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’