Written like a true victim.

Having watched my mother beening beaten as a child I can see no problem with tought laws. Any Author using Bolt as a positive example is realy in trouble.

All I see in this piece is a men who is frighten of women in power.

An interesting summary of what may be one side of feminism.

What the author appears to fail to deal with is that almost every 'ism' lives on a bell curve. What the author describes is one end of the curve, I guess the other end of that curve is people who consider themselves feminist but who think the work is finished. In the middle lie the greater number who seek genuine equal opportunity and still believe that there are changes needed.

Mainstream feminism is hardly radical - "especially if that judge openly embraces such radical ideology as feminism.".

Perhaps some of the judges the author refers to embrace a radical form of feminism (activists tend to be more extreme than most) but I've not seen the detail on that.

What perhaps should be focussed on here is the deliberate dishonesty in the portrayal of domestic violence and child abuse in this debate.

Have a look at the stats on substantiated child abuse and consider how poorly they line up with the gendered the portrayal of the issue. http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/facts.htm#3

Have a read of read of feminist author Patricia Pearson's book on the issue of female violence "When She Was Bad".

Read a study on DV that tries to ensure that it's data collection is not biased - http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm

It should not be about protecting Women and Children, rather about protecting us all from the abusers regardless of our gender or the perpetrators gender.

R0bert

Is this the weakest article ever posted on OLO? I can't remember a worse-argued, evidence-deficient opinion piece.

"Indoctrination courses"?

"Infiltrated"?

For goodness sake James, women were studying the same university courses as men in the 1960s and 1970s.

Why aren't we concerned about the blokes returning us to a communist utopia?

What an occasion for hand-wringing. The very thought of women who believe in social justice and equal rights running around as if they are entitled to join the male elite is terrifying ! What is the world coming to - men who regularly beat and kill women may actually be called to account if this rot spreads. I'm with you James. Things are out of control.

"A new ideology based on the seeds of marxism emerged in the 1960s and 1970s and it was called feminism"

What a weak argument- yes, some feminists are marxists, but certainly not all. As I've said before, I identify as a feminist (because I believe that neither sex is superior to the other, and that both should therefore be treated fairly in society), but I do not subsribe to Marxist thought. The author contradicts himself on this point by referring to Christina Hoff Sommers, who suprisingly enough, identifies herself as a feminist, and as far as I am aware, is not a Marxist.

Also, it is evident that feminism was around before the 1960s and 70s- that is why the feminism of this era is referred to as second-wave feminism.

I am not sure of the exact details of the Canadian domestic violence act, but I am generally for extra legal protection for victims of domestic violence because it a serious problem, regardless of the gender of the victim. Although, according to a study done by VicHealth, "domestic violence is the single greatest risk factor associated with death, disease and disability for younger Victorian women" (young menaing 18-44). Also, according to a study by Monsah University researchers, "Coroner's data showed that deaths in women due to assault were more likely to be the result of domestic violence compared with men, and that 90% of all domestic violence deaths occur in women". Our legal system needs to maintain a balance between protecting the innocent who are accused of crimes, as well as protecting those who are victims of crime, and that includes those who are at risk of death from domestic violence

la1985, your acceptance of government advocacy data relating to the incidence and nature of domestic violence is cute, but worrying. I recommend an article which appeared in these pages just over a year ago, to present a well argued case for viewing these statistics with some considerable suspicion -

On Line Opinion
Domestic violence - a statistical 'shock and awe' campaign?
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3538

Naturally, the article created considerable debate.

I suggest that the latest and most authoritative data on this matter can be found here -

Australia Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey 2005
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/6609ADCA83BBB30ACA2571C50074B5B7/$File/49060_2005_Reissue.pdf

It's a somewhat lengthy document, but it does reveal that during the 12 months of 2005, when comparing genders with regard to physical assault in the home (DV) that they estimated, both reported and unreported incidents -

Women as victim
101,600 events, about 1.3% of female population, about 1 woman in 77 affected.

Men as victim
60,900 events, about 0.8% of male population, about 1 man in 125 affected.

This gives you a rough estimate of female to male ratio of about 2:1, which affects about 2.1% of the entire population.

In light of the ABS figures, I find it difficult to believe Vic Health's claim that "domestic violence is the single greatest risk factor associated with death, disease and disability for younger Victorian women" (young meaning 18-44)".

Very difficult indeed.

I think the author of this piece would enjoy life under the Taleban, and I warmly invite him to move to those parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan where his views of women are widely shared.

As a person who has been involved with UNIFEM in Austrlalia, I find this article slightly insulting.

To think that women who have the audacity to stand up for themselves and to demand equal treatment and respect are somehow the seeds of Stalin is somewhat bewildering. I would remind the author that while Marx and Engels were writing Das Kapital, women couldn't vote, couldn't borrow money and couldn't be elected to public office. I personally think that Ibsen's The Dolls House, did more for the spread and promotion of feminist ideals than Marxism ever did.

Feminsim wasn't born out of some grand narrative on power structures. It was born out of an inequality in society. To say that those who stood up against this inequality have all perscribed to a certain set of beliefs is laughable.

www.whiteribbonday.org.au

If one believes that females should NOT be given a right of self defense against violence against their persons, or the persons of their children, then one can call any such right communistic, or femininist.

Do females have the right not to be harmed in their physical persons (just like males)? If that is communistic, that's news to me. I thought the communists are the ones who do not respect individual rights, that they are the ones who as with the Khmer Rouge and Stalin, kill indiscriminately.

Does the Family Violence bill specify that the arresting officer have a reasonable basis for making an arrest? Doesn't "reasonable basis" mean there must be some factual basis or factual reason to believe violence has been committed, or will be committed if an arrest is not made?

So then why demonize those females who wish not to be beaten, raped, or their children to suffer the same, and those who wish to protect them, by comparing any such efforts to communism?

Finally, what is communist doctrine? When Jesus said to the Jewish males who asked him if the adulterous woman should be stoned -- that he who is without sin, cast the first stone, was Jesus being a communist and a feminist, as well? How about "humane" and a just God?

The impulse to kill or otherwise harm should be circumscribed by laws that prevent it.

Is there a big problem in Tasmania with females being injured by their spouses? Then it is the role of government to deal with it, based on the facts, rather than to allow it to continue.

Without that, there is a private right to assault, to rape, to kill. There is no private right to commit criminal acts.

As for bail, I understand there is no absolute ban on bail. It is conditioned on the likelyhood of harm to the alleged victim should the perpetrator be released.

I agree, if not the weakest of all times it certainly is the worst article I have ever read on this forum. I am surprised it is here at all.

Self-avowed feminists? makes it sound as if they admitted to a crime...feminism is about equality, and I would be rather worried about a magistrate who did not believe in gender equality!

Feminism can be radical of course, like all movements, but one should be careful to distinguish between these forms and others.

Feminism has been a powerful liberating movement, for both men and women, and one of the most succesful in history, I think in this climate of feminism-bashing we forget what the situation was like just a few decades ago. With both genders forced to conform to very restrictive gender roles. Feminism has given us the freedom to think outside those roles and each find our path as human beings.

At its core, feminism is simply a belief that neither gender is superior to the other, and this belief the author compares to the racist beliefs of Aryan nation. I am speechless.

And anyway, the connection with Marxism is rather tenuous, marxists have never been that interested in gender politics, in fact, that was a problem for left-wing women in the 60s and 70s, they often felt that their own specific problems were ignored by the left-wing movements who were much more interested in class-struggle.

I feel insulted by this article, and I am a man!!

I read some of this article, then...

Ahahahahahahahahaha.

It is typical of the tension around gender that most of the above comments are barely coherent.

James is raising some interesting ideas here, though his argument needs more careful weighing of the evidence.
I think I would say

1. Ideology does rear its head in the universities. I would have liked to have seen more evidence for what James is saying. It's not hard to find. Universities are bastions of political correctness and most academics, particularly in the social sciences, are scared to deviate from accepted doctrine. This includes feminism. Subjects which talk about masculinities [sic] try to divide men and suggest that anything masculine is bad.

2.James needs to provide more systematic evidence for his case. How many university subjects use the word feminism? And in what context? What texts do they use? What biases do these have?

3. I would like to see more quantitative evidence along the lines of Jim Macnamara's article "Dissing Men".

4. And some more qualitative evidence also. The judgement reported in today's Australian (October 17) was that Ticky Fullerton's "Four Corners" prpogram was balanced in quantity between two sides of an argument. But emotionally it was weighted unfairly.

In sum, just because an article is argued unsystematically is no reason to jump down an author's throat. We can surely agree that men and women have different experiences. We need many views of gender, not one. Universities- and the ABC too - are funded by the public. They should not represent feminism - or masculinism or any other ism- to the exclusion of other views.

Behold you Lefties, there goeth a Righty with balls.

(now where's my notepad)

Men, many indoctrinated in capitalism and rationalism since the 1800's, are now in positions of power.
Bring on the women.

I'm interested in the idea that Canada's new domestic violence laws are considered to be 'draconian'. What is draconian is that millions of women live their everyday constrained by the threat and perpetration of violence. I am amused by the threads of conspiracy theory which permeate the article - that women from feminist camps have inflitrated the ranks of law makers and the judiciary! Let's get some perspective on this: the vast majority of the judiciary and law makers in both Australia and Canada are white males; rather than brainwashed could it be that women actually resonate with feminist theorists and writers becasue unlike the thousands of male writers most students are required to read, these texts speak to and of women's experiences?? I also wonder how it is that nowhere in the article id there any mention of the violation of rights which women and children experience at the hands of perpetrators - where is their right to safety? to live life free from fear? As noted in the article, if the man pleads guilty and agrees to attend an anger management program he is free to go - go where? back to the family home, where an esculation of violence will no doubt occur. Who's rights are bing protected? who's rights are being violated? Whilst men have rights as human beings - women and children have those same rights and I find the lack of mention of this disturbing. Perhaps I should not be concerned given that this article is just another example of the paranoia which permeates the men's movement and seeps out into pages of online opinion forums like this!

I think the feminists miss the point anyway.The more we involve lawyers and Govt institutions in our lives,so proportionally will our personal relationships decay,since not only is there no onus on the individuals to seek amicable solutions,but also we fail to develop as individuals.Today it is just too easy to spit the dummy and walk away searching for our Hollywood partner of image without substance.In the end very few end up being happy.

Our present laws are sufficient to cope with violent men ,it's just the judiciary are too gutless to enforce the law.

AB you don't know what you are talking about. Do a grammar check, please, and proof your writing, as your second sentence makes no sense at all.

Where is the hard, authoritative evidence for this claim that millions of women live in fear of violence? Which women? What countries are we talking about? Here is the ideology that James has (however inexpertly) pointed to. Give us hard evidence, please, not more ideology.

I need read no further. You have just raved on and on with no proper evidence for your biased views.

What an appalling piece. Clearly, it wasn't even edited.

Why bother commenting?

By and large, the early women's movement pressed for the removal of the social barriers and obstacles that had constrained women's choices – feminism has progressively sprung from this. As has been suggested, there’s a myriad of feminist definition around the bell curve. It’s perhaps helpful to define two differing strands of feminism and how they relate, as with many other groups, to ‘identity’ politics.

"The politics of identity is a kind of cultural politics. It relies on the development of a culture that is able to create new and affirmative conceptions of the self, to articulate collective identities, and to forge a sense of group loyalty. Identity politics - very much like nationalism - requires the development of rigid definitions of the boundaries between those who have particular collective identities and those who do not." Jeffrey Escofier

One feminist strand is generally referred to as ‘difference’ or ‘essentialist' feminism, and the other as ‘victim’ feminism. ‘Difference’ feminism emphasizes the unique identity of women as a group, stressing and celebrating essential female characteristics which it believes make women different from - indeed even opposite to - men. 'Difference' feminism appeals to some because it re-values previously devalued characteristics such as emotionality and social connectedness etc. which women are thought to embody.

‘Victim’ feminism also assumes that women have a unique identity, however, the focus of that identity is women's victimization on the basis of sex, typically at the hands of men. ‘Victim’ feminism also reinforces identity politics, for 'victim' feminism also assumes women's diametrical difference from men as a central component of its view. Naomi Wolf argues that 'victim' feminism "turns suffering and persecution into a kind of glamour." I agree, albeit the discouraging reality is that women have been and continue to be victims of sexism, male violence, and discrimination. But ‘victim’ feminism is attractive to many primarily because it absolves individuals of the political responsibility to act to change their own condition.

Arjay,

what is the point that the feminists miss? As a lot of feminist struggles were aimed at REMOVING legislation which prevented women from doing various things- e.g. voting, owning property etc.- I am not sure I understand what you are talking about in relation to too much legilsation and governemnt intervention.

Surely you don't mean legislation and government intervention is wrong in cases of abuse and domestic violence?

"Marxism sowed the seeds of communism and feminism"

A better way of putting this, is:

"Communism by nature seeks to expand itself by expoiting areas of perceived grievance, -the social inequality between males and females, and the emerging feminist movement, provided fertile soil for this enterprise"

So, I think feminism should be divided into the following:

1/ Those rightfully seeking redress over social inequality.
2/ Those who just wanted more power and even social revenge because they had abusive fathers.(Mary Wollstonecraft being a prime example)
3/ Those who were linked to the Marxists.

The Canadian laws re men, seem to be related to point 2 above.

I can see some wisdom for some cases in such a law, but as it stands, it could too easily be used as a weapon by a vindictive female.

Bolts criticism of Neave is entirely valid. (now watch her judgements)
Refer my article on "Bias in the Judiciary" on the general discussion area.

One major point I'd like to make. What we are seeing is a kind of 'pharisaical' approach to male female relations. The Jews of Jesus time had almost more laws and sub laws than the Tax act regarding what was 'work' and what was not. To the point of not being able to eat an EGG laid on the Sabbath, or wear sandals with a metal buckle on that day.
Paul taught "Husbands, love your wives as your own bodies" and "As Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her".
The further we depart from the principle of Love for God and our fellow man and woman, the more we will make 'laws' to cope with the collateral damage.

Example. We have a 'sexualized' society, so a school in Geelong has adopted a 'no touching' policy. So, natural innocent affection is sacrificed on the alter of political correctness, and reactionism.

I think you’re basically correct in your assumptions DB. We live in a hyper-sexualised society that began 50 years ago, when medical advances combined with fading morality to create the sexual revolution. Sexual intercourse was freed from reproduction, it is now an act far more recreational.than procreational – take this as a statement of fact rather than being judgemental.

One can consider, has this revolution done more to degrade the status of women than any comparable cultural current elsewhere in the world, short of India’s female genocide? Some part of feminism may be a deep felt reaction to this. There seems a terrible imbalance where political correctness has now reacted to suppress the natural emotion of human comfort.

We live in a society that has generally removed all responsibility associated with sexual behavior. Insidiously, over time it has actually distorted many women’s views of themselves, a reduction that causes them to behave as primarily sexual beings, in a society that defines their sexuality in purely masculine imperatives and desires. “The Princess Bitch Syndrome” by Dr Carr Gregg documents the toxic effect of this sexualised society on young women.

Carr-Gregg reports counselling sessions with 13-year-old girls who "wring their hands about whether they are satisfying their sexual partner . . . By the time girls turn 13, they look like they're ready for anything. But they're not….The adolescent brain is not fully formed until the 20s, and today's adolescents are "arguably the most vulnerable generation in Australia's history"

Byron Bay, child psychologist Michael Hawton can barely keep up with demand for his "train the trainer" parenting workshops. He says parents today are confused because "discipline has become a dirty word". He sees "parents who've reached the end of their tether just because they don't know what to do".

Is it perhaps possible, our shunning of certain religious morality has caused some serious imperfections in society - an observation, incidentally, not lost on many within the Western Muslim population (along with many of their Christian counterpart)?

Bondi Pete,

My objection (and I'll put it again) is the notion that WOMEN were being damaged by the university system and its so-called political correctness, while MEN who graduated from the same courses weren't having their judgement/influence questioned.

I would further argue that the notion that women bring to their positions of power a disproportionate influence by virtue of their gender or activism exists, at best, as a parallel argument to the notion that many blokes appointed to boards, statutory bodies, diplomatic posts, government advertising contracts and the like are beholden to the interests of business, political background or other inherent bias.

I think one of the key issues that this article skims across is the ongoing issue that the presence of women in some areas is still such a novelty that they cannot seek to advance their career or position without the cry of "tokenism!!" or "pandering to the feminist elite!!" being raised. This is pretty disappointing. If a woman were passed over in favour of a man, I doubt very much if the country's editorial pages would be spent dissecting whether his gender unfairly advantaged him.

"Having watched my mother beening beaten as a child I can see no problem with tought laws." Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 9:22:52 AM

Kenny, how did you watch your mother being beaten as a child? Just wondering, I'm not sure what you mean?

Is there no end to the fear some men have of women?
As many posters have pointed out, this is the silliest article I've read on OLO for some time. I am a feminist, a humanist, a small 'l" liberal, and a passionate believer and participant in the free enterprise system. I also believe in the protection of all humans from violence. Where would this silly author therefore place me?

Domestic Violence - It's Always The Same Women

We are told by the UK Home Office that 25% of women experience domestic violence at some time in their lives, which means that 75% of women NEVER experience it. Further, we are told that, every year, 10% of ALL women experience domestic violence.

Now, this 10% must come exclusively from the 25% of women who do experience domestic violence at some time in their lives.

It follows, therefore, that from this sub-group of 25% of women, a whopping 40% of them are experiencing domestic violence EVERY YEAR!

In other words, it is the same women - EVERY YEAR - who are claiming to be the victims of domestic violence.

Let me simplify for non-mathematicians.

Imagine that there are 100 women in the entire population. According to the Home Office, 75 of them never experience domestic violence throughout their entire lives. So, let's forget about them.

25 of them do experience some domestic violence in their lives.

But, according to the Home Office again, 10 women out of the original 100 women will experience domestic violence.

EVERY YEAR!

But these 10 women must come out of the 25 women who have experienced domestic violence at some stage in their lives.

None of these allegedly-violated women can be from the group of 75 women who have never experienced domestic violence.

And so it must be the case that it is the SAME women allegedly experiencing domestic violence - year after year after year after year.

There is no other way of interpreting the figures.

And this implies that, being the common denominator - year after year after year after year - these women are actually either provoking whatever it is that they claim is actually happening to them. Or they are inveterate liars.

Or, most probably, both!

And, of course, this fits in exactly with what Erin Pizzey said! "Most of the women arriving at the refuge centres were MORE violent, even toward their children, than were the men they were supposedly escaping from."

Q. What political system has killed more people than any other?
A. Marxism.

Q. How many people have Marxist killed?
A. Estimates vary, but it is generally believed to be over 50 million.

Q. Where is Marxism most likely found in Australia.
A. Universities.

Q. Where in Universities is Marxism most likely to be found?
A. It is studied in history and political science of course, but it is very common to find feminists in gender departments studying Marxist theory.

Q. Why do feminists so often study Marxist theory?
A. Marxism and feminism have many similarities, and many feminists still think that Marxism is the best social system for societies, even though all Marxist systems have failed and also brought about an enormous amount of death, destruction and poverty.

Q. Do Universities reward Marxist and feminists?
A. Yes, the University of Sydney gave an honorary doctorate to a self-declared Marxist and feminist last year.

Q. What has that Marxist and feminist said?
A. Statements such as men are “surplus to requirements”.

Q. Is that discriminatory?
A. It would probably be considered discriminatory if it was said about people belonging to a race or religion, but because it was said about the male gender then most Universities in Australia would not regard it as being discriminatory.

Q. Is there much male discrimination in Australian Universities?
A. It is very much frowned upon to make any type of positive comment about the male gender in Australian Universities, and close to obligatory to make negative comments about males in Universities in this country.

Q. Don’t gender departments or equity departments in Universities try to stop male discrimination?
A. Most universities have some type of gender department or equity department, but they are invariably made up of females only, or they may have 1 or 2 token gesture males in those departments, so eventually it becomes impossible for those departments to outlaw male discrimination when they carry out so much male discrimination themselves

RW,

While I'm not sure that your post has anything at all to do with all of these evil marxist feminists wandering the streets, I was intrigued by your argument.

I have gone to the UK Home Office site to read the report you allege proves that women MUST BE lying about domestic violence and assault.

For those interested it is here http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hors276.pdf

Can I observe about this report that:

1. It sought statistics on both men and women as victims of a range of interpersonal violence issues - the experiences of both genders are included in the report

2. It notes that for those women experiencing some form of domestic violence, the AVERAGE number of incidents in the year it surveyed was 20 - so yes, those women ARE experiencing repeated incidents of violence.

3. It notes that 13 per cent of the women surveyed and 9 per cent of men surveyed had experienced interpersonal violence. Are the nine per cent of blokes lying too? Or should we forget the gender blame game and try to address the real issue of interpersonal violence?

4. The report estimates that there were 12.9 million incidents of interpersonal violence against women and 2.5 million against men in the UK in the year the survey was conducted.

Is it really okay to muddle around with statistics and ignore the fact that the report contends that 15,400,000 incidents of violence were perpetrated within interpersonal relationships in just one year?

No one denies that domestic violence is an issue for both genders. People who seek to characterise those reporting incidents of domestic violence as "liars" do nothing to ensure that interpersonal violence is addressed or reduced.

Hello Seether

I cannot see anything that you have said to counter what I have claimed.

Anyway. Here is one quote from Women's Aid; ...

"One in four women: An analysis of 10 separate domestic violence prevalence studies found consistent findings: 1 in 4 women experience domestic violence over their lifetimes and between 6-10% of women suffer domestic violence in a given year (Council of Europe, 2002)."

If 75% of women never experience domestic violence then the ANNUAL domestic violence rate - IF TRUE - suggests that it is the SAME women who are complaining about domestic violence; year in year out.

And I think that this is a fact worth knowing rather than trying to hide.

Other evidence also suggests that MANY of these particular women 'seek out violent partners' and/or keep provoking men into aggressing against them.

IOW **These** women are the common denominators. That should tell you something.

RW, "And this implies that, being the common denominator - year after year after year after year - these women are actually either provoking whatever it is that they claim is actually happening to them. Or they are inveterate liars."

I don't agree with what appears to be the assumption that the victims of DV provoke it. Some may, others choose to stay in abusive relationships for a variety of reasons, others have not learned the lesson about what kind of partner to seek out. Some will enjoy the conflict of a fiery relationship, others are there for different reasons.

The DV study I linked to earlier is worth a read for an Australian look at this issue.

R0bert

This was a poorly written and argued piece - and once it quoted Bolters well... it was not credible to start with.

The only vaguely interesting thing was the position adopted on the left wing take over - here mainly in reference ot feminists .. it may be true but just maybe that is the correct order of things that is enabling past wrwong to be righted!

Keith Windshuttle is of a similar view - he describes the leftist take over thus in his Earl Page Memorial lecture of 2005

"This social group is a minority but a sizeable one. Its critics sometimes call it the inner-city Left, the new class, or the cultural elite. It dominates our film and theatre industry, our arts and literature, public broadcasting, the Fairfax press and the humanities and social science departments of our 38 universities. Its leading lights were educated and radicalised by the upheavals within universities in the 1960s and 1970s"

Well some one had to dominate - but it does imply that the rest of the countrie thinkers were asleep or trotted off to reprograming camps in the bush -

it is a tired old line adn uncharacteristically defeatist from the proponents of the right - it also flies in the face of the over whelmingly - conservative nature of Austrlaian politics over the last thirty years - as well as an often bi partisan appraoch on many social issues = do not get too carried away by the current domination og states by the ALP either

Please excuse this humble mind. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marxist feminism is a sub-type of feminist theory which focuses on the dismantling of capitalism as a way to liberate women. Marxist feminism states that capitalism, which gives rise to economic inequality, dependence, political confusion and ultimately unhealthy social relations between men and women, is the root of women's oppression.

According to Marxist theory, in capitalist societies the individual is shaped by class relations; that is, people's capacities, needs and interests are seen to be determined by the mode of production that characterises the society they inhabit. Marxist feminists see gender inequality as determined ultimately by the capitalist mode of production. Gender oppression is class oppression and women's subordination is seen as a form of class oppression which is maintained (like racism) because it serves the interests of capital and the ruling class. Marxist feminists have extended traditional Marxist analysis by looking at domestic labour as well as wage work in order to support their position.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Radical feminism is a branch of feminism that views women's oppression (or patriarchy) as the basic system of power upon which human relationships in society are arranged. It seeks to challenge this arrangement by rejecting standard gender roles and male oppression. The term Militant feminism is a pejorative term which is often associated, usually by detractors, with radical feminism. Often, radical feminism is seen by people other than adherents as a form of identity politics.

The term radical in radical feminism (from Latin rādīx, rādīc-, root) is used as an adjective meaning of or pertaining to the root or going to the root. Radical feminists locate the root cause of women's oppression in patriarchal gender relations, as opposed to legal systems (liberal feminism) or class conflict (socialist feminism and Marxist feminism). But in politics radical means fundamentalist or extremist.

Indeed. A SUBCATEGORY.

Just because there are some nutbags out there dosn't mean every person who believes in the inherent equal value of men and women is out to get you.

Ow

poor james.

To be fair to his leftist critics, go to google and type in 'feminazi'. There you will find all the reference materail you could ever need to support an academic paper -for or against.

We can off course find it difficult or impossible to get the stuff in Australia, as the GFN-deniers have a good stranglehold over research direction. BUt, suprisingly, in Perth we have some stuff. And who knows, perhaps there is more here than when i last looked.

I find it amazing that the leftists in parliament and everywhere generally howl about the Americanisation of Australia, but when it suits them they just compare our domestic politics with that of Canada and the US. I dunno why. we're as different as chalk and cheese.

Socialists are a bit fanciful, and wont liken thereselves to Chile or Argentine. or somewhere. Weird.

And HRS,

the figures for Marxology are of the screen. In China, which you mentioned, the revised figure (from Falun Gong) is 65 million. Russia, over 25, million and then there is the lesser experts such as Cambodia, DPRK, Germany etc.

Well may we save God save the queen...

I would agree that Universities are dominated by post-modernist, identity politics, however I would suggest that such tendencies are anathema to true Marxism.

Feminists seek to gain equal rights for women WITHIN the framework of the capitalist system. Marxists, or socialists, seek to educate the ENTIRE working class as to its historical task of overthrowing the capitalist system and transforming society into one in which inequality doesn’t exist.

The goal of Marxists is to eliminate the fundamental cause of inequality which is the vastly unequal ownership and distribution of productive wealth – minority capitalists own the means of production, while the majority of people are forced to sell their labour for subsistence. Feminism, and other identity politics, can only attempt to address the surface symptoms of inequality, by attempting to redistribute what little wealth the majority has amongst each other, never seriously challenging the fact that the lion’s share of the wealth is in the hands of the few.

Identity politics, by playing off one section of society against the other – men against women, blacks against white, us against them – ultimately serve to obscure the true cause of inequality which everyone must struggle against, which is the profit system. This ultimately serves the capitalists, the true enemy of the people - divide and conquer.

HRS –
“Q. What political system has killed more people than any other?
A. Marxism.

Q. How many people have Marxist killed?
A. Estimates vary, but it is generally believed to be over 50 million.”

I gather here you consider that Stalinism, Maoism etc are Marxist systems, when in fact they were/are not. Stalin’s theory of “socialism in one country” was counter-revolutionary and had nothing in common with Marxism, or scientific international socialism, other than borrowing some pseudo-marxist phraseology and co-opting the first true workers state in the world. Many of the people Stalin murdered, locked up or exiled were the true Marxists who opposed him.

Rainer,we know what Kenny meant.It should have read," As child I watched my mother being beaten."Less tongue in cheek and more sincerity Rainer will earn you more browny points.

The more we involve Govts and the legal system in our personal lives,so will our growth as individuals and our personal relationships diminish.This egotisical battle of the sexes promilgated by loopy feminists and hard done by whimpish males,will only end in misery for all involved.We have to find common ground without the litigation and new laws or suffer the further destruction of our personal relationships.The lawyers and extremists as always,will only play one off against the other.The emphasis should be less on rights and more on personal responsibilities.

The post war generation since 1945 have become very self indulgent,ill disciplined and have failed to develop as sincere personalities because real hardship has not forged their character.We have just become too spoilt.

Tao
Certainly the number of deaths attributed to Marxism does vary according to whatever version of Marxism is being considered.

People such as R.J Rummel for example have calculated the number as being over 110 million, and this figure included early deaths from starvation, ill health and general depravation brought about by the collapse of a country’s infrastructure. There have been times when members of Marxist type regimes have wanted an initial collapse of a country’s infrastructure so as to bring about a complete revolution of that society.

Should feminists in the education system believe in equality then most have an extraordinarily odd way of going about it. The person who has described themselves a being a Marxist and a feminist and was awarded an honorary doctorate last year and has said that men are “surplus to requirement” and men are “more trouble than they are worth” has also employed 5 men to carry out work on her recently purchased property in QLD. It appears that she has nothing but negativity towards men when trying to impress her feminist colleagues or University colleagues, but at other times she finds men very useful. I have personally found this situation to be highly typical of nearly every feminist I have ever met in the education system.

Feminism in the education system has nothing to do with equality. You can now say anything you like about the male gender in an Australian University as long as it is negative, and the people who are being indoctrinated and trained in Universities to devalue males are now going into other areas of the education system and other areas of society.

The devaluing of the male gender has become the primary characteristic of feminism, as a part of some type of feminist's revolution. It has become a primary characteristic of University education in this country and is also becoming a feature in high schools and primary schools. Feminism has very little to do with equality. Everything to do with bias, prejudice and discrimination.

HRS

Just because leaders of a state call themselves Marxists, and use pseudo-Marxist terminology, it does not make that state Marxist (if indeed there can be any such thing as a Marxist state). Similarly, just because a feminist calls herself a Marxist, it does not mean that she is in fact a Marxist.

To illustrate:

Just because John Howard calls himself a friend of the “battlers” does not mean he is a friend of the “battlers”. The reality is that he makes policy and laws that are against the interests of those “battlers”.

Just because Kim Beazley and the ALP call themselves the “Labor” party does not make them friends of the working class. The reality is that they make policy and laws that are against the interests of the working class.

Both leaders and their parties are actually working for business (i.e. they are bourgeois parties), and compete with each other to make themselves more useful business.

cont….

The Soviet Union under Stalin, China under Mao, Cuba under Castro, are/were not “Marxist” states. They had/have very little in common with the type of society that Marx envisaged. Calling them “Marxist type” systems means nothing.

The only state that could come close to being “Marxist” was the Soviet Union in the first few years after the 1917 October Revolution when the working class had taken power via the Bolshevik Party. However even the leaders of the Revolution were aware that one revolution in technologically and economically backward Russia would not make a true socialist society. They believed that, in order for the Revolution to transform society, it had to be taken up by the international working class, particularly, at the time, the German working class – that is Marxist theory.

Unfortunately, following the Revolution, Russia, already devastated by WWI, was racked by civil war, isolated and surrounded by capitalist states which actively assisted the counter-revolutionary White Army. For these and other reasons the Bolshevik party degenerated and Stalin was able to usurp power. Stalin then came up with his theory of “socialism in one country” which was diametrically opposed to Marxist theory of an international socialist revolution.

So while Stalin and others called his theory, and by implication the Stalinist Soviet Union, Marxist, THEY WERE NOT MARXIST. And they were not Marxist-Type.

Given that what you call “Marxist type” states ARE NOT Marxist, it is incorrect to attribute deaths caused by Stalinism etc, to Marxism.

Finally, I don’t disagree with you about the domination of feminists in universities, however a true Marxist (i.e. one that fights to educate and unify the working class in its struggle against the profit system) would not say that men are surplus to requirements. Irrespective of whether she calls herself a Marxist, true Marxists would probably consider such a person a petty-bourgeois radica

tao,

are you an educator;

cause if you are i think you got it all amiss. If not, then try this on for size.

The October revolution which some are celebrating right now (cause its october), was simply a coup. There was no revolt for weeks. The Whites lost, and the Reds won. Lenin set Russia on the path of Isolation, not external states. Lenin loved Marx. So did Stalin. Mao loved Lenin. Mao loved Marx. Terrorists love Marx. The dictatorship of the proletariat leveled all Marxist states, and individuals sovereignty therein.

Today, things have moved on (mostly), and the cold war has closed down. But some here in Aus still find a way to recognise the pathetic peasant movements of the past, and in october too. Why is that i ask. Is there something deep and hidden in our country that nobody sees. Do some weirdos feel we are illegitimate as a nation; as if we have neglected to do something to gain legitimacy. I wonder what that could be?

Is it education, or at least the education system. Dominated by none other than the Left, who all to a non-gender specific person all love Marx. Wow-we goodness me. Now heres the cathcy bit; the Leftits all think they are invisible, but are not. They think they have domination, which they do but dont. They think they have a new language set which no-one can identify, which they dont.

And to complete my definitive analysis, i call them the GFN.

I would love to know what all the fuss is about this fantasy workers state, glory sunshine villa life of commy idealism, mixed with mud and blood and guts.

Please enlighten me tao

Just because a group is a minority, it does not necessarily mean that they do not weild an inordinate amount of power and influence.

"The feminists redefined the Marxist goalposts and declared that it was MEN (the patriarchs), not Capitalism, that held power advantages over women and minority groups (the proletariat), and that all men were now the enemy. Family life was a dangerous place for women and children because men used physical and emotional violence to maintain their power advantage, and women only ever reacted violently in self-defence." Erin Pizzey

"We, the mothers, sat around the kitchen tables rearranging the world according to Marx."

"Much of feminist ideology appears familiar to anyone who knows at least a little bit about communist ideology. A good number of feminists have solid communist backgrounds, such as Betty Friedan, who was (perhaps still is) for many years a functionary of the Communist Party of the USA. Many feminist university professors involved in women's studies confess to and proudly boast of their affiliation with communist ideology, for which they use the euphemism Marxism. Furthermore, one of the most influential factions of feminism, Marxist and socialist feminism,"
http://www.fathersforlife.org/communist_manifesto.htm

Any other scapegoats you guys might be able to find? How comforting it must be to know all the world's ills are the fault of those nasty ( and incredibly powerful- look at all the corporations, banks, governments, armies, revolutionary movements, terrorist cells, judiciarys and parliaments they run) feminists. Not to mention the Marxists, Commies, Muslims, Greenies, Tree Huggers, Athiests, Humanists, Lefties and Refugees.
The appearance that rich white men run the world is, of course, just a clever illusion, a fabulous deception by the giant worldwide feminist marxist conspiracy. Thank God you guys spotted it in time!

Posted by ena, Friday, 20 October 2006 7:59:31 AM

My, my, get out of the wrong side of bed, did we?

For your information I do not support for example the "World Bank". In theory the world bank lends money to poor countries in order to make them self sufficient etc.

It is more than likely the world bank is controlled by very powerful and rich americans and it is way of increasing their wealth.

There is a term 'succesful sociopathy' (google it)it makes for some very interesting reading. It's possible that more than a few feminists who may be sociopaths even though there are in theory more male sociopaths than female sociopaths.

For every rich and powerful man there is a woman who benefits.

Besides this article if I read it correctly is about feminism and it's relationship with marxism. It is not about the evils of capitalism, greenies, pollies etc.

Tao,
Your account of the history of Marxism and communism is correct, but I think there are 2 main problems with Marxist theory. Firstly Marx believed in revolution to overthrow the existing state, and I think that there are people who romanticize Marz because he was a revolutionary, as there are people in China who still revere or romanticize Mao. However these revolutions were often quite bloody wars and a lot of people have died during Marzist or communist revolutions.

Secondly he did not incorporate enough democracy into his theories, possibly because democracy was so new in those times. So after the revolution dictators normally stepped in and many communist countries have become dictatorships or bureaucratic dictatorships. Not incorporating enough democracy into his theories basically guaranteed that a country would become a dictatorship.

The formula for allowing a country to develop while not having discrimination or exploitation of people is very complex. I certainly do not see feminism as being of much use in developing that formula, as feminism has evolved into a very undemocratic and discriminatory system. The majority of feminists will use whatever males provide while not having anything positive to say about males, and Greer would be a good example of that. They will also not recognize or object to male discrimination when it is occurring, so feminism becomes a pseudo equality system only, and I would certainly not like to see any more feminists in the education system or in areas such as law or politics.

James H
Betty Friedan is another example of a feminist who used males. She called herself a Marxist but married a rich capitalist and had her children driven to school in a limousine. She never said much that was positive about males, but she never refused their money, and that is the way the vast majority of feminists now operate I have found.

She was also very abusive, and her husband and children were quite afraid of her. All her children had to attend forms of trauma counseling latter in life

Gadget, I believe you suffer from what Marxists, or dialectical materialists, call “vulgar thought”, a description of which follows:

“The most common feature of vulgar thought is its tendency to simplify a complex and multifaceted reality with overly broad, amorphous and one-dimensional definitions. Scientific thought strives to identify and examine in their mutual interaction the diverse and antagonistic elements of which every phenomenon is composed. It attempts to develop concepts that accurately express the complexity, that is, the contradictory nature, of the reality that is being reflected in the mind of the scientist.

Vulgar thinking, on the other hand, resorts to vacuous generalizations that ignore the essential internal contradictions that constitute the structure of the phenomenon it presumes to analyze. Such empty generalizations are known, in philosophy, as abstract identities, that is, identities from which all internal difference is excluded. They are abstract, in the bad sense of the word, because they are inadequate mental representations of reality: The material world simply does not consist of such internally undifferentiated phenomena.

Every "identity" contains difference within itself. Herein lies the basic flaw of vulgar thought: it operates with one-sided concepts of the lowest order, with such abstract identities that are incapable of providing a scientific and truthful representation of reality.” http://www.wsws.org/history/1997/apr1997/fascism.shtml

The above is an apt description of your “definitive analysis”, to which, I feel, it would be pointless responding.

Given the quality of your post, I doubt the best educator (not that I am suggesting that I am an educator) in the world could instill in you the characteristics of intellectually rigorous thought, or “enlighten” you as to its subtleties. There are none so blind as those who willfully refuse to open their eyes and minds. But hey, whatever gets you through the night.

Cheers

HRS,

Thank you for your considered response.

With regard to your first point about violent revolution, the idea of which most people find concerning, it should be remembered that the current system is maintained by the use of violence, or the threat of violence. We are not conscious that it is, but if ordinary people rose up against capitalists, violence would be used to suppress them. Think about the use of force by the state in the USA during the civil rights movement and anti-Vietnam movement.

Marxists certainly do not advocate violent revolution, however they recognize that during revolution, violence will be used against the masses, and therefore violence will be required to defend the individuals involved in the revolution, and protect the gains of the revolution. If, once the proletariat (i.e. about 95% of industrialized economies) decide they are going to take power into their own hands (i.e. democracy of the majority), the capitalists give it up freely, then there will be no need for violence – however there is slim chance of that.

In *Their Morals and Ours* Leon Trotsky pointed out that “history has different yardsticks for the cruelty” of the oppressed and the oppressor. “A slave-owner who through cunning and violence shackles a slave in chains, and a slave who through cunning or violence breaks the chains – let not the contemptible eunuchs tell us that they are equals before a court of morality!”

It should also be noted that the (former) “greatest democracy in the world”, the USA, arose out of the bloodshed of the war of independence.

Which leads on to your second point about democracy. Marx and Engels certainly considered and studied bourgeois democracy, and proletariat democracy of the Paris Commune, which they considered to be the form socialist democracy would take:

“The-Commune-was-formed-of-the-municipal-councillors,-chosen-by-universal-suffrage-in-the-various-wards-of-the-town,-responsible-and-revocable-at-short-terms.-The-majority-of-its-members-were-naturally-workers,-or-acknowledged-representatives-of-the-working-class.-The-Commune-was-to-be-a-working,-not-a-parliamentary-body,-executive-and-legislative-at-the-same-time.”

Marx also considered that once class exploitation was eliminated, the State (as a tool of class domination), and democracy, would wither away because it would not be required in a classless society.

I'm almost out of words, so more later if you're up for it.

It is my understanding that Lenin, Stalin, Mao used some of the principles of marxism for their own ends. In fact they did not really practice the principles that they preached. Such as a classless society and equality.

As such Lenin, Stalin and Mao developed extremely oppressive regime's, you could be shot or imprisoned just being classd a dissident. Questioning or challangeing the ruling party was not allowed.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/050521
Sometimes it seems the Gender Warriors will stop at nothing to get their way.

A number of years ago University of Delaware professor Suzanne Steinmetz published an article called the "The Battered Husband Syndrome." After culling the findings from five surveys on domestic violence, Steinmetz reached an unexpected conclusion: wives were just as likely as their husbands to kick, punch, stab, and otherwise physically aggress against their spouses.

Steinmetz's conclusion was so startling that she quickly became a media darling, appearing on the Phil Donahue show and having her work featured in a front-page story in Time magazine.

But the radical feminists were none-too-pleased with Steinmetz's revisionism, and they knew something had to be done. So they placed Steinmetz on their hit list.

The fem-thugs began by calling University of Delaware faculty members, deriding Steinmetz's work as "anti-feminist." Then they leveled threats against Steinmetz and her children. Sponsors of her speaking engagements started to receive threatening phone calls. Finally, a bomb threat was called in to a meeting where Steinmetz was scheduled to speak. [www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf]

Bullying tactics like these may be acceptable in totalitarian states, but are an anathema to an open democracy that cherishes tolerance and freedom of speech.

Karl Marx maintained, workers in a capitalistic economic system become trapped in a vicious circle: the harder they work, the more resources in the natural world are appropriated for production, which leaves fewer resources for the workers to live on - in effect they become “wage slaves”. An alluring theory.

Marx’s forerunner, Jeremy Bentham, believed in "La Raison" as the ultimate test of value to society - culture, custom and tradition are not relevant to economic analysis. It is worth noting, many economists would separate economics from sociology on the basis of rational or irrational behaviour, where these terms are defined in the penumbra of utility theory - western cultural bias is certainly implicit in this theory. Utilitarians are credited with having created something that was new in literature... “namely, the shallowest of all conceivable philosophies of life that stands indeed in a position of irreconcilable antagonism to the rest of them.” (Schumpeter 1949:132-4).

In the Manifest der kommunistischen Partei (Communist Manifesto) (1848), Marx and Engels presented their so called ‘practical proposals’ for changing the world. Social history is nothing other than a record of past struggles between the bourgeoisie (most significant classes) and the proletariat, people who work for wages. The Manifesto declares the intention of communism to overthrow the bourgeoisie and to situate all political power in the proletariat instead. For Marxist feminists, women would be empowered in their own right as workers, instead of being subject to domination by male bourgeois. With the disappearance of the bourgeoisie as a class, there would no longer be a class society. As Engels later wrote, "The state is not abolished, it withers away." Carl Jung more aptly describes this transition, the " State drifts into the situation of a primitive form of society - the communism of a primitive tribe where everybody is subject to the autocratic rule of a chief or an oligarchy”...cont’d

cont'd..
Marx’s utopia in effect became oppressive,” the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." turned sour, particularly in Russia. Probably the greatest flaw in Marx's vision was his certainty that economic forces controlled history and flowed in only one inevitable direction.

Bentham's and so too Marx’s assumption that culture was irrelevant was reinforced in mid-century with the schism between Marxist and mainstream economics. Cultural relativity became Marxist analysis and mainstream economists adopted an increasingly positivist approach. The Benthamite tradition deeming culture irrelevant to economic behaviour is no longer valid in a mythic or multicultural domestic and international economy.

In our new economy, it is creative workers -- artists , scientists and entrepreneurs - who are the source of growth in National Income. This is lost on the primitive ideologue whose strange take on equality is to reduce all to a common denominator. Marx himself should have taken to heart his favourite motto: "Everything should be doubted."

Thank you relda, you seem to have summed things up pretty well.

Further to that, but on a different note - family - and an obvious influence on the feminist thinking of Betty Frieden, is the following discourse on family structures by Engels.

(Note - this is a fairly big document and not a quick read)

Frederick Engels 1884
The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm

I believe the seeds of today's Family Law are sown right there in that document and hence the connection between Marx, Engels, socialist governments and second-wave feminism can be very easily put together to show how second-wave feminism came about.

The pieces of the puzzle fit together rather elegantly.

I seriously doubt the masses of feminist women and men, who bought the feminist package, had (or have) any idea of the roots of their own cause. Some do, but they don't like to talk openly about it much.

The vast majority of course are absolutely clueless that the motivator of feminism has absolutely nothing to do with freedom for women, but rather a political re-engineering of culture to replace traditional family (human relations) with state dependence. There are many in the Western world, who deeply believe this is for the better and they of course have a right to their beliefs. I have tolerance of their opinions, but unfortunately, like most isms, there's no place or tolerance for me in their grand plan. Everybody's got to be EQUAL - even me - whether I like it or not. Too bad I don't like being told how I MUST live my life. And besides, I quite like and respect traditional style families.

Relda, I take issue with much of what you have said however, due to word and post limitations, I will deal with a few points:

Firstly, your apparent conflation of Bentham’s utilitarianism with Marxism is either misinformed, or disingenuous. While not proclaiming intimate knowledge of Bentham’s philosophy, a cursory glance suggests that, ultimately, the success of Bentham’s philosophy rested on the necessity of those in power, or the bourgeoisie, to use reason to make ethical laws that would benefit the most people within the framework of capitalism i.e. reform capitalism. This is diametrically opposed to Marx’s conception that capitalism is an exploitive economic and social system which, being inherently “unethical” (although he probably wouldn’t use that word), is unable to be reformed. Further, Bentham was an idealist, while Marx was a materialist.

Secondly, your attempt to describe the concept of the withering away of the state, using Jung’s description of a return to primitive society “where everybody is subject to the autocratic rule of a chief or an oligarchy” is also disingenuous.

Because they are related, I will also deal here with your comments “Marx’s assumption that culture was irrelevant” and “Cultural relativity became Marxist analysis”. What post-modern gobbledygook is this? Were did Marx say that culture was irrelevant, and in what context?

Technological progress and the growth of productive forces is at the heart of Marxist theory, and is nothing other than culture i.e. “culture is all that has been created, built, assimilated and achieved by man throughout the course of his history, in contrast with what has been given by nature” Leon Trotsky, Culture and Socialism. Marxist theory is therefore inextricably bound up with questions of culture. I can’t see how anyone who has seriously read what Marx has written could credibly suggest that he considered culture irrelevant.

Marx considered that it is technology, and the growth of productive forces, which drives “cultural” transformation, or progress, e.g. transforming feudal to bourgeois, or capitalist, society. Cont…

… cont. It is the mode of production a society uses to produce its sustenance which determines the beliefs, laws and institutions of that society. Again, Trotsky:

“When-we-speak-of-the-culture-accumulated-by-past-generations,-we-deliberately-rest-upon-primarily-its-material-acquisitions-in-the-form-of-tools,-machines,-buildings,-monuments,-and-so-forth.--Is-this-culture?--Undoubtedly-it-is-culture,-or-its-material-deposits-–-material-culture.--It-creates-–-on-the-foundations-of-nature-–-the-basic-setting-for-our-life,-our-everyday-existence,-and-our-creativity.--But-the-most-valuable-part-of-culture-consists-of-its-deposits-in-the-consciousness-of-man-himself-–-our-devices,-customs,-skills-and-acquired-capabilities-which-grew-out-of-all-preceding-material-culture-and,-while-resting-upon-it,-continue-to-rebuild-it….Culture-grows-out-of-man’s-struggle-with-nature-for-existence,-for-the-improvements-of-living-conditions,-for-the-increase-of-his-power.--But-it-is-on-this-basis-that-classes-grow-as-well.--In-the-process-of-adapting-to-nature,-in-the-struggle-with-its-hostile-forces,-human-society-develops-into-a-complex-class-organisation.--It-is-the-class-structure-of-society-which-most-decisively-determines-the-content-and-form-of-human-history,-i.e.-its-material-relations-and-their-ideological-reflections.--By-saying-this-we-are-also-saying-that-historical-culture-has-a-class-character….Marx-said:”The-dominant-ideas-of-an-epoch-are-the-ideas-of-the-ruling-clas-of-the-given-epoch”--This-statement-also-applies-to-culture-as-a-whole.--Yet-we-say-to-the-working-class:-you-must-master-all-the-culture-of-the-past-otherwise-you-won’t-build-socialism….Technology-cannot-be-counterposed-to-culture,-for-it-is-culture’s-mainspring.--Without-technology-there-is-no-culture.--The-growth-of-technology-drives-culture-forward.--But-the-science-and-general-culture-which-rise-up-on-the-basis-of-technology-give-a-powerful-impulse-to-the-growth-of-technology.--Here-there-is-a-dialectical-interaction.” Sorry to quote at such length, but, as can be seen, Marxism is hardly a theory that considers culture irrelevant.

To suggest that a socialist society will simply dismiss and discard all acquired knowledge and culture and return to primitive tribal society, or that Marxists dismiss “culture” as irrelevant is simply ridiculous. Marxists consider that growth in productive forces, by increasing the ability of humans to produce abundantly what they require to survive, will lead to an advancement in political organisation and, once the product of labour is organized rationally, guaranteeing that all people have access to what they need, the need for a “state”, which effectively exists to police inequality, will diminish.

Thirdly, your comment “Marx’s utopia in effect became oppressive,” the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." turned sour, particularly in Russia”. I suggest that, firstly, you study the difference between utopian socialism and Marxism. Then I suggest you re-read my previous post describing “vulgar thought” and re-consider your use of vacuous generalisations such as “turned sour”. What were the reasons for it “turning sour”? There are many which need to be studied before such a simplistic pronouncement can be mad.

On your comment “In-our-new-economy,-it-is-creative-workers----artists-,-scientists-and-entrepreneurs---who-are-the-source-of-growth-in-National-Income.-This-is-lost-on-the-primitive-ideologue-whose-strange-take-on-equality-is-to-reduce-all-to-a-common-denominator.” This appears to be another vacuous generalisation. What “common denominator” are you talking about? Marx considered that capitalism, by reducing the creative forces of humans to commodity production for the benefit of the few, alienates man from himself leading to the one-sided development of individuals and humankind generally. Socialism, by eliminating exploitation, would allow those creative forces to improve conditions for all people and allow humankind to develop to its full potential.

Finally, to call Marx a “primitive ideologue” on whom something might be “lost” is a big call, and quite frankly, displays your considerable arrogance, and dare I say, ignorance.

Tao, it seems I’ve ruffled some feathers,

Bentham believed pleasure, or the avoidance of pain, is the sole end of man's action and the sole content of human good. The "greatest happiness of the greatest number" is the social test of what is moral conduct. The test of good or evil in an act is its utility - the usefulness in bringing about pleasant results (Utilitarianism). Bentham's utility criterion sought to get rid of private and class interests

According to Marx, the supreme end of man is an immanent and material one, and consists in happiness. This material happiness must be obtained through organized collectivism. In fact, according to Marx, reality is governed by economic needs (historical materialism). Ironically, Marx ridiculed Bentahm as a "purely English phenomenon", "a genius by way of bourgeois stupidity". Despite this, there is an obvious similarity. Bentham preceded Marx with the utopian ideals to rid us of “private and class interests”. Both proposed different ‘methods’ - they were clever in their argument but both, equally, failed in their utopian dreaming.

Give up your ‘hero-worship’,Tao – for not only is Marx dead, but also, so is his failed ideology.

If anyone is interested in what Bill 17, otherwise known as the Domestic Violence Protection Act, in Ontario, Canada, actually does, they can go here: http://www.owjn.org/info/domact.htm

Note that an order sought may be contested by the alleged abuser and any person who makes a false claim of abuse may be prosecuted under the Criminal Code.

Also, hearsay is not accepted as evidence - the allegation must be supported by evidence.

These a fair and reasonable safeguards. Anyone who objects to them must just be pissed off about not having a right to abuse their spouse and kids as and when they want to.

Noos, interesting.

- "May give victim exclusive use of certain shared property, such as credit cards and bank accounts" That can make it fairly difficult for the alleged perpetrator to get legal advice and representation. It can get very difficult to get a solicitor to help where there is a good chance you won't be able to pay them.
- "May give victim exclusive possession of a shared residence regardless of ownership" So not only don't you have access to your money you don't have a home to live in regardless of who owns it. Turning up in court to defend yourself in your well worn workclothes without representation (you can't get at your stuff or your money) sets you up with a good chance.
- "Requesting a hearing will not affect the emergency intervention order; only the decision resulting from the hearing will affect it." - so having a claim made against you leaves you homeless and moneyless until you turn up unrepresented at the hearing.
- "Q. WHAT HAPPENS IF HE BREACHES THE ORDER?" That is a a fairly big giveaway isn't it?
- "Q. WHAT HAPPENS IF MY HUSBAND CALLS THE POLICE BECAUSE I HIT BACK?" and the section underneath it. Yet more of a giveaway.
- "According to Statistics Canada, between 87 - 92% of the victims of 'domestic violence' are women and more than 90% of the perpetrators are men" - see discussion elsewhere about those kind of politicised stats. Qld Health publishes similar in conjunction with a definition that just does not fit. Plenty of evidence around that those kind of stats are based on a combination of outright lies, very misleading definitions of DV (DV is based on power relationships, men hold power so only men can commit DV) and biased statistics gathering (collecting stats from women DV shelters or womens help lines etc).

This is not about people wanting the freedom to abuse spouses, rather people sick of the callous lies and the consequences of those lies.

R0bert

http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0012/oc001220.htm
Bill 117 guts men's rights
Dave Brown
The Ottawa Citizen

Just in time for Christmas, Ontario Attorney General Jim Flaherty has presented a gift-wrapped monster called Bill 117 that effectively removes the Charter rights of half the population -- the male half.

Gone with the flick of a quick vote are fundamental procedural rights and the presumption of innocence.

Ontario Bill 117 — Presentation by Federal Senator Anne C. Cools
http://www.fathersforlife.org/doc/cools_on_117.html

"Honourable members, I come here to ask for fairness, balance and equilibrium in this law. I do this because the legal and social condition around domestic violence is one that I can only describe as a heart of darkness. This condition is rendered more difficult by official government disinclination to accept the obvious fact that violence and aggression are human problems, not gender problems. I shall ask you to examine the proposition that men and women are equally capable of vice and equally capable of virtue, and that virtue is a human characteristic, not a gender one. "

Women emerge as aggressors in Alberta survey
67% of women questioned say they started severe conflicts

by Brad Evenson and Carol Milstone
http://www.franks.org/fr01060.htm

"Although the original researchers asked women the same questions as men, their answers were never published until now.

When the original Alberta study was published in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science in 1989, it was taken up by feminist groups as evidence of the epidemic of violence against women."

....

"Feminists themselves use our studies, but they only publish what they like.

"As some feminists say, it's counter-intuitive. We would not expect that to be true; and if things are not expected to be true, for some people they are not true."

Relda,

Your “response” has not offered any support for your comments about Marx considering culture irrelevant. Nor have you supported your comments about the withering away of the state being akin to a return to primitive society. Nor have you qualified your comments about the “common denominator”.

Your comments about the similarity of Bentham and Marx, while superficially amusing, reveal nothing of substance other than your lack of real understanding of Marx, and mean absolutely zero in the scheme of things. An irrelevant distraction.

Further, your comments about Marx’s ideology being “dead” are based on what exactly?

The contradictions of capitalism described by Marx still exist. In fact much of what he predicted about captialism’s decay and descent into barbarism came to fruition in the 20th Century’s two world wars and others, and is being carried on today in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Bourgeois democracy has decayed to such an extent that the intellectual giant of Bush was able to steal the 2000 election, and is now dismantling and repudiating long held democratic protections such as the principle of habeus corpus, the right to a fair trial, the right not to be spied on by your government. The US now has its own gulag at Guantanamo and has virtually legislated the use of torture.

Cont…

…cont

The majority of the world still lives in abject poverty, while the living conditions of average people in industrialized countries are being eroded. The divide between rich and poor is ever widening. The corruption and sleaze of the corporate world is on display for all to see.

People are still studying Marx. Socialist parties are gaining strength. The Socialist Equality Party in New York overcame huge hurdles to get itself on the ballot in the upcoming elections, gaining 25,000 signatures (and in other states). In a 1999 BBC Poll Marx was voted the greatest thinker of the Millenium http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/461545.stm , and more recently, the greatest philosopher of all time http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/07_july/13/radio4.shtml . Not bad for a “primitive ideologue”. Obviously they are not scientific studies, however they demonstrate that Marx’s ideology is hardly “dead”.

It appears that you have a habit of making statements which are backed up by pretty much zilch.

Oh well, we all make our own decisions in life.

Robert
Unless she has concrete evidence of abuse, she cannot use this Bill against you. If she does, she will be fined or jailed. So you have nothing to fear. And having exclusive use of the property - for a period of 14 days - not indefinitely.
Previously, the abused person had to flee to a refuge - why can't the alleged perp be the one who has to look for temporary accommodation?

Tao,

You’re obviously in awe of Marx and Marxist theory. It’s not for me to dissuade you. As you say, “Oh well, we all make our own decisions in life”. Fortunately we currently live in a society where, by and large, we can do this.

Some more ‘zilch’...

Although many people continue to call themselves Marxists, and Marxism remains a vital intellectual and, to some extent, political tradition, there is broad agreement among even leftist intellectuals, many of Marx’s theories and ideals are, however attractive, misguided or wrong.

“There is much of use within Marxism…… but as an ideology, as a tradition and as a guide for the future it has failed; and failed on a grand scale. Socialists must be prepared to question everything. And that includes Marxism. If the right tools are not chosen for the job, the job will not get done right”. Talk by Alan MacSimóin to the Trinity College Socialist Society, 1994, Workers Solidarity Movement

There is an obvious conflict between individual freedom and communal freedom – these aspects of his theory are irreconcilable.

Marx got wrong with many of his predictions, here’s a few:

· Marx was wrong about the changes in the class structure under capitalism. He expected that practically everyone would become a proletarian and do wage-labor under the direction of the few capitalists. The reality has been very different.

· The new middle class includes: The middle managers of large private and public organizations, including large businesses. Highly skilled technical workers such as engineers and research scientists. Other professionals, such as lawyers, and physicians and others who formerly were part of the old middle class. The living standards of workers have also increased due to the efforts of organized unions.

· For the hundred years between roughly 1873 and 1973, the wages of all workers, including unskilled blue-collar workers, rose dramatically in all Western capitalist countries.

Governments in the liberal democratic capitalist countries have played a major role in raising the living standards of the working class...and I could go on.

Noos, nothing I read there suggests that someone has to have concrete evidence to put the restrictions in place. None of it is likely to apply to me so I'm not sure why you phrased your comments the way you did unless it's part of your attempts to portray all who oppose this kind of stuff as wife bashers.

An emergency intervention is hardly likely to deal thoroughly with the rules of evidence. Is there even a place for the accussed to defend themselves against the allegations prior to a hearing? Nothing I've seen suggests that is the case. So the "innocent unless proven guilty" accused is left with no home, no money, no access to clothes, tools, records. If they don't happen to have good support near by they are in a very difficult position.

It's not just exclusive use of the property, it's exclusive use of bank accounts etc.

"Requesting a hearing will not affect the emergency intervention order; only the decision resulting from the hearing will affect it."

Are you willing to see women left with no home, money, clothes, access to records etc left for 14 days (assuming that they can sort out the requirements for a hearing) if the accuser happens to be male and the law is applied fairly. That seems to be what you are suggesting.

Are you willing to see women go to jail because they made a claim of abuse that they could not back up with hard evidence?

I can imagine the outcry from those who now support this kind of measure the first time it goes against a woman - either as the accused or as an accuser caught out. Many of you are more than happy to see innocent men having their lives torn apart but I doubt that any of you will be happy to see the law do that to a woman.

Try loking at the scenarios involved with a woman on the wrong side of it (you for example) and ask yourself if you are so confident of the approach being proposed.

R0bert

RObert, good'ay mate,

You might be surprised (or not, I don't know) to know that these EXACT same laws of Canada (or very similar), do, at this point in time, exist in Tasmania, introduced by retired/retiring MP Judy Jackson, ALP.

These same laws are also in place, I believe in Victoria, and the rot is currently being introduced into NSW by Iemma, ALP, and will probably be NSW law before the next NSW state election.

It's only a matter of time before they're introduced into Qld, where I think you might reside. This is the war-against-men that I spoke to you about.

In my opinion, it is not really a war aginst "men", but is a war, driven by Marxists (ALP) against traditional family, which they adversely label "patriarchy". It is very serious stuff and has had massive ramifications across the entire broad spectrum of all humanity living in Western nations.

Despite the fact that I become somewhat "gross" with my passion to expose this sham of theirs, I regret, I lose patience with those who fail to understand the magnitude of the injustice done under their umbrella.

I apologise for that.

I see now that you are only just beginning to see the magnitude of the injustice being done.

All the very best to you.

At the heart of Stalin people merely accused of being a dissident could be arrested, trials which were held were known as show trials, the verdict was a forgone conclusion.

Under the domestic violence protection acts, the alleged victim can make an accusation of domestic violence and have the alleged offender removed from the house. Feminists have done such a good job of propaganda that offender=male.

If the alleged offender admits culpability they are free to go, if however if does not, he will be subjected to soviet style re-education to admit culpability regardless of guilt or innocence.

Tao,

Perhaps rise to the plate and consider this…

Marx envisioned the abolition of all states and governments, and as a consequence, an end to war (how to motivate workers in a state which is both free and property less seemed to have eluded the Marxist states of the 20th century).

The goals out lined in Marx’s manifesto were widely understood to be 1) complete equality of all citizens, 2) abolition of private ownership of the means of production (factories, mines, railways, etc.), 3) the replacement of a market economy with one in which everyone got whatever they needed in return for such labor as they were able to give – to free an underclass of exploitation, a noble aim, eh? Communism was to abolish “eternal truths, it was to abolish all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore was act in contradiction to all past historical experience." Surely, implied here, is a certain despoiling of culture.

The manifesto was a quintessentially revolutionary document that called for the abolition of private property, the replacement of marriage by a "community of women," concentration of political power in the hands of the proletariat and the replacement of the state by "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." The Communist revolution was the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; little wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.
Tthe imaginations of the intellectually powerful were captivated to create, as in Russia, a totalitarian ‘state’ (theoretically, run by the proletariat).

I would suggest, there are no democratic societies, or industrial societies or post-industrial societies that are not based on private property and economic markets. Arguably, those who make war on private property, make war on human autonomy and human well-being.

Communistic society with its own human delineation denies something essential – a denial, as given by Marx, “..Communism is not "against human nature" because there is no such thing - only the social values produced by certain kinds of economic organization.

Maximus, thanks for that but don't get too excited. I do think that the problem lies mostly with a section of the feminist movement (those wanting top dog status rather than equality) and with some who want the old roles back (dad at work, mum at home looking after the kids etc).

Both create and support the lies. I suspect that a lot of more moderate feminists have bought the lies about genderisation of child abuse and DV because the lies are so well spread.

I try and talk to those, the evidence is available (especially on the child abuse issues). I don't think that you are going to get the moderate feminists asking the right questions or examining the evidence while you attack all feminists.

I recognise the dangers in what is being pushed by some, I just don't see the need to make enemies of those who either don't support them or who only support them because they are acting on mis-information. Those I'd rather have on side working towards a a fair system that protects the innocent and stops the abusers whatever their gender.

R0bert

Relda,

I have no problem with you suggesting that I am in awe of Marx and Marxist theory. I find it difficult to see how anyone who attempts more than a cursory study of Marx and his work cannot be awestruck by the insight, breadth of knowledge, intellectual clarity, and body of work of the man.

First - your assertion that Marx was wrong about changes in the class structure under capitalism. According to Marxism a class is a group of people sharing common relations to labour and the means of production. At the two extremes there are the people who own the means of production and buy labour, the bourgeoisie, and the people do not own the means of production and are therefore forced to sell their labour, the proletariat. In the middle there are combinations and variations of these two characteristics, the middle classes (e.g. small business owners employ others but also work in their business themselves).

However, a person’s relationship to the means of production is objective – you own it, or you don’t. We can have subjective ideas about being middle class, i.e. we earn such and such, therefore we are middle class, or we are highly skilled, and therefore can command a higher salary, or start our own business, contract out … whatever. However these are just that, ideas – that somehow there is SOME OTHER WAY to beat the rat race, but in reality, there are only two relations–you own it, or you don’t. You can be a highly paid manager, engineer, IT guru, and be sacked tomorrow-you are no different from the factory worker who has just been sacked–except you have some savings (probably more debt) and dress better.

There are as well, different layers within working or middle classes, who identify their economic interests with those of the bourgeoisie e.g., the manager whose role it is to increase the profits of a company, so slashes jobs or conditions of workers etc.

As-Marx-said:-"These-social-relations-between-the-producers,-and-the-conditions-under-which-they-exchange-their-activities-and-share-in-the-total-act-of-production,-will-naturally-vary-according-to-the-character-of-the-means-of-production. “ Wage-Labour-and-Capital

Been a bit busy, I’ll get to the rest of your points later.

When I began studying nursing at the SA College of Advanced Education in the mid-1980s, students didn't touch a nursing topic for the first 12 months. Our first semester was devoted to a concentrated course in Marxist-Engelian theory.
It was put to us directly that, in a health system already overtaxed, it may be ok for some people to suffer, if their suffering served the common good. That is, health services were best directed to where they would do the most good for the most people. (They didn't define who should miss out!)

I would consider this the most profound change I have experienced in Australia ... the change from a health system whose fundamental role was to serve the individual welfare of each citizen equally, to one which deals with its citizens collectively, as "good overall outcomes" or "average health statistics".

We already are reaping the bitter sweet harvest. Anyone who works in aged care knows who misses out in a socialist health system ... the most powerless.(Interestingly, in SA, it has been a Canadian couple among the biggest "facilitators of change" in this direction in aged care.)

I'm not convinced, though, that "indoctrination" is the main motivator. It seems to me a lot of people will parrot any kind of dogma where good money and job security are at stake!

Good on you, James Hickey.

Lucy

Relda,

“how to motivate workers” , “eternal truths”, “despoiling of culture”, “community of women” , “radical rupture with traditional property relations”, “those who make war on private property, make war on human autonomy and human well-being”, “communistic society with its own human delineation denies something essential” etc.

I’m not really sure what exactly you are getting at. One would have thought that, having extracted some quotes from the Communist Manifesto, you might have read the rest which explained them. Nevertheless, my response follows:

Are you suggesting that our earliest human ancestors climbed down from the trees, walked on two legs, exchanged wedding bands, signed marriage certificates, staked out their quarter acre blocks, built mcmansions, had 2.3 children, sold their labour to capitalists, and lived happily ever after to this day? Are these eternal “essential” truths of human nature?.

The only thing that could possibly be eternal about humans is their DNA which strives to reproduce itself, and even that didn’t exist, and will not exist, eternally. It doesn’t even remain unchanged.

Given that humans existed for tens of thousands of years (40 odd on this continent) without private property, and only a few hundred of those under capitalist “private” property relations, a statement like “those who make war on private property, make war on human autonomy and human well-being” seems pretty preposterous. And funnily enough, for those 40 odd thousand years, humans were “motivated” to work to ensure their survival. That DNA is marvellous stuff.

Being so concerned as you are with “culture”, one would imagine you have observed that there are many differences of beliefs about “eternal truths” between cultures, different religious beliefs, different forms of “families”, different notions of “property”. Doesn’t this suggest that there are in fact very few, if any, “eternal truths” about human nature i.e. most are socially constructed. As you so aptly quoted “Communism is not “against human nature” because there is no such thing – only the social values produced by certain kinds of economic production”.

"only the social values produced by certain kinds of economic production”. "

Did economic production influence social values or did social values influence economic production?

I think social values initially emerged from a collective in order to ensure survial of the group and individuals, in the hunter gather stage of human developement.

If one reads I cant remember which I think the old testament. In it was laid the foundations to ensure that the Jewish people were able to survive their trek. (example only and one that I understand)

Certain rules and laws were established to ensure survival and to remain healthy. So basically each cultural group developed certain laws and rules to ensure their best chances of survival in their given circumstances. Some of which to our modern sensibilities may seem (whatever).

Basically it has only been an extremely short time in human history where the struggle to survive at least in the first world countries has not been the top priority.

Perhaps the hunter gathers were the very first socialists because the survial of the group depended on individuals and the survial of the individual depended on the group.

Interesting Biblical reference James, however, the Marxist model can parallel beyond this,

The Marxian model can be seen as based on a mystical order of thought reminiscent of the Christian conception of the ultimate cataclysmic destruction of the historical order. In its place, the ultimate erection of a new order of perfect justice in the life of man and perfect harmony in the order of nature. Someone has apparently pointed out, the entire prophetic pattern of Marxian thought is "a secularised version of the Book of Revelation."

This religious dogmatism of the Marxian model gave rise to the totalitarian practices that shocked persons living within the semi-religious and semi secular cultural systems of the West.

Also interesting were the techniques of enforcement as strikingly similar to those employed by the authoritarian medieval church, namely, deprivation of social or professional privilege, isolation, and even execution for deviation in thought. Purges of party leaders and intelligentsia as well as the murder of those who tried to escape were all part of this attempt to enforce the "holy" model.

The militant atheism of Marx's followers was to be the major source of religious persecution in the world between 1917 and 1979. The Russian Revolution ushered in a period of repression and martyrdom almost unprecedented in its scale.
Philosopher John Gray has noted, “The mass murders of the 20th century were not perpetrated by some latter-day version of the Spanish Inquisition. They were done by atheist regimes in the service of Enlightenment ideas of progress. Stalin and Mao were not believers in original sin. Even Hitler, who despised Enlightenment values of equality and freedom, shared the Enlightenment faith that a new world could be created by human will. Each of these tyrants imagined that the human condition could be transformed through the use of science.”

Tao, Through cultural sensitivity, I recognise something from within human nature which is not “socially constructed” but something “eternal” and therefore beyond economic or scientific determinism.

JamesH,

I think you’ll find that economic production produces social values and cultural beliefs.

The first thing we must do is survive which means obtaining food, shelter etc. Our ideas are reflections and interpretations of the material world.

A simplistic little example:

Last night on SBS (I think) I watched a show called Leaving Home about a woman who had moved to Australia from Peru with her parents when she was 6. Now 30 something, she went back to Peru and lived in a little village to learn about her parent’s culture.

The people she stayed with had guinea pigs and rabbits living with them – in the kitchen! After wringing one guinea pig’s neck with her bare hands, the woman she was staying with cooked a guinea pig dish normally reserved for festivals for her guest to try. Guinea pigs appear to be special in Peru – I’m not quite sure why, they might be native, and are probably a good source of protein.

Anyhow, the woman’s host’s mother in law practiced some sort of shamanic healing. Her son (the host’s husband) was sick one day, so the mother-in-law used a guinea pig as a diagnostic tool. She rubbed the squealing guinea pig all over the sick man’s body, then killed it, gutted it, and read it’s entrails to determine that the problem was too much alcohol!

The point of this story is that these people believe in the power of guinea pigs to diagnose illness, something that you and I probably would not believe. In a country in which guinea pigs are not native, or do not exist, this belief could not have arisen. Of course, if such a belief (and guinea pigs) is introduced, and we, through experience, come to find it is true, then we might believe it. But more likely, we will believe in the diagnostic ability of medical science in preference to that of guinea pigs.

The beliefs and values were based on, and arose from, the material world.

Relda,

There I was thinking you might be interested in some sort of rational reasoned discussion, and you go and throw in “I recognise something from within human nature which is not “socially constructed” but something “eternal” and therefore beyond economic or scientific determinism”, which is nothing more than a resort to the mystical which you accuse Marxists of doing.

It is a load of absolute rubbish. You say you “recognise something from within human nature” which is “eternal” but you don’t even have the gumption to say what it is, let alone back it up with any evidence.

I will repeat what I said earlier:

It appears that you have a habit of making statements that are backed up by pretty much zilch.

"But more likely, we will believe in the diagnostic ability of medical science in preference to that of guinea pigs."

It wasn't all that long ago in our culture that is was believed that for example cholera came from the air and scientific inquiry was treated with suspiscion.

Even today when it was discovered that bacteria caused stomach ulcers, the initial findings were ridiculed.

Just imagine for one minute where we would be if for example the inquistion had continued and scientific and medical advancements where prohibited under cultural law.

"The beliefs and values were based on, and arose from, the material world."

Beliefs and values were used to explain the material world. Many of us anglo saxons have christian beliefs and values whether we actively attend church or not. Early christianity has had a strong infleunce and still does today on our cultural beliefs and values. Religion is not based on the material world.

Correct Tao,
I do place certain mysticism on the prophetic aspect within Marxism and equally acknowledge it an important aspect within the Judeo-Christian and other religious tradition. A failure to acknowledge this basic parallel presents a denial. It’s worth considering, Christianity and Marxism are united in their opposition to a "Pelagian" or "harmonistic" optimism with respect to the ‘nature’ of man. If all ideological veils are torn down and self-deception is no longer possible, truth can appear and can be acted upon. And it is revealed only in the measure in which it is acted upon. The protest of the reformers against the "self-made" gods or idols and the protest of Marx against the self-made ideas or ideologies challenge the same spiritual danger of man in his present existence: to make the truth a means of religious pride or political will-to-power.

Marxism is suspicious of religion, because of its supratemporal nature, is considered to be an ideology, i.e., a system of ideas and symbols which have no basis in reality but which are invented for the sake of making the misery of the disinherited classes more bearable to them and, consequently, for the sake of breaking their revolutionary impulse by a mystical opiate. This is the theory of religion in original, as well as in late, Marxism. Such a description does not fit prophetic religion and its fight against the demonic powers of history and of the personal life.

The regeneration of mankind is not possible through institutional and political changes alone but it also requires changes in the personal attitude of many people toward life. Injustice, pride, and will-to-power will never be eradicated from the historical scene - rampant capitalism and nationalism, particular manifestations of these ‘demonic forces’, might however be contained

oh dear -poor tao

I hearby tow the line of Mao -not.

I see you affiliate with the full party doctrine of the left -and dare i not argue with that.

Your millenarian world view is duly noted.

As for me, just two things comrade;

a- i wish to continue this debate at a later date, but

b- your advise is too suggestive to me, thus i am to hang a plaque about my neck full of thoughful self denigration for going against the world view of that ancient, purile, and trivial monothetic, left bias, unplural, dictatorial, callous, thoughtless, agnostic, non-scientific, bereft doctrine of marx, and await my fete in a ditch (yes the China model).

But before i go, please tell me, is this the right interpretation of marxology for Aus?

PS: I can copy and paste too.

JamesH-“Beliefs-and-values-were-used-to-explain-the-material-world”.

Yes, I agree. Which is why they are based on, and arise from. the material world.

Without the material world, there is (a) no human mind with which to believe anything, and (b) nothing to have a belief about.

There are two preconditions for human beliefs and values. The first is an environment in which life can form – i.e. the universe and, and in particular, the planet earth. The second is the evolutionary development of life to the stage where the human brain is large enough and complex enough to have abstract thought which enables man to think about himself.

It is no coincidence that the majority of religions/cultural belief systems have some sort of creation story. Once we can think about ourselves in our environment, we naturally begin to ask the great life questions. Why are we here? How did we get here? How did this environment get here? Not having a better explanation we make our own. Our early human ancestors, exposed as they were to the elements and nature, and unable to control them, made gods of them – the sun, thunder, water, animals etc. As our ability to understand and have control over our environment increases through technological development, our beliefs necessarily change. Once we thought the god of thunder controlled storms, now we have scientific explanations of weather patterns. Once we thought cholera came from the air, now we know it is a waterborne virus or bacteria or something (I-don’t-really-know-myself). Primitive people probably thought it was the work of some sort of god.

There is a dialectical relationship. The material world throws up the questions or problems, we attempt to answer them or find solutions. This new “knowledge” or belief then affects they way we interact with the world and we find ourselves able to change or manipulate some aspect of the world. The material world then throws up new questions or problems and so on and so forth. Check my earlier posts http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5010#58855

Ultimately everything originates from, and is in, the material world. Religious ideas come from inside our material heads.

Relda,

You still have not explained the something “eternal” from within human nature that you “recognise” with your “cultural-sensitivity”, but I’m guessing it is God, probably the Christian God of your prophetic religion, to which you have now added the nonsense of “demonic powers”.

I do not propose to enter into a debate on the existence of God and the devil. Suffice to say your belief in the supernatural and your interest in defending your belief will affect your ability to think rationally, and any argument you make. This is reflected in your petulant resort to your mystical recognition (I-note-you-did-not-say-belief) of the “eternal” within human nature after my demonstration that such a belief is irrational. There is no hope of a serious discussion with you.

So I will leave you with the following thoughts to which you might turn your “cultural-sensitivity”:

Given that your tirades against Marxism accuse it of considering culture “irrelevant”, the implication is that you consider capitalism’s treatment of other cultures superior.

The history of capitalism has been one of colonisation. The ‘red’ of the British Empire once covered much of the world map. The spread of British capitalism required the subjugation by brute force, and at times outright murder, of indigenous populations. Indigenous culture in the areas of economic production, property holding, laws, cultural practices etc. were overridden (because-according-to-you-capitalist-property-relations-are-“essential”-to-human-nature-i.e.-“making-war-on-private-property-is-making-war-on-human-autonomy-and-human-wellbeing”). In conjunction with capitalism, Christian-missionaries traveled the world converting sinful ‘primitives’ to their belief-system. Apparently those cultures, not to mention the people, were “irrelevant” to capitalism and Christianity.

Under the umbrella of capitalism, thousands of people all over the world die every day for want of food, shelter, water and medicine, even though we have the ability to provide all of these things. Hundreds of Iraqis die every day as a consequence of capitalist imperialism.

Your “cultural-sensitivity” conveniently excuses such realities (or-“demonic-forces”).

So don’t preach to me your irrational, unfounded and incorrect nonsense about Marxism (particularly-your-false-identification-of-Marxism-with-Stalin-and-Mao) until you examine your own “culture” that values profit over human life.

Yes tao;

your Marxology is duly noted for telling us how to think about what Marx tells us we should think about in its liking; (i call Marx the red god of theorism; because for his followers none have gone before him, and none have come therafter; no Plato > no Hawkings; the world is soulless, empty, dark and thoughtless, except for Marx enlightenment (or so the theory goes)please note tao- the correlation between Maozedongalong thought and Marxology)

Have you ever tried to read T Hobbes 'Leviathan', try the very last line. It is written just for Nihilists.

But please inform us tao, is this 'enlightenment Marxology' the correct model for Australia?

Gadget

With regard to your ‘enlightenment Marxology’, I doubt there is any serious Marxist in the world who considers that Marx was the only great thinker in history, however he was the person who developed the method and theory that all Marxists since him use (except pseudo Marxist opportunists like Stalin and Mao, of which there are many, who distort his theory). Marxists value all genuine advancement in human thought and knowledge, and consider it an essential element of human progress, and their theory.

Marxism is international socialism, we don’t need a special ‘enlightenment Marxology’ version in Australia. I read wsws.org, and suggest that, if you can muster up the intellectual fortitude, you check out the site to find out more. In fact I dare you to send some of your ‘enlightened’ questions to them and see what kind of response you get. I’m sure facetious little people like you are a dime a dozen to them.

If you are interested in furthering your knowledge of Marxism, I recommend the following:

http://www.wsws.org/history/1996/oct1996/lect.shtml “Equality, the Rights of Man and the Birth of Socialism”

http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/trotsky/trlect.htm “Leon Trotsky and the Fate of Socialism in the 20th Century”

However, I suspect you won’t even take the time to read them before uttering on these pages some more inanities.

If you want to come up with an intelligent critique of Marxist theory, I will be quite willing to debate it with you.

As it presently stands however, I have no interest in attempting to decipher any more of your puerile drivel.

I find the following quite narrow, patronising (if believable) and one could also easily argue, delusional. The words, however, basically speak for themselves…
“Only our party fights to secure for the working class its inalienable rights in the only way that those rights can be secured, through the revolutionary struggle to put an end to capitalism and establish an international socialist society.” – the very despotism I would expect from any good religious or political extremist, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, communist, socialist or neo-con.

The basic denial of human ‘nature’ within Marxist thought finds the dream of equality as such to make life for everybody's preference satisfied. This is despite some preferences, even within the ‘sacred’ proletariat, which are criminal, sadistic, stupid, trivial, self-destructive, or otherwise irresponsible. Perhaps remove the periphery of Capitalism with its class structure and magically (or is it'supernatural'?), the ‘nasty’ side of humanity disappears.

A basic truth about human nature is that people are individuals (something obvious but with lip-service paid): they have different strengths and weaknesses, different talents and shortcomings, different experiences, different upbringing, and different luck. Their actions reflect these differences. And whether their actions succeed or fail depends largely on these differences combined. Overcoming much is a will to succeed. Egalitarians, however, find these differences immoral but this is simply a failure to accept the human condition, the fact that human beings are different as a result of genetic inheritance and subsequent experiences.

To undo these differences would require forcing people to live and act in the same way, and that would destroy individuality and establish the worst kind of tyranny the world has ever seen (as it has already). Egalitarians perhaps do not intend this, but whether they intend it or not, this is what Marxist theory has proven to ‘achieve’ (believe it or not).

Nevertheless, a hollow drum beats, with the epitaph, “..And it is upon these theoretical and political foundations that the Fourth International prepares consciously, and with unrepentant revolutionary optimism, for the future..”

“viva la revolution!” the lone drummer cried. Like ‘waiting for Godot’

I wanna to be the one with the last word on this commy argument. Na na

For the above two respondents, the true word is 'internationale'.

And for those who missed where it is at, look to the NT. Crime, drugs, unhealth and GST corruption.

There, the internationale, the Gov, an education institution, and educators are linked (poven fact).

tao, if you look at the 'Kids Rule' link you will see the reds under the bed of our society. And you are correct though tao, the mono-thinking (ie stupid) marxologists wont hear me. In fact they ignored a lot of people, and people paid dearly for it. And you know, it is typical of Maoist marxologists to label people they cant talk too because of monology unthinking. Labor here does it all the time, they are whitebread, yet the poor deears can't understand their inherited language (ie over centuries (note:stupid)). Just cant work it out.

da da

Relda, Relda, Relda,

Would you expect something different from a political party? Do you think they should encourage people to join another party and vote for them? I suppose John Howard’s line should be “Who do you trust to keep interest rates low? Trust the ALP, vote ALP”. Ridiculous!

You continually misrepresent Marxist views.

Marxists (which is what I assume you mean by “egalitarians”) don’t see individual human differences as immoral, it is the “subsequent experiences” they take issue with. The differences between the “subsequent experience” of being born to an Indian rubbish dump, or a mansion in Toorak. Such differences are unnecessary when we have the technological capacity to provide basic human requirements (and more) for all. What hope does a child living in a rubbish dump have to express his “individuality”?

“forcing people to live and act in the same way” This is your interpretation, no Marxist has ever said that all people should live and act in the same way. The individual differences you are so interested in defending are the rights of the few to exploit the labour of many, the rights of 10% of people to private property while 90% do not have those rights, the rights of the minority to an abundance of everything while the majority scrabble for the crumbs from their tables.

I see you’ve gone from “demonic forces” as the explanation for mass human misery to “luck”. You’ll do anything to avoid examining the social, political and economic system that generates such “luck”.

You expect perfection from Marxism but excuse the imperfections of the current system which are like the proverbial elephant in the lounge room which everyone ignores.

You may see no reason to change the system - yet, but more and more people do because more and more people have nothing to lose.

It is not those who want to lift all humans out of the material and spiritual poverty of capitalism, who are patronising, but you who says that people should just accept such poverty as the luck of the human condition.

Excuse me tao,

but i must say: what rot.

The enlightenment Marxology which you preach, is but an imagination. Is the cart before the horse? Are the 24hrs half dark or half light? Marx came as a result of technology, and not before it. Simple.

But i think you may be on to something in this latest post of yours -something to do with luck. So, i have some questions for you (as usual). Is there a classic Marxist nation or political system anywhere which represents the dream of equality for all? And if there is, can you describe the conditions of same?

Next point, whilst howling down capitalism as the world of evil, have you been out into the world and seen evil capitalism at work? I mean places like new-york, hong-kong, singapore, europe etc. In those kinds of places, you will notice, most people are equal in their standard of living. Just as in africa, where many are equal in their living standards.

So, this being true, which of the Marxology fantasys should be applied here. I mean, given that most of Aus is well off, just what would enlightenment marxology & monology intend for us? And can you tell us why we in capitalist worlds dont all head for poverty countries in sympathy of Marxology?

Gadget,

Was your last post serious?

“have-you-been-out-into-the-world-and-seen-evil-capitalism-at-work?-I-mean-places-like-new-york,-hong-kong,-singapore,-europe-etc.-In-those-kinds-of-places,-you-will-notice,-most-people-are-equal-in-their-standard-of-living.-Just-as-in-africa,-where-many-are-equal-in-their-living-standards”

To start with, do you understand what it means when you say “most people are equal in their living standards” and “many are equal in their living standards”? It means that living standards are not equal, and even if they were – equal to what? If I thought you were smarter I’d say this was a case of deliberate sophistry, however I doubt you even know how stupid your comments are.

You seem to be attempting to disregard differences between advanced countries like the US and Europe and poorer countries, and to say that within certain places living standards are “equal” which somehow proves that capitalism is working. According to you, poorer countries obviously should not be counted when measuring capitalism’s success. You are wrong on two counts: Firstly, capitalism is a global economic system, the poorer countries are engaged in it and often are the worst affected because they are exploited by the rich of wealthier countries. Secondly, even advanced countries are experiencing increased polarisation of wealth.

“equal” living standards in New York and the US – absolute phooey
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jan2006/hous-j16.shtml US living standards down

Home foreclosures in the US soar http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/oct2006/frcl-o09.shtml

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/apr2006/rich-a19.shtml

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/oct2006/forb-o16.shtml :
“The total combined wealth of the 400 richest Americans now stands at $1.25 trillion. This figure has expanded by $120 billion in only one year.
The figure $1.25 trillion is practically unfathomable. But to give some indication of its magnitude, consider that if it were divvied up among the entire US population of 300 million, every man, woman and child could be cut checks of well over $4,000. Or contemplate that the net worth of the 400 wealthiest Americans now far surpasses the value of the entire Canadian economy, as measured by GDP, and is nearly twice the GDP of Australia. Perhaps most strikingly, the personal wealth of the Forbes 400 now stands at over 10 percent of the total American GDP.”

continued from above.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/apr2005/unic-a01.shtml is an article on a UNICEF Report on increasing child poverty in advanced countries: Some quotes:
“The-study-found-that-child-poverty-has-risen-in-17-of-24-OECD-(Organisation-for-Economic-Co-operation-and-Development)-member-states-since-1990,-and-that-the-situation-confronting-children-in-most-of-the-countries-examined-has-worsened,-regardless-of-which-definition-of-poverty-is-used.”
“In-the-OECD-states,-more-than-45-million-children-are-growing-up-in-families-that-must-make-do-on-less-than-50-percent-of-the-average-income-of-the-respective-country.”
Child poverty rates:

US 21.9% (yes 21.9% in the richest country in the world!)
Italy 16.6%
Germany 10.2%

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/sep2005/unhd-s16.shtml is a link to an article on a 2005 UN Human Development Report, a quote from which follows:
“The-report-uses-the-example-of-last-year’s-devastating-tsunami-that-killed-some-300,000-people-to-underscore-the-human-cost-of-poverty.-Every-year,-10.7-million-children-die-before-their-fifth-birthday.-“Every-hour-more-than-1,200-children-die-away-from-the-glare-of-media-attention,”-the-authors-write.-“This-is-equivalent-to-three-tsunamis-a-month,-every-month,-hitting-the-world’s-most-vulnerable-citizens—its-children.-The-causes-of-death-will-vary,-but-the-overwhelming-majority-can-be-traced-to-a-single-pathology:-poverty.””

Your comments on Africa are patently ridiculous: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/sep2006/hung-s06.shtml “According to the Oxfam report, whilst the average “developing world” figure for under-nourishment is 17 percent, in sub-Saharan Africa the figure is 33 percent. For Central Africa it is 55 percent. On average the number of African food emergencies per year since the mid 1980s has tripled.
The report acknowledges that the situation is not going to improve. It states, “Another failure is on the horizon. The commitment ... to halve hunger by 2015, as part of the Millennium Development Goals, will not be met by in Africa at current rates of progress.””

Here are many articles on global inequality http://www.wsws.org/sections/category/news/eco-ineq.shtml

And in Australia , most are “well off”. Not apparently, those 123,000 homeless people as reported in The Age a week or so ago.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/sep2006/ineq-s18.shtml growth in inequality
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/oct2006/debt-o12.shtml House repossessions soar
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/ceos-f13.shtml CEO wages vs average people.
Just because they don’t put it on Channel 9 or in the Murdoch press, doesn’t mean poverty and disparity of wealth doesn’t exist.

Your comments are absurd.

tao

I will concede you on one point only, the disparity between the mega rich and everyone else. To clarify, the forbes people and those of their ilk.

Now your masses of copy/paste are overwhelming, and dont warrant much of a reply as they are all representative of the socialist world view of whose flag you fly.

But i will say this however. Just because the sun shines, doesnt mean there isnt a dark spot somewhere in the world. The trouble with bent socialism, is that on the one hand it freaks at what it sees as exploitation, and ignores realities. Here in WA there is a great iron ore mine. Now they have taken thirty years to remove one hill to the depth of its original height. It is a world supplier. Now if socialism counted all the hills in Aus, there would be enough ore to last forever eh.

So while socialists and commy-capitalists (of the Russian ilk) battle the world for domination, the roaring pussy cat of socialism is being ignored as we all get on with it. How about that ey.

If you look at bent socialism in China, when Mao was da man, you will see 65 million reasons why no-one should listen to a word you suggest. There, the old order of things was brought asunder, culture (socialists beware) was anihilated, and capitalism is the next thing to happen. So, besides wiping out 65 million liberlas, Mao did nothing for socialism except give it a bad name.

Does socialism realise that it has taken 6000 years to get modernity and comfot to arise in two hundred years? Which agrarian will ultimately not support this?

Now, what do we have in Australia, tao?

Tao,
Perhaps you've read this - I recently came accross it. Has this any parallel with a Marxist aim to rid the world of poverty, or are the expressed ideals a little too far out of this world? (The article is quite critical of our capitalistic based 'free' market economy)

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5078

Gadget,

Yes, the truth is overwhelming at times. You attempt to dismiss what I have brought to your attention because it is “copy/paste”, however what I am doing is supporting my argument, a concept you apparently have trouble with. Are you suggesting that UNICEF, the UN, Oxfam and all the other studies upon which the articles are based have just made up their statistics? You say “they are all representative of the socialist world view” – yes, the analysis and interpretation is, but the statistics are not. Did you even read the articles? Do you dispute the facts contained in them? Perhaps you should read the actual reports themselves and tell me what you think – sources are in the articles.

“Mao-did-nothing-for-socialism-except-give-it-a-bad-name.” I agree, but Mao WAS NOT a Marxist, regardless of whether he called himself one or not. This is a distinction I don’t think you appreciate, possibly deliberately, but probably through ignorance.

“Does-socialism-realise-that-it-has-taken-6000-years-to-get-modernity”.-This question just reveals that you know absolutely nothing about Marxism. Marxists are historical materialists, which means they study history. Of course they know that it has taken 6000 years FROM WHEN THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN to get to modernity. In fact, they know it has taken tens, or hundreds, of thousands of years for humans to reach modernity. They know that humanity has progressed through various different forms of social, political and economic organisation which arise from the particular means of production of each epoch. This is why they believe that capitalism is merely another stage of human economic and productive development. The contradictions of capitalism are such that they must be resolved, by humanity raising itself to another level of development.

Relda, no I hadn’t read it, but have now. These people want to reform capitalism, plead for some crumbs, and ameliorate its worst symptoms. Marxists consider that capitalism can’t be reformed – anything achieved is just a band aid and fosters illusions that capitalism is fixable if only the rich would ‘help’. Aid and ‘programs’ don’t change the system that causes the problems in the first place.

So, Tao, you wish a revolution - perhaps similar to the American one (the Civil war). You've discounted the Russian one. What is the revolutionry formula - peaceful from 'within' or a violent overthrow from without?

Well i dunno tao

The only contradiction i see is between capitalist progress, and socialist usurpation of it (ie commy-capitalism).

To resolve this issue in the US, there is a new book out. A sort of instruction manual for the internationale, called Empire by Hardt. Try it tao.

PS: if it is a bit long, just do the first and last chapters.

I am going to do some copy and paste here soon, and prove once and for all that socialism is over, just like in China (well soon anyway, hehe).

Marxology is to be ovethrown by the dictatorship of the technocrats.

vive la pluralcy.
Marxology has had it.

Relda,

Yes, I wish a revolution. But wishing is not enough.

No, I don’t discount the Russian Revolution. For all of the subsequent problems (the lessons of which must be assimilated by the working class and learnt from), the Soviet Union was the first state in the world in which the working class took power (as opposed to the American and French revolutions in which the capitalist class took power).

The revolution is unlikely to be “peaceful”, whatever that means. Refer to my previous post http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5010#58709. Capitalists are unlikely to give up power without a fight, and are hardly a peaceful bunch themselves (n.b. bourgeois revolutions were not peaceful). Indeed, part of the problem for the Soviet Union was the counter-revolutionary forces of the White Army backed by capitalist countries.

There is no exact “formula” for the revolution – the future is unknown – however Marxist theory, or dialectical materialism, is an analytical tool which can be used as a guide to practical revolutionary action. The essential thing at the moment however, is the education of the working class as to the nature of the capitalist system, and the building of a mass party which is independent of capitalists and capitalist parties. Marxists intervene consciously to do this (as opposed to radicals who adapt themselves opportunistically to the prevailing 'mood'), hence your apt quote “And it is upon these theoretical and political foundations that the Fourth International prepares consciously, and with unrepentant revolutionary optimism, for the future”

Gadget,

Are you blind?

Is it not a contradiction that 400 rich people in the US (0.00013% of the population) are worth 10% of that country’s GDP, while 21.9% of its children live in poverty?

In Australia “Translated into weekly earnings, an average CEO is paid $65,000 a week, or around $11,000 more than the annual wage of an average worker or nearly $40,000 more than the annual earnings of the 1.6 million basic wage workers who make up 20 percent of the Australian workforce. These workers struggle to make ends meet on just $25,188 a year, or $484 a week”. Bank profits are soaring while house repossessions, due to inability to make mortgage payments, are on the increase, and 123,000 people are homeless. Are these not contradictions?

Is it not a contradiction that billions of dollars are spent on waging war while people starve?

I refer you back to my earlier post addressed to you http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5010#58707 , and suggest that you still suffer from vulgar thought.

Now listen ere tao

Are you serious?

Here are some facts which replicate your last and second last post.

I am an underclass peasant (Note: I am using language familiar to you). I have been for the past five years a person who has been living on the lowest income available in Australia; yes, well below the poverty line.

I am bush bred, with farm skills which i cherish. Heritage, white anglo free-settler, which i cherish. A man individual, which i cherish.

I am as far removed from society as one can get.

I have been attacked by the thugs of your ilk, Dh's who attempted industrial manslaughter because of a pathetic, childish, and empty attitude which destroys the essence of Australia. A beleif system which you swallow hook line and sinker.

These gutless weirdos persist to this day, beleive it or not.

As you rightly point out, revolutions can come from both sides of the fence. I reside On that fence.

I am not part of this BS which you spout. Your snide crap which you spew about me is less about decent humanity, and more about resident hate which you and yours harbour. Do you even know why you are full of it? Dont expect for a minute that you and your comrades are dragging a reluctant and otherwise pre-occupied person into some kind of human relations adjustment. If thats what you think is happenning you are, and will be, sorely mistaken. And dont think that your actions are on my behalf; or for that matter even against -they are neither.

Your whining self-interest about everything communist is your own personal battle, to be fought out in your own head. And it is there that it should stay. It is not for the pathetic Left of this country to judge how i, or anybody else, should think or not.

And as far as im concerned, any so-an-so who thinks they can foist commy thought adjustment upon me, can get stuffed.

And, as i said, i agree with you about the commy-capitalists.

Oooh Gadget, you ARE angry, and quite rightly so, if indeed you are an “underclass peasant” as you suggest. However it is not a socialist system you live in which has rendered you such, but a capitalist one. And it is the capitalist one you should be angry at. Many of your type are in the same situation as you, and will walk off, or be pushed off, the land. Your land will be bought up by your neighbours, unless you buy them out first, and eventually, by large capitalists who have probably never set foot on it, unless somehow you manage to stave it off.

I don’t know where you live, but my partner comes from Kaniva, near Nhill, half way between Melbourne and Adelaide. We go there reasonably frequently to visit the family that are still left there. His family have farmed there for five generations, but the farm was only big enough for one son, the other two were sent to the city to get their “tickets”, and became proletariat. The farm is now being passed to the next son, but probably won’t be big enough for him even. I am amazed that trains pass through there on the way from Adelaide to Melbourne and back, and NONE stop.

You talk about beliefs being foisted on others. I am forced to live under a system with which I disagree wholeheartedly, with its lies being shoved down my throat daily, and am silenced even by my own family. Do you agree with a system in which in a generation or so, your family will be forced off the land?

You blame the ‘left’, but it is still a capitalist system. Country people blame city people, but it is still a capitalist system, over which neither have any real control. The division is not between country and city, it is between rich and poor. Everything else is a diversion.

cont...

You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. You believe you are entitled to deride what I write, then I am entitled to criticise what you write. You are entitled to ignore what I say, but one day, you, or your children, or children’s children will be forced off the land – they will become proletarianised, just as we in the city already have been.