Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 07:53:27 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Man guilty of owning racist dog [merged]

Started by Paulie Walnuts, March 20, 2018, 01:11:41 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Paul Calf

Quote from: Funcrusher on July 15, 2018, 01:26:38 PM
Have you told those people to murder Jewish people is I guess the question. Gandhi said that British imperialism was bad and evil, Marxists say that capitalism is bad and evil. People who say that Jews are responsible for everything bad and evil have their own agenda which this serves, and people responsive to it are fertile soil for these ideas due to historic circumstances. These ideas continue to disseminate over decades despite the best efforts to remove them and the only solution is to convince people of better ideas, which means you need to have some.

I don't accept that 'ideas' succeed or fail purely due to their 'quality' or fitness for purpose and I don't understand how anyone who's given the world even the briefest and most cursory of inspections could believe this.

That being established, let's leave it here.

Funcrusher

Quote from: Paul Calf on July 15, 2018, 01:32:26 PM
I don't accept that 'ideas' succeed or fail purely due to their 'quality' or fitness for purpose and I don't understand how anyone who's given the world even the briefest and most cursory of inspections could believe this.


I agree: neoliberalism currently prevails as an idea even though it's wrong. But what choice is there other than to compete for hearts and minds?

José

Quote from: Funcrusher on July 15, 2018, 01:49:45 PM
what choice is there other than to compete for hearts and minds?

have you tried bowling?
it's half price before 11am at the megabowl. there's also laser tag which is pretty fun with mates after a few beers.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Funcrusher on July 15, 2018, 01:26:38 PM
Marxists say that capitalism is bad and evil.

No they don't.  They say that capitalism has an inherent flaw in trying to achieve what it wants to achieve and that it allows capital to concentrate.

See the reason why bad ideas persist is because ignorant people don't bother actually paying attention to other ideas, often taking second hand emotive interpretations of the world to guide their feeling about things.  Once this emotional need is met they don't care about whether something is right or wrong....just that they are right.

It's why people keep going on about a frickin nobhead dog owner on the internets as the bastion of free speech but aren't concerned about any other free speech violations going on across the world outside of their narrow obsession with a shockingly bad interpretation of what left-wing means. 

José

capitalism and its crises are a necessary stepping stone on the path to luxury gay space communism. which you god damned philistines would know if you'd read the works of juan posadas.

manticore

QuoteNo they don't.  They say that capitalism has an inherent flaw in trying to achieve what it wants to achieve and that it allows capital to concentrate.

Well capitalism was historically progressive at one point, but it was evil at the same time and and brought with it new kinds of suffering. As an economic system all it's trying to achieve is profit surely? It may sometimes bring with it liberal democracy, but it doesn't need it. (I'm not sure whether I'm disagreeing with you or not.) The pursuit of profit led to monopoly.




Sebastian Cobb

I think this article on how China is controlling its citizens' online behaviour is probably quite relevant here:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/mattstoller2/as-democracy-suffers-digital-dictators-are-seizing-power?utm_term=.fdBY1gWRr#.nwWpW41PM

I think it's probably in the post for the west as well.

Someone I know recently deleted all their forum posts and they claimed one of the reasons for doing so was because they didn't want them to get picked up by algorithms insurance companies and money lenders use to build a profile of you and decide how much to charge/loan. Dunno about you but I think there's something inherently depressing in someone lopping off parts of their online persona simply to please corporate algorithms.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: manticore on July 15, 2018, 06:14:20 PM
As an economic system all it's trying to achieve is profit surely?

Not quite, it seeks to 'extract' profit, which therefore creates relationships/interactions i.e. worker and employer, mining company and earth.  Note a farmer might extract profit from his land but if he doesn't invest back in this land then he will not be able to extract anymore.

It's the relationship that capitalism creates that are evil not capitalism itself.


José

Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on July 15, 2018, 06:19:19 PM
I think this article on how China is controlling its citizens' online behaviour is probably quite relevant here:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/mattstoller2/as-democracy-suffers-digital-dictators-are-seizing-power?utm_term=.fdBY1gWRr#.nwWpW41PM

I think it's probably in the post for the west as well.

Someone I know recently deleted all their forum posts and they claimed one of the reasons for doing so was because they didn't want them to get picked up by algorithms insurance companies and money lenders use to build a profile of you and decide how much to charge/loan. Dunno about you but I think there's something inherently depressing in someone lopping off parts of their online persona simply to please corporate algorithms.

did he shitpost on forums with his real name and pictures of his dumb face as his avatars or something?


Funcrusher

I used the words bad and evil because they were the words Paul Calf had used and I was answering his point about hate speech laws, not offering some lengthy treatise on Marxism. That said, I don't think Marx's argument against capitalism was that it does its sums wrong and creates inefficient accumulations. This sort of sounds like bad, if not evil:

"within the capitalist system all methods for raising the social productiveness of labour are brought about at the cost of the individual labourer; all means for the development of production transform themselves into means of domination over, and exploitation of, the producers; they mutilate the labourer into a fragment of a man, degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, destroy every remnant of charm in his work and turn it into a hated toil; they estrange from him the intellectual potentialities of the labour process in the same proportion as science is incorporated in it as an independent power; they distort the conditions under which he works, subject him during the labour process to a despotism the more hateful for its meanness; they transform his life-time into working-time, and drag his wife and child beneath the wheels of the Juggernaut of capital. But all methods for the production of surplus-value are at the same time methods of accumulation; and every extension of accumulation becomes again a means for the development of those methods. It follows therefore that in proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer, be his payment high or low, must grow worse. The law, finally, that always equilibrates the relative surplus population, or industrial reserve army, to the extent and energy of accumulation, this law rivets the labourer to capital more firmly than the wedges of Vulcan did Prometheus to the rock. It establishes an accumulation of misery, corresponding with accumulation of capital. Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole, i.e., on the side of the class that produces its own product in the form of capital."

― Karl Marx, Capital, Vol 1: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production

Sebastian Cobb

Quote from: José on July 15, 2018, 06:42:47 PM
did he shitpost on forums with his real name and pictures of his dumb face as his avatars or something?

No, but I don't think he entirely separated his online handle with his real name either.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Funcrusher on July 15, 2018, 06:43:14 PM
That said, I don't think Marx's argument against capitalism was that it does its sums wrong and creates inefficient accumulations.

I'll say again when you go into things with a bias mindset you 'see' what you want to 'see' and end up arguing 'your' point whatever the reality might be.

Marx wrote a lot of things in Capital, it is a critique of capital not a lazy "it's bad and evil thing".  Your excerpt from Capital showed as much but you still prefer to defend that idiotic idea that Marx simply thought Capitalism was bad and evil when he didn't. He thought it was inherently flawed and created bad and evil men (through their relationship to capital).

His argument was not either that it does its sums wrong.  He was a sociologist who was concerned with interaction of economic systems and the human condition. Asking questions like what is a persons labour worth? who decides? and likewise what is someones leisure time worth? and who decides?.  It is very hard to explain to someone thinking in static terms as Marx was all about interactions and relationships.  Which is a much more adult and accurate way to discuss the world.

José

Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on July 15, 2018, 06:45:20 PM
No, but I don't think he entirely separated his online handle with his real name either.

this is exactly why we have people complaining about "call out culture" and "cyberbullying" or whatever because apparently nobody told them what a bad idea using your real name on the internet is. its a miracle these people made it to adulthood without getting into some dead-eyed weirdo's windowless van on the promise of some sweets and a basket of puppies.

now if you'll excuse me i'm off to post edgy dead baby holocaust jokes on twitter with my "keith jones, assistant manager of carpetworld cheam branch" account so everyone can give me a congratulatory slap on the back for bravely pushing the boundaries of comedy.

Funcrusher

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on July 15, 2018, 06:57:22 PM
I'll say again when you go into things with a bias mindset you 'see' what you want to 'see' and end up arguing 'your' point whatever the reality might be.

Marx wrote a lot of things in Capital, it is a critique of capital not a lazy "it's bad and evil thing".  Your excerpt from Capital showed as much but you still prefer to defend that idiotic idea that Marx simply thought Capitalism was bad and evil when he didn't. He thought it was inherently flawed and created bad and evil men (through their relationship to capital).

His argument was not either that it does its sums wrong.  He was a sociologist who was concerned with interaction of economic systems and the human condition. Asking questions like what is a persons labour worth? who decides? and likewise what is someones leisure time worth? and who decides?.  It is very hard to explain to someone thinking in static terms as Marx was all about interactions and relationships.  Which is a much more adult and accurate way to discuss the world.

You've picked one phrase out of something I wrote that wasn't even about Marx or Marxism specifically and now you're running with it. You also haven't engaged with the quote I posted. Whatever.

TrenterPercenter

I did engage with your quote.

I just said that it shows that Marx did not simply say Capitalism was bad and evil.  I'm not sure if you understand what he is saying in that passage but it isn't simply that Capitalism is evil.

The reason why that is important in the context of your argument with PC is that Marx provided a great foundation block for a critique of capitalism which was highly influential at several points since the 1900s, resulting in loads of benefits for working people in this country and abroad.  It is however constantly denigrated to be synonymous with Stalinist and Sovietism which it clearly isn't.

These thoughts persist out of ignorance of people not understanding fully what Marx was actually on about, and that is counter to the belief that good ideas are innately successful ideas existing in vacuums.  Even in a genetic sense this is patently bollocks (aside from the nature of mutations) generations of dogs being bred for big ears will end up with big ears not because it was naturally always best that they had big ears and it is the most useful to them.  Rather outside forces manipulated them to be so.

It's complete bollocks, like some god of the gaps nonsense, it seems hard to prove one way or the other because it just not reality, like scientifically trying to find out who wins in a fight between superman and batman. 

I understand what it is about and why it is being pushed though minds like your own.  It's just a wealth of nations Randian rehash were everything happens for a reason (i.e. nature) so poor people can stay poor and rich people can stay rich.

Sebastian Cobb

Quote from: José on July 15, 2018, 06:59:50 PM
this is exactly why we have people complaining about "call out culture" and "cyberbullying" or whatever because apparently nobody told them what a bad idea using your real name on the internet is. its a miracle these people made it to adulthood without getting into some dead-eyed weirdo's windowless van on the promise of some sweets and a basket of puppies.

now if you'll excuse me i'm off to post edgy dead baby holocaust jokes on twitter with my "keith jones, assistant manager of carpetworld cheam branch" account so everyone can give me a congratulatory slap on the back for bravely pushing the boundaries of comedy.

Well quite. And if you told someone you went on the internet and someone said they were going to kill you people's reactions would've been 'well what do you expect'. But that's conditioning isn't it. It's almost as if the general public getting online has changed expectations.

The internet has changed a lot though. It's a lot more common for people to use their real names thanks to shit like facebook and twitter. It's not something I'd willingly do, nor would my mate but it's still not hard to find out a persons' name with a bit of internet detective work half the time. Christ in the IRC days my surname made up part of the login as it resolved the account name back to the isp.

Funcrusher

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on July 15, 2018, 07:20:55 PM
I did engage with your quote.

I just said that it shows that Marx did not simply say Capitalism was bad and evil.  I'm not sure if you understand what he is saying in that passage but it isn't simply that Capitalism is evil.

The reason why that is important in the context of your argument with PC is that Marx provided a great foundation block for a critique of capitalism which was highly influential at several points since the 1900s, resulting in loads of benefits for working people in this country and abroad.  It is however constantly denigrated to be synonymous with Stalinist and Sovietism which it clearly isn't.

These thoughts persist out of ignorance of people not understanding fully what Marx was actually on about, and that is counter to the belief that good ideas are innately successful ideas existing in vacuums.  Even in a genetic sense this is patently bollocks (aside from the nature of mutations) generations of dogs being bred for big ears will end up with big ears not because it was naturally always best that they had big ears and it is the most useful to them.  Rather outside forces manipulated them to be so.

It's complete bollocks, like some god of the gaps nonsense, it seems hard to prove one way or the other because it just not reality, like scientifically trying to find out who wins in a fight between superman and batman. 

I understand what it is about and why it is being pushed though minds like your own.  It's just a wealth of nations Randian rehash were everything happens for a reason (i.e. nature) so poor people can stay poor and rich people can stay rich.

Having read the quote from Marx that I posted, I understand that the divide between rich and poor is not natural.

How does my comment to PC equate Marxism with Stalinism? Are you seriously suggesting that Marx's critique of capitalism doesn't include, along with the fact that it is inherently self-destructive because of inner contradictions and so on, the notion that its immoral and cruel?

My point in my exchange with PC is not what another poster was suggesting recently, that the best ideas will float to the surface in a free market of ideas, but that you can't kill bad ideas just by trying to suppress them.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Funcrusher on July 15, 2018, 07:47:40 PM
How does my quote equate Marxism with Stalinism? Are you seriously suggesting that Marx's critique of capitalism doesn't include, along with the fact that it is inherently self-destructive because of inner contradictions and so on, the notion that its immoral and cruel?

I've not said anything about you equating Marxism with Stalinism.  I'm not seriously suggesting that Marx does not think Capitalism (rather the relationships Capitalism creates) is immoral or cruel.  I said he doesn't simply think that.

Quote
My point in my exchange with PC is not what another poster was suggesting recently, that the best ideas will float to the surface in a free market of ideas, but that you can't kill bad ideas just by trying to suppress them.

I may have then misinterpreted your argument, apologies.  I do disagree though, you can kill bad or good ideas by suppressing them (Marxism being an example - literally killed in this sense), how you suppress them is another matter and whether the consequences of suppressing (or suppressing them badly) is desirable another.

That is a cost-benefit analysis.  So can I stick up for free speech without supporting Tommy Robinson? Yes.  Are there potentially negative consequences for sticking up for racists in the name of free speech? Yes. etc. etc.

manticore

Sociology was an intellectual discipline created in respose to Marx's work and his work stands as a critique of it. His critique of capitalism was one of the exploitative relationship between the owners of the means of production and the proletariat - all antagonistic societies throughout history have evil  inherent to them and capitalism is no exception. Surely you can't separate capitalism from the relations of production that are inherent in it?

I don't think there's anything in Marx about the 'human condition'. 

Those are my thoughts and I will post.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: manticore on July 15, 2018, 08:11:00 PM
Sociology was an intellectual discipline created in respose to Marx's work and his work stands as a critique of it.

I'm sorry but this is incorrect.  Although conceptually it was around much longer Augusto Comte defined sociology when Marx was 20 and was a clear influence on Marx.  Marx is regarded by Isiah Berlin as the "Father of Modern Sociology".

QuoteSurely you can't separate capitalism from the relations of production that are inherent in it?

Why separate? The Sun emits radiation that both kills and sustains life - things are not simply one thing or another.  Capitalism as a system creates wealth for some and exploitation for others.  I'm not saying they are separate i'm saying Marx did not attempt to understand capitalism solely in terms of its profit seeking or immorality that is not how good critiques are created.

QuoteI don't think there's anything in Marx about the 'human condition'. 

Those are my thoughts and I will post.

well i'm glad you posted them : ) because you can now learn more about Marx who was very much concerned with the human condition.

I mean it's all the way through his work but just consider his notion of alienation? he specifically discusses human nature what he terms "Gattungswesen" (species-being).  It is great shame people don't see what he is actually talking about a lot of the time, as if Capital is just some mechanical manual of labour-value calculations.  The calculations and theories of labour are their as evidence of how capital works but what capital does to humans is about humans and whether or not they should have holidays or work all of the time.

He was a sociologist and a philosopher he would have a hard time being either of those without ever talking about what it is like to be human.

Man is directly a natural being. As a natural being and as a living natural being he is on the one hand endowed with natural powers, vital powers – he is an active natural being. These forces exist in him as tendencies and abilities – as instincts. On the other hand, as a natural, corporeal, sensuous objective being he is a suffering, conditioned and limited creature, like animals and plants. That is to say, the objects of his instincts exist outside him, as objects independent of him; yet these objects are objects that he needs – essential objects, indispensable to the manifestation and confirmation of his essential powers.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htm

José

whats with the phenomena of marx critics not actually reading marx?

it's like simon mayo interrupting mark kermode with his shit opinions about films he didn't bother to go and see. nobody cares simon you tedious twat,  get the fuck off my radio!

jobotic

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on July 15, 2018, 08:42:12 PM
I'm sorry but this is incorrect.  Although conceptually it was around much longer Augusto Comte defined sociology when Marx was 20 and was a clear influence on Marx.  Marx is regarded by Isiah Berlin as the "Father of Modern Sociology".

It's true. Basic Haralambos.

manticore

Isiah Berlin was a liberal philosopher IIRC and I can imagine he would indeed have wanted to place Marx in that way, integrated into a branch of academia.

Comte invented the term 'sociology' but it was first established as an academic discipline by Durkheim a lot later. As I said it was this discipline that was created as a response to the challenge of Marx. (I'm not talking from total ignorance as I did a degree in sociology albeit nearly fourty years ago). There is such a thing as 'Marxist sociology' but  Marx was not a marxist.

(Ref: jobotic, I google to see Haralambos is a writer of academic textbooks, so yes that is the way he would present history.)

Species being cannot be easilily equated with the 'human condition', but it would take an essay to go into that properly.

No more time right now.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: manticore on July 15, 2018, 09:42:28 PM
Isiah Berlin was a liberal philosopher IIRC and I can imagine he would indeed have wanted to place Marx in that way, integrated into a branch of academia.

Comte invented the term 'sociology' but it was first established as an academic discipline by Durkheim a lot later. As I said it was this discipline that was created as a response to the challenge of Marx. (I'm not talking from total ignorance as I did a degree in sociology albeit nearly fourty years ago). There is such a thing as 'Marxist sociology' but  Marx was not a marxist.

(Ref: jobotic, I google to see Haralambos is a writer of academic textbooks, so yes that is the way he would present history.)

Species being cannot be easilily equated with the 'human condition', but it would take an essay to go into that properly.

No more time right now.

Your splitting hairs and perhaps a different school of sociology was founded in critique of Marx but that is not the same as saying Sociology came about as a response and critique to Marx or that Marx because of this was not a sociologist. 

Bit like saying William James wasn't a psychologist because B.F. Skinner was a behaviourist.

marquis_de_sad


TrenterPercenter

Sorry my fault. 

Relevant point was that not every example of free speech and who is delivering it are equal.  The world and things in it are not equal, a racist having the free speech to abuse others is not equivalent to a non-racists condemning racism and trying to stop racist acts occurring.

How that is done is another thing.