: : : Rather than attempt a fruitless pursuit of all the schools and sects of contemporary Marxism, the discussion here will be limited to (1) the Marxism of Marx and Engels, and (2) the mainstream of twentieth-century Communism, which takes Lenin as the central legitimate inheritor and developer of their tradition.
: : : I don't see anything worth debating here, do either of you?
: : No, i don't see anything particulary controversial there. Perhaps some of the marxists might complain about the paternalistic (ie dictatorial)slant that is given to marx and his theories. Aside from that it looks like pretty old news to me.
: : If your looking to make a point frenchy, how about explaining it in your own words, rather relying on the works of others.
: I simply accepted your invitation to copy the words of others. Are you now withdrawing that invite?
Piper: I don't think that was me frenchy. All i am saying is that it would be i think more productive to write what you think rather than copying and pasting the views of others ad nauseum. I mean you can post von mises or freidman or whatever, but the real point is i think whether YOU agree with what they say.
Are you really telling me that you accept all the views of all the authors you post uncritically? Surely they are just as open to criticism as Marx or anybody else. No idea is sacred.
: Here's the funny part, at least from my point of view; when I do speak for myself I'm roundly convicted of being a boot-licker for an invisible boss, not being an authentic person (or some such silly words to that effect), being a....well, it goes on and on.
: NOT THAT I'M COMPLAINING!! I DON'T CARE! But those are the facts.
: And when I refer to someone else to support my position, why then the source is slanted, a right-winger, not to be trusted, a reactionary, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum.
: It isn't dialouge most of you on the Left want, it's subjugation. I have my opinions, not the same as yours, but well within the framework of defensible and credible.
Piper: Yes, that is true. Some on the left DO advocate propaganda and dictatorship as a means of achieving their ends. But not all of us do frenchy.
: On the other hand your side is saddled w/ absurdities such as 'alienation' (of which during nearly three decades of blue-collar work I had never once heard a blue-collar use) and 'surplus value'.
Piper: Well frenchy 'your side' if i can call it that suffers from similar abstractions. If your point is that such abstract terms should be replaced with common parlance, then i am in total agreement. Otherwise it is just a form language used by elites as a means of control. John Ralston Saul:
"Our reality is dominated by elites who have spent much of the last two centuries, indeed the last four, organising society around answers and around structures designed to produce answers...The effect has been to render universal understanding as difficult as possible...The writer's most effective weapons against such silence have always been simplicity and common sense. But never have the custodians of the word been so cut off from the realities of power. Never, for that matter have people so adept at manipulating the word held the levers of power. Western Culture, as a result, has become less and less a critical reflectionm of its own society."
(Voltaire's Bastards at 8).
: Not to mention the results of these ideas when put into practice.
Piper: Exactly how it would be in practice is probably impossible to tell because there are just too many variables to account for.
But let me ask you frenchy, do you have a social conscience? What do you think about the fact that American capitalists exploit the workers of third world countries? Or that rich company CEOs get more money and power than is possible for one man to make use of? Or how (unrepresentative) corporations basically run the government through large cash 'donations'...etc.