Now this is what I call an interesting development.
A 17 years old high school student, who happens to be a female favorable to gun ownership and opposed to abortion, unseats ‘a two term Republican nearly four times her age’ and becomes ‘the official Republican candidate in November’s general election’
I’ve made an assertion on FB, forgetting to use scarecrows, and I’ve been asked to elaborate:
“Marx was a schizophrenic? You need to provide me with some good evidence before I can countenance that assertion. Similarly with the accusation of intellectual arrogance; Marx was a dialectician–which I understand to mean that conversation was more productive than solitary rumination.”
First about Marx being a dialectician. He was one alright. Only there is a small problem with dialectics. In order to work they need at least two equivalent proponents, one on each side. You cannot have proper dialectics by talking to yourself, eventually you’ll take sides and the whole exercise loses its scope.
At this point I’ll make a short break and let you in on one of my moments of shame.
As a high school student (Romania under communist rule) I had to participate in a compulsory class about ‘dialectical and historical materialism’ – the ‘scientific formula’ used by communists to describe their creed in those times. At one point the teacher asked me “What are the reasons for ‘dialectical’ materialism being ‘better’ than all other forms of materialism?”. “‘Dialectical materialism’ constantly checks its concepts against the reality and adjust them as the reality changes. By doing this its practitioners constantly deepen human knowledge and build an ever improving understanding of the world.” The teacher congratulated me for this answer and I felt very proud at that moment.
But only momentarily. Very soon I started to understand that the theory was fine indeed but that it couldn’t be put into practice.
Precisely because of how Marx had envisioned the communist society:
“The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties:
formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.
They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes.”
In fewer words he had stated that the communists were the sole guardians of truth and that that truth was unquestionable. Hence everybody else was wrong and the communists had an obligation to bring everybody back to the ‘straight and narrow’!
And where are the symptoms of his alleged ‘schizophrenia’?
Read the manifesto. It is comprised of a ‘theoretical’ introduction, in which Marx exposes his view on what had happened until the dawn of mankind till his days, and a ‘to do’ part which contains Marx’s recomandations about what people should have done from there on. I find it extremely baffling that a person who gathered such a complex understanding about a certain situation could come up with such completely erroneous ideas about how to proceed from there on.
Quite a lot of people entertain the notion that Marx was right only Lenin got it wrong and hence the failure of Russian/European communism.
No! Marx was right only when he described and explained what had happened. What he had said about the ‘conquest of political power by the proletariat’ was plain wrong. There is no such thing as a ‘good’ or ‘right’ dictatorship, no matter how dialectical it pretends to be.
You see, bona fide dialectics is about people freely, but considerately, contradicting each-other. In no way about ‘sheeple’ submissively caving in to peer pressure or crushing authority.
And here we have ‘it’: under communist rule, in order to save both their mortal beings and their inner souls quite a lot of people apparently toed the line but nevertheless kept a mental reserve about what was going on around them. Not clinical/proper schizophrenia indeed but how else would you call it?
PS. I still have to explain where my shame came from. When I eventually did understand the unbridgeable contradiction between my fine theoretical demonstration about the relative superiority of ‘dialectical materialism’ above over all other forms of materialism and the day to day tragic consequences of that specific brand of materialism being put into practice I remembered how proud I was about the praise I received on that day.
Remembering that moment is a fail proof method to prune down my pride!
One-Time
Monthly
Yearly
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
Or enter a custom amount
$
As much as I love writing, I do have to eat.
And to provide for my family.
Earning money takes time.
If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button.
Your contribution will be appreciated!
Another very efficient way to help would be to share my posts.
As much as I love writing, I do have to eat.
And to provide for my family.
Earning money takes time.
If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button.
Your contribution will be appreciated!
As much as I love writing, I do have to eat.
And to provide for my family.
Earning money takes time.
If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button.
Your contribution will be appreciated!
Somebody forwarded to me an email, in Romanian, about this incident. I read it this morning.
Basically it was a translation of the article published by the Russian Radio, available here.
Two things have grabbed my attention:
and
“The system with which the Russian Su-24 shocked the American destroyer “Donald Cook” has the code name “Khibiny”. This is the name of the mountain range on the Kola Peninsula in the Arctic Circle. “Khibiny” is the newest complex for radioelectronic jamming of the enemy. They will be installed on all the advanced Russian planes .
Recently the complex has undergone regular testing exercises on the ground in Buryatia. Apparently, the tests which were conducted under conditions as close to real as possible, were successful.”
So 27 American Navy personnel were scarred shitless by an extremely powerful experimental device soon to be deployed on ‘all the advanced Russian planes’!
OK, let’s get this straight. I’m no privy to any military secrets, Russian or American. For all I care/know this might have taken place ‘as advertised’. But there is one thing I know for certain, the Russians have actually published this article. So lets see what we can gather from this, undeniable, fact.
There are two main possibilities.
1. The whole thing is a bogus. Well, not entirely, the fly by has actually taken place, so only the spin out might be considered an elaborate invention. Why? D.J. Dyer offers a very pertinent reason: “Donald Cook is the first of our permanently forward-stationed ballistic missile defense (BMD) warships, which we’ve been planning to put in the European theater as part of the Obama “substitute” for the Bush 43 missile defense plan.” so the Russians couldn’t afford to loose the opportunity to raise the issue one more time.
2. The Russians have indeed developed a very efficient “complex for radioelectronic jamming of the enemy” and … used an experimental version in an actual encounter with a potential enemy, even before massively deploying it on the the rest of their Air Force?!? Does any of this make any sense?
Actually yes. It makes some sense.
Judging by the fact that somebody took the trouble to translate and disseminate the article in other languages than Russian and English means that that somebody thinks the effort is worthwhile. People have forwarded it so, at least apparently, the whole thing got some traction. After reading the comments on the original link that impression is beefed up even more.
But what if we dig a little deeper?
To me at least it starts to smell like desperation. Do you remember how much hype Hitler made about his ‘secret weapons’ towards the end of WWII? No I won’t dismiss altogether the Russian military establishment, it still is very capable of throwing a hefty punch. The problems arise, exactly as they did in Hitler’s case, from the extreme concentration of decision power in present day Russia. Dictators tend to become elongated from the real world and to see nothing but enemies everywhere they look around. Enemies that have to be frightened into submission, no matter how, no matter what. In fact it’s more about alleviating one’s own fears (dictator’s own fears) than anything else. Hiding desperation under a blanket of extreme aggression.
One other thing. Romania suffered for some 40 years the rigors of communist rule. During 25 of those years if somebody would have disseminated news about how strong the Americans were and how they had humiliated the Red Army that person would have gotten a hefty prison term for defeatism and propaganda favorable to the enemy. Nowadays bashing America is …. you find the right word… No, the Americans are not whiter than Snow White but piling on their heads things that don’t belong there isn’t helpful for any of us.
I just received this in my mail:
He who doesn’t know he doesn’t know is stupid.
Avoid him.
He who doesn’t know he knows is asleep.
Wake him.
He who knows he doesn’t know is untrained.
Train him.
He who knows he knows is wise.
Follow him.
Really?
I prefer a different approach…
He who doesn’t know he doesn’t know is innocent.
Leave him be.
He who doesn’t know what he knows is unsure.
Comfort him.
He who knows he doesn’t know is wise.
Help him and both of you will learn something.
He who is convinced he knows anything is conceited.
He is the one you need to avoid.
Widely.
Humans do that too and equally on their own.
The fact that tardigrades do it based on their resilience while humans are able to do it because of their ingenuity and willingness to cooperate doesn’t obliterate the fact that both ‘have it in them’, neither need any outside assistance.
“Ren Alexandria: Complaining about a problem that HAS a solution is called “Whining”
Complaining about a problem that does not have a solution is called “Grief” “
The way I see this is that here is no such thing as a problem without a solution.
If you can’t get out of somewhere you are in a situation, not in a problem.
‘Solving a problem’ and ‘grieving’ are both human reactions to outside inputs, ways to cope with a specific set of conditions, but have different outcomes. Trying to ‘solve a problem’ will eventually set you free, even if through ‘death by exertion’ while ‘grieving’ will finally get you accustomed with the situation.
So this is more about individual choices than the specific set of conditions that generated the whole situation.
So 100 years ago at least one member of a Parliament volunteered for active duty then retired from politics and took up a real job.
Nowadays we tend to equate involvement in politics with being a member of organised crime…
Don’t tell me the politicians should bear all the blame. After all this is our world too!
Avantajul fundamental al democratiei fata de celelalte metode de gestionare a spatiului public este caracterul ei participativ.
Prin exercitarea votului cetateanul isi exprima mult mai mult decat opinia cu privire la problemele aflate in discutie – si legitimeaza astfel una sau alta dintre optiunile supuse aprobarii populare. El isi probeaza astfel, direct si de netagaduit, interesul fata de viata cetatii si fata de viitorul sau. In plus, chiar daca varianta aleasa de el nu s-a bucurat de increderea a suficient de multi dintre ceilalti, simplul fapt ca toate variantele au fost examinate denota ca mecanismul democratic din societatea respectiva este in stare de functionare si ca suficient de multi dintre cetatenii acesteia se simt confortabil in interiorul ‘cetatii’, reprezentati legitim de catre conducatorii sai vremelnici si, daca nu chiar multumiti cu directia generala in care se indreapta societatea respectiva, atunci macar nu sunt disperati cu privire la acea directie.
Dar toate astea sunt valabile doar daca votul este exprimat. Indiferent cum.
In momentul in care votul nu este exprimat de loc, adica cetateanul prefera sa stea acasa in loc sa isi exprime parerea, repet INDIFERENT CUM DAR IN INTERIORUL CABINEI DE VOT, gestul sau devine extrem de ambiguu si deschis oricarei interpretari.
– Cei multumiti cu directia in care se indreapta societatea vor spune: ‘uite, daca nu a venit la vot inseamna ca si el este multumit cu ce se intampla, altfel ar fi facut ceva, NU?!?’
– Cei nemultumiti cu privire la rezultatul votului vor spune: ‘uite, daca lor nu le era lene poate ca reuseam sa schimbam ceva!’
In momentul in care absenteismul la vot capata dimensiuni de masa lucrurile se complica si mai tare:
– Cei care incearca sa manipuleaze rezultatul alegerilor, prin orice metoda, devin din ce in ce mai eficienti. In principiu ‘costul’ unui vot ‘a la carte’ este constant, nu depinde de prezenta la vot. In conditiile unei prezente slabe la vot s-ar putea sa fie suficient sa ‘controlezi’ 4-5 % pentru a obtine rezultatul dorit. In cazul unei prezente masive s-ar putea sa nu se mai stie…
– Cei care sunt multumiti cu situatia se simt incurajati sa continue – ‘astora’ nu le pasa – in timp ce aceia care doresc o schimbare devin din ce in ce mai defetisti – cu ‘astia’ nu se poate face nimic.
– De la un moment dat incolo ‘interesele straine’ incep si ele sa ‘adulmece’: ‘astia’ sunt atat de blegi/se cearta atat de tare intre ei incat in tara aia putem sa facem aproape tot ce ne trece prin cap.
Da, stiu ca foarte multi dintre voi sunt extrem de dezamagiti de ce s-a intamplat pana acum.
Din prea multa ‘nebagare de seama si iuteala de mana’ l-am lasat pe Iliescu sa se cocoate in fruntea bucatelor dupa ce se bagase singur, dar cu ‘voia dumneavoastra’, pe lista FSN-ului.
Dupa ce ne-am lamurit, in incercarea de a scapa de Ilici, l-am luat in brate pe Constantinescu dar am uitat ca nu ajunge sa il votezi, orice om politic are nevoie de sprijinul constant al alegatorilor sai pentru a face cu adevarat ceva.
Apoi am inceput sa votam la misto si uite asa a ajuns Vadim in turul doi, tot cu Iliescu. Si mare desteptaciune mare, iar l-am pus pe Iliescu ‘sef al statului’. Si tot nu ne-am invatat minte ca votul negativ nu rezolva nimic ci functioneaza ca o imputernicire in alb pentru cel care a fost ales ca fiind raul cel mai mic. Dar tot rau.
Si, ca sa nu iasa Nastase, l-am ales pe Basescu.
Stiu, e frustrant sa nu ai pe cine alege. Dar pentru cei capabili e si mai frustrant sa vada cum alegatorii dorm in cizme si voteaza ‘negativ’ sau de loc.
Iar celor care sunt alesi, asa cum sunt alesi, li se pare ca l-au prins pe dumnezeu de un picior. Simt ca nu le va cere nimeni socoteala niciodata si au impresia ca daca se vor certa suficient de convingator intre ei vor face rocada la putere pana la sfarsitul veacurilor.
Ce-ar fi sa iesim la vot si sa le transmitem: ‘aveti grija ce faceti, de-acum incolo suntem cu ochii pe voi!!!’?
Cum?
Foarte simplu. Pentru cei care nu au incredere in nici un partid sau candidat independent exista varianta anularii votului. Mai multe stampile si gata. Gata cu votul negativ. E suficient gestul de a merge pana acolo si de a anula votul. “Imi pasa de ce se intampla in tara asta, nici unul dintre voi nu mi se pare demn de incredere dar asta nu inseamna ca am de gand sa va las sa faceti ce vreti voi!”
Acum cei mai pesimisti dintre voi imi vor aduce aminte de vorbele lui Stalin: “nu conteaza cine voteaza, conteaza doar cine numara voturile!” Nu e chiar asa. Nu suntem in aceiasi situatie. Cei din comisiile electorale de circumscriptie si cei din ‘activul local de partid’ sunt si ei oameni. Una e sa modifici rezultatul unui vot cu cateva procente incolo-incoace sau sa mai umbli un pic la prezenta si alta e sa te confrunti cu 20% voturi anulate in semn de protest. Cam cat al doilea partid din sondaje.
Cum ar fi sa faca chestia asta vreo doua treimi dintre cei care nu vin de obicei la vot?
nicichiarasa 