grok wrote: > > As the smoke cleared, Mauro Lacy <[email protected]> > mounted the barricade and roared out: > > > If a significant part of that "working class" could, they will act and > > behave similarly to their burgueois "enemies". And you completely fail > > to see this. You completely fail to see (as Marxism does) , that the > > problem is not the social class to which you supposedly belong, but your > > human nature, that trascends it. > > That is absolutely false. The biological "nature" of animals aside > (the facts of > which themselves being quite open to fierce ongoing debate) humans in > fact have a > *social* nature -- which changes according to developments in social > relations at > large.
Well, change "human nature" for "lack of it", or "not enough of it", then, and the result is what I'm trying to say. > > What you're doing here is the equivalent of looking down the wrong end > of a > telescope, pardner. > > > > > >>> You are the other, grok. So, you are on the inside, in part at > least, the enemy > >>> that you're trying to combat so fiercely on the outside. > >>> > >>> Regards, Mauro > >> And this is mystical pseudo-dialectical mumbo jumbo AFAIC, Mauro. > > It is logical and expected that you, as a Marxist, will say that. > > Ya, I know. We're so EVIL, after all. Not necessarily evil, in a conscious way, at least. I'll call it other way, if we were close friends. > > > > > > But that "mumbo jumbo" is not the one that is fostering conflict and > violent > > confrontation. > > Say what..? > Look to your military and police, fella. How many people have they > murdered in just > the past week or so? You regutgitate the propaganda -- and I'm > supposed to just let > it past me, huh? MY police? I'm against all forms of violence. And specially if it comes as an institutional or socially approved one. > > NOTHING is more ugly and violent than a capitalist which hasn't been > fed bloodmeal > and raw, dripping hamburger in the past few minutes. I'm not discussing here "who is more violent", but the possible means and ways of stop being it. > > > > > > > And Marxism has failed not because of its supposed analytical > failures, but in > > spite of its analytical successes. Most often than not, the ones > that critic and > > despise the current social and economic order, are not up to the > task of building a > > better one. And that is made specially clear when they are given > some power. I'm > > not in favour of the actual social order, at all. But certainly > wouldn't be in > > favour of a communist one. Not one as history as showed. > > More mindless crap from someone who obviously doesn't have a clue. > How to respond... > > > > > > If you foster conflict, you'll harvest tempest. You will. And it will be > > your responsability, that part of the violence, hate and destruction > > that your acts will be fostering (but this is just mystical mumbo jumbo, > > of course.) > > > So, in the end, you're no better than the ones you're trying to condemn. > > Only less powerful. > > I think we'll let the working-class decide just who are the violent ones. > > How're your investments coming along, BTW..? I'll bet that slave-labor > minepit pays > out GOOD dividends... I don't have any investments; don't have any dividends, nor employees, an enterprise, etc. I'm not a capitalist. You're simply wrong about me, grok. Besides, about other things.
