Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: Utopian confusion

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    Bill, Lenin rarely spoke about such things, which was probably too bad. When he did, it was usually a fairly direct citation or encapsulation from Marx or
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 30, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Bill,

      Lenin rarely spoke about such things, which was probably too bad. When he did, it was usually a fairly direct citation or encapsulation from Marx or Engels, who also never said anything like that, either. (Nor did they promise a Utopia.) Lenin did go on and on against the dangers of "Utopian communism" and "Left-wing" deviations of theory, and the like, which were current in Russia and which were quite loony, and which advocated communal ownership of everything, and all of that. But such ideas are not serious, and have no place anywhere -- unless in an absolute emergency, I would guess, and regardless of politics.

      Marx criticized Proudhon's "property is theft" as being naive and inherently confused. If property is theft, then the person from whom was it stolen could also not have owned it, ad infinitum, etc. He wrote a clever volume, The Poverty of Philosophy, against Proudhon's general 'theory' of socialism and his odd take on dialectics. I like the book, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend it unless one knows Proudhon fairly well.

      The "private property" against which Marx vies is not somebody's 'stuff', but the "means of production" (mostly), as well as social utilities and the like. Maybe if one were a King, one would be faced with giving up one's worldly goods, since a King owns the nation and the people in it. But the admonition is against what we would call "corporatism".

      Best,
      Wil








      -----Original Message-----
      From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2010 11:07 am
      Subject: [existlist] Re: Utopian confusion







      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
      >
      >
      > "Lenin [communist} demanded we give up our worldly goods"
      >
      > No, he hadn't.
      >
      > Wil
      > Until when?
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2010 9:59 am
      > Subject: [existlist] Utopian confusion
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > So where does a moment come from. I like Dicks question but doubt it can be answered. A moment, as a snapshot of everything, is an impossibility . Its temporality forces it on, away from what it was. It seems to mimic the position of an electron within an atom. You just can`t pin it down as it resides in a probability distrabution.
      > So try to lengthen the time frame,say a minute. The problem only increases itself with unimaginably huge factors.
      > We work around this problem by mental compression. We use symbols which are by definition only approximations. Again imprecision in the name of utility.
      > If we denote process as a continuum of change we can come to a history that may be useful. Yes,history does seem to repeat itself,sometimes. That,however, does not explain where a moment came from or where it is going.
      > I think the past in some way forces a moment but there are far to many factors operant to make a study of the phenominon of momentary change. That ,to me ,makes phenominology a sorting game and not a method of discerning facts. Which factors do you chose to weigh and worse how many do you miss? Science narrows the scope of error by repitition of process but error still remains even in our hard facts.
      > It seems we come down to the fact that a part is always less complicated than the whole. Our mind,a part of existance, cannot encompass the whole of the cosmos. The fact that we cannot stop time, cannot see where a moment comes from is a sign of the finitude of the cosmos and places its beginning and end in never ending question. If we look back to the big biginning we come to some sort of unimaginable energy pulse and at the end we see only impossibly large numbers of possible factors. If you propose an expansion/contraction universe what is your observation point,I mean did it happen at all?
      > So ,troll conjectures aside, sometimes Dick asks questions I tend to ponder. In such a fleeting existance I am repelled by demands that I own or cannot own anything. Remember Lennon[John} only asked us to imagine. Lennon[communist} demanded we give up our worldly goods. I`ll take the choice that gives me the greatest latitude,the greatest freedom of choice. Bill
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >









      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.