A question for Marxists Communists and or Socialists ?

Post Reply New Topic

Bogus notions, each and every one. Time to grow up.

ruveyn

Unfortunately, the noble savage was lucky if he lived to age thirty five, and had a life plagued with violence and famine. And despite the popular notion of egalitarian societies based on a misreading of authors like Tacitus, there was in fact a class system in place.
The age of chivalry saw the class system of the noble savages become the rigid Medieval caste system, accompanied by a marked lack of bathing. Plus faced the same unparallelled violence, disease, and famine.
the Renaissance Man was hardly an unsophisticated, primeval innocent. His day was not always as enlightened as he was, as most people still had a Medieval mindset, which applied to the governments of the time.
The Age of Aquarius? Unfortunately, while the hippie's predecessors, the Beats, had appreciated intellectuality and the arts, hippies just wanted to tune out and drop out, lose themselves in drugs (yes, I know about the beats love for heroin and Benzedrine), plus the age of chivalry's aversion to bathing saw a resurgence.
Sorry...

Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Noble Savages were killed early and often by ignoble savages.

Always attack from behind or from ambush. That way the target cannot defend himself.

ruveyn

Certainly worked very well for Arminius when he destroyed Varus' legions.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Varus!! !! ! Varus you motherf****r! Give me back my Eagles!

ruveyn

Maybe the only time Augustus lost his cool, and apparently even had a nervous breakdown.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

A most excellent point said well, thankyou.
Why is it people insist on imposing their own modern perception on things from the past and 'judging' them in that context?

Now to the OP.

When Marx origionally made this comment he was describing religion as the painkiller of the people, something they use to get them through the hardships of repression as much as he was implying that it was a means of control through some percieved 'addictive' cultural impact. Consider societal use and attitudes to opium in the mid to late 19th century, you could by tinctures of opium and cannabis for almost any possible complaint, it was a standard ingredient in most patent medicines and many Marxist scholars I have discussed this very statement with feel he was making a fairly snide remark as much at the workers expense as he was 'attaking' the role of religion in society.

peace j

television, obviously, is the opiate of the masses.

although i also like (from some movie i forget): "opium is the religion of the people."

And "Work is the scourge of the drinking class". Does anyone KNOW did Wilde say "class" or "classes"? Web opinion is divided.

NOT to forget "Bread and the games of the Circus"

Oh really???


In the revolting and cynical manner you con-servatives are famous for.....you've once again succeeded at putting words in mouths and thoughts in the heads of many "leftists". I have never ONCE been sentimental enough to suggest that the aforementioned peaceful coexistence and mutual respect for each other/the environment EVER existed. Why not? In part because I'm a realist with some strong misanthropic leanings. Nonetheless....I believe that sort of society has never existed largely because of people like yourself who never evolved beyond the stage of the vulgar ape at worst and fat, screeching, red-headed child at best who incessantly screams "MINE", MINE, MINE!! !! You need not offer me any lame and unfounded arguments about "human nature"either.


Any way you slice it.......the "human nature" rationalizations you con-servatives often press into service to justify your precious capitalism are wholly without merit. In the first place....there is scant evidence to support the rather self-serving notion (for you con-servatives and capitalists that is) that "human nature" is some fixed, immutable, monolithic and objective quality. Genetics, epigenetics and neurobiology aside.....it certainly seems to be a quality which is largely determined by NURTURE. That is..at least to some significant degree.....it is molded by the values, mores, myths, etc....of a given society/culture. Thanks in large part to the illegitimate authoritarians (essentially "the ruling classes who make the rules be they economic, social, political and/or religious elites) who have imposed all these falsehoods upon the better part of humanity for thousands of years, we cannot reasonably expect human behavior to be anything more than it has been in both past and present.

Secondly....even IF "human nature" IS some objective quality....what in the devil has humankind been doing for past 5000 years or more if not ALTERING NATURE in every conceivable way??? Why then would you take issue with any alterations directed at our own nature assuming "human nature" does have some common characteristic/s which inevitably, like the force of gravity, guide us towards capitalism??? Likely because you've been one of the few who has known little but the benefits of capitalism eh???

Human Nature has not been altered in any significant way in the last ten thousand years. We are still the same kind of nasty war-primate we were ten thousand years ago.

ruveyn

You should keep Marx in context. He wrote at a time when industrialisation had just taken off. For the first time we had mass production and factory/business owners. He also said what he said at a time when the upper classes were always on Opium (before they decided it should be controlled). So in his eyes religion was the working man/womans opium. They would keep working in harsh conditions because their belief was that god had put them there to do that. It was an arrangement that suited the owners of industry.

The idea is still evident today. Our manufacturing is mostly done overseas in developing countries where religion still plays a vital role in ordinary people's lives.

In Tonga, the traditional religion kept the masses of people oppressed--the king and nobles were sacred, the people had no souls.

Christianity gave the people souls. But, it was still used to reinforce the hierarchical structure that existed prior to Christianity.

If you believe this, that is, if you believe that "we" are by nature "nasty war-primates"....then wouldn't you suggest alteration of this "nature" ought to be our highest priority.

I doubt you would seeing as this "nature" usually benefits you and your kind. You only like to whine about it when the unwashed masses finally become tired of your abuses and come to kill you and take your stuff.

That would be chasing the wind and attempting the impossible.

And any attempt to make us "better" will probably make us worse.

ruveyn