Regarding your point, I think communism, as it were, could probably be fine in a small group of people. But in a nation state, it has utterly failed.
With communism there would not be a "state". So that is a contradiction on your part, or what you are talking about is not the idea of communism.
Again, the Soviet Union tried that. It didn't work. The planning came from Moscow and they treated the true Russians very differently than the Ukrainians, the Poles, etc. So the scourge of nationalism and ethnicity continued to drive Moscow.
You're not even correct at the most basic level, man. There are variants of communism. Some actually have a very strong, centralized state (e.g., the USSR); others do not (e.g., anarcho-communism).
No shit, but we're talking about Communism as practiced which is essentially Leninism. I've already said that as a philosophy Communism is interesting, but in practice, human nature corrupts it. You said "there's no such thing as human nature", and I said "fine then Communism is corrupt" because I'm not arguing dumb points. We have real live evidence of Communism in practice. We don't have to read books to see how it will go. The same is true for capitalism. On paper, laissez-faire capitalism looks all well and good, but it had serious flaws. This is how we've evolved to a market based economy, with certain government controls (read: regulations) with sprinkles of socialism (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.).
I really don't think you know much about Soviet history....
I'll give it to you, your take on human nature makes me chuckle. I was just typing up some notes for my graduate students about the myth of human nature and how, in my class, they don't get to disagree with that position.
If anything, you've shown you are not open to disagreement, so I'm sure that extends to your classroom. It must be a very robust academic environment. You truly are tailored made for a communist state.
Are you the guy who thinks flat earthers should be treated respectfully in science classes?
Yet another ridiculous comparison. I'm not getting back into your belief that philosophical concepts are unassailable. That is just arrogance.
Is it more arrogant for me to say "the discipline in which I'm an expert has epistemological foundations (i.e., what counts as knowledge) just like science does?" Or for you to say "no it doesn't?"
1) Your refusal to be open to competing philosophical arguments is the arrogance. A satellite image of Earth is pretty unassailable.
2) You still have not provided a persuasive argument that Communism has succeeded for a nation.
1) You're really embracing the dismissal of entire academic disciplines. I'm used to it, but you don't get the high ground on accusations of arrogance if you're going to do that.
2) I haven't tried to.
Once more, you totally misrepresent a position. No one dismissed your position, nor did I say that there is absolutely human nature. You are the one that is dismissive of counter-arguments, going so far as doing so in your classroom. You are projecting your issues on us.
Because my discipline has rejected the notion of human nature. It wasn't my decision, no more than current scientists decided the earth is round. What's complicated about that?
I mean, you seem to imagine higher education as a space where all ideas (no matter how inane) should be treated equally.
So you're saying that the debate that has gone on for centuries is now solved and no longer open for discussion. You're saying that I could not find one academic who thinks that either there is human nature, or that is still a debatable topic, is that correct? Just want to be sure before I do a little digging on the topic. Now, I know I can't find one true astrologist or geologist that argues the Earth is flat, so using your comparison as the jumping off point, I should not be able to find an humanities/philosophy academic that disagrees with your unassailable statement.
Not that you care, but here is a small portion of what I tell my students:
"...when you write your own work, you need to keep in mind that your goal is to learn--and to stay within--our current epistemological boundaries. I'm going to put this as directly as I possibly can: [our text] outlines five foundational assumptions . . . . These are not something with which you get to disagree. Sure, you can personally disagree with them; but as a student in this discipline, you must accept them in order to produce any work that will count as knowledge. Just like current scientists have rejected much of 1950s science, current . . . . scholars have rejected [certain ideas]."
The boundaries of this discussion are not your discipline. No one cares what academics in your field set forth as truth. That's not the real world, that's your world. And if that's what you're doing, then this is why you can't identify with counter arguments nor convince anyone of your arguments. You've created your own mental box.
Except that's literally the subject of our current conversation.
But, to perhaps move us forward, do you have a list of the academic disciplines that get to have epistemologies and which ones don't? Put differently, what are the areas in which you would actually admit that someone can be an "expert?" And in what areas could you never make such an admission?
I don't shun expertise, I shun unassailable statements based on empirically un-provable issues. And it isn't literally the conversation...
Regarding your point, I think communism, as it were, could probably be fine in a small group of people. But in a nation state, it has utterly failed.
With communism there would not be a "state". So that is a contradiction on your part, or what you are talking about is not the idea of communism.
Again, the Soviet Union tried that. It didn't work. The planning came from Moscow and they treated the true Russians very differently than the Ukrainians, the Poles, etc. So the scourge of nationalism and ethnicity continued to drive Moscow.
You're not even correct at the most basic level, man. There are variants of communism. Some actually have a very strong, centralized state (e.g., the USSR); others do not (e.g., anarcho-communism).
No shit, but we're talking about Communism as practiced which is essentially Leninism. I've already said that as a philosophy Communism is interesting, but in practice, human nature corrupts it. You said "there's no such thing as human nature", and I said "fine then Communism is corrupt" because I'm not arguing dumb points. We have real live evidence of Communism in practice. We don't have to read books to see how it will go. The same is true for capitalism. On paper, laissez-faire capitalism looks all well and good, but it had serious flaws. This is how we've evolved to a market based economy, with certain government controls (read: regulations) with sprinkles of socialism (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.).
I really don't think you know much about Soviet history....
I'll give it to you, your take on human nature makes me chuckle. I was just typing up some notes for my graduate students about the myth of human nature and how, in my class, they don't get to disagree with that position.
If anything, you've shown you are not open to disagreement, so I'm sure that extends to your classroom. It must be a very robust academic environment. You truly are tailored made for a communist state.
Are you the guy who thinks flat earthers should be treated respectfully in science classes?
Yet another ridiculous comparison. I'm not getting back into your belief that philosophical concepts are unassailable. That is just arrogance.
Is it more arrogant for me to say "the discipline in which I'm an expert has epistemological foundations (i.e., what counts as knowledge) just like science does?" Or for you to say "no it doesn't?"
1) Your refusal to be open to competing philosophical arguments is the arrogance. A satellite image of Earth is pretty unassailable.
2) You still have not provided a persuasive argument that Communism has succeeded for a nation.
1) You're really embracing the dismissal of entire academic disciplines. I'm used to it, but you don't get the high ground on accusations of arrogance if you're going to do that.
2) I haven't tried to.
Once more, you totally misrepresent a position. No one dismissed your position, nor did I say that there is absolutely human nature. You are the one that is dismissive of counter-arguments, going so far as doing so in your classroom. You are projecting your issues on us.
Because my discipline has rejected the notion of human nature. It wasn't my decision, no more than current scientists decided the earth is round. What's complicated about that?
I mean, you seem to imagine higher education as a space where all ideas (no matter how inane) should be treated equally.
So you're saying that the debate that has gone on for centuries is now solved and no longer open for discussion. You're saying that I could not find one academic who thinks that either there is human nature, or that is still a debatable topic, is that correct? Just want to be sure before I do a little digging on the topic. Now, I know I can't find one true astrologist or geologist that argues the Earth is flat, so using your comparison as the jumping off point, I should not be able to find an humanities/philosophy academic that disagrees with your unassailable statement.
Not that you care, but here is a small portion of what I tell my students:
"...when you write your own work, you need to keep in mind that your goal is to learn--and to stay within--our current epistemological boundaries. I'm going to put this as directly as I possibly can: [our text] outlines five foundational assumptions . . . . These are not something with which you get to disagree. Sure, you can personally disagree with them; but as a student in this discipline, you must accept them in order to produce any work that will count as knowledge. Just like current scientists have rejected much of 1950s science, current . . . . scholars have rejected [certain ideas]."
The boundaries of this discussion are not your discipline. No one cares what academics in your field set forth as truth. That's not the real world, that's your world. And if that's what you're doing, then this is why you can't identify with counter arguments nor convince anyone of your arguments. You've created your own mental box.
Except that's literally the subject of our current conversation.
But, to perhaps move us forward, do you have a list of the academic disciplines that get to have epistemologies and which ones don't? Put differently, what are the areas in which you would actually admit that someone can be an "expert?" And in what areas could you never make such an admission?
I don't shun expertise, I shun unassailable statements based on empirically un-provable issues. And it isn't literally the conversation...
The statements aren't unassailable, but there are rules for how to....assail them. Rule 1) if you don't know why and how the statement has become accepted in a discipline, you don't get to assail it.
Regarding your point, I think communism, as it were, could probably be fine in a small group of people. But in a nation state, it has utterly failed.
With communism there would not be a "state". So that is a contradiction on your part, or what you are talking about is not the idea of communism.
Again, the Soviet Union tried that. It didn't work. The planning came from Moscow and they treated the true Russians very differently than the Ukrainians, the Poles, etc. So the scourge of nationalism and ethnicity continued to drive Moscow.
You're not even correct at the most basic level, man. There are variants of communism. Some actually have a very strong, centralized state (e.g., the USSR); others do not (e.g., anarcho-communism).
No shit, but we're talking about Communism as practiced which is essentially Leninism. I've already said that as a philosophy Communism is interesting, but in practice, human nature corrupts it. You said "there's no such thing as human nature", and I said "fine then Communism is corrupt" because I'm not arguing dumb points. We have real live evidence of Communism in practice. We don't have to read books to see how it will go. The same is true for capitalism. On paper, laissez-faire capitalism looks all well and good, but it had serious flaws. This is how we've evolved to a market based economy, with certain government controls (read: regulations) with sprinkles of socialism (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.).
I really don't think you know much about Soviet history....
I'll give it to you, your take on human nature makes me chuckle. I was just typing up some notes for my graduate students about the myth of human nature and how, in my class, they don't get to disagree with that position.
If anything, you've shown you are not open to disagreement, so I'm sure that extends to your classroom. It must be a very robust academic environment. You truly are tailored made for a communist state.
Only if he is making the decisions. Which seems to be the case for most people that want a communist state.
Regarding your point, I think communism, as it were, could probably be fine in a small group of people. But in a nation state, it has utterly failed.
With communism there would not be a "state". So that is a contradiction on your part, or what you are talking about is not the idea of communism.
Again, the Soviet Union tried that. It didn't work. The planning came from Moscow and they treated the true Russians very differently than the Ukrainians, the Poles, etc. So the scourge of nationalism and ethnicity continued to drive Moscow.
You're not even correct at the most basic level, man. There are variants of communism. Some actually have a very strong, centralized state (e.g., the USSR); others do not (e.g., anarcho-communism).
No shit, but we're talking about Communism as practiced which is essentially Leninism. I've already said that as a philosophy Communism is interesting, but in practice, human nature corrupts it. You said "there's no such thing as human nature", and I said "fine then Communism is corrupt" because I'm not arguing dumb points. We have real live evidence of Communism in practice. We don't have to read books to see how it will go. The same is true for capitalism. On paper, laissez-faire capitalism looks all well and good, but it had serious flaws. This is how we've evolved to a market based economy, with certain government controls (read: regulations) with sprinkles of socialism (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.).
I really don't think you know much about Soviet history....
I'll give it to you, your take on human nature makes me chuckle. I was just typing up some notes for my graduate students about the myth of human nature and how, in my class, they don't get to disagree with that position.
If anything, you've shown you are not open to disagreement, so I'm sure that extends to your classroom. It must be a very robust academic environment. You truly are tailored made for a communist state.
Are you the guy who thinks flat earthers should be treated respectfully in science classes?
Yet another ridiculous comparison. I'm not getting back into your belief that philosophical concepts are unassailable. That is just arrogance.
Is it more arrogant for me to say "the discipline in which I'm an expert has epistemological foundations (i.e., what counts as knowledge) just like science does?" Or for you to say "no it doesn't?"
1) Your refusal to be open to competing philosophical arguments is the arrogance. A satellite image of Earth is pretty unassailable.
2) You still have not provided a persuasive argument that Communism has succeeded for a nation.
1) You're really embracing the dismissal of entire academic disciplines. I'm used to it, but you don't get the high ground on accusations of arrogance if you're going to do that.
2) I haven't tried to.
Once more, you totally misrepresent a position. No one dismissed your position, nor did I say that there is absolutely human nature. You are the one that is dismissive of counter-arguments, going so far as doing so in your classroom. You are projecting your issues on us.
Because my discipline has rejected the notion of human nature. It wasn't my decision, no more than current scientists decided the earth is round. What's complicated about that?
I mean, you seem to imagine higher education as a space where all ideas (no matter how inane) should be treated equally.
So you're saying that the debate that has gone on for centuries is now solved and no longer open for discussion. You're saying that I could not find one academic who thinks that either there is human nature, or that is still a debatable topic, is that correct? Just want to be sure before I do a little digging on the topic. Now, I know I can't find one true astrologist or geologist that argues the Earth is flat, so using your comparison as the jumping off point, I should not be able to find an humanities/philosophy academic that disagrees with your unassailable statement.
Not that you care, but here is a small portion of what I tell my students:
"...when you write your own work, you need to keep in mind that your goal is to learn--and to stay within--our current epistemological boundaries. I'm going to put this as directly as I possibly can: [our text] outlines five foundational assumptions . . . . These are not something with which you get to disagree. Sure, you can personally disagree with them; but as a student in this discipline, you must accept them in order to produce any work that will count as knowledge. Just like current scientists have rejected much of 1950s science, current . . . . scholars have rejected [certain ideas]."
The boundaries of this discussion are not your discipline. No one cares what academics in your field set forth as truth. That's not the real world, that's your world. And if that's what you're doing, then this is why you can't identify with counter arguments nor convince anyone of your arguments. You've created your own mental box.
Except that's literally the subject of our current conversation.
But, to perhaps move us forward, do you have a list of the academic disciplines that get to have epistemologies and which ones don't? Put differently, what are the areas in which you would actually admit that someone can be an "expert?" And in what areas could you never make such an admission?
I don't shun expertise, I shun unassailable statements based on empirically un-provable issues. And it isn't literally the conversation...
The statements aren't unassailable, but there are rules for how to....assail them. Rule 1) if you don't know why and how the statement has become accepted in a discipline, you don't get to assail it.
So again, you are saying that I cannot find one philosopher who disagrees with your statement that human nature is a myth? It's a simple question.
Regarding your point, I think communism, as it were, could probably be fine in a small group of people. But in a nation state, it has utterly failed.
With communism there would not be a "state". So that is a contradiction on your part, or what you are talking about is not the idea of communism.
Again, the Soviet Union tried that. It didn't work. The planning came from Moscow and they treated the true Russians very differently than the Ukrainians, the Poles, etc. So the scourge of nationalism and ethnicity continued to drive Moscow.
You're not even correct at the most basic level, man. There are variants of communism. Some actually have a very strong, centralized state (e.g., the USSR); others do not (e.g., anarcho-communism).
No shit, but we're talking about Communism as practiced which is essentially Leninism. I've already said that as a philosophy Communism is interesting, but in practice, human nature corrupts it. You said "there's no such thing as human nature", and I said "fine then Communism is corrupt" because I'm not arguing dumb points. We have real live evidence of Communism in practice. We don't have to read books to see how it will go. The same is true for capitalism. On paper, laissez-faire capitalism looks all well and good, but it had serious flaws. This is how we've evolved to a market based economy, with certain government controls (read: regulations) with sprinkles of socialism (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.).
I really don't think you know much about Soviet history....
I'll give it to you, your take on human nature makes me chuckle. I was just typing up some notes for my graduate students about the myth of human nature and how, in my class, they don't get to disagree with that position.
If anything, you've shown you are not open to disagreement, so I'm sure that extends to your classroom. It must be a very robust academic environment. You truly are tailored made for a communist state.
Only if he is making the decisions. Which seems to be the case for most people that want a communist state.
I wouldn't be the one making the decisions under communism:
"Since Marxism, the science of the proletarian revolution, is itself the supreme creation of middle-class intellectuals, and every Marxist party has had its quota of militants drawn from the radical intelligentsia, a Marxist party can, least of all political organizations, ignore the role that intellectuals may play in the struggle of the working class for emancipation. But the relationship between the radical intellectuals and the revolutionary workers’ party must be correctly understood. Although individual intellectuals may take a place in the leadership of the party by their talents, energy and devotion, intellectuals are generally an auxiliary force of the party with their own special talents to contribute to its work. There is a place for intellectuals inside the party, in the mass organizations it supports, and in many party activities. But the main body of the party must be recruited from, and rest squarely upon, the vanguard of the working class. The party and its leadership must have a solidly proletarian core."
Regarding your point, I think communism, as it were, could probably be fine in a small group of people. But in a nation state, it has utterly failed.
With communism there would not be a "state". So that is a contradiction on your part, or what you are talking about is not the idea of communism.
Again, the Soviet Union tried that. It didn't work. The planning came from Moscow and they treated the true Russians very differently than the Ukrainians, the Poles, etc. So the scourge of nationalism and ethnicity continued to drive Moscow.
You're not even correct at the most basic level, man. There are variants of communism. Some actually have a very strong, centralized state (e.g., the USSR); others do not (e.g., anarcho-communism).
No shit, but we're talking about Communism as practiced which is essentially Leninism. I've already said that as a philosophy Communism is interesting, but in practice, human nature corrupts it. You said "there's no such thing as human nature", and I said "fine then Communism is corrupt" because I'm not arguing dumb points. We have real live evidence of Communism in practice. We don't have to read books to see how it will go. The same is true for capitalism. On paper, laissez-faire capitalism looks all well and good, but it had serious flaws. This is how we've evolved to a market based economy, with certain government controls (read: regulations) with sprinkles of socialism (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.).
I really don't think you know much about Soviet history....
I'll give it to you, your take on human nature makes me chuckle. I was just typing up some notes for my graduate students about the myth of human nature and how, in my class, they don't get to disagree with that position.
If anything, you've shown you are not open to disagreement, so I'm sure that extends to your classroom. It must be a very robust academic environment. You truly are tailored made for a communist state.
Are you the guy who thinks flat earthers should be treated respectfully in science classes?
Yet another ridiculous comparison. I'm not getting back into your belief that philosophical concepts are unassailable. That is just arrogance.
Is it more arrogant for me to say "the discipline in which I'm an expert has epistemological foundations (i.e., what counts as knowledge) just like science does?" Or for you to say "no it doesn't?"
1) Your refusal to be open to competing philosophical arguments is the arrogance. A satellite image of Earth is pretty unassailable.
2) You still have not provided a persuasive argument that Communism has succeeded for a nation.
1) You're really embracing the dismissal of entire academic disciplines. I'm used to it, but you don't get the high ground on accusations of arrogance if you're going to do that.
2) I haven't tried to.
Once more, you totally misrepresent a position. No one dismissed your position, nor did I say that there is absolutely human nature. You are the one that is dismissive of counter-arguments, going so far as doing so in your classroom. You are projecting your issues on us.
Because my discipline has rejected the notion of human nature. It wasn't my decision, no more than current scientists decided the earth is round. What's complicated about that?
I mean, you seem to imagine higher education as a space where all ideas (no matter how inane) should be treated equally.
So you're saying that the debate that has gone on for centuries is now solved and no longer open for discussion. You're saying that I could not find one academic who thinks that either there is human nature, or that is still a debatable topic, is that correct? Just want to be sure before I do a little digging on the topic. Now, I know I can't find one true astrologist or geologist that argues the Earth is flat, so using your comparison as the jumping off point, I should not be able to find an humanities/philosophy academic that disagrees with your unassailable statement.
Not that you care, but here is a small portion of what I tell my students:
"...when you write your own work, you need to keep in mind that your goal is to learn--and to stay within--our current epistemological boundaries. I'm going to put this as directly as I possibly can: [our text] outlines five foundational assumptions . . . . These are not something with which you get to disagree. Sure, you can personally disagree with them; but as a student in this discipline, you must accept them in order to produce any work that will count as knowledge. Just like current scientists have rejected much of 1950s science, current . . . . scholars have rejected [certain ideas]."
The boundaries of this discussion are not your discipline. No one cares what academics in your field set forth as truth. That's not the real world, that's your world. And if that's what you're doing, then this is why you can't identify with counter arguments nor convince anyone of your arguments. You've created your own mental box.
Except that's literally the subject of our current conversation.
But, to perhaps move us forward, do you have a list of the academic disciplines that get to have epistemologies and which ones don't? Put differently, what are the areas in which you would actually admit that someone can be an "expert?" And in what areas could you never make such an admission?
I don't shun expertise, I shun unassailable statements based on empirically un-provable issues. And it isn't literally the conversation...
The statements aren't unassailable, but there are rules for how to....assail them. Rule 1) if you don't know why and how the statement has become accepted in a discipline, you don't get to assail it.
So again, you are saying that I cannot find one philosopher who disagrees with your statement that human nature is a myth? It's a simple question.
I have never said that and it would be nonsensical for me to do so, because it would be a total non-sequitur from this part of the conversation.
This is like the end of Blazing Saddles where the big fight scene (the transgender thread) crashes through the wall and spills into Dom DeLuise's production (this thread).
This is like the end of Blazing Saddles where the big fight scene (the transgender thread) crashes through the wall and spills into Dom DeLuise's production (this thread).
If someone wants to live under a communist state, there are opportunities out there. If you are waiting around for the US to fulfill your communist dreams, you are either ignorant or insincere about your commy desire, otherwise you would have moved to a communist state already... and fuck Communism
People being trigged by someone mentioning the word "communism"
That 1950s McCarthyism to 1980s action movie indoctrination never fully goes away, does it.
That’s a bit pretentious, but nothing new.
It's pretentious to point out that the Cold War shaped entire generations' (distorted) views of communism? If ignorance is the alternative to pretension, I'll take the latter.
You seem to have plenty of both.
Apologies, I'll strive for the educated and appropriately humble approach you deploy: fuck capitalism. Better?
Much. You can say “fuck whatever” all you want and not upset me in the least professor. It’s just when you pretentiously act like you know what you are talking about that irritates me and others around here.
The internet: where simultaneously no one is an expert and everyone is an expert.
You seem to like definitive words (no one, everyone). Unusual for someone that claims to have philosophy knowledge. I usually avoid them, but that’s just me.
You seem to struggle with reading.
Care to offer an example where that is the case? You seem to struggle with logic and reasoning...and reality.
This exchange.
I think you’re projecting your own inadequacies now, but I won’t hold it against you, it’s got to be frustrating living in a country that will most likely never align with your communism utopia fantasy.
Very. Even more frustrating than dealing with people who think "fuck communism" is a thoughtful statement.
Meh, I thought about it and studied it awhile before coming to that conclusions. Maybe I should have said “communism is fucked” for a smidge less dismissal of the the idea. If you want communism, join a cult or move to China and your dreams can come true.
This is like the end of Blazing Saddles where the big fight scene (the transgender thread) crashes through the wall and spills into Dom DeLuise's production (this thread).
This did make me laugh. Good call.
Just look out for the commissary (the impeachment thread)
This is like the end of Blazing Saddles where the big fight scene (the transgender thread) crashes through the wall and spills into Dom DeLuise's production (this thread).
This did make me laugh. Good call.
Just look out for the commissary (the impeachment thread)
If someone wants to live under a communist state, there are opportunities out there. If you are waiting around for the US to fulfill your communist dreams, you are either ignorant or insincere about your commy desire, otherwise you would have moved to a communist state already... and fuck Communism
People being trigged by someone mentioning the word "communism"
That 1950s McCarthyism to 1980s action movie indoctrination never fully goes away, does it.
That’s a bit pretentious, but nothing new.
It's pretentious to point out that the Cold War shaped entire generations' (distorted) views of communism? If ignorance is the alternative to pretension, I'll take the latter.
You seem to have plenty of both.
Apologies, I'll strive for the educated and appropriately humble approach you deploy: fuck capitalism. Better?
Much. You can say “fuck whatever” all you want and not upset me in the least professor. It’s just when you pretentiously act like you know what you are talking about that irritates me and others around here.
The internet: where simultaneously no one is an expert and everyone is an expert.
You seem to like definitive words (no one, everyone). Unusual for someone that claims to have philosophy knowledge. I usually avoid them, but that’s just me.
You seem to struggle with reading.
Care to offer an example where that is the case? You seem to struggle with logic and reasoning...and reality.
This exchange.
I think you’re projecting your own inadequacies now, but I won’t hold it against you, it’s got to be frustrating living in a country that will most likely never align with your communism utopia fantasy.
Very. Even more frustrating than dealing with people who think "fuck communism" is a thoughtful statement.
Meh, I thought about it and studied it awhile before coming to that conclusions. Maybe I should have said “communism is fucked” for a smidge less dismissal of the the idea. If you want communism, join a cult or move to China and your dreams can come true.
This is like the end of Blazing Saddles where the big fight scene (the transgender thread) crashes through the wall and spills into Dom DeLuise's production (this thread).
This did make me laugh. Good call.
Just look out for the commissary (the impeachment thread)
If someone wants to live under a communist state, there are opportunities out there. If you are waiting around for the US to fulfill your communist dreams, you are either ignorant or insincere about your commy desire, otherwise you would have moved to a communist state already... and fuck Communism
People being trigged by someone mentioning the word "communism"
That 1950s McCarthyism to 1980s action movie indoctrination never fully goes away, does it.
That’s a bit pretentious, but nothing new.
It's pretentious to point out that the Cold War shaped entire generations' (distorted) views of communism? If ignorance is the alternative to pretension, I'll take the latter.
You seem to have plenty of both.
Apologies, I'll strive for the educated and appropriately humble approach you deploy: fuck capitalism. Better?
Much. You can say “fuck whatever” all you want and not upset me in the least professor. It’s just when you pretentiously act like you know what you are talking about that irritates me and others around here.
The internet: where simultaneously no one is an expert and everyone is an expert.
You seem to like definitive words (no one, everyone). Unusual for someone that claims to have philosophy knowledge. I usually avoid them, but that’s just me.
You seem to struggle with reading.
Care to offer an example where that is the case? You seem to struggle with logic and reasoning...and reality.
This exchange.
I think you’re projecting your own inadequacies now, but I won’t hold it against you, it’s got to be frustrating living in a country that will most likely never align with your communism utopia fantasy.
Very. Even more frustrating than dealing with people who think "fuck communism" is a thoughtful statement.
Meh, I thought about it and studied it awhile before coming to that conclusions. Maybe I should have said “communism is fucked” for a smidge less dismissal of the the idea. If you want communism, join a cult or move to China and your dreams can come true.
What did you mean when you say you "studied it?"
Exactly what I said...I have studied it. The topic got brought up quite often while ascertaining my Sociology degree...If you are asking to what extent I studied it, my only answer is “enough” for me to justify a “fuck communism” statement of opinion, ha How much have you studied it?
If someone wants to live under a communist state, there are opportunities out there. If you are waiting around for the US to fulfill your communist dreams, you are either ignorant or insincere about your commy desire, otherwise you would have moved to a communist state already... and fuck Communism
People being trigged by someone mentioning the word "communism"
That 1950s McCarthyism to 1980s action movie indoctrination never fully goes away, does it.
That’s a bit pretentious, but nothing new.
It's pretentious to point out that the Cold War shaped entire generations' (distorted) views of communism? If ignorance is the alternative to pretension, I'll take the latter.
You seem to have plenty of both.
Apologies, I'll strive for the educated and appropriately humble approach you deploy: fuck capitalism. Better?
Much. You can say “fuck whatever” all you want and not upset me in the least professor. It’s just when you pretentiously act like you know what you are talking about that irritates me and others around here.
The internet: where simultaneously no one is an expert and everyone is an expert.
You seem to like definitive words (no one, everyone). Unusual for someone that claims to have philosophy knowledge. I usually avoid them, but that’s just me.
You seem to struggle with reading.
Care to offer an example where that is the case? You seem to struggle with logic and reasoning...and reality.
This exchange.
I think you’re projecting your own inadequacies now, but I won’t hold it against you, it’s got to be frustrating living in a country that will most likely never align with your communism utopia fantasy.
Very. Even more frustrating than dealing with people who think "fuck communism" is a thoughtful statement.
Meh, I thought about it and studied it awhile before coming to that conclusions. Maybe I should have said “communism is fucked” for a smidge less dismissal of the the idea. If you want communism, join a cult or move to China and your dreams can come true.
What did you mean when you say you "studied it?"
Exactly what I said...I have studied it. The topic got brought up quite often while ascertaining my Sociology degree...If you are asking to what extent I studied it, my only answer is “enough” for me to justify a “fuck communism” statement of opinion, ha How much have you studied it?
A great deal. My dissertation was (and much of my research is) about the relationship between radical politics and American literature.
If someone wants to live under a communist state, there are opportunities out there. If you are waiting around for the US to fulfill your communist dreams, you are either ignorant or insincere about your commy desire, otherwise you would have moved to a communist state already... and fuck Communism
People being trigged by someone mentioning the word "communism"
That 1950s McCarthyism to 1980s action movie indoctrination never fully goes away, does it.
That’s a bit pretentious, but nothing new.
It's pretentious to point out that the Cold War shaped entire generations' (distorted) views of communism? If ignorance is the alternative to pretension, I'll take the latter.
You seem to have plenty of both.
Apologies, I'll strive for the educated and appropriately humble approach you deploy: fuck capitalism. Better?
Much. You can say “fuck whatever” all you want and not upset me in the least professor. It’s just when you pretentiously act like you know what you are talking about that irritates me and others around here.
The internet: where simultaneously no one is an expert and everyone is an expert.
You seem to like definitive words (no one, everyone). Unusual for someone that claims to have philosophy knowledge. I usually avoid them, but that’s just me.
You seem to struggle with reading.
Care to offer an example where that is the case? You seem to struggle with logic and reasoning...and reality.
This exchange.
I think you’re projecting your own inadequacies now, but I won’t hold it against you, it’s got to be frustrating living in a country that will most likely never align with your communism utopia fantasy.
Very. Even more frustrating than dealing with people who think "fuck communism" is a thoughtful statement.
Meh, I thought about it and studied it awhile before coming to that conclusions. Maybe I should have said “communism is fucked” for a smidge less dismissal of the the idea. If you want communism, join a cult or move to China and your dreams can come true.
What did you mean when you say you "studied it?"
Exactly what I said...I have studied it. The topic got brought up quite often while ascertaining my Sociology degree...If you are asking to what extent I studied it, my only answer is “enough” for me to justify a “fuck communism” statement of opinion, ha How much have you studied it?
But it on the other page it didn't seem like you know basic things regarding it. So then, is your threshold of "enough" really anything to go by?
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
If I can attempt to be the weenie peacemaker for a second...
As someone with capitalist/libertarian views, it's impossible for me to approach consensus with someone who has communist or socialist views when discussing a broad system of government. We'll arrive at loggerheads in under 60 seconds.
I find it much easier to get to a coalition on some specific issues. Limiting our military adventurism, criminal justice reform, LGBTQ rights, and drug policy to name a few. We just have to agree to disagree on the tax code.
Like mrussell has said, most governments are a blend anyway. The US will never be purely socialist or purely capitalist. You just lobby for your preferred solutions by issue. Try to find allies when you can.
If I can attempt to be the weenie peacemaker for a second...
As someone with capitalist/libertarian views, it's impossible for me to approach consensus with someone who has communist or socialist views when discussing a broad system of government. We'll arrive at loggerheads in under 60 seconds.
I find it much easier to get to a coalition on some specific issues. Limiting our military adventurism, criminal justice reform, LGBTQ rights, and drug policy to name a few. We just have to agree to disagree on the tax code.
Like mrussell has said, most governments are a blend anyway. The US will never be purely socialist or purely capitalist. You just lobby for your preferred solutions by issue. Try to find allies when you can.
Do we have to agree to disagree on when we eat the rich? 😀
Chris Matthews, the most wonderful man on TV, has apologies on his show for claiming that Bernie would not be one to help his fellow people out if they needed help, like if their car broke down. He believes that Bernie would.
That segment with Chris Matthews from Hardball made me laugh.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
If I can attempt to be the weenie peacemaker for a second...
As someone with capitalist/libertarian views, it's impossible for me to approach consensus with someone who has communist or socialist views when discussing a broad system of government. We'll arrive at loggerheads in under 60 seconds.
I find it much easier to get to a coalition on some specific issues. Limiting our military adventurism, criminal justice reform, LGBTQ rights, and drug policy to name a few. We just have to agree to disagree on the tax code.
Like mrussell has said, most governments are a blend anyway. The US will never be purely socialist or purely capitalist. You just lobby for your preferred solutions by issue. Try to find allies when you can.
Do we have to agree to disagree on when we eat the rich? 😀
You'll have to agree on definition of rich first. Your's is fucked up!
If I can attempt to be the weenie peacemaker for a second...
As someone with capitalist/libertarian views, it's impossible for me to approach consensus with someone who has communist or socialist views when discussing a broad system of government. We'll arrive at loggerheads in under 60 seconds.
I find it much easier to get to a coalition on some specific issues. Limiting our military adventurism, criminal justice reform, LGBTQ rights, and drug policy to name a few. We just have to agree to disagree on the tax code.
Like mrussell has said, most governments are a blend anyway. The US will never be purely socialist or purely capitalist. You just lobby for your preferred solutions by issue. Try to find allies when you can.
Do we have to agree to disagree on when we eat the rich? 😀
You'll have to agree on definition of rich first. Your's is fucked up!
You don’t turn into food until at least 7 figures.
Regarding your point, I think communism, as it were, could probably be fine in a small group of people. But in a nation state, it has utterly failed.
With communism there would not be a "state". So that is a contradiction on your part, or what you are talking about is not the idea of communism.
Again, the Soviet Union tried that. It didn't work. The planning came from Moscow and they treated the true Russians very differently than the Ukrainians, the Poles, etc. So the scourge of nationalism and ethnicity continued to drive Moscow.
You're not even correct at the most basic level, man. There are variants of communism. Some actually have a very strong, centralized state (e.g., the USSR); others do not (e.g., anarcho-communism).
No shit, but we're talking about Communism as practiced which is essentially Leninism. I've already said that as a philosophy Communism is interesting, but in practice, human nature corrupts it. You said "there's no such thing as human nature", and I said "fine then Communism is corrupt" because I'm not arguing dumb points. We have real live evidence of Communism in practice. We don't have to read books to see how it will go. The same is true for capitalism. On paper, laissez-faire capitalism looks all well and good, but it had serious flaws. This is how we've evolved to a market based economy, with certain government controls (read: regulations) with sprinkles of socialism (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.).
I really don't think you know much about Soviet history....
I'll give it to you, your take on human nature makes me chuckle. I was just typing up some notes for my graduate students about the myth of human nature and how, in my class, they don't get to disagree with that position.
If anything, you've shown you are not open to disagreement, so I'm sure that extends to your classroom. It must be a very robust academic environment. You truly are tailored made for a communist state.
Are you the guy who thinks flat earthers should be treated respectfully in science classes?
Yet another ridiculous comparison. I'm not getting back into your belief that philosophical concepts are unassailable. That is just arrogance.
Is it more arrogant for me to say "the discipline in which I'm an expert has epistemological foundations (i.e., what counts as knowledge) just like science does?" Or for you to say "no it doesn't?"
1) Your refusal to be open to competing philosophical arguments is the arrogance. A satellite image of Earth is pretty unassailable.
2) You still have not provided a persuasive argument that Communism has succeeded for a nation.
1) You're really embracing the dismissal of entire academic disciplines. I'm used to it, but you don't get the high ground on accusations of arrogance if you're going to do that.
2) I haven't tried to.
Once more, you totally misrepresent a position. No one dismissed your position, nor did I say that there is absolutely human nature. You are the one that is dismissive of counter-arguments, going so far as doing so in your classroom. You are projecting your issues on us.
Because my discipline has rejected the notion of human nature. It wasn't my decision, no more than current scientists decided the earth is round. What's complicated about that?
I mean, you seem to imagine higher education as a space where all ideas (no matter how inane) should be treated equally.
So you're saying that the debate that has gone on for centuries is now solved and no longer open for discussion. You're saying that I could not find one academic who thinks that either there is human nature, or that is still a debatable topic, is that correct? Just want to be sure before I do a little digging on the topic. Now, I know I can't find one true astrologist or geologist that argues the Earth is flat, so using your comparison as the jumping off point, I should not be able to find an humanities/philosophy academic that disagrees with your unassailable statement.
Not that you care, but here is a small portion of what I tell my students:
"...when you write your own work, you need to keep in mind that your goal is to learn--and to stay within--our current epistemological boundaries. I'm going to put this as directly as I possibly can: [our text] outlines five foundational assumptions . . . . These are not something with which you get to disagree. Sure, you can personally disagree with them; but as a student in this discipline, you must accept them in order to produce any work that will count as knowledge. Just like current scientists have rejected much of 1950s science, current . . . . scholars have rejected [certain ideas]."
The boundaries of this discussion are not your discipline. No one cares what academics in your field set forth as truth. That's not the real world, that's your world. And if that's what you're doing, then this is why you can't identify with counter arguments nor convince anyone of your arguments. You've created your own mental box.
Except that's literally the subject of our current conversation.
But, to perhaps move us forward, do you have a list of the academic disciplines that get to have epistemologies and which ones don't? Put differently, what are the areas in which you would actually admit that someone can be an "expert?" And in what areas could you never make such an admission?
I don't shun expertise, I shun unassailable statements based on empirically un-provable issues. And it isn't literally the conversation...
The statements aren't unassailable, but there are rules for how to....assail them. Rule 1) if you don't know why and how the statement has become accepted in a discipline, you don't get to assail it.
So again, you are saying that I cannot find one philosopher who disagrees with your statement that human nature is a myth? It's a simple question.
I have never said that and it would be nonsensical for me to do so, because it would be a total non-sequitur from this part of the conversation.
Yet flat earth being a myth is unassailable. This is my point.
And through all of that, communism is still a failed economic political and economic system. There are no successes to which one can point.
If I can attempt to be the weenie peacemaker for a second...
As someone with capitalist/libertarian views, it's impossible for me to approach consensus with someone who has communist or socialist views when discussing a broad system of government. We'll arrive at loggerheads in under 60 seconds.
I find it much easier to get to a coalition on some specific issues. Limiting our military adventurism, criminal justice reform, LGBTQ rights, and drug policy to name a few. We just have to agree to disagree on the tax code.
Like mrussell has said, most governments are a blend anyway. The US will never be purely socialist or purely capitalist. You just lobby for your preferred solutions by issue. Try to find allies when you can.
Do we have to agree to disagree on when we eat the rich? 😀
Man, with some of my socialist friends we can't even agree on when to eat the cows
If I can attempt to be the weenie peacemaker for a second...
As someone with capitalist/libertarian views, it's impossible for me to approach consensus with someone who has communist or socialist views when discussing a broad system of government. We'll arrive at loggerheads in under 60 seconds.
I find it much easier to get to a coalition on some specific issues. Limiting our military adventurism, criminal justice reform, LGBTQ rights, and drug policy to name a few. We just have to agree to disagree on the tax code.
Like mrussell has said, most governments are a blend anyway. The US will never be purely socialist or purely capitalist. You just lobby for your preferred solutions by issue. Try to find allies when you can.
Do we have to agree to disagree on when we eat the rich? 😀
You'll have to agree on definition of rich first. Your's is fucked up!
You don’t turn into food until at least 7 figures.
Comments
This has nothing to do with Andrew Yangs path to victory
with your quoting me before my edits
"Since Marxism, the science of the proletarian revolution, is itself the supreme creation of middle-class intellectuals, and every Marxist party has had its quota of militants drawn from the radical intelligentsia, a Marxist party can, least of all political organizations, ignore the role that intellectuals may play in the struggle of the working class for emancipation. But the relationship between the radical intellectuals and the revolutionary workers’ party must be correctly understood. Although individual intellectuals may take a place in the leadership of the party by their talents, energy and devotion, intellectuals are generally an auxiliary force of the party with their own special talents to contribute to its work. There is a place for intellectuals inside the party, in the mass organizations it supports, and in many party activities. But the main body of the party must be recruited from, and rest squarely upon, the vanguard of the working class. The party and its leadership must have a solidly proletarian core."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/novack/1935/12/x01.htm
How much have you studied it?
My dissertation was (and much of my research is)
about the relationship between radical politics and American literature.
As someone with capitalist/libertarian views, it's impossible for me to approach consensus with someone who has communist or socialist views when discussing a broad system of government. We'll arrive at loggerheads in under 60 seconds.
I find it much easier to get to a coalition on some specific issues. Limiting our military adventurism, criminal justice reform, LGBTQ rights, and drug policy to name a few. We just have to agree to disagree on the tax code.
Like mrussell has said, most governments are a blend anyway. The US will never be purely socialist or purely capitalist. You just lobby for your preferred solutions by issue. Try to find allies when you can.
That segment with Chris Matthews from Hardball made me laugh.
And through all of that, communism is still a failed economic political and economic system. There are no successes to which one can point.