the key line of Marx...what Marxism is all about....

the most important line in all of Marx’s writing is one that should
get the most attention… but doesn’t…

“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways,
the point, however, is to change it”

and the Marxist question should really be everyone question, how do we
change/transform the world? to make changes, one has to first of all understand
where we are at right now… and that is the role of philosophers, scientist, thinkers,
historians, economist, sociologist, to name a few…

and what changes should we engage with? the conservative holds to the past,
that is their line of vision, going to the past, so what changes should we make
that return us to the golden era of the past? that is the conservative thinking…

the problem lays with their ignorant understanding of the past… what we don’t see
is that human beings are right now, living in the golden era of existence…
we have it better off then any generation before us…
and this isn’t about the economic wealth of today… although there is that,
it is how we have many more opportunities then any generation of human being before us…

we have far more possibilities available to us then any generation before us…
and we don’t even see this…and we have a real opportunity before us to make
it even better…to transform the world means to create new possibilities of
human existence…

have you ever heard a conservative ask, what should we be aiming for, as
a people, a society, as a state, as a culture? no, of course not…
what should our country look like in 1 or 5 or 10 years or even longer, 100 years?

we are here as a people, and we should be there, and then the question becomes
how do we go from here to there? what are our steps to make us a better people,
a better country, a better state/culture? how do we transform ourselves into something
better? now one may ask, how do we know that that vision is a “correct” vision of
the future? and I say, yes, let us have that conversation about what is the goal
of our country… what is it we are trying to become? we cannot be so lazy to think
that knowing where you are is enough, it isn’t… we have to know where we started,
where we are and most importantly, where are we going?

we can use prior knowledge/understanding from those thinkers and writers who
have be able to place us as a nation, culture, society into some understanding of
where we are now… but that isn’t enough… we are we going to?

I believe that it is only by thinkers and philosophers that we can get a roadmap
into the future…

so my future is one where we have justice, for everyone… and justice really means
equality… so justice is equality before the law…for everyone… in other words, we
don’t have a, (as we have now) a two tier judicial system… the wealthy get treated by
one set of rules because they are wealthy or powerful or have a title or are famous…
and everyone else gets treated by another set of legal rules…if there are two set of
legal rules for people, then we don’t have a justice system… we have a “ad hoc” system
of justice that is applied as the situation warrants, not blindly, as justice should
be applied, equally as justice should be done, but right now, our judicial system
is applied unequally, the wealthy one set of rules and everyone else, another set of rules…

so that is one aim of mine, one possibility for the future that I see…
to make justice for all, meaning everyone is treated equally under the law…
regardless of their wealth, title, fame, power… that is what I want to see in
the future… so, how do we go from here to there? for me, to transform the current
system that is clearly biased against the poor, into a system that doesn’t care what
your social, political, economic status is… you get the exact same treatment
regardless of your status…

so how do we transform our current system into this much more fair system of justice?

this is just one, one example of what should we be changing and why?
we should be making voting as easy as breathing… I hold that there shouldn’t
be any rules, of any kind preventing people from voting… if we hold that the
most important aspect of democracy is voting, then voting should be available
to everyone regardless of their lot in life…we don’t prevent people from voting,
we make it easier…
how do we go from here to there?

( those who argue against voting rights for all, are arguing against democracy…
if you hold that voting rights are fundamental to a democracy, then you must
advocate for voting rights for all, if you don’t believe in people having the right to vote,
then you are advocating for something different then a democracy… for that is the
essential point of a democracy, voting… and to vote is the point of a democracy…
no vote, no democracy… so those who attempt to “reform” voting rights are really
against democracy and the basic point of a democracy which is to vote… to have a
say in how our lives is run)


if we have an “ad hoc” version of the judicial system, if we don’t
have a universal/transcendental system of justice, then we have
a “situational ethics” where the situation dictates the ethics…
which is what we have now… as I said before, we have
an “ad hoc” system of justice…but should we just accept this
understanding of the justice system or, or should work to change it
and make it like a real judicial system, one that holds to the
the idea that justice is about equality… to be just, we must hold
to justice as being the same as equality before the law…

but this is true in other area’s… for example, holding that corporations
are also people, allows corporations to escape accountability, responsibility
for their actions… that isn’t a just society, an equal society…

to be a just system requires, demands everyone, everyone is going to
be held accountable by the exact same rules… if we have different
rules for different people or one set of rules for people and another
set of rules for corporations, then we don’t have justice as being equal…
we have an “ad hoc” understanding of justice…this is true in every aspect
of our lives…either we hold everyone to the same/exactly same rules,
or we don’t and if we don’t… we exists in a “ad hoc” or a situational ethic
society…where the situation dictates the ethics…

so how do we go from here, a “ad hoc”, situational ethics society, to
a society that holds to justice as being equal to everyone…
and overall, universal, transcendental theory of justice?

that is the question isn’t it?


A) In terms of the formal logic of the sentence:

This sentence is not well-founded. In the second part of the sentence, the first part of the sentence is premised, although it is basically denied (in this way: the point is NOT to interpret the world, but to change it).

Every change of the world always presupposes an interpretation of the world. So the first part of the sentence must be demanded (world interpretation), if it is about the second part of the sentence (world change). Exactly this is not said in the sentence, but on the contrary, the world interpretation is basically denied and affirmed (because of the premise).

No human changes the world without having interpreted it first.

B) In terms of the content of the sentence:

I say to the sentence that the important thing is not to change, but to protect the world. Humans should finally start protecting the world.

K: I have little to no interest in a deconstruction viewpoint of the universe…
but to your second point, the question becomes, protect it from what?

who are you protecting it from? what action are others taking that you feel
the need to protect the earth from? you have to have some starting point to engage
in your answer… it needs context… or some connection to us…
so, where do you begin? what is your opening context?


If the point is to change the world, we should be promoting climate change - not trying to stop it. 8-[

you can see the staleness of conservative thought when they endlessly keep
repeating the same old crap…for example, liberals as communist… that
line has been around since the 1930’s… my mom, who is 86, recalls that
line being used against liberals when she was a child, during the Great Depression…

the same line about taxes and the same lines about anyone who is different,
people of color, Jews, homosexuals… the exact same attacks have been used
against them as long as I can remember…and my memory goes back to the 60’s…
over 50 years now and conservatives still keep using the same old tired attacks…

what UR and observe see as new attacks against those they hate, are really
decades old attacks that were old when I was a kid… it is true,
there really isn’t anything new under the sun…

I await the day, not holding my breath by the way, but waiting for the day,
when conservatives actually engage in some new unconstructive attacks upon
people conservatives hate…some new insults would be nice… but they
lack the imagination to even bring out new insults against people of color, Jews,
homosexuals, minorities, liberals… the same people they have been attacking
in the exact same way for 50 plus years…


K: clearly someone who doesn’t get what will happen if climate change becomes
even more pronounced… most of the coastal cities of the world, including
San Francisco and the area I live in, will be under water…My condo is
pretty close to El Camino real, which is where the water will get to,
if the the climate change we foresee happens…my house will be under water…
I don’t think that is a good option for me…and so, I fight climate change…


now to tie up some loose ends…

I have stated, time and again, that the key questions we should
be asking ourselves, are Kantian questions…

“What am I/we to do?” “What should I/we be hoping for?” “What should
my/our values be?”

this engagement is most important if we are to figure out what it means to
be human… but these important Kantian questions are made in the context
of what the future ought to be…the question, “what am I/we to do?” has
be answered in the lens of what is our future possibilities…understanding
what our future goals are, will help us better understand what it is
we are engage with…in order to know, “What am I/we to do?” is
presupposed on the question of “what should our future goal be?” what future
possibility should we be aiming for, as individuals and collectively…

knowing our future goals/destination allows us to better frame the question,
“What am I/we to do?” to reach the goal we want to reach, we must have a
sense of our goals/destination… and then we can better answer the question,
“what am I/we to do?”…if my future goal/destination is to achieve
justice, real justice in America, then I know what the answer is to the
question, “What am I/we to do?” strive for a judicial system that is fair
and just/equal to everyone…I now know what it is that “I am to do”…
the goals/destination we agree to, change, modify the means with which
we try to achieve our goals…the future goals and destinations determine/
decide what it is the answer to the question, “What am I/we to do?”

the future determines our actions, not the past…


one possibility that arises is this: why should we want to transform,
change our current situation of the highest standard of living ever achieved?
why should we toss away our cushy cars, couches, TV sets, multiple houses,
and for what? To achieve some dubious goal of personal satisfaction of
being “woke” or being alive to the possibilities of existence that exists
beyond just material wealth or goods?

the question becomes, what is the point/goal of existence?

is it the acquisition of wealth and material goods?
is it finding escape from the modern grip of alienation,
disconnection from each other and society?

we are clearly in the midst of a crisis that has engulf the entire world…
what is the point of existence? to gain material wealth or to become
fully realized people? and are those goals/destinations relevant to
the individual or to us collectively? should we have individual goals/ destinations
and then public/community goals/destinations?

and what should they be?

I hold for the individual goals because I see the “current” objective of
society to be dehumanizing and negating the individual right now…

I see society and its attempt to negate human beings as being fundamentally
wrong…the nihilism of our modern world must end… but, how?

what changes must be made to end the current economic, social, political
systems that bring about the nihilism of the modern age…

the ism’s of the twentieth century, from capitalism to communism to
religions like Buddhism and Catholicism, are carriers of the modern
crisis of alienation and discontentment and yes, nihilism of the modern
age…so we have a solution to the modern crisis of alienation and nihilism
that so affects our modern age… what steps do we take to reach our goal/
destination of having authentic lives? Lives that are our own, in which we,
as human beings, decide what is best for us… not big corporations or
big government decides our fate, but us individually and collectively decide
what is best for us…


And the Sun is expanding - “WE HAVE TO LEAVE FOR MARS - RIGHT NOW!!!”

You don’t want o be stuck in that condo when that happens do you?

Fear propaganda to promote authoritarian globalism.

Marx didn’t invent it but he certainly promoted it.

And the Sun is expanding - “WE HAVE TO LEAVE FOR MARS - RIGHT NOW!!!”

You don’t want o be stuck in that condo when that happens do you?

K: a pretty sure sign of a lazy poster here is to create a straw man argument and then
use that to defend a position…the fact is that the sun exploding will be
a couple of billion of years from now… I don’t need to react from something that
is a couple of BILLION of years from now…

whereas the science, and I know you hate science, experts, competence,
rationality, logic, suggest that global warming is right now, at this very moment, at work,
raising the sea levels… and within my lifetime, say, 15 years will threaten our
sea boards…and that is something worth working on…


Obviously Peter, to interpret the world means to change it.

It has no objective existence, not in any way we can understand; what is objectively true about it is that we are interpreting it as a world, and each to our own values.

Marx simply means to say here; most interpretations have not changed the world radically enough. And he quite successfully set out to change that by offering an interpretation that was attractive to a populace which had hitherto not been served such pleasant thoughts about themselves. Using his own terms in a playful form; his theory offers mdma-meth for the people. All adored interpretations are intoxicants and stimulant, agents of change.

When people suffer, they are more open to social change.
Canadians are comfortable.

K: this is quite true…revolutions come when people don’t have any thing else…
the Russian, French revolutions were clearly done by people who had
no other possibility for themselves…we in America are clearly not
even close to being uncomfortable… thus the status quo will go on…


That is an important question, but so is knowing our limits, and what we want to preserve as is.

Marxism has been around for nearly 2 centuries, so aren’t Marxists looking to the past?
And socialism in general has been around since before the Gracchi Bros, same with globalization, multiculti and so on, so how much of ‘progressivism’ is really new?

Our standard of living was higher in the mid 20th century.
And in many respects, frontier America was more free.

Honesty all the time, do you even read or listen to conservatives?

Arguably equality under the law = flat taxes, ending affirmative action, diversity quotas and ‘equity’.
Do you want every label and sign to include every living language?
Do you want open borders and to extend US citizenship to every man, woman and child on earth?