American Marxism

[promethean75]

"But these things we can't blame on God."

Few things real quick. This is gonna mess u up real good, Manny, so get ready. God designed and created the erf. Check. Revelations describes an inevitable disaster and end of days on erf. Check. God then designed and created the erf to be destroyed. Check.

From these we can further deduce:

Even if freewill is possible (and it's not), at least some people ARE GOING to commit evil, or events described in revelations would not be possible. Check. God must know in advance that this will happen, which means that some people are not free to not be evil. Check.

[Immanuel Can]

This is gonna mess u up real good, Manny, so get ready.

"Mess up"? Maybe for you. Not for me.

God then designed and created the erf to be destroyed. Check.

No "check."

Genesis says that God designed the Earth as "good," and as a habitation for his most valued creation, mankind, as a field of his/her operation and welfare. But Genesis also says that mankind messed that up by rejecting that plan.

From these we can further deduce:

God must know in advance that this will happen, which means that some people are not free to not be evil.

Non-sequitur.

I may know that you are going to continue to talk as you do. That does not mean I "make" you talk as you do. That, you do yourself. But I'll still end up being right.

For something that was supposed to "mess me up," that was surprisingly easy to untangle.

[promethean75]

"But Genesis also says that mankind messed that up by rejecting that plan."

So we have no choice to avert the events described in revelations? If we don't, there are at least some people without freewill... or there are some people with freewill who will choose evil. These facts are deduced in advance from the Bible's very own narrative.... which means that either at least some people don't have freewill - or - god was wrong about what he had put in the Bible.

"I may know that you are going to continue to talk as you do. That does not mean I "make" you talk as you do. That, you do yourself. But I'll still end up being right."

But if you know in advance what I will say, I can't be free to not say it, because if I was, you'd be wrong about what you knew I would say. If you are wrong, you sure as shit ain't no god. God's don't make lucky guesses.

[Immanuel Can]

"But Genesis also says that mankind messed that up by rejecting that plan."

So we have no choice to avert the events described in revelations?

It may well be that they didn't have to happen. It seems to me it wouldn't have to. Certainly IF mankind had not sinned, there would be no necessity of Judgment. In fact, the Judgment Day would not be appropriate to that hypothetical situation. But for a definitive answer, ask God when you see Him.

What we know for certain is this. That Biblically, God knows not only what WILL happen, but also what COULD HAVE happened, had people made different choices. (Example, see 1 Sam. 23) And he gives people authentic choices, for which they are responsible. We know this also because Scripture is full of "if"-style choices, and humans are accorded responsibility for what they do with their options.

If we pay attention to the Bible, we discover that there is not one route only through a field of possibilities; there are various ones. That's what makes them possibilities.

But you may say, "I don't understand how God can know alternate paths." Interestingly, people imagine they can make a coherent hypothesis out of things called "possible worlds," but for some reason, they don't imagine that God can do the same thing. We often wonder "What could have been," or "If I had done Y instead of X." It's totally routine for us. In fact, it's the basis of all rational action.

Why should it be impossible for us to consider "how things could have been," but God Himself be stymied on the question?

"I may know that you are going to continue to talk as you do. That does not mean I "make" you talk as you do. That, you do yourself. But I'll still end up being right."

But if you know in advance what I will say, I can't be free to not say it...

Sure you can. You just did it.

I knew you'd reply, and you did. But did I come over to your place and move your hands on your keyboard for you?

Not as I remember...

But now, it is interesting how desperate you are to "red herring" this discussion away from the sorry debacles of Marxism. Nevertheless, that is the topic of this thread, so let's depart the question of God's knowledge, and start talking again about Marx's -- and about the intellectual accuity and moral integrity of his followers, perhaps.

[promethean75]

'Fraid I can't do that, sir. I have a note stuck to my refrigerator with a magnet that says:

Do not talk to Immanuel Can about Marxism, Freewill/Determinism or theology.

[Immanuel Can]

'Fraid I can't do that, sir. I have a note stuck to my refrigerator with a magnet that says:

Do not talk to Immanuel Can about Marxism, Freewill/Determinism or theology.

You've been violating your own note. Tsk, tsk.

Fine. Then go to a thread that has something you do want to talk about. Here, the subject is "American Marxism."

[promethean75]

Well maybe I will!

(you're safe..... for now)

[Immanuel Can]

Well maybe I will!

(you're safe..... for now)

I'm utterly devoid of anxiety on the prospect of your return.

[promethean75]

Fearlessness in the face of a clear and present danger (moi) could be the result of a damaged amygdala.

You may be a psychopath.

Two other supporting factors: irrational/illogical reasoning and belief in imaginary beings.

[Immanuel Can]

To Marx, then.

I'm curious: which explanation from the Marx apologists are we to believe?

Is it a) "There never has been genuine Marxism in history,"

is it b) "There has been, but all it does is impoverish and kill people"?

If it's a) then obviously the question is, "Why hasn't there been," closely followed by, "If there hasn't ever been, how do you know there ever could be, or is Marxism just a permanently utopian delusion," followed by, "What makes YOU a better understander of Marx than the entire combined populations of Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, North Korea, Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany...etc.?"

If it's b) then the obvious question is, "Why on Earth would we ever want a repeat of that?"

[Gary Childress]

To Marx, then.

I'm curious: which explanation from the Marx apologists are we to believe?

Is it a) "There never has been genuine Marxism in history,"

is it b) "There has been, but all it does is impoverish and kill people"?

If it's a) then obviously the question is, "Why hasn't there been," closely followed by, "If there hasn't ever been, how do you know there ever could be, or is Marxism just a permanently utopian delusion," followed by, "What makes YOU a better understander of Marx than the entire combined populations of Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, North Korea, Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany...etc.?"

If it's b) then the obvious question is, "Why on Earth would we ever want a repeat of that?"

I think some maintain that things like socialism and communism are ideals, the same as democracy is an ideal. When a country that says it is a democracy fails to be democratic we usually don't say that democracy failed, we usually say the country wasn't a good exemplar of democracy. So some make a similar case for socialism or communism.

[Immanuel Can]

To Marx, then.

I'm curious: which explanation from the Marx apologists are we to believe?

Is it a) "There never has been genuine Marxism in history,"

is it b) "There has been, but all it does is impoverish and kill people"?

If it's a) then obviously the question is, "Why hasn't there been," closely followed by, "If there hasn't ever been, how do you know there ever could be, or is Marxism just a permanently utopian delusion," followed by, "What makes YOU a better understander of Marx than the entire combined populations of Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, North Korea, Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany...etc.?"

If it's b) then the obvious question is, "Why on Earth would we ever want a repeat of that?"

I think some maintain that things like socialism and communism are ideals, the same as democracy is an ideal.

But democracy is at least a partially-attainable ideal, one that has been at least produced in imperfect forms around the world.

Marxism, by contrast, is said by its proponents never to have existed in any representative form at all. That fact has to be explained, since so many millions of people have manifestly tried to produce it, over a period of 150 years and across widely diverse human cultures, and have, according to the Marxist apologists, never managed to get any "real" Marxism at all out of the effort.

However, if we take the other view of Marxism, and if we give it the same view we take of democracy -- that is has been tried, at least in partially-attainable forms -- then every single such example has resulted in economic collapse and piles of corpses. That, too, requires an explanation.

We must conclude from the history of Marxism, that either it is Impossible or it's homicidal and disastrous. Which view would you prefer, Gary?

As for me, I believe it's fair to say it's both: it's been tried and proved impossible in any ideal form, and all the failed forms kill people and destroy economies. That's what the data proves.

So again I return to the obvious question: why on earth would we try THAT again?

[promethean75]

"pro wrote: democratically

Mob rule. You have this faith that somehow, some way, the aggregate choices of the people lead to good things."

But how many laws now restricting your freedoms were the result of decisions made by people other than yourself? You don't seem to be complaining about that, now do ya?

And if you would be so kind as to list the things explicitly described by Marx that you would be prohibited from doing - other than privately owning your own business - that would be great.

Remember when I axed you who you wuz reading; Orwell or Marx.

The conservative right-wing politicians, propagandists, ideologues, authors, TV news pundits, tweeters, YouTubers and podcasters would like to send this one out to you, Henry Quirk...

[henry quirk]

But how many laws now restricting your freedoms were the result of decisions made by people other than yourself? You don't seem to be complaining about that, now do ya?

Which laws? List 'em. Some I break, quietly; others I may agree with. so: let's examine 'em.

And if you would be so kind as to list the things explicitly described by Marx that you would be prohibited from doing - other than privately owning your own business - that would be great.

Privately ownin' my business, full stop.

[Immanuel Can]

Privately ownin' my business, full stop.

And with today's Neo-Marxists?

You could add it would be impossible for you to own any personal property at all.

You couldn't own land, sell crops, have a house that's yours, dispose of your own possessions, pass what you've earned to your kids, give charitable donations, have control of your own health care, control your own child's education, invest your resources, or even hold your head up in society if you happened to be any of: male, straight, religious, conservative, able-bodied, young, healthy, distinguished in any way -- or just white (or Asian). And if you ever did something clever or worked diligently so as to raise yourself above others, you would be assumed to have stolen any surplus value you had created from the common good, and would have it confiscated and then be put back down for being "counterrevolutionary."