This is (as you know) a difficult topic to discuss because the range of behaviour covered by the term "sexual predator" is so heavily freighted. Then there is a certain amount of hysteria among the public regarding sexual behaviour among people--regardless of age. There is also the large question of how we develop our object choices in the first place.

It seems to me that the laws regarding sexual crime and punishment have over-reached and their application is overly punitive. But then, we have quite a few laws that over-reach and are too punitive. Felonies relating to drug use being a good example.

Sexual relations between adults and youth--heterosexual and homosexual--have occurred regularly in many societies. A lot of people don't distinguish between "pedophilia" (attraction to pre-pubescent children) and "hebephilia" (attraction to pubescent children), or even post-pubescent minors. It wasn't only the Greeks who regularly had relationships between male youth and male adults.

I don't at all expect it to happen, but I think we need to rethink our ideas about how older youth and adults can relate to each other. "Never!!!" just doesn't conform to reality. From my own gay youth experiences (now in the way-distant past), the principle problem was social inexperience. Sexual naïveté is more easily cured than social naiveté.

There was (maybe still is) NAMBLA -- North American Man Boy Love Association. This goes back to the 1970s. It was always a lightning rod for conflict in the gay community -- fewer being for it and far more being against it. If memory serves me, their membership was largely pedophile. It is very difficult to make a plausible and supportable case for relationships between pre-pubescent children and adults. Maybe flat-out impossible. Relationships between post-pubescent minors who are otherwise known as "young men" can certainly be rationalised, but these days such theories aren't likely to fly either.

In America there is ONE political party, the Redemocans. It's a big tent, housing a a large number of slightly differing opinions. The "American system" requires compliant politicians who might criticise some corporate, collegiate, religious, or municipal policies, but are not going to attempt anything remotely revolutionary--like nationalise Exxon, or commit to a carbon neutral economy by some not-too-distant date in the future.

The party is centrally controlled from the top all the down to the bottom. Politics in America is a rigged farce.

Betty believes she has free will — Terrapin Station

Bill doesn't believe he has free will — Terrapin Station

But what if Betty and Bill did not have free will for belief formation? What if deterministic factors caused Betty and Bill to think the way the do? For example, providing Betty with low frustration tolerance would result in her quitting a job she found unsatisfactory (frustrating). Bill will loaded with a high tolerance for frustration, so he stays where he is.

Each of them only seemed to exercise free will.

Most of the time, though, we have no idea what deterministic factors are at work -- on ourselves and on others. This enables us to assign free will as a cause of behaviour.

I'm in favour of maintaining the capacity for anger when it is needed.

The emotions are not all or nothing, and they are often alloyed--anger and fear, for instance. We might feel a slight flicker of anger on one end of the spectrum, murderous rage at the other end. We learn how to manage our emotions, if we are raised half-ways properly, whatever our philosophical bent. If we don't -- we end up with big problems.

Anger is an indispensable emotion. Anger is a motivator when it comes to righting wrongs; when we need to defend our individual and collective rights; when we need to prevent a continuing annoyance. Most of the time, normal people are able to manage anger productively. When they can't, problems result.

I have had "anger issues" in the past. Petty annoyances would trigger very disproportionate feelings of anger which, when expressed, might be socially inconvenient or trigger disproportionate displays of anger from other people who were also walking around with a tank full of simmering rage.

I don't know whether we can have too much joy--probably we can--but we can certainly have too much sadness, disgust, contempt, fear, and anger.

I believe that a true American — Ilya B Shambat

I have some idea what an 'American' is; I don't know what a "true American" is. Adding "true", "perfect", "absolute", and like adjectives to nouns generally doesn't help.

First of all, what is an elite? An elite is a group of people who got good at something or other. — Ilya B Shambat

I admire "elite" bicyclists who compete in the lead of Tour d'France, or the fastest runners who compete as "elite" runners in marathons. Not all elites deserve our adulation. For instance, "the power elite" are those who have become expert at achieving and wielding power in the corporation or state. The wealth elite are those who have become expert at stealing from everybody else (wealth is theft).

Power and wealth elites do not have my interests are heart. They have their standing in the power and wealth elites at heart. People do not rise to elite levels in power and wealth by following Jesus, Buddha, and Mo', or being advocates of ordinary people. They must focus on their own, narrow, highly focused self interest.

I've met a few limousine liberals, sugar plum socialists, and let-them-eat-cake conservatives. Individually, any of them can be pleasant people. Beyond that...

Of course not everyone in the elites is a good guy; but then neither is the average person. There are plenty of people who are not a part of any elite whatsoever, who are complete jerks. There are many average people who beat their wives, rape their children, slap “hos” and do any number of other ugly deeds. Elites do not own evil. It cuts across social boundaries, and while some people in the elites are indeed evil so are many people who are not part of the elites. — Ilya B Shambat

This is true. Elite people are as capable as ordinary people of behaving badly. I think you will find, however, that the world's really big problems are generally caused by members of elites. Ordinary people just aren't in a position to steal the country blind, start a stupid war, anger the allies, and so forth.

Apropos to this merry season of Gay Liberation, I once overheard an upward mobile gay guy who wanted to be in the elite say that "Drag queens were causing all the trouble and preventing progress on gay rights." I piped up and contradicted him saying, "No, it is men who are dressed like you -- dark suit, white shirt, tie, and nice shoes who cause most of the world's problems." It isn't the guy's clothes, of course -- dark suit or short dress and spike heels -- that cause the problems. It's the orientation to the interests of the elites that causes the problems. For this fellow, it was the sensitivities of petite bourgeois he was concerned about. 30-some years later, I know that he didn't make it into even this middling elite; far from it. He was wasting his time fretting over a bunch of drag queens.

Males tend to be viewed as more expendable as well. There are many reasons not to join an army, but expendability is certainly one of them. "It's a soldier's job to stop the bullet, they say. So you stop the bullet, then they stop your pay."

The Club: Johnson, Boswell, and the Friends Who Shaped An Age by Leo Damrosch
The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World by Catherine Nixey (Christian Jihadists attacked the Roman Temples at Palmyra 1700 years ago, pretty much like their Moslem successors did a few years back)
I Am Charlotte Simmons, A Novel by Tom Wolfe (too long, but pretty good)

I, of course, do not care to respond in such a way that indicated I cared whether I responded or not.

WELL, I don't really disagree with you, up to a point. But "any social animal has a culture" is a bridge too far. Lions and wolves, porpoises and bees all cooperate, but that doesn't mean they have a "culture". Yes, there are hierarchies, but again that isn't cultural unless it is. What I mean is, ant hills have hierarchies; the hierarchy is encoded by genes. Same with bees. Lions and wolves hunt the way they do, and porpoises herd fish the way they do, because it's encoded.

There are some rare instances of animals (macaque primates) doing a cultural thing: Some macaques started washing the dirt off sweet potatoes before eating them. That was a novel behavior. Some other macaques copied them. One macaque taught it's young to wash the potatoes. That's not quite culture, but it is heading in that direction.

You seem to be more on the side of learned behaviour and culture. I'm more on the side of instinct -- even for people. Some of us believe that much of our behaviour is genetically encoded. People learn language whether they want to or not. They just start absorbing it. It's instinctual. so on and so forth

To sum it up, there are just too many LTK&S.

Right you are; the world is in a bad situation. The world has usually been in a bad situation from the POV of at least a plurality of people, if not the vast majority. Though I do think we have cooked up an unusually bad situation (global warming) which will be the leitmotif of the 21st century and most likely several centuries following. We are wrecking the environment, we know we are wrecking the environment, and we just won't stop wrecking the environment.

Why do we behave so stupidly?

For one, most (all?) of our leaders are liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels (LTK&S) and they have led the people down the primrose path of falsehood. For two, the LTK&S are greedy bitches and sons of bitches and want to keep making money by wrecking the planet. So, drill baby drill. For three, people are stupid, as well as being LTK&S. Just the other day I saw an article that said people were getting stupider. I didn't read the article because it is self evident. Dumb, dumber, and just plain fucking stupid. Four, the gods appear to be either indifferent to the mess we are in; supposedly they all said "we told you so". The gods too are all LTK&S. Or maybe they just don't exist, in which case the holy men are LTK&S.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, 22 LTK&S are hoping to become the next POTUS, to replace the Maximum Moron who currently occupies the job, and is himself a giant LTK&S, and who is surrounded by more LTK&S.

I don't care whether they get paid or not.

We are not merely a collection of individual brains, regardless of how much some of us like to think of ourselves as thoroughly self-authoring and autonomous. — Izat So

True enough. We may not even be "conscious" the way we think we are; we may be pretty much the sum of deterministic forces and events. As somebody once said, "We've been dethroned. Copernicus showed us that we were not the centre of the cosmos. Darwin showed us we were descended from apes. Then Freud showed us we were not even in charge of our own minds."

if by “the brain comes first” you mean as a necessary condition of there being culture at all, then who would disagree? On the other had if your view is that the brain material primacy in the sense that it requires you to posit a time when there were loners who decided to form the original primate culture, then of course it is preposterous. — Izat So

Primates became a thing around 55 million years ago. Presumably there was a time (about 8 million years ago, at least) when the proto-human and the proto-monkey lineage split apart. The common ancestor probably did not have had a culture. It had biological traits and behaviours. Initially, the early creatures in our branch of the tree would not have had culture either. It would have had a collection of biological traits and behaviours.

I don't know how social Lucy's species was. We were not producing culture, at the time. Culture would have to wait until our brains were big enough to carry out the tasks of culture creation and cultural reproduction. We may not have been able to talk yet, either. Lucy's brain (3 million years ago) was about a third the size of ours, and she represented 3 or 4 million years of development.

So yes, at some point in our evolutionary history (about 2.5 million years ago) forebears came along who could make a tool out of material that was not a tool (like a rock), and pass that information on, and then take that information on into the future. That's when culture production began, and it was probably later, rather than sooner.

We don't know when speech began. We don't know what it was like. But there was a beginning to the use of language -- albeit very limited. Maybe it began with signs, or sounds, or both. Don't know. Can't know. But 300,000 years ago, it is likely that languages were fully deployed--another cultural invention.

Occasionally we find artifacts--a sea shell with a hole drilled in it and stained red--that indicate that objects were being fashioned for some nonfunctional purpose (decoration?) maybe 40,000 years ago. 25,000 years ago we find the cave paintings.

Nobody would claim that shell decoration, cave painting, or gathering around a fire was "invented" by one person and then was picked up by others. But cultural behaviours had to begin at some time--maybe in multiple places.

So let’s move on and see what the implications are, especially as regards the irrational rejection of the non controversial facts that our brains are wired to be cultural (because, again, brains and culture coevolved). — Izat So

Can the idea that the organic structure and functioning of the brain coevolved with culture be tested?

The content of the brain clearly changes with exposure to culture (and everything else) but that doesn't mean "evolution". Homo sapiens have been a mobile hunter-gathering species for 15,000 to maybe 300,000 years. Can we show that culture, specifically, has played a role in selection? I'm not claiming that such a relationship can not be demonstrated, just that I don't know that it has, or can be.

At this point, a million and more years since culture was first invented by brains, it is impossible to disentangle culture from biology in our time and place. I can't tell whether the people around me (or around you) are behaving the way they do because of culture or because of biology, or some combination of both. Nobody else can either. Even mental illnesses like bi-polar disorder which may be inherited and which appear to be biological in origin, are affected by cultural factors.

So, a question: If we could bring someone forward in time from 150,000 years ago -- a newborn baby -- and raise them in the contemporary culture, do you think that their brain could process the vastly more complex culture of today than a band of hunter gatherers 300,000 years ago?

My guess (no proof, of course -- time travel is incredibly expensive) is that the baby would grow up and do just fine -- might even turn out to be an urban sophisticate/kulture kritik/bon vivant. Or, he might be a successful criminal, or had it we time traveled him 45 years ago, Teresa May's successor as conservative UK Prime Minister -- all sorts of possibilities. Maybe that's where Trump came from?

The post was in support of my view that the brain comes first, culture comes second. Then, available culture (from a particular brain or other brains in general) is available for further cultural processing -- by brains.

I hope he wasn't disputing that, but it seems like he was.

Oliver Sacks (and others) have reported that deaf children who are not taught any sort of language will create signs among themselves in order to communicate. It's an example of brains creating a culture feature from scratch. The cultural creation is not much of a language, but it is language, none the less.

In his book "Seeing voices: A Journey Into the World of the Deaf" Sacks also shows how the lives of deaf people (adults, for instance) who have limited and ineffective spoken language imitation tools are enhanced by learning a full-fledged sign language.

Language seems to be something we are genetically primed to produce. Some degree of cooperation also seems to be biologically programmed. (We are not the only animals that cooperate, and a good share of the time we don't even do it very competently.) Does brain = language = culture? I think so, since without language we don't seem to be able to function together.

Our species-ancestors were perhaps able to function with much less language than we require--but all this is speculation, since we don't have any video tapes of our primitive forebears.

They [dogs] are not more genetically related to us than chimps, that’s for sure! — Izat So

Of course not. Dogs happen to be more ingratiating than chimps. Pleasing humans is their specialty. The very fact that chimps are not all that ingratiating, they being willing prone to throw their faeces at us, is evidence of their close genetic relationship to us, because we aren't all that ingratiating either.

Our brains evolved to make use of the cultural tools available to us. Brains and culture coevolved. — Izat So

What "cultural tools" were available to the culturally naive brain? The answer has to be "zero". So... where did culture come from? The answer has to be, "Brains made culture."

A long time ago, when our fictive Homo Erectus "Adam and Eve" found each other and mated--culture not required--thus spawning the Homo sapiens species, what cultural tools did they have available to them?

Their Homo Erectus predecessors deployed some culture. They used fire and stone tools; their children needed care for an extended period of time. They had to cope with large predators and various environmental challenges using instinctive and learned behaviours. There were almost certainly more cultural practices (aka 'learned behaviours) but what other cultural features they possessed is unknown -- and is likely to stay unknown.

The predecessors of Homo Erectus probably depended more on instinct and less on culture. If you go back in time, you will eventually reach an ancestor that didn't produce or use culture.

Brains create culture and are then influenced by their own creations; it's a feedback loop. Creating stone tool culture improved one's survival. Better survival chances allowed brains to exploit more life opportunities, and we are off to the races.

Roy was probably a great guy, but 99.99% of the world will not have heard of him, read his fabulous insights, or known any of his children or their suicided friends.

Where do the rest of us fit into this thread?

The trouble with the dominant Capitalist system (everywhere) is that it is predicated on always making a profit from each transaction, and on continual growth in the market. Each company, whether National Shoe, or Apple, or Exxon, or Green Giant, or Sunshine Crackers is involved in a chain of producers, manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers all slicing off their share of what is, they hope, an ever larger pie.

Perpetually growing markets is a major piece of the global climate crisis, and one of the major causes of economic collapse. Economic systems eventually produce more stuff than they can possibly sell, consumers reach a point where they can't buy any more, the market grinds to a halt, and a recession or depression can result (that's one cause of depressions).

Capitalism will eventually disappoint us; it will eventually fuck us over. It isn't that it wants to screw up everything -- all that is just built into the system.

The cost of labor in a finished product, say a shoe, a shirt, a phone, a lawn mower, is -- rule of thumb -- about 10% of the retail price, give or take a little. Where does the rest of the costs that make up the price come from?

Raw material, transportation, distribution (warehousing), advertising, finance charges, and profit. Some products have a wide margin of profit (Apple iPhone X, for example). Your shirt, made in Malaysia, or your pair of socks made in Nicaragua, have a very narrow margin of profit.

All of the factory, ship, warehouse, trucking, and mall owners take another small cut in profit at each stage of getting the shoe, shirt, or shoe laces from the factory to you.

Some products like necessities -- basic clothing -- could be made somewhat cheaper if profit was removed from the system at each stage of production. Other products, like the iPhone, which are unnecessary luxury goods, could stand to have a lot of profit (for Apple, Foxcomm, shippers) taken out to make the phones much cheaper. OR, wages could be increased substantially--but not both.

What is the likelihood of this happening? Approximately zero. It SHOULD be done, but it most likely will NOT BE DONE.

Child labor is illegal in the US because of a movement fueled mainly by women: specifically: mothers — frank

Later you said you have moved on. Fine, but I want to put in this argument against child labor:

One of the tasks with which people are burdened is "the reproduction of society":

IF the next 50 years were going to be exactly like the last 50 years, child labor would not be a problem. Children born into drudgery would just continue in drudgery, century after century. Child labor would be good preparation for adult life. As it happens, though, the last 50 years hasn't been like the next 50 years for several centuries. Nature will reliably produce new bodies, but it takes nurture to produce people fit to operate a society in which change is on-going.

The upper and ruling classes have always educated their children, because their children needed to be able to manage estates, climb the various hierarchies (church, state, empire, etc.), manage people, be literate to some degree, know how to behave toward their betters and lessers, and so forth. Common labourers didn't need this sort of education, because, as a rule, they were not going to rule.

But in the latter part of the 19th century, it became clear enough to enough people (mothers, among others) that children were going to work at jobs their fathers had not done, in a society that might be quite different than the one in which the parents had been born into. Hence, child education.

Initially, public education (as the term is used in the US) had a fairly high toned quality. Latin was commonly taught in public schools into the 1950s (and in some schools longer). The curriculum served the liberal arts. (Some schools taught trades).

After WWII, to pick a handy watershed, schools began educating children to fit into a more highly commercialised, corporate dominated economy. Liberal arts remained, but there was a greater emphasis than before on one's role as a consumer, as well as being an employee who behaved properly.

By the late 1970s into the 1980s, the role of consumer became paramount (for the masses) and the means to educate children about how to serve as a consumer 24/7 were available: TV, radio, movies, magazines, recordings, and so forth. For many students, education could (sort of) leave school and be conducted at the Mall and by watching TV. Later, the Internet would add another avenue of training outside of the red brick school. (Actually, little red brick school houses went out with 78 rpm records to be replaced by terrazzo, glass, and brushed aluminium).

Mothers were on the right side of history (to borrow a phrase) but history was pushing them along.

Well, every manager understands that shit-paid jobs and unhappy workers don't contribute to productivity. Furthermore, the demand for labor has gone up significantly since Marx's time. At the very least, these two factors contribute to better wages and economic growth. — Wallows

Comparing conditions many decades apart is always difficult. One can used 'chained consumer price indexing" only so far back before it becomes questionable. We can be reasonably certain that US $1 in 1913 is equivalent to $25 in 2018. Then we have to compare income figures and cost of living. That gets more difficult. A good share of what people bought in 1953 or 2013 wasn't available in 1913.

It's much more difficult to work back to the 1850 UK £1 and compare it to 2018 £1. The demand for labor went up, did it not, because economies became larger? Certainly the demand for labor in mid 19th century was fairly high. Many hands were needed to tend the new machines.

That the quality of life for many workers is better now than 160 years ago is certainly true. Were we to return all of the manufacturing to the United States that has been off-shored over the last 70 years, we might not say the same thing. A lot of the jobs that are being done now in China, Bangladesh, or Malaysia are manufacturing and assembly jobs that used to be done here. The workers in SE Asia are being paid shit wages. Were shoes, clothing, plastic products, and so on to be manufactured again in the US -- with prices staying as low as they are now -- it is likely that the wages and quality of work life in the US would take a nose dive.

So, when will things start appearing as rosy and good for your tastes? Just wondering what kind of standards for social mobility you have in mind here? — Wallows

Many of the factors contributing to the designation of being a "proletarian" in Marx's days have all but disappeared. Worker alienation? Pretty much gone. etc. — Wallows

Not really. "Proletarian" just means "working-class person, worker, working person, plebeian, commoner, ordinary person, man/woman/person in the street". If you are paid a wage for doing work, whether that be repairing railroad tracks or working as an accountant for the railroad in an air conditioned office, you are still a worker -- a member of the proletarian class.

"Alienation" as Marx defined it, is a technical term -- different than existential alienation. A worker is "alienated from the product of his labor" by the terms of employment. The employee comes to work, does a fine job and turns out a great product, but the company owns the product, sells it, and keeps the profit. The worker has no control over the stuff he makes. That's what "alienation" means for Marx.

Marx would likely have understood the existentialists "alienation", had he been around to read Camus.

I don't think alienation of either the Marxist variety or the existential variety has been even slightly diminished. I'd say it is worse than ever. A lot of the unhealthy, crazy behaviour we see in society is actually the heroic effort on the part of many people to dull their pain, their alienation.

but, not in the same manner as when Marx was describing the socio-economic's of Germany or England some 152 years ago. — Wallows

And what is it about the class situation that Marx observed that is so different today?

1/3 of the population gets a college education. 1 out of 3. 2 out of 3 do not. Yes, if you are sufficiently poor, there is limited financial assistance available. But let's not kid ourselves: People are borrowing real money to pay for living expenses during college, tuition, books, fees, transportation, etc. But sure, education is available to far more people now than 150 years ago.

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets. In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 86% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 14%.

The poorest 10th of the population owe more than they own. 100 million Americans have less than $5000 saved for retirement. The average amount of savings for retirement is about $90,000. 90k is better than nothing, but if, after you retire, you don't own your house outright; if you have uncovered medical / dental expenses; if you have to buy a car; the $90K will disappear very quickly.

A large share of Americans have a desperate to precarious financial future.

I'll grant you: the grinding poverty and crude exploitation of the industrial revolution in the mid 19th century has been replaced by a kinder, gentler exploitation and redundancy than what Karl Marx or Charles Dickens observed. We eliminated child labor (in many parts of the world); plants are generally much safer now than they were then; the daily hours worked is far fewer now than in Marx's day (in the US and Europe). Living conditions are better for most people now than in the past.

But be careful how you compare. Having indoor plumbing (today) is much better than using an outhouse. Having hot and cold running water, a flush toilet, and screens on the windows makes life much better now than it was in 1850. However, in 1850 hot and cold water on tap, flush toilets, screens on the windows, central heating (or adequate heating), were rare for EVERYBODY.

People do not feel much gratification in being told that their lives are shitty compared to the people who rule over them, but their lives are really quite grand compared to people who lived 150 years ago.

Oh, oh... the spectre of a knowledgeable Philosophy Forum member operating under a new name is haunting our philosophical playground! I'd better be careful.

It's hard to tell how old someone is here. A member who recently left in a justified huff because he felt abused by the moderators, said he was 83--probably one of the older members here. Nothing about his writing style gave away his age.

Some people write their age, and some people don't.

Well, I'm just going to come off as trite here; but, the US is a classless society. — Wallows

Thou prole, the only thing you're going to come off with that statement is wrong.

The United States has always had a class structure, and it has one now. In the first century of our glorious Republic, the class structure was organised along these lines:

The Ruling Class (always a small percentage of the population)

• Land and slave owners (not just a garden plot, but large tracts of land, both developed and not)
• Bankers, financiers (large capital providers)
• Rentiers (owners of rented land)

The Middle Class (substantially larger than the Ruling Class, much smaller than the Working Class)

• Merchants (wholesalers)
• Manufacturers
• Farmers (large farms)
• Retailers
• Successful Tradesmen

Working class (the Proletariat) (by far the largest class--90% of the population)

• Wage earners (everyone who depended on working for a wage to survive)
• Very small tradesmen, dirt farmers, etc.
• Wage Slaves (working class people who are broke if they miss a pay check)

Lumpen Proles

• long-term unemployed
• very poor
• homeless

These elements of the class structure are still in operation, but have changed. The propertied Ruling Class may be smaller now than in the past, but is far richer, and more powerful. Some elements of the Middle Class have shifted to the Upper Class. High level professionals, most highly educated, have joined the Middle Class, and occasionally (Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell) serve in the Ruling Class, as long as they remain useful. Merchants, small to medium manufacturers are Middle Class.

The Working Class are all still wage slaves. What has changed greatly, and this especially for the Working Class, is the DELUSION that they are "middle class" -- something better, higher, more sophisticated than mere wage slaves. This DELUSION, perpetrated by the running dog lackies of the PR industry for the Ruling Class, has been quite successful. So successful, in fact, that intelligent people like yourself think class has disappeared.

Class has not disappeared. It is as deterministic and pervasive as ever. It is just that this thin fabric of falsehood has been thrown over the class structure and obscures class perceptions. The wealth and power of the Ruling Class are kept hidden and/or obscured. Working Class people are, by and large, never in a position to observe the great wealth and power of the Ruling Class first hand. If an investment fund owned by several extremely wealthy people decide that 3M or GE or Boeing are not making enough profit, they can put intense pressure on the management of these companies to cut labor costs. Suddenly you are out of a job, and you will never know that several unknown people meeting in New York made decisions that have put you on Unemployment, and maybe long-term joblessness.

Class interests among the Ruling Class and (real) Middle Class are carefully looked after. The Ruling and Middle Classes understand that their privileged position in society depends on keeping the very large working class under control.

I've only been seriously studying philosophy for a little over a year. There are some hard choices I need to make as to which of the many dense tomes that are ahead of me I invest my time and energy in - and in what order. — Theologian

I confess: Back when I was an English major (shortly after Adam and Eve moved out of Eden) I too had to decide which long boring books I would skip. Sometimes the skipped books were important. But... there are only so many hours in a day, and one's brain can absorb and process only so much. I admit it: The thought of reading all of Shakespeare is still horrifying. Or any of Thackeray and Trollope. It's not going to happen, and I still call myself an English major.

I believe in evolution, but I didn't read Darwin. Instead I've read lots of bits and pieces about evolution. Over the intervening 50 years, I've managed to fill in some of the deeper gaps left over from my undergraduate time. For those of us with average brains and average education, that is about the best we average souls can do.

Get a room full of Marxists together and you will run into one of two things (depending on the flavour of the marxists present): Either you get doctrinaire agreement or you get a fight. I prefer the fighting types.

For a quicker read, you might try Marx's short "Value, Price, and Profit"; it's available as a PDF from several sources.

I am a lot less confident in the socialist eschaton [the final event in the "divine plan"] than I was once, maybe 30 or 40 years ago. Now I think we'll be lucky to make it through a few centuries of global warming.

It's almost mystical.

I'll be honest: I am disinclined to invest the level of effort necessary to come to a really well informed view of my own. — Theologian

For Christ's sake, Theologian, that's not an excuse in heaven or hell. AT LEAST read the Communist Manifesto a couple of times (it's not long) or read a Das Kapital zum Dummkopfs

Obviously, the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital are not the same kind of book. The CM is a long pamphlet, writing to arouse the fervour of the working class. DK is a long analytical book, writing to explain, explicate, and inform.

Marx described the reasons for class conflict (between the proles and capitalists) and that the proles would win--not because it was his preference, but because the exploited class would eventually achieve a level of development where they could, and would, dispossess the exploiters. Of course, they (WE) don't have to win -- now or at any time in the future. However, whether the proles are victorious or die trying, capitalism still contains within it the seeds of its own destruction. One of those seeds is its remorseless search for resources, markets, and profit. Capitalism is a feeding machine with no reason to ever stop. That's one of its fatal flaws.

We see this fatal flaw in the behaviour of the oil companies (for just one example) who continue to seek new sources of petroleum, despite the accumulating greenhouse gases which are likely to bring about a catastrophe that is ruinous to capitalists and workers, petit bourgeoisie, and lumpen proles alike: global heating.

Karl Marx didn't lay out a time table. Fortunately for impatient young people, they are likely to live long enough to see the grand demolition derby toward the end of this century, when major systems start crashing in a big way. I'm rather glad I won't be around for the show. Unfortunately, it will be a long time before another intelligent (whatever that might be) comes along.

Yes; but, if the economic conditions are not ready to introduce pure socialism or even utopian communism, then it will fail. What I described in the OP is an operational rationale, under economic terms, for the state of affairs that would precipitate a successful socialist state. — Wallows

You are right that "if the economic conditions are not ready to introduce pure socialism or even utopian communism, then it will fail"

Uncle Karl would approve. However, the relevant "economic conditions" are not to be found in monetary or financial policy, one way or the other. The "economic condition" that matters is whether or not the workers have developed their intellectual and technical capacities to take over the management of the economy. This management job will have to be taken away from the capitalists. No way in hell are they going to just say, "Oh, well, it's your turn to turn things now. Here are the keys to the Kingdom."

At the present time, corporations employ many people who have considerable technical insight into how the businesses who employ them work. What they do not have is an intellectual grasp of class consciousness (what it means to be 'proletarian' or 'capitalist') or the practice to work together with other members of their class to manage the economy. Class consciousness, and unionism, is anathema to capitalists. Some workers have it; many do not.

It won't be easy, of course. As far as I know, nobody knows how to run any economy so that periodic crises are avoided. Capitalists have mechanisms to judge consumer need and demand. Some of these mechanisms can be carried over into capitalism, and some of them should not be. Socialist managers will have to develop coordinating systems to connect the people's material needs with the material production centers. This isn't a problem that any business school graduate will find mysterious.

Since you have the tune running through your head, you might as well put some nice updated lyrics to it. This is the British guy, Billy Bragg, singing his version of the Internationale:

Back in the day when Turks were something to worry about, Martin Luther said "It is better to be ruled by a smart Turk than a stupid Christian."

Bringing Luther's sentiment forward, I would say "It is better to be live in a well run capitalist economy than in a socialist economy run by jackasses. Similarly, "It might be better to try socialism than put up with a ruinous capitalist system run by jackals, even if socialism has not been proven to work."

The fact is, capitalism is not proving itself compatible with a liveable future. The oil companies (capitalists all) clearly plan to suck up the last profitable drop of oil and burn it. By the time they get done doing this, a liveable future will likely be impossible. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like our democratic institutions are going to be able to control the economic powers.

I'm not sure there will be any sort of socialist revolution. But I'm pretty sure capitalism is offering a no-win future. Socialism seems worth a try.

A rising tide lifts all boats, as they say. — Wallows

So they say--but if you don't have a boat in the first place...

Wallows: Marx was preaching revolution. He wasn't preaching monetary policy.

The revolution which Marx was interested in was the seizure of resources (land, factories, etc.) and the power too direct production for the benefit of the proletarian class (which is most people). The formula "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" isn't about lifting the yachts of the FORMER ruling class. It's about enabling people to fully utilise their talents for the benefit of all, and receiving a share of goods proportional to their needs. Some people have more than others to offer (they are stronger, smarter, more skilled, handier, healthier, etc.) and can give more to the community. Most of us are kind of "in the middle". Some people have greater needs: they have children to care for; their spouse needs insulin every day, etc. As for needs, most of us are "in the middle".

That's the basis on which goods are distributed. Monetary policy (making money more valuable) is irrelevant to the socialist/communist revolution. Forget about it.

And that's what's discussed in Genesis; the con with the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil robs man of freedom and provides the artificial prison bars' barrier I mentioned. — Shamshir

In his book, "On Not Leaving It to the Snake" theologian Harvey Cox interprets the temptation story this at least somewhat heretical way: Adam and Eve were meant to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge. However, for the fruit to be beneficial, they needed to proceed in a forthright manner, on their own recognisance, so to speak.

They didn't.

They bought into the serpent's seduction, and let the snake talk them into eating the fruit. Their failure to act on their own volition is what spoiled the apple.

I wouldn't consider a dog relieving itself on a neighbors lawn a "threat" — TogetherTurtle

The tons of dog dung produced every day in every urban centre add up to a real public health and disgust threat when the feces are left on lawns and sidewalks. Fifty years ago, dog dung everywhere was pretty much the SOP. NOBODY picked up their dog's production. By the 1990s the social norm was shifting strongly in the direction of people cleaning up after their dog. Now one almost never comes across dog dung.

a bowl of Irish stew — Baden

I'm not sure what irish stew is. In this part of the world, irish stew, spaghetti, goolash, chilli, spanish rice, and chow mein descend from a single basic slurry: browned ground beef with chopped onions, and canned tomatoes in various forms, including ketchup. Canned mushroom or chicken soup are often added, along with just a few other ingredients, mostly canned.

I occasionally engage in promiscuous eating, so I gather other people around the world eat food that is quite a bit more interesting than our poorly appropriated versions. The Hung Aryans make delicious Goulasch, but here "goolash" is just the basic slurry plus elbow macaroni. Spaghetti is exactly the same thing. Goolash and spaghetti are indisquishable.

The basic slurry menu is what you get when you don't appropriate enough of other people's cultures. For instance, Actual Chinese chow mein would never, never never have cream of mushroom soup in it, and it wouldn't be served on canned fried noodles (at least not THOSE canned fried noodles).

Minnesotans are suspicious of smelly cheese, so you won't find hausfraus putting Kraft™ parmesan (sold as dry cheese in a plastic container) on the basic slurry + elbow macaroni. There won't be any obscure Eyetalien flavourings like parsley, sage, rosemary, or thyme either. Maybe just a slight bit of garlic salt. Garlic is much too smelly to actually put enough in food to taste it.

I'm in favour of raiding other people's cultures. It's the only way to get a decent meal around here. It might be the only way to get a better religion, more interesting fabrics, new ideas in tattoos, or sustainable agriculture. Maybe there are fucking rituals I'd like to try.

Now I don't want you to appropriate upper midwestern culinary culture. I want you to come here and steal it lock, stock and barrel. Take away all of the canned mushroom soup and canned chow mein noodles. Leave the markets stripped of the sacred 15 ingredients from which the menu of the Minnesota diet can be transposed. You've heard of turning Gold into Lead? Steal the secret, please.

Please deprive us of elbow macaroni, and the know how to brown hamburger and onions together. I like maid-rights (the basic slurry of beef, onions, ketchup, cooked thoroughly and served on a bun) but really, maybe the Afghanis would enjoy them for a few centuries while we eat their quite acceptable lentil and rice dishes.

Whether we move so much as a millimetre closer to socialism depends on the ability of the working class -- which is 90% of the population in the industrialised world. Capitalism on its own has no reason to move anywhere whatsoever. Capitalists have nothing to gain from socialism.

The working class, on the other hand, has everything to gain, and it is the efforts of the working class that will either move society toward socialism or leave it where it is -- in complete thrall to capitalism. How will/would the working class move society towards socialism? By organising the power of the working class in opposition to capitalists, and towards a society friendlier to the needs of the people.

How likely is this to occur? I don't know. I hope it will happen; I wish it would happen; I fear that it will not happen.

So you go with a "mind your own business" sort of freedom? Everyone with there own little world, conflicting as little as possible with others? — TogetherTurtle

It's a start, certainly. "Mind your own business" vs. busy bodies meddling in everyone else's affairs, sure. But "Everyone with their own little world", not quite. Society requires regular maintenance, and it is very desirable that the people who are minding their own business pay attention to the commons, the shared world, the community. Having the freedom to mind your own business, requires community maintenance.

Obvious examples: I like dogs so I get one. I live in a house, so it's my affair. When I take it out for a walk the dog will, of course, defecate when and where it feels the urge. It's my responsibility to maintain the commons by picking up the dog's faeces and disposing of it properly. The dog would like to prowl around the neighbourhood on its own, but it doesn't get to do that. For one, I want to keep the beloved Dog safe, and two, people don't want Dog digging holes in their garden or terrorising their beloved Cat.

I don't believe in using pesticides and herbicides on my lawn. I don't much like mowing it either -- total waste of time. so I have a weedy yard which I none the less do mow every now and then (city law requires it of me). That's my affair. My next door neighbours are very fussy about their lawn. They apply all sorts of chemicals to their lawn and mow it a lot. That's their affair.

I think lawn fertilisers, herbicides, and pesticides should be banned. People customarily use way too much and the run off contributes to the serious pollution of rivers and, in the gulf of Mexico, the steadily growing dead zone. I won't throw rocks at their windows or spray graffiti on their house to make them stop using their chemicals, though. I'll contribute to political efforts to ban the chemicals in the urban environment.