Boston Marathon Explosion - Today's Topics: Public Schools

khalid · Apr 27, 2013

Holy shit, no way!

Dumar_sl · Apr 27, 2013

hodj_sl said:
Yeah man religion also outlawed gay sex and eating shellfish. This isn't an argument.

Of course it's an argument. If mankind, throughout most of its history, thought usury was a bad thing, that's a pretty fucking good argument. This isn't some dogma isolated to a religion here. This is going back to Socrates, who wrote extensively about the dangers of profit, and well into the 19th century. If that length of time and the brainpower of the people who agreed is 'not an argument', I'm confused about what you deem an argument is.

Great Contradiction. Not to mention that all quantitative analysis of economics over the past 150 years has shown that labor does not drive demand, in fact capital does. The prediction that profits will be higher in labor driven economies is unsound because of this fact. This is one of the key principles of the theory and it has been utterly demolished.

Now I see where you're getting confused by my posts. LTV and surplus value aren't necessarily the same, just as labor and labor power are different in Marxian land. LTV is a gigantic field that spans numerous economists from Smith, Ricardo, to Marx. Marx himself, however, understood that parts of the predictions of the theory could not be true:

Karl Marx_sl said:
What [Ricardo] does in fact examine is this: supposing that cost-prices differ from the values of commodities - and the assumption of a general rate of profit presupposes this difference - how in turn are these cost-prices (which are now, for a change, called "relative values") themselves reciprocally modified by the rise or fall in wages, taking also into account the varying proportions of the organic component parts of capital? If Ricardo had gone into this more deeply, he would have found that -owing to the diversity in the organic composition of capital which first manifests itself in the immediate production process as the difference between variable and constant capital and is later enlarged by differences arising from the circulation process - the mere existence of a general rate of profit necessitates cost-prices that differ from values. He would have found that, even if wages are assumed to remain constant, the difference exists and therefore is quite independent of the rise or fall in wages.

To understand this, you have to understand how capital is defined. It is not simply assets or ownership of means of production, but it's also a social relation, as Marx defined it.

Ownership of the property was acquired in some fashion.

Not that that's relevant. What gives you the right to expropriate an investment of one or a group of people because you feel they didn't pay you enough?

I am most curious about this 'in some fashion'. Recall, the onus is you (you as a political economist) to deduce the nature of the relationship of land to labor to capital. I make no such statements or deductions regarding how to connect these things. And when you do connect these things, which you did, you did the very exact thing that Marx said all economists do. You can't go to some ancient gray area and murk the question with vague statements, which as he said, is what religion does to explain itself. I'll quote again because it seems you ignored or missed it:

History and anthropology answers this question. The original reason for organization was to make the construction of public works such as irrigation vastly more manageable and simpler. Everything else is an adaptation which increased complexity on top of this beginning. The right comes from being the one with initiative, trying to organize individuals towards a goal. If you don't like it, get on that little time machine, take your ass back to 12000 or so BCE and teach those dumb mother fuckers how to build an irrigation ditch without a headmaster ordering them to do so.

Karl Marx_sl said:
Do not let us go back to a fictitious primordial condition as the political economist does, when he tries to explain. Such a primordial condition explains nothing. He merely pushes the question away into a grey nebulous distance. He assumes in the form of fact, of an event, what he is supposed to deduce-namely, the necessary relationship between two things-between, for example, division of labour and exchange. Theology in the same way explains the origin of evil by the fall of man: that is, it assumes as a fact, in historical form, what has to be explained.

chaos · Apr 27, 2013

Mikhail Bakunin_sl said:
Seriously though I give up. Say anything you want hodj. I won't post in this thread anymore.

I'll hold you to this.

hodj · Apr 27, 2013

Dumar_sl said:
Of course it's an argument. If mankind, throughout most of its history, thought usury was a bad thing, that's a pretty fucking good argument.

Most of humanity thought beating your wife was a good thing throughout most of its history as well. What we've got here is a naturalist fallacy.

This isn't some dogma isolated to a religion here.

Funny, because usury being banned has almost always been a religious tenant. Like today, its forbidden under Islamic law. It was forbidden under Jewish law. And under European Christian law. It wasn't banned under Roman law, and they did pretty well for themselves.

This is going back to Socrates,

Socrates also wrote that the universe was centered on the Earth and that the stars and planets were embedded in a crystal shell around the world. Again, naturalist fallacies and appeals to tradition aren't arguments.

Now I see where you're getting confused by my posts. LTV and surplus value aren't necessarily the same,

Irrelevant. The point is that the entire thesis behind the idea that labor value is something which can be stolen from someone else is false, and further that economies based on the premise that labor investment defines value of products is flawed to the point that it is non functional. When Marx attempted to account for this, in his third volume I believe, he ended up coming up with an explanation that took a relatively simple concept and made it virtually impossible to use as a real way to assess value.

Secondarily, I'm not a "political economist". I'm an anthropologist and biologist. You quote Marx, let me add, like a Christian quotes the Bible or a Muslim cites the Quran. Its an appeal to authority that Marx has none of. Marx had no job. He was an educated effete elite who was pampered and cared for, financially, by Hegel. Quoting him ryhme and verse is circular reasoning. What makes Marx's opinion on what the "political economist" thinks valid? His economic theories? But again, they've been laid waste by the destructive contradiction in his own works. The problem here is you think quoting Marx is an end all be all to a discussion, and he's not. Might as well be quoting Jesus telling us to do unto others as we would have others do unto us. Its not an argument. Its an excuse for not thinking for yourself how these things actually work.

To understand this, you have to understand how capital is defined. It is not simply assets or ownership of means of production, but it's also a social relation, as Marx defined it.

Yes, I'm quite aware. What you need to understand is that EVERYTHING, every form of human relation, every form of human cultural expression is a social relation.

I am most curious about this 'in some fashion'.

Yes well like I said, hop on in that time machine and travel back about 12,000 years and you'll see it for yourself. We have evidence in the archaeological record for exactly how it happened, for the most part. Population density begins to exceed carrying capacity, demand for food drives development of agriculture, this leads to increases in population density, which require cultural adaptation in order to function properly. This leads to leaders who look to organize groups of people into tasks which are required for basic survival of the society, such as agriculture. These leaders become instilled as religious and political power bases, familial lineages become justification for continued leadership, until there is enough surplus goods laying around and people with nothing to do which develops into a critical mass of intellectuals who begin to further adapt and organize the culture and society around themselves.

Recall, the onus is you

This is burden shifting. You have a premise: That all work for wages is slavery and theft, and that all humans are wage slaves because of this fact. The onus is on YOU to prove this claim.

(you as a political economist) to deduce the nature of the relationship of land to labor to capital. I make no such statements or deductions regarding how to connect these things. And when you do connect these things, which you did, you did the very exact thing that Marx said all economists do. You can't go to some ancient gray area and murk the question with vague statements, which as he said, is what religion does to explain itself. I'll quote again because it seems you ignored or missed it:

Marx doesn't want history or human evolution to be considered because it undermines his claim that the history of human history is class struggle when it is not (not to mention, you know, concepts like human cultural evolution were pretty well unknown to him due to the fact that Darwin's theories didn't come out until slightly before Marx's works, and they weren't fully understood until after Mendel's theories were rediscovered a few decades later). Pretty hard for Marx to really be relevant outside of some broad strokes when so much of social science and evolutionary theory passed him up. Remember, when Marx wrote shit like "Ignore history it has no relevance" common European thought was that Europeans had achieved the absolute height of historical and cultural development, so considering history in the context of post history is not something Marx would find necessary. But we aren't in post history. Sorry to break it to you, but again, quoting someone like Marx or the Bible rhyme and verse as if it explains all life's mysteries is what religious people do to explain themselves.

Dumar_sl · Apr 27, 2013

hodj_sl said:
Most of humanity thought beating your wife was a good thing throughout most of its history as well. What we've got here is a naturalist fallacy.

Funny, because usury being banned has almost always been a religious tenant. Like today, its forbidden under Islamic law. It was forbidden under Jewish law. And under European Christian law. It wasn't banned under Roman law, and they did pretty well for themselves.

Absolutely, when we go back to ancient history and up to 200 years ago, it's impossible to claim anything didn't exist as a religious tenant, as it was far-reaching and consistent amongst all (western) humanity. This is not a naturalist fallacy. No idea how you leaped into that idea.

Socrates also wrote that the universe was centered on the Earth and that the stars and planets were embedded in a crystal shell around the world. Again, naturalist fallacies and appeals to tradition aren't arguments.

I'm confused what you're implying. Are you saying that Socrates has made no contribution to western knowledge or what? There's no value in anything he said today is your meaning here? Where do you draw the line on valuable or useful analysis? Is it only analysis that concludes that capitalism is a net benefit to society? Is only modernity the requirement to be useful? You've never explained anything about what kind of analysis is useful or 'good' analysis. And in fact, you've never provided any, only nebulous examples.

Irrelevant. The point is that the entire thesis behind the idea that labor value is something which can be stolen from someone else is false, and further that economies based on the premise that labor investment defines value of products is flawed to the point that it is non functional. When Marx attempted to account for this, in his third volume I believe, he ended up coming up with an explanation that took a relatively simple concept and made it virtually impossible to use as a real way to assess value.

Just because profits deviate from surplus value doesn't make the concept of surplus value incorrect. A prediction of the theory not bearing out doesn't make the analysis behind the theory incorrect. Marx said this, even outside of the transformation problem you allude to:

Karl Marx_sl said:
The development given above also involves a modification in the determination of a commodity's cost price. It was originally assumed that the cost price of a commodity equalled the value of the commodities consumed in its production. But for the buyer of a commodity, it is the price of production that constitutes its cost price and can thus enter into forming the price of another commodity.As the price of production of a commodity can diverge from its value, so the cost price of a commodity, in which the price of production of other commodities is involved, can also stand above or below the portion of its total value that is formed by the value of the means of production going into it. It is necessary to bear in mind this modified significance of the cost price, and therefore to bear in mind too that if the cost price of a commodity is equated with the value of the means of production used up in producing it, it is always possible to go wrong.

Secondarily, I'm not a "political economist". I'm an anthropologist and biologist. You quote Marx, let me add, like a Christian quotes the Bible or a Muslim cites the Quran. Its an appeal to authority that Marx has none of. Marx had no job. He was an educated effete elite who was pampered and cared for, financially, by Hegel. Quoting him ryhme and verse is circular reasoning. What makes Marx's opinion on what the "political economist" thinks valid? His economic theories? But again, they've been laid waste by the destructive contradiction in his own works. The problem here is you think quoting Marx is an end all be all to a discussion, and he's not. Might as well be quoting Jesus telling us to do unto others as we would have others do unto us. Its not an argument. Its an excuse for not thinking for yourself how these things actually work.

Yes well like I said, hop on in that time machine and travel back about 12,000 years and you'll see it for yourself. We have evidence in the archaeological record for exactly how it happened [...]

I quote who's most useful and critical in their analyses. Marx's analysis of the political economy and institutions of capitalism have no equal. If there ever was an authority on how capitalism processes and institutionalizes itself, it's him. As such obviously, since we tend to talk about capitalism here, guess who gets quoted the most often?

How about Veblen? Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class dismantles your example of the tribal leader who brought irrigation to his community. The tribal leader didn't do or tend to things like agriculture; he did shit. The things reserved for this class of people were war and hunting, which were mostly useless. The lesser members of society did the actual work, the farming. This is how class stratification developed, a useful, laborer class and a worthless, 'honorable' aristocratic one.

This is burden shifting. You have a premise: That all work for wages is slavery and theft, and that all humans are wage slaves because of this fact. The onus is on YOU to prove this claim.

I'm making a claim about a system that has no claim. Capitalism, modern political economy, has never in its history justified itself. You've ignored my quote yet again, which I expected. As many consider modern economics a science, the onus is on it to deduce its relationships, not use the interest of the people who would use those material relationships beget by the system itself AS its justification. That's not science.

Marx doesn't want history or human evolution to be considered because it undermines his claim that the history of human history is class struggle when it is not. Sorry to break it to you, but again, quoting someone like Marx or the Bible rhyme and verse as if it explains all life's mysteries is what religious people do to explain themselves.

Marx certainly uses history, no question. The whole of Marx is a theory of history.

Intrinsic · Apr 27, 2013

Dumar_sl said:
How about Veblen? Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class dismantles your example of the tribal leader whobrought irrigation to his community. The tribal leader didn't do or tend to things like agriculture;he did shit.

I only legitimately follow like 20% of what y'all are going back and forth about, but have found the discussion interesting today. My mind skipped a beat at this line though, because it seems, to me, to be contradictory and overlook what, may be, a large point of the entire discussion.

hodj · Apr 27, 2013

Dumar_sl said:
Absolutely, when we go back to ancient history and up to 200 years ago, it's impossible to claim anything didn't exist as a religious tenant, as it was far-reaching and consistent amongst all (western) humanity. This is not a naturalist fallacy. No idea how you leaped into that idea.

I dunno, couldn't have been you saying

If mankind, throughout most of its history, thought usury was a bad thing, that's a pretty fucking good argument.

Hint. Its not a good argument, and it is a naturalist fallacy, an appeal to nature, and not a valid argument.

I'm confused what you're implying.

Its pretty simple. Regardless of his contribution to human knowledge, he is not a fucking god, and was wrong about a whole lot more than he ended up right about. Appealing to him claiming usury is bad 3000 years ago as a justification for profit being immoral and everyone being a wage slave is a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premise, and is an absurd appeal to authority where none exists. You cannot cite fucking Herodotus as evidence for Amazonians existing any more than you can quote Socrates as justification for modern economic policies.

Just because profits deviate from surplus value doesn't make the concept of surplus value incorrect.

Yeah. That's exactly what it does. It refutes the hypothesis.

A prediction of the theory not bearing out doesn't make the analysis behind the theory incorrect

Yes, it does. That's how science works. You hypothesize that something will happen one way or another, and you attempt to disprove it or prove it. And Marx's labor value theories' predictions being discredited does in fact mean that his hypothesis is rejected. That's what happens when the experiment fails to live up to the hypothesis in real science.

Marx said this

And Yahweh said cut the tips of your penises off and don't eat shellfish. What's your point? Marx said lots of things. Citing them as "proof" is accepting that Marx has some sort of authority on the subject when he doesn't, and never did.

I quote who's most useful and critical in their analyses. Marx's analysis of the political economy and institutions of capitalism have no equal.

Except, you know, every other social scientist theorist working on economics ever. Marx was not special. He's not sacrosanct. His word is not law, and citing it as proof of anything is about as relevant as citing John 3:16 as proof of anything.

If there ever was an authority on how capitalism processes and institutionalizes itself, it's him.

No, its not. His view of capitalism was extremely limited. He himself wasn't even engaged in economy. He lived off Hegel and his families' wealth. He was an unemployable radical with an axe to grind. Listen to the way you're talking about a simple human being whose been dead 150 years and has had his every major theory and prognostification fall apart in the time since. How is this not a religious devotion you have to this man's writings? Further, the world economy is massively different, he could not and did not forsee modern technology, the advances and possibilities of space flight, the development of AI and its capabilities in governing and distributing resources. Marx is actually like...he's as relevant as Freud, really. Reknowned for founding a train of thought that is very useful and beneficial, but ultimately, most of his theories were crack pot and fundamentally flawed.

How about Veblen? Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class dismantles your example of the tribal leader who brought irrigation to his community. The tribal leader didn't do or tend to things like agriculture; he did shit. The things reserved for this class of people were war and hunting, which were mostly useless.

Wrong.

The lesser members of society did the actual work, the farming.

Actually, it was mostly women who did the work. And in most of these societies they weren't lessers until sometime after the 1500s or so. Prior to that, and especially outside Europe, the way females were viewed in tribal societies vastly differed from European contexts. This is yet another example of the problem with Marx's Eurocentric 18th century world view (which, incidentally, was shared by most people in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries and isn't something unique to Marx).

This is how class stratification developed, a useful, laborer class and a worthless, 'honorable' aristocratic one.

No. This is how 18th and 19th century philsophers believed class stratification developed. Turned out they were wrong. Funny that. Marx wants us to ignore the physical and historical evidence, and you too, for your theories. Let me just quote Heinlein again

One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all important and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority.

This is you. Obsessed with theory, over experimental results. That's not good. That's bad science.

I'm making a claim about a system that has no claim. Capitalism, modern political economy, has never in its history justified itself.

It doesn't have to. There is no burden on people organizing organically around an economic system that is necessary to be defended or justified. It exists because they will it to be so, and if they desire it to cease to be so, then it will. There's nothing to justify. The very premise is an absurdity. I don't have to justify to you why I have a job, or why I hire someone to work for me to produce a product for me to sale. Your presumption is yet another characteristic of the hubris and arrogance of the religiously dogmatically devoted. You live on a world of presumptions without support. Why does capitalism or communism or agrarianism need to be justified again? By whose demands? By what necessity? By what right do you have to demand justification for a system the rest of the world engages in?

You've ignored my quote yet again, which I expected.

I did exactly what I should do when someone is dogmatically quoting a religious manuscript as evidence that the world is flat and only 6000 years old. I rode right over that pseudo science nonsense.

As many consider modern economics a science, As many consider modern economics a science, the onus is on it to deduce its relationships

And as someone who believes every working person on Earth is a slave, the onus is on you to prove that.t

Marx certainly uses history, no question. The whole of Marx is a theory of history.

Yes, so is the Bible. Neither are correct though, that's the problem.

Dumar_sl · Apr 27, 2013

Intrinsic_sl said:
I only legitimately follow like 20% of what y'all are going back and forth about, but have found the discussion interesting today. My mind skipped a beat at this line though, because it seems, to me, to be contradictory and overlook what, may be, a large point of the entire discussion.

It's assumed the leader brought or developed it. The tribal leader took 'the initiative' and brought to his tribe new technology, which was likely never the case. The leaders in society, as Veblen's called them, the 'leisure class', reserved for themselves the activity of hunting and war exclusively. This is where concepts of 'honor' and the idea of hunting as a act of showmanship came into creation. It insulated this class of people from doing menial, labor-intensive activities that were actually productive, and things like hunting or war were made as a symbol of the society in order for this class of people to actually not do any real work, but only to sit around and hunt game or fight a battle every other decade.

hodj · Apr 27, 2013

Dumar_sl said:
It's assumed the leader brought or developed it. The tribal leader took 'the initiative' and brought to his tribe new technology, which was likely never the case. The leaders in society, as Veblen's called them, the 'leisure class', reserved for themselves the activity of hunting and war exclusively.

Except the archaeological and ethnographic record proves that this isn't the case. Oops. Veblen didn't count on that.

How it actually worked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_man_(anthropology)

A Big Man's position is never secured in an inherited position at the top of a hierarchy, but is always challenged by the different big-men who compete with one another in an on-going process of reciprocity and re-distribution of material and political resources. As such the Big Man is subject to a transactional order based on his ability to balance the simultaneously opposing pulls of securing his own renown through distributing resources to other Big Man groups (thereby spreading the word of his power and abilities) and redistributing resources to the people of his own faction (thereby keeping them content followers of his able leadership).
The Big Man concept is relatively fluid, and formal authority of such figures is very low to nonexistent. His position is not inherently heritable.

Tribal leadership was based on concepts of reciprosity within the community, and was a tenuous and often changing thing. Insulated power came with agriculture, as a need to organize to properly provide for larger communities of people. Special status and privilege came later, once society was organized and enough surplus existed that there could exist people who did not have to engage in the daily struggle to provide sustenance for themselves and their families. This so called "privileged class" is also the thinking class that helped advance human culture exponentially. You know. People like Socrates.

And people like Karl Marx.

Gavinmad · Apr 27, 2013

SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP

Burnesto · Apr 27, 2013

Mikhail tags Dumar back in.

These fuckers are out of control.

iannis · Apr 27, 2013

I dunno. Seems pretty clear to me!

John 3:16_sl said:
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

You shoulda picked something randomly from leviticus. We might have gotten lucky with some advice about how to handle oxen cum.

hodj · Apr 27, 2013

You mean like Ezekiel 23:11-21

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...21&version=NIV

11 "Her sister Oholibah saw this, yet in her lust and prostitution she was more depraved than her sister. 12 She too lusted after the Assyrians-governors and commanders, warriors in full dress, mounted horsemen, all handsome young men. 13 I saw that she too defiled herself; both of them went the same way.

14 "But she carried her prostitution still further. She saw men portrayed on a wall, figures of Chaldeans[a] portrayed in red, 15 with belts around their waists and flowing turbans on their heads; all of them looked like Babylonian chariot officers, natives of Chaldea. 16 As soon as she saw them, she lusted after them and sent messengers to them in Chaldea. 17 Then the Babylonians came to her, to the bed of love, and in their lust they defiled her. After she had been defiled by them, she turned away from them in disgust. 18 When she carried on her prostitution openly and exposed her naked body, I turned away from her in disgust, just as I had turned away from her sister. 19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.[c]

I dunno about you, but Oholibah sounds like a fun girl

chaos · Apr 27, 2013

More like Ezekiel 25:17

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

hodj · Apr 27, 2013

I bet when the Israelites got the first manuscript for Ezekiel in from FedEx's Heaven division that they thought "Man, God must be having a really bad day".

Araysar · Apr 27, 2013

Burnesto_sl said:
Mikhail tags Dumar back in.

These fuckers are out of control.

Dumar and Bakunin, the Osirian Portal of internet arguments.

Zhaun_sl · Apr 27, 2013

hodj_sl said:
You mean like Ezekiel 23:11-21

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...21&version=NIV

I dunno about you, but Oholibah sounds like a fun girl

Keep the porn to Screenshots, wtf!

Dumar_sl · Apr 27, 2013

Read me please.

hodj_sl said:
I dunno, couldn't have been you saying

Hint. Its not a good argument, and it is a naturalist fallacy, an appeal to nature, and not a valid argument.

I never implied that the idea of usury as evil is a natural state of human nature. That statement makes no sense. The argument for profit as good you justify by the profit of certain individuals, not all individuals, certainly not all of society, which as I said previously and even again below, is a justification based on a certain outcome for a certain group of people.

Yes, it does. That's how science works. You hypothesize that something will happen one way or another, and you attempt to disprove it or prove it. And Marx's labor value theories' predictions being discredited does in fact mean that his hypothesis is rejected. That's what happens when the experiment fails to live up to the hypothesis in real science.

LTV was not a Marxian concept, as it was theorized long before Karl Marx. He used and modified it to a certain extent, and as I cited before, said himself that parts of its predictions do not bare out. This doesn't mean that his analyses are wrong. That's not how science works. Kapital is arguably the best critique and analysis of modern political economy ever written.

Its pretty simple. Regardless of his contribution to human knowledge, he is not a fucking god [...]

And Yahweh said cut the tips of your penises off and don't eat shellfish. What's your point? Marx said lots of things. Citing them as "proof" is accepting that Marx has some sort of authority on the subject when he doesn't, and never did. Except, you know, every other social scientist theorist working on economics ever. Marx was not special. He's not sacrosanct. His word is not law, and citing it as proof of anything is about as relevant as citing John 3:16 as proof of anything. [...] Further, the world economy is massively different, he could not and did not forsee modern technology, the advances and possibilities of space flight, the development of AI and its capabilities in governing and distributing resources. Marx is actually like...he's as relevant as Freud, really. Reknowned for founding a train of thought that is very useful and beneficial, but ultimately, most of his theories were crack pot and fundamentally flawed.

No idea where you're going here by equating Marx or Socrates with quoting the Bible. That's complete nonsense. Marx is certainly special. He is the social scientist, the founder of all social science, incited countless revolutions around the world, and to this very day, is the single most hated, misunderstood, and targeted by more propaganda that I would say anyone else in human history, and this was less than 200 years ago. Certainly, this makes him special, like a da Vinci, Newton, or Einstein, and yes, like them was not perfect and got things wrong - that doesn't mean an appeal to him or them is not an appeal to an authority. It assuredly is.

You have a habit of pushing back to ancient times (that nebulous area). I'm not sure where you're going here, either. Does this mean we should completely discard the Constitution as an outdated document? Is Keynes too old? I don't know what you're implying with these kinds of statements. For the 3rd or 4th time, what would construe as a modern critical analysis of capitalism if not Marx?

Actually, it was mostly women who did the work. And in most of these societies they weren't lessers until sometime after the 1500s or so. Prior to that, and especially outside Europe, the way females were viewed in tribal societies vastly differed from European contexts. This is yet another example of the problem with Marx's Eurocentric 18th century world view (which, incidentally, was shared by most people in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries and isn't something unique to Marx).

Absolutely, women did the work. Men dominated society. And this domination led to some of them, well, not really doing anything except hunting big game, killing each other, and reserving the right to do so.

This is you. Obsessed with theory, over experimental results. That's not good. That's bad science.

I'm obsessed with results and analyses of reality such as reality is, not obfuscating or using euphemisms to hide the true relationships among things, which you and modern economy like doing.

It doesn't have to. There is no burden on people organizing organically around an economic system that is necessary to be defended or justified. It exists because they will it to be so, and if they desire it to cease to be so, then it will. There's nothing to justify. The very premise is an absurdity. I don't have to justify to you why I have a job, or why I hire someone to work for me to produce a product for me to sale. Your presumption is yet another characteristic of the hubris and arrogance of the religiously dogmatically devoted. You live on a world of presumptions without support. Why does capitalism or communism or agrarianism need to be justified again? By whose demands? By what necessity? By what right do you have to demand justification for a system the rest of the world engages in?

What in all hell kinds of drugs did you overdose on to reach the conclusion of capitalism as an 'organic organization' of society? Are you completely off your rocker? Who's they? The people, certainly not me, certainly not millions or even billions of others.

It has to be justified because economics calls itself a science. I never called it as such or claimed relationships among things; it did. And so, it has to justify them, which it never does. This isn't dogmatic - it's asking for a deduction, an explanation of how these things it claims relate to each other, do. And yes, another Marx quote, because it's completely relevant to the topic at hand:

Karl Marx_sl said:
Vulgar economics actually does nothing more than to interpret, to systematize and turn into apologetics - in a doctrinaire way - the ideas of the agents who are trapped within bourgeois relations of production. So it should not surprise us that, precisely within the estranged form of appearance of economic relations in which these prima facie absurd and complete contradictions occur - and all science would be superfluous if the form of appearance of things directly coincided with their essence - that precisely here vulgar economics feels completely at home, and that these relationships appear all the more self-evident to it, the more their inner interconnection remains hidden to it, even though these relationships are comprehensible to the popular mind.

I did exactly what I should do when someone is dogmatically quoting a religious manuscript as evidence that the world is flat and only 6000 years old. I rode right over that pseudo science nonsense [...] Yes, so is the Bible. Neither are correct though, that's the problem.

Comparing an ancient religious script to the founder of social science and an institution in economics? Your strawmans reach into a level of hilarious absurdity.

hodj · Apr 27, 2013

Dumar_sl said:
I never implied that the idea of usury as evil is a natural state of human nature.

You heavily implied it, and you implied because it was done in the past that therefore it was good. Both are fallacies. Appeal to nature. Appeal to tradition. Take your pick. Its still fallacious.

Kapital is arguably the best critique and analysis of modern political economy ever written.

Religious. Devotion.

LTV is defined by Marx. Lots of things existed before they were formalized as theory, such as calculus. But still, it took someone to define them and institutionalize them in theory and that was Marx for LTV, and he was wrong. His theories manifestly contradict themselves, and his only solution was a convoluted mess that has been rebutted multiple times and disproven in the economy of the former Soviet Union.

No idea where you're going here by equating Marx or Socrates with quoting the Bible. That's complete nonsense.

No, its exactly the same. You've put the words of long dead men you've placed on a pedestal and refuse to see how they could be anything but sacrosanct and correct. Fucking Plato had a lot of stuff to say too, about running government. Does that mean we should be allowing the type of beneficient dictatorships he espoused rule us? You yourself keep making my point for me every time you proclaim Marx to be the greatest thing since sliced turkey. He's a man, his theories had lots of flaws, his critique was great, in the context of its day and time. There's lots to learn from it and lots that is applicable today. That doesn't mean that he is sacred, special, sacrosanct, etc.

Marx is certainly special.

No, he's not.

He is the social scientist, the founder of all social science,

No, he's not. Freud founded psychology, which is social science. Large groups of disparate people contributed to anthropology, from racists and tomb robbers, to legitimate ethnographers and medical professionals, linguists, etc. Sociology takes a large amount from ethnography, which Marx had nothing to do with. He contributed to founding a field. He didn't single handidly carve it out of the fucking morass of the human psyche.

incited countless revolutions around the world

Marx incited revolutions in the same way Jesus did, which is to say not at all. Rather, powerful people use his writings to manipulate uneducated people into following them down a deep dark hole of stupid, just like they use any other manuscript with the tiniest bit of linguistic flare to their advantages. Oh and just about all those glorious revolutions, ended in disaster. So its hardly praise worthy. Oh man this guy inspired us to destroy our society, kill everyone in power, then turn on ourselves, to the point that the people inspiring the revolution themselves end up being victims of the revolution. What a great history that is. Why I think we should spread that to even MORE nations and people around the globe. Not.

and to this very day, is the single most hated

Hardly. There's lots of historical villians who are more hated. Napoleon comes to mind. Ghengis Khan. I mean you really think Marx is more hated than Ghengis Khan was? Get real.

, misunderstood,

No, he isn't misunderstood. This assertion is without validity, very similar to the "Soviet Union and Mao weren't really Communist" denialism rife in this world view. His writings are clear, easily accessible to millions, have been read by millions, have been studied by thousands, have been analyzed, argued over, debated, and tested by people all over the world. There's literally no greater delusion, and strawman, than when a die hard religious fanatic says "Well you just don't understand what we're trying to say" to the person they are debating.As a post processual and critical theory based anthropologist, Marxist theory is part of our education. It has a close and very important place in anthropology all through last century and into today. Critical theory is soundly based on Marxist class based world view, and has helped open archaeology and anthropologists eyes around the world to the research questions related to the daily lives of populations, rather than just being focused on the kings and emperors and queens of old. This is the type of place where Marx shines. But not everything in life boils down to being a goddamn oppressed victim slave.

and targeted by more propaganda that I would say anyone else in human history,

Not even remotely close. Caeser and Brutus are two that come to mind immediately. I mean you have an entire three stage epic poem written by Dante which literally puts Brutus and the Pope in the mouth of Satan in Hell, for fuck's sake. Darwin. That man has seen ridiculous amounts of propaganda against him this past century. There's plenty higher on the list. Your adulation is just more proof positive that this is religious devotion for you, not reason.

Certainly, this makes him special,

By that logic, the Jews really are God's chosen people. I mean being oppressed and targeted for propaganda, obviously, this is certainly proof that they are special people as well. Based on that logic, and the holy word of the Bible, which says that Israel is supposed to exist across the whole of the Middle East I say we start world war 3 by bombing the Kaballah

like a da Vinci, Newton, or Einstein,

No, especially not close to Newton. Einstein either, but especially not Newton.

that doesn't mean an appeal to him or them is not an appeal to an authority. It assuredly is.

It would not be an appeal to authority if you weren't putting him on the pedestal you are, quoting his chapter and verse as if everything he said should just be accepted as true because he wrote it and you can repeat it. Its not. Vast swaths of it have been rebutted. His REAL contribution to science was in showing people how to turn a critical eye to their own society and culture, rather than viewing it through the prism exclusively of their own cultural background.

You have a habit of pushing back to ancient times (that nebulous area)

There's nothing nebulous about it. We have over a century of hard archaeological research. Archaeologists are not Indiana Jones. They do hard chemical science based on hard evidence excavated at great expense and difficulty to date and determine order and structure of cultural and adaptational change in past populations. There's nothing nebulous about it at all.

I'm not sure where you're going here, either. Does this mean we should completely discard the Constitution as an outdated document?

The Constitution isn't written in stone bro.

Is Keynes too old?

His theories pan out a lot better than Marx's. You keep the good and throw out the shit. Again, do we still cite Darwin stating Africans aren't the same species as Europeans when the hard, genetic evidence is to the contrary?

I don't know what you're implying with these kinds of statements. For the 3rd or 4th time, what would construe as a critical modern analysis of capitalism if not Marx?

Lots of people. Chomsky and Zinn come to mind. The framework of Marxist theory is perfectly fine to work from, but the assumptions like "All wage work is slavery" that come from some of his more unsound theories are not justifiable by just quoting him chapter and verse, and are not supported by the data.

Absolutely, women did the work. Men dominated society.

And in many societies women owned the property and dominated the society. Matriarchies did this frequently. Men did not just "dominate" all human society, and the strongest men didn't just all insulate themselves because they were balanced by the needs and voices and combined might of the communities they lived within. You could be big and strong all day, but if you had no one in the village who accepted you, you were an exile and an outcast with no support structure and you died. Life was far more complex that 18th and 19th century European philosophers believed it to be bro. You need to get with the current research, instead of hanging on to long dead theory.

And this domination led to some of them, well, not really doing anything except hunting big game, killing each other, and reserving the right to do so.

This is well after the tribal period, and well after development of agriculture, which is the point.

I'm obsessed with results and analyses of reality such as reality is

Then why do you rely on century and a half dated material that tells you to ignore history, including the physical archaeological and ethnographical record, in favor of theories made up by a guy who never worked a day in his life and literally had no knowledge, experience, or capacity to know or experience, what life was going to be like just a few decades after his death.

What in all hell kinds of drugs did you overdose on to reach the conclusion of capitalism as an 'organic organization' of society?

How is it not, exactly? Humans create their culture organically, as a part of the daily lives of each member of a society.

Are you completely off your rocker? Who's they? The people, certainly not me, certainly not millions or even billions of others.

Yes, you are a product of millions of years and tens of thousands of generations of cultural adaptation and environmental/physical adaptations prior to you, and you will forever live trapped by the rails that those events, and the decisions that those forebears, set upon you.

It has to be justified because economics calls itself a science.

So because economics calls itself science (its not) somehow the burden lies on me or society to justify the ways in which people choose to interact economically? What do you even mean, justify?

Comparing an ancient religious script to the founder of social science and an institution in economics? Your strawmans reach into a level of hilarious absurdity.

I'm comparing the way you utilize the writings of Marx to the way that a religious person would use the writings of their religion. If you were citing Marx to help create a frame of reference, rather than literally citing him word for word and saying "See, here's Marx agreeing with me!" (really, here's you agreeing with Marx, and expecting that because you agree with him that he is therefore sacrosanct and correct simply because you say so) then I'd be more inclined to say you weren't just religiously citing a bunch of paragraphs you've got saved up that you think resolve every debate in your favor. Academia has left much of Marx behind, retaining much of what those who came after him contributed instead. Marx spurned a lot of great thinkers, but the adulation you heap upon him makes me think you're going to walk over there to England, dig up his corpse, and suck him off. He isn't worth it. Plus I bet his dick is moldy as hell by now. Gross.

Dumar_sl · Apr 28, 2013

Spoiled for those who don't give a shit.

hodj_sl said:
You heavily implied it, and you implied because it was done in the past that therefore it was good. Both are fallacies. Appeal to nature. Appeal to tradition. Take your pick. Its still fallacious.

It's not appealing to anything, especially not some idea of nature or tradition. It's a pointing out of the huge contrast of opinion, an opinion which many or even most, aren't even aware of historically.

Religious. Devotion.

LTV is defined by Marx. Lots of things existed before they were formalized as theory, such as calculus. But still, it took someone to define them and institutionalize them in theory and that was Marx for LTV, and he was wrong. His theories manifestly contradict themselves, and his only solution was a convoluted mess that has been rebutted multiple times and disproven in the economy of the former Soviet Union.

LTV was defined mostly by Ricardo, but that's a digression. The USSR has absolutely nothing to do with Marx whatsoever, even mentioning it shows your ignorance on the topic. I suppose next you'll discuss how Mao instituted many Marxian theories and failed also.

No, its exactly the same. You've put the words of long dead men you've placed on a pedestal and refuse to see how they could be anything but sacrosanct and correct. Fucking Plato had a lot of stuff to say too, about running government. Does that mean we should be allowing the type of beneficient dictatorships he espoused rule us? You yourself keep making my point for me every time you proclaim Marx to be the greatest thing since sliced turkey. He's a man, his theories had lots of flaws, his critique was great, in the context of its day and time. There's lots to learn from it and lots that is applicable today. That doesn't mean that he is sacred, special, sacrosanct, etc. [...] No, he's not. [...]

You ask for citations and when they're given you resort to the rhetoric of claiming religious zealotry to justify why they're wrong. I never said Marx was the greatest thing since sliced turkey, which is gross. He was wrong about many things, as was every great thinker in human history. That doesn't mean his analyses of how modern political economy conducts itself is not accurate - Kapital, and even his earlier works like the Paris Manuscripts, are very accurate. If you want to talk about modern political economy, Marx will inevitably show himself because, again, he is the, or one of, the institutional founders of social science (this isn't really debatable) and a school of economics.

No, he isn't misunderstood. This assertion is without validity, very similar to the "Soviet Union and Mao weren't really Communist" denialism rife in this world view. His writings are clear, easily accessible to millions, have been read by millions, have been studied by thousands, have been analyzed, argued over, debated, and tested by people all over the world. There's literally no greater delusion, and strawman, than when a die hard religious fanatic says "Well you just don't understand what we're trying to say" to the person they are debating.As a post processual and critical theory based anthropologist, Marxist theory is part of our education.

You obviously need to pay more attention in class because everything you've said so far regarding Marx is utterly erroneous. The USSR and Maoist China weren't communist as defined by Marx whatsoever. Outside of the Manifesto, his writings are not clear or easily accessible to millions at all. The Paris Manuscripts of 1844 weren't even translated into English until around the middle of the 20th century. And it takes years, with the help of academics, to even attempt to fully understand Kapital.

Your education has failed you thus far, unfortunately.

It has a close and very important place in anthropology all through last century and into today. Critical theory is soundly based on Marxist class based world view, and has helped open archaeology and anthropologists eyes around the world to the research questions related to the daily lives of populations, rather than just being focused on the kings and emperors and queens of old. This is the type of place where Marx shines. But not everything in life boils down to being a goddamn oppressed victim slave.

Yes, but like I said in my previous post, it's about control. And the difference between owning someone on a piece of paper and owning their life, that is, their economic output and time throughout most of the day, bears little difference in reality, outside of the semantics of the piece of paper. Therein lies the outrage.

If you want to talk critical theory, you need to read Fromm, who was the best of the last century, including Chomsky.

No, especially not close to Newton. Einstein either, but especially not Newton.

Oh he's certainly on par with Newton, no question. He's the last true Enlightenment scholar.

It would not be an appeal to authority if you weren't putting him on the pedestal you are, quoting his chapter and verse as if everything he said should just be accepted as true because he wrote it and you can repeat it. Its not. Vast swaths of it have been rebutted. His REAL contribution to science was in showing people how to turn a critical eye to their own society and culture, rather than viewing it through the prism exclusively of their own cultural background.

His biggest contribution has nothing to do with culture. It has to do with materialism: that is, how consciousness is formed from social productive life, and not vice versa. This is seen most obviously when people make statements about how their own socioeconomic organizational structure is 'organic' or 'natural' when it isn't whatsoever (hint!).

There's nothing nebulous about it. We have over a century of hard archaeological research. Archaeologists are not Indiana Jones. They do hard chemical science based on hard evidence excavated at great expense and difficulty to date and determine order and structure of cultural and adaptational change in past populations. There's nothing nebulous about it at all.

Okay, and how do these archaeologists refute the organizational and institutional evolutions put forth by Marx?

The Constitution isn't written in stone bro.

Ah, so it's useful!

Lots of people. Chomsky and Zinn come to mind. The framework of Marxist theory is perfectly fine to work from, but the assumptions like "All wage work is slavery" that come from some of his more unsound theories are not justifiable by just quoting him chapter and verse, and are not supported by the data.

We can certainly look to some data, such as wage repression and stagnation that would lend itself to the notion of wage slavery I alluded to earlier but you ignored. And Chomsky, while great, sits mostly in the realm of political theory as it relates to capitalism.

And in many societies women owned the property and dominated the society. Matriarchies did this frequently. Men did not just "dominate" all human society, and the strongest men didn't just all insulate themselves because they were balanced by the needs and voices and combined might of the communities they lived within. You could be big and strong all day, but if you had no one in the village who accepted you, you were an exile and an outcast with no support structure and you died. Life was far more complex that 18th and 19th century European philosophers believed it to be bro. You need to get with the current research, instead of hanging on to long dead theory.

This is well after the tribal period, and well after development of agriculture, which is the point.

I think you're missing the point, actually. Veblen states early in his treatise that indeed, early agrarian societies were such as this. It was only when the concept of property came into play did these agrarian societies turn hierarchical. The conversation you need to have as an anthropologist (outside of just learning more Marx - which you obviously need), concerns the type, if any, of the hierarchical relationships that occurred before the concept of private property, during communal ownership. Because that's the stage where I would make the appeal to nature, and where Marx and Veblen want to take us.

Then why do you rely on century and a half dated material that tells you to ignore history, including the physical archaeological and ethnographical record, in favor of theories made up by a guy who never worked a day in his life and literally had no knowledge, experience, or capacity to know or experience, what life was going to be like just a few decades after his death.

I don't think you quite understand Marx's dialectic theory of history, which is different than what we're discussing here, but related. It has nothing to do with physical quantities like bone structure, but an evolution of social institutions.

How is it not, exactly? Humans create their culture organically, as a part of the daily lives of each member of a society.

Um... if by humans, you mean the humans in control. I don't think the average Chinese laborer at Foxconn you guys discussed earlier would consider his socioeconomic situation as 'organic'. I'm sure someone like a Kim Kardashian would agree to it being created organically, however!

So because economics calls itself science (its not) somehow the burden lies on me or society to justify the ways in which people choose to interact economically? What do you even mean, justify?

People don't 'choose' this interaction; they're forced into this interaction. I don't have a choice how I socioeconomically act towards others. As you said, it's the product of thousands of years of culture and socioeconomic changes to institutions (which is the Marxian dialectic). I don't act as a laboring farmer to a tribal chieftan. I don't act as a serf towards a lord. No one does anymore. I act as a worker to a manager. However, because of these methods of production of our lives, we see this relationship as 'natural' or 'organic'. It's not. The laboring farmer to the chief wasn't. The serf to the lord wasn't. But they each thought it was natural also. This is the Marxian concept of the methods of productive life defining consciousness.

Now, because none of these are natural methods of organization of a society, yet modern economics claims as such, the onus is on it to explain these relationships you and others mistake as 'organic': the concept of private property to to labor, to capital, to even the money system. Again, it takes for granted what it's supposed to deduce, like religion.

I'm comparing the way you utilize the writings of Marx to the way that a religious person would use the writings of their religion. If you were citing Marx to help create a frame of reference, rather than literally citing him word for word and saying "See, here's Marx agreeing with me!" (really, here's you agreeing with Marx, and expecting that because you agree with him that he is therefore sacrosanct and correct simply because you say so) then I'd be more inclined to say you weren't just religiously citing a bunch of paragraphs you've got saved up that you think resolve every debate in your favor. Academia has left much of Marx behind, retaining much of what those who came after him contributed instead. Marx spurned a lot of great thinkers, but the adulation you heap upon him makes me think you're going to walk over there to England, dig up his corpse, and suck him off. He isn't worth it. Plus I bet his dick is moldy as hell by now. Gross.

Who should I cite; who should I reference? Do you want Fromm, Gramsci? Adorno? Luk?cs? Who? How about Debord? His Society of the Spectacle is a great critique of modern capitalism, but not from a purely economic perspective.

It's not adulation or religious fervor. Marx is pertinent and relevant to any conversation regarding modern political economy. He's the gigantic beast in the room that can't be ignored with regards to how things actually work on a societal level. If you want to get into specifics of a certain area, then someone like Fromm or Debord can provide more context, but they are all influenced by Marx. Sorry if that offends you, but it's reality.

edit: this is long, blah.

Boston Marathon Explosion - Today's Topics: Public Schools

Unelected Mod

shitlord

Buzzfeed Editor

Vox Populi Jihadi

shitlord

Person of Whiteness

Vox Populi Jihadi

shitlord

Vox Populi Jihadi

Mr. Poopybutthole

Molten Core Raider

Musty Nester

Vox Populi Jihadi

Buzzfeed Editor

Vox Populi Jihadi

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

shitlord

shitlord

Vox Populi Jihadi

shitlord