I would have thought that Jefferson Davis was the divisive one.

Euclid was divisive.

"Divisive" is the new shibboleth of the left.

Has a war been fought which was not divisive?
...-

Brown vows to learn from 'divisive' Iraq war
The Age -

The argument is over...
All people who care ...
The science is done ...
There is a consensus...
The majority support...
Only the paid deniers ...

Any opposition or disagreement is DIVISIVE, naturally. You are crorect Kate, this is a ste4p further down teh road of Political Correctness. Another way to stamp down all opposition; just as "racist" and many other name-callings are used to shut down debate.

It’s hard to take seriously bloggers who still feel the need to bolster their criticisms of Senator Obama by referring to him by his middle name (Hussein). The innuendo is obvious and cheap, and it suggests an ignorance or disdain (or both) of Arabic culture.

As I noted in the previous post, "Diversity" is not considered "Divisive" :-)

So there must be some other meaning to these two words.

and it suggests an ignorance or disdain (or both) of Arabic culture.

Wait...that's a *bad* thing?

Who threw the apple of "divisiveness" onto the table? Discord did it. It's divisive.

Love that word "sociable". Socialism requires unity, oneness, sameness, levelling; those who say no to the socialist sociableness are conservatives, the discorders, the divisers. How can the socialists move on to the great Utopia when there is discord, divisiveness in the congregation?

Does Globe say how discord threatens? Threatens what? Who is threatened?
...-

Globe | Discord threatens meeting of Eastern premiers

BRUDENELL, P.E.I. — The federal-provincial disputes over the Atlantic Accord and equalization could trigger some discord at the usually sociable gathering of Eastern Canadian premiers and New England governors.

"values"

"morality"

"freedom"

"evil"

"support the troops"

I think part of the problem is that life - everything from biological organisms to human societies - require both stability and instability. Not one or the other. But both.

A system requires stability for continuity both of the individual and the collective. Imagine a situation where newborn geese no longer had the stable morphology that enabled them to fly. Or that newborn puppies could no longer digest milk. Imagine a society whose rules of behaviour changed randomly every few weeks. Stability, both physical and mental, is a basic requirement of life.

However, instability or dissent or divisions from a normative habit, are equally vital. They become absolutely necessary in more complex organisms which must have the ability to change their lifestyle and adapt to new environmental realities. In birds, for example, there are the famous examples of changes in beak nature and size to adapt to new seeds.

In human societies - If the grasslands are reduced because of years of drought, the society must adapt to growing crops. If the cod disappear the society must change its economic base from fishing. If a new disease emerges, the society must dissent from its old norms and develop competely new tactics.

So, it's a conflict between two completely opposite yet necessary types of behaviour - that promoting continuity and that promoting change -

Some people think that If Only We Could Become Totally Stable - then, 'all would be right'.

That's fascism (Islamic/Nazi) - which posits a time 'back then' when everything was Pure and Stable, and insists that if we behave in such and such a way - it will be like that again.

And communism - which pins its hopes on an inevitable Time In The Future which will be equally pure and stable.

The progressives, or leftists, are utopians like the fascists/communists. They want relief from doubt, from fears of change. They want to be in complete control and stability of belief and behaviour, they think, will give them that.

Heh. Nature isn't stable. Never. The society that moves itself into No Change is dead on its feet.
We have to have the ability for both types of belief and behaviour - the unchanging and the changing. Very difficult to walk the line between them - but - that's reality for all of life.

"Divisiveness" is neo-Com code for: "you're breaking the code of socialist conformity by questioning my ideology...my ideology is above question or debate".....and it is a bad thing because dissenting opinion, or reasonded argument are things that the doctrinaire socialist-statist cannot have.

Once you understand all dogmatic left orthodoxies are the result of indoctrination and not reasoning...that socilaist dogma relies on unreasoning acceptance and adherence, you can understand why they don't want a free exchange of ideas that may conflict with or expose fallicies in their faith-based belief system.

Debate with the inoctrinated left and you are therefore "divisive"...this denotes you are causing disunity...because ultimately all lefty docrine demands uniformity of ideals and thought...ultimately it demands the single party state and a single national political-social orthodoxy...it's about control...it's about conformity...it's about repressing dissent, and diversity of opinion...it's about building the anthill society.

Don't be "devisive" just report to the state "reeducation center" and show your papers...we are Keeping an eye on you...you have a bad atitude....you are not of the body...you are "divisive"

Sorry not ready to get into "pubic discourse" ;)

BTW: Never confuse Obama's Neo-Com policies as "progressive"....the word "progressive" has been used to sanitize some of the most degenerate and regressive social policies ever to rear their ugly head.

Is it "progressive" to demand unifomity? Is it progressive to shut down debate as "divisive? Is it prigressive to demand diversity in all socilal functions except debate and opinion?

People with such orthodxies are not progressives but statists...and in all likelyhood neo Com statists.

Divisiveness is a bad thing because it creates diversity. No, wait....

Divisive has been used by all sides at various times. It is to try to put a blanket on debate and is generally used by those who have soemthing to lose from "divisiveness".

For example wouldnt the union guys in the 30's have been called divisive.

The temporal politics of it are familiar as well. It is a word sent to those who are tired of the fighting. This was used against Mulroney after free trade....apparently we sought a PM who wasnt "in your face" driving so much change Free Trade, GST, Cinstitutional reform. And please the point is not about evaluating those initiatives jsut saying we want someone who pushes less change.

Ultimately Clinton was about that, thats what Chretien was about "car in the snow" and how Obama is running. Others have pointed out that Obama has a conservative character, not necessarily conservative political goals, meaning cautious, consensus building etc etc.

Americans in particular seek unity of purpose...look at the elevation of bi partisan initiatives. It is a deceptive word for them, particularly on foreign policy.

But yes a divisive one is a sh** disturber and "outside the norm".....the left is portraying itself as the calmer of the seas, nanny state, government as problem solver....the salve the heals the wound, the ice that calms the fever....

I guess we need to learn the lesson again.

The progressives, or leftists, are utopians like the fascists/communists. They want relief from doubt, from fears of change. They want to be in complete control and stability of belief and behaviour, they think, will give them that.

Straw person of the year (and it's only half over).
"Nothing is constant but change." --Marx, by way of Heraclitus.

Just to take up Kathy Shaidle's challenge. Yes a conservative has used words like 'divisive' and 'discord' before. Margaret Thatcher. Of course, in the latter example she is mocking leftists.

1. "Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope."

2. "Imagine a Labour canvasser talking on the doorstep to those East German families when they settle in, on freedom's side of the wall. "You want to keep more of the money you earn? I'm afraid that's very selfish. We shall want to tax that away. You want to own shares in your firm? We can't have that. The state has to own your firm.

You want to choose where to send your children to school? That's very divisive. You'll send your child where we tell you."

We should all watch the "demoralization" clip again,June 23,sda.Just scroll down.

Great post Kathy. It's a poignant observation. And totally consistent with the left-wing agenda. The useful idiots continue to demoralize the public by squashing dissenting views. Any version other than the truths they hand down from on high is 'divisive.' I.e. Bad.

Tolerance my ass.

WL Mackenzie Redux: Is it "progressive" to demand unifomity[sic]? Is it progressive to shut down debate as "divisive? Is it prigressive[sic] to demand diversity in all socilal[sic] functions except debate and opinion?

"If you support the troops, support the mission. You cannot have it both ways."

Diversity = Divided

Divided we fall ...

Speaking of adjectives that have long been robbed of any useful meaning, how about "progressive"?

I don't know about the rest of you but I only have to hear mention of the "p" word and I switch my attention to "ignore" mode immediately.

Obviously there's divisiveness in diversity. You can't have one without the other.

One more battle in the war against stupidity.

"and it suggests an ignorance or disdain (or both) of Arabic culture."

A bonified culture, at the very least, requires originality in the arts and sciences. Something the Arabs, historically, know nothing about and however pilfering much have contributed not.

Which begs the question - What the hell are you talking about?

wlmr- exactly. The utopian left rejects debate, reason, questions. It reduces debate, dissent and questions to the expression of 'pluralism', ie, to expressing multiple 'opinions' that are each equal to the other and therefore, each, utterly meaningless.

And yes, the 'hubris' of the left in self-defining themselves as 'progressive'. That fraudulent; the correct term is 'regressive'.

You see, a progressive system MUST include the capacity of ongoing dissent and questions within itself; otherwise, it cannot observe its norms of behaviour, reason about them, and conclude that it wants to move from A to B modes of belief and behaviour.

A regressive system, which is what the left is, doesn't observe or think; it just slips back, back, back.

dawg - you are ignoring Marx's focus on The End Goal of Purity, ie, where everyone and everything is The Same - communism. No more change. You are also ignoring the superficiality of such a remark, which utterly ignores that change cannot take place except within a foundation of stability.

A robust system has to have both, entangled and interactive. The utopians (fascists, communists, leftists) want only stability - a mode of Purity. The postmodernists, who are superificialists, focus only on change - which leaves their 'thoughts' purely random irrelevancies.

Maz2 beat me to the punch, I think that lefties are scared of divisiveness because it threatens their "group-think" mentality. Heaven forbid someone would have an individual thought.

There are two meanings to the word "divisive". One is "forming or expressing division or distribution"; in other words, either creating divisions between groups or just mentioning that they're there. Is the first a problem? Maybe. The second? I doubt it.

The second meaning of the word is "creating dissension or discord". (This is based on the Random House dictionary, by the way.) So to be divisive is to dissent. Ergo, to insult our leaders (dissent) is to be divisive, and the very same people who use this word as a slur are guilty of it every day.

Interesting, that.

I think irwin daisy meant to say "bona fide", which is Latin for "in good faith", but has also come to mean "authentic or genuine".

To say the Arabs have contributed nothing to arts and sciences is completely wrong. The list of their contributions is lengthy (mathematics, astronomy, medicine, engineering, etc).

Anyway, off to have a coffee. Thanks Arabs!

Jesus came to divide the wheat from the chaff.

Mohammed came to separate your head from your body.

ET: "dawg - you are ignoring Marx's focus on The End Goal of Purity, ie, where everyone and everything is The Same - communism."

Communism does not mean everyone and everything is The Same. For example, here's a quote from The Communist Manifesto:

"In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

Elimination of classes doesn't mean that everyone is the same. It means that no one exploits anyone else.

More generally, the use of political terminology here is incredibly loose and wildly inaccurate. I am astonished therefore that people here would think it reasonable to accuse what (wildly and innacurately) they label "the left" of a similar failing. Take the log our of your own eye!

Belisarius, please enlighten us. Most of the so-called Arabic/Muslim contributions to civilization have turned out to be stuff they stole from other people, such as stealing zero from the Hindus.

You went to university, didn't you?

irwin daisy' "Which begs the question - What the hell are you talking about?"

I assume you mean, "raises the question". To "beg the question" is to assume as true (or false) the very point in dispute. I don't mean to pick on you but widespread misuse of this phrase is depriving us of a descriptor for an important and widespread logical error.

Most of the so-called Arabic/Muslim contributions to civilization have turned out to be stuff they stole from other people, such as stealing zero from the Hindus.

Not true at all. They certainly built on research and discoveries from other cultures, but so has every civilization. That's human progress, isn't it?

They also made plenty of original discoveries and conducted a great deal of scientific research, particularly during the Abbasid Caliphate in the Middle Ages. Notwithstanding the efforts of some authors to demonize and belittle Islamic culture, the evidence of these developments is overwhelming.

Today the opposite is true. Arab countries produce almost no scientific research, few doctors and have extremely high rates of illiteracy. Why this has become so is another topic, I suppose.

More details Belisarius. One's that don't involve quoting Edward Said or any of his revisionist pals.

And thanks to whoever did the great service of explaining 'begs the question.' Jesus I hate it when people misuse that phrase. The best rule of thumb is: just don't use it at all.

The list of their contributions is lengthy (mathematics, astronomy, medicine, engineering, etc)

No it is not. It's not impressive at all. They didn't contribute anything in the visual arts sans their mosques. They are busy blowing up art now. The whole sum of their literature wouldn't would fill more than a bookshelf. They didn't contribute anything in the realm of democracy, economics, philosophy, logic, ethics as the Greeks did. They weren't the civil engineers that the Romans were. The Mayans were as good at astronomy. The Chinese were as good at medicine if not better.

Arabs borrowed the technical efforts of others, just like they do now. It's interesting that in sharing the Mediterranean as contemporaries with the Greeks, and the Greek influenced Romans, that exposure ignited nothing with them.

The arabs contributed "mathematics, astronomy, medicine, engineering, etc)."

Really? Algebra and zero were Assyrian inventions, Algebra renamed after the muslim who pilfered it. Their so-called philosophy contributions? Discovered to be Greek and once again pilfered. Architecture? Byzantine.

In fact all things Muslims/Arabs have claimed to be their invention have been proven to be false, except for (possibly) the crankshaft.

This load of Muslim invention nonsense ranks right up there with the claim that the Quran is the original, uncreated word of God (although they pilfered the Torah, Talmud and NT to create it); the erroneous "religion of peace." descriptor; and the recent declaration that Islam has been hijacked.

What else would you expect from nomadic brigands, theifs and goat herders who upon cobbling together an imperialistic cult, repressed or pilfered all learning from the peoples they conquered - claiming there was no history before Islam?

In fact, if you believe in the false idea of Arab/Islamic invention, then why can't they even accomplish the most basic tasks to sustain and modernize their own 'civilization' to this day?

Just take a look at their pathetic publishing contributions.

However, thanks for the spelling correction.

Standard tactic of the left is to hang a label on their opponents!

When you oppose the ideology of the left you are:
- an "ist"
- a "Phobe"
- some form of "ant"
- possibly "ive"
- probably "arian" and "ary"

In the nomenclature and lexicon of the modern liberal community it's incomprehensible that you are just an Individual!

Submit or be labeled!

The only reason the left is so absorbed with collectivism and is they are incapable of independent thought. Anything divisive forces them to think and make decisions. This mentality is the Achilles heel of any society, they want to be told only good things, they stand for and stand up for nothing, simple slogans will buy their mind and sole. They are sheeple, if and when the time comes when definitive action is required the usefull/useless idiots will do as they are told, that is the good part.

exile - if the 'free development' of one is the basis for the 'free development of all' - then this can only happen within a domain of sameness.

If one entity 'freely develops', then, it might well encroach on the domain of a different entity. For example, two species of herbivores in the same territory. This will prevent the 'free development' of those other entities (i.e., 'all').

Marx's naive simplistic statement is meaningless. An interacting 'set' cannot permit 'free development' of any or all; that's because the interaction sets up constraints to such expansive freedom. Marx needed a course in physics, chemistry and biology.

Exploitation is a problematic and emotive term; explain. Otherwise - it is irrelevant.

belisaurius - I concur with others. The Islamic world did not invent or develop any science. No 'original research'. None. They copied the solutions of others. Kindly note that the Koran rejects freedom of thought, the use of reason, dissent, questions.

Oh- and coffee is not Arabic; it originated, apparently, in the Kaffa district of Ethopia. Moved from there to Yemen.

Now, belisaurius - provide us with exact details of the non-existent Arab innovations.

I wish I could, but apparently because I didn't pile onto the Muslim-bashing bandwagon my comments are being vetted.

Disappointing!

Belisarius, I have access to the comments and am not vetting yours or anyone else's in this thread. they may be held up automatically if they contain URLs or troublesome code.

Paranoid much? Sheesh.

Sorry Kathy, must have been the link I added. I'm normally not paranoid - really. One of the best things about commenting on Kate's blog is the fact she generally leaves it open. Even with the occasional troll, its nice to read an open discussion.

ET: "Exploitation is a problematic and emotive term; explain. Otherwise - it is irrelevant."

"Exploitation" has a well-defined meaning in marxist theory. If you are not familiar with the meaning of this central concept in marxist theory, you are in no position to criticize marxism. (If you want to go to marxists.org, you can look it up and find some links to relevant literature.)

p.s., I don't think "arguments from analogy" have a lot of force.

ET 9:03am

"That's fascism (Islamic/Nazi) - which posits a time 'back then' when everything was Pure and Stable, and insists that if we behave in such and such a way - it will be like that again."

Do you mean like the group thinkers on SDA who long for a time before feminism and Trudeau, Tommy Douglas, transcendental meditation, yoga and gay rights?

"And communism - which pins its hopes on an inevitable Time In The Future which will be equally pure and stable."

What ideology does that as much as Christianity, that other pillar (along with conservatism) of conformity?

ET:

dawg - you are ignoring Marx's focus on The End Goal of Purity, ie, where everyone and everything is The Same - communism. No more change. You are also ignoring the superficiality of such a remark, which utterly ignores that change cannot take place except within a foundation of stability.

That's plain silly. Nowhere does Marx declare that society will settle into some kind of stasis. Your notion of Marx's notion of communism is a laughable caricature.

The Islamic world did not invent or develop any science. No 'original research'. None. They copied the solutions of others.

More rubbish. Astronomy is a good counter-example. In the realm of philosophy, by the way, Averroes (Ibn Rusd) would be hard to beat at the time--a great defender of Aristotelianism, incidentally. As for the poetry of al_rumi and Omar Khayyam and Hafiz...

Aw, what's the use. Arabs are sub-human, incapable of creativity or reason, and Islam is the anti-Christ. Why don't I just listen and shut up?

Ace" "Just to take up Kathy Shaidle's challenge. Yes a conservative has used words like 'divisive' and 'discord' before. Margaret Thatcher. Of course, in the latter example she is mocking leftists.

1. "Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope."

If so, she was mocking St. Francis of Assisi here.

Old fingers. Ibn Rushd and al-Rumi.

no, exile - that's a cop-out. I'm quite familiar with marxist theory, thank you very much. I asked you to define it because in the perspective of 'diversity' and 'stability', it has no relevance. None. Again - define it in the theme of this thread.

conrad - don't be silly. Are you seriously suggesting that to be anti-feminist; to be against Trudeau's destruction of individual freedoms and his state-authoritarianism; to be against Douglas' hypocrisy and his institution of a disastrously inefficient and costly health system; - is a definition of fascism? Good god, man, go read a book.

As for transcendental meditation, yoga, and gay 'rights' (rights??? - more like authoritarian imposition of special privileges)...I suggest you get out more. What on earth does that have to do with fascism? Do you really know what fascism thinks of all of this?

And you obviously also don't understand Conservativism as a political philosophy - which is NOT the same as the VERB - 'to conserve'. Kindly do some reading.

Conservativism as a political philosophy does not have a clear set of doctrines, but, primarily it is about small and decentralized rather than Big centralized gov't; it puts its faith in individuals rather than the collective (very wise - only individuals think; groups don't think). Smaller and local taxes. And it operates by debate and discussion. Now - if you could explain to me how that is similar to communism - I'd be fascinated! Communism, by the way, is unlike conservativism because it is not really a political theory - ie, there is no 'polity' in a genuine communist ideal state, no gov't - elected or otherwise. Communism is a socioeconomic theory - and in actuality, has never and will never work.
Conservativism operates within an elected gov't.

As for your linking Christianity with communism - that's specious. It's simply that both are faith based rather than scientifically based. Christianity, unlike communism, makes no claims to be scientific.
But scientifically, it can be shown very easily that a communist system is impossible in any group larger than 30 people.

Belisaurius - yoo hoo..where are you and your proofs of Arab scientific innovations?

One more shot:

Ibn Khaldun (history). al Khawarzimi (mathematics). Nasir ad-Din at-Tusi (astronomy). Al Fazari. Al Battani.

Arab astronomy in general:

Understanding the distinction between Arabic astronomy and Greek astronomy is key to appreciating the foundations of modern astronomy. The transition from classical Greek astronomy to the astronomy of the European Renaissance would have been very different had it not been for the intellectual contributions of the medieval Islamic astronomers. The problems inherent to Ptolemy's work were simply too deep, and it took many generations of Arabic scholars to articulate them and then to resolve them.

Source: http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/17936/page/5;jsessionid=aaa5LVF0

Poetry and philosophy aren't that hard to cook up Dawg and are totally subjective.

You know we're talking about hard sciences, medical breakthrough, economic theories, advances in everything from archaeology to zoology. You mentioned astronomy. Do you have a "B"?

No one here has said Arabs are "sub human" -- that's something _they_ tend to say about Jews...

It's just a fact that some cultures are more innovative than others. Africans haven't invented much of any lasting import either. Jews, the Scots, the Chinese, the Japanese and even the French, on the other hand.

Must be the desert air or something...

Hey ET,

My "proofs" vanished into the netherworld. Try google. Or a history prof. A place to start - Arabs invented the modern scientific method.

ET: "no, exile - that's a cop-out. I'm quite familiar with marxist theory, thank you very much. I asked you to define it because in the perspective of 'diversity' and 'stability', it has no relevance. None. Again - define it in the theme of this thread."

It's blazingly obvious that you have little familiarity with marxist theory.

Now, let's look at the context in which I used the term "exploit". You said, "dawg - you are ignoring Marx's focus on The End Goal of Purity, ie, where everyone and everything is The Same - communism."

As part of my response, I quoted The Communist Manifesto. I said (quote:)

Communism does not mean everyone and everything is The Same. For example, here's a quote from The Communist Manifesto:

"In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

Elimination of classes doesn't mean that everyone is the same. It means that no one exploits anyone else. (end of quote)

I used the word "exploit" to explain that when Marx talks about the elimination of classes in the quote from The Communist Manifesto he does not mean that "everyone and everything is The Same".

That is the relevance of the term "exploit" here, i.e., to explicate the meaning of a quote from Marx. And the meaning of the term in that context is its meaning in marxist theory. I would have thought that was obvious.

The quote from The Communist Manifesto, in turn, was given in response to your assertion that marx conceived of communism as a state where "everything and everyone is The Same".

dawg - once you remove deviation, the system settles in stasis. Since that removal of deviation is the basic agenda of communism, the result is -stasis. That's basic physics. By the way - Have you read the Communist Manifesto? Do you still approve of communism after reading that astonishingly evil Manifesto???

Averroes (Ibn Rushd)- what's your point? He was analyzing Aristotle (and Plato)and discussing theology. How is that scientific innovation?
And Avicenna (Ibn Sina) - also analyzing Aristotle and Plato.

What we are saying is that the Islamic world hasn't originated a single scientific proposition. Ever.
So- supplying us with names of medieval philosophers who analyzed the metaphysics of Aristotle/Plato - doesn't change the conclusion.
The Islamic world hasn't originated a single scientific proposition. Ever.

Astonomy? Developed by Ptolemy (Greek). Defining the geometric relations between one body and another body is logical, is a work of reason, especially working from someone else's work, but - isn't scientifically innovative.

And instead of being stupid with your remark about 'Arabs are sub-human' - you might do well to do some research and analyze WHY.

What you ought to do, is consider the socioeconomic infrastructure - and find out IF the society requires technological changes and advances. The Islamic world has been based for centuries around a no-growth economy, specifically, a pastoral nomadic and/or peasant horticulture. That's why it has no science.

Its ideology (Islam) is obviously geared to such a primitive lifestyle - and a lifestyle that is equally obviously under siege from other economies (eg, the Christian settled agriculturalism was encroaching on pastoral nomadic lands). Islam developed as a reaction to an exploding ME population (Rome-Christian)- and embedded itself within attempts to preserve and maintain the old ways.

It has no internal capacity for change, for dissent, for questions. Until/unless it reforms, it remains dysfunctional in the modern industrial world. That's why it has no science. It refused to change, because it emerged, as an ideology as a reaction to prevent change.

E.T." Since that removal of deviation is the basic agenda of communism".

How exactly do you justify that conclusion?

ET:

dawg - once you remove deviation, the system settles in stasis. Since that removal of deviation is the basic agenda of communism, the result is -stasis. That's basic physics.

Your reductionism doesn't absolve you of the charge of caricaturing Marx. Why should deviation necessarily equate to a class system? Why is exploitation necessary for a society to be dynamic?

Astronomy? Developed by Ptolemy (Greek). Defining the geometric relations between one body and another body is logical, is a work of reason, especially working from someone else's work, but - isn't scientifically innovative.

At least do me the favour of reading the article in American Scientist. The Arab astronomers had to go well beyond Ptolemy. Sounds innovative enough.

exile - how can you refer to the Communist Manifesto without a footnote acknowledging its horrifyingly evil agenda - and its ignorant - view of 'the best society'?

belisarius - nope- unacceptable excuse (my proofs vanished). Heh.

That's just like the excuses from my students - oh, professor, the computer deleted my essay!; the printer won't work; etc. I've always listed 'unacceptable excuses' on my assignment sheets - and apart from forbidding as excuses the deaths of numerous great-great uncles/grandparents etc; there are also any and all computer excuses.
YOU made a claim on this thread. YOU provide the proof.

Are you out of your mind? The Arabs established the modern scientific method? Do you know what the scientific method actually means? You are quite wrong- the Arabs did NOT develop or use the modern scientific method. Their Islamic ideology rejects reason, questions, individualism, objective reality (the natural world) - so, the invention of and the use of the scientific method is impossible. Try again.

Incidentally, I'm not sure I should come here anymore. SDA has an "R" rating. : )

http://mingle2.com/blog-rating

Congratulations--I guess--on your "G" rating, there, Ms. Shaidle.

ET - you really have the blinkers on don't you? Why do you refuse to accept anything that doesn't fit your narrow theoretical base of beliefs? Muslim scientific innovation doesn't fit your theory therefore it must not exist (contrary evidence notwithstanding).

Your story about the life of a professor is interesting, but irrelevant. You are not my professor, and I am not your student. Sometimes posts vanish.

There are mountains of historical documents, books, proofs, literature and dissertations which support the evidence of Muslim scientific innovation in their golden age.

Here is one link (add the html extension):

users.jyu.fi/~daagar/index_files/arabs

And speaking of proof, I'd like to see some to support your claim that agricultural encroachment by Christians led to the rise of Islam.

"conrad - don't be silly. Are you seriously suggesting that to be anti-feminist; to be against Trudeau's destruction of individual freedomsinefficient and costly health system; - is a definition of fascism?"
That's your definition, ET,(That's fascism (Islamic/Nazi) - which posits a time 'back then' when everything was Pure and Stable) the golden age before the '60's that the right hearkens back to, a theme alluded to by Dalrymple and Bezmerov in June 23 post on demoralization, in which Bezmerov cites TM and yoga as KGB tools in the process of demoralization.

What clearer example of conformity and group think is there than this thread, in which MS. Shaidle makes a specious, unsubstantiated claim and all the usual suspects come out of the woodwork in lockstep to affirm it's validity as if it came from a burning bush.

And again, ET, your definition: "pins it's hopes on an inevitable Time In The Future which will be equally pure and stable" Christian delusion in a nutshell.

holy crap, islamic logic is dualistic, two things can be contradictory and both be seen as true. hell of a base for good science /

exile and dawg -you are dancing around the issue. Deviation, which means the diversion from functioning within an average, of course implies differences in authority within a society; differences in knowledge; differences in roles. Communism rejects this.

The class system is not equivalent to exploitation - only marx said that - and his rants in the Communist Manifesto- I don't understand how both of you you can't be shocked and disgusted at that polemic. But the class system is most certainly a deviation.

OK, dawg, so now we are down to ONE Islamic scholar - Al-Haytham, d.1039, who worked on Ptolemy's theory.
Now - how does this enable one to conclude that the Islamic ideology produces or enables science?

belisaurius - if posts vanish, then repost. Your link went nowhere.

Again - you haven't provided one shred of evidence of Islamic innovation. Your statement that there are 'mountains of evidence' is an opinion. Not proof. Provide it. And provide some actual innovations and their innovators. Otherwise, it is empty rhetoric.

Conrad - I didn't define fascims as anti-feminist. And I agreed with you that a religious ideology is utopian. What about a political system? Your examples are of people and the '60's is irrelevant.

belisaurius - to understand the dynamics of the ME in the 4-8th cAD, you have to know something about ecological anthropology, population dynamics and demographics, scientific innovation and technological change, and religious ideology - and I'm not going to give you a mini-course on this blog.
But basically, it consists of a number of research steps:

First and most importantly, examine the biome - the ecology of the near and far env't. Over time. Soil type, plants, water sources, climate, temperature variations etc. Examine the type of plants and animals, both domestic and wild. [Did you know that a key problem in Africa was the lack of animals that could be domesticated?]

Then, understand societies as logical adaptations to this 'given', the material env't. You are constrained by this env't. So, you then move onto the 'carrying capacity' of the env't. How many people can it support? You must also consider your work-capacity. How many people are available to work? Do you have domesticated animals to work? No? Is the soil too thin for a large population? Is the rainfall too seasonal for reliability?

You then must have some knowledge of social organization - there are ten basic types. Hunting and gathering (3 types in that) is the most basic; it's found in marginal biomes, where you really can't make the land produce more - unless you industrialize. And you can't industrialize unless your population base is enormous - and you can't get a large population base without industrialization! Catch 22!

There are five types of agriculture. Swidden or wet horticulture; also dry horticulture. Pastoral nomadic (and transhumance). Irrigation. And, only in Western Europe - rainfall agriculture.

And two types of industrialism (nation-state and network-global).

You then have to analyze these societal types, as adaptations to their biomes - and analyze them as Systems. The economic structure, political, legal, family, education and religion - will all 'mesh' together to operate as a coherent whole. These systems will be radically different in different economies.

A pastoral nomadic system is completely different from a rainfall agricultural system and from a basic horticultural system. The ME in the early years was horticultural (small scale local peasant mixed farming) - and - pastoral nomadic. You have to know both types - to know that these are incompatible.
you also have to understand how many people each can support - and the land requirements. Pastoral nomadics require a large land base, with much of it left fallow.

Then - you have to analyze the history of the ME area - which includes the era of Rome, which expanded communication and economic capacities, put small towns in touch with each other, etc etc. The dev't of a market economy, settled economies, leading to the explosive expansion of populations, the requirement for more land, requirement for 'getting along with each other' (the basis of Christianity).

And then, you analyze the actual ideologies of the religions - eg, judaism, christianity and Islamc - and examine what type of economic, political, legal mode is this belief system supporting? You'll see that NT Christianity supports a settled population that above all, gets along with each other.

You'll see that the Koran supports a tribal pastoral nomadic population that is at risk, that is fighting to retain its political and social mode of life against Others.

So- it takes a lot of extremely diverse background knowledge in different fields- but - that's how you come up with this analysis. I stand by it.

Good books on the ecology are Emilio Moran, books on relationship of biome to society are Jared Diamond, books on the intricate structures of society are Fernand Braudel (though later), books on technological innovation by J.D. Bernal.

ET:

exile and dawg -you are dancing around the issue. Deviation, which means the diversion from functioning within an average, of course implies differences in authority within a society; differences in knowledge; differences in roles. Communism rejects this.

Differences in knowledge? Differences in roles? Communism (referring here to the stage after socialism in Marxian theory) rejects nothing of the kind. Sources, please. If by "authority" you mean a power hierarchy, I'd go along with you there. But deviation does not require such a thing. A could be an astounding poet; B could me marvellously inventive in technology; C could, in good Kuhnian fashion, give the final push to an old scientific paradigm. Now, unfortunately,they're all millworkers. :)

OK, dawg, so now we are down to ONE Islamic scholar - Al-Haytham, d.1039, who worked on Ptolemy's theory.

Where did that come from? I named several, and there are plenty more. As for Al-Haytham, saying he worked on Ptolemy's theory is like saying Einstein worked on Newton's mechanics.

ET - I've read Jared Diamond, but not the others.

The link I posted should work. Just add the http at the beginning and html at the end. I think the embedded link from my earlier posting was the reason it was rejected.

My outlook on these issues is always historical. I am unaware of any Christian agricultural settlement encroaching on Arabia in the 6th and 7th centuries. Nonetheless, I'll keep an open mind and have a look at the books you've recommended.

ET: "Deviation, which means the diversion from functioning within an average, of course implies differences in authority within a society; differences in knowledge; differences in roles. Communism rejects this."

There are all kinds of "deviations". Marxism rejects some "deviations". (I imagine you reject one or two deviations, yourself.) For the last time, it doesn't follow from the fact that marxists want to eradicate "classes" that they want to eliminate all forms of difference. In fact. marxists would argue that what you call "the class system" is inimical to human flourishing and therefore to human diversity (or "deviation", if you prefer that term).

ET: "his rants in the Communist Manifesto- I don't understand how both of you you can't be shocked and disgusted at that polemic."

Maybe you'd like to point out one or two of the more shocking and disgusting passages....

You commie pinkos sure have alot of piss to pee into the wind.

What's it taste like? Good I'm sure, to an idiot like you.

ET: "exile and dawg -you are dancing around the issue. Deviation, which means the diversion from functioning within an average, of course implies differences in authority within a society; differences in knowledge; differences in roles. Communism rejects this.

The class system is not equivalent to exploitation - only marx said that - and his rants in the Communist Manifesto- I don't understand how both of you you can't be shocked and disgusted at that polemic. But the class system is most certainly a deviation."

If you are thinking of "the class system" as deviation from the mean of a statistical distribution and of marxism as advocating that everyone should be brought into conformity with "the mean", you have grossly misunderstood the whole thing! (Perhaps you are confusing it with income redistribution as advocated by some social democratic parties. That's a VERY different animal.)

Doug: "You commie pinkos sure have alot of piss to pee into the wind.

What's it taste like? Good I'm sure, to an idiot like you."

Although this is a powerful argument (and a real credit to the vaunted conservative scientific-mindedness and appreciation for what E.T. calls "deviation") I remain unconvinced ....

dawg - I rejected Kuhn long ago. The fact that A is a poet, B is a technological wizard, and C is whatever, has nothing to do with deviation from the norm. The point, in a communist society, is that individuals lose all power associated with their skills and knowledge. Frankly, there's no power associated with being more capable, more knowledgeable, more productive. None.

I'm sure you've read his 10 steps to move power into the hands of the state - ie, a new ruling class, the proletariat. My god - it's a scary document; absolutely pathological.

What a robust society requires is a three class structure, with power in the hands of, not the state, but the middle class - which ought to be the largest class. And the middle class are most definitely not communist but capitalist, property owning and protecting. The marxist system simply couldn't work. Strong similarities, of course, as Popper has noted, to Plato's Republic.

No, you haven't come up with any Islamic innovators. Your philosophers were - philosophical. The others were encyclopaedic gatherers of Greek and other knowledge, but were not, themselves, innovators.

belisaurius - there's lots more books than the ones I recommended. The expansion of settled agriculture in the ME began in the early years - the appearance of Christianity was the result. It was accepted by Rome as the official religion in the 4th c - an attempt to provide a collaborative unity to the expanding Roman empire.

The Christian religion is unique in that it is not hereditary - therefore, it overrides the normal tribalisms of the region. It is a choice - and furthermore, its basis is 'getting along with others' - and that also overrides the divisive tribalism of the era. Islam developed as a reaction to the expansion of settled agriculturalism moving into their pastoral regions. Just read the Koran - and you'll see how its society is tribal rather than settled, and how it is militant and fighting for the land.

Above all - you have to understand the land use, the demographics of the population, and how settlement and a market economy will change everything. It's quite fascinating...

ET: "I'm sure you've read his 10 steps to move power into the hands of the state - ie, a new ruling class, the proletariat. My god - it's a scary document; absolutely pathological."

Marx didn't write the 10 steps you refer to. These circulate in American right-wing circles as a summary of the Communist Manifesto.

ET:

dawg - I rejected Kuhn long ago. The fact that A is a poet, B is a technological wizard, and C is whatever, has nothing to do with deviation from the norm. The point, in a communist society, is that individuals lose all power associated with their skills and knowledge. Frankly, there's no power associated with being more capable, more knowledgeable, more productive. None.

Ah. So it's all about power exerted by some over others. Without that--stagnation. Funny: I thought a critique of a number of Islamic societies was precisely the opposite: lots of hierarchy, no innovation.

It's simply ridiculous, by the way, to dismiss Islamic thinkers because they built upon Greek discoveries. By the same token you could dismiss most European discoveries, since they built upon Greek thinking as well.

Here are some of the thinkers I mentioned:

al Khawarzimi (mathematics). Nasir ad-Din at-Tusi (astronomy). Al Fazari. Al Battani. And the list goes on.

belisarius - I finally got the link. Surely you aren't suggesting that an unreferenced essay(undergrad) made up of essentially unresearched cuts from secondary sources is empirical evidence of islamic scientific innovation?

exile - yes, I know that marxists say that what I call the 'class system' is inimical to human flourishing. I say that the marxist rejection of the middle class, property rights, individual authority, etc - are inimical to human flourishing.

Some of the polemic in the manifesto? How about:

'abolition of private property' and their reduction of this to 'small peasant' property is allowed - is irrelevant. We've seen what the abolition of private property does to communities (indigeneous), That's exactly what communism wants to set up!

'abolition of the family'
'community of women'
'abolition of nations'
and
centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state - with the proletariat as the Ruling Class
'abolition of right of inheritance'
'heavy income taxes
'confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels'
'exclusive state bank'
'exclusive state control of communication and transportation'
'industrial 'armies'
;abolition of distinction between town and country - by a 'more equitable distribution of the population over the country'

My god - a totalitarian state - Doesn't Marx have any knowledge of human psychology?

Is he going to ORDER people to move out of the cities to the country?
Is he going to ORDER the break-up of families?
Doesn't he understand that people, psychologically, necessarily develop emotional bonds with their geographic env't and the history of that env't - and that the nation is the result of that? Does he think that human beings are without emotional ties to history and geography?

Does he think that work is accomplished only by 'industrial armies'? Doesn't he know anything about learned skills, inherent ability - and psychology?

The two of them are treating human beings like objects, like machines, like slaves - that you order about without thought or care.

And you can't emigrate - you can't leave! You are a rebel if you do!
And you can't dissent, you can't reject this State - you are a rebel if you do!

Incredible - and terrifying. Sounds like the Inquisition- they confiscated the property of people they defined as heretics.

Oh, what the hell, here's a few Arab/Muslim lies proven false. (Although not lies if told to the infidel - taqiyya)

• Arabic "qamara," invented by a 10th century Muslim mathematician, astronomer and physicist, became the "camera."

Well actually no, here is the history of the Camera:

4th - 5th Centuries B.C. Chinese and Greek philosphers describe the basic principles of optics and the camera.

1664 - 1666 Isaac Newton discovered that white light is composed of different colors.
1727 - Johann Heinrich Schulze discovered that silver nitrate darkened upon exposure to light.
1794 - First Panorama opens, the forerunner of the movie house invented by Robert Barker.
1814 - Joseph Nicephore Niepce achieves first photographic imagine with camera obscura. However, the image required 8 hours of light exposure and later faded.

1837 - Daguerr'es first dauerroetype, the first image that was fixed and did not fade and needed under 30 minutes of light exposure.

1840 - First American patent issued in photography to Alexander Wolcott for his camera.
1841 - William Henry Talbot patents the Calotype process - the first negative-positive process making possible the first multiple copies.

1843 - First advertisement with a photograph made in Philadelphia.
1851 - Frederick Scott Archer invented the Collodion process - images required only 2 - 3 seconds of light exposure.

1859 - Panoramic amera patented - the Sutton
1861 - Oliver Wendell Holmes invents steroscope viewer.
1865 - Photographs and photographic negatives are added to protected works under copyright.
1871 - Richard Leach Maddox invented the gelatin dry plate silver bromide process - negatives no longer had to be developed immediately.

1880 - Eastman Dry Plate Company founded.
1884 - Eastman invents flexible, paper-based photographic film.
1888 - Eastman patents Kodak roll-film camera.
1898 - Reverend Hannibal Goodwin patents celluloid photographic film.
1900 - First mass-marketed camera - the Browning.
1913/1914 - First 35 mm still camera developed.

Distillation, invented in 800 by Muslim scientist Jabir ibn Hayyan, the founder of modern chemistry.

Actually wrong again

Distillation was an invention of Greek Alchemists in the first century AD [1][2][3] and the later development of large-scale distillation apparatus occurred in response to demands for spirits.[1] Hypathia of Alexandria is credited with having invented the distillation apparatus [4]and the first exact description of apparatus for distillation is given by Zosimus of Alexandria, in the fourth century.[3]

Crankshaft, which The Independent cites as "one of the most important mechanical inventions in the history of humankind," invented by engineer al-Jazari, author of the Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices (1206).

This actually is correct, it is the only one that is.

Parachute and "flying machine," created in 852-875 by Muslim astronomer and engineer Abbas Ibn Firnas, who at the age of 70 jumped from a mountain and flew aloft for 10 minutes before crashing.

Wrong, it was Leonardo Da Vinci:

Leonardo's parachute consists of sealed linen cloth held open by a pyramid of wooden poles, about seven metres long. In his notebook he remarks that with such a device anyone can jump from any height without injury. The absence of a harness suggests otherwise, but tests at the time would have been limited to trees, towers and cliffs.

Skydiver Adrian Nicholas tested Leonardo's design, jumping from a hot-air balloon at 3000 metres. He found the ride to be smoother than the modern parachute. However weighing over 90 kg, it put the parachutist in danger of injury on landing.

As well as: Modern surgical instruments (in the 10th century), the windmill (in 634), technique of inoculation, the fountain pen, algebra, carpets, and the concept of the three-course meal.

Algebra, well no actually: Egyptian yes, but nothing to do with Islam

Much of our knowledge of ancient Egyptian mathematics, including algebra, is based on the Rhind papyrus. This was written about 1650 B.C. and is thought to represent the state of Egyptian mathematics of about 1850 B.C. They could solve problems equivalent to a linear equation in one unknown. Their method was what is now called the "method of false position." Their algebra was rhetorical, that is, it used no symbols. Problems were stated and solved verbally.

Windmill discovered.

The Pythagorean theorem states that the sum of the squares on the legs of a right triangle is equal to the square on the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle)—in familiar algebraic notation, a2 + b2 = c2. The Babylonians and Egyptians had found some integer triples (a, b, c) satisfying the relationship. Pythagoras (c. 580–c. 500 BC) or one of his followers may have been the first to prove the theorem that bears his name. Euclid (c. 300 BC) offered a clever demonstration of the Pythagorean theorem in his Elements, known as the Windmill proof from the figure's shape.

The first book of Euclid's Elements begins with the definition of a point and ends with the Pythagorean theorem and its converse (if the sum of the squares on two sides of a triangle equals the square on the third side, it must be a right triangle). This journey from particular definition to abstract and universal mathematical statement has been taken as emblematic of the development of civilized life. A striking example of the identification of Euclid's reasoning with the highest expression of thought was the proposal made in 1821 by a German physicist and astronomer to open a conversation with the inhabitants of Mars by showing them our claims to intellectual maturity. All we needed to do to attract their interest and approbation, it was claimed, was to plow and plant large fields in the shape of the windmill diagram or, as others proposed, to dig canals suggestive of the Pythagorean theorem in Siberia or the Sahara, fill them with oil, set them on fire, and await a response. The experiment has not been tried, leaving undecided whether the inhabitants of Mars have no telescope, no geometry, or no existence.

Inoculation discovered

Edward Jenner (1749-1823) was a physician who preferred the country to the city. After an apprenticeship of seven years with a surgeon apothecary named Daniel Ludlow in Sodbury, near Bristol, Jenner spent two years in London working with the great surgeon Dr. John Hunter. Through Hunter's sponsorship, Jenner became a member of the Royal Society. At the end of the two years, he returned to the countryside where he practiced his entire career.

It was here he began to investigate what was common knowledge amongst the farmers, namely that if you got cowpox, you didn't get smallpox. Both men and women got cowpox, usually from milking cows with the disease. While cowpox produced mild discomfort and temporary lesions, usually on the hands, it was a minor disease. It did however seem to produce an immunity to smallpox. Jenner consulted with Hunter and was told not to speculate, but to experiment.

Jenner did just that. He compiled case histories of people exposed to cowpox and he experimented with inoculation and immunity. In 1796 he "vaccinated" 8-year old, James Phipps, with cowpox lymph taken from the hand of a milkmaid, Sara Nelmes. In 1798 he published An inquiry into the causes and effects of the variolæ vaccinæ, a disease discovered in some of the western counties of England, particularly Gloucestershire, and known by the name of the cow pox. To distinguish inoculation with smallpox from his procedure, her coined the term "vaccination" named after the Latin term vaccinus (relating to cows).

In the United States the case for vaccination was pursued and promoted by Benjamin Waterhouse (1754-1846).

Oh and isn't it the Pakistani muslims who won't enoculate their kids against polio? Claiming that it's an infidel trick?

It is too bad that East Germany is gone, Dr. Dawg could have seen the wonderful workers Marxist paradise in full flower!

Maybe he can ask Angela Merkel about it; I'm sure she would have some none too fond memories of those times.

I'm sure Vaclav Klaus would also offer some helpful instruction on the glories of communism.

This is the problem of talking about communism in the West, none of its adherents have lived or seen it up front and center with a machine pistol to back it up.

Dredging up useless shibboleths will not change the communist beast. It would be better if it stays quite dead. Ask Alexander Solzhinitsyn.

It is political fantasy that should stay dead. As one of the old communist party bosses suggested at a Christmas party; nobody actually believes that, that is just for the people.

ET - the link to the essay was intended as an example of a good summary of Islamic scientific discoveries that could be quickly read. I'm not going to waste my time writing an historical treatise complete with citations, when they are countless available in the public domain.

Let's assume for a second that you are right, and that Muslims are pastoral nomads who have had no interest in scientific inquiry. Why did they bother to translate Greek texts? Or Hindu? Or Persian? Seems like a complete waste of time for a bunch of nomads who only concerned themselves with ripping up Christian farms.

I really don't understand the reluctance to acknowledge the contribution of Muslim scholars and scientists during the Abbasid Caliphate (the so-called golden age of Islam). The historical evidence supporting this is overwhelming. I think a much more interesting question is - what happened? How did they go from that peak of civilization to their current sorry state?

Belisarius: what you said!

ET:

"Some of the polemic in the manifesto? How about:

'abolition of private property' and their reduction of this to 'small peasant' property is allowed - is irrelevant. We've seen what the abolition of private property does to communities (indigeneous), That's exactly what communism wants to set up!

'abolition of the family'
'community of women'
'abolition of nations'
and
centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state - with the proletariat as the Ruling Class
'abolition of right of inheritance'
'heavy income taxes
'confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels'
'exclusive state bank'
'exclusive state control of communication and transportation'
'industrial 'armies'
;abolition of distinction between town and country - by a 'more equitable distribution of the population over the country'"

Again, the "10 steps" from which you are deriving most if not all of this was not written by Marx. It circulates in American right-wing circles as a summary of the Communist Manifesto.

I am not going to refute everything you say here. Life is too short and since apparently you can't be bothered to consult original sources, I'm not going to waste any more time replying to you.

I'll respond to one of your assertions. That should be sufficient to indicate the reliability of the rest. The Communist Manifesto does not advocate "community of women". On the contrary, it replies caustically to that accusation by pointing out that those who make it regard women as property and that in fact Communists aim to abolish "community of women". (Anyone can check this for themselves by reading chapter 2, the section called "Proletarians and Communists", of the Manifesto.)

But, as dawg remarked much earlier, "what's the use?...."

exile - I was quoting directly from the original source, the Communist Manifesto as written by Marx and Engels.

I don't know what you are talking about with a summary by 'right wing circles'. I know nothing about that; my source is the book, the Communist Manifesto, by Marx and Engels. Penguin Books 1967. The list is on pages 32-33 and is in ch. 2 - Proletarians and Communists'.

And in this same chapter, p. 29, read "the Communists...desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized community of women" (29). They want to do away with prostitution (ie, paid) but - they openly declare they want no marriages because that is about 'property' (children).

So - attempting to deny that Marx/Engels wrote this - that's a bit much!

Rather odd that monogamy is seen as the highest stage of social evolution in Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State,

Some further context would be nice. I've seen "free love" as a substitution for "community of women" in some versions. That would make more sense. How's your German, ET?

ET:

"exile - I was quoting directly from the original source, the Communist Manifesto as written by Marx and Engels.

I don't know what you are talking about with a summary by 'right wing circles'. I know nothing about that; my source is the book, the Communist Manifesto, by Marx and Engels. Penguin Books 1967. The list is on pages 32-33 and is in ch. 2 - Proletarians and Communists'.

And in this same chapter, p. 29, read "the Communists...desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized community of women" (29). They want to do away with prostitution (ie, paid) but - they openly declare they want no marriages because that is about 'property' (children).

So - attempting to deny that Marx/Engels wrote this - that's a bit much!"

I apologize: there is a list in the Manifesto containing some of the things you cite. But your version of the list is somewhat distorted and contains a number of "extra" items.

Now, for the question of "community of women". That is not in the list. Here's the relevant section of the Manifesto. It does not say that Communists want to introduce "community of women":

"But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private."

The last section is a critique of the hypocisy of their opponents. They are saying, "if you believe that we are going to do this, then you are saying that we are going to do openly and legally what you yourselves do hypocritically and dishonestly. But in fact they make it quite plain that they aim to abolish community of women.

Earlier they say that "the bourgeois family" will vanish, not that families will vanish. The same applies to their criticism of "bourgeous marriage". They aren't saying that they want to do away with marriage in any form. In fact, they lament the ways in which "by the action of modern industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder". They lament that "children are turned into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour".

So yes, I do deny that Marx and Engels advocated community of women. No serious scholar (and there are plenty of anti-marxists who fall into this category) would maintain that they do.

Dawg: "Rather odd that monogamy is seen as the highest stage of social evolution in Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State,

Some further context would be nice. I've seen "free love" as a substitution for "community of women" in some versions. That would make more sense. How's your German, ET?"

ET's quotation was carefully selective and distorted (in fact, reversed) the meaning of the text.

exile: "The last section is a critique of the hypocisy of their opponents. They are saying, "if you believe that we are going to do this, then you are saying that we are going to do openly and legally what you yourselves do hypocritically and dishonestly. But in fact they make it quite plain that they aim to abolish community of women."

Let me put that another (and, I hope, better, way). They are saying, "you are accusing us of wanting to do openly and legally what you yourselves are doing hypocritically and dishonestly". It's a criticism of hypocisy, not a statement of intent. That's clear from the rest of what they say on this topic.

Who cares what Marx said, he was wrong about everything. Its been a while since I read "The Communist Manifesto", and I have never read Das Capital, although I have tried but it is a horrible book. I believe I am correct when I say that one of the main tenets of Marxism is that the history of conflict is the history of class struggle. He takes all his other ideas from that, and that point is so obviously wrong that any point made based on that must also be wrong. If one want to simplify history paraphrasing his main thesis, it would be much more accurate to say that the history of the world is the history of ethnic or cultural conflict.

"Community of women is a condition which belongs entirely to bourgeois society and which today finds its complete expression in prostitution. But prostitution is based on private property and falls with it. Thus, communist society, instead of introducing community of women, in fact abolishes it."

Frederick Engels, The Principles of Communism

Communism was an academic theory that didn't work in practice and killed millions of people proving it.

Capitalism is an ideology that seeks to justify poverty and oppression. It doesn't work in practice and killed (and continues to kill) millions of people and to render the lives of countless others unimaginably painful. (It's also responsible for the stupidity, degradation, and meaninglessness of contemporary North American life.)

ET: Very good stuff. Much appreciataed. Truly humbled by your erudition.

Communism is a terrific system -- it's just that to date it's been run by the wrong folks.

But seriously, for the resident Marx groupies (and I'm with ET on the shock and horror to see anybody speak with reverence about this no good bum and sponger; and that's the truth).

Try: Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk's "The Exploitation Theory of Socialism-Communism: The Idea That All Unearned Income (Rent, Interest and Profit) Invovles Economic Injustice).

It's an extract from his magnum opus, CAPITAL AND INTEREST. [Libertarian Press]. I own it; it has a red cover! As I recall, he was the great Ludwig von Mises' teacher.

It is a absolutely devastating refutation of Marx's central theme (the labour theory of value) and if I'm not mistaken was the reason he did not in fact finish the vicious screed which lead to the destruction of, oh, I dunno, 100 million wasn't it? He was a profoundly dishonest man because he knew he was trapped on the labour theory of value and just wouldn't come clean.

He seems to have had zero experience of the real world, a charteristic I suspect owned by some of our Marx groupies.

"It is a absolutely devastating refutation of Marx's central theme (the labour theory of value) and if I'm not mistaken was the reason he did not in fact finish the vicious screed which lead to the destruction of, oh, I dunno, 100 million wasn't it? "

He died. That does tend to put a stop to any writing one may have been doing.

"He seems to have had zero experience of the real world, a charteristic I suspect owned by some of our Marx groupies."

I can't speak for anyone else but I've got no deficit of "real world" experience! However, I'm not going to discuss my life history on the internet. There are too many dangerous people around.

exile - we can go on lifting quotes for ever. The Communist Manifesto, p 29 says is that the Communists "desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized community of women". What more do you want?
Marx/Engels rant against the 'hidden' community of women, which they say is that of the bourgeoisie; they accept it; they just want it open and legal.

The major problem with marxism is that it is a totalitarian social engineering system, operating within a pre-formed ideology with a clear agenda of its Final Pure State. Such a system is, frankly, 'unnatural', in the best scientific meaning of that term. It has no capacity or desire to 'practice', to move in a 'piecemeal' test and re-test and possibly reject mode. Instead, its ideological agenda is accepted, a priori, as Truth - and woe betide the individual who rejects or questions it.

Exile - the capitalist democratic system has brought just about all the benefits to the world, both materialist (and don't sneer at these), intellectual and moral. There isn't another system to match its capacity for human progress. What doesn't work, is any system that operates by requiring all to behave the same - and that rejects dissent. ie,..communism.

The thing about communism is that it can only 'exist' in theory; it has no capacity for being actualized.

Exile,

"Well, Margaret Thatcher is perhaps the politician I have the greatest admiration for. I am reading her memoirs at the moment." - Tony Blair

"I am a Socialist not through reading a textbook that has caught my intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition, but because I believe that, at its best, Socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral." - Tony Blair

If Mr. Blair can respect Mrs. Thatcher's formidable achievements, why can't you exile?

ET: "The Communist Manifesto, p 29 says is that the Communists "desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized community of women". What more do you want?"

I want the quote in full - not partial sentences, with words omitted, and the context removed.

"Marx/Engels rant against the 'hidden' community of women, which they say is that of the bourgeoisie; they accept it; they just want it open and legal."

No they don't. "Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wivees in common and thus, at the most, what the communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocricially concealed, an openly legalized community of women."

You already have a community of women, they say. The most you can say against us is that we want to make legal what you do in a hypocritically concealed way. That doesn't mean that they advocate this, just that the hypocritical practices of their critics are such that their criticisms amount to no more than an accusation of wanting to do in the open what they themselves do in hypocritical concealment. It is clear in this portion of the Manifesto and elsewhere (did you see the Engels quote?) that they do NOT believe in the community of women. I repeat, no serious scholar thinks they do. Your insistance on reading this portion of the Manifesto this way says it all.

And if you think marxism sets itself up as an a priori truth .... and that marxist socialism "requires everyone to behave the same".... I realize you believe this. Frankly, I'm not willing to invest the time and effort to demonstrate that these are fundamental misunderstandings.

I have some respect for you in your area of expertise (which, apparently, is anthropology). I'd appreciate some minimal degree of respect for mine.

ACee: ""Well, Margaret Thatcher is perhaps the politician I have the greatest admiration for. I am reading her memoirs at the moment." - Tony Blair

"I am a Socialist not through reading a textbook that has caught my intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition, but because I believe that, at its best, Socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral." - Tony Blair

If Mr. Blair can respect Mrs. Thatcher's formidable achievements, why can't you exile?"

I didn't say I didn't respect M. Thatcher's achievements. More to the point, though, I don't agree with Blair on other matters so I don't know why I should agree with him on this one!

Capitalism isn't a system so much as what free people do in a state of nature. Every other "system" is about the enslavement either partially or completely of others. "Labour" is not about the exploitation of others. Labour is a commodity like coal or oil. The labourers are not being exploited by anyone. they are selling their skills to the highest bidder. I am one of the people Marx considered a prole, and no one has ever exploited me. I sell my skills to the highest bidder in a market of free people.

I don't need to unite with anyone to throw off my chains.

Communism isn't a good system that has never been properly implemented. Communism is about the state being the controller of me and the fruits of my labour. I am quite capable of looking after myself. I don't want the state to do anything for me other than leave me alone to pursue my own goals in freedom.

I know that we all live in a community and are dependent on each other and I firmly believe that I am my brothers keeper, but I have no responsibility for anyone else's brother.

Communism isn't a good system that has never been properly implemented.

It had 7 decades and a whole lot of different locations and models in place. It failed by every metric you could measure it by. Even the Chinese are transistioning out of communism. Give it up, please.

mbaron - oops, misread you. Just spotted the "isn't" I missed. It makes a big difference. Sorry.

Quoting myself above:
Communism is a terrific system -- it's just that to date it's been run by the wrong folks.

It should go without saying, but just in case, I meant it ironically of course.

Socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral." - Tony Blair

Tony Blair is full of sh*t. He also recently said that the Koran was "progressive". Not just full of sh*t but actually insane. Socialism is in fact unnatural and immoral. Unnatural because it is out of alignment with human nature which is self-interested; immoral because it relies on coercion.

If lefties could only understand self-interest and how you can't realize on your self interest without serving others, they might get somewhere. And of course, in their own lives as they actually live them, they are as self-interested as rightists.

I'm in the financial biz: trust me: I've never met a leftie -- and I've met hundreds -- who wasn't keenly interested in tax-saving strategies.

Lefties: capitalism for me, socialism for you. Always and everywhere. No exceptions.

exile - I don't agree with marxism or communism. I think it is deeply flawed. I think it is naive utopianism. I think that Marx knew nothing about geography and ecology; nothing about the fact that societies are adaptations to specific biomes; nothing about the relation of population size to economic mode and political mode; nothing about psychology and the emotional needs of humans - and was enamoured of the simplistic linearity of Hegel.

The fact that you agree with marxism and communism, doesn't equate with expertise; you might be an expert (then why didn't you immediately recognize what I was talking about in the Comm. Manifesto) - but, that doesn't mean you have to agree with marxism. That is, an expert on marxism doesn't have to agree with it!

My area is anthropology - and specifically, biosemiotics or information processes in physical and biological and complex adaptive systems.

Marx did have a good beard, though, even if it was insignificant compared to Da Vinci.

…the wonderful workers Marxist paradise in full flower!

Hans, I guess that’s why the Ruskie Migs did daily low level, break the sound barrier flyovers, to snap the peasants out of their constant bliss.

"Yeah quotations are fun".

Agreed . I especially like quotations that come from unexpected,(at least to me),quarters.

"Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters" (Freiheit ist immer Freiheit der Andersdenkenden, usually cited as "Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently").
Rosa Luxemburg, Communist.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Abraham Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861. Republican.

Capitalism is an ideology that seeks to justify poverty and oppression.

No doubt, since the concept was invented by Marx as a foil to his communism.

Free enterprise is quite different from capitalism.

"Capitalism is an ideology that seeks to justify poverty and oppression.

No doubt, since the concept was invented by Marx as a foil to his communism.

Free enterprise is quite different from capitalism."

Whatever anyone might think of capitalism, it surely has to be the least complicated ideology on the planet.*

Whereas all other ideologies demand constant attention to manifestos, doctrines, dogmas and so forth, capitalism rests upon a single, simple seven-word credo:

"Corner The Market And Make A Bundle"

Notice that the term "free enterprise" is never mentioned. No capitalist worthy of the name is interested in sharing the market.

* In truth, I'm not convinced it's an ideology at all.

It's essentially an all-purpose bogeyman term employed principally by the left to vilify personal wealth and private ownership.

BS quote of the year: "Communism does not mean everyone and everything is The Same. "

There are 300 million graves filled with people who were "different" than the communist accepted uniform norm.

The communist state system does not allow diversity of thought, opinion, or orthodoxy. The greatest crime in soviet society is to question the status quo or dissent with prevailing opinion/politics.

Communism is just the statist form or socialism....North American socialism bears many traits of its statist parent...the one we see most often is the intolerance od diversity of opion and dissent to socialist othodoxies.

...requirement for 'getting along with each other' (the basis of Christianity).

If "getting along with each other" (a la Rodney King) were the basis for Christianity, Christ wouldn't have been crucified.

He was crucified because He didn't go along with the doctrines of the scribes and Pharisees.

He even took a cat o nine tails and drove the sellers of mite infested doves for sacrifice from the temple.