The Biography of a Dangerous Idea

[usbprint]

I guess you're thinking along the lines of the above poster; I'd like to point out though that, as far as Freud is concerned, the "aggressivity" and "Thanatos" are innate in humans -- that is to say, instinctive -- and humans can not help but "display" them, just like the rest of the universe, after all. You, on the other hand, tend to attribute a great deal of importance to the human consciousness, rendering aggression and the waging of war a "choice" that the humans make consciously.

But after all, that's the whole point, isn't it?

It is no secret that Marxism elevated the idea of rationalism over naturalism. Marx believed history was a science, and could be testably predicted, that there was no innate 'human nature' beyond economic interests. To him, people were conditioned solely by society; the latter 19th century placed enormous hopes in rationalism and science as the engines of progress.

[Nicorino]

I guess you're thinking along the lines of the above poster; I'd like to point out though that, as far as Freud is concerned, the "aggressivity" and "Thanatos" are innate in humans -- that is to say, instinctive -- and humans can not help but "display" them, just like the rest of the universe, after all. You, on the other hand, tend to attribute a great deal of importance to the human consciousness, rendering aggression and the waging of war a "choice" that the humans make consciously.

But after all, that's the whole point, isn't it?

It is no secret that Marxism elevated the idea of rationalism over naturalism. Marx believed history was a science, and could be testably predicted, that there was no innate 'human nature' beyond economic interests. To him, people were conditioned solely by society; the latter 19th century placed enormous hopes in rationalism and science as the engines of progress.

Maybe it's just me that is not following closely enough, but why does Marxism has to be connected to what RFC1323 is saying?

[spoons]

I guess you're thinking along the lines of the above poster; I'd like to point out though that, as far as Freud is concerned, the "aggressivity" and "Thanatos" are innate in humans -- that is to say, instinctive -- and humans can not help but "display" them, just like the rest of the universe, after all. You, on the other hand, tend to attribute a great deal of importance to the human consciousness, rendering aggression and the waging of war a "choice" that the humans make consciously.

But after all, that's the whole point, isn't it?

It is no secret that Marxism elevated the idea of rationalism over naturalism. Marx believed history was a science, and could be testably predicted, that there was no innate 'human nature' beyond economic interests. To him, people were conditioned solely by society; the latter 19th century placed enormous hopes in rationalism and science as the engines of progress.

Maybe it's just me that is not following closely enough, but why does Marxism has to be connected to what RFC1323 is saying?

RFC quotes gluklich zu sehen talking about "Russian Communism as '...' ."

[...] Freud then went on to outline for Einstein his theory of Eros, the life instinct that "seeks to preserve and unite" and of Thanatos, the death instinct. For Freud, aggression was the manifestation of Thanatos and thus an essential element of human nature. For that reason, he characterized Russian communism as "an illusion trying to make human aggression disappear."

[...]

May it be that "aggression" and "Thanatos" are not necessarily essential elements of human nature, but instead it is the human being that, afraid of the inevitability of one's death and destruction, adopts an aggressive attitude trying to find some "relief" in killing other people -- that is to say, try to reduce one's existential angst by taking an active role instead of waiting passively to die?

[6flags]

RFC quotes gluklich zu sehen talking about "Russian Communism as '...' ."

[...] Freud then went on to outline for Einstein his theory of Eros, the life instinct that "seeks to preserve and unite" and of Thanatos, the death instinct. For Freud, aggression was the manifestation of Thanatos and thus an essential element of human nature. For that reason, he characterized Russian communism as "an illusion trying to make human aggression disappear."

[...]

Russian Communism and Marxism were not identical.

[ayn]

Looks like someone can't make up his mind .. bad ass, good ass, bad ass, good ass...


'He loves me, he loves me not...'

This is a cheap characterization of the "dilemma" -- in the style of the "Daisy Girl," Lyndon Johnson's nuclear-fear campaign ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63h_v6uf0Ao

She just countdowns.

[Troy]

LOL ayn, I know what ya mean!

[acipe hoc]

Einstein's socialism was distinctly democratic. He feared that a society based on a planned economy (which he consistently advocated) could crush the rights of the individual with an "all-powerful and overweening bureaucracy." He expressed his "passionate opposition" to the idolatrous, bureaucratic and anti-democratic Soviet state. However, such statements were lost on the FBI, which in the early '50s collected 1,500 pages of material on Einstein's allegedly pro-Soviet activities. In 1958, "Life" ("Time"'s sister publication) listed Einstein as one of America's leading Communist "dupes and fellow travelers." Yet nowhere in Time's 15 pages devoted to Einstein does the magazine bring itself to acknowledge the great physicist's explicitly socialist views. For "Time" to concede that the century's greatest thinker naturally and elegantly rejected the dominant political-economic system would not square with the conventional wisdom that the dominant theme of the 20th century is the glorious triumph "free-market" capitalism.

Democratic socialism, along with libertarian socialism, can be seen as forms of anti-authoritarian "socialism from below," in contrast to Stalinism and social democracy, variants of authoritarian state socialism. It is the active participation of the population as a whole, and workers in particular, in the management of economy that characterises democratic socialism. The state would be a centralised government, although anarchists and some libertarian socialists favor decentralized communes and other forms of non-statist social organization.

The free market is socialism for the rich — free markets for the poor and state protection for the rich.

[hiliter]

Einstein's socialism was distinctly democratic. He feared that a society based on a planned economy (which he consistently advocated) could crush the rights of the individual with an "all-powerful and overweening bureaucracy." He expressed his "passionate opposition" to the idolatrous, bureaucratic and anti-democratic Soviet state. However, such statements were lost on the FBI, which in the early '50s collected 1,500 pages of material on Einstein's allegedly pro-Soviet activities. In 1958, "Life" ("Time"'s sister publication) listed Einstein as one of America's leading Communist "dupes and fellow travelers." Yet nowhere in Time's 15 pages devoted to Einstein does the magazine bring itself to acknowledge the great physicist's explicitly socialist views. For "Time" to concede that the century's greatest thinker naturally and elegantly rejected the dominant political-economic system would not square with the conventional wisdom that the dominant theme of the 20th century is the glorious triumph "free-market" capitalism.

Democratic socialism, along with libertarian socialism, can be seen as forms of anti-authoritarian "socialism from below," in contrast to Stalinism and social democracy, variants of authoritarian state socialism. It is the active participation of the population as a whole, and workers in particular, in the management of economy that characterises democratic socialism. The state would be a centralised government, although anarchists and some libertarian socialists favor decentralized communes and other forms of non-statist social organization.

The free market is socialism for the rich — free markets for the poor and state protection for the rich.

And to think that true capitalism doesn't work and no one really believes in it! Bogus capitalism is what's going on in America, and communist and socialist systems seem to get co-opted by self-serving elites. Systems like capitalism and socialism and communism have never been tried. What we've had since the Industrial Revolution was one or another form of state capitalism. It's been overwhelmed, certainly in the last century, by big conglomerations of capital corporate structures that are all interlinked with one another and form strategic alliances and administer markets and so on. And are tied up with a very powerful state. So it's some other kind of system -- call it whatever you want. Corporate-administered markets in a powerful state system.

Actually, the Soviet Union was something like that. They didn't have General Electric, they had more concentration of the state system, but apart from that it worked rather like a state-capitalist system. And do these systems work? Yeah, they kind of work. For example, the Soviet Union was a monstrosity, but it had a pretty fast growth rate -- a growth rate unknown in the Western economies. In the 1960s the economy started to stagnate and decline, but for a long period they had a growth rate that was very alarming to Western leaders.

[aon]

Keyboard commands are indeed important to know ... I'm pretty sure you will have to work one day with the keyboard commands alone ... a friend of mine had an instance when the screen froze completely and the mouse simply wouldn't work ... the only way to save a few files before actually shutting down the computer (and losing everything after a system restore was executed) was to use the functioning keyboard...

Right on! I mean this seems quite unimportant at first sight, but believe me, it is the most important thing in the world in those moments when you just can't make the computer work!

[mle]

LOL ayn, I know what ya mean!