Prince Harry, and banning Nazi Symbols-

[Brother None]

I'm defending Marxism (communism) because it never really got a chance. Marxism in it's pure form has never been realised, and it most likely won't for a while. Perhaps Marx was right, and we'll have to wait untill the capitalist society destroys itself before the communistic utopia will manifest itself.

Remember Marx also wrote his system only to be applied to Western countries at that point of development where they were at at that time. Except for his 1926-released (post mortem, yes) letter, he has always opposed to idea of pre-industrial (Eastern) countries "skipping" capitalism right into communism as a fab. Indeed the entire concept of revolution in the Leninist sense probably appalled him.

But even so, Marxism is a social-Darwinist theory. That means it sucks. Heh.

I'm also defending communism because it's the only truly scientific political and economical philosophy.

What about Machiavellianism?

Marx' historical materialism, on the other had, is a scientific philosophy. It can be easily verified (and proven wrong - what makes it scientific), and makes sense. I personally am a historical materialist, actually.

This certainly applies to his economic theories, which was the center spill, but don't you think it's farfetched to call all the offshoots scientific?

 

[Sander]

Actually, no, you'll notice that the extortion would be impossible if the lawyer is prohibited by law to speak to anyone else about it. Note that the part of extortion that is forbidden by law is not that part where you tell someone else the bad thing you know about the extortee, it's the part where you ask money. Obviously, with this law, the last part, which is very easy to prove as having happened in a court of law, is also illegal, heavily illegal, making extortion a practical impossibility.

Meh, true. Although extortion is still possible with the more ignorant people, it does indeed make it more difficult.
Bah, what's happened to my ability to think? I would've noticed these things a lot sooner a while back.

That's because not everything said in confidence is incriminating. This is assuming the defendant is guilty, which is the opposite of "proper' lawgiving by modernday standards (and tré Guantanamo (how 'bout those released Brits? Woohoo.))

I value practical uses in a court of law above some abstract concept, I thank you.

Meh, you're right.

Right, so what we need is a kind of philosopher-king who decides what has cultural value and what is popular? You view the system as unjust because it uses the popular vote to judge books. What other vote is there, or has there ever been?

yes. Popular vote isn't what decides whether artists receive money in the current Dutch system either, instead a group of 'specialists' decide. Books of cultural are vastly different from popular books, or other artistic expressions, you know that as well as I do. A better way to judge it is whether it will be remembered in a hundred years.

And this system you speak of been in place practically forever, it's not something modern, demonstrated by the large number of starving artists in history.

Muaha. No, it hasn't. It's only been in place effectively since the printing press, and only in real effective use a couple of centuries later. That's not 'practically forever'. Although it has also been in use in some of the ancient societies.

It has also produced rich artists. Both rich and starving have been remembered more or less, depending on their long-term popularity, which often has little to do with their quality or fame at that moment.

Indeed, which is actually a problem if you start to think about it. This encourages writers to write popular stuff that's out in vast numbers on the market, instead of the culturally more highly valued

If you have no viable alternative, simply accept the need for limitations on the right of free speech. A possible utopia where somehow this is not necessary does not make a valid counterargument.

True enough.

What kind of CDs?

If we're talking about the original copies of the CDs, this does not destroy my argument, because "original copies" of CDs only exist because of copyright laws (see the effects of practically not enforcing these laws in Russia, for instance, where it's very hard to buy original copies, impossible in large areas)

If we're talking ALL CDs, then remember that only a small compensation for burned CDs goes to the company tax-free to make up for the huge loss they make.

Dutch link: http://www.tweakers.net/nieuws/35145
I'm talking original copies of CDs here. However, a wholesale abolishment of copyright laws would change the situation entirely, largely because then companies have to make money by selling their products while others are selling their product as well at low prices. This does, really, change a lot. But I do know that a lot of people still buy CDs to support artists, and that won't change then. Although a decline of CD sales a sharp decline even) would be expected, it is, for the artists, not necessarily a bad thing.

Bribes are hard to trace. If a judge can speak to anyone involved in a case without supervision, how would you know about bribes? This is ok in the sporting world, but lawgiving is rather to vital to leave open to chance

Heck, bribes and intimidation aren't the only problem. A clever lawyer could trick the opposing side in spilling something that wins him his case, justly or not. Our juridical system is not watertight, we need laws like these.

No, I disagree. This is not something laws will solve, although laws about speaking with the people in court outside of court could, more or less, be valid. But preventing judges from speaking to people in general is not only silly, but not viable, and that is the consequence of what you're doing. If someone wants to intimidate, bribe or do soemthing else they'll find a way to do this, just pumping out new laws as much as you can is not going to help much.

If I walk one feet behind you all the time and start shouting whenever you do, I'm using speech to impede on your freedom of speech.

No you're not, you're just annoying the hell out of me and being an ass, but this doesn't prevent me in any way from actually speaking. That's like saying that road workers are impeding on people's freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means that you are allowed to speak and express your opinions without legal repercussions, but this doesn't in any way guarantee that you're going to be able to, only that you're allowed to.

Death threats etc. also work in more indirect ways to psychologically impede on someone's freedom of speech.

And that's a completely seperate argument. I don't think this is something you should do anything about. If you get excessive death threats, harassment charges can be laid down, but I have a serious problem with this form of making laws: you cannot and should not create laws for every possiblity where someone can in any way be harmed. Freedom of speech can do psychological harm but that is one of the things I have thought through a lot better than these other issues (and I cannot believe I missed that much, damnit), and I am convinced that that is something you should let pass.

EDIT: I fucked up "quote" to "wuoyr". How the hell did I do that?

 

[Jebus]

But even so, Marxism is a social-Darwinist theory. That means it sucks. Heh.

Marxism isn't social-Darwinistic. It doesn't have anything to do with genetics... It's teleoscopic (or whatever the English word is)

Darned Kharn, that's the second time in an hour I've corrected you!
Mend your ways, or I will have to search for a different demi-god to worship

I'm also defending communism because it's the only truly scientific political and economical philosophy.

What about Machiavellianism?

Mmmmmyes, that was a scientific theory too. However, it was not an economical one, nor a political theory in the narrow sense. It only applied to the ways a ruler should act, and didn't propose a system of government itself.

Marx' historical materialism, on the other had, is a scientific philosophy. It can be easily verified (and proven wrong - what makes it scientific), and makes sense. I personally am a historical materialist, actually.

This certainly applies to his economic theories, which was the center spill, but don't you think it's farfetched to call all the offshoots scientific?

I don't know what you mean by 'offshoots', but historical materialism or, as it should be named: 'the economical theory of history' is scientific. I'm not saying that dialectic materialism, all of the economical conclusions he draws from historical materialism or his humanitarian undertone are necessarily completely scientific, but the theory of historical materialism surely was.

 

[Bradylama]

Oh. I guess I understood your motives wrong. I thought you meant that the Hammer and Sickle should be outlawed too, since you said they're just as evil. My mistake.

Its all good.

I'm defending Marxism (communism) because it never really got a chance. Marxism in it's pure form has never been realised, and it most likely won't for a while. Perhaps Marx was right, and we'll have to wait untill the capitalist society destroys itself before the communistic utopia will manifest itself.

Even with the destruction of capitalist society, Marxism is still unatainable due to the selfish nature of the individual. Marxism can only be realized when you have completely suppressed human desire. Whether or not that sounds like a nice vision of humanity's future is up for debate, I guess.

I'm also defending communism because it's the only truly scientific political and economical philosophy. Capitalism as written by Smith, for instance, has no concrete link to reality, and is not founded on a truly scientific analysis of the human mind or history. And it's also quite paradoxal to Smiths own ethical ideas, really.
Marx' historical materialism, on the other had, is a scientific philosophy. It can be easily verified (and proven wrong - what makes it scientific), and makes sense. I personally am a historical materialist, actually.

While scientific basis is commendable, what good is it if it can't work? The members of a communist society still become subserviant to capitalists (if not entirely the State) because of their inherent want for more. That's why Politburo destroyed communist Russia. You can't allow people to purchase commercial goods on a state-regulated salary.

While capitalism isn't set in stone as a scientific proposal, its still based on a fine understanding of economics, and it works. It works because its flexible, and isn't set in stone. Just like the nature of the individual.

Socialism on the other hand, can only work on a small scale such as local communities or unions. Its fine when everybody's service to the community is equally important, or everybody is doing the same job, but when you consider the world outside of the factory or the village, the demand for one's labor just isn't the same.

 

[Tannhauser]

Marxism isn't social-Darwinistic. It doesn't have anything to do with genetics... It's teleoscopic (or whatever the English word is)

Darned Kharn, that's the second time in an hour I've corrected you!
Mend your ways, or I will have to search for a different demi-god to worship

Err... Jebus, you are completely wrong. It is rather embarrassing to correct someone with a complete fallacy, even more so when you gloat about it.

Here, read a bit on Social Darwinism.

 

[Brother None]

yes. Popular vote isn't what decides whether artists receive money in the current Dutch system either, instead a group of 'specialists' decide. Books of cultural are vastly different from popular books, or other artistic expressions, you know that as well as I do. A better way to judge it is whether it will be remembered in a hundred years.

These specialists base their conduct on popular vote, a kind of indirect democracy, be it books or music.

That would be a good way to judge it, yes, problem is; who is the judge?

Muaha. No, it hasn't. It's only been in place effectively since the printing press, and only in real effective use a couple of centuries later. That's not 'practically forever'. Although it has also been in use in some of the ancient societies.

Before the printing press there was no commercial use of books, so this is a rather moot point, since you can't speak of starving/rich artists.

In either case, the old popular vote used to be determined by money or possibly social class. Classical music (Beethoven, blablabla, you know the score) has until the 20th century been judged by upper classes chosen by nothing else than their status. This is not a fully spread popular vote in the sense that we have, but the only requirement of these people was status, not musical knowledge (though these things were combined for long times) and hence their vote was still not concerned with "for the ages" but "what's hip now". 't has always been like that.

Indeed, which is actually a problem if you start to think about it. This encourages writers to write popular stuff that's out in vast numbers on the market, instead of the culturally more highly valued

I find the cultural snobism slightly disturbing. Who are you to judge these things? I also say current "literature" is crap, but far be it for me to then say other people are wrong for valuing it highly. I'm not the voice of the ages. Are you?

Dutch link: http://www.tweakers.net/nieuws/35145
I'm talking original copies of CDs here. However, a wholesale abolishment of copyright laws would change the situation entirely, largely because then companies have to make money by selling their products while others are selling their product as well at low prices. This does, really, change a lot. But I do know that a lot of people still buy CDs to support artists, and that won't change then. Although a decline of CD sales a sharp decline even) would be expected, it is, for the artists, not necessarily a bad thing.

As I said, this is a moot point. The production of legal CDs is, in fact, practically only possible because of copyright laws.

If you cut out the CDs, you cut out a huge industry which would cause an immense problem and loads of people out of work. This can be argued to be justified because those people are not contributing to the society in any solid way anyway, but it's still a problem. The music industry is not, unlike what people believe, just the artist, I'm not always sure how well it would operate without the big and small labels.

No, I disagree. This is not something laws will solve, although laws about speaking with the people in court outside of court could, more or less, be valid. But preventing judges from speaking to people in general is not only silly, but not viable, and that is the consequence of what you're doing. If someone wants to intimidate, bribe or do soemthing else they'll find a way to do this, just pumping out new laws as much as you can is not going to help much.

I wasn't saying judges can't speak to anyone, they can't speak to case-related people unsupervised, that's exactly what that law is for.

No you're not, you're just annoying the hell out of me and being an ass, but this doesn't prevent me in any way from actually speaking. That's like saying that road workers are impeding on people's freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means that you are allowed to speak and express your opinions without legal repercussions, but this doesn't in any way guarantee that you're going to be able to, only that you're allowed to.

The road workers aren't targetting you. If I conciously prevent you from making your opinions heard I am, in fact, impeding on your freedom of speech.

Don't be anal, freedom of speech doesn't mean just saying what you want. If that was so Big Brother would adhere to freedom of speech if only he would allow people a corner in their room where they could say anything unhindered. No, freedom of speech also entails the right to be heard, not just the right to speak.

The *right* to be heard also implies an ability to be heard, not just being allowed to *attempt* to be heard. Again, that is rather anal.

And that's a completely seperate argument. I don't think this is something you should do anything about. If you get excessive death threats, harassment charges can be laid down, but I have a serious problem with this form of making laws: you cannot and should not create laws for every possiblity where someone can in any way be harmed. Freedom of speech can do psychological harm but that is one of the things I have thought through a lot better than these other issues (and I cannot believe I missed that much, damnit), and I am convinced that that is something you should let pass.

Yes, this is the old Tocqueville argument, which is indeed a completely seperate argument from government legislation. The two tend to get mixed up, though. It's a very complex issue which would warrant a whole new debate, not one I'm getting started on, especially since you just threatened me with SUPERIOR THINKING POWER.

Marxism isn't social-Darwinistic. It doesn't have anything to do with genetics... It's teleoscopic (or whatever the English word is)

You do your homework, social-Darwinism has nothing to do with genetics. Read Kotario's link.

Mmmmmyes, that was a scientific theory too. However, it was not an economical one, nor a political theory in the narrow sense. It only applied to the ways a ruler should act, and didn't propose a system of government itself.

Which is exactly why it's scientific in the way that Socrates as a method-thinker was more scientific than Plato as a theorist (or Kant as a method-thinker, for that manner)

I don't know what you mean by 'offshoots', but historical materialism or, as it should be named: 'the economical theory of history' is scientific. I'm not saying that dialectic materialism, all of the economical conclusions he draws from historical materialism or his humanitarian undertone are necessarily completely scientific, but the theory of historical materialism surely was.

That's what I meant by offshoots. Sure, the core theory is scientific, but the conclusions Marx draws, which are still a part of Marxism, are not always scientific. Though based on science and hence disprovable by science, I suppose.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

Bradylama I cant believe you said that so well. Let me elaborate on the "human" in "humanity" if you dont mind.

The fact is government styles have come and gone based on simple, un-substantial methods of control and idealism that ultimately miss the point. Some look to religion, some to distribution of money, etc. The fact is the only relevant thing about each and every human is just that...they are human. Being a living thing they cannot subscribe to any system that doesnt support live and all its random yet controlled variation. Its not unlike a natural environment at all. By recognising all of our natural inclinations and making the laws around them can an effective system be set up.

Give it a thought. Glad I could finally post something significant in one of these intellectual debate threads. I really do have well-thought opinions that I back up with study its just that usually these things explode so fast someone has already spoken my opinion and I feel like the fifth-wheel.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[Jebus]

I'm defending Marxism (communism) because it never really got a chance. Marxism in it's pure form has never been realised, and it most likely won't for a while. Perhaps Marx was right, and we'll have to wait untill the capitalist society destroys itself before the communistic utopia will manifest itself.

Even with the destruction of capitalist society, Marxism is still unatainable due to the selfish nature of the individual. Marxism can only be realized when you have completely suppressed human desire. Whether or not that sounds like a nice vision of humanity's future is up for debate, I guess.

A completely communist world does not inherently mean a poor world. The average person in the SU was poor, yes, but as I mentioned before: that was a long shot from pure Marxism.
The only difference is that one man will not be richer than an other man. So - the only thing that needs to be 'surpesses' by then is man (especially masculine) need and desire to be better than everyone else.

Yet - as I said, I'm not supporter of communism myself. I too feel the age-old need to be better than anyone else, so I guess I wouldn't fit into a communist society either.

I'm also defending communism because it's the only truly scientific political and economical philosophy. Capitalism as written by Smith, for instance, has no concrete link to reality, and is not founded on a truly scientific analysis of the human mind or history. And it's also quite paradoxal to Smiths own ethical ideas, really.
Marx' historical materialism, on the other had, is a scientific philosophy. It can be easily verified (and proven wrong - what makes it scientific), and makes sense. I personally am a historical materialist, actually.

While scientific basis is commendable, what good is it if it can't work? The members of a communist society still become subserviant to capitalists (if not entirely the State) because of their inherent want for more. That's why Politburo destroyed communist Russia. You can't allow people to purchase commercial goods on a state-regulated salary.

As I said before: communism doesn't inherently mean poverty. In theory, a communist society could still yield you two televisions, two cars and a nice house.

While capitalism isn't set in stone as a scientific proposal, its still based on a fine understanding of economics, and it works. It works because its flexible, and isn't set in stone. Just like the nature of the individual.

Does capitalism work? I wouldn't say so. It works for about 2% of the entire world population, yes, but it's oh so very, very far from a good system.

Socialism on the other hand, can only work on a small scale such as local communities or unions. Its fine when everybody's service to the community is equally important, or everybody is doing the same job, but when you consider the world outside of the factory or the village, the demand for one's labor just isn't the same.

Yes, communism or complete socialism only works inside closed economic societies. That's where the world revolution comes in, I guess.

Err... Jebus, you are completely wrong. It is rather embarrassing to correct someone with a complete fallacy, even more so when you gloat about it.

Here, read a bit on Social Darwinism.

It's even more embarrassing to correct someone who thinks he's correcting someone who's making an embarrassing fallacy, but you're wrong.

Let me start of with the exlanation the dictionary gives to Social Darwinism:

social Darwinism
n.

The application of Darwinism to the study of human society, specifically a theory in sociology that individuals or groups achieve advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological superiority.

Now let us look at the examples the link you gave listed:

racism, imperialism, eugenics,

Which are all based on genetic differences. Imperialism, too, was founded on the belief that white man was inherently better than the black man.

Wikipedia also lists capitalism, so that's perhaps where you made that mistake. No bad.
Capitalism (or more specifically: laissez-faire capitalism) IS in a way social darwininstic; because in die-hard capitalism those with the better genetic traits, e.g. those who are more intelligent, goodlooking or charismatic, are the ones who end up on top. Well, those should be the ones who end up at the top, at least. EVERY system that says that one person can be inherently better over another another person from birth is social-darwinistic, yes.

But where does Marxism say that? Does Marxism say that one person is better than another? I would say it is quite the contrary, actually.
Marxism does believe that society will progress toward a pinnacle, yes. However, that is not social darwinism. If you think that every theory that states that mankind will continue to evolve is social Darwinistic, then one could call Hegel a social Darwinist, when Darwin hadn't even been born yet. "On the origin of Spiecies" was published in 1859, 28 years after Hegel was dead.

What Marxism IS, is teleologic. (I made a typo in my previous post, so perhaps you could attack me on that now, eh?) And what does the dictionary have to say about teleology?

tel·e·ol·o·gy Audio pronunciation of "teleologic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tl-l-j, tl-)
n. pl. tel·e·ol·o·gies

1. The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena.
2. The use of ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining phenomena.
3. Belief in or the perception of purposeful development toward an end, as in nature or history.

So there.

Mmmmmyes, that was a scientific theory too. However, it was not an economical one, nor a political theory in the narrow sense. It only applied to the ways a ruler should act, and didn't propose a system of government itself.

Which is exactly why it's scientific in the way that Socrates as a method-thinker was more scientific than Plato as a theorist (or Kant as a method-thinker, for that manner)

Yes, I never said that Macchiavellism wasn't scientific, I said that is wasn't a political or economic theory like Marxism is. Macchiavelli doesn't even touch on economy; and as for politics: he never says that one form of government over the other is inherently better (at least not in Il prinicipe, but I don't think he wrote anything else); and presuming that he perhaps did somewhere, he didn't defend it in the way Hobbes defended Absolutism. And even Hobbes wasn't scientific.

That's what I meant by offshoots. Sure, the core theory is scientific, but the conclusions Marx draws, which are still a part of Marxism, are not always scientific. Though based on science and hence disprovable by science, I suppose.

Yes, I guess I got a bit carried away when I said that Marxism as a whole is scientific... Yet, it still is the most scientific theory we have.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 5:40 Post subject:
Bradylama I cant believe you said that so well. Let me elaborate on the "human" in "humanity" if you dont mind.

The fact is government styles have come and gone based on simple, un-substantial methods of control and idealism that ultimately miss the point. Some look to religion, some to distribution of money, etc. The fact is the only relevant thing about each and every human is just that...they are human. Being a living thing they cannot subscribe to any system that doesnt support live and all its random yet controlled variation. Its not unlike a natural environment at all. By recognising all of our natural inclinations and making the laws around them can an effective system be set up.

One could of course argue that those inclinations might for a large part be stimulated/created by the civilization we live in the first place, couldn't we?

Meh, 'human nature' is a tricky business. While lust for power has always been a part of human (and animal) nature, materialistic greed wasn't. And in systems where that materialistic greed wasn't necessarily encouraged (e.g. the 'Gilde' system from the middle ages - don't know the English word), materialistic greed doesn't seem to have been as big a problem as it is in our contemporary world...
Meh, I don't know. I, for one, am greedy. I'm willing to admit that. I like to have a lot of stuff and money; and that is perhaps stimulated by the fact that I tend to be tad jealous of other people who have more stuff and money than I do. Yet - if everyone had 'just as much', then I don't think greed would trouble me as it does now.

 

[Nocturne]

I think we're getting slightly off topic here.....

 

[Murdoch]

I think we're getting slightly off topic here.....

Welcome to GD!

Actually I missed Sander and Kharn's discussions, especially the part when I roll my eyes and say 'damn dutchies' while mousewheeling over it.

 

[Brother None]

It's even more embarrassing to correct someone who thinks he's correcting someone who's making an embarrassing fallacy, but you're wrong.

I hate to correct someone who think's he's correcting someone who correctly corrected the second person's rather gloopy mistake, but...

Let me start by taking your dictionary quote and stressing a different fragments

The application of Darwinism to the study of human society, specifically a theory in sociology that individuals or groups achieve advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological superiority.

The MAIN definition is "the application of Darwinism to the study of human society". The second meaning, the "specific" meaning, is a negative overtone added to Social Darwinism by the ages, but as a science Social Darwanism is actually nothing other than the application of Dawinist theories to the study of human society. Hence the name Social Darwinism.

I find it rather weak of you to misquote the Wikipedia article to make it seem it said "racism, imperialism, eugenics," as examples of Social Darwinism, while what it says is: "Because Social Darwinism came to be associated in the public mind with racism, imperialism, eugenics, and pseudoscience, such criticisms are sometimes applied (and misapplied) to any other political or scientific theory that resembles social Darwinism." Can't believe you have to grasp at such weak ways of discussing a point.

EVERY system that says that one person can be inherently better over another another person from birth is social-darwinistic, yes.

That's a bit silly, Jeebs. For one thing, people can be "better" (as in more well-adapteable to society's demands) from birth, they can be stronger, smarter, etc. No system, except maybe communism, denies this and this has nothing to do with Social Darwinism.

Despite the twists it received in its latter years, Social Darwinism was not in its earlier days about racism or eugenetics, it was simply about applying laws such as the survival of the fittest onto social schemes and drawing conclusions from it, which is partially what Marx did. Does that mean that anything that states one man can be better than another man is Social Darwinism? No, only if it consistenly draws from Darwinist theories to prove as much. A rightwinger that shouts "all those foreignors are just morons because they are" is not a Social Darwinist.

Marxism does believe that society will progress toward a pinnacle, yes. However, that is not social darwinism. If you think that every theory that states that mankind will continue to evolve is social Darwinistic, then one could call Hegel a social Darwinist, when Darwin hadn't even been born yet. "On the origin of Spiecies" was published in 1859, 28 years after Hegel was dead.

Social Darwinism isn't a theory that states mankind will evolve, it states that mankind will evolve according to the logic of Darwinism.

As for Marx and Social Darwinism. Tadaaa:

No discussion of (...) Social Darwinism on society would be complete without considering its strong influence on the development of Marxism and communism. Frederich Engels and Karl Marx (co-founders of Marxist communism) were exceedingly enthusiastic over Darwin's book On the Origin of Species. Karl Marx wrote a letter to Engels in December of 1860 declaring that On the Origin of Species was "the book which contains the basis in natural history for our views." In another letter to Engels in January of 1861, Marx declared:

"Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis of struggle in history...not only is a death blow dealt here for the first time to 'Teleology' in the natural sciences, but their rational meaning is emphatically explained." (As quoted by Conway Zirkle in: Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959, p. 86).

Also notice how Marx is anti-teleology. Seems you're getting bitten in the ass all over, doesn't it?

Notice that this is a long-running and painful debate that you seem to know little about. Engels later reject Social Darwinism and there have been many Marxist theorists that reject the mix of Darwinism and Marxism, but there's little doubt in my mind that Marx was for large chunks a social darwinist

 

[Jebus]

STOP FIGHTING ME, SUCKAHS! YOU CAN'T WIN!

I hate to correct someone who thinks he's correcting someone who correctly corrected the second person's rather gloopy mistake, but...

I hate to correct someone who thinks he's correcting someone who correctly corrected the correction of the third person, but...

(also not how I corrected the grammatical error in your sentence )

Let me start by taking your dictionary quote and stressing a different fragments

The application of Darwinism to the study of human society, specifically a theory in sociology that individuals or groups achieve advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological superiority.

The 'as a result of genetic or biological superiority' is still there, though, and wether you stress the first or second part doesn't change that.

That said, IMHO it's a form of (to use Murdochs words) hybris to state that you know the meaning of word better than the dictionary does, but anyway.

The MAIN definition is "the application of Darwinism to the study of human society". The second meaning, the "specific" meaning, is a negative overtone added to Social Darwinism by the ages,

"By the ages"? The 'specific' meaning was simply the meaning that has been there from the start. Troughout the 'ages', people have only started to use the term 'Social Darwinism' incorrectly.
And I know the old argument: "If they use it 'wrongly' long enough, the meaning simply shifts and the second meaning becomes the basic meaning" - but as long as the dictionary still proves me right, I will not yield to that.

but as a science Social Darwanism is actually nothing other than the application of Dawinist theories to the study of human society. Hence the name Social Darwinism.

... Yes. That's what I was saying, no?

Darwinism= In the struggle of life, the genetically best adapted individuals (or spiecies) succeed.

Social Darwinism= In the struggle of life, the genetically best adapted human individuals (or races) succeed.

I find it rather weak of you to misquote the Wikipedia article to make it seem it said "racism, imperialism, eugenics," as examples of Social Darwinism, while what it says is: "Because Social Darwinism came to be associated in the public mind with racism, imperialism, eugenics, and pseudoscience, such criticisms are sometimes applied (and misapplied) to any other political or scientific theory that resembles social Darwinism." Can't believe you have to grasp at such weak ways of discussing a point.

Still, Social Darwinism HAS been applied to defend racism, imperialism and -especially- eugenetics. Wether or not that gave other theories based on Social Darwinism a bad name (although I can't think of any other theory that is based on it) is beside the point.

EVERY system that says that one person can be inherently better over another another person from birth is social-darwinistic, yes.

That's a bit silly, Jeebs. For one thing, people can be "better" (as in more well-adapteable to society's demands) from birth, they can be stronger, smarter, etc. No system, except maybe communism, denies this and this has nothing to do with Social Darwinism.

Despite the twists it received in its latter years, Social Darwinism was not in its earlier days about racism or eugenetics, it was simply about applying laws such as the survival of the fittest onto social schemes and drawing conclusions from it, which is partially what Marx did. Does that mean that anything that states one man can be better than another man is Social Darwinism? No, only if it consistenly draws from Darwinist theories to prove as much. A rightwinger that shouts "all those foreignors are just morons because they are" is not a Social Darwinist.

Okey, so I misphrased. Perhaps this is more accurate:

"EVERY system that says some induviduals are better adapted to society because of genetical traits is social Darwinistic, yes."

Marxism does believe that society will progress toward a pinnacle, yes. However, that is not social darwinism. If you think that every theory that states that mankind will continue to evolve is social Darwinistic, then one could call Hegel a social Darwinist, when Darwin hadn't even been born yet. "On the origin of Spiecies" was published in 1859, 28 years after Hegel was dead.

Social Darwinism isn't a theory that states mankind will evolve, it states that mankind will evolve according to the logic of Darwinism.

But... But... That's just what I was saying!

As for Marx and Social Darwinism. Tadaaa:

No discussion of (...) Social Darwinism on society would be complete without considering its strong influence on the development of Marxism and communism. Frederich Engels and Karl Marx (co-founders of Marxist communism) were exceedingly enthusiastic over Darwin's book On the Origin of Species. Karl Marx wrote a letter to Engels in December of 1860 declaring that On the Origin of Species was "the book which contains the basis in natural history for our views." In another letter to Engels in January of 1861, Marx declared:

"Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis of struggle in history..not only is a death blow dealt here for the first time to 'Teleology' in the natural sciences, but their rational meaning is emphatically explained." (As quoted by Conway Zirkle in: Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959, p. 86).

Also notice how Marx is anti-teleology. Seems you're getting bitten in the ass all over, doesn't it?

I think you misinterpreted. He clearly says 'natural sciences' *EDIT* And natural history */EDIT*. So what he probably means is: biology.
He does mention 'struggle', but ther is nothing that points to the fact that he meant 'struggle of the classes' with that. This quote seems to be taken completely out of context, and it seems to me that this actually was a discussion on biology rather than political theory.

And that is higly likely, since Engels was very interested in biology, and where Marx spent his time applying dialectic materialism on politics, Engels spent his time on applying dialectic materialism on biology - as his work 'Dialectic der Natur' oh so painfully clearly illustrates.
And that is precisely why he - and therefore Marx; because Engels helped Marx out with his political theories and Marx helped Engels out with his biological theories - was on a crusade against teleology in biology in his later years, as biological Darwinism complemented his biological theories nicely.

That said, you can bite me in the ass whenever you want to, honey. *smooches*

Notice that this is a long-running and painful debate that you seem to know little about. Engels later reject Social Darwinism and there have been many Marxist theorists that reject the mix of Darwinism and Marxism, but there's little doubt in my mind that Marx was for large chunks a social darwinist

It seems logical that Engels would reject Social Darwinism, yes, as he never adhered it in the first place.

 

[Sander]

These specialists base their conduct on popular vote, a kind of indirect democracy, be it books or music.

That would be a good way to judge it, yes, problem is; who is the judge?

Of course that's a problem, but just giving out random donations to artists is also a problem. Perhaps popular vote is the least worst way to decide, just like indirect democracy.

Before the printing press there was no commercial use of books, so this is a rather moot point, since you can't speak of starving/rich artists.

Yes I can. Just not starving/rich writers, but I can talk about starving and rich painters, or starving and rich musicians. The system then is place was largely different because only a very small portion of society actually spent any money on artists.

In either case, the old popular vote used to be determined by money or possibly social class. Classical music (Beethoven, blablabla, you know the score) has until the 20th century been judged by upper classes chosen by nothing else than their status. This is not a fully spread popular vote in the sense that we have, but the only requirement of these people was status, not musical knowledge (though these things were combined for long times) and hence their vote was still not concerned with "for the ages" but "what's hip now". 't has always been like that.

Yes, but somehow, in retrospect, that worked a lot better than it does now. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'm quite positive that the artists who are these days considered great gained a lot more money, then than they would now, and the ones who aren't even being considered now earned less money.

I find the cultural snobism slightly disturbing. Who are you to judge these things? I also say current "literature" is crap, but far be it for me to then say other people are wrong for valuing it highly. I'm not the voice of the ages. Are you?

Yes, I am being a cultural snob. And really, I don't give a damn. Dan Brown probably won't be remembered as a great writer in a century or so, while I am positive that Dostoevsky will be. But guess what, Dostoevsky lived a rather poor life, and Dan Brown is making huge amounts of money This is in part cultural snobism, and in part a feeling of injustice that people who have contributed historically and culturally important pieces of work have a tendency to lead poorer lives than the mass-marketed crap. That's not to say that they shouldn't be making money, people like reading those books apparently, but that does mean that other less succesful but more important writers also deserve to make money.

As I said, this is a moot point. The production of legal CDs is, in fact, practically only possible because of copyright laws.

If you cut out the CDs, you cut out a huge industry which would cause an immense problem and loads of people out of work. This can be argued to be justified because those people are not contributing to the society in any solid way anyway, but it's still a problem. The music industry is not, unlike what people believe, just the artist, I'm not always sure how well it would operate without the big and small labels.

I'm not talkin about cutting out the labels, but the consequence of removing copyright laws would mean that anyone would be able to reproduce anything. This makes for huge competition, and that can either mean that everyone goes out of business, or that the artists start selling their own music (many are already doing so over the internet), or that competition becomes fierce, and prices drop hugely.

I wasn't saying judges can't speak to anyone, they can't speak to case-related people unsupervised, that's exactly what that law is for.

Lawyer: 'Hey, pal, here's $100, could you go talk that judge for me?'

The road workers aren't targetting you. If I conciously prevent you from making your opinions heard I am, in fact, impeding on your freedom of speech.

So when it's not done with a target it doesn't impede freedom of speech? The net effect is the same, you know.

Don't be anal, freedom of speech doesn't mean just saying what you want. If that was so Big Brother would adhere to freedom of speech if only he would allow people a corner in their room where they could say anything unhindered. No, freedom of speech also entails the right to be heard, not just the right to speak.

It entails the right to speak, and the right to have the government not hinder your speaking or being heard, it does NOT entail the right of the governments protection from assholes.

The *right* to be heard also implies an ability to be heard, not just being allowed to *attempt* to be heard. Again, that is rather anal.

Yes, yes it is.

Yes, this is the old Tocqueville argument, which is indeed a completely seperate argument from government legislation. The two tend to get mixed up, though. It's a very complex issue which would warrant a whole new debate, not one I'm getting started on, especially since you just threatened me with SUPERIOR THINKING POWER.

To quote Ratty: 'Hrmph'

Jebus: I thought you hated semantics discussions.

 

[Nocturne]

I think we're getting slightly off topic here.....

Welcome to GD!

Actually I missed Sander and Kharn's discussions, especially the part when I roll my eyes and say 'damn dutchies' while mousewheeling over it.

Yeah, Should have remembered as much from when I started to hang here a while back... (under a different username though)
Just thought that the original topic was more interresting to me personaly

 

[Brother None]

Re: STOP FIGHTING ME, SUCKAHS! YOU CAN'T WIN!

The 'as a result of genetic or biological superiority' is still there, though, and wether you stress the first or second part doesn't change that.

That said, IMHO it's a form of (to use Murdochs words) hybris to state that you know the meaning of word better than the dictionary does, but anyway.

Dictionaries are concise and as such usually flawed in determining political or sociological terms. Try looking up fascism in the dictionary, you'll find that if you explore the definition fully you'll find it lacking (at least if you know enough about fascism). Not to mention it's different in every dictionary.

Same for this definition. It's basically right, but it doesn't explore any details, it doesn't give a history of Social Darwinism nor does it say which form is older and why. Etc. etc.

"By the ages"? The 'specific' meaning was simply the meaning that has been there from the start. Troughout the 'ages', people have only started to use the term 'Social Darwinism' incorrectly.
And I know the old argument: "If they use it 'wrongly' long enough, the meaning simply shifts and the second meaning becomes the basic meaning" - but as long as the dictionary still proves me right, I will not yield to that.

That's what I'm saying. The original meaning and use of Social Darwinism, even in Marx/Engels time, was simply any social theory which used ANY part of Darwinism (see below) to prove social structures or trends. This was changed later, not earlier. The modern-day definition of Social Darwinism = fascism didn't apply in Marx' times.

... Yes. That's what I was saying, no?

Darwinism= In the struggle of life, the genetically best adapted individuals (or spiecies) succeed.

Social Darwinism= In the struggle of life, the genetically best adapted human individuals (or races) succeed.

Darwinism = In the struggle of life, the genetically best adapted individuals (or spiecies) succeed?

Whooboy. Yes, that is one of the sentences in Darwin's work and one of the centre spills of his theory. It's not all of it.

Note, also, if you want more proof, that Marx based his assumption that capitalists would continue to exploit the working classes without logic or compassion interfering purely on the theory that the capitalists work only by money-grubbing instincts. Sounds familiar?

Still, Social Darwinism HAS been applied to defend racism, imperialism and -especially- eugenetics. Wether or not that gave other theories based on Social Darwinism a bad name (although I can't think of any other theory that is based on it) is beside the point.

Marxism is a theory partially based on social darwinism that's not racist, heh.

In any case, Malthus wasn't a racist, neither is Jared Diamond, unless you stretch his theories a bit.

"EVERY system that says some induviduals are better adapted to society because of genetical traits is social Darwinistic, yes."

Which does not make the reverse "every Social Darwinistic system says some individuals are better adapted because of genetical traits" true.

Marxism does believe that society will progress toward a pinnacle, yes. However, that is not social darwinism. If you think that every theory that states that mankind will continue to evolve is social Darwinistic, then one could call Hegel a social Darwinist, when Darwin hadn't even been born yet. "On the origin of Spiecies" was published in 1859, 28 years after Hegel was dead.

Social Darwinism isn't a theory that states mankind will evolve, it states that mankind will evolve according to the logic of Darwinism.

But... But... That's just what I was saying!

...No it's not. "If you think that every theory that states that mankind will continue to evolve is social Darwinistic" doesn't mention Darwinistic principles in the theory of evolution.

I think you misinterpreted. He clearly says 'natural sciences' *EDIT* And natural history */EDIT*. So what he probably means is: biology.
He does mention 'struggle', but ther is nothing that points to the fact that he meant 'struggle of the classes' with that. This quote seems to be taken completely out of context, and it seems to me that this actually was a discussion on biology rather than political theory.

Oh, right, you as a professor with a degree in Marxism (ehehehe) can expertly interpret this letter, I take? Let's take a bit of a bigger expert than you, Plekhanov:

While fascists are found on the right wing of Social Darwinism, the left wing is occupied by communists. Communists have always been among the fiercest defenders of Darwin's theory.

This relationship between Darwinism and communism goes right back to the founders of both these 'isms.' Marx and Engels, the founders of communism, read Darwin's The Origin of Species as soon as it came out, and were amazed at is 'dialectical materialist' attitude. The correspondence between Marx and Engels showed that they saw Darwin's theory as 'containing the basis in natural history for communism.' In his book The Dialectics of Nature, which he wrote under the influence of Darwin, Engels was full of praise for Darwin, and tried to make his own contribution to the theory in the chapter 'The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man.'

Russian communists who followed in the footsteps of Marx and Engels, such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, all agreed with Darwin's theory of evolution. Plekhanov, who is considered as the founder of Russian communism, regarded marxism as 'Darwinism in its application to social science'.

Again, it's a very complex discussion.

Yes I can. Just not starving/rich writers, but I can talk about starving and rich painters, or starving and rich musicians. The system then is place was largely different because only a very small portion of society actually spent any money on artists.

Which makes it different how? Or are you going to claim that this small portion really was better-equipped than the currentday masses?

Yes, but somehow, in retrospect, that worked a lot better than it does now. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'm quite positive that the artists who are these days considered great gained a lot more money, then than they would now, and the ones who aren't even being considered now earned less money.

If you go back in history, you will notice there are a lot of works of music and writing that were popular in their day but simply did not survive until now. If you believe the current stock of "classics of the ages" constitutes everything that was ever popular (pre-20th century), you are sadly mistaken.

Also, a lot of artists that are now considered great were extremely poor. Painters, in particular. A lot of pointless portrait-painters who nobody remembers now made a LOT of money doing rich people portraits.

I'm not talkin about cutting out the labels, but the consequence of removing copyright laws would mean that anyone would be able to reproduce anything. This makes for huge competition, and that can either mean that everyone goes out of business, or that the artists start selling their own music (many are already doing so over the internet), or that competition becomes fierce, and prices drop hugely.

Huge price drops inevitably also means killing a large number of labels, especially smaller ones, and cutting a lot of jobs.

I'm sorry but a free-for-all-fest where non-established bands just shout for the loudest unfiltered on the internet *would* cause some problems in musical selection for most people. Word-of-mouth only goes so far.

Lawyer: 'Hey, pal, here's $100, could you go talk that judge for me?'

You make it sound more childishly easy than it is. Believe me, because of that law restrictions are a lot bigger than you think. There are too many restrictions on direct out-of-court contact for anyone except organised crime to be able to abuse it.

So when it's not done with a target it doesn't impede freedom of speech? The net effect is the same, you know.

When done without a target it is not a crime.

It entails the right to speak, and the right to have the government not hinder your speaking or being heard, it does NOT entail the right of the governments protection from assholes.

No, it's not just the government's responsibility not to hinder you, it's also the government's responsibility to give you the ability to speak freely. That's why it's called freedom of speech, not right to unhinderance.

 

[Nocturne]

Actually Nazism in its classic form is on the left side of politics....
They are for total goverment control, thery actually calls themselves for National Socialists.....

 

[Bradylama]

A completely communist world does not inherently mean a poor world. The average person in the SU was poor, yes, but as I mentioned before: that was a long shot from pure Marxism.
The only difference is that one man will not be richer than an other man. So - the only thing that needs to be 'surpesses' by then is man (especially masculine) need and desire to be better than everyone else.

No, you don't get it. The problem isn't the desire to be better than anyone else, per se, the problem is desire itself. I don't want a tv or a copy of F.E.A.R becuase I want to be better than other people, I want them becuase I want them.

Marxism can't be attained because human desire gets in the way. In Russia, the need for power kept the State from returning power to the people, and the people's desire for commercial products began Politburo, and helped bring about the downfall of the Soviet Union.

As I said before: communism doesn't inherently mean poverty. In theory, a communist society could still yield you two televisions, two cars and a nice house.

What's that? In theory? Say it with me, kids, in theory. In theory, everything should work, but it rarely does. Take for instance, two televisions. Why would somebody want to develop a box that lets me sit on my ass for hours if he's only going to be payed as much as I am?

Also, taking that into account, can the State really afford to give me two televisions, a car, and a nice house? Presumably not, since the tax income is going to be the same no matter what. You know why? Because there's no room for new markets. No acceptance of entrepreneurship. If people aren't allowed to make more money, how can things like televisions, stereos, PCs be bought? By the State? Hah. You can't buy televisions for everybody, when all of the money is already being spent on feeding them, clothing them, and housing them. Not to mention the managerial and administrative costs of managing a nation-wide pool of resources.

Does capitalism work? I wouldn't say so. It works for about 2% of the entire world population, yes, but it's oh so very, very far from a good system.

And what 2% would that be? The United States, EU, and Japan? Because I can assure you that's more than 2% of the world's population.

Or maybe you mean the wealthy elite? Because if so, I won't be the first person to tell you that you don't have to be wealthy in order to live comfortably in a capitalist society.

Or perhaps you meant the nations in which the citizens can buy a whole bunch of shit they don't need? Again, this doesn't mean that capitalism isn't working. Would you say that capitalism isn't working for second world nations? That capitalist reform isn't working for China?

I can assure you that it is.

The success of a capitalist market, however, is mostly dependent on the competence of a nation's government. It is, after all, the government which provides the means for a market in the first place.

Yes, communism or complete socialism only works inside closed economic societies. That's where the world revolution comes in, I guess.

So, in other words, the only way to make communism work is to revert human relations to the Bronze Age. Wonderful.

 

[Member of Khans]

Actually Nazism in its classic form is on the left side of politics....
They are for total goverment control, thery actually calls themselves for National Socialists.....

Er...?
How a thing is named doesn't say anything about its contents.

 

[Bradylama]

The Nazis weren't Liberal nor Conservative sides of the coin. To put it more accurately, they're in the extreme Authoritarian sector of political thought.

 

[Sander]

Re: STOP FIGHTING ME, SUCKAHS! YOU CAN'T WIN!

Which makes it different how? Or are you going to claim that this small portion really was better-equipped than the currentday masses?]

No, they were not better equipped. I wasn't making that point, either, I think.

If you go back in history, you will notice there are a lot of works of music and writing that were popular in their day but simply did not survive until now. If you believe the current stock of "classics of the ages" constitutes everything that was ever popular (pre-20th century), you are sadly mistaken.

True enough. But I was making a comparison, I wonder how much less Dostoevsky would've earned if he had published his books now.

Also, a lot of artists that are now considered great were extremely poor. Painters, in particular. A lot of pointless portrait-painters who nobody remembers now made a LOT of money doing rich people portraits.

Yes, and a lot of painters who are now considered great made no money then. That's in part due to the fact that they often broke conventions, and only now those styles have started to be respected. But people who break conventions often don't make much money, these times are barely an exception to that, sadly.

Huge price drops inevitably also means killing a large number of labels, especially smaller ones, and cutting a lot of jobs.

I'm sorry but a free-for-all-fest where non-established bands just shout for the loudest unfiltered on the internet *would* cause some problems in musical selection for most people. Word-of-mouth only goes so far.

They would cause problems and they would kill labels, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be an interesting or good change. Compare O'Reilly books, for as far as I know several of their books are available free of charge on the internet, but they still sell huge amounts of those books.

You make it sound more childishly easy than it is. Believe me, because of that law restrictions are a lot bigger than you think. There are too many restrictions on direct out-of-court contact for anyone except organised crime to be able to abuse it.

Perhaps you're right. Meh.

When done without a target it is not a crime.

Muaha. Bullshit. Manslaughter charges don't require a target, criminal negligence doesn't either. There are many cases where targets or intent are not required.

No, it's not just the government's responsibility not to hinder you, it's also the government's responsibility to give you the ability to speak freely. That's why it's called freedom of speech, not right to unhinderance.

No, that's not true. Freedom of speech ONLY means that you have the freedom to say what you want without any legal repercussions, but this doesn't have anything to do with the actions of other citizens. Nothing whatsoever. The fact that you'd like it to be different doesn't mean that it is.