- 18 Jun 2020 04:42
#15100997
Well, to put it simply, class systems more or less become more institutional with agricultural society. Before then, you have strong and weak, male and female, young and old, smart and stupid, etc. With the agricultural revolution, humans become remarkably more territorial, concepts of property arise, defense of property becomes its own class of military people, and so forth.
You can look at capitalism as markets and money only, but capitalism in its modern form is about much more than that. It involves substantially more specialization of labor, beyond what medieval guilds would offer. It involves capital formation, fractional ownership, offsetting risk, etc. Communism, capitalism and any other system that post-dates the agricultural revolution necessarily inherits a bunch of things from earlier times that aren't necessarily doctrinaire. Marx is reacting against industrial capitalism, but doesn't carefully consider what preceded it other than the short shrift that all prior fights have been basically class struggles.
Oh, I don't disagree there. It's his prescriptions that are dramatically oversimplified, and this is a common problem with Jewish intellectuals--not unlike the Natan Sharanksy example I provided to you. I read Eric Hobsbawm's trilogy: the Age of Revolution, the Age of Capital, the Age of Empire and the Age of Extremes. I thought he broke it down better and in more detail than Marx, and obviously saw a lot of things that were outside the scope of Marx's lifetime.
Yet, historically it has been doing much of that. You have the right to vote, for example. That happened in capitalist societies first. Granted, there were some late bloomers like France (1944), Greece (1952) and Switzerland (1971). Capitalism also called for the abolition of slavery, which largely occurred in capitalist states first in the 19th Century--although, Britain still had indentured servitude until the 1920s. Capitalism is for free resource allocation. Now, it has some pre-capitalist historical elements too, like lending money at interest. So you can certainly make some arguments against it, but again that sort of thing pre-dates capitalism and that's why I think Marxists tend to be so prejudicially disposed to anti-capitalism, because understanding what came before requires quite a bit more scholarship.
Reading Marx does not imply agreeing with Marx in all things. Have you read Smith, Malthus, Ricardo, Say, etc? All of them have something to say, but it's what proves out empirically that is kept and taught as capitalism, not every little quibble of everything they said. The reason I push back on that is that every time those of us who prefer capitalism point out the problems of socialist societies, you all go into the No True Scotsman mode of argument, and suddenly socialism or communism has never really been tried or achieved or whatever. It gets tiresome to argue that way, so I will just throw my own wrench into your assumptions--shifting the Overton window I believe they call it.
Me? An anarchist? He's just tweaked that I didn't jump in and call Lee, Davis, et. al. traitors. Washington and Jefferson were traitors too.
No, but I'm familiar with them. I concur that permanent revolution isn't helpful, which is why I do not think gay rights, gay marriage, LBGTQ+ is anything substantial as it does nothing to address active efforts to depress wages among the working class of the West.
Boy, you sure became a right winger awfully quick.
FWIW, it's much more critical of virtually everyone else.
I just don't assume fractional ownership, corporations, wages for labor, the law of negotiable instruments, industrial capital, etc. is synonymous with land ownership, slavery or lending money at interest from the feudal past. You seem to think that they walk hand in hand; and, maybe that's what revolutionary types taught you so that you'd rail against capitalism rather than focusing on the problems of the feudal precepts and even the jus gentium it inherited from Rome.
Might I recommend Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition
If it's not in your budget, you can give me a PO Box to send you a copy. Berman actually felt that he didn't adequately make his point, and wrote a second book on the topic to underscore the Protestant Reformation, which along with the Italian city states is where you start to see the beginnings of capitalism as we know it today. You need to understand what existed before capitalism to understand what capitalism is and what it inherited from the feudal past. Have you ever read Berman? I'm guessing no. If you read Berman, you'll never run to the assumption that I'm some sort of village idiot. Even most trained lawyers haven't read him.
What they are doing within the union is illegal, and they are able to get away with it because there isn't the deep commitment to Christianity today that there was in the 19th Century. We live in a country ruled by people that have and will continue to sell our people out to the highest bidder. There is no right of unilateral secession, but it can be agreed by both the state and federal legislatures by 2/3 vote. I'm sure the Supreme Court--given how fucked up it has become--would presume to have the authority to adjudicate something like that too.
Indeed. He wasn't exactly tender-hearted toward the Sioux Rebellion.
Tainari88 wrote:Anyway, what you said about capitalism not being responsible for class systems is so false and untrue in its entirety? That I am debating in my head if I should continue with you on that point?
Well, to put it simply, class systems more or less become more institutional with agricultural society. Before then, you have strong and weak, male and female, young and old, smart and stupid, etc. With the agricultural revolution, humans become remarkably more territorial, concepts of property arise, defense of property becomes its own class of military people, and so forth.
You can look at capitalism as markets and money only, but capitalism in its modern form is about much more than that. It involves substantially more specialization of labor, beyond what medieval guilds would offer. It involves capital formation, fractional ownership, offsetting risk, etc. Communism, capitalism and any other system that post-dates the agricultural revolution necessarily inherits a bunch of things from earlier times that aren't necessarily doctrinaire. Marx is reacting against industrial capitalism, but doesn't carefully consider what preceded it other than the short shrift that all prior fights have been basically class struggles.
Tainari88 wrote:Because even very right-wing people and anarchists who have read him do concede that the way Marx analyzed the class system in capitalism is truth.
Oh, I don't disagree there. It's his prescriptions that are dramatically oversimplified, and this is a common problem with Jewish intellectuals--not unlike the Natan Sharanksy example I provided to you. I read Eric Hobsbawm's trilogy: the Age of Revolution, the Age of Capital, the Age of Empire and the Age of Extremes. I thought he broke it down better and in more detail than Marx, and obviously saw a lot of things that were outside the scope of Marx's lifetime.
Tainari88 wrote:To think that you deny that as the system and that capitalism wants to abolish class systems? Is sheer fucking foolery BJ.
Yet, historically it has been doing much of that. You have the right to vote, for example. That happened in capitalist societies first. Granted, there were some late bloomers like France (1944), Greece (1952) and Switzerland (1971). Capitalism also called for the abolition of slavery, which largely occurred in capitalist states first in the 19th Century--although, Britain still had indentured servitude until the 1920s. Capitalism is for free resource allocation. Now, it has some pre-capitalist historical elements too, like lending money at interest. So you can certainly make some arguments against it, but again that sort of thing pre-dates capitalism and that's why I think Marxists tend to be so prejudicially disposed to anti-capitalism, because understanding what came before requires quite a bit more scholarship.
Tainari88 wrote:The only thing that might save your ass is if you admit you never read Marx? If you admit that? I might have a shot at believing you?
Reading Marx does not imply agreeing with Marx in all things. Have you read Smith, Malthus, Ricardo, Say, etc? All of them have something to say, but it's what proves out empirically that is kept and taught as capitalism, not every little quibble of everything they said. The reason I push back on that is that every time those of us who prefer capitalism point out the problems of socialist societies, you all go into the No True Scotsman mode of argument, and suddenly socialism or communism has never really been tried or achieved or whatever. It gets tiresome to argue that way, so I will just throw my own wrench into your assumptions--shifting the Overton window I believe they call it.
Tainari88 wrote:He will checkmate you forever and if he pins you as an anarchist?
Me? An anarchist? He's just tweaked that I didn't jump in and call Lee, Davis, et. al. traitors. Washington and Jefferson were traitors too.
Tainari88 wrote:Didn't you read the debates between Lenin and Trotsky? Lenin criticized Trotsky for thinking permanent revolution is the way to cope with human societies. Human beings don't have the energy for permanent revolution.
No, but I'm familiar with them. I concur that permanent revolution isn't helpful, which is why I do not think gay rights, gay marriage, LBGTQ+ is anything substantial as it does nothing to address active efforts to depress wages among the working class of the West.
Tainari88 wrote:People need structure and avoid chaos and instability with a lot of vigor.
Boy, you sure became a right winger awfully quick.
Tainari88 wrote:The Left by definition is self-critical and always fighting hard and strongly among itself. Always.
FWIW, it's much more critical of virtually everyone else.
Tainari88 wrote:I am shocked at what you said. it means you have no grasp of what you thought your society was about. You had no clue.
I just don't assume fractional ownership, corporations, wages for labor, the law of negotiable instruments, industrial capital, etc. is synonymous with land ownership, slavery or lending money at interest from the feudal past. You seem to think that they walk hand in hand; and, maybe that's what revolutionary types taught you so that you'd rail against capitalism rather than focusing on the problems of the feudal precepts and even the jus gentium it inherited from Rome.
Might I recommend Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition
If it's not in your budget, you can give me a PO Box to send you a copy. Berman actually felt that he didn't adequately make his point, and wrote a second book on the topic to underscore the Protestant Reformation, which along with the Italian city states is where you start to see the beginnings of capitalism as we know it today. You need to understand what existed before capitalism to understand what capitalism is and what it inherited from the feudal past. Have you ever read Berman? I'm guessing no. If you read Berman, you'll never run to the assumption that I'm some sort of village idiot. Even most trained lawyers haven't read him.
annatar1914 wrote:Was he, my friend? What good is a ''Union'' if one can enter or leave it at will, nullify it's laws if a State government doesn't like it, secede if they don't like the results of a national election? We're dealing with much the same issues potentially once more, ironically from the same Democratic party machine that you decry.
What they are doing within the union is illegal, and they are able to get away with it because there isn't the deep commitment to Christianity today that there was in the 19th Century. We live in a country ruled by people that have and will continue to sell our people out to the highest bidder. There is no right of unilateral secession, but it can be agreed by both the state and federal legislatures by 2/3 vote. I'm sure the Supreme Court--given how fucked up it has become--would presume to have the authority to adjudicate something like that too.
annatar1914 wrote:President Lincoln opposed slavery and destroyed it, but wasn't an ''Abolitionist'' per se, an important distinction pregnant with meaning...
Indeed. He wasn't exactly tender-hearted toward the Sioux Rebellion.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden
-- Joe Biden