<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>Re: Determinism</title></head><body> <div>At 2:37 PM -0700 6/29/02, R wrote:</div> <blockquote type="cite" cite>You are not "thinking for yourself" here, as what you wrote above<br> simply reproduces an old charge that "Marxism is a secular religion."<br> In fact, the charge that "X is a secular religion with its own dogma"<br> must be at least as old as conservative reactions against modern<br> revolutions in the age of the Enlightenment.  Here's an example from<br> Edmund Burke: "It [the French Revolution] is a revolution of doctrine<br> and theoretic dogma.  It has a much greater resemblance to those<br> changes which have been made upon religious grounds in which a spirit<br> of proselytism makes an essential part" ("Thoughts on French<br> Affairs," 1791).  In short, your rhetoric is stuck on the right in<br> the 18th century!<br> --<br> Yoshie<br> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000080">yoshie, i'm surprised at you.   i've grown accustomed to your comments being the even tempered voice of reason so often on this message board.     </font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000080">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.</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>I rather doubt that Marxism is "accepted in many quarters" in the USA at all, much less "with faith at the level of religion."  Where is evidence for your assertion?</div> <div><br></div> <div>At 2:37 PM -0700 6/29/02, R wrote:</div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000080">most politics produces a reaction in the "true believers" that is indistinguishable from religious faith.</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>Eric Hoffer, _The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements_, 1951.  A Cold-War classic.</div> <div><br></div> <div>You and Joe have learned what to think and how to talk about Marxism from what the dominant ideology says about it (and other revolutionary movements) and how it says it, though it appears you haven't realized that.  I recommend that you read conservative thinkers' works on Marxism (and other revolutionary movements).  Start with David Hume perhaps, given what you say below.</div> <div><br></div> <div>At 2:37 PM -0700 6/29/02, R wrote:</div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000080">to make the blanket generalization that pointing out the connection between political fanaticism and religious fanaticism, political faith and religious faith was brought forward in the 18th century only establishes that the fact was known centuries ago and is still true.</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>What is political fanaticism?  Religious fanaticism?  Political faith?  Religious faith?  What is faith?  A strongly held belief?  Are faith and fanaticism the same thing?  You've yet to define what they mean, much less prove the connection between them and explain what the connection means.</div> <div>-- <br> Yoshie<br> <br> * Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html><br> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html><br> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/><br> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/></div> </body> </html>