Note how frequently “progressives” from Obama on down (to, say, a Toronto Star writer I argued with recently) now use the word “divisive” as a prejorative.
Why is divisiveness a bad thing? Why is “unity” always a good? Aren’t the “issues that divide us” precisely where our principles and passions lie?
Obama’s right: Jerry Falwell was a divisive figure. So was Abe Lincoln (and NO, I’m not equating the two…)
Are progressives trying to smuggle a more insidious concept into public discourse by using the word “divisive” as an insult?
I’ve yet to hear a conservative employ the word. Why not?
What can I say? I feel it’s helpful to keep watch on leftists’ words de jour, even though I probably give their “deeper meaning” more thought than they do themselves. Your mileage may vary.
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. đŸ™‚
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.