Good thats the end of that ...
...which is why I'm confused.
You still havn't shown its relevant ...
OK, but how do you define "needs"? That depends on the lifestyle.
Furthermore, since when are people motivated to do anything just to satisfy needs? We work to live, we don't live to work.
It all goes back to childraising really. You seem rather bent on giving birth to people just to make them slaves.
A: I don't suscribe to early Marx so I find no need to defend that
B: Its something that has to be worked out.
C: People are motivated by many many many things, but the argument that people won't work without the threat of lack of livelyhood has been debunked over and over again, by anthopologists, economists, sociologists, and empirical evidence now.
D: As far as your last sentance, I don't see where you get that at all, other than in your own head.
Arbitrary? If anything, I said calibration is vital. The point is you need to keep it consistent.
It's like how you have to keep things balanced when you're doing algebra. The particular balance doesn't matter, but you have to balance things.
Arbitrary in the sense that you could calibrate it to anything and it would still work to give good evidence.
I'm not a libertarian (as you can tell from my defense of children), but free markets are justified from the autonomy of personhood.
No they arn't at all ...
Actually, I was going to say the exact opposite.
Cohesion depends on what the most powerful elements of a set are in defining how things cohere. If you're weak, sensitive, thin-skinned, ugly, or odd, then society is entitled to overwhelm and/or ignore you.
There are many realpolitik conservatives out there who believe in rugged individualism, but they're really national socialists. Conservatism first and foremost is about preserving due process and the rule of law. Property comes from properness, not the other way around.
There are NO arguments here ...
The whole thing about the weak, sensitive and so on, is just an assersion, you don't get that at all, and as I said leftists DON'T buy into ONLY cohesion, NO ONE does, not one person, even nihilists , of coarse things have to be coherant, but that doesn't mean there are no foundations, so your juts making **** up.
Your idea of what conservatism is says it all, due process and rule of law, but a very specific kind, only the ones that defend the systems of power.
As far as property comming from properness, thats an assersion, property comes from power, and threat of violence, always has always will, the appeal to properness is an afterthought to defend it.
No offense, but I don't think you've talked with many leftists. In fact, Marxism itself is about owning the means of production via dictatorship of the proletariat since the base defines the superstructure.
i AM a leftist ... and I've STUDIED Marx, I've studied MANY interpretations of Marx ...
So if I were you I would shut your mouth trying to tell me what Marxism is about.
The overwhelming majority of leftists I've talked with recognize power analytics (Foucault) before discourse ethics (Habermas). If outcomes are not equal, they seek to correct the system. They don't care about liberty because they don't embrace that people are different. They just want to level the playing ground and intimidate others into worshiping them as the bureaucratic center of attention.
A: Most leftists are not strict historical materialists, or moral nihilists, infact the vast majority are not.
B: Foucault ultimately DID care about liberty, but he rightly pointed out that the concepts of liberty in society are shaped by the class structure.
C: Lefitsts never claimed that people are not different ....
D: Leftists were the ones that made liberty possible in the world
E: No arguments here juts baseless assersions.
Look, I'm gonna need some actual proper arguments, not just bull**** asserssions.
Leftists care about liberty, REAL liberty, not liberty for those who can afford it.
I see what you're saying about conservatives because some do embrace rugged individualism nonstop, but your treatment of children convinces me you're no different. You expect children to surrender authority despite how they don't consent to be created. On top of that, a socialist society would expect them to work merely to have their needs satisfied rather than actually learning social values and imaginatively cultivating culture.
A: the whole rugged individualism is a strawman, I never said anything about that.
B: My example of children is an example of what an argument justifying authority could be .... But if you think parents should not be able to say anything to their kids then fine, thats an argument to be had.
C: What your saying about you supposed socialist society is a strawman, your just making **** up. A socialist society (I do NOT, nor do most leftists buy into early Marx's models, which were made specifically for a certain time and place) is nothing more than a democratization of the economy.
People under capitalism work only to have their needs satisfied, what your describing is Capitalism, socail values come from different sources than the economy, and imaginatevely cultivating culture in Capitalism is only something you can do if you can afford it, socialism wants to extend that ability to everyone.
Look man, I want to read REAL arguments, no more of this strawman, redherring, made up bull****.