Eva Durant wrote:
> REH (snip)
>
> If this is what you think, you did not understand what
> marxism is all about.
>
Never having lived in Marxist Communism I am sure that is true however:
1. Do you mean to say the Marxism is not Messianic and claims to be scientific?
2. Or are you saying that Marx himself was not Messianic in his claims?
3. Or that he did not set out to write a book that was as timeless as the Bible claims
to be and ended up being as time and culture bound as it is?
4. Or if "scientific" is its claim; then are you claiming that its "scientific" data
about the nature, (& potential) of life and systems is NOT archaic and grounded in
philosophical belief rather than hard science? (I would ask the same question of
Hayek.)
5. Or are you saying the Phrenology with it's corollary "science" of body type
"ectomorph, endomorph, etc." was not a legitimate area of scientific inquiry as well
as being racist in origin? And that social/economic theory failures like Marxism are
not the same as social/physical theory failures like Phrenology and Body types? Did
not both meet the world of practical reality and civilized living and crash on the
shoals of both?
6. Did not Marx crash on the shoals of family, spirituality, human nature, poor
delivery
systems, and the inability to deal with Western culture's predatory nature?
(I'm not speaking of the failures often attributed to Marxism that Capitalism and the
Aristocratic systems share. i.e. poor weather or stupidity about the environment.)
7. Do you mean to say that Marx, unlike the Puritans, was not opportunistic and
grandiose?
8. Do you mean to say that Marx is consonant with the most contemporary social science
and that the failure of the Communist countries was not based upon problems with an
unworkable Romantic 19th century fantasy?
9. Do you mean to say that Marxist economic application did NOT fail in the
competition of its own market? (As the Warsaw Pact was a market of its own.)
10. Did the Soviet bloc not have ample resources to prove (or disprove), within
itself, Marx's theories?
Eva, in my business, if the student fails then the teacher is blamed. We are rather
blunt about it. We also are not afraid of failure as it is a part of the growth of
life. What we do not believe is the ultimate perfection of life and the end of
time. We believe in cycles of birth, growth, maturity, old age and finish or rebirth
depending upon the mental and physical resources. We are taught that there is no
ultimate perfection except in death. It is the belief, in "ultimate perfection, and
the end of time, that excludes death as the outcome," that is the hubris delusion of
most of Western thought. Those Westerners should learn from their artists.
Consider that Beethoven "perfected" the fugue in the Hammerklavier Sonata and there
hasn't been a decent artistic fugue written since. He answered all of the questions
and made the Artistic composition of another fugue a redundancy, which we call
"derivative" in the arts. In effect, perfection kills the form. This is not far from
the metaphor of the death of the
Father necessary for the adulthood of the child also found in what William Bennet (the
Republican moralist) calls "Judeo-Christian" tradition. So what do I not understand?
I'm happy to learn but remember I too have a time constraint.
> REH:
> > That is the reason that I do my own work and am my own boss. I miss the
> > "safety" and am considered irresponsible by some for not having more of an
> > inheritance for my offspring, but it seems you can't have both in this
> > society. Sometimes it's better just to stay out of the way of those "economies
> > of scale."
> >
> EVA:
> not an available option for 99% of the people.
Glad to see you speak for them. Anyone can do it if they are willing to.
Maybe you have to understand and accept the truth of the Potlatch.
"Only the person who can give it away or do without it can truly
own it." The American and Canadian governments were so threatened
by this that they banned the public expression of our beliefs until 1978.
They did the same thing to us that Marxism did to Russian Christians and Jews, they
tried to control and own it. We always said that Marxist Communism and Free Market
Capitalism were really two sides of the same coin and that without one the other would
absorb the worst of both. The U.S. Senators have been practicing Newspeak in the
best tradition of the Communist renaming. Just hit the government web and read the
names of the bills that they are proposing. Sounds like a bad translation of the
Politburo.
REH
