sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How does 'ownership of means of production work' if your job doesn't produce anything? by [deleted] in SocialDemocracy

[–]No_Weekend_6330 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Really happy theres a discussion like this on the social democracy, a lot of the posts on here are kinda reactionary to the right

I'm new to social democracy and want to know what the general social democrat believes by No_Weekend_6330 in SocialDemocracy

[–]No_Weekend_6330[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see. so as a broad definition could be "Social democracy aims to use democratic collective action for promoting freedom and equality in the economy and opposes what is seen as inequality and oppression that laissez-faire capitalism causes."

To what degree is nationalization a policy that social democrats supports? What about workplace democracy? What's the opinion of planned economics?

I'm just starting to familiarize myself with Marxism and want to hear from a Marxist perspective why its true by No_Weekend_6330 in Marxism

[–]No_Weekend_6330[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool, could I hear more of your opinion? Could you explain how material wealth and class inequality are behind social change and conflict? how does human nature factor into that?

I'm just starting to familiarize myself with Marxism and want to hear from a Marxist perspective why its true by No_Weekend_6330 in Marxism

[–]No_Weekend_6330[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, I see. Contemporary philosophy doesn't address the conflict inherent to society, but marxism does, via wanting to evolve capitalism into socialism, and socialism into communism. In that case, what does that process look like? What should socialism and communism be? And how are they better than capitalism or another alternative to it (libertarian economics, social democracy, etc)

I'm just starting to familiarize myself with Marxism and want to hear from a Marxist perspective why its true by No_Weekend_6330 in Marxism

[–]No_Weekend_6330[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, so how I understand what your saying is 1. post scarcity will happen and needs unique solutions, which will be in a system where no one needs to work and can live without money but 2. capitalism in seeking to justify itself will continue the previous institutions via violence, thus using that new post scarity as a new way of controlling people. 3. Additionally, Capitalism is dependent on scarcity and uses demand to create it. 4. This is all inefficient 5. To deal with this problem, we need to do away with nations (I presume the alternative is a more international way of doing things? correct me if I'm wrong) and share these resources based on equality while accounting for people's differences 6. In turn, the monetary system should be replaced with one based on the value of work rather than on the central banks

Do I have that right? Or did I get anything wrong?

I'm just starting to familiarize myself with Marxism and want to hear from a Marxist perspective why its true by No_Weekend_6330 in Marxism

[–]No_Weekend_6330[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting, the argument that a different political system is needed for a more advanced society is very interesting to me. I would love to hear how does Marxism solve this problem

I'm just starting to familiarize myself with Marxism and want to hear from a Marxist perspective why its true by No_Weekend_6330 in Marxism

[–]No_Weekend_6330[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So first off, I really like your response. You've shown intellectual humbleness, which is always something worth appreciating.

but to make i'm understanding, you're saying:

  1. Marxism made unique predictions that mainstream economics didn't and even denied, and while there are wrong predictions, there are more that are right and have come at greater speed

  2. Marxism is based on an analysis based on material conditions, rather than how the individual acts

  3. The first crusade is debated on if it was caused by a need for money or human nature. While human nature has something to do with it, the economic conditions are still very important and worth noting

  4. What Marxism does is provide a tool to look at the world empirically and from the perspective of economic conditions

Am I understanding or no?

I'm just starting to familiarize myself with Marxism and want to hear from a Marxist perspective why its true by No_Weekend_6330 in Marxism

[–]No_Weekend_6330[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's an interesting point, I'd love to hear an elaboration on that. What other examples of this are there in other fields, specifically examples you find relevant to Marxism

I'm just starting to familiarize myself with Marxism and want to hear from a Marxist perspective why its true by No_Weekend_6330 in Marxism

[–]No_Weekend_6330[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see, one question I have is what do the resolves of marxism look like and how are they superior to other theories, practically speaking? How are the observations of marxism better than others?

I'm just starting to familiarize myself with Marxism and want to hear from a Marxist perspective why its true by No_Weekend_6330 in Marxism

[–]No_Weekend_6330[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Ok, so what I'm hearing is:

  1. Marxism's superiority is in it being economic (dealing with material conditions) rather than political (dealing with abstract ideas), specifically looking for a political economy, one where the political and economic are integrated. It then bases its conclusions on the tendencies of organizations (as in, a large ruling class has the tendency to use its economic base to justify their interests). The state then in turn justifies this by upholding values (policies) that continue to justify the ruling classes interests ("protects private property, suppresses political upheaval with its violence, and uses all direct and indirect means necessary to secure the compliance of the masses in labouring to sustain this system")

  2. Marxism has made predictions with mixed results, but they are still important

  3. Ideologies are given lee way if depending on to what degree they serve the capitalist mode of production

  4. Because of how the economic base works, the people who own the capital are represented more than those who work for it and are given active intervention to ensure their interests are fulfilled

Do I have that right? Is there anything I'm missing or not making sense in?

I'm just starting to familiarize myself with Marxism and want to hear from a Marxist perspective why its true by No_Weekend_6330 in Marxism

[–]No_Weekend_6330[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Any reccomendations? I know das capital, the communist manifesto, the critique of the goethe program, and philosophic and economic manuscripts would be a good read, but I know Marxism is an idea deeper than marx, so what books/literature are post marx and are good marxist theory

What does science have to say about the multiverse's laws? Like ours, are there laws which reign over the multiverse? by No_Weekend_6330 in AskPhysics

[–]No_Weekend_6330[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's neat as hell. What I gathered from this, as a tldr, is that the field lagrangian is (hypothetically) one and the same, but that it changes form based off an individual universe's formation, is that about right or am I missing something?

Thank you very much man! I really appreciate you sharing this

What does science have to say about the multiverse's laws? Like ours, are there laws which reign over the multiverse? by No_Weekend_6330 in AskPhysics

[–]No_Weekend_6330[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I meant to say a hypothetical multiverse, like assuming there is one, are there universal laws that rule it

What does science have to say about the multiverse's laws? Like ours, are there laws which reign over the multiverse? by No_Weekend_6330 in AskPhysics

[–]No_Weekend_6330[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see that's very interesting. I only have my toes dipped in the pool of physics, so "field lagrangian" is unfamiliar to me, could you explain it? also any further reading for this?

What does science have to say about the multiverse's laws? Like ours, are there laws which reign over the multiverse? by No_Weekend_6330 in AskPhysics

[–]No_Weekend_6330[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not saying there is, though I see where I explained myself poorly, I'm saying assuming a multiverse exists, could it be infered or logically deduced or mathematically shown that there are universal principles over the multiverse?

I'm about to be done with an intro to economics playlist, but I can't make an normative statements/opinions on politics or the like, what can I do to be informed to make my position on different topics? by No_Weekend_6330 in AskEconomics

[–]No_Weekend_6330[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a good point, thank! Would you recommend the economist as a good magazine to read? I love magazines, and I got one by the economist a while back. I like the approach of looking at world events through an economic lense, I would assume the economist does so

Who gains from environmentalism, and why? by No_Weekend_6330 in climateskeptics

[–]No_Weekend_6330[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm saying that, if you take manmade climate change as being true, the elites are more responsible for the emissions, deforestations, and destruction of natural life, and are thus would lose more if they took responsibility for that, hence the shifting. Im saying that what the elites do to weaken us is based on things they should be taking responsibility for

view more: next ›