclaimer should be placed above every single one of your posts.

[Daktoria]

Soooo...Thomas Hobbes was a socialist?

More so than Machiavelli. Even in subversive diplomacy, at least Machiavelli had the good sense to admit people live according to principle instead of needing to be painstakingly bullied.

[Kman]

Daktoria I think you would make a fine philosophy professor at a university somewhere, you have the writing style down pat!

[Paradigm]

needing to be painstakingly bullied.

Sounds a lot like the wage system.

[Donna]

My only remaining question is "Why?" Why does the socialist perspective exist? I can't be a socialist. It's very hard to explain, but the according intuition isn't in me...

The socialist perspective exists because it is antithetical to capitalism.

You're not even giving basic dialectics any credibility, let alone historical materialism. Is this a troll thread?

[Paradigm]

You're not even giving basic dialectics any credibility, let alone historical materialism. Is this a troll thread?

I've seen Daktoria misconstrue socialism, pragmatism, even libertarianism, which he claimed to adhere to. I think the safest assumption with any of his posts is that he's off in his own little world.

[Rei Murasame]

This may be a troll thread, so I'll make this one quote-post and then hand back over to the leftists to deal with him:

It disregards subjectivity and claims that people can only do what they've been programmed and cast out to do...

No.

[Gramsci] argued that hegemony comes from below, originating in the thoughts, beliefs and actions of everyday people who may or may not see themselves as part of organised groups. Hence, Gramsci was intensely aware of the way hegemony operated at a personal level. Capitalist hegemony was not, is not, possible, without a complete identification at the level of the self.

[...]

The politico-historical criterion on which our own inquiries must be grounded is this: that a class is dominant in two ways, namely it is leading and dominant. It leads the allied classes, it dominates the opposing classes. Therefore, a class can (and must) lead even before assuming power; when it is in power it becomes dominant but it also continues to lead (Gramsci 1992: 136-137. Q1§44).

[...]

The major innovation that Gramsci makes to our understanding of civil society, which make it so important for a theory of hegemony, is the way in which he reconfigures the concept of the ‘superstructural’ (Texier 1979). Whereas Marx posited a base/structure conception, with civil society being the ‘superstructural’ site of historical development (but ultimately ‘determined’ by the base), Gramsci extends the distinction to argue that civil society is more than just superstructural, but is the essential terrain of historical development. Instead of justifying ideologies emerging from the base into the realm of civil society, for Gramsci the ‘ideas’ are contemporaneous, emerging in civil society, so that man acts on structures rather than structures acting deterministically on man.

In Gramsci’s words: “Structure ceases to be an external force which crushes man, assimilates him to himself and make him passive; and is transformed into a means of freedom, an instrument to create a new ethico-political form and a source of new initiatives. To establish the ‘cathartic’ moment becomes therefore, it seems to me, the starting point for all the philosophy of praxis” (Gramsci 1971: 367, Q10II §6i). This is the practice of hegemony, a hegemony that occurs in the realm of ideas, in the “minds of men” (Gramsci 1971: 367, Q10II §6i). Thus, man is an active subject, and the structures of human life do not exist separately from the thinking of them, and so the question of consciousness, the nature of human subjectivity, is essential to understanding society as it is, and what it can become.

I understand why socialists are moral relativists now. My only remaining question is "Why?" Why does the socialist perspective exist?

And again a simple quote:

For Gramsci, it is essential to comprehend the concept of matter in a realistic and historical sense – that is, not as an a-historical metaphysical category, but as ‘socially and historically organised for production; consequently, natural science should be seen as essentially an historical category, a human relation’ (Q 11, §30; SPN 465–6).

Gramsci’s declaration that ‘it has been forgotten that in the case of a very common expression one should put the accent on the first term – “historical” – and not on the second, which is of metaphysical origin’ should thus be understood strictly and literally: as an ‘absolute “historicism”’, an ‘absolute secularisation and earthliness of thought, an absolute humanism of history’ (Q 11, §27; SPN 465), the philosophy of praxis can explain, overcome and incorporate, rather than merely dismiss, the contradictions of metaphysical materialism, just as it resolves the aporiai of speculative, idealist forms of historicism.

It is able to ‘translate’ them into a realistic and historical register – and this ‘translation’ between ‘different philosophical and scientific languages’ and ‘different phases of civilisation’ is ‘organic and profound’ ‘only in the philosophy of praxis’ (Q 11, §47). As the philosophy of praxis possesses a concept of theory (Q 11, §45) which acknowledges that thought, and the systems of thought known as philosophy, are practices directed to the resolution of determinant problems indeterminant historical conjunctures or ‘historical blocs’, it is able to provide an account of the emergence, consolidation, political efficacy and decomposition of these doctrines.

Gramsci acknowledges that the alternative to the metaphysical guarantee offered by Bukharin, namely, ‘to think of a philosophical affirmation as true in a particular historical period (that is, as the necessary and inseparable expression of a particular historical action, of a particular praxis) but as superseded and rendered “vain” in a succeeding period, without however falling into scepticism and moral and ideological relativism, in other words to see philosophy as historicity, is quite an arduous and difficult mental operation’ (Q 11, §14; SPN 436). He nevertheless insists that such an understanding is implicit in the philosophy of praxis, and, crucially, politically enabling.

In distinction to all previous historicisms, the philosophy of praxis’ equation of history, philosophy and politics enables it to comprehend not only the historicity of other thought forms, but also, ‘to explain and justify historically itself as well’ (Q 16, §9; SPN 399) ‘as the result and crowning point’ (Q 15, §61; SPN 417), or ‘the maximum historicism’ (Q 16, §9), of the entire historical-philosophical-political sequence which descends from the nexus of the French Revolution and German idealism.

Thus, although the philosophy of praxis, like all thought forms, must ‘hold itself to be “exact” and “true” and struggle against other forms of thought’, it alone is able to do this ‘critically’ (Q 11, §45).

[Daktoria]

Sounds a lot like the wage system.

Unlike Marx, Machiavelli admitted that wages happened because of family conflict. It was rather central to Italian Doge city-state rivalries after all. Wages are necessary to mitigate among generations of black sheep.

Stop blaming capitalists. It's your ancestors who created your demand for food and shelter.

The socialist perspective exists because it is antithetical to capitalism.

You're not even giving basic dialectics any credibility, let alone historical materialism. Is this a troll thread?

Dialectics are inherently evil though. By definition, they depend on parasiting off of analysis. The same goes for historical materialism where analysis is fated according to its past and present circumstances, unable to control itself. The superstructure is built on top of the base, not the other way around.

I've seen Daktoria misconstrue socialism, pragmatism, even libertarianism, which he claimed to adhere to. I think the safest assumption with any of his posts is that he's off in his own little world.

I've come up with a new ideology now - conglomeratism.

If you google my name and it, you can find a post on another forum which describes it.

[Suska]

"Identity is what you make it." paraphrasing Gramsci I think. Though I must say, he's a wordy one...

[Paradigm]

Unlike Marx, Machiavelli admitted that wages happened because of family conflict. It was rather central to Italian Doge city-state rivalries after all. Wages are necessary to mitigate among generations of black sheep.

Stop blaming capitalists. It's your ancestors who created your demand for food and shelter.

Thank you for your surrealist demonstration that you don't understand what wages are.

[Donna]

Dialectics are inherently evil though. By definition, they depend on parasiting off of analysis. The same goes for historical materialism where analysis is fated according to its past and present circumstances, unable to control itself. The superstructure is built on top of the base, not the other way around.

Nope, nope, nope.



Dialectics is a method of reconciling contradictions and understanding how changes occur.

[Soulflytribe]

Daktoria,

You asked:

My only remaining question is "Why?" Why does the socialist perspective exist? I can't be a socialist. It's very hard to explain, but the according intuition isn't in me...

...but why is it in them? Why does it exist?

This is the best explanation you will ever have:

[youtube]efHCdKb5UWc[/youtube]

[Daktoria]

Thank you for your surrealist demonstration that you don't understand what wages are.

A quantified store of value exchanged for objectified labor due to alienated relations of production?

Yea, I think I know what wages are, thanks. When do you believe "relations" are first alienated?

Dialectics is a method of reconciling contradictions and understanding how changes occur.

Dialectics are the arbitrary combination of thesis and antithesis to realize synthesis. There's nothing methodical about that.

If you believe arbitrary combination is how change occurs, then you can't appreciate how thesis is initially realized.

Daktoria,

This is the best explanation you will ever have:

[youtube]efHCdKb5UWc[/youtube]

What concerns me isn't that itself, but rather how socialists are only one type of many who believe that.

The problem arises when trying to confront everyone who believes that altogether, so the particular motive for socialists has to be uncovered to avoid biting off more than one can chew.

[Paradigm]

A quantified store of value exchanged for objectified labor due to alienated relations of production?

Yea, I think I know what wages are, thanks. When do you believe "relations" are first alienated?

Thanks for the loaded question. I will now ignore your nonsense and explain what wages actually are: A pittance given out to workers out of the total product of their labor, the rest of which is kept by the capitalist, whose only role in the matter is determining the degree of exploitation taking place.

[Daktoria]

Thanks for the loaded question. I will now ignore your nonsense and explain what wages actually are: A pittance given out to workers out of the total product of their labor, the rest of which is kept by the capitalist, whose only role in the matter is determining the degree of exploitation taking place.

You believe capitalists determine the degree of exploitation because...?

Did capitalists determine the demand for products?

Are capitalists gods?

Are capitalists nature?

Did capitalists bring you into the world?

[Paradigm]

You believe capitalists determine the degree of exploitation because...?

Because they control the means of production. This isn't really that difficult to understand.

[Daktoria]

Because they control the means of production. This isn't really that difficult to understand.

That's your problem. You're looking at torture as a supply-side problem.

Supply is irrelevant without demand. Why do you think hyperreality is such a problem?

[Paradigm]

That's your problem. You're looking at torture as a supply-side problem.

Supply is irrelevant without demand.

And what do you suppose is the demand for being exploited?

Why do you think hyperreality is such a problem?

I'm not sure what hyperreality you're inhabiting, but it certainly is a problem trying to have a conversation with you when you apparently inhabit such a different reality.