Have you evolved Menatlly?

[Lardlad95]

One of the worst things anyone can do is fall strictly into Dogma then you become no worse than Conservatives and Jerry Fallwell.

However I notice a great deal of so called "socialists" and "communists" here, especially the newbies who dick ride Marx like he's the fuckin Second coming of Jesus.

WHile Marx was a great man to many read the Manifesto and presume they are the defenitive source on everything from economics to revolution.

Instead of thinking for themselves and basing their opinions on socialism or communism they quote marx for every little thing, most of the time misinterpreting these quotes.

It's a damn shame. THis dogmatic behavior is extremely unhealthy.

THough I know the feeling, when I first became a socialist I was as hardcore a fundamentalist as the next new guy. However the point is that I broke away from this and developed my own seperate ideas. Not to say that I believe my ideas are better or more right than my old ideas or any others. But the point is that I can think indepently of Marx, Che, and Malcolm(X).

I'm hoping that you have all had similar experiences.

So I'm wondering...mentally has your political stance evolved.

Or is Marx still your perfect messiah who can never be at fault?

[Rebelde para Siempre]

I never accepted Marx's theory as the 'perfect' one. Marx lived in a time when the world was totally different, and it would be naive to think his doctrine as described back then, could be applied to today's world. Limiting yourself to a single doctrine is purely stupid.

In fact, I think political doctrines are nonsense. Why stick to something for the mere sake of it? In the end, I just believe we should do what we believe is right and just in this world.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Rebelde para Siempre on 12:57 pm on Mar. 15, 2003
I never accepted Marx's theory as the 'perfect' one. Marx lived in a time when the world was totally different, and it would be naive to think his doctrine as described back then, could be applied to today's world. Limiting yourself to a single doctrine is purely stupid.

In fact, I think political doctrines are nonsense. Why stick to something for the mere sake of it? In the end, I just believe we should do what we believe is right and just in this world.

An excellent Insight I couldn't agree more..with the exception that I don't think Doctrines are completely ridiculous.

I consider my socialists, so most of my beliefs are INFLUENCED by that docterine but they aren't ruled by it

[redstar2000]

LL95, who can be against thinking for oneself? Critical thinking is what makes us human.

Have you ever seen a non-religious person post a statement to the effect that "I'm a dogmatist and proud of it."?

Everybody says that they think for themselves...how many actually do it?

And how do we distinguish between someone who, for example, thinks Marx was right about some question and the person who "believes Marx was the perfect messiah"?

Maybe instead of worrying about whether or not someone is thinking for themselves as an abstract question, we should just look at what they actually say about matters at hand...does it make sense or not?

There are, after all, very few really new thoughts...we live atop 6,000 years of cultural accumulation and nearly everything we think will have been thought of by someone before us.

I'd rather be right than original.

:cool:

[Pete]

Lardlad. You have read my posts and written something. STEALER! Ahaha. Just kidding. I think what I just said support's redstar's arguement. Everythign is based upon the past; there are preconditions for every idea that become prevelant in society.

As for me. I had all the beliefs that the communist manifesto spoke of before turning it's first page.

[man in the red suit]

I liked the part about dick riding Marx like he's the second coming of Jesus.

[Political Suicide]

Marx is the second coming of Jesus. Marx is the messiah. I love Marx, and i take everything he has ever said and hold it above my head as truth.

Actually, i don't.

I don't really give a shit. He had some great points, laid a great foundation, but his ideas weren't perfect and nor are mine.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:01 pm on Mar. 15, 2003
LL95, who can be against thinking for oneself? Critical thinking is what makes us human.

Have you ever seen a non-religious person post a statement to the effect that "I'm a dogmatist and proud of it."?

Everybody says that they think for themselves...how many actually do it?

And how do we distinguish between someone who, for example, thinks Marx was right about some question and the person who "believes Marx was the perfect messiah"?

Maybe instead of worrying about whether or not someone is thinking for themselves as an abstract question, we should just look at what they actually say about matters at hand...does it make sense or not?

There are, after all, very few really new thoughts...we live atop 6,000 years of cultural accumulation and nearly everything we think will have been thought of by someone before us.

I'd rather be right than original.

:cool:


Actually I have seen many atheist post dogmatic rhetoric. Mainly on this site.

1. because they accept everything Marx says as the devine word of God

2. because they refuse to accept that perhapes marx was wrong

3. because they never think for themselves on any topic disscussed.

It isn't just the religious.

The difference between a person who thinks marx was right about one particular thing and someone who refuses to think for themselves

is those that believe marx was right about that one thing usually don't

1. Quote marx every two lines

2. Usually will refference some other anecdote of their own, mention some scenario not connecting with marx

3. Will base their arguement off marx but not mention him after making that base

My point in asking this was because I have veiwed many people on all parts of the political spectrum who are dogmatic.

Also who's to say their are no new ideas developed

New ideas are developed here everyday.

Instead of letting ourselves stagnate by going along with what ever was said in the past why not try and see what we can figure out for ourselves.

You are an atheist correct? And haven't you told me before that I shouldn't trust some 2,000+ year old book?

Neither should people in politics.

You can base your ideas off older writings but don't worship them.

I read the Koran and the Bible I base my beliefs off them, but I don't take them as law.

Basing ideas is fine, if Marx hand't based his ideas off others communism wouldn't have been developed.

However rather than just accepting these things he read and based his own ideas on them, but still developed his own beliefs

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Political Suicide on 7:41 pm on Mar. 15, 2003
Marx is the second coming of Jesus. Marx is the messiah. I love Marx, and i take everything he has ever said and hold it above my head as truth.

Actually, i don't.

I don't really give a shit. He had some great points, laid a great foundation, but his ideas weren't perfect and nor are mine.


THats a good attitude to have, never expect perfection

[KRAZYKILLA]

Anybody who takes everything to the utmost literal thing deserves to perish in a shallow puddle of shit.
The truly intelligent do not USUALLY choose apoltical side because they see politics as a waste and a facade for furthermore tragedy, fighting, tyranny, evil and hatred.
Marx's Flaw: No God
Che's Flaw: To Brutal quite harsh.
I immensly believe those two fellows to be truly great people who have tried to make the world a better place; people who have follwed in there footsteps such as luke-warm believers have fucked over alll hope.--Stalin, Mao, Pot, modern-day moronic imbeciles who blindly believe anything and the media.

(Edited by KRAZYKILLA at 3:44 pm on Mar. 15, 2003)

[mentalbunny]

of course I am always open to new ideas, but then I have never really read any leftist literature.

[KRAZYKILLA]

I have evolved mentally. Plato, Freud, Marx, Engles, Levinas, Sartre, Skinner. These guys have helped me.

[redstar2000]

I confess, LL95, that I'm only getting a very fuzzy picture of what you're getting at.

For example, there is what could be called a "Comintern" style of writing...where Marx or Lenin or Stalin or Trotsky or Mao is quoted every couple of lines. It's a very difficult style to read and has mostly fallen out of fashion as a result. I would say there are no more than two people on the board who still use it even a little. Ok, maybe three. :cheesy:

As to "dogmatic statements by atheists", that, after all, is just a consequence of disagreement. Am I making a dogmatic statement when I say the earth is a sphere (oblate spheroid is the technical term) or am I just stating a fact? If I say that in the absence of reliable evidence to the contrary, the only reasonable conclusion is that the gods do not exist, is that dogmatic or just a statement of fact?

There is no special virtue in ideas based on their age. (Yes, that's definitely a dogmatic statement.) An idea makes sense or doesn't make sense...whether it's 5 minutes old or 5,000 years old. The test is always the same: does it make sense or not?

I didn't say, by the way, that there are no new ideas...I said that genuinely new ideas are rare. New ideas that are also good ideas are even rarer. But I never denied that they existed...or that there will not be more of them.

Since I spent 12 pages in this forum trashing "dialectics", you know that I am no "slave" to the "divine Marx." But considering the totality of his contribution to human understanding, whoever's in second place trails by a large margin.

:cool:

[Pete]

~offtopic~

I always fear Redstars replies to my posts, because he will come from a different direction and make me feel stupid. Yet I look forward to them for the same reason.
Good post comrade.

[redstar2000]

CrazyPete, it's never my intention to make people feel stupid...unless they really are.

You're not.

:cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:19 am on Mar. 16, 2003
I confess, LL95, that I'm only getting a very fuzzy picture of what you're getting at.

For example, there is what could be called a "Comintern" style of writing...where Marx or Lenin or Stalin or Trotsky or Mao is quoted every couple of lines. It's a very difficult style to read and has mostly fallen out of fashion as a result. I would say there are no more than two people on the board who still use it even a little. Ok, maybe three. :cheesy:

As to "dogmatic statements by atheists", that, after all, is just a consequence of disagreement. Am I making a dogmatic statement when I say the earth is a sphere (oblate spheroid is the technical term) or am I just stating a fact? If I say that in the absence of reliable evidence to the contrary, the only reasonable conclusion is that the gods do not exist, is that dogmatic or just a statement of fact?

There is no special virtue in ideas based on their age. (Yes, that's definitely a dogmatic statement.) An idea makes sense or doesn't make sense...whether it's 5 minutes old or 5,000 years old. The test is always the same: does it make sense or not?

I didn't say, by the way, that there are no new ideas...I said that genuinely new ideas are rare. New ideas that are also good ideas are even rarer. But I never denied that they existed...or that there will not be more of them.

Since I spent 12 pages in this forum trashing "dialectics", you know that I am no "slave" to the "divine Marx." But considering the totality of his contribution to human understanding, whoever's in second place trails by a large margin.

:cool:






Redstar what you have done is mixed philosophy and science while that was ok back withDescartes and Newton it makes no sense to do so now.

Geometricaly the Earth is a sphere. Even Bush can comprehend that.

However Communism, Socialism, Politics, etc. aren't based 100% on fact.

That is why they can be debated.

Theoreticaly Communism can never be right and can never be wrong.

With science we can do tests over and over again.

If I test the freezing point of water 1,000 times it is more than likely that it's freezing point is 0' C

however if I were to Try to build a commune in a communist fashion did 1,000 and all of them failed does that mean communism is impossible?

Because it is a theory it can be debated and not taken as law.

Just like some scientific theories

but when something is taken as scientific fact then it is law.

It is scientific law that I can not fly(not counting machines)

The point at which someone has fallen into Dogma is when they have made law out of what can not be proven.

A dogmatic atheist statement is based on a statement which can not be proven but is taken by the atheist as an absolute

If you can not scientifically prove God does not exist then it is not scientific fact

The same is true for religous zealots.

IN absence of of evidence is not fact because you have not proved your statement

instead you have proven that the opposition hasn't proved theirs.

However that doesn't make you right.

Just because I say that scientists can't prove that black holes have a singularity at the center doesn't mean that
my assumption that a they have a chocolatey center like a tootsie pop is right.

You still must prove that your are correct not that the other person is wrong.

At best you are at a stale mate.

When you take an arguement that can not be proven and turn it into law you have fallen into dogma.

Who's to say that because an idea makes sense it is true?


John has never married, John never talks to women, John doesn't seem attracted to women, John acts effeminate, John also is into fashion.

Now most people would say it would make sense to say that John is gay.

However does that mean that he is gay? Have they proven anything factual? No they havent.

Your reliance on logic will get you into the same mess as Aristotle.

That isn't to say we should deduce and think logicaly

However alot of Aristotle's ideas were proven wrong

though he made a logical arguement for them that made sense.

Don't get me wrong I love philosophy, however no matter how much we think something is right it can't be proven right unless we have fact.

Your atheist areguements are dogmatic because you have accepted something as fact that you can't prove.

Also who's to say whats a good idea?

It's because they haven't been widely heard that we don't here about them.

What defines good?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 4:43 am on Mar. 16, 2003
~offtopic~

I always fear Redstars replies to my posts, because he will come from a different direction and make me feel stupid. Yet I look forward to them for the same reason.
Good post comrade.


I enjoy discussing things with Redstar though he has never intimidated me or suceeded in getting me to see it his way

I do enjoy talking with him

not as much as I enjoyed talking with Mazdak but he puts forth good arguements

[mentalbunny]

Off topic:

LL, please can you stop putting a line between every sentence, it makes it really hard to read, for me at least.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 7:25 pm on Mar. 16, 2003
Off topic:

LL, please can you stop putting a line between every sentence, it makes it really hard to read, for me at least.

.....no

I'll try

[Eastside Revolt]

I dissagree with Marx on things to do with the vangaurd. I agree with the feminists on many issues. But other than that, I'd have to say I'm a bit of a Marx's dick-rider for now.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redcanada on 10:06 pm on Mar. 17, 2003
I dissagree with Marx on things to do with the vangaurd. I agree with the feminists on many issues. But other than that, I'd have to say I'm a bit of a Marx's dick-rider for now.

It's good that your honest but seriously get off Marx's jock move on to England

[Eastside Revolt]

Why england?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redcanada on 10:49 pm on Mar. 17, 2003
Why england?

Sorry I meant Engles

[redstar2000]

Upon reflection, LL95, I'd have to argue that, at least in some senses, philosophy does have to meet some of the same tests as science.

If communist societies were attempted 1,000 times (over the next five centuries, say) and they all failed--particularly if there were clear patterns in their failures--I would conclude, reluctantly, that communism is impossible...at least for humans.

Such a consistent pattern of failure would demonstrate the falsity of the idea of communism...it would have shown itself in practice to be "a bad idea" in the terminology I've been using.

This suggests two tests for "a good idea": (1) Does it make sense? and (2) Does it work?

I agree that tools like logic and observation don't guarantee perfect accuracy. The fellow you described in your example has a very high but not absolute probability of being gay.

But this is a trivial example. In non-trivial cases, logic and observation have proven to be right many more times than they've proven to be wrong. And when error does occur (as it will), the remedy has invariably been better logic and [/b]better[/b] observations.

It's technically true that very little--at least at this point in human history--can be "nailed down" with "100% certainty". But, in the real world, we often proceed as if we were 100% certain of many things...and get by ok with that.

Not always...but close enough. And there's not much in the way of "cosmic guarantees" (much as people are attracted to them)...we know that our sun cannot go nova (it's not massive enough); we have no idea whether or not there's a substantial chunk of rock out there on a collision course with earth. We assume not...which is the high probability assumption...but it could be incorrect. It will probably be 50 years or more before we can say with close to 100% certainty that there's nothing of consequence that's going to impact the earth in the foreseeable future.

I agree with you very much that simple popularity is no measure of an idea's merit. As you know, there are many popular ideas that I am quite certain (even "dogmatically" certain) are nonsense.

An idea that very few have heard of is, provisionally, an open question. It's had no real "chance" yet to be tested by those who are skeptical. Yet, that's not to say that many such ideas are not nonsensical on their face; that is, as soon as they are stated, it is obvious that they could not possibly be true. That black holes have a chocolate center is one such idea. "Cold fusion" was a real world example...a great many scientists wasted a lot of resources trying to test an "idea" which was contrary to the accumulated knowledge of the last century regarding nuclear fusion. Even I knew it had to be bogus when the first headlines erupted.

Sometimes (rarely) a "good idea" will linger in a kind of "twilight zone"...ignored by nearly everyone but never really tested and disproven because it is not yet possible to make the observations that would clearly prove or disprove the idea. Mendel's genetic research waited 40 years for confirmation; I can't remember now the name of the guy who came with the theory of continental drift...but he likewise had to wait a very long time for his ideas to be confirmed. There are at least eight versions of quantum explanations...no one has yet thought of an experiment to even narrow the field.

A site readers might find instructive...

http://www.crank.net/index.html

:cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 11:29 pm on Mar. 17, 2003
Upon reflection, LL95, I'd have to argue that, at least in some senses, philosophy does have to meet some of the same tests as science.

If communist societies were attempted 1,000 times (over the next five centuries, say) and they all failed--particularly if there were clear patterns in their failures--I would conclude, reluctantly, that communism is impossible...at least for humans.

Such a consistent pattern of failure would demonstrate the falsity of the idea of communism...it would have shown itself in practice to be "a bad idea" in the terminology I've been using.

This suggests two tests for "a good idea": (1) Does it make sense? and (2) Does it work?

I agree that tools like logic and observation don't guarantee perfect accuracy. The fellow you described in your example has a very high but not absolute probability of being gay.

But this is a trivial example. In non-trivial cases, logic and observation have proven to be right many more times than they've proven to be wrong. And when error does occur (as it will), the remedy has invariably been better logic and better[/b] observations.

It's technically true that very little--at least at this point in human history--can be "nailed down" with "100% certainty". But, in the real world, we often proceed as if we were 100% certain of many things...and get by ok with that.

Not always...but close enough. And there's not much in the way of "cosmic guarantees" (much as people are attracted to them)...we know that our sun cannot go nova (it's not massive enough); we have no idea whether or not there's a substantial chunk of rock out there on a collision course with earth. We assume not...which is the high probability assumption...but it could be incorrect. It will probably be 50 years or more before we can say with close to 100% certainty that there's nothing of consequence that's going to impact the earth in the foreseeable future.

I agree with you very much that simple popularity is no measure of an idea's merit. As you know, there are many popular ideas that I am quite certain (even "dogmatically" certain) are nonsense.

An idea that very few have heard of is, provisionally, an open question. It's had no real "chance" yet to be tested by those who are skeptical. Yet, that's not to say that many such ideas are not nonsensical on their face; that is, as soon as they are stated, it is obvious that they could not possibly be true. That black holes have a chocolate center is one such idea. "Cold fusion" was a real world example...a great many scientists wasted a lot of resources trying to test an "idea" which was contrary to the accumulated knowledge of the last century regarding nuclear fusion. Even I knew it had to be bogus when the first headlines erupted.

Sometimes (rarely) a "good idea" will linger in a kind of "twilight zone"...ignored by nearly everyone but never really tested and disproven because it is not yet possible to make the observations that would clearly prove or disprove the idea. Mendel's genetic research waited 40 years for confirmation; I can't remember now the name of the guy who came with the theory of continental drift...but he likewise had to wait a very long time for his ideas to be confirmed. There are at least eight versions of quantum explanations...no one has yet thought of an experiment to even narrow the field.

A site readers might find instructive...

http://www.crank.net/index.html

:cool:

[/b]


Your assumption on it being impossible is that of it following a pattern on failure.

The unique thing is that people can think independently of what others think. So it isn't like a chemical that always reacts when coming into contact with another one.

Me and you may not always percieve things to be the same.

This means that with many different types of people the collective conciousness will differ from group to group.

It all depends on your region.

So unless the communes you created were of one homogenous type of person then it wont necasarrily follow a pattern.

It may follow a pattern but then again it may not. THe reason that scientific surveys follow a pattern is because they usually survey people from the same country, city, area, etc. For instance collectivism is more widely accepted in Europe, Asia, South america, and Africa than it is in America so if you got all your communes from America than it's bound to follow a certain pattern.


There is a signifigant difference between sience and philosophy.

I can consistantly prove that water will freeze at zero but I can't consistantly prove that a human mind will react in a certain way. Of course I'm not speaking as far as anatomy because that can easily be proven. but the fact that the mind has the ability to think and act independantly of it's body alows it to act in ways not expected. So trying to prove the way that humans will think and act can never be certain. There fore this isn't ants on a farm. We don't all bow to a powerful queen who controlls our thoughts. Free Choice determines what we will do, and since humans react differently it can never be guranteed that they will always act the same way given the same situation.

You can't simply trust observation. Given how the sun moves from east to west in the sky and the planets appear in different places in the sky at different times it would be logical to assume that they orbit the Earth.

because wehn you look at it from our perspective we don't see ourselves moving we see them moving.

That is what people believed that we were the center of the solar system. Logically it makes sense.

Now tell me logically, not using science in anyway, no weights no mesures, how we could assume that the Earth rotates the sun?

Logic isn't reliable enough to base these things on.

The only reason I say experimentation isn't reliable for humans is because the human mind isn't bound by the limations that our bodies are.

>>>Not always...but close enough. And there's not much in the way of "cosmic guarantees" (much as people are attracted to them)...we know that our sun cannot go nova (it's not massive enough); we have no idea whether or not there's a substantial chunk of rock out there on a collision course with earth. We assume not...which is the high probability assumption...but it could be incorrect. It will probably be 50 years or more before we can say with close to 100% certainty that there's nothing of consequence that's going to impact the earth in the foreseeable future. "<<<<

The thing though is that these are based on science, not deduction.

I can deduce that because i see nothing in the sky hurtling towards the ground no asteroids are headedd for us

but wouldn't you feel safer if I was a scientist used a telescope, calculated the porbabilities of anything coming into contact with the earth?

there is a difference between an assumption based on science and an assumption based on what I can observe without tests and mathmatics.

My chocolate center analogy was to prove that disproving one theory does not make another one correct.

Of course my idea is wrong but that doesn't mean that because there is no chocolate center that at the center there is a peice of rock candy.

On face value something may seem wrong but then be proven right it can go both ways.

It didn't seem likely that parts of space time can be curved enough to connect with themselves, but Hawking has pretty much shown that it is a very real possibility.

Because something doesn't seem logical doesn't mean it can't be scientificaly right.

Dont rule things out because they may not sound correct, they could end up being right.

There is no such thing as a good idea and a bad idea, only wrong ideas, right ideas, and ideas that have yet to be proven

[KRAZYKILLA]

Red Canada A feminist? ICK!!!!

[redstar2000]

LL95, I wouldn't argue that there are "regional" (really cultural) differences. Right now, capitalism in Japan is "not really" the same as capitalism in the E.U. which is "not really" the same as Anglo-American capitalism.

Nevertheless, there are fundamental laws of capitalism that all capitalist countries exhibit.

By the same token, if communism were attempted 1,000 times across the world and yet continually failed, I really don't see any other reasonable conclusion except that communism is impossible for the human species at this point in its evolutionary history. (I forgot to add that last part in my previous post...what humans will be like 100,000 years in the future could be a different matter altogether.)

I agree that there is no "science" of human behavior that can make predictions with the accuracy of physics or chemistry. The more variables in a system, the more difficult it is to predict its behavior; and the human brain is generally considered the most complex form of matter/energy thus far found in the universe.

Nevertheless, a reasonably serious study of history uncovers "regularities"--systems that behave in a quasi-orderly fashion that involve purposeful human activity.

This suggests that probability rather than certainty is the appropriate way to frame "predictions" about human behavior.

"You can't simply trust observation" and "Logic isn't reliable enough..."

Yes, LL95, I totally agree. You need both of them and, when problems arise, you need to improve both of them. Of the two, however, it's clear that observation is superior...because, even when faulty and limited, it usually tells us something real about the real world. Philosophy contains much brilliant logic...based on premises that can be instantly refuted by observation. To refute observation by logic is much rarer...it does happen, but not nearly as often.

I think what I called a "good idea" is more or less the same as what you called a "right idea" and my "bad idea" is equivalent to your "wrong idea".

And I agree that an idea that seems "counter-intuitive" may ultimately turn out to be correct nontheless...evidence will decide, one way or the other.

:cool:

[Rage298]

Yes, people tend to evolve over time--mentally. And why is this 'dick riding' of marx so bad? At least we have more people open to the ideas--people all have different ways of expressing themselves and let not yourself fall to arrogant generalisations about the way they do.
Communism, as CHE noted, is still in its early stages when he was alive--and it still is now, so there are still improvements to be made--Therefore change and evolution of thought is good--as long as the fundamentals remain the same.

One more thing:
"Nevertheless, there are fundamental laws of capitalism that all capitalist countries exhibit."
-- RedStar2000--
I'm overjoyed when i realise more and more people know this.

(Edited by Rage298 at 5:20 am on Mar. 19, 2003)

[Uhuru na Umoja]

I can understand your fear of people - in particular inexperienced Marxists - blindly following Marx's writings. I personally do not agree with all of what he wrote, and consider myself a socialist with marxist sentiments partly because of this.

Marx was a human. Therefore he made mistakes. Also, as a human his ideas developed, and hence his works are not completely consistent. I can happily quote Marx for hours for or against many agruments. I think there is a dangerous tendency amongst communists to get rid of formal religion and begin worshiping Marx. Any such dogmatic beliefs scare me and I think that communism need to move beyond Marx's worship if it is to be a viable alternative to capitalism. Just because you can quote Marx (and I've realised that very many on this forum can do so far better than me), doesn't make you right.

At the end of the day Marx was a great political and economic thinker, but he is not - and never will be - the be all and end all as far as I am concerned. Other men, such as Nyerere, have written valuable non-Marxist socialist treatises. We should not dismiss such works simply as non-Marxist; they provide a useful different perspective.

[KRAZYKILLA]

Blindly follwwing anything is total garbage...

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

What I notice on some of the members, is that they want to be a socialist. Hmmm, kinda difficult to explain.

But par example, a while ago there was a guy here who made a thread "Make me communist", I mean I use the label communist/socialist to give others an idea of what my believes are. But some of them are trying to change themselves into commies and socialists, which in my eyes sick and probaly some move to be "cool".

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 12:28 am on Mar. 19, 2003
LL95, I wouldn't argue that there are "regional" (really cultural) differences. Right now, capitalism in Japan is "not really" the same as capitalism in the E.U. which is "not really" the same as Anglo-American capitalism.

Nevertheless, there are fundamental laws of capitalism that all capitalist countries exhibit.

By the same token, if communism were attempted 1,000 times across the world and yet continually failed, I really don't see any other reasonable conclusion except that communism is impossible for the human species at this point in its evolutionary history. (I forgot to add that last part in my previous post...what humans will be like 100,000 years in the future could be a different matter altogether.)

I agree that there is no "science" of human behavior that can make predictions with the accuracy of physics or chemistry. The more variables in a system, the more difficult it is to predict its behavior; and the human brain is generally considered the most complex form of matter/energy thus far found in the universe.

Nevertheless, a reasonably serious study of history uncovers "regularities"--systems that behave in a quasi-orderly fashion that involve purposeful human activity.

This suggests that probability rather than certainty is the appropriate way to frame "predictions" about human behavior.

"You can't simply trust observation" and "Logic isn't reliable enough..."

Yes, LL95, I totally agree. You need both of them and, when problems arise, you need to improve both of them. Of the two, however, it's clear that observation is superior...because, even when faulty and limited, it usually tells us something real about the real world. Philosophy contains much brilliant logic...based on premises that can be instantly refuted by observation. To refute observation by logic is much rarer...it does happen, but not nearly as often.

I think what I called a "good idea" is more or less the same as what you called a "right idea" and my "bad idea" is equivalent to your "wrong idea".

And I agree that an idea that seems "counter-intuitive" may ultimately turn out to be correct nontheless...evidence will decide, one way or the other.

:cool:


Sorry It took so long to reply my computer fucks up every damn day plus Che-lives wasn't up yesterday

I like Your point about in the evolution of humanity it may be impossible now, but not later.

The collective conciousness does have a heavy influence on the individual conciousness. IE people are blind sheep.

However The many variables that will undoubtedly arise breaks down the scientific process.

For the results to be give na accurae analysis the system must be totaly closed.

Nothing old leaves, nothing new enters.

The problem is that the expirement wont be exactley the same next time.

Thus throwing off any findings.

What if one of teh communes suddenly was plagued by locusts?

If the other communes weren't how is that a fair analysis?


Of course their are similarities in human histories that go along with the many civilizations givin at any time.

There are massive similarities between The Egyptian, Kush, Sumarrian, Akkadian, etc. civilizations.

However the differences were great enough for them to be considered different and be distuinguished.

As of now very few countries on earth follow individualism sas heavily as the US. Most other nations are influenced by collectivism. Whether or not they are socialist or not they still follow it.

So why human history does tend to be the same globally at any given time. We are still capable of distinguishing the differences.


Yes I totally agree on your philosophy point We can not not use anyone of the two.

The problem is so many people are either leaning one way or another.


I see your good idea bad idea belief now.

I'm sorry this wasn't as in depth as it should or could have been but I just want to post it now before my computer fucks up again

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from CCCP on 2:18 pm on Mar. 21, 2003
What I notice on some of the members, is that they want to be a socialist. Hmmm, kinda difficult to explain.

But par example, a while ago there was a guy here who made a thread "Make me communist", I mean I use the label communist/socialist to give others an idea of what my believes are. But some of them are trying to change themselves into commies and socialists, which in my eyes sick and probaly some move to be "cool".


true

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Rage298 on 5:06 am on Mar. 19, 2003
Yes, people tend to evolve over time--mentally. And why is this 'dick riding' of marx so bad? At least we have more people open to the ideas--people all have different ways of expressing themselves and let not yourself fall to arrogant generalisations about the way they do.
Communism, as CHE noted, is still in its early stages when he was alive--and it still is now, so there are still improvements to be made--Therefore change and evolution of thought is good--as long as the fundamentals remain the same.

One more thing:
"Nevertheless, there are fundamental laws of capitalism that all capitalist countries exhibit."
-- RedStar2000--
I'm overjoyed when i realise more and more people know this.

(Edited by Rage298 at 5:20 am on Mar. 19, 2003)


The problem with riding Marx's jock is that you can't think for your self.

[Rage298]

The riders will break out of that eventually - it's just, I assume, a phase of obsession with Marx's ideas. For now, they might as well be that than capitalists.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Rage298 on 5:55 pm on Mar. 28, 2003
The riders will break out of that eventually - it's just, I assume, a phase of obsession with Marx's ideas. For now, they might as well be that than capitalists.


true they are barely over the line though

cappies tend to regurgitate arguements also

[ravengod]

correct in many aspects
i myself am a commie because of things which might seem ridiculous
not because i worship marx
many many mistakes he did
anyway today it is impossible to apply his principles
but the main idea remains

[El Che]

LOL, I want to "dick ride" Marx.