Group, MBellemare, Marcos,

April 2024 Forums General discussion Marx and Automation Group, MBellemare, Marcos,

#128237
Anonymous
Guest

Group, MBellemare, Marcos, all.  Sorry for my confusion about your vocabulary rules.  My mistake.

MBellemare wrote:
     Yes, Steve San Francisco, you are banging your head against a wall, a certain wall of ideologues, trapped in the past. Semantics and the ignoring of concrete facts as somehow illigitimate, is the last resort of an outdated argument backed-up against the wall, a dying argument. So don't fret too much about it, this is how new paradigms come to the foreground. To be positive and optimistic, one can only hope on this forum, that some, who are truly interested in furthering knowledge, will examine the evidence objectively.     The fact is that Marx's analysis cannot fully explain the post-industrial condition. He is helpful in pointing in the right direction and offers good insights, but cannot explain a litany of post-modern, socio-economic phenomena, which are out of reach of Das Capital. So let me quote, the American, philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn, who can incapsulate how these issues with Marx and his ideologues will be resolved:   


competing paradigms…[manifest]… different worlds. [Each is] looking at the world, and what they look at has not changed. But …they see different things, and they see them in different relations one to the other. Before they can hope to communicate fully, one…or the other…must experience a paradigm shift. It is a transition between incommensurables [and] the transition between competing paradigms cannot be made a step at a time, forced by logic. Like the gestalt switch, it must occur all at once (though not necessarily in an instant) or not at all…The transfer of allegiance from paradigm to paradigm is a conversion experience that cannot be forced. Conversion will occur a few at a time until, after the last holdouts have died, [and then] the whole [society]…will again be…under a single, but now a different, paradigm.


And as I like to say, "some only turn towards verity, grudgingly and with much anguish!"


yeah, sorry I guess I just didn't understand the whole trick to redefining a collection of commodities based only on the change in government to call them "material objects in a general store".  We can easily fix all my arguments at once with just a search and replace.  So if I just replace do a find on any time I wrote the words "commodities" and replace that with "what would be called commodities in a capitalist system but are now called material objects after a hypothetical someday worldwise socialist revolution" then would that be ok? ps. After launch of my project we're going to call all commodities "people goods"  I think it's just better phrasing. There are no material objects or commodities in my econnomy and there is only "people goods". if you can't underatand that then you don't really understand my ideas.