Chomsky a Charlatan? [Archive]

View Full Version : Chomsky a Charlatan?

Aslan

30th December 2015, 21:08

Sinister Cultural Marxist

30th December 2015, 21:30

Rafiq

30th December 2015, 21:36

Aslan

30th December 2015, 23:32

We could have forgiven Chomsky for his financial practices.

What we will not forgive Chomsky for, is his contribution to the degeneration of the intellectual standards of our societies with his disgusting, pseudoscientific idealist cognitivism. Chosmky literally said that "If it were discovered that Asians were smarter on average, this would not make a difference for me" - sounds innocent enough, except that if "Asians are smarter", then this opens up the question: "Well, are blacks, brown people, dumber?"

Universal grammar is an ardently reactionary doctrine, a pseudoscientific doctrine which was built on idealist ontological fallacies, which was congruent with the wave of reactionary pseudosciences like evolutionary psychology.

No mercy for Chomsky, there is no place on the Left for anglo-saxon philistines, no place for 'common sense' philistinism. Read Chomsky. His works are so patently stupid and juvenile, it is literally boggling as to why he receives any attention on the Left - this attention is owed to nothing more to the 'simplicity' of his writing style - Chomsky is a master at reconciling Left phraseology with hegemonic bourgeois ideology. That is why he is popular - he allows people to call themselves "leftists" and "anarchists" without critically thinking. If anyone could give me a single theoretical contribution to not only our cause, but to the sciences in general that Chomsky has given, I will cut off my testicles and send it to them.

Chomsky, the spineless petty bourgeois ideologue, his critique of the present order borders on the paleoconservative. It is no wonder that out of spontaneous instinct alone, reactionary conspiracy theorists are somewhat fascinated by him. Not only is Chomsky not a socialist, he is not even vaguely progressive.

Chomsky was born in a time where people were still lynching black people. He fought in the civil rights movement and also an avid member of the socialist party of the USA back in the day. I'll forgive him for saying a few rascist things, because hes 85- fucking-years-old.

I'm sorry, but the last words I could describe Chomsky's writing is ''stupid'' and ''juvenile''. You can't just say something like that and not have at least an example of this sort of behavior.

Holy shit? you'll give your testicles? jesus...

Chomsky may be a big fat hypocrite (along with Engels...) but he isn't a spineless... well he is pretty confident in sitting on his ass in a nice MIT classroom... But I've never heard of any right-wing conspiracy nuts (other than Molyneux) being fascinated in Chomsky.

Yes, chomsky isn't a socialist. And to be honest, I don't know what he is.

Tim Cornelis

30th December 2015, 23:58

If he did say racist things that can't be excused. But where did he do that?

ChangeAndChance

31st December 2015, 02:22

And now on RevLeft it's time for another episode of Rafiq's Foul but Wordy Vitriolic Posts™ (now with even less citations).

Chomsky racist? Bullshit. He was one of the leading critics of 'The Bell Curve' when it came out (https://chomsky.info/199505__/#TXT2.23). In fact, he's been against the notion that intelligence is primarily genetic since at least the 70s (https://chomsky.info/1978____/).

I could not find any source where that quote about Asians is supposed to be from. My guess is Rafiq's ass, but what do I know?

Evolutionary psychology, whilst it has often been used to back reactionary beliefs (using, I might add, the naturalistic logical fallacy anyway), is a real scientific field whose researchers are taken seriously by the rest of the scientific community. The theory of Universal grammar has its critics (critics of those critics also exist), but it remains a strongly accepted theory in the linguistic community. Chomsky's work is also the theoretical basis behind transformational-generative grammar, a large field of study in linguistics to this day. But of course this is all bullshit because it doesn't line up with Marxism - or at least Rafiq's unquestionable correct interpretation of it.

And of course, we all know the propaganda model theorized with Edward S. Herman is a load of crap, right?

Rafiq is fundamentally opposed to the idea of anything being inherent in human psychology because it contradicts his ridiculous fundamentalist reading of Marxist doctrine. If someone doesn't feel the desire to blow Marx every five minutes, they are a "spineless petty bourgeois ideologue" in Rafiq's book. You have the gall to call Marxism scientific and then turn around and dismiss any data that goes against it (or even could be used against it)? Fuck off.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

31st December 2015, 03:37

I won't speak to the sweeping criticisms made by Rafiq (he can speak for himself), but evolutionary psych is highly problematic on epistemic grounds, to say nothing of its problematic implications regarding human nature. There's a lot of pretty reasonable criticisms of it (as well as criticisms of other forms of vulgar Darwinism). Gould and Lewontin, for instance, have argued that many things viewed as adaptions are just accidents of evolution, and aren't really selected for when they first emerge.

Palmares

31st December 2015, 03:44

Chomsky a Charlatan?

Funny that you should use that word...

Though a supporter of Everett in the early part of Everett's career, Chomsky refuses to further discuss Everett's works and has called him a charlatan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Everett

Redistribute the Rep

31st December 2015, 04:53

Rafiq

31st December 2015, 05:05

Change, I want you to know that you have opened up pandora's box. I want to know what humiliation, ridicule you have now brought upon yourself, I want you to know that your only two options at this point is to accept humiliation, ridicule, for me to remain unchallenged, or for you to continue on with this discuission for all eternity. Because believe me, Change, you're fucking done for. You come here with the audacity to think you could 'set me straight' on a subject that which numerous discussions, paramount and unrelenting effort and energy has been devouted to on my part. I want you know how gravely you are going to pay for your groundless confidence. I want you to know that I have made it a PRINCIPLE that ANY PERSON who defends reactionary pseudoscience be chased to the ass ends of the fucking forum, I want you to know that because the administration does not punish such vile and disgusting reactionaries for these, I have taken it upon myself to DISALLOW and make sure NONE of that filth is tolerated on this forum -and the means that which I will do this is to thoroughly discredit, BEYOND REDEMPTION, every and all attempts to reconcile evolutionary psychology with the most elementary left-wing politics.

I could not find any source where that quote about Asians is supposed to be from. My guess is Rafiq's ass, but what do I know?

Regarding Chomsky's alleged "rejection" of intelligence being heritable, YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK:

Experience seems to support the belief that people do vary in their intellectual capacities and their specialization. It would hardly come as a surprise if this were so, assuming that we are dealing with biological structures, however intricate and remarkable, of known sorts.

Many people, particularly those who regard themselves as within the left-liberal political spectrum, find such conclusions repugnant. It may be that the empty organism hypothesis is so attractive to the left in part because it precludes these possibilities; there is no variability on a null endowment. But I find it difficult to understand why conclusions of this sort should be at all disturbing. I am personally quite convinced that no matter what training or education I might have received, I could never have run a four-minute mile, discovered Godel’s theorems, composed a Beethoven quartet, or risen to any of innumerable other heights of human achievement.

Why not then be convinced that different races (ahem, sorry, "populations") "might" have different "intellectual abilities"? You CAN'T, not consistently that is. I dare you to fucking try and argue otherwise.

YOUR OWN LINK CONFIRMS EXACTLY what I said of Chomsky, minus the Asians:

Inevitably, then, by refuting alleged correlations between race and IQ (or race and X, for any X one selects), one is reinforcing racist assumptions

Did you even fucking READ this shit? Chomsky is not saying IQ and race are not linked, or that IQ is not genetic. He is saying that it doesn't matter:

Suppose that inquiry into human nature reveals that human cognitive capacities are highly structured by our genetic program and that there are variations among individuals within a shared framework. This seems to me an entirely reasonable expectation, and a situation much to be desired. It has no implications with regard to equality of rights or condition, so far as I can see, beyond those already sketched.

So it's true, "but it doesn't matter regarding our equality of rights", etc. - A profoundly stupid argument for reasons I will go into.

Chomsky tells us that we should save our (potential) eugenics and our inquiry into racial differneces in IQ only AFTER racism has been overcome (acknowleding that tehse are real scientific qeustions):

In a racist society, inquiry into race and IQ can be expected to reinforce prejudice, pretty much independent of the outcome of the inquiry. Given such concepts as “race” and “IQ,” it is to be expected that the results of any inquiry will be obscure and conflicting, the arguments complex and difficult for the layman to follow.

Only, with Chomsky's own essentialism, why shouldn't we fucking think that racism is innate, is biological, and so on? Why not?

So all of that was from YOUR fucking source, as for mine: Chomsky did not mention Asians, I confused this with what a Chomskyan said in attempitng to make an example of Chomsky's point:

Let us pretend for a moment that race and IQ are well-defined properties, and let us assuppoes that some correlation is found between them. Perhaps a person of a particular race, on average, is likely to have a slightly higher IQ than a person of another race. Notice first that such a conclusion would have essentially null scientific interest. It is of no interest to discover a correlation between two traits selected at randomm, and if someone happens to be interested in this odd and pointless question [...] So the interest of the discovery must lie in the social domain. But here, it is clear that the discovery is of interest only to people who believe that each individual must be treated not as what he or she is but rather as an example of a certain category.

[...]

Surely people differ in their biologically determined qualities. The world would be too horrible to contemplate if they did not. But discovery of a correlation between some of these qualities is of no scientific interest and of no social significance, except to racists, sexists and the like. Those who argue that there is a correlation between race and IQ and those who deny this claim are contributing to racism and other disorders, because what they are saying is based on the assumption that the answer to the question makes a difference; it does not, except to racists, sexists and the like.

Must I elaborate the basic stupidity of this fucking argument? According to this philistine, EVEN IF IT WERE DISCOVERED that certain races are inherently more intelligent than others (and before you mention how he doesn't mention anything can be inherent - look up the fucking page this was written on, essentialism vs "environmentalism" was the context!), this would be insignificant because only 'racists' would find anything significant about it. What kind of FUCKING argument is that? There is nothing significant about it? Mind you, do you even know the fucking POINT of these race and IQ arguments from a practical perspective?

The POINT, which Chomsky does not seem to be much of a problem, is that they are used to justify and explain disparities in 'wealth' not only between races and nations, BUT BETWEEN CLASSES. It would be used to attack and slash federal educational programs, and the list really fucking goes on. I don't even need to go into great detail about this- the implications should be KNOWN. The pathologically STUPID dimension of the argument Chomsky is making is that such notions which would inevitably radically alter our very notions of the conditions of certain national peoples and races, so that the fundamental 'bourgeois-liberal-egalitarian' formal ethics (which is not a pejorative, but something precious today, so precious that Chomsky is the one defiling it) would shatter to fucking pieces.

The significance of race and IQ IS NOT THAT IT WOULD RESULT IN US "TREATING" WOMEN OR MINORITIES DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE OF A PERCEIVED INFERIORITY. The significance is that the CAUSAL BASIS and ORIGIN of such oppressions, would be understood differently - and any idiot can understand that a different understanding of the CAUSAL BASIS of a thing, changes ow we appraoch that thing itself. In practical terms, to even CONCEIVE them as injustices would now be baseless - blacks are no longer poor or deprived, they are simply 'racially disabled' and, we might imagine from Chomsky's perspective, "need our help".

The MINUTE one approaches the practical implications of such "sciences", is the MINUTE one understands their true nature - all science, truth is practical. Chomsky argues that because he is such a good liberal, he has no practical reason to measure differences in race and IQ. So Chomsky essentially construes arguments against racism in such a way that the point is: WE SHOULD DIRECTLY SUPPRESS what would otherwise be a "scientific" pursuit that would 'work'. Well we Marxists smash Chomsky with the hammer of Communism, and we repel the darkness in its entirety - we expose the FALSITY, the PURELY ideological dimension of notions of race and IQ, which ave absolutely NO empirical evidence to them, insofar as they are not even capable of locating any genetic differences which account for them.

Most of all, and most significantly, THE INEVITABLE CONCLUSION OF ANY NOTION OF IQ HAVING A "HERITABLE" BASIS IS EUGENICS. THERE IS NO IFS OR BUTS ABOUT IT. Anyone who dares call themself a Communist who denies this is a HYPOCRITE who does not understand the nature of his own beliefs: How deeply they offend certain moral sensitivites, and so on. And we stomp all over those fucking bourgeois sensitivities, relating to property, the family, and so on. So how could it be justified that we oppose eugenics, if it happens that 'certain people are more intelligent than others'? Abstract, arbitrary notions of personal freedom? Yes, nice try - in the face of actual society, THIS WILL NEVER FLY. Some studies have shown that the west, even, unquely, opposes eugenics - while in other countries, 'scientists' take it more seriosulsy. What the fuck does that tell you? It tells us that IT IS ONLY THE LEGACY OF THE LEFT and the struggles of the workers movement which had exercized this inherently Fascistic predispotision that capitalism has.

And amidst the waning of our power, and our legacy, here stands Chomsky, among others. Communists should commit suicide before accepting this. And I mean that.

Evolutionary psychology, whilst it has often been used to back reactionary beliefs (using, I might add, the naturalistic logical fallacy anyway), is a real scientific field whose researchers are taken seriously by the rest of the scientific community.

No, child, we've been over this many, many times. I will gladly fucking destroy any basis that which you justify evolutionary psychology as "a real scientific" field, however. What the FUCK IS IT SUPPOSED TO MEAN THAT ITS RESEARCHERS ARE TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY THE REST OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY? WHAT IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN? AT ONE POINT, FUCKING PHRENOLOGY AMONG OTHER SUPERSTITIONS WERE TAKEN SERIOUSLY TOO AT ONE POINT. And NOT because it was "all we knew, based on the evidence". NO evidence justified phrenology's popularity, and yet scientists accepted it. Was it because no one could think otherwise? Already HEGEL violently opposed phrenology. Against 'mainstream' "scientific" consensus. And why? because it was never fucking scientific to begin with, just like evolutionary psychology. If your argument is meant to insinuate that evolutionary psychology is accepted in mainstream sciences becasue of its supposed 'validity', YOU ARE DEAD FUCKING WRONG. But hte most rudimentary scientific qualifications, and yes, even positivist ones, there is ZERO evidence to support ANY Evo-psych claim. If hte Anglo-Saxon reactionaries were consistent, they would reject it out of its pure unfalsifiability alone. But they won't, because evolutionary psychology is accepted as "scientific" ONLY BECAUSE it is the logical extension of a presumption which is assumed to be scientific UNCRITICALLY: That because there are no gods, and there is no soul, the essential basis of human expression in our society (which, of course to the bourgeois ideologue, is the 'habitat' of man since 150,000 B.C., whether he acknowledges this stupidity or not), must have been wrought from the ontological difference between man and other animals. That means that - in trying to understand the sexual practices, acts, 'behaviors' of men and women, the scientific means to qualify them are JUXTAPOSED to other animals, since, you know, "humans are animalz guz". Bare in mind that the hard-wired practices of animals are well-established to be born out of instinct and physical reflexes as response to certain environs.

This basic stupidity is what sustains evolutionary psychology, among other variants of postmodern survivalism in our society - like notions of animal rights - (which you don't need to be a scientist to spontaneously think - out of ideological impulse, many people conceive human identity like that out of pure conventional stupidity and ignorance proving it is IDEOLOGICAL and not scientific), this BASIC STUPIDITY ossifies historically specific conditions into the essential meaning of what it means to be a human instead of a tortoise. A human is distinct form a tortoise, thus, because "females" (this STUPID fucking survivalist language they use) want less "aggressive" (ditto, such passive fucking, causal wording like "aggressive" which insinuates so much more on a pathological level) men to coddle with while wanting to fuck more "aggressive" men. The stupidity here is not that this is untrue in our society (so the "data" they find to confirm this is WORTHLESS in establishing their hypothesis that it is an evolutionary strategy), but that the processes and the dimension behind this is theoretically untouched, it is assumed as innate as a given, and therefore what they call "theory" are just-so stories which justify such behaviors in pseudo-evolutionary terms (i.e. all women who didn't do this died and were not able to pass on their characteristics, presumably). And yes, it is literally that stupid.

You literally only need to ask one fucking question that destroys evolutionary psychology: What is the evolutionary basis of the epistemology which gives evolutionary psychologists the right to 'passively', as neutral observers, qualify human behavior? Are they themselves not human? Consciousness of "human ecology", of our evolutionary psychology gives us what in practical terms, in other words? NOTHING! And why? Because it is a thoroughly anti-democratic discourse which qualifies "other" humans in terms that insinuate they are not capable of controlling (but somehow, the evolutionary psychologists have some magical wisdom that allows them to see past their own 'instincts' in favor of the holy god of pseudoscience). Surely their is an "evolutionary" reason for science itself, including THEIR specific science, no? Surely there is an evolutionary reason for the predominance and popularity of evolutionary psychology itself, no? The inability to justify an epistemology in evolutionary terms, ALONE is what makes evolutionary psychology fucking BULLSHIT. Oh, but there are plenty of other reasons, mind you. That's just the common sense fucking reason. ONLY MARXISM can understand this 'hidden space' scientifically, because this space is the SOCIAL dimension, the HISTORICAL dimension andI will elaborate on this "hidden space", which is INSISTED on being unknowable, ideologically designated, that allows evolutionary psychologists to freely act as totally free rational agents in qualifying human behavior.

Look at this philsitine! Look at him! HE LITERALLY IS INCAPABLE OF THINKING CRITICALLY! HE IS LITERALLY ARGUING THAT WE OUGHT TO UNCRITICALLY ACCEPT EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY AS SCIENTIFIC BECAUSE "PPL WITH INTIMIDATING NAMES AND DA CREDENTIALS DO TOO". EVEN IF EVERY LIVING FUCKING SCIENTIST on this god-damned PLANET bought into evolutioanry psychology, THIS WOULD NOT MAKE IT AN IOTA less pseudoscientific and fundementally fraudulent. Thankfully, anyone fucking familair with the field's relation to actual science knows that their 'findings' need to be published in specialized journals.

But my demand stands: FIND ME A SINGLE "scientific" study made by evolutionary psycholgosits, that is somehow more scientific than this study:

http://www.toddkshackelford.com/downloads/McKibbin-et-al-RGP-2008.pdf

Do you want to fucking test me? Do you want me to link studies with "data" behind them that support the notion that white people are inherently more attractive across cultures, that rape, war has a biological basis, nay, that crime is a genetic predisposition, that women are inherently, psychologically suited to their gender roles, that even 'toy preferences' are innate between sexes. DO YOU WANT ME TO LINK THEM? I can give you AT LEAST 10 studies for EACH of these claims, all with their own data sets, excluding the last example (of toy preferences, I can give more than one even there, though). Please tell me I'm talking out of my ass. PLEASE. I will GLADLY link them.

And when I do link them, WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO REJECT THEM? Out of "Leftist dogmas"? HUH? OUT OF A "RELIGIOUS FUNDEMENTALIST" FAITH IN "IDEOLOGICAL", "LEFTIST" NOTIONS WHICH "DATA" CONTRADICTS? Let me FUCKING repeat you:

You have the gall to call Marxism scientific and then turn around and dismiss any data that goes against it

You have the GALL to make pretenses to thinking there is truth in Leftist arguments against sexism, racism, etc. when, BY YOUR QUALIFICATIONS FOR WHAT CONSTITUTES "SCIENTIFIC" DATA, there is evidence which goes against it? And the point here is simple: DATA is fucking MEANINGLESS if it does not PROPERLY control for necessary variables. And Every SINGLE field I call pseudoscience has ZERO sufficient data which properly controls for necessary variables. And why? Because of their IDEOLOGICAL INSISTENCE on the MYSTERY of the core, essential basis of what it means to be human. The evolutionary psychologists CONSTANTLY fucking tell us theirs is a "new field" and that they are "working towards something'. THEY ARE AMPLY FULL OF SHIT.

The fact of the matter is that you have no notion of how the scientific field approaches these matters in relation to politics. You don't know shit about science, you don't know shit about science's relation to society in general, and finally, you have no notion of the ideological dimension of science. Instead you are the most banal and cliche'd philistine who DOES NOT CARE ABOUT SCIENCE OUT OF ANY INDEPENDENT RATIONALITY OR CRITICAL APPREHENSION OF WHAT THAT ACTUALLY FUCKING MEANS, BUT BECAUSE YOU ARE INTIMIDATED AND RESPECT "BIG WORDS" LIKE "SCIENTISTS" AND "DATA" WITHOUT ACTUALLY KNOWING WHAT THEY MEAN. I have written about this EXTENSIVELY, about how this marks the decline of our democratic standards, increased technocratization of our societies, the rise of a kind of neofeudalism, how we are more and more disconnected from the high sciences. "science" for you is nothing more than a mystical cult that which only the high priests have access to, it is like pre-hellenistic mysticism that ordains truth for a select group of holy men with special access, you cannot even JUSTIFY scientific methodology and assess it on rational terms, you simply bark like a fucking dog and OBEY.

A TRUE scientist recognizes that it is POSSIBLE (even if very unlikely) that a beggar can be more correct and more methodologically rigorous and valid than some greatly acclaimed scientist. What makes it or breaks it IS NOT identity, it is NOT power, it is NOT the symbolic order, BUT THE ACTUAL science in question approached ON THEORETICAL TERMS. ANY PERSON can do this, if they correctly grasp scientific practice correctly.

But your BLIND and SUPERSTITIOUS, philistine faith in "scientific communities" and how they fucking work, how certain journals get published VS. others, why certain things are more fashionable than others, rests upon the tacit assumption that this is becasue they are true. WHERE IT CONCERNS natural sciences by themselves this is true, BUT INSOFAR pretensions are made to the social sphere, THEY ARE NEVER true. That is to say, WHENEVER there is a scientific controversy, 95% of the time the "Empiricsts who don't care about no political correctness" are FULL OF SHIT. When they are correct, it is not so much that they are correct in their epistemological foundations (which are inconsistent and reactionary) but that the (left-wing) backlash is just confused.

Furthermore, do you know WHY evolutionary psychology is taken seriously? DO YOU EVEN KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL BASIS OF EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY and the PREMISE which sustains it? I will LITERALLY mail you, I PROMISE, I WILL MAIL YOU MY TESTICLES if you can show me a SINGLE claim made by evolutionary psychologists which has an IOTA of actual evidence behind it. And what constitutes evidence? Simple, what constitutes evidence is demonstrating a CAUSAL BASIS between an observed behavior (and certainly, they can collect data for such behaviors) and the notion that this behavior is genetic, innate, and a product of natural selection. NO CLAIM has been able to live up to this credential - instead, the idea that human behavior IN ITS HISTORIC specifiality is innate, that is, thsoe behaviors that are not reflexes or instincts, was developed through processes of natural selection.

We know this because VIRTUALLY EVERY significant evolutionary psychologist has juxtaposed their doctinre with previous notions of a 'soul', and straw-men about 'tabula rasa' as a means to sustain their supserstious creed. Evolutionary psychology RESTS UPON THE IMPLICIT, UNQUESTIONED assumptoin that (because of twin studies, etc.) the core, essential basis of what it means to be a human is in our DNA, and is innate, committing hte ultimate ontological error of juxtaposing the human species to other species in differentiating the SPECIFIALITIES of historical qualities.

I was just infracted for flaming, Change in Chance. I really was. Do know that I have words for you, oh, I have words for you that I cannot give.

Look at what a fucking hell, a dystopia, a world we are living in where SOCIOBIOLOGY IS NOW DEFENDED BY SELF-PROCLAIMED LEFTISTS as "scientific". Literally, it is appalling. I will fucking die before I allow such filth to go unchallenged. And yes, I mean that seriously.

The theory of Universal grammar has its critics (critics of those critics also exist), but it remains a strongly accepted theory in the linguistic community.

Do you know what that means? NOTHING! It doesn't mean SHIT as far as the scienticity of universal grammar is considered, that the 'linguistic community' accepts it. I mean we are speaking to a person who can't wrap his fucking head around the fact that INSOFAR AS THE NATURAL SCIENCES APPROACH SOCIAL QUESTIONS IN BOURGEOIS SOCIETY, the product will be PSEUDOSCIENCE, SUPERSTITION AND REACTIONARY OBSCUFATION. The dimension that makes people take evolutionary psychology, or universal grammar seriously IS 100% IDEOLOGICAL. The only FUCKING evidence we need of this is the fact that NONE of these fields have ANY empirical evidence to their favor, as opposed to other theories - people take them seriously because the premises that which they are based upon are UNQUESTIONABLY assumed to be scientific.

There is no difference between phrenology and evolutionary psychology, or arguments about how IQ is innate. All of these are pseudosciences that were developed to fill in gaps which the 'natural' sciences cannot fill. And yes, to this end, I AM a DOGMATIC MARXISTS. Fucking CRY about it. ONLY MARXISM answers such questions, ONLY MARXISM approaches the domain that which evolutionary psychology attempts to make pretenses to in a SCIENTIFIC manner. And why? because Marxism from the onset DOES NOT begin by introducing new empirical claims or dogmas. Evolutionary psychology, on the contrary, is contingent upon various empirical assumptions - NONE OF WHICH have even been CLOSE to be proven.

Evolutionary psychology is LITERALLY no different from any other mythology. NOTHING about this cretinous, vile field has produced ANYTHING of scientific worth.

And Universal Grammar has its basis not only in pseudo-scientific assumptions wrought from mis-interpretations and IDEOLOGICAL approximations of actual findings in the field of neuroscience (which only did well to thoroughly discredit superstitious notions of a 'soul', it sais nothing about 'tabula rasa' as that vile scum Stephen Pinker sais) , it has its basis in the most crass and juvenile ontological errors imaginable. In fact, there is ZERO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for universal grammar. Do you know how some have responded to this? BY GIVING IT A RACIALIST BENT - THEY HAVE SUPPLEMENTED THE POVERTY OF EVIDENCE FOR UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR BY PRESSING FORWARD ARGUMENTS ABOUT INNATE LINGUISTIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN "POPULATIONS". That fucking RAT, that fucking scoundrel, that fucking piece of shit Chomsky who dare call himself a leftist - that criminal has been infinitely worse for the Left than even Stalin. At least Stalin, unfortunately, was a part of our legacy. Chomsky is not and never will be - and yet Leftists of the most infantile variant go around praising him becasue he has won the respect of the establishment - fully incapable of assessing why.

You SPEAK about what is popular and fashionable for various scientific communities, but the fucking elephant in the room for ANYONE familiar with the sciences in 2015 is that in CERTAIN, specific fields, racism has been gradually gaining huge popularity and spikes in legitimacy in scientific communities - who are not otherwise white supremacists or 'racists'. you don't fucking know that though, becasue you talk out of your ass and you have no fucking idea of what goes on as far as actual scientific controversies are concerned.

But of course this is all bullshit because it doesn't line up with Marxism - or at least Rafiq's unquestionable correct interpretation of it.

Ladies and gentlemen, let's fucking bring attention to the fact that Change makes pretenses to opposing books like the Bell Curve and opposes the notion that there are heritable IQ differences across different 'racial' groups. If I were Richard Lynn, who uses this argument VERY FUCKING OFTEN, I COULD ARGUE THAT HE ONLY DOES THIS OUT OF HIS UNQUESTIONABLE AND UNWAVERING FAITH IN "PROGRESSIVE" AND "LEFTIST" DOGMAS THAT CONTRADICT "REAL EMPIRICAL FINDINGS". EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THE SUBSTANCE OF YOUR ARGUMENT IN THIS REGARD IS ANY, NO, EVEN AN IOTA CLOSE TO BEING DIFFERENT THAN THIS CLICHE'D ARGUMENT USED BY RACISTS, SEXISTS, AND SOCIOBIOLOGISTS ALIKE.

EXPLAIN. No, I FUCKING DEMAND you explain. You FUCKING come here, so confident in your stupidity to try and make me look like a clown, I DEMAND YOU ANSWER FOR THIS: WHAT GIVES YOU THE FUCKING RIGHT to reject racist arguments regarding IQ, among a plethora of other things - like arguments that preferences for white women has 'evolutionary' significance or that rape, war has a biological aspect to it, Iwant you to JUSTIFY how you can oppose these things for PURELY arbitrary political reasons (and yes, they are, because asf ar as ACTUAL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE GOES, by your SHITTY AND STUPID FUCKING qualifications for what constitutes "real data", THESE ARE JUST AS SCIENTIFIC AND "BACKED UP WITH REAL DATA" AS UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR).

And of course, we all know the propaganda model theorized with Edward S. Herman is a load of crap, right?

Actually yes, insfoar as it attempts to explain why people 'buy into' ruling ideology, IT IS A FUCKING LOAD OF SHIT. Would you like me to destroy this for you, too?

Rafiq is fundamentally opposed to the idea of anything being inherent in human psychology because it contradicts his ridiculous fundamentalist reading of Marxist doctrine

Time and time again, these disgusting philistines, and reactionaries, come to us and repeat literally the DUMBEST fucking argument: "Oh, you're just too attatched to your pre-conceived dogmas and beliefs in the face of evdience". Tell me, for all my time here on Revleft, for all the time I have DEVOUTED to THIS subject in particular (to the point where I CAN confidently say it's BULLSHIT), do you fucking think I have not encountered this argument before? No, please, entertain me - when you were typing this, DID YOU ACTUALLY FUCKING THINK you were being original IN ANY conceivable way? Did you? Were you thinking "oh, I'll show Rafiq!" - is THAT literally what was going through your head?

In reality, Change, SAYING I HAVE A FUNDEMENTALITS READING OF MARXIST DOCTINRE IS NO DIFFERENT THAN SAYING THOSE ENGAGED IN ANY FIELD OF NATURAL SCIENCE HAVE A FUNDAMENTALIST READING OF SCIENCE as opposed to mysticism, spiritualism and quack "science" like astrology. That is to say, YOU HAVE FAILED TO PROPERLY APPRECIATE WHAT "MARXIST DOCTRINE" ACTUALLY ENTAILS.

It DOES NOT entail a set of pre-conceived empriical dogmas. IT ENTAILS AN INSISTENCE on the fact that the social/historical dimension, and subsequently humans in general, can be approached and understood in a scientific manner. From there, THERE ARE NO DOGMAS. For example, if it is found that the Asiatic theory Marx presented was false, then the IMMEDIATE implication is that a DIFFERENT materialist reading of the societies in question is necessary. IN THAT SENSE, Marxism IS unfalsifiable, just as ANY insistence on science (vis a vis ideology, FOR EXAMPLE, astronomy against astrology) is unfalsifiable.

It's so fucking cute that you come here thinking that somehow, Rafiq can be this confident in what he sais without having a very refined, theoretically consistent and sophisticated understanding between the relationship between Marxism and science. What you fail to understand is: EVEN IF WE ARE DOGMATIC, 100% EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGISTS, EVEN IF WE ARE GENETIC DETERMINISTS, humans and the social/historical domain IS STILL not understood scientifically - becasue there is a FUNDAMENTAL space of "spirit" that THEY WILL ALL admit they do not know and will never know. HENCE, the reason why it is so popular to supplement - for example - neuroscience with eastern spiritualism and mysticism, and the same goes for quantum physics. For example? If we are our genes, if we are nothing more than our brains, IF WE WERE GIVEN TOTAL CONSCIOUSNESS of our neurological processes and genetic composition IN RELATION to our identity, our behavior, and our consciousness, could we change their expression? THAT is the paradox cognitivsts have not, and will never answer without Marxism or ideological criticism. That is because bourgeois ideology CANNOT approach the social domain scientifically. ONLY with the BIASED and "religious fundamentalist" predisposition of OPPOSING the existing order, can the social domain be systemically qualified in a scientific way. Those who are burdened with reproducing a social order which necessitates a lack of consciousness of it in its entirety, CANNOT understand it in a scientific way.

But what is hilariously stupid is that I am a "dogmatic Marxist" and yet I am THOROUGHLY rooted in Lacanian psychonalysis and critical theory to this end. That is to say, it is not classical or orthodox Marxism alone that which the psychological is understood - but through psychoanalysis as understood by Lacan. And please, PROVOKE me, PLEASE, be like Chomsky and call Lacan a charlatan and whatever you want. By the end of January, you'll have Lacan so far up your ass that you won't even remember who Chomsky even was. See if I'm fucking bluffing.

You have the gall to call Marxism scientific

YOU HAVE THE FUCKING "GALL" TO COME HERE AND REPEAT THE MOST BANAL CLICHE'S WHICH I HAVE THOROUGHLY DISPELLED TIME AND TIME AGAIN, YOU HAVE THE FUCKING AUDACITY TO REPEAT THESE WHEN I HAVE THOROUGHLY ELABORATED AND CONSISTENTLY JUSTIFIED THE SCIENTICITY OF MARXISM against what you call "data"?

Rafiq

31st December 2015, 05:15

Ladies, gentlemen, we are in a state of crisis. We are really in some deep fucking shit. If you are serious about being a Communist today, do not EVER allow this shit to be tolerated.

For every Steven Pinker there is a Kevin Macdonald. Where do we draw the line? We don't! We smash the motherfuckers to itty bits and pieces, we repel them, we scorch their fucking "science" to the ground. No compromise to this end, no "balancing" opinions - the cold ruthlessness of Marxism does not compromise, it crushes any and all superstition.

At a point in all of our lives, there comes a time when we face the question of whether we take our ideas seriously - and THESE controversies force us very deeply to do this. And on the Left, Chomsky represents this refusal to take ones politics seriously. Chomsky must be smashed, excommunicated from the tradition of the Left.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

31st December 2015, 08:28

Rafiq stop being hyperbolic. It is very difficult to detach the content of your posts from how you write them, which is in the manner of a grand speech and often includes just abuse.

I know this is online and all but a word of advice independent of political viewpoints - cut out the abuse. It's not necessary and it makes every thread you participate in difficult to also participate in.

ChangeAndChance

31st December 2015, 09:13

I was thinking of typing out a long and drawn out response but fuck it, I'm not going to even bother with responding to you. I realize that I was wrong on some points, but I maintain my position on others. Ultimately, however, it doesn't matter at all because no matter what I say, you will be a condescending prick about it. Truth be told, I honestly don't know why your toxic behavior is still allowed on these forums.

LuÃs Henrique

31st December 2015, 11:15

I listen to this guy all the time. He's probably the only far-left intellectual who I've ever listened to with so much admiration. He made good points, and I understand if he lived in our current society. But the fact that he makes investments in something like that? Does he even have any moral fabric? Wheres the donations to socialist thinktanks? Where are the resources for future revolutionaries? Where are donations to people less fortunate, who are victims of this system?! I don't know what to really say, what do you guys think?

http://www.albertmohler.com/2006/03/20/intellectual-hypocrisy-the-case-of-noam-chomsky/

And another thing, I'll listen to the guy. Because the sad fucking state of the left is intolerable.

What this means is that Chomsky is not a hippy. He doesn't think that pretending that he already lives in a socialist society will do any good. So he has money, he invests it.

Which is only a problem because much of Chomsky's following are hippies. And deal in the delusions that capitalism can be circumvented instead of destroyed, that individual decisions about individual property do make a difference, and that the system can be modified and improved through consumer decisions.

The extent to which Chomsky is responsible for the delusions of his followers is obviously debatable. I think it is huge, but then I am not really an expert in Chomsky, and I frankly find statements like,

Noam Chomsky is the current intellectual of record for the far Left. Now that Edward Said and Susan Sontag are dead, Chomsky reigns virtually supreme among the leftist intelligensia.

quite overblown (and probably more damaging against the left than against Chomsky; after all, if he is the end all be all of leftist politics, destroy him and the whole left is destroyed. Ho, hum*), to the point of ridicule.

Chomsky is anything but the leading left intellectual, in all three counts: he is a shallow thinker, he is a liberal, not a leftist, and he isn't leading anything. The cult of his personality, particular the cult of his political thought, must be an Anglo thing, and perhaps more specifically an American thing. I very much doubt that he is given much attention either in the left or in the academy outside the US, at least not outside the Linguistics Departments in the academia.

He is someone who is highly critical of American imperialism, or, rather, of American specific imperialist actions, and he is good at it, and helps keeping imperialist ideology under scrutiny. But he really doesn't add anything to any deeper comprehension of imperialism, and doesn't offer any practical alternatives in the struggle against it.

I see that others have brought up Chomsky's "universal grammar". I do think that this theory is essentialist, and opens itself quite easily to reactionary interpretations (interpretations that Chomsky himself never made or avowed; say what you say, he is no Richard Dawkins). Science is a strange thing, however, in that wrong hypotheses often are useful hypotheses in that they help advancing our comprehension of the world. This seems to me the case with Chomsky's "universal grammar". While it is a mistaken hypothesis (and leads to wild speculations of the kind evo-psy chalatans like), it certainly helped the advance of linguistics, through his theory of generative grammatics. So I would make a distinction here: while I think it is quite easy to point out the mistakes of speculation that leads to the positing of a supposed "brain area" responsible for speech, to the idea of an evolutionary leap due to a single mutation explaining glossogenesis, etc., I would be wary of any criticism of generative grammatics that isn't grounded in solid linguistic knowledge.

Luís Henrique

* The author of that article, Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., is described in his own website as
serv[ing] as president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary — the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world. so I think this is precisely the intent: to defend capitalism and American imperialism through a (quite gross and filthy) ad hominem.

Lord Testicles

31st December 2015, 11:58

Rafiq, how many times do we have to tell you to not flame people?

Also you know the "me so tough, me brain so big, you iz done for!" routine? Yeah, cut that shit out, it would be fucking pathetic if you were talking to people like that in person let alone doing it from behind a computer screen.

The Idler

31st December 2015, 12:21

Chomsky is the most popular radical writer because of his excellent criticism of United States foreign policy not because of his work on "evolutionary psychology" or "universal grammar". If he invests his royalties from the many sales of his books in stock that maximises returns, it doesn't undermine his criticism of US foreign policy any more than it undermines any criticism of US foreign policy being made by anyone who engages in capitalism.

Full Metal Bolshevik

31st December 2015, 13:21

Exactly - minus the Asians
So, not exactly? :laugh:

DOOM

31st December 2015, 14:18

His constant shilling for bourgeois forces is probably more annoying than the fact that he's running some investments. I don't really care about the fact that he's doing some business, our goal is to overthrow the bourgeois class not the individual capitalist.

Aslan

31st December 2015, 16:28

You know, if he has some friends in the bourgeois class.. That opens the question, are bourgeois class traitors good for the revolution.

Rafiq

31st December 2015, 17:25

Rafiq stop being hyperbolic. It is very difficult to detach the content of your posts from how you write them, which is in the manner of a grand speech and often includes just abuse.

But I genuinely believe many people are not aware to the extent that such arguments are deserving of anger and ridicule. Believe me, I understand that it looks like nothing more than personal abuse. But if one truly understood the darkness to this end, and how deeply it goes, if one understood the state we are at with regard to the high sciences (and subsequently, society itself - where we are heading), I would imagine they would themselves be outraged that a self-proclaimed Leftist is not only spewing poison and filth (which can be forgiven, and corrected), but doing it in a righteous manner.

If one understood the logical conclusion of these 'innocent positions', which actually demonstrates the implicit racism, etc. within them, and their relation to our contemporary political and ideological field, they would understand. Every defense of such positions, in "left-wing" terms is inconsistent and to its fullest conclusion impossible.

It is not a secret, what is going on here. Liberals have noticed and pointed it out. The genetic determinists, racists, etc. are winning the debate, in the sense that the only thing which separates them from being outright accepted completely in the domains they concern, is the ethical legacy of liberalism. In various fields of 'hard science', racism is literally rampant - the prevailing attitude today is that "Oh, we have the truth, but our PC, ultra sensitive and politically biased societies/universities won't accept these". So you can imagine why one would be infuriated at Chomsky saying "Oh, only racists are interested in that, it doesn't matter" (because you can't be outside of racism if you are not a communist, no matter how good your intentions are). And what that means is that - they will eventually be accepted.

And as I said, for every Stephen Pinker there is a Kevin Macdonald. And I have seen how popular the latter figure has got - at least on the internet (which does mean something, mind everyone). In fact every single Fascist today is an adherent of Macdonald.

Rafiq, how many times do we have to tell you to not flame people?

In fact I didn't flame anyone. I just got an infraction for that in another thread. I have attacked and ridiculed his argument. I said, once, "so confident in your stupidity" - and this is just about the only thing that can be construed as flaming.

But for the record, where there is 'volume' there is frustration. That is because I am so stupid and naive, that I actually operate with the assumption that everyone behaves honestly and employs critical thought in their posts. One cannot help but be infuriated if they understand the true colors of such 'innocent' arguments. And that is exactly what I was infuriated about - the fact that these arguments are able to be passed off as innocent.

My 'volume' is impotent, and weak, and no one hears it outside of this forum. If one understood the hegemony and power of this filth, can they not at the very least sympathize with such 'volume', made within the confines of a tiny internet forum in the corner of the web? That wasn't all for just Change and Chance, it was for the whole damned phenomena and its power in our society itself. We leftists should be very distraught about what is going on, and how we can do nothing about it as of now. Is it so criminal so as to give a fraction of the necessary (argumentative) justice against this crime, and a tiny fraction of the anger that it deserves, in the confines of a forum no one is listening to or takes seriously?

Ultimately, however, it doesn't matter at all because no matter what I say, you will be a condescending prick about it. Truth be told, I honestly don't know why your toxic behavior is still allowed on these forums

No, Change, what you fial to understand is that the 'volume' of my post is wrought from the fact that you say things like this:

Rafiq is fundamentally opposed to the idea of anything being inherent in human psychology because it contradicts his ridiculous fundamentalist reading of Marxist doctrine. If someone doesn't feel the desire to blow Marx every five minutes, they are a "spineless petty bourgeois ideologue" in Rafiq's book. You have the gall to call Marxism scientific and then turn around and dismiss any data that goes against it (or even could be used against it)? Fuck off.

You can talk about how my post is filled with abuse all you want, but there is infinitely more abuse, outright dismissal, and ruthlessness in the above passage - becasue it carries ideological weight for those who are new to the Left (the postmodern cliche of the fundementalist vs. the rational, open minded individual). There is none of that in my post - it is all very direct, with no extra hollow 'weight' to back it up, it is what it is by itself.

Change's post, though without any profanity, is infinitely more personally abusive, becasue you feel confident in not having to assume personal responsibility for what you say - you give us a series of cliche'd attacks and dismissals which only function becasue they confer and carry with them a sense of legitimacy (and you act in such a way that desires the approval of the great priests, as though you would expect them to be tapping your head for your services). That is how, in fact, morality itself in bourgeois society works: You secretly expect the hidden approval of some big other. And your post was no different.

And you say I am a condescending prick who is not open to rational discussion. In your post, you did not leave any room for debate on the matter. You did not even so much consider that behind the criticisms of Chomsky and his irk laid forth there are very refined arguments. And you were terribly wrong.

And my behavior is "toxic". The egoism that is so rampant upon this forum is so great that it literally cannot see past the petty, 'personal' implications of my posts. If you think my posts are toxic, but can go about your day in the 'real world' merrily without feeling sick, like you should vomit, if you think my posts are toxic but are somehow immune on a day-to-day basis to the toxicity of our social order and ruling ideology, you are not a communist. In truth my behavior is only as "toxic" as our present conditions demand.

We are not in a position to talk of how "toxic" such posts are. Not in the face of the toxic context they are forced to deal with and address.

So, not exactly?

No, I made a mistake there, but not even really because the argument was exactly the same. Instead of saying Asians, he simply said "A certain racial group". It does not make a difference as far as the argument was concerned.

Ele'ill

31st December 2015, 17:33

could you explain yourself in greater detail, maybe expand that out

Aslan

31st December 2015, 18:38

But I genuinely believe many people are not aware to the extent that such arguments are deserving of anger and ridicule. Believe me, I understand that it looks like nothing more than personal abuse. But if one truly understood the darkness to this end, and how deeply it goes, if one understood the state we are at with regard to the high sciences (and subsequently, society itself - where we are heading), I would imagine they would themselves be outraged that a self-proclaimed Leftist is not only spewing poison and filth (which can be forgiven, and corrected), but doing it in a righteous manner.

It is not a secret, what is going on here. Liberals have noticed and pointed it out. The genetic determinists, racists, etc. are winning the debate, in the sense that the only thing which separates them from being outright accepted completely in the domains they concern, is the ethical legacy of liberalism. In various fields of 'hard science', racism is literally rampant - the prevailing attitude today is that "Oh, we have the truth, but our PC, ultra sensitive and politically biased societies/universities won't accept these". So you can imagine why one would be infuriated at Chomsky saying "Oh, only racists are interested in that, it doesn't matter" (because you can't be outside of racism if you are not a communist, no matter how good your intentions are). And what that means is that - they will eventually be accepted.

And as I said, for every Stephen Pinker there is a Kevin Macdonald. And I have seen how popular the latter figure has got - at least on the internet (which does mean something, mind everyone). In fact every single Fascist today is an adherent of Macdonald.

And my behavior is "toxic". The egoism that is so rampant upon this forum is so great that it literally cannot see past the petty, 'personal' implications of my posts. If you think my posts are toxic, but can go about your day in the 'real world' merrily without feeling sick, like you should vomit, if you think my posts are toxic but are somehow immune on a day-to-day basis to the toxicity of our social order and ruling ideology, you are not a communist. In truth my behavior is only as "toxic" as our present conditions demand.

No, I made a mistake there, but not even really because the argument was exactly the same. Instead of saying Asians, he simply said "A certain racial group". It does not make a difference as far as the argument was concerned.

Intellectual spheres are full of these people, I agree. However, I think it is because most of these intellectuals are old dusty rags. They were raised in a time when people lynched other people because of their skin-color. And to be honest, i'm not very knowledgeable about Mcdonald and Pinky. But I know that that vile book The Bell curve fits into your exact definition of what your taking about. And that book is in the racist fringe of the intellectuals.

Where are the examples where the determinists are winning? You say all these interesting points, but no evidence or further reading. I'd like to be educated on your point since the intellectuals in universities like Chomsky are such an inaccessible and isolated sector of our society. How does this hidden racialism get through the cracks?

Also, I tend to be egoistic in some of my posts. I agree to that, but I acknowledge my mistakes and learn. But just because other people are egotistic doesn't mean your's is excused.

Rafiq

31st December 2015, 19:17

Intellectual spheres are full of these people, I agree. However, I think it is because most of these intellectuals are old dusty rags. They were raised in a time when people lynched other people because of their skin-color.

What is sad is that quite the opposite is true - and that is why it should be of such a concern to us: This kind of racism is totally new, it is not the vestige of some old phenomena, it is entirely new and sufficient unto itself as new.

For example, no one in the sciences use words like "race". In our postmodern era, "scientifically accepted" words are "population". But it doesn't make a difference in practical terms. So liberal political correctness is there, and the new racists are not some old geezers who won't accept it. They are accepting it, and their racism is totally politically correct. Mainstream thinkers like Stephen Pinker, who are very popular among people, for example talk about how they "wouldn't rule out" disparities in "intelligence" between different "population groups".

But ironically enough, the true "old timers" are people like Kamin, Lewontin, and Rose, and don't get me wrong - these are heroic thinkers, and we should commend them. But they receive no respect or attention in mainstream scientific fields, even the discoverer of the "Flynn effect", a liberal, has attacked them for letting their "political biases" get in the way of accepting "da evidence". They are not enough today to combat this onslaught of "scientific" reaction.

It is a sad thing too, really. The Bell Curve, a relatively old book, is just the tip of the ice berg as far as this filth is concerned.

Where are the examples where the determinists are winning? You say all these interesting points, but no evidence or further reading.

I am not sure how I can demonstrate something so over-encompassing and broad. But let's, for one, take the argument about intelligence. Conventional philistine thought tells us that it's a "50/50" kind of thing. The mainstream, conventional 'scientific' consensus is that "intelligence" is something mostly heritable (i.e. 80% after adolescence). And there are numerous, numerous other examples.

The only thing I can tell you is that you ought to research such matters yourself - you will understand what I am talking about.

How does this hidden racialism get through the cracks?

Because it is the logical conclusion of what is already basically accepted by mainstream "scientists", which is that human abilities of historic pertinence are heritable, are "in our genes". If this is true, there is no reason to think that populations that have been separated for several tens of thousands of years to have "different" ingrained mental abilities (a purely moral category, for the record). In the words of one of the speakers at one of the recent behavioral genetics summits, "the burden of proof has shifted upon the 'environmentalists'" - this reflects what the fields themselves think. And the utter and sheer weakness of those who criticize the determinists, argumentatively, is alone evidence of its power.

But never mind that. The ONLY evidence we need here is that while the humanities are constantly being slashed, destroyed, reactionary cognitivism, including behavioral genetics and evolutionary psychology, are receiving increased funding and support from both the state and the university apparatus's. Social science is in decline in the technical apparatus's and is being replaced by reactionary determinism. Today, the journals which get published for peer-review almost always have to cater to pop-science stupidity, the whole process is overwhelmingly in favor of the reaction. Any hint of "bias" which attacks such things, will not even be considered for peer-review publishing or editing. Any rudimentary insight into this process allows one to see very clearly what is going on.

The only thing separating a full acceptance of scientific racism, is the legacy of bourgeois-liberal ethics. Which is waning day by day.

A.J.

31st December 2015, 19:29

Full Metal Bolshevik

31st December 2015, 19:39

(because you can't be outside of racism if you are not a communist, no matter how good your intentions are)
What.

If you think my posts are toxic, but can go about your day in the 'real world' merrily without feeling sick, like you should vomit, if you think my posts are toxic but are somehow immune on a day-to-day basis to the toxicity of our social order and ruling ideology, you are not a communist.
Again, what? So you can only be a Communist if you feel 'sick', not if you understand the historical materialism, class struggle, etc (etc is a replacement for stuff I don't fully understand :grin: ) Isn't it a bit silly? There's a TV Trope called Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy, maybe some communists became so apathetic they don't feel anything anymore, or they simply feel impotent and learn to live with it and make the best of it.

About genetics vs environment, are you saying there's simply no proof or that's it's a lie? From what I remember about the other really long ass post, is that you disproved most of it, but not proved the environment factor.

Rafiq

31st December 2015, 20:01

What.

Racism is not the same as the conscious use of prejudice. It is something deeply ingrained, structurally and ideologically, in our society. If you are not a Communist, you cannot be outside of racism. 99% of people don't even know what racism actually means. It's not "discrimination". It's not "paying attention" to racial differences. Racism goes so much deeper than this.

Without a necessary critique of our social order, only possible through the presupposition of Communism, you cannot properly be an anti-racist.

Again, what? So you can only be a Communist if you feel 'sick', not if you understand the historical materialism, class struggle, etc

What constitutes and understanding of these things for you, is quite bellow the stadnard of understanding as held by Marxists, if this is the case.

But of course we can forgive people for not feeling sick. That's not the point. The point is that, in the face of the conditions at hand, calling my posts 'toxic' means that they take you out of your comfort zone that you insist on being in, a zone you have no right to be in if you call yourself a Communist. Things aren't pretty. We are living in quite a hell . If my posts offend you because you think they are "toxic", you are not a Communist, but a bourgeois-liberal who doesn't want their sensitivities offended. How dare people talk of toxicity, then, when our social order is nothing more than the perpetuation of passively enforced toxicities that they are so eager to ignore.

The toxic hell the damned of this world face, what right is someone to speak of the "toxicity" of my posts? My posts, which are a faint whisper to the never ending, aching blast of music, the symphony of exploitation and mortification, of philistinism and relations of domination, humiliation and slavery - how can one approach my posts and think they are toxic when they are dealing with this context? I am nothing, I am no one. You all better hope there is a monster much meaner, much more cruel, and much more bloodthirsty that will strike terror in the hearts of the exploiters, and powers that be - than me that is strong enough to face this wretched social order, if you are serious about being Communists.

What is the standard for "non-toxicity" that is being presumed which I violate, that is not ingrained and present in everyday life on a day to day basis?There is INFINITELY MORE violence in a statement like "evolutionary psychology is scientific" than any degree of profanity I could use in attacking someone. The violence of the former designates the violence that perpetuates the misery, oppression and suffering of the damned. My violence is at best their revenge in theory.

About genetics vs environment, are you saying there's simply no proof or that's it's a lie? From what I remember about the other really long ass post, is that you disproved most of it, but not proved the environment factor.

My argument is far more complex, for it to be a "lie" is tricky to say (because that assumes that truth is within their grasp). What we can say with confidence is that they are not at all scientific.

And I have not "proven" the environmental factor because I have avowedly rejected "environmentalism" on grounds that iti s still an ecological category which assumes that humans are shaped by forces that are outside of their own active inter-relations. Humans are not simply the product of their environment, or their genes, or any combination of the two: Humans are a product of their relationship to the social totality which determines and defines their means and way of life. Humans must actively justify, perpetuate in consciousness this condition, they are not passive zombies who, if in X circumstance, will "result" in this or that. The social domain is the domain of human existence. Not their "genes" and not some petty notion of "environment" which means nothing. What even CONSTITUTES an "environmental difference", properly? The whole discourse is worthless and nonsensical.

As for "proving" an affirmative substitution, i.e materialism, that is just as nonsensical as forcing someone to "prove" astronomy. Without presupposing the acceptance of this scientific pursuit AGAINST superstition, you can't "prove" astronomy just like you can't "prove" science itself. Historical materialism, for that reason, is not some "neutral" science but the science of those practically inclined to destroy the existing order. That means partisanship, bias, and "truth", far from excluding each other as postmodern garbage tells us, are conditions of each other.

Truth is a matter of practice. For those who are not practically inclined to destroy the existing order, identifying with the damned, the exploited and excluded, there is nothing to "prove". Just like there is nothing to "prove" to priests and hegemons in a backward society that is contingent upon a lack of technical innovation - if they have no practical inclination to master natural processes, then there is nothing to "prove" to them. All we can insist on is that it can be done. We don't need positive empirical proof for that. That is a matter of confidence in oneself, for Communism is nothing more than social self consciousness. All we have to say is that: We can do it, we can achieve social self-consciousness and do away with false mysteries and superstitions. If the proletariat is so inclined to do this, what should stop them? Superstitions that tell them there is something inside them that make them incapable of controlling their own means of life?

You might say: "Well, we should be careful, we have no evidence that this is possible". Say you are at some shrine, and there is a sacred idol. Conventional wisdom sais that if you deface this idol, something horrible will happen. Should you refrain from pissing on the sacred idol because of this superstition? What SUSTAINS this superstitious belief, is it any kind of new empirical proof, or is it something located in an ideological dimension? It is the latter. You are right, we don't have 'postiive empirical proof' Communism is possible, because no such proof can ever be possible until we actually have Communism.

Why should we take seriously evolutionary psychology, or "essentialist" pseudoscience any more than we take seriously astrology, religious superstition, and the notion that Communism will incur the wrath of invisible space aliens? Communism is democratic. It is the social self consciousness of peoples as a whole, like a Spartan military formation - organized and disciplined, but contingent upon the conscious participation and will of each constitutive soldier.

The scientific paradigm of historical materialism is a practical one. The scientific consciousness of social, and historical processes in practice is Communism. What others call "proof" and "testing", we call tactics. Proving something, already presupposes partisanship, that one has a practical inclination to prove a thing within the substrate of a greater thing. So "proof" becomes significant NOT in "proving" Communism or historical materialism, but in their specifialities, i.e. Proving that ancient India was an Asiatic society, rather than something else - that is an empirical controversy. As I said, Marxism IS, like any other scientific discourse, unfalsifiable vis a vis superstitions. What makes it or breaks it is practical inclination. What bourgeois positivists forget is that in one point of history, mastering natural processes in a rational way WAS controversial. And the same goes for social processes today. So we do want to engage in (democratic, mass participatory) 'social engineering' to this end.

Jacob Cliff

31st December 2015, 22:00

Racism is not the same as the conscious use of prejudice. It is something deeply ingrained, structurally and ideologically, in our society. If you are not a Communist, you cannot be outside of racism. 99% of people don't even know what racism actually means. It's not "discrimination". It's not "paying attention" to racial differences. Racism goes so much deeper than this.

Without a necessary critique of our social order, only possible through the presupposition of Communism, you cannot properly be an anti-racist.

What constitutes and understanding of these things for you, is quite bellow the stadnard of understanding as held by Marxists, if this is the case.

But of course we can forgive people for not feeling sick. That's not the point. The point is that, in the face of the conditions at hand, calling my posts 'toxic' means that they take you out of your comfort zone that you insist on being in, a zone you have no right to be in if you call yourself a Communist. Things aren't pretty. We are living in quite a hell . If my posts offend you because you think they are "toxic", you are not a Communist, but a bourgeois-liberal who doesn't want their sensitivities offended. How dare people talk of toxicity, then, when our social order is nothing more than the perpetuation of passively enforced toxicities that they are so eager to ignore.

The toxic hell the damned of this world face, what right is someone to speak of the "toxicity" of my posts? My posts, which are a faint whisper to the never ending, aching blast of music, the symphony of exploitation and mortification, of philistinism and relations of domination, humiliation and slavery - how can one approach my posts and think they are toxic when they are dealing with this context? I am nothing, I am no one. You all better hope there is a monster much meaner, much more cruel, and much more bloodthirsty that will strike terror in the hearts of the exploiters, and powers that be - than me that is strong enough to face this wretched social order, if you are serious about being Communists.

What is the standard for "non-toxicity" that is being presumed which I violate, that is not ingrained and present in everyday life on a day to day basis?There is INFINITELY MORE violence in a statement like "evolutionary psychology is scientific" than any degree of profanity I could use in attacking someone. The violence of the former designates the violence that perpetuates the misery, oppression and suffering of the damned. My violence is at best their revenge in theory.

My argument is far more complex, for it to be a "lie" is tricky to say (because that assumes that truth is within their grasp). What we can say with confidence is that they are not at all scientific.

And I have not "proven" the environmental factor because I have avowedly rejected "environmentalism" on grounds that iti s still an ecological category which assumes that humans are shaped by forces that are outside of their own active inter-relations. Humans are not simply the product of their environment, or their genes, or any combination of the two: Humans are a product of their relationship to the social totality which determines and defines their means and way of life. Humans must actively justify, perpetuate in consciousness this condition, they are not passive zombies who, if in X circumstance, will "result" in this or that. The social domain is the domain of human existence. Not their "genes" and not some petty notion of "environment" which means nothing. What even CONSTITUTES an "environmental difference", properly? The whole discourse is worthless and nonsensical.

As for "proving" an affirmative substitution, i.e materialism, that is just as nonsensical as forcing someone to "prove" astronomy. Without presupposing the acceptance of this scientific pursuit AGAINST superstition, you can't "prove" astronomy just like you can't "prove" science itself. Historical materialism, for that reason, is not some "neutral" science but the science of those practically inclined to destroy the existing order. That means partisanship, bias, and "truth", far from excluding each other as postmodern garbage tells us, are conditions of each other.

Truth is a matter of practice. For those who are not practically inclined to destroy the existing order, identifying with the damned, the exploited and excluded, there is nothing to "prove". Just like there is nothing to "prove" to priests and hegemons in a backward society that is contingent upon a lack of technical innovation - if they have no practical inclination to master natural processes, then there is nothing to "prove" to them. All we can insist on is that it can be done. We don't need positive empirical proof for that. That is a matter of confidence in oneself, for Communism is nothing more than social self consciousness. All we have to say is that: We can do it, we can achieve social self-consciousness and do away with false mysteries and superstitions. If the proletariat is so inclined to do this, what should stop them? Superstitions that tell them there is something inside them that make them incapable of controlling their own means of life?

You might say: "Well, we should be careful, we have no evidence that this is possible". Say you are at some shrine, and there is a sacred idol. Conventional wisdom sais that if you deface this idol, something horrible will happen. Should you refrain from pissing on the sacred idol because of this superstition? What SUSTAINS this superstitious belief, is it any kind of new empirical proof, or is it something located in an ideological dimension? It is the latter. You are right, we don't have 'postiive empirical proof' Communism is possible, because no such proof can ever be possible until we actually have Communism.

Why should we take seriously evolutionary psychology, or "essentialist" pseudoscience any more than we take seriously astrology, religious superstition, and the notion that Communism will incur the wrath of invisible space aliens? Communism is democratic. It is the social self consciousness of peoples as a whole, like a Spartan military formation - organized and disciplined, but contingent upon the conscious participation and will of each constitutive soldier.

The scientific paradigm of historical materialism is a practical one. The scientific consciousness of social, and historical processes in practice is Communism. What others call "proof" and "testing", we call tactics. Proving something, already presupposes partisanship, that one has a practical inclination to prove a thing within the substrate of a greater thing. So "proof" becomes significant NOT in "proving" Communism or historical materialism, but in their specifialities, i.e. Proving that ancient India was an Asiatic society, rather than something else - that is an empirical controversy. As I said, Marxism IS, like any other scientific discourse, unfalsifiable vis a vis superstitions. What makes it or breaks it is practical inclination. What bourgeois positivists forget is that in one point of history, mastering natural processes in a rational way WAS controversial. And the same goes for social processes today. So we do want to engage in (democratic, mass participatory) 'social engineering' to this end.
From viewing this conversation I see your convictions that social formations and relationships determine "human nature" (simplified), but you seem to reject genetic factors. I don't mean this in a racial way, necessarily, but don't genes presuppose formations? Don't they presuppose social relations to production? Obviously humans have very little differentiating genes from eachother besides physiological differences (still small differences here), there are certainly some genetic differences. Now obviously this doesn't mean "da black pepul r inferier" compared to "white people," but within different regions, the simple act of reproduction in isolated people in certain regions of the globe would account for some differentiations, right?
If there's a certain group of people living in a certain place, and a gene becomes dominant in this isolated place that does mean a difference here-or-there mentally, wouldn't this gene constitute something more than simple social relationships?

Now don't mistaken me for racist "black-white" generalizations – and don't suppose I view any people as socially unequal. But it may be ridiculous to assume all 7 billion of us are genetically the same in mental faculties (this doesn't pertain to race, by the way. Note this, because I don't want you screaming at me for being a "bourgeois-liberal philistine" or something – I just want whatever superstitions I have/am unconscious of having to be shredded).
Aside from this, I don't think mental processes (if they vary from population to population – and yes, I am using that term you were berating the former user for) matter – communism would unite people as a whole, irrespective of "differences."

Rafiq

31st December 2015, 22:52

From viewing this conversation I see your convictions that social formations and relationships determine "human nature" (simplified), but you seem to reject genetic factors. I don't mean this in a racial way, necessarily, but don't genes presuppose formations?

Of cousre they do. The distinct physiological character of man, is a precondition of man's social organization. If it were any way otherwise, than a chimpanzee, or a dog, would be able to be a fully constituted social subject in the symbolic order. That is clearly not the case.

But such a statement, which seems innocent enough, carries a plethora of meaning that it does not consciously acknowledge. That is to say, what exactly are "genes" and form what basis of consciousness do we talk about genes, in relation to us? You ask if genes presuppose formations. Does that mean genes are essential, i.e. OVER social formations themselves? Am I talking to genes, am I talking to cells and chemicals right now, or am I talking to Marxiansocialist, who with consciousness understands his physical constitution in terms of genes? Are we debating as social subjects right now, or as the genes? IS the consciousness which makes this controversial rooted in my genetic constitution, or one's relation to the social/symbolic order? If it is truly "in my genes", then can I be conscious of this, in a full way, without altering the behavioral expression? Is the latter an inevitability beyond my control? This inability to CATCH UP with one's consciousness is why genetic determinism is bullshit. Because no matter what, consciousnesses will always preclude any understanding we have of the physiology which enables our consciousness to exist. We can be fully conscious of this physiological constitution NOT because we have a soul, but because we are social subjects - the social order asserts domination and complete control over these physiological processes, through us. This "freedom" we have to think, is social. Reason, is social.

The point is simple: The social and psychological is a dimension itself, fully sufficient unto itself, which subsumes all other dimensions. Yes biological processes are necessary to faciliate this, but so are chemical, and subsequently atomic processes. Those are trivialities as far as determinign the expression of the social and psychologicla, because variance - as it becomes controversial - between the latter two IS NOT TRANS-HISTORICAL or FIXED. Variance is at the level of the HISTORICAL, not at the level of the taxonomic or the species. THIS distinction, as Marx states, is alwasy a presupposition, not something that we base differentaition upon:

The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature. Of course, we cannot here go either into the actual physical nature of man, or into the natural conditions in which man finds himself – geological, hydrographical, climatic and so on. The writing of history must always set out from these natural bases and their modification in the course of history through the action of men.

He proceeds, as we all know, with the animal/human ontological distinction itself:

Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life.

But what genetic determinists attempt to do, is claim that the historically particular means by which men produce (and reproduce) their means of subsistence, from sexuality to actual material production is conditioned by their physical organization.

Insofar as this is empirically relevant, it concerns our ability to facilitate this. Which every human, save for those humans who have an impairment, can do. There are no human populations who as a whole have, for example, down's syndrome. These are specific genetic mutations which can be located. No such mutations can be located to explain the alleged "variances" between populations - to speak nothing of the fact that no genes have been found for intelligence, and no genes have been found for disparities in intelligence between populations where such disparities exist. That is because these are not genetic controversies, but social ones. Humans aren't animals - they are conscious beings, who must, in their own minds, RELATE to their identities in an ACTIVE, and not passive way.

The point is very simple: There is an independent, subsuming dimension of existence, and of consciousness, that has its basis in language, in the social order itself that which we are allowed to find something significant about genes in relation to our existence. But "genes" do not determine anything, genes FACILITATE the ability for man to be a fully constituted social being. Where genes are concerned, irrespective of social processes, these are pure trivialities (i.e. physiological considerations, like how you appear) and furthermore, the significance IN YOUR OWN head of these physiological realities is purely social.

Man is master of his own physiology and "nature", and his ability for consciousness of the latter two is the only evidence we need of that.

Obviously humans have very little differentiating genes from eachother besides physiological differences (still small differences here), there are certainly some genetic differences.

Yes there are genetic differences. There are. But those differences are non-essential ones, i.e. they are trivial differences which have nothing to do with what constitutes the subject. Every human being is a master of his own physiology, and this mastery is derived from the fact that his identity is the totality of his social relations. In that sense, human physiology is a vestige of our past, not an ontological inevitability. The fact that we can talk about biological engineering, "uploading our consciousness", changing our physiological constitution, nay, the fact that we even have things like medicine and surgery to this end proves the subsumption of all physiological considerations by the social/historical.

Where human physiology is significant, is the degree that which it allows one access to the social and symbolic order. That is to say, there is no human nature, and this is best exemplified by the wailing of the newborn child - NO OTHER ANIMAL is born this way, and the point is simple: This "wailing", this crying, represents THE raw, core basis of what humans are, which is what Freud tries to wrap his head around (but fails to actually understand) death drive. That is, the innate human insistence on seemingly 'irrational' (from a biological standpoint) repetition, and the dependency of humans on a symbolic order - to be "grounded" - humans, these naked, helpless creatures, only become humans once they belong to a social order. Outside of this, they are nothing - even people like Dennett recognize this: To speak of a human without clothing and tools, for example, is nonsense. The wailing of the human child represents the ambiguity and the lack of a fixed 'being', it is the wail that derives from an innate propensity to SEARCH for a master, a social order, that one constitutes a part of. Other animals, upon conception, are born and are already what they are.

In the words of Kant, speaking of this death-drive, a human is an animal which needs a master. Not a master in the sense of domination and control, but a social, symbolic order. What does that mean? It means all animals, to some degree, have a sense of biological autonomy unto themselves, i.e. they can exist, to some degree, by themselves as organisms, act in an autonomous way insofar as their physiological constitution reflects the triggering of certain physical reflexes. This is PURE proximity, there is no difference between this, and say - a robot. For animals, you press the right buttons, and everything is fine.

That is why animals have habitats. To speak of a "human habitat" is laughable. They are ecological creatures who have a specific, circular and BALANCED relationship to nature. What balance does man have with nature? He has none. Man, distinguished by great mass migrations, is not rooted in any "environment", he masters his environment insofar as his social totality demands it.

This is why, many make the mistake of assuming that our premordial past is our "natural habitat". It was not. IT was just as 'crazy' as today, it was pure proximity - humans with crazy rituals, myths, WERE JUST AS MUCH responding, conceptualizing, and attempting to master their surroundings as we are today. It is difficult to illustrate this point - the SECONDARY relationship between man and his environment:

Man is not a product of his environment or his genetic constitution. What we call "man" FINDS HIMSELF (or herself, excuse my stupid language here) in an environment, or with certain physiological characteristics. But the ability for him to have consciousness over his physiological characteristics, proves that he is not reducible to them. This consciousness derives from the social totality - because people are NEVER "just themselves", they possess a unique consciousness, thoroughly rooted in language, that allows them to have an idea of what they themselves are - that is beyond them.

In that sense, notions of a "soul" are less stupid than vulgar materialism (but still thoroughly nonsensical, superstitious and of course stupid). Because notions of a "soul" were an attempt to illustrate this basic difference between man and animal. Marxists, or more specifically Hegel came and demonstrated that while there was no soul, man's consciousness is rooted in his relationship to other individuals and to a social totality which is beyond them all, which is not simply the sum of its parts but a symbolic order in our heads, which we are enslaved by.

but within different regions, the simple act of reproduction in isolated people in certain regions of the globe would account for some differentiations, right

Okay, but what do you mean by "some differentiations"? This is how dieology works - you say things without consciously acknowledging it. Have you thought for a second to question what constitutes the scope of this "differentiation", the nature of this "differentiation"? That is to say, this physical differentiation is NOTHING MORE than a triviality, no matter how humans across the world, who share a common homo sapiens sapiens ancestor, reproduce in isolation.

The bourgeois ideological mechanism in saying "some differentiation" insinuates much more than it sais - it innocently attempts to confer MORAL, IDEOLOGICAL, SOCIAL and HISTORICAL categories into these "differentiations". But the moral, ideological, social, and historical substance of humans IS NOT in their physiological constitution.

And why? WE DO NOT differentiate historic and social controversies by comparing humans to chimps. Only in our perverse, ecology-fetishistic survivalist postmodern societies have we done this. Instead, to properly understand these scientifically, we differentiate the historic and social IN TERMS OF CHANGES in the historic and social. As Marx stated, the materialist conception of history rests upon no empirical dogmas. The distinct, physiological nature of humans compared to other animals was not important for Marx, for this remained constant throughout history.

If there's a certain group of people living in a certain place, and a gene becomes dominant in this isolated place that does mean a difference here-or-there mentally, wouldn't this gene constitute something more than simple social relationships?

Specifically, like what genes are you talking about? Genes for eye color, or hair color? Certainly, but that is just as much a triviality as how the specific geographic conditions they find themselves influence their society. The "gene" is not responsible for this, but how the social order in question attributes social meaning to that gene. It is the social order which reproduces the biological, and determines the course of its reproduction, not the other way around.

But it may be ridiculous to assume all 7 billion of us are genetically the same in mental faculties.

It is ridiculous to think that all 7 people have the same neurological constitution. But unless they have some kind of genetically traceable, very conceivable genetic defect which impairs, mutates or alters otherwise functioning mental abilities, every single human on this Earth has the capacity to reach the highest limits of what the mind can take them. Every human on this planet, if they are not inflicted with some kind of real physiological impairment (i.e. down's syndrome) is capable of reaching the highest heights of human potential, where it concerns consciousness and thought.

Communists must thorouhgly recognize this, it is the pre-condition of being a Communist.

The arguments of racists do not say that blacks have some kind of impairement. They say that as a "population", they are less intelligent. But they are still using a standard of intelligence that which blacks are qualified. If blacks were physiologically not as human as we are, in their brains, we would not do this - so my point is that EVEN THE MOST RABID and VILE racists have to recognize that the brains of blacks are "just as much" the brains of homo sapiens sapiens, which just happen to be "less intelligent" on the defined human spectrum of mental abilities.

And this argument is pure nonsense in that it fails to actually understand what intelligence is: Rather than some physiological mechanism, intelligence is a categeory of consciousness, it means nothing - it is not defined by how fast you can process information (which makes no difference as to ability), or how much information you can store. It is a thoroughly undemocratic notion which claims that the ignorance of the people is an inevitability, WITHOUT GIVING US CLEAR CUT ACCESS to the dimension of this ignorance as it relates to those people in their heads and in their own consciousness. It assumes they are animals who in fact do not have any sense of consciousnesses. Such is the result of the decline of our democratic standards.

My point is that eveyrone has a story. There are reasons that pertain to consciosuness (and non-consciosuness) that explain people's "mental abilities", which are not in their genes or their "envirooment" per se but their relationship to the social order. Any idiot can see that blacks in ghettos must constantly REINFORCE a lack of faith in their own abilities, no matter what they say, deep down they truly do feel like they cannot do what white people do. Race relates to people's own consciousness, it is reciprocal - what whites think of blacks, they in turn also think of themselves in constructing a sense of self-identity. That's why whites never even have to think about race at all, when for blacks, it is an identity that is constantly reinforced, they do not see themselves as merely human, but "a human with black skin".

Aside from this, I don't think mental processes (if they vary from population to population – and yes, I am using that term you were berating the former user for) matter – communism would unite people as a whole, irrespective of "differences"

Well yes, they do matter, because what constitutes "mental processes" is very over-encompassing. If what you call "mental processes" are varied, that gives us a different understanding of class: The bourgeoisie are now "innately" superior and have "superior mental processes" than the rest of the population. Think about it. IF some mental processes make some people more "intelligent", or are responsible for different behaviors among people, at a physiological level, do you have any idea of the implications of this?

What is the extent of human "mental capacities" insofar as it is ingrained? What does it allow some humans to do, what other humans cannot? I say this because, who is to say that the "true" ideas are only those produced by the "neurologically superior humans", who are the bourgeoisie today? What can a person with "better mental capacities" do exactly, in practical terms, that a person with lesser mental capacities cannot do? And why shouldn't this, so to speak, matter in relation to how we build a society, if it is supposedly true that there are 'differences'? Would a 'better' society then not take into account peoples' inherent abilities insofar as it assigns them certain functions?

It is very well that you don't think it makes a difference but as far as understanding the CAUSAL BASIS of racial oppression in the first place, it DOES make a difference - and subsequently it makes a difference as to how we respond to it. Let's start with Africa's problems. Should we accept the assertion that Africa's problems are owed to the differing "mental capacities" of Africans, and if we recognize that those mental capacities are different:

How do we measure that they are different? If it means measuring the MERE EXPRESSION of alleged physiological mental differences, who are you to pick and choose the causal basis of Africa's woes?

Do not get me wrong. Africans on average have a "lower IQ". Why is this, though? That is what we must ask. Is it because of something historical, or because of something that we can trace back to 100,000 B.C.? If it is the latter, how do we measure that? Africa's capacity for civilization? Interesting, the neolithic which began in the fertile crescent and which Africa "lagged behind" in only by thousands of years (compared to the tens of thousands that humans were hunting animals and living in shit). Africa, which underwent its own neolithic, what historians call the bantu expansion, which was predisposed to civilization and had its own distinct giest, a process which was halted by colonization (various African kingdoms, small tribal conglomerates that were unifying in a similar way that the Greek tribes did, etc.). No genetic difference, is going to explain variation that concerns only a few thousand years, because genetic changes in a few thousand years are totally negligible. And while Egypt (Nubia, and what is now Ethiopia), who were by all means African (for Egyptians, highly mixed, depicted themselves as black sometimes (and if not, they depicted themselves dark red), we have every reason to believe Nubians were 100% Africans, and Ethiopia is more ambiguous but likely similar to Egypt) in question, were organized into complex civilizations, Europeans were 'savages'. According to the Greeks and later Arabs, N. Europeans were cave-dwelling animals while the Egyptians were revered and highly respected. Arab explorers (while racist toward southern pre-neolithic or proto-neolithic Africans), revered and praised West Africans, who were quite acclaimed as it concerned mathematics. They did this while saying Northern Europeans and Slavs were cave dwelling savages. The theory was that the farther away from the Mediterranean you were, the more inferior you were. They literally thought this, and they borrowed this 'theory' from the Greeks (who white racists identify with)!

So populations that are today considered with "less mental abilities" were in the past the most 'intelligent' and complex peoples of their day, Persia, Iraq, Egypt, Ethiopia, and so on. And people considered "smarter" today, Northern Europeans, were savages and considered barbarians. If I were Richard Lynn living around 1000 B.C., would I qualify and measures "mental abilities" the same way that I do in 2015? I'll leave that for you to decide.

Aslan

1st January 2016, 03:48

The only reason why African were thought to be ''stupid'' was because of the colonial masters who decided that if they equated them to apes. Then they could be ''justified'' in subjugation, and therefore it spread to people from the top to bottom.

Africa had many advanced civilizations in their own right. Places like Nubia, Zimbabwe, and expecially Ethiopia. Places where African people were just as intelligent as Europeans.

Rafiq is right though, people in the PC age always tend to look at things superficially. Now that these fuckers have bypassed the PC and Liberals. It isn't likely this can be changed.

I'm afraid this racism can't be solved though. People just don't give enough shits to deal with it. I know its horrid. Its the least of our worries anyway...

Synergy

1st January 2016, 03:59

Rafiq, while I do think you're a smart guy, some of your responses in this thread are legitimately scary. Like you're going to burn down someone's house or something. I obviously don't know you or your history personally but you might want to get some counseling. That state of mind is not healthy.

Aslan

1st January 2016, 04:09

Seriously Rafiq, you take some of what you say way too far.

Also

The toxic hell the damned of this world face, what right is someone to speak of the "toxicity" of my posts? My posts, which are a faint whisper to the never ending, aching blast of music, the symphony of exploitation and mortification, of philistinism and relations of domination, humiliation and slavery - how can one approach my posts and think they are toxic when they are dealing with this context? I am nothing, I am no one. You all better hope there is a monster much meaner, much more cruel, and much more bloodthirsty that will strike terror in the hearts of the exploiters, and powers that be - than me that is strong enough to face this wretched social order, if you are serious about being Communists.

Beautiful work, ever think about writing plays? I'd love to see your version of The Bible where Jesus defeats Rome and establishes the Judean People's Front!

Jacob Cliff

1st January 2016, 05:36

Racism is not the same as the conscious use of prejudice. It is something deeply ingrained, structurally and ideologically, in our society. If you are not a Communist, you cannot be outside of racism. 99% of people don't even know what racism actually means. It's not "discrimination". It's not "paying attention" to racial differences. Racism goes so much deeper than this.

Without a necessary critique of our social order, only possible through the presupposition of Communism, you cannot properly be an anti-racist.

What constitutes and understanding of these things for you, is quite bellow the stadnard of understanding as held by Marxists, if this is the case.

But of course we can forgive people for not feeling sick. That's not the point. The point is that, in the face of the conditions at hand, calling my posts 'toxic' means that they take you out of your comfort zone that you insist on being in, a zone you have no right to be in if you call yourself a Communist. Things aren't pretty. We are living in quite a hell . If my posts offend you because you think they are "toxic", you are not a Communist, but a bourgeois-liberal who doesn't want their sensitivities offended. How dare people talk of toxicity, then, when our social order is nothing more than the perpetuation of passively enforced toxicities that they are so eager to ignore.

The toxic hell the damned of this world face, what right is someone to speak of the "toxicity" of my posts? My posts, which are a faint whisper to the never ending, aching blast of music, the symphony of exploitation and mortification, of philistinism and relations of domination, humiliation and slavery - how can one approach my posts and think they are toxic when they are dealing with this context? I am nothing, I am no one. You all better hope there is a monster much meaner, much more cruel, and much more bloodthirsty that will strike terror in the hearts of the exploiters, and powers that be - than me that is strong enough to face this wretched social order, if you are serious about being Communists.

What is the standard for "non-toxicity" that is being presumed which I violate, that is not ingrained and present in everyday life on a day to day basis?There is INFINITELY MORE violence in a statement like "evolutionary psychology is scientific" than any degree of profanity I could use in attacking someone. The violence of the former designates the violence that perpetuates the misery, oppression and suffering of the damned. My violence is at best their revenge in theory.

My argument is far more complex, for it to be a "lie" is tricky to say (because that assumes that truth is within their grasp). What we can say with confidence is that they are not at all scientific.

And I have not "proven" the environmental factor because I have avowedly rejected "environmentalism" on grounds that iti s still an ecological category which assumes that humans are shaped by forces that are outside of their own active inter-relations. Humans are not simply the product of their environment, or their genes, or any combination of the two: Humans are a product of their relationship to the social totality which determines and defines their means and way of life. Humans must actively justify, perpetuate in consciousness this condition, they are not passive zombies who, if in X circumstance, will "result" in this or that. The social domain is the domain of human existence. Not their "genes" and not some petty notion of "environment" which means nothing. What even CONSTITUTES an "environmental difference", properly? The whole discourse is worthless and nonsensical.

As for "proving" an affirmative substitution, i.e materialism, that is just as nonsensical as forcing someone to "prove" astronomy. Without presupposing the acceptance of this scientific pursuit AGAINST superstition, you can't "prove" astronomy just like you can't "prove" science itself. Historical materialism, for that reason, is not some "neutral" science but the science of those practically inclined to destroy the existing order. That means partisanship, bias, and "truth", far from excluding each other as postmodern garbage tells us, are conditions of each other.

Truth is a matter of practice. For those who are not practically inclined to destroy the existing order, identifying with the damned, the exploited and excluded, there is nothing to "prove". Just like there is nothing to "prove" to priests and hegemons in a backward society that is contingent upon a lack of technical innovation - if they have no practical inclination to master natural processes, then there is nothing to "prove" to them. All we can insist on is that it can be done. We don't need positive empirical proof for that. That is a matter of confidence in oneself, for Communism is nothing more than social self consciousness. All we have to say is that: We can do it, we can achieve social self-consciousness and do away with false mysteries and superstitions. If the proletariat is so inclined to do this, what should stop them? Superstitions that tell them there is something inside them that make them incapable of controlling their own means of life?

You might say: "Well, we should be careful, we have no evidence that this is possible". Say you are at some shrine, and there is a sacred idol. Conventional wisdom sais that if you deface this idol, something horrible will happen. Should you refrain from pissing on the sacred idol because of this superstition? What SUSTAINS this superstitious belief, is it any kind of new empirical proof, or is it something located in an ideological dimension? It is the latter. You are right, we don't have 'postiive empirical proof' Communism is possible, because no such proof can ever be possible until we actually have Communism.

Why should we take seriously evolutionary psychology, or "essentialist" pseudoscience any more than we take seriously astrology, religious superstition, and the notion that Communism will incur the wrath of invisible space aliens? Communism is democratic. It is the social self consciousness of peoples as a whole, like a Spartan military formation - organized and disciplined, but contingent upon the conscious participation and will of each constitutive soldier.

The scientific paradigm of historical materialism is a practical one. The scientific consciousness of social, and historical processes in practice is Communism. What others call "proof" and "testing", we call tactics. Proving something, already presupposes partisanship, that one has a practical inclination to prove a thing within the substrate of a greater thing. So "proof" becomes significant NOT in "proving" Communism or historical materialism, but in their specifialities, i.e. Proving that ancient India was an Asiatic society, rather than something else - that is an empirical controversy. As I said, Marxism IS, like any other scientific discourse, unfalsifiable vis a vis superstitions. What makes it or breaks it is practical inclination. What bourgeois positivists forget is that in one point of history, mastering natural processes in a rational way WAS controversial. And the same goes for social processes today. So we do want to engage in (democratic, mass participatory) 'social engineering' to this end.
Rafiq I really don't mean this in a dickish way, but you really do need to tone-down your wording at times. You write profoundly and you seem to have an excellent grasp of Marxism, but your internet attitude towards some of the people here (including the pricks!) is really not healthy, for yourself or for the wellbeing of the forum. Lead by example, and I'm sure people will concede their falsities seamlessly. You can have the greatest points in the world and word it in the simplest manner possible, but arrogance or unneeded anger will always deter the subject away from your argument. Articulate without ad hominem; the macho tough-guy stuff (with the Pandora's box allusion) won't get taken seriously over the Internet, people just think it's cringey. I thoroughly enjoy your posts, but it's annoying sometimes with all this unneeded browbeating of people who don't share your view or even those who are condescending in the first place.

Revolutionist93

1st January 2016, 07:59

It's blatantly obvious that Rafiq is an emotionally hostile individual with a high SDO score; definitely a Stalin-type.

Full Metal Bolshevik

1st January 2016, 19:06

It's blatantly obvious that Rafiq is an emotionally hostile individual with a high SDO score; definitely a Stalin-type.:laugh: To the gulag you go!

Did you seriously create and account for that or are you a multi of someone afraid to show his real username?