Quite a few of our posters on this forum bring up
Marxism when views are expressed that seem to be
directly opposed to the ideology they prefer.
They try very hard to spread the fear that the
ideology of Marxism is infiltrating society by
underhand means. Marxism to them appears as a
bogeyman.

Are these people stuck in the 1950s and are they
still feeling the existential fears of that time?

What do you think?

Yes and yes.

They also seem to fail to comprehend that economic and political philosophies don't have to be completely accepted or rejected, but are collections of features we can pick and choose.

It certainly is a 'powerful evil'; and nobody has to “.. try very hard to spread the fear that the ideology of Marxism is infiltrating society by underhand means”. It is clearly happening, and has been happening for the past 30 years or more, as it has 'marched through the institutions'. That last phrase is a trifle trite, but anyone who hasn't noticed the changes really isn't taking much notice of what's going on around them.

As for 'picking and choosing', Aidan: you are in for one hell of a shock in the near future.

Foxy – I am particularly amazed by your naivety, given all the 'research' you do. You are going to the wrong sources. The ones you use are all part of the threat. They are not going to tell you the truth.

China and Russia are no longer communists Foxy
But yes it still is a danger to us all.
Not because it has any strength but because Conservatives/ read far right, insist on using it to scare
Only in the minds of those folk does it even exist other than in minor country's bound for failure

I'm tending to lean towards Aidan's observations
more than ttbn's at this point in time.

I find it interesting, although understandable,
considering the age of some posters, that they so
emphatically see only their own versions of "normality"
"decency" as being good. They are in effect defending
orthodoxy - by which they mean that "normality" and
"decency" is white, Christian, patriarchal, and of
course heterosexual. Anything else to be suggested
appears to them to be a heresy. And anyone who thinks
differently or disagrees is a Marxist - or worse -
evil.

Dear F foxy,

As an ex myself, I have to say that Marxist socialism has, every time, gone off the rails pretty quickly and degenerated into a sort of fascism. What am I saying ?! Into fascism, pure and simple: gulags, mass executions, a prohibition on any deviating thinking, a huge secret police apparatus, no better conditions for the workers (in a worker's state) than anywhere else in the world. So it goes with any philosophy which veers away from democracy with all its inevitable faults.

These days, what passes for Marxist socialism in countries like Australia tends to veer towards Gramscianism: Gramsci was always close to the anarchists (and flirted with Mussolini's fascists early on) and their repudiation of any sort of state - which grotesquely meets the extreme right-wing's abhorrence of the state. I suspect that the remnants of the Yellow Vests in France are a mixture of extreme-'left' (i.e. anarchists, smash the world) and extreme-right fascists (smash the world and start again, with much fewer but 'the right sort' of people).

What's the answer ? Democracy, always democracy, with all its faults, and a willingness to compromise, so that the middle 60 or 70 per cent across the political spectrum consciously strive to form workable governments willing to compromise, even horse-trade if you like, but to keep the political system more or less together in the workable interests of the majority. On that basis, I'm neither entirely happy nor unhappy with either the Coalition or Labour, or even some sort of workable 'United Front' government, based on workable compromise. I don't see much sense coming from the children of the cross-benches.

Happy New Year !

Love,

Joe

"Are these people stuck in the 1950s "

Or are they living in the 2010s and others haven't caught up yet.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/venezuelan-women-sell-hair-sex-and-breast-milk-to-survive-as-country-crumbles

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3995286/KATIE-HOPKINS-mourning-people-Cuba-selling-thing-bodies-Havana-street-corner-sex-business-Castro-couldn-t-ban.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/the-big-picture/2018/02/riches-rags-venezuela-economic-crisis-180211123942491.html

The 20th century is littered with so-called intellectuals who failed to see communism for what is or was then. People like the Webbs, Durante, Shaw and literally millions of others.

Its hardly surprising that our current times would also have equal myriads who not only fail to learn from history but also fail to see what's happening around them now.

Foxy,

The problem is that most people have no clue of Marxist theory, its derivations and willful amnesia toward the 10s of Millions of people killed in its name. That in many universities up to 40% of social science and liberal arts professors identify as Marxist would indicate that this toxic philosophy has not died the shameful death it should have.

Marxism is more than just authoritarian socialism, it is an economic philosophy based on the assumption that society and identity are social constructs which can be manipulated. Thus the references to "Neo-Marxism" don't target socialism directly, but more the attempts to mould society by example controlling what speech is acceptable etc.

That the left label any utterance contrary to their accepted dogma "hate speech" and the concept of free speech is considered conservative and reactionary would indicate that intelligent peoples' fears are far from anachronistic.

Foxy,

The problem is that most people have no clue of Marxist theory, its derivations and willful amnesia toward the 10s of Millions of people killed in its name. That in many universities up to 40% of social science and liberal arts professors identify as Marxist would indicate that this toxic philosophy has not died the shameful death it should have.

Marxism is more than just authoritarian socialism, it is an economic philosophy based on the assumption that society and identity are social constructs which can be manipulated. Thus the references to "Neo-Marxism" don't target socialism directly, but more the attempts to mould society by example controlling what speech is acceptable etc.

That the left label any utterance contrary to their accepted dogma "hate speech" and the concept of free speech is considered conservative and reactionary would indicate that intelligent peoples' fears are far from anachronistic.

Belly,

Russia may not be communist, but China with its strong state control of both the economy (state-owned enterprises) is clearly closer to communist than democratic.

The number of corpses produced by various Marxist regimes is a large number. I see the Communist Manifesto as a recipe for producing corpses.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12693 points to my article making the connection.

david f,
The trouble with that argument is that there were also a very large number of people killed in the name of anticommunism.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Shadow,
China's certainly not democratic - it's an autocratic authoritarian police state. But despite the Communist Party being in charge, its economy is closer to capitalist than communist.

Marxist theory is not really a consistent philosophy, as Marx contradicted his own writings.

__________________________________________________________________________________

mhaze,
Though the Venezuelan socialists have proven themselves to be extremely bad economic managers, that country's economic trouble has long predated them. The effects of a fixed currency and procyclical economic policy had eroded Venezuela's prosperity throughout the 20th century.

__________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
>Aidan: you are in for one hell of a shock in the near future.
What brings you to that conclusion?

Dear Aidan,

The fact that people were killed in the name of anti-communism does not negate the implicit violence specified in the Manifesto.

Communism, in addition to being a real menace, is also used as a label to attack people who want to do something about the oppression of capitalism by calling them communist.

Capitalism in the form it takes in the Scandinavian produces decent societies. Capitalism in the form it takes in some other societies is oppressive. Communism need not be oppressive, but the form specified in the Manifesto is most oppressive.

Love the shear blindness that those thinking any form of communism is on our doorstep
Look at what became of communism in China, Russia, one now bent on using free trade to power its wish to dominate the other a crime lord rules interested in making money
It remains my view the biggest threat is the lost right using it as a club

Aidan,

Addressing your points:

1 The number of people killed by Marxism vastly outnumbers those killed trying to suppress communism.

2 The free market economy was introduced in China largely due to the failure of Marxist socialism and is probably closer to Fascism.

3 All socialists have proven to be bad economic managers. That Venezuela was not wealthy before does not explain the rapid collapse under socialism.

David,

Theoretically, communism/marxism need not be oppressive, however, they always have been.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Communism is essence holds that society or the state owns the means of production rather than capital which allows the means of production to be under private ownership. Both forms of ownership can be oppressive or not oppressive. However, in the atmosphere of the Cold War the less oppressive form of communism was not allowed. It was a good thing when Mossadegh of Iran nationalised the production of oil in 1953. The profits from the sale of oil went to the government and people of Iran rather than to the pockets of the foreign owned oil companies. A CIA sponsored coup got rid of the Mossadegh government and installed the Shah. Later the Shah's government was overthrown by a reactionary fundamentalist religious government which has sponsored terrorism. The Shah's government was overthrown because his secret police were terrorising the Iranians. We might not have the present conflict with Iran had the Iranians been left in peace to enjoy the profits of the oil. Obama and many of the governments of the western countries tried to make peace with the present government of Iran. That does not satisfy Trump and the oil companies which back him. They want their profits. If Mossadegh had been left alone we might be at peace with Iran now.

David,

By less oppressive communism I guess you mean that fewer people were murdered and imprisoned. There has not been a communist regime that hasn't murdered and abused its people and shredded the economy ever since the cold war. North Korea is a prime example.

That Mosaddegh was democratically elected also means that he was not communist. That he essentially confiscated the assets that the British and Americans had built at the cost of $bns follows the lines of what was done in Venezuela, and if he hadn't been toppled, Iran would most probably follow the same economic trajectory as the foreign investment would fall to zero.

That the radical left frequently flies the hammer and sickle and employ hooded thugs to shut down dissent even in Aus is a matter for concern.

Quite a few of our posters on this forum are infected with the jordan peterson virus. Thats why they keep banging on about marxism. and lobsters hahaha

I think we have to get away from the simplistic notion that political philosophies can range only on a spectrum from extreme-let to extreme-right. Hayek proposed instead a three-way differentiation, with democracy in now corner, extreme-left positions in another corner, and extreme-right positions in the other.

In other words, three spectrums/spectra:

*. between extreme-Left and Democracy;

*. between extreme-Right and Democracy;

*. between extreme-Left and extreme-Right.

This gets us away from the either/or thinking, black/white, Manichaean, adolescent thinking into more complex political world-views. It suggests that alliances are possible across all three spectra, or at least some way along each one, usually with the excluded party being seen as the Deadly Enemy.

On this schema, we shouldn't forget that Hitler called his party the German National Socialist Workers' Party: German, National - verging on the extreme-right; and socialist, workers' - verging towards the extreme-left. Since both are fundamentally anti-democratic, this similarity of purpose shouldn't surprise us.

So we can have governments which are uneasy alliances between democratic forces and the extreme-left OR extreme-right. Or fascist regimes which employ both extreme-left rhetoric and tactics (all fascist regimes seem to claim to speak for 'the people'), and extreme-right forms (the Party as the champion of the 'Nation').

I suppose, once philosophies move away from the values of the Enlightenment (which are constantly evolving, their evolution didn't stop in 1800) and the values of freedoms (of speech, association, etc.) and equality, they can't help degenerating towards those extremes, even as they pretend to be creating the 'perfect society'. Democracy on the other hand is always going to be imperfect, unfinished, and thereby full of promise.

Joe

Aidan,

Your obvious ignorance of Marxism/Socialism/Communism is what “ … brings (me) to that conclusion”.

You claim that “They also seem to fail to comprehend that economic and political philosophies don't have to be completely accepted or rejected, but are collections of features we can pick and choose” is utter nonsense.

You cannot 'pick and choose' when elites and the political class decide on any course. You, we, just do as we are told. You are a prime example of a useful idiot – or you would be if you were a person of any consequence and not just any anonymous nobody rabbiting on in social media.

Some people cannot face the truth. They are looking for reassurance that something bad is not going to happen (hence the origin of this thread). But there is no reassurance. Something bad is already with us. People just don't want to admit it. They still believe that the Emperor is not stark, bollock naked.

Incidentally, for those who think people like me are living in the past. The 1950's were not all that bad. None of the whizbank technology and free hand outs, of course; but we knew who we were, and who the enemy was.

The 1950's taught us all about Marxism and how to recognise it. A skill that not many people have today.

Firstly to Everyone Here - HAPPY NEW YEAR 2019!

I am so pleased with the high standard this
discussion is setting. So many interesting and
thoroughly engaging points of view being
presented. Thank You!
You've given us all so much to think about.

I grew up with a family that had lived
through and experienced a
communist regime and had lost a great deal both
in family, country, possessions, social standing.
They fled from the Soviet Regime. And growing up
I was taught that the price of security was indeed,
constant vigilance.

This concept translated easily into the Cold War period
of world-ending dread, the spectre of nuclear
annihilation being held in the cold hands of Godless
communists. It's hardly surprising in that context that
McCarthyism took such rapid and deep hold on the
American consciousness. And here in Australia as Displaced
People were invited by the then Government to come and settle
they brought their fears with them.

The world today is a similarly uncertain place, but in
much less black and white tones. From what I'm reading
and hearing - it would appear that we can expect as
it dawns Marxism will continue to be a powerful totem of
evil in 2019. Cultural relativism, ideological warfare,
demonisation of traditional values, these all are the
true concerns still - of many people - and will continue to
be for quite some time.

Many of the posters on this thread seem to have the notion, "We're good. They're bad." Possibly we are a mixture of good and bad, and they are a mixture of good and bad. No philosophy or ideology appeals to masses of people unless it speaks to their interests and prejudices. To study the effect of Marxism and communism which are not the same thing it would be useful to ask, "What interests and prejudices do they appeal to?"

Dear David F.,

An excellent question.

Understandably trends - like Safe Schools, Same-Sex
Marriage, Homosexuality, Feminism, et al, are seen by some
as a threat to orthodoxy, "normality" and "decency," by
which they mean that "normality" and "decency" is -
white, Christian, patriarchal, and heterosexual. Anything
else is suggested as a heresy. And anyone who thinks differently
or disagrees is a Marxist or worse - evil.

The Inquisition and historical witch-hunts arose from
exactly that sense that the world was under attack by Satan -
who was never seen - but whose presence was very much felt in
a superstitious world. People felt they were fighting the
forces of darkness for mankind's soul - even though these
forces were indistinct in shape and form.

Possibly we are a mixture of good and bad, and they are a mixture of good and bad
david f,
Definitely rather than possibly in my book. The dilemma is to differentiate between good & bad.
What's good for one is not good for the other. Particularly in ideology.
I think good is when those who use our Tax Dollars give something of equivalent value in return.
Bad is what's happening with our tax Dollars now i.e. we get nothing in return.
Like bureaucracy fleecing revenue-creating industry & squander it on the unemployables & themselves whilst asking for more from us.

Dearest Foxy,

Maybe the goals which many people, especially those doing it tough, are much more as Abraham Maslow would have described - a job, security, a bit of comfort, a better future for their kids, not to be ripped off. Communist parties appeal to the 'people' on those issues. And so does Trump. So did Hitler. All at the cost of complicated truths.

So Friedrich Hayek's Triangle is not a bad way to look at politics. OTOH, I still have just a little affection for Marx, with all his dodgy analyses and predictions, even with his illegitimate son, who Engels passed off as his own. I think he would have been appalled, perhaps after a time to 'reconsider' (as the Russian proverb puts it), at how his Monster turned out.

And Maslow himself may have been very much influenced by Marxism: his brother-in-law, Oscar Lewis, was a lifelong communist, finishing up in Cuba where he tried to test his theories about a 'culture of poverty' and whether socialism would eliminate or at least counter it. No, it didn't, he learnt. Maybe that's what killed him in 1970.

[Yeah, it's called the 'bowerbird syndrome' ]

Love,

Joe

We know or should communism was once thought to be the answer not the problem
Those who are listed as British spys should say it was not just a working class dream
We saw in uprisings and eventually the Berlin wall falling it no longer is some thing we want
My true fear is that the new right poses a far greater fear than communism
Seems lower wages and poorer working conditions for many of us is needed or claimed to be
A fairer caring more world is not communism,it is just about balance

Foxy,

I think that you are being a bit over dramatic, many people such as myself have been accepting of homosexuality and gay marriage for many years, but find the new identity politics incl safe schools as a bridge too far (and unsupported scientifically) and far too close to racism.

Secondly, rather than the conservatives labelling the left Marxist, it is far more common to find left whingers at just about every protest etc calling those they disagree with Fascists in a bid to silence any discussion that differs from their opinions.

Why is it Fascism to support free speech?

Aidan,

"Though the Venezuelan socialists have proven themselves to be extremely bad economic managers..."

Not just the Venezuelan communists...all communists. In all the nations that have ever turned their economies over to Marxist theory, not one has succeeded. Not a one. The theory is utterly flawed and the implementation of the theory always, ALWAYS, exaggerates those flaws.

But the apologists for it always, ALWAYS, have little local reasons why it failed in this place or that place while averting their gaze from the overall truth that it never works.

"...that country's economic trouble has long predated them [the Chavistas]..."

Yes they had some economic problems due to ill-management. But those problems were minor in comparison to now. Pre-Chavez Venezuelan women weren't reduced to selling their hair (and much much worse) just to escape the country, hospitals functioned, food and oil plentiful and cheap. The previous economic problems were on the lines of Venezuela not keeping up with its neighbours. Now Venezuela is a by-word for economic disaster. It makes North Korea look like an economic miracle.

That you'd try to dismiss these problems as merely a continuum reveals true motive.

"economic policy had eroded Venezuela's prosperity throughout the 20th century."

Now we are in the realms of economic illiteracy or make-believe. For much of the 20th century Venezuela was the wealthiest nation in central America. It was only the latter part of that century where there was a slowing of economic growth.

There are two constants with regards to communism:

1. That economically it always fails.
2. that there will always be people around who will try to paper over or outright deny those failures. There are a million wannabe Walter Duranty's even today. Which is why those who know the truth about communism need to constantly call them out.

Aidan,

Not just bad economic management. Venezuela is about as big as South Australia, 350,000 sq. miles, but without any deserts, only lush forests and farmlands, and rainfall all-year-round. So it could be producing crops all-year-round for its 35 million people and still exporting food.

So how on earth can there be food shortages, particularly if land was supposed to be re-distributed to the poorest ? Surely the people there are not all relying on little more than oil revenues - they can't all be rent-seekers, can they ?

Maybe there's more to it than mismanagement: communist regimes tend to be both opportunist and organised along patron-client lines, in which party bosses give out benefits to their cronies and persecute those who won't kiss their arses. Communist parties are inevitably patron-client systems. Schemers quickly learn the value of joining, and becoming lifelong, well-paid functionaries, perhaps in the armed forces or the secret police - there's always plenty of work for the secret police under communist regimes.

But the problem with giving out land to cronies is that they don't want to work hard either, they aspire to be functionaries. So the land lies locked-up and uncultivated, while most people live on the edge of starvation, outside the fence, looking in.

Joe

Shadow Minister,

I'm not being over dramatic.

The focus on Marxism politics and the use of blunt
words has for a long time been personal not only
on this forum but in the media as well. Many have
experienced it. This is due to the speed with which
modern societies are adapting to the upending of
conventional ideas. These ideas are now becoming
mainstream enough to cause a sustained backlash.

In Australia Safe Schools are a target - possibly
due to the pace of change and what it means. It is
most acute when it comes to children. Many of the
ideas presented in the Safe Schools program push
the boundaries for some. Particularly older people -
although young people find concepts like gender
fluidity not controversial at all. A lot of the
moral panic comes from very conservative groups,
Right-Wing Conservative MPs and the Australian
Christian Lobby -
in some cases, as a front for lingering homophobia
and transphobia - a resistance to accepting that
anything but heterosexuality as fully "normal."

The words thrown around are emotional and often
ignore what the program is. It began and largely
still is, a voluntary professional development program
for teachers IF a school requests it.

Yet according to people like Conservative Senator
Cory Bernardi it "indoctrinates kids with Marxist
cultural relativism." It "is tantamount to a paedophile
grooming a child." And Liberal National Party MP
George Christensen regards it as "ideological madness."
The Australian newspaper has campaigned against it.

And so it goes.

Question- Is Marxism still a powerful totem of evil in 2019?

Answer- Simply- Yes.

* Although as with most things it's more complex than that.

Marxism is related to Communism/ Trotskyism/ New Left/ etc- you can see disturbing elements of the New Left in other Marx related ideologies that tend not to be embodied in other ideologies (or not in the same way). From experience modern Socialists do read and place weight on Communist archives.

I've had a passing interest in politics and philosophy for many years- I prefer the old books (The Republic, The Politics, Art of War, The Prince, even the Communist Manifesto, Adam Smith, Nietzsche, Ayn Rand, many others- I have many books on my "to read list" that I'll never get to). Coming from an engineering background I approach content analytically.

* I've been viewing a number of pieces of material recently that have added to my understanding of the "current state of affairs"- including how Communism has evolved in relation to older ideologies.

- a brief biography of Durkheim (father of the Social Sciences)- Helps to understand how the Social Sciences have become influential within universities and society;

- Marcuse (Father/ Grandfather of the New Left- Trotskyism/ Neo Freudism)- Seems to link Communism with contemporary Social Liberalist Ideology;

- a book on Britain describing the revolution of capitalism and the rise of the "Landed Gentry" starting in the 1500's- this describes how the peasants, who could not sell the land but owned it in name - premogeniture, were forcibly disenfranchised from the land by the crowns desire for profit- the principle being those that created the greatest profit control the land - "land utility" and "trickle down economics";

- Prof Patrick Deneen- an Australian podcast- relates to the Landed Gentry- says that in order to understand the current environment we should go back much further in history and understand the very roots of our own culture through works such as Locke 1632-1704 (enlightenment thinker commonly known as the "Father of Liberalism", inspiration behind The US Declaration Of Independence, all men are equal),

Hobbes (Leviathan 1651- Bellum omnium contra omnes, the condition of man is a condition of war of everyone against everyone), Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America 1835, Democratic Despotism, prefers local forms of government);

- Dr Jordan Peterson and his use of Jungian Archetypes and Animal Group Behavior (Lobsters)- I find relating the society of mankind to animal society to be a useful comparison- Desmond Morris also done this in "The Human Zoo" (excellent) and "The Naked Ape"- Even David Attenborough is good here;

* All political systems are related- some useful commonalities and differences have been useful to me- this isn't a complete list- I'm sure you can come up with some of your own...

- Communism and Capitalism are both systems based on mass industrialism and Classical Liberalism- they both rely on land utility and trickle down economics- they are both globalist in nature- the problem with mass systems (both Patrick Deneen and Desmond Morris comment on the issues with mass society) is they disempower those at the bottom- some would argue that the reason they are at the bottom is because they are less valuable to society- but I would carefully disagree- (what if you just gave the land (means of production) to the families and let them manage it in perpetuity- this was essentially the traditional primogeniture system pre-1500's- but some would call this type of land ownership as fascism- some would say this isn't land ownership in the strickest Liberalist sense)

- Liberalism (Freedom) seems to make assumptions about man's nature and the Liberalist system itself. "Liberalism implies empowerment" of the people. At the same time "the Globalist nature of Liberalism disempowers" the people. Ironic. Perhaps the opposite- Conservative Traditionalism could (also ironically) perhaps be more empowering of the people- because of its less global nature.

* The above reading, thinking, and testing has lead me in unexpected directions and has questioned the orthodoxy of contemporary political thought. I have often been reminded of wisdom- Socrates comment- that his wisdom was based on those that "think they know"- Bohr's comment to Einstein- "what right have you to tell God what to do"- and the warning to those that think they can "improve upon nature"- like a child explaining to their Grandparent.

In answer to the question- Given the blind dogma/ death count/ disregard of families/ insidiousness- Communism is a powerful totem of evil in 2019.

The entire history of man is one big joke- but there have been a few bright sparks in the struggle of those who desire power to reach the top of the ant hill.

Indeed, there is so much to read.

Prof. Tor Hundloe's book, "From Buddha to Bono,"
he covers all the Eastern Philosophies, the
gregarious Greeks and their bequests,
history and the dark ages, a world of discoveries,
Renaissance and Enlightenment, the first ecologists,
the industrial revolution and the birth of economics,
the Romantic era, the New Moderns, Charles Darwin,
inventions and ideas abound, and so forth and so on.
Then there's Ian Robertson's "Sociology." Great reading.
And many more.

I've got the entire collection of Robert Conquest's
books (our greatest Kremlin elucidator) but enough said
for now.

Dear davidf,

You wrote;

“Capitalism in the form it takes in the Scandinavian produces decent societies. Capitalism in the form it takes in some other societies is oppressive.

I'm wondering if you accept it could also read;

“Marxism in the form it takes in the Scandinavian produces decent societies. Marxism in the form it takes in some other societies is oppressive.”

I take you point though about the capacity of Capitalism to be oppressive. It is an inescapable but often ignored fact that the beacon of laissez faire capitalism, the US, has the highest proportion of its citizenry imprisoned than any other country in the world.

mhaze,
>Not just the Venezuelan communists...all communists.

I didn't say communists, I said socialists. The Chavistas are socialists (by the original definition that most self identified socialists now reject) and regard themselves as such. AFAIK they don't identify as communists.

Whether all communists are extremely bad economic managers may depend on the definition of "communists" since China seems like an obvious counterexample. But even if you exclude China, what about Laos? Not a great success, but it doesn't appear to be a great failure either.

>In all the nations that have ever turned their economies over to Marxist theory,
>not one has succeeded. Not a one. The theory is utterly flawed and the
>implementation of the theory always, ALWAYS, exaggerates those flaws.

Of course, and I'd caution against turning economies over to ANY theory, Marxist or otherwise. But if you look at those which have merely been influenced by Marxist theory rather than been turned over, the effects have not been catastrophic and have sometimes been an improvement.

Just to be clear, the above paragraph is NOT an attempt to belittle the flaws of Marxist theory.

>Yes they had some economic problems due to ill-management. But those problems were minor in comparison to now.

I don't dispute that. But he same underlying problems that successive governments have failed to properly address are now some of the biggest contributing factors in Venezuela's economic catastrophe.

>The previous economic problems were on the lines of Venezuela not keeping up with its neighbours.

No, they were much deeper than that. They started out much wealthier than their neighbours, but the boom bust cycle (caused mainly by fluctuating oil prices, and exacerbated by government policy) destroyed their wealth, and it was the poor who suffered most. The Chavistas not only failed to fix the root cause of the problem, but were unwilling to address the more immediate causes. Plus as you know, they implemented policies that weakened the economy even more.

>That you'd try to dismiss these problems as merely a continuum reveals true motive.

Then WTF do you think my motive is?

Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 1 January 2019 11:00:50 AM

Understandably trends - like Safe Schools, Same-Sex
Marriage, Homosexuality, Feminism, et al, are seen by some
as a threat to orthodoxy, "normality" and "decency," by
which they mean that "normality" and "decency" is -
white, Christian, patriarchal, and heterosexual. Anything
else is suggested as a heresy. And anyone who thinks differently
or disagrees is a Marxist or worse - evil.

Answer- Witch hunts- well- Witch hunts are still going on under Liberal Democracy. Protecting your community from change is a survival mechanism- it can be good and bad- but to whom? and how? Most animal societies are patriarchal, heterosexual, homogeneous. Witch hunts are a tool in the box of politics and can take many forms. Communists try to do the same as the army and smooth out the differences between people so they can focus on the task- this is also good and bad. Ad nauseam.

Leaders care mostly about effectiveness. When their ideologies fail it means they need to be more aggressive- which often creates bigger failures.

Overall I've been impressed by certain comments on this thread- I'm sure you know who you are. Kudos

Foxy.

"In Australia Safe Schools are a target [of the focus on Marxism]".

Given that Safe Schools was founded by an unreconstructed Marxist, and incorporates much of the current Marxist thinking about how to change society to be more accepting of that ideology, this might be seen as a red (grin) flag to some and explain why the Marxist agenda isn't welcomed. Others however, pre-disposed to averting their gaze from any red flags, (nothing to see here, move along) might want to pretend that its all about fairy dust and lollipops.

Loudmouth,

"So how on earth can there be food shortages, particularly if land was supposed to be re-distributed to the poorest ? "

Land redistribution almost always ends up in food shortages. The only way it works is if the land is being taken off people who aren't involved in working it and given to those who work but don't own it. Its worked for that reason in China a few times and in Ancient Rome.

But generally the productive landed classes are the targets for redistribution and are forced off the land. Then output falls. Then the government steps in to save the day, because in the minds of certain types government is always the solution. Once that happens its all over, red rover.

Russia went from being a massive food exporter to a massive food importer once the kulaks were redistributed off the land. Zimbabwee. North Korea. South Africa's next cab off the rank.

"Communist parties are inevitably patron-client systems. Schemers quickly learn the value of joining,.."

It is truly said that in capitalist countries the rich become powerful while in communist countries the powerful become rich. Chavez family is now among the richest in central America. Castro also. There's a funny story (probably apocryphal) about Brezhnev's mother fretting, when he showed her around his new house, new dacha, new car etc, that he could lose it all if the communists ever got back in power.

Communism inevitably fails. As Orwell said "there are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." And so it remains in favour among many intellectuals in universities, unions, international organisations etc. These people surely aren't so disconnected to reality as to not know that it fails. But I think that they are so awe-struck by their own super-intelligence that they think that they'll do it better than Lenin, Trotsky, Chavez and Mao when their time comes. They forget what happened to intellectuals in Kampuchea and that they're more like to end up on the wrong end of a gun should their dearest desires eventuate.

Loudmouth,
Venezuela's socialists have certainly created a cronyism problem, but AIUI that's mainly in the oil industry. I think that country's problems with agriculture stem from the government's attempts to regulate prices, making it unprofitable.

Hayek's Triangle is an extremely bad way to look at politics, as it's steeped in an ideology that can't tell the difference between freedom and the tyranny of the rich. A better way would be the Political Compass: a square with a vertical axis going from libertarian to authoritarian, and a horizontal axis going from (economic) left to right.

Expanding it into three dimensions, with a social axis from conservative to liberal, would theoretically be better, though much harder to implement well. I have seen political viewpoint tests with more than 3 dimensions, but I don't think any yet match the clarity and usefulness of the Political Compass.

__________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
Of course we can pick and choose! The political class is not an exclusive club – it's available to everyone. We're a democracy; we're not slaves to what the elites want. Though hypothetically, if the elites had the power you think they do, you've missed the important point that they'd still be able to pick and choose rather than accepting or rejecting a political or economic philosophy in its entirety.

I'm impressed by the comments in this discussion.

Great going guys!

Hi Aidan,

Yes, your Political Compass model is probably superior to Hayek's: a particular ideology can be placed anywhere in those four quadrants, with democracy ideally here the two dimensions cross. Thanks.

Mhaze,

Probably what we're witnessing is sort of post-Marxism, Gramscianism and its 'march through the institutions' of bourgeois society, i.e. democratic rights, the accumulating values of the Enlightenment. Even Gramsci (with his leanings towards anarchism) realised that the workers were as likely to support Mussolini's fascism as anything else, and that as far as a communist revolution was concerned, the jig was up: it was a dead loss.

Therefore, how to bring society - capitalist society - down any way they could. Therefore, attack the institutions of capitalist society, even all the values of the Enlightenment, and bring society down to nothing, and somehow start again from scratch. No matter how much damage and loss of life it might take.

There is some of that revert-to-ancient-communal-society Utopianism in Marx's writings, even a sense that medieval peasant life was superior to the workers' lives under capitalism, everybody was so happy and content (after the ShaKer and Digger movements of the seventeenth century). That might explain the idiot belief that 'all cultures are equal', whatever that may mean, and the reluctance to criticise or even analyse other systems, such as hunter-gatherer or Islamist cultures - but of course, that dogmatic idiocy isn't applied to capitalism - capitalism is, after all, pure evil, not like any other 'culture'.

Yes, democracy is a constant battle against such stupidities. Our grand-kids and great-grand-kids, etc., will probably be spouting them at uni all over again, as if they are their own original discoveries.

Joe

Foxy,

99.5% of people identify as the gender they were born with, while 3-4% of those are not heterosexual, so the whole concept of gender fluidity is complete bollocks except for a miniscule number of people.

My problem with safe schools is that its teachings have as much scientific background as the teachings of creationism, and any enforced "teaching" without a rational basis is pure ideological indoctrination.

Making schools safer has more to do with teaching tolerance than gender fluidity. Imagine if teaching racial fluidity was espoused?

mhaze and SM,

Leaving aside the irony of the religious right crying
foul about "indoctrination" in the classroom while
they happily champion taxpayer-funded religious schools
and a $245 million chaplaincy scheme, lets look at the
facts.

The Safe Schools Coalition was not pushed upon an
unwitting educational system by "gay activists."
It was set up in 2010 in Victoria in response to requests
from teachers to help them support a growing number of
LGBTI students who were wrestling with their identity.

It has the backing of BeyondBlue, The Australian Secondary
Principal's Association, The Australian Education Union,
and the Australian Council of State Schools Organisations.

Adding to teacher's concerns were alarming statistics from
La Trobe University's 2010 - "Writing Themselves In Study,"
which revealed 75 per cent of LGBTI young people had
experienced physical or verbal homophobic bullying.
Eight per cent said the abuse happened at school.

These students are up to six times more likely to
attempt suicide and self harm than their peers.

For this reason, Victorian Premier, Daniel Andrews has
championed the program. He's hit out at the "extremists"
saying it wasn't the structure of the program (which is
voluntary - the school has to ask for it) that offended
them but the kids who needed it.

The Premier may have a point.

At the 2014 National Launch in Melbourne, then
Parliamentary Secretary for Education, Senator Scott Ryan -
said in an impassioned speech that creating a safe and
supportive environment for students was "simply the right
thing to do."

There's more at the following link from which this
opinion piece was taken - for your information:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/safe-schools-program-why-zealots-are-trying-to-drag-us-back-to-the-dark-ages-20160223-gn1ryq.html

Dear Steele Redux,

Point noted.

Thread is supplying chuckles as posters pin a not existing Marxist label on any thing
Reminds us just how one sided we are here
And so very far too from public opinion

Aidan,

So, tell me how you have wielded power over the system. In what way are you 'in the club’ that you say is available to everyone? Let's hear about your influence; I'm willing to learn. What “choices” have you made? How have you resisted things that you are not happy with? Or are you happy with everything that is done in your name, of done for you, or done against you? Perhaps you are the pragmatic type who just grins and bears it? You are a great theorist, but what do you actually DO, apart from telling others that they are wrong?

Dear Belly,

Here's an interesting article from The Australian
on conservatives:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/conservatives-leave-door-open-to-progressive-change/news-story/106e0a22017eafef9229352a4a7d1123

Dear Belly,

My apologies - the link has hit a paywall and can't be accessed.

Dearest Foxy,

Well, there's conservatives and what Marxists called reactionaries. As I understand it, a genuine conservative is cautious about change but not immune to it, if it can be shown to be beneficial. Otherwise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

One Scottish conservative writer, I forget who, said something like, "If there seems to be no compelling need to change, it's important NOT to change."

I suppose a reactionary, in the old Marxist sense, is someone who defends the 'old ways' no matter what, and comes down hard on anybody who wants change.

So it may be quite possible to be either a progressive or a reactionary conservative, and everything in between :)

Wow, now I've lost out on my application to join any of the left parties :(

Love,

Joe

Aiden- I like Political Compass- I've used it for many years- I believe it's founded by lefties though- but it's missing the Globalist / Localist dimension (very important in modern context), and perhaps others.

LM.

Even Marxists can see that the traditional storm-the-winter-palace style revolution will never happen in a western democracy. So yes, they need to drag the society's pillars down so as to get the chance to erect new institutions that better match their fantasies.

The attack on the churches has been overwhelmingly successful and its all about mopping up the few hold-outs. The churches need to hunker down because its gunna get worse for them before it gets better.

The most stabilising and formidable pillar of western society is the family and the assault on it is gearing up. The SSM debate was merely the opening salvo. Safe Schools is about instilling feminist Marxist gender theories in the mainstream.

" Our grand-kids and great-grand-kids, etc., will probably be spouting them at uni all over again, as if they are their own original discoveries. "

Yes communism is seductive to those of a certain persuasion. If the utter failures of the theory throughout the last 100 years isn't enough to kill it off then nothing will. It went out fashion for a period after 1989, but a new generation, unschooled (deliberately?) in the history of the theory return to it. It will continue ad infinitum.

Foxy,

Let's assume that we need a programme to help kids claiming to be LGBTIWTF. That issue needs a whole other thread or three but let's assume its true for the sake of argument.

The issue becomes,..why does that programme need to be designed by Marxist theorists and be based around Marxist-feminist gender theory? Is it not possible to teach kids to be understanding of kids with these dysfunctions without trying to indoctrinate them into believing the dysfunction is normal or even desirable? Of coarse, if you want to mount attacks on the very fundamentals of the society, then the Safe Schools programme makes perfect sense.

Contemporary schools and their teachers appear to have a pretty influential gay lobby within the institution. I suggest parents research home schooling.

Some times reality treads on our head to remind us we can not change minds that follow fantasy
We live in a word that see some think progressive and Liberal are swear words
And while naming conspiracy may them selves be victim to one
Claiming any move toward a fairer better world for all is a not existing evil, Marxism

LM,

"As I understand it, a genuine conservative is cautious about change but not immune to it, if it can be shown to be beneficial. Otherwise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. "

On many issues I see myself as a Chesterton conservative following his advice based on the fence analogy...

"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

He goes on to explain that our predecessors weren't fools or idiots and that the fence was clearly built by people who thought it reasonable to do so. Its more fully explained here... http://ldsmag.com/the-parable-of-chestertons-fence/

Whenever I see a proposed change I run it past the fence test. It was one of the main reasons I opposed SSM.

We've seen many examples over the years of the results of failure to pass the fence test. It was once asserted that there was no valid reason for homosexuals and homosexuality to be frowned on and confined to consenting adults quietly going about their business. This was an unreasonable social more that ought to be torn down. Yet the homosexuals were barely out of the closet before they started entering the AIDS wards.

/cont

/cont

Single motherhood likewise. I supported Whitlam when he introduced payments to such mothers on the basis that they were in need and the social stigma was old fashioned and not based on any reasonable thinking. But the result of tearing down that particular more has been to promote it as a lifestyle and condemn multiple generation to misery and social alienation.

Too many people want to tear down fences because they just don't like obstacles to their fantasies and do indeed consider the past generations as fools - that is when they even consider the past.

Conservatives oppose that thinking. They don't demand that the fence remain irrespective, but they do demand that it be retained while-ever there is uncertainty about its purpose.

Thanks mhaze- Also I think Chesterton has been mentioned before on OLO.

I found the following links interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton

Chesterton's Fence and it's respect for historical knowledge is interesting in comparison to the Precautionary Principle below which I found could bias over-protection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm...

In some legal systems, as in law of the European Union, the application of the precautionary principle has been made a statutory requirement...

Interesting arguments.

For many people, progressive or conservative - it does
appear to be all about their ideology. For some getting
their way is more important than good policy. Some
people tend to label others because someone does not
agree with them. And, to some it is important to
demean rather than listen to their views. It's all these
reasons why many people don't take the views of these
people seriously. I don't think that all ideas are good
ideas. And just blindly labelling things does not make
them good or bad.

For years, it's conservatives who have been branded as
intolerant. But conservatives will tell us that
progressives demonstrate their own intolerance using
the strictures of political correctness as a weapon of
oppression. That became a familiar theme during the
same-sex-marriage campaign especially of people who
felt that the religious faced "a great deal of discrimination.
So, who's right?

Are conservatives more prejudiced than progressives, or vice
versa? Research over the years has shown that in industrialised
nations, social conservatives and religious fundamentalists
possess psychological traits such as the valuing of conformity
and the desire for certainty, that tend to predispose people
toward prejudice. Meanwhile progressives and the non-religious
tend to be more open to new experiences, a trait accociated
with lower prejudice.

Therefore one might expect that whatever each group's own
ideology conservatives and the religious should be inherently
more discriminatory on the whole. However more recent
psychological research, some of it presented in January last
year at the annual meeting of the Society of Personality and
Social Psychology (SPSP) shows that it's not so simple.

Their findings confirm that conservatives, progressives,
the religious, and the non-religious are each prejudiced
against those with opposing views. And surprisingly each group
is about equally prejudiced. While progressives might like to
think of themselves as more open-minded, they are no more
tolerant of people unlike them than their conservative
counterparts are.

Political understanding might finally stand a chance if we could
first put aside the argument over who has that bigger problem.

The truth appears that we all do.

Mhaze,

I think it was McMahon who introduced the single mothers' benefit in 1971. Bingo - no more 'stolen children' or kids put up for adoption. Abortion rights followed fairly soo after, against the objections of all those men who wanted to be child-minders.

Dearest Foxy,

I think that both extremes crave certainty, while the world is, of course, forever going to be full of uncertainties. Democracy will always be an unfinished project, and as you said somewhere earlier this week, it demands eternal vigilance. We have to build on what is workable, not what might, in our view, be perfect.

I think I'm becoming a progressive conservative :)

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

That's wonderful!

I think I'm also returning to my more conservative roots.
My family couldn't be happier. (smile).

I now cringe at some of my previously held views.

"I think it was McMahon who introduced the single mothers' benefit in 1971."

You had me worried for a minute because I could vividly recall the issue at the time. Perhaps I was imagining things.

But no. The single mothers pension was introduced in 1973 (so Whitlam). Prior to that single mothers who'd previously been married got the Widow's Pension and I think McMahon had increased, or perhaps expanded, that payment in '71.

Canem Malum,

I've certainly mention Chesterton's fence previously on these pages. I mention it often elsewhere because I feel it is massively important as an aid to decision making.

I remain convince the very real danger is those who stand against a helping hand for those in need a job that pays a living wage
Health care and education for all
brand it Marxist and hurl abuse at the more caring and sharing of us

John F. Kennedy thought it important to use the
Chesterton fence as an aid in decision making.
And indeed it is. If you take a look at our two
major political parties - both have compromised
to appease big business and attract funding and
neither seem able to grasp the need to act on
certain issues nor listen to the people on
population size and other issues. Both are victims
of short-term thinking, and both have too many
careerists and not enough idealists, as they did
in the past.

cont'd ...

Dear Belly,

A good example of that is our current "Banking
Royal Commission", which is busily uncovering various
wrongdoing in our financial sector. The Labor Party
has been in favour of setting one up for some time
even having it as a policy in the last election in 2016
while the Liberal Party wasn't. It boils down to the Liberals
not wanting to weigh in on business dealings of some of
our largest companies while the Labor Party were more
than happy to do so.

Dear Belly,

The Liberal Party was originally designed to
be as the name suggests, a progressive, business
and economics driven party but with a generous
heart. Instead they have become reactionary and
narrow conservatives, the home of self-interested,
careerists and not the idealists of the past.
The Labor Party was designed to be the party of
working Australians and ordinary Australians striving
for a more egalitarian society and the betterment of
all. Can we truly say that the two parties are that
different today? Both seem to be compromised to appease
big business and attract funding. Neither seem able to
grasp the need to act or listen to the people on issues
that matter. Times have certainly changed.

Mhaze- Thanks mate.

Loudmouth- Thanks for your ironic comment. I think you showed your humorous side once before. :)

Foxy yes both posts true look my party still has the word socialist in its name
Others will jump on that but a truth will see we can not be the party of our birth
Voters are subject to never ending propaganda, the very word is seen as a threat
And enough voters think that way to keep it that way
You have the formation of the Liberal party right, spot on in fact
For 23 years it was the party of choice, different days very different
Better days however, Labor wallowed in self destructive internal war and right up to 1975 some unions had communist leadership
A search in to Menzies industrial relations laws and views would find him left of even today,s Labor party
A day will come, after reform, that a small l Liberal party may retake land/policy it ceded to Labor
Unless Labor continues to reform its self, no party can stand still, the march with the voters or die

Dear Belly,

I'll repeat what I've said in the past - we live in
a culture where people's opinions, views and
assessments of situations spill across social media,
a lot of it anonymously. When making judgements
and drawing conclusions it becomes important to know the
difference between facts and opinions. However, we can
see that Marxism will continue to be a powerful totem
of evil in 2019 - cultural relativism, political
correctness, ideological warfare, demonisation of
traditional values, these are the true imagined nemeses
of the modern arch-conservative. And, this is not about
to change anytime soon. However, all that we can hope for
is that the majority of Australians will get it right in
the end - and changes will eventuate for the better.
For the nation, and for us all. The political parties
will also have to listen and act on the issues that concern
voters. If they don't their parties will wither and die.

Foxy wrote: “However, we can see that Marxism will continue to be a powerful totem of evil in 2019 - cultural relativism, political correctness, ideological warfare, demonisation of traditional values …”

Marx absorbed some traditional values. He definitely was against cultural relativism. Hegel saw history as a progression of various societies toward an ideal. His ideal was the Prussian state. Marx, a Hegelian, also saw history as a progression of various societies toward an ideal. His ideal was the classless society and Marx saw societies as more or less worthy according to what he saw as the progress toward that ideal. Thus Marx could favour Turkey over Greece, Poland over Russia and make other judgments on the basis of what he saw as their social progress.

Although Marx had Jewish ancestry he knew little of Jewish culture or religion. He was converted to Lutheranism at the age of six when his father converted and absorbed Luther’s Jew hatred. He wrote “On the Jewish Question”

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/
It concludes:

“Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between man’s individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished.

The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.”

The above is not politically correct and something many Jew haters would not find objectionable. However, Jew hatred is a traditional value.

Dear David F.,

I knew that Karl Marx although baptised into the
Lutheran Church was of Jewish descent, with
both his maternal and paternal grandfathers having
been Rabbis.

I was also aware that a number of scholars and
commentators regard Marx's work, "On The Jewish
Question" ("Zur Judenfrage") as antiSemitic.

However I thought that his work was primarily a
critique of liberal rights, rather than a
criticism of Judaism and that the critique
should be read in that context.

Orthodox British Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi
of the United Hebrew Congregation of the Commonwealth
from 1991 to 2013 regards the application of the
term "antiSemitism" to Marx as an anachronism
because when Marx wrote "On the Jewish Question"
virtually all major philosophers had expressed similar
views and the word "antiSemitism" had not yet been
coined, let alone developed a racial component, and
little awareness existed in the depths of European
prejudice against Jews. Sacks feels that Marx thus
simply expressed the commonplace thinking of his era.

Foxy if we wait every thing can change
The election of a Labor government here will be an improvement
Much of what you said is quite true in truth some conservatives do not even know they are being used
Should they ever get the world they want some of them will soon find them selves living in the slums the push us toward

Dear Belly,

Like you, I also am optimistic about our future.
We've discussed some of our unresolved problems
that face us on this forum. From addressing
Indigenous disadvantage, dealing with water
shortages, drought, population size, energy,
and so on. We have to deal with these to move
forward to a free, fair, and vibrant society.
I have no doubt we can find the solutions that
suit us, provided as others have pointed out we
don't succumb to the siren calls of demagogues,
charlatans and ideologues.

Foxy we share the optimism, put retirement back to 65 start infrastructure to build dams roads pipe lines a host of nation building is a possibility

Dear Belly,

No arguments from me on that.

Dear Foxy,

I am aware that accusing Marx of antisemitism would have been an anachronism. The word, antisemitism, was coined by Wilhelm Marr in 1879 long after the date of Marx’s essay which was written in 1843. I accused him of Jew hatred not antisemitism. His consistent Jew hatred is well documented by Sander Gilman in “Jewish Self-Hatred”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sander_Gilman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hating_Jew

It is true that Jew hatred was the commonplace thinking of Marx’s era. However, people of goodwill are capable of rising above the commonplace thinking of their era. The Lutheran German philosopher and playwright, Gotthold Lessing (1729 –1781) was an example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthold_Ephraim_Lessing

“Lessing was also famous for his friendship with Jewish-German philosopher Moses Mendelssohn. A recent biography of Mendelssohn's grandson, Felix, describes their friendship as one of the most "illuminating metaphors [for] the clarion call of the Enlightenment for religious tolerance".[6] It was this relationship that sparked his interest in popular religious debates of the time. He began publishing heated pamphlets on his beliefs which were eventually banned. It was this banishment that inspired him to return to theatre to portray his views and to write Nathan the Wise, a plea for tolerance.”

Although most of the early socialist leaders were Jew haters, Saint-Simon (1760-1825) was an exception.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_de_Saint-Simon

Hegel and Marx had the idea of freedom as the individual’s devotion to the demands of the state.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ot/pelczyns.htm

“In the city-states of ancient Greece and in republican Rome, Hegel believes, citizens enjoyed freedom only in so far as they participated in the political life of their community and through their actions - in peace or war - sustained its existence and furthered its welfare.”

It is the essence of democracy that citizens may question the state.

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” – Thomas Jefferson

Marx was a bigot who favored a totalitarian state.

Dear David F.,

Thank You for all the information you have
provided. I can see that my knowledge of
Marx is limited (Sociology 101). We did not
go into any deep study. I was not aware that
he was a Jew hater. I appreciate the information.

I would like to take this opportunity to Thank
everyone for their contributions to this discussion.
I feel that it has run its course.

I look forward to the next one.

David F-

I think perhaps Cultural Relativism is a reasonable position. Others seem to think so too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism

I'm sure it creates an issue of conflict within Liberal Democracy but we'd need to look at the history of Liberal Democracy as to the reasonableness of either position.

Dear Canem Malum,

I have argued neither for nor against Cultural Relativism. I just pointed out that Marx was against it.

David F- Thanks for the clarification.

I thought that I'd finished with this discussion but
the latest comments have aroused my interest.

A few thoughts - are we able to really understand
others well enough to actually be able to evaluate
their way of life? And don't our attempts to
homogenize the world end up causing chaos - for
example Western attempts to impose Liberal social
structures on the Middle East shows currently?

Dear Foxy,

We not only put our values on the nations which do not share our culture we put our values on other western nations. We along with our allies tried Germany for war crimes. Nazi Germany probably did not regard their actions as criminal. We consider female genital mutilation as criminal and would like all nations to consider it as criminal.

What do you think of the war crimes trials and trying to eliminate female genital mutilation all over the world. I am sure the people who practice female genital mutilation do not call it by a translation of that term.

Dear David F.,

Regarding war crimes - there are the laws of war.
There's a whole body of such laws ranging from
specific military regulations to the provisions of the
Hague and Geneva Conventions, to the principals laid
down by the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crime tribunals.
These laws say that all is not fair in war. That
there are limits to what belligerent man may do to
mankind.

The Hague Convention of 1907 put it that:

"The right of belligerent to adopt means of injuring
the enemy is not unlimited." In other words, some
acts in war are illegal and certainly the massacre
of the 6 million Jews under Hitler qualifies as
an illegal and heinous act. As a war crime.

As for FGM? It may be acceptable in certain parts of
the world but it is illegal in Australia.

Dear David F.,

You asked what I thought of people trying to eliminate
FGM all over the world.

I agree with its elimination and ma glad that it is
illegal in this country.

According to the World Health Organisation FGM includes
procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to
the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

The procedure has no health benefits for girls or women.

Procedures can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating,
later cysts, infections as well as complications in
childbirth as well as complications in childbirth and
increased risk of new born deaths.

More than 200 million girls and women have been cut in 30
countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia where FGM
is concentrated.

FGM is considered a violation of the human rights of girls
and women.

I am also glad that there is an effort to eliminate FGM. As an American citizen I am distressed that some in the US government do not want the US to be under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

In reply to Foxy- With respect. I hope I'm not putting words in David F's mouth but I think you're missing the point.

It is always unfortunate that my view on FGM will upset many
Give this ex Christian some rope
As is my right I consider no God ever existed
And if they want to, any faith wants to,in any way control how I live they have zero right to
FGM is too dreadful to let a primitive belief impose it on any one
We Must demand no faith ever again harms any one
Out law this practice and put long terms in prison for all involved on it
Ultimately my belief would be just as confronting for the slowly dying Catholic Church

Canem Malum,

With all due respect - I understood what
David said. However, there were a
few other thoughts that occurred to me
and David answered and broadened them for me.
For which, as always, I am grateful.
I've inter-acted with David many times on
this forum over the years. I admire him
greatly.

Hi Foxy,
Yes I believe so.

Whats bothering me right now is the implications of this.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/us-democrats-act-to-end-government-shutdown-20190104-p50pod.html?ref=rss

- And I'm not even focused on the shutdown issue, it's the bigger picture that really bothers me -

You see Foxy, I support the 2nd amendment and the wisdom behind it;

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What I understand this to mean, is that the real power of the United States resides within its citizens; who hold the ultimate 'checks and balances' over the government of the day; and who also reserve the right, 'enshrined in the constitution' to overthrow a tyrannical government and ensure the security and rights of the people that are guaranteed to them.

Now for me, it's not the government of the day that are the problem.
- It's the Democrats who are the problem -

If I stand back and look at the bigger picture,
What I see is US democrats who RELY on IMMIGRANT votes and handouts to put and keep them in office.
And everyday that passes that the border stays open, Democrats and gaining votes and representation oven existing citizens; and the mandate of the people - in Trumps Presidency.

And so the Democrats are relying on non-US votes to put them in office; and whilst in office they use that power to destroy rights guaranteed in the constitution; such as the First amendment.

[Cont]
Now a lot of people get killed with guns in the US, and I kind of turn a blind eye to it, if only because I believe this is the price of having that right (to overthrow a tyrannical government) enshrined in the constitution.

I look at the bigger picture and wonder if a Civil War is not ultimately on the horizon;
(If that happens, SOROS and the bankers WIN as well so I don't want a Civil War)

But it may come down to being no other choice and if the US citizens leave it too late, will be put down and all rights in the constitution lost.

And so, I wonder what can be done to ensure the rights of the US citizens enshined in the constitution remain intact; and what else can be done NOW to avoid a Civil War, before it becomes not only inevitable but completely valid.

I think Trump needs to declare a National Emergency and Martial Law and send tanks and military to the border and if any Generals stand against him, fire them on the spot.

David F said- "We not only put our values on the nations which do not share our culture we put our values on other western nations."

Question-

What do others think about us putting "our values on other nations" if it means they can reciprocally put "their values on us"?

What does it mean for self determination?

Dear Canem Malum,

Self determination is defined as the process by which a country determines its own statehood and forms its own government. It does not mean freedom or democracy for the citizens of that country. Self determination for the Confederacy during the US Civil War meant the right to keep humans in slavery. As far as I am concerned self determination can be hostile to the rights of individuals, and I don’t think self determination is worth a pail of warm spit.

"I agree with its elimination and ma glad that it is
illegal in this country."

It wouldn't even need to be illegal in this country if we didn't allow Muslims in, in the first place; Why?
Because British convicts, Europeans... pretty much all the other cultures and peoples of the world

- Don't Do Crap Like That -

However, there is a technicality... we may in fairness have to also consider the practice of circumcision, but I don't think it any way equals FGM.

Female genital mutilation is neither unique to Islam nor practiced by all Muslims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

“Surveys have shown a widespread belief, particularly in Mali, Mauritania, Guinea and Egypt, that FGM is a religious requirement. Gruenbaum has argued that practitioners may not distinguish between religion, tradition and chastity, making it difficult to interpret the data. FGM's origins in northeastern Africa are pre-Islamic, but the practice became associated with Islam because of that religion's focus on female chastity and seclusion. There is no mention of it in the Quran. It is praised in a few da'if (weak) hadith (sayings attributed to Muhammad) as noble but not required, although it is regarded as obligatory by the Shafi'i version of Sunni Islam. In 2007 the Al-Azhar Supreme Council of Islamic Research in Cairo ruled that FGM had "no basis in core Islamic law or any of its partial provisions".


There is no mention of FGM in the Bible. Christian missionaries in Africa were among the first to object to FGM, but Christian communities in Africa do practise it. A 2013 UNICEF report identified 17 African countries in which at least 10 percent of Christian women and girls aged 15 to 49 had undergone FGM; in Niger 55 percent of Christian women and girls had experienced it, compared with two percent of their Muslim counterparts. The only Jewish group known to have practised it are the Beta Israel of Ethiopia. Judaism requires male circumcision, but does not allow FGM. FGM is also practised by animist groups, particularly in Guinea and Mali.”

David F- Thanks for your information. See link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

We could if we wished research the things done to women, men too for that matter in the name of God
The list would be long, in the first testament we too, had been told not to eat pork, Jews and Muslims are still told this
The Jews, and some of us practice a religious right on our sons
We tend to dislike difference
Some, for century's, hate Jews for? killing Christ, a Jew himself who told us the Jews are his chosen people
The world is divided not by race but by belief
If we for just a second think about that we may find our brightest invention, God, has had his/her day

Belly, It might be your belief that everything came into existence of its own accord; but it is also the right of others to believe as the human mind thinks order and creates, that there is a orderly creator mind behind the existence of everything. For many who exist in opposition to a Creator disregard human decency as many who merely hold a religious dogma.

Unfortunately many religious are burdened down with someone's dogma and primitive culture; rather than worship of the values upon which we were modelled for human creative greatness and that mind who created the complexity of DNA, and gave us inspiration to achieve social good for all people.

Dear Josephus,

There is no evidence that any deity is other than a human invention. There is no evidence for a supernatural creation. There are many creation stories. They are in the Bible, the Koran, other sacred literature and in the legends of tribal people. They are the result of primitive people trying to explain their existence. Enlightened individuals reject superstition even if the superstition is labeled religion. You are burdened with dogma and primitive culture.

david f learn the difference between religious dogma and reality, which you seem to be ignorant of.

We need to identify what are the real threats to the best and free function of the individual in society. Marxism is not one, capitalism has its human failings but it functions when care is taken to protect the weak, injured and sick.

Those individual ideologues that think they have a better idea of the function of human society and rise to power over society finish up destroying the individual and ultimately the society. The ideologues become fixated on their agenda and enforce it against the will of those that disagree. We are currently running into one of those conflicting situations with free loaders on our society who believe wealth should be equally shared even if they do not contribute tax. That the Government owes them money because they are poor, uneducated or unemployed. The Government happens to be the workers in their neighbourhood who contribute 30+% of their earnings.

Islam is also one of those dysfunctional societies as we constantly witness in the societies of current conflict.

Dear Josephus,

There is no more reason to accept the creation myth in the Koran than there is to accept the creation myth in the Bible. It is characteristic of superstitious, religious people to believe they have the truth, and people with other superstitions are in error. With such horrors as wars of religion, persecution of heretics, native people and Jews Christians can label Islam as dysfunctional. That is laughable. Most people follow the religion of their parents. Most Christians have Christian parents, and Most Muslims have Muslim parents. You have the right to your superstition, but it remains superstition.

I believe Jordan Peterson sees religion from a Jungian introspective perspective- perhaps this is what he refers to with the lobsters and his 300 million year old hierarchy- perhaps all higher animals have an idealised concept of God, leadership, ... embedded within their consciousness. Dogs, Primates, other mammals exhibit animal group behavior. It seems that the concept of "God" could be important for survival. We all see things though glasses that filter the world through ideology- I think that Chesterton's Fence was an interesting way to determine the cultural value of things- Sorry I forget who on OLO put it forward- I think it was ALTRAV- but it is a Cultural Relativist approach.

Canem Malum,

It was mhaze who brought up Chesterton's fence concept.

Thanks Foxy. And thanks to mhaze for bringing up Chesterton's Fence. Kudos.

Dear Canem Malum,

We tend to define religion in terms of the religion we are familiar with. There were religions before there was monotheism. There are still major religions that are polytheist such as Hinduism or non-theist such as Buddhism.

You wrote: "...perhaps all higher animals have an idealised concept of God, leadership, ... embedded within their consciousness. Dogs, Primates, other mammals exhibit animal group behavior. It seems that the concept of "God" could be important for survival."

All human religions do not have the concept of God so it is a bit of a leap tp postulate that "perhaps all higher animals have an idealised concept of God, leadership." The concept appears to be a human invention - possibly by Akhenaten and identified with the sun.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Akhenaten

Talking about religion - it was Emile Durkheim, one
of the earliest functionalist theorists, to apply
the perspective to religion in a systematic way.

His study, "The Elementary Forms of Religious Life,"
was first published in 1912 and has since become
a classic. Many of Durkeim's contemporaries saw
religion as nothing more than a primitive relic
that would soon disappear in the more sophisticated
modern world. But Durkheim was impressed by the
fact that religion is universal in human society,
and he wondered why this should be so. His answer was
that religion has a vital function in maintaining the
social system as a whole.

Durkheim believed that the origins of religion were
social, not supernatural. He pointed out that,
whatever their source, the rituals enacted in any
religion enhance the solidarity of the community
as well as its faith. Consider such religious rituals
as baptism, bar mitzvah, weddings, Sabbath services,
Christmas mass, and funerals. Rituals like these serve
to bring people together; to remind them of their
common group membership; to reaffirm their traditional
values; to maintain prohibitions and taboos; to offer
comfort in times of crisis, and, in general to help
transmit the cultural heritage from one generation
to the next.

In fact, Durkheim argued, shared religious beliefs
and the rituals that go with them are so important
that every society needs a religion, or at least
some belief system that serves the same functions.

Contd ...

Some form of religion has existed in every society
that we know of. Religious beliefs and practices
are so ancient that they can be traced into prehistory.
Even the primitive Neanderthal people of that time, it
seems, had some concept of a supernatural realm that
lay beyond everyday reality. Among the fossilized
remains of these cave dwellers, anthropologists have
found evidence of funeral ceremonies in the form of
flowers and artifacts that were buried with the dead,
presumably to accompany them on the journey to an
afterlife.

Although religion is a universal social institution, it
takes a multitude of forms. Believers may worship gods,
ancestors, or totems; they may practice solitary meditation,
frenzied rituals, or solemn prayer.

Several religions ignore questions about the origins of the
universe and life, leaving these problems to be dealt with
instead by nonreligious myth. Many religions assume that
the gods take little interest in human affairs.
Obviously, religion cannot be defined in terms of the
Western religious tradition alone.

For many years it was widely felt that as science
progressively provided rational explanations for the mysteries
of the universe, religion would have less and less of a role
to play, and would eventually disappear, unmasked as nothing
more than superstition. But there are still gaps in our
understanding that science can never fill. On the ultimately
important questions - of the meaning and purpose of life and the
nature of morality.

Few citizens of modern societies would utterly deny the
possibility of some higher power in the universe, some
supernatural, transcendental realm that lies beyond the
boundaries of ordinary experience, and in this fundamental sense
religion is probably here to stay.

Mans mind is Brilliant, we invented our very own God
Even our first Nation had rules to live by like who you could and could not wed
You and I can see their God the rainbow serpent on most wet days
What a shame we did not all invent the same one!
Foxy puts a great case for the benefit in having Gods
Just dream with me for a While
IF ONLY we all had one God
Lets invent him her
Have ten commandments to live by
Claim we all get many lives
And if we in this one harm any one based on race, we must return as a member of that race in the next life
In time people would forget it is an invention
But live better inclusive lives because of it

David F, you have not put up one society that you think is workable just criticise. Obviously you believe that Marxist atheism is the most workable society. Otherwise identify what works! Atheism in society does not work as it has caused gross murders in its attempt to achieve.

Dear Josephus,

I do not think Marxist atheism is good. I believe that government should neither suppress religion as the Marxists do nor aid religion as many other governments do. Religion should be no business of government. I think religion is another form of superstition, but people have a right to be superstitious. I think the philosophies of epicureanism, stoicism and cynicism are better ways to live than any form of religion. At this time in the world I think the Scandinavian societies are the best places to live. I wrote http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12693 which criticises the Marxist societies for their production of corpses. Because I don't care for your superstition is no reason to think I care for Marxism. Unfortunately many people will label those who disagree with them as Marxist. You apparently are one of them. Calling names is no substitute for reasoned argument or thought.

David F- Thanks for your comments on the US Civil War and the Egyptian Gods.

I've been a little busy today and haven't been able to give your comments justice.

1. US Civil War- My impression is the Civil War can be read a few ways, but the basic message I got was that Lincoln discounted the views of the South- as President he needs to govern for the US not just for the North and Union. (That's sort of what I mean by self determination but I may change this view based on priorities.) I'm sure it could be read your way too.

2. Egyptian Gods- I haven't read the Britannica Article properly. I suspect that other references might be better sources for me in this case. I'm careful with this time period as- there is often an issue that it's easy to assume that everything started with written history. Perhaps God was invented by man perhaps not- there is a hypothesis that God is an idealised leader- group behavior in animals is embodied through a hierarchy- there is the concept of the alpha- the alpha is usually the largest male- animals seem to understand the concept of the alpha. Within the framework of the hypothesis animals seem to recognise at some level the abstract (idealised) concept of the leader.

The recognition that animals are similar to man is perhaps controversial. The brain is build in layers- from the worm like brain stem, to the reptilian, mammalian, primate, human- its physical and conceptual structures.

Perhaps anthropocentric monopoly over intelligence is misconceived...

Dear Canem Malum,

I think Lincoln took into account the views of the South. A significant part of the population of the South were slaves. They most probably had a great desire to be free, and Lincoln took account of that. In the self determination of the South to set up another country the wishes of the slaves were not considered. States rights in that case meant the right to continue slavery.

At the start of the Civil War Scott commanded the US forces. At its end Grant commanded the Union forces. Two of my grandchildren are descendants of Scott, and two are descendants of Grant. I have visited the grave of John Brown who is one of my heroes. I regard Robert E. Lee as a great traitor, and slavery as a great stain on my country. I think the Confederacy were the Nazis of their day.

The country was greatly split at the time of the Civil War. Fourteen of the first sixteen presidents were slaveholders. It was time to ete the stain. Too many compromises had been made with slavery. The compromises were compromises with evil.

The recognition that animals are similar to man is not at all controversial. Man is an animal of the species Homo sapiens.

David F- Thanks for your feedback.

Comment 1. Sounds like your family has a distinguished history. You would have much greater knowledge about the US Civil War than myself. Soldiers and generals generally don't start wars it's the leaders. I get the impression that in order to move forward with our discussion would require me to understand the civil war better.

Based on my limited understanding I felt on first impressions that Lincoln could have done more to help the apparently critical cotton industry based in the South to avoid the war and the death of 30% of males South and 10% of males in the North. Of course it's easy to have 20/20 vision of the past. Like I said I would need to read much more to understand the situation.

Correlation does not imply causation though- so just because the argument used for the South to go to a "bad" war was for self determination doesn't necessarily mean that self determination is "bad". I'm sure that the Dalai Lama would disagree that self determination is a bad thing. I liked the movie Amazing Grace- but I'm certain that there was much more to it.

____

Comment 2. Not everyone I have discussed "animal/ man brain similarity" with is as enlightened as yourself perhaps. And even though " animals are similar to man is not at all controversial" perhaps Jordan Peterson (the hypothesis of God being an idealised leader) is in some circles

Dear Canem Malum,

No help to the South would have been enough. Their economy rested on slavery, and they fought to preserve slavery. Helping the cotton industry while allowing the oppression of slavery to continue would be to perpetuate injustice.

If the Chinese would not oppress the Tibetans by destruction of their culture and their religion the Tibetans would not want self determination. In a country where no one is discriminated against for their ethnicity, religion or race there is no desire to split off. The solution for oppression is not self determination but to allow no part of the population to be oppressed. The UDHR {Universal Declaration of Human Rights) is a step in that direction.

All human societies are not hierarchical and depend on a leader. An example is the American Indian tribes described in Pierre Clastres' "Society Against the State".

david f,
>In a country where no one is discriminated against for their ethnicity, religion or race there is no desire to split off.
Catalonia's the latest counterexample.

Dear Aidan,

Catalonia is a good counter example. As I see it the more basic problem is that there are countries, armies, nations, patriotism, wars and all that goes with it. I would like to see countries as becoming nothing more than convenient administrative units.

If every ethnic or religious group that has been subject to persecution founds a nation-state those citizens of the nation-state who are not part of the ethnic or religious group on which the nation-state is based are liable to discrimination and persecution. The solution to persecution is not ethnic nationalism, but it is working for a world where every citizen of every nation-state is treated fairly regardless of ethnicity or religion. I don’t know that it is possible to make such a world, but I feel it’s worth working for.

David F said- " I would like to see countries as becoming nothing more than convenient administrative units."

Answer- This seems to be a Locke Liberalist view. Over time- due to Patrick Deneen and many others I've lost faith with the concept of "Locke Liberalism" in both the "so called left and right". I'll respectfully disagree with the "administrative nations idea" that you mentioned. If the administrative nations idea is as Deneen has said is an idea originating with Locke it has had hundreds of years of testing and still has unreconcilable issues. I suspect that these issues have there origin in overpopulation. Zoologist Desmond Morris indicates that the phenomenon of man is suited to much lower densities and much smaller communities. Without a change towards more discipline man seems likely to continue to develop pathology leading to cascading organ failure (that's what Trotsky wanted).

Every culture should have their own nation.

A solution to conflict over scarce resources is less people.

Every culture should have their own nation?

That could be problematic.

Some cultures don't have countries of their own.
They have to share their territories with other
cultures. Even small countries like Switzerland,
Luxembourg or Belgium have several official languages.
Big countries like China and India have also lots of
different traditions, languages and religions. There
are also examples of cultures disappearing.

Foxy- Thanks for your feedback.

Foxy- If every culture had their own nation perhaps there would be less extinct cultures.

Canem Malum,

Many cultures don't have countries of their own.
They have to share their territories with other
cultures and of course that is sometimes
problematic. Education helps to format people
within the boundaries

To Foxy- Education is not always enough. Some cultural problems need to be dealt with otherwise they impact on others. Just like some people need to be incarcerated for the public good. Groups of people are similar to individuals- there are good and bad ones.

Canem Malum,

There are good people and bad people in every culture
and of course people who break the law should be dealt
with - no matter which culture they're from. However
education is very important - especially with the
young - they are the future.

Foxy what is the good and bad you refer too? Is stoning a woman taken in adultery Good? Is removing the head of an apostate good. In one culture these are good practise. Practices that are currently enforced. So what is your good and bad in every culture? Rather naïve comment!

Foxy whose education system are you referring too? Those that indoctrinate their young that the State of Israel and capitalism must be destroyed. This curriculum is taught in many countries schools. That is why some Western Countries find these the enemy of freedom. You are so vague in what is reality.

Josephus,

It was American Rabbi Marianne Williamson who put it
so well when she wrote in her book, "Illuminata,"

"In the US today, there is a widespread
malignant thought form that other people are the
problem." This is true in our country as well. Conservatives
tend to blame progressives for their problems, while
progressives blame conservatives. The media blames almost
everyone and almost everyone blames immigrants. Some
people are convinced homosexuals are the problem, while
others think that single mothers are the problem. Still
others think the Christian Right are the problem and far too
many people think that parents are the problem, whilst
others blame the teachers. The entire culture has
become a hysterical blame session.

Yet a healthy vital society is not one in which we all agree.
It is one in which those who disagree can do so with
honour and respect for other people's opinions, and an
appreciation of our shared humanity. Without personal
commitment to the attributes of fair play and integrity,
all of us are in grave danger. Malice and intolerance
stalk our society, making claims to our minds and not one
corner of our social order is unaffected.

This darkness is a significant threat to our national
good, perhaps the most significant threat in our history,
for it strikes at the heart of democracy. Where people are
not free to disagree, there can be no democracy, since
that is what democracy is.

The only way to protect our freedom is to check the
hatred in our own minds. Our political conversations must
shift away from the mass, infantile finger-pointing that
now pervades it. It is not progressives or conservatives
who have ruined or are ruining our country, it is the
tendency on so many people to think that their way is
the right way and that people who disagree with them are
bad.

Foxy, Please answer which culture is the good and bad? Which cultural education system are you referring too? As you refer to good and bad in every culture? Obviously you cannot think for yourself only copy and paste something you think answers your claim.

Are there cultures that think murdering infidels is a good deed?

Are there cultures that today still stone women found in adultery is good?

Are there cultures that today that believe a brother or father must kill a sister or daughter that marries one not approved by the family?

Josephus,

I can see no point in any further inter-action with you.
You are not interested in discussions but in
attacks. With all due respect, I shall leave you to
it.

Foxy,

The SMH article to which you linked stated that 75% of LGBTi students had reported being bullied of which 8% happened at school.

This would indicate that only 6% of LGBTi students were actually subjected to bullying at school which is no worse than any other student and probably a lot better.

This would indicate that the entire basis of Safe Schools is bogus.

It is obvious that Foxy is not able to define good and bad in every culture; only reject Western democratic Christian values by this statement. "They are in effect defending orthodoxy - by which they mean that "normality" and"decency" is white, Christian, patriarchal, and of
course heterosexual. Anything else to be suggested
appears to them to be a heresy."

So what does she mean is "good and bad" in her value system? We will never know!

Josephus,

You need to go back and look at that statement in
its proper context and try to comprehend the
point that was being made in that instance.

As I stated to you earlier - I have no wish to
argue with you. Nor cop an earful of your beliefs.
You do not know me and therefore are in no position
to judge. The same goes for your inferences about
other cultures or religions - that you know nothing about.
Everything needs to be taken in its proper context.
Fundamentalists and extremists exist in all cultures
and religions - as history has shown us and will
continue to do.

You seem to be hellbent against
Muslims in general and want me to agree with you
that they are bad - that their culture is bad, that their
religion is evil, - and
so on. I do not believe in demonising an entire
group of people because as I said - there are good
and bad people in all walks of life, in all cultures.
in all religions.
There's enough hatred in the world - we don't need
to add to it by finger-pointing to others. Lets
look to fixing our own attitudes. That would be a
good place to start.

If you want to carry on with your own anti-Muslim
slant -
start your own discussion. I'm sure that you will find
enough kindred spirits on this forum.

For me this discussion has run it's course.
If you continue with this one - you shall be arguing
with yourself. I'm not interested in arguing with you.

Foxy-

I agree that Good and Evil are relative and arbitrary but so then so is culture. Culture has a basis in the lives and nature of the culture. When a culture comes in contact with another culture the culture is changed- surely it is the right of those within the culture to decide how much they should allow their culture to change. I could be possible to imagine a culture as "a very long genetic string of variables" including all the complex variables that make up that culture. When genetic strings from different cultures interact there is an averaging of the variables that make up the string. If there are a large number of interactions the cultural attribute is sublimated to the invading string.

Over the last five hundred years capitalism has encouraged freedom of movement of labour (usually from neighbouring nations) for profit. This is an example of the economic warfare against the population. Communism is also an essentially capitalist system without the free market. Anarchists in theory could also in theory support cultures but in practice don't.

The thing that Foxy doesn't seem to understand that culture is rightly or wrongly indoctrination- what is right and wrong is not universal it is relative- this is Cultural Relativism which is apparently widely acknowledged by anthropologists. If a person is born within a culture and have lived with these beliefs they will continue to have these beliefs even if they move to live with another culture. Yes the people are not bad in an absolute sense (there is no absolute bad)- but they change the new culture. Objectively some changes are good and some are bad- so some cultures are good and some bad for the host culture

There is also the aspect of culture as an extension of the extended family. My relatives lived in an isolated place for many generations the other families within this isolated location interacted in complex ways to form very deep history between these families and with the land. As with other ecosystems- cultures can be very vulnerable- some might define the protectivity of their culture as a type of sociopathic racism- but I don't believe it.

To me it's perhaps an example of sociopathic liberalism.

To me it's more evil to destroy a cultures community.

Those cultures that impact a culture are "more bad" than a culture that integrates better.

A cultural influence can also be a business culture.

Canem Malum,

Cultures may vary, but most human beings spend their
entire lives within the culture in which they were born.
Knowing little about other ways of life, they see their
own norms and values as inevitable rather than optional.

For this reason, people in every society have some
measure of ethnocentrism - the tendency to judge other
cultures by the standards of one's own. People everywhere
are apt to take it for granted that their morality, their
marriage forms, their clothing styles, their religions,
their beliefs are right and proper, and the best of all
possible choices.

Ethnocentrism is particularly strong in isolated
traditional societies that have had little contact with
other cultures. But even in the modern world, where
citizens have such advantages as formal education, mass
communication and international travel such attitudes
still prevail.

It is almost impossible to view one's own culture
objectively. Ethnocentrism can be
functional to a society. It can provide faith and
confidence in one's own tradition,
discourage penetration by outsiders,
and ensure the solidarity and unity of the
group.

But under some conditions ethnocentrism can have many
undesirable effects. It can encourage racism, it can
cause hostility and conflict between groups, and it can make
a people unwilling to see the need for changes in their own
culture.

The ability to full understand another culture depends
largely on one's willingness to adopt the position of
cultural relativism, the recognition that one culture
cannot be arbitrarily judged by the standards of another.

Cultural relativism does not mean moral relativism -
the position that one morality is as good as another. That
view could quickly lead us to an "anything goes" position,
in which wife-beating, stoning, cannibalism,
are all equally acceptable. What cultural
relativism does mean is that the practices of another
society can be fully understood only in terms of its own
norms and values.

Once we have learned that we can perhaps
better understand their practices even though we may not
approve of them.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

For example the Japanese are appalled that we send
our old people to nursing homes and we don't understand
why the eskimos sometimes left their old people to
die in the cold.

For the practical purposes of studying human behaviour
it is vital that we try , as far as possible, to
remove the blinders of our own culture when we are
looking at another. In the process we may lose a certain
self-righteousness about our own assumptions, and may
even learn something about our own culture, too.

cont'd ...

Of course it goes without saying that people
who come to our country from other cultures
must live and abide by the rule of law that
we all are expected to obey.

One way of experiencing immigration is like a home invasion- the sense of violation that continues long after the crime. The idea that our culture and community is not safe. A raw wound that due to the constant influx never heals. The sense of betrayal of the community by policy makers on both sides. But it is perhaps the fault of the population for not acting to correct the betrayal.

Foxy appears to see those with these sensations as psychologically damaged. I believe that Foxy is incorrect. I believe that the issues include power, responsibility, ownership, culture.

"Government is a group of people usually ungoverned" - Firefly.

Foxy said- "But under some conditions ethnocentrism can have many
undesirable effects. It can encourage racism,

Answer-
Foxy discussed Ethnocentricism and Racism- Some may say they are synonymous. Perhaps it isn't bad to protect ones own culture.

Foxy said- " it can cause hostility and conflict between groups,"

Answer- Perhaps the underlying cause of the hostility and conflict is due to legitimate fear in relation to scarcity of resources.

Foxy said- " and it can make a people unwilling to see the need for changes in their own culture."

Answer- Who should judge the need for change within according to whose criteria. Perhaps this sort of universal authoritarianism is worse than low level village authoritarianism.

Canem Malum Quote "One way of experiencing immigration is like a home invasion- the sense of violation that continues long after the crime."

You are being too kind, so I have to disagree.

Home invaders bash you steal things then leave.

Immigrants masquerading as refugees.
Come to your home and make you give them rooms at the expense of your own family members they can be made homeless.

They then make you take them to the dentist and doctor at your expense.

They then make you pay them for the privilege of being there $492 per fortnight.

You have to also feed them.

They can invite other family member to come and join them.

If you fail to give them all of the above they will get a lawyer to sue you for compensation, you have to pay for the lawyer.

Some will even with the money they save go back home to where they escaped from for a holiday.

All the above for the rest of there life.

** Give me the home invader at least they leave. **

Canem Malum and Philip S.,

Thank You both for your contributions.

I appreciate your sharing your thoughts on this
discussion.

There's so much more that we could discuss -
from cultural universals, ethnocentrism,
cultural relativism, variations within cultures,
real culture and ideal culture, high culture and
popular culture, subcultures, intergroup relations,
competition for resources, and even ideologies,
colonisation, and so on.

However for me this discussion has well and truly
run its course.

Have a nice day.

So in answer to the question after hearing the discussion- "Is Marxism still a powerful totem of evil in 2019?"

CM,

The answer of course is - Yes.
As can be seen from this discussion.

Foxy- I believe this was a brave position to take given your previous comments in support of various "so called left" concepts. Thanks for your feedback and your courage.

What are others thoughts?

CM,

We often make wrong assumptions about people
we don't really know.

Thank You for your kind words.

CM,

Would you answer a question for me?

What made you choose the name "Canem Malum,"
for this forum?

//What are others thoughts?//

It's a paper tiger. Mind you, some people are really scared of paper tigers. Apparently. A pity, because while they're so distracted with something harmless they're more likely to ignore problems that actually matter.

So Toni Lavis believes "false" on the question "Is Marxism still a powerful totem of evil in 2019?"

//So Toni Lavis believes "false" on the question "Is Marxism still a powerful totem of evil in 2019?"//

Yes, well spotted.

There's one more thing I'd like to say:

Killer bees! Forget about them, didn't you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83tnWFojtcY

There are a few reds under the beds of a few who post here
They have been there from about 1955 but they are there
Long ago we moved on from the Marxist form of deception
We now see the rampart right, building its foundation on hatred of migrants/refugees
Ever if those groups power their industry, lie and plant fake fears
But in the end they like those under the bed dwellers, have no intention of benefiting the very people they use to gain power
My fear is some will fall for any new thing
There is truth in that old saying, when Dictatorship comes some will call it freedom
Those with reds under the beds may also have bats in the attic

mikk Quote "Quite a few of our posters on this forum are infected with the jordan peterson virus. Thats why they keep banging on about marxism. and lobsters hahaha

** It is apparent you are an uniformed person who has nothing useful to contribute to a thread so you dribble out sarcastic remarks. *