7 Feb 2024 6:48 am
(Part II OF III)
LowIQTrash: "(It's a well-kept secret that radical left circles just as often direct their criticism toward each other as they do liberal ideologues)While the same can be said for any political ideology, Marxists, including Harvey Mushman, spend too much time trying to 'interpret the [religious, pseudoscientific Marxist] scripture' rather than simply figuring out whether or not an idea is legitimate/true."
One of the ways I've explained throughout this thread that Marxism isn't a dogma was to state that Marxism is a guide to action rather than an instruction manual or blueprint. IOW, the revolutionary tactics that worked in one revolution may or may not be successful in subsequent revolutions. Lenin, Mao, and Fanon proved that point in winning their respective revolutions by "stretching" Marxism. As such, they're recognized for updating Marxism for capitalism's "New Imperialism" (roughly 1875 to 1920). As Dr. Marx demonstrated by frequently updating his work, his commitment to the scientific method is unquestionable. In the preface to Capital, Vol. 1, Marx partly wrote, “I welcome all scientific criticism," for it’s a fundamental premise of science that one might be wrong. And Marx was keenly aware of that.
Moreover, Karl Marx didn't agree with every line of the Communist Manifesto upon its initial publication. He disagreed with Engels that abolishing all inherited property was one of the ten measures necessary to transition to communism. That wasn't because Marx was a supporter of inherited property. He saw it as an inessential aspect of the issue, the effect rather than the cause of social domination.Nearly twenty years later, during his polemic against Bakunin at the First International, Marx argued: "Like all other civil legislation, the laws of inheritance are not the cause but the effect, the juridical consequence of the existing economic organization of society, based upon private property in the means of production; that is, in land, raw material, machinery, etc. In the same way, the right of inheritance in the slave is not the cause of slavery, but on the contrary, slavery is the cause of inheritance in slaves."
Finally, months before the beginning of the Paris Commune, Marx warned against the action. But, once it began, he devoted enormous effort to marshaling international support for the Commune. Had Marx been a dogmatist, he would've refused to support the Commune while citing the need to not veer from his path, which he never outlined in the first place. Ergo, LowIQTrash's conditioned belief that Marxism is a religious-like pseudoscience submerged in dogma is just that - a conditioned belief.
LowIQTrash: "...the debate is on whether or not a 'one world, borderless' communist system is feasible. I say it isn't because humans are hard-wired to accept "certain races" (their own) more than others, and attempting to integrate people of various races without any concern for this pesky little fact will inevitably lead to catastrophe in the real world.Since Marxism deals with abstract political philosophy and doesn't incorporate biological determinism, the logical defense for Marxists is to deny that humans are racist/ethnocentric (which is a grave mistake and is easily disproven). On the other hand, National Socialism doesn't suffer this flaw because its primary foundation is based on 'race' and biology." (Continued in PART III)
(Continued in PART III)
http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf
(END OF PART II)