The Philosophy Now Forum

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2026 6:30 pm Well shit now that you mention it, Marx and many marxist writers have done a fantastic job at examining history and the course of the material and intellectual ideas of particular societies that develop those cultures.

You clearly haven't read Marx. Just about everything he said has turned out historically to be wrong. Even your "many Marxist writers" have abandoned him as "crude Marxism," in favour of their own "Neo-" variety.

One day, maybe you'll catch up with the literature you're referencing...it just won't be today, apparently.

I can't think of anything less ideological than Marxism, in fact. It's so unideological that a Sioux indian could give a fascinating lecture on it in horrribly broken english and still convey its essential message.

Him work. Him own his product. Him sell. Him make white man's money.

Marx's ideas are so unideological and simple that they're almost boring. There is so much mystery, philosophical depth, and intrigue in Marxism that you could just fall asleep.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2026 6:52 pm I can't think of anything less ideological than Marxism, in fact.

Really? Marx's ideas are so ideological, they should really be characterized as "religious." He thought he was some sort of prophet...and was just as wrong as he was about economics, about that. In fact, Marx stole his ideas -- the dialectic, History as god-subtitute, Historical teleology, etc. -- straight from Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. Marx just took the same ideas, and reworded them in terms of Materialism. But he wasn't original, wasn't scientific, wasn't historical, wasn't an economist, and mostly wasn't right. He was just a guru-grifter, really.

If unpacking and sorting all of that out wouldn't be so tedius and time wasting and would actually serve to make a damn difference in this world, then we would give it a go. But long has past the time of student activism and revolution, and there are no ears today for such sermons.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2026 9:07 pm ...there are no ears today for such sermons.

What "sermon"? Those are the facts. I marvel that Marxists aren't interested in them. They seem to keep going sheerly by not letting themselves know things.

The sermon on the Marx, what else?

I agree, though. First Marxists are in de Nile examining the social and economic structures of African river dwelling cultures, and now Marxist are in denial about their incorrigible theoretical delusions. You just can't win with these people.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:49 pm ...now Marxist are in denial about their incorrigible theoretical delusions. You just can't win with these people.

Don't forget their statistical amnesia. So far, they've killed at least 140 million people, trying to make Marx a reality. It's probably time they admit defeat and give up...but we know they won't. Ideologues are like that. Nothing ever counts as evidence sufficient to make them quit, because nothing they believe has to do with reality. It has to do with utopia...with (literally) "no-place" that has ever existed, or ever could.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 12:30 am Marxists ............ It has to do with utopia...with (literally) "no-place" that has ever existed, or ever could.

Oh boy......... have you never encountered Marxists? They are very opposed to the utopian socialists. Any consideration of "where are we trying to go" is forbidden. Along with "how do we get there".

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 2:35 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 12:30 am Marxists ............ It has to do with utopia...with (literally) "no-place" that has ever existed, or ever could.

Oh boy......... have you never encountered Marxists?

So, so many. Marxists believe in "the classless society" as their teleological objective. In Marxism, the State is eventually supposed to voluntarily dissolve itself in the general human interest; in Socialism more broadly, the assumption is that the State is a permanent necessity, and the utopia will be State-managed.

They are very opposed to the utopian socialists. Any consideration of "where are we trying to go" is forbidden. Along with "how do we get there".

Oh heck, yeah...I'm aware of that dodge. They say, "We can't specify the outcome of it beforehand." And yet, they still want you to believe that we should destroy the existing system, rather than trying to make changes gradually, preserving the benefits of the present. But if they have no utopia in mind, how do they know they aren't precipitating us into something immeasurably worse?

They don't of course; but they want everybody to take it for granted that they do.

So whether it's "the triumph of the proletariat" and "the classless society," or "the end of History," or "unspecifiable Nirvana," they always have a utopian objective, even when they claim they don't.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 2:46 am
So whether it's "the triumph of the proletariat" and "the classless society," or "the end of History," or "unspecifiable Nirvana," they always have a utopian objective, even when they claim they don't.

It is going to be hard for you to understand the differences between the "utopian socialists" and the Marxists because you don't believe the former existed and still exist.

The Marxists are historical determinists. No objective necessary because inevitable.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 2:28 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 2:46 am
So whether it's "the triumph of the proletariat" and "the classless society," or "the end of History," or "unspecifiable Nirvana," they always have a utopian objective, even when they claim they don't.

It is going to be hard for you to understand the differences between the "utopian socialists" and the Marxists because you don't believe the former existed and still exist.

Are you planning to tell me what I know and what I believe? Good luck with that.

"Socialism" is the broad category, and Marxism is the subcategory. Marxism is one form of utopian Socialism. But all Socialisms are inherently at least somewhat utopian, since they all are confident that whatever form of Socialism they advocate, somehow it will turn out to be better than what we have now.

How do they know? They don't. They just assume it.

Even tacitly, even unadmittedly or subconsciously, they must all suppose that Socialist methods are going to be good. They're all hack prophets, each in their own way. They all think this indescribable improvement is going to happen, even when they can't say what it's going to be.

And that's convenient: it saves them from having to explain to anybody how it's all going to happen. "It just will. Trust us. We're 'on the right side of History.'" (That's their new god-substitute.)

Consequently, Socialists task one is to destroy the status quo, no matter what it is; then to let magical, progressive "History" take over, and the all-consuming State manage it all, and it will all work out...somehow. Be critical, be destructive, be rebellious, and History will be freed to do what History does, and good things will ensue.

Utopianism. Just a very unspecified and speculative form. But utopianism, nonetheless.

The Marxists are historical determinists. No objective necessary because inevitable.

Well, that much is true. They all believe in magical "History" and inevitable "progress" through destruction of the status quo.

The thing about all Socialists, though, is they're pretty good at criticizing and absolutely awful and inept at anything constructive. They give all their enthusiasm to destruction, and have no ability to generate anything actually better, it seems. At least, they've never done it, in all the tries they've ever made. That's the danger of tacit utopianism: one doesn't think one has to have anything better to offer before destroying everything we already have, because "History" is bound to take care of all that for us, supposedly.

They are "negative utopians." They want to tell us all the things that the future society will NOT be (won't be racist, won't be sexist, won't be homophobic, won't be against Islam, won't be oppressive, won't be unfair, won't require subsistence or labour, won't be unequal, won't be uninclusive, won't be monocultural....). But what it WILL be? They can't really say. Negative utopians...acquainted with every criticism of what exists, and having no proposal to produce anything better.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 3:24 pm
They are "negative utopians." They want to tell us all the things that the future society will NOT be (won't be racist, won't be sexist, won't be homophobic, won't be against Islam, won't be oppressive, won't be unfair, won't require subsistence or labour, won't be unequal, won't be uninclusive, won't be monocultural....). But what it WILL be? They can't really say. Negative utopians...acquainted with every criticism of what exists, and having no proposal to produce anything better.

Well here we are again, and I don't think it will go any better this time. When earlier I referred you to the "religious socialists" you refused to look at or consider them. Same with the kibbutz movements.

The utopian socialists most definitely had positive visions of what they wanted to develop. But I imagine when I list names like Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, Étienne Cabet, and Robert Owen you are again going to say "not socialism" and/or irrelevant.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 11:03 pm When earlier I referred you to the "religious socialists" you refused to look at or consider them. Same with the kibbutz movements.

No, I know about them. They're just not relevant.

Why should a false religiosity (for you deem them all false, do you not?) be any better reason for Socialism than is secularism? I don't see why you'd think they were. Socialism of a religious flavour is just as dysfunctional as the secular kind...maybe more so.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 11:23 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 11:03 pm When earlier I referred you to the "religious socialists" you refused to look at or consider them. Same with the kibbutz movements.

No, I know about them. They're just not relevant.

Why should a false religiosity (for you deem them all false, do you not?) be any better reason for Socialism than is secularism? I don't see why you'd think they were. Socialism of a religious flavour is just as dysfunctional as the secular kind...maybe more so.

WTF? YOU consider the religiosity of "The True Levelers" to be false? << more or less the same "wing"of Christianity as your own >> And why do you continue to assume I would consider all religiosity "false", or more to the point, useless?

Besides, take the kibbutz movements. Being experimental/utopian IN SPITE OF ideology or religion (not because of). << ideology standard communist s should not be dong this and in one case observant Jewish >>

Of the religious socialist examples gave you, obviously two before our time. But I have met/interacted with Catholic Workers (and once heard Dorothy Day speak). You think THIS about them? ......." is just as dysfunctional as the secular kind...maybe more so."

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2026 3:07 pm ...why do you continue to assume I would consider all religiosity "false", or more to the point, useless?

Oh. So you think Judaism is the true religion? Then for you, it would be Judaism that forms your ethics, and the ethics are grounded in the nature of HaShem.

But secularism still can't ground an ethic.