God, Country, Family

[Capitalist Lawyer]

God, country, family........

Now I know the Marxists don't believe in these things and want them eradicated from our vocabulary and I'm just curious to what you all have to say about these 3 words. How do you Marxists perceive these three words? Are they just euphemisms? What are some alternative names for these three human creations? What purpose do they serve the capitalist class and capitalism in general? How have they survived the onslaught of capitalism? Because I thought Marx stated that capitalism would "eat away" at these three things.

Just curious that's all.

[Severian]

God: Promises of an afterlife used to dupe people into passively accepting our lot in this, real life

Country: Killing workers in one place for the benefit of our exploiters in another.

Family: An institution for the inheritance of property, the subjugation of women, and helping the exploiters avoid paying for a lot of social needs. In Latin, familia literally refers to a man's domestic slaves (singular famulus).

I don't see why alternative names are needed, since all will disappear.

Demagogy about defense of family, faith and country is a major feature of all fascist movements. By itself, that doesn't definitely distinguish a group as fascist, since mainstream capitalist demagogy also uses those three things, but something to watch out for...

[LSD]

God

Religion is a tool used to keep workers subjugated and willing to accept the injustices and inequalities of capitalism.


country

Nationalism is a tool used to keep workers divided and to justify expansionist and excursionary capitalist ventures (e.g., Iraq).


family

The "traditional" family is an effective means to ensure the continuation of capitalist "ideals", to maintain social hierarchies, and to preserve capital.

[Enragé]

family however as a name for simply those with biological ties living under the same roof etc will stay ofcourse

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 27 2005, 04:40 AM
Religion is a tool used to keep workers subjugated and willing to accept the injustices and inequalities of capitalism.
Except for the fact that Jesus was the biggest commie of the lot.

[Enragé]

yeah Jesus as a person was an ok dude, problem his thoughts have been corrupted by his followers.

[LSD]

Except for the fact that Jesus was the biggest commie of the lot.

Hardly.

He condoned slavery, sexism, racism, prejeduce, supported the Roman Government (when it suited him), pushed theocracy and monarchy, and, oh yes, advocated religion.

Yeah, he didn't like rich people, but so what? No one likes rich people.

It's just human nature to hate your exploiters, that doesn't make you a communist. To be a communist, you have to advocate communism, something which Jesus never even came close to doing.


Yeah Jesus as a person was an ok dude

And you know this how?

For that matter how do you even know that Jesus existed?

[Enragé]

And you know this how?

For that matter how do you even know that Jesus existed?

basicly cuz its been proven.

Well he was an ok dude because he used to hang around the "scum" of society in those days; prostitutes etc. Also he was a real man of the people, especially if you read between the lines a bit.

he also said something along the lines of it being more likely for a camel to crawl through the needle of an eye than for a rich dude to get into heaven. Cant come up with the exact words right now, but im sure i ve posted this quote lots of times before.

[Enragé]

and jesus couldnt have advocated communism because communism didnt exist back then dohh

[Free Spirit]

he didn't like rich people, but so what? No one likes rich people.

Now you know that's not true!
Only leftist people that I've ever met hate rich people, not the republicans. Most rich people love their properties and some of those who are not rich hate the rich but if you give them all that capita, they'll love it all!

[LSD]

basicly cuz its been proven.

Actually it hasn't.

There is currently no substantive proof that an historical Jesus existed. But, please, if you have some evidence, feel free to post it!


Well he was an ok dude because he used to hang around the "scum" of society in those days; prostitutes etc. Also he was a real man of the people, especially if you read between the lines a bit.

And, again, how do you know this?

Because the Bible "says so"? :lol:

The Bible also says that the sun orbits the earth and the cure for leprosy is a dead dove. Not exactly the most trustworthy source!


he also said something along the lines of it being more likely for a camel to crawl through the needle of an eye than for a rich dude to get into heaven.

Yes he did.

As any good public speaker will tell you, one of the most important rules of rhetoric is to know your audience.

The Bible was originally written to appeal to the poor and the "downtrodden", a little jabbing at the rich goes a long way in getting their attention.

More important than the rhetoric of a religious propaganda piece are actions, and I think we all know how the Church treated the rich!

(hint: it was very well)


Now you know that's not true!
Only leftist people that I've ever met hate rich people, not the republicans.

Really?

You never hear little grumblings, little complaints?

We've all been indocrinated to believe that being rich is a right and so few of us are willing to challange the system. But dig a little deeper even into the most staunch Republican blue collar worker and you'll find that while he loves capitalism, he hate the snot out of the rich, out of the actual rich.

It's just basic emotion. When you're struggling to get by and have to work just to have a meal to eat, you can't help but hate the Donald Trumps and the Paris Hiltons.

Often society has so suppressed this hatred that we're not even aware that it's hatred anymore, but it's there. We may all want to be rich, but we hate those who are already there.

And for good reason!

[Free Spirit]

I agree with you yet I've said the republicans I've met -average republican workers who have a good state of economy and for them to hate the Hilton's is because they can't have it themselves which isn't the same for the one who works for just about food. Now that's about a different dissatisfaction and needs, different kind of money "problem". The one is solved with money and one isn't cause we live in capitalism after all. :ph34r:

[Enragé]

And, again, how do you know this?

Because the Bible "says so"?

no you moron because of roman records which were found.


Yes he did.

As any good public speaker will tell you, one of the most important rules of rhetoric is to know your audience.

The Bible was originally written to appeal to the poor and the "downtrodden", a little jabbing at the rich goes a long way in getting their attention.

More important than the rhetoric of a religious propaganda piece are actions, and I think we all know how the Church treated the rich!


Jezus himself was a nice guy, he wasnt part of any church, in fact he rebelled against the jewish priests because they were a bunch of decadent fucks. The church and the bible came to be AFTER he died.
The church and the bible are fucked but that doesnt mean jezus was because he never started anything remotely like a church.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 27 2005, 11:19 AM
He condoned slavery, sexism, racism, prejeduce, supported the Roman Government (when it suited him), pushed theocracy and monarchy, and, oh yes, advocated religion.
Eh...no. The pro-slavery comments in the New Testament are attributed to Paul.

Jesus was apparently a Judean chauvinist, at least there's a comment comparing Gentiles to "dogs" attributed to him, but it's ahistorical to call that racism.

The rest is similarly distorted.

LSD is right that almost everyone hates rich people; even Republican support is often based on hatred for the "liberal elite", the Kennedys, etc.

He's also right there is no historical proof of Jesus' existence or anything else about him. No Roman governmental record of his execution, no mention by Roman historians of the same time - except those added later when the books were copied by Christian monks.

But the early Christians were communists - not in the modern sense - but they lived in communes, shared all property, etc. Practiced a communism of distribution, not production, since the urban free poor of that time did not have a major role in production.

[LSD]

no you moron because of roman records which were found.

:lol:

And which "roman records" are those?


Eh...no. The pro-slavery comments in the New Testament are attributed to Paul.

Many are yes, but several key ones are attributed to Jesus Christ.

And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.. - Luke 12:47

Also Luke 17:7


But the early Christians were communists - not in the modern sense - but they lived in communes, shared all property, etc. Practiced a communism of distribution, not production

What they practiced would be more accurately called a form of theocratic communalism in which people participated not out of reason or understanding but out of religious and practical fear of the consequences of not complying. There was a definte priestly class which "governed" and "mediated" and generally made all important decisions regarding collection, distribution, and appropriation.

It was certainly not capitalist, but it was certainly not communist.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 27 2005, 03:05 PM
Many are yes, but several key ones are attributed to Jesus Christ.

And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.. - Luke 12:47

Also Luke 17:7
Those are parables and metaphors, not commandments.


What they practiced would be more accurately called a form of theocratic communalism in which people participated not out of reason or understanding but out of religious and practical fear of the consequences of not complying. There was a definte priestly class which "governed" and "mediated" and generally made all important decisions regarding collection, distribution, and appropriation.

What? Joining the Christian commune was voluntary in the early period. By the time of Constantine, when Christianity acquired means of coercion, the common-property aspect was fading away.

It's true of course they didn't participate because of "reason or understanding", their consciousness was confused, but Christianity originally reflected the sentiments and partly the interests of the urban free poor.

I won't claim it was run democratically - what was, at that time? - but it took time for the commune administrators to become a privileged priestly elite. Bishop originally just meant "cup-bearer."

Engel's History of Early Christianity (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/), Kautsky's Origins of Christianity, and Abram Leon's The Jewish Question all contain thorough Marxist examinations of this evolution.

[Enragé]

And which "roman records" are those?


shit written during his trial whatever.


Many are yes, but several key ones are attributed to Jesus Christ.


attributed perhaps but thats bullshit because the bible wasnt written by jesus, it was written like a hundred yrs after he died.

[LSD]

shit written during his trial whatever.

I'm going to lay this out very carfully because you don't seem to be understanding: THERE ARE NO ROMAN RECORDS OF JESUS.

None of his trial, none of his execution, none of his existance.

None.


Those are parables and metaphors, not commandments.

They are moral judgements. Jesus is saying that slaves have an obligation to obey their masters and that in so doing they earn the favour of God.

Just look at the previous verses:

Luke 12:43: "Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath. But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers."

[Xvall]

shit written during his trial whatever.

Lmfao.

I wonder if any of these were the same roman records that talked about the illustrious Zeus, who obviously really existed, since there were records of him and statues everywhere.

[*Hippie*]

Yeah, he didn't like rich people, but so what? No one likes rich people.
:D So TRUE!


It's just human nature to hate your exploiters, that doesn't make you a communist. To be a communist, you have to advocate communism, something which Jesus never even came close to doing.

That&#39;s true, I hear people at my work complain all the time about the way the place is run, how unfair it is, but I don&#39;t see them talking about communism. <_<

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 27 2005, 05:19 PM
Hardly.

He condoned slavery,
So you do. You just call it something else and hide it behind a dubious set of rationalizations.


It&#39;s just human nature to hate your exploiters, that doesn&#39;t make you a communist. To be a communist, you have to advocate communism, something which Jesus never even came close to doing.

Don&#39;t ever question whether they are actually exploiting you. We wouldn&#39;t want that.

[LSD]

So you do. You just call it something else and hide it behind a dubious set of rationalizations.

Blah blah blah...

Working under the threat of starvation (capitalism) is slavery.


Don&#39;t ever question whether they are actually exploiting you. We wouldn&#39;t want that.

No?

Strange, because it seems to be exactly what you want.

You&#39;re not being exploited, you entered into a voluntary contract ...um... INITIATION OF FORCE&#33; INITIATION OF FORCE&#33; INITIATION OF FORCE&#33;

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 28 2005, 06:40 PM
Blah blah blah...

Working under the threat of starvation (capitalism) is slavery.

Here&#39;s another great use of the equivocation fallacy.

That fact that you&#39;re "forced" to work for someone because of a lack of an alternative is not the same as being forced to work for someone at gun point. There&#39;s a rather large moral gap between being "forced" to work or starve and being forced to work or be shot.

Let&#39;s also ignore the other evasion for now, namely that you clearly support slavery (consisting of a "right to food"), while trying to accuse me of doing it.

<snip the rest of the crap>

[LSD]

There&#39;s a rather large moral gap between being "forced" to work or starve and being forced to work or be shot.

Yes there is.

But no one here is proposing the "work or be shot" option. You however are proposing the "work or starve" option, hence while your position is not as morally wrong as the "work or shot" position, it is still morally wrong.


Let&#39;s also ignore the other evasion for now, namely that you clearly support slavery (consisting of a "right to food")

I think your problem is that you&#39;ve somehow convinced yourself that rights exist outside of society. They don&#39;t. Rights are a human societal invention for the regulation of behaviour within society.

All rights limit the actions of others. My right to security means that you can&#39;t kill me, no matter how much you may want to.

If you desperately need a kidney, and I have a compatible one but refuse to give it to you, your best and easiest option would be to take it from me at gunpoint. My right to security prevents you from doing this.

You are required to extra work and to take positive actions which you would not be required to do otherwise because of my rights.

Societal rights, by definition, constrain the actions of others.

So it is with my societal right to live. Society exists to bennefit its members, and that means, firstly, keeping them alive. Accordingly, I do indeed have a right to food.

That means that others in society should be prevented from keeping food away from me that they do not need themselves. Unlike the kidney example, however, this is an example where the action they are prevented from doing (hoarding food), does not actually inconvinience them&#33;

Honestly, what did they need with the excess food, anyways&#33; If it wasn&#39;t consumed, it was just going to sit in a wharehouse.

That person is a member of society as well, however, and is entitled to the same rights as I am. Such as the right to education and medicine. As a teacher or doctor I can provide this to them, as well as to many others. I do so because I enjoy doing so and wish to contribute to society.

Now tell me, who&#39;s "enslaved" there?

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 26 2005, 08:39 PM
God, country, family........

Now I know the Marxists don&#39;t believe in these things and want them eradicated from our vocabulary and I&#39;m just curious to what you all have to say about these 3 words. How do you Marxists perceive these three words? Are they just euphemisms? What are some alternative names for these three human creations? What purpose do they serve the capitalist class and capitalism in general? How have they survived the onslaught of capitalism? Because I thought Marx stated that capitalism would "eat away" at these three things.

Just curious that&#39;s all.
Capitalism has been eating away at those three institutions for hundreds of years. One example for each superstition:

1. It is no longer a crime to work on the Sabbath.
2. One word: Globalization.
3. Women in the working corps.

[Professor Moneybags]

But no one here is proposing the "work or be shot" option.

Yes, you are; share or be shot. It&#39;s the same thing only with a smiley face.


I think your problem is that you&#39;ve somehow convinced yourself that rights exist outside of society. They don&#39;t. Rights are a human societal invention for the regulation of behaviour within society.

All rights limit the actions of others. My right to security means that you can&#39;t kill me, no matter how much you may want to.

If you desperately need a kidney, and I have a compatible one but refuse to give it to you, your best and easiest option would be to take it from me at gunpoint. My right to security prevents you from doing this.

As does your right to take food from me.


You are required to extra work and to take positive actions which you would not be required to do otherwise because of my rights.

And that&#39;s the problem. It&#39;s a right to enslave.


So it is with my societal right to live.

The right to life is and individual right.


Society exists to bennefit its members,

Slavery isn&#39;t a benefit to anyone.


and that means, firstly, keeping them alive. Accordingly, I do indeed have a right to food.

Evade the fact that what you are proposing is someone being forced to provide you with food, why don&#39;t you ? Will the guns come out if we don&#39;t ?


That means that others in society should be prevented from keeping food away from me that they do not need themselves. Unlike the kidney example, however, this is an example where the action they are prevented from doing (hoarding food), does not actually inconvinience them&#33;

It&#39;s not for you do decide. It&#39;s not yours.


Honestly, what did they need with the excess food, anyways&#33; If it wasn&#39;t consumed, it was just going to sit in a wharehouse.

Irrelevent.


That person is a member of society as well, however, and is entitled to the same rights as I am. Such as the right to education and medicine. As a teacher or doctor I can provide this to them, as well as to many others. I do so because I enjoy doing so and wish to contribute to society.

Now tell me, who&#39;s "enslaved" there?

Everyone who doesn&#39;t want to take part in this blueprint for parasitism.

[LSD]

Yes, you are; share or be shot. It&#39;s the same thing only with a smiley face.

By whom?

This is stateless society here. Participation is voluntary.


The right to life is and individual right.

As is the right to food.


Evade the fact that what you are proposing is someone being forced to provide you with food, why don&#39;t you ?

They&#39;re not being "forced", they are agreeing to do so because they understand that doing is is better for society and that by participating in said society they not only bennefit others but themselves as well.


Will the guns come out if we don&#39;t ?

You can leave at any time.


It&#39;s not for you do decide. It&#39;s not yours.

Because you "say so"? :lol:

You can&#39;t use property to justify the existance of property&#33; Property isn&#39;t fucking physics, it&#39;s made up. There&#39;s no reason why it has to exist, so you can&#39;t claim that it&#39;s there if society says that it isn&#39;t.


Irrelevent.

Completely relevent.

If your actions do not bennefit you in any way but severely hurt others then society has a duty to examine those actions and decide if they should be stopped.


Everyone who doesn&#39;t want to take part in this blueprint for parasitism.

Call it whatever immature names you want to, but once again, anyone who wants to leave can.

[Forward Union]

God - God is a Sexist, Racist, Homophobic, prejudice, piece of crap that&#39;s simply nto fit for worship. Even though all forms of intelligent and advanced thinking suggest he doesn&#39;t exist.

country - A non existent state of mind that only divides people irrationally and often results in national pride. "My bit of land is better than yours because urm...I drew a line round it" , it also often results in one group of people thinking they are better than another. Which I consider to be a form of racism.

family - Like others have said its largly made up. Though I have no problem with people loving each other i na familiy way. The importance of "The Family" in American terms is largly exagerated and bollox.

[riverotter]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 27 2005, 03:39 AM
God, country, family........

How have they survived the onslaught of capitalism? Because I thought Marx stated that capitalism would "eat away" at these three things.

Well, capitalism has eaten away at the ideals of god, country and family. Isn&#39;t that what the Christian Fascists (Pat Robertson and friends) are so upset about?

Look around - people have been getting so caught up in trying to claw ahead that they couldn&#39;t care less about anything other than winning the rat race, and that&#39;s actually causing a lot of problems for the ruling elite. When the most important thing to people is looking out for number one they&#39;re not going to think about anything that doesn&#39;t directly benefit they themselves.

On the other hand, God, country and family are the 3 pillars of this exploitative system - as previous posts have explained - so they need to try to get people to come back to those old traditional beliefs. Hence, the massive push by the Christian Fascists to turn the US into a theocracy.

[Ultra-Violence]

God:i.e religion: Opium for the Masses

Country: Use to seperate the proletarians

Family: such a thing has never existed


:)

[Socialistpenguin]

LSD, I must applaud your efforts in trying to argue sense with Professor Moneybags. Unfortunately, you may as well talk to a brick wall: in fact, you would probably get more sense out of the wall&#33; As I have said before, Professor Moneybags, as an idiot, will drag you down to his level, and beat you with experience. Logic is alien to this person. Best remedy, ignore him.

[Saint-Just]

Family: A unit inexorable to the existence of society and civilisation.

Country: Society, a common destiny bound in a common cultural and economic life. Bound also to the greater destiny of humanity.

God: -

[Capital Punishment]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 27 2005, 04:40 AM

country

Nationalism is a tool used to keep workers divided and to justify expansionist and excursionary capitalist ventures (e.g., Iraq).
Wait, so a country (nation) divides the people?

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by Capital Punishment+Jul 9 2005, 03:22 PM--> (Capital Punishment @ Jul 9 2005, 03:22 PM)
Lysergic Acid [email protected] 27 2005, 04:40 AM

country

Nationalism is a tool used to keep workers divided and to justify expansionist and excursionary capitalist ventures (e.g., Iraq).
Wait, so a country (nation) divides the people? [/b]
Of course it does. The quote from LSD explains it quite succinctly.

[Capital Punishment]

Originally posted by Disgustapated+Jul 9 2005, 07:41 PM--> (Disgustapated @ Jul 9 2005, 07:41 PM)
Originally posted by Capital [email protected] 9 2005, 03:22 PM

Lysergic Acid [email protected] 27 2005, 04:40 AM

country

Nationalism is a tool used to keep workers divided and to justify expansionist and excursionary capitalist ventures (e.g., Iraq).
Wait, so a country (nation) divides the people?
Of course it does. The quote from LSD explains it quite succinctly. [/b]
So when there is no nation, people are united? Haha, maybe i am just a stupid cappie but that doesn&#39;t seem logical..... *anticipates next post: "you are a stupid cappie"

[riverotter]

Of course nations divide people. People who see themselves as "Americans" are divided from those who see themselves as "French", right?

On the other hand, communist class theory also divides people. But they divide people along class lines - so, I think "my people" are the proletariant, and everyone else besides the "ruling class" regardless of country. Those who are not "my people"are those of the ruling class, regardless of country.

See?

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by Capital Punishment+Jul 9 2005, 03:55 PM--> (Capital Punishment &#064; Jul 9 2005, 03:55 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Capital [email protected] 9 2005, 03:22 PM

Lysergic Acid [email protected] 27 2005, 04:40 AM

country

Nationalism is a tool used to keep workers divided and to justify expansionist and excursionary capitalist ventures (e.g., Iraq).
Wait, so a country (nation) divides the people?
Of course it does. The quote from LSD explains it quite succinctly.
So when there is no nation, people are united? Haha, maybe i am just a stupid cappie but that doesn&#39;t seem logical..... *anticipates next post: "you are a stupid cappie" [/b]
Okay, read this again and note the emphasis.

"Nationalism is a tool used to keep workers divided and to justify expansionist and excursionary capitalist ventures"

Nationalities exist to pit one worker against another either for jobs, resources etc. This does not benefit society or mankind, just the capitalist class.

Racism is fostered in a capitalist society for much the same reasons. To encourage class divisions. This division prevents worker solidarity and the eventual outcome of that solidarity.... uprisings/strikes and eventually emancipation.

[emma gg]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 28 2005, 09:25 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jun 28 2005, 09:25 PM)
Lysergic Acid [email protected] 28 2005, 06:40 PM
Blah blah blah...

Working under the threat of starvation (capitalism) is slavery.

Here&#39;s another great use of the equivocation fallacy.

That fact that you&#39;re "forced" to work for someone because of a lack of an alternative is not the same as being forced to work for someone at gun point. There&#39;s a rather large moral gap between being "forced" to work or starve and being forced to work or be shot.

Let&#39;s also ignore the other evasion for now, namely that you clearly support slavery (consisting of a "right to food"), while trying to accuse me of doing it.

<snip the rest of the crap> [/b]
wait, what is the very large moral gap between being forced to work or dying one way or being forced to work or dying another way? the way you die? are you suggesting that perhaps it is somehow more moral one way or the other? i is very confused, but perhaps it&#39;s because i have not been to law school.
the fact is, you are dying one way or the other because you don&#39;t live in a truly free society.

and in your blessed capitalist society, we who aren&#39;t endowed with a law degree and the time and mental capacity to pursue the finer things work our asses off and starve anyway.

yes it&#39;s true, we want bread, but we want roses, too.

[TheKingOfMercy]

Disgustapated - I always thought nationalities existed because of the various tribal/nation/imperial wars/migrations of history, I never knew it was just a sinister capitalist evil really....

Gods - things used by early man to explain certain happenings, no longer relevant due to massive scientific advances. Though it is generally agreed by all the important philosophers and theologians that the existence of the metaphysical can never be proved/disproved.

Country - The result of historical wars, migrations, fueds, plagues, natural happenings etc etc, things forged over thousands of years of human and natural actions.

Family - People related to you by blood, not something to oppress women, whichever idiot said that, I dont see too many opporessed women in England to-day.

[KC]

I always thought nationalities existed because of the various tribal/nation/imperial wars/migrations of history, I never knew it was just a sinister capitalist evil really....

Okay I&#39;ll help you with this one. "[In the present day] nationalism is a tool used to keep workers divided and to justify expansionist and excursionary capitalist ventures."

Nations existed before capitalism. But that doesn&#39;t mean they are needed or serve any purpose nowadays.

[Capital Punishment]

Wow laser or lazarus or whatever your name is it&#39;s great to see you can come up with an original quote all your own ever single post. Actually I still don&#39;t think you got the point across. Repeat it again for us brainwashed, illiterate cappies.

For the topic at hand, nations truly started out of simple farming settlements, which led to cities, which led to want of territorial expansion, which led to wars, which led to individual nations. Something like that anyway.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 05:13 PM
yeah Jesus as a person was an ok dude, problem his thoughts have been corrupted by his followers.
No. They been corrupted by the bourgeoisie&#33;

Who controlled religion for the last hundred centuries?

The ruling class. So they preached their views to the people, and the people accepted it as their own

[KC]

wasnt the bourgeoisie the revolutionary class back then?

[LSD]

wasnt the bourgeoisie the revolutionary class back then?

For much of it, absolutely&#33;

Capitalism, in its true form, is anti-religion. You notice that where capitalism spreads, rates of religous attendence almost universally decline.

In the next few centuries, religion will die out with or without a communist revolution. It&#39;s inevitable&#33;

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Put this phrase in a marxist context.

"What do you want to be when you grow up?"

[LSD]

Put this phrase in a marxist context.

Here&#39;s a better idea, put it in a capitalist one.

The "Marxist" response would be whatever the fuck I want to. The capitalist would be whatever I can afford to.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 20 2005, 03:47 AM
The "Marxist" response would be whatever the fuck I want to.
Sadly, that includes "slave master".

All you need to do is be and helpless and needy as possible...

[rahul]

"God" --------&#62; created by man
"country"-----&#62; created by kings
"family"-------&#62;created by sexual-relationship

[Capitalist Lawyer]

The "Marxist" response would be whatever the fuck I want to. The capitalist would be whatever I can afford to.

I doubt many people would want to pick strawberries, kill termites or work in a slaughterhouse in a society where everybody can do whatever the fuck they want. If that were the case, people would gravitate towards work that is simple, fun, and popular. Who or what would do all of the menial jobs that are very necessary for a society to survive?

Oh I forgot, there will be a draft as to who does these jobs or that somehow by sheer chance, robots will magically appear and do all of these shit jobs that people wouldn&#39;t volunteer to do.

[KC]

Sadly, that includes "slave master".


Nobody&#39;s forcing anybody to do anything. And if you want to call the people "slaves" beacuse they&#39;re not getting paid actual money under communism then youre a fucking idiot.


I doubt many people would want to pick strawberries, kill termites or work in a slaughterhouse in a society where everybody can do whatever the fuck they want. If that were the case, people would gravitate towards work that is simple, fun, and popular. Who or what would do all of the menial jobs that are very necessary for a society to survive?

What&#39;s wrong with picking strawberries? When I was little we used to go down to the farm and pick strawberries. It was fun. Nobody would have to do it for a living if they didn&#39;t want to. If you want some strawberries you could just go down to the farm and pick them yourself. If you have termites in your house, you learn how to get rid of them and you do it yourself. Slaughterhouses are easily automated. And yes many jobs can be automated. Many jobs can also be removed. Why don&#39;t you go read one of the threads that was alreaedy made about this?

[LSD]

All you need to do is be and helpless and needy as possible...

Yes, and under capitalism you will have no choice but to work for someone else in order to "pay" for food and shelter. You&#39;re absolutely correct, capitalism is slavery&#33;

Wait...what are we talking about again?


I doubt many people would want to pick strawberries

Why not?


kill termites

They will if they&#39;re in their house&#33;


or work in a slaughterhouse

Well, current slaughtering techniques need to be changed for a number of reasons.

For one thing, working in a slaughterhouse happens to be one of the most dangerous occupations out there.


Who or what would do all of the menial jobs that are very necessary for a society to survive?

Many of those jobs will probably be eliminated. A good deal of them are not truly nescessary at all and many of the rest can be automated.

For those jobs which are truly essential, impossible to automate, and wholly undesirable by anyone, there are several options for a communist society...all of which have been outlined in the many threads on the subject.


Oh I forgot, there will be a draft as to who does these jobs

It&#39;s an option.

Some sort of program in which everyone spends a day a year doing a nescessary but undesirable job. Personally, I think that there are better options, but, yes, it&#39;s a possibiity.


somehow by sheer chance, robots will magically appear and do all of these shit jobs that people wouldn&#39;t volunteer to do.

The robots, in large part, already exist. It just isn&#39;t "economical" at present to use them; it "saves money" to use cheap labour instead. People are easier to replace and often cost less to maintain.

Obviously such concerns will not be present in a communist society.

[Xiao Banfa]

All these three things are compatable with a post capitalist society. But nation states will one day wither away, God willing.
We must allow brothers and sisters of all faiths to participate and practice their faiths within a socialist society. Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Parseeism, Sufism, Tao and Shinto are paths to God.
These faiths give people strength to behave as men rather than beasts.

[Xiao Banfa]

And respect to Sikhism. Sorry if I missed a few.

[Ian]

Tino are you from Aoteroa?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 26 2005, 11:32 AM
These faiths give people strength to behave as men rather than beasts.
Faith only makes men behave like animals.

[Professor Moneybags]

Yes, and under capitalism you will have no choice but to work for someone else in order to "pay" for food and shelter.

Who is going to provide you with these othewise ? Are they going to rain from heaven ?


You&#39;re absolutely correct, capitalism is slavery&#33;

Wait...what are we talking about again?

You were evading this :

"All you need to do is be and helpless and needy as possible..."

...and you get to be the defacto "master" of a communist society.


The robots, in large part, already exist. It just isn&#39;t "economical" at present to use them; it "saves money" to use cheap labour instead. People are easier to replace and often cost less to maintain.

Obviously such concerns will not be present in a communist society.

Quite right it wouldn&#39;t be a concern. The people who build these robots wouldn&#39;t exist; they&#39;d move elsewhere. Communism has nothing to offer men of ability.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 06:31 PM
Nobody&#39;s forcing anybody to do anything. And if you want to call the people "slaves" beacuse they&#39;re not getting paid actual money under communism then youre a fucking idiot.
Oh no...siezing property isn&#39;t forcing anything on anyone, is it ? Nor will all those positive rights result in anyone being forced to provide labor. If you believe that, you&#39;ll believe anything.

[LSD]

Who is going to provide you with these othewise ?

Some of it you will provide yourself, some of it others will provide, but no one is forced to provide it on institutional pain of starvation.


The people who build these robots wouldn&#39;t exist; they&#39;d move elsewhere.

Why?

Under communism, they will finally have the chance to do real science, without having to worry about "patents" and "profit". Scientists will be able to pursue invention without having to concern themselves with what the "corporate head office" thinks would better satisfy the "focus group".


Communism has nothing to offer men of ability.

Except everything.

Remember, most "men of ability" don&#39;t do so well in capitalism. Unless they&#39;re lucky enough to be the right race, sex, ethnicity, nationality, speak the right language, know the right people, have the right education, and have enough money ...they&#39;re screwed.

Communism actually offers "men (and women, you sexist twit) of ability" opportunities to pursue their "abilities" to the fullest without having to constantly worry about feeding themselves and their loved ones.

[KC]

Oh no...siezing property isn&#39;t forcing anything on anyone, is it ? Nor will all those positive rights result in anyone being forced to provide labor. If you believe that, you&#39;ll believe anything.

What does seizing property have to do with you calling them slaves?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

It&#39;s an option.

Some sort of program in which everyone spends a day a year doing a nescessary but undesirable job. Personally, I think that there are better options, but, yes, it&#39;s a possibiity.

Thats sounds alot like a government to me. And what if I get a letter in the mail telling me to report to the coal mines in Kentucky and I don&#39;t want to?

What&#39;s going to happen to me?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 05:08 PM
What does seizing property have to do with you calling them slaves?
If someone takes everything you own, you are a slave to that someone.

You do not recognize property rights. I do. Do the math.

[LSD]

Thats sounds alot like a government to me.

Not government, just collective agreement.


And what if I get a letter in the mail telling me to report to the coal mines in Kentucky and I don&#39;t want to?

What&#39;s going to happen to me?

You&#39;ll be socially shunned and condemned. Workers collectives will be retiscent to honour your requests for goods, and you&#39;ll end up pretty low on the nonessential distribution lists. If you persist in refusing to contribute, you may find yourself exiled or censured, depending on the will of the community.

But are you really so damn busy that you can&#39;t put in a day a year?

I&#39;m sure you probably spend more than that already doing favours for people. There&#39;s no difference here.

And remember, this is just an idea. There&#39;s no reason that it has to be utilized, and it is in no way "essential" to communism&#33;

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 26 2005, 05:03 PM
Some of it you will provide yourself, some of it others will provide,
Are they given a choice ?


but no one is forced to provide it on institutional pain of starvation.

What happend to my "right to food" ? What good is a right that isn&#39;t backed up by force ?


Why?

Under communism, they will finally have the chance to do real science, without having to worry about "patents" and "profit".

They&#39;ll work and not get anything in return ? What&#39;s the point of that ?

(Ironic really; only a robot would expect to work for nothing.)


Scientists will be able to pursue invention without having to concern themselves with what the "corporate head office" thinks would better satisfy the "focus group".

What&#39;s the point ? There&#39;s nothing in it for them. They&#39;d might as well sweep the floor instead.


Except everything.

Oh, great. They get to be "equal to everyone else". I&#39;m sure they&#39;ll be battering the door down to be included in it.


Communism actually offers "men (and women, you sexist twit)

"Men" in the context I mentioned refers the abstract concept or man qua man, not "men" as is "members of the male sex". Thanks for demonstrating the concrete bound level of of thought you operate at; it would explain a lot.


Remember, most "men of ability" don&#39;t do so well in capitalism.

They don&#39;t do anything in communism. There&#39;s no point.

[LSD]

Are they given a choice ?

Of course they are.


What happend to my "right to food" ? What good is a right that isn&#39;t backed up by force ?

You do indeed have a right to food, but that right is a societal one, not "God given" as you seem to view rights.

If society decides that you don&#39;t have that right ...then you don&#39;t. But it is highly unlikely that society will decide that it doesn&#39;t need food&#33; And so there will be people who grow the food.

Worst case? You grow it yourself. Although, that is unlikely to be nescessary.


They&#39;ll work and not get anything in return ? What&#39;s the point of that ?

You see, you&#39;re still trapped in a capitalist mindset, assuming that people only work for "material gain".

Scientists will work because they enjoy it, because they want to make discoveries, because it interests them, and, yes, because they want to contribute to the society.

And why not?

Most scientists aren&#39;t paid that well under capitalism. Surely you don&#39;t think that most of them do it "for the money"&#33; :lol:

If everything is provided for them, why wouldn&#39;t a scientist do science?


What&#39;s the point ? There&#39;s nothing in it for them. They&#39;d might as well sweep the floor instead.

Except that that is especially borring and they happen to like science.

What is so hard for you to grasp here?

Do you really think that the only reason that physicists aren&#39;t sweeping floors is that science "pays better"?


Oh, great. They get to be "equal to everyone else". I&#39;m sure they&#39;ll be battering the door down to be included in it.

Absolutely, since it will be a massive material improvement from the status quo.


"Men" in the context I mentioned refers the abstract concept or man qua man, not "men" as is "members of the male sex".

Yes, how foolish of me to imagine that "men" meant "men". :rolleyes:


They don&#39;t do anything in communism. There&#39;s no point.

Because the sole motivation in life is accumulating capital, right?

:lol: :D :lol:

What a sad little world you live in, moneybags. :(

[Xiao Banfa]

Yeah bro&#33; Aotearoa represent.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 27 2005, 04:03 PM
You do indeed have a right to food, but that right is a societal one, not "God given" as you seem to view rights.


Rights are neither god given nor societal.


If society decides that you don&#39;t have that right ...then you don&#39;t. But it is highly unlikely that society will decide that it doesn&#39;t need food&#33; And so there will be people who grow the food.

So it&#39;s likely that society will approve of the "right to food", therefore force its memebers to provide me with it if I don&#39;t have any.


Worst case? You grow it yourself. Although, that is unlikely to be nescessary.

Grow it myself ? So it can be taken away and given to others ?


They&#39;ll work and not get anything in return ? What&#39;s the point of that ?


You see, you&#39;re still trapped in a capitalist mindset, assuming that people only work for "material gain".

Still trapped in the mindset that work should bring rewards ? That puts me in the realm of the sane. Praise makes a poor supper.


Scientists will work because they enjoy it, because they want to make discoveries, because it interests them, and, yes, because they want to contribute to the society.

...And off to the gulag if they don&#39;t ?

It&#39;s unlikely they&#39;ll stick around. Especially when other rewards (from outside the communist utopia) beckon.


Except that that is especially borring and they happen to like science.

What is so hard for you to grasp here?

Do you really think that the only reason that physicists are sweeping floors is that science "pays better"?

I&#39;m sure scientists will happily spend hours working curring tumors out of people while getting all the same rewards as someone who picks up litter.

You mistakenly believe that every member of the human race is guillable and stupid.


Absolutely, since it will be a massive material improvement from the status quo.

If history is anything to go by, no they won&#39;t. No country ever residtributed its way into prosperity.


Because the sole motivation in life is accumulating capital, right?

I work for my own benefit, not "others". Capital is a means, not an end. If working as a slave for the good of others is what you desire, then far be it for me to stop you. Just don&#39;t drag everyone else with you.


What a sad little world you live in, moneybags. :(

Whatever you say, slave boy. :lol:

[LSD]

So it&#39;s likely that society will approve of the "right to food", therefore force its memebers to provide me with it if I don&#39;t have any.

"force"? No.

Again, people will simply grow food because they enjoy farming, enjoy being outside, enjoy the process, and know that food is essential. They&#39;ll "provide" it for you because, honestly, otherwise what would they do with the excess?

There&#39;s simply no logic in not providing it to the hungry&#33;


Still trapped in the mindset that work should bring rewards ?

No, in the mindset that that reward must be material and capital.


...And off to the gulag if they don&#39;t ?

Not at all. If they don&#39;t want to do science, no problem. There are a lot of people who don&#39;t want to do science, most people in fact. That&#39;s perfectly fine.


It&#39;s unlikely they&#39;ll stick around. Especially when other rewards (from outside the communist utopia) beckon.

And what "rewards" are those?

Working for a paycheck? Being forced to do the science that the "boss" orders you to? Having to tailor results to fit the "company line"?

Sorry, but I really don&#39;t see the appeal there.


I&#39;m sure scientists will happily spend hours working curring tumors out of people while getting all the same rewards as someone who picks up litter.

If those rewards are good enough, why the hell not?

Or are you suggesting that the only reason that scientists and doctors become scientists and doctors is to "one up" everyone else? :lol:


If history is anything to go by, no they won&#39;t. No country ever residtributed its way into prosperity.

That&#39;s because state monopoly capitalism is a perversion of the market and doesn&#39;t work. So what?

This isn&#39;t about redistributing wealth, it&#39;s about abolishing wealth.


If working as a slave for the good of others is what you desire

It isn&#39;t. That&#39;s why I oppose capitalism.

[Professor Moneybags]

If those rewards are good enough, why the hell not?

Or are you suggesting that the only reason that scientists and doctors become scientists and doctors is to "one up" everyone else? :lol:

No, because those jobs bring greater rewards.


state monopoly capitalism

Or, as it&#39;s called in reality, Socialism.


is a perversion of the market and doesn&#39;t work. So what?

Neither does communism.



If working as a slave for the good of others is what you desire

It isn&#39;t.

Of course it is, you&#39;re a communist.

You&#39;ll work for nothing and do whatever the mob tells you to do.

And you&#39;ll enjoy it. Why ? No reason, you just will &#33; (A bit like those scientists you mention.)

[LSD]

Or, as it&#39;s called in reality, Socialism.

No, socialism is socialism, state monopoly capitalism is state monopoly capitalism.Economic classification isn&#39;t determined by what a country "calls itself" but rather what it does.

Unless you are now claiming that every country that calls itself capitalist is in fact capitalist&#33;


No, because those jobs bring greater rewards.

What, "for the money"? :lol:

Yeah, &#39;cause science pays so damn well&#33; :D


And you&#39;ll enjoy it. Why ? No reason, you just will &#33; (A bit like those scientists you mention.)

"Those scientists" enojoy science for specific reasons. They find it interesting, they want to understand, they enjoy the process, they want to unlock the secrets of the universe, they like the thrill of discovery, they like math, whatever.

And the same goes for someone who likes fixing cars, or building computers, or growing bananas.


You&#39;ll work for nothing

"work for nothing"?

I will work because I enjoy my work, and on top of that I have access to more "material goods" then I could hope to accumulate in a lifetime of capitalism&#33;

The emotional reward is higher, the material reward is higher, the social reward is higher.

It&#39;s in capitalist where I "work for nothing", since I can work and work and work and I&#39;m lucky to just "break even". Working to not starve, to preserve the status quo, that&#39;s pretty much the definition of "working for nothing".


do whatever the mob tells you to do.

Quite the opposite in fact, unlike in capitalism where I must accept whatever job the "market" dictates (which is just the "mob"), in communism I am able to choose my occupattion according to my desires. It&#39;s called individual rights, something the "market" has no respect for.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 29 2005, 03:23 PM
No, socialism is socialism, state monopoly capitalism is state monopoly capitalism.Economic classification isn&#39;t determined by what a country "calls itself" but rather what it does.


I know, it&#39;s just that "state monopoly capitalism" just happens to sound identical to "socialism", both in theory and in practice.

<snip the utopian daydream>

(I&#39;d ask how you intent to put all this into practice, but I&#39;ve has enough laughs for one day. Thanks Loknar.)


Quite the opposite in fact, unlike in capitalism where I must accept whatever job the "market" dictates (which is just the "mob"),

The market only tells you what people want. Unless you plan on dictating to people what they want...


It&#39;s called individual rights,

You don&#39;t know the meaning of the phrase, collectivist. :lol:

[Ace]

I&#39;m going to lay this out very carfully because you don&#39;t seem to be understanding: THERE ARE NO ROMAN RECORDS OF JESUS.

None of his trial, none of his execution, none of his existance.

None.


Flavius Josephus may not have been roman, but he was a great and famous historian of that age. Not to mention Tacitus, Thallus Circa, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian? All these people documented the last days of christ, even the events that took place after christs death. There are just the historians I know of, I&#39;m sure there are more who documented the events.

[LSD]

Flavius Josephus may not have been roman, but he was a great and famous historian of that age.

And he was born in 37, after the alleged crucifixion.

In fact, his atiquities wasn&#39;t written until the 90s, and his short mentions of Jesus appear out of context and are most likely the later interpolations of Eusebius.


Not to mention Tacitus

Who was born in 64 and never mentions a Jesus&#33; He talks about a "Chrestus" briefly but doesn&#39;t go into any details. There&#39;s no indication that he was refering to the Christian "Jesus".


Thallus Circa

:lol:

Thallus mentioned an eclipse , but never said even a word about a "Jesus"&#33;


Pliny the Younger

Pliny was writing in 112 AD, all that he indicates is a knowledge of contemporary Christian worship practices, namely that they worship a Christ.


Lucian

Lucian was born in 120. By that point the Jesus myth was well established and he merely based his writtings upon the Christian accounts of the time.


There are just the historians I know of, I&#39;m sure there are more who documented the events.

Actually there is not a single one.

NO contemporary accounts of Jesus exist. None. Every single report on Jesus comes from writters writting well after Jesus&#39; alleged death. Not a single record, mention, document, or reference of a living Jesus exists.

Not one.