05.26.07
Posted in 1848+, Critique of Evolutionary Economy, The Eonic Effect, Ultra Far Left at 4:22 pm by nemo
[Marxism] The End of State-Socialism and The Future of Marxism-Part 2 By Dr. Nasir Khan – Norway
Marxism has been critiqued since the 1880′s, when most the key objections came forth. Thus, to say that a Marxist critique will continue is true in one way, but it is also the case that ‘Marxists’ are doomed to never learn.
A double critique reconstruction of liberalism(s) and marxism(s) arises as a side effect of the study of the eonic effect and its attendant model: this creates a matrix for construction wholesale of a spectrum of such theories.
The vocabulary used in history, historiography, economics and philosophy has
been enriched with new concepts and dimension in Marx. The general
categories, which have become words of everyday use in the present century
in social and political thought, owe much to Marx. Here we can mention the
proletariat including the dictatorship of the proletariat, class including
the class struggle, class warfare, class consciousness, alienation including
the fetishism of commodities, and ideology including inverse consciousness,
etc. I would like to finish this article with an excellent summing up by
Professor Paul Thomas of the University of California:
³It is no doubt easier to imagine a world without Marx than a world without
revolution, capitalism, socialism and communism. But in the world we
actually inhabit, those facts of life have still to be seen through Marx. He
may not have coined any of those terms, but he set his seal decisively on
all of them, so much so that it remains impossible to discuss them without
bringing him in. Marx was not alone having advocated revolution or in having
believed in the need for drastic changes in order to attain human autonomy,
as the nearest glance at the wonderland of nineteenth-century revolutionism
will reveal. But his sense of the tension between the depravity and the
promise of capitalism was unique.² (Thomas 1991, 24.)
In my mind there is no doubt that as long as capitalism as a system of
particular socio-economic relations exists, Marxism as a critique of it,
both at theoretical and practical levels, will continue to be a powerful
force in the service of mankind.
Permalink
05.08.07
Posted in Evolution at 3:39 pm by nemo
Atheist without a First Cause
Thus given the insufferable acrimony that permeates Mr. Hitchens’ latest work- I will deign to offer him the following piece of advice: Never drink and Write.
Permalink
05.03.07
Posted in Science & Religion at 7:08 pm by nemo
Hitchens’ book is stinkingly bad, and worse than that on the subject of Eastern religion. The instances chosen to debunk the subject are absurd, and the tale is capped with Hitchens inside dope on the subject of nirvana and mind.
I am left a bit non-plussed. How do you deal with this kind of organized hype picking up someone like Hitchens who is OK with playing ball with the ideology being promoted?
On the issue of Eastern religion, Hitchens can’t be that stupid. We all know about Rajneesh and his confused ashram, so what? Yogis have been meditating for millennia, reaching Enlightenment, if Rajneesh produced a fiasco trying to bring the subject to a larger public, that doesn’t change the reality of the depth of exploration of consciousness shown in the Indian tradition. The public getting Darwin crammed down their throat deserves know of that tradition, and the psychological potential of man, something no theory of the Darwin type can explain, as Wallace was honest enough to admit finally.
Hitchens arrived as a BBC documentary journalist (a shitty thing to do), going through the routine of, evidently, faking becoming a sannyasin, and gaping at the antic world of the so-called ‘sex guru’. He doesn’t provide much detail, and doesn’t provide anything helpful either about Rajneesh or Buddhism. But he was there, and can’t be serious in his remarks unless he was totally deaf and dumb. To conclude his ‘analysis’ with the absurd dismissal of nirvana as an illusion or as a rejection of intellect leaves me speechless, in the same way that Dennett left me puzzling over his ignorance of the history of religion. Hitchens is actually getting promoted as providing intellectual substance to the atheism debate (check out Lou Dobbs gushing over Hitchens’ intellect on his evening show).
One thing you notice about this hyped up scientism trying to match Darwin and atheism is the need to keep their public unaware of the reality of enlightenment traditions, and the complexities of human consciousness, and the techniques for their study and exploration. To admit such realities would show up Darwinism for what it is, a social ideology to keep idiots inline, nine to five, and fixed as socially robotic. They can’t be allowed to know about their ‘enlightenment potential’.
Actually, the current regime of bad science has no intelligent strategy on this issue, and is forced to get vulgar about to deflect attention from the emptiness of their world view.
What’s behind all this? It seems like there are some powerful people behind the scenes giving a green light to this kind of shlock atheism, as I suspect for Islamophobic endeavors. It is not the solution to 9/11.
Permalink
Posted in Philosophy at 4:48 pm by nemo
Another post on Kant/historical materialism, after yesterday’s piece: from Kant at yahoogroups.com
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
05.02.07
Posted in Critique of Evolutionary Economy, Evolution, The Eonic Effect at 9:21 pm by nemo
An email to the Kant at yahoogroups listserve on a discussion of Kant, Marx, ideology, historical/economic theories…directly relevant to questions of evolution
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink