Liberal Forum

Taipan, stop it.

HarveyMushman » 01 Feb 2024, 8:03 am » wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2024, 8:03 am

(PART I OF IV) 

As readers have seen, I've not dismissed National "Socialism." And, of course, Nazi Germany didn't become an economic powerhouse through the plunder of foreign countries. They fought for the control of natural resources in the USSR and Africa, but they failed to gain control, let alone begin to extract those resources.  The Nazis turned Germany into an economic powerhouse primarily through the hyper-exploitation of German workers. They slashed wages, pensions, and unemployment compensation. They privatized state-owned industries. They also imposed import tariffs and created public works projects, such as building the Autobahn, while paying workers much less than they were paid before 1933. 

(END OF PART I) 

http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf

Your claims that German workers were unhappy flies in the face of virtually every history I have seen. Over and over, westerners have been told that the German people did NOT feel exploited and that they adored Hitler. Moreover, the conditions which brought Hitler to power were so horrid that making them worse would require a great deal of effort and imagination - brute squads in every hamlet, perhaps - with special instructions to attack women and children. How does one make things WORSE for workers than did the hyper-inflation and extreme unemployment that Hitler's policies ended? 6 millions were unemployed when Hitler came to power. By 1935, the nation was at full employment. As to wages, I trust Galbraith's more studious account over yours: https://www.ihr.org/other/economyhitler2011.html

Your claims remind me of the people who say Trump is not popular. My immediate thought is, tell the throngs who come to his rallies. Tell the tens of millions who vote for him. Tell the caucus-goers who put him first, EVEN WHEN HE DOESN'T SHOW UP.

I believe the crowds of screaming people raising their hands in salute and jostling for a glimpse of the man rather put the lie to your claim that Hitler had his whip to the backs of the german workers. I smell a facile revisionism at work, sir. 

And speaking of links, the one you provided is fitting nicely into a pattern. The pattern seems to be something along the lines of, "THIS WAY, BOYS! WE DEFEAT THE CAPITALISTS, AND A WORKERS' PARADISE IS ASSURED US!

as soon as we work out the rest of the diagram..."
 
 

HarveyMushman » 01 Feb 2024, 8:06 am » wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2024, 8:06 am

 "As I previously stated, these capitalist "reforms" were likened to defensive fortifications erected by an army in response to an advancing enemy army. Although the US government/capitalist state would have preferred not to give an inch, it was forced to in light of that battle for hearts and minds and because of the strong demand for socialism by American workers at the time. 

Sounds like socialist reforms UNDERTAKEN BY CAPITALISTS - in response to a demand for socialism. Not capitalism.

HarveyMushman » 01 Feb 2024, 8:06 am » wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2024, 8:06 am

"Toward a more complete understanding of that phenomenon, it's vital to understand the derivation of such "reforms." Germany, under Otto Von Bismark during the 1880s, was the first capitalist state to foster social reforms. In the 1870s, the German state passed several anti-socialist laws to thwart the then-burgeoning demand for socialism within Germany's working class. But those laws failed their intent. So, during the 1880s, the German capitalist state enacted social "reforms," e.g., unemployment insurance and old age pensions, intended to appease German workers, thereby lessening the demand for socialism. It worked like a proverbial charm. Within a few years, once-vibrant socialist parties were dissolved or rendered irrelevant." 

In brief, and to restate again, FDR's methods had nothing to do with socialism. They were capitalist reforms intended to thwart the then-popular demand for establishing a socialist society in the US, and they worked like a proverbial charm. Like Otto Von Bismark's social reforms, they served as defensive fortifications against socialism. Toward the end of his life, FDR stated that his greatest accomplishment was "saving capitalism," and he was correct.

Okay, this is becoming ab argument of trifling non-distinction. It's an argument about labels. We both agree that capitalism was forced to yield and that it was saved by doing so. We both agree the programs in question are socialist in nature - not capitalist in nature. 

Let's call the socialist structures capitalism was FORCED to erect capitalist. The question then presents, who needs socialist revolution? Let's just keep reforming capitalism until it looks exactly LIKE socialism.
 

HarveyMushman » 01 Feb 2024, 8:09 am » wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2024, 8:09 am

Socialism is primarily an economic system — the social production of goods and services. But, because the socialist movement was created to liberate the working class from subordination to a dominating, exploiting class, it's also about the general issue of the well-being of human beings in society. Therefore, it is a socioeconomic system.

The same engine is never going to liberate the meskins from patróns, the jappos from a system of conformity to which they are addicted, and the Innuit from nobody. The very idea that you have a system - well, not QUITE a system, or a blueprint - more of an outline that we will perfect ON THE FLY (what could go wrong), and this system can ONLY take on the world - won't work for individual national states - Is just kind of silly.

Marx listed the conditions necessary for a NATION STATE to become socialist - I do NOT remember anything about multiculturalism being a necessity - or racial harmony. Nation states were FAR, FAR more homogeneous - and I challenge you to show me where he ever claimed that fact presented a problem for socialism. Socialism will almost certainly work in a racially homogeneous nation state better than in a state with multiple competing cultures.

And you still have not explained how a RELIGION can be affected by genetic disorders. Is this Jewish source just lying about itself?

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/articl ... -diseases/

As many as 1 in 3 Ashkenazi Jews are estimated to be carriers for one of about 19 genetic diseases.

 

HarveyMushman » 01 Feb 2024, 8:09 am » wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2024, 8:09 am

...Ergo, socialists strive toward a worldwide and thus borderless socialist project while simultaneously building socialism country by country. And there's nothing to suggest that anyone would have to adopt a collective identity with anyone else. Indeed, given the newfound ability to develop oneself as a human rather than continue to function as a mere appendage to a privately held means of production, people would finally be free to identify as they wish. And, with the economic motivations behind racism being removed, an ever-increasing number of people would no longer see themselves as being superior to people of different pigmentation.

Ah. So racism is about economic motivations. Interesting.

Now, does this mean that black fella was racist for stealing my ****, or that I'm racist for distrusting black fellas after that?

HarveyMushman » 01 Feb 2024, 8:09 am » wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2024, 8:09 am

When I speak of hierarchies, it's always within the context of fully industrialized capitalist societies - the best-suited societies to be transformed into socialist societies. I'm thinking in terms of societies that have the potential to eliminate material suffering and ones in which their citizenry is interdependent upon one another. I'm not thinking of a desert island on which a few people compete for sex partners. The dynamics of those two hypotheticals are separate and distinct from one another. One concerns the emancipating possibilities of a fully formed socialist society, while the other relates to some form of neo-feudalism.

How might the Olympics work in a non-hierarchical socialist society? And will the workers vote on how to fix the bridge, or will they be exceptionally attentive to the engineer on the project (assuming that a society which eschews hierarchies is even CAPABLE of producing engineers)?
 
 

HarveyMushman » 01 Feb 2024, 8:13 am » wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2024, 8:13 am

...and assuming that everyone wouldn't already be having sex with everyone else,

Yeah - not likely. Hierarchies naturally arise, and those at the top get the sex.

HarveyMushman » 01 Feb 2024, 8:13 am » wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2024, 8:13 am

...it would be imperative for those few people to band together to some degree to increase their chances of surviving. Had "Chuck Noland" been able to animate "Wilson," then common sense would dictate that they would work together to shield themselves from the elements, collect food and water, and build a raft. That demonstrates that, save for competition for its own sake, cooperation is superior to competition.

That's akin to saying that flour is "superior" to yeast. Both are necessary to make the bread.

Human kind makes its living through cooperation. A man alone is lost - whatever contrary claptrap the libertardians wish to spew. But humankind is FORMED through competition. Neither is bad and both are bad. Neither is good and both are good, It all depends on the circumstances.

What is NOT dependent on circumstances is the ubiquity and the necessity of hierarchy. If you cannot distinguish what thing is more needful than the other, you are lost. Everything is rank ordered, everything is hierarchical. The very decision which sentence is first in a paragraph relies on and reflects hierarchy. You are employing hierarchy when you write against hierarchies. 

HarveyMushman » 01 Feb 2024, 8:13 am » wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2024, 8:13 am

Cannonpointer: "I'm every bit as anti-capitalist as you are. I have authored multiple threads distinguishing free enterprise from capitalism and distinguishing capitalism as statist and parasitic." 

That's interesting. Please direct me to one or two of those threads. Thank you.

An early attempt to distinguish capitalism from free enterprise: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5388

Ribbing some retardo-cons, whose definitions of socialism are broad enough to cover anyone and everyone: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7352

HarveyMushman » 01 Feb 2024, 8:13 am » wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2024, 8:13 am

I've not proffered fairytales, only down-to-earth and practical solutions to the world's working-class' socio-economic predicament.

I beg to differ. You have insisted Jews are not an ethnicity but only a religion; society would be well served to get rid of hierarchies; and nationalism - a political model - is antithetical to socialism - an economic model.

HarveyMushman » 01 Feb 2024, 8:13 am » wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2024, 8:13 am

Cannonpointer: "Skans is a weak jawed halfaqueer who roots for the transgenderization of humanity." How charming.

Thank you.

HarveyMushman » 01 Feb 2024, 8:13 am » wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2024, 8:13 am

I didn't discuss "Skans." I only mentioned his use of the meme above to manifest a point. The point, which Cannonpointer didn't address,

I saw no reason to defend or attack skans' pedestrian meme. It flies under the head of any intelligent audience. CLEARLY you already understood it was ****. Should I waste space preaching to the choir?
 
 

Marxism is based on Hegelian dialectics, which is more of a pseudo-science than anything else.

It is a framework (heuristic) applied to political economy that may or may not be true depending on one's interpretation of Marxist dogma.

For example, the great number of sects in Marxism (left communism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, "libertarian" Marxism, MLM, even the modern CPC's implementation of Dengism, de Leonism) cannot agree whether the Soviet Union that arose after the Russian Revolution and Civil War adhered to or betrayed Marxism.

(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 just about any political ideology (including the obstinate, quarter-wit filled cesspool of "libertarianism"), Marxists including...I daresay...Mr. Harvey Mushman...spend too much time trying to "interpret the [religious, pseudo-scientific Marxist] scripture" rather than simply figuring out whether or not an idea is legitimate/true.

For example, the debate is on whether or not a "one world, borderless" communist system is even 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 does not incorporate biological determinism, the logical defense for Marxists is to simply deny that humans are racist/ethnocentric (which is a grave mistake and is easily disproven). On the other hand, National Socialism does not suffer this flaw because its primary foundation is based on "race" and biology. 
 
 

HarveyMushman » 05 Jan 2024, 8:48 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 8:48 am

Reactionaries and liberals often assert that socialist societies were failures. However, throughout their respective socialist experiments, workers' lives in the U.S.S.R., the GDR, and other former socialist societies improved immensely. Average life expectancy in the Soviet Union, for example, went from 32 years in 1917 to 68 years by 1975. 

Poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, homelessness, and other social ills were virtually and easily eliminated in socialist societies. I say "easily" because those pathologies are all but effortlessly eliminated when doing so becomes a governmental priority, unlike in the U.S. 

Interestingly, the lives of American workers also improved because of the Bolshevik Revolution. The progressive achievements won by Soviet workers pressured the U.S. capitalist state to concede reforms for American workers. Reforms including homeownership, desegregation, investments in education, public healthcare, etc. 

Concerning homeownership, in a 1917 Washington Post op-ed, New York financier and banker Simon Straus wrote, "Widespread and successful homeowning activities in the U.S. would do more to alleviate social unrest and build a bulwark against the encroachments of Bolshevism than any other development." 

The Labor Department then initiated its Own Your Own Home program, later led by Herbert Hoover, which provided liquidity for banks toward the expansion of home loans. In 1933, the New Deal's "Home Owners' Loan Corporation was launched, which granted home loans to workers, making homeownership far more accessible and committing workers psychologically to capitalism. 

In response to Sputnik and the education gap between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., the U.S. enacted 1958's National Defense Education Act, which made low-interest student loans, augmenting higher education. While noting the program's success, the late U.S. Senator Stewart McClure said, "I think if there was one thing I did during my work on the hill, it was to focus attention on the opportunity that Sputnik gave all of us who had been struggling for decades to establish a federal program of monetary aid to public education." 

But with the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. and, therefore, the elimination of a countervailing system, the U.S. capitalist state began to claw back New Deal programs and other social reforms. Capitalism is, again, free to be as mean as it needs to be. 

(Note: Respondents who employ vulgarity and typically desperate ad hominem attacks will be ignored. Thank you.)

HA!!  YEA... RIGHT...

MY *** !!

Cannonpointer » 30 Jan 2024, 6:46 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024, 6:46 pm

 

(PART II OF V) 

In reaction to my post of 30 Jan 2024, 5:20 am (this thread's post #269), Cannonpointer wrote: "Then, your (and Marx's) program is no program. It's a wish list. It's a set of contingencies wistfully desired and unlikely ever to be met, in which several extremely difficult-to-achieve ends - each one eye-rollingly unlikely as a stand-alone - would all have to align in a proper orbit around an as-yet-unnamed star to produce a paradise dreamt up in a state of intellectual ecstasy." 

Again, there's no program beyond the imperative need for a socially owned and democratically administered means of production in its totality. Again, Marxism isn't a dogma. It's a guide to revolutionary action. And nothing in this thread's 269th post indicates anything constituting a wish list. Marx never delineated what a socialist society would look like beyond a socially owned and democratically commanded means of production, and there's no changing that. 

Cannonpointer: "I would add that the fundamental nature of man would also have to be remade in the image of a saint for Marxism's ends to be met." 

I'm not going to rehash humankind's fundamental nature. Cannonpointer believes it to be grounded in hierarchies, racism, xenophobia, and other social pathologies, and that's where I'll leave the matter. 

Cannonpointer: "I believe the prayers of dervishes are as substantial as the dogmas of Marxists - and history certainly seems to align with my view. You may argue that the capitalists are writing history - but that argument would be an admission of the failure of Marxist dreamers. If their dogmas had borne fruit in the century and a half since the Marxists' inception, they would be writing the histories." 

Cannonpointer may and will continue to insist that Marxism is dogmatic, as capitalist culture has conditioned him to do, but it isn't so. 

Cannonpointer: "I put Marxism alongside Peak Oil and Climate Pseudo-science in its relevance to anything relevant. You may accuse me of being too simple-minded to understand what I dismiss. But if it requires a bigger brain than mine to understand it, it will require bigger brains than mine to implement it and to guard it against the base and perverse nature of man, which gave us capitalism in the first place. And THAT, sir, bespeaks hierarchies. Hierarchies within hierarchies. Hierarchies are like turtles all the way down." 

What gave us capitalism was the efforts of revolutionaries. The same holds for socialism, where it's been implemented and maintained by people of all levels of intelligence. It's been partially implemented in fully industrialized capitalist societies like the US in that the production side of capitalism has already been socialized. Think about it. Workers of all levels of intelligence already collectively run all industries. But we don't own and control any industries, and therein lies the problem. The intelligence of individual workers is immaterial. 

Cannonpointer: "Your claims that German workers were unhappy flies in the face of virtually every history I have seen. Over and over, westerners have been told that the German people did NOT feel exploited and that they adored Hitler." 

I haven't claimed that German workers were unhappy during the Nazis' rule. In response to, I believe, LowIQTrash, I wrote something to the effect that a majority of Germany's workers were happy with Hitler, at least until they began to be bombed to death. 

http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf  

(END OF PART II)
 

Harvey Mushman » 05 Feb 2024, 8:11 am » wrote: ↑

05 Feb 2024, 8:11 am

(PART II OF V) 

In reaction to my post of 30 Jan 2024, 5:20 am (this thread's post #269), Cannonpointer wrote: "Then, your (and Marx's) program is no program. It's a wish list. It's a set of contingencies wistfully desired and unlikely ever to be met, in which several extremely difficult-to-achieve ends - each one eye-rollingly unlikely as a stand-alone - would all have to align in a proper orbit around an as-yet-unnamed star to produce a paradise dreamt up in a state of intellectual ecstasy." 

Again, there's no program beyond the imperative need for a socially owned and democratically administered means of production in its totality. Again, Marxism isn't a dogma. It's a guide to revolutionary action. And nothing in this thread's 269th post indicates anything constituting a wish list. Marx never delineated what a socialist society would look like beyond a socially owned and democratically commanded means of production, and there's no changing that. 

Cannonpointer: "I would add that the fundamental nature of man would also have to be remade in the image of a saint for Marxism's ends to be met." 

I'm not going to rehash humankind's fundamental nature. Cannonpointer believes it to be grounded in hierarchies, racism, xenophobia, and other social pathologies, and that's where I'll leave the matter. 

Cannonpointer: "I believe the prayers of dervishes are as substantial as the dogmas of Marxists - and history certainly seems to align with my view. You may argue that the capitalists are writing history - but that argument would be an admission of the failure of Marxist dreamers. If their dogmas had borne fruit in the century and a half since the Marxists' inception, they would be writing the histories." 

Cannonpointer may and will continue to insist that Marxism is dogmatic, as capitalist culture has conditioned him to do, but it isn't so. 

Cannonpointer: "I put Marxism alongside Peak Oil and Climate Pseudo-science in its relevance to anything relevant. You may accuse me of being too simple-minded to understand what I dismiss. But if it requires a bigger brain than mine to understand it, it will require bigger brains than mine to implement it and to guard it against the base and perverse nature of man, which gave us capitalism in the first place. And THAT, sir, bespeaks hierarchies. Hierarchies within hierarchies. Hierarchies are like turtles all the way down." 

What gave us capitalism was the efforts of revolutionaries. The same holds for socialism, where it's been implemented and maintained by people of all levels of intelligence. It's been partially implemented in fully industrialized capitalist societies like the US in that the production side of capitalism has already been socialized. Think about it. Workers of all levels of intelligence already collectively run all industries. But we don't own and control any industries, and therein lies the problem. The intelligence of individual workers is immaterial. 

Cannonpointer: "Your claims that German workers were unhappy flies in the face of virtually every history I have seen. Over and over, westerners have been told that the German people did NOT feel exploited and that they adored Hitler." 

I haven't claimed that German workers were unhappy during the Nazis' rule. In response to, I believe, LowIQTrash, I wrote something to the effect that a majority of Germany's workers were happy with Hitler, at least until they began to be bombed to death. 

http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf  

(END OF PART II)
 

Taipan your reality imploded under that name already, your new screen name hasn't changed any reality left ignoring how evolving doesn't exceed adapting as genetically displaced here now.

Cannonpointer » 30 Jan 2024, 6:46 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024, 6:46 pm

 

(PART III OF V) 

Cannonpointer: "And speaking of links, the one you provided fits nicely into a pattern ( http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf  . The pattern is something like, 'THIS WAY, BOYS! WE DEFEAT THE CAPITALISTS, AND A WORKERS' PARADISE IS ASSURED US as soon as we work out the rest of the diagram.'" 

The chart depicts the Socialist Labor Party's concept of Socialist Industrial Unionism or industrial government. It does not 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. Too, I'm not a member of the SLP, nor a supporter of the syndicalism it pushes. However, I do like the party's Industrial Unionism concept. 

I wrote: "As I previously stated, these capitalist 'reforms' were likened to defensive fortifications erected by an army in response to an advancing enemy army. Although the US government/capitalist state would have preferred not to give an inch, it was forced to in light of that battle for hearts and minds and because of the strong demand for socialism by American workers at the time."

Cannonpointer: "Sounds like socialist reforms UNDERTAKEN BY CAPITALISTS - in response to a demand for socialism, not capitalism." 

Yes, that's it; during the 1930s, some of the American working class wanted to create a socialist society, so the US government/capitalist state acquiesced to that demand. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? Moreover, a socialist society isn't achieved through a capitalist state granting reforms, i.e., unemployment insurance. It's brought about by dissolving the capitalist state and the capitalist system it serves and establishing the social ownership and democratic administration of the means of industrial production. 

Cannonpointer: "We both agree that capitalism was forced to yield and was saved by doing so. We both agree the programs in question are socialist, not capitalist." 

It's telling that Cannonpointer finds the need to speak for me. No, we don't agree the programs in question are socialist, for programs created by a capitalist state have nothing to do with socialism. But yes, capitalism was forced to yield vis-a-vis New Deal reforms, which likely saved capitalism. 

Cannonpointer: "Let's call the socialist structures capitalism was FORCED to erect capitalist. The question then presents, who needs socialist revolution? Let's keep reforming capitalism until it looks exactly LIKE socialism." 

Unless the reforms instituted by the capitalist state strip capitalists of their means of production, their factories, mines, mills, arable lands, etc., society wouldn't look like a socialist society. And that won't happen for as long as the capitalist state exists. 

Cannonpointer: "Marx listed the conditions necessary for a NATION-STATE to become socialist - I do NOT remember anything about multiculturalism being a necessity - or racial harmony. Nation states were FAR, FAR more homogeneous - and I challenge you to show me where he ever claimed that fact presented a problem for socialism. Socialism will almost certainly work in a racially homogeneous nation-state better than in a state with multiple competing cultures." (Continued in PART IV)  

http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf  

(END OF PART III)
 

Cannonpointer » 30 Jan 2024, 7:09 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024, 7:09 pm

 

 (PART IV OF V) 

Under capitalism, racism is necessary for the reproduction and amplification of capitalism since it protects divisions within the working class while insulating the capitalist class and lending ideological justification for inequality. Under socialism, with the capitalist class and inequality removed from society, the need for racism is also removed. That's why Paul Robeson said, "In Russia, I felt for the first time like a full human being. No color prejudice like in Mississippi, no color prejudice like in Washington. It was the first time I felt like a human being." And that's one of the reasons that virtually no Americans know who Paul Robeson was. Indeed, one of the most remarkable aspects of the Soviet Union was its ethnic diversity. Some ninety-three ethnic groups were indigenous to the USSR. During the 1920s and 1930s, the Soviet Union actively recruited black industrial and agricultural specialists from the US to work in the USSR. And never was there racial or ethnic strife in the Soviet Union because there was no material basis for it to take hold. 

So, no, Marx never claimed that multiculturalism and racial harmony were necessary in a socialist society because he knew he didn't have to make such a claim. There isn't anything in a socialist society that incubates racism. And yes, of course, socialism could work and did work in a racially homogenous nation-state. We know this because it worked in Mongolia for nearly seventy years. (Yes, Mongolia was the Mongolian People's Republic from 1924 until 1990, when the lives of Mongolians improved immensely.) But it's erroneous to state that "Socialism will almost certainly work in a racially homogeneous nation-state better than in a state with multiple competing cultures." When human beings have their needs met and are treated as human beings, their already-meaningless pigmentation becomes even more meaningless. As Paul Robeson's comment demonstrates, it just doesn't matter. 

On the other hand, if and when the needs of human beings aren't met, then typically meaningless pigmentation can and often does become meaningful, at least in an artificial fashion. I have a feeling that Cannonpointer resides somewhere in the southeastern United States, where many people, including many white people, lead lives of impoverishment and precarity. In such a situation, people tend to be at one another's throats like starving rats in a sociology project while blaming each other for their plights. And, of course, racism, particularly anti-black racism, becomes ascendant. 

Cannonpointer: "You still haven't explained how a RELIGION can be affected by genetic disorders. Is this Jewish source just lying about itself?" 

Firstly, this is the first time I've been asked to explain that. Secondly, the members of a religion cannot be exclusively afflicted by any ailment. The notion that Jewishness constitutes "a race of people" because "Only Jews get certain diseases" falls on its face when one understands that there are no disorders that inflict Jews and Jews alone. Contrary to widespread conditioned belief, afflictions such as cystic fibrosis, bloom syndrome, dihydrolipoamide dehydrogenase deficiency, Tay-Sachs, etc., also afflict non-Jews. Beyond that, there aren't any human races, for no group of human beings has ever been cloistered long enough from other human populations to preclude "crossbreeding." The history of Jews supports this argument because Jews have always had babies with non-Jews. (Continued in PART V.) 

http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf  

(END OF PART IV) 

 
 

Staying in character and on message denying why genetics eternally separates the ancestors living forward now won't work anymore. Those days are gone.

Cannonpointer » 30 Jan 2024, 7:09 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024, 7:09 pm

 

 (PART V OF V) 

Anecdotally, I will say that, as a nurse anesthetist for more than 30 years, I worked with dozens of non-Jews who suffered from diseases such as Tay-Sachs and Canavan disease. I was privy to their medical histories because being so informed was a part of my job. Finally, I know that Nazis need to believe Jews to be a "race" onto themselves to somehow make their being genocided more "acceptable," but it isn't the case.

Per Cannonpointer's query, "Is this Jewish source lying about itself?" I have no idea the motivation, so I cannot speculate whether the source is knowingly lying. However, I will say that many Zionists, including many Christian Zionists, put forth the proposition that Jews are a "race" of people to justify the theft of land belonging to Palestinians. But I digress.  

http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf  

(END OF PART V)
 

Honesty creates civility. Secrets sustain civic prides of people thinking nobody knows what they are up to next. patterns of socially programmed behaviors while life never stays same results twice.

What evolving does no reality ever duplicates any generation lived or alive.

Cannonpointer » 01 Feb 2024, 8:40 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2024, 8:40 pm

 

(PART I OF V) 

I wrote: "Cannonpointer either ignores or, like nearly everyone, is unaware that Dr. Marx didn't originate 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,' which changes everything and makes Cannonpointer's point moot." 

Cannonpointer: "It's from Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme, available on eBay. If it weren't (and it is) an aphorism with which Marx was sanguine, it would be easy to quote him saying the reverse." 

Yes, it's in Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme. "Critique" is the keyword here because Marx was critiquing the writings of another; in this case, the writings of the French socialist Louis Blanc, who used the phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" in his The Organization of Work (1839), which served as the platform for the then-German Socialist Party titled The Gotha Programme. CC Moreover, Dr. Marx did "say the reverse" when, while critiquing the phrase, he wrote, "In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" --The Critique of the Gotha Programme. 

I also noted that From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs "originated with the French utopian socialist Etienne-Gabriel Morelly, who offered it in his Code of Nature..." of 1755, some 65 years before Marx's birth ... As readers can see, Dr. Marx only formally used the expression 120 years after its origination." 

Regarding reiteration, in reaction to my quoting Marx's "In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination...," Cannonpointer wrote, "Sweet Jesus. You JUST GOT THROUGH denying he said it, and now you quote him saying it." 

Again, I quoted Marx as repeating the phrase to critique it, not saying/originating it. 

Cannonpointer: "The more dependencies and contingencies you build into a system, the larger-writ Murphy's Law in the matter." I've not referred to any dependencies and contingencies except that establishing a socialist society depends upon the social ownership and democratic administration of the means of production in its totality. Marx's criticism of Blanc's and Morelly's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" affirms their misunderstanding, not an indication of any contingency. 


 http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf  

(END OF PART I)
 
 
 

What part are we on now?

This is such a a cliffhanger...

 

Mantra first and last exercise of futility against natural eternal separation of genetic results present, by genetic results present playing character roles of a lifetime on a world staged to believe real isn't factually real.

Your reality is conjecture, not conjunction of generation gaps living in series parallel positions now.

HarveyMushman » 05 Feb 2024, 8:27 am » wrote: ↑

05 Feb 2024, 8:27 am

I wrote: "Cannonpointer either ignores or, like nearly everyone, is unaware that Dr. Marx didn't originate 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,' which changes everything and makes Cannonpointer's point moot." 

Cannonpointer: "It's from Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme, available on eBay. If it weren't (and it is) an aphorism with which Marx was sanguine, it would be easy to quote him saying the reverse." 

Yes, it's in Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme. "Critique" is the keyword here because Marx was critiquing the writings of another; in this case, the writings of the French socialist Louis Blanc, who used the phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" in his The Organization of Work (1839), which served as the platform for the then-German Socialist Party titled The Gotha Programme. CC Moreover, Dr. Marx did "say the reverse" when, while critiquing the phrase, he wrote, "In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" --The Critique of the Gotha Programme. 

You are making a distinction without a difference. He was sanguine with it and saw it as an ultimate goal. And it flies in the face of human nature.

Marx spoke for machines, not humans.

HarveyMushman » 05 Feb 2024, 8:27 am » wrote: ↑

05 Feb 2024, 8:27 am

I've not referred to any dependencies and contingencies except that establishing a socialist society depends upon the social ownership and democratic administration of the means of production in its totality.

That's what we need - the mop jockey voting on policy in a voice equal to the technocrats and engineers. I mean, what could POSSIBLY go wrong?

HarveyMushman » 05 Feb 2024, 8:27 am » wrote: ↑

05 Feb 2024, 8:27 am

Marx's criticism of Blanc's and Morelly's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" affirms their misunderstanding, not an indication of any contingency. 
(END OF PART I)

I left your quote of marx intact - there's a truckload, and a leftover ****, of contingencies that are childishly naive.
 

HarveyMushman » 05 Feb 2024, 8:11 am » wrote: ↑

05 Feb 2024, 8:11 am

Again, there's no program beyond the imperative need for a socially owned and democratically administered means of production in its totality.

And I consider that an extremely stupid idea. Truly, truly imbecilic. But it DOES explain your puzzling antipathy for hierarchies.

Look, God - I know, you hate Him - made humans for different jobs. He made chiefs. He made indians. You want to make every indian a chief - no WONDER Marxists hate God. They don't like His handiwork. They wanna fix it.

HarveyMushman » 05 Feb 2024, 8:11 am » wrote: ↑

05 Feb 2024, 8:11 am

Again, Marxism isn't a dogma. It's a guide to revolutionary action. And nothing in this thread's 269th post indicates anything constituting a wish list. Marx never delineated what a socialist society would look like beyond a socially owned and democratically commanded means of production, and there's no changing that.

I don't want the mop jockey voting on which machinery is wisest to employ thank you. I don't want to vote on that MYSELF, thank you - and I'm a smart fellow. I say let the engineers work that out.

You know - the guys who keep the flood waters out of our living rooms? Those guys. Stop trying to give the houseman an equal vote with the department heads on how the hotel runs. It's really, really stupid to open Pandora's Box of misfit toys and keystone cops.

As to wish lists and contingencies, they are writ large in Marxism. You WISH that giving the janitor an equal voice with the engineer will - on that glorious day - result in all of the bla bla end of the bourgeoisie bla bla.

HarveyMushman » 05 Feb 2024, 8:11 am » wrote: ↑

05 Feb 2024, 8:11 am

I'm not going to rehash humankind's fundamental nature. Cannonpointer believes it to be grounded in hierarchies, racism, xenophobia, and other social pathologies, and that's where I'll leave the matter. 

Cannonpointer may and will continue to insist that Marxism is dogmatic, as capitalist culture has conditioned him to do, but it isn't so.

At least I've not been conditioned to assume that the stupidest fellow in the factory, with the least responsibility, should have an equal voice with people who actually know stuff.

HarveyMushman » 05 Feb 2024, 8:11 am » wrote: ↑

05 Feb 2024, 8:11 am

I haven't claimed that German workers were unhappy during the Nazis' rule. In response to, I believe, LowIQTrash, I wrote something to the effect that a majority of Germany's workers were happy with Hitler, at least until they began to be bombed to death.

That is a load of BS. You claimed that National Socialism accomplished its miraculous results by putting the whip to the backs of workers.

You just keep on ducking the hitler question - the national socialist question. You dismiss it this way and that way, and when questioned closely, you run from your own words. The last time I asked you to explain nazi germany, you claimed that hitler did it by paying **** wages and working the germans long hours.

It appears you are NOW admitting that the German workers were NOT badly used and put upon, to the point of unhappiness. So - AGAIN, - how do you explain the miraculous transformation of the barefoot, hungry, penurious Weimar to the juggernaut that it became?
 

HarveyMushman » 05 Feb 2024, 8:20 am » wrote: ↑

05 Feb 2024, 8:20 am

Under socialism, with the capitalist class and inequality removed from society, the need for racism is also removed.

Do we "remove inequality" by stomping our feet? By gaslighting?

Inequality is a fact of life. The fastest runner is not equal to the slowest. One is at the top of the hierarchy and one is at the bottom.

Your blithe assumption that inequality and hierarchies are going to go away is without precedent in all of human history. It's a pipe dream. The societies that made it a goal failed. The leaders had palatial estates on the black sea and drivers to take them there. The workers, not so much. And capitalism did not make the leaders of Russia do that. Human nature did. 

HarveyMushman » 05 Feb 2024, 8:11 am » wrote: ↑

05 Feb 2024, 8:11 am

Cannonpointer: "You still haven't explained how a RELIGION can be affected by genetic disorders. Is this Jewish source just lying about itself?" 

Firstly, this is the first time I've been asked to explain that. Secondly, the members of a religion cannot be exclusively afflicted by any ailment. The notion that Jewishness constitutes "a race of people" because "Only Jews get certain diseases" falls on its face when one understands that there are no disorders that inflict Jews and Jews alone. Contrary to widespread conditioned belief, afflictions such as cystic fibrosis, bloom syndrome, dihydrolipoamide dehydrogenase deficiency, Tay-Sachs, etc., also afflict non-Jews. Beyond that, there aren't any human races, for no group of human beings has ever been cloistered long enough from other human populations to preclude "crossbreeding." The history of Jews supports this argument because Jews have always had babies with non-Jews.

Jews consider themselves a distinct ethnicity. 40% of Ashkenazis can trace their mitochondrial DNA to four women. Your deracination of jews simply makes no sense. It's a desperate attempt to clean up for the fact that you distinguished racism and anti-semitism (a canard). The arabs are semites - and are the most smeared with the fake charge of anti-semitism. I questioned you on your use of that term - ESPECIALLY in conjunction with and in opposition to the word racism. You have been pirouetting ever since.

You defended the term by saying jews are not a race. Are you now going to insist that arabs are not semitic peoples? And if you are NOT going to make that claim, we are back to your usage - while conventional - being silly. Racism is racism - unless you are a racist, and hold all groups as equal but one group as MORE equal.