Marxism for Super-Experts

Marxism does not propose that people become mindless, far from it, Marxism proposes that we STOP being mindless and take charge of our future. Nature intended nothing, nature does not think, it is not conscious. Humans did evolve through cooperation, why do you think we evolved language? How do you think we hunted, on our own? The first hunting was probably using fire to scare animals and a load of people to catch animals running from the fire. We learned to kill mammoths, not easy on your own.

They might not have thought of it that way, but they were classless societies. You only have to look at the American Indians when the Europeans arrived. Google Catalhoyuk for the Neolithic example, and Cayonu for the revolution where class society was overthrown.

We evolved according to the laws of evolution, physics, chemistry and so on. It's far from random.

Stalin was the negation of Marxism in Russia. He killed all the Marxists. He established an anti-Marxist regime. He tried to stop all the revolutions around the world after that.

Well in a true socialist society leaders would be elected, subject to recall at any time, and on the average wage. In true communism, the end goal, everyone is a leader.

not sure what that means

 

Quantum physics have already proven that the Universe is living and nature is consciousness. Your living in the past. I'm not here to insult you, I have 3 links below that are very important for you to look into, to expand your mind.

A quantum mechanical view of bi-location

This Will Mind(*)(*)(*)(*) You: The Double-Slit Experiment

Do You Want To Take The Red Pill Or The Blue Pill?

 

nature conscious?! Universe living??!!

Ok, lets have a quick look at the links

The first one is about an experiment called the double slit.

It says

"The famous double-slit experiment has yielded consistent evidence that atoms, electrons, photons, even molecular conglomerates as large as 70 carbon atoms, can be in superposition, or in other words, simultaneously in two places at once. When any one of these small particles, let’s say a photon, is fired one at a time at the barrier with the slits at intervals sometimes exceeding an hour, it creates an interference pattern on the recording plate such as the one on the bottom of the pictures. (see “observed” pattern). This pattern could only occur if the single photon passes through both slits simultaneously, actually interfering with itself once on the other side of the barrier."

I had this explained to me once by my sisters boyfriend, and I thought I understood it at the time but I cant remember the explanation properly. He also explained something about a cat in a box. Basically it's about probability. A photon is a wave and a particle.

The article continues:

"The question physicists ask is, if photons and other quantum particles can be in two places at once, why can’t we?"

Have they? Which scientists?

The article continues...

"The popular Copenhagen interpretation says that any measurement or other “observation” by a human collapses the wave function of any given particle’s superposition into one manifested position. We “see” the world through our macroscopic senses every moment. Our observation instantaneously collapses any other potentials than the one we are perceiving. Voila, no superposition."

I think thats what I was saying.

Oh, but then your article says the cat is a different explanation involving many worlds. I dont remember my mate saying anything about different worlds.

Finally it mentions Sir Roger Penrose saying that the wave function may collapse because of a tiny gravitation force which your article claims is unpredictable and therefore indicates "that a “conscious” or proto-conscious process is occurring at the quantum level in our brains. "

Ok so they are looking at consciousness from the point of view of quantum physics.

Well obviously quantum physics is involved at some level in our consciousness, but that does not imply that the universe is conscious.

Anyway, Penrose's views are not widely accepted in scientific circles.

This is actually something I read about once in a Marxist online magazine called Socialism Today, in a book review:

http://www.socialismtoday.org/127/quantum.html

Your other two links by the way, one didnt work and the other looked like some online scam. The first one which I read was well dodgy too. I suggest you stick to sensible sources.

here is another article by the same person examining quantum physics in relation to Marxism

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4688

I chose these two because they are simple, aimed at non-scientists

 

Hah!

Again. You prove my point. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat constituted the anti-authoritarian organization of the Paris Commune, Not The Organization of Lenin's Worker's State.

I previously quoted the 1918 Soviet Constitution to show how totalitarian and party fetishistic the political organization of Lenin's government was, given the dominance of the Soviet, over direct democracy, which the Menshiviks wanted initially. This is why they fought against the Bolesheviks post-break.

The Paris Commune was a direct democracy, and that is what the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was suppose to be. [Thank You Engels]

 

sorry but I still dont really even understand your argument. You say the Bolsheviks were different to the Paris Commune but I don't understand what that difference is exactly, or why you think Marx wouldn't have approved of their tactics. You even go as far as to say Marx was an unconscious anarchist, which is crazy because it implies you know Marx better than he knew himself.

If there was such a big difference between Marx and Engels and the Paris Commune on the one hand, and the Bolsheviks on the other, I think I would have heard of it in the nearly 30 years I have been a Marxist. I have heard of anarchists of course, but Marx was not one, he argued against them.

Now, this thread can go on as long as you want, it's up to you. I have nothing to prove. Most Marxists would agree with most of what the Bolsheviks did. If Rosa Luxemburg was so different, why is she placed alongside Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky by the CWI (one of the main Trotskyist internationals)? However everyone makes mistakes.

 

Who is this Marx person?