Jauronimo Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Quite. Utopian Socialist man never emerged, and humans continued to see the world through their own eyes, as they have throughout all of human history, as was biologically inevitable. Further, Marx's whole premise for his "withering of the state" was entirely predicated on this magical emergence, as centralized collective ownership of all production requires either a massive government beauracracy, or a society with Marx's ideal hive mind to administer. When your entire theory relies on people being something other than people, your theory is broken and illogical. Thats why we need "new people". Children who are raised by the collective will embrace the idea of socialism like they did in the kibbutz or at New Harmony in Indiana. Its proven! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 That's the thing: as obvious as that is, we don't even need to look at historical capital advancments. We can stop when the guy espousing his theories never manages to improve on the work of his predessors which openly relied on pre-roasted chickens flying through windows, and landing on serving platters of the families of new Socialist Man. But it works on StarTrek. Maybe Marx was just ahead of his time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 But it works on StarTrek. Maybe Marx was just ahead of his time. I think you just lit the MarcellDareusPower bat signal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 yeah, who cares what the truth is. expediency and efficiency are what really matter... What you call "expediency and efficiency" is another man/woman's ability to pay their bills. But thanks for chiming in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 What you call "expediency and efficiency" is another man/woman's ability to pay their bills. But thanks for chiming in. perhaps there are alternative ways to ensure the ability to pay the bills than risking the destruction of the earth. despite the dualist thought so prevalent here, there are almost always more than 2 options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 (edited) perhaps there are alternative ways to ensure the ability to pay the bills than risking the destruction of the earth. despite the dualist thought so prevalent here, there are almost always more than 2 options. With this I agree. I believe in balance. Having said that, I was responding to the view from Beckman or whatever his name is, which endorsed the polar opposite perspective, which you happened to imply your approval. So, I was essentially subscribing to the extreme case on the other side and stating that if I had a choice between the two, I'd choose substantially improving people's lives over the cost that brings towards the environment. In any case, it's not so much the policies on the books that were the cause of some of these environmental mishaps, but more so gross negligence and the attitude towards the environment at the behest of regulators looking out for business. This could easily be fixed. And you really aren't the best spokesman for advocating against dualist thinking when you are the quintessential dualist of the board. Just sayin' Edited June 3, 2014 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 I think you just lit the MarcellDareusPower bat signal. Good grief, I hope not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts