Dear Squeers,

You wrote: "Marx was not an anti-Semite and either from ignorance, your own bigotry or pure shamelessness, you quote and paraphrase him out of context."

In our arguments I have not in any way attacked you as a person. However, in referring to my "bigotry and shamelessness" you have attacked me as a person.

I don't wish to engage further with you.

davidf,
given that Marx and Marxism have been victim to a decades-long ideological campaign against them in the west, you would have no trouble finding both academic and popular texts in support of your condemnations. The humanities, like the sciences, are generally stooge to the state.
As I've attempted to explain to you before, while no doubt Marx is a bigot in the PC context of our "enlightened" times, in the context of his own day he merely used the standard figurative language at his disposal in his criticism. Thus the Jew and Jewishness were the time-honoured tropes used to deplore matters of fiscal degeneracy.

"He also favoured some nations over other nations according to what progress they had made in his scheme of history. He favoured the Russians over the Poles, and the Turks over the Greeks. His bigotry was not confined to Jews".

This is priceless! He certainly didn't in the sense of attributing racial superiority--or promulgating eugenics--although that "was" the rationale propagated by many western naturalists of the day--it was called "science" and a great many of your own benighted nation still think it's rigorous today! Read Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man".
In any case wealthy nations still observe an international hierarchy by allowing a third of the world's nations to languish in poverty and starvation--nay, they even exploit them for their own luxury and call it philanthropy! And all while we wax lyrical about human rights. It some humans have more rights than others--this is where the concepts national borders and patriotism come in handy.

My saying, "Marx was not an anti-Semite and either from ignorance, your own bigotry or pure shamelessness, you quote and paraphrase him out of context", does not constitute an attack on your person, but is a reasonable surmise based on evidence out of your own mouth. How else should I account for your misrepresentations than by reference to at least one of those influences on your rhetoric?

However, if you choose to take offence rather than consider my criticism, that's your privilege.

I think we have here a fairly good example of symbolism giving rise to an ideological "separateness".

David, you branched off at the top of page nine and began to highlight ideas and movements that you found unacceptable. Squeers and I did the same thing in our criticism of capitalism.
You also baited Squeers, knowing from past confrontations that he would react predictably to your suggestions and inferences.

This is the way of man. He calculates reactions based on his own actions and words - and he predicts future outcomes based on prior experience.

In order for mankind to overcome his 'us" and "them" attitude he would have to jettison his prejudices upon the receipt of each new challenge - begin with a "fresh-slate" approach every time.

A highly unlikely eventuality.

You're a shrewd observer, Poirot and quite correct, indeed we all anticipate responses when formulating our polemics. We're all drearily predictable and protective of our prejudice. I wonder if it's possible to break through and arrive at a philosophy that's true and just in itself and for all seasons. I doubt it, and so we settle for pragmatism, which then cedes to expedience and rationale for a host of sins.
So we need an enlightened but practical philosophy tailored to the circumstances but which maintains a few non-negotiable ethics. Something like the American Constitution, only one whose clauses we actually observe.
We consign all such enlightened deliberations and constraints to the logic of the market.

i barely know marx..or his ism's
but do know he hated all religeos beliefs
a true equal opperuinity biggot..but i cant comment on stuff i have no knowing about..

lennon i think hated poles
i seem to recall bolchovics hated xtians
i recall a death march that killed 25 million christians
[but wether it was natzies or bolchovics or lennonists or marxists
again its not for me to declare..earlier david posted some huge number of dead
""murdered possibly 100,000,000 people.""

the way he goes on..you would think they were all jew
[northern jews...not sematic jews..
who dont have any standing..even in their own holy-lands]

yet the black jews
are more despised by the blue eyed [northern]jews

so let david clarify
clearly he dont know science

anyhow squeers said

""Anyone who thinks capitalism
can or will be reformed is deluded.""

under its own laws...letting them go bust
it could work
but what with..this ongoing..communistic bailout..
in usa..lol...yep..i guess your right

alaso support this
""scientistic complicity...With all its doomsaying
and talk of innovation,..not a word about simply cutting consumption""

add in lack of results in the big claims

nixon said cancer cure in his term
since then 65 BILLION..in govt funding..and nothing

or the underLYING fraud of many of its base principles
[see previous QUESTIONS to david]

""No,scientific innovation to address these issues
will be paid for "via" consumption and via population growth (offshore) and infrastructure,""

AND GOVT MONEY..!
dont forget govt largess
where capitalism..knows better
investing in real things..not delusional spin
[to wit the lie of the global hollow-cost..no capitalist
..dumb enough..to swallow that spin..but only too happy for govt tax to buld it..then lobby for privatising its proffits

just like ge..and nuke power
or nasa...or dna sequencing and monsanto

""the rape of the planet
and depletion of natural resources,
until the capital (now dodgy credit) finally runs out""

yes no wonder david didnt like where you were going

""redemption""
no lovers of theft
..dont go to heaven

nor those loving money..or greed..ursury
or biggots/haters/racists...nope/nope/nope..

not even a pope

David f.,

I wonder if, even with the differences expressed by Squeers and yourself (and me), that we should not take this opportunity to overcome our human penchant for dividing ourselves from each other and productive discourse.

Here's the perfect opportunity to challenge exactly that human behaviour which separates us and leads to enmity.

In highlighting our antipathies to this or that movement or belief, we are in effect ideologically marking our territory - drawing a line around our viewpoint and separating ourselves from the "other".

It is a very human thing to do - it's what mankind has always done, both with rhetoric and with action.

I wonder what it would take for mankind to move beyond this behaviour....because if he is not capable of such an adjustment there is little hope for an end to war.