Darwin and Marx: Materialism

[LibertyLemming]

Marxism can be summed up in one phrase.

The elimination of private property.

So, how did Darwin try to eliminate private property?

Where did I say he did?

 

[konradv]

Marxism can be summed up in one phrase.

The elimination of private property.

So, how did Darwin try to eliminate private property?

Where did I say he did?

Then you're hi-jacking the thread. The OP was about the tie-in between Marxism, Darwinism and materialism. If you're going to support the OP, don't shy away from its consequences. Once again we have the problem of superficiality here with little regard for consequences. You're known by those with whom you associate. You were thanked for your statement. Are you going to ask them to withdraw it? If not, you've got to own it.

 

[midcan5]

Threads like this are interesting not because of anything you can learn from them, they are simply ideological driven propaganda. They take concepts and mold them in ways that support a point of view. It would be easier simply to say what you believe, instead of pretending the information was discovered by a survey of the pertinent texts.

But Marx, like Jesus, at one point had great impact on the lives of millions of people. Whether it was positive or negative isn't the point, for we can find all things if we like. Even today Marxism is a way of interpreting both history and even the current situation. Could we not if we want to stretch the meaning to fit some preconceived notion label Romney the fascist and Obama the Marxist? After all fascists hated communists in history and Mussolini and Hitler took advantage of that fact. But would that help, would that really explain anything?

If Marx is comparable in impact to Jesus then Darwin is our Einstein or Newton, science, physics, natural selection present testable theories that changed the way we view the world and ourselves. And that is the key difference and why the OP is off the wall wrong. Unlike Marx, who I would also compare to Freud, the scientific is testable, provable, while the materialist interpretation of economics and society while interesting is only an idea or model. In a sense the modern conservative and especially libertarian is the latest Marxist, for 'supply side' or 'free markets' are the key concepts for nirvana. No more correct than Marx.

For the interested.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Mind-Intellectual-History-Century/dp/0060084383/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8]The Modern Mind: An Intellectual History of the 20th Century: Peter Watson: 9780060084387: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Ideas-History-Thought-Invention-Freud/dp/0060935642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention, from Fire to Freud (9780060935641): Peter Watson: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Communism-Archie-Brown/dp/0061138797/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]The Rise and Fall of Communism: Archie Brown: 9780061138799: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Marx-Short-Introduction-Peter-Singer/dp/0192854054/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8]Marx: A Very Short Introduction: Peter Singer: 9780192854056: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. So, in the name of extreme rightwing politics, let's just discard the most robust scientific theory that we have.

The legions of willfull ignorance are once again in full charge, the hounds of deciet in full bay.

That bloviation is certainly not any form of response to what I wrote....is it.

Bloviation is your specialty, PC. The primary influences in what Darwin wrote was not Marx, but Lyle and Adam Smith.

Darwin & Adam Smith, Not Darwin & Marx

Charles Darwin often gets lumped together with Karl Marx in an effort to ascribe the ills of the 20th century to Darwin's ideas about evolution.

But science writer Matt Ridley explains why Darwin's ideas are closer to Adam Smith's than they are to Marx's. He argues that selection can account for the appearance of design not just in biology, but also in the economy and technology. And in fact, the idea of natural selection is an intellectual decendant of Adam Smith's invisible hand:


Locke and Newton begat Hume and Voltaire who begat Hutcheson and Smith who begat Malthus and Ricardo who begat Darwin and Wallace...Where Darwin defenestrated God, Smith had defenestrated government.

 

[Moonglow]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJkO-EKRVd0&feature=related]Monty Python - Australian Philosophy Department - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Moonglow]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ9myHhpS9s&feature=related]Monty Python Communist Quiz sketch - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Marxism can be summed up in one phrase.

The elimination of private property.

"OCCUPY WALL STREET GENIUS SAYS HE’S AGAINST “PRIVATE” PROPERTY, NOT “PERSONAL” PROPERTY
By: jmattera
11/17/2011 10:01 AM


And that’s because he wants to keep his iPad 2, naturally, and not share it with the shiftless vagrants fighting over access to one of the three Porta-Potties recently delivered to the now-evacuated camp site in lower Manhattan.

As Samantha Bee from The Daily Show reports, there’s an income “class” that has sprung up at Zuccotti Park: Those sporting the capitalist creations called Apple products as they set up their temporary latte corners, and those annoyingly banging on drum sets all day.

The thing is that the dude musing about the differences between “personal” and “private” property isn’t even the biggest WTF moment of what you’re about to see...."
Occupy Wall Street Genius Says He's Against "Private" Property, Not "Personal" Property | Conservative News, Views & Books

We've gone from discussing the influence of Marx and Darwin to being told to pay attention to what one anonymous guy thinks? Your message is all over the place, cherry-picking items and pretending they're somehow indicative of what "we" think. In reality it's just rhetorical bullshit, that doesn't stand the logic test, i.e.Fallacy of Composition, assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.

Fallacy of composition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Darwinian evolution is materialism masquerading as science.

 

[Moonglow]

"OCCUPY WALL STREET GENIUS SAYS HE’S AGAINST “PRIVATE” PROPERTY, NOT “PERSONAL” PROPERTY
By: jmattera
11/17/2011 10:01 AM


And that’s because he wants to keep his iPad 2, naturally, and not share it with the shiftless vagrants fighting over access to one of the three Porta-Potties recently delivered to the now-evacuated camp site in lower Manhattan.

As Samantha Bee from The Daily Show reports, there’s an income “class” that has sprung up at Zuccotti Park: Those sporting the capitalist creations called Apple products as they set up their temporary latte corners, and those annoyingly banging on drum sets all day.

The thing is that the dude musing about the differences between “personal” and “private” property isn’t even the biggest WTF moment of what you’re about to see...."
Occupy Wall Street Genius Says He's Against "Private" Property, Not "Personal" Property | Conservative News, Views & Books

We've gone from discussing the influence of Marx and Darwin to being told to pay attention to what one anonymous guy thinks? Your message is all over the place, cherry-picking items and pretending they're somehow indicative of what "we" think. In reality it's just rhetorical bullshit, that doesn't stand the logic test, i.e.Fallacy of Composition, assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.

Fallacy of composition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Darwinian evolution is materialism masquerading as science.

just like capitalism is masquerading as free market

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, how did Darwin try to eliminate private property?

Where did I say he did?

Then you're hi-jacking the thread. The OP was about the tie-in between Marxism, Darwinism and materialism. If you're going to support the OP, don't shy away from its consequences. Once again we have the problem of superficiality here with little regard for consequences. You're known by those with whom you associate. You were thanked for your statement. Are you going to ask them to withdraw it? If not, you've got to own it.

Now, this may prove too nuanced for you, but consider the difference between 'a mind,' and 'a brain.'

Raymo, “Skeptics and True Believers,” even claims that the dominant view among modern Darwinists is that our minds are "merely a computer made of meat" (pp. 187-188), and that "almost all scientists" believe the idea that a human soul exists is a "bankrupt notion"; and consequently, the conclusion that our minds are "merely a computer made of meat" is considered by Darwinists "almost a truism" (pp. 192-193,).

Do you consider youself to have a mind?
The brain is material, the mind is not.



1. The crux of the evolutionary controversy, in simplest terms, is: did mind create matter, or did matter create mind? According to a theistic worldview, mind is primary; it is the fundamental creative force in the universe, whether God created the world quickly by fiat, or slowly by an evolutionary process. According to Darwin, it is the reverse: matter is the primary creative force, and mind emerged only very late in evolutionary history. Conklin, “When All the Gods Trembled: Darwinism, Scopes, and American Intellectuals,” p. 42.

2. To be more precise, mind does not exist at all. Only the brain exists. And thoughts are merely the byproducts of neurons firing in the brain, and based on the need for survival.

a. “Darwin applied a consistent philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of nature. Matter is the ground of all existence; mind, spirit, and God as well, are just words that express the wondrous results of neuronal complexity." Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History, pg. 12–13

3. Again: by accepting the materialist Darwinian explanation for human beings, one must believe that “mind, spirit, and God” are merely concepts that appear in the in the human mind when the electrical circuitry of the brain has evolved to a certain level of complexity.

 

[midcan5]

While this is a bit off topic PC throws around Rawls as if she has ever read him and then magically comes up with bizarre connections that only makes sense in her imaginary world. In this past election we can actually say science won, Keynes won, and Rawls won. Not bad huh.

Rawls won again.

"At a more theoretical level, think of this tension as Keynes vs. Hayek and Rawls vs. Nozick. What do I mean by that? The worldviews of Obama and Romney are really proxies for the theoretical debate about Keynesian economics vs. the more libertarian views of Frederick Hayek. Obama's support for a government stimulus and expenditures to invest are traditional Keynesian; Romney's shrink-government-at-all-costs view is akin to the hands-off approach of Hayek and the Chicago school. Keynes won, as well he should have. Likewise, John Rawls' view of a government that is concerned about the well-being of the last well off member of society is akin to Obama's interest in a progressive income tax where the wealthier pay more, and ensuring access to health care and food stamps for those who are needy. Romney's statements about the 47 percent—even if one credits that he is more compassionate than those words might suggest—are more akin to the libertarian world of Nozick, where one eats what one kills, and if there are shortfalls, private charity not government should fill the void. When the choice was made, Rawls won over Nozick. As well he should have." Obama, Keynes, and Rawls: The good guys won the election.


Check Rawls out here: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Political-Liberalism-Expanded-Columbia-Philosophy/dp/0231130899/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8]Political Liberalism: Expanded Edition (Columbia Classics in Philosophy): John Rawls: 9780231130899: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


"Ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity, they would think is most reasonable to enact." John Rawls
.

 

[PoliticalChic]

While this is a bit off topic PC throws around Rawls as if she has ever read him and then magically comes up with bizarre connections that only makes sense in her imaginary world. In this past election we can actually say science won, Keynes won, and Rawls won. Not bad huh.

Rawls won again.

"At a more theoretical level, think of this tension as Keynes vs. Hayek and Rawls vs. Nozick. What do I mean by that? The worldviews of Obama and Romney are really proxies for the theoretical debate about Keynesian economics vs. the more libertarian views of Frederick Hayek. Obama's support for a government stimulus and expenditures to invest are traditional Keynesian; Romney's shrink-government-at-all-costs view is akin to the hands-off approach of Hayek and the Chicago school. Keynes won, as well he should have. Likewise, John Rawls' view of a government that is concerned about the well-being of the last well off member of society is akin to Obama's interest in a progressive income tax where the wealthier pay more, and ensuring access to health care and food stamps for those who are needy. Romney's statements about the 47 percent—even if one credits that he is more compassionate than those words might suggest—are more akin to the libertarian world of Nozick, where one eats what one kills, and if there are shortfalls, private charity not government should fill the void. When the choice was made, Rawls won over Nozick. As well he should have." Obama, Keynes, and Rawls: The good guys won the election.


Check Rawls out here: Political Liberalism: Expanded Edition (Columbia Classics in Philosophy): John Rawls: 9780231130899: Amazon.com: Books


"Ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity, they would think is most reasonable to enact." John Rawls
.

Yup.

I agree....

...only America lost.

 

[there4eyeM]

"Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…"

Chic wants to redefine the term so she can more effectively attack it. We may understand attacking Marxism, at least as it was claimed by Lenin and Stalin, but her logic circles are inaccurate.

'Marxist' may be included as a smaller ring within the big circle 'left', but does not at all encompass it.
In fact, Marx was not even around when the term began.

Quotes from Wikipedia, but typical and accurate historically:
" In France, where the terms originated, the Left is called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order." "

"The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left."

Being entirely eclectic myself, I have nothing automatically either for or against left or right. Distinctions and nuances should be respected, however, in order to preserve vocabulary and precision.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…"

Chic wants to redefine the term so she can more effectively attack it. We may understand attacking Marxism, at least as it was claimed by Lenin and Stalin, but her logic circles are inaccurate.

'Marxist' may be included as a smaller ring within the big circle 'left', but does not at all encompass it.
In fact, Marx was not even around when the term began.

Quotes from Wikipedia, but typical and accurate historically:
" In France, where the terms originated, the Left is called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order." "

"The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left."

Being entirely eclectic myself, I have nothing automatically either for or against left or right. Distinctions and nuances should be respected, however, in order to preserve vocabulary and precision.

"Chic wants to redefine the term..."

That's Ms.Chic to you.

No, I use the commonly accepted definitions.


Definition of MARXISM

: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, ...
Marxism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


ma·te·ri·al·ism/məˈti(&#601rēəˌlizəm/
Noun:
A tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.
The doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.