Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Lies my leftist professors told me   (politicallyright.com) divider line 440
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

29260 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Feb 2004 at 7:16 AM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



440 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-02-01 12:52:14 PM  
Marx partied w/ the rich, and lived high on the hog off Engles. He expected "the workers" to take care of themselves, and hated all the rich ppl who were not him.

...yup, we know that tune don't we?

/cue Nancy Pelosi driving up in a huge limo with armed bodyguards to tell us about taking the bus and gun-control.
 
2004-02-01 12:53:45 PM  
Weaver95:

I've read Machiavelli. Interesting and good read. Yet it has nothing to do with philosophy or critical theory, and nothing to do with Marx.

Marx has created a whole discourse in critical theory. It totally works, and has been working for a long time.
 
2004-02-01 12:53:58 PM  
[Like I pointed out before, his ideas on communism are only a PART of this writings. They are probably the most flawed parts. His other parts are easily enough to make him brillant.]

You realize you just invalidated your 'genius' claim for marx.
 
2004-02-01 12:54:03 PM  
armyof fun

you dont know what the hell you are talking about

plato was a proponent of slavery, the phil kings shouldnt own porperty, but that doesnt mean nobilty wasnt allowed,

in fact, plato was a superelitist, with only the people in his profession deserving power
 
2004-02-01 12:54:33 PM  
deathZero, I had been thinking the same thing. haha
 
2004-02-01 12:55:19 PM  
it is up to all of us outside of the academic gulag to funnel information into those young conservatives who are trapped behind enemy lines, and whose only hope for intellectual survival is a strong dose of the truth about their nations valiant history.

hahaha
 
2004-02-01 12:55:34 PM  
Tom Tomorrow is a smug douchebag. If you're going to be smug, you should at least start out by being correct, which he's not.
 
2004-02-01 12:56:55 PM  
You realize you just invalidated your 'genius' claim for marx.

Not at all. I can't think of a single genius of western civilization (Plato, Nietzsche, Freud, Hegel etc.) who didn't have a lot of shiat wrong with their thoeries.

That is because we live in this thing called reality where no one is perfect.
 
2004-02-01 12:58:17 PM  
The best proof that shows the writer is an idiot is that he called Lincoln a Republican. The writer is so wise and knowledged in history that he apparently doesn't know the Republican party of 1860 is what we call the Democratic party today.

yes, I like how he rants against the democratic politicians that were opposed to civil rights, but then ignores the fact that all those politicians JOINED THE REPUBLICAN PARTY! after they realized where the democratic party was heading
 
2004-02-01 12:58:57 PM  
Arcanum Why do you get the impression I don't know what I'm talking about?

I was simply pointing out there are ways you can legitimately compare Plato and Marx. I didn't say the two share all their ideas.
 
2004-02-01 12:59:42 PM  
Pretty weak arguements. Unfortunetly that's the sort of thing you can expect a graduate of state school to know after four years. However, that doesn't mean that academia isn't fully of lefties pushing that agenda. Much of the criticism is valid, even if poorly presented.

I will mention one point that has been missed. There is a significant portion of the people in the US that presently serve in bondage. They have no representation. They are not protected by the rights we all enjoy. Illegal immigrants are part of our country and culture. Our economy depends on them in the same way that Dixie's depended on slaves. The difference is that they were up front about it and they had the 3/5's compromise to "legitimize" the practice.

Its time to end this shameful practice of modern slavery. We need to allow ANYONE that's not a criminal to come to the US, pay taxes and help continue to build our country.

Its by providing a viable alternative to the present circumstances other countries offer the US can force them to be more open and free, else their citizens will desert in hordes. By restricting immigration we're perpetuating the reason demand for immigration is so high. Opening our borders can free the world. We only need the courage to accept the short term wave of terrorism that will follow as the real illigitimate regimes gasp to hold on in the face of what will inevitabley follow.

We're not so guilty of enslaving anyone as we are of not freeing those its in our power to free.
 
2004-02-01 01:00:14 PM  
[I've read Machiavelli. Interesting and good read. Yet it has nothing to do with philosophy or critical theory, and nothing to do with Marx.]

Then you didn't read it close enough. Machiavelli had *everything* to do with marx - in fact, the Prince (and later on, the Discourses) predicted something very much like stalin. If, as you say, marx was a 'genius' then he should have allowed for a monster like stalin in his 'perfect theory' and found a way to have avoided something like him coming to power. Machiavelli on the other hand states from the very start that brutal monsters are part and parcel of human nature and that any political system *MUST* take them into account when deciding how to run a government. Machiavelli spoke from up front brutal hard won experience, marx spoke from distant theory and little practical experience.

[Marx has created a whole discourse in critical theory. It totally works, and has been working for a long time.]

Except that it *hasn't* worked at all. Of the two, look at which author's advice has withstood the test of time - Machiavelli is still relevant and timely 700+ years later. Marx was out of date in less than a century.
 
2004-02-01 01:02:25 PM  
I say, clip the left wing and the right wing, and let the mother-farker crash. So everyone can finally shut up.
 
2004-02-01 01:05:30 PM  
Again Machiavelli has nothing to do with philosophy or critical theory, which is the context i'm calling Marx a genius.

You want to compare Marchiavelli to some fifth removed "follower" of Marx's political stratagies. Go for it. But it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Marx's discourse is still completely relevent today, his theories are still prominant in the fields of critical theory, philosophy, historical studies, socialogy and economics.
 
2004-02-01 01:07:05 PM  
that doesn't mean that academia isn't fully of lefties

I would agree that acedemia leans towards the left wing. Personally I think this is inevitable, because the right wing is simply lacking in critical thought. It is an intellectual wasteland. Just look at Fark posters like Weaver95
 
2004-02-01 01:07:23 PM  
Hanging on the wall, framed, above the beds of many lefties today:

 
2004-02-01 01:08:20 PM  
domain
That's my point. Spurrious arguments are easy.

BTW I fear big business because every year as a stock holder, I vote against the board of directors. Not only do they not publish the results, but when I called the firm running the vote, they said 100% for the slate.
Sure I don't own much but the only elections that are 100% are rigged ones. Since the only control over a corporation is the board, as a stock holder, not only is my vote not even counted, as my only voice (you must have "significant" ownership to get get floor time at the meetings. At least with the government I see the vote totals and I know my voice was at least registered.

BTW What I really fear is big business as big government which is why I'm so anti-Rove, I mean anti-Chaney, I mean Bush. Now that Diebold has ownership of a majority of elections (without allowing the machines to be reviewed) I am sure our GOP overlords will outlaw being liberal sometime in 2006. 2004 will make 2000 look like a democratic victory and without any auditing abilities, there will be no recourse.

And if you think the gov't can f-up your life, trying getting your credit record screwed up and try to get something bigger than lunch without credit.
 
2004-02-01 01:08:23 PM  
You can compare anything to anything, it is not "incorrect." My comparison simply said that they are two terribly important and brillant philosophers, not that they believed in the same things.

Marx is not a philosopher, he's a social critic. He contributed nothing to the traditional philosophical categories, ethics, epistemology or metaphysics.

Marx's theories work their way into almost ever academic field. This doesn't happen to people who are not geniuses.

Actually, with the quantification of the social sciences, Marx's theories are useless because they are not based on sound quantitative methods. This is unsurprising because these methods were developed after Marx, but, they do make Marx's theories quite useless, because the questions he asked can now be answered quantitatively, not qualitatively.

Really? sounds like this guy knows little about Marx's history.

and yes, if you don't realize that Marx deserves to be one of the most important modern thinkers, you simply don't know anything about philosophy, economics or critical theory.


George Shaw was one of the leading socialists of his day. I am pretty sure he had a good grasp on Marx's history and the burden would be on you to disprove his thesis with some evidence.

Marx was already obsolete by the early 20th century. That's why Lenin had to essentially contradict Marx in order to bring off the Russian revolution. Also, in case you resort to the argument that Marx was not talking about Russia as the locus of revolution, you would do well to read George Sorel's 'The Decomposition of Marxism' in which the failings of Marxist parties to implement Marxism in Western Europe, precisely because of fatal flaws in the theory, is detailed.

There's a very good book called 'Academia and the Luster of Capital' which gives an explanation for Marx's popularity in academia that is very different from the idea that he's a genius, therefore he is influential in academia. Marx's ideology essentially validates the academic ideology of the humanities, which is that academic research in the humanities has a positive value to society. Cohen's earlier work, 'Historical Culture: On the Recoding of an Academic Discipline' may be even better on this topic of the appropriation of Marx by academia not because of his 'genius' but because of his ability to rationalize the system of academic production.

The fact that you're trying to accuse me of having no knowledge of philosophy, economics and critical theory despite your own naive view of the position of Marx in intellectual history is truly farcical.
 
2004-02-01 01:08:33 PM  
CONTROL: Your 1981 computer istructor has a familiar air about him.

Frink: I predict that within 100 years computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them.
 
2004-02-01 01:11:49 PM  
Hanging on the walls of lots of Right wingers:



Okay that was stupid, we done now?
 
2004-02-01 01:12:33 PM  
[Again Machiavelli has nothing to do with philosophy or critical theory, which is the context i'm calling Marx a genius. ]

except that, in the Discourses Machiavelli does indeed go into critical theory as well as practical application. He's the founder of modern 'political science' after all. Marx should have read the Discourses before spouting off about communism - but then he'd have realized that Machiavelli had it covered 700 years earlier than he did.

[You want to compare Marchiavelli to some fifth removed "follower" of Marx's political stratagies. Go for it. But it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.]

Again you miss the point - Machiavelli predicted the outcome of marx's ideals 700 years earlier. how can you say that marx was a genius in light of the fact that a medievil florintine ambassador had proven the man's theories wrong 700 years before he was even born? You'd think that the 'great man' marx would have at least come up with something Machiavelli hadn't predicted would happen.

[Marx's discourse is still completely relevent today, his theories are still prominant in the fields of critical theory, philosophy, historical studies, socialogy and economics.]

How can someone who got 'critical theory', philosophy, history, sociology and economics wrong be relevant? Save as an example of how NOT to do things, I just don't see his wrtinging being useful in any meaningful way.
 
2004-02-01 01:13:54 PM  
[Just look at Fark posters like Weaver95]

Just because you can't defend your position there's no need to resort to ad homenim attacks.

Oh, wait....yeah there is. Nevermind - continue, please.
 
2004-02-01 01:15:08 PM  
Weaver95 He's just as bad as Hitler, if not worse. Marx is ultimately responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths.

I don't feel like going and getting my copy, but in Mein Kampf, Hitler talks about how impressive the Marxist party parades in Bavaria are and how he wants the Nazi parades to be even more impressive.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that Marx is responsible, but I really don't think any good has come from his works. If intellectual history had skipped from Hegel to the existentialists, nothing essential would be lost intellectually, although obviously social history would be different. I just don't see the value in 'Marx the theorist', although 'Marx the agitator' obviously had an impact. This is why I compared him to Christianity earlier. Both are utterly lacking in philosophical insight, yet have a great hold on the unphilosophical.
 
2004-02-01 01:16:33 PM  
Fark-tard

Marx, the german idealist and follower of Hegel, doesn't have anything to do with metaphysics?????

they do make Marx's theories quite useless, because the questions he asked can now be answered quantitatively, not qualitatively.

can you elaborate what you mean here?

as for the rest of your post, you are talking about Marxism as it relates to creating a socialist society. I have already said that most of his theory directly relating to that is outdated and doesn't work. I am talking about other aspects of Marx's theory. For someone so sure of their intelligence, thsi should be pretty clear to you.
 
2004-02-01 01:16:40 PM  
fark_tard - who was the author of 'Academia and the Luster of Capital'? I think I might want to read that book.
 
2004-02-01 01:19:47 PM  
Weaver95:

*rolls eyes*

I hate to break it to you but you Machiavelli did not invent political science. He did not invent anything.

All Machiavelli did was put some common knowledge into book form. He did it well and he wrote well. His books are well worth reading.

But he did not invent anything in the way philosophers and critical thinkers (Marx is both) do.
 
2004-02-01 01:21:20 PM  
That guy paid to be "lied" to. Who's the dumbass?

Get another class, transfer to another school. Stop biatching just because you and your con overlords don't have 100% control of everything everywhere.
 
2004-02-01 01:21:28 PM  
had skipped from Hegel to the existentialists, nothing essential would be lost intellectually,

it is pretty doubtful that you would have even gotten the existentialists (who were mostly Marxists) without Marx.
 
2004-02-01 01:25:55 PM  

The Revolution is coming!

(Prince and the Revolution, that is!)

 
2004-02-01 01:31:14 PM  
Lies this article told me about lies his professors told him in college. He's making it up.
 
2004-02-01 01:31:32 PM  
I used to lean to the left but a urologist said there was a procedure to correct that
 
2004-02-01 01:32:15 PM  
[I hate to break it to you but you Machiavelli did not invent political science. He did not invent anything. ]

Right. Except political science. Oh, and the concept of a national guard. But other than those two things, nothing AT ALL. Well...and maybe a few plays. But OTHER than those things, he didn't crate anything.

[All Machiavelli did was put some common knowledge into book form. He did it well and he wrote well. His books are well worth reading. ]

Gee. Put it that way and so did marx.

[But he did not invent anything in the way philosophers and critical thinkers (Marx is both) do.]

Other than political science and a national guard structure, sure - Machiavelli wasn't relevant to modern political thought at all. And marx's contributions (stalin, mass graves, and oppression) are much more important to the world in general.

So, other than sitting there with your fingers in your ears and shouting "NONONONONONONONONO" alot, you've really got no defense for your position, right? I mean, other than just dodging the entire issue and trying to dismiss Machiavelli I haven't heard you offer any defense for marx at all.
 
2004-02-01 01:32:35 PM  
Would the person who sent me an e-mail calling me an asshat for my post on this subject care to identify themselves by screen-name? I'd be happy to debate your points in open forum.
 
2004-02-01 01:32:36 PM  
Where the hell did this guy go to school again?!? Did he only take Western Civ and Poli Sci courses? I clearly remember learning only German in my German classes, only Chemistry in my Chemistry classes, and I guarantee that neither Chomsky nor Israel was ever brought up in my Geology classes. In my own Western Civ class, the most 'controversial' piece of information that ever came up was an aside from the professor that some official at the Bastille when it was bombarded was beheaded with a pen knife---those leftist bastards!!!

Plus, half of this guy's arguments were drivel. Yes, every liberal loves Chomsky, and commies, thinks Marx was a genius. I don't know enough about Marx to know if he was or not, but I guarantee you that kid's definition of genius is just completely wrong. I guess Leonardo da Vinci wasn't a genius because he couldn't build a working model of the helicopter/flying machines he drew...
 
2004-02-01 01:32:53 PM  
Marx, the german idealist and follower of Hegel, doesn't have anything to do with metaphysics?????

No. He doesn't. Marx simply assumes away metaphysics as a function of class, so that metaphysics would wither away when class divisions wither away.

can you elaborate what you mean here?

All solid social science now rests on a quantitative basis. A book like this: http://books.cambridge.org/0521001374.htm
is worth far more than the Communist Manifesto. Empirical analysis using statistical methods was not Marx's forte, any more than it was, say, Gibbon's forte.
 
2004-02-01 01:34:02 PM  
My God what a stupid stupid stupid thread.

*Didn't read it, but stating the obvious anyways*
 
2004-02-01 01:35:09 PM  
Weaver95: it is clear you have no intention of trying to understand what i'm saying. And since this is only a Fark board, I dont' really care.

I will just point out that I think Machiavelli is TOTALLY RELEVANT to the world today. I never said he was not. I said that he did not create any kind of discourse (in the Foucaltian sense) or even any new theories. Marx did both.
 
2004-02-01 01:37:25 PM  
The whole "estabishling the judicial branch" part of the Constitution kinda disproves his Living document rant.
 
2004-02-01 01:38:43 PM  
Fark-Tard:

oh, you are talking about social science. I agree with you there. As I said, Marx's important contributions are in the realms of critical theory and philosophy.

Especially as he influenced later important critical theorists and philosophers. Perhaps the two most comprehensive and important critiques of the modern capitalist state ("the dialectic of enlightenment" - Adorno and Horhiemer, and "the society of the spectacle" - Debord) draw heavily from Marx, for example.

A large percentage of the notable modern philosopehrs (Foucault, Satre, Adorno etc.) were either marxists or heavily influenced by him.
 
2004-02-01 01:41:10 PM  
Both the left and the right share the market for lying to us. Time to vote Libertarian!

www.lp.org
 
2004-02-01 01:41:12 PM  
Artmerlyn: "Hanging on the wall, framed, above the beds of many lefties today:" (w/Stalin pic)


The sad thing is that you might actually believe that to be true.
 
2004-02-01 01:41:21 PM  
it is pretty doubtful that you would have even gotten the existentialists (who were mostly Marxists) without Marx.

Wrong again. Existentialism descended from two disparate strains of thought. Kierkegaard's anti-dialectial strain, which was a reaction to Hegel, and Husserl's phenomenological strain, which arose out of the Kantian school. Both of these strains were somewhat uneasily united in Heidegger's 'Being and Time' In Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness', you also see some of the Cartesian heritage of French rationalism.

Existentialism was not only possible without Marx or Marxists(Being and Nothingness is much less an impressive work than Being and Time), it actually happened that Marxist thought was very unimportant to its development.
 
2004-02-01 01:43:49 PM  
[it is clear you have no intention of trying to understand what i'm saying. And since this is only a Fark board, I dont' really care. ]

Ah....imitation is the highest form of flattery! Still...it *does* prove my earlier point about your views quite nicely. Nice to be proven correct so completely about someone.

[I will just point out that I think Machiavelli is TOTALLY RELEVANT to the world today. I never said he was not. I said that he did not create any kind of discourse (in the Foucaltian sense) or even any new theories. Marx did both. ]

And again you totally miss the point - marx didn't do anything original or insightful AT ALL. Machiavelli did. Marx wouldn't have understood stalin (for example) whereas Machiavelli would have seen him coming a mile off. Which is why I think of the two, Machiavelli should be required reading for school students - alot of modern politicans would be out of business if basic economics and Machiavelli were required reading.
 
2004-02-01 01:44:11 PM  
fark-tard: you are by and large correct there, though you are underestimating how some of marx's theories, especially of alienation, work into Satre and others.

But I would never go so far as to say Marx is nearly as important to existentialism as Kierkegaard or Husserl.
 
2004-02-01 01:44:26 PM  
I said that he did not create any kind of discourse (in the Foucaltian sense) or even any new theories.

That's not what Gramsci thought, e.g. 'The New Prince', a work on the role of the Communist Party in society.
 
2004-02-01 01:46:12 PM  
Machiavelli did.

*rolls eyes*

and Machiavelli would have freaked out when the proletariat revolted (which it did, many many times) even though Marx saw it coming a mile away and explained why they would do it (even if he overestimated their effectiveness in revolting)
 
2004-02-01 01:46:16 PM  
[...a work on the role of the Communist Party in society.]

I thought McCarthy nailed it pretty good back in the '50's.

/runs.
 
2004-02-01 01:46:54 PM  
Bill, I think you're ignoring the fact that alienation in Sartre is ultimately insurmountable, unlike in Marx. The history of the concept of alienation goes back beyond Marx, after all. I don't think there is much in common in the use of the word between the two.
 
2004-02-01 01:47:26 PM  
fark-tard:

are you saying Gramsci thought there is a Machiavellism discourse? um...
 
2004-02-01 01:48:41 PM  
I thought McCarthy nailed it pretty good back in the '50's.

It's a good thing almost everyone else has given up on this thread or else.

BTW, the author of that book was Sande Cohen.
 
Displayed 50 of 440 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report