The Marxist Society of TSR Watch

Apagg
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#81
Report 12 years ago
#81
(Original post by DemonDemonic)
Read the above post meticulously. I made such an attack in my finial paragraph as you annoyed me they are by no means the back bone of the argument yours how ever seemed to have that purpose.

The person I qoted Marx to has obviously understood it because they have not posted a second time asking me to explain it. I have answered Morgan141 question otherwise she or he would have replied and asked me to explain myself further. I am of course happy to do this for Morgan 141 but why do you want me to do it for you when the post wasn’t addressed to you?

You’re attepting to hijack somebody else’s argument with a flawed initiative. You can not tell me I can’t quote Marx and not explain it when I didn’t quote it to you in the first place. I quoted it to Morgan141 who understood the quote. If you would like me to explain it because you are ignorant of its meaning then you are going the wrong way about it.

“You as a conscientious objecter should debate the validity of his comments.”

The above is the sentence where I used that phrase. In context to the prior post calling you a conshientious objector would be stating that you object to Marxist prinipals because it doesn’t lie in accordance with your own conscience or morality. That was highlighted in the previous, you seemed to have over looked it.

If you would like me to explain that famous quote for your own benefit and not for somebody else’s who at this point I assume understood it, do it in a private capacity.
Don't assume that because they didn't reply they understood you - they might simply lack the will to argue with you because you seldom address the point. (You have still not addressed my main point which was to do with your assertion about the effects of capitalism)
This is an open forum, and everyone has the right to join an argument, and to attack or support one side of it.
That's a strange way of using conscientious objector, but I'll accept it, as it's not worth arguing over.

Now, can you explain how exactly capitalism is supposed to have caused poverty, as per your earlier post?
0
quote
reply
Phillip
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#82
Report 12 years ago
#82
group hug
0
quote
reply
Morgan141
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#83
Report 12 years ago
#83
(Original post by DemonDemonic)
Why don't i follow the leader? I think you may have answered your own question.
"Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand."
I have answered Morgan141 question otherwise she or he would have replied and asked me to explain myself further. I am of course happy to do this for Morgan 141 but why do you want me to do it for you when the post wasn’t addressed to you?
I'm afraid not :p:, I've been quite busy and therefore haven't had a chance to reply.

I don't understand your referance to 'the leader', all I meant the majority of the British public. Without individuality discussions and, dare I say it, 'debates' such as this wouldn't ever occur. We would all simply believe the same things and have the same moral viewpoints. By saying individuality is repulsive is extremely contradictive because you are using it yourself. If you truly believed that individuality is repulsive then you would simply believe whatever the current majority of the UK believes.

Tell me then, if society is merely 'the sum of interrelations' then what is the point of it? What does society achieve in the end? What is the point of life if we are all simply one of billions of people living within a society with no individualistic features?
0
quote
reply
DemonDemonic
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#84
Report 12 years ago
#84
An individual is a singular entity. How can that definition ever hold true for anybody? A white man isn’t just a white man he belongs to a group of white men. A woman belongs to a group of woman. I am a Marxist and as such belong to a group which expresses varying degrees of socialism. None of your posts are written from the view point of an individual. There have been plenty of people who have expressed your opinion previously to which you drew sustenance to form your strengthen your own stance. Or are you claiming to be the first person ever to object to Marxism? I don’t think you understand the quote I used. That doesn’t reflect baldy on you because it is a rather difficult quote to understand in its entirety I believe I have explained it crudely above.

At the time I made that particular comment I was in dialogue with a Libertarian, thus saying individualty is repulsive should be placed in the correct context. Libertarains believe in the empowerment of the individual this leads to the subversion of the weak all to often the majority. When I previously said “individuality is repulsive” I meant thinking as a individual and trying to shape society form an individuals perspective is repulsive because of what their real intentions are. They wish to create an elite. You have taken the objectionable out of context in order to crate a logical fallacy, that’s naughty maybe it wasn’t intentional.

Even with this view, I fail to see how you came to your conclusion that because I regard individualty as repulsive I should then go on to believe whatever the majority in the United Kingdom believe. There are roughly 7 billion people on this planet why should I adopt the stance of a meagre 56 million? China Russia Africa Europe I am far from alone in my thoughts. France in particular doesn’t embrace the free market to the extent that the United Kingdom does.

I shall come to you last paragraph in a moment, I just want to clear up the former first.
0
quote
reply
DemonDemonic
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#85
Report 12 years ago
#85
(Original post by Apagg)
Don't assume that because they didn't reply they understood you - they might simply lack the will to argue with you because you seldom address the point. (You have still not addressed my main point which was to do with your assertion about the effects of capitalism)
This is an open forum, and everyone has the right to join an argument, and to attack or support one side of it.
That's a strange way of using conscientious objector, but I'll accept it, as it's not worth arguing over. Now, can you explain how exactly capitalism is supposed to have caused poverty, as per your earlier post?
As I seldom don’t address the point I assumed Morgan understood the quote. If you read Morgan’s latter post he/she hasn’t alleged that I have been vague. Her objections are mainly related to something I stated not Karl Marx. Read post one, you may have overlooked the fact that you are in a society thread. You must of course accept the definition because you yourself accept that there are many definitions attributed to the phrase this is evident in your insertion of the variable.

Quote Demonic stating that capitalism is sole cause poverty why do you take people out of context so often? Strawmen are easy to spot.

This is what DemonDemonic said.
(Original post by DemonDemonic)
Not content on exploiting the third world you now stoop to new depths in exploiting them to try and prop up you failing argument despicable. You grow fat whilst others starve, you grow rich whilst other sleep in squalor and your proud of it. Amazing.
This is how Apagg replied.

(Original post by Apagg)
Well done, except capitalism doesn't exploit the Third World. That'd be protectionism and mercantilism. It's also worth noting that those African states not in anarchy are socialist, and all are very poor - those nations which have taken steps out of poverty (Botswana and Uganda, for example) are those which have introduced elements of capitalism. But we'll just ignore the facts, shall we?
This is what Apagg says now.

(Original post by Apagg)
Now, can you explain how exactly capitalism is supposed to have caused poverty, as per your earlier post?
:congrats:
0
quote
reply
Apagg
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#86
Report 12 years ago
#86
Oh right, so when you attacked libertarianism and its associated capitalistic values, you were not in fact attacking capitalism?

Thank you for the applause by the way, but it's not neccessary
0
quote
reply
Morgan141
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#87
Report 12 years ago
#87
(Original post by DemonDemonic)
An individual is a singular entity. How can that definition ever hold true for anybody? A white man isn’t just a white man he belongs to a group of white men. A woman belongs to a group of woman. I am a Marxist and as such belong to a group which expresses varying degrees of socialism. None of your posts are written from the view point of an individual. There have been plenty of people who have expressed your opinion previously to which you drew sustenance to form your strengthen your own stance. Or are you claiming to be the first person ever to object to Marxism? I don’t think you understand the quote I used. That doesn’t reflect baldy on you because it is a rather difficult quote to understand in its entirety I believe I have explained it crudely above.
How can you possibly define people as other people? A white man is unique, he is not just another white man. The fact they share one specific physical quality means nothing. I am white and so is my dad, we regularly have arguements over politicial issues because we are individuals with different views. I know I am not the first person to object to marxism but I don't object to marxism because x number of people have done the same before me in the past, infact I couldn't really care if I was the last 'non-marxist' on earth I would be making the same arguements as I do now.

And whether you like it or not my posts are entirely my views and therefore come entirely from my individual viewpoint. I have read a wide variety of viewpoints and have been disgusted by some and have found myself agreeing with others. However, ultimately I developed my own views from my own individual morals and understanding of this world. I do not blindly follow one group or sect, that would make me a sheep

At the time I made that particular comment I was in dialogue with a Libertarian, thus saying individualty is repulsive should be placed in the correct context. Libertarains believe in the empowerment of the individual this leads to the subversion of the weak all to often the majority. When I previously said “individuality is repulsive” I meant thinking as a individual and trying to shape society form an individuals perspective is repulsive because of what their real intentions are. They wish to create an elite. You have taken the objectionable out of context in order to crate a logical fallacy, that’s naughty maybe it wasn’t intentional.
Have I? Individuality is simply individuality, it doesn't really matter what context you wanted it to appear you feel it is repulsive. I don't care if you were talking to a libertarian or a moose you made that statement and I commented on it. Maybe my logic was ever so slightly flawed but the point still stands. You are an individual, thinking as an individual, using your individualism to express your views on how you wish to destroy it. Now tell me how that isn't a contradiction?

Even with this view, I fail to see how you came to your conclusion that because I regard individualty as repulsive I should then go on to believe whatever the majority in the United Kingdom believe. There are roughly 7 billion people on this planet why should I adopt the stance of a meagre 56 million? China Russia Africa Europe I am far from alone in my thoughts. France in particular doesn’t embrace the free market to the extent that the United Kingdom does.
I know you are not alone, but you can't say marxists are by any means a majority in this world or any society on this planet. By refering to the UK I was simply using that because I presumed you are a British citizen and therefore only have influence over its politics. You could replace that statement with any majority really.

If we don't question what we are told, what we learn then what is the point in your life? You become just another sheep among billions of others, failing to use that little brain of yours to work out your own opinions on right and wrong.

I shall come to you last paragraph in a moment, I just want to clear up the former first.
I eagerly await your reply

Her objections are mainly related to something I stated not Karl Marx
His
0
quote
reply
DemonDemonic
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#88
Report 12 years ago
#88
(Original post by Apagg)
Oh right, so when you attacked libertarianism and its associated capitalistic values, you were not in fact attacking capitalism?

Thank you for the applause by the way, but it's not neccessary
You have made a scandalous claim. You assert that I said capitalism was the sole cause of poverty. You have provided no evidence to support that assertion. Either defend it, or withdraw it.

Capitalism is not an ideology; capitalist theory merly explains the relationship between governments and business. Really, Apagg this is basic stuff. You’re a member of the economics society. Amazing.

Although there are similarities between Capitalists and Libertarians regarding business and economics, Libertarianism is far broader. You should be far more specific. What particular instance are you referring to when you say
(Original post by Apagg)
Oh right, so when you attacked libertarianism and its associated capitalistic values, you were not in fact attacking capitalism?
I have rebutted Libertarianism on numerous occasions and on these many occasions I may have attacked the former and not that latter or the latter and not the former. Be specific.
0
quote
reply
Apagg
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#89
Report 12 years ago
#89
The bit where you assaulted individualism, greed etc. Basic capitalist tenets.

It is as much an ideology as Marxism. You can declare yourself to be a capitalist, and Marxists are oft fond of deriding capitalists, and the capitalist system.
"capitalist theory merly explains the relationship between governments and business" - that is a description of economics, not capitalism.
0
quote
reply
DemonDemonic
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#90
Report 12 years ago
#90
[QUOTE=Morgan141]How can you possibly define people as other people? A white man is unique, he is not just another white man. The fact they share one specific physical quality means nothing. I am white and so is my dad, we regularly have arguements over politicial issues because we are individuals with different views. I know I am not the first person to object to marxism but I don't object to marxism because x number of people have done the same before me in the past, infact I couldn't really care if I was the last 'non-marxist' on earth I would be making the same arguements as I do now.

And whether you like it or not my posts are entirely my views and therefore come entirely from my individual viewpoint. I have read a wide variety of viewpoints and have been disgusted by some and have found myself agreeing with others. However, ultimately I developed my own views from my own individual morals and understanding of this world. I do not blindly follow one group or sect, that would make me a sheep

Have I? Individuality is simply individuality, it doesn't really matter what context you wanted it to appear you feel it is repulsive. I don't care if you were talking to a libertarian or a moose you made that statement and I commented on it. Maybe my logic was ever so slightly flawed but the point still stands. You are an individual, thinking as an individual, using your individualism to express your views on how you wish to destroy it. Now tell me how that isn't a contradiction?

I know you are not alone, but you can't say marxists are by any means a majority in this world or any society on this planet. By refering to the UK I was simply using that because I presumed you are a British citizen and therefore only have influence over its politics. You could replace that statement with any majority really.

If we don't question what we are told, what we learn then what is the point in your life? You become just another sheep among billions of others, failing to use that little brain of yours to work out your own opinions on right and wrong.

I eagerly await your reply

A white man is a unique individual who belongs to a group who are equally unique in the respect that they are individuals who are white. I interpret the quote to highlight the fact that we are all members of a group and that there is such a thing as society. We are not merely individuals although we are capable of having individual thought processes.

Why do you think that because we are a group we necessarily have to do the exact same thing? There are many means to the same ends. Many roads take you to the same destination. Rather than prioritising individual interest I believe we should act in the best interest for the group and not the individual. I think your penultimate and finial sentence from you first paragraph is quite arrogant, saying that you are capable of forming the same arguments of great Libertarian thinkers like John Stuart Mill and Friedman independent of their existence is very egotistical. It is my belief that you have drawn ideas from these people to help formulate your own stance.

I am an individual. I think as an individual but I draw logical sustenance from the collective I place myself in as an individual i.e. socialism. You are saying that you are an individual, you think as an individual and you draw no logical or political sustenance from anybody out side your own sphere of individuality. That is absurd other wise you would have had these opinions when you were born. You developed them as your social parameters dictated.

(Original post by Morgan141)
Maybe my logic was ever so slightly flawed
Ever so slightly.

Don’t reply for like ages in debating with 3 people at once and I need to catch up.
0
quote
reply
DemonDemonic
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#91
Report 12 years ago
#91
(Original post by Apagg)
The bit where you assaulted individualism, greed etc. Basic capitalist tenets.

It is as much an ideology as Marxism. You can declare yourself to be a capitalist, and Marxists are oft fond of deriding capitalists, and the capitalist system.
The bit what bit? Quote it. You can’t make blasé generalisations quote me.
Marzism doesn’t exist outside the sphere of Socialism or Communism. It is not a independent ideology it’s a train of thought in which socialist and communists subscribe.
0
quote
reply
Apagg
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#92
Report 12 years ago
#92
(Original post by DemonDemonic)
Empowerment of the masses, liberatrians appeal to the worst aspects of human nature. Greed, selfishness and individuality. Repuleive.

This is exactly what you convey.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUgenSt2.jpg

There you go

I would personally class Marxism as an ideology, but no matter, Capitalism is as much an ideology as Communism, then.
0
quote
reply
DemonDemonic
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#93
Report 12 years ago
#93
(Original post by Apagg)
There you go

I would personally class Marxism as an ideology, but no matter, Capitalism is as much an ideology as Communism, then.
This was Apagg's question.
(Original post by Apagg)
Oh right, so when you attacked libertarianism and its associated capitalistic values, you were not in fact attacking capitalism?
This is what Apagg is apparently referring to.

(Original post by DemonDemonic)
Empowerment of the masses, libertarians appeal to the worst aspects of human nature. Greed, selfishness and individuality. Repulsive.

This is exactly what you convey.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUgenSt2.jpg
At the time of this particular rebuke of libertarian thinking I was attacking libertarian ethos in particular as the post clearly indicates. I do however accept that my observations also apply to capitalists with the same outlook.
0
quote
reply
Apagg
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#94
Report 12 years ago
#94
When you attack the foundations of capitalism, you are attacking capitalism. I thought that quite clear.
0
quote
reply
DemonDemonic
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#95
Report 12 years ago
#95
(Original post by Apagg)
When you attack the foundations of capitalism, you are attacking capitalism. I thought that quite clear.
I didn’t deny rebuking capitalism. What’s your point. Yo have established that DemonDemonic a socialist rebukes capitalism… The above DD post says libertarian ethos in particular not entirely.
0
quote
reply
Apagg
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#96
Report 12 years ago
#96
Which you seemed to deny at the start of this. Anyway,as an extension, you also seemed to blame capitalism for poverty in the third world. Is this a valid assumption, or do you believe otherwise?
0
quote
reply
Theresa Smells
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#97
Report 12 years ago
#97
Marxism is an excellent idea. Don't argue against that using examples from history as Marxism has never been practiced.
0
quote
reply
Apagg
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#98
Report 12 years ago
#98
You know what else is an excellent idea? Assembling nutrients from the air for human consumption. What do both have in common? Neither will be achieved in our life times.
0
quote
reply
Paddington
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#99
Report 12 years ago
#99
mrxists theory only works through marxist lenses, and yeah if you see things in a more modern perspective it can be true, but it is not an empirical theory, for example pluralism, and their argument is cirular

well theres my two penneths worth
0
quote
reply
Alasdair
Badges: 14
#100
Report 12 years ago
#100
(Original post by Operation: Mindcrime)
She got banned for graphically describing how she would kill someone, not to mention the incitement to violence and links which have since been removed from her signature and profile. Should really consider changing her name to "Thug".

A nice advertisment for you lefties though; shows you up for what you are. What is it Churchill said?

"The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists."


And oh how right he was, you vile lot.
IIRC, you've linked RedWatch before, which is pretty good at inciting violence itself...
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (252)
27.18%
No (675)
72.82%

Watched Threads

View All