Thomas_More
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
In the Korean War, captured North Koreans and Chinese soldiers often had themselves tattooed with anti-Mao and anti-Kim slogans, so the U.N. forces would be obliged to let them stay in the south and not be handed back.
They’ve been Maoist tyrants all along.
I think Mao gave North Korea to Kim Il-sung as a region where he could play a Little Maolet, as there was no job for him available in China.“While like you, I’d prefer a clean break from Capitalism there just isn’t enough support to make that happen.”
And people saying just that ensures there never will be.
” many on the left who are Socialists and supported the historical Labour party via Social Democracy/Democratic Socialism have been let down.”
They should look us up.
“Thought was discovered not to be passive as the materialists had claimed, but active. ‘It is the whole man who thinks,” says Marx. Thought is a function of living, it comes into existence by doing something, it manifests itself in action. The existence of social institutions generates certain human needs, the effort aroused to satisfy these needs produces an altered form of consciousness; there is a conflict between the mind of man, expressed in action, and the opposed conditions. Out of the contest ensue changed conditions and a different consciousness expressing itself in further action.” (WS July-August 1951).”
I agree with that 100%.
““Marx refused to divide social experience into two mutually exclusive compartments and classify one, the external world, “cause,” and the other, consciousness, “effect.” On the contrary he showed that social change resulted from the interactions of nature, society and human intelligence. That the conventionally accepted “effect,” consciousness, was itself as much a cause as the laws of nature and society, and that vice versa, the assigned causes were in turn effects.” (WS March-April 1950).”
I go along with that too. Human will (consciousness) is both an effect and a following cause. Thoughts and feelings are both results, but also doers and causers. This is what I mean by chain of causation, not only the factors external to us.
I have never denied Will itself. If my language is archaic, it is because I am versed in it, from the writings of the Encyclopedistes. So we have been at cross purposes.
The Labour Party, from its formation in 1906, did socialism a serious disservice, by seducing the workers away from it. We already existed, from 1904, for real socialism, but Labour was formed to compromise with the capitalists and begin an endlessly futile path of reforms.
There was a documentary some weeks ago about the Labour Party’s machinations against Corbyn. This happens inside undemocratic leadership parties like Labour.
Covvie99, you have probably realised that when a thread “turns” a page, one’s message is lost. When this happens, I press the back arrow and copy and paste to reuse, remembering to add a few words, so that a “duplicate message” alert doesn’t block it.
The woman whose video I posted here is unknown to me. I was just scrolling through Youtube videos for arguments against free will and picked it. She is not my mentor.
The word is necessarian, btw.
I have stated my position and I do not consider myself a fatalist. Why would I have joined the party if I were? Also, why would a fatalist bother to argue, about anything?
I don’t see Marx as having exploded pre-marxian materialism. I see him as having built upon it.
The issue is number 3, 1972, and the article is there introduced as a classic.
