PDA

View Full Version : Question for wheelchairman



Kim Jong Il
02-14-2005, 03:49 AM
I have just finished reading some of J.V. Stalin's works on the national question. I think the problem with Stalin's conception of "nation" is that it is based on historical materialism, according to which the mode of production is the "foundation" of society. But a foundation does not completely determine whether any stories will be built on that foundation, the number of stories, the style of those stories, the function of those stories, and the use of those stories. Nor do foundations develop. Foundations are purposefully built and sometimes purposefully destroyed. On occasions foundations may be replaced without affecting the superstructure. At most, just as existing foundations may LIMIT the possibilities of further construction so the mode of production may limit the cultural and political possibilities. The existence of the foundation may make certain alternatives relatively impossible, but that is about it. What do you make of this?

RXP
02-14-2005, 03:52 AM
It ruins the analogy if you can change the base without effecting the superstructure.

sKratch
02-14-2005, 07:04 AM
Or affecting, for that matter. OH SHIT SON YOU GOT GRAMMARED!

the_GoDdEsS
02-14-2005, 11:48 AM
He's currently away on holiday. So you'll have to wait a bit.

Kim Jong Il
02-14-2005, 12:08 PM
I thank you for informing me.

SicN Twisted
02-14-2005, 01:13 PM
If someone murders thirty million people, I think it's pretty much futile to analyse their economic ideas because their actions entirely overshadow any sort of material contributions he may have made.

Kim Jong Il
02-14-2005, 01:46 PM
If someone murders thirty million people, I think it's pretty much futile to analyse their economic ideas because their actions entirely overshadow any sort of material contributions he may have made.
We approach history scientifically, not with emotionalism, and not with moralisms.

"Like a lovely generator"
02-17-2005, 09:57 AM
Surely some emotion is required when discussing something of this magnitude. Talking cooling about a regime like Stalin's can't be really be possible. A lack of emotional involvement is what leads to attrocities in the first place. When we start thinking about people as statistics, we allow evil men (Like Pol Pot or Stalin) to flourish.

Oh, and, to me, the analogy is fundamentally floored. An economy doesn't react in this way but, compared to other factors, like Sic says, Stalin's economic strategy is hardly an issue

wheelchairman
02-17-2005, 12:02 PM
I have just finished reading some of J.V. Stalin's works on the national question. I think the problem with Stalin's conception of "nation" is that it is based on historical materialism, according to which the mode of production is the "foundation" of society. But a foundation does not completely determine whether any stories will be built on that foundation, the number of stories, the style of those stories, the function of those stories, and the use of those stories. Nor do foundations develop. Foundations are purposefully built and sometimes purposefully destroyed. On occasions foundations may be replaced without affecting the superstructure. At most, just as existing foundations may LIMIT the possibilities of further construction so the mode of production may limit the cultural and political possibilities. The existence of the foundation may make certain alternatives relatively impossible, but that is about it. What do you make of this?
The national question is something I have a difficult time making an opinion on. Keep in mind that I just got back from my vacation so I am rather tired.

You are basing the National Question on solely on aspect of Marxism, that is on foundation and Superstructure. I would say that a Nation also develops out of several other conditions, class development and it's class relation to other nations. Personally I think nations are rather superficial bourgeois creations. Borders and peoples moved rather fluidically from nation to nation before capitalism. So the modern concept of nation was rather different than what we have under Capitalism. The nation of Iraq for example, is a rather new nation. I'm speaking of when the actual borders were set.

These are my thoughts so far.

To Like - If you can't discuss history in a sober-mind, than it's no better than discussing it drunk, and only half as entertaining.

SicN Twisted
02-17-2005, 12:06 PM
Genocide isn't as much a moral issue as a practical one. In no case can it be productive towards the building of a modern society and advancement of a peoples to murder them in record number.