Archive | Social and Economic Policy RSS feed for this section

Lets’s Have Real Gun Control.

19 Dec

Let’s Have REAL Gun Control:  Down with the Military-Industrial Complex and the Homeland Security State

______________________________

And now for a word on the Connecticut school shooting … I purposefully held off saying anything on it until now … Why speak until the initial media frenzy on the story has died down and the facts of the case are laid out? …

Now that they are … Here goes …

Gun control.  I’m for it.  Military grade weapons.  Well, they should be in the hands of the military and other responsible parties when they are needed to (1) Protect American interests overseas, and (2)  to provide for the Defense of the United States.  That’s clear. Citizens shouldn’t need to have access to military-grade hardware, automatic, and semi-automatic firearms to protect themselves (or for hunting, which is one of the only other legitimate reasons for having guns) … but ….

Let’s be honest … Guns aren’t the problem per say; people are … people with them are … People who shouldn’t have them are … But will gun control legislation viz-a-viz private citizens actually solve that issue? … Most likely not … The “war on guns” will have about as much success as the “war on drugs.”  Drive guns underground, and business booms … Just like with Prohibition.

But there are bigger issues here too.  Don’t trust guns, the NRA, and the gun industry? …  Well, why then should we trust them under the watchful eye of a ‘gun controlling’ police state either or the statist Military-Industrial-Security Complex? The same state, I may add, that’s in the pocket of the corporate 1% and globalist interests … John Doe or Joe Six Pack down the street with these guns is bad enough.  But Big Brother with them is even worse!

… So have your “gun control” … by all means … But be sure to have it applied universally and unilaterally.  Over-the-Top weapons (from nukes to drones on down) shouldn’t be in hands of anybody, but especially not in the hands of corporate oligarchs, their security outfits, or the totalitarian state.  Universal disarmament should be the rule:  Get these weapons out of production; and don’t let them be used for foreign adventures abroad or for unwarranted police actions at home.

And, that will see to it that terrorists don’t have access to them either.  And, if there are any essential ARMS the government, military, or private security outfits do need, then keep themDon’t get rid of those weapons.

But there’s a rider to that.  They only can be accessed under emergency situations.  They wouldn’t be able to use them for imperialist actions in other countries, and most certainly not against private citizens at home (i.e., to intimidate citizens or to break up peaceful protests that are deemed inconvenient or unacceptable to government officials or elites).  Congress, under the mandate of the people, would determine what’s an emergency and what isn’t.  Nobody else.  And definitely not government bureaucrats, corporate kingpins, or unaccountable agents-officials of the police state.  Needed weapons can be accessed in emergencies or produced for emergencies, but other than that, even the police and the military shouldn’t be holding onto them.  They should be under lock and key; and no one should be able to personally keep them until emergencies arise.

That will solve the “gun control” problem in this country, as well as many of the other social problems plaguing our society via the Homeland Security state, military adventurism abroad, and so on.  Do that, and your trouble with firearms will be eliminated.  Fail to do that and our problems as a society are just beginning

Citizen Journalism Versus the Establishment: RT Interviews Luke Rudkowski

18 Dec

Citizen Journalism Versus the Establishment:  Russia Today Interview with ‘We Are Change’s‘ Luke Rudkowski

_________________________________

Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change on RT discussing the mainstream media, society’s problems, and what is needed to fix them.  Take a look.  This isn’t an endorsement of either WRC or Rudkowski, and I don’t agree with them on everything; nevertheless their work as citizen activists and independent journalists is essential given what’s going on in today’s society. Great interview by the way. RT and Anastasia Churkina did a superb job with it. I hope you like it.

****************

Some Great Posts from the Proyect Blog

18 Dec

Bunch of good articles on the Proyect blog over the past week.  Be sure to check them out.  These three are especially good.  Hope you like them.

  1. Bard College and the real world
  2. The stoning of Oliver Stone
  3. Was Che Guevara a Stalinist?

And here’s this excellent passage from “Bard College and the real world.” –

“Some closing thoughts. … There’s always a tension between our ideals and the “real world” that in some ways is analogous to Plato’s story of the cave. It is a struggle to hew to our youthful ideals in a world that is fundamentally aligned with the insides of a cave, as testified by news reports that come our way on  a daily basis, the latest of which is the kindergarten massacre in Connecticut.

Of all my  Bertolt Brecht quotes, this is my favorite:

‘There are men who struggle for a day, and they are good. There are others who struggle for a year, and they are better. There are some who struggle many years, and they are better still. But there are those who struggle all their lives, and these are the indispensable ones.’

Whether you struggle with a camera or a poet’s pen, or most quixotically with a propagandist’s, it is a Sisyphean task. Here’s my salute to those who never give up. Keep on keeping on.”

For more information and to see the rest of what he’s written since last Wednesday, go to http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/.

Wonderful material all of it.  I hope you’ll take some time to look over and read his posts there.  Thanks.

How about making Chopra an “honorary sufi sheik?”

17 Dec

How about Making Chopra an “honorary sufi sheik?”

_______________________

Fascinating idea. But I have a better idea.  How about making Deepak Chopra (or the Dalai Lama for that matter) “honorary sufi sheik(s)?” … LOL … 

Seems that’s where science/mysticism related work is headed these days anyway with syncretized faith systems and mushy one-world, new-world-order, new age religion.  That’s why it makes better sense to have your leadership on social justice issues and humanitarian-spirituality come from a Gandhi or a King.  They just don’t carry the same sort of silly mumbo-jumbo or New Age-style baggage with them as much as these others.

So where’s a far left-leaning, anti-Establishment, secularist to go in an enlightened revolution of buddha-led progressives?  Not far I guess; which is why you don’t put “enlightened” revolutionaries in charge of left-liberal movements.

It’s a shame, but I think we’re condemned to multiple-leader movements on the Left and in terms of our progressive activism.   The Chomskys, Vidals – they provide the intellectual heft of the total movementHedges, the activist- journalistic angle, and for spirituality: an MLK.

A (Coordinated) Movement-of-movements.  That’s where we need to go to take on the Establishment.

************

http://darwiniana.com/2012/12/12/making-chomsky-an-honorary-sufi-sheik-your-move-i-am-not-a-sufi-myself/

12.12.12

Making Chomsky an honorary sufi sheik? Your move. I am not a sufi myself

Posted in General at 12:28 pm by nemo

http://darwiniana.com/2012/12/11/a-communist-sufism/

The idea of a communist sufism would demand real leadership from someone qualified to do that in an exotic and original way, navigating the dangerous shoals of two complex cultural complexes. I cannot do that myself, becaue I am not a sufi, and am unwelcome in sufi circles. A pity, I know more about sufism than most sufis. But real sufism is quite rare, although, never having been in an Islamic country, I can’t say for sure. Go and read The Gurdjieff Con, and you will see why I won’t be promoting communist sufism any time soon. At the same time, it is possible and right to do that anyway, as a discussion. It is totally unfair for sufism to be hijacked by reactionaries, witness the fascist echoes in Gurdjieff et al.

Making Chomsky an honorary sufi sheik? Terrible idea, no? Uh-oh. But go ahead, and try it. Great. You might destroy Chomsky in the process. The idea was pressed on me by various people who dislike me but like my idea, not wanting me to have anything to do with. Thanks alot. I suggested making Zizek a sufi, half humorously. But it is a dangerous business. My point perhaps was that sufis have deeply penetrated the cultures in that South European zone.  Keep in mind these people are not theists, and would get in trouble forthwith in that culture (as would sufis, who tend to hide behind orthodoxy). As for being a sheik, Chomsky has no knowledge of sufism, nor do most sufis.

Go look at Avatar: the scifi people have rediscovered something sufis appear to know, in a way that they hide deeply. Soul creation, so-called. It has nothing to do with the technology nonsense in the movie. These statements are confusing, because almost all humans on this planet have already experienced some form of soul-creation. Maybe a few holdouts in the Borneo highlands (but they could be more advanced than we are). But the sufi version is mysterious, the lore of the completed man, and constitutes real sufism. I have no real place in any of that. Any sufi sheik needs a deep knowledge to work with people, and it is even harder with non-Moslems. Is the question hopeless? I fear Islamic sufis would peddle a fake to western communists and have a good laugh.

My point was that there is absolutely no reason why sufism can’t be a radicalism in motion, even along the lines of marxism. Marxism has been denounced by reactionary sufis, but they have no grounds for such an attitude. As I have noted, original buddhism was a revolutionary movement, though not in the sense we use the term now. But marxism is unnecesary cast in the form of atheism and materialism, which throws religionists out of whack. It has nothing to do necessarily with the economic critique of Marx.

Leftists might forget about ‘sufism’ and simply work with Moslems and sufis. At the right moment the sufi epiphany might come.

Inspiration is for Everyone

11 Dec

Inspiration is for Everyone (Not Just for the Gifted Few)

_____________________________________

http://inspirationalfreethought.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/inspiration-is-a-privilege/

“What I really want to say is that we should have a sense of humility and an acknowledgment that inspirational freethought is a luxury. It’s an unfortunate fact of the world that optimism and hope isn’t possible for everyone. Rather than trying to impose happiness and hope on others based on some limited perspective, the fact that hope is scarce in the world should drive us to do something about it.”

****************

Calling “Inspiration” a “Privilege”

This is concerning to me.  Yes, not everyone has the opportunity to truly appreciate a sunrise, listen to beautiful music, or revel in the sights and sounds of nature.  That’s true.  But saying inspiration is a “privilege.”  It just doesn’t set well.

A Privilege.  From Whom?  For What?  And to Whom?

My problem is the word “privilege” and what it connotes.  Inspiration (and its sister idea, appreciation) isn’t something endowed from on high.  It’s something everyone should be able to enjoy (even if they can’t always given their particular circumstances in life).

But to say it’s a privilege indicates some special people are being gifted with it, while the rest of the poor folks in the world aren’t.

I’m not sure I buy that.  It’s not about the endowed betters of humanity getting something the rest of the unwashed masses in society aren’t. It’s more about such individuals having the occasion to partake of something we all (to a greater or lesser extent) have equal access to in life from birth by/through our common humanity and our shared human nature.

And while it is true some have greater means to it than others, this isn’t a reflection on their being a better quality of person than other people.  It’s more a question of whether they’re able to more easily access it than other people of lesser means due to socioeconomic status, physical or metal limitations, or other extenuating circumstances.

That’s all. Nothing to do whatsoever with life doling out its ‘blessings‘ to gifted elites and by unequal means to the so-called privileged few of the world.

Inspiration is for everyone.  But if we want to ensure everyone has equal access to it, we need to make sure the society is structured in a way everyone can adequately avail themselves of that blessing and the opportunity to appreciate the world in all its wonders regardless of whether they’re rich or poor,geniuses or not, etc.

Otherwise, this “privilege” … It’s just hollow and empty.  And if that’s what “inspiration” really entails, who needs it anyway.  The elites of the world are welcome to keep it to themselves.  The rest of us will get by without it.

Haven’t we learned the lesson of Dr. Seuss’s “The Sneetches yet?  … Guess not.  Too bad.   It’s to our own [bad] credit as a society and as human beings in the world that we haven’t.

We can do better. But until we fix the problems in our society, will we?  That’s the question!  Our choice is before us.  Which way will we turn?

Gurus Won’t Save US …

6 Dec

Guru’s Won’t Save US; Real Leaders (with Real Leadership) Will

____________________________

http://darwiniana.com/2012/12/02/help-wanted-enlightened-buddha-ultra-far-left-communist/

Help Wanted: enlightened buddha, ultra far left: communist Posted in General at 3:01 pm by nemo

“The invisible spiritual domain is getting desperate. Look at the situation: the entire political class can’t even discuss global warming.   This link series records a series of garbled noise band intimations I have been getting for over a year. The whale theme is, well, disinfo, charming, but what does it mean?:

http://darwiniana.com/2012/09/29/c-beast-and-light-speed/

I never figured out what it meant.  I think they were checking me out, but I am too old and feckless. Or else simply a message link. We have posted on a potential Xtian ultra left religious communism, but Xtians are too stuck in their confusions here.  I have never considered a similar idea for buddhists, because buddhism is almost defunct, and controlled by reactionaries, and in America the danger is real, after Rajneesh, of assassination and a movement that has nearly done away with enlightenment.  But some mysterious spiritual force is looking for American born ultra radicals very close to enlightenment. You can see the idea emerging in Rajneesh.  American buddhists might start by dropping out of organizational links, going into mega-meditation sessions (but skip forced methods like gautama’s vow to not rise til…), (or else the ‘lazy man’s guide to enlightenment method, doing nothing, no rules apply), and a novel, intelligent, non-dogmatic, notion of spiritual communism, social, cultural, or revolutionary political. The Rajneesh commune is a starting idea. But I think what is wanted is a political movement, working with communist, neo-communist cadres. That is to say a revolutionary buddha. Very few people near enlightenment would dare to do that. Needs a spiritually advanced hothead. Tibetan Buddhists will try to stop you,so this is not ‘buddhism’, but the way to a new religion.  We may be out of time for this. Too bad. It needs to happen now. Start to explore the whale theme, and see if anything arrives. And check out five, ten, twelve hour meditations, or, via the lazy man’s guide to enlightenment, intelligent couch potato indirect approaches. You can also just jump in an help.”

********************

No, an “enlightened buddha” isn’t going to help us get out of this mess.  Can’t do it, won’t do it.

The most we’re going to get out of the business is a Deepak Chopra, new age hucksters selling their wares, and an all-too-unsettling realization that gurus of any stripe will only muddy the discourse for change and what we need to do to bring it about.

To our more temporary readers here on DIANOILOGOS: please see http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/look-into-my-eyes, and http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/ for further background and information on this issue.

Gurus aren’t going to cut it here. …  So what will?  Who will?  … Real leaders who understand the crisis and who can provide real leadership on the matter, not just metaphysicalisms for us to reassure- ourselves-by through the trouble.  And, by real leadership, I mean from people who understand both the greater ‘spiritual’ dimensions of the problem and its more practical implications.

Who are these leaders?  Not Chopra.  Not the gurus.  But social activists and humanitarian leaders who by their personal examples show us the way forward on environmental affairs, social issues, and the like.  So, who do we draw from here? … People like Gandhi, Mandela, and King, and others like A. Philip Randolph and Malcolm X, to name a few, their students and/or others in their tradition of social advocacy … That is to say, anyone and everyone with enough personal gravitas, practical wisdom, and social understanding to push for change, and who understands it both for the difference it makes in peoples lives as well as its deeper, more spiritual aspects as a driving engine of human experience.

You don’t need a professional Guru to do this; you need a Gandhi. That’s what is going to carry this revolutionary movement ahead.  Not “spiritualistic” platitudes and mystical nonsense, but honest to goodness leadership on the issues that matter.

Anything else only ingratiates the gurus in question, and leaves change unaccomplished.  We don’t need that in today’s world.  We need Progress, we need Change, and we need it from the people who will pull it out from us in society.  I don’t see a Deepak Chopra doing that for us.  I don’t see a Tony Robbins  doing that for us.  You only get burnedby these guru-types, or left in a kind of limbo through all their talk about “quantum consciousness” and the like.

We need a Gandhi.  And, then, maybe we’ll have the momentum to carry this program for change forward.

Global Warming is Real. There’s No Turning Back.

16 Oct

VIEWPOINT

Global Warming is Real and There is No Turning Back

__________

Global Warming is real.  There can be no denying it.  But where we go from there is an open question.

The indisputable fact is that climate change is happening.  What remains up in the air however is how human beings relate to it, what the actual contribution of people to the problem is, and how/if it can be fixed.

It’s happening.  That’s certain.  Average temperatures are increasing and we are beginning to see the effects in terms severe weather extremes, the polar ice caps melting, and the recording setting dry spells and droughts occurring in the United States and elsewhere this past year building up to today.

However, what’s the “cause?”  The “real” “cause” in a precise scientific and epistemological sense.  Not merely the “antecedent” or “conditional” of it, but the real “agency” or “dynamic” that’s actually making global warming and climate change happen.  It can’t be “humanity in the ontological sense” because global warming as we know it today didn’t always exist and we have the oft-mentioned data to prove it. And yet what kind of human activity would “cause” climate change?  The widespread, modern, industrial kind pumping out heat trapping chemicals like carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, that’s what.

And, yet, this still doesn’t completely address the “cause” question.  What “causes global warming?” The dynamic of heat-trapping chemicals reacting with the natural processes of our world’s ecosystem and its climatic cycles.  The dynamic itself is the true “cause” of “global warming” and its opposite number is in the effect of a warming atmosphere.

So why say this?  And am I just hairsplitting here?  … I’d say no.

The reason I’d say no is that only by identifying the actual and precise cause of global warming can we truly assess how to deal with the problem and take proper action to remedy it.

Humans/human activity are “precipitants” to modern global warming, but not its “cause” per se.  They are catalysts to an already finely balanced environmental system that doesn’t take too much as it is to be overtaxed.  Contemporary human beings by their activities and modern technology have overloaded the scales and tipped that balance in favor of global warming and the greenhouse effect.

There’s no quick-fix to climate change.  There no easy policy solution to global warming.  And to imagine we can simply “reverse” it and go back to some sort of golden age before contemporary times when we didn’t have this happening and before we industrialized, thereby ushering in a new better future for ourselves without the specter of humanly precipitated climate change/global warming, is far-fetched.

It’s not going to happen.  We’ll have discovered the legendary Fountain of Youth before it does.

In all likelihood, we won’t turn back the clock on global warming. Nor can we reverse course.  We’re stuck with it, and the we best we can do now is learn to live with it.  We’re going to have to learn to manage the consequences of climate change in our daily lives and for our societies and the greater world.  We’ll have to develop technologies for dealing with the fallout of climate change; but at this point the irrevocable damage is done.

Global Warming is real and there’s no turning back.

Resuscitating the “Dream of Tomorrow”

11 Sep

RIP Neil Armstrong.  Our thoughts will always be with you whenever we look out at the moon at night or when we read/hear about Curiosity‘s latest sojourns on Mars.  May we always walk in your footsteps and never lose sight of the “dream” that’s before us.  … That’s our future; that’s our survival.

()()()()()

Resuscitating the “Dream of Tomorrow”:  Restoring the Mandate of NASA and Rescuing the American Economy

____________________________________

It’s time to resuscitate the “dream of tomorrow.”

Revamping the manned space program, getting NASA back on track, and renewing our commitment to space-based science and exploration … All these should be core goals of the United States if we’re to have any claim on the future and stake in its outcome.

Space X, whatever its strengths as a function of private enterprise, isn’t enough.  Only a publicly-funded, publicly-mandated space program will be …  If not, we might as well kiss our future goodbye, and give up on any promise of an economic recovery for American society.  For only by emphasizing such an industry-intensive, science-intensive mission as NASA’s original mandate can we hope to rescue our futures and restore the productive economy of the U.S.

Only by resuscitating the “dream of tomorrow” will we return again to the proverbial ‘days of American prosperity‘, and indeed renewed global prosperity.

The “dream” (of the future) is in our hands; but if we turn our backs on it, we’ll only be caught again in a bleak ‘present” and our ‘nightmares of the past.’

It’s time to step into our future instead

************

http://inspirationalfreethought.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/nasas-budget/

NASA’s Budget – Apr 26 – Posted by Mike.

NASA’s budget in 2012 is projected to be four-tenths of one single penny for every dollar we spend. The budget as percentage of total spending has not been this low since 1959.  How much would you pay for the Universe?

Neil deGrasse Tyson – We stopped Dreaming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CbIZU8cQWXc

Science and Principle: Building a Better Society

23 Apr

Science and Principle:  A Vision of Science can help us better form our Values and Concepts in order to Build a Better Society

________________________________

The U.S. Presidential election is just six months away and already the campaign politics of Republican ideology versus Democratic has gotten into full swing with Barack Obama pitted against his GOP challengers, most notably Romney, with the Ron Paul movement in close pursuit trying to pull off an upset for their favorite Texas Congressman.

What a time then to look back on the U.S.A’.’s roots and consider the ideas that made it what it is today as a nation.  Thomas Jefferson, one of this country’s most well-known Founders, and major drafter of the Declaration of Independence, was a man of contradictions – slaveholder and advocate for liberty, humanist but unafraid to use the civil theologies of the time in order to advance the causes of freedom and republicanism he believed in.

So it should be no surprise then that we today face the kinds of political frictions we do, when from the very beginning of the nation and before, and indeed right at the advent of the American Revolution itself, the colonies were as rife with these contradictions as they are now, and that such incongruities were cemented into the very core of it from the start through the very people who lived through such times and made them what they were.

Not surprising either that the “big issues” we confront at present – questions of Reason and Truth, Science and Philosophy, Freedom and Equality – were major areas of concern for the peoples of Jefferson’s day too with about as much consensus around them as we have today over atheism, empiricism, and liberal values in society [and whether gov’t has a duty to assist the less fortunate].

Take, for instance, this famous passage of the Declaration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Nothing all that controversial about these ideas; and, yet, look at them more closely. … They are framed in exactly the same sorts of concepts we’re having such trouble with today viz-a-vis the fight over free will, the science-philosophy debate, religion versus non-belief, and the role of government to provide for its citizens versus the idea of ruling over them as subjects.

The right to pursue happiness, to live, and be free of lordly restraints in society … We can all for the most part agree with these ideas. … But should we accept them on word of authority or even social convention without considering reasons WHY we embrace them and the evidence FOR their being adopted, let alone any idea or value we choose to adopt as thinking human beings?

SELF EVIDENCE:  It is enough to accept things on self-evidence alone (taking something as a given) or, in our day and age, should we even be looking beyond these truisms and philosophical postulates to actually discover the true bases behind why we really believe in human equality, affirm human rights, and so forth?  … At best is the notion of self-evidence a cop-out and at worst, is it in fact, a form of reinforcing a kind of dogmatic, metaphysical thinking about the world? … If that’s the case, then we have to honestly reassess the founding values of Western republicanism and democracy in place like the United States.  We have to scientifically and humanistically probe these ideals for the real merit they bear us and the challenges they present us in carrying them out.

“CREATIVE” DISSONANCE:  We may agree on issues of social equality and championing it, but what if its roots are up for grabs?  What then?  … What of being “created equal” if there is no God-Creator to “create” men [and women] “equally?”  What of the “endowment” with “unalienable rights” if no God-Being is around to “endow” them on humankind? …  Where then do these values and these principles come from if they were not “given” by a “Creator?”  … That question needs to be further explored and strongly weighed as an idea (by secular humanists especially) rather than just taking it for granted they exist and arose up ‘out of the blue.’ … Where did they arise from? …

It’s not enough to say these inalienable rights arise [and arose] from social convention. … Social conventions alone could never have provided the justification for asserting self-rule and breaking away from the authoritarian governance of kings and princes as was done by the American colonists.  Some other factor or set of factors had to be in play here in order to provide the basis on which Independence and Revolution were successfully argued for and won.  … A notion of natural rights, deriving from natural law, is the only instrumentality through which such a justification could have come, and thus be able to carry forth a case for separation w/o immediately being put down by the British imperial force and the idea for “liberty” being squelched as a result. … In other words, if a Creator didn’t endow these rights and establish this principle of human equality, then they must have arose out of a context of historical and evolutionary development … And that’s how these ideas could achieved the impact they did in lieu of a God-Creator bestowing them on humanity.

()()()()()()()()

I hope I’ve convinced you these founding ideals of the United States/Western democratic-republicanism  aren’t as set in stone as is sometimes it’s assumed they are in public discussion and popular civics … that they were shaped in fact out of the very problems we’re struggling with today as peoples of the modern world in terms of secular values, liberal democratic principles, and palpable reason … and that just as science has something to offer in terms of illuminating contemporary philosophy as a whole, it can also shed light on many of these founding principles of the U.S government and society.

True, maybe it’s not needed … Maybe we can get along without science taking a scalpel to the major concepts of the Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and the Declaration of Independence to plumb them for better knowledge of ourselves and our world while extricating them from the irrationalities of the past … But if the surgery of science is needed on such things as Biblical ethics and Greco-Roman philosophy, gleaning from them their essential and worthwhile parts while cutting out the excess baggage of religionism and metaphysics, then why not on the very precepts that founded American society in the United States? … That’s why we should pay attention to a document like the Declaration of Independence.  Its ideas deserve greater scrutiny.

A vision of science can help us better frame our values and ideas about the world.  Not doing so only condemns us to remain chained to the nonsense of the past.  For the sake of our future, we owe ourselves and our children the understanding that comes from combing these principles for their empirical merits and particulars.

Our future and the future of our society depends on it.

The “Marxist Naysaying” of Liberal Critics

11 Apr

Great piece by Louis Proyect over at the Unrepentant Marxist blog.  Maybe now the Marxist naysaying of liberal critics, in whatever form they come, can be brought to a close.  He may have had his faults as a political thinker and advocate for social change, but Karl Marx is still a boon and a beacon for our times.  Kudos to LP for writing this piece and saying what needed to be said.

___________________________

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/british-liberals-versus-karl-marx-marx-wins-by-a-tko/

Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist — April 9, 2012 — British liberals versus Karl Marx; Marx wins by a TKO — Filed under: economics,liberalism,ussr — louisproyect @ 6:12 pm