Is Aboriginality a relevant difference? I would say that it is, but only for those Aboriginal people who live in rural and remote areas in a traditional manner, since their lifestyle is very different to non-Aborigines who live in the same areas. Having chosen to mainatain a traditional lifestyle they have chosen to emphasise their difference and they do not have the same level of interaction with society at large, or the support from that society.

Urban Aborigines have no such relevant difference. Their ethnicity is not the defining condition for their interaction with broader society. There is no reason that their Aboriginality should preclude them from the opportunities or the obligations that membership of society implies.

Something that has become a standard feature of Australian public debate is this special pleading on the basis of claimed difference. So today we have special treatment for all sorts of groups that have absolutely no structural impediments to being treated the same way as everyone else. Being a "minority" is treated as synonymous with being oppressed or repressed or suppressed and therefore demands special treatment to redress.

That's not Marxist, but I suspect a great many of those who take it upon themselves to be "advocates" in such matters would claim to be sympathetic to his views. Trotsky (and Alinsky) have a lot to answer for.

good info anti

look at the words we are using

what is 'pleading'
[its begging to a higher power
but who gave those in 'power'..any higher power

we did..but how can they have MORE power..than we got
because they conned us into allowing them..to excersize this power

we gave govt the power..to rule over persons[under the act]
to get into business..you must regester under the act
because your under the act..the act stands over you
your 'subject'...[a subject]..under the act

just like some are subjects under the crown
or subject to the law

see the word immagrant
stating clearly..im a grant
ie granted to be a person under the immagrations act

ie a person accorded 'benifits under the act
gotten by begging [app-lying]..to FALL..under the act

why do i keep on trying

oh well
here goes

the transport act..regulates transport
transport is defined under the act..as carrying goods or people for money

if your not transporting
your not under the act

anything defined under the act
[ie that carries goods or peoople for money]
is a vehicle..[under the act]

but if your not carying[transporting]
you cant have a vehicle..[as defined under the act]

the transport act defines creates a 'driver'
but if your not transporting..you cant be a driver
thus cant fall under the transportation act

are you seeing a pattern
how about this one

there is wage,...[money earbned by value adding]
and income..[earned not by adding value

we got the income tax act
not the wage act

heck you person got no idea
that wage ISNT income

so you were made to regester for a tax file number
but by not being a business,..is not earning 'income'
you lied..when you applied

so we go back to the maxim
we are presumed to know for what we beg
ie we seek an advantage..[under the act]..ie by lying
that we are a 'person''..even worse lied as to our day/date of birth

WE DONT KNOW IT FROM OUR OWN KNOWING
thus lied when we app-lied

we dont got income
we arnt a person

we are only BOUND..by the mark of the beast
sign here..put your mark here

its a unilateral; contract
under unfair terms

your a slave because you applied
and got egsactly what you deserved

by signing you became a ward under the act
the legal term is 'inbisile'..in compitant to manage your own affairs

thus the govt trust
lord it over you..the trustee of the trust

we form a trust
to look after the needs of a child

thus the state..is your nanny
thinks for you..and tells you what to do

and so we got enslaved
by killing off those who knew the truth

ever since the true messiah
tried to set you free

oh lord jesus
will they ever learn

like saul/paul said..
its time they stopped drinking milk
learn to think..eat more meat

Joe,
not "pedantic" at all; a quote lifted from its context can be misleading.
In your initial post of Monday, 26 September 2011 8:46:32 PM you cite a few quotes and then say:
"Not exactly a ringing endorsement of individuality, only of its limitations, as if they were the be-all and end-all". In the next post you cite more quotes and then comment:
"Not a great deal of support for the concept of individuality there, nor much appreciation of the potential value of civil society either, Squeers :)",
The smiley face presumably indicating triumph? Yet all I can see to this point is the effrontery of a superficial reading of a complicated text. Marx uses the phrase "so-called" liberally in On The Jewish Question because he is interrogating civil society’s vaunted freedoms and individualism. Marx criticises “Bauer's” ultimate sophistry on the Jewish question because in criticising State religious-favouritism he doesn’t go far enough, either to solve the so-called problem of the Jewish question (not the problem for Marx!) or individual freedom. Bauer wants religious preferentiality purged altogether from the State, like modern secularists, naively supposing that would instantiate true emancipation:
“The Jewish question acquires a different form depending on the state in which the Jew lives. In Germany, where there is no political state, no state as such, the Jewish question is a purely theological one. The Jew finds himself in religious opposition to the state, which recognizes Christianity as its basis. This state is a theologian ex professo. Criticism here is criticism of theology, a double-edged criticism – criticism of Christian theology and of Jewish theology. Hence, we continue to operate in the sphere of theology, however much we may operate critically within it.

In France, a constitutional state, the Jewish question is a question of constitutionalism, the question of the incompleteness of political emancipation. Since the semblance of a state religion is retained here, although in a meaningless and self-contradictory formula, that of a religion of the majority, the relation of the Jew to the state retains the semblance of a religious, theological opposition”
cont..

..cont.
Marx is fomenting “precisely” for “the potential value of civil society”, and for “true” individuality within it! He is saying that purging the State of religious considerations, and ergo of religious strife, does not purge the State of its pseudo-divinity; that is, worship of private property and attendant egoism, or alienation.
“The perfect political state is, by its nature, man’s species-life, as opposed to his material life. All the preconditions of this egoistic life continue to exist in civil society outside the sphere of the state, but as qualities of civil society. Where the political state has attained its true development, man – not only in thought, in consciousness, but in reality, in life – leads a twofold life, a heavenly and an earthly life: life in the political community, in which he considers himself a communal being, and life in civil society, in which he acts as a private individual, regards other men as a means, degrades himself into a means, and becomes the plaything of alien powers. The relation of the political state to civil society is just as spiritual as the relations of heaven to earth. The political state stands in the same opposition to civil society, and it prevails over the latter in the same way as religion prevails”.

Marx is trumping Bouer’s critique of the religious State with his own critique of the earthly divinity that needs purging just as urgently: inequity (and the obsession of private property), which is not only unethical, but the source of egoism, or “faux individuality”.
cont..

..cont.

In Marx’s transcendence of “Bauer’s” Jewish question, the Jew is "metonym" for civil society as it stands: an alienated condition in which “so-called” individuality is vested in a vicious and loaded contest over private property, rather than in a communal reality that reflects an “ideology” of political community. Thus the modern secularists are striving for precisely the same limited freedom and delusionary individualism as Bauer was. The “ideology” of modern secular humanism too, is made ridiculous by the reality of human enslavement to a doctrine of acquisitiveness, and all that it entails (otherness, viciousness, egoism, wealth and poverty, megalomania--delusionary life at the individual and social level).
Thus Marx’s offensive conclusion:
“Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between man’s individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished.

The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism”,
is only an offense against political correctness, figuring the Jew as the stereotypical personification of the capitalist (Judaistic) individual.
Marx does deal in On the Jewish Question with the limitations of individualism, “as they stood (and stand!)”, and those limitations “are” “the be-all and end-all” of the deluded individual in the capitalist system. Marx “does” support “the concept of individuality”. The “concept” is all that currently exists! Marx wanted political community to be the seedbed of true individuality, vested in equality and community.
If I get the chance I’ll comment on your other posts later.
Yabby,
Not a copout, I just don’t see the value in glib comments and I don’t have the time to do the topic justice. Besides, it’s off-topic and more in the nature of baiting me, as usual, than genuine discussion