http://home.att.net/~clairnorman/Four.pdf

I haven't bothered reading this yet, so don't get angry with me if it is a broken link.

It does work, the part of interest is about 20 pages long.

That's strange, accuses Marx of using homophobia, and rumours of Bakunin's homosexuality, to expel him.

Never heard this before. Regardless, Marxism is a growing ideology, so whatever Marx may have thought then about homosexuality and homosexuals, what we think now shouldn't take that into consideration.

That's funny, so when Marx disagrees with your utopian views of homosexuality, you decide to pretend to ignore that part of him and continue holding your beliefs. Yet you are the same person who claims if we don't follow every single word of Marx we are not "Marxist" in your eyes.

I knew you would go off saying this, I just knew it. No, we're definitely taking Marx's thoughts into consideration, because they're very important. It's either that, or you can stop pretending you're a "Marxist" and go crawl back to your Anarchist friends.

MARX WAS A FASCEST REACTIONARY. Marx and Engels, take your Jerry Falwell inspired ideas back to your Mississippi shack.

The 'anti-semitism', 'homophobia', and other reactionary ideas of fascist-third positionist Marx and Engels have no place in the communist movement.

Whats this? Mr. Che "You're no Marxist" Marijuana picking and choosing which of Marx's ideas to adhere to and which ones are "outdated"? Delicious. So tell me, if Marxism is to "grow out" of ideas such as "homophobia," why should it not do the same towards ideas such as dogmatic post-modernist utopian internationalism (something which has happened over 60 years ago and is happening again today, and is exaggerated by ultra-leftists anyhow)? Double standards? I think so. Its official gents, CyM is not to be taken seriously.

Haha.

Issues like drugs and homosexuality are issues of personal freedom. Marx never really got into issues of personal freedom.

These are things we adapt and change.

Class warfare is class warfare. We can look at and change our methods, and adapt, but the essence of class warfare, that only class unites us, remains.

I never said I follow everything marx says to the letter.

I don't worship anyone.

Hence why I reject the idea that a state could be turned to our interests.

But at the basis of marxism, isn't what drugs you do, or who you fuck. So to compare dismissing his choices on that to dismissing the idea that Capitalism is formed by class dynamics and that international class warfare is the only forward, is preposterous.

This post has been edited by Che y Marijuana on Jan 1 2005, 02:11 AM

Pure bullshit. When we say something about the definitions of Marxism, you get offended and start defending "Marx" like a god. Yet when you say something, it's ok.

Hypocrisy. Learn to understand what that means.

what a load of shit. You call my opinion of the Jewish religion/culture "reactionary", my opinion of homosexuals "reactionary", my opinion on drugs "reactionary"; yet they are the same as Marx's and you refuse to call him reactionary and make an exception for your dogmatism. What fuckin' gives?

Homosexuality as topic doesn't deserve so much debate
C'mon we already have four topics in Philosophy

Because it is reactionary.

Sorry, but what is Marxist about homophobia, racism and draconian opinions on drugs? What does that have to do with Marxism? There's a difference between Marx's own prejudices (and he had many, as no one is perfect), and Marxism. They're two different things.

One of the ideas at the very basis of Marxism is the idea that the only thing that unites us is class, change that and it just stops being Marxism. But how many pages were dedicated to how to deal with the importance of homophobia in the Communist Manifesto?

Oh, and as for Judaism, sorry, but I already disproved that claim long ago. Marx was not an anti-semite.

This post has been edited by Che y Marijuana on Jan 1 2005, 09:19 PM

ROFL. So why don't we start disregarding Marx on everything else too? Since obviously his opinions on society are "not perfect" or "untrue."

It's not his opinions that matter, there's a reason he termed it "scientific socialism".

On homosexuality and the like, which I still don't really believe the article says anything about really, Marx never wrote an analysis of homosexuality based on intense observation of society All the article has is a claim, by someone definitely not very supportive of Marx, that Marx "fought dirty". It doesn't even support this or back it up.

You are stupid. I agree with Marx's theories of scientific socialism as well, yet I am a reactionary while Marx is not?

What is Marxist about Homophobia, distrust towards Jews, and hatred for druguse is that they are all products of capitalist and reactionary societies and we set out to destroy them.

I don't agree with Marx completely on homosexuals and don't believe they should be mistreated, but science should try and correct whatever gene homosexuals have that's fucked up.

Jewish media owners, property owners, and Israel supporters are our enemies, no excuses. Jewish communists who do not work against our party are obviously our brothers and sisters.

Because homosexuality, drug use, etc are all social issues that should be given little to no importance.

LOL you posted an article from Wikipedia.

The ultra-left: Nitpicking the parts of Marxism that they like, disregarding and "outgrowing" the other parts.

Marx had the benefit of living over a century ago

Despite all his faults, Marx was still ahead of his times.

Today, f you're still holding the moralisms of someone 100 years ago, you are a reactionary, sorry.

Jews? you mean religion in general, right? There's a difference between destroying all religions, and destroying Jews.

Drug use as a product of Capitalist society is questionable. Any evidence of this? I would say irresponsible drug use, and distructive drug use, are encouraged by Capitalist society.

And homosexuality? What is the scientific evidence that makes homosexuality a product of Capitalist society? Because if you're going to take these things out of the column of "Marx's own moralisms that have nothing to do with Marxism", and put them into "things at the core of scientific socialism", then you'll have to put some science and research behind it. A proper analysis that tells us what exactly does Marxism have to do with moralisms.

Scientifically, the onus is on you to prove that the vast body of psychological, neurological and genetic evidence that has built up and confirmed over the years to reject this approach is false.

They used to have "reorientation programs", built on the premise you're building your views on, that homosexuality is a disease to be treated. They moved away from that, because it makes no sense to consider it a disease, and it makes no difference to society who you screw. So why waste time and energy on researcing and implementing such a draconian measure if it doesn't even gain you anything?

No, media owners, property owners, and nationalists/theocrats are our enemies. Take that attitude, and you'll find you don't have to keep saying "of course not all jews are bad". Why make special mention of jews if the generalization doesn't even work? A generalization that requires you to state the exception like that, is a useless generalization.

Of course jewish media owners and property owners and Zionists are our enemies, but no more so than any other kind of owner/nationalist/theocrat, so why single jews out?

I wouldn't say they mustn't be given any importance. I would say, however, that the openness of Marxism goes without saying. And to spend time repressing these things is idiotic, when socialist society has much more important things to turn its labour to.

I posted an article from wikipedia, that quoted the article from Marx himself, and had a link to it. That is the article claimed to show his anti-semitism. When in fact that's rediculous.

Furthermore, if you can't accept collectively production models in their easiest form, in that plain with very little labour requirement that is the internet, then how will you bexpected to accept collective production models when they are implemented in situations of scarcity and labour limitations?

That is a very weak excuse to consider Marx unreactionary, because there are cases when figures from the past had better points of view than what goes around now. Try a little harder, son.

You contradict this statement with

this. Marx is ahead of his time, yet behind as well? And by the way, if we go by your fucked up sense of thinking, that means that the moralisms of Proudhon and Bakunin are also reactionary, and thus that would make you a "reactionary" if you want to use that dear term so much. You are a reactionary when you endorse Anarchism, and you are reactionary when you claim to support Marxism. Don't be stupid, your analysis is extremely ridiculous.

No, especially Jews. Other religions are destroyed gradually over a later period of time, at least considering the establishment part. I don't care if people still cling to their religious beliefs, as long as the organizations they go to are weakened completely and no longer have a grasp over people, and this is only in socialist countries. Other nations that don't want to change, may stay that way. Islam will be the least changed, as they are the most progressive religion. Grow up and stop being dogmatic, foolish child.

Wrong. All drug use is encouraged by Capitalist society. Rather than changing society, those in charge encourage people through the bourgeois "culture" to smoke pot and do cocaine and heroin for the sake of being cool, for the sake of escaping society into their minds, for a short period of time. Such weakness is exploited by the sellers, who profit from the user's misfortune. There is no such thing as irresponsible drug use, because in the end after a while you will get addicted to the drug, you can try to always fight it but in the end because of the fucked up world around you, you end up acquiring drugs anyway to satisfy your desire, you can't escape it, and if you say you can, you are lying, because deep down you cannot. The imperialists love drugs, because things like opium and cocaine are grown in Third World countries, and someone like the CIA can control those countries through the drug trade. When socialism is under construction, drugs will no longer be necessary unless they have medicinal uses. Pleasure use shall be banned completely. Even considering drug use for pleasure in a progressive society is wrong, and those that advocate it must be corrected, shot, put in a labor camp, etc.

Oh, there's evidence all right. Just go to some ancient Roman, Greek, Egyptian, other ancient site and you'll see how as people got more advanced homosexuality became a little side-effect, as much as pedophilia. Ever since humans lived in more advanced societies, problems came along with new societies. Genetic traits such as anxiety attacks, homosexuality, and asthma which were once insignificant problems easily rooted out by nature in primitive human groups became a problem when civilization became developed. Hence the reason why someone like Marx is needed, to fix these problems. And there is lots of scientific evidence out there that proves the relationship between Marxism and moralism, because if you don't want to associate the two, you better stop calling yourself "Marxist" and you better crawl back to that Anarchist sandbox you came from, child. Because you are only lying to yourself if you think the two aspects can be separated.

There is lots of evidence that homosexuality is an inherited gene. People try to say that there is no connection between behavior and genetic structure. But if they were to go follow this direction of logic, then they forget that something like anxiety as a defense mechanism, heart disease, asthma, and eye problems for instance would not be inherited. That mental disorders are not inherited, which is a lie, because the mind is part of the physical body, and so the two are part of each other and cannot be separated. Homosexuality is the result of chemical imbalances in the brain inherited from the genes of the mother, and in more rare cases that of the father. It is a disease that we must learn how to correct. We must help those homosexuals and find the medicine to help correct them and make them better for society, just like we fix a blind or deaf or crippled person. The scientific "evidence" built over the years also has to answer to politics, and since most of the industrialized world is going in a politically correct direction, the research is slanted towards that direction as well.

Once again, it is a disease to be treated. They moved away from it because they decided to be politically correct, rather than fix the problem, they just ignored it and decided to capitalize on homosexuality as a new form of culture. We must go back and re-employ the methods of curing the disease.

When we say Jews, we mean the majority, not every single last individual, of course. And Jews are singled out the most, because they are the most reactionary, the most dangerous who have had centuries of experience dealing in capitalism, long before everyone else. Thus we must be extra cautious of them, especially a people that get the U$ to make sure their little country survives despite what the world thinks.

No it is not idiotic, because the whole point of socialism is to change every aspect of society in one degree or another and come up with something coherent that respects the cultural, national, and historical aspects, as well as the aspects of the future. You cannot simply dismiss this away, otherwise you are lying to yourself.

Heh, nice way to sugarcoat your bullshit. I don't know if Iron Feliks knows this, but you CyM are a member of Wikipedia. Anything you cite from there is slanted because no doubt somewhere along the line you had a say in what the writing material of the content would be. You are attempting to worm your way through explaining the validity of what you posted from Wikipedia, when in fact what you posted was utter trash.

Even though the Internet is a great tool, it is not the final tool. There is something called a book, a journal, or a magazine. At least make a half-assed attempt to read print sources, because if you rely on the Internet alone to explain away everything, you are uneducated and thus foolish to even try to argue your points with people that actually bother to take the time to read something concrete.

CYM you are wrong to assume that people who lived a 100 year's ago were
ignorent

There is no denying the technological and scientific progresses made in the last 100 years but the truth is that today we know even less about matters of mind and spirit than what our ancestor's did during their times.

This will prove our greatest undoing
For from what I see the peaks that we are making in the technological sphere along with the troughs that fomed from our ignorence of matters of mind and spirit will create disturbances that eventually level all peaks and troughs and take us back to the early ages

Saying that those who hold the moralisms of someone who lived a 100 years ago makes them reactionary, only makes you a reactionary
Whatever you make of that

This post has been edited by *revolutionindia* on Jan 2 2005, 06:59 PM

Good post Red Skyscraper.