What is the real purpose?

[Comrade BNS]

What is the real purpose of communism?

classless society, but why? i ask this on both an ideological and personal moral level.

Comrade BNS

[elijahcraig]

Viewed scientifically, the laws of economics are the reason there will be communism, as opposed to human "purpose."

But most Communists would agree that the emancipation of the worker and all people is the purpose.

[h&s]

classless society, but why?
Because classes are there solely for people to exploit others, as they think that they are somehow more important.
Eliminating classes stops this expoitation (or at least thats the idea)

[Faceless]

Whilst certain laws will deliver us to this state of Communism though, there are moral implications.

People tend to forget that economic relations are social relations. But in this base, calculating social order it is easy to forget. The worker never tends to think of his life's work, his occupation, everything to which his existence is geared, as being relevant to him. He works to live; for his wage. His life only takes meaning when he leaves work and he has his wage; when he is eating, meeting friends and even sleeping. Eight, ten or more hours of his day are but a means to an end.

In Communist society their is collective purpose in these other ten hours.

Anyway, these implications are important to me but there are other reasons.

For instance, capitalism really sucks. 842 million starving? And in a world with more than enough food??(!)

[Daymare17]

Well most people would agree that we need to put an end to oppression. All oppression is class oppression, so if we end classes we end oppression.

[Comrade BNS]

what all novel ideas! if only we already lived in a utopian world, where everything worked perfectly then this form of socialism would work!

Emancipate the workers, but why? why do you personally want to emancipate the workers?

what I am getting at here is that for most communists there is either no real fundamental purpose, this purpose is unclear or they are unsure how to properly achieve this purpose.

Do you want to emancipate the workers because you feel some deep connected sympathy for them and want them to have a better life?

If this is you, then how would you react when capitalism offered the workers and peasants a sustainable higher standard of living and an increased quality of life?

would you simply oppose capitalism because it is the antithesis of your ideology, whose purpose is somewhat unclear to you? or would you support whatever means granted the workers and peasants a better life?

Comrade BNS

[redstar2000]

What is the real purpose of communism?
Classless society, but why?

Because it is only in classless society that everyone is free to "become themselves" instead of a "cog" in someone else's economic machine.

When you are a wage-slave (or a member of some other oppressed group), that shapes you in the same way that bad climates and poor soil shapes a plant. You are not the "you" that you might have been in more favorable circumstances (that applies to the rich as well as to the poor).

Classless society is the effort by the human species to maximize favorable conditions for each of its individual members.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Comrade BNS]

Now why on a personal level Redstar?

Comrade BNS

[redstar2000]

Because participation in history is fun!

To be nothing but a spectator is boring.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 03:18 AM
Because participation in history is fun!

To be nothing but a spectator is boring.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
I feel the Same way.

[Comrade BNS]

But Why Communism? Why not participate in other forms of History?

Comrade BNS

[Daymare17]

How about:

Because under capitalism humanity is DOOMED?

[Comrade BNS]

We're just going around in circles here, and no one is adressing the real and fundamental issue I proposed.

Let's see if we can, hmm?

Comrade BNS

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 25 2004, 05:19 AM
We're just going around in circles here, and no one is addressing the real and fundamental issue I proposed.

Let's see if we can, hmm?

Comrade BNS
I did answer your "fundamental issue" about the purpose of communism. Is there something in my answer that was unclear to you?

As to your question about participating in "some other form" of history...I find the struggle for communism to be the most interesting and challenging of all the available options. After all, the transition to a classless society is going to be the biggest change ever...or at least since 8,000BCE or so when humans first invented classes.

In fact, I can't understand why anyone would not want to be part of it all.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 10:16 AM
How about:

Because under capitalism humanity is DOOMED?
Yes - Under Capitalism - Humanity will suffer. That's why it must be crushed.

Long Live Communism!

[Rex_20XD6]

I like communisms because a man is paid for what he dose. The manager gets paid for what he dose, nothing. In America, the manager gets paid better then the worker even though the manager didn’t do anything.

[Faceless]

I wouldn't call Marxism an ideology but a science and elijahcraig put it straight, that this is the inevitable conclusion of the current process of events.

You seem unsatisfied with the reasons we give to desire the transition.
So here's a few reasons:
I am working class
I have working class friends
I care about the victims of Imperialist war
I care about the fact that people starve when there is ample food
I care that the hardest working people are the worst payed
I resent the idea that millions labour to support YOU and other rich kids
I want a world with a tollerance of culture
I want Socialism for posterity
There will be an absolute betterment of productive forces

I hope you understand now.

[Comrade BNS]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 06:58 PM
I wouldn't call Marxism an ideology but a science and elijahcraig put it straight, that this is the inevitable conclusion of the current process of events.

You seem unsatisfied with the reasons we give to desire the transition.
So here's a few reasons:
I am working class
I have working class friends
I care about the victims of Imperialist war
I care about the fact that people starve when there is ample food
I care that the hardest working people are the worst payed
I resent the idea that millions labour to support YOU and other rich kids
I want a world with a tollerance of culture
I want Socialism for posterity
There will be an absolute betterment of productive forces

I hope you understand now.
Finally someone who know's what they're doing and why!

However I resent your reference to me as a "Rich Kid" simply because I challenge your precious ideology. My family has been through the shit, but I will admit that I no longer have to skimp on things, and get far more then I deserve.

A close friend of mine's father was recently layed off from his job he'd held for 15 odd years. His father is trying to support him and his brother at university on the meager earnings he is making in his home business while his mum works double shifts. A few days ago a close family member of my friend passed away, and so now his family has to pay for a funeral on top of all their other economic hassles.

Don't you fucking dare assume that I don't care you selfish prick! I'm sure you've seen your fair share of shit in your life, but don't think you and your little creche are the only people in the fucking world with problems! So fuck you, do something usefull with your fucking time instead of making arrogant, self-righteous comments on fucking forums like these!

That said, I agree with most of your reasons and do believe that Capitalism cannot and should not survive, but am skeptical of Communism. Why not devise another system or mode of life? Why is it that anti-capitalists almost always seem to turn to a predetermined mode of life, instead of devising their own?

Comrade BNS

[redstar2000]

Why not devise another system or mode of life? Why is it that anti-capitalists almost always seem to turn to a predetermined mode of life, instead of devising their own?

Because human culture is such that we see no need to re-invent the wheel with every new generation. After 150 years, Marxism remains an amazingly fertile paradigm with a demonstrated track-record of explaining much of social reality...certainly far more than any competing paradigm.

If, after several centuries, the central Marxist hypothesis -- proletarian revolution and classless society -- fails to materialize, people will certainly develop new paradigms that will seek, among other things, explanations for why that didn't happen.

But there's little reason to "switch" at this point...especially since there's no viable alternative.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Comrade BNS]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 02:04 AM

Because human culture is such that we see no need to re-invent the wheel with every new generation. After 150 years, Marxism remains an amazingly fertile paradigm with a demonstrated track-record of explaining much of social reality...certainly far more than any competing paradigm.

If, after several centuries, the central Marxist hypothesis -- proletarian revolution and classless society -- fails to materialize, people will certainly develop new paradigms that will seek, among other things, explanations for why that didn't happen.

But there's little reason to "switch" at this point...especially since there's no viable alternative.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
Of course there is "no viable alternative" at present, it's much easier to follow someone else's model then to create a new and dynamic one isn't it. You don;t have to think to hard to die for marx, or opress in the name of marx, or anything else in the name of marx. My my, sound like a particular social institution/phenomenon that you despise mr star?

Comrade BNS

[Daymare17]

it's much easier to follow someone else's model then to create a new and dynamic one isn't it.

I suppose your vision of socialist paradise is a place where the men and women speak baby-like gibberish, since human language is the ultimate example of "following someone else's model" :lol:

[redstar2000]

Of course there is "no viable alternative" at present; it's much easier to follow someone else's model then to create a new and dynamic one, isn't it. You don't have to think too hard to die for Marx, or oppress in the name of Marx, or anything else in the name of Marx. My, my, sound like a particular social institution/phenomenon that you despise, mr star?

What it sounds like is that you have been reduced to incoherent babble, BNS.

Do you reproach me for lack of genius? Guilty!

Have I "died for Marx"? Obviously not.

Have I oppressed anyone "in the name of Marx"? Who?

Have I done anything else "in the name of Marx"? Well, you have no choice but to take my word for it, but the answer is no.

Marxism is a set of tools for understanding social phenomenon.

It is certainly not, as you moronically insinuate, a "religion".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Faceless]

A close friend of mine's father was recently layed off from his job he'd held for 15 odd years. His father is trying to support him and his brother at university on the meager earnings he is making in his home business while his mum works double shifts. A few days ago a close family member of my friend passed away, and so now his family has to pay for a funeral on top of all their other economic hassles.
Hmm, I could pull up a similar sob story about my brother's cancer and the fact that my dad isn't paid for taking time off and that we are living off my mother. But I don't feel the need.

Don't you fucking dare assume that I don't care you selfish prick!
I won't.
And I didn't.
I said you are a rich kid. You are.

Now, what is your problem with Marxism?
Do you take issue with the labour theory of value?
Do you take issue with materialism?

Or do you think we are are here to defend the crimes of Stalinism?

You asked "why do you care?" and we answered.

Now what is the problem? The base of classical Marxist theory is solid. If you have a SPECIFIC problem with it then I/we will try and answer it.

[Comrade BNS]

Have I "died for Marx"? Obviously not.

Have I oppressed anyone "in the name of Marx"? Who?

Have I done anything else "in the name of Marx"? Well, you have no choice but to take my word for it, but the answer is no.


Did I say you ever have?


Marxism is a set of tools for understanding social phenomenon.

It is certainly not, as you moronically insinuate, a "religion".


Why not let your little disciples in on that fact?


I said you are a rich kid. You are.

I said you are a mouthy selfish prick.......surprise surprise, you are!


Now, what is your problem with Marxism?
Do you take issue with the labour theory of value?
Do you take issue with materialism?


Do you "take issue" with criticisms of your "be all and end all" system of belief?

Can't you handle that this "Solid Base" of marxism is somewhat debunked and not entirely inclusive?

Can't you handle the thought the proletariat might not rule in place of the bourgeois?

Comrade BNS

[pandora]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 26 2004, 03:47 AM
However I resent your reference to me as a "Rich Kid" simply because I challenge your precious ideology. My family has been through the shit, but I will admit that I no longer have to skimp on things, and get far more then I deserve.

A close friend of mine's father was recently layed off from his job he'd held for 15 odd years. His father is trying to support him and his brother at university on the meager earnings he is making in his home business while his mum works double shifts. A few days ago a close family member of my friend passed away, and so now his family has to pay for a funeral on top of all their other economic hassles.

Don't you fucking dare assume that I don't care you selfish prick! I'm sure you've seen your fair share of shit in your life, but don't think you and your little creche are the only people in the fucking world with problems! So fuck you, do something usefull with your fucking time instead of making arrogant, self-righteous comments on fucking forums like these!

That said, I agree with most of your reasons and do believe that Capitalism cannot and should not survive, but am skeptical of Communism. Why not devise another system or mode of life? Why is it that anti-capitalists almost always seem to turn to a predetermined mode of life, instead of devising their own?


bOO freaking hoo :lol:
Right now I am standing next to a palapa with no running water and no electricity where a whole family lives and runs their business. Dogs are half starved running around the streets, and most of the kids are selling stuff or working in the fields instead of going to school,
NOw what the fuck is your problem?
Your friend's father is unemployed, then give him some of your extra money if you are such a communist, or maybe your family could offer to let his family move in with you, or are you to capitalist for such ideas,
Why am I communist,
because three nights ago I watched paramilitary troops drive down the street in black ski masks to beat protesters in the middle of the night followed by the ambulance from the same direction half an hour later when they were done kicking the shit out of whoever they were beating, they timed it.
Later I had to have a stare down with a paramilitary fucker in the mountains in the middle of no where, and some stupid kid like you is telling us we're not doing enough.
Go fuck yourself.
How many people did you feed today.
I'm sleeping next to Argentine girls desperate here to sell jewerely to support themselves because their money is devalued. One of them was studying to be a lawyer.
Where are you sleeping? Whose sharing your room? Who did you help today? Do you share your food with street animals and give them dewormer? What exactly do you do to help the poor and needy who are increasing daily on this planet, I'm curious.

Communism means sharing in a nutshell, and their isn't any other way, whether it's the communal lands, or free public education and medical care. It's the only way.
Sincerely Pandora

[Comrade BNS]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 01:43 AM
bOO freaking hoo :lol:
Right now I am standing next to a palapa with no running water and no electricity where a whole family lives and runs their business. Dogs are half starved running around the streets, and most of the kids are selling stuff or working in the fields instead of going to school,
NOw what the fuck is your problem?
Your friend{s father is unemployed, then give him some of your extra money if you are such a communist, or maybe your family could offer to let his family move in with you, or are you to capitalist for such ideas,
Why am I communist,
because three nights ago I watched paramilitary troops drive down the street in black ski masks to beat protesters in the middle of the night followed by the ambulance from the same direction half an hour later when they were done kicking the shit out of whoever they were beating, they timed it.
Later I had to have a stare down with a paramilitary fucker in the mountains in the middle of no where, and some stupid kid like you is telling us we{re not doing enough.
Go fuck yourself.
How many people did you feed today.
I{m sleeping next to Argentine girls desperate here to sell jewerely to support themselves because their money is devalued. One of them was studying to be a lawyer.
Where are you sleeping? Whose sharing your room? Who did you help today? Do you share your food with street animals and give them dewormer? What exactly do you do to help the poor and needy who are increasing daily on this planet, I{m curious.

Communism means sharing in a nutshell, and their isn{´t any other way, whether it{s the communal lands, or free public education and medical care. It{s the only way.
Sincerely Pandora
sorry I was waiting for the point of that post.......I'm assuming that there was one.

Why the fuck is it that so many people can't handle criticisms of their beloved ideology? I'm not a capitalist by any standards, but don't necessarily think communism is the best or only answer. Fuckin deal with it........have a tantrum somewhere else, because frankly i couldn't give a fuck!

[EDIT]: I do care about your situation and the people you are surrounded by. That, however will not make me change my stance and oppinions on marxist theories.

Comrade BNS

[Faceless]

I said you are a mouthy selfish prick.......surprise surprise, you are!
Mouthy, maybe. A prick, certainly. Selfish?(!) Absolutely not. I care about your friend. I hope that his suffering will be elevated through a hastey revolution. I wish that no one had suffer. But do I care about YOUR problems? You; the rich kid who's own wealth is built upon the suffering of the very person he calls his friend. Not if you defend your "right" to that wealth.

Do you "take issue" with criticisms of your "be all and end all" system of belief?
Not at all. If you have a criticism to make about Marxism then fire away but for all your diversions you haven't made one single worthwile criticism of Marxist theory. I would much like to engage you in debate if you would give me a chance. I am always looking to enrich my theoretical knowledge. You seem enlightened so enlighten me. Is Marxism a "Religion"? No. It is a science. I would be the first to point out that not all of Marx's work was flawless. It may be considered a religion to some but they are woefully misinformed. Is Marx my "God"? No. He wrote works of great genius. As did Nietzche, Rousseau, Plato and, dare I say it, Smith. Are these men my Gods? I never was one for polytheism. If I critically appreciate a man's works he isn't suddenly my God.

Can't you handle that this "Solid Base" of marxism is somewhat debunked and not entirely inclusive?
Debunked? I callenge you, in what way?

Can't you handle the thought the proletariat might not rule in place of the bourgeois?
The thought of people who mock me for caring about billions suffering going on to enrich the ranks of the opressors naturally is disconcerting. But the conditions for a new Communist era will be created.

[Faceless]

P.S

Why the fuck is it that so many people can't handle criticisms of their beloved ideology?
ditto.

What criticism?
Give me something to work on!!

[Postteen]

The following are values implied by this Marxist vision of the ideal communist state.

The good of society
The goal of communism is to create the ideal society. It is implied that all measures taken to achieve this goal are done for “the good of society”. The good of society is the justification for communism and is communism's ultimate value.

Social equality
Communism's goal is for all men to be socially equal. Inequality creates resentment and alienation. It perverts human nature, makes people unhappy, and society suffers because of it.

Economic equality
The equal distribution of wealth is a primary goal of communism. Once economic inequality has been eliminated there can be no social inequality. Economic equality is a means for achieving social equality.

Material prosperity
The communist society we have envisioned is very materialistic. There is a strong emphasis on the satisfaction of material needs as a means to make people happy. Communism is an economic system. The creation of wealth is a primary goal and is thus a value.

Peace
Peace is a value and communism will achieve it by eliminating the causes of war and social strife.

Social harmony
The alienation and resentment that result from economic inequality are the cause of all social disharmony. The goal of communism is to achieve social harmony by creating an environment where it impossible for people to be unequal.

The individual
The creation of an environment (the communist state) where individuals can develop themselves to their fullest potential is a goal of communism.

Work
Work is a very strong communist ideal. Work is a means to material prosperity but it is also an end in itself. Everyone works in a communist society. Work is not a duty but a right of every individual. Work is not something negative which everyone has to do, but something positive which everyone is entitled to do. Work is good for the human spirit.

Freedom
People are free in a communist state because they have everything they need and have nothing to fear. They are free from want and from exploitation.

Atheism
Religion is a symptom of people's alienation from society. People are unhappy with all the misery and suffering of an unjust world. Religion encourages them to accept their lot by promising that those who are good will find happiness in the next life. Marx asserts that we do not have to wait for the afterlife to live in an ideal world. We can create one right here on earth. Atheism is considered not only to be true, but also to be a value because it frees people from the belief that they can do nothing to improve the world. It encourages people to take action rather than to passively accept their lot in life.

Reason and rationality
Reason is a value because it gives us the power to solve problems and improve our lives. For example, reason leads to communism. Rationality is a value because rational people will recognize the superiority of communism and work to achieve a communist state. Irrational people might resist communism.

Efficiency
Communism is justified because it is more efficient at creating wealth and distributing it more equitably than any other system. Efficiency is thus a communist value.

Happiness
One of the goals of an ideal society is to eliminate human suffering and thereby make people happy.

[Monty Cantsin]

Oscar wilde was a socialists though a utopian socialist – his reasoning was that capitalism promotes a fake individualism and socialism promotes real individualism, he called it the new Hellenism which I think is a re run of the ancient Hellenic search for personal perfection. So he feels that capitalism only leads to decadence and beauty can only be saved through socialism/communism ( he used the terms to mean the same thing). Which with all stated above is another reason to move for communism.

[Monty Cantsin]

Note: wilde was unashamed of being a utopian socialists because he believed a plan that didn’t aim for the best was pointless through he does admit to something recognisable with Marxism when he says that when you get to the utopia you see the next step in history – so some form of dialectical reasoning.

[Essential Insignificance]

I take it, that your have read Oscar Wilde’s Essay on Socialism; an exceptionally pleasant and fine piece, I shall add, but that is perhaps all.

However plans will be "thrown out the widow" along with capitalism and the bourgeoisies; as the proletarians of the various nations seize political power and thus economic power and turn the means of production into state property; and in doing so abolish all class antagonisms and distinctions and thus in the rapidly moving process, the proletarian class themselves.

As you have almost already said; utopians dream and conjure up rigours plans for the coming further; real revolutionaries and serious Marxist look at the world with a materialist conception; and in do so take things from there, free of illusion.


some form of dialectical reasoning.

Absolutely fruitless, dialectical reasoning in this case; sure to lead to nowhere. Why bother!

[nakba]

The final purpose of communism, is the creation of a classless society were there will be no exploiters nor exploited, where the man to man exploitation is ended.
When there will be no imperialism, colonialism or any other agressive policies praticated by any country or empire.
A society were man is born equal, regardless of their race, ideals or cultural hereditage.

A society were all cultures, peoples and ideas can freely cohabit in peacefull manners..



So, for that and much more, Socialism is the way...

[Comrade BNS]

Once economic inequality has been eliminated there can be no social inequality. Economic equality is a means for achieving social equality.


:lol:

Thank you for that clinical and naive assessment Dr. Marx!

yeah sure thing....economic classes are the only ones that exist?

People will always elevate themselves in way above the others, it is a form of assertion that I am an individual.


A society were all cultures, peoples and ideas can freely cohabit in peacefull manners..

I refuse to accept a predetermined "western" linear future! There must be conflict of one sort or another in order to maintain cultural diversity. If we all accepted the same ideas and values, would we not be a mono-culture regardless of what name we gave to God, and the colour of our clothes, skin and hair. There needs to be cohabitation yes, but cultural conflict (I am referring to this form of conflict in non-violent terms, but rather in terms of cultural and ethical discourse) is necessary to maintain an identity. Western secular societies may be able to justify WMD's and bio-research into fields such as stem cells and cloning, but most interpretations of Islam would not.

I think that in this issue the idea of multiple futures needs to be explored because it is somewhat crucial to the expression of my point of view, and the understanding of some of Marxism's flaws.

We too often think of the future in terms of technology and jingoistic buzz phrases. Simply because this is what the "west" has determined it to be, in order to hide the fact that we are at best standing still if not actually moving backwards. Faster and faster cars are not taking us anywhere, new technology doesn't actually solve problems but creates new ones, bio-tech research fields all have nasty underbellies which raise ethical paradoxes which are almost impossible to solve. We create virtual communities to replace real ones. (Ziauddin Sardar, "The problem with future studies").

Culture cannot exist in this predetermined postmodern future, and a major failing of Communism (simply because it was created in an era void of postmodern sentiments and ideals) is that it not only fails to accommodate this point, but actually assists in the implementation of this "Linear future". so again I say that WE need to devise our own socio-economic plan that takes into account all the various elements and dynamics of our world at present. Perhaps even a revised system of Marxism would work, or possibly something completely new. Who knows?

All I do know is that I am sick of seeing the problems created by, and then subsequently ignored by the governing pawns, simply implementing past forms of social plans. This is most evident in colonial countries, where indigenous ways of life and social plans have been completely abolished and instead a "traditionally decorated" western system of governance is installed, where the president paints his or her face and the national anthem is in a traditional language. This form of Westernisation which simply pays lip service to other cultures is one of Postmodernisms greatest tools in foreclosing our "linear, Western Future".

This is my greatest criticism of Marxism, and all past social plans.

I would be interested to see any possible solutions to this flaw in communist theory.

Comrade BNS

[DaCuBaN]

Faster and faster cars are not taking us anywhere, new technology doesn't actually solve problems but creates new ones, bio-tech research fields all have nasty underbellies which raise ethical paradoxes which are almost impossible to solve

You've got something here, but I'm not sure if I agree. Indeed we seem to be wasting our time on technology just as your analogy of 'faster cars' suggests but there have been many technological advances that have helped improve mankind - The problem is our aims here, and most put this fault down to the current climate - capitalism.

'Bio tech' research has also brought us fantastic possibilities... they've succesfully grown skin tissue in petrie dishes for example. I'm sure many people would praise this kind of scientific work. What of the study into the human genome? Is this not worth the effort? Without our 'bio' technologies we'd never have even thought of a project such as this - and without computers it would never have been possible.


Western secular societies may be able to justify WMD's and bio-research into fields such as stem cells and cloning, but most interpretations of Islam would not

I agree with the latter sentiment, but on the former I believe you are mistaken. It is simply the high percentage of 'heretics' in the west that allows us to test these waters.

Those free of religion are truly (psychologically) free... those within will never realise this.


This form of Westernisation which simply pays lip service to other cultures is one of Postmodernisms greatest tools in foreclosing our "linear, Western Future".

This is my greatest criticism of Marxism, and all past social plans

Marxism is not at fault here, but those dogmatically attached to it. The ideas laid out by Marx were predominantly based around Europe - after all, that's precisely where he was. The problem lies when people don't allow his works a level of interpretation.

Marx wasn't 'right' - he just had a few good ideas. We now must apply them to our own cultures and see what fits whilst discarding that which does not.

[Comrade BNS]

You've got something here, but I'm not sure if I agree. Indeed we seem to be wasting our time on technology just as your analogy of 'faster cars' suggests but there have been many technological advances that have helped improve mankind - The problem is our aims here, and most put this fault down to the current climate - capitalism.

'Bio tech' research has also brought us fantastic possibilities... they've succesfully grown skin tissue in petrie dishes for example. I'm sure many people would praise this kind of scientific work. What of the study into the human genome? Is this not worth the effort? Without our 'bio' technologies we'd never have even thought of a project such as this - and without computers it would never have been possible.

Indeed I'm not saying the pursuit of technology is at all useless and without merit, but as you say we have no focus, except to extend the boundaries of technology. A parochial aim i'm sure you'll agree. The middle ages were not progressive because they could simply create longer swords, or thicker walls, faster computers etc. does not mean we are progressive either.

Bio-tech has produced some amazing possibilities yes. But because something is amazing and profound does not mean it is morally or ethically sound.


I agree with the latter sentiment, but on the former I believe you are mistaken. It is simply the high percentage of 'heretics' in the west that allows us to test these waters.

Those free of religion are truly (psychologically) free... those within will never realise this.

without sounding rude, I think you missed my point.

Islam, just like secularism is a set of morals. Whether one claims divinity and spirituality of morals is irrellevent (and also btw, I don't see the validity of your somewhat arrogant and high-handed point on secular morals. Because you arrived at them through inherrited social traditions and other influences does that make them more valid then those morals set down in a different tradition and also in script? )

the point is that one set of Morals can accommodate certain technologies, whilst another cannot. And that is at the basis of cultural identity and maintaining it.


Marxism is not at fault here, but those dogmatically attached to it. The ideas laid out by Marx were predominantly based around Europe - after all, that's precisely where he was. The problem lies when people don't allow his works a level of interpretation.

Marx wasn't 'right' - he just had a few good ideas. We now must apply them to our own cultures and see what fits whilst discarding that which does not.

if only other people would realise that! I applaud you Dacuban for having sense and good judgement. Why not try and see all worldviews in the same light? I'm talking religions etc. You don't have to convert, but respect some of the wisdoms and truths that they do contain and promote.

However I still think that a mere critical application of Marxist theory would not do enough to prevent a "Linear future" situation.

And finally yes, you brought up a point I have raised before. Marxism is a Euro-centric ideology (as is Romantic-secularism, and our principles of "democratic freedom"). Therefore it cannot exist in a non-european society without a process of Europeanisation first occurring, which i'm sure you'll agree is tant amount to Imperialism.

Comrade BNS

[DaCuBaN]

because something is amazing and profound does not mean it is morally or ethically sound

No, but morals and ethics as I'm sure we are both in agreement are a subjective matter... There are many issues already under discussion on this board covering this, so I'll refrain from doing so here.

The fact that some cultures allows for 'unethical' research to continue should be of great comfort to those within cultures that prohibit it: It allows these 'amazing and profound' discoveries to be made without them getting their hands dirty.

Somewhat cynical I'm sure you'll agree, but nevertheless it's where I stand.


one set of Morals can accommodate certain technologies, whilst another cannot. And that is at the basis of cultural identity and maintaining it.

Indeed - and in fact this is a very good argument for the sectarian approach many take... If we continue in the west's attempt at 'multi-culturalisation' we both hamper the technological process of those who wish it, and offend those who oppose it. Perhaps it's best that we 'keep to our kind' ?

I don't buy that.


[Marxism] cannot exist in a non-european society without a process of Europeanisation first occurring, which i'm sure you'll agree is tant amount to Imperialism

Indeed I do agree again, but I don't see it as that clean-cut. I'll agree that the predominant force is pushing the 'europeanisation' onto the rest of the globe, but it is a two-way process - some of it does spill back.


Why not try and see all worldviews in the same light? I'm talking religions etc. You don't have to convert, but respect some of the wisdoms and truths that they do contain and promote

I do respect the cultural aspects, but what I cannot accept is blind faith. It's something that simply is no longer a part of me. Irregardless of it's source, be it Christian, Muslim or anyone else for that matter I cannot 'swallow' the idea of there being a 'creator' or 'god' or whichever tag is associated with the 'supreme being(s)'. I do feel that this is something that must be expunged before any progress can be made. This may inevitably lead to the 'watering down' of some cultures, but if you look to western culture, technology has had this effect - with the exception of the US (who are in no way progressive) I believe most European societies have moved on. We are an atheistic region statistically, and I'm very proud of this fact - For that we have technology to thank.

[Comrade BNS]

No, but morals and ethics as I'm sure we are both in agreement are a subjective matter... There are many issues already under discussion on this board covering this, so I'll refrain from doing so here.

The fact that some cultures allows for 'unethical' research to continue should be of great comfort to those within cultures that prohibit it: It allows these 'amazing and profound' discoveries to be made without them getting their hands dirty.

Somewhat cynical I'm sure you'll agree, but nevertheless it's where I stand.

Yes morals and ethics are highly subjective, if not the epitomy of subjectivity.

What my point was (sorry I don't think I made it very clear) was that technology in a world of multiple futures would be filtered so to speak through a culture's moral and ethical base. Basic principles of Shari'ah from the Prophet Muhammed do not allow muslims to kill those who do not bear arms, or to destroy farms and land etc. (as was a common practice for marauding armies). Thus interpretation would most probably deem that biological, chemical and nuclear weapons would be a big "NO NO", because they destroy innocent lives (those who do not bear arms) as well as property and land etc.

The West does not have these moral and ethical precepts and thus in it's own consciousness can allow the production of such weapons to a certain extent.

I'm sure if America researched Biotech areas, there would be benefits for many international parties, however whilst America's research may end in weaponary, Saudi Arabia's may end only in creating vaccines etc. Here we see a "moral filter" determining a country's future.

What is happening increasingly, and will occur universally if the linear future is to be believed, is that the Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist and tribal etc. filters are being replaced by Western filters, or removed and not replaced at all.

It could thus be argued that Western filters are the product of capitalism, and that anything is acceptable so long as it drives profits. Communist revolution would only serve to better the Western Moral filters, but would have the same effect as a capitalist system on other cultures, by replacing their filter with yet another western devised one. Both I'm sure you'll agree are Imperialism.


Indeed I do agree again, but I don't see it as that clean-cut. I'll agree that the predominant force is pushing the 'europeanisation' onto the rest of the globe, but it is a two-way process - some of it does spill back.

I think that is naive optimism. As in the colonial past, the West extends its profit searching tenticles out into other cultural spaces and brings back trinkets to amuse those Quaint ladies and children with the equisite, exotic toys of the world. Whilst in the 1880's and ivory carving would have brought sufficient amusement, today the west brings back entire elements of culture. Look at the rise of a secular form of Zen Buddhism. Many trendy young ladies wear Sari's, unaware of their actual cultural significance. The west holds all the bargaining chips on the world's cultural and economic fronts, Postmodern Romantic-secularism is not influenced or infiltrated by anything, it maliciously removes elements of other cultures to add to its growing and grotesque appendages, all devoid of their original significance. The non-west does not influence the west, it merely provides a lengthened menu of cultural items to satisfy the tastes of the bland and bleak postmodern west.


I do respect the cultural aspects, but what I cannot accept is blind faith. It's something that simply is no longer a part of me. Irregardless of it's source, be it Christian, Muslim or anyone else for that matter I cannot 'swallow' the idea of there being a 'creator' or 'god' or whichever tag is associated with the 'supreme being(s)'. I do feel that this is something that must be expunged before any progress can be made. This may inevitably lead to the 'watering down' of some cultures, but if you look to western culture, technology has had this effect - with the exception of the US (who are in no way progressive) I believe most European societies have moved on. We are an atheistic region statistically, and I'm very proud of this fact - For that we have technology to thank.

Many would argue that true faith is not blind, but rational and open-minded. Among the early Islamic scholars, it was considered the greatest act of faith to challenge the words and precepts of God. They argued that God had given them reason, and that if God truly was what he/it claimed, then they would not be able to "out-reason" God.

Buddha taught his disciples to not accept a single thing told to them, even by himself. That they must reason an idea, apply it and manage its effects in a universal sense to see if it really was true.

I personally think the idea of super-sized people with glowing faces and burning swords killing red skinned, dishevelled evil wrecks for the good of mankind just as ludicrous as a complete and "blind faith" in science. To me "God" in its many expressions and forms is an ideal to strive towards and a singular force based in an "emotive logic" if you will. Science can tell me HOW wind is caused, and what its effects are. But it can't answer for me the really interesting question of WHY there is wind in the first place. Marxism's complete denial of any religious form or purpose is to me an arrogant and high-handed form of reactionism, it chooses to see religion how it IS being used, rather then its original and possible future purpose.

Comrade BNS

[redstar2000]

I refuse to accept a predetermined "western" linear future!

You'd prefer, perhaps, a predetermined "eastern" linear past?


There must be conflict of one sort or another in order to maintain cultural diversity.

Why is "cultural diversity" an over-riding priority?

If the price of a decent standard-of-living for the whole world was the total loss of "cultural diversity", wouldn't it be worth it?


If we all accepted the same ideas and values, would we not be a mono-culture...?

Yep. So what?


...cultural conflict (I am referring to this form of conflict in non-violent terms, but rather in terms of cultural and ethical discourse) is necessary to maintain an identity.

Only if you think of identity in cultural terms; e.g., I "am" a "member" of "culture X".

If you think of it in other terms, you still have an identity...just not one based on a parochial culture.


Western secular societies may be able to justify WMD's and bio-research into fields such as stem cells and cloning, but most interpretations of Islam would not.

Cheap shot! And untrue at that.

Pakistan -- a Muslim country -- has nuclear bombs.

Stem cells and cloning are potential weapons against the illnesses that beset humanity...something far more valuable and important than some superstitious load of dessicated Arabian crap.

Note that the Koran clearly justifies the beating of women as a command of Allah...but "most interpretations" of western secular ideology do not.


We too often think of the future in terms of technology and jingoistic buzz phrases.

The former is obviously justified. The latter is imperialist rhetoric and does not (normally) apply to the people on this board...who are, by and large, opposed to empires of all kinds.


...new technology doesn't actually solve problems but creates new ones...

Yes, the attempt to solve an old problem often works...but creates a new problem in the process.

The universe is complicated and was not "designed" for our convenience.

And our technology is still, when all is said and done, quite primitive.

Based on experience, there's no reason in principle why we cannot continue to learn how to do things better.


...bio-tech research fields all have nasty underbellies which raise ethical paradoxes which are almost impossible to solve.

For example?


We create virtual communities to replace real ones.

Because the "virtual communities" are better than the "real ones".

At least that's the case right now; it may not always be so.

Maybe participating in "virtual communities" will eventually teach us how to do it "in real life".

Who knows?


But because something is amazing and profound does not mean it is morally or ethically sound.

Don't mean it ain't, either.


Islam, just like secularism, is a set of morals.

Yes, a very bad set. But certainly no worse than most superstitions and probably better than some.


Why not try and see all worldviews in the same light? I'm talking religions etc. You don't have to convert, but respect some of the wisdoms and truths that they do contain and promote.

They are unworthy of respect by anyone who is either rational or humane.

And, by the way, you approach the borders of Opposing Ideologies by even bringing that kind of question up.


Marxism is a Euro-centric ideology (as is Romantic-secularism, and our principles of "democratic freedom"). Therefore it cannot exist in a non-european society without a process of Europeanisation first occurring, which I'm sure you'll agree is tantamount to Imperialism.

Imperialism is an economic/political phenomenon; the fact that the colonial country (or its elite, to be more precise) adapts to that phenomenon by changing its culture is secondary.


Communist revolution would only serve to better the Western Moral filters, but would have the same effect as a capitalist system on other cultures, by replacing their filter with yet another western devised one. Both I'm sure you'll agree are Imperialism.

Hardly. Communism will, in all likelihood, directly attack the obsolete "filters" in all cultures...including even the "west" itself.

It's not as if we don't have our own load of historical trash to remove,


Many would argue that true faith is not blind, but rational and open-minded.

Many would argue that shit makes good shoe-polish...but sensible people ignore such "arguments".


Marxism's complete denial of any religious form or purpose is to me an arrogant and high-handed form of reactionism, it chooses to see religion how it IS being used, rather then its original and possible future purpose.

True, Marxism is a historical science concerned with things as they really are and how they got to be that way.

Your notion of the "original and possible future purpose" of religion, on the other hand, is just smoke pouring out of your ass.

And is "off-topic" as well.

Starting "secular" threads in order to smuggle in religious propaganda is a good way to get restricted on this board.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Comrade BNS]

Starting "secular" threads in order to smuggle in religious propaganda is a good way to get restricted on this board.


Pity the same can't be said of starting "intellectual" threads to smuggle in ignorant, parochial bullshit.

You are barely qualified to talk on Marxist theory, I hardly think cultural and future studies are your prerogative. (Quite aptly demonstrated too I might add)


You'd prefer, perhaps, a predetermined "eastern" linear past?

No not at all, While the west has abandoned its cultural past, untill very recently the "east" was still very much in touch with its. A progressive society is one which can maintain its cultural heritage, tradition and identity whilst remaking itself to fit its changining environment and the dynamics that brings with it. As oposed to just simply changing. Change without a solid cultural and historical base is merely the replication of culture without progression.


Why is "cultural diversity" an over-riding priority?

If the price of a decent standard-of-living for the whole world was the total loss of "cultural diversity", wouldn't it be worth it?

*hits head on desk*

I'm surprised that even YOU have to ask that!

Fuck you, you condescending prick! We'll give you a set wage but the trade-off is you have to abandon your identity, your culture and everything else that defines who you are. You are no longer a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Punjabi, a Pashtun, Maya etc. You are a worker part of the massive worldwide proletariat. Your history and culture don't matter because we're all equal here, your just another cog in the machine. Here's your rations, now don't look so disenfranchised; we have just "freed" you from the "chains of oppression". (I am not justifying class oppression here, but instead cultural space against Redstar's ideological ceaseless march of fundamentalist communism).

NO FUCKER! It would not be "worth it"! The trade off is too great. Your being for material equality? FUCK OFF!


Only if you think of identity in cultural terms; e.g., I "am" a "member" of "culture X".

If you think of it in other terms, you still have an identity...just not one based on a parochial culture.

No I'm sorry to say, but political affilliations are not culture. Maybe in your bland and ignorant postmodern reality yes, but not in real tangible terms!


Cheap shot! And untrue at that.

Pakistan -- a Muslim country -- has nuclear bombs.

Stem cells and cloning are potential weapons against the illnesses that beset humanity...something far more valuable and important than some superstitious load of dessicated Arabian crap.

Note that the Koran clearly justifies the beating of women as a command of Allah...but "most interpretations" of western secular ideology do not.

:lol:

You really don't have a clue do you. You sit back in your fucked up little American world and pontificate on an outside world that you don't understand. Pakistan a "Muslim" country? (oh and by the way, I think the term you were looking for was "Islamic") :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yeah fuckin great "Muslim" country who's president (General Pervez Musharraf) is doing his darndest to remove all Islamic influences from political (ie. millitary) life all together. Notice also that I said "certain interpretations" of Islam would not accept WMD's. Yes this means that this worldview (Islam) is open to interpretation, unlike your precious ideology! oh sure you might say go forth and interpret, but so long as one interpretation challenges your's it is "false" and "misguided".

Pity racist shit like this isn't restricted either!


Because the "virtual communities" are better than the "real ones".

At least that's the case right now; it may not always be so.

Maybe participating in "virtual communities" will eventually teach us how to do it "in real life".

You know I always questioned your sanity, but this puts it beyond a doubt.

"Virtual communities are BETTER [nice use of subjectivity there] than the real ones."

So what are you going to do for the revolution? get some programmers to crash microsoft's home page and place a virtual redflag on the www smoking heap? Freely allocate internet usage hours? or maybe just remove all class structures from online forums (hey now there's an idea!)

Get a fuckin reality check! not just in regards to the "real world" but everything in general. Your worldview is completely skewed, arrogant, ignorant and for lack of a better word FUCKED!


Your notion of the "original and possible future purpose" of religion, on the other hand, is just smoke pouring out of your ass.

boy, for a man of science you certainly do like to speak in probable impossibles!

Now Fuck off and make yourself feel important somewhere else, I wish to re-engage my intellectual conversation with Dacuban.

Comrade BNS

[DaCuBaN]

I'm sure if America researched Biotech areas, there would be benefits for many international parties, however whilst America's research may end in weaponary, Saudi Arabia's may end only in creating vaccines etc. Here we see a "moral filter" determining a country's future.

What is happening increasingly, and will occur universally if the linear future is to be believed, is that the Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist and tribal etc. filters are being replaced by Western filters, or removed and not replaced at all.

The 'moral filters' you speak of do exist, but they are not as nation-specific as you entail here. The UK (especially in England) has a burgeoning Islamic population - One that is fast catching up with and I believe will eventually overtake the Christianity as the dominant religious force. This 'Islam' is of course a 'bastardised' enterpretation of it's eastern counterpart, but it's morals differ greatly from those of traditional christians and hence allow it a different spin. These people are being raised with many traditional islamic beliefs, yet their surroundings allow them a more objective viewpoint.

It's is this creation of a mixed-culture, without reference to a specific religion that fosters what can be viewed as 'unethical' or 'immoral' technological research. I see this as a fundamental part of the socialisation of Europe, and tantamount to any socio-political upheaval.


Basic principles of Shari'ah from the Prophet Muhammed do not allow muslims to kill those who do not bear arms, or to destroy farms and land etc. (as was a common practice for marauding armies). Thus interpretation would most probably deem that biological, chemical and nuclear weapons would be a big "NO NO", because they destroy innocent lives (those who do not bear arms) as well as property and land etc.

The West does not have these moral and ethical precepts and thus in it's own consciousness can allow the production of such weapons to a certain extent.

With the example of the USA in mind, we must remember that it is a Fundamentalist Christian state, and only permits technological advance up to a point. In fact it only gets away with most of it because it is done behind closed doors - out of sight of the general populous.

When these things come to light over there, there is often an outcry - but of course it is too late. This is paramount to 'The American Way' and can be easily portrayed through the analogy of 'having your cake and eating it too'. The UK, although very similar doesn't suffer so badly and is allowed mostly free reign - simple examples being GM crop trials and abortion - both of which are abhorrent to the vast majority of a religious persuasion.

As far as weaponry is concerned, it is self evident that culture and religion has little impotus(sp?) here... Throughout history man has devised more and more ingenious ways of annihilating his opponents - regardless of the cost. The only reason the west got there first was due to the industrial revolution.


It could thus be argued that Western filters are the product of capitalism, and that anything is acceptable so long as it drives profits. Communist revolution would only serve to better the Western Moral filters, but would have the same effect as a capitalist system on other cultures, by replacing their filter with yet another western devised one. Both I'm sure you'll agree are Imperialism

Forcing your views onto another culture/society? Of course!
As I stated in my initial post, Marx wasn't right - I mean for crying out loud, he can be quoted (paraphrased) as saying 'If there's one thing I know it's that I'm not a Marxist'. Even he understood that his works were not directly applicable to the 'real world' straight 'out-of-the-box'.

I share your disbelief and dismay when people fail to realise this.


I think that is naive optimism

I've been called many things in my time, but that's the first time I've ever been called an optimist :lol:


The west holds all the bargaining chips on the world's cultural and economic fronts, Postmodern Romantic-secularism is not influenced or infiltrated by anything, it maliciously removes elements of other cultures to add to its growing and grotesque appendages, all devoid of their original significance. The non-west does not influence the west, it merely provides a lengthened menu of cultural items to satisfy the tastes of the bland and bleak postmodern west.


Again, I must reference to my earlier points about multi-culturalism. The only solution I can see here is to segregate society into it's various cultural regions, which I really do not like. Perhaps people will 'spread out' after a revolution and settle amongst those who share similar traditions, but my own preference would be to remove as much as possible of our 'historic traditions' - they, like our 'faster cars' cannot be progressive in my mind.


Buddha taught his disciples to not accept a single thing told to them, even by himself. That they must reason an idea, apply it and manage its effects in a universal sense to see if it really was true

Monty Python did an amusing sketch on this idea in The Life of Brian - the character Brian (a representation of a pseudo-messiah) stands on the pulpit telling people that they must think for themselves - the people simply blindly repeat his words, and wait for more 'wisdom'

Again, my cynicism coming through - but I'm British ;)


Science can tell me HOW wind is caused, and what its effects are. But it can't answer for me the really interesting question of WHY there is wind in the first place. Marxism's complete denial of any religious form or purpose is to me an arrogant and high-handed form of reactionism, it chooses to see religion how it IS being used, rather then its original and possible future purpose

Again, I have no problems with people believing that the world came into existence (with christianity as the example) in the genesis manner - It's their call. What I - and I believe Marx - was objecting to was the public presence of such institutions, and the way in which these beliefs were taught.

I firmly believe he'd be - and probably was from what he got to see of his 'great invention' - quite appalled at this state of affairs. How those who oppose religion so dogmatically couldn't see past the end of their noses to the 'bigger picture', and how is own idea was being peddled as another form of religion - the aspect of belief he so wished to be removed.


A progressive society is one which can maintain its cultural heritage, tradition and identity whilst remaking itself to fit its changining environment and the dynamics that brings with it

I believe this is what has been happening. New technologies and discoveries are constantly casting into doubt that which we assumed true. The people of Europe for hundreds of years believed the world to be flat.... such beliefs, although oddly still exist, have no real place in a society that has satellites in geosnychronous orbit above us.

It's a fine balance, and one that each society must choose of it's own accord - whether the fully embrace technology and all the demons it brings (as I would have it) or to withold at least partially and hang onto that which we know.


You are no longer a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Punjabi, a Pashtun, Maya etc. You are a worker part of the massive worldwide proletariat. Your history and culture don't matter because we're all equal here, your just another cog in the machine. Here's your rations, now don't look so disenfranchised; we have just "freed" you from the "chains of oppression"

To be perfectly honest, I see this as an image of my 'ideal future'. The day that man can discuss with anyone they choose abouy any subject without fear of causing offense; the day that man can walk freely across the earth withou upsetting sacred 'burial grounds' and rituals. To me, this is utopia. Almost ironic when you consider that this was a sarcastic rebuttal...

[redstar2000]

Pity the same can't be said of starting "intellectual" threads to smuggle in ignorant, parochial bullshit.

Brilliant response, BNS. :lol:


A progressive society is one which can maintain its cultural heritage, tradition and identity whilst remaking itself to fit its changing environment and the dynamics that brings with it. As opposed to just simply changing. Change without a solid cultural and historical base is merely the replication of culture without progression.

There's no such thing as "just changing"...every change has a historical basis.

The rest of what you said is just incoherent babble.


Fuck you, you condescending prick!

Keep it up; your "intellectual" stature is rising by the minute. :lol:


We'll give you a set wage but the trade-off is you have to abandon your identity, your culture and everything else that defines who you are. You are no longer a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Punjabi, a Pashtun, Maya etc. You are a worker, part of the massive worldwide proletariat. Your history and culture don't matter because we're all equal here; you're just another cog in the machine. Here's your rations, now don't look so disenfranchised; we have just "freed" you from the "chains of oppression".

A caricature, of course...but that does seem to be the limit of your capabilities.

We don't "give" people anything, least of all a "set wage" (no money in communism). People liberate themselves.

Yes, the "identity" of worker does outweigh all that old crap that you are so infatuated with...none of it has ever freed a single wage-slave.

A "cog in the machine"? What do you think all your precious "cultures" are, if not machines? They were all invented by humans and are subject to modification or rejection by humans as they see fit.


NO FUCKER! It would not be "worth it"! The trade off is too great. Your being for material equality? FUCK OFF!

And yet another "intellectual" response of "staggering" brilliance. :lol:

What's not so funny is your clear preference for cultural diversity...even at the expense of the material well-being of the human species.

Pandora is right about you; you are a rich bastard.

What the hell are you doing on a left message board, anyway?


...political affiliations are not culture. Maybe in your bland and ignorant postmodern reality, yes, but not in real tangible terms!

Speaking of ignorance, Marxists are not "post-modernists"...just thought I'd let you know.


You sit back in your fucked up little American world and pontificate on an outside world that you don't understand.

Your understanding seems rather limited as well...though I will grant that your "little Australian world" may indeed be somewhat less "fucked up" than America.


Pakistan a "Muslim" country?

Well...yes.


Country profile: Pakistan

The Muslim-majority state of Pakistan occupies an area which was home to some of the earliest human settlements and where two of the world's major religions, Hinduism and Buddhism, were practised.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/coun...les/1157960.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/country_profiles/1157960.stm)


Pity racist shit like this isn't restricted either!

Saying Pakistan is a Muslim country is "racist"?

Are Muslims a "race"?


You know I always questioned your sanity, but this puts it beyond a doubt.

:lol:


Get a fuckin reality check! Not just in regards to the "real world" but everything in general. Your worldview is completely skewed, arrogant, ignorant and for lack of a better word FUCKED!

And yours? Your title ought to be "Grand Mufti of Reaction" at Che-Lives.


Now Fuck off and make yourself feel important somewhere else; I wish to re-engage my intellectual conversation with Dacuban.

Neat trick...since you have yet to demonstrate the intellectual capacity of pond scum.

Even your insults are repetitive and boring.

Try this site: Insult Monger (http://www.insultmonger.com/generators/index.htm#)

A guy like you needs all the help he can get.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Comrade BNS]

The 'moral filters' you speak of do exist, but they are not as nation-specific as you entail here. The UK (especially in England) has a burgeoning Islamic population - One that is fast catching up with and I believe will eventually overtake the Christianity as the dominant religious force. This 'Islam' is of course a 'bastardised' enterpretation of it's eastern counterpart, but it's morals differ greatly from those of traditional christians and hence allow it a different spin. These people are being raised with many traditional islamic beliefs, yet their surroundings allow them a more objective viewpoint.

It's is this creation of a mixed-culture, without reference to a specific religion that fosters what can be viewed as 'unethical' or 'immoral' technological research. I see this as a fundamental part of the socialisation of Europe, and tantamount to any socio-political upheaval.

Good point, Although Whether in Britain, or Yemen, there are certain aspects of their faith that all Muslims will agree on. The Hadith (sayings of the prophet) unlike many parts of the Qu'ran are fairly straightforward and not open to a whole lot of interpretation. In the Sunnah (sacred collection of Hadith) there are many direct edicts which bind believers. But I think we are getting bogged down on specifics here, my general point was that Traditions do (or at least should) create a filter which deplores anything counterproductive and anti the morals and ethics of that society. So as an example I picked up from Ziauddin Sardar it was the development of WMD's and bio/chem weapons in Islam. Another example is that of the Yolngu people of Arnhem land in Australia who because of ancient tribal traditions and sacred laws will not ride horses or touch a rifle. I can't tell you exactly why because these traditions are sacred to these people and aren't shared openly. Cultural filters at work.


Forcing your views onto another culture/society? Of course!
As I stated in my initial post, Marx wasn't right - I mean for crying out loud, he can be quoted (paraphrased) as saying 'If there's one thing I know it's that I'm not a Marxist'. Even he understood that his works were not directly applicable to the 'real world' straight 'out-of-the-box'.

I share your disbelief and dismay when people fail to realise this.

Good to hear! Why not tell your revolutionary buddies that what they are doing in alot of cases is forcing their ideology onto the masses? Did you hear that Redstar?


Again, I must reference to my earlier points about multi-culturalism. The only solution I can see here is to segregate society into it's various cultural regions, which I really do not like. Perhaps people will 'spread out' after a revolution and settle amongst those who share similar traditions, but my own preference would be to remove as much as possible of our 'historic traditions' - they, like our 'faster cars' cannot be progressive in my mind.

I don't think we need to go as far as isolating and "segregating" cultures. The west must simply recognise and then rectify the colonial activities of postmodern secularism.

I disagree with you on the point of traditions. Look at the "Golden age" of Islam. Tradition was still very much present and at the forefront of society, yet this period was one of the most, if not the most progressive period of human history. Also traditions are not necessarily an evil as most people would have you belive. Again, look at Indigenous Australians. Their traditions allowed them to live in perfect harmony with the land they inhabited, ensuring the survival of both their communities and the preservation of the natural environment. Many arrogant anthropologists and historians have argued that the Aborigines of Australia were not progressive becuase practically every other culture in the world developed some form of settled agriculture and husbandry of an array of animals, whilst the Aborigines did not. But as recent history has shown this style of living is not at all sustainable in Australia, and that the semi-nomadic way of life of the Aborigines is the only forseeable mode of living which ensures both a people's survival and the preservation of the environment, vital to all life. Tradition in this case deified much of the natural world to ensure it was properly respected and preserved, thus ensuring the indefinate survival of peoples in this cultural space.


Monty Python did an amusing sketch on this idea in The Life of Brian - the character Brian (a representation of a pseudo-messiah) stands on the pulpit telling people that they must think for themselves - the people simply blindly repeat his words, and wait for more 'wisdom'

Again, my cynicism coming through - but I'm British

I remember that actually, quite a good movie! and thumbs up to british comedy!


What I - and I believe Marx - was objecting to was the public presence of such institutions, and the way in which these beliefs were taught

I can understand that viewpoint, but not the proposed solution many people have reached. In my worldview the abolition of religion is not even an option. To do such would be to repress a major part of our humanity. A big problem I think we continue to face here is the blind acceptance of many "Enlightenment" values. Science and complete rationale and objectivity are not THE answer, if they were, why are there still problems? Nor is Religion and spirituality THE answer. THE answer I believe needs to be a sound amalgam of both. Enlightenment figures taught us that we are imperfect beings and we need to try and transcend many of our "limitations", instead of embracing them as part of our nature. The issue of the public role of religion is a serious one, and one that needs to be addressed, but I find it stupid, ignorant and arrogant of people to assume that the removal of it is a viable and equitable solution. If nothing else most religions teach basic virtues of humility, respect (to a certain extent) and modesty, virtues I'm sure all people could benefit from.


I believe this is what has been happening. New technologies and discoveries are constantly casting into doubt that which we assumed true. The people of Europe for hundreds of years believed the world to be flat.... such beliefs, although oddly still exist, have no real place in a society that has satellites in geosnychronous orbit above us.

Technology alone cannot be the vessel for change and redevelopment. Change and redevelopment should come with the aid of technology through a process of re-assessment of traditional values in light of technology, although I think that is what you were somewhat suggesting here.


It's a fine balance, and one that each society must choose of it's own accord - whether the fully embrace technology and all the demons it brings (as I would have it) or to withold at least partially and hang onto that which we know.

unfortunately for the west, postmodernism has, to quote a somewhat infamous Australian postmodernist, "Cut down the old rotting wood of the past to plant a fresh new seedling". Technology and art are the new sacred grounds of our society. Figures such as Salman Rushdie and Arco Friedman are waiting in line to assume Bill Gate's Papal position.


To be perfectly honest, I see this as an image of my 'ideal future'. The day that man can discuss with anyone they choose abouy any subject without fear of causing offense; the day that man can walk freely across the earth withou upsetting sacred 'burial grounds' and rituals. To me, this is utopia. Almost ironic when you consider that this was a sarcastic rebuttal...

While I can see the apparent benfits of this situation, to me this would be a hell, devoid of any spice and flair, but instead, bleak, bland and monotonous. Although quite moronic and ignorant in many cases, it is Redstar's (among others) comments that cause me to challenge and justify my views and ideas of the world. Although this "Utopia" would be as such for a short time, eventually mono-culture would ensue, if it didn't from the beggining. No more arguments, because there would only be one viewpoint. No more art, because we would all see things the same way etc etc... What so many people of communist or socialist persuasions (particularly on this board) fail to realise is that to have a positive you MUST have a negative. The left would not exist without the right, as one is a reaction to the apparent failings of one. In this type of Mono society let me tell you there would be NO progression. Without criticisms and negatives how are we to develop and remodel ourselves? We would always be convinced of our truth in a self-righteous utopia. Still appealing?

Comrade BNS

[redstar2000]

While I can see the apparent benefits of this situation, to me this would be a hell, devoid of any spice and flair, but instead, bleak, bland and monotonous.

Thus BNS would preserve material inequality and even exploitation and oppression in order that he might...avoid boredom.

Good call! :o


Although this "Utopia" would be as such for a short time, eventually mono-culture would ensue, if it didn't from the beginning.

Horrors! No more ethnic/religious mutual slaughter! How boring!


No more art, because we would all see things the same way, etc.

Quite possibly true...at least in terms of what has always traditionally been considered "art".

Picasso could not have painted "Guernica" unless the Nazis had bombed it first.

Was it worth it?


What so many people of communist or socialist persuasions (particularly on this board) fail to realise is that to have a positive you MUST have a negative.

A metaphysical assertion, of course. Today, at least in the "west", we have lost both "lords" and serfs.

Want to bring them back?


The left would not exist without the right, as one is a reaction to the apparent failings of one.

Yes, the time will certainly come when both will be of interest only to a few antiquarians.

Lucky people!


In this type of Mono society let me tell you there would be NO progression.

Another metaphysical assertion...and even more divorced from material reality. Until such time (!) that humans have completely refashioned the universe according to its preferences, progress will continue.

That will take a while.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Comrade BNS]

Thus BNS would preserve material inequality and even exploitation and oppression in order that he might...avoid boredom.

If you appreciated the full value of what culture is, then you too would understand why it is vital to preserve it. Unfortunately you are devoid of most forms of culture (I mean that in the historical/ethnic sense) and so see no apparent worth in it.

I can understand why a base level of Material equality is necessary and vital for countless millions of people the world over, but there are many other ways to acheive this without sacrificing cultural identity and space.


A metaphysical assertion, of course. Today, at least in the "west", we have lost both "lords" and serfs.

Want to bring them back?

Can we really talk in absolute tangible terms here?

The left cannot exist without the right, if the right were perfect would we be reacting to their policies and attitudes? Similarly if the left were perfect would there be support for the right?


Another metaphysical assertion...and even more divorced from material reality. Until such time (!) that humans have completely refashioned the universe according to its preferences, progress will continue.


:lol:

I seem to remember in a previous thread that YOU mr. Star stated that progress and change comes through criticisms of a system and that this process is necessary. Tell me how you see society progressing when there is firstly no external social opposition or "antithesis" so to speak, and no internal opposition or criticism?

Comrade BNS

[Kwisatz Haderach]

What is the real purpose of communism?
The greatest good for the greatest number of people.

That is the purpose of communism, and that is also the utilitarian justification for it. Alongside that utilitarian justification, there is also the moral one: Oppression, exploitation and injustice is immoral, while freedom, equality and justice is moral. Thus, the best system is the system that best follows the ideals of freedom, equality and justice - namely communism.

[redstar2000]

If you appreciated the full value of what culture is, then you too would understand why it is vital to preserve it.

No doubt...just as if I "appreciated" the "full value" of the supernatural, I'd "understand" why it was "vital" to "worship" it.

Lucky me! I missed on both. :D


Can we really talk in absolute tangible terms here?

The left cannot exist without the right, if the right were perfect would we be reacting to their policies and attitudes? Similarly if the left were perfect would there be support for the right?

There's nothing "tangible" about what you just said. The "left" and the "right" reflect material class differences...it has nothing to do with abstract "perfection".


Tell me how you see society progressing when there is firstly no external social opposition or "antithesis" so to speak, and no internal opposition or criticism?

Nature relentlessly criticizes all human societies...the universe is fundamentally hostile to human life and purpose. Even if all humans were in perfect agreement on all matters, nature would implacably oppose us.

What humans will do, most likely, is struggle with each other on how best to overcome the limits of nature.

There will be lots of progress to come.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[bobby]

Nature relentlessly criticizes all human societies...the universe is fundamentally hostile to human life and purpose. Even if all humans were in perfect agreement on all matters, nature would implacably oppose us.

What humans will do, most likely, is struggle with each other on how best to overcome the limits of nature.

There will be lots of progress to come.

I like that. I reminds me of a Freudian take on civilization.

[Comrade BNS]

No doubt...just as if I "appreciated" the "full value" of the supernatural, I'd "understand" why it was "vital" to "worship" it.

Lucky me! I missed on both.

:lol:

Nice one! However whilst you make jokes about it, you still do not really realise the importance of culture in an individuals identity. It shapes the way we see EVERYTHING in our world and all of our perceptions. It is fundamentally what make us "human". I can understand that there would be certain benfits in having a "mono culture" where we all shared the same mode and passage of thinking, but I see this not as the "coming together" of cultures, but more as the "bulldozing and subsequent paving over" of other cultures by the West. If you are talking in terms of real and geniune equality, then equality does not just stem from the fair distribution of material wealth. By your means of thinking you would supress/opress other "counter-revolutionary" "reactionary" cultures in order to attain a singular and linear form of material equality, (whilst I do not debate the importance of a certain level of material equality, I do not believe that it is the vital "sticking point" or "cornerstone" of an egalitarian society) no doubt hoping to destroy culture by bringing forth a new generation of "cultural converts".


There's nothing "tangible" about what you just said. The "left" and the "right" reflect material class differences...it has nothing to do with abstract "perfection".


That's the point, tangibility is a luxury when talking of future studies and cultural ethics. You can compare and forecast present events, but this merely serves to colonise the future by projecting a linear present forward in time, which is detrimental both to the forecaster and all others bound to the same present.

If we were talking pure political science terms, then yes the left and right would simply affect material class and policy structures, however, pragmatically there is much more to it then simple economic policies and material wealth. Don't be so naive and try and stifle this element of political debate.

I was not talking of "abstract perfection" , but instead I guess as you might term it "abstract balance" or an "abstract view of reality".


Nature relentlessly criticizes all human societies...the universe is fundamentally hostile to human life and purpose. Even if all humans were in perfect agreement on all matters, nature would implacably oppose us.

What humans will do, most likely, is struggle with each other on how best to overcome the limits of nature.

There will be lots of progress to come.

That is true, but technological progress would be all that is likely to eventuate from nature's "hostilities". A river floods, we dam or divert it. Progress? maybe, but only linear technological progress.

Comrade BNS

[Hiero]

A progressive society is one which can maintain its cultural heritage, tradition and identity whilst remaking itself to fit its changing environment and the dynamics that brings with it. As opposed to just simply changing. Change without a solid cultural and historical base is merely the replication of culture without progression.

This is what a lot of Nazi seem to be talking about today. I am being serious, alot of Naiz sites talk about maintain cultural heritage, tradition and identity and thats how the justify there xenophobic attitude. The only way to maitian ones cultural heritage, tradition and identity is to be xenophobic or this will create a mix of cultures when interaction happens.

Any who really cares about heritage crap, sure its interesting to learn about it but its in the past and culture is the present its what we are doing now.

[redstar2000]

I can understand that there would be certain benefits in having a "mono culture" where we all shared the same mode and passage of thinking, but I see this not as the "coming together" of cultures, but more as the "bulldozing and subsequent paving over" of other cultures by the West.

Be specific.

What's disappearing that you want to preserve?

Old languages?

Old religions?

Musical forms?

Literary forms?

Food styles?

Clothing styles?

Gender roles?

Or perhaps the whole sense of having a "specific" or "unique" culture that's different from (superior to?) other cultures?

We will still have a culture, even if it's a universal one...ergo, we will still "be human".


By your means of thinking you would suppress/oppress other "counter-revolutionary" "reactionary" cultures in order to attain a singular and linear form of material equality.

If need be, I have no problem with that.

Certainly there are particular "cultural practices" that would be suppressed...on the grounds that they are oppressive and inhumane.


You can compare and forecast present events, but this merely serves to colonise the future by projecting a linear present forward in time, which is detrimental both to the forecaster and all others bound to the same present.

Where is the "detriment"? I'm not sure of what "colonizing the future" means -- it sounds impressive -- but an egalitarian and libertarian human culture "all over the world" sounds like "a good thing" to me.


That is true, but technological progress would be all that is likely to eventuate from nature's "hostilities".

It's the only kind of progress that actually seems to do us any real good.

-----------------------


This is what a lot of Nazis seem to be talking about today. I am being serious; a lot of Nazi sites talk about maintain[ing] cultural heritage, tradition and identity, and that's how they justify their xenophobic attitude.

A very important point!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Nas]

communism is an answer to capitalism , as Marx wrote


so therefore if there wasnt capitalism , there wont be communism

[Comrade BNS]

Be specific.

What's disappearing that you want to preserve?

Well Culture as a whole basically. The entirety of what it is to be "<insert culture here>". The modes of thought, the modes of expression etc. Don&#39;t be so arrogant to think that western culture can forsee the the "best" or most appropriate solutions to all problems we may face. Becuase this mono-culture would not tolerate "other" modes of thought, thus excluding what I see to be very important aspects of critcal non-western thought.


Certainly there are particular "cultural practices" that would be suppressed...on the grounds that they are oppressive and inhumane.


This is quite understandable and likely to occur within a culture exposed to outside influences etc. Though I believe this change must be internal and not an external imposition of values and beliefs onto another culture.


It&#39;s the only kind of progress that actually seems to do us any real good.

<_<

I sure do enjoy your absolutism.


This is what a lot of Nazi seem to be talking about today. I am being serious, alot of Naiz sites talk about maintain cultural heritage, tradition and identity and thats how the justify there xenophobic attitude. The only way to maitian ones cultural heritage, tradition and identity is to be xenophobic or this will create a mix of cultures when interaction happens.

Any who really cares about heritage crap, sure its interesting to learn about it but its in the past and culture is the present its what we are doing now.

For someone who hates Nazis as much as you profess to do Neonate, you sure do seem to know alot about their ideology, both past and present. Maybe you are just a well informed person?

I don&#39;t appreciate you snide and arrogant insinuations and value judgements of cultural heritage. Throw yours away, I don&#39;t give a flying fuck, but don&#39;t presume to devalue and debase other&#39;s cultures and/or heritage.


I am being serious, alot of Naiz sites talk about maintain cultural heritage, tradition and identity and thats how the justify there xenophobic attitude.

A very important point&#33;


bullshit&#33; This is not a fucking important point but a cheap culturally superior and arrogant shot at heritage and identity. The Nazi idea was not an intrinsic or even vital part of the "German conscience", had it been so we would have seen a much greater compliance and support from the populace (admited there was quite large support for Hitler&#39;s regime, there was also a quite notable opposition as well) and a continuation of this ideology, as well as strong history of it. Whilst like all other European nations Germany has a history of racial superiority, this did not extend to racial hatred bordering on genocide etc. This event in Germany&#39;s history is it would appear a "one off" event, not a part of heritage or culture. If anything the Nazi ideology was a new culture superimposed of the existing German situation. So I suppose you could argue that as a Nazi you are excercising your tradtion through the upholding of racist ideals, however as Neonate was crudely insinuating these ideals are not a part of mainstream culture but are isolated and disconnected from mainstream cultural practices and attitudes.


I&#39;m not sure of what "colonizing the future" means -- it sounds impressive

<_<

right.

Colonising the future is currently the West&#39;s biggest priority. In simple terms by forecasting and "super planning" the future based on a global scale the west is forcing the world into it&#39;s linear plan of "progress". As I have said in an earlier post, when you say future, the first things that come to most minds are concepts such as "globalisation or global community" and "super technology [spaceships, lasers etc etc.]". This is the plan the west has bashed into our heads, the west is planning on the world complying with its economic and social plans and so by pushing the world towards its own goals is colonising the future. Basically by forecasting and predicting mainstream societal and economic trends the west is projecting a linear and somewhat less then desireable present onto the future. Besides a few minor aesthetic changes the west would remain as it is, we would just make water with a machine and teleport everywhere. (and let me tell you in the grand scheme of things, a communist revolution is a very minor aesthetic change. It makes bugger all difference to future progress and concepts whether or not material wealth is shared equally or not. Does it really matter if 6 million people have super-computers and hover cars, or if everyone has them? society is fundamentally in exactly the same position either way)

Comrade BNS

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 25 2004, 12:53 AM
Now why on a personal level Redstar?

Comrade BNS
Haha :blink: this is like group therapy.

[Comrade BNS]

Haha this is like group therapy.

:lol:

give me hand here in saying that, Redstar the first step to realising the worth of culture is confessing your ignorance on the subject. To solve a problem you first must recognise it.

Comrade BNS

[redstar2000]

Well, Culture as a whole basically. The entirety of what it is to be "<insert culture here>". The modes of thought, the modes of expression, etc.

Modes of thought? I think the future for non-scientific "modes of thought" is quite bleak...and deservedly so.

On the other hand, modes of artistic expression should not suffer as such...though they might end up greatly mixed with those of other cultures.

Are you familiar with "world music"? Some musicians now make a practice of borrowing freely from many cultural traditions to create unique forms of musical expression.

To my ancient ears, it usually sounds more like noise than anything else...but a lot of people seem to like it.

Perhaps a "straw in the wind", eh?


Though I believe this change must be internal and not an external imposition of values and beliefs onto another culture.

Well, tanks and artillery are probably not the best way to go. :lol:

But the "world culture" will have many ways to exert pressure on the "indigenous" culture...the boycott being one of the most effective.

E.g., "until your country liberates its women, we won&#39;t buy from you, sell to you, or have anything to do with you, period."

Ostracism is a very potent social weapon.


I sure do enjoy your absolutism.

Always happy to oblige. :D


I don&#39;t appreciate [comrade neonate&#39;s] snide and arrogant insinuations and value judgments of cultural heritage. Throw yours away, I don&#39;t give a flying fuck, but don&#39;t presume to devalue and debase other&#39;s cultures and/or heritage.

He made an observation...and you erupt&#33;

Why?

Too close to the truth perhaps?


Bullshit&#33; This is not a fucking important point but a cheap, culturally superior, and arrogant shot at heritage and identity.

No, it actually points, I think, at the reactionary core of "heritage/identity" politics.

Something to think about.


Colonising the future is currently the West&#39;s biggest priority.

If you say so...I rather thought it was imperialist war myself.


In simple terms by forecasting and "super planning" the future based on a global scale the west is forcing the world into its linear plan of "progress".

You can plan and forecast all you want...but to "force" things, you need troops and money.

The "west" is not doing well with either, at the moment.


As I have said in an earlier post, when you say future, the first things that come to most minds are concepts such as "globalisation or global community" and "super technology (spaceships, lasers, etc., etc.)".

Not to mention global proletarian revolution. :D

So? Are those unreasonable things to envision?

Are they not actually happening?


Basically by forecasting and predicting mainstream societal and economic trends the west is projecting a linear and somewhat less then desirable present onto the future.

Either their forecasts and predictions are right or they are wrong.

Muslim fundamentalists "forecast" a whole world converted to Islam. Right or wrong?

Communists forecast a classless society over the whole world. Right or wrong?

You can&#39;t change the world with a forecast.


Besides a few minor aesthetic changes, the west would remain as it is; we would just make water with a machine and teleport everywhere.

I like that "teleport everywhere" idea...but I&#39;m afraid that in the light of present knowledge it&#39;s quite impossible.


And let me tell you in the grand scheme of things, a communist revolution is a very minor aesthetic change. It makes bugger all difference to future progress and concepts whether or not material wealth is shared equally or not. Does it really matter if 6 million people have super-computers and hover cars, or if everyone has them? Society is fundamentally in exactly the same position either way.

You&#39;re beginning to sound like a neo-luddite. Just why is "super-technology" a "bad idea"? Or an "inadequate" idea?

You obviously think the differences between capitalism and communism are "minor" so what, in your view, would be "major"?

We could, I suppose, divide the world up into ethic/cultural ghettos with little or no social intercourse between them (build walls like Israel is doing)...that would certainly preserve ethnic/cultural "identity".

But why would we want to do that?

What do we gain by it?


Redstar, the first step to realising the worth of culture is confessing your ignorance on the subject. To solve a problem you first must recognise it.

You&#39;ve had endless opportunities to enlighten me...but all you&#39;ve offered so far is rhetoric.

Culture is important because...it&#39;s important.

That&#39;s not good enough.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Comrade BNS]

On the other hand, modes of artistic expression should not suffer as such...though they might end up greatly mixed with those of other cultures.

Are you familiar with "world music"? Some musicians now make a practice of borrowing freely from many cultural traditions to create unique forms of musical expression.

To my ancient ears, it usually sounds more like noise than anything else...but a lot of people seem to like it.

Perhaps a "straw in the wind", eh?


Hallelujah&#33;&#33; :lol:

This is one of my most major concerns, the preservation of cultural identity through art&#33;

I myself am a very big listener of world music. But a point I must make, and it relates to the preservation of culture through art. For the most part (not in all cases) when musicians or other artists borrow from other cultural traditions it is simply to add to the postmodern experience. French Dj&#39;s are notorious for simply taking the singing and exotic tones of eastern instruments and super-imposing them onto some "phat beats". Artists will to on the other hand borrow cultural symbols and icons without any reverance or understanding of their initial purpose, their use is simply aethetically pleasing and fitting (ie. "it looks cool"). This is the West&#39;s new way of colonising, by debasing other cultures. Take a walk around your nearest cities CBD and oberve the number of Japanese, Indian or middle eastern takeouts. It does not interest the Postmodern west that many types of green tea are sacred and are given proper ritual in japanese society before they are consumed, they merely want more exotic and foreign goodies to enjoy. This would be the same whether it was a communist or capitalist society, instead of the trendy bourgeois eating Japanese, every one would, while we listened to some french "cross-over" techno. See the minor aesthetic difference in the real nature of society?


Well, tanks and artillery are probably not the best way to go.

But the "world culture" will have many ways to exert pressure on the "indigenous" culture...the boycott being one of the most effective.

E.g., "until your country liberates its women, we won&#39;t buy from you, sell to you, or have anything to do with you, period."

Ostracism is a very potent social weapon.


Indeed it is, but it is our responsibility to respect the cultural space of other peoples. Certain issues such as racism and the treatment of women require a base international standard and compliancy, however the imposition of forms of governance and societal plans should not be tolerated by any means.


If you say so...I rather thought it was imperialist war myself.

If the west occupies the future, then there is no escape for other cultures.


Either their forecasts and predictions are right or they are wrong.

Muslim fundamentalists "forecast" a whole world converted to Islam. Right or wrong?

Communists forecast a classless society over the whole world. Right or wrong?

You can&#39;t change the world with a forecast.

If only it were as simple as that&#33; The west does not want its fuure hopes demolished or left unrecognised, so after a forecast has been made, it is cemented as a certainty in the minds of the people to ensure that it does happen.

We all seem fairly certain that we are going to have star trek style space ships and lasers etc. and this is an example of how our future has been colonised. Perhaps the world won&#39;t become a global community based on the western social and economic plan, but instead buddhism will eventually triumph as the dominant vessel of thought. Maybe we have reached our pinnacle and will start to decline. Who knows, time might even start going backwards. In order to free our futures we must free our minds of the jinogistic cliches that have been fed to us.


You&#39;re beginning to sound like a neo-luddite. Just why is "super-technology" a "bad idea"? Or an "inadequate" idea?

Because technology and scientific thought alone are completely inadequate in the human equation. We are not machines, and the socialist/communist model needs to accept that and work that notion into many of its fundamentals. You think that by making a bigger, sweeter, brighter coloured lollipop in the form of increased technology that its going to keep the masses happy? maybe the sugar will daze them for a while, but the superficiality of technology always becomes glaringly apparent. What purpose can technology serve beyond that of a tool and a distraction at best?


You obviously think the differences between capitalism and communism are "minor" so what, in your view, would be "major"?


A major change would be in our fundamental societal ideology, away from western imperialist amalgam of culture, towards an individual, dynamic and unique society. We seem to assume an inate superiority because we have assumed all the "best parts" of the world&#39;s various cultures, neglecting to note that parts are not autonomous and operate as part of a dynamic and holistic system. Untill the west recognises this, I believe there can be no major change or shift in ideals.

Comrade BNS

[redstar2000]

This is the West&#39;s new way of colonising, by debasing other cultures. Take a walk around your nearest cities CBD and observe the number of Japanese, Indian or middle eastern takeouts. It does not interest the Postmodern west that many types of green tea are sacred and are given proper ritual in Japanese society before they are consumed, they merely want more exotic and foreign goodies to enjoy. This would be the same whether it was a communist or capitalist society; instead of the trendy bourgeois eating Japanese, every one would, while we listened to some French "cross-over" techno. See the minor aesthetic difference in the real nature of society?

Yes, I see what you mean...I just don&#39;t understand why it bothers you so much.

You are perfectly free, after all, to purchase some "sacred" green tea, learn the "proper" ritual for serving it, and consume it the way the Japanese did c.1500CE.

If others don&#39;t wish to be bothered with the ritual and just want to drink the tea because they like the taste, why should you care?

In fact, it would seem to put you in a position of congratulating yourself on your "refined aesthetic taste" while dismissing the "vulgar rabble" who are merely drinking tea.


Certain issues such as racism and the treatment of women require a base international standard and compliancy, however the imposition of forms of governance and societal plans should not be tolerated by any means.

I don&#39;t think you&#39;d get much of an argument from any sensible communist about this. Imposing a regime, no matter how "progressive", on an unwilling populace never seems to work out well.

Sooner or later, the "blowback" wipes out all the gains and often makes matters worse...a lesson from the reign of the first Napoleon.


If the west occupies the future, then there is no escape for other cultures.

Unless they can offer a more compelling vision of an alternative future. They do not seem to be able to do that.


The west does not want its future hopes demolished or left unrecognised, so after a forecast has been made, it is cemented as a certainty in the minds of the people to ensure that it does happen.

If their forecasts appear convincing, where&#39;s the gripe? The non-western cultures only want things to "stay the same as they&#39;ve always been"...but for many people, the ways things "have always been" really sucks. Why should they not therefore embrace the idea of radical change?

What do they have to lose? You can&#39;t feed your kids with "identity"?


Perhaps the world won&#39;t become a global community based on the western social and economic plan, but instead Buddhism will eventually triumph as the dominant vessel of thought. Maybe we have reached our pinnacle and will start to decline. Who knows, time might even start going backwards. In order to free our futures we must free our minds of the jingoistic clichés that have been fed to us.

Those are very unappealing alternatives (the one about "time running backwards" is impossible in the light of modern physics).

If you want to "free your mind" of a "western future", then you must come up with a better future.


Because technology and scientific thought alone are completely inadequate in the human equation. We are not machines, and the socialist/communist model needs to accept that and work that notion into many of its fundamentals.

Why do you assume that technology and scientific thought "turn people into machines"? Even "geeks" fall in love.

A "hyper-tech" classless society would still be recognizably human, would it not? People would still laugh and weep, love and hate, be bored or curious or fascinated, etc.

Even if that "ultimate nerd-dream" were realized -- downloading human personalities into a computer and achieving practical immortality -- what would be on the hard drive would still be a human personality. A bit "odd" by contemporary standards, but still human.


You think that by making a bigger, sweeter, brighter coloured lollipop in the form of increased technology that it&#39;s going to keep the masses happy?

No, actually I don&#39;t. Happiness seems to be a very transient state for humans; we always find something else that we become discontented with.

I think we are, fundamentally, a "restless" species...always in search of something different and hopefully "better".


What purpose can technology serve beyond that of a tool and a distraction at best?

But those are extremely important purposes. Without them, nothing gets done and we sink into lethargy.


A major change would be in our fundamental societal ideology, away from western imperialist amalgam of culture, towards an individual, dynamic and unique society. We seem to assume an innate superiority because we have assumed all the "best parts" of the world&#39;s various cultures, neglecting to note that parts are not autonomous and operate as part of a dynamic and holistic system. Until the west recognises this, I believe there can be no major change or shift in ideals.

That seems most unlikely to happen. We gather the "best parts" because we like them; the parts we don&#39;t like are rejected because we don&#39;t like them.

The "world culture" will consist of all the bits and pieces that people like.

What&#39;s wrong with that?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Comrade BNS]

Yes, I see what you mean...I just don&#39;t understand why it bothers you so much.

You are perfectly free, after all, to purchase some "sacred" green tea, learn the "proper" ritual for serving it, and consume it the way the Japanese did c.1500CE.

If others don&#39;t wish to be bothered with the ritual and just want to drink the tea because they like the taste, why should you care?

Because it is negating an important elemnet of culture. I&#39;m sure you could understand the offence that would occur if suddenly communion bread became trendy and Japanese people just started eating it willy nilly. (I know you would surely welcome this prospect, but an example from a common heritage might bring home the concept)


In fact, it would seem to put you in a position of congratulating yourself on your "refined aesthetic taste" while dismissing the "vulgar rabble" who are merely drinking tea.


I agree, without the arrogant overtones. I do alot of things wrong in my everyday life, I try to realise them and then rectify them. I am somewhat dissapointed in those who recognise failings and yet do nothing about them.


Unless they can offer a more compelling vision of an alternative future. They do not seem to be able to do that.

Very true. The west has assumed much of non-western cultures cultural space. If we give them the chance and enouragement to determine alternate futures you might be amazed at what eventuates.


If their forecasts appear convincing, where&#39;s the gripe? The non-western cultures only want things to "stay the same as they&#39;ve always been"...but for many people, the ways things "have always been" really sucks. Why should they not therefore embrace the idea of radical change?

What do they have to lose? You can&#39;t feed your kids with "identity"?

Just as you do not wish to accept the edicts of the Bourgeois, the non-west does not want to accept the cultural and futuristic dictations from the west. And they have a lot to lose, not the least of which ir a rich and diverse heritage.


Those are very unappealing alternatives (the one about "time running backwards" is impossible in the light of modern physics).

If you want to "free your mind" of a "western future", then you must come up with a better future.


I agree. You give the non-west a chance to "come up with a better future" and they just might&#33; But to give them this chance (which they rightly deserve as much as the west does) we must reverse alot of the effects of postmodernism. And to do this we have to realise its effects within our own society.


Why do you assume that technology and scientific thought "turn people into machines"? Even "geeks" fall in love.

Not technology, but a technological future. A purely scientific/technological future offers the concept of humanity little.


Even if that "ultimate nerd-dream" were realized -- downloading human personalities into a computer and achieving practical immortality -- what would be on the hard drive would still be a human personality. A bit "odd" by contemporary standards, but still human.


By one defination yes. But we need multiple definitions, multiple futures and multiple cultures. The concept of survival of the fittest is an outdated part of antiquity. The new concept is survival of the pluralist, or the multiple. Most of the West&#39;s foundations have come from the non-west. These other non-western cultures therefore have as much right and legitimacy to exist as the amalgamating western idea of society and culture. Even the most die hard postmodernists agree that the "other" must be preserved if only in marginality in order to provide more appendices to the western meglo-culture.


That seems most unlikely to happen. We gather the "best parts" because we like them; the parts we don&#39;t like are rejected because we don&#39;t like them.

The "world culture" will consist of all the bits and pieces that people like.

What&#39;s wrong with that?

Because the "best" and "worst" parts are highly subjective. There can be no concensus or agreement on these ideas, so like usual the West will assume ascendency and arbitrarily decide which parts are in its best interests. Do you think Islam would accept it if the "new culture" only contained elements of the Islamic ethical tradtion? etc etc..

Comrade BNS

[DaCuBaN]

Artists will to on the other hand borrow cultural symbols and icons without any reverance or understanding of their initial purpose, their use is simply aethetically pleasing and fitting (ie. "it looks cool"). This is the West&#39;s new way of colonising, by debasing other cultures.

I disagree... this is all a result of the wests obsession with sex... Our culture is based purely on sex (and hence vanity) - this is what causes them to do this kind of thing. It makes it no less deplorable, but it is not a &#39;direct attack&#39; on eastern cultures as you suggest.


It does not interest the Postmodern west that many types of green tea are sacred and are given proper ritual in japanese society before they are consumed

Indeed... laughably these people consider themselves to be &#39;embracing&#39; foreing cultures too.... They are, by my own definition of it, bourgeois. On a different footing, it matters not that the leaves are considered &#39;sacred&#39; or otherwise to the atheist (lit. Heretic)...


it is our responsibility to respect the cultural space of other peoples

This is one I have struggled with now for many years... how far can we go with cultural identity? At what point does the end outweigh the means? How far should we set back our utopian goals in the name of cultural identity?

Much like revolution, this is something that cannot be decided in finality. Each individual must make this choice for themselves, and I for one would be willing to sacrifice all the art in the world if it would bring around at least economic and political equality.


In order to free our futures we must free our minds of the jinogistic cliches that have been fed to us

this realisation is an important one, and it is not simply the &#39;jingoistic cliches&#39; that I believe we must free ourself of, but every form of superstition. To me, the moment I realised this was akin to the moments of freefall after coming out of a aeroplane...

Indescribable, and unforgettable,


What purpose can technology serve beyond that of a tool and a distraction at best?

It needs no further purpose. Look at the thread in Opposing Ideologies on Technocracy to get an idea of how technology can be applied to the modern world... It&#39;s an interesting read.

[redstar2000]

I&#39;m sure you could understand the offense that would occur if suddenly communion bread became trendy and Japanese people just started eating it willy nilly.

Actually, there is a Japanese example. While only a small minority of Japanese have even been attracted to Christianity, the Japanese nonetheless celebrate Christmas as a national secular holiday...they exchange gifts and cards, etc.

I have no idea if western Christians are "offended" by this practice...and can&#39;t say I care, either. Humans like giving and receiving gifts...they will always find occasions to do so.


I do a lot of things wrong in my everyday life, I try to realise them and then rectify them. I am somewhat disappointed in those who recognise failings and yet do nothing about them.

This is a very strange statement. Are you suggesting that, for example, drinking "sacred" tea without performing the proper ritual is, somehow, "wrong"? A kind of "sin" for which "penance" is required???

How odd.


If we give [non-western cultures] the chance and encouragement to determine alternate futures, you might be amazed at what eventuates.

How is that within our power to "give"? Are you suggesting that if I stop eating Thai food, that it will promote the culture of Thailand in some way that does not take place now?

Do you want to drive the western multi-national corporations out of the "east"? That&#39;s ok with me...though I think proletarian class consciousness is a better weapon in the long run.

There have been and still are plenty of "traditional" authority figures in the "east" that have proven willing and eager to take the bribe and culture be damned.


...the non-west does not want to accept the cultural and futuristic dictations from the west. And they have a lot to lose, not the least of which is a rich and diverse heritage.

If that is actually true, then they will do that. The future is not "written in stone" and if some non-westerners want to "preserve their culture", all they have to do is convince most other non-westerners that such a task is worth doing.

I suggest that this may the the real source of your discontent...non-westerners, when they get the chance, appear to be remarkably eager to embrace "western culture".

Not long ago, I happened to be reading about the Iranian exile community in Beverly Hills (yeah...these are rich refugees who came to the U.S. after the overthrow of the Shah). All the old guys were whining...their sons disobey them and their daughters "dress like whores". And worse...all the carefully-arranged marriages dissolve like mist on a summer&#39;s morning; the Americanized Iranian women simply refuse to tolerate them.

The times they are a-changing.


You give the non-west a chance to "come up with a better future" and they just might&#33;

Well, I&#39;m only one guy and I do what I can; my consistent opposition to U.S. imperialism is a matter of public record.

Beyond that, I don&#39;t honestly see what I or any "westerner" could do. I would look pretty damn silly if I went there and told people "save your culture". They&#39;d assume, correctly, that I was a nutball.

Consider this scenario: an "eastern" country still mired in class society requests material assistance from a "western" communist society. What is it "legitimate" for us to ask for in return? Would it be "unfair" to ask this society to take measures that we knew would advance the cause of communism in that country? For example, free secular education for young women is a cultural "time-bomb" in a "traditional" society...can we insist on this as a "price" for our help?


A purely scientific/technological future offers the concept of humanity little.

So you continually assert...but I don&#39;t understand why you say it. The "world culture" would still be a human culture...and surely just as "legitimate" as any other in the long history of humanity, right?


But we need multiple definitions, multiple futures and multiple cultures.

There&#39;s nothing in communism that flatly "rules that out"...it&#39;s just not a priority. If people really want that, then they will presumably take measures to achieve it.

Personally, I don&#39;t expect it to happen but I&#39;ve been wrong before and I could certainly be wrong this time as well.

It&#39;s always possible that instead of a "world culture", people will invent a large number of altogether new cultures...different combinations of elements of all the old cultures. If your emphasis on culture is truly justified, that might very well happen.

But I still think that all the old cultures are probably doomed.


These other non-western cultures therefore have as much right and legitimacy to exist as the amalgamating western idea of society and culture.

Abstractly, no one could disagree with you. But if people in a "traditional" culture wish to discard it for a culture that they perceive to be superior, how can you stop that from happening?


Even the most die-hard postmodernists agree that the "other" must be preserved if only in marginality in order to provide more appendices to the western meglo-culture.

I must remind you again that Marxists are not postmodernists and, in fact, are very critical of their theory.


Because the "best" and "worst" parts are highly subjective...

So they are...and so what? Won&#39;t the sheer numbers determine the outcome?


...so like usual the West will assume ascendancy and arbitrarily decide which parts are in its best interests.

The "west" can "assume" anything it likes...but if people in the "east" don&#39;t want it, then it won&#39;t happen.


Do you think Islam would accept it if the "new culture" only contained elements of the Islamic ethical tradition?

I don&#39;t think it much matters what Islam "will accept"...their medieval outlook makes them a natural target for every progressive current of opinion in the world.

Islam is in the same position as Catholicism was in the 15th and 16th centuries...on the edge of major convulsions and upheavals. Indeed, the modern emergence of militant (or "terrorist") Islamic fundamentalism is a wedge that may crack and shatter the whole structure.

In another century, Islam may no longer exist.

---------------------


...this is all a result of the west&#39;s obsession with sex... Our culture is based purely on sex (and hence vanity)...

This is an observation that is astoundingly superficial. At the present time, bourgeois western culture is obsessed with "getting ahead", "making something out of yourself"...accumulating more wealth.

Sex is a "tool" for that purpose, that&#39;s all.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[DaCuBaN]

This is an observation that is astoundingly superficial

Hey&#33; Irony&#33;


At the present time, bourgeois western culture is obsessed with "getting ahead", "making something out of yourself"...

Indeed, and my quote was in reference to the utter lack of substance in &#39;western&#39; culture, if indeed such a thing even exists (considering the mix-match nature of the society we are discussing)

As you suggest, sex is the medium on which they &#39;peddle&#39; their ideals in an almost (if not actually) subconscious way. My comment was more directed toward the vain aspect, rather than sex itself, which with simple analysis bears weight.

&#39;Getting Ahead&#39; - Ahead of whom? Your peers? Your family?

Vanity, pure and simple. I want people to perceive me as &#39;better&#39; than you, and so I must persevere, I must acrue as much as possible. If we can show this to be true, we take away one of the weapons at their disposal. If fighting feminism, racism and their ilk are necessary in the war on capitalism, then the battle against &#39;meism&#39; such as this is equally as valid.

[cubist]

dacuban correct me if i am wrong but it seems to me that, what your really getting at is the western capitalist culture has evolved the human race from survival as its greatest need to materialism and status or vanity, and then has utilised the primal instinct of survival and therfore reproduction (sex) to keep them in the false world of material values and consumerism.

[DaCuBaN]

Cubist&#33; I&#39;m sure I&#39;ve got a cigar round here somewhere... :D

As you can see, I couldn&#39;t have put it better myself :)

[Comrade BNS]

This is a very strange statement. Are you suggesting that, for example, drinking "sacred" tea without performing the proper ritual is, somehow, "wrong"? A kind of "sin" for which "penance" is required???

How odd.

Not at all. If you recognise and accept the fact that doing so is extremely offensive to members of another culture, then I would consider that to be very wrong. I have no right whatsoever to cause offence to others for my own personal or cultural (or apparent lack thereof [irony]) dispensations. It is not a sin to me because I have "offended the gods" etc., but because I have offended a fellow human being. (there are places and positions where offence is impossible, but these situations are quite clear. This is merely selfishness causing grief to others).


How is that within our power to "give"? Are you suggesting that if I stop eating Thai food, that it will promote the culture of Thailand in some way that does not take place now?


The west is predominantly the world at the moment. Whilst it does not have actual control or power "on the ground" (a huge positive) it will soon assume so. All other non-western countries operate on the western socio-economic system, on the west&#39;s terms. Imagine being sick and having to go to the only hospital in town, but in return for your "treatment" you had to surrender body parts. This is the case for alot of non-western countries and cultures. They NEED trade with the west and so are forced through economic and other pressures to adopt the western economic model, and the subsequent social changes this brings with it. In order to network with the rest of the world, you need "western" software basically.


If that is actually true, then they will do that. The future is not "written in stone" and if some non-westerners want to "preserve their culture", all they have to do is convince most other non-westerners that such a task is worth doing.

True, but that is somewhat naive, and ignores alot of the pragmatisms of our reality. The future of a western controlled economy is all but set in stone. China and Malaysia may well emerge as two of the greatest economic powers of this centrury, but they will running under the legacy of the western societal and economic tradition; effectively assuming the role America will (presumably) leave behind (or be deprived of). In this sense it is extremely difficult to regain alot of the "grass roots" elements of culture. For example with the "oil economy" of the middle east, it is at the present all but impossible to return to the traditional Islamic market system (in which all citizens faired extremely well, with only the royalty established above the masses).


I suggest that this may the the real source of your discontent...non-westerners, when they get the chance, appear to be remarkably eager to embrace "western culture".


Well you tell me how much of a future their is in devoting yourself to Confucion (or any other traditional ideological system) ideals and living in that manner in the western world? Traditional culture can only exist when segregated and isolated from the rest of the world in this day and age. This prospect is disheartening and unfortunate, when to preserve culture you must sacrafice openess and interaction.


Not long ago, I happened to be reading about the Iranian exile community in Beverly Hills (yeah...these are rich refugees who came to the U.S. after the overthrow of the Shah). All the old guys were whining...their sons disobey them and their daughters "dress like whores". And worse...all the carefully-arranged marriages dissolve like mist on a summer&#39;s morning; the Americanized Iranian women simply refuse to tolerate them.

By the same token, try living the Champagne lifestyle in the mountains above Tehran&#33; The west&#39;s influence is overwhelming that even what might seem a small and insignificant amount of westernisation is in fact debsing culture and eroding tradition quite significantly.


Well, I&#39;m only one guy and I do what I can; my consistent opposition to U.S. imperialism is a matter of public record.

Beyond that, I don&#39;t honestly see what I or any "westerner" could do. I would look pretty damn silly if I went there and told people "save your culture". They&#39;d assume, correctly, that I was a nutball.

This is true. There is little that we can do at present except raise public awareness to these issues of cultural invasion and imposition. Beyond that only the future can tell (preferably and alternate future to the on already presented).


Abstractly, no one could disagree with you. But if people in a "traditional" culture wish to discard it for a culture that they perceive to be superior, how can you stop that from happening?


by demonstrating the worth of their own culture and identity.


I must remind you again that Marxists are not postmodernists and, in fact, are very critical of their theory.

Most certainly. Marxism and postmodernism are not mutually exclusive ideologies. Unfortunately though postmodernism permeates much of western thought and endeavor, thus alot of marxist activities are inadvertantly in many cases pushing the envelope for postmodernism.

I shall elaborate futher in another post if this is required. At present I am very tired&#33;

Comrade BNS

[redstar2000]

Traditional culture can only exist when segregated and isolated from the rest of the world in this day and age. This prospect is disheartening and unfortunate, when to preserve culture you must sacrifice openness and interaction.

I see.

I&#39;m not sure how to respond to this one; the segregation and isolation that you require to "preserve culture" is quite impossible, of course, in the age of the internet.

I sympathize with your anguish...but I don&#39;t think there&#39;s anything I or anyone can do about the concerns that you have.

Not even the end of economic/political imperialism will help...there will still be instant world-wide communication of "western" culture, with all that that implies.


The west&#39;s influence is [so] overwhelming that even what might seem a small and insignificant amount of westernisation is in fact debasing culture and eroding tradition quite significantly.

I don&#39;t disagree...but as you frame it, the erosion appears inevitable.


There is little that we can do at present except raise public awareness to these issues of cultural invasion and imposition.

To which the "western" public will doubtless reply "gee, that&#39;s too bad", and then move on to other matters.

The old order passes and fades away.


By demonstrating the worth of their own culture and identity.

That&#39;s not something a "westerner" can do. Those folks either want to do it or they don&#39;t.

I suspect that mostly, they don&#39;t.


Marxism and postmodernism are not mutually exclusive ideologies.

Well, I think they pretty much are, mutually exclusive, that is.

It seems to me that the central tenant of post-modernist views is that "there are no objective certainties".

In other words, reality is inherently "unknowable" from an objective viewpoint.

To the true post-modernist, even science is "just another opinion", no more and no less valid than any other.

Personally, I think post-modernism is an obscurantist philosophy, a secular version of "the unknowable mind of God".

My opinion of it is pretty low.


At present I am very tired&#33;

Yeah, you sound pretty depressed, too.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Comrade BNS]

I see.

I&#39;m not sure how to respond to this one; the segregation and isolation that you require to "preserve culture" is quite impossible, of course, in the age of the internet.

I sympathize with your anguish...but I don&#39;t think there&#39;s anything I or anyone can do about the concerns that you have.

Not even the end of economic/political imperialism will help...there will still be instant world-wide communication of "western" culture, with all that that implies.

I was watching a bob marley dvd yesterday and it had an interview with bob and one of his keyboardists Tyrone Downie. Tyrone said something interesting that I think relates to this quite a bit in terms of why western culture is so influential. (and I can&#39;t really quote this word for word, but it goes something like this)

"...all the white people they&#39;ve had middle class this, middle class that. They&#39;ve already experienced what the world got to offer, so they got more time to really you know, check out the rasta scene, really see what goin on there. Whereas the black man, the black man just getting his freedom now, so right now he looking so far away from rasta [ie. traditional culture], in the opposite direction. So you know I see alot more white people in the rasta scene then blacks, in america..."

This is, I believe a strong influence for the abandonment of culture. The west through imposition and elevation of itself has created a cultural nexus around itself, where to get ahead you have to become a part of it, which unfortunately is not really the case. Very dissapointing, but I have hope that a solution will be found.


To which the "western" public will doubtless reply "gee, that&#39;s too bad", and then move on to other matters.

The old order passes and fades away.

Perhaps, but then I have become aware and involved through the encouragement and words of people like Ziauddin Sardar, Sohail Inayatullah and Gail Boxwell.


That&#39;s not something a "westerner" can do. Those folks either want to do it or they don&#39;t.

I suspect that mostly, they don&#39;t.

I believe that there is "something" that westerners CAN do. I am not entirely sure what though, beyond raising awareness and stopping cultural imperialism. Perhaps a debate on this would be appropriate, I might even be able to consult or involve mr. Sardar and/or Inayatullah.


It seems to me that the central tenant of post-modernist views is that "there are no objective certainties".

In other words, reality is inherently "unknowable" from an objective viewpoint.

To the true post-modernist, even science is "just another opinion", no more and no less valid than any other.

Personally, I think post-modernism is an obscurantist philosophy, a secular version of "the unknowable mind of God".


Very true. There are some merits of the postmodernist world view, but these are limited and need to be checked, balanced and monitored.


My opinion of it is pretty low.


as is mine.


Yeah, you sound pretty depressed, too.


again I must find myself in agreement with you. Finally some common ideological ground to which we both agree&#33; :)

Comrade BNS

[Comrade BNS]

I am double posting here I realise, but something just came to me last night when thinking on this topic.

Whilst refering to future and cultural discourse (also in regards to technology) we were all (myself very much included) being extremly culturally arrogant.

How is it that we can "judge" the apparent worth of culture based on its progression or lack there of? (our own included)

Progression is a typically western idea, and we have been superimposing it onto other cultures, essentially using western ideals as the yardstick by which all other cultures are measured.

I think that this issue needs to be first recognised and then addressed. What are other people&#39;s thoughts on this?

Comrade BNS

[redstar2000]

How is it that we can "judge" the apparent worth of culture based on its progression or lack there of? (our own included)

In material terms of course.

A pleasant life is preferable to a painful one; pleasure is better than pain.

Abundance is better than scarcity; knowledge is better than ignorance; mobility is better than paralysis; wellness is better than sickness.

Freedom is better than slavery&#33;

By these standards, the "west" is pretty grim...but the "east" is truly hellish.

Both are unacceptable&#33;

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Comrade BNS]

In those terms, yes most certainly progress is both necessary and desirable. But the point which I was making is that we are measuring "progress" by the western yardstick. Is there a yardstick that is not western, or should we even be using one?

Comrade BNS

[redstar2000]

But the point which I was making is that we are measuring "progress" by the western yardstick. Is there a yardstick that is not western, or should we even be using one?

Well, the assumption is that material criteria are universal. No rational human in any culture wants to be "worse off" materially.

The further assumption is that people do "measure" these things; they are conscious of whether or not they are materially better off or worse off from one time-period to another.

It&#39;s difficult to imagine what a non-material "measuring stick" would consist of or how it would work. How does one "measure" the immaterial?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Yazman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 11:29 AM
Your understanding seems rather limited as well...though I will grant that your "little Australian world" may indeed be somewhat less "fucked up" than America.
Redstar, I disagree with you when you say that. Being a resident of Australia, I would say that it is just as fucked up as America, though in different ways.

[cubist]

what like th australian prime minister is a racist ****,

Dacuban glad i got what you were saying, and i concour completely

[rahul]

there must be no differences between rich and poor......okey&#33;


we should also try to not have much differences among ourselves thatis leader,worker,........