Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 06 Feb 2024, 10:27 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 10:27 am

I red pilled one of those in the rw recently. I was taking some classes, and I was disappointed to find the entire faculty woke. I took one of them and beat him half to death with logic - turned him all the way around. I started with a tough one - the gender insanity. He accessed some pseudo-science, jabbering about hormones and the unseeable/unknowable. I asked him whether he was aware that he was flying in the face of Aristotle. He looked quite shocked - lost a shade from the blood leaving his face. That was a hell of a thing to hear from a student. 

I told him, just think about it. A is A and can never be B. You're telling me it can be - and you're saying this at the expense of women. It is the height of misogyny to force women to accept men in their showers and sports, on nothing but the word of those men that they are not creepers and peepers and fruitcakes. I could see that this affected him - the man had daughters.

I told him to think it over, and I issued this challenge. I told him the next time we spoke (class was scheduled for two day later), I would shoot down any pillar of woke ideology that he cared to present. I said it isn't just gender nonsense that the woke were wrong about. They were wrong about everything.

The next time I saw him, he felt confident that he could defend the canard that men make more than women. That's a pretty easy one, I'm sure you know. I walked him thru education and nursing, gaining his admission that there was no pay gap in THOSE disciplines. I said how about waiting tables or being a hotel maid - ya think men get extra genital pay in those fields? No - not in those fields. I pointed out the dearth of broads on deep sea oil drilling platforms and in the north sea fishing fleet - and their over-representation as baby sitters and receptionists. I asked whether he thought they SHOULD receive the same money for those jobs as a dozer operator or a carpenter. He acknowledged they ought not. So I asked, just where ARE women making less money. He fished a minute and said, "Wall Street CEOs."

I told him that those salaries are negotiated, and assuming that women got less purely because of their sexual equipment was a univariant analysis that was not suited to get to any meaningful conclusion. I asked him whether it might be that women were not as good at negotiating - that they tended to take the first offer. He appeared to have an aha moment. I THEN pointed out that if it were in fact true that there was a boys club on wall street that had gotten together at their secret no girls allowed fort and taken a blood oath to pay women less, it would not be worth society righting the wrong. Who cares if a wall street CEO can only afford one jet and three mansions? How many people out of 300 million does this "problem" affect? That seemed to sink the hook.

I was pretty proud of myself for planting a stink grenade on that campus. My work there was done...

*applause* for the red pilling saga

​​​​

LowIQTrash » 06 Feb 2024, 11:27 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 11:27 am

The fact you are enrolled in CC classes is something to behold. The only reason I'm enrolled is to get "student" discounts.

I am an education hobbyist lol. I like the classroom. I like assignments. I like an excuse to dress nice - which I always do when I am matriculating. I like the way classes drag me out of the house. 

In the America that I was raised in, everyone had a thing - bowling leagues, baseball leagues, bridge, dominos - every family participated in outside events. It kept people busy, kept them socialized and less atomized than the country I live in today. Taking classes is my version of joining a bowling league. 
 

LowIQTrash » 05 Feb 2024, 10:15 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Feb 2024, 10:15 pm

 

LowIQTrash: "It's rumored that Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and Hitler were all at one point in Vienna, Austria at the same time. Whether or not they all got to converse is another story (almost certainly no, but it would make for interesting theatrics)." 

Lenin never lived in or visited Vienna, that I know of. LowIQTrash might be thinking of Stalin, who was there for a month in January 1913, visiting Trotsky on revolutionary business. Lenin spent most of his time in exile in Switzerland and, at other times, in Poland, Finland, France, and England, but not Austria. 

Trotsky and Hitler both frequented the same popular cafe, Cafe Central, as did many other famous people, and Stalin went there once or twice with Trotsky. So, they may have met, but it's unlikely they did or had anything to say to one another. At best, they were sitting in the same vicinity. Cafe Central is a decent-sized place in the heart of Vienna, a bustling city at the time. So, Hitler and Trotsky would only have been two of hundreds of visitors and patrons. 

Trotsky was well-known in some circles as he was an associate of leading Social Democrats and a friend of the psychologist Alfred Adler. Still, Hitler was just a street artist and aspiring intellectual. As such, Hitler is even less likely to have met Stalin or Tito.Tito was a factory worker and lived in a different part of the city. As far as I know, he didn't appear to frequent the same establishment, for he didn't become involved in communism until after WWI. 

So, while Stalin and Trotsky knew each other, the others, at best, might have crossed paths as strangers or sat down near one another or something. But, if so, they didn't seem to remember or notice, and at the time, why would they? They were unlikely to recognize one another; at best, Hitler might have recognized Trotsky as a minor celebrity, but even that isn't likely. 

Be well 
Good evening 
"Harvey Mushman" 
 

Cannonpointer » 06 Feb 2024, 11:10 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 11:10 am

 

 (PART I OF III) 

LowIQTrash: "Marxism is based on Hegelian dialectics, which is more of a pseudoscience than anything else. It's a framework (heuristic) applied to political economy that may or may not be true depending on one's interpretation of Marxist dogma." 

Marxism, or scientific socialism, is a social science. A social science is any academic endeavor that examines society's divergent characteristics. The five major social science disciplines are political science, economics, anthropology, psychology, and sociology. One can disagree with Maxrism's social scientific findings, just as one can disagree with the conclusions of any other social science. But it's childish and a sign of desperation to deny Marxism's social scientific basis. Per Marxism being "based on Hegelian dialectics," that's true only in the most rudimentary ways. Although Marx and Engles accepted Hegel's broad understanding of dialectics, they thought Hegel's dialectic method was too abstract. It's true that, in his youth, Marx admired Hegel. Marx was one of those known at the time as Young Hegelians. However, he didn't share Hegel's worship of the state. Marx encapsulated his attitude toward Hegel when he said he had turned Hegel "upside down and the right way up." Therefore, Marx's early writings are a response to Hegel, German idealism, and a break from the rest of the Young Hegelians. Marx stood Hegel on his head in his view of his role by turning the idealistic dialectic into a materialistic one and proposing that material circumstances shape ideas instead of the converse, as Hegel proposed. 

Indeed, Dr. Marx disagreed with almost every point Hegel made, except for the three-valued dialectic. Also, Marx only cared about the three-valued dialectic in one case, namely, the bourgeoisie (thesis), the proletariat (antithesis), and the dictatorship of the proletariat (synthesis).Hegel was one of many sources of Marx's ideas. The primary sources were Ludwig Feuerbach, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jacques Rousseau, Charles Fourier, Henri de Saint-Simon, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.There is no way to reconcile Hegel with Marx because Hegel was an avid advocate of private property as an institution and as the foundation of Family Law, Civil Law, Criminal Law, Constitutional Law, and International Law.Also, for Hegel, a proper synthesis is a harmonious adaptation of the thesis to the antithesis, not an obliteration of the thesis. So, Hegel would have rejected Marx's political economy theory as vigorously as Feuerbach's atheism. So, the statement, "Marxism is based on Hegelian dialectics," is, at best, based on a cursory understanding of Marxism, one not gained through a study of original sources of Marxist literature. 

As for Marxism being dogmatic, it's interesting that, although LowIQTrash holds at least a precipitous understanding of Marxism's dialectical nature, he doesn't seem to comprehend that for Marx, dialectic implies a method for a critical analysis, thinking about the world in terms of evolution and change, processes rather than things, and interrelated flows rather than isolated objects; a general mental tendency to view and interpret reality in terms of the interplay of the conflicting forces. Reality itself is a totality composed of the world's interacting events, processes, and conditions involving the structural interdependence of all its parts! Therefore, Marxism isn't dogmatic! Too, I've shown repeatedly throughout this thread that Marxism isn't dogmatic, yet LowIQTrash has yet to counter any of it. 

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

(END OF PART I)
 

Dr. JoeB.

Cannonpointer » 06 Feb 2024, 11:10 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 11:10 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)
 
 
 

Cannonpointer » 06 Feb 2024, 11:10 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 11:10 am

 

PART III of III) 

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.  

Per LowIQTrash's "Marxism ... doesn't incorporate biological determinism..., of course, it doesn't integrate that racist claptrap. The idea that people can be divided into biologically distinct taxa known as "races" and, further, that observable evidence exists to justify, racism, racial "inferiority," racial discrimination, and racial "superiority" is laughable to everyone but Nazis. In essence, LowIQTrash's employment of terminology such as "pseudoscience," "religion," and "dogma" relative to Marxism amounts to projectionism. Given that, the empirically erroneous "'biological' determinism" asserts that things are the way they've always been and must be - biological' determinism is religious-like pseudoscientific dogma.  

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

(END OF PART III)
 
Be well
Good day
"Harvey Mushman"
 

rinse and repeat your brainwashing exercise. doesn't change a person's chromosomes acting in character following a social consensus ignoring why they exist in their skin now thinking outside a box makes them smarter not adapting to the moment than accepting that is all life offers cradle to grave in real time.

HarveyMushman » 07 Feb 2024, 7:44 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 7:44 am

... cut for space

Indeed, Dr. Marx disagreed with almost every point Hegel made, except for the three-valued dialectic. Also, Marx only cared about the three-valued dialectic in one case, namely, the bourgeoisie (thesis), the proletariat (antithesis), and the dictatorship of the proletariat (synthesis).Hegel was one of many sources of Marx's ideas. The primary sources were Ludwig Feuerbach, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jacques Rousseau, Charles Fourier, Henri de Saint-Simon, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.There is no way to reconcile Hegel with Marx because Hegel was an avid advocate of private property as an institution and as the foundation of Family Law, Civil Law, Criminal Law, Constitutional Law, and International Law.Also, for Hegel, a proper synthesis is a harmonious adaptation of the thesis to the antithesis, not an obliteration of the thesis. So, Hegel would have rejected Marx's political economy theory as vigorously as Feuerbach's atheism. So, the statement, "Marxism is based on Hegelian dialectics," is, at best, based on a cursory understanding of Marxism, one not gained through a study of original sources of Marxist literature. 

As for Marxism being dogmatic, it's interesting that, although LowIQTrash holds at least a precipitous understanding of Marxism's dialectical nature, he doesn't seem to comprehend that for Marx, dialectic implies a method for a critical analysis, thinking about the world in terms of evolution and change, processes rather than things, and interrelated flows rather than isolated objects; a general mental tendency to view and interpret reality in terms of the interplay of the conflicting forces. Reality itself is a totality composed of the world's interacting events, processes, and conditions involving the structural interdependence of all its parts! Therefore, Marxism isn't dogmatic! Too, I've shown repeatedly throughout this thread that Marxism isn't dogmatic, yet LowIQTrash has yet to counter any of it.

This was a really good read. I feel like I understand Marx a little better, and trust his conclusions a little less. The funny thing is, there's not a competing ism that I would "protect" from Marxism. I reject it without a client ideology to salvage. Neither is my rejection from any great study. It's an honest gut reaction to Marxism's precepts as you have explicated those. "Obliterating the thesis" and calling THAT synthesis - that is a maniacal concept. And don't get me wrong - I can get down with some mania. Just not THAT mania.

I don't even have a reaction to the sacred cow tipping of Marxism. For example, the Singaporean State owns virtually all of the real estate and rents/leases it to the people. They can "buy" a 99 year lease and leave it to their kids. But in the end, there is no private property as Americans know (and worship) it. And I have no issue with that. That sacred cow can be made into burger, for my money.

What I react to is the religious and mystical nature of the thing. The more I listen to you, the more it appears to be based on a priesthood of understanding. And for a guy who spits at the term hierarchy, you of all people should spot the inevitability of hierarchy in a complex dogma that is going to be worked out on the fly. Oh, the myriad slips that may occur between cup and lip! But then, we've SEEN that - now, haven't we?
 
 
 

HarveyMushman » 07 Feb 2024, 7:48 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 7:48 am

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)
 

LowIQTrash could not have phrased my own view of the matter better.
 

HarveyMushman » 07 Feb 2024, 7:49 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 7:49 am

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.

Let us pretend this^ claptrap is true.

Why did the Emperor Qin join together all of the sections of walls to create the Great Wall? Why did he formalize a unified currency and codify a unified table of weights and measures? Why did he join province to province with thousands of miles of standard-sized canals that accommodated standard-sized barges? If you wish to insist that what Qin protected with his wall and succored with his public works was other than a nation state, please inform me what it actually was.

HarveyMushman » 07 Feb 2024, 7:49 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 7:49 am

Per LowIQTrash's "Marxism ... doesn't incorporate biological determinism..., of course, it doesn't integrate that racist claptrap. The idea that people can be divided into biologically distinct taxa known as "races" and, further, that observable evidence exists to justify, racism, racial "inferiority," racial discrimination, and racial "superiority" is laughable to everyone but Nazis. In essence, LowIQTrash's employment of terminology such as "pseudoscience," "religion," and "dogma" relative to Marxism amounts to projectionism. Given that, the empirically erroneous "'biological' determinism" asserts that things are the way they've always been and must be - biological' determinism is religious-like pseudoscientific dogma.

If of that is true, then I am certainly a nazi. 

Your rather insane pretense that we can brush the rotted monkey flesh from an 80 IQ hunter gatherer plucked out of the indonesian or african bush and send his children to Harvard is, to me, just laughable. 

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. Even if we did NOT have copious contrary evidence, the notion would be silly on its face. It simply 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?
 

LowIQTrash » 02 Feb 2024, 4:07 am » wrote: ↑

02 Feb 2024, 4:07 am

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.

My three-letter series, submitted yesterday morning (02.07.24), was written in response to LowIQTrash's post, as seen above, rather than anything written by the Cannonpointer. I apologize for my oversight. 

Be well
Good day
"Harvey Mushman"
​​​​​​​
 

Harvey Mushman » 08 Feb 2024, 10:40 am » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2024, 10:40 am

My three-letter series, submitted yesterday morning (02.07.24), was written in response to LowIQTrash's post, as seen above, rather than anything written by the Cannonpointer. I apologize for my oversight. 

Be well
Good day
"Harvey Mushman"
​​​​​​​
 

Every social experiment is creating evidence of what deniers in charge of realities can get away with next generation gap arriving now. Never going back to teaching life in real time and actual evolving as displaced.

Cannonpointer » 07 Feb 2024, 11:14 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 11:14 am

 

 (PART I OF IV) 

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. 

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." 

Cannonpointer reaction: "You're making a distinction without a difference. Marx 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." 

No, sir, "a distinction without a difference" is a formal fallacy in which someone attempts to distinguish between two objects where no perceivable difference exists. The difference, in this case, is that Etienne-Gabriel Morelly coined the phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" 120 years before Marx's birth; Louis Blanc used it in his Gotha Programme when Marx was 21 and; that Marx merely critiqued the said phrase. "You're making a distinction without a difference," indeed. Methinks our Cannonpointer harbors a machismo-centered need to be correct. Too funny. (As an aside: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/03/nazi ) 

I wrote: "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." 

Cannonpointer's obstinate reaction: "I left your quote of Marx intact - there's a truckload, and a leftover ****, of contingencies that are childishly naive." 

There it is again, "...your quote of Marx" when, in reality, it was no such thing. Moving on... 

Concerning Cannonpointer's comment, "Marx spoke for machines, not humans." It's interesting that, although Cannonpointer denies the humanity of approximately 93.5% of the world's human population and supports their destruction, he purports to be - what - understanding and supportive of human beings? 

http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf  (END OF PART I)

(END OF PART I)
 

Cannonpointer » 07 Feb 2024, 11:14 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 11:14 am

 

(PART II OF IV) 

I wrote: "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." 

Cannonpointer's reaction: "That's what we need: the mop jockey voting on policy in a voice equal to the technocrats and engineers. What could go wrong?" 

A few days ago, in response to a question by Cannonpointer about "how to fix a bridge" in a socialist society, I wrote, "I imagine it would be a combined effort by the transportation and construction industries, as roughly indicated by the SLP's Socialist Industrial Unionism ( http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf . In keeping with that, I don't think "mop jockeys" would vote relative to anything other than what janitors to elect to positions of authority, assuming that janitorial services hadn't yet been automated. Nor do I think engineers would vote on anything other than which engineers to elect to positions of authority in their respective engineering departments. If Cannonpointer is under the assumption that "mop jockeys" would vote on, say, which type of mops to use, he's mistaken. Their votes would likely only concern which "mop jockeys" would be in charge of the other "mop jockeys" in their facility. To promote the notion that every worker in a socialist society or every worker in "the construction industry" would vote on whether to repair a bridge is thoughtless and a red herring intended to deceive. Maybe Cannonpointer hasn't bothered to read the SLP's Socialist Industrial Unionism (SIU) chart, which wouldn't surprise me. http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf 

Yes, such a structure would be necessarily hierarchical. But, as I noted in a previous post, it would be a "gentle hierarchy," one rooted in democratized workplaces complete with elected supervisors who would be subject to immediate recall upon a majority vote of those who elected them. So, too, would supervisors serve for set durations and then return to their previous jobs upon completing their terms to avoid entrenchment and alienation. 

I wrote: "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." 

Cannonpointer: "That's a load of BS. You claimed that National Socialism accomplished its miraculous results by putting the whip to the backs of workers." 

Yes, of course, National "Socialism" accomplished its "miraculous" results on the backs of workers, as do all capitalist economies. But, just as millions of economically exploited American workers love such people as Joe Biden and Donald Trump despite their overseeing American capitalism, many German workers loved Hitler despite being abused by him. Then again, the creepy fact that Cannonpointer, LowIQTrash, and many others here are admirers of Hitler often makes rational conversion difficult to impossible. 

Cannonpointer: "You WISH that giving the janitor an equal voice with the engineer will - on that glorious day - result in all of the blah blah end of the bourgeoisie bla bla." 

There it is again. But, again, nothing I've written would suggest giving "the janitor an equal voice with the engineer." (See this post's third paragraph.) Continued in PART III 

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

(END OF PART II)

 
 

A mind cultivated as nurtured by reasonable doubt since birth by an ancestry trained to ignore how evolving exists in personally adapting as displaced here now.

That is what social experimentation has created throughout history within this one species doing it to itself intellectually silencing instinctive awareness in each great great grandchild added.

Cannonpointer » 07 Feb 2024, 11:14 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 11:14 am

 

 (PART III OF IV)

Cannonpointer: "Your pretense that racism is a product of the very capitalism that it predates has been blown to smithereens. But you continue blithely on as if on read-only. You haven't come to terms with being refuted on that point - and you should. It's an important issue.  

Please remind me of exactly how I've been refuted on that point. Thank you. 

With that asked, as I've mentioned before, and as Cannonpointer ignored, institutionalized or systemic racism isn't hard-wired into our brains. The proof of that is that it hasn't always existed. I emphasized institutionalized or systemic racism as it stands distinct from interpersonal racism, which is defined by the simple yet illogical hatred of other human beings based on their typically meaningless pigmentation. Institutionalized racism is delineated by power, the power of people, virtually always white people, to fire, hire, or not hire a person based on their pigmentation. It's also defined as the power not to rent or sell a dwelling or to evict someone predicated on their pigmentation. Most significantly, it's exemplified by the ability to arrest, indict, convict, incarcerate, and or carry out a state-sponsored execution of a person based on their utterly meaningless pigmentation. 

The manifestation of institutionalized racism was timed with the rise of capitalism, for it's intimately interwoven with that of capitalism. As I've noted previously, the emergence of institutionalized racism coincided with the instituting of the transatlantic chattel slave trade. It greatly assisted the growth of Great Britain as a world power. And, as institutionalized racism's influence grew, it became an effective way of dividing workers who might seek to supplant capitalism. So, too, did it serve to "justify" the enslavement and general brutalization of human beings. Toward that end, Christianity was enlisted to quell the objections of Christians who might otherwise have issues with chattel slavery (see the Romanus pontifex, papal bull of Pope Nicolas V, Portugal, 8 January 1455). 

From that, newly minted capitalists began to amass gigantic fortunes through the primitive accumulation afforded them by chattel slavery, which initiated the cycle of exploitation that keeps billions of people in a state of inequality that continues to this day. That contradiction was resolved by instituting racial hatred to dehumanize black people. So, no, my assertion that racism - institutionalized racism is a byproduct of capitalism hasn't been "blown to smithereens." 

Cannonpointer: "I think you have serious hang-ups about race, racism, etc. I'm sensing white guilt. Hell, I'm smelling it." 

I don't understand that response. I stated that to have a negative experience with a racialized person and to then "extrapolate [that] experiences to where one assumes that all black people are dishonest is racist and childish." I then noted that I have a well-to-do black neighbor who, although very honest, owns a business from which he and his wife amass/steal large amounts of worker-produced wealth every day. The point is that people like Cannonpointer focus on the petty theft committed by some black people while ignoring the colossal theft committed by capitalists of all pigmentation. I don't see how that suggests I "have serious hang-ups about race, racism, etc." 

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

(END OF PART III) 
 
 
 

Cannonpointer » 07 Feb 2024, 11:14 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 11:14 am

 

(PART IV OF IV) 

Cannonpointer: "I feel no compulsion to defend capitalism to question the ism with which you believe it ought to be replaced. I'm full-on in support of outlawing capitalism - which would be as easy as the government ceasing to support and enforce it." 

Very well. Nonetheless, Cannonpointer supports National "Socialism," which, although its means of production were said to be owned in common, wasn't. Though the Nazis often decided on productive processes, Germany's means of production were privately owned throughout the Nazis' reign. They never threatened the private ownership of Germany's means of economic production. Indeed, since the Nazis severely reduced tax rates, worker pay, and pension contributions, most of the German capitalist class didn't have a problem with the said arrangement. Why would they? 

Cannonpointer may respond by saying that he supports capitalism's demise and the "return" of "free enterprise." Still, those things are the same since their "respective" means of production are privately owned. Therefore, irrespective of what one calls it, who owns the means of wealth production remains the same. So, wanting to delete capitalism while wishing to "replace" it with National "Socialism" is the pinnacle of a distinction without a difference. To understand that point, consider that a large portion of the American capitalist class was more than supportive of Hitler - indeed, many US capitalists were enthralled with Hitler and his National "Socialism" project. National "Socialism" was the reason why American capitalists, such as Henry Ford and William Randolph Hearst, were all but in love with Adolph Hitler. Had Hitler threatened the private ownership of Germany's means of production and, therefore, the worldwide capitalist order, then the American capitalist would have vilified Hitler and his Nazis, but it didn't. 

Cannonpointer: "I say it's childish to reduce the argument to the point that I'm a Mississippi cracker unless I pretend to be color-blind and see racial issues through your eyes. I have lived in San Francisco (6 years), Los Angeles (2 years), and Las Vegas (9 years). I cannot imagine surviving San Francisco without ulcers if I were some big race hater. I was married to a Hindu woman. I speak conversational Spanish. I learned it at 40 because I saw the demographic shift occurring and saw no reason not to stay ahead of the curve. Naturally, learning Spanish required much association with people from a different cultural background than me." 

That's interesting. Usually, I would be compelled to think that it would be torturous for a Nazi residing in San Francisco. But Cannonpointer's willingness to learn Spanish indicates otherwise, at least from his perspective. "Naturally, learning Spanish required much association with people from a different cultural background than me." Hmm. 

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

(END OF PART IV)
 

Taipan, you are inaccurate about life evolving in plain sight.

HarveyMushman » 09 Feb 2024, 7:26 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2024, 7:26 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." 

It does no such thing. He affirmed it. He owns it.

HarveyMushman » 09 Feb 2024, 7:26 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2024, 7:26 am

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." 

Right. The end of Marxism is from each to each - thank you for that affirmation.

HarveyMushman » 09 Feb 2024, 7:26 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2024, 7:26 am

Concerning Cannonpointer's comment, "Marx spoke for machines, not humans." It's interesting that, although Cannonpointer denies the humanity of approximately 93.5% of the world's human population and supports their destruction,

Link?