thegreatdivide
Gold Member
Offline
Australian Politics<br />
Posts: 13884
Gender: 
|
Frank wrote on Apr 16 th, 2025 at 4:45pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 16 th, 2025 at 3:47pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 15 th, 2025 at 9:14pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15 th, 2025 at 5:42pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 15 th, 2025 at 5:30pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15 th, 2025 at 5:28pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 15 th, 2025 at 5:24pm: TGD reckons he's not a cultural Marxist.  Why do you say that? ("Please explain"...?) You wrote Quote:Whoever came up with your quoted interpretation of what Marx said
is obviously a sinister, lying, anti-'communist' ideologue. The quote is correct. So you ARE a lying, anti-'communist'/Marxist ideologue....(or just low IQ....not sinister, just unfortunate; I forgive you). " The principle refers to free access to and distribution of goods, capital and services".What "principle"? Certainly NOT referring to working for a living "according to his ability"... "Please explain"..... No - you can explain your Marxist philosophy. I explained YOUR error by referring to the quote supplied by Frank. Marx was philosophizing about how work and reward for individuals would manifest themselves in a future post- "vulgar socialist" society, in a true communist society ie "from each according to abilty" etc. ie, fair/ethical outcomes not determined by competition between individuals based on differening abilities. Frank of couse ignored my response, thinking he had proved your case re "from each according to his ability" etc. that it meant "free" access to goods etc but if you read Marx's text, that is not the case, rather it means ethical access to goods and services in a post industrial society. Meanwhile you didn't acknowledge the error in your absurd assertion "DEI is unfair", when it is a-moral competition minus regard for just social outcomes (eg freedom from systemic poverty) which is the cause of economic unfairness. I don't think you understood any of that quote. I supplied the link to the full text, maybe you want to have a look. Just a leg-up: when he talked about vulgar socialism ( your kind of nonsense, the Greens' kind of nonsense), he said it Is just an adoption, unchanged, of burgeois production with socialist distribution tagged on (I paraphrase). I'm against a non-ethical, unjust distribution of a nation's production. I'm attracted to Marx's concept of 'ethical allocation' (as opposed to bobby's imagined "free" allocation) of the fruits accruing to society, enabled by the participation of all according to their abilites. I understood enough of that quoted passage to ascertain Marx's ethics, without needing to read more. Quote:The 'each according to his ability' wheeze referred to a utopia, a sloganeering nonsense, a time when the 'engineersof human souls' have transformed everyone to some 19th century romantic ideal of " Rousseau as post-industrial Ubermensch" of sorts. That quote again: In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!It's all nonsense by a graphomaniac autodidact with a bee in his bonnet - hence it's legion of followers and imitators to this day. No, it's ethics is unassailable, even if the method to get there was ill-judged by Marx. Q: how DO you engender ethical allocation of a nation's production, when the 'grunt'-work is done by robots?
|
Forum
Pages: 
Cultural Marxism is everywhere. (Read 70306 times)
