Peace is not a natural state.

[Timber Loftis]

Personally, I think the peace/love/happiness trend of the 60s hasn't exactly been re-awakened: I simply think it's hung around in one form or another. When I was in college during the first Gulf War there were campus protests.

It is the youngsters and college professors who typically do this stuff - but as I see it that's their function in society. Somebody has to be that voice. Plus, who else can get the time off from work and life to rally and march?

Remember, folks, play pretty. It is the opinion stacked against yours that is the one you learn the most from. Appreciate it well. Do not forget that without dialectic interaction there is no maturation of self. [img]graemlins/awesomework.gif[/img]

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: Peaceniks, so to speak,were all hyped up on drugs. That should tell you something should it not? Intresting discusion everyone.

Those US Air Force pilots that bombed those Canadians troops in Afghanistan were on speed. That should tell you something should it not?

That "peaceniks" are all on drugs is a generalization GR.. and can we all agree that peace is a good thing? If it is a good thing then why don't more people take drugs like those peaceniks?

[ 01-17-2003, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

[Timber Loftis]

HEY!!!

Let's not get so [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] here and completely derail a perfectly good discussion with slander.

I assure you, not every hippie was [img]graemlins/bonghit.gif[/img] On the other hand, I can show you some doctors, judges, cops, and DA's who are [img]graemlins/bonghit.gif[/img] If you ask me [img]graemlins/bonghit.gif[/img] all you want - hell, if doing illegal stuff wouldn't cause me all worlds of trouble, I'd probably [img]graemlins/bonghit.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/bonghit.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/bonghit.gif[/img] myself.

What's the point?

MagiK, old friend - Messrs. Muppets - what hath thou wrought with one well-turned phrase? [img]graemlins/evilhaha.gif[/img]

[Djinn Raffo]

Although i love peace and speak out for it..
Do not mistake this for weakness.
I do not equate peace to Flower Power.
EDIT> And it does not mean i cant get pizzed off.

[ 01-17-2003, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

[Iron_Ranger]

[quote]Originally posted by Djinn Raffo:

Those US Air Force pilots that bombed those Canadians troops in Afghanistan were on speed. That should tell you something should it not? It should and it does, it tells me that you shoudlnt fly jets while on some kind of subtance. But the friendly fire case is another subject all together. That "peaceniks" are all on drugs is a generalization GR.. and can we all agree that peace is a good thing? If it is a good thing then why don't more people take drugs like those peaceniks?

I challenge you to find a hippie that has never done drugs . Peace is a good thing, but I dont want to take something that alters my thinking in order to acheieve it.

[ 01-17-2003, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Iron_Ranger ]

[Djinn Raffo]

I apologize. Sorry for derailing the thread.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: And Barry, you point to my central problem with Marx's philosophy: he ignores reality. There are two kinds of people: groupers and splitters. And, the person who made that statement was obviously a splitter. Anyway, I think the splitters out there will always seek an "us" and "them." If these terms are not defined by skin color, they will be defined by religion, or class, or status, or hair color, or number of freckles, or what state/country you're from. Eliminating class only eliminates one of the ways people will segregate themselves and struggle for power. All others will still exist.

I think in some ways that you misunderstand how Marx defines these "classes". He does not point to them on the basis of: "These people have got a lot of money, these people haven't - therefore theres something wrong!". His definition of class, and his reasons for saying it permeates every aspect of human interaction, are ridiculously complicated. The wage labourer is not defined by their monetary wealth but by their need to sell their labour power to survive. In other words they cannot take the surplus value of their labour, it is taken by a member of the bourgoisie. Marx does not argue that there are two fuzzy classes in society that cause friction, he argues that there are two distinct groups who are defined by their relationship to the use of labour power. Ultimately to the ownership of the means of production. This is not just finding an "us or them" arbitrarily, this is a hell of a lot more complicated than that. And don't I know it... I have to answer essays on the bloody stuff...

The thing is that you refer to Marx as a splitter, its the first time I've heard him called that! His goal in life was to help build a working class movement that could overthrow the class system. He failed, but we're still trying to get there for him! But my point is that his goal was to group people. His intention and his doctrine was to get an overwhelming majority of people to see the other option available. He was definately not a splitter. In some ways I find it hard to think that you really believe that Karl Marx was, as you infer if not actually state, simply an unfocussed malcontent with a problem with authority. Whether or not you agree with what he said, I don't think you can really say he didn't have a good amount of reasoning behind it. If someone puts in as much effort to one cause as Marx did then I personally think that immediately disqualifies them from unfocussed malcontent status.

As for your idea that other problems would crop up, I think you underestimate the importance of the class relationship in society. Its hard to explain the complete ramifications that removing capitalism from the earth will have but I recommend you read William Morris's "New From Nowhere.". Its a bit airy and unscientific but it gives you an idea of the scope of change that is possible under proper communism. And you can't really blame the guy for not being all that vigorous, he was only a poet really. Mostly he wrote stuff about the Arthurian legend, but he was also a committed socialist and he put his idea of how it might look down on paper. Its not gospel, it just makes you think a bit. I certainly don't agree with quite a lot of it!

Anyway, I don't expect that to change your mind, I just recommend it as a good read on the subject that offers better understanding of the kind of scope socialists postulate would come from a lack of a class based society.

[Iron_Ranger]

No worries here Djinn [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

IR, you need someone to put a good roofie in your beer.

[Timber Loftis]

Barry, I don't have time to address all your points right now. But, I need to correct a few things you think I said.

First, I didn't call Marx a splitter. Rather, I said because there are "splitters" in the world, there will always be "us" and "them."

Second, you are right that Marx's definition of class is quite long - hell Das Kapital is 3 full volumes IIRC. But, that said, it only supports my notion because as your notion of class creeps and grows, it comes to pass that what you have actually discussed doing is destroying "power differences" among people and groups of people. I say that our very human nature will prevent this from ever happening - if nothing else we will oppress the freckled. I'm serious - it's in our nature to segregate ourselves - it's the very way our minds work - through compartmentalization. It's the dialectic in action, something Marx seemed to miss to be someone so knowledgable on Hegel.

I was once a Marxist too, friend. If you want to see a perfect example of Marx labor theories in action, check out professional sports in the USA - where it is the LABOR rather than the CAPITAL that has the power.

I've come round at Marx time and time again, and I just think he missed a basic notion of human nature. There are those out there who are simply not happy with getting what they "need" and have a lot of "wants." Plus there are those out there who, given the choice to have what they need, would simply take it without doing any work - the free riders.

And this is another failure of Marx. While "man is a workman by heart" is a fine socialogical statement (being true about manKIND) it is not fairly applicable to individual persons. Some men are simply lazy by heart. And, between them and the people who like to segregate "us" and "them" and the people who, for sake of justice, want to see everyone put in equal effort, Marx ultimately falls flat.