tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post2672514085015332110..comments2023-10-20T05:51:51.625-04:00Comments on The THINK 3 INSTITUTE: Jonathan Sperber's Karl Marx: a 19th century life for 21st century readersSamuel Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-53247288734068571502013-06-09T14:36:55.554-04:002013-06-09T14:36:55.554-04:00I think the real problem here are the people who i...I think the real problem here are the people who insist it's an either/or proposition. That one cannot maintain one's sense of individuality within the framework of a unified state. To me, those people simply have a learning disability.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-69130746150245141752013-06-07T19:22:03.561-04:002013-06-07T19:22:03.561-04:00What I'm saying here is that any given individ...What I'm saying here is that any given individual is unimportant to the whole of the state. People in this country die every day, but the country doesn't cease to be. To the state, individuality is meaningless because individuality does not create the state - united individuals who set that "individuality" aside in the interest of common goals and the common good are what matter to the state.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-9064397720043340172013-06-04T19:01:46.345-04:002013-06-04T19:01:46.345-04:00re: the U.S. Given the Southerners' dependence...re: the U.S. Given the Southerners' dependence on and commitment to slavery, the real choice was between civil war sooner or civil war later. The Federalists wanted the Southern states in the Union because they didn't want the land divided into multiple nations that could be manipulated by the European powers. They preferred to compromise on slavery rather than form the union by conquest, but ended up having to conquer anyway. It might have been less bloody to do so in 1787, but foreign interference may have been more likely.<br /><br />On individuality, I don't think Marx would have said that anyone's individuality was meaningless to a communist society. But he would have suggested a difference between one's true individuality, which might only flourish under communism, and the bourgeois self-alienating individualism that resists communism. In simpler terms, communists need to tell people that they can be happier under communism than they tell themselves they are now.Samuel Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-40618025468529822332013-06-04T15:53:23.813-04:002013-06-04T15:53:23.813-04:00I'm mainly thinking in terms of hypotheticals ...I'm mainly thinking in terms of hypotheticals (sic). That is to say, a state doesn't just randomly occur when a critical mass of individuals come to live in a predetermined area. A state occurs when people of the same mind form that state - in our case, the founding fathers. The mistake they made was in not creating a true nation, but rather a (more-or-less) loose federation of states, each with their own government, set of laws, mores, etc. <br />Ultimately this led to the civil war. If there had been no separate states, there could have been no secession. Therefore our "nation" is weakened because of the way it is formed. But I digress.<br /><br />My main point being that a "state" does not exist without it's citizens. Then land may be there, but it is just land. You may draw borders on a map, but that proves nothing. The people MAKE the state and those who are malcontent with what the state is or is becoming have (as I see it) four choices: <br />1) Accept it as it is, like it or not.<br />2) Attempt to convince the majority to change in accordance with their own personal views.<br />3) Pack their bags and leave.<br />4) Attempt an insurrection and accept the possibility of their death in the doing so.<br /><br />But if a person simply cannot accept the idea that their personal "individuality" is meaningless to the state, then they cannot live in a state and the onus is and should be on THEM to leave the borders of the state and find another "state" that is more to their liking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-62243128608177814082013-06-04T13:53:42.019-04:002013-06-04T13:53:42.019-04:00But if the people are the state yet people don'...But if the people are the state yet people don't identify with it, does the state really exist? Marx often didn't identify with whatever state he was living in because, in practice, those states weren't equivalent to their people but existed to benefit ruling classes. If a Marxist today feels the same way about the U.S., our boasts of democracy notwithstanding, would you throw him out? <br /><br />Of course, I understand that you're thinking of those people who refuse to identify with the state under any circumstances, but they aren't the only ones who might refuse unconditional identification with actually-existing states.Samuel Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-71942088187113747222013-06-04T13:33:15.022-04:002013-06-04T13:33:15.022-04:00The state is the nation is the people. If they do...The state is the nation is the people. If they don't or can't identify with that, they have no reason to be a part of the state (citizen) and there is no reason to for the state (and it's citizenry) to tolerate them within it's borders.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-28553537014960831372013-06-03T18:26:27.662-04:002013-06-03T18:26:27.662-04:00Part of the problem, I think, is that too many peo...Part of the problem, I think, is that too many people can only imagine this as a rationale for a <i>sacrifice</i> of individuals and individuality to a state with which they obviously don't identify fully. This is the sort of alienation that Marx believed only communism could rectify. From what I understand, he didn't think most people could figure this out so long as material conditions alienated them from their own everyday work. That's why he accepted that revolution would be a long struggle, and it's probably why people like Lenin thought a vanguard party necessary to kick people into line. Marx seemed to think that all you needed was a proletariat with nothing to lose but chains and a world to win. The genius of capitalism is that it can convince even the poor that they do have something to lose to communism.Samuel Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-30527780430187050502013-06-03T17:44:15.131-04:002013-06-03T17:44:15.131-04:00"...citizens' complete identification wit...<i>"...citizens' complete identification with the state."</i><br />If I may inquire: What, exactly, is the state without it's citizens? If one were to turn that phrase around to read "the states complete identification with its citizens." Would people still have a problem with it?<br />The fact that so many people can't seem to grasp that the people <i>are</i> the state; that the state is not somehow separate from the people tells me more about the mental problems of those people than about any real problem with the state. At least in a truly functional democracy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com