What are you talking about? I didn't say his points of view in general were bad, I said some of his moralisms were the same as what was to be expected at that time.

He was not behind his time. He was ahead of his time, but that doesn't mean he rejected all the moralisms of his time. Homophobia is one of those situations (if he really was a homophobe), where he shared the views that were normal then but are unacceptable now.

Marxism and Anarchisms are not moralisms, sorry. Many of the moralisms of Proudhon and Bakunin were reactionary. Bakunin was a racist fuck. But that doesn't matter, because I don't look to a hundred years ago for my ethics and morality. That would be as bad as religion.

Marxism and Anarchism are ideologies free of moralism. So they aren't reactionary just cause some of their thinkers had a few reactionary ideas.

How the fuck is Islam the most progressive? A religion that forces girls' boarding schools to chop up carrots, bananas, cucumbers and anything remotely phallic before serving it?

A religion that stones girls to death if they have sex before marriage?

Sorry, there's something wrong with your head.

Glad to see you provided scientific evidence to support your rejection of all the evidence that contradicts you.

But they are seperated. By definition. Moralism is a rejection of science for tradition and cultural idiocy. Marxism is a rejection of bourgeois traditions and values for science and logic.

Show me the evidence that homosexuality causes pedophelia.

What is the evidence that it needs to be corrected? And why should a society waste its resources telling people who to have sex with? Aren't there more important things to spend our labour on?

Prove that it's a disease. Prove that it's harmful. Lastly, rpove that the bourgeoisie hasn't been dragging its feet against its legalization for years.

*cough* bush *cough*

How are Jews special? Have they genetically inherited this crap? And Jews and Israelis are not interchangeable words, despite what the Zionists want us to think.

Cultural, national aspects? No, Marxism does away with the national by fire, and discards bourgeois cultural norms that are not based in reality. This is something that isn't based in reality, and the most coherent response to it is who gives a fuck? Who cares who yuou have sex with, why should all of society waste its time trying to stop you from having consensual sex with a sexually mature person?

You can check the history of that wikipedia article, I had nothing to do with it. I can't edit every single article there.

There's also many other members, and collective production is an ongoing process. If I make any edits of my own that the collective dislikes, they go in and change it.

I don't think you understand. Basically, anything you can find in a book, you can find on the net. Alot of material is more freely available there. That's not the point though, he was rejecting it because it's collectively produced, not because it's the net. Everyone here posts links to the web, so blow me, I'm not about to mail you a copy of a book

And the article quoted, the article by Marx, is available in print if you wanna do this the hard way. Read it yourself, and you'll understand why the claim of anti-semitism is idiotic.

Sick as i admit, i agree. Islam is slime that should be destroyed with whatever force necessary. However punishing adulteresses is perfectly just in my opinion.

Islam is the only Abrahamic religion that I don't hate. Many of its adherents are fighting in the frontlines against the Zionists/global capitalism, and I definitely support them fully. Though I do oppose the Chechens/KLA terrorists and the few cranks that want some kind of "global Islamic order" (like Osama). Besides them, I can't see anything wrong with the religion. Why should I care what they choose to worship in the Middle East/North Africa/parts of Asia? As long as it stays out of the West, I could not care any less about their religion.

Which you implied were bad, by ignoring his beliefs.

Unacceptable to a society practicing liberalism, of course. As unacceptable as all of his other views.

But you do that anyway, liar. You tell people they must follow the principles of Marx and that if they do not they are unMarxist. You preach like the theory is religious dogma.

No, Marxism has a core of solid principles to follow, I don't mean Capital M "Moralism." Otherwise why the fuck would we even bother changing society?

How many fucking times must I tell you, when I say Islam is progressive, I mean compared to the other large religions like Christianity or Judaism!?! If I advocated Islam, I wouldn't be reading Marxist literature, now would I? Islam must more gradually be reduced in its power compared to other religions, so that it isn't a big powerful religious establishment. And if countries decide to stick to Islam, so be it. Nothing we can do about it, the people there must decide on their own.

Glad to see how you couldn't even come up with even a half-assed response, since you know I'm right.

I'm not talking about "Moralism" the ideology, I'm talking about how Marxism follows principles of correct thinking, of good culture, of healthy struggle, of staying away from material wealth. I'm talking about how Marxists are supposed to follow a code of conduct, not be incoherent and unorganized in their thinking.

I didn't say homosexuality caused pedophilia, I said it's as much of a health problem as pedophilia.

Why should a society waste its resources trying to eliminate greed, oppression? Why should a society help crippled people? Why should a society help the poor? Why should a society help the blind or the deaf? Why should a society help blacks, or women? Come on now, don't be ridiculous. We should help everyone in our society with their problems, instead of leaving them out in the open and vulnerable.

I did prove that it was a disease. I did prove that it was harmful, as harmful as incest, and pedophilia. There is no such case of any of these traits in the natural world, for there are checks that keep these deviating factors in check. With the advancement of society however, these checks are gone, and these people who are affected survive and grow in number, eventually demanding that everyone cater to them because of their problems, when in fact rather than having these people be individually separated, we make them better and put them back into the collective part of society as a whole, to be put to better use.

Judaism is a religion, not a race, stupid, that picked up a bourgeois lifestyle from the Middle Ages. I am related to a family of Zionists unfortunately, so I know what the fuck I am talking about. There are a few Jews out there that haven't fallen into this trap with their cousins, but the rest feel that they are special, that those that don't cater to them must die, and that money is totally sacred to them. It is a well-known fact.

No, Marxism enhances the proletarian national and cultural aspects, country-by-country, to form an international coalition. There is no magical "all capitalists are overthrown at once, and world revolution comes" myth. The reality is that Marxism is a science that is applied to society to solve its problems, it is not a doctrine separate and of itself, it is the primary doctrine of a society while that society upholds other values. And again, if we go by your "logic," why should we bother helping anybody then? Why bother? Well, we should bother, that's the whole point. We want change, and that means getting rid of our problems, like crime, disease, homosexuality, greed, etc.

Most of those people are uneducated assholes who by the power of a few mouseclicks and typing motions, presto-voila, you have a new Wikipedia article.

No, not everything you find in a book can be found on a net. Books are in fact very important. Can't ignore them on rely on quick answers. Got to carefully research before you make lame statements.

The claim of anti-semitism is not idiotic, it just flies in the face of your utopian "vision." And I like to read my print sources, thank you very much.

What kind of other prejudices did Marx have?

This post has been edited by Fernando Gonzales on Jan 3 2005, 02:10 AM

Washington helped them gain power. And I would have supported Soviet involvement in Afghanistan. However, at present, the Taliban is leading the resistance against Washington's global empire schemes in their country, so now I support their fight to drive America out.

I agree wholeheartedly Mazdak. Did I ever tell you about the time the Che-Lives administration wanted me banned for my supposedly 'puritanical' views on morality?

So what?


Chairman Mao.

What about males who cheat on their wifes? Should they receive the same punishment as females?

What kind of punishment are we talking about?

This post has been edited by Fernando Gonzales on Jan 3 2005, 02:11 AM

If you fully oppose Washington's drive to take over the world, and force their system on everyone, then you would never need to ask such questions.

I feel the same about husbands cheating on their wives.

Che lives is an ammoral cesspool. they actually support consensual mother-son incest.

This post has been edited by Mazdak on Jan 3 2005, 02:29 AM

Well, you said that:

I gave you quotes from the Koran and Islamist rule in practice to show that there are very valid reasons to hate Islam.

I said "So what?" because Islamist actions does not change wether they are supported by the US, or not.


If the US supported Mao in his struggle against the Soviet Union, that does not mean Mao's intention would change. He would still be Mao, regardless of US political or economi support.


I think we both have misunderstood each other.

Well, why do you think they fight against "non-believers" and global capitalism?

Because they want Islamic rule.

The muslims who are opposed to global capitalism do so because capitalism divert people's attention away from Islam (or so they claim).

True muslims want global Islamic order. They are not just "a few" fanatics.

This post has been edited by Fernando Gonzales on Jan 3 2005, 05:41 PM

lol, are you trying to say that all Muslims = "Islamists"???

Not all Muslims want an "Islamic state", duh. Just like not all Christians want theocratic rule (though many do).

Haha, "True muslims"... Osama would agree.

Homosexuality was legalized in the USSR, Lenin approved of its legalization. The Bolsheviks, in addition to legalizing homosexuality, gave the Jews an equal place in society and put an end to the Tsarist pogroms.

The first international of Marx and Engels was also against women's suffrage; later, the Bolsheviks granted women the right to vote.

Shouldn't this be proof enough that Bolshevism, to which we all claim to adhere, casts aside the reactionary features of Marx's beliefs?

Of course. Punishment is not really necessarily though, you can prescribe many things culturally, adultery being on such thing.

Were you not aware that consent can make anything moral and that nothing anyone can do will have a wider social impact?

Mother-son incest is a great idea, especially for fathers. That look on his face when he sees the love of his life having sex with his own son - priceless.

Get rid of your useless taboos Mazdak.

This post has been edited by Chairman Mao on Jan 3 2005, 08:47 PM

So you want to punish women, but not men?

What do you mean by this?

Many were bad. But no worse than what was normal for the time. He gets away with it, cause that was what was normal, and he can't be expected to be ahead of his time in every aspect of his life.

His ideas in general however, where relevant and far ahead.

First, I don't agree with everything in Marx's opinions even within his ideology. And even then, there is a world of difference between disagreeing with aspects of implementation of Marxism, and disagreeing with the phrase "workers of the world unite". It's not even comparable.

Second, Marxist ideology is seperate from Marx's personal moralisms. You seem to have a problem understanding that.

Good culture? Healthy struggle? Material wealth? We're not buddhists. We're materialists. There is no "code of conduct" in our lives past implementing our political ideas. Moralisms are completely seperate from, and antithetical to Marxism.

Prove it. Or did you think "scientific socialism" was just a fancy name?

Greed and oppression, and the poor, are things Marx proved in a scientific manner we must deal with. The blind and deaf want your help. In the absence of either scientific proof that we muswt deal with homosexuality as a society, or an invitation from them for you to uproot them and "cure them", your argument falls flat on its face.

Wrong, you provided no evidence to back up your unexpert opinion, whereas the burden is on you to prove why we should discount the scientific community's general consensus.

Wrong again, homosexuality is widespread and has been well-known to scientists for decades in the wild.

Baseless claims about an virus-like increase in homosexual populations that doesn't exist.

All Capitalists overthrown at once? Of coruse not, but we overthrow them and find we don't need borders between us. That's why Marxism is anti-national. Again, "workers of the world unite".

As for it being a doctrine in and of itself, maybe not, but when you accept its materialist base, that is a philosophical outlook on the world that challenges mythology and arbitrary customs that are almost always just roadblocks to progress.

So no, I don't think there'll be much left over from the old cultural idiocies influenced by religion and Capitalism.

Then go find the title in your library (highly unlikely), and see for yourself how stupid the claims that were put forth by the far right and propagated by people like you are.

Once again you contradict yourself. You say

then say

I'll go you one better: all of Marx's ideas were important and relevant to today, including homosexuality, and especially his anti-Anarchism, which makes you a liar by heart. Sorry, but you're gonna have to wake up and smell the roses.

Actually, you're a "ultra-left missionary" that picks and chooses whatever part of Marx he feels is good for his dogma, without paying attention to all of what Marx wrote and said.

Of course, this is coming from someone who claims there is a link between Marxism and Anarchism, when Marx himself proved there was no such link. Since you don't pay attention to that fact, you don't pay attention to the fact that all of Marx's words are important. Can't ignore his morals, because his morals are part of what he preached and represent his character, and if you are going to ignore his morals, you might as well ignore everything else he said.

Correction: I'm a dialectical materialist. I study conflict, nature in motion, opposites in struggle against each other. The thesis, synthesis, and antithesis at work. This all involves nature, culture, everything that goes on and exists. You ignore that, and you ignore Marxism, proving that you don't practice the doctrine.

Don't need to prove it, it's a fact. I can tell you this. Whenever someone says that homosexuality is only natural, they are wrong. People say homosexuality is "natural" because they want to be politically correct, they don't want to deal with the fact that the homosexual person has a problem and needs help. It's like saying people are stuck in their fate, that they can't change the world around them.

What falls flat on its face is your attempt to consider the blind, deaf, and homosexual as insignificant in your "holy" cause to create world revolution, regardless of what people in each different country think. It's funny that you would ignore them, when you fail miserably to realize that people are stuck in such positions because of capitalist society due to the fact that capitalism hinders scientific change. Because you put your words in such a way, no doubt you have your own sinister agenda planned that you attempt to label as "revolutionary" when in fact you have your own selfish interests involved.

I do not have any burden to prove anything, for it is a well known fact. At the rate things are going, people in 50 years will say pedophilia is a wonderful thing when it is not. Homosexuality is the same thing. Oh, you say it's harmless, well it's not. It's as bad as polio, and thus we must treat and help those in need, and thus make them feel better about themselves. There is nothing wrong with helping.

Actually, it's most often rare. Most cases are animals that can change gender, and also due to chemical imbalances, and homosexuality occurs more among domesticated animals, not the wild ones. You also have to take into account environmental pollution which is messing with the chromosomes of organisms. Believe me, homosexuality is mainly a human thing.

Sorry, but as human populations increase, so does homosexuality, as nature didn't have a chance to stop the gene from passing on from parent to child.

Another useless response. you've taken words out of context, you've ignored national factors, you ignore social and cultural factors. You claim that you don't plan on overthrowing the capitalists all at once, but deep down, that's what you want.

One must also accept the fact that dogmatism is unacceptable, something you apparently are incapable of doing.

Bourgeois national culture will be gone. Proletarian national culture will grow strong in each country affected by Marxism.

LOL. I know that anti-semitism is a fact, I have personal experience. You meanwhile are on a campaign to defend the Judaic bourgeoisie.

No.

By altering the present culture one can prevent adultery from occurring.

I thought you were a materialist? Are you a materialist, or was Marx a godly being that was never wrong at all, not even when it came to his own personal opinions that he never claimed were scientifically backed components of Marxism?

And saying his ideas in general (as expressed in his ideological works) are relevant, does not mean accepting them all. The use of the words "in general", means not in every case. Thus your claims of contradiction are meaningless.

You call me a dogmatist, and then say one cannot pay attention to what Marx actually said and judge it on its merits, rejecting what he never claimed to be scientific in favour of up to date facts and experience.

Marx proved no such thing. As for his morals, once again, morality is by definition subjective and unscientific. A materialist cannot take such things and accept them whole, without judging them rationally.

These morals have nothing to do with Marxism as an ideology, and judging them leads us to the conclusion that they should be rejected as relics of bourgeois societal influences on Marx's personal ideas.

Conflict. Interesting. Is it not true that the conflict that moves us is progressive and ongoing, that one can never go backwards, but must always travel forwards? Attempting to return to the social standards of early Capitalist society would be a grave mistake dialectically. There is a reason science and technology have prompted us to move forwards and recognize the evidence that homosexuality is natural.

To be a fact, you must prove it. The reality is, the evidence points to your opponents' views being a fact. So if you wanna oppose the evidence, you must show your own. You tell me that homosexuality presents a problem, but don't say what it is, you tell me it is a virus, but don't cite sources. The reality is, the general consensus scientifically has been that homosexuality is natural and harmless. For you to discount the years of research that back that up, you must provide some evidence and a logical counter-argument of your own.

Not just declare it as fact.

If it is a problem, tell me how. If it is like blindness, tell me why homosexuals aren't asking for your help.

Strawman say:

Responding to my argument that blind people ask for our help, while homosexuals don't want your prison camps, by saying "you just don't want to help blinds do you?", is not sufficient.

Strawman laugh when you tickle him like that.

Again, greed, capitalism, the poor, are all things Marx scientifically proved needed to be dealt with. The blind and the deaf ask for our help, and are scientifically proven to have handicaps. In the absence of either scientific evidence that society must "cure" them, or an invitation from them for you to uproot them and "help" them, wasting resources on this fantasy of yours is meaningless.

When your help isn't asked for, of course there is. The burden is on you to disprove the facts that are well known. If this was a well known fact, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The reality is, the scientific community rejected your arguments long ago, much to the chagrin of the Capitalist world. Science pushed forwards despite the objections of Capitalism. If you want to disprove the massive body of evidence that the general consensus is built on, you must provide the evidence.

You provide none.

You also provide no reason to consider homosexuality the same as polio, except your own lack of intelligence.

How does homosexuality harm consenting sexually mature persons? How does it harm society?

Read up on bonobos, and stop making up rediculous falsehoods.

Are you telling me that if it actually happened, you would be annoyed? Obviously, you wouldn't. So of course we all would love for that to happen, even you. But none of us think it would. That doesn't matter though, because once we do take them out, we will have no need for nations.

Fuck the national and cultural factors. After revolution, there is no need for borders. Period. Nations will die. The state will die. The world will not care about borders or cultures, only on how best can humanity move forth, and how best can we use our resources cooperatively to advance society.

Accepting the aspects of Marxism that have been scientifically and rigorously proven, while rejecting the aspects of Marx's own moralisms which are separate from it, and rejecting those aspects of Marxism that have proven to be dubious, is not dogmatism. Taking his own personal opinions as truth without judging them, those which he never claimed to be scientific conclusions, is.

Anyways, you must tell me, do you agree with the phrase "workers of the world, unite"?

The proletariat is international. So while there will be localisms, that influence local culture, these will not be a "national culture" that is in anyway given any importance. Considering there will be no nations.

I never said anti-semitism isn't a fact. Anti-semitism exists, and there are plenty of examples of it right here. My point was that the claim was that Marx is an anti-semite, if you read Marx's article that they claim proves it, you would see that it couldn't be furhter from the truth.

Marx was not an anti-semite.

Futhermore, I am doing my best to defend the "Judaic" proletariat. Who you are doing a good job of lumping in with the bourgeoisie in a nationalist and racialist fashion unbecoming of a class warrior.

This post has been edited by Che y Marijuana on Jan 5 2005, 03:39 AM