Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Let's rewrite that (Score 1) 27

by smitty_one_each (#48267019) Attached to: [TCM] Communist Manifesto Reading Club Part 3

Remember the Marxist ideal - which arguably has never been pursued anywhere for very long - is to have a classless society. This is what made the Manifesto so revolutionary, he wanted to propose a very different way of going about doing things for society.

Part of my challenge is that Marx seems to be discussing granular externalities, e.g. classes. These are conceptual handles for swaths of people. Yet people remain individuals, from birth to death. Thus, societal alteration would seem to require some kind of internal renewal, not just a fresh set of labels. There's something of a top-down "Rousseau" flavor to Marx's ideas.

Comment: Re:Perhaps the wording was obtuse? (Score 1) 27

by smitty_one_each (#48266997) Attached to: [TCM] Communist Manifesto Reading Club Part 3

I wouldn't say he's trying to make them into "villains", he is trying rather to show what happens when one class of people has unchecked dominance over another and the dominated class has close to no opportunity to change it on their own. This may, again, be human nature - but that is what made the idea of communism so revolutionary as it hadn't been done before (and arguably still hasn't been done).

Again, I'm sort of rolling with "one class of people has unchecked dominance over another and the dominated class has close to no opportunity to change it on their own". One has to suspend disbelief, and allow Marx his say.
". . .what made the idea of communism so revolutionary as it hadn't been done before (and arguably still hasn't been done)" gets at the challenge of moving from some abstract ideas in Marx's head, and allowing first contact with reality. My opinion is that the success of the ideas varies inversely to the size of the population in question. You can make the argument, for example, that the early church in Acts lived communally. That seems the thrust of the evidence. But they figured they were in an apocalyptic time, and they'd see the triumphal return of Christ any old moment. Which leads to several epistles in the following decades, as Paul has to explain that God's watch doesn't conform to human planning.
I just don't grasp how any empirically valid model of secular human behavior can ever deliver on "arguably still hasn't been done". Ain't got that kind of faith, boss.

Comment: 'business as usual' (Score 1) 7

by smitty_one_each (#48258935) Attached to: Only seven shopping days left.
. . .for the simple reason that, whatever else is stupid about our system, it's got a vast inertia component.
This means that, for example, a disaster like ObamaCare, or Prohibition, takes massive effort both to insert and extract.
I find cheer in technology allowing a remnant of non-statist thought to cling to life. The lies are not without power, but they are certainly mortal.
Or maybe I'm just incapable of despair.

Comment: Re:Do you see your contradiction? (Score 1) 27

by smitty_one_each (#48252009) Attached to: [TCM] Communist Manifesto Reading Club Part 3

No, if you actually believed in "liberty", you would be working it more generically with unbiased advocacy for all.

Fascinating. Do break your handwaving down to specific actions. WTF is "unbiased advocacy" in a subjective existence where absolute bias-freedom is just impossible?
Ever charge you level is symmetric, by your own rules. I see your laughter, and return a guffaw.

"Now this is a totally brain damaged algorithm. Gag me with a smurfette." -- P. Buhr, Computer Science 354

Working...