>the fact that the charge about marxism being a secular religion is old >or
>has parallels in the 18th century is irrelevant. it's still true >that
>marxism is accepted in many quarters with faith at the level of >religion;
>true long ago and true now. most politics produces a >reaction in the
>"true believers" that is indistinguishable from >religious faith. organized
>religion is deeply involved in politics and >power, to a fault in my
>opinion. also, most politics is an accident >of birth as is most
>religion.
I'm really curious about this marxism=religion thing. Why do people conflate the two? Is it because Marxism looks forward to a "better time" in the same manner as the Big Three monotheist religions do? But don't all movements that involve (broadly speaking) "betterment" involve this sort of attitude? Or is it just the "dogmatic fanatacism" charge?
R also said:
>if joe isn't thinking for himself, who is he thinking for?
At the risk of second guessing Yoshie and Ian, Ian expressed what Yoshie was pointing out as well: your thoughts, by and large, don't spring from your mind alone. They are the result of input from other sources, which is then processed and used to fashion your thinking. This is not to say that "your thoughts" are not "yours" in that you qua you don't have them; Joe's words were reminiscent of writing a book and failing to acknowledge the help of EVERY other person who helped bring about the creation of that book, from your parents (who "gave you life") to the janitor who cleaned up the offices of the printer, without any of whom the book would have been that much closer to remaining unpublished.
Todd
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com