[RD] What does Marxism offer?

[inthesomeday]

Definitions are almost never useful in politics.

Marxism is a historical philosophy, and Leftism is an economic one, so thankfully definitions still matter.

Like say?

What?

Sit-in protests mean nothing to people whose livelihoods depend on coal mining. Health pamphlets mean nothing to people addicted to food.

Sit in protests and health pamphlets aren't exactly what I mean when I say direct action.

There were over eighty.

Can you tell me about them? I don't know much about the kibbutz, although they seem to be a Utopian religious community.

The problem is that cherry-picking only works for people on the high school debate team, Vox readers and politicians with multi-faith constituencies. Go tell the Amish that they have to treat women equally because Jesus was all about equality.

Amish societies aren't really about religion anymore than the Catholic Church or the Shahdom; they're about authority and power and simply use religion as a justification, I.E., themselves being the cherry-picking Right I was referring to.

Yeah, who ever heard of pre-agricultural societies taking slaves or killing foreigners?

A pre-agricultural society in the context of scarcity caused by the encroachment by the agricultural lifestyle. If you can find an earlier example than that, or one from a region where agricultural civilizations hadn't already profoundly impacted the environment of the society, then we're in business.
Plus the domestication of the horse counts as agriculture.

 

[Lexicus]

I disagree, I find that the general sort of definition of civilization as having x technological characteristic lends itself to the declaration that a society without x characteristic is therefore uncivilized.

Although if you're more comfortable with the semantics you can pretend I said society.

Uncivilized isn't necessarily a pejorative term. Civilization technically means a society with class stratification, cities, agriculture, and writing.

 

[Mouthwash]

Marxism is a historical philosophy, and Leftism is an economic one, so thankfully definitions still matter.

What?

Examples of deeply held beliefs compatible with the ideas of the loony left.

Sit in protests and health pamphlets aren't exactly what I mean when I say direct action.

So what? You can firebomb as many Burger Kings as you want, people aren't going to see you as anything more than a terrorist.

Can you tell me about them? I don't know much about the kibbutz, although they seem to be a Utopian religious community.

Only a small percentage are religious and those aren't so much about creating a religious utopia as accommodating Jews who want to live in a commune.

Amish societies aren't really about religion anymore than the Catholic Church or the Shahdom; they're about authority and power and simply use religion as a justification, I.E., themselves being the cherry-picking Right I was referring to.

Have you read anything whatsoever about the Amish?

A pre-agricultural society in the context of scarcity caused by the encroachment by the agricultural lifestyle. If you can find an earlier example than that, or one from a region where agricultural civilizations hadn't already profoundly impacted the environment of the society, then we're in business.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/history...fare-west-conflict-among-southwestern-indians

 

[inthesomeday]

I mean even on the political spectrum measurement the "Left" side is referred to as economic. Left and right wing, to me, refer to the two ideologies of how wealth should be distributed-- communally or autocratically.

Examples of deeply held beliefs compatible with the ideas of the loony left.

I'm not sure what loony left means, but being taught from childhood that sharing is caring or that treating everyone equally is a good thing are leftist ideals. On a more complex level, most modern day religions are ideologically founded on peace and love or moral and communally beneficial living, even if their applications are twisted by violent fascistic regimes or organizations. I hope that actually speaks to what you're asking; you keep saying beliefs and I'm pretty sure you're referring to religious beliefs, but you're being unclear.

So what? You can firebomb as many Burger Kings as you want, people aren't going to see you as anything more than a terrorist.

Who's "people"? If you mean folks who haven't yet had the opportunity of outreach education about how Burger King exploits them and their communities and the global environment and population, then that's unfortunate, but with this understanding I think they'll understand.
I'm also curious as to your definition of terrorist.

Only a small percentage are religious and those aren't so much about creating a religious utopia as accommodating Jews who want to live in a commune.

If it's a real commune that's intriguing, I'll have to read more about them. Are all resources used produced autonomously, and communally distributed?

Have you read anything whatsoever about the Amish?

Yeah!

http://www.encyclopedia.com/history...fare-west-conflict-among-southwestern-indians

Strangely, I tasked you with an earlier source or a source from a region less impacted by agriculture, and you presented me with a source about Pueblo and Navajo societies during the 15th-16th Centuries. A couple things:
1. The Pueblo and Navajo were both agricultural, as the article itself acknowledges by describing them repeatedly as sedentary, semi-sedentary, and semi-nomadic.
2. By the 15th-16th centuries, Spanish imperialism had already brought European-brand civilization to this region in a way that had definitely impacted the native populations.
3. Other than that, there were several other native agricultural civilizations that predated the Pueblo or the Navajo in this region.
4. This period is actually several centuries later than Genghis Khan.

 

[Honor]

Religion/faith is about reducing competition just like a communist economy is, unless it is colored by competitive dynamics. It creates communities and generally strengthens human bonding. It does not make sense to ask people to detach from it, rather than simply providing a non-competitive environment where faith can live on without being corrupted.

The family unit is also a collectivist entity that creates and lives on through strong human bonding. It is the basis for peaceful, non-competitive human societies. The familial bond extends out from the individual to all individuals of the tribe on its own in peaceful societies, without a dissolution of the core unit. The far left has no idea if this kind of familial bonding is achievable without the core collectivist cultural imprinting that is possible in the family unit.

Nationalism is an extension of tribalism that prevents intra-tribal conflict, reducing competition by creating a collective whole. The tribal bond will easily extend to other tribes under a non-competitive, peaceful environment. No need to ask people to abandon such allegiances. Nations may meld together in time, provided the people feel that way.

The far left should not even be talking about these things in my opinion.

 

[Honor]

Yes.

Hmm, I think I initially misjugded where you are coming from, I apologize. It seems my judgement is still somewhat colored by my negative experiences.