Questioning "academic" terminology & definitions

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

The intent of this boring and unimaginative post is to illustrate perhaps obvious failings present within what many consider to be "infallible" and "absolute" academic methodology. It appears common for many to question my occasional rejection of consensus based abstract frameworks. I believe the occasional break with traditionalist paradigms can be justified in ways most are unaware of.

Some scenarios:

A) From a woman's perspective. A man approaches a woman. He tells her if she has sex with him and agrees to be his slave for one year, he will pay her $10 million dollars. The catch is there are no guarantees in this deal. The woman has no way of knowing whether this agreement will be honored.

B) From a man's perspective. A man claims to have a magic bean which grants those who consume it immortality. He offers to sell it at the bargain discount price of $50,000. There are no guarantees. The man has no valid indication of whether or not said bean functions as promised.

C) A political party claims to have the answers to evils of humanity. They are willing to share these secrets and create a utopian society if a country is only willing to surrender all power and authority to them. The populace has no guarantees and no way of knowing whether or not the deal is legit.

I think we can generally agree all 3 of the items above are scams.

A) A scam to get free sex from women.
B) A scam to con money from people.
C) A scam allowing a political party to seize absolute power.

By this point, I would hope a reader would comprehend how these precedents imply terminology & definition based failure on the part of academia.

If not...

I would contend that C) is a valid example of Communism.

My definition of communism would be similar to this:

Communism is an intricate scam designed solely to allow a political party to seize absolute power. The aspects of communism which promise to maintain, regulate and wield the political, economic and military power for the 'greater good' of a nations citizenry is an empty promise no communist ever had the faintest intention of fulfilling. Communism is an elaborate con job proliferated by an overrated, would be academic, and wannabe intellectual named Karl Marx.

Alrite, that would be my definition.

I know what the academic definition is. Academics would say there has been no "true" implementation of communism. Many have a blind faith in the concept of a state granted absolute power wielding it for the 'greater good' despite the complete and utter lack of historical precedent or evidence present to substantiate the romantic political fantasies to which they adhere to.

This is one major reason I take issue with and have difficulty respecting many so-called "academics". In theory, they're supposed to be intelligent. They're supposed to be smart and educated. In reality, they couldn't identify a scam or con job when its right in front of their faces.

Likewise with the widespread and proliferate failure of academia in recognizing these things.

Thus, "academics" are typically gullible enough to believe communism is about a state that cares about things other than power or money. And, they're also generally naive, sheltered or plain ignorant enough to think the academic definition of communism is a reasonable one.

In a sense all of them are completely useless and unqualified to attempt to analyze political terminology or discourse as they are not equipped to do so.

They simply believe the words of other purported "academics" such as Marx in blind faith. What they call "education" regarding communism and other topics is more closely comparable to indoctrination or dogma. It is belief rather than a logical process involving fact. And, they lack the self-awareness and comprehension of subjects necessary to even identify these base fundamentals.

George Orwell was right about the means of influencing public opinion being powerfully linked to controlling human language and terminology. If Marx could convince many to believe in a scam called communism based upon his "academic" officiality alone. How indeed do academics differ from priests or a pope who would demand hero worship and blind faith from their subjects?

Indeed there is no difference in blindly believing everything written in a holy book and everything written in a book by Carl Marx.

When it is patently wrong to question what is written in a book and to disagree with an official distinction and interpretation written therein, that may be the day when independent thought and critical thinking dies a miserable death. The valid reasons for questioning religion and the bible apply especially to academic rhetoric.

To pretend otherwise is madness!!

...

Comments

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Hmm...

This will be fun.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

It could be, unfortunately I have to take my wheel chair bound wife out shopping for a couch and a dishwasher since I have the day off :(

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

On a more serious take,

In my opinion "the greater good" is a moral abstract that has no place in the discussion of actual policy.

Proponnents of Communism/Socialism assume that thier government will be A trustworthy and B competant. Unfortunatly finding these two traits together is rare enough to be historically unprecidented.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Actually proponents of communism believe that the people will throw off the government as a tool of the rich and live in some sort of ungoverned social paradise. A lot like libertarians really.

Socialists realize that the government is us-- as long as we're not constantly fearing and mistrusting it and therefore not taking part in it.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Actually the Commies in the Cold War thought that the dictatorship of the proletariat *would* some day produce the end of the state. Attempting to achieve this was how the Commies turned into a real-life Legion of Doom, subverting local communist parties in the democracy, to the point of ice picks in the brain of their rivals in Mexico City.

[adrunkencadence.livejournal.com]

Spanish Civil War era Spain, 1936 to 1937. The CNT in Aragon and Barcelona. Look them up and what they did. It only ended when Stalin sent in the Red Brigades and slaughtered the anarchists and anarchist-sympathetic socialists - splitting up the ranks- and thus crushed the anti-Franco forces through outright incompetence leading directly to Franco's rule of Spain into the 1970's.

It is precedence. However, the Bolsheviks crushed it. Who knows, maybe the ruling parties would have betrayed the project if they had a chance on their lonesome. But that's speculation.

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

Two objections:

1) empty promise no communist ever had the faintest intention of fulfilling.

Not a single self-described Communist has ever had good intentions? I find this very hard to believe.

2) There is nothing wrong with questioning authority and those in power, and academics do have some degree of power in our society (though I would argue not a lot compared to many other types of people by any means). No one should "blindly" believe what an academic says, but to some extent this is unavoidable. When we go to academics for advice or knowledge, we do so because we ourselves cannot know the facts. No one is a true polymath these days, so we rely on those who dedicate their lives to a single subject to pass information on to us.

What this means is that we end up believing what experts (which academics are a type of) on the basis of rhetoric, our impressions of their integrity, our own biases, etc., rather than actually looking at the facts. I don't see how this can be changed.

As for your actual example, I think all you've done is set up a straw man. Not many academics embrace Marxism as a political philosophy anymore (that is distinct from other uses of Marxist ideas, such as in literary criticism, which don't necessarily imply endorsement of Marxism as a philosophy). Even if they did, most academics' work focuses on things completely unrelated to politics. What does a marine biologist or a calculus professor have to say about Marxism?

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

To expand a bit, take the global warming debate for instance. I am willing to bet that no one that posts regularly in this community has a good, solid background in the research behind global warming (or at least, there would only be a very few), but that doesn't stop people from debating the "science" back and forth. In reality, we have to take others' word for this to some extent, so instead of challenging authority by finding the "facts", in many cases we should seek to evaluate their judgement, their integrity and if they stand to profit from their findings. This could be expanded to all academic work.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

From the things I've read (Like Radical Son by Horowitz) I get the impression that Marxism rather than Stalinism or Maoism is what academics believe in.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

1) They all had good intentions. Well, except Mao. And his problem was he simply didn't give a damn and did what he had to do. Stalin, Lenin, Hoxha, Tito, they all saw themselves as heroic individuals in a fashion rather similar to Nazi ideology's own Master Race.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

What are you. some kind of anti-intellectual?

Oh, and by the way, I pretty much agree with you :D

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Anti-intellectualism is the new cool, man!

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That's also an adequate definition of Constantine's Empire, the Carolingians, every single dynastic kingdom in human history, the Maurya Empire, the Tang Empire and the subsequent Neo-Confucian Chinese dynasties.....so I suppose in your world everything is communist.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And historically communism as Marx saw it was the idea that the history of the world is class struggle, the French Revolution was the triumph of the Bourgeoisie, that the proletariat of industrial countries would create an international revolution that would end all government and inaugurate utopia.

Leninism was how Lenin and company excused their victory in the Russian Civil War and the failure of the two putsches in actually-industrial Germany. It involved the idea of a Vanguard that could lift humankind from misery, use of War Communism, Red Terror, Gulag, and a huge professional army.

Stalinism was this with actual modern technology, and did take the Russian domains to their greatest power in history at a Pyrrhic cost.

Maoism was a purely peasant-agrarian form of Communism and escaped nearly being annihilated for good twice, once by Jiang Jieshi (who really *was* first Stalin and then Hitler's preferred Chinese leader), and once by the Imperial Japanese Army in 1942. Maoism's survival is pretty interesting, in the sense that a hyena pack is interesting.

Titoism and Hoxhaism were partially communist, partially personality cults.

All the other reindeer were excluded from the reindeer games, with the Stalinists going so far as to use ice-picks to the brain. The later period in the Cold War saw a Sino-Soviet split where the Chinese and Russians had a much meaner version of the French-US split, complete with a war.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Your entire premise rests on the fact that it's impossible for humans to have good intentions. By that logic, anything but pure direct democracy is a scam. At least then why they oppress the minority it's transparent as to why.

Academics would say there has been no "true" implementation of communism. Many have a blind faith in the concept of

There's a difference between a hypothesis and its implementation. Most academics, if you would ask them (which I'm sure you wouldn't, you're just assuming their responses here), would say that communism could never be implemented, and then they would give you the reasons why. The simple answer, for me and mostly anyone, is that people are not rational actors, and they are not omnipotent. Communism requires an ideal that is simply inhuman.

The con job you describe seems like more of a democratic revolution, where the totalitarian party is voted into office. Aside from the Nazi party, I'm not sure where in history this has happened. The others were acquired through violent revolution. Although I'm not sure I buy that the only reason the Nazis were trying to gain power was to oppress Germans. They oppressed Jews, but I wouldn't say Germans.

The rest of your topic rests on academic assumptions that aren't actually held and then arguing against them.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Not to mention that Stalin really *did* have good intentions from one point of view: if one takes as a precondition that dialectial materialism means the triumph of the dictatorship of the proletariat, then forging a proper professional military to build socialism in one country is the most pragmatic way to secure global revolution. As it was, Trotskyism failed in 1920, Stalinism succeeded in WWII.

The Nazis are the only instance in history of the triumph of a totalitarian movement at the ballot box. The key points there were that the Nazis never, even with a plurality of the vote and control of the Reichstag already secured 51% of the vote, and their rise was perfectly within the constitution of Weimar Germany. The Law can be good or evil, depending on who wields it for what purpose.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

LoL. Yeah. Suckahs.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

The intent of this boring and unimaginative post is to illustrate perhaps obvious failings present within what many consider to be "infallible" and "absolute" academic methodology.

What is this "academic methodology" about which you speak? Who is this "many?"

I know what the academic definition is.

OK, I'll bite. What is the "academic defintion?"

When it is patently wrong to question what is written in a book and to disagree with an official distinction and interpretation written therein, that may be the day when independent thought and critical thinking dies a miserable death.

Are you saying that people who adhere with reasonable vigor to the contents of good dictionaries are inherently incapable of "independent thought" and "critical thinking?"

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

what makes a dictionary good?

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/erin_mckean_redefines_the_dictionary.html

don't you wanna be a fisherman and not a traffic cop?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Actually C sounds like every single political party ever.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

If C "sounds like every political party ever, why is the United States currently trippling over themselves in their enthusiasm to grant their government more power & authority under a guise of socialism?

That would seem like a really dumb move, wouldn't it? [:

[dwer.livejournal.com]

oh, brother.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

I know rite? Totally.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Before we go any further with this assault of those fools in academia who adhere to an unvarnished, fundamentalist version of Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto, please provide me with a single example of an academic who adheres to an unvarnished, fundamentalist version of Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I think appeal to fact is a relic of "academic methodology." Apparently, the truly wise amongst us -- that is, the "street smart" -- are not constrained in this manner.

[foolsguinea.livejournal.com]

Marx & Engels wrote a theory of economic organization. They fired no guns, they detonated no bombs, they were serious, and they were not lying.

The politicians who claimed the Marxist mantle, sometimes, were exactly what you say: Frauds who wanted total power for themselves. (I think Trotsky was serious; Mao probably was too; arguably Lenin as well.)

If you were an academic you might learn to tell the difference.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Mao was "serious" about wielding political power and authority for the good of people? You mean like this?:

In Xinyang, people starved at the doors of the grain warehouses. As they died, they shouted, "Communist Party, Chairman Mao, save us". If the granaries of Henan and Hebei had been opened, no one need have died. As people were dying in large numbers around them, officials did not think to save them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine#Causes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine#Causes)

Causing... this:

Some Western analysts, such as Patricia Buckley Ebrey, estimate that about 20-40 million people had died of starvation caused by bad government policy and natural disasters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine#Outcome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine#Outcome)

I don't think Trotsky ever amassed enough power for his true colors to show, likewise with Lenin.

Hitler was excellent at fooling public opinion & hiding his viciousness and ruthlessness up until he became Fuhrer. Its possible they would have done the same.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

So you come in with the argument that there is street smarts and book smarts, then you suggest that academics are defining things wrong, then you give a definition of Communism that is just nuts; even if that's what happens in practice to suggest that Communism is a giant conspiracy theory (surprise, you're finding a conspiracy) is just, well, batguano loco. I mean, the guy's name is KARL not CARL, how can you get that wrong and still have a functioning knowledge of things political.

You're so cute when you try to be smart :)

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Stalin walks up to you. He says if you give him absolute control over your countries economy, military and political structure -- he'll create a utopian existence.

That's a relative equivalent to the academic definition of communism despite what others say. And yeah, its a scam. Don't be fooled, bro.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Karl Marx ( note correct spelling) was no ' wannabe intellectual'. he was a genuinely intellectual type of person who couched his arguments in terms that are so intellectual that his ideas are lagely the intellectual property of the people who went to university or college.

Compare this to Jesus of Nazereth , whose ideas are pitched in such simple terms thay you can teach them to average primary school children and they get the ideas.

Karl Marx never appealed for votes, either. he argued that voting was a waste of time and that the answer was a revolution. And that Revolution was inevitable as the system would inevitably lead to a crash that left people starving and they would rise in revolt as a consequence. I know this to be true, because I have read Das Kapital for myself - just don't ask me wot page says wot !

Now, Marx argued all this, and yet...

Revolution only happened where things were so badly planned that the troops were starving and ill paid that they switched sides- in Russia , the sailors on a Battleship turned their guns away from the workers and shelled the Winter Palace IIRC.

In most places, the ruling class read Marx and made damned sure that the workers never got that desperate.

In short, intellectuals are generally not so good at thinking 'outside the box', but most people cannot analyse or deduce anything, inside outside or on top of a box.

Your best chance is to run it past a panel of people and let some consensus form.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Karl Marx never appealed for votes, either. he argued that voting was a waste of time and that the answer was a revolution.

Stand in lines and vote in an orderly fashion or engage in a wasteful revolution which costs numerous human lives, mass destruction of property and political and societal instability? It doesn't take a real intellectual to see why voting would be vastly preferable.

Jesus > Marx I would say.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

1956 is calling, they'd like their jingoism and paranoia back.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Those in 1956 had a lot more to fear than Al Qaeda.

They didn't bend over backwards and allow the TSA to grope them at airports. Nor did they allow their government to spend trillions upon trillions of dollars on a "war against terrorist" as well as other assorted "anti-terrorist" programs.

They would never have been that gullible, uneducated or tolerant of such waste, inefficiency and abuse.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Also -- I'm leaving this community for awhile again. Have fun.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Best thing you've said so far.