Trump as Jesus

[Gary Childress]

They don't, actually. It wasn't Marx who invented the term, but one of his contemporaries did; and Marx became its popularizer. But it's a stupid term. An "-ism" is an ideology, a religion of some kind. Socialism is: it has things like a manifesto, followers, an ideological program, an economic program, educational ambitions, and whatnot. But there's no comparable "ideology of capital." That's just silly stuff.

Was feudalism and ideology?

I dont' think it was. There was no "feudalist manifesto," or "feudalist founder," or ideological program of feudal thinking. There was just an economic arrangement, and that's what the term "feudalism" is meant to describe, not an ideology.

So feudalism describes an economic arrangement, but capitalism doesn't?

[Immanuel Can]

Was feudalism and ideology?

I dont' think it was. There was no "feudalist manifesto," or "feudalist founder," or ideological program of feudal thinking. There was just an economic arrangement, and that's what the term "feudalism" is meant to describe, not an ideology.

So feudalism describes an economic arrangement, but capitalism doesn't?

"Capitalism" is a made-up concept. It never existed. "Feudalism" is just a convenient name for a cluster of social phenomena. And like all era-markers, it's bound to be an oversimplification, as well; time doesn't move in convenient chunks. Eras don't change by textbook pages. One so-called era always blends smoothly into the next; and how to mark them properly is always capable of controversy.

[Gary Childress]

I dont' think it was. There was no "feudalist manifesto," or "feudalist founder," or ideological program of feudal thinking. There was just an economic arrangement, and that's what the term "feudalism" is meant to describe, not an ideology.

So feudalism describes an economic arrangement, but capitalism doesn't?

"Capitalism" is a made-up concept. It never existed. "Feudalism" is just a convenient name for a cluster of social phenomena. And like all era-markers, it's bound to be an oversimplification, as well; time doesn't move in convenient chunks. Eras don't change by textbook pages. One so-called era always blends smoothly into the next; and how to mark them properly is always capable of controversy.

But "socialism" is a convenient chunk and not an oversimplification? Or is "socialism" an oversimplification?

[Immanuel Can]

So feudalism describes an economic arrangement, but capitalism doesn't?

"Capitalism" is a made-up concept. It never existed. "Feudalism" is just a convenient name for a cluster of social phenomena. And like all era-markers, it's bound to be an oversimplification, as well; time doesn't move in convenient chunks. Eras don't change by textbook pages. One so-called era always blends smoothly into the next; and how to mark them properly is always capable of controversy.

But "socialism" is a convenient chunk and not an oversimplification? Or is "socialism" an oversimplification?

Socialism has a founder, a manifesto, a specific program that entails things like economics, government, education...and, in fact, even human reconstruction. It's definitely an ideology...a religion, really...with all the fixtures of such. But I don't know who founded feudalism, where its manifesto is, who its followers can fairly be said to be, what its program for education or utopia would be...it seems to have been more a matter of pragmatics than ideology. But it's not a precise label, like Socialism is, and it's rather hard to delimit.

[Gary Childress]

"Capitalism" is a made-up concept. It never existed. "Feudalism" is just a convenient name for a cluster of social phenomena. And like all era-markers, it's bound to be an oversimplification, as well; time doesn't move in convenient chunks. Eras don't change by textbook pages. One so-called era always blends smoothly into the next; and how to mark them properly is always capable of controversy.

But "socialism" is a convenient chunk and not an oversimplification? Or is "socialism" an oversimplification?

Socialism has a founder, a manifesto, a specific program that entails things like economics, government, education...and, in fact, even human reconstruction. It's definitely an ideology...a religion, really...with all the fixtures of such. But I don't know who founded feudalism, where its manifesto is, who its followers can fairly be said to be, what its program for education or utopia would be...it seems to have been more a matter of pragmatics than ideology. But it's not a precise label, like Socialism is, and it's rather hard to delimit.

If the term "socialism" was around before Marx, then who was the founder, and what was the manifesto of it? Or can Marx "found" something that predated his existence and write the official manifesto about it?

[Immanuel Can]

But "socialism" is a convenient chunk and not an oversimplification? Or is "socialism" an oversimplification?

Socialism has a founder, a manifesto, a specific program that entails things like economics, government, education...and, in fact, even human reconstruction. It's definitely an ideology...a religion, really...with all the fixtures of such. But I don't know who founded feudalism, where its manifesto is, who its followers can fairly be said to be, what its program for education or utopia would be...it seems to have been more a matter of pragmatics than ideology. But it's not a precise label, like Socialism is, and it's rather hard to delimit.

If the term "socialism" was around before Marx, then who was the founder, and what was the manifesto of it?

I already said this. The term "Socialism" first appears around 1820 (Cambridge U. says). But it was borrowed and popularized by Marx, who wrote the basic Socialist theory. Before that, there was a word, but not really a specific theory associated with it...more a cluster of ideas.

Most of today's Socialists look to Marx as the founder, and "The Communist Manifesto" and "Das Kapital" as the signature works. Whether we call Leroux or Owen the "founder," they "founded" only the word, it seems; it was Marx who put it all together into a theory. That's why he gets the "founders" badge.

[Gary Childress]

Socialism has a founder, a manifesto, a specific program that entails things like economics, government, education...and, in fact, even human reconstruction. It's definitely an ideology...a religion, really...with all the fixtures of such. But I don't know who founded feudalism, where its manifesto is, who its followers can fairly be said to be, what its program for education or utopia would be...it seems to have been more a matter of pragmatics than ideology. But it's not a precise label, like Socialism is, and it's rather hard to delimit.

If the term "socialism" was around before Marx, then who was the founder, and what was the manifesto of it?

I already said this. The term "Socialism" first appears around 1820 (Cambridge U. says). But it was borrowed and popularized by Marx, who wrote the basic Socialist theory. Before that, there was a word, but not really a specific theory associated with it...more a cluster of ideas.

Most of today's Socialists look to Marx as the founder, and "The Communist Manifesto" and "Das Kapital" as the signature works. Whether we call Leroux or Owen the "founder," they "founded" only the word, it seems; it was Marx who put it all together into a theory. That's why he gets the "founders" badge.

My experience with the writings of people who describe themselves as socialists is that there is no 100% consensus on Marx among "socialists". What writings by self-described socialists have you read, other than Marx? And did they all agree with everything Marx wrote on socialism, or did some disagree?

[phyllo]

Have you two considered starting "Socialism" and "Marx" threads and discussing those subjects in those threads?

You know, instead of hijacking other threads.

[Immanuel Can]

What writings by self-described socialists have you read, other than Marx? And did they all agree with everything Marx wrote on socialism, or did some disagree?

A lot disagree, because they point out that Marx was simply wrong. Most of the Neo-Marxists either drop all the bits in which Marx was uncomfortably wrong, and replace them with other things of their own. For example, the Critical Theory set (such as Adorno, Horkheimer, Bell, Crenshaw, Du Bois, Althusser, et al.) replace "class" as a category with other conflict categories, such as "race," "sex," "ethnicity" and "gender," because "class struggle" doesn't turn out to be the comprehensive description of history that Marx insisted it was.

[Immanuel Can]

Have you two considered starting "Socialism" and "Marx" threads and discussing those subjects in those threads?

You know, instead of hijacking other threads.

Naw. That would be boring.

[phyllo]

Have you two considered starting "Socialism" and "Marx" threads and discussing those subjects in those threads?

You know, instead of hijacking other threads.

Naw. That would be boring.

Spoken like a real Christian

[Immanuel Can]

Have you two considered starting "Socialism" and "Marx" threads and discussing those subjects in those threads?

You know, instead of hijacking other threads.

Naw. That would be boring.

Spoken like a real Christian

So..."Trump as Jesus" is on philosophical topic?

And debating Marxism is going sideways and losing the track?

Son, you don't know where you are.

[phyllo]

You can start a thread about anything you want. You can debate anything that you want.

What I object to in this situation, is you and Gary talking about socialism and Marx in this thread and the "Fabianism" at literally the same time. Same subject, same people, same time.

Is it really too much for you two to discuss it in one dedicated "socialism" thread? You can't do that?

[Immanuel Can]

You can start a thread about anything you want. You can debate anything that you want.

Fabianism is a kind of Socialism. The father of modern Socialist theory is Marx. We have every right, and are on topic, to discuss this on the thread I started on the subject of Fabian Socialism. But if it becomes relevant here, because I'm talking to a Socialist, then it is also relevant here; and we have every right to speak about what's relevant.

But you don't have to stay, if it offends you. I have no desire to make you unhappy. Go wherever you want. That's your prerogative, as it is ours.

[phyllo]

So stay in the "Fabianism" thread.

Why are you talking about socialism in this thread as well???