Ridiculing Religion or Religion of Ridicule

Mr. Mooquin’s critique is absolutely biased, shallow and most of his criticism is unfounded. I found this movie very funny and to the point. This kind of movie was much needed to accelerate the retreat of Christian fundamentalism in USA. Bill Maher didn't bring any new theory in this movie. All he said was already known and much has been written on stupidities of organized religions for centuries. It the presentation by Mr. Maher that makes the diffence.

Actually both are right. Marx never developed any theory of Economic development. What he worked on was Historical Materialism and Dialectical Materialism. But he never referred to his work as historical or dialectical Materialism. His work acquired these names or was given these names later. Engels used at least one term but later in the Soviet union the whole thing became Dialectical Materialism.

"At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production, or – what is but a legal expression for the same thing – with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters."
Karl Marx wrote in Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

"No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, it will always be found that the tasks itself arises only when the material conditions of its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation. "

This concept is founded on Dialectical Materialism applied to history.

"The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange."

In the modern economic terms his analysis of development or the dialects of nature was called Marxist theory of Economic Development and there are numerous references to that in many books including one book by Bertrand Russel.

So even though Marx never called it "Marxist theory of economic development," currently that is how it is known.

As I said, he never used Historical Materialism or Dialectical Materialism either but that is how socialists now like to refer to Marx work.

Mr. Masadi: You forgot what you wrote in #52 which led me to direct your attention to the fact that 622,000 websites, not to mention textbooks on the subject written when marxist idiotlogues were a superpower, refer to the Marxist theory of development:

"Ahmad sahib your statement "Marxist theory of development" told me that you know sh** about it. I don't have to read up on it I have peered inside the mind of Marx and I know how it thinks, you on the other hand base your BS on Fox News propaganda regarding Marxism, according to whom Obama is a Marxist who wrote your "Marxist theory of development"."

So, all you are doing is repeating this same nonsense in #206 when you write "textbooks are not words of God, and asking me to read a text book is no rebuttal. "

No, my learned friend, you are not the god of the MRI who can say "I have peered inside the mind of Marx". It doesnt matter what was inside the mind of Marx. What is important is what he wrote.

Last post.

Tahmed mian, textbooks are not words of God, and asking me to read a text book is no rebuttal. The entire google with its 622,000 references couldn't rescue you, how will a mere textbook?

Have a nice day and get an education,
TNI Masadi

in #204 last line, first para should be "Or read any textbook on economic development written in the soviet union in the 1917 through 1970's then come talk to me."

Masadi: Like I said, Irma Adelman;s widely used textbook back in the 1960's on the various theories of economic development (which includes a separate chapter on the marxist theory of economic development), then come talk to me. Or read any textbook on economic development then come talk to me.

In fact, I already gave you a hint earlier on on how the marxist predictions of the collapse of capitalism were based on the marxist theory of economic development. So stop your pompous claims of "what I dont know isnt knowledge".

tahmed writes "You Failed the test, Mr. Masadi. I didnt ask you describe the mode of production to me (which anyone can look up).

The correct answer: The Mode of Production is central to the Marxist theory of economic development (in the same way that innovations are central to the Schumpeterian theory of economic development)."


In case you are reading challenged, the first part of my answer clearly elaborated that since there is no such thing as a "Marxist theory of development"- any attempt to link Marx's name to such a theory is spurious, therefore there can be no mode of production linked to such a "theory". On the other hand what the mode of production is I explained according to what marx had stated about it. So since you don't have a goddamned clue about it why don't you go grade kindergarten kids about your "secret knowledge" which you claimed everyone could look up on google with a million hits but now you differentiate between looking it up and looking up the mode of production. You are a classic case of the product of a Pakistani colonized education, who can't think worth a fart but makes big "earth shattering" pronouncements revealing his or her own ignorance. Many such people (one of them being Anil) are found on this site,


Have a nice day and take it easy,

TNI Masadi

#199. You Failed the test, Mr. Masadi. I didnt ask you describe the mode of production to me (which anyone can look up).

The correct answer: The Mode of Production is central to the Marxist theory of economic development (in the same way that innovations are central to the Schumpeterian theory of economic development). Read a textbook on economic development from the 1960's when Marxist economics to communists what what Mills is to you. Lookup some Soviet economics textbook (or Irma Adelman if you knowledge of russian is not part of your boundless circle of knowledge). Then come talk to me about Marxism.

Anil writes "Massaddi mian:

Please keep your foul language to yourself. Einstein rejected QM. I hope you understand rejected means. Here are his own words:"

I think HBS forgot to teach you english and what CONTENDED (a word in my post) meant. Hindlish cannot and does not substitute for english, get an education you fool...

Have a nice day

TNI Masadi

#199 was in response to tahmed's #198

A. there is no such thing as a Marxist theory of development so there would be no such thing as a mode or production, in a non existent theory.

However in Marx's discussion of substructure and superstructure, the mode of production determines the relationships of production, related to the economic base, which are then projected in the superstructure in the form of what kind of state institution, family, religion etc you're going to have, kept intact with an overarching ideology that makes sure that the underlying relationships determined by the mode of production are not disturbed.

Have a nice day and get an education you miserable idiot,

TNI Masadi

Masadi:

Q: Describe the significance of the Mode of Production in the Marxist Theory of Development (using 50 words or less).

Thanks.

hamidm2 and anil...
...nice video, only that old guy should have been little careful about his lingo....

the concept of god/worship started as to please forces of nature, which human society can not control- water (Varun), air ( Vayu), sun (Surya), moon (Chandra)... you will find such similarity in Nordic gods (Thor, Nohr, Odin...) or Greek Gods and Goddesses....When society advanced little more, man created god of Wealth (Lakshmi), God of Education, God of Culture... and some pet animals and spheudo creatures....all these were very harmless and inspired artistes to create beautiful painting, poetry,architecture....

The problem started in middle east (mediaval period or dark age) when Abrahmic FAITH got prominance and Mo made it lethal weapon to commit gang crime.....similarly, semi-buddhist Christian teaching become barbaric at the hand of Romans....so these gang wars like Crusade and Jihad and bloodshed etc....christians advanced in science and technology.they use media and other tools...the concept of islam is frozen in 7th century arabia; so they still use violence/barbarism to score points.....
...theism was not at all dirty stuff in ancient age...most of the ancient architectures,paintings and poetry were dedicated to God... at least we should be thankful to God for those beautiful creations....

Below are the definitions:

"....We are constantly seeking explanations for what we observe is happening. As we seek to understand, we develops an explanation, hypothesis.

....we have formalized this process into what is termed the Scientific Method. The scientific method is a sequences of steps designed to lead to the development of theories, tested explanations, of the phenomenon that we have observed around us...."

Now "tested explanations" and "observable" point only to proving, and not disproving. There are examples after examples of what is Scientific Method.

Can you share the proof positive of God's existence (all of them, I presume are from Scientific methods)?

Massaddi mian:

Please keep your foul language to yourself. Einstein rejected QM. I hope you understand rejected means. Here are his own words:

"You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of the Quantum Theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice-game, although I am well aware that our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility. No doubt the day will come when we will see whose instinctive attitude was the correct one. (Albert Einstein to Max Born, Sept 1944, 'The Born-Einstein Letters')"

Now I will others decide here, whose BS it was Einstein's or yours.

BTW, do you understand corollaries, proofs?

Anil mian you fool, you quoted my correct statement in order to rebut it....

You remain a certified idiot like tahmed,

Have a nice day,
TNI Masadi