Slashdot Mirror

I didn't know. It's readily available in both German and English, though. Not sure why Gutenberg doesn't have it since they do have other stuff, maybe there is some legal reason for not including it. I admit I've only read the first few chapters, though, it really is quite heavy reading -- it takes an effort --, though it has aged well.

In fact, the idea that we need to "educate" humanity to be genius-saints is pure Marxism. It didn't turn out so well.

It's often the case that ideas attributed to Marxism are ideas that Marx specifically criticized.

In this case, from Theses on Feuerbach:

The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.

The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

--Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

If someone is suffering from severe physical pain, the best medical solution is to diagnose and treat the underlying pain, and not simply to give them a narcotic. On the other hand, if you cannot treat the underlying condition, it would be inhumane to cut off opiates.

"My friends, each of you is a single cell in the great body of the State. And today, that great body has purged itself of parasites. We have triumphed over the unprincipled dissemination of facts. The thugs and wreckers have been cast out. -- And the poisonous weeds of disinformation have been consigned to the dustbin of history. Let each and every cell rejoice! For today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directive! We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology, where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thought is a more powerful weapon than any fleet or army on Earth. We are one people. With one will. One resolve. One cause. -- Our enemies shall talk themselves to death. And we will bury them with their own confusion. -- We shall prevail!"

Yes, Apple fans, you missed the whole point of Apple's "1984" commercial. Apple's real plan was revealed, but you all thought it was a joke. You were wrong. That was the plan. There, you see the ideology behind the iPhone and the iPad. It took 25 years to bring it to fruition. The Information Purification Directive is now a reality.

Read the early writings of megalomaniacs to see what they intend. Early bin Laden, early Lenin, early Business Roundtable, early Jobs - they all revealed their master plan well in advance.

What you describe is not Socialism, it's Keynesian economics

No, Keynesian economics is not concerned with social programs or the basic needs of the citizens, it deals with the variable inputs that can be used to address fluctuations in consumption, employment, investment, etc.

Controlling the interest rates is Keynesian, building roads is Keynesian, lending capital to automotive manufacturers is Keynesian, but these are all temporary means of controlling variables in the economy to control serious recessions. Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, etc. are not Keynesian, they are Socialism.

What I am describing is a type of socialism more like that proposed by Fourier who suggested that in a socialist economy workers would be compensated based on there input, I am not describing the type of authoritarian socialism portrayed during the red scare and espoused by Babeuf, Engels, or anyone proposing communism.

I am not redefining Socialism the problem is you seem to only be aware of the type of Socialism that is meant to frighten people with visions of Gulags.

our standard of living is higher than ever because of the efficiency with which private goods can be produced in a capitalist economy

I'm not as familiar with the long term economic situation in Canada but I can tell you the standard of living in the United States is more than acceptable. So when I look at individual median incomes from the 1940s to today and see that, based on inflation measured by the CPI, in the United States the median income has decreased some 30% from the mid 1970s to today I wondered how this standard of living could be maintained.

The answer lies in personal debt. From the 1940s up to the 1970s personal debt in the United States was only a fraction of the GDP value, 30% or less, but after median individual income started to slide personal debt rapidly increased and today in the United States personal debt is equivalent to if not exceeding the national GDP. That is over $14 trillion in individual debt alone!

Of course people can say Marxist theory is insane, but the predominant economic theory is that everything is fine, markets correct themselves and all of that nonsense. So what is really more off-the-wall, the Marxists or the Panglossian head-in-the-sand economists of today who say everything is fine? This is from someone who has seen the US economy stagnating since 2000 (other than some slight growth in the mid-decade with the real estate bubble, which is currently popping).

I do think that's a very good point. Marx put it well 150 years ago:

The division of labour offers us the first example of how, as long as man remains in natural society, that is, as long as a cleavage exists between the particular and the common interest, as long, therefore, as activity is not voluntarily, but naturally, divided, manâ(TM)s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/25.htm

I am a fervent capitalist

Sorry, I just have to contribute my 2 cents regarding this statement.

In the old days, capitalists were the people who owned the means of production and simply profited from this ownership. The Forbes richest people in the world are the people we're talking about. In fact, these capitalists don't even need to actually support capitalism as a great ideal.

Now-a-days every layman who supports capitalism calls himself a capitalist. We lose an important distinction here, and I really think you might be better off by understanding this. Perhaps it will give you some more insight into each system and help you further refine your values.

In a very real sense, you are probably a socialist who happens to support capitalism. For example, do you pay Geico for car insurance (socialist) or do you own Berkshire-Hathaway (capitalist)? Do you invest in a 401k (socialist) or do you own your own investment firm (capitalist)? Do you fly commercial or in a private Lear jet? Do you go to work in the morning or do workers come to your building? I think you see where I'm going.

Anyway, I think it's an important distinction... more details here:

Capital

and here:

Capitalist

But you haven't addressed the point. Communism is about common ownership of the means of production and the destruction of the state. After the 1917 revolution there were democratic soviets; they were dismantled due to the ongoing civil war.

It's also quite telling that prominent socialists who've argued this were, in the past, persecuted and assassinated by Stalinists, most notably Leon Trotsky (who wasn't a saint by any margin).

So yea, a workers society with common ownership of the means of production and freedom and all that stuff. The USSR and China clearly don't qualify as that so therefore Communism hasn't ever really existed - never mind the fact that it was always supposed to have a "world historical" existence, and so some (I think the label is "Stagist") would argue that Communism can only possibly exist after global world capitalism.

There's lots to disagree with when it comes to Marx but it'd be nice if people disagreed with what he actually said and not a bunch of weird misconceptions.

Read up and then at least you can disagree in an informed manner.

Then around the mid-1800s, things flipped around when a number of thinkers (most notably Karl Marx) decided that the goals of Liberalism (maximum individual happiness and prosperity) could be achieved through the mechanisms of Conservatism (centralized power)

I always thought (from, you know, reading his work) that Marx was big on the dismantling of the state. His view of the final state of socialism was quite anarchistic, in fact. The totalitarian forms of "Marxism" that were starting to spring up in his day were criticised by him leading him to famously state "If that is Marxism, I am not a Marxist!"

Homeowners associations are pretty much the antithesis of socialist housing. As the GP said, at least go and Google before you go making comments.

I recommend Marxists.org, they have a great introductory section. Sorry for helping this thread go so far off topic, it's just that Marx really is one of the most influential yet misrepresented thinkers in human history. I don't mind if people disagree with his ideas (in fact disagreement is an integral part of Socialism, why the left never gets anywhere in fact!) it'd just be nice if people criticised Marx for things he actually believed and not the totalitarian ideas that have been labelled "Marxist" by people in power in a collective attempt to slander his name.

As Marx himself said, "if that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist"!

Homeowners associations are pretty much the antithesis of socialist housing. As the GP said, at least go and Google before you go making comments.

I recommend Marxists.org, they have a great introductory section. Sorry for helping this thread go so far off topic, it's just that Marx really is one of the most influential yet misrepresented thinkers in human history. I don't mind if people disagree with his ideas (in fact disagreement is an integral part of Socialism, why the left never gets anywhere in fact!) it'd just be nice if people criticised Marx for things he actually believed and not the totalitarian ideas that have been labelled "Marxist" by people in power in a collective attempt to slander his name.

As Marx himself said, "if that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist"!

Marxist Communism has been the one of the most influential ideological developments of the past 200 years, yet very few Americans actually know anything about Communist ideology. Americans do have many misconceptions about Communism however, which have been intentionally promoted by American leadership. I say influential for a reason, because the 20th century was largely defined by the struggle between capitalism and communism. Communism is so influential because even capitalist countries like America were defined in the 20th century by their anti-Communist policies, and because communism was a critical factor in the development of the climate that led to World War II, as fascism itself developed in opposition to communism. There are three basic major socialist ideologies: Socialism, Anarchism, and Communism. These are all regarded as forms of socialism. Interestingly, socialism emerged as feudalism began to breakdown. Communist movements originally developed among the conservative feudal peasants and craftsmen. Many of the guilds from feudal times were workers' organizations that lived communal lifestyles. As the industrial revolutions began these communal lifestyles became jeopardized. Anarchist and Communist ideology were very similar at this point. In the 1700s, both of these movements were dominated by peasant farmers and guilds. More about the roots of Anarchism and Communism: http://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/index.htm Socialist ideology was a little more elitist and was more dominated by middle-class intellectuals and even some aristocrats. The early Communists and Anarchists sought to preserve the communal lands and communal lifestyle, but also sought to overthrow the feudal aristocracy to establish democracy, this made them both progressive and conservative. The early Socialists were a little more progressive and more into technological advance. The early communists were like the Amish in many ways. The Amish are an enduring holdover from the early communist movements. For more on the Amish see: http://people.howstuffworks.com/amish.htm Many of these groups opposed progress, and some participated in riots, the destruction of industrial machines, and the sabotage of factories. This was done because the new industrial forms of production were undermining rural life and were putting millions of craftsmen out of work by making their skills no longer valuable. Then Karl Marx came along in the mid 1800s and Marx denounced the "utopian socialism" and anti-progress communism of his day. Marx pointed out that capitalism was progressive because it represented an improvement in production. Marx hailed capitalism's triumph as a victory over feudalism. Marx said that industrialization was a good thing and that it should be embraced, that instead of opposing the progress of industrialization the goal should be to end wage-labor, and that the new industrial systems should be converted to communal property, much like the lands had been communal property just some 50 or 100 years prior. This changed the communist movement from being anti-technology to pro-technology, and led to the development of what most people recognize today as "Communist ideology". The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, and can be found here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm It is important to distinguish the difference between Communism and Marxism. Marxism is basically a system of analysis, and a way to view the world. Communism, on the other hand, is basically a political movement, a form of government, a condition of society. It is also important to understand the difference between "communism" and the Communist Party. No country has ever had a communist system of government. The countries that we call "Communist" are countries

Marxist Communism has been the one of the most influential ideological developments of the past 200 years, yet very few Americans actually know anything about Communist ideology. Americans do have many misconceptions about Communism however, which have been intentionally promoted by American leadership. I say influential for a reason, because the 20th century was largely defined by the struggle between capitalism and communism. Communism is so influential because even capitalist countries like America were defined in the 20th century by their anti-Communist policies, and because communism was a critical factor in the development of the climate that led to World War II, as fascism itself developed in opposition to communism. There are three basic major socialist ideologies: Socialism, Anarchism, and Communism. These are all regarded as forms of socialism. Interestingly, socialism emerged as feudalism began to breakdown. Communist movements originally developed among the conservative feudal peasants and craftsmen. Many of the guilds from feudal times were workers' organizations that lived communal lifestyles. As the industrial revolutions began these communal lifestyles became jeopardized. Anarchist and Communist ideology were very similar at this point. In the 1700s, both of these movements were dominated by peasant farmers and guilds. More about the roots of Anarchism and Communism: http://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/index.htm Socialist ideology was a little more elitist and was more dominated by middle-class intellectuals and even some aristocrats. The early Communists and Anarchists sought to preserve the communal lands and communal lifestyle, but also sought to overthrow the feudal aristocracy to establish democracy, this made them both progressive and conservative. The early Socialists were a little more progressive and more into technological advance. The early communists were like the Amish in many ways. The Amish are an enduring holdover from the early communist movements. For more on the Amish see: http://people.howstuffworks.com/amish.htm Many of these groups opposed progress, and some participated in riots, the destruction of industrial machines, and the sabotage of factories. This was done because the new industrial forms of production were undermining rural life and were putting millions of craftsmen out of work by making their skills no longer valuable. Then Karl Marx came along in the mid 1800s and Marx denounced the "utopian socialism" and anti-progress communism of his day. Marx pointed out that capitalism was progressive because it represented an improvement in production. Marx hailed capitalism's triumph as a victory over feudalism. Marx said that industrialization was a good thing and that it should be embraced, that instead of opposing the progress of industrialization the goal should be to end wage-labor, and that the new industrial systems should be converted to communal property, much like the lands had been communal property just some 50 or 100 years prior. This changed the communist movement from being anti-technology to pro-technology, and led to the development of what most people recognize today as "Communist ideology". The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, and can be found here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm It is important to distinguish the difference between Communism and Marxism. Marxism is basically a system of analysis, and a way to view the world. Communism, on the other hand, is basically a political movement, a form of government, a condition of society. It is also important to understand the difference between "communism" and the Communist Party. No country has ever had a communist system of government. The countries that we call "Communist" are countries

"It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future,..." Hume

Communism in its true form is more like the Amish. Start reading your Marx and Engels - the roots of Anarchism and Communism: http://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/index.htm
early Communists and Anarchists sought to preserve the communal lands and communal lifestyle, but also sought to overthrow the feudal aristocracy to establish democracy, this made them both progressive and conservative. more on the Amish see: http://people.howstuffworks.com/amish.htm

Many of these groups opposed progress, and some participated in riots, the destruction of industrial machines, and the sabotage of factories. This was done because the new industrial forms of production were undermining rural life and were putting millions of craftsmen out of work by making their skills no longer valuable. Then Karl Marx came along in the mid 1800s and Marx denounced the "utopian socialism" and anti-progress communism of his day. Marx pointed out that capitalism was progressive because it represented an improvement in production. Marx hailed capitalism's triumph as a victory over feudalism. Marx said that industrialization was a good thing and that it should be embraced, that instead of opposing the progress of industrialization the goal should be to end wage-labor, and that the new industrial systems should be converted to communal property, much like the lands had been communal property just some 50 or 100 years prior. This changed the communist movement from being anti-technology to pro-technology, and led to the development of what most people recognize today as "Communist ideology". The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, and can be found here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm It is important to distinguish the difference between Communism and Marxism. Marxism is basically a system of analysis, and a way to view the world. Communism, on the other hand, is basically a political movement, a form of government, a condition of society. It is also important to understand the difference between "communism" and the Communist Party. No country has ever had a communist system of government. The countries that we call "Communist" are countries where the dominant political party was/is the Communist Party. Communist Parties are generally political parties who have working towards achieving "communism" as part of their party platform. However, we all know the maxims on power and its corrupting allure.

Communism in its true form is more like the Amish. Start reading your Marx and Engels - the roots of Anarchism and Communism: http://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/index.htm
early Communists and Anarchists sought to preserve the communal lands and communal lifestyle, but also sought to overthrow the feudal aristocracy to establish democracy, this made them both progressive and conservative. more on the Amish see: http://people.howstuffworks.com/amish.htm

Many of these groups opposed progress, and some participated in riots, the destruction of industrial machines, and the sabotage of factories. This was done because the new industrial forms of production were undermining rural life and were putting millions of craftsmen out of work by making their skills no longer valuable. Then Karl Marx came along in the mid 1800s and Marx denounced the "utopian socialism" and anti-progress communism of his day. Marx pointed out that capitalism was progressive because it represented an improvement in production. Marx hailed capitalism's triumph as a victory over feudalism. Marx said that industrialization was a good thing and that it should be embraced, that instead of opposing the progress of industrialization the goal should be to end wage-labor, and that the new industrial systems should be converted to communal property, much like the lands had been communal property just some 50 or 100 years prior. This changed the communist movement from being anti-technology to pro-technology, and led to the development of what most people recognize today as "Communist ideology". The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, and can be found here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm It is important to distinguish the difference between Communism and Marxism. Marxism is basically a system of analysis, and a way to view the world. Communism, on the other hand, is basically a political movement, a form of government, a condition of society. It is also important to understand the difference between "communism" and the Communist Party. No country has ever had a communist system of government. The countries that we call "Communist" are countries where the dominant political party was/is the Communist Party. Communist Parties are generally political parties who have working towards achieving "communism" as part of their party platform. However, we all know the maxims on power and its corrupting allure.

TFA is a take on Feyerabend's notion that science doesn't - and shouldn't - use any kind of method or methodology to do research:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerabe.htm

Feyerabend completely rejected the idea that scientists actually use the scientific method and essentially stated that all scientific theories are baseless, ad-hoc explanations of raw data that will be thrown out completely when new data incompatible with those theories comes along. Feyerabend is really popular with some 'philosophers of science' who'd like to see scientists taken down a peg or two, but he isn't really taken seriously by anyone else. Hell, he even went so far as to say that astrology was as valid as science:

Feyerabend described science as being essentially anarchistic, obsessed with its own mythology, and as making claims to truth well beyond its actual capacity. He was especially indignant about the condescending attitudes of many scientists towards alternative traditions. For example, he thought that negative opinions about astrology and the effectivity of rain dances were not justified by scientific research, and dismissed the predominantly negative attitudes of scientists towards such phenomena as elitist or racist. In his opinion, science has become a repressing ideology, even though it arguably started as a liberating movement. Feyerabend thought that a pluralistic society should be protected from being influenced too much by science, just as it is protected from other ideologies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend#Role_of_science_in_society

The idea put forward in TFA that we could eventually dispense with models completely and just interpret data has its roots in this type of radical thought. The real crux of TFA is this:

Learning to use a "computer" of this scale may be challenging. But the opportunity is great: The new availability of huge amounts of data, along with the statistical tools to crunch these numbers, offers a whole new way of understanding the world. Correlation supersedes causation, and science can advance even without coherent models, unified theories, or really any mechanistic explanation at all.

Anyone familiar with the fallacy of equating correlation and causation can immediately see one glaring problem with the "Correlation supersedes causation" statement. No matter how much data we have to analyze, correlation and causation will always remain two separate concepts and it will always be an error of reasoning to confuse them.

The rest of his comment is suggesting that, with enough data, we won't need to use models anymore to understand the world. Instead, we'll just be able to look at an essentially infinity large data set that will be examined with essentially infinite processing power and we'll be able to predict the outcomes of any action or set of actions without having to have any sort of understanding of 'why' or 'how' those actions are taking place. TFA is saying that we can reduce science to nothing more than an elaborate method of making predictions and dispense entirely with the notion of even trying to understand the underlying mechanism that explains why those predictions do or don't work. Naturally, this is ridiculous. Firstly, because it ignores the fact that those underlying mechanisms *do* exist - even if our knowledge of them is imperfect or incomplete. Secondly, because it would require unlimited data and processing power to even approach being workable. Without a complete data set for every action and every outcome of every action, this kind of prediction without models can't work on the universal scale that TFA is talking about. That amount of data will NEVER exist. It just isn't possible to determine the outcome of all actions and events. It's absu

1. Demand for useless things, i was not talking about a demand for useless things but advertisment that increases the demand for those useless things. corporations would not pay for advertising (in itself useless) if it would not increase the demand for the uselss things.

2. War and crisis see what marx whrites about this in the communist manifesto:

In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity -- the epidemic of over- production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed. And why? Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and no sooner do they overcome these fetters than they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." - Karl Marx

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm

Pull your head out of your math books once in a while and read something. You might learn. I'm not making this stuff up.

this isn't a class struggle. It's Big Business...

What exactly do you think "class struggle" is?

READ IT DUMBASSES
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

United forever in friendship and labour,
Our mighty republics will ever endure.
The great Soviet Union will live through the ages.
The dream of a people their fortress secure.

Long live our Soviet Motherland, built by the people's mighty hand.
Long live our People, united and free.
Strong in our friendship tried by fire. Long may our crimson flag inspire,
Shining in glory for all men to see.

Music

First of all, the problem of corruption is not specific to capitalism. Corruption is older than capitalism, and there is no country with a non-captitalistic economic system where corruption is not a very significant problem.

this is the problem that openiso.org will have to face. it exists within a world where corruption is the norm. like adorno says: There is no right life in the wrong one. (mina moralila, 19)

the other problem of course is: if you want to change the system you have to start somewhere. you have to use the tools available here and now. it has to be put forward by the people withing the here and now. you can not just "imagine" a better world (that would result in "idealism" and "ideology") you have to create it "in practice". the free software movement is a good example for how it could work. it takes the tools of what is available (e.g. copyright) and turns them against them self. it is not straight forward anti-capitalist so it can exist and grow within the current society, but it is a-capitalist enough to breed a system that works within different rules then that dictated by the regime of private property.

There are fascinating historic accounts of so-called "revivals" of Christian religion which show that faith in Jesus Christ, when combined with the right kind of prayer, does in fact have the effect of very dramatically changing human nature for the better.

greetings from vienna, austria,
mond.

Please learn what communism actually is before you say it is authoritarian.

"Walter Benjamin wrote that photographs could not be considered art, because they were reproductions of the work, and no longer had the "aura" that true art contained."

"The nineteenth-century dispute as to the artistic value of painting versus photography today seems devious and confused. This does not diminish its importance, however; if anything, it underlines it. The dispute was in fact the symptom of a historical transformation the universal impact of which was not realized by either of the rivals. When the age of mechanical reproduction separated art from its basis in cult, the semblance of its autonomy disappeared forever. The resulting change in the function of art transcended the perspective of the century; for a long time it even escaped that of the twentieth century, which experienced the development of the film. Earlier much futile thought had been devoted to the question of whether photography is an art. The primary question - whether the very invention of photography had not transformed the entire nature of art - was not raised. Soon the film theoreticians asked the same ill-considered question with regard to the film. But the difficulties which photography caused traditional aesthetics were mere child's play as compared to those raised by the film."

The threat of science to freedom is a classic theme of Feyerabend's, for example. I don't have anything to say better than what he does, so go read up. (For those of you too lazy to read actualy books, try this or this.)

Note that this does not mean "science is an evil that we must eradicate"; it means "science is not the panacea that its most ardent supporters would like us to believe."

There is a serious tendency towards capitalism among the well-to-do peasants. This tendency will become rampant if we in the slightest way neglect political work among the peasants during the co-operative movement and for a very long period after.

The spontaneous forces of capitalism have been steadily growing in the countryside in recent years, with new rich peasants springing up everywhere and many well-to-do middle peasants striving to become rich peasants. On the other hand, many poor peasants are still living in poverty for lack of sufficient means of production, with some in debt and others selling or renting out their land. If this tendency goes unchecked, the polarization in the countryside will inevitably be aggravated day by day. Those peasants who lose their land and those who remain in poverty will complain that we are doing nothing to save them from ruin or to help them overcome their difficulties. Nor will the well-to-do middle peasants who are heading in the capitalist direction be pleased with us, for we shall never be able to satisfy their demands unless we intend to take the capitalist road. Can the worker-peasant alliance continue to stand him in these circumstances? Obviously not! There is no solution to this problem except on a new basis. And that means to bring about, step by step, the socialist transformation of the whole of agriculture simultaneously with the gradual realization of socialist industrialization and the socialist transformation of handicrafts and capitalist industry and commerce; in other words, it means to carry out co-operation and eliminate the rich-peasant economy and the individual economy in the countryside so that all the rural people will become increasingly well off together. We maintain that this is the only way to consolidate the worker-peasant alliance.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

The shooting of a film, especially of a sound film, affords a spectacle unimaginable anywhere at any time before this. It presents a process in which it is impossible to assign to a spectator a viewpoint which would exclude from the actual scene such extraneous accessories as camera equipment, lighting machinery, staff assistants, etc. - unless his eye were on a line parallel with the lens. This circumstance, more than any other, renders superficial and insignificant any possible similarity between a scene in the studio and one on the stage. In the theater one is well aware of the place from which the play cannot immediately be detected as illusionary. There is no such place for the movie scene that is being shot. Its illusionary nature is that of the second degree, the result of cutting. That is to say, in the studio the mechanical equipment has penetrated so deeply into reality that its pure aspect freed from the foreign substance of equipment is the result of a special procedure, namely, the shooting by the specially adjusted camera and the mounting of the shot together with other similar ones. The equipment-free aspect of reality here has become the height of artifice...The painter maintains in his work a natural distance from reality, the cameraman penetrates deeply into its web. There is a tremendous difference between the pictures they obtain. That of the painter is a total one, that of the cameraman consists of multiple fragments which are assembled under a new law. Thus, for contemporary man the representation of reality by the film is incomparably more significant than that of the painter, since it offers, precisely because of the thoroughgoing permeation of reality with mechanical equipment, an aspect of reality which is free of all equipment. And that is what one is entitled to ask from a work of art.

Nah. You're being too democratic, ya gotta be more Nietzsche. Laws are created and enforced by the people with the power. If a law isn't in the interest of the ruling class then it will be ignored.. until such time that it actually starts affecting them, then it will be brutally enforced. No matter how much we might care to think so, few of us living in societies where the majority control the power. We pretend that's the case, but unfortunately the majority of us are more than willing to hand the power over to whoever doesn't rock the boat too much.

While the Wikipedia entry counts China as the site of first domestication of pigs, recent mDNA research shows that multiple Eurasian sites first domesticated the pig. And that the European, not Asian, wild animal was the ancestor of today's pigs.

I'm still searching for the citation I read about a decade ago exploring an alleged simultaneous Korean/Peruvian first domestication of pigs, and (I more hazily recall) chickens. As I said, another story, or apparently stories.

Other "marxists" had their own reports of agriculture origins.

China was certainly the source of quite a bit of innovation, and likely will be again now that feudalism's intellectual/industrial stagnation is probably behind it. But of course "China" is a single word meaning many things, many of which are mutually exclusive.

Wikipedia credits the 1230s Koreans with "the first iron printing press" and 1040s China with "the first moveable type". But after a thousand years, the first inventions might be long gone and forgotten, and their geographical origin with them. No DNA traces left, just culturcentric claims to invention. At least they didn't invent the "perpetual patent".

From TFS:

So, as we begin our discussion, then begin with that simple reminder: it's all of us who own the airwaves.

A quaint sentiment, indeed, that the private citizen is still sovereign; I'm afraid, however, that the Bolshevization of North America is well underway, and that more violent notions will be required to reverse it.

The Bolshevization of North America consists above all in:

1. the centralization of media, agitation and propaganda;
2. ubiquitous surveillance;
3. the nanny state.

Eminent domain, if anything, should prove how highly our gubernatores esteem “ownership.*”

_____________
* Quod autem vide: DRM and fair use.

So true, I recently read a piece by Engel's from 1891 where he took a pot shot at the US for having a corrupt government with two parties that are really two sides of the same coin. It's nothing new. (It goes without saying that anything written by Engels should be taken with at least a few grains of salt.)

Ah, I found an online copy of Engel's 1891 postscript to Marx's The Civil War in France :

Nowhere do "politicians" form a more separate, powerful section of the nation than in North America. There, each of the two great parties which alternately succeed each other in power is itself in turn controlled by people who make a business of politics, who speculate on seats in the legislative assemblies of the Union as well as of the separate states, or who make a living by carrying on agitation for their party and on its victory are rewarded with positions.

It is well known that the Americans have been striving for 30 years to shake off this yoke, which has become intolerable, and that in spite of all they can do they continue to stink ever deeper in this swamp of corruption. It is precisely in America that we see best how there takes place this process of the state power making itself independent in relation to society, whose mere instrument it was originally intended to be. Here there exists no dynasty, no nobility, no standing army, beyond the few men keeping watch on the Indians, no bureaucracy with permanent posts or the right to pensions. and nevertheless we find here two great gangs of political speculators, who alternately take possession of the state power and exploit it by the most corrupt means and for the most corrupt ends -- and the nation is powerless against these two great cartels of politicians, who are ostensibly its servants, but in reality exploit and plunder it.

the government should not support science education programs that 'include concepts that are derived from ideology,' an apparent reference to creationism and its ideological cousin, intelligent design.

• Capital, Volume I: The Process of Production of Capital
• Capital, Volume II: The Process of Circulation of Capital
• Capital, Volume III: The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole
• Capital, Volume IV: Theories of Surplus Value

• Capital, Volume I: The Process of Production of Capital
• Capital, Volume II: The Process of Circulation of Capital
• Capital, Volume III: The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole
• Capital, Volume IV: Theories of Surplus Value

• Capital, Volume I: The Process of Production of Capital
• Capital, Volume II: The Process of Circulation of Capital
• Capital, Volume III: The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole
• Capital, Volume IV: Theories of Surplus Value

• Capital, Volume I: The Process of Production of Capital
• Capital, Volume II: The Process of Circulation of Capital
• Capital, Volume III: The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole
• Capital, Volume IV: Theories of Surplus Value

This discussion sounds a lot like the divisiion between Marx's authoritarian communism and Bakunin's libertarian socialism

Funny, it would make alot more sense if you had said "Marx's authoritarian socialism and Bakunin's libertarian communism." I mean, if we're going to make a disctinction between "socialism" and "communism" in the somewhat more classical senses of the terms, then "authoritarian communism" is an oxymoron.

But anyway, you're right. I was thinking the same thing. However, in Marxist theory authority exists to exert the dominance of one class (or more) over another (or more). There are no classes in a free software project, only differences in opinion, skill and expertise. The need for authority in a project like Debian, then, has no simple explanation in Marxist terms and your analogy starts to fall apart. But the old debate would still prove very enlightening to anyone interested in this subject.

Check these places:
Marx and Engels on Anarchism
Marxism, Freedom and the State by Mikhail Bakunin

But wait a second here... I thought politicians were respected experts in their field? I mean, aren't they the ones we choose to run things because the rest of us are too dumb to?

Well, I think that is BS and subscribe more to the position of CLR James. I definately recomend reading his pamphlet Every Cook Can Govern. And frankly, a lot of the regular schmucks I know seem more intelligent, more level headed, less power hungry and money greedy than your average politician... but that's just me.

Someone suggested to search for "guns" on google, but guns alone are useless without a theory of revolution, so here it is: Lenin's The State and Revolution. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/s taterev/

Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, by Frederick Engels

Doc Ruby is a well-known shill for GreenPeace. You can't believe a word he says. Read about their Communist policies here - http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/co mmunist-manifesto/ .

You will not be surprised to find that he is funded by North Korea and Cuba to act against the interests of the US!

In other news, the Surgeon General has determined that smoking causes terrorism and pedophilia.

'Tis a pity he didn't join the other Marx brothers in the entertainment industry. He would have been a great comedic asset to Groucho and company. ;)

M. Proudhon has the misfortune of being peculiarly misunderstood in Europe. In France, he has the right to be a bad economist, because he is reputed to be a good German philosopher. In Germany, he has the right to be a bad philosopher, because he is reputed to be one of the ablest French economists. Being both German and economist at the same time, we desire to protest against this double error.

The reader will understand that in this thankless task we have often had to abandon our criticism of M. Proudhon in order to criticize German philosophy, and at the same time to give some observations on political economy.

No. Read Lenin's The State and Revolution. The "withering away of the state" is the ultimate goal of communism.

You could (correctly) argue that Lenin doesn't provide the only definition or vision of communism, but his is a widely-held one and formative of many derivatives.

First of all, one must understand that slaves are capital, not labour. So is land. The fact is that the slave owning south had most of the capital on the United States, and it was distributed more widely among the (white) population. Certainly not all white familes owned slaves (mine did). However, practically all of them owned land. and after the introduction of the cotton gin, which made slavery even more profitable, there was an economic boom in the south. it wasn't particularly industrial, but it fed the industrial revolution in Britian. Further, property values skyrocketted at that time, and not just the plantations. even the small family farms dodubled in value in a rather short time. And again, this was a more widely distributed boom than ever happened in the North with free labour and capitalism. Frankly, free labour and capitalism are more evil than slavery in that they foster the conditions necessary to create to so-called Proletariate that liberals like to whinge about, and even Marx wrote so (that it was worse than slavery; proletarianes having no gurantee of existance, unlike sharecroppers, serfs, or slaves): http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/pri n-com.htm , and not just Marx, but Hilaire Belloc, too, in "The Servile State." My economic assertions on the South can be found in this book entitled "Confederate States of America: What if the South Had won the Civil War?" it's in the first couple of chapters covering the history priort to the conflict. I can't find where I layed it just this second or i'd give further information.