Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[Seth]

It's amazing, you read Marx and mistake what "socialism" means, and you call yourself a libbo and you don't even know who Rothbard is.

Er, ad hominem tu quoque fallacy there bud.

I know exactly what socialism is because Marx explained it quite well. It's an intermediate but necessary stage in the development of utopian communism and was never contemplated nor intended as a permanent form of government for reasons which even that fuckwit Marx understood.

[pErvinalia]

No tu quoque fallacy there, nor an ad hominem, as I am commenting on your posts on socialism on the various forums. You don't understand that 'Marxism' is a subset of 'Socialism'. That's where you go so horribly wrong.

[Seth]

No tu quoque fallacy there, nor an ad hominem, as I am commenting on your posts on socialism on the various forums. You don't understand that 'Marxism' is a subset of 'Socialism'. That's where you go so horribly wrong.

Not really. It may have been so once upon a time, but since Marx came along all socialist societies now have their roots in the Marxist dialectic and are therefore the progeny of Marxism.

[pErvinalia]

Absolute bullshit. Marxism, more than anything else, is a particular theoretical pseudo-scientific framework. You don't have to subscribe to any of that crap to be a socialist. Socialism existed well before Marx came up with his mad theories, and Marxism is a TINY political faction these days. You really have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

[Hermit]

It must be multi-volumed? My copy (that I haven't read yet) is only regular book size. 400 odd pages?

Have a look at the preface. You'll very likely find that your edition has been condensed by Robert C. Tucker or someone like him. Das Kapital came out in three volumes, about 900, 500 and 800 pages respectively. There actually were several editions even before Marx died, and Engels kept reworking the text right up to his own death. I wouldn't dream of reading any of it unless the portions were offered by Marx scholars of the R. C. Tucker calibre. My recommendation for an introduction of Marxism generally is his Marx Engels Reader. Rounding this out, maybe some Plekhanov and Trotzky. I'm sure you'll find intelligent critiques from capitalist points of view easily enough on your own.

[pErvinalia]

Just checked - It's "An abridged edition" edited with notes by David McLellan Oxford University Press. About 500 pages. I'll start reading it next decade...

[Forty Two]

I love it when atheists know the bible better than Christians!

I find that an interesting and compelling quantum of evidence of the religiosity of Atheists. If Atheists actually have "no belief" about God, why do they spend so much time studying the word of God and arguing about it?

Y'all sound like Yeshiva boys in your dedication to theology.

Well, many of the religious texts in the world are among the oldest writings, and therefore to be an educated person one would want to have some familiarity with such ancient texts. It's the same reason I've read the poetic and prose Eddas, bunches of Norse Sagas, the Baghavad Gita, the Tao Te Chingg, the I'Ching, the Book of Mormom, Protestent, Catholic, Jewish, and other Bibles, the Koran, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and tons of other ancient writings. It always felt to me, when I was reading something, that it was like a direct communication to another person, who existed somewhere in the distant past. A writer, 1,000, 2,000, or 3,000 years ago is sitting at a table somewhere, quill or stylus in hand, placing his thoughts down and communicating directly with readers centuries and thousands of years down the road....

So, reason number one is that, being interested in learning, then it is important to read the material that exists try to understand the context and what people are saying, and why.

Another reason is that nobody knows everything, but as a practical matter we all make decisions based on the information we have that certain things are true and other things are not, certain things are substantiated and other things are not, certain things are doubtful and other things are not, etc. However, that doesn't end the analysis for a critical thinker or a skeptic. To this day, if someone claims to be a god-believer, for example, I want to know why that person holds that belief. I hold open the possibility that I might be convinced. I am very interested in what reasons a person has for holding a belief, and my interest is piqued even moreso when that belief is contrary to a belief I hold. I.e., if I'm wrong about my current understanding, then I want to be corrected.

Another reason is that once you get going on ancient writings, i can tell people who may not think of them as fun reading, that you get used to them and they become VERY enjoyable to read. I liken it to when people generally start reading Shakespeare. it's tough. It almost feels like a different language. it can be boring and difficult to follow and understand. But, once you get rolling and start reading play after play, and learning the obsolete languages used, and familiarizing yourself with the references, metaphors and other literary devices used, it is as fun as reading a modern novel.

That seems to me to be more interesting is the position taken by many religious people that someone who doesn't believe ought not take much of an interest in the religious texts they don't believe in. That, to me, seems to say something about those religious people -- they're saying that THEY aren't interested in reading things that are contrary to or challenge their beliefs. That's an alien concept to me. Were I a god-believer, and heard, say, Christopher Hitchens when he was alive making an impassioned presentation about atheism, I would as soon as possible go find his books on the subject and read them, and learn what the position is. Likewise, I'm not a Communist, but I've read Das Kapital, the Communist Manifesto, and his Critiques, and Engel's Principles of Communism, etc. It's from reading Communist and Marxist texts that I know how repulsive Communism, Marxism and related ideologies are.

[Forty Two]

Nope. Christ changed the rules with his sacrifice, which was the entire point of his life and death. When he died and was resurrected (according to Christianity) all those old laws were repealed and new ones put in place.

Jesus repealed the Ten Commandments? Nice!

Well, repealed and reenacted in part anyway...

That must be why Christians seek to put the 10 Commandments up in schools and courthouses in the original, Exodus 21, form, and not the "reenacted" form of the New Testament.... weird, eh? Christians advancing outdated and repealed 10 Commandments?

[Forty Two]

If Atheists actually have "no belief" about God, why do they spend so much time studying the word of God and arguing about it?

Same reason libertarians should spend time studying the writings of communists when they insist on criticising communism.

Indeed. Like the Bible, properly read, being among the most potent forces for atheism in the world, so too, a good reading of major works of communism is a potent force against communism.

[pErvinalia]

Nope. Christ changed the rules with his sacrifice, which was the entire point of his life and death. When he died and was resurrected (according to Christianity) all those old laws were repealed and new ones put in place.

Jesus repealed the Ten Commandments? Nice!

Well, repealed and reenacted in part anyway...

That must be why Christians seek to put the 10 Commandments up in schools and courthouses in the original, Exodus 21, form, and not the "reenacted" form of the New Testament.... weird, eh? Christians advancing outdated and repealed 10 Commandments?

They're not true Christians.

[Forty Two]

No tu quoque fallacy there, nor an ad hominem, as I am commenting on your posts on socialism on the various forums. You don't understand that 'Marxism' is a subset of 'Socialism'. That's where you go so horribly wrong.

Well, you know, that probably is true of Seth. He does often attribute beliefs to others -- like, when he labels atheists "Atheists" with an upper case A, and then attributes to them a lot of political beliefs that are not part of lower case atheism. I am sure he presents his arguments against socialism with the form of socialism that he ascribes to persons who avow themselves as socialists.

However, understand, that if you advance an argument in favor of some form of socialism, it is up to you to define what you're proposing and supporting. it's up to you to support your own argument. Often, folks advancing socialism do not deal much in specificity in that regard. What many pro-socialists do is simply declare that free market capitalism is some sort of oppressive, law of the jungle type system, and socialism has the goal of helping the poor, so therefore socialism good and capitalism bad.

[Forty Two]

Absolute bullshit. Marxism, more than anything else, is a particular theoretical pseudo-scientific framework. You don't have to subscribe to any of that crap to be a socialist. Socialism existed well before Marx came up with his mad theories, and Marxism is a TINY political faction these days. You really have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

If this is going to be a discussion, then you have to advance your proposed form of socialism - the form you support - define it and present your argument for it. Otherwise, it's just shooting darts at a moving target.

[pErvinalia]

I think the problem is that you guys in America are utterly and irrationally spooked by Marxism. You don't seem to realise that it is a tiny fringe movement. Marx undoubtedly had some pertinent critiques of capitalism, some that may or may not be still relevant today, but it was his pseudo-scientific bullshit that caused the ideology so much trouble (and still causes it trouble today).

[pErvinalia]

Absolute bullshit. Marxism, more than anything else, is a particular theoretical pseudo-scientific framework. You don't have to subscribe to any of that crap to be a socialist. Socialism existed well before Marx came up with his mad theories, and Marxism is a TINY political faction these days. You really have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

If this is going to be a discussion, then you have to advance your proposed form of socialism - the form you support - define it and present your argument for it. Otherwise, it's just shooting darts at a moving target.

Why would I present an argument for socialism when I'm not largely a socialist? I am ideologically more of an anarchist, and pragmatically a social democrat (i.e. a capitalist).

[Brian Peacock]

Marx was responding to the conditions of his time, a time when those with capital called all the shots and set all the conditions for everybody else, a time when without capital you had little option to sell yourself or your children for a stale loaf, or die. Nowadays we have things like universal suffrage, independent judiciaries, enforcible rights, employment laws, financial regulations, central banks, and sundry other structural mechanisms by which we balance the competing interests of social agents - mechanisms that have transformed social and economic conditions for the betterment of everyone in the 'Western World', and to a great extent the kind of mechanisms which were sought and argued for off the back of the ideas of socio-political reformers before and after Marx and Engels. Nonetheless, anyone who thinks that the ideas of Marx, Engels, Adam Smith, Murray Rothbard, or anyone else alone are the only one-true-path to Utopia is probably a deluded, narrow-minded idiot.