Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Marx sure does spew him some drivel 44

What hooey:

When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

Yeah, the Hindus and Buddhists are all, "Wut?"
"When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas" is a hoot because at least a good chunk of the Enlightenment thinkers considered themselves Christian.
"...feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie." Yeah, there was that extended Bourgeoisgeddon, to roughly the extent the ancient world had "death throes". Charlemagne thought he was just reforming Latin, and would have balked at the idea of these "death throes" that Marx is making up. It sounds as though Marx may have bought off on Edward Gibbon's biases, directly or not.
This is to say nothing of my contempt for Marx's view of private property. What a used car salesman. The Communist vanguard inevitably, invariably, with enough irony to float an Iowa-class battleship, becomes the aristocracy standing in the ashes of the bourgeoisie. The only thing to be done with this foolishness is to reject it, and haul it out with the kids for a cautionary tale about liars.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Marx sure does spew him some drivel

Comments Filter:
  • Marat/Sade can be hard to watch, but the story is largely true. And in both cases, the ending is perfect.

    • I flipped through a couple of pages of de Sade in the book store. Dare I say it? Decadence is a bore, making dogs of men.
      • Like many things, you won't understand until you see them through. Maybe you're just too busy...

        • "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
          Albert Einstein []
          • Explanations, simple or complex, are useless to those who don't want to hear..

            Your post is kinda funny when what I hear from you are accusations of being "simplistic".

            • So either you can't articulate "this thing", or you say we're all "just animals" (which I find an overly simplistic cop-out, as it doesn't seem to cover this whole "self-awareness" thing).
              Or do you suppose that self-awareness, too, is mere phantasm, and life truly is turtles all the way down?
              • by Arker ( 91948 )
                You really dont think other animals have self-awareness?
                • Not at the "hey, let's get into endless debates on /. level", no.
                  • by Arker ( 91948 )
                    Their lack of abilities in the area of symbol manipulation (i.e. language) is a clear distinction, and I dont believe in animal rights as a result, however growing up on a farm with lots of animals around I never doubted they were self aware, meaning conscious of themselves, their own existence, their own pains and joys.
                    • Concur, but I'm not ready to become a vegetarian about it.
                    • by Arker ( 91948 )
                      I eat (certain) animals, I draw the line at cruelty though. I believe biblical slaughter methods were designed to avoid [] cruelty in our food chain and I am apparently a huge pain in the butt to cook for because I care about such things.
                    • I'm generally ignorant of these details. While one can see much (historical, if not contemporary) practical value in the various dietary/slaughter restrictions, there is this common problem with humanity: the means can become the end.
                      It's not always clear whether people are carrying out rituals for their genuine mystical value, or just doing religious push-ups. :-)
                    • I thought the "no roast beef and cheese" rule was derived from the bit about "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk. []" I've always understood that as a contemporary pagan reference.

                      And whatever the extent of the deeper reasons, it's clear that cruelty to animals is simply something we are advised not to engage in, particularly in the production of our food.

                      I have no problem with that idea.

                    • I'd never heard of [] as such. Gleaning from the Gospels, the line on the Sadducees I'd heard was that they were the over-educated, liberal poofs of their day, whereas the Pharisees, while mired in legalism, were relatively less off-course.
                      Of course, holding to the notion that Jesus is the Messiah as I do, I don't buy off that the New Testament is anything less than the fulfillment of the Tanakh. That said, no offense is taken, and I'll cheerfully take any educatio
                    • Highfalutin "beautiful people" living the ghetto culture. You know? Like really, WTF? Turf wars and con games all the way down...

                    • Now, all cultures are morally equivalent, or so the Progressives have told us. So you just check your privilege and walk back that condescension about "ghetto culture" Right. Friggin'. Now. mister.
  • I haven't seen you write anything that you couldn't have written two weeks ago. Your complete absence of comprehension leaves me to strongly question whether you are reading it at all.
    • I'm reading it, for a "serious skim" values of read.
      What do you wan't? The man was, at best, a false prophet. Consider:
      and see where this style of assertion has taken mankind.
      • Again, nothing that you have written since claiming to have started reading it would have been impossible for you to have written two weeks ago when you were still bragging about having never read it. If you are actually reading it, why are you intentionally doing such an awful job of reading it? You clearly are not learning anything from the text, you might as well be reading more conservative blogs instead.
        • If it's objectively crap, and I'm calling it out as such, what difference, at this point, does it make?
          Whether he was unhinged or just one of history's most colossal trolls makes little empirical difference, does it?
          • But in what way are you qualified to call something crap when you haven't actually read it? Granted, that hasn't stopped you in the past, but nonetheless it is rather absurd. I don't discard the conservative books that you keep trying to sell me through Amazon as crap if I haven't read them, what qualifies you to discard pieces that you haven't read as crap?
            • I've read half, and seen the historical effects of these ideas. How much dirty diaper smell do YOU need for a diagnosis, mister?
              "what qualifies you"
              Gosh, I don't know, the First Amendment? Common sense? A hearty contempt for "credential-itis"?
              • I've read half, and seen the historical effects of these ideas.

                Except you haven't. You admitted you have been skimming it, and your "analysis" of it suggests that may be giving you too much credit. If your goal was to understand Communism you are doing yourself no favors.

                That said, it does not appear you ever wanted to understand Communism anyways.

                How much dirty diaper smell do YOU need for a diagnosis, mister?

                I challenged you to think before, and you declined. You seem to be digging in your heels on that decision.

                • What is there to understand about Communism, then? It seems to posit an external, idealized view of humanity, while eschewing the internal renewal that can only come from the Holy Spirit. Thus, it is false and doomed, as it has played out every time some used car salesman has swindled people into trying it.
                  What part of "it's totally jacked up" do you think I fail to grasp?
                  • That was pretty much a rehash of what you were saying weeks ago when you were still proud of not reading The Communist Manifesto. In other words you are supporting the hypothesis that at the very least if you did read it you gained absolutely nothing from it (and hence did not comprehend the document in the slightest) or perhaps did not actually read it at all.
                    • What. Is. There. To. Gain. From. This. Colon. Dump?
                    • When you approach something with hatred and disdain you will almost certainly walk away from it the same.

                      What did you want to gain from it, and why are you not gaining it? The answer to the latter is in your mirror. The answer to the former I'm not sure even you know.
                    • What if it is worthy of utter disdain?

                      What did you want to gain from it, and why are you not gaining it?

                      I wanted some insight into the human condition. What I got was the precursor to BHO's 2012 campaign against Romney.

                    • What if it is worthy of utter disdain?

                      How can you conclude that without reading it? Just because you assume (sans fact, as per your most favored m.o.) that communism is TEH EEEEVIL, doesn't mean that the book written by Marx on the matter is actually connected to any of your assumptions on the matter.

                      What did you want to gain from it, and why are you not gaining it?

                      I wanted some insight into the human condition

                      This seems counter to your oft-repeated bits about people "scaling" (or not). Why would you read the writings of one man - who mind you was well past dead long before Lenin lead the Soviets in a strange contortion (and eventual complete discard

                    • So you have set yourself up for a non-falsifiable proposition here: "Smitty disagrees with Marx, because he didn't read Karl closely enough."
                      Great work.
                    • Actually, you so far haven't displayed any functional understanding of Communism or Communist ideals. Hence the correct statement would be that you haven't shown yourself to have read Marx at all.

                      Where would you like to move the goalposts to now? Do you have any recollection to where they were originally before you started moving them?
                    • So what you seem to say is that falling short of agreeing with Marx == not having read him. Again, you're mostly brilliant, except the silly part, which is pretty much all of your position.
                    • So what you seem to say is that falling short of agreeing with Marx == not having read him.

                      You are utterly wrong on that. You are free to read something and disagree with it. You are even free to disagree with what you don't read. However when you refuse to read something, and then parade about pretending to be an expert on it, it is very likely that you will make yourself look foolish (which you have done repeatedly on this case in particular).

                      There is nothing at all wrong with disagreeing with Marx. What is absurd is you continuing to claim to be knowledgeable on Communism while refusi

                    • pretending to be an expert on it

                      You just watch your filthy mouth there, you. ;-)

Exceptions prove the rule, and wreck the budget. -- Miller