babyfinland posted:

Obama? Obama? Don't get me started on Obama.

getfiscal posted:

you guys get angry really quickly for silly reasons. you need to love yourselves more. bless you all and i hope you find ways to make small contributions to the world.

the only way youd contribute anything of value was if some enterprising stalinist were to turn you into compost. at least then youd give birth to something a bit more original and useful, like a tomato.

Groulxsmith posted:

Just about everybody on this stupid forum is funny or smart or both but you guys should relax because our weird politics aren't worth getting angry over. Like getfiscals wicked burns on your ideology might be over your line but who could possibly dislike him

oh my god you are not treating Marxism/Anime with the respect they deserve rawrawraw

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

sooo was/is marxism a historical dead end or not, this is important

no. i think we decided: no

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

sooo was/is marxism a historical dead end or not, this is important

my answer is no with the qualification that a) i object to the premises of the question in the first place but beyond that b) a no that does not imply that since marxism has not reached a historical dead end, it is still the privileged vehicle from which to view history

corey posted:

oh excuse me. didnt realise we were judging the economic succes of a country by how many lights its got. this is just the kind of infantile minset were trying to fight ehre at juche hq

Communism = soviet power + electrification

tpaine posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

getfiscal posted:

Lessons posted:
it's definitely a critique of the supposed inherent efficiency of markets compared to planning
no it has nothing much to do with socialist planning. it is an argument for more state involvement in capitalist economies. a socialist economy is not a capitalist one with a lot of state involvement. a socialist economy tries to abolish markets by planning in physical terms.

if Daewoo's were made out of nothing but steel and cotton then the socialist economy might do pretty well

You ever DRIVE one?! LOL...that's what it feels like they're made of if you notice their handling!!!

hahaha too right man

babyfinland posted:

this thread turned from a question of whether or not marxism was presently sufficient into a question of marxism's fundamental validity into defensiveness and personal attacks in like 5 pages? lol

haha there are a bunch of strange posters here who are very upset that communism is being questioned. This forum sucks. Your trolling is full of fail. You, the guy who i disagree with , you have fucking mental problems. Im very offended by this whole thing.

If this onslaught stops I promise to read the minutes from the 1975 albanian communist party congress meeting of september

babyfinland posted:

corey posted:
oh excuse me. didnt realise we were judging the economic succes of a country by how many lights its got. this is just the kind of infantile minset were trying to fight ehre at juche hq


you do realize that youer leaving the marxist paradigm behind with this kind of thinking right

*blinks*

The peculiarity of factical life experience consists in the fact that "how I stand with regard to things," the manner of experiencing, is not co-experienced {or experienced also}. What belongs to cognition according to its own meaning must be phenomenologically isolated prior to all decrees that philosophy is {in its essence} cognition. Factical life experience puts all its weight on its content; the how of factical life experience at most merges into its content. All alteration of life takes place in the content. During the course of a factically experienced day, I deal with quite different things; but in the factical course of life, I do not become aware of the different hows of my reactions to those different things. Instead, I encounter them at most in the content I experience itself: factical life experience manifests an indifference with regard to the manner of experiencing. It does not even occur to factical life experience that something might not become accessible to it. This factical experience engages, as it were, all concerns of life. The differences and changes of emphasis are found entirely in the content itself. The self-sufficiency of factical life experience is, therefore, grounded upon this indifference, an indifference which extends itself to everything; it decides even on the highest matters within this self-sufficiency. Thus, if we pay attention to the peculiar indifference of factical experience to all factical life, a specific, constant sense of the surrounding world, the communal world, and the self-world becomes clear to us: everything that is experienced in factical life experience, as well as all of its content, bears the character of significance. But with this, no epistemological decision has been made, either in the sense of some kind of realism or in the sense of some kind of idealism. All of my factical life situations are experienced in the manner of significance which determines the content of experience itself. This becomes clear if I ask myself how I experience myself in factical life experience:--no theories!

Generally, one analyzes only theoreticaly and thoroughly formed concepts concepts of the soul, but the self is not problematized. Concepts like "soul," "connection among acts," "transcendental consciousness," problems like that of the "connection between body and soul"--none of this plays a role for us. I experience myself in factical life neither as a complex of lived experiences nor as a conglomeration of acts and processes, not even as some ego-object in a demarcated sense, but rather in that which I perform, suffer, what I encounter, in my conditions of depression and elevation, and the like. I myself experience not even my ego in separateness, but I am as such always attached to the surrounding world. This experiencing-oneself is no theoretical "reflection," no "inner perception," or the like, but is self-worldly experience, because experience itself has a worldly character and emphasizes significance in such a way that one's own experienced self-world no longer stands out from the surrounding world... One {a "philosophical psychologist"} could object that I experience myself--how I feel--nonetheless factically, without special reflection; I know that right now, Iacted clumsily, and so forth. But this how, too, is no thoroughly formed manner of relating to something but a significance factically tethered to the surrounding world. The factical of which cognizance is taken does not not have an objective character but a character of significance which can develop into an objective context.