New York City

[Age]

i recommend Marxism to the world.

Because you hate success, or because you hate mankind, the way Marx did?

But, recommending a man with a penis who will punish you, for eternity, is not hating on you, nor on humankind, right?

i would hand him the communist manifesto

Oh. Like Marx did.

i don't like fake-ass nanny state stuff.

Oh? So you're not personally a Marxist, you say...but would recommend Marxism...because...no reason?

Hmmm...I'm not sure anybody can make sense of that.

Is there any one, here, who can make sense of any one who claims a man with a penis created absolutely every thing, all at once, but will punish those for eternity who do not believe in a thing with a penis who created every thing, all at once?

[Age]

If you can gain a massive reduction of pain for a vast majority at the expense of a slight reduction of pleasure for a very small minority, as a statesman and economist, you take the deal. It's a no-bainer.

Would you please at least consider the Matzo Ball Soup cure??

Is the so-called, 'matzo ball soup cure', meant to be some thing real?

If yes, then where can 'we' have a 'look at' it, exactly?

[Age]

MARXISTS would would tell you that they are the only leftists (and even they are in factions). Do you understand what I am saying? You wouldn't accept my defining YOU according to Catholic teachings (likewise making a claim to the one true Christianity)

But again, I'm not. Marx and Engels are. And it's them you are claiming don't know what they're talking about.

I am NOT saying that Marx and Engels "didn't know what they are talking about.

WEll, they were horrible people, Marx especially, but they are still the sources most Socialists refer to as core.[/quote]

Imagine claiming to be a so-called "Christian", and then saying and claiming that some other human beings are 'horrible people'.

Could one be more anti-God, and anti-christ?

Absolutely no one is a 'horrible person', to God.

If you acknowledge a strain of "leftism" outside of Marxism,

Look, we all know the old historical stuff about the French, and the origins of Left and Right in their National Assembly.

'This one's' claim, here, is absolutely False, and Wrong. Which is very common occurrence with 'this one'.

But these terms have taken on new meanings since then. "Left" is not the precise term, and merely indicates a contested political direction: "Socialist" is more accurate. So let's work with that.

LOL 'This one', still, believes that its own personal definition and version is the only true and right one.

The "Levelers" are a historical artifact now. Whether we call them "right" or "left" has nothing to do with present day realities. Let's stick to clearer terms. Socialism is nicely defined by Marx and Engels as that situation in which the State owns the means of production.

LOL Now 'this one' wants 'others' to choose, and stick with, its own personal definition, and version.

Those who believe in that are "Socialists," regardless of other particulars: those who don't really believe that aren't really Socialists, but more like Lenin's "useful idiots," whom Socialist ideologues can easily manipulate because of their ignorance, but who don't really understand the goals of the ideology to which they are about to be enslaved.

Let's stick to Socialist ideology. We can't fix the various grey-area "useful idiots". They don't even know enough to know they're being had. They certainly can't speak intelligently about Socialism. If they understood it, they'd be running the other way.

LOL Imagine claiming that 'others' do not know enough to know that they are being had, when one is actually a 'trapped slave', "itself", and is not even close to knowing that it has been, and is being, 'had'.

[Age]

funding schools, neighborhood improvement projects, literacy projects

Nooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

With what strings? Are the schools going to be "standardized," without regard for child, parent and community needs and standards?

Again, it speaks, without being able to elaborate, nor clarify.

Is it going to become an indoctrination factory for the government, instead of a place of education?

Where they indoctrinate children to believe that a man, with a penis, created every thing, all at once, and if you do not do what you are told to do, then you will be punished, burning in hell, for the rest of your lives.

Government indoctrinating factories are very real. Just look at how "immanuel can" 'turned out', after being brought up in a 'slave driven' corrupted government.

And these "improvement projects": will they only be done if a particular community wants them, or will they be imposed in the larger interests of the country, or in the ideological or electoral interests of the government itself?

Obviously, "Immanuel can" is, here, hinting that if the government does not teach children that if they do not do what they are told, then they suffer, and burn, in hell forever, by the man, with a penis, who created every thing, including the hell that you will go to if you do not follow what the government and teachers are indoctrinating you to believe is absolutely true.

And what will these "improvements" be? In whose interest will things be "improved"?

As long as 'they' in the interest of people like "immanuel can", then all is well and good. But, if it is not, then people like them will whinge and whine, like "Immanuel can" is, here.

Literacy would be good. But with what "literature"? And what will not be included?

As long as the bible is in there, and the koran is out, then this is okay and good, right?

And who will make that decision? And what will this "literacy" consist of? Will it be merely the ability to read for oneself, or will it be a "literacy" in indoctrination?

The problem is that the State always has its own interests.

Exactly like the "Christian church" has its own interests, only, and absolutely always.

How blind some are.

These are not the interests of the community. So all these things can indeed become a "noooooooooo!"

And, in most communities, "christian teachings" are one of the biggest, 'noooo's'.

[Belinda]

Let's try something else IC. Let's look at something else. If you acknowledge a strain of "leftism" outside of Marxism, that should at least cause you to think in broader terms. I want you to look at the "True Levelers" (aka "Diggers").

World Turned Upside Down

I think that you may find that what many Conservatives fear, and for good reason, is handing to Government overall control of the human economy through models based on redistribution. And when they are also infused with Marxian religious zealousness they are inevitably destructive.

Take Chavez in Venezuela. A revolutionary program where big government did redistribute wealth (oil wealth, not wealth from taxation: i.e. not through contributions of the people) by funding schools, neighborhood improvement projects, literacy projects, while simultaneously using their positions for unreally extreme projects of corruption.

True, this is an historical pattern in Latin America and the underdeveloped world generally, but in each instance where the Marxian model was adopted (a party structure installed) the same outcome results.

Well, we agree on all that.

There's a root problem that Marxism cannot beat: in order to believe in it, you have to trust human nature absolutely. You have to think, for example, that all the "inequities" or "oppressions" that occur are not bedded in a human propensity toward evil, but merely in some sort of maladjustment of social-environmental circumstance. Rearrange that circumstance, the belief must go, and all will be well; people will no longer be greedy or exploitative, and envy, malice, laziness, covetousness, entitlement...all will vapourize instantly, and utopia will break out.

So, for example, they have to believe that if Marxist conditions are met, nobody will be elitist anymore. Politicians will willingly serve the larger interests, rather than their own. The Party will never betray us. Nobody will steal from or oppress the People. Nobody will crave power, or privilege, or prestige. We'll be able to trust our leaders in every possible way.

And equally, the workers will all become content. None will want more than his share. Nobody will slack off, or free-ride on the work of others. They will work happily, for no reward, and with no resentment. Nobody will be ambitious, or be more keen to take risks in order to obtain more rewards. Nobody will envy. Nobody will become entitled, lazy, or malicious toward co-workers. Nobody will steal from employers, whether in material terms or in taking excessive time off. Nobody will make excuses. Nobody will hateful, spiteful or sly. Nobody will sin.

At the same time, Marxists are totally keen on being vigilant for "counter-revolutionaries," or "oppressors," or "the bourgeois," or "the 10%," or "exploiters," as if the existence of such objectors to Marxism is merely a matter of chance. How these sinners came to exist in the first place, they never ask themselves; for they imagine that man is produced by his social conditions, and never think that social conditions are produced by what man is. In other words, they fail to interrogate human nature, and to see it for what it really is.

They also trust their own nature too much. To be fervent for Marxism is to be exempted from the power of human nature, and made innocent of all sin. So long as one is serving a Marxists vision, one can rob, beat, malign, accuse, dispossess and even murder anybody at all, and it will be righteous. How could it be otherwise, since it serves the highest vision of Marxism? All sins are purged away in the red bath of Marxist self-righteousness. You can always "punch" somebody and be virtuous, so long as you first call him a "Nazi." (Whether he is or not is not to their point. It stops at the mere claim that he is.)

But an idealistic society, coupled with the realities of human nature, is just another kind of exploitation. "Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss," as the lyric goes. Human nature is the root problem. Social conditions are not the exclusive cause of antisocial or evil behaviour; rather, social conditions are the reflection of what human beings create out of their own natural desires. Society is a construct, not a pre-existent fact. But human nature is what it is, and cannot be eradicated by manipulating mere social conditions.

So the Marxists deliver us into the hands of the very creature than invented exploitation, inequality, entitlement, covetousness, graft, greed, spite, bitterness, laziness, selfishness and rage. So having one government, only one Party, and no opposition just means that ordinary people become helpless to protest their treatment or their state.

By contrast, a plural set of parties, each with the demand on it that it must woo public approval through voting, with term limits for all politicians, defined and limited powers of office, public accountability through the press and various watchdog agencies, division of powers among governing bodies, and so forth reflects the recognition that human nature must be managed, and that it's not invariably good. It recognizes that men can be good and trustworthy, but not all men, or not all men forever, and not most men without the support of regulatory restraint.

It's not an ideal system either -- for example, it's adversarial, which is often inconvenient, and the press is not a trustworthy watchdog always, and people do not always support wise candidates. But it at least puts some of the brakes on the worst expressions of human nature in leaders...a thing which Marxism never does.

I don't usually agree with Immanuel Can but his criticism of Communism is reasonable.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

is a moral aim not a workable political regime. In that respect Communism is like Christianity or the Kingdom of Heaven. In the real world men are generally greedy.

What we need to ask is "In view of economic necessity and human nature, to what degree may we maintain a regime that most resembles Marx's edict and the Kingdom of Heaven?"

[promethean75]

Jordanian style capitalist apologizers (I don't call you critics of Marxism 'cause I'm not sure you know what it is) please view the latest post in the Philosophical Videos thread.

[phyllo]

funding schools, neighborhood improvement projects, literacy projects

Nooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

With what strings? Are the schools going to be "standardized," without regard for child, parent and community needs and standards? Is it going to become an indoctrination factory for the government, instead of a place of education? And these "improvement projects": will they only be done if a particular community wants them, or will they be imposed in the larger interests of the country, or in the ideological or electoral interests of the government itself? And what will these "improvements" be? In whose interest will things be "improved"?

Literacy would be good. But with what "literature"? And what will not be included? And who will make that decision? And what will this "literacy" consist of? Will it be merely the ability to read for oneself, or will it be a "literacy" in indoctrination?

The problem is that the State always has its own interests. These are not the interests of the community. So all these things can indeed become a "noooooooooo!"

Well if there is no standardization for the country, then every (little) community will set is own standards ... which may be high, mediocre or low. So you will end up with huge variations of knowledge and ability.

The "interests of the community" are not something wonderful. It can be very stupid and destructive. And I'm not saying that the "interests of the state" are automatically wonderful in contrast.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why do you not blame "your" 'self' for fighting, so-called, 'tooth and claw' to keep 'you' from the actual True, and Right, knowledge, in Life?

Now hold on, Age. You imply that you have Special Knowledge? But I have a Special Knowledge that is Superior. Tell me, please, that you (of all people!) recognize my obvious advanced state and agree with me to the same degree that I agree with myself.

You’d be doing yourself a favor.

If yes, then where can 'we' have a 'look at' it [the Matzo Ball Soup cure], exactly?

Well, first you must demonstrate that you really want to be cured. “When the student is ready, the Soup appears.”

[Alexis Jacobi]

What we need to ask is "In view of economic necessity and human nature, to what degree may we maintain a regime that most resembles Marx's edict and the Kingdom of Heaven?"

By subscribing to The — Oh never mind.

:::despondent sigh:::

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, we agree on all that.

To be more clear, or perhaps elemental (?), I have not ever substantially disagreed with you at least if metaphysical principles are concerned (my primary struggle with “you” in a more abstract, cultural sense). If you would be more of a more discerning reader, and more cooperative in the realm of ideas, you would have understood and agreed with the explication I offered to Gary in which the mythos of Christianity is actually better understood when seen in the light and context of far more advanced metaphysical theory and understanding that is Pagan and far antecedes the Hebrew revelation.

The Ideas, when handled by that ideal handler of ideas (the “master metaphysician” that Basil Willey mentions in his studies), can be made comprehensible when they are clarified.

In this sense and when seen through an ideal lens, the Figure of Christ actually transcends any picture of that figure in any limited, historical circumstance. The “idea” of the Divine Avatar that has manifested in our reality, opens the door to a whole realm of metaphysical principles that, as I say, must necessarily transcend the specificity of the historical narrative.

This turns back to an idea I proposed to you years ago now and it was through a question: how would what Jesus Christ means, in an absolute metaphysical sense, be communicated to another being in another manifest world in our Cosmos? We certainly could not refer to specific locality nor image because that speculated being might live in some ocean on some moon revolving some sun in some other star-system?

You could not entertain the (outlandish) idea because —- well, because why?

You see that is the question. And in a thousand different posts I have been trying to explore essentially that problem.

We need far more fuller descriptions than the childlike “pictures” offered by the Christian mythos have conceived of. So we have to turn to those who have explored these matters in far greater depth.

In political matters (and matters that extend from politics) — as in the present discussion — I think you have an advantage over pretty much everyone participating here. Simply because, in the majority, your ideas are grounded in (allow me to use this phrase) “true Conservatism”. Most who try to argue against those Principles fail to the degree they have not grounded themselves in these principles. And you obviously have a great deal of experience in “Academia” where properly-based ideas, and the mental training to conceive of them, to grasp them, are either developed … or not.

Christianity as Hebraism is far too “possessive” and domineering. That is the “problem”, the obstacle, that I had to work through by way of long, circuitous routes.

[As I have stated: I have been here strictly for my own reasons, and this encapsulation is really only “notes to myself”].

[phyllo]

Is there any topic on this site which will not get infected with the Christianity virus?

[Alexis Jacobi]

The "interests of the community" are not something wonderful. It can be very stupid and destructive. And I'm not saying that the "interests of the state" are automatically wonderful in contrast.

Here, you expose what I think is a very real and a very dramatically true truth. It is entirely Platonic and entirely aristocratic. Simply put it is that there are men who have worked through ideas and arrived at foundational principles that naturally place them in positions of “aristos”. We either turn to them, or turn away from them. We either “submit” by an act of volition (we volunteer) or we “go our own way” and fuck things up.

I have reduced this here, obviously, and things are not quite so simple, but you yourself have presented the idea: the Average Man is rarely skilled enough to design his own world, and when contaminated the “interests of the community” are perverted toward ideas and objects (sensations is perhaps a good word) that are literally inferior.

It should be pretty clear that in our chaotic present those who have rulership positions are (in the Confucian sense) “inferior men” who have wormed their way in. They are definitely not models of the “aristos”.

The notion of Make America Great, in truth, connotes a revivification of an entire order of higher principles. But the “political body” is contaminated and therefore cannot conceive of what “great” necessarily means.

Again these are simplistic, reductive ideas, but I think we can agree that they do have application.

[MikeNovack]

The "Levelers" are a historical artifact now. Whether we call them "right" or "left" has nothing to do with present day realities. Let's stick to clearer terms. Socialism is nicely defined by Marx and Engels as that situation in which the State owns the means of production.

[/quote]

NOT the "Levelers". THOSE were early in the tradition leading through the Chartists to the liberals of today. The Levelers and the True Levelers were different Puritan sects.

And it IS relevant to your claim that (today) socialism can only be based on Marxism. THAT argument would make sense only if you were taking the extreme secularist position that any and all religious things had no place in the modern world. I was saying to you SEE, socialist concepts can come from other sources than Marxism. That my example that far in the past because I wanted one from the lineage of YOUR Christianity.

I could scarcely have given you a modern secular source because you disbelieve that secularists can have morality.

Simple yes or no IC. Say if you have or have not read "The True Levelers Standard Advanced" and/or "The Saints Paradise"


Belinda --- It is a QUESTION whether a good/uncorrupt governance structure can be constructed to operate even though greedy/corrupt individuals fill the roles. Can't just assume "impossible". Would merit discussion all on its own.

[Immanuel Can]

Nooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

With what strings? Are the schools going to be "standardized," without regard for child, parent and community needs and standards? Is it going to become an indoctrination factory for the government, instead of a place of education? And these "improvement projects": will they only be done if a particular community wants them, or will they be imposed in the larger interests of the country, or in the ideological or electoral interests of the government itself? And what will these "improvements" be? In whose interest will things be "improved"?

Literacy would be good. But with what "literature"? And what will not be included? And who will make that decision? And what will this "literacy" consist of? Will it be merely the ability to read for oneself, or will it be a "literacy" in indoctrination?

The problem is that the State always has its own interests. These are not the interests of the community. So all these things can indeed become a "noooooooooo!"

Well if there is no standardization for the country, then every (little) community will set is own standards ... which may be high, mediocre or low. So you will end up with huge variations of knowledge and ability.

Oh NO! The education would be tailored to local needs! How horrible! Kids in Kansas wouldn't be forced to learn Critical Theory, and might learn crop rotation. How sad. They may become rich and successful Kansas farmers, but they'll never get to be idiot blue-hairs from Los Angeles! How tragic! We must standardize now!

[Immanuel Can]

Well, we agree on all that.

...my primary struggle with “you” in a more abstract, cultural sense...

Well, you need to grow up and learn to deal with propositions, not cavil uselessly about how you feel about a given speaker. You'll "struggle" less, and be much happier.

Welcome to the world of philosophy.