all communication is manipulation; manipulation is not inherently bad
this is correct tho. in example:
reeducation of the petty bourgeois is a manipulation, but it is good.
manipulation has many bad connotations, and im not saying your miserable ex was using this point ingo od faith, but the act of manipulating someone to make the world better for everyone is obviously not bad.
race or sex [do not] constitute a class
youre not wrong, but it is important to acknowledge that capital often treats minorities and women both as classes.
that black people being treated as capital, a human commodity, made them in effect, a class below that of the worker in the heirarchy of relation to capital, is pretty indisputible.
[marx is] so funny when he’s going off on somebody
ugh, i wish marx would go off all over me :panting:
The point, I think, is that "all communication is manipulation" is only true for such a uselessly broad definition of manipulation that it becomes only useful for disguising actual manipulation. Such a broad and mild meaning for manipulation is better described as "communication", and leave the word manipulation for meaningful uses of it.
either you dont think reeducation involves serious manipulation, or you think reeducation, and therefor rehabilitation of any kind is bad.
either way youre wrong.
really dont know what else to say to this
edit: point being, the direct purpose of communication is to express ideas such that other people adopt them, enabling them to be more helpful and productive. communication therefor is a tool with the explicit purpose of reeducation.
literally any attempt to convince someone of something is in effect a form of reeducation. it is manipulation. and it is not inherently bad.
the "definition" you want to use ignores the actual denotative meaning of the word manipulate in favour of the colloquial meaning of manipulation.
obviously in day to day speech, communication and manipulation are not usable interchangeably, that is not the fucking point
agree, but also
this is correct tho. in example:
reeducation of the petty bourgeois is a manipulation, but it is good.
manipulation has many bad connotations, and im not saying your miserable ex was using this point ingo od faith, but the act of manipulating someone to make the world better for everyone is obviously not bad.
youre not wrong, but it is important to acknowledge that capital often treats minorities and women both as classes.
that black people being treated as capital, a human commodity, made them in effect, a class below that of the worker in the heirarchy of relation to capital, is pretty indisputible.
ugh, i wish marx would go off all over me :panting:
The point, I think, is that "all communication is manipulation" is only true for such a uselessly broad definition of manipulation that it becomes only useful for disguising actual manipulation. Such a broad and mild meaning for manipulation is better described as "communication", and leave the word manipulation for meaningful uses of it.
either you dont think reeducation involves serious manipulation, or you think reeducation, and therefor rehabilitation of any kind is bad.
either way youre wrong.
really dont know what else to say to this
edit: point being, the direct purpose of communication is to express ideas such that other people adopt them, enabling them to be more helpful and productive. communication therefor is a tool with the explicit purpose of reeducation.
literally any attempt to convince someone of something is in effect a form of reeducation. it is manipulation. and it is not inherently bad.
the "definition" you want to use ignores the actual denotative meaning of the word manipulate in favour of the colloquial meaning of manipulation.
obviously in day to day speech, communication and manipulation are not usable interchangeably, that is not the fucking point