Why "cappies" are [B]BORGS[/b]!(?)!

[TheDerminator]

You see, the word "cappie" is too nice. It is also inaccurate.
The BOuRGeoiSie or the BORGS created the economic system. It is not a faceless, system. We should not be letting the BORGS of the hook. These BORGS and all those who have been assimiliated by the BORGS, must be held responsible for their actions.
Stop blaming the faceless system!
Blame the fucking BORGS it is their Frankenstein! They are the Frankensteins! They are the unquestioning assimiliated BORGS!
They are the collective!
They are all working for the same cause!
They are all working towards sustaining Planet Grime, the kingdom of the BORGS!
We are surrounded by the bastards!
They are telepathic!
They do not need to communicate by opening their mouths!
They all know what each other think!
They are all wired into each other!
They are the collective!
They are the BORGS!
They think as one!
They only possess mechanical BORG minds!

We possess Socialist ethos! We have the Force!


Resistance is Futile!
Unite against the BORGS!
May the Force be with U!

derminated

(Edited by TheDerminator at 9:58 am on Feb. 26, 2002)


(Edited by TheDerminator at 10:00 am on Feb. 26, 2002)


(Edited by TheDerminator at 10:02 am on Feb. 26, 2002)


(Edited by TheDerminator at 11:01 am on Feb. 26, 2002)

[reagan lives]

And the capitalists of the world tremble in terror...

[CPK]

shut up reagan lives.

[Moskitto]

Look, I think I am what most people would consider to be "Bourgeoisie." Class has nothing to do with political allignment. Which is precisely why I disagree with what is often called "Class Genocide."


(Edited by Moskitto at 11:20 pm on Feb. 26, 2002)

[MindCrime]

Che was born into the Bourgeoisie class. So was George W. I think they had slightly diffrent political ideals.

[TheDerminator]

Che changed aligned himself with the oppressed people of Cuba.

"Capitalism", has nothing to with class?

Could there be anything more naive?

In who's interests does the economic system serve the most?

It is the bourgeoisie.

The fledgling bourgeoisie of England created the fucking Frankenstein!

No wonder Regan Lives is so contemptuous. You do even know who the fucking enemy really are!

Do you think that Che, had anything more than contempt for those from his own class, who helped to subjugate the people of Cuba, and the people of South America?

Moskitto is so extremely "tolerant". We are all nice people really, and it is not so bad to deny people democratic control over their lives in or outside the work place? After all it is they are some nice people in the bourgeoisie, and Che proves it? Where would Che go to throw up?
Nice to be nice, shoot the breeze and talk about nothing, we wouldn't want to harm anybody. We just want to be harmless.
We have to be harmless, otherwise we might harm someone! We must tolerate, tolerate and be tolerate, otherwise we just might harm someone, and there are nice people from the bourgeoisie as the example of Che proves!
Where does Che go to throw up?
In your faces!

May the Force be with U!
derminated

(Edited by TheDerminator at 11:03 am on Feb. 27, 2002)

[Supermodel]

I find that the most devout capitalists are those who rose from very humble beginnings to a western definition of financial success, riding the horse of capitalism all the way.

There is definitely a sound distinction between social class and politics. It is naive to think of socialism as the politics of the working class and capitalism as the politics of the bourgeousie.

[RedCeltic]

TheDerminator, Did you go off your meds again?

Our goal should be to educate the working class who do not realize that it is the system at the root of their economic hardships. Through education comes liberation, and democratic revolution.

A cappie... (supporter of capitalism) isn't mearly a member of the Bourgeoisie, but also is often a member of the working class who is filled with the false hope of the "American Dream".

As long as the worker doesn't see the handwriting on the wall... there will be no organisation, liberation, socialisation.

The downfalls of capitalism is there for anyone to see... as plain as day... for as Eugene V. Debs had said, "The handwriting is on all the billboards of the Universe, the working class will see their doom in capitalism and must soon turn to socialism."

[Supermodel]

So red celtic, am I doomed? I grew up in poverty where we didn't have enough to eat the day before my dad's payday. Now I have all the material stuff I want and live in the self-proclaimed "most powerful city in the world" chatting with you on my new laptop. Many of my friends in our relative luxury came from very humble beginnings too, the first generation to go to college in their families.

I can agree my situation is not typical and I played by the rules all the way, not an easy thing to do. But it does work for anyone who wants to get on the horse and ride it, in the US at least. I found that in Europe it is still a dream because of inherent class structures. In the third world, the dream is not there at all.

[RedCeltic]

What a foolish notion that if you 'play by the rules' you'll be successful. That's taken for granted that you have the skills and the abilities to obtain a higher paying job, and a higher education.

So, are you saying that those who don't rise above poverty, and leave the ghettos aren't playing by the rules? Is poverty and homelessness on the rise on Long Island NY because we have an influx of lazy people?

[Supermodel]

Red Celtic, when I said play by the rules, it was with a lot of bitterness because playing by the white male capitalist rules has cost me dearly in terms of living a fulfilled life.

So if you take the poor sections of Long Island and apply the rules of "succe$$", then the steps are:

1. Subjugate your own happiness to exceed at school at market-demanded topics and get into a good college
2. Defer enjoyment to put yourself thru college in a market-demanded topic
3. Work a 12 hour 7 day week to "get ahead"
4. If you are lucky or revolutionary, still manage to have a spouse and kids
5. Repeat step 3 till you die.

Yes, I firmly believe that these steps result in material success and will work for anyone unless they are handicapped by an inability to communicate well or a complete lack of confidence.

The problem is, as you can tell, that this definition of "succe$$" results in no enlightenment or fulfillment.

Not having grown up in the US, but living here most of my adult life, I find one of the great ironies is that in the land of opportunity one of the greatest social crimes is to decline the opportunity.

Hey if you have some good meds to give derminator, I'll take a handfull myself.

[Moskitto]

What's wrong with tolerence?

I could become an evil tyrant and not tolerate. I could then send the nice secret police over and say "you spoke against President Moskitto" Then you mysteriously disappear.

But that is what happens without tolerence.

[petey the punk]

redceltic person: Right on I could hardly understand a lot of those big words but I get and like the idea.

Supermodel: so how the hell do you plan to reach enlighten ment?

moskitto: intolerance and insolence are two different things and both are big words.

[RedCeltic]

Supermodel,

That's all well and good, however... when I talk about homelessness and poverty on the rise on Long Island I speak as a volenteer for a local soup kitchen, and as a plumber who's met enough people to know that the "American Dream" aplies only to those of us (myself included) who can afford the luxury of dreaming. For many others, just getting by is a chalenge.

Why is poverty and homelessness on the rise on Long Island? Because property values on long Island are the highest in the Nation. Who wants to rent to section 8 (welfare) when one can make much more money renting to people with more money? Low income housing is constantly being torn down to buld luxury apartments, while no low income housing developments are being established.

Ten years ago, it was typical for low income families to work two jobs each spouse in order to get ahead. These days one must work two jobs to be able to keep from being homeless.

The typical female growing up in a homeless shelter, or ghetto get's pregnant at an eary age, and has little time to consider higher education, nor compleating high school.

And as I've pointed out... many here on Long Island work 12 hours 7 days a week just to stay off the street.

[Moskitto]

I always thought you reached enlightenment by meditating, I don't know though because i've never reached enlightenment.

[Rosa]

hey Dermy, saw this just now, yees, I agree with you...but the others have menaged to change the subject:...you forgot to tell that capies don't have the indenpendent concions, just work for the "system" - megastructure they're part of,which needs to be fed with money, money, more money...and the rest of us should become the part of it, or be destroyed. (bc it wants to GROW, AND NEEDS A SPACE,and we ARE OCCUPYING IT!)
have you ever tried put the world in a system of a "fantasy world"(ever played Dung&Masters?) - it's quite suitable, too.

[MJM]

Quote: from Supermodel on 5:50 am on Feb. 28, 2002
So red celtic, am I doomed? I grew up in poverty where we didn't have enough to eat the day before my dad's payday. Now I have all the material stuff I want and live in the self-proclaimed "most powerful city in the world" chatting with you on my new laptop. Many of my friends in our relative luxury came from very humble beginnings too, the first generation to go to college in their families.

I can agree my situation is not typical and I played by the rules all the way, not an easy thing to do. But it does work for anyone who wants to get on the horse and ride it, in the US at least. I found that in Europe it is still a dream because of inherent class structures. In the third world, the dream is not there at all.


I grew up in relative poverty too. I managed to get myself into a better position, a lot of my freinds however are not as lucky as me. The whole cycle just starts again for them and perhaps one or two of their children will get up a bit, but I can see that there's something wrong with the system. So it's not fair to support it when in fact I'd be supporting a system that crushes the people I like the most and maybe me if things hadn't gone so well in my life.

[vox]

"So red celtic, am I doomed? I grew up in poverty where we didn't have enough to eat the day before my dad's payday. Now I have all the material stuff I want and live in the self-proclaimed "most powerful city in the world" chatting with you on my new laptop. Many of my friends in our relative luxury came from very humble beginnings too, the first generation to go to college in their families.

"I can agree my situation is not typical and I played by the rules all the way, not an easy thing to do. But it does work for anyone who wants to get on the horse and ride it, in the US at least. I found that in Europe it is still a dream because of inherent class structures. In the third world, the dream is not there at all. "


That, comrades, is a quote by Supermodel. Here's another quote:

"Red Celtic, when I said play by the rules, it was with a lot of bitterness because playing by the white male capitalist rules has cost me dearly in terms of living a fulfilled life."

So, a capitalist, like Supermodel (don't attack me, folks, she said she OWNED businesses, and that's a capitalist) admits that capitalism has cost the poor dear "dearly" in living a "fulfilled life."

Golly, I'm just so sad. Heck, I'd even cry for her, except, well, I seem too have wasted all of my tears on the poor, who, surprisingly enough, DON'T post on the Internet.

I guess I have no tears left for the likes of SM.

vox

[Supermodel]

Red, I know what you're facing there in LI, there is no doubt the poverty gap is increasing. Every time I get into a discussion about breaking the cycle of poverty here in the US, the discussion gets hung up on the accepted definition of "success".

I just question what that means to both the average american and the homeless welfare mother.

In my work with Native Americans in particular, the discussion is always circular about what it is they "should" want out of life. Their happiness is an elusive subject and not the same as the western dream.

So I guess all we can do is aim to provide the basics, food, shelter, safety, healthcare, the opportunity to work. Any furtherment in life has to be by the individual's own definition.

[AgustoSandino]

statistically poverty is on the rise in LI because you have the second largest influx of latino immigrants in the US. They tend to come to the US with little money, and take low paying jobs. You may see this as a bad thing. Truth be told these immigrants are, a) living better than they did at home, and B) laying the seeds of a prosperity which they and their childrean will reap.

[TheDerminator]

Supermodel, it does not matter that the so-called "Self-made millionaire", who has lived out the American nigthmare is even more virulently in favour of the economic system, than some members of the bourgeoisie.
You cannot detach the social politics from the social class system, in an abstract manner.
You have to see that the political system reinforces the class system, and that both are inextricably linked.
It might not seem too obvious to you, when you live in a republic, but if you lived in Britain, you would be well aware of the interconnection between the class system, and basically class entrenched politics.
However, even in the US, and I use the word "even" with deep irony, you ought to be able to recognise that both the Republican and Democrat Parties represent big business more than the do the people.
You cannot detach big business from its ownership, and even though there are the occaisional people who "make it" in the system from the working class, these are the exceptions. Mostly, it is the bourgeiosie, and petty-bourgeiosie, who retain ownership of the means of production, and who are by far the wealthiest players on the stock market.
It is not enough to provide the "basics" the basics are not fucking good enough. Poor people deserve more than the basics. All work has equal ethical value, and if you cannot work, due to the shit system, it is not your fucking fault as the bastards try to make out.
It is not enough just to have empathy with the poor, and that is what Vox is saying. He is saying fuck your empathy, demand social justice, and get rid of the class system, which creates the real fucking tears. I do not always agree with Vox, but he is right, if empathy is all you possess, if you just wish to give the poor the "basics" you are part of the problem.
Moskitto, your "tolerance" is a hell of a lot worse than naive. You would tolerate genocide. Just how far does your tolerance go?
RosaYour understanding is better than mine! You are right, the BORGS do not really possess an individual conscious, it is an unthinking mass, just like the Flat-Earther's!
They possess no real independence of thought, but I hoped that was a bit implicit in the word BORG
RedCeltic
The cheap shots are always the best! Don't take meds!
Unite the working class against faceless capitalism!
You are as naive as Supermodel and the same arguments about the supporters of the system apply, it is the support of a class-system, not just an economic system, and the system was created for the BORGS, by the BORGS.
Beam down to Planet Grime from whatever fantasy Planet you are think you are on!
The system was not created for the middle-class, never mind the working class. It was created for "Free Trade" No limitations upon the latter, is the essence of the whole fucking system, and it is appalling that you do not see who beneifits the most, and the supporters of the system are just the drones of the fucking BORGS.
Working class people support the BORGS. Fucking assimiliation into acceptance of class division. Unthinking acceptance!
They have become BORGS in their sheepish mentalities, and it is the mentality that makes them assimiliated as BORGS; the fact they come from the working class is irrelavant, members of the bourgeiosie can leave the mentality behind, and have done so.
As Rosa said there is no "independent consciousness", it is a complete mindset, a complete dogmatic belief that they live in free democratic societies, and to reduce this just to the economic system, is the crudest of reductionism.
There is a huge class system, and the class which created the economic system is not faceless. You are letting the bastards off the hook, and that goes for the bastards who support the system from the working class, because it is complete bastardom that they are supporting. International bastardom.
International genocide of wanton neglect, with billions dying prematurely due to the inequalities of uneven development, a development which we are supposed to see as "natural" relations.
It is fucking appalling and you know where you can stuff your meds.
derminated

[Supermodel]

I detest the class system too, along with racism, sexism and a lot of other stuff. What I don't appreciate is the hijacking of ideals by one so-called social class or another.

For example, dismissing a wealthy person as not being capable of having socialist beliefs, or implying that a working class citizen cannot possibly be a serious capitalist, is inserting classism where none should exist.

It's the hypocrisy that gets me going: let OUR class eliminate the other classes, and you other classes are by definition against us. How exactly does that further the ideal of a classless society?

[Moskitto]

Moskitto, your "tolerance" is a hell of a lot worse than naive. You would tolerate genocide. Just how far does your tolerance go?

I take that remark VERY Seriously

I do no way support genocide

YOU SUPPORT GENOCIDE

GO HAIL POL POT. BIGOT.

P.S. You remove that remark from your post or else.

Pol Pot- Mass Murderer- Athiest
Stalin-Mass Murderer- Athiest
Mao Zedung-Mass Murderer- Athiest

Dermy Response- Athiesm is Genocide

Your sounding like capitalists the way you accuse the entire idea for the actions of a few people. Your also sounding like my Fascistic brother who believes that only Christians are moral.

[Moskitto]

Oh and suggest you actually find out what tolerance is before you start criticising it. http://www.tolerance.org Generally the only people who need to be directed to this site are neo-nazis. It stops annother intolerant nazi germany from happening. Death to intolerance!

[TheDerminator]

Moskitto
response, is not that
athiesm is genocide, but
that your "tolerance" is the genocide of wanton neglect.
What you think we should tolerate is appalling. I have argued this with you before on the subject of religion, and I know exactly what you tolerate. You think it makes you principled, whereas in reality it makes you unprincipled.
You are as usual dodging the question: Some things are unethical tolerate, and you will not admit the fucking fact! I will not withdraw the statement.
Supermodel
You miss the point entirely.
A wealthy person can have socialist ideals, but immediately those ideals are possessed, that person takes opposition to class division, or those ideals are shallow ideals.
Elimanate other classes?
Again, you have lost the point. One class does not eliminate every other class. The majority eliminate the class division. The class division which the BORGS have created. The majority will include people from every class, but they will all know why the class division was created, and you are naive to just see it as something like sexism or racism. This is the damn cause of sexism and racism, and it is appalling that you cannot see the roots of sexism and racism in class division.
Hi-jacking?
No.
It is calling a spade a spade. The bastards are in control, and they are the root of all evil, because they control the world economy, not Bin Laden, or any other rogue bastard, no matter how influential. It is not the material capital that it is to blame, it is those who's interests are most greatly served, and you cannot blame Frankenstein for being a monster.
derminated

[Moskitto]

No tolerance is this.

"You don't think quite the same as me, but that's ok because I have tolerance."

Derminator thinking is this

"You tolerate this thing I don't like therefore You tolerate everything, you even tolerate genocides"

Tolerance does not extend to tolerating intolerance as genocide is.

Intolerance=Tyrany
Tolerance=Democracy

Derminator=Intolerant
Derminator=Potential Tyrant
Tyrant=Mass Murderer
Derminator=Potential Mass Murderer

Therefore it is You who supports the genocide, not I.

You are not a communist, Communism and superiority complexes (as you clearly have) don't mix.

[TheDerminator]

Very simplistic Moskitto

Tolerance = Democracy?

Most people democratically vote to tolerate our present unethical system.

Most people would democratically support the death penalty!

Tolearance = the death penalty?

Tolerance = "The Free World"?

Tolerance = The opium of the people?

Most people would vote for religion too.

Intolerance = Tyranny

I do not tolerate capital punishment as ethical.
Derminator would tryranically remove capital punishment.
Yep.

Derminator lose sleep. Nope.

Derminator mass murder? Nope. You who think the toleration of the democratic support for mass murder = mass murderer.

"Tolerant" Moskitto = Mass murderer.

derminated

[Moskitto]

You don't seem to understand tolerance. Try http://www.tolerance.org

No I am not a mass murderer, Mass murderers are people who don't Tolerate difference. Intolerence is what mass murderers follow, not tolerance.

Tolerance doesn't mean you tolerate intolerance. You do not tolerate people's right to opinions (Religion, Marxism.) Therefore YOU are intolerant. Intolerance is dictatorship. Intolerance of Jews, Intolerance of Intellectuals, Intolerance of Rich People, Intolerance of Republicans. They are all dictatorships ruled by mass murderers. They are all Intolerant. Tolerance does not breed mass murderers, Intolerance does. You are the potential mass murderer.

[peaccenicked]

I think what the derminator is saying is that what is incumbent to much religious thought is self salvation,
This vain ethos leaves evil so to speak to its own devices or others "free will''. 'Genocide, nothing to do with me' and thus it is complient with government colonial policy which has wrecked the third world and has done very little to make ammends.
There is tolerance of this as a fact. if it is a fact then
it is incumbent on us to be militant atheists and say why
vian self salvation is an ideological crime against humanity.
Otherwise. we become complicit by our silence.
Does this make any of you mass murders, no , as silence is the universal mass murderer, we must speak
and let our truths be known.
And I think Moskitto you speak more than most to make
your fellows aware of Genocide.

[TheDerminator]

Moskitto,

Tolerate difference? There is the correct emphasis in your train of thought.

You see my friend, we must judge people, not just by what they do, but by what they do not do.

At the heart of all ethos is not so much toleration, but justice and injustice.

If you do not relate toleration to justice and injustice, you end up tolerating injustice, and that is exactly what you are doing. Tolerating injustice.

You see, I am not against tolerance, very far from it, but you my friend only see one type of tolerance, whereas in reality there are two types of tolerance:

If tolerance = respect, it = good.

If tolerance = indifference, it = evil.

As peaccenicked says silence leads to genocide. Silence is leading to the genocide of wanton neglect.

Indifference = the genocide of wanton neglelct.

By your "toleration" you become indifferent.

Indifference = evil

Two types of toleration....

Vive la difference! Vive la difference!

You perhaps do not see the indifference in your "toleration", but that is the end product of your "toleration". You let the bastards off the hook.
You let the bastards think their indifference to the suffering of humanity is acceptable.
You probably cannot see the connection between indifference to the suffering of humanity and religion, but that is only your poverty of thought.
The opium is a fucking overdose of indifference towards human suffering, because it seeks justice in the afterlife, instead of bringing the bastards to account for what they do.
It is the pacification of billions who just see fellow Christians, and fellow Muslims, rather than the bastards screwing them, and causing their premature deaths.
It is naive to combine socialism with religion, because at the end of that ole proverbial day, you are disrespecting the believer. You are saying, I am an athiest, what you believe in is harmful to yourself. It is harmful to your own spiritual being, and is harmful to the spiritual being of others.
Your belief in God, lacks self-respect, because your salvation is my salvation, and that is in the beauty of the human spirit. You are placing that spirituality, beneath this "supernatural being" and in doing so, you debase your spiritual being and you debase my spiritual being, because it is the devaluation of the human spirit.
There is no respect of human spiritual being in your belief of God, and thus there is no self-respect in that belief.
I tolerate that which is respectful to the human spirit, disrespect is worse than indifference it supports all that devalues the respect. Indifference in global terms is lethal indifference. It is the genocide of wanton neglect.
I would tolerate churches in a socialist society, but at the same time, I would never, never give up, my view that those attending the churches, lack respect and self-respect for the human spirit, and I will always believe that their religion is inherent within past indifference to human suffering, to the genocide of wanton neglect.
I can forgive injustice, but I can never forget it.

Rosa might see this is as a tangent away from the issue of the BORGS to some extent, but only to some extent, because indifference is part of the BORG mindset, and most BORGS are extremely happy to maintain the opium of the people. The exceptions are indeed just that;exceptions to the rule, but they are still BORGS, because for them, this one facet is inessential to their BORG mindset.
All the same, it is not inessential on global terms. It is the very opposite, because it underpins the mindset.
It is part of the real concrete in the mindset. You see the BORG mentatality, makes them solid or self-consistent on most issues. Solid from the neck up!
Most of them are solid on the subject of God, and they would think your "toleration" is solid too.
Good to be solid eh?
May the Force be with U
Reisistance is Futile!
derminated

[Son of Scargill]

Jean-Herve Bradol.President of Medecins Sans Frontieres,to the Council of Europe,Jan.2002

The Council of Europe’s mission is to monitor the respect of Human Rights in the 43 member states. Has Russia been excluded from the Council of Europe? No. At one point, the Parliamentary Assembly suspended the Russian delegation’s right to vote, but only to lift this suspension a few months later - despite the fact that none of the conditions for lifting the suspension had been fulfilled.

Have the member states of the Council of Europe taken the crimes of the Russian Federation before the European Court of Human Rights? No. Over the last two years there has been no independent international investigation into the crimes committed by the Russian forces and, to a lesser extent, by the Chechen fighters.

In Russia, the work of Vladimir Kalamanov in favour of human rights is systematically thwarted by the Public and Military Prosecutors.

In fact, the Council of Europe has given in to the pressures of the influential member States of the European Union (France, United Kingdom and Germany). You have opted for ‘a logic of cooperation’ with Moscow, ie. To keep quiet about the massive violation of Human Rights and Humanitarian law perpetrated in Chechnya.

For over two years you have chosen to ignore, in full knowledge, the repression of the Chechen population and the crimes committed in the name of the ‘fight against terrorism’. By ‘you’, I am addressing the Parliamentary Assembly, in particular the Committee of Ministers and the General Secretary of the Council of Europe. Your passivity over the last two years, and the new free hand given to Russia since the 11th September 2001, implicates your responsibility with regards to the gravity of the crimes committed against the civilian Chechen population.

[raisedfist69]

i know i shouldnt talk, as i am wearing a polo shirt and old navy pants, but i just wanted to share a revelation of mine that i just had:
Specifically, supermodel and all the other bourgoise people that frequent this forum, myself included:

If you are rich and wearing cool clothes, how are you helping the revolutionary movement? I mean, how are people revolutionaries if they are rich? isnt revolution by definition the poor rising against those in power, or the rich, or the bourgousie?

[RedCeltic]

TheDerminator:

You are trivalizing the struggle of the working class by placing real life problems into a hollywood context. Yes I made a stupid joke at your expence because your concept of us vs them... Good vs evil... has no bases in reality.

If you got out of you seat, and took a look around, then you would realize that the fight isn't with some fantastic supernatural sci/fi charecter ... and not with just multi national world wide corperations... but with the concept that if you don't get ahead in the world it's your own damn fault... because nothing could possibly be wrong with the system.

[Imperial Power]

Derminator your taking my material.

Borg?
Collective?
Resistance is Futile?

Thats all communist

[TheDerminator]

RedCeltic,

"Hollywood context".

You have lost the plot!

It is good versus evil!

The system is an evil system!

What is your ethical value upon the society built upon the system?

Is it, "bad," "not nice". No ethical value judgement?

Why be a fucking socialist, if you cannot see the fucking evil!

No basis in reality?

Poverty is not evil?

Racism is not evil?

Sexism is not evil?

Drug addiction is not evil?

Prostitution of women and children is not an evil?
Alchoholism is not an evil?

Gross inequality is not an evil?

The genocide of wanton neglect is not an evil?

What virtual fucking reality are you living in?

If you "do not get ahead in the world it is your own damn fault...because nothing could possibly be wrong with the system".

Sounds like an extreme indiviudualistic mindset to me!
It is the mindset of the BORGS and those bastards created the mentality, that you base your socialism upon. It is an evil fucking mentality.
Give me your ethical value judgement, or have you no ethos?

raisedfist69

I must admit, I find all the "cool" stuff, 100% guaranteed pure shallow shit. Yet, we are trying raise the standards beyond even what the super rich possess for everyone.
That may sound idealistic, but you have to think on a cultural level, and culture these days is substandard, and the bourgeoise are only really harking back to the "golden era" of culture in the so-called high-brow stuff. So culturally, even for the bourgeoisie, it is dying culture, and has been dying for decades.
Technology is always going to improve, thus on top of culture, an advanced socialist society, would leave the quality of life the bourgeoisie possess behind.
We are not advocating backwardness in any respects, and there is nothing that the bourgeoisie possess except for capital that cannot be superseded. That goes for high quality clothes, because technology is going to advance further in the clothing market in relation to both materials and design.
There is no secret involved in technological advancement, and the methods for easy production of even very individualistic clothing at a related to relatively low labour time, is only going to be reduced, and reduced as technologies, and materials improve.
Son of Scargill. I must admit I am a bit lost. Perhaps you posted in the wrong thread! Or I am in total confusion as to the relevance of the post to the subject, or how you are relating the text to the thread.
I am in complete bewilderment.
Maybe, you should have started a new thread on the subject, since it does deserve to be understood, but it seems to me a bit irrielavant to this particular thread. Still, you would not be the first to go off on a tangent in a thread eh?

It is not "trivialisation" RedCeltic, it is a satire on popular culture, and also a means to highlighting the good verus evil, that you do not seem to know exists. Who created the mindset, you despise, who benefits the most from the mindset, who created the Frankenstein, that is the monster of genocide, extreme poverty, murder, rape, gross inequality, and so on.
The monster is evil, itself, but it returns to prime causation.
You see, if I was a judge and a case came up infront wherein a person of low intelligence murdered for the money provided by a wealthy person, who planned the murder in detail, I would not treat them equally.
I would not hammer the person, who maybe pulled the trigger as much as I would hammer the prime mover.
The guy who pulls the trigger would have greater mitigation in my eyes, if neither had killed before.
No, the greater blame is with the original motivator, and when it comes to our system, the prime motivation is with the bourgeoisie.
Where else was the prime motivation in England where the fledgling merchant class transformed itself into the bourgeoisie?
It is all about social justice.
It is not a simple matter of criminality, because we required the bourgeois epoch of development, and it was better than feudalism, but my friend, the prime motivation is a selfish motivation, and that selfishness, is an evil. There is no other word.
You have a good name, in the tradition of James Connolly, and John MacLean, but we have to be more red than green, my friend, and that is not a cheap shot, it is just a truism.
Green in the sense of naivety. We cannot afford to be naive. It is naive not to see the mindset you describe in your own words as not an evil. We have to possess an ethical value judgement, and not to do so, is unethical socialism, and I have had more than my fill of that primitive shit, how about you?

May the Force be with U!

Resistance is Futile!

Be afraid, be very afraid..

derminated

[Moskitto]

neah, the borg's clearly Fuedel.

They have a Queen and it's a society based on obligations to those higher in the social strata.

[peaccenicked]

YEAH.
But the derminator's analogy is true yours is an example
of why the capitilist on this site are as joke.

[TheDerminator]

IP,

The material existed long before your head plagiarised it. I have a better copyright, because mine is accurate, you are part of the collective of extreme "individualistic" units all with the same collective mindset!
You are the BORG!

Moskitto

Can't remember the exact quote by Marx, but it goes something like each society is pregnant with the next.
The fledgling bourgeosie was the baby with the Feudal epoch, as simple as that. You really ought to check out the history of England, before the industrial revolution, and during the transformation from Feudalism, to the Bourgeois epoch.

May the Force be with U

Resistance is Futile!

Be afraid, be very afraid...

derminated

[RedCeltic]

TheDerminator

I'm not trying to be rude here but if you look at the word realistically, and not in a Judeo-Christian view, you will see that everything in the world is both a creator and a destroyer... there is no such thing as Good and Evil as your Bible preaches to you.

I believe in evolution, not only Dawanistic biological /geological evolution, but also political evolution. Therefore I feel that socialism is an evolutionary step for mankind.

It is quite interesting that you take quite harshly to those who differ from you viewpoints. Yes I did allude to you having psychotic delusions about the world... however that was mealy in jest. I didn't mean character assignation, nor to imply you’re unintelligent.

That said, I'd say your theory is quite off comrade. Why be a socialist if I don't see the supporters of it as "Evil"? The simple fact is that in my 31 years of life I've never met a soul that was pure "evil".

There is no such thing as Good/Evil... as you put it, and to think so would imply the existence of an xtian god which I don't believe in, and deify the laws of physics and nature.

If a person has a human heart and a human soul... they can be reformed... this is the same argument I have against capital punishment.

And as all the shit you claim as being "Evil" ... yes they are detrimental to society, they should be ... and will be... abolished... however not proof of the existence of "Evil".


(Edited by RedCeltic at 11:04 pm on Mar. 1, 2002)

[Son of Scargill]

TheDerminator,gone off on a tangent?Yes,sort of.It was a crude example of how we,as a system and as humans,are tolerating genocide at this very moment.We tolerate"the logic of co-operation" with Moscow because it serves the collective well,or we'd like to think so....."nothing to see here,go back to your homes.....Forget,forget,forget....
And it seems to be working well,even amonst the more left minded of the populace.I could have started a new thread,but it has been done before,by another person who is more knowledgable on the subject than I,and received virtually no response at all.Maybe she should have titled them"Russians say Fuck the Chechens"and it may have become a 25 page thread.
RedCeltic,there are people in this world who could be considered"pure evil".Luckily this is an extremely rare phenomenon,and I doubt whether you ,I or anyone else on this board will ever come into contact with them,thankfully.But,as another crude example,during the almost total destruction of anything that moved in Afghanistan,friends and workmates displayed a disgusting amount of glee over the deaths of innocent civilians.Graffiti saying"DIE muslims DIE""nuke the fucking rag-heads"and"Kill all black bastards"sprang up all over the place.These are some I can remember,there was much more.People sat around laughing and joking as others read out newspaper reports describing the carnage after whole villages had been carpet-bombed.Yes,I spoke out,and yes,some people were shamed into silence.But most just hated me for it.Some still do,but I don't give a fuck for them or their opinions.These are ordinary people,with"everyday lives"and they showed a complete disregard for other ordinary people,and their lives.Maybe not pure evil in the way Derminator describes,but an evil trait nonetheless.

I feel the Force

[TheDerminator]

Red Celtic

"Everything in the world is a creator and a destroyer."

Nice "unity of opposites" my friend, but a very weak ethos.

As well as the unity of opposites there is a polarisation of the opposites.

Think on it.

Take a comparative example, of rape against genocide.
Now, if a person commits rape, it is an evil, even though it is not the same level of evil as genocide.
It is an evil nonetheless, and it never becomes good, just because it is a smaller evil than genocide.
Rape always always always stays as an evil.
It is always a destroyer, even if it creates a child. The rape is still a destroyer of human spiritual being. It is possible for the rapist and the person who is raped to learn something from the vicious act, but it still an act of destruction, and the act itself can never become constructive.
It is always a polar opposite, just like genocide, another destroying act.
If, I am harsh my friend, it because the stakes are so high, and I do not mind brutal honesty from anyone, as long as it is honesty, and not artful or crude dodgery, such as Moskitto gives. And you know Moskitto is not above brutal honest.

You = a "potential mass murderer", it is a bit like Dworkin's "every man is a potential rapist". The potential only exists if the capacity is there to create the potential, and I for one to not possess the capacity to be a rapist.
I accept you made a joke, but I must admit, I do not personally like stuff that jokes that someone is suffering from pyscholigical delusions, it seems to me to cheapen the argument, and although I disagree with the BORG mindset, and disagree with even agnosticism, I do not for a nano-second see these as a mental illness, and I would not use that in my argument, because it would be detrimental to my own argument. U ought to be able to read between the lines as to why it is detrimental.
Still, a joke is a joke, no offence taken.

You have never met a soul who was "pure evil"
You never met Adolf, you never met the Gestapo, you never met the man who hammered the nails in to the limbs of Jesus Christ and "criminals". You never met a serial killer, you never met a serial paedophile.
You never spent time in any maximum security prison?
You have no idea how the every mafia and the KKK operate?
You see my friend, if you have no respect for human life, if you can kill that fucking easily you are a low life degenerate evil bastard. You are pure fucking evil.
It is not good enough just to blame conditions on creating evil, you have to call a spade a spade and realise the evil that some people have become.
There is redemption for individuals, but it the redeemed person, was still an evil bastard at one point, and the redeemed person, has to know it, or there is only a shallow ethos in the person.

You say you have never met a person, who is "pure evil". I can only imagine that you have only met people who possess, what is known as "common decency"

Say you were a judge with a serial killer in front of you, and you hear that this person was repeatedly tortured and raped as a child. Now, there is more than considerable mitigation, but the person cannot control the impulse to kill, and is a danger to society. The brutalised has become a brutaliser, and despite all the mitigation, you society has created a Frankenstein, and you ought to know that you have a Frankenstein in front of you, who is an extremely dangerous person.
Okay, you may seem these as extreme examples, but if you accept the reality of them, you have to re-examine your view of how ethos relates to historical development, because you obviously only possess a traditional orthodox conception.
Let's forget the extreme examples for a moment, and concentrate on "common decency" since it seems to me that you believe in "common decency", and you see this as the spiritual essence of most people.
I do likewise, but from a very different angle.
You see if "common decency" includes an indifference to the genocide of wanton neglect, which the "opium of the people" expresses or if the "common decency" includes the BORG mindset, that extreme poverty is an acceptable part of the global societal system, then you know my friend, I call a spade a spade.
There is pure fucking evil herein, and that is not a simplistic evaluation. You may not agree with me, that there is a genocide of wanton neglect, but I personally do not see it as a fantasy in my head. I see it as the early death of billions living in extreme poverty, and I see that as reality.
I see this as Planet Grime, and if you cannot see it, you are on some fucking fantasy planet.
The genocide of wanton neglect is a heinious evil, an evil which is not natural. It is a human created evil. If "common decency" is indifferent to that evil, or supports it, then I call "common decency" an evil commonality.
Are the people who possess just common decency evil? Well, I mitigate Hitler, I mitigate Pol Pot, I mitigate the actions of a serial killer, of a rapist, of a drug-pusher, of a racist, of parents who grossly neglect a child.
I mitigate, I mitigate, I mitagate, because history subjectively develops and there is no blue print for humanity, but I call a spade a spade and it does not matter how nice you think you are my friend, if you are even just indifferent to the genocide of wanton neglect, I will say you have an evil mindset. Not pure evil. Mitigated evil, but evil nontheless, because to leave billions of people to prematurely die is an act of inaction, and is an act of [b]pure fucking evil.
No apologies. Socialist theory without any real understanding of ethos, is unethical socialist theory, no matter how well-meaning.
I will say it again, incase you do not understand. The "commonly decent" possess spiritual decency, they are not evil, but some of what they accept as part of their "common decency" is pure fucking evil, and there is a difference. So do not put words in my mouth.
History mitigates them, but even if they just possess indifference, it is appalling indifference. It is an atrocity. It is fucking heionous, and if you cannot see the atrocity, you are part of the problem my friend, you are part of the problem.
You are letting them off the hook. It is them versus us. It always will be until the last with a dinosaur ethos becomes extinct.
How deep is your ethos, how deep is your humanity, how harsh are you on yourself, never mind those you shoot the breeze with?

May the Force be with U

Resistance is Futile.

Be afraid, be very afraid...


Son of Scargill

Not feeling the Force enough yet! But getting there!
Hope the above helps you grasp, the power of the Force!
The power is not letting the bastards off the hook.
You see Marx, rightly criticised Aristotle for seeing the slave society of Greece as "natural". It is human made, just like BORG society. There is nothing natural about it!
It is not natural "evolution", it is human conscious evolution. Human existence is conscious existence!
Slavery, and our BORG epoch are necessary, for human development, but slavery is a human made evil, as is the BORG epoch. History mitigates the evil, but understanding why evil occurs is not the same as its vindication.
We cannot vindicate slavery, we cannot vindicate the BORG mindset. Vindication, and mitigation are two different things, and as William Saffire says, "Just because something is a right, does not make it right". Think about that one!

May the Force be with U!

derminated


(Edited by TheDerminator at 4:11 pm on Mar. 2, 2002)

[Rosa]

to R.C.:you said: "If a person has a human heart and a human soul... they can be reformed."
..strongly dissagree with that. "good" & "evil" are too hard things to play with.
It is a matter of choice, but when the choice ONCE IS MADE,THERE'S NO COMING BACK. Talking about CHOOSERS, not the ones which weren't aware of other solution...and think that being "evil" or "good" needs a definite structure of a "soul", "rythm of breading", if y understand me.
...you've talked about your experience (that you "haven't met a person which is pure evil), so let me do the same. All the persons I've ever met can be categorised in good-evil system with no grades betw theese 2 "extremes".
A person who says "hello" to a neighbour while hates him in fact - is evil. Just as a person who hates him and doesn't say hello.
a person who throws new-born kittens in the river is evil just as person who sterilises his cat "to avoid that act".
A person nice to the children from neighbourhood, and beats the children from other side of town is NO BETTER then person who bites all the children.
Pol Pot was PURE EVIL, even if he didn't destroyed ALL the people in his country...and tried to act "in benefit of villagers".
Hitler was PURE EVIL, even if he gave cars cheaply to the "arians",
...per example.

[peaccenicked]

Karl Marx
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844


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

The Power of Money
[40] If man’s feelings, passions, etc., are not merely anthropological phenomena in the (narrower) sense, but truly ontological [41] affirmation of being (of nature), and if they are only really affirmed because their object exists for them as a sensual object, then it is clear that:

1. They have by no means merely one mode of affirmation, but rather that the distinct character of their existence, of their life, is constituted by the distinct mode of their affirmation. In what manner the object exists for them, is the characteristic mode of their gratification.

2. Wherever the sensuous affirmation is the direct annulment of the object in its independent form (as in eating, drinking, working up of the object, etc.), this is the affirmation of the object.

3. Insofar as man, and hence also his feeling, etc., is human, the affirmation of the object by another is likewise his own gratification.

4. Only through developed industry — i.e., through the medium of private property — does the ontological essence of human passion come into being, in its totality as well as in its humanity; the science of man is therefore itself a product of man’s own practical activity.

5. The meaning of private property — apart from its estrangement — is the existence of essential objects for man, both as objects of enjoyment and as objects of activity.

By possessing the property of buying everything, by possessing the property of appropriating all objects, money is thus the object of eminent possession. The universality of its property is the omnipotence of its being. It is therefore regarded as omnipotent. . . . Money is the procurer between man’s need and the object, between his life and his means of life. But that which mediates my life for me, also mediates the existence of other people for me. For me it is the other person.

“What, man! confound it, hands and feet
And head and backside, all are yours!
And what we take while life is sweet,
Is that to be declared not ours?

Six stallions, say, I can afford,
Is not their strength my property?
I tear along, a sporting lord,
As if their legs belonged to me.”

Goethe: Faust (Mephistopheles)

Shakespeare in Timon of Athens:

“Gold? Yellow, glittering, precious gold?
No, Gods, I am no idle votarist! ...
Thus much of this will make black white, foul fair,
Wrong right, base noble, old young, coward valiant.
... Why, this
Will lug your priests and servants from your sides,
Pluck stout men’s pillows from below their heads:
This yellow slave
Will knit and break religions, bless the accursed;

Make the hoar leprosy adored, place thieves
And give them title, knee and approbation
With senators on the bench: This is it
That makes the wappen’d widow wed again;

She, whom the spital-house and ulcerous sores
Would cast the gorge at, this embalms and spices
To the April day again. Come, damned earth,
Thou common whore of mankind, that put’st odds
Among the rout of nations.”

And also later:

“O thou sweet king-killer, and dear divorce
‘Twixt natural son and sire! thou bright defiler
Of Hymen’s purest bed! thou valiant Mars!
Thou ever young, fresh, loved and delicate wooer,

Whose blush doth thaw the consecrated snow
That lies on Dian’s lap! Thou visible God!
That solder’st close impossibilities,
And makest them kiss! That speak’st with every tongue,

To every purpose! O thou touch of hearts!
Think, thy slave man rebels, and by thy virtue
Set them into confounding odds, that beasts
May have the world in empire!”

Shakespeare excellently depicts the real nature of money. To understand him, let us begin, first of all, by expounding the passage from Goethe.

That which is for me through the medium of money — that for which I can pay (i.e., which money can buy) — that am I myself, the possessor of the money. The extent of the power of money is the extent of my power. Money’s properties are my — the possessor’s — properties and essential powers. Thus, what I am and am capable of is by no means determined by my individuality. I am ugly, but I can buy for myself the most beautiful of women. Therefore I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness — its deterrent power — is nullified by money. I, according to my individual characteristics, am lame, but money furnishes me with twenty-four feet. Therefore I am not lame. I am bad, dishonest, unscrupulous, stupid; but money is honoured, and hence its possessor. Money is the supreme good, therefore its possessor is good. Money, besides, saves me the trouble of being dishonest: I am therefore presumed honest. I am brainless, but money is the real brain of all things and how then should its possessor be brainless? Besides, he can buy clever people for himself, and is he who has a power over the clever not more clever than the clever? Do not I, who thanks to money am capable of all that the human heart longs for, possess all human capacities? Does not my money, therefore, transform all my incapacities into their contrary?

If money is the bond binding me to human life, binding society to me, connecting me with nature and man, is not money the bond of all bonds? Can it not dissolve and bind all ties? Is it not, therefore, also the universal agent of separation? It is the coin that really separates as well as the real binding agent — the [. . .] chemical power of society.

Shakespeare stresses especially two properties of money:

1. It is the visible divinity — the transformation of all human and natural properties into their contraries, the universal confounding and distorting of things: impossibilities are soldered together by it.

2. It is the common whore, the common procurer of people and nations.

The distorting and confounding of all human and natural qualities, the fraternisation of impossibilities — the divine power of money — lies in its character as men’s estranged, alienating and self-disposing species-nature. Money is the alienated ability of mankind.

That which I am unable to do as a man, and of which therefore all my individual essential powers are incapable, I am able to do by means of money. Money thus turns each of these powers into something which in itself it is not — turns it, that is, into its contrary.

If I long for a particular dish or want to take the mail-coach because I am not strong enough to go by foot, money fetches me the dish and the mail-coach: that is, it converts my wishes from something in the realm of imagination, translates them from their meditated, imagined or desired existence into their sensuous, actual existence — from imagination to life, from imagined being into real being. In effecting this mediation, [money] is the truly creative power.

No doubt the demand also exists for him who has no money, but his demand is a mere thing of the imagination without effect or existence for me, for a third party, for the [others], and which therefore remains even for me unreal and objectless. The difference between effective demand based on money and ineffective demand based on my need, my passion, my wish, etc., is the difference between being and thinking, between the idea which merely exists within me and the idea which exists as a real object outside of me.

If I have no money for travel, I have no need — that is, no real and realisable need — to travel. If I have the vocation for study but no money for it, I have no vocation for study — that is, no effective, no true vocation. On the other hand, if I have really no vocation for study but have the will and the money for it, I have an effective vocation for it. Money as the external, universal medium and faculty (not springing from man as man or from human society as society) for turning an image into reality and reality into a mere image, transforms the real essential powers of man and nature into what are merely abstract notions and therefore imperfections and tormenting chimeras, just as it transforms real imperfections and chimeras — essential powers which are really impotent, which exist only in the imagination of the individual — into real essential powers and faculties. In the light of this characteristic alone, money is thus the general distorting of individualities which turns them into their opposite and confers contradictory attributes upon their attributes.

Money, then, appears as this distorting power both against the individual and against the bonds of society, etc., which claim to be entities in themselves. It transforms fidelity into infidelity, love into hate, hate into love, virtue into vice, vice into virtue, servant into master, master into servant, idiocy into intelligence, and intelligence into idiocy.

Since money, as the existing and active concept of value, confounds and confuses all things, it is the general confounding and confusing of all things — the world upside-down — the confounding and confusing of all natural and human qualities.

He who can buy bravery is brave, though he be a coward. As money is not exchanged for any one specific quality, for any one specific thing, or for any particular human essential power, but for the entire objective world of man and nature, from the standpoint of its possessor it therefore serves to exchange every quality for every other, even contradictory, quality and object: it is the fraternisation of impossibilities. It makes contradictions embrace.

Assume man to be man and his relationship to the world to be a human one: then you can exchange love only for love, trust for trust, etc. If you want to enjoy art, you must be an artistically cultivated person; if you want to exercise influence over other people, you must be a person with a stimulating and encouraging effect on other people. Every one of your relations to man and to nature must be a specific expression, corresponding to the object of your will, of your real individual life. If you love without evoking love in return — that is, if your loving as loving does not produce reciprocal love; if through a living expression of yourself as a loving person you do not make yourself a beloved one, then your love is impotent — a misfortune.




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

[TheDerminator]

peaccenicked,

You are still spouting ole orthodox Marxist dogma!

Money is the root of all evil!

No my friend.

Human existence is conscious existence!

Money is an abstract human invention just like God, just like Freedom!

Unlike God, it has a completely tangible being in its form, but then so does Freedom, when it is achieved!

The relationship, is that is all-important is the power relationship, which created money, and created the purpose for money, and that you ought to know from the Ethics of Aristotle.
The primary purpose, sub-ordinates every other purpose for its ends!
If you do not know the primary purpose is close to the "ABC of Marixism" of Lenin politics!
However, it is a bit deeper than just politics, it is what Marx added to politics, and that is political philosophy!

However, political philosophy is not the Bull's Eye, to continue the metaphor that Aristotle uses.
The highest focus is socialist ethos, because that is the greatest height political philosophy can reach. Ethical socialism!
I never noticed that book by Marx on Ethos. All I noticed was a poor understand of the role of Right's in his Critique of the Gotha Programme.
It is not enough to saw his ethos is embodied in The Communist Manifesto. I understand this truism, but it is still a very poor approach to ethos, because it is unhistorical.
If you wish to understand Ethos, my friend, you have to do the hard work. You have to start with what was attributed to Thales: "Be true to thy own self", then you methodically analyse the ethos of each philosopher in historical perspective, just the same way you, analyse historical development.
You cannot detach ethos from historical development, and it is the greatest tragedy of the socialist movement, that Marx did not even see the Bull's Eye!
No, my friend Rosa is closer to possessing the Force than U.
Rosa possesses the spirit of the Force, and that is as important as the theory, because it is a stronger foundation, than cold orthodox Marxist theory, and it is fucking cold. It lacks depth of humanity, in its lack of ethos.
Rosa, you are nearly there, you just have to go beyond the money faceless system, like peaccenicked and know who are the enemy, in order to possess the Force!
If a bastard puts a gun to your head, and is about to pull the trigger, it is appalling not to know, it is a fucking BORG, and make no mistake Rosa, all the stuff on the separation of fascism and "capitalism", by Gramsci, is a weak interpretation of the nature of fascism.
The BORGS are well capable of turning to fascism, if they see a serious threat. Make no mistake about the ruthlessness of the BORGS. It was the leader of the Free World, who caused the slaugther in Chile. The CIA plotted the downfall of Allende with fascist generals, they supported the genocide of the Timorese. They armed the vicious Indonesian leader to the teeth, and so did Britain. They are backing the oppression of the people of Palestine by the Israeli State.
The iron fist is in the velvet glove with Afghanistan, and it is not a threadbare glove.
The BORGS, possess fascism, in their armoury, and always will.
May the Force be with U!

Resistance is Futile!

Be afraid, be very afraid....

derminated

[El Che]

Hey! guess what? first good read since this particular forum started! Yup.


But derminator consider the point that ethos is subjective, it is, in truth "unreal". It only "exists" in your head. An existence of such if i may make the point before you do, but due to its nature, it is subjective existence. That is to say, you can never say genocide is unethical, you can only say genocide is unethical based on my ethos i.e my personal understanding of what to be of ethos constitutes.



Thus the weakness of your recorent ethical arguement. If you cant universaly define it, you cant universaly apply it. Non the less, I know you know this, so, I take your position as intended to constitute a personal position, one I think I agree with. I say I think because you are difficult to understand. :)



(Edited by El Che at 3:06 pm on Mar. 3, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

Conscious existence is alo alienated existence
One cannot be seperated from the other, no matter how much self consciousness can understand that
alienation and seek to overcome it.
Money distorts each and every relationship, it is not so obvious without the context of labour condition, wherby the labourer is in his relations with the capitalist, is a human tool, a mere appendix to his desire but this condition is pivotal to his existence. The unemployed
remain only potential to this relationship and are used as a means to reduce wages.
This is what stamps the working class and is at the core of all oppression because this condition perpetuates
all oppression as a divisive force.
In deed conscious can strive to end these condition
or personally ameliorate them through education
and the pursuit of arts or leisure activities but they can
not abolish the fundamental power of money which keeps our divorce laywers, our suit claimants, our
glittered, tinselled talentless pop stars in business.
How many rich men trust anyone they do not control,
How many people imagine that they are somehow lucky
and gamble on the lottery. Money is not the root of evil
nay but commodity fetishism which does appear to have some mystical power over man, as it dominates our very survival.
Your position is more an argument for universal political and philosophical honesty. Much of what you say rings true.
However this is more on what Marx is saying.
The religious world is but the reflex of the real world. And for a society based upon the production of commodities, in which the producers in general enter into social relations with one another by treating their products as commodities and values, whereby they reduce their individual private labour to the standard of homogeneous human labour-for such a society, Christianity with its cultus of abstract man, more especially in its bourgeois developments, Protestantism, Deism, &c., is the most fitting form of religion. In the ancient Asiatic and other ancient modes of production, we find that the conversion of products into commodities, and therefore the conversion of men into producers of commodities, holds a subordinate place, which, however, increases in importance as the primitive communities approach nearer and nearer to their dissolution. Trading nations, properly so called, exist in the ancient world only in its interstices, like the gods of Epicurus in the Intermundia, or like Jews in the pores of Polish society. Those ancient social organisms of production are, as compared with bourgeois society, extremely simple and transparent. But they are founded either on the immature development of man individually, who has not yet severed the umbilical cord that unites him with his fellowmen in a primitive tribal community, or upon direct relations of subjection. They can arise and exist only when the development of the productive power of labour has not risen beyond a low stage, and when, therefore, the social relations within the sphere of material life, between man and man, and between man and Nature, are correspondingly narrow. This narrowness is reflected in the ancient worship of Nature, and in the other elements of the popular religions. The religious reflex of the real world can, in any case, only then finally vanish, when the practical relations of every-day life offer to man none but perfectly intelligible and reasonable relations with regard to his fellowmen and to Nature.

The life-process of society, which is based on the process of material production, does not strip off its mystical veil until it is treated as production by freely associated men, and is consciously regulated by them in accordance with a settled plan. This, however, demands for society a certain material ground-work or set of conditions of existence which in their turn are the spontaneous product of a long and painful process of development.

Political Economy has indeed analysed, however incompletely, [32] value and its magnitude, and has discovered what lies beneath these forms. But it has never once asked the question why labour is represented by the value of its product and labour-time by the magnitude of that value. [33] These formulae, which bear it stamped upon them in unmistakable letters that they belong to a state of society, in which the process of production has the mastery over man, instead of being controlled by him, such formulae appear to the bourgeois intellect to be as much a self-evident necessity imposed by Nature as productive labour itself. Hence forms of social production that preceded the bourgeois form, are treated by the bourgeoisie in much the same way as the Fathers of the Church treated pre-Christian religions. [34]

To what extent some economists are misled by the Fetishism inherent in commodities, or by the objective appearance of the social characteristics of labour, is shown, amongst other ways, by the dull and tedious quarrel over the part played by Nature in the formation of exchange-value. Since exchange-value is a definite social manner of expressing the amount of labour bestowed upon an object, Nature has no more to do with it, than it has in fixing the course of exchange.

The mode of production in which the product takes the form of a commodity, or is produced directly for exchange, is the most general and most embryonic form of bourgeois production. It therefore makes its appearance at an early date in history, though not in the same predominating and characteristic manner as now-a-days. Hence its Fetish character is comparatively easy to be seen through. But when we come to more concrete forms, even this appearance of simplicity vanishes. Whence arose the illusions of the monetary system? To it gold and silver, when serving as money, did not represent a social relation between producers, but were natural objects with strange social properties. And modern economy, which looks down with such disdain on the monetary system, does not its superstition come out as clear as noon-day, whenever it treats of capital? How long is it since economy discarded the physiocratic illusion, that rents grow out of the soil and not out of society?

But not to anticipate, we will content ourselves with yet another example relating to the commodity-form. Could commodities themselves speak, they would say: Our use-value may be a thing that interests men. It is no part of us as objects. What, however, does belong to us as objects, is our value. Our natural intercourse as commodities proves it. In the eyes of each other we are nothing but exchange-values. Now listen how those commodities speak through the mouth of the economist. "Value" -- (i.e., exchange-value) "is a property of things, riches" -- (i.e., use-value) "of man. Value, in this sense, necessarily implies exchanges, riches do not." [35] "Riches" (use-value) "are the attribute of men, value is the attribute of commodities. A man or a community is rich, a pearl or a diamond is valuable... A pearl or a diamond is valuable" as a pearl or a diamond. [36] So far no chemist has ever discovered exchange-value either in a pearl or a diamond. The economic discoverers of this chemical element, who by-the-by lay special claim to critical acumen, find however that the use-value of objects belongs to them independently of their material properties, while their value, on the other hand, forms a part of them as objects. What confirms them in this view, is the peculiar circumstance that the use-value of objects is realised without exchange, by means of a direct relation between the objects and man, while, on the other hand, their value is realised only by exchange, that is, by means of a social process. Who fails here to call to mind our good friend, Dogberry, who informs neighbour Seacoal, that, "To be a well-favoured man is the gift of fortune; but reading and writing comes by Nature." [37]




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



(Edited by peaccenicked at 6:48 pm on Mar. 3, 2002)

[TheDerminator]

El Che,

Human existence is subjective existence, but there is the objective within the subjective as the whole of empirical science proves. Deny animal oxygen for an hour and the animal will always die!

.."It only "exists" in your head...you can never say genocide is unethical"
Appalling dreadful stuff, that Adolf would have enjoyed. Only a possibility in your subjective opinion?
Dreadful. It is pure absolute fucking evil, and it existed and existed in reality.
As for the geonocide of wanton neglect. If I were Rupert Murdoch, I would devote all my channell's to covering it ad nauseum. Every fifth rate hospital in glorious technocolour, all the grief, all the morgues for the poor, every execution live on television! Because that is wanton neglect of ethos too!
I would ram fucking reality down your fucking throats!
Planet fucking Grime, and the genocide of wanton neglect. No, you would not believe even with your own eyes if a child died of faminine right infront of you. It would only be a possibility, never an absolute fact, it couldn't be an absolute fact. There is no absolute reality outside of your head. There is no absolute evil!
Appalling stuff, atleast the Flat-earthers had some conception of the world. You have no real conception, only "possibilities" that can never be proven.
Human existence is conscious existence, and your consciousness proves your own existence. It is an absolute proof.
I universally define ethos as the differentiation between good and evil.
Evil has to include either that which is harmful to the spiritual being of other human beings through intent of consciousness or through neglect of consciousness. And yep, if an accident is caused through gross neglect within consciousness, that is an evil.
Nature does not possess consciousness, so it cannot be called an evil, nor do objects, or phenomenon, which are human made, although if an object is made to commit genocide, I would have no hesitation, in saying it is an evil object, because the object contains its purpose.

Unlike you, I am not a selfist, and vox would agree that if you have a methodology, such as Marx possessed in relation to his analysis of the infrastructure, that the existence of method, goes beyond selfism. There is subjectivism, in the empirical and Socratic methods, but they are accessible to anyone who can understand them, so they are not completely selfist, like your own philosophy.
I am not a selfist, any one with the intelligence to understand objective method, can possess it. I am sorry if I am difficult to understand, but I understand you, and I understand the poverty of thought and the poverty of understanding that your non-reality position represents.
I wonder who else in this forum understands why it is possible to believe, that genocide only exists in my head. If there are others who believe in this simplistic stuff, you are peddling, I can only shake my head, because on every level of logic and ethos, it is mind-numblingly atrocious.
Atrocious. Pity, you find me so difficult to understand.

peaccenicked Liked the way you skipped over El Che!
Not worth responding to eh?

Conscious existence is also "alienated existence" Only because people are selfists.
Conscious existence, does not need to be alienated existence. We are all separate individuals, yes, but "alienated consciousness" becomes less and less, as as consciousness moves away from the selfist alienation of human understanding. Okay, we can never synthesise to possess complete conscious togetherness, but spiritual being is an equaliser, and you cannot detach consciousness from spiritual being.
As selfism, is left behind the alienated spirit, becomes a community spirit, and a being of the community rather than an isolated being within the community.
Part of the objective of socialist ethical philosophy, is to replace alienated existence with an existence, which is entrenched in community spirit. These are two very different types of existence.

You are seeing only the alienating power of money, and I do not deny, that money alienates, since it is entrenched in alienating inequality, but this alienation is only one part of the alienation process. There is a bigger picture, and you should see that hand in hand with the alienation power of money, is the alienating power of the BORG mindset. It is the extreme "individualistic" mentality, it is the fear of the stranger which we see every day on public transport, it is the myth of "self-reliant" humans, it is the myth of the need for independence from the "State", it is the denial of collective responsibility for each other within the community, and to reduce it all to the money relationships between labour and commodity fetishism, is crude orthodox Marxist reductionism.
vox may agree with you on this, except he may add some more orthodoxy with a different slant. It all amounts to much the same thing, because it is all economic reductionism, and to fall back on "over-determination" is a bad fucking joke.
Your whole reasoning is pure economism, it is a one-side analysis, of how the bourgeiosie view history.
"The religious is but the reflex of the real world."
"Reflex"?
Come on. Sounds like a bit of the old false consciousness to me.
The real world incorporates religion into it, as a necessary part of the bourgeios mindset, just as it was incorporated in all previous mindsets. It is necessary, because it is attached to subjective development. It is more than just a "reflex" it is inherent in the essence of the mindset, and if some neo-liberal conservative becomes an atheist, it is only a reflection of the deep alienation of that mindset. Each man and woman a law unto themselves within the BORG societal law.
What is the root of all evil?
Commodity and labour relationships? This formulae is entrenched in crass orthodox Marxist economic reductidonism, without one thought for the alienating BORG mindset.
It is what you do not say peaccenick that shows, you have not went beyond orthodox "Marxism", and your selfism, is just another variation on the selfism, of vox and all the other orthodox "Marxists."
You are selfists because you are not tackling the alienation within society, and the evil within society with an objective method, you are merely regurgitating "Marxist" dogma.
"All I know is that I am not a Marxist!" Karl Marx. At least Marx, thought he was not a selfist because he possessed a method. Where the hell is your method for analysing the superstructure? Maybe I should quote El Che It only exists in your head!
At least mine exists on my website, and it obvious you do not comprehend it, whatsoever.
You see my friend, you should have a good look at what you skipped over by El Che.
Genocide only exists in my head is more or less, what he is saying as a possibility, you can never say it exists in reality, ethos can never be universally applied.
Appalling shit!
And maybe, just maybe if you possessed a little method, you could have rammed that shit down his throat, instead of skipping over it, as if it did not warrant a thought.
You maybe ought to examine your own priorities.
El Che, to use an oxymoron, I cannot believe what I am hearing with my own eyes! It is fucking appalling.

Resistance is Futile!

Be afraid, be very afraid....

May the Force be withU!

derminated


(Edited by TheDerminator at 9:30 pm on Mar. 3, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

I am not repeating marxist dogma, I am quoting
Marx. So noone should quote marx anymore,
because it makes them dogmatist. I merely quoted Marx
to make my position clearer. At least that gave you
some insight into how I view alienation.
'Conscious existence is also "alienated existence" Only because people are selfists.'
Does this not posit alienation as self consciousness
whereby it is a social relationship that produces merely abstract self consciousness unmediatated by considerations beyond the self. Is that not the cause of the very mindset that produces the bourgeois ethos,
the illusion that freedom is opposed to institutions, and ignorant of human necessity.
Is this not the very thing that socialism opposes.
Can a selfist oppose selfism, and I to have stated that I prefer the term scientic socialist.
To reduce is to say it is only....................
What I say is that with traditional materialism is
merely that existence determines consciousness,
this is to state that at present alienated conditions determine
mankinds societal status, these alienated conditions include an impoverishment of culture.ie thet are material
not merely economic.
If marx's or engels get slandered for economic reductionism, that does not mean that it is true.
If you go over Marx, the last post, you cannot help but see the wider sense I have pointed to.

[TheDerminator]

peaccenick, when you quote Marx, without giving your own analysis, it is like giving the gospel according to Marx. You are saying this is the bit of orthodoxy, I agree with, and I do that myself as you know from what I took from the Theses on Feurbach recently. I have never thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
I do not agree with "abstract self-consciousness". I agree there is greater withdrawal into self-consciousness, but it is not an abstraction as such it is very real for the person, thus it is grounded in reality, rather than an abstraction, although I can see where you are coming from, that the self-consciousness is to a large extent an abstraction from community spirituality, if that is what you mean. There is this separation of the self, from the community.
It is more the effect than the cause, although it is complex, because the effect becomes a major cause, and you are right to see that. However, the prime causation, surely is subjective development. A development without any overview of how to develop in history, and thus there can be only be the subjective selfist, until selfism is overtaken by political philosophy.
You are right to see, it as a major cause in bourgeois ethos, but we have to trace that lack of ethos, back to its roots, and that is the historical approach as I am sure you will recognise. It is with that in mind, that the mitigator of subjective development looms into view. Mitigation, not vindication as I am sure you would agree.
You see, I do not relate Freedom, just to necessity, but also to want, and to purpose, something that Aristotle deals within in his Ethics. It returns to Marx, and his statement, that we can change our own circumstances, thus the recognition for the need, has to be supplanted by the desire, then the objectives to bring about the change. Still, in history, often the necessity comes first, but this is not always the case. Sometimes, the desire for change is brought about be the realisation of an alternative way. You can realise it, and then see the need. Need and want are inextricably linked. You cannot realise either in practise, without the other being present. The creative process cannot be reduced just to need.
Again your traditional materialism, is orthodox Marxism, and returns to existence determines consciousness.
It is still a deep error. Consciousness, determines our form existence, including our material conditions. |It is still Marxist dogma. Human existence is conscious existence, and all material conditions of human society, are invented in our consciousness, except the raw materials. And even these, we must acknowledge in our consciousness, we must fashion them, with skills brought forth from our consciousness.
There is no human experience out with the subconscious, that is not created in consciousness, and even the subconscious is directly influenced by the consciousness of an individual.
It is no slander. It is an accurate assessment.
"existence determines consciousness" is economic reductionism.
Being determines ideas.
Human being is a being with ideas.

The main determinant is the subjective historical process, and that is the primary causation.

Your "wider sense" is still the narrow sense of vox and others. It is still just dogma. I would rather talk this stuff over with you in private, but you should respond to the thread, because it is too late to go back, and I do not mind that much about being open, about our disagreements.
You still have not method for analysing the superstructure, nor did Marx, and the latter ought to be obvious even from his advocation of the practical-critique.

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[peaccenicked]

Dogma is an unchallengable belief.
This goes to poppers open philosophy.
I believe that the pririt of science is open, then
scintific socialism is open too. I see nothing in Marx or Engels to contradict this. The whole tradition of materialism infers the material being determines consciousness. The being is not economic being, it is conscious being, you are wrong to reduce it to the economic because no one in the materialist tradition of any note that I know of has done so. It is not true that
consciousness determines existence, existence
is independent of human will, in the first instance,
and that is all that materialism claims on this matter that I am aware of. The development of consciousness,
is the development of inter subjectivity and the subject object relationship, these presuppose existence as without it there would be no limits on consciousness.
It is existence that sets these limits as knowledge moves to the unreachable absolute. It is man who struggles against these limits.

[reagan lives]

"I believe that the pririt of science is open, then
scintific socialism is open too. I see nothing in Marx or Engels to contradict this."
In other words "The dogma of scientific socialism says it isn't dogmatic."

Dogma is not an unchallengable belief. Dogma is the adherence to codified belief systems (such as those laid out in Marx, Engels, or Adam Smith) at the expense of independent thought. In other words, dogma is dependence on texts to give you answers, instead of thinking things through yourself.

[El Che]

lol shit derminator i knew your where gonna have a field day with the stuff im pedeling on ethos. It is non the less the truth, sorry but it is. Subjective, thats right, the thing you most hate, ethos is subjective my friend.

I may consider abortion unethical, you may not. Subjective... there goes the baby with the bath water...

[peaccenicked]

El Che
You should read freud the psychologist
in it he has a category 'superego'
It is that part of that gets our morals from society
ie outside ourselves.
If he is right and I think he is on this one,
our ego resolves our id
id desire
Here our etho is what stops us from being mere animals.
I dont think peo;e make up ethos as they go along,
society informs them of their possible choices.

[TheDerminator]

peaccenick

The "spirit of science" is open!

Science is based upon methodology!

If science were to rest on its laurels, and say this is the law, the spirirt of science would be dead, because the methodology, which created the open-endedness becomes dead, if all there is the law. Science becomes dogma, when there is no methodology to continue scientific development.
Ofcourse, that can never happen in science because, the empirical method is so simple, that you can reduce it down to one sentance: The abstraction of general laws from the observance of singulars.
However, it did occur in philosophy. The methodology of Marx could only tackle the relationships within the infrastructure. He calls it his "ontological" method for crying out loud!
There is no scientific method for analysing the superstructure, only dogmas, based upon the practical-critique or praxis. It is a subjective approach.
"Existence is independent of all human will in the first instance"
Wrong. Human existence is conscious existence, and you cannot detach consciousness from the human species. As soon as the first humans existed, they possessed conscious cognition, albeit primitive cognition, and this higher level of cognition is the basis for every judgement value that drives the will.
Human will is apart of human consciousness, a part of human conscious existence. You are making a reductive determination.
You are still saying being determines consciousness.
You cannot see that human existence is inseperabe with conscious existence.
"It is not true that consciousness determines" existence." If you look back through the thread, you will find that you are misquoting me.
What I said is that human social "consciousness determines the form of existence.
Human exsistence is conscious existence! The primary determination is the existence of humans who possess both being and consciousness. I have not thrown, the baby out with the bathwater. Being is still there, but it is conscious human being!
All will is subordintated this human consciousness, and without this human consciousness, there is no human "will", there is no cognation of necessity on the level of human consciousness provides.
"The development of consciousness is the development of intersubjectivity and the subject-obect relationship, as without there would be no limits on consciousness. It is existence that sets the limits of knowledge as knowledge moves to an unreachable absolute. It is man who struggles against these limits."
This is the exact same tosh as El Che is spouting. It does not comprehend, that there is objectivity within subjectivity, and that objective kernel exist can be abstracted and obectively analysed though the use of objective methodology.
Marx, never saw the objective kernel, with the eccentric subjective development of the superstructure, so his methodology, is only ontological methodology as he himself admits.
As for the "limits of human consciousness". The whole point of a methodology, is to be able to objectively analyse all previous history objectively, and if the method is truly objective, the analysis is the concrete theory set in stone, and future analysis is only adding concrete to the concrete.
The never ending open-ness of science, is highly speculative. Infinity is a hell of a long time, and it is speculative, whether or not if the human race survives into infinite development, whether or not science is going to always be open ended or whether or not there will be a plateau, which science can never go beyond, because you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, etc.
Infinity, goes on for ever. Can science go on for ever?
We can only speculate and one guess is good or as bad as another.

El Che,
Objecitivity is within subjectivity.

Abortion is an awful procedure for any woman to go through, and is sad, that any woman feels the necessity, but unfortunately it is a big cruel world out there on Planet Grime, and having a baby is making life too hard on some women, because their life has been hard enough.
You see, it does not matter, even how wealthy you are, it is still a hard world, and a baby should be a big commitment. You have to possess, that commitment, and if you feel that commitment is going to lower the quality of your own life too much, it is not really your fault that you messed up with contraception, or even that you changed your mind. Society should be there to ensure, you know how to practise contraception, and to talk through the commitment. You should always have the capability to change your mind, though socitety does have to lay down a period, when the phoetus becomes a baby in the womb. That is a decesion for the scientists, not the politicians.
In my view it is absolutely unethical to be against abortion, and that anti-abortion is an evil upon, the right's women, who should have the right to choose.
You may see this only as my subjective opinion, but I see it is an objective ethical absolute.

Regan-lives,

Dogma is not an unchallengable belief, it is the adherence to codified belief systems!
What is a codified belief system?
Codification is a set of laws, which we are all supposed to accept. This is the basis of the whole BORG society, every advanced nation has its own similar codification, and the monarchy in Britain is a powerless monarchy, still answerable to the law of the BORG State.
Everything you see as a BORG "Freedom" is entrenched in constitutional law, which underpins every common law.
Your whole mindset is rooted in this codification. Your "independent" thought is about as independent as "Marxist" dogma.
You are right, though, it is not challenge for the sake of challenge. Just becuase something is unchallengable does not make it a dogma, or there can be no concept of truth, as El Che would have it.
So, what is a dogma? What is it that destroys all independence of thought?
It is called unquestioning selfism.
Any mindset, no matter how well intended is only a mindset, if people to not possess the means to question that mindset. You are merely repeating the dogma of the codified belief in an unquestioning manner. You give it your own interpretation, yes, but that is your selfism. At the say time, your selfist identity is lost in the mindset.
In order to go beyond any mindset, you must possess a method, which objectively analyses that mindset, otherwise you are consumed in its subjective opinions. You are repeating the dogma, unquestioningly.
If all you possess is subjective opinion, how do you know that those opinions are not deeply flawed? You do not know. You can only give your best subjective guess, that you are right and peaccenick or myself are wrong. It is all opinion, and you are weighed down by the baggage of that opinion.
There is an objective methodology on my website, and that is why I am not a selfist, and why I possess independence of thought and you do not.
All belief systems entrenched in subjective opinions are dogmatic belief systems, and that goes for the US constitution, religious orthodoxy, and all the rest of the subjective shit that you base your "independence" of thought upon.
Objective methodology, just requires an intelligent study in order to be understood. There is no secret to it, and Marx was half way there with his methodology. I do not really call it just my own method, because it was always going to be discovered by someone, and it is the legacy of all philosophy.
It is the purpose of all philosophy, before the purpose becomes political ethical philosophy, which is the highest purpose of all philosophy.
Parmenides regarded the way of truth to be against the way of opinion, and that is all there is to it. The way of objectivity against the way of subjectivity. The way of dogmatic selfism, against the way of independent methodology, just the same way empirical methodology is independent of the scienctist. Not completely independent though. We do require human existence!
Resistance is Futile!

Be afraid, be very afraid...

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[peaccenicked]

''The methodology of Marx could only tackle the relationships within the infrastructure.''
The method of Marx is hegelian.
Hegel applied that to the development of self consciousness within the enfolding of the absolute idea or spirit.
Marx applied the same method to the labour process
within the actual unfolding of human history.
The superstructure has such was not given the same rigourous treatment, the closest to that is in Caudwell
and Gramsci. This might be seen as the movement of science and ideology in human practice in the unfolding
of actual history. Just because this difficult study has never been completed, it does not mean the hegeleian method cannot be applied. hmm, the all sided approach
is a safeguard from errors, it does not wipe out errors.
"Existence is independent of all human will in the first instance"
Wrong. Human existence is conscious existence, and you cannot detach consciousness from the human species. As soon as the first humans existed, they possessed conscious cognition, albeit primitive cognition, and this higher level of cognition is the basis for every judgement value that drives the will.''
human species and existence are not the same categories. The objective world of things and human historical development, are beyond human will,
in the sense that we are born into a world which is not of our own creation. All that existed hitherto is the source of what determines our consciousness.
This is the materialist premise.
"As for the "limits of human consciousness". The whole point of a methodology, is to be able to objectively analyse all previous history objectively, and if the method is truly objective, the analysis is the concrete theory set in stone, and future analysis is only adding concrete to the concrete."
I am not asking how does man cope with limits,
I am saying these limits are determined outside
human consciousness, in nature, outside the control of human will and this is the existence that determines
consciousness in development.
The actual narrowness of knowledge and its movement
in the concrete is dependent on the historical conditions of mankind.
This is fundamental to materialist thought.
You say that human consciousness determines forms
of existence. The question that Marx asked is precisely,
what determines the limits of these forms? This is answered by Marx and Engels, it is also a concern of Hegel, in the historical development of freedom and the State and its projection in history. Unfortunately hegel stopped with the Prussian State.

[TheDerminator]

peaccenicked,

The method is not Hegelian, the method came from a rationalisation of Hegel's idealist understanding, and rationalisation for ontological purposes is far from idealism.
The application by Hegel, is done only on a level of abstract concepts, and without a subject, the "method" does not exist. It is only idealist objectivism, and the introduction of the "spirit" is only another layer of conceptualisation on the level of objectivist relations. There is no practical Hegelian method as such, because there is no subject. Marx had to rationalise the dialiectical aspect in order to produce a method capable of analysing the infrastructure.
You are wrong. The method belongs to Marx, not to Hegel, and you have to take the approach of Hegel as a whole. As a whole it is a non-method incapable of analysing a subject.
"The superstructure was not given rigorous treatment"
You are missing the point!
The methodology used by Marx for the infrastructure cannot be applied to the superstructure, and neither Caudwell, nor Gramsci, applied the methodology of rational dialectics. Gramsci was under no illusions. Gramsci called Marxist political theory praxis, and this is the intersubjective practical critique, and Caudwell was no Lenin or no Gramsci. He was a good orthodox Marxist, but Lenin and Gramsci, were the leading Marxists of the last century.
It is not a Hegelian method, it is a rationalisation of Hegel, and it cannot be applied to the superstructure, because Marx made clear it is ontological in its essence.
You see, my friend. Marx thought it could only be applied to ontology, and that is why his most mature philosophical piece, the Theses on Feurbach stresses "practical-criticism" and stresses validation through practice.
Capital has a very different stress. The practise is seen as historical practise already experienced in human development, and Marx is objectifying that practise, using a methodology, rather than having to wait unitil the experiment ends. The methodology objectifies the relationships, and the objectification is validitated by the very fact there has been an objective analysis. What is validation other than objective understanding?
There is no objective analysis of the political-cultural superstructure only praxis, and you cannot get around praxis, because it is what Marx advocated, and what Gramsci, and Lenin practised.
"Human species and existence are not the same categories" Is this written in stone, or in the bible! It is pure dogma.
You cannot think of the human species in development, without thing of existence of that species. Categorisation? Sounds like Aristotle on drugs!
There is only one way to look at the human species, and that is in relation to historical existence, and you cannot artificially separate them, with a dogmatic tenet.
"The objective world of things and human historical development are beyond human will, in the sense that we are born into a world not of our own creation. All that hitherto existed is the source of what determines our own consciousness. This is the materialist premise."
The materialist premise is wrong!
People can change their own circumstances!
You see that is the difference between humankind and the rest of nature. We can consciously change our own circumstances as Marx recognised himself.
This capability to change our own circumstances transforsms society through invention. Human invention. Human invention in consciousness. Beyond "human will"? Nonsense. Unless you have the conscious will to change circumstances, you are a slave to nature. That is the difference between the human species and every other species on this planet. We are not complete slaves to nature.
Planet Earth was not our creation, but the history of Planet Grime is our creation. We created our own history! We were not complete servants to nature. Human societal development is not natural development, and Marx himself criticised Aristotle for seeing slave society as "natural"
There was a huge turning point in history, when the human species was evolved. Instead of just nature creating everything, there was human-made, manufactured, invented stuff, invented, and human made in human consciousness.
All that existed hitherto, was nature governing nature. It does not govern human history, because that began, when the human species began. The very first humans began to govern nature. In fact, some the early extinct species, such as the Neanderthals, where able to govern some parts of nature, but they did not possess our level of consciousness, and that is the separation.
The limits are only the limitations of time, and nature does impose this limitation upon all levels of consciousness, but that is all there is to it, no more and no less. The static relations of capitalism remain the same within the infrastructure, no matter how developed the superstructure becomes.
Marx asked what determines the limits of these forms, but reduced the determination to economic determination, when in reality, the limitation also was entrenched in the power relationships even in tribal societies. You have to be historical and start with the very first type of society, and see that it is no accident that the tribal leaders accrued the most wealth, and that when there archaelogical digs, they find that the tribal leaders who are found in even small mounds, have possessions of a relatively high quality, than those found in other grave sites.
The tribal chief receives tribute, and I daresay the "witch-doctors" or shamen's were not too far behind. The first economic system was the barter system, and is about as "natural" as the slave system.
It was human made. Made in human consciousness, or even before in the limited consciousness of species before the dawn of humankind.
Marx and Engel's answered the question poorly, it was economic determinism. It was existence determines consciousness. It was being determines ideas. Human existence is conscious existence, and your separation is pure dogma.
Conscious existence is a different form of natural existence, and it's existence creatres the dawn of the development of the history of humankind. A history entrenched in the subjective vagaries of human consciousness.

Resistance is Futile!

Be afraid, be very afraid...

May the Force be with [b]U[b]!

derminated

[peaccenicked]

"Marx asked what determines the limits of these forms, but reduced the determination to economic determination, when in reality, the limitation also was entrenched in the power relationships even in tribal societies. You have to be historical and start with the very first type of society, and see that it is no accident that the tribal leaders accrued the most wealth, and that when there archaelogical digs, they find that the tribal leaders who are found in even small mounds, have possessions of a relatively high quality, than those found in other grave sites. "
Are yopu saying that Marx and Morgan got it all wrong about primitive communism?
You should read my essay on this, on my site ''Is Marxism a Science?The evidence of a few finds do not prove very much about actual social relations.
Now what is this about reducing these forms tto economic determinations, He looked at social dependency and its development through primitive
fuedal and capitalism. It is only you who is positing economic determinism where there is none.

The tribal chief receives tribute, and I daresay the "witch-doctors" or shamen's were not too far behind. The first economic system was the barter system, and is about as "natural" as the slave system.
It was human made. Made in human consciousness, or even before in the limited consciousness of species before the dawn of humankind.
Marx and Engel's answered the question poorly, it was economic determinism. It was existence determines consciousness. It was being determines ideas. Human existence is conscious existence, and your separation is pure dogma.
Dogma is no way to criticize something either it is true or it is not. If I disagree with marx, I would want a better answer, than his. I have not found one yet.
Human existence is conscious existence does not determine anything. It goes no futher than descartes.
All you do is deny the social determinism by saying it is reduced it to economics.
This thread is becoming too packed with ideas, and I would like to dicuss method in theory.
" We were not complete servants to nature"
Marx nor I or anyone believies this the whole of Marx's work shows that he believed that Mankind is moving from dependence to indepence, from being slave to master of nature. He sees communism as the highest degree of mastery over nature.
Marx looked at relations outside the economic.
The theory of State is highly political and examines power. There is also the dogmatic approach to criticising marx which insists he was a economic determinist.

[TheDerminator]

peaccenicked,

Primitive communism, is only one type of tribal society, and to imagine, that it was the precursor to every type of tribal soiciety around the globe is a large presupposition, and even if it were proven to be the beginnings of every tribe, you can never remove the dividing line that separates, consciously created societal relations, and natural relations.
Even in early primitive socieities, there are tools, which were invented, there are clothes, which are invented, there hunting methods, which are invented, there is even some crafts which are invented. There are some basic rules of ethos, which prevent the self-destruction of the tribal group. These too are invented in consciousness, because people need to be consciously aware of simple do's and don'ts.
Even the whole idea of coming together for the common benefit of the community has to be invented in consciousness, just as alienation comes from another mindset in societal consciousness.
"You are looking at economic determinism where there is none"!?
You must be kidding!
Material existence determines conscious existence!

You cannot see the economic determinism, in such a statement!
The material conditions are the economic conditions attached to a specific period of historical development!
There is no way of getting around that fact!
It is still economic determinism, because the only real driving force given are the material conditions, and these "create consciousness" in stark contrast to forms of social conscious inventing and creating the various forms of human economic conditions including primitive communism.
Sorry the thread is becoming "too packed with ideas". I thought that was the purpose of threads, and ideas overlap, with politics. Politics without theory is poor politics.
Human existence is conscious existence goes no further, than Descartes?
I think therefore I am = Human existence is conscious existence. Kind of crude, since Descartes, had no real concept of being, only of consciousness, and you really ought to know the basics.
Social determinism?
Am I saying humans are not societal? Never noticed that anywhere in the thread. You made that one up in your own mind! What you mean, by social determinism, amounts to materialist economic determinism, because it all returns to the dogma, that material existence determines all consciousness.
You see, nature existed before humans, and nature determined all forms of development until consciousness intervened. Something, you do not deny.
The dogma is all on your side, you are still regurgitating unquestioningly the dogma that materialism determines consciousness.
Socical determinism, is social consciousness, and what the whole political movement is about is creating a political consciousness, which does not currently exist.
You have no concept of the huge force, which social and political consciousness represents, you are stuck with determinism, and you forget from the Theses on Feurbach that human societal conditions are transformed by consciousness. You can take that transformation back to primitive communism. The unity of purpose is a conscious unity of purpose.
You see, my friend social and political consciousness are where all the mindsets stem, and this may seem a tangent into theory for you, but it seems, just a continuation of the thread to me. I do not see any tangent, and even the stuff from El Che reflects another mindset, and incase you never noticed this thread is about mindsets.

Resistance is Futile!

Be afraid, be very afraid...

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[peaccenicked]

The basic mistake you make is that you see material as wholly economic. This was never the case with Marx and Engels. The social conditions of man are spiritual and economic. marx never saw the word material in any other light.
Lenin for instance describes, Marxism as the economic and spiritual champion of the working class.
Marx wrote about real spirituality and the phantoms of religion. I will also open up a disscusion on Primitive communism elsewhere.

[TheDerminator]

peaccenicked
Spiritual-economic?

I must admit, this is the first time, I have come across the spiritual-economic, material conditions, and you have to define that "spirituality" for it to mean anything. It cannot be, quasi-religious, spirit, it can only be the human spirit, and even more so the human societal spirit.
So let us examine, the essence of that spirit, because that is what you must ask what is the essence of the spirit, and the essence can only be human consciousness, human social consciousness, human political consciousness, in the highest form of the spirit.
You see my friend, you have to break down the statement
Material existence determines consciousness.
Spiritual economic existence determines consciousness.
What do you mean by the spirit?
There would be a tautology.
Social and political consciousness interdependent with economic conditions determine consciousness, is that what you are saying?
You see, I am not throwing out the baby. I know, the economic conditions have a great effect upon consciousness, and a great effect upon social conditions, all I am saying is that the forms of economy are invented in human consciousness. They are human-made, they are not "natural" as Marx reminded Aristotle so to speak. Are you saying they are "natural" economic conditions even within primitive communism?
You can create any thread you wish, I am staying with this one, and the one on Leftism, for the time being, because they are about isms, and mindsets.
Define the "spiritual". If it includes consciousness, we have consciousness determining consciousness, and I will not disagree with you on that!
Define the "spiritual"!
If it includes consciousness, then how does the consciousness relate to the economic as they combine to determine consciousness?
Just what is the inter-relationship?
What comes first the economic or the spiritual, or are they interdependent?
Why are they interdependent?
Are you saying, that at the exact same moment theory and practise unified in the earliest point in time?
You know, if you said that, I would not disagree, because thinking is something you do. Consciousness is a form of practise. It is an activity inside your head.
This practical conscious activity is maybe not what you have in mind. Yet it is what created primitive communism in human society, otherwise you have to resort to the naturalism, which Marx himself rejected.
As for methodology, and selfism, as far as I am concerned it is directly related to not possessing a mindset, and at the end of that ole proverbial day, you still have not said why praxis is objective methodology. Try arguing that one!

May the Force be with [b]U[b]!

derminated

[peaccenicked]

The material conditions have economic and spiritual qualities, the relation between them is not static.
If we take kindness for instance as a human quality.
It can hardly be done in isolation, it is set in history in the concrete situation. Kindness is mediated through economics in some case thogh 'encouragement' is inter subjective.
Meanness is much the same.
However in the analysis of an entity in development
spiritual or economic and one where the economic carries the spiritual or viceversa. Or if we are looking at the relationship between the two in any process.
We examine what they are concretely and how the relations entertwine through the whole of its development. How they act as specific determinants in a process. We also examine what are accidental and what are necessary to the process.
There is no reductionism here, our mistakes come in lacking all sidedness. It is an occupational hazard.

[TheDerminator]

Kindness and meaness are aspects of consciousnsess. They are good and bad. Our value judgements of them are in ethos.

It is not reductionism. It is confusion!

derminated

[Rosa]

dermy:sorry, but I have to disagree with you in "the essence of human spirit can only be consciousness".
Really can't figure out your prooves for that one. So, I see this it's just an axiom that you (as I can see: subjectivly) decided to brought.
am closer to classical wiew about spirit as every human unmaterialised creation. That's why we like some material things:bcs they content a spirit. If creator is a master - the others can see more of it.
And about "naturality" of economics:
capitalism is natural system, for it's based on "survival of the most adapted ones"
but we can't call it natural bcs human being is a being of group: that's the main reason relevant for his survival.
(not an IQ).
So, the natural system is not based on opression, bcs it's not in interest of a group.
so, there is natural sytem of economy, and that's primitive comunism, and coming together for the common benefit is not something that was invented by a men, but is common in fauna. and is based in instict, not on consciousness. like baboons, u know.
so, maybe that's why N was talking about "uber mensch" that has to leave the group: the group became unnatural.
I'm sorry, am a bit angry for such a great loss for the humanity that has been made by reducing H only on rational component.(..but then: u know all about that, just to let you know that u don't have to expl to me,ye,ye,'ve red germ.romant. philos. and Fr. and Marc.; know that you don't want to reduce HB...)
I know that differentia specifica betw H and A beings is possesion of ratio. But that ratio isn't alwas conscious one.ALL RIGHT!!!YOU'RE RIGHT!!!THE UNCONSCIOUS RATIO IS NOT A RATIO OF HUMAN BEING!!!ALLL RIGHT!!!
can never impress you!
okay, have an excuse for am younger than you.

[peaccenicked]

The derminator. Of course these are aspects of consciousness. Kindness, is an objective human quality
that can only be manifested through a conscious act.
I was using examples of spiritual qualities that are real and not products of an alienated imagination. I have made no value judgement Whatsoever.

it is only you here that has attributed good and bad to them. And if I was attributing a value judgement to them,
I would have to agree with you but I am not. You are only saying that I am, this is wrong.
Rosa, that was interesting,the essence of the human spirit is alienated. Man woud not even realise a spirit if it was not alienated. There would be no need to differentiatiate a spirit from the comunity because the spirit would be in the community as a conscious relation between all.
"The essence of human spirit can only be human consciousness,"
is as you seem to be saying an over simplification, it is if unalienated is the content of all human relations expressed as a summation of its unifying features.
The atomisation of humanity within capitalism leaves
man deformed as social being struggling against the deformations that limit him or her.
Our dreams are what make us civilised.

[TheDerminator]

peaccenicked,
"I was using examples of spiritual qualities that are real and not products of an alienated imagination. I have made no value judgement whatsoever."
You do not get it. As soon as you go into the realm of kindness and meaness, you go into the realm of consciousness, and into the realm of judgement values.
The value judgement is intrinsic in the realm of judgement values such as meaness and kindness. You cannot disassociate them from being judgement values.
Why it is an oversimplification, since only through, socialist community spirit can one end alienation. How else can it be ended?
The essence of human spirit is essentially consiousness, and what else can it, be how can it be otherwise, without mystifiying it. Alienation, is the isolation of the indiviudal within social consciousness. We are always going to be separate human beings, but if common values are shared there is equality of the spirit, and the "alienation" is inessential alienation, because in essence, the spirit is the common spirit, of humankind. The inessential, is essential to personality, because is the appearance of personality, but the essence of the spirit is deeper, and that essence does not need to be an alienated essence.
Part and parcel of any socialist society worth the name, is the removal of the alienated essence, with a community essence, or spirit.
The individual person, possesses an essence, and an essential appearance, which relates to other parts of the type of human being they have become, but essence is deeper, than essential appearance, it is the core of the persons values, no matter the life choices, the person has made.
The core relates to those life choices in the way they are carried out. These can be ethical or unethical, depending on the nature of the core.
I would say vision rather than "dreams", but this is a conscious vision, and it is not just our vision of the future that makes us civilised, but the type of people we are now.

Rosa,
Materialised creation?
Technology contains the spirit of human endeavour, but the endeavour can have a good or a bad purpose. The purpose, determines the value of the endeavour. Upon, every object we place value judgements, although, when it comes to art, and media creations, it is not just simple value judgements, because we move into the realm of culture.
"If the creator is master?"
When isn't the creator master? If you recognise, a need, it does not mean you possess the creative capacity, to bring about fulfilling, that need. A need can be a frustrated need.
It is only if there is a creator, who masters the skills to fulfill the need, that the need is met in reality, through invention.
Capitalism = "the survival of the most adapted ones".
The survival of the fittest!
Social Darwinism? Natural evolution?
No, Marx got it right. Aristotle was wrong. There is nothing, natural about slavery?
Answer, that Rosa! What was natural about slavery? It was invented in social consciousness, just as the transatlantic slave trade was created in the consciousness, of the European Merchant class, who became the Merchant class that grew up on the American continent.
You are letting the bastards who created slavery off the hook, when you call it "natural". How can you even call socialism "natural". We have to create it through political consciousness. It is not some kind of organic growth that will inevitably occur, or we can go back to be hedonists, and wait for people to wise up in their own good time.
No, my friend, no. You have not thought this through well enough. There is no organic natural development. When I use, the term "organic" it relates to subjective consciousness. It is an error to see subjective consciousness, as natural consciousness, because nature has no consciousness.
That is the difference. Our development, is conscious development, and it is still human-made development, rather than of nature.
You should not wish to side with the Social Darwinists, it ends up in the vindication of the survival of the fittest, from a reactionary viewpoint.
Primitive communism, was not anthill.
Nor what is it a baboon, colony.
Instinct?
Sorry, Rosa. Experience, is conscious social experience, the innate idea is a mythology. All ideas, come from consciousness. The so-called "survival instinct" can hardly be applied to human beings. The experience of the death camps, shows, that you are lucky if you possessed the capacity to survive, and the fact that some people adapted better than others, makes some inherent "survival instinct" in us all, a very dubvious proposition.
The "instinct" is not the basis for human consciousness. The "gut" reaction is an unthinking reaction, and there can be extremely bad "gut" reactions.
You see, I am not the only person, who does not believe in instincts or innate ideas. More than a few philosophy academics, would say the exact same. All ideas come from some form of consciousness.
That is the difference between, the human form and the animal form. It is not down to ratios. That seems a lot of mechanical nonsense to me.
The differentiation is in consciousness, or the level of consciousness.
The consciousness of animal, is limited to behavioural responses, and all its instincts are entrenched in learned behaviourism.
It is ludicruous to reduce human development, to the level of animal behaviourism, because as soon as the human species evovled, we went beyond the level of behaviourism, and even primitive humanoids before homo-sapien showed signs that they went beyond behaviourism, in their own endeavours.
You see, my friend, once you create something that is not found in nature, you modify behaviour on your own terms. Your own terms as Engel's would have said "master" an aspect of nature, and thus you are no longer a complete slave to nature.
You only see see slavedom to nature, and no mastering, and that is why you equate primitive communism, to a congress of baboons. A congress of baboons, it was not. It was the conscious unity of small community, striving together consciously for the betterment of that community.
Sounds like something we can learn from.
The rational component?
Well, it beats "innate ideas". All ideas are societal ideas.
Subjective consciousness, has a rational baisis, but it is not entirely rational thought, because there is a bit of a psychosis, in the alienation process, and it is an irrational psychosis brought about by subjective development.
The irrational is only a reflection of this development of subjective consciousness, and it is the rational component, that can save the day.

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[Rosa]

1st the answers, but please read "breaking news"too

1.About naturalistic nature of capitalism/any kind of opression: denied that one myself with argument for naturality of other system. I know that am lousy in english, perhaps that's why you've missunderstood me.

2.Creator is not a master when a)can't expres himself in object he has made, aa)when he dont have knowledge about materials, so neccesary CAN'T be in power over material making it to become what creator wants of it
b)when he don't have experience in creating, for he is still the slave of material for he has to fight it.master is free, he knows the limits and alowed attitudes, and only if he has accomplished that knowledge he can be free to act avoiding this obstacles (would say it much better in native...underst?)

:o3:o!!!!if you haven't heard of it: just red newest issue of "TIME": "Meet the Chipsons"...J,L and their boy Derek will be America's first cyborg family....they'll get bionic implants , "VeriChips" which will be implanted just under the skin...and vil provide medical informations about a carrior.
Applied Digital Solutions has big plans for that device:
"In next few years, it wants to add sensors that will read your vital signs (pulse, temperature, blood sugar etc) - AND A :cool:SATELITE RECEIVER THAT CAN TRACK WHERE YOU ARE".
The mother of Jacobses family says that its "marvelous", for that device will make her feel much safer...bla bla.
IS BORG STARTING THE ASIMILATION PROCESS,AND WHERE HUMAN NAIVITY (wrong word, I know, but don't h diction., amnotathome) STOPS, please relate that one (3) to your theory of consciousnes ...

[TheDerminator]

Rosa,
1. Sorry, I still am not sure what you mean, in relation to "denial". If you deny the naturalism of slavery, you have to deny the naturalism of BORG society. Still, you relate that to the "breaking news".
2. (a) You do not need to know everything about matter, in order to create, you only need one driving force in your head and that is suitability for purpose. The act of creation is related to functionalism. Some things are discovered by accident, but you do not make a pot, by accident, it is an act of conscious creativity. You do not need to know everything, about the chemistry involved. All you need to know is the functional method, and not about the transformation of atoms!
You have to give a concrete example that backs up your second statement. In every case, the act of creation is an act of consciousness, out with dreams. Come up with a practical example.
As soon as the object is made, the creator has just expressed her/himself, by an act of consciousness. Give an example, where this is not the case.
(b)Social limitations restrain freedom to create. No argument from me on that one, but you have to ask why these limitations are in place, and as humankind develops, the "limits" become more and more entrenched in a mindset, than the fact peoples come from a primitive culture, with a poor understanding of science.
Do you mean social limitations? The limitations of science in relation to human-made things, only relates to various degrees of functionality as regards technology.
3. Must admit never read the latest issue of Time, but the implant sounds no more than a tracking device, so it is not really inter-acting with consciousness, and even if it did, the mindset that directs the consciousness, is social consciousness.
The scientist Stephen Hawkin's thinks there could be a possible danger from Artificial Intelligence, but this is an error. All assimiliation is mechanical assimiliation, and relies upon a simple negative/positive recognition, thus no matter how advanced AI, becomes, the positive/negative is always going to be its basis.
Perhaps, he imagines, a contradiction between, what is positive for cyborgs, and what is positive for humans, but you can translate right and wrong as positive and negative, thus you can assimiliate into a cyborg, that there can indeed by no contradiction.
It is all an assimiliation process, and that goes for the Jacobs too! They have been assimiliated into a mindset, that makes them so naive. I mean even Homer, would see the disadvantages! They have nothing to fear, from the powers, that be, they have a slave mentality. People, like them are as "safe as houses" in relation to the BORG mindset, and they possessed that mindset, long before they had the implants.
Safe? Tempted to say, that I hope a sniper gets them!
However, I am not that cruel, er um.
Let them hang around a few parts of East-end of Glasgow for a few days, see how safe they feel, under "sattelite surveillance". Tell that one to the junkies!
" I am under sattelite surveillance, you cannot touch
me!" A good epitaph on a head stone! R.I.P.
Imagine if this idea had originated in the old Soviet Union!
Big Brother is watching you!
You better believe it!
Be afraid, be very afraid...

Reistance is Futile!

May the Force be with [b]U[b]!

derminated

[Rosa]

yae, but BORG can make tha laws to force all the people to have that implants, you can't tell that all the people already have "tahat mindset",you'll get the rest of the answer tonight.

[peaccenicked]

I can say kindness exists as a human quality
I can say meanness exists as human quality.
I have attached no value judgement whatsoever, if I
did add a value judgemment.
I would say 'meanness is a less than human quality.'
Of course 'value judgement' and 'kindness' are inseperable in activity.
Latent and manifest kindness posit values but here I am using kindness as a one example of something else,
I am not exploring the nature of kindness in itself.
It is fair to say that all human qualities are grounded in value judgement but here I have merely distinguished between economic and spiritual conditions in the material world. I can do this without indicating a value judgement.
I have not separated the economic and the spiritual
into a hierarchy at this point, only indicated two different components of material existence.
That is a simplification, as I exclude deeper conversation of this at this point. In the spirit of Occam's razor,
I am trying to keep things as simple as possible and leave out what is superfluous to our momentary needs.

[Rosa]

Dermy:1)why do you think that it’s impossible to deny naturality of a BORG?
actually, you gave me something to think about. pls.expl.it to me.
2) still am not convinced about “all we need is force”, bcs by using only force, creator can become a creator of destruction. some of chemistry discovers were result of accident, and bravery of reasercher, but i dissagree with you in “they didn’t have to know all about chemistry involved”: they knew all about chemistry till that one point which he didn’t have knowledge of. But the researcher certainly wouldn’t mke an explosion as 1st step of his efforts.
Concrete example: the sculptor- he can’t make a sculpture in clay beating it by hammer.
3) people “assimilated in mindset”, and the number of them growes, supporting the elites, can make decision that
“everybody should have the implant, and all for their own safety”…so everybody can be detected…what ever one is doing, and where ever one is.
Am very dissapointed if you don’t share my concern.
Agree with you that there is no possible danger of AI, the “people” are the ones we should be afraid of.
But yet…thanks for calming my panic down, yes, “you can’t touch me bcs I’m under satelite surviellance” is hillarious statement.

:)

[TheDerminator]

peaccenicked,

Innate human qualities?
No, conscious qualities.
What is an innate human quality?
Why is kindness more innate than meaness?
What value do you put on the innate decency of the German people during the fascist period. You cannot really put a value on it, because as soon as you try quantify, you are in the realm of value judgements.
Is it an innate quality or a social quality. How can you prove it is innate?
Where does the innateness come? Are we falling back on the "instinct" of Rosa?
Is self-preservation instinct, or a conscious recognition, that it is mindless to go down the road of self-destruction? You say you are not separating, just distinguishing, but the fact is any "spirituality" has to be defined, and the innate quality of being a spiritual human being has to be defined.
Human, and humanity are two different things. It is as human as to be inhumane as it is to be human. The human cannot be idealised, nor can the human spirit. The essence can be good or bad, and the essence can be man's inhumanity to man, as Burn's put it. You cannot real compare our inhumanity, to the beastiality upon which no value judgement can be made. Animal, has no value system.
Human beastiality is a lot worse, than animal beastiality. You see two components in materialism, but I see only one, and if all "kindness" and "meaness" are innate character traits, it seems to me, these traits are neither innate, nor just "character traits", they are social created forms of consciousness.

Rosa,
These people feel "safe" because they have this implant! You ought to be able to read between the lines. If people are that gullible, it says they already possess the mindset, and they have in many ways wasted their money, because they can still meet a desperate junkie at the weekend, and all the surveillance in the world from satellites, will not help. Maybe the should link it up to SDI! Now, that would be impressive!
I might save up for that implant, when I return to Greater Easterhouse, in the East end of Glasgow! Yep, the mindset is already there, and I will certainly maintain, that point.
You see, my friend, it does not matter, how well-meaning or how unconventional or how non-conformist you are, if your viewpoints to not aim at removing the bougeois epoch, with a socialist society, you are not a threat to the hegemony of ideas, that dominate bourgeois society.
It is a hegemony of ideas, a hegemony of political and social consciousness, which reinforces the economic hegemony of the bourgeoisie. It does not matter, who defends it the most, from whatever class. The end result is the sustained hegemony of ideas and economic conditions, which were created for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. The slow introduction of universal sufferage after the industrial revolution, ought to make you realise, that the bourgeois epoch, was not created in the interests of the working class or indeed for women.
The BORGS do not need to force anyone, to have an implant, because the hegemony is eventually a cultural concensus, and this is something, that both Chomsky and Gramsci recognise.
It is a concensus created in subjective political and social consciousness, but as peaccenicked would say, "eat shit, because a billion flies cannot be wrong"

There would be a world wide concensus on the righteousness of the death penalty, but as Saffire says, "just because something is a right, does not make it right." And this goes for the property rights of the bourgeoisie.


May the Force be with U!

derminated

[peaccenicked]

I did not use the word 'innate'
Kindness is not an innate quality if you have not been shown it how can you give it.
You are talking against your own invention.
Kindness where it exists is a real quality of humankind.

[Rosa]

DERMY! iT’S NOT ABOUT SAFETY, BUT ABOUT BLOODY SUPERVISING!.
And how can “hegemony” be a result of consensus, when the young ones can’t choose to have an implant…and i belive that it won’t be a matter of choice…
haven’t red Chomsky & Gramsci, will, but not yet.Ok, ok, maybe i should do it soon,OK, I WILL! but still am convinced that would (and will) disagree with them. We'll see. Will let you know.
P.S. like your avatars (Pcn&yours)

[TheDerminator]

peaccenicked,
All, I am asking is from where does this real quality stem, and you cannot simply answer "human spirituality"!
Where does this real quality in human spirituality, stem?
Surely, it either comes from real consciousness, or is innate in human beings as part of their real essence. What is the third alternative?
What gives the quality its "realness"?

May the Force with U!

derminated

[peaccenicked]

realness is absolute or infinite.
realness does not grow it is posited as the intelligible
irreducible concrete. Kindness is real in this fashion
nirvana eg is halucinatory. if you were like El Che and say halucinations are real
you would by pass the meaning of tangible, which you dont.
You cannot argue against a hammer.

[TheDerminator]

peaccenicked,
Inifinite, absolute intelligible realness?
How can the human spirit be either infinite, absolute or intelligible?
The concrete, the tangible.
The tangibe yet intelligible?
The concrete, is the actual, the actual is the finite. There can be no abstract spirituality, it has indeed to be concrete, and you have still to hit the nail on the head!
Your definition is not a clear definition of where stems human spirituality, as a real entity.

May the Force with U!

derminated

[peaccenicked]

I did not say the human spirit was infinite
I described realness.
You seem to change the subject of all my sentences.

[TheDerminator]

peaccenicked,
Well, how do you define the realness of the human spirit.
You are dodging the question. From where does this realness of the human spirit stem?
You are not answering the subject in a clear manner as far as I can see. Where does the spirit stem in its finititude?

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[peaccenicked]

How can reality stem from anything. Do you want to go back before the big bang?

[TheDerminator]

peaccenicked
Human spiritual reality!
You are making no differentiation, between the naturdal universe, and the human-made society! It seems still a lot of crass reductionism to me.
Are you just saying human spirituality comes from nature?
You see, it is a bit simplistic. Our evolution comes from nature, but when human consciousness is evolved, reality changes nature, because added to nature, is human-made society, thus nature is no longer a self-determined world.
Humankind, made the world a very different kind of place, and you see know separation, all you are left with is naturalism, and you know what Marx thougth of that in relation to Aristotle and slavery.
No one is disputing, that the human species evolved in nature, only that human spiritual reality is a different kind of reality, because reality is transformed, by human society.
We can split the history of the Earth into pre and post humanoid civilisations. The moment humanoids, were able to use nature for their own ends, is the moment the old world was left behind.
It is a tangible moment, just like the chicken and egg theory. A new species is born due to large environmental changes.

You have to define reality, a bit deeper than "nature" you know.

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[peaccenicked]

A different kind of reality.
I think not.
Humans changed forms of society.
Nature may go through changes but it is still nature.
Human nature is developing in complex ways.
the real is absolute. It is indivisible. it is only human abstraction that differentiates, difference and identity.
Ottherwise it would be just a chaotic mess to us but still real. It is because we can categorise things we can change them meaningfully.

[TheDerminator]

peaccenicked,
Reality changed its form, since before it was reality governed by the laws of nature, and as soon as consciousness governs nature, although it is a continuation of reality, the form of reality has changed.
"Human nature" is a nebulous concept nature is no longer fully in command, and "nature" is not the same form as all previous nature.
Time is the absolute conitinuum, with space and matter. The form of reality can be transformed, and that is the whole thing with human social development, it changes our existence in reality. The form is not a static form.
Form is not an abstraction, it is a real tangible form.
Form differentiates.
Form gives meaning.

May the Force be with U!

derminated.


(Edited by TheDerminator at 11:42 pm on Mar. 6, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

Something in reality changed life came into being
Reality from moment to moment changes. From one real moment to the next. I dont think reality has an internal component, it is not of the subject, the subject is of the real. I dont see why it is useful to anthromorphise reality. Forms of reality are human differentiations.
Forms are real of course, but they cannot be discerned without human differentiation. Hence they ere both real and abstract. This is the first thought of a dialectician.

[TheDerminator]

Not sure what the first sentance means. Reality only changes being? Forms of being?

There is no internal component in reality?

I would not call consciousness, just an internal component, political and social consciousness are large social movements. If you mean there is only one natural reality, and that is all there is to it, I think this is just your reductionism, and still does not answer the criticism on Aristotle, that there is no economic system, that is "natural". You should read the letter by Engel's to Bloch.
History is human history, and this is something, Marx and Engels understood.
You see, they did not see the economic as the only determinant, but in the letter to Bloch, Engels makes it clear that they saw the economic relations as the "ultimate" determination.
The ulitimate determinate, is not necessarily the primary determination.
In the sense, you can say that social consciousness created the economic system, but that the economic system becomes the ultimate determination of consciousness, when it is in place.
There is not artificial anthromorphic reality. It ludricrous to see social and political conscious as an artificial sublimation. It is the whole superstructure!
"Forms of reality are human differentiations".
Can there be any other kind of differentiations. What is a natural differentiation? Still sounds reductionism to nature. Differentiation on any level relates to different forms of being or different forms of conceptualisation.
"They are both real and abstract". The real is only the actual reality. We can only understand reality in a relation to our conscious understanding, and this consciousness understanding, although entrenched in conceptualisation, is not "unreal". It has an actual form, and you cannot really detach abstract thinking from reality, because it is part of human conscious understanding, and even as just general consciousness, it is real.
The "abstract" is not a complete "abstract". The abstraction, has meaning, meaning provides differentiation, and although we may use the abstract "essence" to describe a quality, it describes a real quality.
The only abstracts which can be divorced from reality would be in symbolic logic, which has no subject in reality, other than its own symbolism.

Consciousness must have forms of consciousness. Form and content are inseparable. The content is always held within the form.

The content gives the form its type or essence, but the form must exist for there to be content; thus there must be a form of consciousness.

The form and content are still attached to consciousness. The subject is consciousness possessing both form and content in itself.
The content of consciousness, and the essential form of conscious is the primary driving force of history, because it creates the economic form.
Yet, the primary contains the secondary in the sense, that the functional economic relations are the objectives contained within social consciousness in order to organise society, although simultaneously the objective relates to a superstructure.
The economic serves an interest.
The economic conditions in reality are the end product of the realisation of the interest. They are the final or ultimate determination only in that strict sense. Ultimately, the become the foundation for the social and political consciousness of everyone conforming to the hegemony of ideas in an epoch, but before the "becoming" before the foundation is in place consciousness creates the driving force which makes that becoming a reality.
You see my friend socialist reality would be very different in form from BORG reality, because all reality has a form, and to see only one "natural" form of reality shows no differentiation of form, and what is reality, but a the actual forms of being in our social societies. Reality is the actual form of being.
And all being relates to forms of being and all forms of social being relates to the epochs, and we differentiate with the epochs, the form of actual being for socialised humanity.
Engels in his letter to Bloch, makes clear, that he and Marx regard history as human history, and this is obviously in contradistinction to natural history.
Natural history is Darwinism, and that would be an insult to Marx. He was never a Darwinist. The letter to Bloch, puts the approach of Marx and Engels into perspective.
As for "reductionism", the only reason I use that term, is because the "ultimate" is not the primary causation, and the main fault of Marx and Engels is that they lost sight of the primary, and because of this they never asked what is essential in the primary, and if the essential in primary causation could be objectified, in a similar way as essence can be objectified.
For Marx and Engel's the material conditions determined consciousness, and thus the ultimate was the primary, and this was their reductionism.
They saw being determining ideas, instead of recognising that human existence is conscious existence, and that we cannot think of the human species without it possessing consciousness.
In regards to the letter to Bloch, I agree with the "becoming", but it becomes from human consciousness, and it becomes in order to maintain the economic interests.
"Dialectics", seems to me to be too entrenched in the "unity of the opposites" as a method. The overview is the most important outcome of analysis, the overview provides the objectivity, and in relation to method, I personally would begin with "the heart of the matter", the relationship between "essential ground" and essential subject", which are rationalisations of Hegelian terms, rather than Hegelian determinations in themselves.
The method builds out from an overview, which is why I call it Objective Methodology rather than dialectics.
Historical reality is of our own creation, and that is something you can get from reading the letter to Bloch. I do not think you want to side with the social Darwinists.
May the Force be with [b]U[b]!

derminated

[Rosa]

First to clean one thing up: I adore hegel, reading him was pure sex with constantly-flowing-orgasmus-of-endless-varieties...but call dialectic "objective metodology"?Are you shure?Reconsidered Spinoza's "Ethics" and others?(in fact, no others, just having Spinoza on my mind). And what about Heidegger actually saying that objective lies on strong subjective?
Is rthe reality only unification of the oposites?What about similar ones? Do you think that they are "unification", or...I understand that you can explain, describe the non-radicals (and they are majority!) using radicals as heuristic instrument,but can that be objective metodology when you can grade the presence of "exsisting appearances" using Spinoza's methodology?.
like: you can't say that person who wants scientists to rule te world is 75%leftist and 25%nazi ( and that are the oppositions, aren't they?). But "scientocrat" can be 25% nazi OR 25%leftist. just...declare your arguments a bit more...?(please)

[peaccenicked]

There is only one natural reality. In this sense I stand in the tradition of materialist monism.
There is no reductionism here merely a different level of
ireducible determinations.
I have never said economics is the only determination
but at the same time I am not throwing the baby out
with the bathwater. Gramsci only talked of the relative independence of the superstructure. He did not by any means divorce base from superstructure.
Those who look at Marx's 'philistinism' have a habit of escaping economic determinism completely. They assume because economics is a cruder subject than
culture that economic determinism is a crude form of determinism when it is nothing of the sort. Although,historic 'reality' ie the history of people, might wake up to a meteorite. There is nothing
fixed as a formula.
As to dialectics, it takes the abstract/reality relationship and develops it dynamically so that our abstraction, becomes our best theory of reality so far. It jumps into the study of reality big style through the examination of opposing tendences in man and nature. The role of consciousness, is in part social psychology, in part a social philosophical studybut what is the purpose of any scientific method?
To refine our differentiations so as to advance our understanding.
Otherwise, I am not sure of the point you are trying to make.

[TheDerminator]

Peaccenick,

Materialist monism, is social Darwinism. It denies the change from natural socialised culuture, to human-made culture.
One reality?
Only in the sense that all reality is a subjective continuum, but within that continuum, there is still a change in the form of subjective reality, from the time human history begins.
You only see one form "the natural". It is complete social Darwinism and that is all your "materialist monism" represents.
It is a poverty of non-differentiation.
There is nothing as fixed a dogmatic mindset.
As for "dialiectics" you are still stuck in the "unity of the opposites" instead of beginning from an overview, of the objectifying concepts.
I am not accussing Marx of being a "philistine" only of misunderestanding the driving force of history through economic determinism. There is nothing "crude" in the volumes of Capital, but there is everything crude in "economism" and that is the bottom line.
When you say the economic is the natural-economic is the primary determination of all social consciousness, you are being a reductionist. As for "crudeness". Can any form of reductionism, be anything other than a bit crude?
Okay, it is not as crude as left-wing econimism, because your natural-economism has the political-cultural dynamic from Lenin and Gramsci, and you know you do not need to tell me, that they were both "orthodox Marxists."
Nevertheless, your "orthodox Marxism" is reductionist in not being able to understand the driving force of social and political consciousness in history.
Your stuff on "psychology" is real bottom drawer stuff. Social and political consciousness - pyschology. You know even functional economics is part of the superstructure, and this psychology stuff is even cruder than materialistic determinism.
Sure, in actual history, the psychology of humans plays an important role, because the people who lead history, have their own psychological foibles, but they are also driven by larger forces, which represent social and political consciousness with the various momevents, which they lead, and although, I do not accept the gospel according to Plekhanov on the role of the individual in history, he was right to some extent. Some leaders are more important than others. Some movements would have sprang up with or without this or that singular leader.
Paradoxically, not "Marxism". "Marxism" required Marx, and this is something that Plekhanov, never really dwelt upon.
There you have my point "Marxism". A form of consciousness, which could not exist without Marx, and we know it, because dialectical materialism was the creation of Marx, and not Engel's. You cannot deny the importance of Marx as a philosopher. As good as Engels was, he would be the first to admit that he was no Marx, and Marx made the leap into the "camera obscura" from Hegelian dialectics. Marx. Only Marx, and there is no guarantee, that Lenin or anyone else could have made the same leap, because it is a leap of profound original thought, and to rationalise the density of Hegel, is no mean task.
I have read some of the Philosophical Notebooks, and as good as Lenin was, he was no Karl Marx either, and you can see that from the difference in the depth of original thinking, when you compare it to the Theses on Feurbach. Lenin, was not unoriginal as his politicisation of "Marxist" orthodoxy proved, but Marx was on another level. Something, I am sure Lenin, would have admitted.
Your whole orthodoxy, hinges upon Marx. The form of conscious of Marx, and even if you add Engels, Lenin and Gramsci. Four men. What if these four men had never existed?
Kinds of sums up the poverty of Plekhanov. No Marx, Engels, no Lenin, no Gramsci. Think about that one.
Form of consciousness matters, and your "scientific socialism" would be primitive socialism, without just four people never existing.
Your "naturalism" and "psychology" is inadequate social Darwinism, and you are defending the indefensable.
I am the hammer my friend and you are the nail.
You carry on jumping up with dogma, and I will carry on hammering!

Rosa,
Spinoza, Heidegger? Do not believe everything you read my friend. The objective depending on a strong subjective? Bottom drawer philosophy.
The subjective is strongest in nature, when there is no objectification of reality. You see, you are maybe still believing in objective reality. peaccenicked still possesses this reflection theory too, but the continuum is a subjective continuum.
The one reality is though still entrenched in the form of reality created in human history. In my view BORG| society is a very different form of reality to primitive Communism, but orthodox "Marxists" think there is only one reality! Human society is essential to human reality! How could it be otherwise?
The "strong subjective"? How "strong" does he want the "subjective" to get?(?).
It is bottom drawer stuff, my friend. The fellow never understood, that human history is the slow process of gradually increasing the objective element, within subjective development process, and that this slow process, only becomes faster and stronger, when there is an objectifying method.
The purpose of all philosophy, is the objectification of human subjective development. If there is no method, you only have selfist opinion, and that is all these philosophers were giving. It is the mythology of objective reality.
What objective reality? You can objectify subjective reality, but how can subjective reality ever exist in actuality, when reality includes all that is chance and all that is relative as well as the necessary, and the absolutes. The chance ephemeral event is an every day occurence within reality. How can this subjective element ever become an objective element?
Time, space and matter infinitie continuums, and we are part of the infinite continuum of matter. That continuum, is a subjective continuum, but science shows we can objectify the natural continuum, and Marx showed we can objectify economic relations.
What else is there but an objectification process?
The subjective practical critique? The subjective discourse? Subjective deconstructionism? It is all sefism, my friend. All selfism.
There is only one way around selfism, and that is to improve upon the rationalisation of Hegelian logic. Marx turned this objectivist idealism into a practical methodology, and you have two choices my friend, either you say that all there can be in relation to the superstructure is subjective selfism or you say objective methodology can objectively analsye the superstructure.
Those are the only two options open, because the highest form reached by orthodox "Marxism" is Gramsci-Leninism, and Gramsci got it right. The theory is "praxis". Praxis is all you have, and praxis is subjective praxis. It contains no method for analysing the superstructure. Show me the method?
Where does the method exist?
Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks?
Never noticed that particular chapter.
No, the best Lenin does is to give sixteen points, and they do not amount to a method, and obviously if Marx only had an "ontological" method as he more or less admits in the introduction to Das Kapital, then that method was dedicated to analysing only different forms of being. How can an abstract concept be reduced to a form of being? Marx did not tackle the level of abstract ideas in consciousness, because he only saw an ontological outcome of his rationalisation of Hegel.
The unification of the opposites! Yep, Rosa. You completely grasped my objectication to the dogma. It sees no absolute polar opposites, and this lacks all-sidedness. You completely misunderstood, that I am not a unity of opposites dialectician.
In my view you can be equally dogmatic about the beauty polarisation of the opposites. You have to comprehend both concepts for all-sidedness, and even then your analysis must start from what I said somewhere in this thread about the the heart of the matter. The relationships of the opposites is only one part of methodology, and even the concept of "totality" has no real opposite. Non-totalty? Singularity? Shows no comprehension of the concepts.
The totality of a subject is the essence and the appearance. Non-totality would just be the essence or the appearance. Non-totality is a superfluous concept, because it is non-specific. What is the nature of the non-totality? You have to relate it to essence and apperance. Not necessarily, just one or the other, sometimes both, but because it is so non-specific it is a bit of a redundant term.
In reality, you would specify in relation to the particular subject under analysis. Cannot recall the concept of non-totality even in Hegel, and he had everything else! Including more than a few unnecessary "determinating" concepts.
Rosa, I do not understand where you got this misunderstanding from?
Was it my response to Red Celtic? "Nice unity of the opposites". Just meant I saw where it was coming from. I never thought it was "nice" for a nano-second.
Guess, it was sarcasm.

If it was in relation to the method of Marx, then I will answer that too, but only if that is source of your misunderstanding.

How can concensus be Hegemony?
Ah, my friend are you really that naive?
The concensus is only a concensus, because the new epoch presents its self as the natural conditions for society, and thus the concensus becomes a fait accompli once the epoch is established, otherwise the epoch would collapse.
Think of the BORG mindset.
"Freedom to own private property (meaning a business)
Freedom to accumulate capital.
Free trade. All for the freedom of the BORG individual.
Freedom of speech with the BORGS owning the mass media.
Freedom of choice, with BORG capital delimiting the choice.
Freedom to vote with universal sufferage. To vote for parties which suck up the asses of the BORGS or who represent the BORGS directly. The mindset is a dominating mindset.
It is a hegemony of ideas.
It is like as peaccenicked says "eat shit a billion flies cannot be wrong" and as Saffire says, "just because it is a right, does not make it right".
It is a concensus, but just because most people accept the concensus as natual does not mean that concensus has any social justice in its essence, and neither is there any social justice in the hegemony of ideas, because it is still the assimilation of the BORG mindset as a fait accompli into the head of the supposedly "self-styled independent" thinker.
Concensus without social justice, is a hegemony of ideas, because only when there is social justice do you have a concensus, based upon the equality of the human spirit.
May the Force be with U!

derminated

[peaccenicked]

I will post this in theory as el Che is asking the same
question. The title will be ''what is the scientific method?"

[Rosa]

ok, then my reply is overthere.