15 Feb 2024 7:07 am
(PART III OF III)
Cannonpointer: " Do you want to keep those patriarchal hierarchies around to work their mischief?"
I'm not sure what that means.
Cannonpointer: "What I react to is the religious and mystical nature of the thing [Marxism]. The more I listen to you, the more it appears based on a priesthood of understanding. And for a guy who spits at the term hierarchy, you should spot the inevitability of hierarchy in a complex dogma that will be worked out on the fly."
As I've stated before, one way or another, by definition, Marxism is no religion. Religions or faiths are connected to so-called transcendental Beings or Universe. Atheism is the antithesis of religion/faith, while Marxism has nothing to do with religion or faith. Marxism, or scientific socialism, concerns itself only with the inner dynamics of human society. Marxist's concern for the well-being of humankind constitutes a type of deistic devotion, but it isn't even remotely religious. Marxism is an ideology, not a religion. Moreover, and as I have demonstrated repeatedly, Marxism isn't dogmatic. It's a guide to revolutionary action. As I wrote concerning the Socialist Labor Party's concept of Socialist Industrial Unionism or industrial government, "It doesn't convey, 'This way, boys, we defeat the capitalists,' for it states, 'NOT A BLUEPRINT.' It's a rough idea of how a futuristic socialist society could operate industrially. The assertion that it's 'the way to beat capitalism' is frivolous. And those who inhabit such a society may work out the rest of the diagram."If Marxism were dogmatic, it would be presented as a blueprint or diagram not to be diverted from. It's a fact reinforced by the reality that Marx and Engels never described a futuristic socialist society beyond the foundational need for the social ownership of its means of production. If Marx and Engels had been dogmatists, they would have, for example, railed against the leaders of the Paris Commune who proceeded with their plans despite Marx and Engels' warnings against it. And if they were dogmatic, they wouldn't have altered their positions vis-a-vis particular issues over the decades as they did. And so, once again, the conditioned assertion that Marxism is "dogmatic" has arrived stillborn.
Cannonpointer: "If you are representative, Marxists deny God AND deny evolution. The very IDEA that evolution would magically produce virtually identical IQs in a species that it is KNOWN to turn into giants or midgets based upon environmental advantage can only be attributed to willful ignorance. The notion would be silly even if we didn't have copious contrary evidence. It stands to reason that intelligence is as much an inherited trait as is shortness or tallness. Or does Marxism deny that THOSE traits are heritable?"
Yes, of course, intelligence is heritable. I've not stated nor suggested otherwise.
I wrote: "Very few communists deny the feasibility of a borderless world. After all, one needn't be a communist to understand that nation-states have only existed for approximately five hundred years of humankind's 250,000 years and developed only because of mercantilism and later capitalism. Therefore, wholly contrived borders can be eliminated. So, there's no meaningful debate among communists concerning the feasibility of a borderless world."
Cannonpointer's: "Let's pretend that claptrap is true."
Does that imply that Cannonpointer believes that nation-states have been around as long as humans have been?
(END OF PART III)
Be Well
Good day
"Harvey Mushman"