New York City

[phyllo]

Depends on who handles it.

Wisdom is impersonal.

It doesn't depend on "who".

[MikeNovack]

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?"

But that is a QUESTION, not a foregone conclusion < can a SYSTEM be designed so that it works properly even if some of the COMPONENTS are faulty? >

That question is not totally unrelated to similar questions in other areas. For example, in Information Theory the question "can data be encoded so that in spite of some number of bits corrupted in transmission, the correct data received? << and I could introduce Hamming codes and Hamming distance >> Or we could look at this in ancient terms, WHAT determines if when documents are copied, scribal errors can be detected and corrected.

HERE the question is political, whether a system of governance can be devised so that it yields good, just, etc. decisions in spite of the fact that some of the people of which composed are greedy, corrupt, evil, etc. Just because we see some system would work IF all were just, honest, etc. does not mean NECESSARY conditions.

Note that this question is really more general, we don't need our ideal system to deal with JUST greedy, corrupt, evil, etc. but also good, honest people who are sometimes going to be mistaken. For example, if you asked me what was wrong with "democratic centralism" I would NOT respond listing problems because of greed, corruption, evil, etc. (though those apply also) but by saying "fatally lacks any means of error correction" because even good, just, honest, etc. people sometimes make mistakes.

But please, THAT (theories of governance) should be a topic all unto itself

But since this is supposedly about NYC we might consider history and note that greedy, dishonest men, acting for a greedy purpose, can sometimes still yield a good result. Have you never considered HOW the Democratic Party ended up with things like worker issues (minimum wage, social security, etc. under its tent? Because if we were back in 1910, not so yet. Well in 1911 there was a fire at the "Triangle Shirtwaist Factory" with many killed horrible, jumping from windows as no fire ladders tall enough. Public outcry. The famously corrupt Democratic Party machine (Tammany Hall) decide unwise to leave that public anger to the Socialists. Greedy men, acting for greedy reasons. So they set up commissions to investigate and recommend changes << for example, that is why today all emergency exit doors open OUT -- those doors weren't locked but opened in and so couldn't be opened against the press of bodies trying to escape the flames >>

The extent to which the Democrats expanded into other worker issues from that "workplace safety" start first took over in NYC, then New York state, then the national party. So that by 1928, their presidential candidate was Al Smith (who Tammany had put onto one of those commissions) This ended the growth of the Socialist Party which no longer had uncontested ownership of the issues.

[accelafine]

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?"

But that is a QUESTION, not a foregone conclusion < can a SYSTEM be designed so that it works properly even if some of the COMPONENTS are faulty? >

That question is not totally unrelated to similar questions in other areas. For example, in Information Theory the question "can data be encoded so that in spite of some number of bits corrupted in transmission, the correct data received? << and I could introduce Hamming codes and Hamming distance >> Or we could look at this in ancient terms, WHAT determines if when documents are copied, scribal errors can be detected and corrected.

HERE the question is political, whether a system of governance can be devised so that it yields good, just, etc. decisions in spite of the fact that some of the people of which composed are greedy, corrupt, evil, etc. Just because we see some system would work IF all were just, honest, etc. does not mean NECESSARY conditions.

Note that this question is really more general, we don't need our ideal system to deal with JUST greedy, corrupt, evil, etc. but also good, honest people who are sometimes going to be mistaken. For example, if you asked me what was wrong with "democratic centralism" I would NOT respond listing problems because of greed, corruption, evil, etc. (though those apply also) but by saying "fatally lacks any means of error correction" because even good, just, honest, etc. people sometimes make mistakes.

But please, THAT (theories of governance) should be a topic all unto itself

But since this is supposedly about NYC we might consider history and note that greedy, dishonest men, acting for a greedy purpose, can sometimes still yield a good result. Have you never considered HOW the Democratic Party ended up with things like worker issues (minimum wage, social security, etc. under its tent? Because if we were back in 1910, not so yet. Well in 1911 there was a fire at the "Triangle Shirtwaist Factory" with many killed horrible, jumping from windows as no fire ladders tall enough. Public outcry. The famously corrupt Democratic Party machine (Tammany Hall) decide unwise to leave that public anger to the Socialists. Greedy men, acting for greedy reasons. So they set up commissions to investigate and recommend changes << for example, that is why today all emergency exit doors open OUT -- those doors weren't locked but opened in and so couldn't be opened against the press of bodies trying to escape the flames >>

The extent to which the Democrats expanded into other worker issues from that "workplace safety" start first took over in NYC, then New York state, then the national party. So that by 1928, their presidential candidate was Al Smith (who Tammany had put onto one of those commissions) This ended the growth of the Socialist Party which no longer had uncontested ownership of the issues.

Interesting question, but no, there could be no such thing because it would need to be objectively perfect, and you have used a lot of words that are vague and subjective. What would a system look like that is without 'evil'? I'm sure IC and Walker don't believe themselves to be 'evil' while many would beg to differ. Some people think that 'greed is good' (Americans). Wokies actually believe themselves to be the very pinnacle of humanity, with a monopoly on empathy and compassion (I know, staggering in its delusion but true nonetheless). They tell everyone this at any opporunity.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm sure IC and Walker don't believe themselves to be 'evil' while many would beg to differ.

Au contraire, I do. We all have to come to grips with the presence of evil in us, even those who would wish to be better than that. Christianity's not a faith for people who aren't sinnners, but for those who know they are. I'd be the last to exempt myself from my critique of the vulnerabilities of human nature. I know my own heart too well.

Some people think that 'greed is good' (Americans).

No, they don't think that. You're being a bit jaded there, I have to say. What you'll find is that Americans are some of the most charitable people in the world, actually. But over the last couple of hundred years that the country has existed, it has not been prone to collectivist visions. The existence of the frontier made a deep impression on the American psyche, which produced a lot more individualism and self-reliance than in many other countries, but also much more community spirit, kindness and generosity than you might think if you just watched the Beeb.

Wokies actually believe themselves to be the very pinnacle of humanity, with a monopoly on empathy and compassion (I know, staggering in its delusion but true nonetheless). They tell everyone this at any opporunity.

They do. You're right. But have you also noticed their biggest motivator of all? Covetousness. Envy. The green-eyed monster. They get their energy not from helping the poor, but from hating the rich, as Orwell so poignantly is said to have observed.

For them, hatred is virtue. It's all "punch a Nazi," or "down with the oppressor," or "eat the rich." And the louder and more violently they actualize their commitment to these sorts of activities, the higher they feel they are on the scale of virtue. Moreover, their tolerance for violence is much higher than on the Right. The response to the Charlie Kirk assassination, for example, makes this clear. I don't know anybody on the Right calling for Clinton, Biden or Obama to be shot, or AOC or the women on The View, far less their children to be harmed: but the Left has trumpeted just these things about Kirk, Fetterman, Trump, Musk, Kennedy... And it seems there's not even a moderate voice on the Left saying, "I say, chaps...this is a bit much, wot?"

And I can't find any shots of Right-wing extremists burning Minneapolis, or Portland, or LA, or NY, or Atlanta, or...but I can find plenty of Leftists in all these places, burning down neighbourhoods in a "mostly peaceful" way, and beating shopkeepers, or looting Gucci and Foot Locker stores, and stealing from Walmart in broad daylight...all with the highest tone of self-righteous entitlement. But which neighbourhood, through which the Leftists happened to storm, is today a better neighbourhood than it was before? How many poor have they raised to subsistence? How many lives have they improved? What is the real good they have achieved?

How does virtue get associated with arson, looting, assault, slander, entitlement, spite, rage, vandalism, censorship, mutilation of children, racism and calls for murder of whole families? I don't know. I can't imagine. But somehow, it seems the Left can.

[Gary Childress]

I'm sure IC and Walker don't believe themselves to be 'evil' while many would beg to differ.

Au contraire, I do. We all have to come to grips with the presence of evil in us, even those who would wish to be better than that. Christianity's not a faith for people who aren't sinnners, but for those who know they are. I'd be the last to exempt myself from my critique of the vulnerabilities of human nature. I know my own heart too well.

But are you not as evil as homosexuals or Marxists? Or is everyone evil and we need to beg for forgiveness each day after we spend it judging and bemoaning the acts of others?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm sure IC and Walker don't believe themselves to be 'evil' while many would beg to differ.

Au contraire, I do. We all have to come to grips with the presence of evil in us, even those who would wish to be better than that. Christianity's not a faith for people who aren't sinnners, but for those who know they are. I'd be the last to exempt myself from my critique of the vulnerabilities of human nature. I know my own heart too well.

But are you not as evil as homosexuals or Marxists? Or is everyone evil and we need to beg for forgiveness each day after we spend it judging and bemoaning the acts of others?

It's not for me to judge. I am not the Judge. But there is One who Judges, and His judgement is right. And His judgment is the one that counts.

[promethean75]

Daddy don't live in that New York city no more, Mannie.

[phyllo]

But are you not as evil as homosexuals or Marxists?

He is better than homosexuals and Marxists.

Evil with Jesus trumps evil without Jesus.

Does he beat homosexuals who believe in Jesus or Marxists who believe in Jesus?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Au contraire, I do. We all have to come to grips with the presence of evil in us, even those who would wish to be better than that. Christianity's not a faith for people who aren't sinnners, but for those who know they are. I'd be the last to exempt myself from my critique of the vulnerabilities of human nature. I know my own heart too well.

But are you not as evil as homosexuals or Marxists? Or is everyone evil and we need to beg for forgiveness each day after we spend it judging and bemoaning the acts of others?

It's not for me to judge. I am not the Judge. But there is One who Judges, and His judgement is right. And His judgment is the one that counts.

Here Immanuel doubles-down on his feeling about an “ultimate Hebraic judge”, pictured as an expanded human or the ur-human of the Universe. It is in this particularism that his problems begin, and where significant resistance comes to the fore. That is to say, or to propose, that cultural resistance to the figure of the Hebraic God is multi-faceted and ‘complex’. Note Gary’s deep-seated nearly visceral opposition and resistance which has been a theme for years. True, some part of it is likely a product of an obsession related to his self-described mental problems, but the “resistance” can also be looked at through other lenses.

The issue hinges, however, on the notion of metaphysical authority: the assertion that there is, as we speak, a supernatural being peering down at us, at every moment, listening to what we say, judging what we think and say, and his terrestrial emissary who asserts himself as the spokesman of conscience, our own conscience, that arouses resistance. This is a peculiar conundrum because there really is such a thing as conscience and there really does seem to be consequences for the violation of the edicts of conscience. Curiously Gary is deeply involved with issues of conscience and morality — he believes they exist and are real — but he resists ascribing evil or wrong to homosexuality (sexual deviance and misconduct).

At a fundamental level though Communism and Marxism, when seen clearly, is most essentially a counter-metaphysical doctrine and an alternative religion. To oppose the core anti-metaphysical assertions of Marxist doctrine necessarily calls forth a countermanding metaphysics.

The metaphysically-defined notion of ‘evilness’ can be separated from the Christian definition and I think it should be separated. Our conscience arose prior to the arrival of Hebraism and Hebraic Christianity. And if we do regard our conscience as reflecting or expressing a metaphysical of supernatural Conscience, it behooves us to examine what “good” and “evil” really are.

Sadly, the average barking Christian demonstrates to us that his metaphysics is disordered, and his notions of what is good and bad and good and evil is at best confused, at worst terribly misdirecting. (I am not referring to IC here but rather to many notable Christian figures who pretend to represent God’s conscience in our present).

Or is everyone evil and we need to beg for forgiveness each day after we spend it judging and bemoaning the acts of others?

Phyllo laments that the ‘virus’ of Christianity contaminates all conversations here. Certainly I get what he means. But the real fact of the matter is actually our ingrained and I think inescapable sense that ultimately we live in the midst of deep, unavoidable problems of moral conscience.

An irony here is that, of all people, Gary is among those most caught in the current of moral and ethical assessment and judgment.

[MikeNovack]

And I can't find any shots of Right-wing extremists burning Minneapolis, or Portland, or LA, or NY, or Atlanta, or...but I can find plenty of Leftists in all these places,

Is THAT your problem? "Shots of" ........ so HISTORY is limited to the last couple years/decades. You don't SEE before that.

It is POSSIBLE I was at the" Peekskill Riots". Or not, pas I would have been too young to remember. But certainly kin and friends of my family were, including kids I played with (but of course they also at an age too young to remember).

If you think violence something specific to the left, you are simply wrong.

[phyllo]

Curiously Gary is deeply involved with issues of conscience and morality — he believes they exist and are real — but he resists ascribing evil or wrong to homosexuality (sexual deviance and misconduct).

Doesn't he think it's harmless activity between consenting adults?

Or maybe he thinks it's neutral or insignificantly wrong in comparison to some other behaviors. If you want to rate it on a scale.

On what basis ought he consider it wrong or evil? The Bible?

[Gary Childress]

Curiously Gary is deeply involved with issues of conscience and morality — he believes they exist and are real — but he resists ascribing evil or wrong to homosexuality (sexual deviance and misconduct).

Doesn't he think it's harmless activity between consenting adults?

Or maybe he thinks it's neutral or insignificantly wrong in comparison to some other behaviors. If you want to rate it on a scale.

On what basis ought he consider it wrong or evil? The Bible?

Thank you, Phyllo. It's nice to see thinkers among us.

[Alexis Jacobi]

On what basis ought he consider it wrong or evil? The Bible?

I have already worked this issue — the social question, and the morality of the issue — out for myself satisfactorily. I can only report on my own findings.

I can say that outside and beyond the Bible that there are seemingly sound reasons for discouraging homosexuality. I think I could make a decent case for wrongness, but to ascribe ‘evil’ to it, in my view, is going a bit far.

[Gary Childress]

On what basis ought he consider it wrong or evil? The Bible?

I have already worked this issue — the social question, and the morality of the issue — out for myself satisfactorily. I can only report on my own findings.

I can say that outside and beyond the Bible that there are seemingly sound reasons for discouraging homosexuality. I think I could make a decent case for wrongness, but to ascribe ‘evil’ to it, in my view, is going a bit far.

So all homosexual behavior is "wrong"? While I agree that homosexual rape is wrong, what if a woman kisses a lesbian on the lips (for example) when the lesbian asks her for a kiss? (I've heard a couple of women confess such incidents) Is that wrong? Has one or both of the two women committed a wrong?

[Impenitent]

depends on which lips...

-Imp