DDN, I admire your forthrightness in placing your political and personal views up front like this and being very open about them. Since this is a debating room, however, I would like to take issue with a couple of things.: : I'm interested DDN what way would you describe yourself politically? I'm not being a political sectarian or anything, just interested.
: DDN: Well, I've been told by several people that my political views are essentially Marxist. I'm not well read up on Marxism so its difficult for me to assess the accuracy of this label. If I had to align myself with any particular party at this point it would probably be the Greens. Perhaps I'm a Green Marxist? I'm not moderate on ANYTHING as far as I can tell and hence have been labeled a radical, an extremist, and even an anarchist. I tend to reject the radical and anarchist labels in favor of the "extremist" label being inclined to see the human condition as extreme and in need of correspondingly extreme measures. I don't consider extreme measures to be "radical" ones if they are in response to extreme circumstances nor do I condone anarchy as a final solution to ANYTHING (although it certainly may have its place in a grander scheme).
Extreme problems call for extreme measures. i agree. There are I think 2 ways in which 'Marxist' as a label can be used.
1) for people who subscribe to his atheistic, dialectical metaphysics in which economics is the driving force of history, and class struggle is the primary method. I do NOT foll into this cvategory, being a neo-Hindu as opposed to an atheist, and believeing in the power of ideals as well as material forces in the engines of history.
2) people who believe in a) common ownership of the means of production, b) in a community of free, equal, and well-provided for workers rather than a heirarchical class society, c) public access ro the goods of saociety, and d) in the principle "from each according to ability, to each according to his needs." I agree in large part with all four of teh last points, especially the fourth. So you could possibly say I agree (mostly) with marxist practice but not Marxist theory. This phrase was actually spoken by the great Catholic Pope John XXIII.
So as far i know, those are the two dimensions of Marxism, the metaphysical and the economic. If you subscribe to either or both, you coudl possibly call yourself a Marxist. Professor Stephen Jay Gould believes in the first but not teh second, teh Sandinsitas believed in teh second but not the first (like me). So, now you can decide, are you a Marxist?
: I think humanity is suffering from a spiritual/intellectual crisis that transcends politics, sociology, and economics.
I agree, and the name of that crisis is 'Selfishness'. Read Colin Turnbull's 'The Mountain People' for a shocking examination of individualism with horrifying implications for our own society.
:Until this crisis is addressed (or allowed to be addressed) humanity, by definition, is, and will continue to be, a failure. By "failure" I mean that suffering will continue to be the rule instead of the exception. I support pretty much any political movement or cause that would signifigantly increase the probability that humanity will have a true spiritual and intellectual awakening.
But 'awakening to what', I guess, is teh important question.
:Modern, organized religion (particularly Christianity) is, at best, a cure that is worse than the disease. It serves primarily to stand in between humanity and divinity.
First disagreement. First of all, I don't quiet get it. Are you saying that there is a divinity, and that religion prevents us from reaching it? But most of the testimony about contact with the divine is filtered through religions which have obver time, as you say, become both 'modern' and 'organized'. If you completely discard all religion, then aren't you aslo discarding those accounts of divinity? Is it not somewhat arrogant to assume you are correct and the vats majority of people worldiwide are wrong?
In what way, precisely, does religion 'stand in' between humanity and divinity? is it too authoritariuan? look at the Quakers. Too indifferent to suffering? look at Catholic Liberation Theology. Too anti-environmentalist? look at Hinduism. Too sexually repressive? Look at the legends of Krishna, or tantric Buddhism for example. What exactly is it you don't like?
:Technology promised us a freedom that would have (or could have) been highly condusive to an enviroment that promoted spiritual and intellectual evolution, but instead has been used mostly to subjegate the many to the whims and greedy desires of the few (fossil fuels as opposed to solar/wind power to site just one example).
Yes, but if technology can be placed at the command of the People, rather than the elite class, these problems can all be solved.
: I feel strongly that we could and should establish a Utopian society on this planet and that a firmly rooted spiritual foundation is the primary prerequisite for such a society.
YEs.
:I see that there are some very specific institutions and activities that stand firmly in the way of humanities spiritual progress and I am rather militant in my approach as to how they should be dealt with. I think of these institutions as pillars supporting what I consider to be an evil and barbaric empire (with the US as its heart and cardiovascular system) that has a death grip on this planet and the souls that inhabit it.
Well, I think that as bad as the US is, its problems are 1) due to capitalkism having corrupted teh noble revolutionary ideals on which this country was founded, 2) the fault of teh business/capitalist/military class, not the American people, 3) able to be overcoem if good men are in power, and 4) not as bad as many of the countries in the world, right-wing tyrannies like Indonesia, Guatemala or Nigeria.
: Based on these beliefs, I feel that we could do a lot worse than to obliterate and replace the following:
: Public education (in its current form, particularly in the US).
here is my fundamental disagreement. Public education ought to massively extended, upgraded and centralzied, not abandoned. My home state, Massachusetts, was the first place in teh world to institute public schooling (under the Puritans), and to give it up nwo woudl be to abandon one of our greatest gifts to the world. Look at what you're criticizing: teh system that states boldly that access to learning, intellectual skills and wisdom must NOT be the prerogative of a wealthy class, but must be accessible to ALL as a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. 250 years or so before the UN declared educationa basic human right, the Puritans were way ahead of them. If you abolished publiuc schools now, it woudl eb a step back to abrbarism, it woudl deprive millions on millions of klids of tehir human right to education, it woudl segregate them without the opportunity to learn. It woudl ruin the lives of millions. Public schooling is one of the best things about America.
The problem with our public schools today is that they don't have enough power. There is too much variance between schools, poor schools don't have enough money as wealthier neighborhoods, though in fact they need more. Schools should be able to have equal access to resources, and should be subject to strict statewide or national standards across the board. They should work closely together with parents to get recalcitrant kids to learn. Public schooling needs to be improvd not abolished. What woudl teh inner city youth fo america do if public schools were abolsihed?
: All fossil fuel industries.
: All destructive agricultural practices.
Agreed, agreed.
: US withdrawal from foreign nations
America should intervene against real tyranny, racial oprresion or genocide. It should NOT intervene, as it ahs far too often, to crush socialism, democracy and self-determination. (E.g. Nicaragua, Vietnam, the DR, etcetera etcetera.)
:and from the personal lives of US citizens (I speak here primarily of victimless crime legislation which is basically aimed at turning the US into one giant labor camp at our own phenomenal expense).
Well, to a point., but....don't you think prostitution should be outlawed? What about heroin and cocaine (marijuana is soemthing separate, being a 'soft', essentially harmless drug.)
: The western medical establishment (accept for reattaching severed arms and legs).
No, I think that helath acre shoudl be made mroe widespread and available to all, at goevrnment expenmse.
: I would have us make what I think are pretty obvious substitutions for all of the above systems, alternatives that struggle 24-7 under the suffacating weight of evil, irresponsible, greed ridden capitalist empires:
: Community organized home schooling
No way! Poorer families may not have the time, education, or expoertise to effectively teach their kids. Why should the child of two wealthy biochemists with lots of books and leisure time to teach, be entitled to an education different from that of the child of a signle mother, barely literate, working two jobs? Ythey are both entitled to an EQUAL education, teh SAME education. that is why we need public schools.
: Alternative energy technologies: wind, solar, cold fusion, etc.
To quote the french, cold fusion 'ne'existe pas". it was a scientfiic blunder.
:
: Sustainable, decentralized agriculture: organic, biodynamic, community supported farming (CSFs).
i don't know what 'biodynamic' is, but it sounds cool. That organic farming can be done effectively is shwon by teh examples of Cuba and Burkina Faso. Both farm that way out of economic necessity, not choice, but neither is starving. Cuba, in fact, used to have the best nutrition in all of the Americas, including the US>
: Alternative medical technologies: Dietary approaches, Homeoapthy, Herbology, etc.
Unfortunately, most diseases are either hereditary or infectious, and not subject to diet; homeopathy, by the way, CANNOT work, as every one of its 'precepts' violates fudamental laws of chemistry to the 100th degree, besides being incredibly offensive to logic and common sense. herbology is largely incorportaed into mdoern medical practoice anyway; 25% of drugs are derived from herbal sources, after isolating and synthesizing the active ingredient.
: So how am I measuring up so far? A few more clues: I'm a great admirer of Wilhelm Reich,
qui?
:Howard Zinn,
a great thinker, I admire him a lot, he's also a cosntistent pacifist; he wrote an op-ed in the Boston Globe on Veterans DAy.
: Zacharia Sithcin, John Judge,
?
:Eugene Debs,
Another immortal hero, who said it wonderfully:
"As long as there is a lower class, I am in it; as long as there is a criminal element, I am of it; as long as there is a soul in prison, I am not free."
: Louis Farakan and Dennis Lee. I haven't owned a motor vehicle in nine years, I don't eat cows and pigs, I like women that are at least 12 years older than me and of dark skinned races, I read alot, I drink lots of beer and I'm bigger than a bread box. So what am I?
:
libertarian leftist green anarchist?
None.
