0
Thumbs Up |
Received: 26,211 Given: 43,758 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 10,426 Given: 4,139 |
Aha, the appeal to nature argument. Firstly, myself as well as Marx denied that capitalism is natural or arose naturally because it truly did not. Several historical developments led to capitalism. Firstly, this argument is usually quite shady because... For example. White women today in the west want to be tan.... Back in the day they wanted to be pale... What is then, natural? A desire to be corpse-like pale or tan?
It also helps little that the last time humans lived in what could be considered a "natural" environment, i.e. hunter gatherer society, it much more resembled communism rather than capitalism. You also understand very little the concept of the state withering away. Not that I support the idea, but you've misrepresented it. It's about historical determinism, or that humanity is destined to reach communism through it's development; Slavery ->feudalism ->capitalism->socialism->communism. Communism can only happen (according to marx) when socialism has been imposed a long enough time so that capitalist resistance is wiped away, and abundance along with equality is reached. Thus a state to keep order and protect property is unnecessary due to there being nothing to really steal rendering the state obsolete. The state is also not a given as, again, during our hunter gatherer days, we had no state.
You also pretty much described the homo economicus man that capitalist theorists try to ascribe all humans, but is this really the case? I wouldn't fully say so. We are social beings that often make sacrifices for others and find that having people liking us and praising us as more of an achievement rather than owning more material goods. Egoism is a part of us, sure, but the mere fact that we're critical of it shows how it's not our only feature. It's also obvious that when we live in a fully capitalist society we tend to be more like homo economicus than when we don't. You also have to understand that there is little incentive in capitalism to work hard other than being fired and replaced. The capitalists pretty much own your labor and do with the fruits of it as they wish. Nothing about socialism claims that working hard gets you nowhere, in fact, when you own the fruits of your labor, it might make you more motivated to work hard.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 4,730 Given: 5,555 |
Because two communists are two different theories of Marxism.
And the three communists are two theories of Marxism plus a reactionary right revanchist. A revanchist is usually one who is physically weaker.
Why? Because Marxism is a combination of earlier theories, compiled and supplemented by one natural philosopher, full of inaccuracies and white spots and completely unformalized. Too heavy a burden for one person.
Even the name itself hints. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, it was normal to be an adherent of a particular philosopher, and people called each other "Kontians" (in honor of Auguste Comte, and not Immanuel Kant), "Cartesians", etc.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 373 Given: 193 |
I also thought that Italian Fascism was almost on a par with National Socialism but after reading more about the history of fascism now I believe Mussolini was much milder than Hitler and also Franco. The big problem was that in the 30s his imperialistic ambitions kept growing and he got involved in wars and in the alliance with Hitler. It's true however that fascism betrayed its syndicalist roots and allied itself with the upper classes and the industrialists. The 1919 Fascist manifesto was indeed relatively progressive in social issues.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 26,211 Given: 43,758 |
Yes and no. Although it is true that the Italian business classes regarded Mussolini as a bastion against Communism, ironically from 1925 onwards he took a very state-socialist direction, albeit in part as a response against the Great Depression, whereby Italy became home to more State-owned enterprises than anywhere in the world after the USSR itself.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 26,211 Given: 43,758 |
Also, re what Red Pill said about White Southerners, what I'd like to know is:
(1) During the Jim Crow era, were most of them even fully aware of the sheer breadth of discriminatory laws against Blacks, whether regarding marriage, sexual relations, property, voting etc?
(2) Did most White Southerners actively support said legislation, or were a lot of them just passive and indifferent?
(3) Either way, did most White Southerners genuinely dislike Blacks?
Thumbs Up |
Received: 1,347 Given: 369 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 1,347 Given: 369 |
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks