4 ms·

I'm not sure what ideology you are alluding to but that statement is correct, it's impossible for me to not see things through my lense, it's the only one i've

I'm not sure what ideology you are alluding to but that statement is correct, it's impossible for me to not see things through my lense, it's the only one i've got.I'm not by any means saying that countries should do away with their sovereignty in the name on internationalism but the article does state that the cooperation between countries and sharing of knowledge is also being closed with the borders. Marxist catastrophism? Never heard of it, but it very clear that the dogma of modern neoliberalism calls all other ideologies or opposing thoughts marxist. Is it not possible to critique our current system without being called a marxist? Marx wanted the means of production in the hands of the workers. I couldn't care less, I just want to be able to live in a society that has the ability to address problems that or not profitable in the short run. What should I call myself?

thu2111 7y ago
The article states a lot of things that don't make any sense and should certainly be ignored. In a time of instant electronic communication, in which the primary way scientific findings are broadcast are PDFs of journal pre-prints, why would travel restrictions be ending cooperation between countries and sharing of knowledge? That's something the author wants to be true because they're a leftist globalist, but when we do a quick reality check it sounds completely wrong. We're not sending couriers with letters anymore. Marxist catastrophism is a very specific thing. It's not a fancy placeholder for "anything that's not neoliberalism" (a term which is arguably itself poorly defined). Marx is famously known for a few slogans, but he spent his entire life writing. Marxist catastrophism refers to his written vision of the future in which, roughly speaking, capitalism would collapse into catastrophic anarchism due to its internal contradictions (as he saw it) and eventually be replaced with socialism. Interestingly this vision of his came to him as a young man, before most of his other ideas were well formed, and stayed with him his entire life. There's a good description of it in this biography of his life (starting page 52): https://www.academia.edu/12009844/Intellectuals_From_Marx_and_Tolstoy_to_Sartre_and_Chomsky_by_Paul_Johnson https://www.academia.edu/12009844/Intellectuals_From_Marx_an... Johnson argues that his vision was primarily a poetic vision, that is, he saw the poetic vision of a society in flames and then worked backwards from that to derive his political ideas, which is one reason why they don't hold water and why he had to rely on various kinds of intellectual fraud to support them (like manufacturing quotes, using very obsolete sources, etc). When you argue that "market capitalism isn't resilient or robust. Our engine must always run on red and sooner or later it's going to brake down." you are, whether you know it or not, walking a well trodden intellectual path. It's all been heard before but kind of like peak oil, didn't actually happen. Capitalism proved very robust, at least compared to the proposed alternatives. There have been quite a few collapse of communist regimes, but no collapse of any capitalist country. Even blowups like the GFC were over within two years and back to business as usual.
- Phenomenit 7y ago
  Very robust, if we just ignore the irreversibel damage done to pretty much every ecosystem in the world in the name of profi or billions of people living in the waste of the wealthy. Business as usual.

thu2111 7y ago

The article states a lot of things that don't make any sense and should certainly be ignored. In a time of instant electronic communication, in which the primary way scientific findings are broadcast are PDFs of journal pre-prints, why would travel restrictions be ending cooperation between countries and sharing of knowledge? That's something the author wants to be true because they're a leftist globalist, but when we do a quick reality check it sounds completely wrong. We're not sending couriers with letters anymore. Marxist catastrophism is a very specific thing. It's not a fancy placeholder for "anything that's not neoliberalism" (a term which is arguably itself poorly defined). Marx is famously known for a few slogans, but he spent his entire life writing. Marxist catastrophism refers to his written vision of the future in which, roughly speaking, capitalism would collapse into catastrophic anarchism due to its internal contradictions (as he saw it) and eventually be replaced with socialism. Interestingly this vision of his came to him as a young man, before most of his other ideas were well formed, and stayed with him his entire life. There's a good description of it in this biography of his life (starting page 52): https://www.academia.edu/12009844/Intellectuals_From_Marx_and_Tolstoy_to_Sartre_and_Chomsky_by_Paul_Johnson https://www.academia.edu/12009844/Intellectuals_From_Marx_an... Johnson argues that his vision was primarily a poetic vision, that is, he saw the poetic vision of a society in flames and then worked backwards from that to derive his political ideas, which is one reason why they don't hold water and why he had to rely on various kinds of intellectual fraud to support them (like manufacturing quotes, using very obsolete sources, etc). When you argue that "market capitalism isn't resilient or robust. Our engine must always run on red and sooner or later it's going to brake down." you are, whether you know it or not, walking a well trodden intellectual path. It's all been heard before but kind of like peak oil, didn't actually happen. Capitalism proved very robust, at least compared to the proposed alternatives. There have been quite a few collapse of communist regimes, but no collapse of any capitalist country. Even blowups like the GFC were over within two years and back to business as usual.

Phenomenit 7y ago
Very robust, if we just ignore the irreversibel damage done to pretty much every ecosystem in the world in the name of profi or billions of people living in the waste of the wealthy. Business as usual.