[Dave B]

"you see, money doesn't exist in th 24th century and star trek communist ideology? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilY4hRgfC2Q Second warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[Dave B]

The Norman Finkelstein  thing is on  a RT news Youtube about 7;30 in     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51UseTj-nR8  and on informationclearinghouse recently was this;   “The godfather of neoconservatism, Leo Strauss, espoused a dogma of deception, stipulating that in order to corral society behind the wishes of an elite vanguard an ‘external enemy’ must be fashioned. This ‘enemy’ could be real, but enemies usually exist in the eye of the beholder and in the minds of those seeking opposition. Strauss made it clear that if this societal ‘enemy’ did not exist or was not formidable enough to generate an adequate amount of fear required to paralyze and manipulate the masses, then one should be invented or inflated and then advertised to the populace as a real, pressing danger. For the neocons, this phantom nemesis forms the crux of their strategy of subjugation. Without it, the public would never consent to their lunatic foreign policies, nor would anyone feel threatened enough to willingly relinquish their freedoms in the name of security. This is what ISISis all about.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41093.htmFirst warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[Dave B]

There is a scientific way/method of looking at this kind of thing which is what Darwin did, and this particular issue was then later taken up by the scientists Anton Pannekoek and Kropotkin. The starting proposition or theory is if some kind of animal behaviour has material evolutionary advantages then it is possible that in part, or in total, that necessary animal behaviour will manifest itself as an impulse driven by an appropriate instinct. Egotistical drives or instincts are ubiquitous and are not in question. The controversy is over evolutionary advantages of co-operative behaviour which exist in social animals with its appropriate social instincts. Unless you believe in the acquired culture of Arabian Babblers and Capuchin monkeys. Then the egotistical drives can potentially negate co-operative ones and vice versa with the two co-existing together. Within the social instinct model there is a further issue of the ‘us’ and ‘them’. A social group as an ‘us’ will co-operate together as an egotistical unit maybe against and in competition with a ‘them’. As Kropotkin laid out this does not have to, and often does not involve, a competition and struggle between members of the same species. Often the competition and struggle of co-operative animals is against other species and its environment in general. It is a matter of a general survivalist co-operative strategy more fit than a purely egotistical one. We know as fact that for most of human history we existed as widely scattered social groups clinging onto existence in a struggle with and against the environment etc. However that does not preclude the possibility of the egotistical concept of ‘us’ instinct of one group clashing with another of ‘them’. We can take the appalling example of nationalism etc and I don’t think it is necessary here to focus and its obvious negative side. The ‘positive’ side is the all too obvious effects it is capable of producing when it comes to self-sacrifice for the all too often irrational notions of the interests of the group ‘us’ which can reach sickening albeit heroic proportions. Any of that kind of instinctive emotional reaction will depend on a perception in the mind, potentially irrational,  of who and the why is the ‘us’ and who and why are ‘them’, and whether or not the ‘them’ are a threat to the egotistical interests of the ‘us’ etc. Dehumanising or sub-humanising the ‘them’ is one obvious manipulative mechanism which can synergistically add to other notions that they are a threat etc. It is to our disadvantage I think that the ruling class understand this mechanism better than we do. I used to go and support my local football team on the terraces and experienced what I considered real feelings as a part of that ‘us’. I will never be convinced that that was just part of some aggregate of social relations written onto a blank slate. If we can get back to a sense of ‘us’, in communism, ‘struggling’ in solidarity against the environmental and the universal limitations ranged against us, as a species, then maybe we will have less of a problem. If you believe in the global warming stuff maybe we have more to enthuse us in that direction than we ever have had.

[Dave B]

This material by Saint Chrysostom was cited in an extremely respectable 20thcentury Academic Law Journal on the history of ideas on ‘private property’. Although in that paper the translation was curiously different in a nuanced way. the first ‘contention’ has class conflict second contention# = strife. for the next we have ‘contention’=battle and the next ‘contention’=struggle that version makes it sound like class war in  fact! So you can’t help wondering if the online modern Christian material is being sanitised as much as possible or some Marxist law professors were translating Saint Chrysostom for themselves in 1950's USA? But I will nevertheless copy and paste the rightwing version. Homilies on  1 Timothy iv. 3 — St. Chrysostom Tell me, then, whence art thou rich? From whom didst thou receive it, and from whom he who transmitted it to thee? From his father and his grandfather. But canst thou, ascending through many generations, show the acquisition just? It cannot be. The root and origin of it must have been injustice. Why? Because God in the beginning made not one man rich, and another poor. Nor did He afterwards take and show to one treasures of gold, and deny to the other the right of searching for it: but He left the earth free to all alike. Why then, if it is common, have you so many acres of land, while your neighbor has not a portion of it? It was transmitted to me by my father. And by whom to him? By his forefathers. But you must go back and find the original owner. Jacob had wealth, but it was earned as the hire of his labors. But I will not urge this argument too closely. Let your riches be justly gained, and without rapine. For you are not responsible for the covetous acts of your father. Your wealth may be derived from rapine; but you were not the plunderer. Or granting that he did not obtain it by robbery, that his gold was cast up somewhere out of the earth. What then? Is wealth therefore good? By no means. At the same time it is not bad, he says, if its possessor be not covetous; it is not bad, if it be distributed to the poor, otherwise it is bad, it is ensnaring. "But if he does not evil, though he does no good, it is not bad," he argues. True. But is not this an evil, that you alone should have the Lord's property, that you alone should enjoy what is common? Is not "the earth God's, and the fullness thereof"? If then our possessions belong to one common Lord, they belong also to our fellow-servants. The possessions of one Lord are all common. Do we not see this the settled rule in great houses? To all is given an equal portion of provisions, for it proceeds from the treasures of their Lord. And the house of the master is opened to all. The king's possessions are all common, as cities, market-places, and public walks. We all share them equally. Mark the wise dispensation of God. That He might put mankind to shame, He hath made certain things common, as the sun, air, earth, and water, the heaven, the sea, the light, the stars; whose benefits are dispensed equally to all as brethren. We are all formed with the same eyes, the same body, the same soul, the same structure in all respects, all things from the earth, all men from one man, and all in the same habitation. But these are not enough to shame us. Other things then (as we have said) He hath made common, as baths, cities, market-places, walks. And observe, that concerning things that are common there is no contention*, but all is peaceable. But when one attempts to possess himself of anything, to make it his own, then contention#is introduced, as if nature herself were indignant, that when God brings us together in every way, we are eager to divide and separate ourselves by appropriating things, and by using those cold words "mine and thine." Then there is contention## and uneasiness. But where this is not, no strife or contention###is bred. This state therefore is rather our inheritance, and more agreeable to nature. Why is it, that there is never a dispute about a market-place? Is it not because it is common to all? But about a house, and about property, men are always disputing. Things necessary are set before us in common; but even in the least things we do not observe a community. Yet those greater things He hath opened freely to all, that we might thence be instructed to have these inferior things in common. Yet for all this, we are not instructed. But as I said, how can he, who is rich, be a good man? When he distributes his riches, he is good, so that he is good when he has ceased to have it, when he gives it to others; but whilst he keeps it himself, he is not good. How then is that a good which being retained renders men evil, being parted with makes them good? Not therefore to have wealth, but to have it not, makes one appear to be good. Wealth therefore is not a good. But if, when you can receive it, you receive it not, again you are good. http://biblehub.com/library/chrysostom/homilies_on_gal_eph_phi_col_thess_tim_titus_and_philemon/homily_xii_1_timothy_iv.htm  As was this incidentally St.Jerome’s  said in his “Epistle to Hebidia," That the accumulation of (great) wealth was the result of ‘iniquity and unrighteousnes’….and that individuals could not acquire wealth without others loosing it. Which is a reasonable 4th century take on merchant capitalism, primitive accumulation and even surplus value.

[Dave B]

Evolution of Books on the Evolution of Private Property??????? (blue highlights came with text)Lactantius circa (300AD) Divine Institutes, Book V (Of Justice) Chapter 6. ………….For not only did they who had a superfluity fail to bestow a share upon others, but they even seized the property of others, drawing everything to their private gain; and the things which formerly even individuals laboured to obtain for the common use of men, were now conveyed to the houses of a few. For, that they might subdue others by slavery, they began especially to withdraw and collect together the necessaries of life, and to keep them firmly shut up, that they might make the bounties of heaven their own; not on account of kindness, a feeling which had no existencein them, but that they might sweep together all the instruments of lustand avarice. They also, under the name of justice, passed most unequal and unjustlaws, by which they might defend their plunder and avariceagainst the force of the multitude. They prevailed, therefore, as much by authority as by strength, or resources, or malice. And since there was in them no trace of justice, the offices of which are humanity, equity, pity, they now began to rejoicein a proudand swollen inequality, and made themselves higher than other men, by a retinue of attendants, and by the sword, and by the brilliancy of their garments. For this reason they invented for themselves honours, and purple robes, and fasces, that, being supported by the terror produced by axes and swords, they might, as it were by the right of masters, rule them, stricken with fear, and alarmed. Such was the condition in which the life of man was placed by that king who, having defeated and put to flight a parent, did not seize his kingdom, but set up an impious tyranny by violenceand armed men, and took away that golden age of justice, and compelled men to become wickedand impious, even from this very circumstance, that he turned them away from God to the worship of himself; and the terror of his excessive power had extorted this. For who would not fearhim who was girded about with arms, whom the unwonted gleam of steel and swords surrounded? 

---

 Chapter 5. as Cicerorelates in his poem; and this is peculiar to our religion. It was not even allowed to mark out or to divide the plain with a boundary: men sought all things in common; since God had given the earth in common to all, that they might pass their life in common, not that mad and raging avaricemight claim all things for itself, and that that which was produced for all might not be wanting to any. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07015.htm

[Dave B]

I think those Kautsky books were part of a four volume series called the Forerunners of Modern Socialism. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1895/letters/95_05_21.htm Parts of it, and apparently good bits, have not yet been translated in English, and I think Lafarge also contributed to some of it?  The Taborites of circa 1420 Bohemia seem to even predate More, Thomas Müntzer  and Whinstanley etc Eg this chapter. https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1897/europe/ch02b.htm From a Marxist historical materialist perspective you might be able to argue that similar socio-economic/material circumstances ie the emergence of “proto-capitalism” was producing similar ideological reactions. Even in feudalism as far as the labourers were concerned I think there had been an ideological /cultural heritage of a kind of commune and communistic mode of production. Even if a feudal ruling class and merchants were creaming stuff off the top as a kind of Mafia like extortion system. Originally I think the warrior and priest class was supposed to just be a matter of divison of labour in an otherwise communistically organised society. I also think you might find a parallel with this kind of thing with the celebration and eulogising of the Russian ‘communist’ Mir system at the end of the 19thcentury? Although it looks like the western European expressions of communistic stuff seems to have been originating out of the ‘artisan’ communities? I think you might be able to say the same thing about the first 150+ years of early Christianity itself including JC and even maybe most of his gang. As you peer into the past there seems to no end to it; so there were also these guys from the 10thcentury.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogomilism It is all the more surprising given the attempts to wipe all this stuff from the pages of history. They seem to be connected to these people; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism  Christian Gnosticism covered a huge spectrum of theological positions. But what seemed to unify it was the position that JC’s dad was not responsible or in total control of all the shit that went on. That covered the material world but more importantly perhaps for us the socio economic status of the ruling class who were merely puppets of Satan like our manufacturing consent Fox News and media are etc etc. That didn’t go down very well with an increasingly institutionalised Christianity that needed to apologise and justify an exploitative ruling class. That kind off Gnosticism from the historical records doesn’t look like some kind of fringe Christianity given the  ranting attacks on it from many of the surviving material from the early church fathers etc. It is kind of backed up by archaeological evidence as well as a lot of the really old Christian material dug up in the deserts of the middle-east etc and actually is itself from before AD 300; is ‘Gnostic’ in that sense. The Gnostic idea is quite modern and current in a way given Stephen Fry’s God as “utterly evil, capricious and monstrous” http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/feb/01/stephen-fry-god-evil-maniac-irish-tv The Gnostics would have said as well that the being that created this world was “utterly evil, capricious and monstrous” ergo; it was Satan. Related to that and all the real Obama ‘arm twisting’ shit in the Old Testament, Marcionism which was another major current in early 2ndcentury Christianity thought the Old Testament God was a wanker as well.  Somebody told me there was a major ‘communist type’ peasant revolt thing in Turkeycirca 1300’s ?  I think that the pre 13thcentury roman catholic monastic system still in some places paid lip service to the idea of ‘commune’ based production systems.Part of the Thomas More 'paternalism'? You could, Tran-historically, say perhaps that having originated out of a ‘Christian’ ie Bolshevik ‘communistic’ ideology it degenerated into a bureaucratic caste system of catholic state capitalism. I remember reading something Lafargue wrote on state socialism which he compared theoretically to monastic catholic system of production! Before we get carried away with Thomas More as the patron Saint of communism; I think he was a Bolshevik. 

[Dave B]

Yet more reading material!  Communism in Central Europein the Time of the Reformation, Karl Kautsky 1897. “…..they found what they were seeking in another product of Roman society – the Gospels. The traditional communism of primitive Christianity was well suited to their own necessities. As the foundations of a higher order of communistic production were not yet laid, theirs could only be an equalising communism; which meant the division and distribution of the rich man’s superfluity among the poor who were destitute of the necessaries of life.  The communistic doctrines of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles did not create the analogous tendencies of the Middle Ages, but they favoured the growth and dissemination of the latter quite as much as the Roman law aided the development of absolutism and the bourgeoisie. Hence the Christian and religious basis of the communistic tendencies.” https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1897/europe/ch01.htm#s3 I. The Papacy the Centre of the Attacks of Heretical Communism “NOTHING can be more erroneous than the widespread idea that communism is antagonistic to the existence of man-antagonistic indeed to human nature itself. This is not the case. Communism dates from the childhood of the race, and has been the social foundation of almost all nations, even to the present day………………… ……………..The most salient feature of the communism of the twelfth century is that antagonism to the Papal power, which lent to the movement an ever-increasing heretical character. It was almost imperative for those who had the interest of the poor at heart to rebel against the PapalChurch, standing as it did in the front rank of the propertied classes of the Middle Ages. It was the wealthiest and the greatest among the exploiters, and held sway over the whole social life of the times, intellectually as well as economically.  https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1897/europe/ch01.htm  the book; https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1897/europe/index.htm  Something must have sparked off all this kind of 'Essence of Christianity'  and human nature/social instinct stuff .  And the Johnny come lately’s Rosa and John Connelly etc I think it was an oh shit, Darwin and Feuerbach!, we was right in 1844 before Stirner threw us of track.

[Dave B]

For interest? Pre reformist Bernstien? on Diggers, Whinstanley and Thomas More etc etc   {But before the “diggers” abandoned their agitation, so far as its aims were of an economic nature, Gerrard Winstanley, their intellectual leader, wrote a pamphlet which unfolded the real principles and ultimate aims of the agitation without any attempt at concealment. This last independent work issuing from the “true Levellers” is also an important and interesting document in the history of Socialism. Dropping all mysticism and paraphrase, the author propounds a complete social system based on communistic principles, a Utopia, which unmistakably suggests some acquaintance with More’s Utopia. As the outcome and expression of a propaganda conducted among the labourers, and by reason of its democratic and revolutionary tendencies, it calls for fuller treatment.} https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bernstein/works/1895/cromwell/09-communism.htm And Bernstien on yet another ‘early English communist/anarchist’? How many are there???????  {So much for Walwyn’s “soul-destroying” atheism. Now for his communism.  The associate of Lilburne, whom Freeborn John so warmly defended, is said to have expressed himself as follows concerning the “disproportion and inequality of the distribution of the things of this life”:  “What an inequitable thing it is for one man to have thousands and another want bread! The pleasure of God is that all men should have enough, and not that one man should abound in this world’s goods, spending it upon lusts, and another man (of far better deserts and far more useful to the commonwealth) not to be worth twopence.” He wishes that“there was neither pale, hedge, nor ditch in the whole nation”, and says that“the world shall never be well until all things be common”.It would not by any means be“such difficulty as men make it to be to alter the course of the world in this thing; a very few diligent and valiant spirits may turn the world upside down if they observe the seasons and shall with life and courage engage accordingly”. To the objection that this would upset all and every Government, he answered:“There would then be less need of Government; for then there would be no thieves, no covetous persons, no deceiving and abuse of one another, and so no need of Government. If any difference do fall out, take a cobbler from his seat, or any other tradesman that is an honest and just man, and let him hear the case and determine the same, and then betake himself to his work again.” Have not these sentiments a decidedly modern ring about them?}  https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bernstein/works/1895/cromwell/08-atheist.htm Perhaps of pissed off simple commodity producing proto Proudhonist literate Artisans?   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walwyn

[Dave B]

(6) On the other hand I cannot agree with you that the war of every man against every man was the first phase of human development. In my opinion the social instinct was one of the most essential levers in the development of man from the ape. The first men must have lived gregariously and so far back as we can see we find that this was the case. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_11_12.htm  Darwin, C. R. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray. Volume 1. 1st edition  The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable—namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts,5would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed, or nearly as well developed, as in man. For, firstly, the social instincts lead an animal to take pleasure in the society of its fellows, to feel a certain amount of sympathy with them, and to perform various services for them. The services may be of a definite and evidently instinctive nature; or there may be only a wish and readiness, as with most of the higher social animals, to aid their fellows in certain general ways. But these feelings and services are by no means extended to all the individuals of the same species, only to those of the same association. Secondly, as soon as the mental faculties had become highly developed, images of all past actions and motives would be incessantly passing through the brain of each individual; and that feeling of dissatisfaction which invariably results, as we shall hereafter see, from any unsatisfied instinct, would arise, as often as it was perceived that the enduring and always present social instinct had yielded to some other instinct, at the time stronger, but neither enduring in its nature, nor leaving behind it a very vivid impression. It is clear that many instinctive desires, such as that of hunger, are in their nature of short duration; and after being satisfied are not readily or vividly recalled. Thirdly, after the power of language had been acquired and the wishes of the members of the same community could be distinctly expressed, the common opinion how each member ought to act for the public good, would naturally become to a large extent the guide to action. But the social instincts would still give the impulse to act for the good of the community, this impulse being strengthened, directed, and sometimes even deflected by public opinion, the power of which rests, as we shall presently see, on instinctive sympathy. Lastly, habit in the individual would ultimately play a very important part in guiding the conduct of each member; for the social instincts and impulses, like all other instincts, would be greatly strengthened by habit, as would obedience to the wishes and judgment of the community. These several subordinate propositions must now be discussed; and some of them at considerable length.  5Sir B. Brodie, after observing that man is a social animal ('Psychological Enquiries,' 1854, p. 192), asks the pregnant question, "ought not this to settle the disputed question as to the existence of a moral sense?" Similar ideas have probably occurred to many persons, as they did long ago to Marcus Aurelius. Mr. J. S. Mill speaks, in his celebrated work, 'Utilitarianism,' (1864, p. 46), of the social feelings as a "powerful natural sentiment," and as "the natural basis of sentiment for utilitarian morality;" but on the previous page he says, "if, as is my own belief, the moral feelings are not innate, but acquired, they are not for that reason less natural." It is with hesitation that I venture to differ from so profound a thinker, but it can hardly be disputed that the social feelings are instinctive or innate in the lower animals; and why should they not be so in man? Mr. Bain (see, for instance, 'The Emotions and the Will,' 1865, p. 481) and others believe that the moral sense is acquired by each individual during his lifetime. On the general theory of evolution this is at least extremely improbable.   http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/darwin/descent/dom07.htm

[Dave B]

I think by the way that that book on Thomas More’s Utopia was in its own right an interesting early Kautsky ‘tour de force’ on theoretical Marxism and almost worth a read just for that. After 1888 and by 1924 Kautksy seems to have put aside the ‘Leninite interpretation’ of the “…….other form of Socialism without money ………. what Marx described as the second phase of communism: each to produce of his own accord as much as he can, the productivity of labour being so high and the quantity and variety of products so immense that everyone may be trusted to take what he needs. For this purpose money would not be needed.” Eg  “If the institutions of price and money continue to exist under a socialist mode of production, and if socialist prices are grafted on to the historical form of price, it would also be necessary to adhere to the historical form of money, and to retain gold as the money commodity. Actual gold need not be used. As measure of value, only an imaginary gold is necessary, or rather the value of gold. In order to calculate how many gold marks will constitute the price of a pair of boots, no gold mark need be in actual existence. As a means of circulation, money can of course only serve when it is actually on the spot. But even here, the natural form of gold coins may be dispensed with to a large extent, and replaced by paper promises to pay.” https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1924/labour/ch03_j.htm  Kautsky’s reference to the ‘Leninite interpretation’ may have been related to; V. I. Lenin, From the Destruction of the Old Social System, To the Creation of the New  "Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas;  it is labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—labour as the requirement of a healthy organism. It must be clear to everybody that we, i.e., our society, our social system, are still a very long way from the application of this form of labour on a broad, really mass scale."  But the very fact that this question has been raised, and raised both by the whole of the advanced proletariat (the Communist Party and the trade unions) and by the state authorities, is a step in this direction.  http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm I have always thought that Kautsky’s criticism of Lenin’s self confessed Bolshevik state capitalism was somewhat muted and restrained because in theoretical effect (aside from stagiest backward country and democracy etc) it was economically too close to Kautsky’s own post 1920 model of ‘state socialism’.

[Dave B]

On ‘SPGB moneyless socialism’ there has been a radical shift on Revleft over the last couple of years, for which Robbo and a few others have played no small part I think. Eg, and it is an “eg” there have been many of these; Join Date: Nov 2013Location: BritainPosts: 61Tendency: Marxist-Leninists 31stJan 2015January 2015, 08:48t January 2015, 08:48 I've been recently describing socialism (by which I mean the SPGB type) as a society where everything is free and all work voluntary. Organisation: sympatiser, ICL-FIPosts: 3,135Tendency: Orthodox Trotskyism  There is no "SPGB type of socialism"; for most of us, socialism is defined by the socialisation of the means of production, the abolition of money and the market, voluntary labour, conscious planning of production, and statelessness. And to be fair, I don't think the SPGB claims their conception of socialism is in any way unique. http://www.revleft.com/vb/work-voluntary-t192171/index.html Also the post 1918 bolshevik state capitalism and Lenin’s pre 1917 stageist debates are also dead; as are the Stalinists. how do you put stuff in quote boxes????????

[Dave B]

 Karl KautskyThomas More and his Utopia(1888) PART ITHE AGE OF HUMANISM AND OF THE REFORMATIONIntroductionChapter I. THE RISE OF CAPITALISM AND OF THE MODERN STATE1. Feudalism2. The Towns3. World Trade and AbsolutismChapter II. LANDED PROPERTY1. Land Hunger – Feudal and Capitalist2. The Proletariat3. Serfdom and Commodity Production4. The Economic Redundancy of the New Nobility5. The KnighthoodChapter III. THE CHURCH1. The Church in the Middle Ages – its Necessity and Power2. The Basis of the Papacy's Power3. The Overthrow of the Papal PowerChapter IV. HUMANISM1. Paganism and Catholicism2. Paganism and Protestantism3. Scepticism and SuperstitionPART IITHOMAS MOREChapter I. THOMAS MORE’S BIOGRAPHERS1. Roper and Others2. Erasmus of RotterdamChapter II. MORE AS HUMANIST1. More’s Youth2. More as Humanist Writer3. More on Education and the Position of Women4. More’s Relation to Art and ScienceChapter III. MORE AND CATHOLICISM1. More’s Religiosity2. More an Opponent of Clericalism3. Mores Religious ToleranceChapter IV. MORE AS POLITICIAN1. The Political Condition of England at the Beginning of the Sixteenth Century2. More as Monarchist and Opponent of Tyranny3. More as Representative of the London Merchants4. The Political Criticism of Utopia5. More Enters the King’s Service6. More’s Contest with Lutheranism7. More in Conflict with the Monarchy8. More’s DownfallPART IIIUTOPIAChapter I. MORE AS ECONOMIST AND SOCIALIST1. The Roots of More’s Socialism2. The Economic Criticism of Utopia3. The Economic Tendencies of the Reformation in EnglandChapter II. THE MODE OF PRODUCTION OF THE UTOPIANS1. Exposition2. CriticismChapter III. THE FAMILIES OF THE UTOPIANS1. Description2. CriticismChapter IV. POLITICS, SCIENCE, AND RELIGION IN UTOPIA1. Politics2. Science3. ReligionChapter V. THE AIM OF UTOPIAThomas More and His Utopia https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1888/more/index.htm

[Dave B]

atheists are despised (but allowed) in Utopia, as they are seen as representing a danger to the state: since they do not believe in any punishment or reward after this life, they have no reason to share the communistic life of Utopia, and will break the laws for their own gain. They are not banished, but are encouraged to talk out their erroneous beliefs with the priests until they are convinced of their error. Raphael says that through his teachings Christianity was beginning to take hold in Utopia. The toleration of all other religious ideas is enshrined in a universal prayer all the Utopians recite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_(book)

[Dave B]

Keep going Robbo. This was good I thought. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b04ykktv Dekard; an invention of the false consciousness Phillip K Dick Marxist was  an ‘android who dreamed of electric sheep’ and a replicant himself. Read the book as they say! One of Wittengenstien’s haunts when he was at Manchester Universitywas the Grouse Inn.   http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Grouse_Inn_near_Glossop.jpg A favourite launching pad of mine for walking kinder scout; a bus from Glossop takes you up the hill. Not a single photo of him or anything on the walls.

[Dave B]

"Last year Apple funded its share buy-back with a $17bn bond issue.So, in effect, Apple did what Icahn and Einhorn wanted.The share price has recovered from around $60 in mid 2013 to around $110 this week."  That is quite common and is simpler than it looks. Apple writes out $17bn of IOU’s and offers them for sale on Ebay. They all sell for $16.5 bn; effectively a good 3% rate of interest on loaned money to a AAA rate company. Apple CEO’s take the cash to the stock market and buy Apple shares with it and put the share certificates etc into a big pile and burn them. Big purchases of Apple shares on Wall Street sends up the share price of unsold stock/share from “$60 to around $110”. As well as increasing the dividends on unsold and still extant shares. Existing share holders make a nominal 110/60, 83% “profit” on their share price .

[Author]

Posts