| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
30 May 2006 04:20:19 AM |
| Object: |
History Is Not On Marx's Side |
http://catholicanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/05/history-is-on-our-side.html
Saturday, May 27, 2006
History Is On Our Side
That is the famous Marxist claim, namely, that Marxism reflects the
necessary changes and outcomes of history. In reading Isaiah Berlin's
biography of Karl Marx, you can't help but be amazed at the human
powers of self-deception. Here is the boorish, ranting Karl Marx
denigrating everyone else for failing to grasp the objective,
"scientific" laws of dialectical materialism. Curiously, he never
seemed to question how those supposedly objective, ironclad scientific
laws were never discovered until he came along. But, then again, Marx
was not given to much introspection and self-reflection. For the sake
of argument, let's give him the credit he craved. Let us assume for the
moment that he was the Isaac Newton of history who did discover the
iron laws of history.
Our assumption, though, is caught up short by the reality that, unlike
Newton's laws, Marx's laws were never subjected to empirical validation
as he formulated them. The man who criticized religion for not being
based on empirical observation created a new secular materialist
religion based on reading history and government reports in a London
library. He imposed on history an eccentric interpretation without in
any way proving that his interpretation was required by the history and
statistics that he read. At best, Marx proposed one possible
interpretation of history. He never showed or proved that it was the
necessary interpretation of history. In contrast, Newton offered laws
and explanations that, in his era, had no comparable competitors in
science.
And, of course, as we all know, Marx's future historical predictions
never materialized. So, on all counts, the vaunted historical science
of Marx had and has no necessary empirical warrant. Ironically, Marx's
view of history was more an emotional projection of his own raging
personal bitterness at life than an empirically necessary explanation.
In fact, his explanation of history was full of contradictions: history
was a mechanism of necessity, but it needed the intervention of
agitators like him to move it along; doctrinal purity was important,
although history would always work out regardless of what men thought;
empirical observation was essential, but no empirical test could ever
falsify the Marxist science of history--the "science" was simply true,
take the word of the genius for it. Marxism was unfalsifiable by
history because Marx could always point, in astounding
self-contradiction, to the stupidity of men as merely delaying the
inevitable when his predictions did not come true. Marx's
contradictions point to human agency, to the human heart; but he
refused to go there. He refused to go where the data led him. He
stopped short of a real explanation of the changes and conflicts he
described.
Marx never turned his biting critique against religion against his own
invented religion of history. He denigrated Christianity and other
religions for their alleged mythological origins unrelated to empirical
observation. Yet, here, he shows how much he did not, or never even
bothered to try to, learn the real claims of Christianity. Christianity
is founded on historical claims that can be historically evaluated. The
primary foundational claim is that the tomb of Jesus was empty and that
Jesus appeared to many of his followers on several occasions after his
execution. Thereafter, the Christian movement caught on like wildfire
(an apt metaphor as we think of Pentecost) and turned its great enemy,
the Roman Empire, upside down and inside out. As N.T. Wright has
pointed out, the best historical explanation, the one that makes the
most sense of all these historical facts is the explanation that Jesus
did really rise from the dead.
Empirical claims are at the heart of Christianity, and those claims can
be historically evaluated. In contrast, Marxism is based on no unique
empirical events. Marx took the raw data of history common to all
observers and fastened on it one arbitrary, particular explanation.
There was no unique historical event that required a Marxist
explanation. In fact, a simpler explanation of the same historical
events comes from simply seeing history as the expression of the
desires of free human agents seeking, sometimes ineptly and sometimes
wisely, their own happiness and self-fulfillment. Marx was right to see
that history is the product of conflict, but he failed to tell us the
basis and reason for that conflict. He simply punted and ascribed all
the conflict to impersonal laws of economic evolution. That approach is
no explanation at all because it merely points to observed change as
the cause of observed change. A real explanation, on the other hand,
does not just stop at redescribing the change, in this case economic
change, that all observers can see. A real explanation tells us what
led to the observable change in the first place. Thus, Marx's "science"
of history is nothing more than a secular deus ex machina that is
guilty of the same intellectual sins he falsely ascribed to
Christianity.
In contrast, Christianity has a real explanation of the diverse
tapestry of human history that does not arbitrarily stop short and
ignore the human heart as cause of all change. Christianity does not
cut off the inconvenient data of human agency, as Marx did in his quest
for an impersonal science of history. Blaise Pascal put it well when he
focused on the nobility of man combined with his depravity on the
historical canvas. Christianity says that man fell: man created in the
image of God rejected that image and debased himself. Hence, history is
a panorama of both nobility and baseness walking hand in hand. The
historical event of the Fall explains the combination of good and evil
that is man and his history, including the class conflict so emphasized
by Marx. The Fall also explains Marx himself: how, rejecting the
Creator, one man, drawing on the disparate and jumbled work of others,
created a system to which he ascribed all the traits and powers of
divine providence, except that in the Marxist system anything as silly
as love could play no decisive role.
What an amazing, unsatisfying, and destructive myth Marxism was and is!
Yet, the most secular of intellectuals swallowed it whole; and some
still do, to some degree or other, even after the undeniable failure of
its progeny in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. Even today, the
influence of Marxism lurks in the social liberalism that ignores the
origins of man and his historical drama.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: History Is Not On Marx's Side |
04 Jun 2006 05:58:30 PM |
|
|
Down with Marxism then, Down with Karl Marx, Down with the Marxists,
the faggots
the Lib, the Demon-Craps, the God haters, the Evol- Atheists, and all
the ISMS,
the gay lovers, Down with the homosexuals
Down with them all....
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://catholicanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/05/history-is-on-our-side.html
Saturday, May 27, 2006
History Is On Our Side
That is the famous Marxist claim, namely, that Marxism reflects the
necessary changes and outcomes of history. In reading Isaiah Berlin's
biography of Karl Marx, you can't help but be amazed at the human
powers of self-deception. Here is the boorish, ranting Karl Marx
denigrating everyone else for failing to grasp the objective,
"scientific" laws of dialectical materialism. Curiously, he never
seemed to question how those supposedly objective, ironclad scientific
laws were never discovered until he came along. But, then again, Marx
was not given to much introspection and self-reflection. For the sake
of argument, let's give him the credit he craved. Let us assume for the
moment that he was the Isaac Newton of history who did discover the
iron laws of history.
Our assumption, though, is caught up short by the reality that, unlike
Newton's laws, Marx's laws were never subjected to empirical validation
as he formulated them. The man who criticized religion for not being
based on empirical observation created a new secular materialist
religion based on reading history and government reports in a London
library. He imposed on history an eccentric interpretation without in
any way proving that his interpretation was required by the history and
statistics that he read. At best, Marx proposed one possible
interpretation of history. He never showed or proved that it was the
necessary interpretation of history. In contrast, Newton offered laws
and explanations that, in his era, had no comparable competitors in
science.
And, of course, as we all know, Marx's future historical predictions
never materialized. So, on all counts, the vaunted historical science
of Marx had and has no necessary empirical warrant. Ironically, Marx's
view of history was more an emotional projection of his own raging
personal bitterness at life than an empirically necessary explanation.
In fact, his explanation of history was full of contradictions: history
was a mechanism of necessity, but it needed the intervention of
agitators like him to move it along; doctrinal purity was important,
although history would always work out regardless of what men thought;
empirical observation was essential, but no empirical test could ever
falsify the Marxist science of history--the "science" was simply true,
take the word of the genius for it. Marxism was unfalsifiable by
history because Marx could always point, in astounding
self-contradiction, to the stupidity of men as merely delaying the
inevitable when his predictions did not come true. Marx's
contradictions point to human agency, to the human heart; but he
refused to go there. He refused to go where the data led him. He
stopped short of a real explanation of the changes and conflicts he
described.
Marx never turned his biting critique against religion against his own
invented religion of history. He denigrated Christianity and other
religions for their alleged mythological origins unrelated to empirical
observation. Yet, here, he shows how much he did not, or never even
bothered to try to, learn the real claims of Christianity. Christianity
is founded on historical claims that can be historically evaluated. The
primary foundational claim is that the tomb of Jesus was empty and that
Jesus appeared to many of his followers on several occasions after his
execution. Thereafter, the Christian movement caught on like wildfire
(an apt metaphor as we think of Pentecost) and turned its great enemy,
the Roman Empire, upside down and inside out. As N.T. Wright has
pointed out, the best historical explanation, the one that makes the
most sense of all these historical facts is the explanation that Jesus
did really rise from the dead.
Empirical claims are at the heart of Christianity, and those claims can
be historically evaluated. In contrast, Marxism is based on no unique
empirical events. Marx took the raw data of history common to all
observers and fastened on it one arbitrary, particular explanation.
There was no unique historical event that required a Marxist
explanation. In fact, a simpler explanation of the same historical
events comes from simply seeing history as the expression of the
desires of free human agents seeking, sometimes ineptly and sometimes
wisely, their own happiness and self-fulfillment. Marx was right to see
that history is the product of conflict, but he failed to tell us the
basis and reason for that conflict. He simply punted and ascribed all
the conflict to impersonal laws of economic evolution. That approach is
no explanation at all because it merely points to observed change as
the cause of observed change. A real explanation, on the other hand,
does not just stop at redescribing the change, in this case economic
change, that all observers can see. A real explanation tells us what
led to the observable change in the first place. Thus, Marx's "science"
of history is nothing more than a secular deus ex machina that is
guilty of the same intellectual sins he falsely ascribed to
Christianity.
In contrast, Christianity has a real explanation of the diverse
tapestry of human history that does not arbitrarily stop short and
ignore the human heart as cause of all change. Christianity does not
cut off the inconvenient data of human agency, as Marx did in his quest
for an impersonal science of history. Blaise Pascal put it well when he
focused on the nobility of man combined with his depravity on the
historical canvas. Christianity says that man fell: man created in the
image of God rejected that image and debased himself. Hence, history is
a panorama of both nobility and baseness walking hand in hand. The
historical event of the Fall explains the combination of good and evil
that is man and his history, including the class conflict so emphasized
by Marx. The Fall also explains Marx himself: how, rejecting the
Creator, one man, drawing on the disparate and jumbled work of others,
created a system to which he ascribed all the traits and powers of
divine providence, except that in the Marxist system anything as silly
as love could play no decisive role.
What an amazing, unsatisfying, and destructive myth Marxism was and is!
Yet, the most secular of intellectuals swallowed it whole; and some
still do, to some degree or other, even after the undeniable failure of
its progeny in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. Even today, the
influence of Marxism lurks in the social liberalism that ignores the
origins of man and his historical drama.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: History Is Not On Marx's Side |
20 Jun 2006 04:43:45 PM |
|
|
If all the believers started long ago to agree instead of trying to
open churches
based on hollow doctrines, Marxism and any other "ISM" out there would
have
been debunked.
Sadly some think that being a believer in the Monotheism's God
entiltes them
to build churches or to write a mission testament for a club and call
it church
as If there was no CHURCH at all.
The WEST FUCKED UP many things
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://catholicanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/05/history-is-on-our-side.html
Saturday, May 27, 2006
History Is On Our Side
That is the famous Marxist claim, namely, that Marxism reflects the
necessary changes and outcomes of history. In reading Isaiah Berlin's
biography of Karl Marx, you can't help but be amazed at the human
powers of self-deception. Here is the boorish, ranting Karl Marx
denigrating everyone else for failing to grasp the objective,
"scientific" laws of dialectical materialism. Curiously, he never
seemed to question how those supposedly objective, ironclad scientific
laws were never discovered until he came along. But, then again, Marx
was not given to much introspection and self-reflection. For the sake
of argument, let's give him the credit he craved. Let us assume for the
moment that he was the Isaac Newton of history who did discover the
iron laws of history.
Our assumption, though, is caught up short by the reality that, unlike
Newton's laws, Marx's laws were never subjected to empirical validation
as he formulated them. The man who criticized religion for not being
based on empirical observation created a new secular materialist
religion based on reading history and government reports in a London
library. He imposed on history an eccentric interpretation without in
any way proving that his interpretation was required by the history and
statistics that he read. At best, Marx proposed one possible
interpretation of history. He never showed or proved that it was the
necessary interpretation of history. In contrast, Newton offered laws
and explanations that, in his era, had no comparable competitors in
science.
And, of course, as we all know, Marx's future historical predictions
never materialized. So, on all counts, the vaunted historical science
of Marx had and has no necessary empirical warrant. Ironically, Marx's
view of history was more an emotional projection of his own raging
personal bitterness at life than an empirically necessary explanation.
In fact, his explanation of history was full of contradictions: history
was a mechanism of necessity, but it needed the intervention of
agitators like him to move it along; doctrinal purity was important,
although history would always work out regardless of what men thought;
empirical observation was essential, but no empirical test could ever
falsify the Marxist science of history--the "science" was simply true,
take the word of the genius for it. Marxism was unfalsifiable by
history because Marx could always point, in astounding
self-contradiction, to the stupidity of men as merely delaying the
inevitable when his predictions did not come true. Marx's
contradictions point to human agency, to the human heart; but he
refused to go there. He refused to go where the data led him. He
stopped short of a real explanation of the changes and conflicts he
described.
Marx never turned his biting critique against religion against his own
invented religion of history. He denigrated Christianity and other
religions for their alleged mythological origins unrelated to empirical
observation. Yet, here, he shows how much he did not, or never even
bothered to try to, learn the real claims of Christianity. Christianity
is founded on historical claims that can be historically evaluated. The
primary foundational claim is that the tomb of Jesus was empty and that
Jesus appeared to many of his followers on several occasions after his
execution. Thereafter, the Christian movement caught on like wildfire
(an apt metaphor as we think of Pentecost) and turned its great enemy,
the Roman Empire, upside down and inside out. As N.T. Wright has
pointed out, the best historical explanation, the one that makes the
most sense of all these historical facts is the explanation that Jesus
did really rise from the dead.
Empirical claims are at the heart of Christianity, and those claims can
be historically evaluated. In contrast, Marxism is based on no unique
empirical events. Marx took the raw data of history common to all
observers and fastened on it one arbitrary, particular explanation.
There was no unique historical event that required a Marxist
explanation. In fact, a simpler explanation of the same historical
events comes from simply seeing history as the expression of the
desires of free human agents seeking, sometimes ineptly and sometimes
wisely, their own happiness and self-fulfillment. Marx was right to see
that history is the product of conflict, but he failed to tell us the
basis and reason for that conflict. He simply punted and ascribed all
the conflict to impersonal laws of economic evolution. That approach is
no explanation at all because it merely points to observed change as
the cause of observed change. A real explanation, on the other hand,
does not just stop at redescribing the change, in this case economic
change, that all observers can see. A real explanation tells us what
led to the observable change in the first place. Thus, Marx's "science"
of history is nothing more than a secular deus ex machina that is
guilty of the same intellectual sins he falsely ascribed to
Christianity.
In contrast, Christianity has a real explanation of the diverse
tapestry of human history that does not arbitrarily stop short and
ignore the human heart as cause of all change. Christianity does not
cut off the inconvenient data of human agency, as Marx did in his quest
for an impersonal science of history. Blaise Pascal put it well when he
focused on the nobility of man combined with his depravity on the
historical canvas. Christianity says that man fell: man created in the
image of God rejected that image and debased himself. Hence, history is
a panorama of both nobility and baseness walking hand in hand. The
historical event of the Fall explains the combination of good and evil
that is man and his history, including the class conflict so emphasized
by Marx. The Fall also explains Marx himself: how, rejecting the
Creator, one man, drawing on the disparate and jumbled work of others,
created a system to which he ascribed all the traits and powers of
divine providence, except that in the Marxist system anything as silly
as love could play no decisive role.
What an amazing, unsatisfying, and destructive myth Marxism was and is!
Yet, the most secular of intellectuals swallowed it whole; and some
still do, to some degree or other, even after the undeniable failure of
its progeny in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. Even today, the
influence of Marxism lurks in the social liberalism that ignores the
origins of man and his historical drama.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: History Is Not On Marx's Side |
30 May 2006 04:58:52 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
And, of course, as we all know, Marx's future historical predictions
never materialized. So, on all counts, the vaunted historical science
of Marx had and has no necessary empirical warrant.
Marx said that Britain, Germany and France were ready for Communism, whilst
Russia was not.
By the 1960s socialist governments with links to organised labour had held
power in all these countries. Meanwhile Russia's nominal communism was in
fact an excuse for domination by a small elite.
Where Marx got it wrong was that he predicted that the socialist governments
would arise by violent revolution. In fact they came about because of social
dislocation brought about by wars between the states.
So the theory was a near miss. Marx can't be blamed for that.
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $7.20 paper, available www.lulu.com/bgy1mm
.
|
|
|
| User: "shrikeback" |
|
| Title: Re: History Is Not On Marx's Side |
31 May 2006 01:39:36 AM |
|
|
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:XJCdnT5MbPSGXeHZnZ2dnUVZ8qqdnZ2d@bt.com...
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
And, of course, as we all know, Marx's future historical predictions
never materialized. So, on all counts, the vaunted historical science
of Marx had and has no necessary empirical warrant.
Marx said that Britain, Germany and France were ready for Communism,
whilst Russia was not.
By the 1960s socialist governments with links to organised labour had held
power in all these countries. Meanwhile Russia's nominal communism was in
fact an excuse for domination by a small elite.
Where Marx got it wrong was that he predicted that the socialist
governments would arise by violent revolution. In fact they came about
because of social dislocation brought about by wars between the states.
So the theory was a near miss. Marx can't be blamed for that.
Except socialism hasn't come about. Instead the invisible hand of bourgeois
society gradually grabs every nation on the planet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: History Is Not On Marx's Side |
01 Jun 2006 09:01:02 AM |
|
|
shrikeback wrote:
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:XJCdnT5MbPSGXeHZnZ2dnUVZ8qqdnZ2d@bt.com...
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
And, of course, as we all know, Marx's future historical predictions
never materialized. So, on all counts, the vaunted historical science
of Marx had and has no necessary empirical warrant.
Marx said that Britain, Germany and France were ready for Communism,
whilst Russia was not.
By the 1960s socialist governments with links to organised labour had held
power in all these countries. Meanwhile Russia's nominal communism was in
fact an excuse for domination by a small elite.
Where Marx got it wrong was that he predicted that the socialist
governments would arise by violent revolution. In fact they came about
because of social dislocation brought about by wars between the states.
So the theory was a near miss. Marx can't be blamed for that.
Except socialism hasn't come about. Instead the invisible hand of bourgeois
society gradually grabs every nation on the planet.
It's interesting, though, that people are still worrying about
Marx after all these years. I don't mean Marxists; I suppose
they are like the Parsis and keep the faith in small communities
here and there. I am speaking of the sort of right-winger who
posted the message that starts this topic. They are still
frightened of what they insist is long dead and gone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=" |
|
| Title: Re: History Is Not On Marx's Side |
01 Jun 2006 04:58:38 PM |
|
|
<anarcissie@gmail.com> wrote:
shrikeback wrote:
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:XJCdnT5MbPSGXeHZnZ2dnUVZ8qqdnZ2d@bt.com...
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
And, of course, as we all know, Marx's future historical predictions
never materialized. So, on all counts, the vaunted historical science
of Marx had and has no necessary empirical warrant.
Marx said that Britain, Germany and France were ready for Communism,
whilst Russia was not.
By the 1960s socialist governments with links to organised labour had held
power in all these countries. Meanwhile Russia's nominal communism was in
fact an excuse for domination by a small elite.
Where Marx got it wrong was that he predicted that the socialist
governments would arise by violent revolution. In fact they came about
because of social dislocation brought about by wars between the states.
So the theory was a near miss. Marx can't be blamed for that.
Except socialism hasn't come about. Instead the invisible hand of bourgeois
society gradually grabs every nation on the planet.
It's interesting, though, that people are still worrying about
Marx after all these years. I don't mean Marxists; I suppose
they are like the Parsis and keep the faith in small communities
here and there. I am speaking of the sort of right-winger who
posted the message that starts this topic. They are still
frightened of what they insist is long dead and gone.
As should any thinking human being be - bad ideas have a life of their
own, and occasionally rise to rear their ugly heads. Nazism isn't dead
yet, despite the horrors upon Europe that Nazism perpetuated.
--
regards, Peter Bjørn Perlsø
http://haxor.dk - http://liberterran.org - http://haxor.dk/fanaticism/ -
http://planetarybillofrights.org/ - http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: History Is Not On Marx's Side |
01 Jun 2006 03:16:54 PM |
|
|
orthodox marxism certainly succeeded in rigidifying the
scientific/economic aspects, but these were in fact the weakest points
in marx's work. his analyses were timely and astute, but the solutions
he theorized had many flaws. the (selective) implementation of
communism by chinese and soviet dictatorships has been used to
disqualify not only marx's contributions to social theory but the
vastly rich contributions of scholars and activists who have built
upon, refined, expanded, and yes, corrected many errors over the course
of the 20th century. orthodox marxism as an economic panacea is indeed
outdated, but to use this as a copout to ignore (by default) the
insightful critiques provided by others who rely strongly on the
marxist theoretical heritage is an arbitrary dismissal. capitalism and
communism have operated as a lose/lose dichotomy in dire need of
surpassing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jet Graphics" |
|
| Title: Re: History Is Not On Marx's Side |
07 Jun 2006 02:39:10 PM |
|
|
In contradiction to what Sound of Trumpet wrote, Socialism and its cousin,
Communism, ARE winning.
Facts in evidence:
Socialism, by definition, abolishes private property, and replaces it with
collective ownership.
Socialism, by definition, is LEFT WING (opposed to traditional authority).
No "communist nation" admitted to having achieved communism. All admitted to
have only achieved socialism.
Though the USSR collapsed, the remaining republics did not renounce
socialism.
UK is socialist, as is most of the "free world".
The U.S.A. has been socialist since 1935.
"Fascist" Italy was socialist. (*Mussolini was chief editor of Italy's
national socialist magazine)
"NAZI" Germany was socialist. (NAZI is an acronym for the German National
Socialist Worker's Party)
Ergo, calling them "Fascist" (Right wing) is propaganda, when they were LEFT
WING.
All ten planks of the communist manifesto have been enacted or implemented
via "executive orders" in the USA.
Capitalism, as defined as the private ownership of the tools of production
and distribution, has been dead for generations.
CAPITALISM - Definition - "Economic system characterized by the following:
private property ownership exists; individuals and companies are allowed to
compete for their own economic gain; and free market forces determine the
prices of goods and services. Such a system is based on the premise of
separating the state and business activities. Capitalists believe that
markets are efficient and should thus function without interference, and
the role of the state is to regulate and protect."
"PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such
property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the
exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible
nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as
houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The
ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute
dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one
or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when
the use is restricted. "
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106
No socialist "absolutely owns" his house, lands and chattels. A socialist
can only have qualified ownership.
Any government that can TAKE property (without just compensation) is
socialist at best, and communist at worst.
Without ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP by an individual, there is NO CAPITALISM.
Promulgating the myth that Marxism / Communism is dead plays into the hands
of the enemy of all mankind - the pirate collectivist.
http://catholicanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/05/history-is-on-our-side.html
Saturday, May 27, 2006
History Is On Our Side
That is the famous Marxist claim, namely, that Marxism reflects the
necessary changes and outcomes of history. In reading Isaiah Berlin's
biography of Karl Marx, you can't help but be amazed at the human
powers of self-deception. Here is the boorish, ranting Karl Marx
denigrating everyone else for failing to grasp the objective,
"scientific" laws of dialectical materialism. Curiously, he never
seemed to question how those supposedly objective, ironclad scientific
laws were never discovered until he came along. But, then again, Marx
was not given to much introspection and self-reflection. For the sake
of argument, let's give him the credit he craved. Let us assume for the
moment that he was the Isaac Newton of history who did discover the
iron laws of history.
Our assumption, though, is caught up short by the reality that, unlike
Newton's laws, Marx's laws were never subjected to empirical validation
as he formulated them. The man who criticized religion for not being
based on empirical observation created a new secular materialist
religion based on reading history and government reports in a London
library. He imposed on history an eccentric interpretation without in
any way proving that his interpretation was required by the history and
statistics that he read. At best, Marx proposed one possible
interpretation of history. He never showed or proved that it was the
necessary interpretation of history. In contrast, Newton offered laws
and explanations that, in his era, had no comparable competitors in
science.
And, of course, as we all know, Marx's future historical predictions
never materialized. So, on all counts, the vaunted historical science
of Marx had and has no necessary empirical warrant. Ironically, Marx's
view of history was more an emotional projection of his own raging
personal bitterness at life than an empirically necessary explanation.
In fact, his explanation of history was full of contradictions: history
was a mechanism of necessity, but it needed the intervention of
agitators like him to move it along; doctrinal purity was important,
although history would always work out regardless of what men thought;
empirical observation was essential, but no empirical test could ever
falsify the Marxist science of history--the "science" was simply true,
take the word of the genius for it. Marxism was unfalsifiable by
history because Marx could always point, in astounding
self-contradiction, to the stupidity of men as merely delaying the
inevitable when his predictions did not come true. Marx's
contradictions point to human agency, to the human heart; but he
refused to go there. He refused to go where the data led him. He
stopped short of a real explanation of the changes and conflicts he
described.
Marx never turned his biting critique against religion against his own
invented religion of history. He denigrated Christianity and other
religions for their alleged mythological origins unrelated to empirical
observation. Yet, here, he shows how much he did not, or never even
bothered to try to, learn the real claims of Christianity. Christianity
is founded on historical claims that can be historically evaluated. The
primary foundational claim is that the tomb of Jesus was empty and that
Jesus appeared to many of his followers on several occasions after his
execution. Thereafter, the Christian movement caught on like wildfire
(an apt metaphor as we think of Pentecost) and turned its great enemy,
the Roman Empire, upside down and inside out. As N.T. Wright has
pointed out, the best historical explanation, the one that makes the
most sense of all these historical facts is the explanation that Jesus
did really rise from the dead.
Empirical claims are at the heart of Christianity, and those claims can
be historically evaluated. In contrast, Marxism is based on no unique
empirical events. Marx took the raw data of history common to all
observers and fastened on it one arbitrary, particular explanation.
There was no unique historical event that required a Marxist
explanation. In fact, a simpler explanation of the same historical
events comes from simply seeing history as the expression of the
desires of free human agents seeking, sometimes ineptly and sometimes
wisely, their own happiness and self-fulfillment. Marx was right to see
that history is the product of conflict, but he failed to tell us the
basis and reason for that conflict. He simply punted and ascribed all
the conflict to impersonal laws of economic evolution. That approach is
no explanation at all because it merely points to observed change as
the cause of observed change. A real explanation, on the other hand,
does not just stop at redescribing the change, in this case economic
change, that all observers can see. A real explanation tells us what
led to the observable change in the first place. Thus, Marx's "science"
of history is nothing more than a secular deus ex machina that is
guilty of the same intellectual sins he falsely ascribed to
Christianity.
In contrast, Christianity has a real explanation of the diverse
tapestry of human history that does not arbitrarily stop short and
ignore the human heart as cause of all change. Christianity does not
cut off the inconvenient data of human agency, as Marx did in his quest
for an impersonal science of history. Blaise Pascal put it well when he
focused on the nobility of man combined with his depravity on the
historical canvas. Christianity says that man fell: man created in the
image of God rejected that image and debased himself. Hence, history is
a panorama of both nobility and baseness walking hand in hand. The
historical event of the Fall explains the combination of good and evil
that is man and his history, including the class conflict so emphasized
by Marx. The Fall also explains Marx himself: how, rejecting the
Creator, one man, drawing on the disparate and jumbled work of others,
created a system to which he ascribed all the traits and powers of
divine providence, except that in the Marxist system anything as silly
as love could play no decisive role.
What an amazing, unsatisfying, and destructive myth Marxism was and is!
Yet, the most secular of intellectuals swallowed it whole; and some
still do, to some degree or other, even after the undeniable failure of
its progeny in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. Even today, the
influence of Marxism lurks in the social liberalism that ignores the
origins of man and his historical drama.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: History Is Not On Marx's Side |
07 Jun 2006 05:17:03 PM |
|
|
In contradiction to what Sound of Trumpet wrote, Socialism and its cousin,
Communism, ARE winning.
Facts in evidence:
Socialism, by definition, abolishes private property, and replaces it with
collective ownership.
Socialism, by definition, is LEFT WING (opposed to traditional authority).
No "communist nation" admitted to having achieved communism. All admitted=
to
have only achieved socialism.
Though the USSR collapsed, the remaining republics did not renounce
socialism.
UK is socialist, as is most of the "free world".
The U.S.A. has been socialist since 1935.
"Fascist" Italy was socialist. (*Mussolini was chief editor of Italy's
national socialist magazine)
"NAZI" Germany was socialist. (NAZI is an acronym for the German National
Socialist Worker's Party)
Ergo, calling them "Fascist" (Right wing) is propaganda, when they were L=
EFT
WING.
All ten planks of the communist manifesto have been enacted or implemented
via "executive orders" in the USA.
Capitalism, as defined as the private ownership of the tools of production
and distribution, has been dead for generations.
CAPITALISM - Definition - "Economic system characterized by the following:
private property ownership exists; individuals and companies are allowed =
to
compete for their own economic gain; and free market forces determine the
prices of goods and services. Such a system is based on the premise of
separating the state and business activities. Capitalists believe that
markets are efficient and should thus function without interference, and
the role of the state is to regulate and protect."
"PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such
property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the
exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible
nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as
houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. T=
he
ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute
dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one
or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or wh=
en
the use is restricted. "
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106
No socialist "absolutely owns" his house, lands and chattels. A socialist
can only have qualified ownership.
Any government that can TAKE property (without just compensation) is
socialist at best, and communist at worst.
Without ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP by an individual, there is NO CAPITALISM.
Promulgating the myth that Marxism / Communism is dead plays into the ha=
nds
of the enemy of all mankind - the pirate collectivist.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
GETTING OUT ?
So is it a one-way ticket into this socialism or can
one get out of it? If it is hidden in the open for all
to see is there a way to "un-volunteer"?
Once you see the light that you have traded your natural
born status for something like this can it be undone?
All good questions.
For starters, you might write a polite letter to the Social Security
Administration, Baltimore, Maryland; your local Congressman; and your
two Senators, and ask them the following:
(A) If involuntary servitude is unconstitutional [1], how can
"everyone" who is born in America, be "U.S. citizens" with associated
duties and obligations?
(B) If American courts say "people are sovereign"[2] but "citizens are
subjects"[3], who are those sovereign Americans who are not U.S.
citizens nor State Citizens?
(C) If the United States is a foreign corporation with respect to a
State [4], am I a foreign person [5] with respect to the Federal
government corporation ?
(D) If there is no law compelling one to enroll in social security, and
no law punishing one who doesn't participate, is it 100% voluntary?
(E) If one wishes to stop participating in social security, can one
revoke his signature upon the application, and renounce all future
claims to entitlements?
(F) If one made an error claiming to be a U.S. citizen / resident, when
in fact, one was an American national, domiciled within the United
States of America, can one correct the record, and cancel the
application for enrollment into social security?
Thank you,
Undersigned.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Footnotes
[1] 13th amendment
[2] "At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they
are truly the sovereigns of the country."
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463
[3] "... the term `citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the
term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted
from the change in government."
- State v. Manuel, 122 N.C. 122; State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 122;
14 Corpus Juris Secundum Sec. 4
[4] FEDERAL CORPORATIONS - The United States government is a foreign
corporation with respect to a state. - - - Volume 19, Corpus Juris
Secundum XVIII. Foreign Corporations, Sections 883,884
[5] FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT OF 1976
=A7 1603. Definitions
For purposes of this chapter --
(a) A "foreign state", ...
(3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States as
defined in section 1332 (c) and (d) of this title, nor created under
the laws of any third country.
----------
----------
What do you think?
Is an American national, who is NOT a citizen of a State of the United
States, nor under any laws of a third country, a "foreign state"
entitled to sovereign immunity?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_Bj=F8rn_Perls=F8?=" |
|
| Title: Marxism debunked, in three short steps |
01 Jun 2006 04:31:57 PM |
|
|
Marx luckily was honest enough to leave us a way to falsify, and thus
disprove, his communist hypotheses: He claimed that it was a historic
inevitability that
1) The capitalist system would make the vast majority of the world
poorer, and a select few ("the capitalists") much richer
2) The capitalist system would eradicate the middle class and make the
proletariat baloon
3) Socialism and ultimately Communism would follow Capitalism.
Yet, as we have seen
1) The vast majority of the world have gotten richer, even those we call
"poor" and those that Marx and his followers would classify as the
"proletariat".
2) The middle class has balooned, instead of the proletariat, which has
actually shrunken.
3) Socialism and communism have collapsed gobally, with only a few
brutal holdouts left, such as Cuba and North Korea.
Thus; Marx is DEBUNKED!
Class dismissed.
--
regards, Peter Bjørn Perlsø
http://haxor.dk - http://liberterran.org - http://haxor.dk/fanaticism/ -
http://planetarybillofrights.org/ - http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: Marxism debunked, in three short steps |
02 Jun 2006 07:40:02 PM |
|
|
Peter Bj=F8rn Perls=F8 wrote:
Marx luckily was honest enough to leave us a way to falsify, and thus
disprove, his communist hypotheses: He claimed that it was a historic
inevitability that
1) The capitalist system would make the vast majority of the world
poorer, and a select few ("the capitalists") much richer
2) The capitalist system would eradicate the middle class and make the
proletariat baloon
3) Socialism and ultimately Communism would follow Capitalism.
Yet, as we have seen
1) The vast majority of the world have gotten richer, even those we call
"poor" and those that Marx and his followers would classify as the
"proletariat".
Marx made numerous errors, and most importantly he didn't realize how
the state could "save" capitalism rather than simply serve capitalists.
He also engaged in gross over-determination, misreading of history,
and numerous analytical errors. As a 19th century social scientist he
made insights, especially in terms of structural theory, but overall he
was wrong. BUT I'm not sure you're completely accurate in the claims
Poverty in the third world is immense; most of the world is poor, only
a small portion is wealthy. So I'm not sure we can say everyone's been
getting richer.
2) The middle class has balooned, instead of the proletariat, which has
actually shrunken.
Again, in the third world we've seen the rise of a "proletarian" class,
working in sweat shops to try to give cheap goods to people in the
first world. There are very few middle class folk in much of the third
world.
3) Socialism and communism have collapsed gobally, with only a few
brutal holdouts left, such as Cuba and North Korea.
Though, to be sure, Marx would have been appalled by the countries that
called themselves communist.
Thus; Marx is DEBUNKED!
No thoughtful scholar would defend Marx's theory as it was stated; like
all 19th century social scientists, he made huge errors. But some of
Marx's insights remain valid, especially concerning the importance of
structure, and the problem of exploitation. Neo-Marxian analysis
(usually with massive changes from Marx's original theory) does a
decent job at explaining the gap between the first and third worlds,
and argues that the class conflict has shifted to global.
=20
Class dismissed.
Well, that was a pretty simplistic look.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Marxism debunked, in three short steps |
03 Jun 2006 06:29:51 PM |
|
|
On 2 Jun 2006 17:40:02 -0700, "The Fool" <snerb@adelphia.net> wrote:
Poverty in the third world is immense; most of the world is poor, only
a small portion is wealthy. So I'm not sure we can say everyone's been
getting richer.
This is the Leninist rationale, Lenin's excuse for the failure of
Marxist predictions, and the fact that Marxism is most popular in
places that are the least capitalist. Supposedly the evil capitalists
are causing third world poverty. But in fact the third world also has
been getting richer - and those parts of the third world that are most
"exploited" have been getting richer the fastest.
Again, in the third world we've seen the rise of a "proletarian" class,
working in sweat shops to try to give cheap goods to people in the
first world. There are very few middle class folk in much of the third
world.
You are seriously out of contact with reality. Who is it that is
sending the price of Chinese houses into the stratosphere?
Though, to be sure, Marx would have been appalled by the countries that
called themselves communist.
Lenin departed from communism, because purity was requiring
excessively brutal terror. Pol Pot stuck firmly to communism as
envisaged by Marx. Pol Pot's Cambodia is the answer to those who say
Marxism failed because it was not tried hard enough.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: Marxism debunked, in three short steps |
04 Jun 2006 08:33:19 AM |
|
|
James A. Donald wrote:
On 2 Jun 2006 17:40:02 -0700, "The Fool" <snerb@adelphia.net> wrote:
Poverty in the third world is immense; most of the world is poor, only
a small portion is wealthy. So I'm not sure we can say everyone's been
getting richer.
This is the Leninist rationale, Lenin's excuse for the failure of
Marxist predictions, and the fact that Marxism is most popular in
places that are the least capitalist.
No, Lenin made worse errors than Marx, what I'm saying is not at all in
line with Lenin's *****.
Supposedly the evil capitalists
are causing third world poverty. But in fact the third world also has
been getting richer - and those parts of the third world that are most
"exploited" have been getting richer the fastest.
The elites are richer, but except for a very few cases, the masses
remain exploited and much poor. Also, remember that the appropriate
measure here is relative. The answer isn't some kind of marxist
revolution of course. The answer is to recognize that markets are not
some kind of magical answer, and that development must be ethical. I
think globalization, the rise of NGOs, and the potential the WTO has
for regulating interstate investment and business behavior will create
ethical market development in the next century. The markets have to be
tamed and brought under human control globally, just like they were in
the 19th and 20th centuries in the developed West. It will happen --
the masses will force it to happen.
Again, in the third world we've seen the rise of a "proletarian" class,
working in sweat shops to try to give cheap goods to people in the
first world. There are very few middle class folk in much of the third
world.
You are seriously out of contact with reality. Who is it that is
sending the price of Chinese houses into the stratosphere?
The nearly a billion very poor Chinese? China's model capitalism has
out performed many other third world countries, but they have a unique
position. China's following the model similar states (Taiwan, South
Korea, etc.) used, but their success still keeps them far behind the
west, and it's very unlikely this model can easily be translated
elsewhere.
Though, to be sure, Marx would have been appalled by the countries that
called themselves communist.
Lenin departed from communism, because purity was requiring
excessively brutal terror. Pol Pot stuck firmly to communism as
envisaged by Marx. Pol Pot's Cambodia is the answer to those who say
Marxism failed because it was not tried hard enough.
They turned Marxism into a religion, worshiping Marx and his original
19th century ideas. He had some good points, but as a 19th century
social scientist, he was way off on much of his analysis, and the
attempt to make the world fit his vision of reality simply didn't work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Marxism debunked, in three short steps |
04 Jun 2006 05:43:03 PM |
|
|
"The Fool"
No, Lenin made worse errors than Marx, what I'm saying
is not at all in line with Lenin's *****.
Lenin's "war communism" was in following Marx - he
backed off, and blamed it on war time emergency, because
it was too dreadful. Pol Pot adhered to true Marxism
without regard to human cost.
James A. Donald:
Supposedly the evil capitalists are causing third
world poverty. But in fact the third world also has
been getting richer - and those parts of the third
world that are most "exploited" have been getting
richer the fastest.
The Fool
The elites are richer, but except for a very few
cases, the masses remain exploited and much poor.
Much less poor. Observe that the only remaining major
famines are caused by socialism or war.
Also, remember that the appropriate measure here is
relative.
No, the appropriate measure is absolute. Capitalism is
making everyone richer, everywhere.
The answer isn't some kind of marxist
revolution of course. The answer is to recognize
that markets are not
some kind of magical answer,
But they are. Hong Kong and Singapore are richer than
Europe. If everyone practiced free markets, everyone
would be rich. Conversely, if everyone practiced
socialism, everyone would be as poor as the North
Koreans. It really is that simple. Hatred of free
markets is based on hatred of success. Observe how most
people who today oppose free markets are grasping for
rationales for poverty - for example we all should be
poor in order to conserve resources and reduce global
warming, or arguing that only relative wealth matters.
When you said that what is important is relative wealth,
you implicitly admitted what you explicitly deny - that
markets make people rich, intervention in markets makes
people poor.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: Marxism debunked, in three short steps |
04 Jun 2006 06:02:22 PM |
|
|
James A. Donald wrote:
"The Fool"
No, Lenin made worse errors than Marx, what I'm saying
is not at all in line with Lenin's *****.
Lenin's "war communism" was in following Marx - he
backed off, and blamed it on war time emergency, because
it was too dreadful. Pol Pot adhered to true Marxism
without regard to human cost.
Pol Pot didn't even pretend to adhere to true Marxism, he mixed Marxism
with anti-colonialism and a Khmer nationalism that looked to the past.
Marx was about industrialized states having revolution, Pol Pot wasn't
even close.
James A. Donald:
Supposedly the evil capitalists are causing third
world poverty. But in fact the third world also has
been getting richer - and those parts of the third
world that are most "exploited" have been getting
richer the fastest.
The Fool
The elites are richer, but except for a very few
cases, the masses remain exploited and much poor.
Much less poor. Observe that the only remaining major
famines are caused by socialism or war.
That's just silliness on your part. Though war has been caused by
superpower competition, and also big business buying off local elites.
The most evil part of first world economic activity in the thrid world
is the corruption they support. That assures a lack of development,
and government is really on the take for western money, not caring
about their people, especially in Africa and places that rely on
resources.
Also, remember that the appropriate measure here is
relative.
No, the appropriate measure is absolute. Capitalism is
making everyone richer, everywhere.
No, the appropriate measure in politics is ALWAYS relative. Always.
If the relative gap between the richest and poorest grows, it doesn't
matter what's happening in absolute terms. Yet the gap between the
rich and poor has been growing in relative terms.
The answer isn't some kind of marxist
revolution of course. The answer is to recognize
that markets are not
some kind of magical answer,
But they are. Hong Kong and Singapore are richer than
Europe. If everyone practiced free markets, everyone
would be rich.
That's silliness, though you'll never see your claim tested since the
tendency is towards more regulation. In fact, the growth of wealth in
the West has coincided with more regulation and government involvement.
Conversely, if everyone practiced
socialism, everyone would be as poor as the North
Koreans. It really is that simple.
You're ridiculous. Sweden is rich. Norway is rich. Your attempt to
see things in a weird dichotomy is simplistic non-sense at best.
Hatred of free
markets is based on hatred of success. Observe how most
people who today oppose free markets are grasping for
rationales for poverty - for example we all should be
poor in order to conserve resources and reduce global
warming, or arguing that only relative wealth matters.
When you said that what is important is relative wealth,
you implicitly admitted what you explicitly deny - that
markets make people rich, intervention in markets makes
people poor.
That's basic political science: politics is driven by relative
measures. If they grow, then there will be a backlash. There is
nothing you can do to prevent it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Marxism debunked, in three short steps |
04 Jun 2006 08:59:20 PM |
|
|
James A. Donald:
Lenin's "war communism" was in following Marx - he
backed off, and blamed it on war time emergency,
because it was too dreadful. Pol Pot adhered to
true Marxism without regard to human cost.
The Fool:
Pol Pot didn't even pretend to adhere to true Marxism
Pol Pot claimed to be the only true Marxist, and was
implementing the prescription that "left wing
communists" have long proclaimed to be the cure for all
the problems that ailed actually existent socialism
James A. Donald:
Supposedly the evil capitalists are causing
third world poverty. But in fact the third
world also has been getting richer - and those
parts of the third world that are most
"exploited" have been getting richer the
fastest.
The Fool
The elites are richer, but except for a very few
cases, the masses remain exploited and much poor.
James A. Donald
Much less poor. Observe that the only remaining
major famines are caused by socialism or war.
The fool
That's just silliness on your part.
Where today do we see major famines? Only where people
like you have power - for example today's North Korea
and Mengistu's Ethiopia.
No, the appropriate measure in politics is ALWAYS
relative. Always.
"politics" and "relative wealth" is another way of
saying that those who seek to destroy wealth out of envy
and spite, and make everyone poorer have a shot, a shot
at doing in America what they are doing in North Korea
and recently did in Ethiopia, and are in fact having
some success.
James A. Donald:
Hong Kong and Singapore are richer than Europe. If
everyone practiced free markets, everyone would be
rich.
The fool:
That's silliness, though you'll never see your claim
tested
But my claim has been tested in country after country.
Most recently in China and India they moved away from
regulation - poof, they started to develop, and there is
every indication that like numerous countries before
them, they will shortly become first world. Argentina
walked the same path in reverse, was first world, became
third world
And by your own words ("politics", and "relative
wealth") you admit my claim, admit what you deny.
James A. Donald:
Conversely, if everyone practiced
socialism, everyone would be as poor as the North
Koreans. It really is that simple.
The Fool:
You're ridiculous. Sweden is rich. Norway is rich.
Sweden relies on private ownership of the means of
production, and is stagnating because of excessive
redistribution. Norway would be in the same shape
except for oil. The gap between America and Europe gets
wider every year, even though the amount of
redistribution is only marginally different. If it was
a lot different, the gap would be correspondingly huge.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: Marxism debunked, in three short steps |
07 Jun 2006 08:04:48 PM |
|
|
James A. Donald wrote:
James A. Donald:
Lenin's "war communism" was in following Marx - he
backed off, and blamed it on war time emergency,
because it was too dreadful. Pol Pot adhered to
true Marxism without regard to human cost.
The Fool:
Pol Pot didn't even pretend to adhere to true Marxism
Pol Pot claimed to be the only true Marxist, and was
implementing the prescription that "left wing
communists" have long proclaimed to be the cure for all
the problems that ailed actually existent socialism
There was very much in his philosophy that was totally alien to
anything Marx wrote, and he himself claimed to want to re-create
traditional Khmer culture, hardly anything Marx would claim. So, at
base, calling him a true Marxist is a damnable lie.
James A. Donald:
Supposedly the evil capitalists are causing
third world poverty. But in fact the third
world also has been getting richer - and those
parts of the third world that are most
"exploited" have been getting richer the
fastest.
The Fool
The elites are richer, but except for a very few
cases, the masses remain exploited and much poor.
James A. Donald
Much less poor. Observe that the only remaining
major famines are caused by socialism or war.
The fool
That's just silliness on your part.
Where today do we see major famines? Only where people
like you have power - for example today's North Korea
and Mengistu's Ethiopia.
Who the hell are my people? Certainly no authoritarian or dictatorian
government represents my ideals, I don't trust big government any more
than I trust big business. Both rationalize their abuses of power and
tend to walk over average folk in so doing.
No, the appropriate measure in politics is ALWAYS
relative. Always.
"politics" and "relative wealth" is another way of
saying that those who seek to destroy wealth out of envy
and spite, and make everyone poorer have a shot, a shot
at doing in America what they are doing in North Korea
and recently did in Ethiopia, and are in fact having
some success.
*eyes rolling*
Your rhetoric gets silly when you get so extreme. The fact is politics
is about relative measures, and if relative measures get too out of
line there is a reaction. This can be seen through history. I'm not
arguing for equality, only noting a fact that relative wealth is what
matters. Even then the comparison is within ones' own context.
Americans are super rich compared to third world states, even poor
Americans, but if a politician were to claim that, he or she would have
no chance to win. People compare within their context.
James A. Donald:
Hong Kong and Singapore are richer than Europe. If
everyone practiced free markets, everyone would be
rich.
The fool:
That's silliness, though you'll never see your claim
tested
But my claim has been tested in country after country.
Most recently in China and India they moved away from
regulation - poof, they started to develop, and there is
every indication that like numerous countries before
them, they will shortly become first world.
Most regulation has emerged since 1945 in the industrialized world.
That's also been the biggest growth of prosperity.
There is a direct correlation between regulation and economic
prosperity up to a point. Pass that point, and things get worse.
Intense regulation gave China, India, Singapore, South Korea, and
Taiwan their start at building a successful economy. They only moved
away from that (for China and India in very small steps) after
achieving some real success. China is still heavily regulated, yet
provides dramatic growth rates.
So...the data isn't near as clear as you claim, and in fact suggests
that there is likely an optimal level of regulation of markets where,
if you go beyond it, you're in trouble, or if you don't achieve it,
you'll be prone to corruption and domestic unrest or revolt. You can
dismiss it as "envy," but it's a real phenomeon, and will affect
economic and political performance.
Argentina
walked the same path in reverse, was first world, became
third world
Argentina was never "first world."
And by your own words ("politics", and "relative
wealth") you admit my claim, admit what you deny.
Uh, no, not at all.
James A. Donald:
Conversely, if everyone practiced
socialism, everyone would be as poor as the North
Koreans. It really is that simple.
The Fool:
You're ridiculous. Sweden is rich. Norway is rich.
Sweden relies on private ownership of the means of
production, and is stagnating because of excessive
redistribution. Norway would be in the same shape
except for oil. The gap between America and Europe gets
wider every year, even though the amount of
redistribution is only marginally different. If it was
a lot different, the gap would be correspondingly huge.
There are various problems in various countries, but clearly Sweden is
rich (I agree they went too far with their social welfare system) as
are European states. Very rich.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Marxism debunked, in three short steps |
08 Jun 2006 02:49:42 PM |
|
|
James A. Donald wrote:
Pol Pot claimed to be the only true Marxist, and was
implementing the prescription that "left wing
communists" have long proclaimed to be the cure for
all the problems that ailed actually existent
socialism
The fool:
There was very much in his philosophy that was totally
alien to anything Marx wrote, and he himself claimed
to want to re-create traditional Khmer culture, hardly
anything Marx would claim.
You are making this up as you go along.
James A. Donald:
Supposedly the evil capitalists are causing
third world poverty. But in fact the third
world also has been getting richer - and
those parts of the third world that are most
"exploited" have been getting richer the
fastest.
The Fool
The elites are richer, but except for a very
few cases, the masses remain exploited and
much poor.
James A. Donald
Much less poor. Observe that the only remaining
major famines are caused by socialism or war.
The fool
That's just silliness on your part.
James A. Donald:
Where today do we see major famines? Only where
people like you have power - for example today's
North Korea and Mengistu's Ethiopia.
The fool
Who the hell are my people?
Anticapitalists.
James A. Donald:
Hong Kong and Singapore are richer than Europe.
If everyone practiced free markets, everyone
would be rich.
The fool:
That's silliness, though you'll never see your
claim tested
James A. Donald:
But my claim has been tested in country after
country. Most recently in China and India they moved
away from regulation - poof, they started to
develop, and there is every indication that like
numerous countries before them, they will shortly
become first world.
The fool:
Most regulation has emerged since 1945 in the
industrialized world. That's also been the biggest
growth of prosperity.
If that was true would be irrelevant. The
industrialized world became industrialized when it was
the most free part of the world. Further, it is not
true. The highest level of regulation was in the
communist countries, is now in the third world - see
DeSoto's examination of what it takes to operate a
business in Egypt.
See "economic freedom of the world" for the details of
the correlation. You get prosperity and growth where
there is economic freedom and peace.
There is a direct correlation between regulation and
economic prosperity up to a point. Pass that point,
and things get worse. Intense regulation gave China,
India, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan their start
at building a successful economy.
Looks to me that diminishing the regulation gave them
their start, the most recent examples being India and
China. They were not "starting" until they started to
dismantle state control.
James A. Donald:
Argentina walked the same path in reverse, was first
world, became third world
The fool:
Argentina was never "first world."
You live in a world of your own. Argentina was first
world before World War II. It implemented the economic
program characteristic of third world countries, and in
due course became third world. It is, and remains, the
classic illustration of de development, just as Hong
Kong is the classic illustration of the reverse.
In 1900, Argentina was one of the ten richest countries
in the world.
Until the First World War, thousands of Italians sailed
to Argentina every year to work as harvest laborers, and
the eastern province of Santa Fe had developed a rural
middle class comparable to that of the US or Canada.
Under Peron, Argentina decided on autarchy and import
substitution. By 1950, its first world status had
become dubious, and it has been plummeting further into
poverty ever since.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: Marxism debunked, in three short steps |
08 Jun 2006 03:02:23 PM |
|
|
James A. Donald wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:
Pol Pot claimed to be the only true Marxist, and was
implementing the prescription that "left wing
communists" have long proclaimed to be the cure for
all the problems that ailed actually existent
socialism
The fool:
There was very much in his philosophy that was totally
alien to anything Marx wrote, and he himself claimed
to want to re-create traditional Khmer culture, hardly
anything Marx would claim.
You are making this up as you go along.
No. When I teach international relations we start with the Cambodian
genocide (sort of a wake up call to the class), and spend some time
going over Pol Pot's ideology and background. We even had a local
survivor of the genocide come talk. She was a child when it happened
and her story is riveting. I've spent a lot of time reading about this
and preparing for that section of the course (I end the course with
Rwanda).
James A. Donald:
Supposedly the evil capitalists are causing
third world poverty. But in fact the third
world also has been getting richer - and
those parts of the third world that are most
"exploited" have been getting richer the
fastest.
The Fool
The elites are richer, but except for a very
few cases, the masses remain exploited and
much poor.
James A. Donald
Much less poor. Observe that the only remaining
major famines are caused by socialism or war.
The fool
That's just silliness on your part.
James A. Donald:
Where today do we see major famines? Only where
people like you have power - for example today's
North Korea and Mengistu's Ethiopia.
The fool
Who the hell are my people?
Anticapitalists.
What's "capitalism?" How much regulation and social welfare does one
need to support to be an "anti-capitalist"?
James A. Donald:
Hong Kong and Singapore are richer than Europe.
If everyone practiced free markets, everyone
would be rich.
The fool:
That's silliness, though you'll never see your
claim tested
James A. Donald:
But my claim has been tested in country after
country. Most recently in China and India they moved
away from regulation - poof, they started to
develop, and there is every indication that like
numerous countries before them, they will shortly
become first world.
The fool:
Most regulation has emerged since 1945 in the
industrialized world. That's also been the biggest
growth of prosperity.
If that was true would be irrelevant. The
industrialized world became industrialized when it was
the most free part of the world. Further, it is not
true. The highest level of regulation was in the
communist countries, is now in the third world - see
DeSoto's examination of what it takes to operate a
business in Egypt.
No, you miss the point: most regulation in the developed industrialized
world correlated with increased regulation. The communist world is
irrelevant to that point. But it does go along with my larger point:
it appears that regulation and economic growth correlate to a certain
point, beyond which regulation stagnates economic growth, with
totalitarianism the extreme. But there is a clear need for reglation,
and no simply one dimensional freedom to totalitarianism scale.
Rather, effective regulation and rule of law is necessary for markets
to function; some social welfare programs are necessary to avoid
domestic discontent and perhaps revolt.
See "economic freedom of the world" for the details of
the correlation. You get prosperity and growth where
there is economic freedom and peace.
Again, that is totally irrelevant to my point -- and I think you know
that, you're trying to squirm out addressing a point that demolishes
your argument. Namely, economic growth has correlated with a growth in
regulation. Prosperity in the West has correlated with a growth of
regulation. So a certain level of regulation -- again up to a point,
and a certain kind of regulation is necessary. That's why no one
seriously suggests ditching all regulation.
There is a direct correlation between regulation and
economic prosperity up to a point. Pass that point,
and things get worse. Intense regulation gave China,
India, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan their start
at building a successful economy.
Looks to me that diminishing the regulation gave them
their start, the most recent examples being India and
China. They were not "starting" until they started to
dismantle state control.
Indeed, that fits my argument: too much regulation and control will
stymie growth and lead to stagnation (though Nehru's argument for the
'Hindu rate of growth' was that some growth had to be sacrificed for
political stability). You seem to think it's a straight one
dimensional scale; that's silly.
James A. Donald:
Argentina walked the same path in reverse, was first
world, became third world
The fool:
Argentina was never "first world."
You live in a world of your own. Argentina was first
world before World War II. It implemented the economic
program characteristic of third world countries, and in
due course became third world.
You are making this up as you go along.
It is, and remains, the
classic illustration of de development, just as Hong
Kong is the classic illustration of the reverse.
In 1900, Argentina was one of the ten richest countries
in the world.
I'm not sure how you're measuring that, but they were focused on
basically agricultural products benefiting a landed oligarchic elite.
That's hardly first world style economics. And by the Great Depression
their economy crashed. Maybe after the radicals came to power in 1916
and started trying to open things up to a middle class they had a
chance to move towards development, but again, the Great Depression
came before that could happen. Before 1916 it was typical third world
oligarchic control.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Marxism debunked, in three short steps |
08 Jun 2006 05:17:31 PM |
|
|
--
"The Fool"
When I teach international relations we start with the
Cambodian genocide (sort of a wake up call to the
class), and spend some time going over Pol Pot's
ideology and background.
In other words, what you teach the students is that the
number one disaster of Marxism has nothing to do with
Marxism and cannot be held against it.
You are just nuts
I have read Marx, and I have read "brother number one".
Saloth Sar (Pol Pot) thought himself the most pure
Marxist of them all, and he was pretty close to the
truth.
Pol Pot's Cambodia was what Marx intended, though of
course neither Pol Pot nor Marx realized how bloody it
would be.
James A. Donald:
Where today do we see major famines? Only where
people like you have power - for example today's
North Korea and Mengistu's Ethiopia.
The fool
Who the hell are my people?
James A. Donald:
Anticapitalists.
The fool
What's "capitalism?" How much regulation and social
welfare does one need to support to be an
"anti-capitalist"?
If you find yourself explaining away Pol Pot, and
attributing India and China's growth to the institutions
that they abandoned, it would seem that you support
levels difficult to find outside of North Korea.
No, you miss the point: most regulation in the
developed industrialized world correlated with
increased regulation. The communist world is
irrelevant to that point.
Yet the most growth, and most advanced countries, are
those least regulated.
The whole world grew more regulated over time and grew
richer over time, but those that grew most regulated,
grew least, and in the worst cases, such as Argentina,
collapsed to third world status.
But it does go along with my larger point:
it appears that regulation and economic growth
correlate to a certain point, beyond which regulation
stagnates economic growth,
There is no correlation. The most free countries are
the most rich, excluding those where there is disturbing
levels of private violence or counter government
violence. The most regulated the most poor. There is
no indication of a U curve.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
dbkKHdaQZJj/ghuAKNSBYnfhuLw6hZLUi0ymu+Rn
4pbllSByYfMg9Do+JxcE/TGv+U2+7bQBpDPnJorlV
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: Marxism debunked, in three short steps |
08 Jun 2006 05:25:55 PM |
|
|
James A. Donald wrote:
--
"The Fool"
When I teach international relations we start with the
Cambodian genocide (sort of a wake up call to the
class), and spend some time going over Pol Pot's
ideology and background.
In other words, what you teach the students is that the
number one disaster of Marxism has nothing to do with
Marxism and cannot be held against it.
You are just nuts
I point out that all "isms" that claim they have "right" answer are
suspect, because they rationalize people to do whatever they think
necessary to get the "proper" system. I point out the danger of
governmental power (you should realize I distrust big government), and
the danger of utopianism. In looking at Pol Pot one has to realize
that those who would simply demonize "Marxism" are missing the point --
all "isms" have a potential for such abuse, especially those who are
deluded enough to follow one that claims to have the objective true
answer. Marx was wrong in most of his theory, but Pol Pot isn't really
following what Marx argued for. That is a fact.
I have read Marx, and I have read "brother number one".
Saloth Sar (Pol Pot) thought himself the most pure
Marxist of them all, and he was pretty close to the
truth.
You are simply wrong. You are utterly clueless about this issue.
Pol Pot's Cambodia was what Marx intended, though of
course neither Pol Pot nor Marx realized how bloody it
would be.
Now you are acting insane. Marx did not want a peasant revolt, a
return to pre-colonial agrarian paradise; he in fact didn't think
communism possible in such a place. You are either purely ignorant or
a bald faced liar.
James A. Donald:
Where today do we see major famines? Only where
people like you have power - for example today's
North Korea and Mengistu's Ethiopia.
The fool
Who the hell are my people?
James A. Donald:
Anticapitalists.
The fool
What's "capitalism?" How much regulation and social
welfare does one need to support to be an
"anti-capitalist"?
If you find yourself explaining away Pol Pot, and
attributing India and China's growth to the institutions
that they abandoned, it would seem that you support
levels difficult to find outside of North Korea.
In other words, you evade the question with some smoke. That's
cowardly.
No, you miss the point: most regulation in the
developed industrialized world correlated with
increased regulation. The communist world is
irrelevant to that point.
Yet the most growth, and most advanced countries, are
those least regulated.
No, the least regulated fall into anarchy and warlords fighting for
power.
The whole world grew more regulated over time and grew
richer over time, but those that grew most regulated,
grew least, and in the worst cases, such as Argentina,
collapsed to third world status.
You are still evading the issue -- because it totally destroys your
argument and perhaps your "faith" -- namely that massive growth
accompanied greater regulation.
Again: high growth correlated with increased regulation -- a huge
increase, in fact.
You can't dance around that. Clearly, too much regulation is bad, but
some has been proven necessary for true prosperity.
But it does go along with my larger point:
it appears that regulation and economic growth
correlate to a certain point, beyond which regulation
stagnates economic growth,
There is no correlation. The most free countries are
the most rich, excluding those where there is disturbing
levels of private violence or counter government
violence. The most regulated the most poor. There is
no indication of a U curve.
Again, you totally evade the issue. Growth increased as regulation
increased. The idea of one scale from free to regulated with growth
increasing as you move to the free side is utterly preposterous and
totally debunked by historical example.
You simply don't understand basic history and economics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Marxism debunked, in three short steps |
08 Jun 2006 09:15:10 PM |
|
|
James A. Do | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
