… 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."