How relevant is the Marxist theory in the twenty first century?

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

Oh dear in your eagerness to advertise your pet[ty] hobby horse you lost track of the fact that the question is asking "How" and not 'Is the Marxist theory relevant in the 21st Century?'  For just this once could you please stay on track by focusing on how Marxist theory is relevant in the 21st Century rather than doing yet another deliberate Off-topic distraction?For instance the "How" is deductible by ascertaining that the Marxist theory is very relevant in the twenty first century not just for its alternative outlook on the capitalist mode of production but also for the provision of a methodology that systematically induces us to investigate the revolutionary process associated with social evolution so we become aware of the past, the present and the future.You claim to be a democratic Marxist so is it too much to ask for you exhibit your democratic credentials by responding to the question and not your personal theory on democratic outcomes?

If you can't answer 'what' it is that you're trying to discuss, Brian, you're going to have great difficulty getting anyone to answer the 'how'.

Can we stick to the question please.  I would have thought it would be easy peasy for a person with knowledge of Marxist theory.  I'm sure that answering the "How" will not prove too great a difficulty for you.

[Anonymous]

Brian wrote:

Marcos wrote:

One more evidence that this forum is always out of the track and trolls will continue doing that. To  L Bird you will give him a recipe for Italian food and he will end cooking Chinese food. The question is: What relevant is the Marxist theory to the 21st century? We must stick to that question

You are incorrect.  Indeed you are calling the kettle the black for just like LBird you have intentionally turned the question around by changing the key word "How".  Whereas he turned it to 'is' you have turned it to "What".Yes we must stick to the context of the question otherwise we'll end up going down a very familiar route which I'm determined not to tread.  Also may I remind you that you post is Off-topic and not relevant to the thread.

You are wrong too, it was not intentionally it was a typo mistake

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

LBird wrote:

If you can't answer 'what' it is that you're trying to discuss, Brian, you're going to have great difficulty getting anyone to answer the 'how'.

Can we stick to the question please.  I would have thought it would be easy peasy for a person with knowledge of Marxist theory.  I'm sure that answering the "How" will not prove too great a difficulty for you.

OK, I've quite properly given you the chance to explain your version of the 'what' to workers.Since you seem unable to do so, the field is left open for Marxists to point out that 'The Marxist Theory' of Brian's hidden ideology is actually "Engels' Materialism", an ideology  followed by Lenin, which not only is no use to workers in the 21st century, but wasn't any use in the 19th or 20th, either.So, simple answer to your question of 'how relevant', Brian – 'materialism' isn't relevant in the 21st century.It's only role, as ever, is to deny democratic social power to the proletariat, and to reserve power for an elite. Marx pointed that out, in his Theses on Feuerbach.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

LBird wrote:

If you can't answer 'what' it is that you're trying to discuss, Brian, you're going to have great difficulty getting anyone to answer the 'how'.

Can we stick to the question please.  I would have thought it would be easy peasy for a person with knowledge of Marxist theory.  I'm sure that answering the "How" will not prove too great a difficulty for you.

OK, I've quite properly given you the chance to explain your version of the 'what' to workers.Since you seem unable to do so, the field is left open for Marxists to point out that 'The Marxist Theory' of Brian's hidden ideology is actually "Engels' Materialism", an ideology  followed by Lenin, which not only is no use to workers in the 21st century, but wasn't any use in the 19th or 20th, either.So, simple answer to your question of 'how relevant', Brian – 'materialism' isn't relevant in the 21st century.It's only role, as ever, is to deny democratic social power to the proletariat, and to reserve power for an elite. Marx pointed that out, in his Theses on Feuerbach.

Your failure to address the question and make yet a further attempt to go Off-topic is in my opinion proff positive that you are unable to answer the question.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

LBird wrote:

OK, I've quite properly given you the chance to explain your version of the 'what' to workers.Since you seem unable to do so, the field is left open for Marxists to point out that 'The Marxist Theory' of Brian's hidden ideology is actually "Engels' Materialism", an ideology  followed by Lenin, which not only is no use to workers in the 21st century, but wasn't any use in the 19th or 20th, either.So, simple answer to your question of 'how relevant', Brian – 'materialism' isn't relevant in the 21st century.It's only role, as ever, is to deny democratic social power to the proletariat, and to reserve power for an elite. Marx pointed that out, in his Theses on Feuerbach.

Your failure to address the question and make yet a further attempt to go Off-topic is in my opinion proff positive that you are unable to answer the question.

Brian's topic: "How relevant is the Marxist theory in the twenty first century?"LBird's answer: "Your 'Materialism' (which you claim to be 'The Marxist Theory') isn't relevant in any way at all to the 21st century (and never has been)".Simple enough, and direct, answer, Brian.Or do you want me to outline why your 'Materialism' isn't?The obvious starting point is that, as Marx argued, your 'Materialism' wasn't democratic in the 19th or 20th centuries, and still isn't in the 21st century.If we aspire to build a 'democratic socialism', then a 'democratic theory' is required from the start. 'Materialism' isn't democratic, and so is of no use for this purpose.I'm not making any false claim here, because you've often said in the past that you won't have democracy in all social production – you reserve at least some to elite control. The real problem is that you never explain how an elite theory can be used to build a democratic society, in the 21st century, or any other.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

LBird wrote:

OK, I've quite properly given you the chance to explain your version of the 'what' to workers.Since you seem unable to do so, the field is left open for Marxists to point out that 'The Marxist Theory' of Brian's hidden ideology is actually "Engels' Materialism", an ideology  followed by Lenin, which not only is no use to workers in the 21st century, but wasn't any use in the 19th or 20th, either.So, simple answer to your question of 'how relevant', Brian – 'materialism' isn't relevant in the 21st century.It's only role, as ever, is to deny democratic social power to the proletariat, and to reserve power for an elite. Marx pointed that out, in his Theses on Feuerbach.

Your failure to address the question and make yet a further attempt to go Off-topic is in my opinion proff positive that you are unable to answer the question.

Brian's topic: "How relevant is the Marxist theory in the twenty first century?"LBird's answer: "Your 'Materialism' (which you claim to be 'The Marxist Theory') isn't relevant in any way at all to the 21st century (and never has been)".Simple enough, and direct, answer, Brian.Or do you want me to outline why your 'Materialism' isn't?The obvious starting point is that, as Marx argued, your 'Materialism' wasn't democratic in the 19th or 20th centuries, and still isn't in the 21st century.If we aspire to build a 'democratic socialism', then a 'democratic theory' is required from the start. 'Materialism' isn't democratic, and so is of no use for this purpose.I'm not making any false claim here, because you've often said in the past that you won't have democracy in all social production – you reserve at least some to elite control. The real problem is that you never explain how an elite theory can be used to build a democratic society, in the 21st century, or any other.

Come on then, in the spirit of democratic, friendly discussion, I'll give it one last go and ask you a straight question, in the hope of a straight answer.My question is:In your view does democratic decision making extend to every member of the community and to every question of social production?

[LBird]

Bijou Drains wrote:

Come on then, in the spirit of democratic, friendly discussion, I'll give it one last go and ask you a straight question, in the hope of a straight answer.My question is:In your view does democratic decision making extend to every member of the community and to every question of social production?

I've always given a straight answer to any straight question – the problem is, some posters don't seem to like my straight answers, and proceed to attack me personally (and then complain when I reply in kind).But, since you're claiming to be asking 'in the spirit of democratic, friendly discussion', I'll give it a go, too.In my view, within World Socialism, every question of social production extends to every member of the community, thus only democratic decision making is politically acceptable.If you don't agree with 'democracy' within all social production within World Socialism, that's fair enough – but the ball's in your court to explain why you oppose 'democracy', and, if not everywhere, within which political contexts you intend to deny democracy within social production.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Bijou Drains wrote:

Come on then, in the spirit of democratic, friendly discussion, I'll give it one last go and ask you a straight question, in the hope of a straight answer.My question is:In your view does democratic decision making extend to every member of the community and to every question of social production?

I've always given a straight answer to any straight question – the problem is, some posters don't seem to like my straight answers, and proceed to attack me personally (and then complain when I reply in kind).But, since you're claiming to be asking 'in the spirit of democratic, friendly discussion', I'll give it a go, too.In my view, within World Socialism, every question of social production extends to every member of the community, thus only democratic decision making is politically acceptable.If you don't agree with 'democracy' within all social production within World Socialism, that's fair enough – but the ball's in your court to explain why you oppose 'democracy', and, if not everywhere, within which political contexts you intend to deny democracy within social production.

In the spirit of democratic debate, I genuinely thank you for you straight answer to my straight question.Perhaps I could trouble you with another question in the spirit of democratic debate?Given then that you think that EVERY question of democratic production extends to EVERY member of that community, can I assume that you think that EVERY 2 years old child and ALL people who have a severe dementia will be voting on whether or not Grand Unified Theory can be used to explain the phenomena of neutrino oscillations that indicate that the Standard Model in Physics is incomplete in its application to quantum mechanics?

[LBird]

You haven't returned the courtesy, BD, and answered my question. Fair dos, eh?But, attempting to make an answer out of your post, if your list of areas which you will deny democracy really extend beyond infants and dementia sufferers (which you probably would be able to make a good political argument for, and would probably win a vote) to physics…… then you intend to deny democracy within a central part of the theory and practice of social production.If I've understood you properly, why not simply say to workers that this is what you intend, to leave political power within the hands of an elite within certain areas, and list those areas?I think that in these areas that you'd lose a vote, and the revolutionary, class conscious proletariat would make a start on making all science comprehensible to all proletarians.That is, education would be democratised. If you oppose democracy within education, then you should say so, openly, and explain why you hold these anti-democratic views.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

You haven't returned the courtesy, BD, and answered my question. Fair dos, eh?But, attempting to make an answer out of your post, if your list of areas which you will deny democracy really extend beyond infants and dementia sufferers (which you probably would be able to make a good political argument for, and would probably win a vote) to physics…… then you intend to deny democracy within a central part of the theory and practice of social production.If I've understood you properly, why not simply say to workers that this is what you intend, to leave political power within the hands of an elite within certain areas, and list those areas?I think that in these areas that you'd lose a vote, and the revolutionary, class conscious proletariat would make a start on making all science comprehensible to all proletarians.That is, education would be democratised. If you oppose democracy within education, then you should say so, openly, and explain why you hold these anti-democratic views.

I think you have misunderstood my intention, or more likely I have not explained it clearly.I am not denying democracy to anyone, I'm actually asking what your opinion on the matter is.If you are stating that you think that there is a good political argument for not extending the franchise on the social production of ideas to dementia sufferers and infants, which I am inferring you do (please correct me if I'm wrong), are you not, by the exclusion of these people from the democratic franchise, saying that there are SOME people within the community that cannot be part of the franchise and SOME that can. So therefore, within your own model of democracy there are a group who can vote on the production of social ideas and another group who don't have that privilege, is this in itself not the creation of an elite?

[LBird]

You still haven't given a straight answer about which areas of social production you'd deny democracy, DB. This 'straightness' of yours seems to be a one-way street.You now seem to be saying that 'adults and non-dementia sufferers' would constitute an 'elite'.I think most workers would think that that category would consist of the vast majority of humans, but perhaps you could explain how you seem to see a 'majority' as an 'elite'?I'm beginning to think that you're not really interested in the issue of 'democracy within social production' (ie. World Socialism), and simply wish to retain at least some areas (perhaps physics, logic, mathematics, etc.) as the preserve of an educational elite.How about a straight answer to the question of which areas of social production that you'd deny democracy within?

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

 You now seem to be saying that 'adults and non-dementia sufferers' would constitute an 'elite'.

Dictionary definition of "Elite"" Noun 1. a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society"Seems to me that by selecting out infants and people with dementia, which apparently you agree with, you have selected out  a group of people, creatign a select group that by definition is an elite. Not my words, but your.I am examining your propositions, your view of things, not giving mine.

[LBird]

Bijou Drains wrote:

LBird wrote:

 You now seem to be saying that 'adults and non-dementia sufferers' would constitute an 'elite'.

Dictionary definition of "Elite"" Noun 1. a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society"Seems to me that by selecting out infants and people with dementia, which apparently you agree with, you have selected out  a group of people, creatign a select group that by definition is an elite. Not my words, but your.I am examining your propositions, your view of things, not giving mine.

[my bold]I'd read your chosen definition again, BD, you don't seem to understand it.'A select superior to the rest of society' is an elite, not a majority.You seem to be wanting to define a 'majority' as a 'dictatorship' – the politics behind that attempt is nothing to do with democratic socialism. Perhaps your own version of 'straightness' is beginning to show, after all.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Bijou Drains wrote:

LBird wrote:

 You now seem to be saying that 'adults and non-dementia sufferers' would constitute an 'elite'.

Dictionary definition of "Elite"" Noun 1. a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society"Seems to me that by selecting out infants and people with dementia, which apparently you agree with, you have selected out  a group of people, creatign a select group that by definition is an elite. Not my words, but your.I am examining your propositions, your view of things, not giving mine.

[my bold]I'd read your chosen definition again, BD, you don't seem to understand it.'A select superior to the rest of society' is an elite, not a majority.You seem to be wanting to define a 'majority' as a 'dictatorship' – the politics behind that attempt is nothing to do with democratic socialism. Perhaps your own version of 'straightness' is beginning to show, after all.

I'm not defining anything, just running some suggestions past you about how you envisage a Socialist Society would operate.So let's go through this again. A group is selected that has the qualities considered to be superior in taking part in votes, in the example I've given this group is selected on the basis that it doesn't have severe dementia and that it is over the age of two years old. This gives us two groups of peopleGroup A – people who have severe dementia and people who are aged under 2 years of age.Group B – people who have the superior attributes that they are over the age of two and that they do not have severe dementia (superior qualities or attributes to group A when it comes to taking part in votes on social production)If you are not in group B then you are from Group B's position "the rest of society. By definition group B must be an elite. Not only that they are an elite that you feel should be chosen to take part in votes about social production.By the way I haven't defined a majority as anything, I am asking about your views, not mine.However, putting discussion of whether this group is an elite or not, am I right in concluding that you are of the opinon that on the basis of what has been discussed so far, you are of the opinion that some groups of people (the size is irrelevant) sholuld be excluded from voting on social production?

[moderator1]

Rather than issue indefinite suspensions to users to Bijour Drains and LBird I have blanked their posts 21-29 under Rules 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.  12. Moderators may move, remove, or lock any threads or posts which they deem to be off-topic or in violation of the rules. Because posts and threads can be deleted without advance notice, it is your responsibility to make copies of threads and posts which are important to you.If such behavour continues I will not hesitate in unblanking these posts and issue indefinite suspensions.

[Author]

Posts