Abraham Rotstein, Weekend Notes XIX - Revision history

Santiago Pinault: /* Freedom and Technology (3) */

2019-12-14T03:12:26Z

Freedom and Technology (3)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:12, 14 December 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Abraham Rotstein, Weekend Notes\| Weekend Notes (Overview)]]		[[Abraham Rotstein, Weekend Notes\| Weekend Notes (Overview)]]

	== Freedom and Technology (3) ==		== Freedom and Technology (11) ==
	{{Page \|n°=24}} The peculiar thing about Fromm is he never got beyond [[The Great Transformation]]. (These were strongly Marxist ideas.)		{{Page \|n°=24}} The peculiar thing about Fromm is he never got beyond [[The Great Transformation]]. (These were strongly Marxist ideas.)

Santiago Pinault: /* Robert Owen (5) */

2019-12-10T03:27:29Z

Robert Owen (5)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:27, 10 December 2019
Line 301:		Line 301:
	If we are talking about freedom and the relationship of man to society we must have Rousseau. Rousseau's paradox should come early. [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]		If we are talking about freedom and the relationship of man to society we must have Rousseau. Rousseau's paradox should come early. [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	== Robert Owen (5) ==		== Robert Owen (6) ==
	{{Page \|n°=50}} We should not go into Owen right now because the question comes up of what to take up from Owen as we are going into Marx. This is a serious question and we might put into Owen this or that sentence and it would have to be adjusted to the continuation in the next chapter. Another reason not to finish it off is on account of the needs of the Hegel and Marx. We should make it as simple as the Owen. We should have no higher dialectics. We are not convinced that these profundities are necessary.		{{Page \|n°=50}} We should not go into Owen right now because the question comes up of what to take up from Owen as we are going into Marx. This is a serious question and we might put into Owen this or that sentence and it would have to be adjusted to the continuation in the next chapter. Another reason not to finish it off is on account of the needs of the Hegel and Marx. We should make it as simple as the Owen. We should have no higher dialectics. We are not convinced that these profundities are necessary.

Santiago Pinault at 13:55, 1 December 2019

2019-12-01T13:55:06Z

Santiago Pinault at 13:43, 1 December 2019

2019-12-01T13:43:14Z

Show changes

Santiago Pinault at 11:53, 1 December 2019

2019-12-01T11:53:01Z

Show changes

Santiago Pinault: /* Freedom and Technology (3) */

2019-12-01T11:00:37Z

Freedom and Technology (3)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:00, 1 December 2019
Line 27:		Line 27:
	Putting it in simpler terms we can use “society”, “inner-freedom” and also “power”, “fear” and the relationship of power to freedoms. We might find more of a connection here: fear generates potential power and we realize that this is a danger to freedom. This is only realized on the freedoms level but not on the freedom level.		Putting it in simpler terms we can use “society”, “inner-freedom” and also “power”, “fear” and the relationship of power to freedoms. We might find more of a connection here: fear generates potential power and we realize that this is a danger to freedom. This is only realized on the freedoms level but not on the freedom level.

	{{Page \|n°=26}} ~~[…]~~ P. thinks that the truth is what we are saying − that in a technological civilization our inner freedom is invalid, is vain. ~~[…]~~		{{Page \|n°=26}} An important part is played by the disintegration of the value system. The idolatry of absolutes is quite out of proportion. The value system of everyday life would be of a higher order and we dont have the higher standards which we could because the ultimate values are absolutized. This is a denial of the reality of society.

			Efficiency and scientific knowledge are not a safe thing to hold on to in the end. We don't go beyond that - why should we? This is now widespread.

			P. thinks that the truth is what we are saying − that in a technological civilization our inner freedom is invalid, is vain. This is something terrible, and unless one makes it quite convincing that this is so, it won't be taken seriously. For some people this will be realized only if it is put in an extreme form, not through an attempt at being plausible.

			People think that they are not in a position not to compel others to an extreme. Life and the conditions of life are not of ourselves, but always of others. All the fear and hope condition us at an end. It is no use fearing and hoping because it doesn't depend on us. This is the one thing which is never said at all because it was unreal. Bu tit was unreal until it became real.

			For Russia it became real. They had suspected superlative crimes might be necessary under the five year plans. They feared it was but hoped it wasn't.

	{{Page \|n°=27}} The whole question of the loss of freedom hinges on "compelled to compel". However, this is only an illustration. Just like Jesus used the illustration that the one with no sins should throw the first stone.		{{Page \|n°=27}} The whole question of the loss of freedom hinges on "compelled to compel". However, this is only an illustration. Just like Jesus used the illustration that the one with no sins should throw the first stone.

	He who says I would refuse to compel others − he has disproved us. Fear is not fear for ourselves but fear for others. ~~[…]~~		He who says I would refuse to compel others − he has disproved us. Fear is not fear for ourselves but fear for others. We would regard this compulsion as the ultimate evil, because it is the ultimate denial of freedom/ What we mean by freedom is man's hope that he won't lose eternal life. That is why everyone agrees that you can't speak of freedom when you haven't got this possibility.

			P. is not bound or excited by this illustration. He uses it most often, but other may be possible.

			There are here 6 or 8 concepts and 2 or 3 may be new. One is the way freedom is discussed. Second is the freedom, power, fear triangle. Third is the industrial character of the civilization which makes the whole civilization precarious and not only because of the possibility of immediate destruction. But there are bothers all the time that are unexpected, and continuous troubles are constantly arising ever since the machine entered the tissue of society.

			Then this fear, power, freedom context means the irrational rise of power which threatens freedom in this way. The threat to freedom is connected with the elimination of freedom.

			{{Page \|n°=28}} At this point there is some lack of definiteness. What it is? P. tends to say that by the non-recognition of a strain it disrupts our value system. Absolutizing some postulates is the same time taking away and preventing a rise or our general moral standards so that ideals means Sunday behaviour instead of a system of values which is understandable. We have the polarity of the material and ideal. Man doesn't live in such a dirremption at all.

			This takes us to the market economy but it isn't what it hinges on, otherwise Russia would appear to be safe from the common danger, but it isn't.

			And now comes the answer part - the acceptance of the reality of society and seeking the reform of consciousness by seeking maturity through unremitting insistence on human values (partly formulated by Fromm, what he considers human values). P. accepts Fromm's values and finds peculiar that he never took seriously the Christian situation or the essence of a personal religion - the fear of eternal death.

	~~{{Page \|n°=28}} […]~~ Buddhism has this similar fear or reincarnation. In Jewry it is expressed only in your share in the destruction of the race through breaking God's convenant. It is not a persona factor. But in all other religions it is you who count.		Buddhism has this similar fear or reincarnation. In Jewry it is expressed only in your share in the destruction of the race through breaking God's convenant. It is not a persona factor. But in all other religions it is you who count.

	Fromm didn't get this point. He forgets something which didn't become apparent in the Old Testament and Jesus made this {{Page \|n°=29}} point: it is not the crowd who is going to stone her. That's all right, but what about you? What are you going to do? Give your coat to the poor? There is probably the same thing in the Dead Sea Scroll, and Christianity made vast propaganda with theology and paid no heed to the teaching of Christ. Everyone knows in his heart of hearts that these things make for life.		Fromm didn't get this point. He forgets something which didn't become apparent in the Old Testament and Jesus made this {{Page \|n°=29}} point: it is not the crowd who is going to stone her. That's all right, but what about you? What are you going to do? Give your coat to the poor? There is probably the same thing in the Dead Sea Scroll, and Christianity made vast propaganda with theology and paid no heed to the teaching of Christ. Everyone knows in his heart of hearts that these things make for life.
Line 53:		Line 73:
	So the machine remained undiscovered, but it was Owen who discovered it and he was all about the machine. That was in 1816 and by then Hegel had done more than one half of his life's work and was terrifically impressed by capitalism.		So the machine remained undiscovered, but it was Owen who discovered it and he was all about the machine. That was in 1816 and by then Hegel had done more than one half of his life's work and was terrifically impressed by capitalism.

	P. doesn't know if he found the machine in Hegel. Hegel didn't miss much. Also Marx to 1844 is the same story. ~~[…]~~		P. doesn't know if he found the machine in Hegel. Hegel didn't miss much. Also Marx to 1844 is the same story.

			P. thinks he should follow close to our thesis and keep closely to the machine (technology) and the reality of society. It seems to come up in these early times as "necessity" and later it comes up as "determination", not the denial of free will but that the course of history is laid down ant that limits man's absolute ideals.

	Already in Comte there is no history, bu the structure of society under the laws. Therefore sociology was the highest science and the most advanced way in which the limitation of human freedom was formulated.		Already in Comte there is no history, bu the structure of society under the laws. Therefore sociology was the highest science and the most advanced way in which the limitation of human freedom was formulated.
Line 65:		Line 87:
	Hegel discovered it because the French Revolution failed and he believed in it. Therefore he thought it was necessity that made it fail and made Napoleon follow on Robespierre.		Hegel discovered it because the French Revolution failed and he believed in it. Therefore he thought it was necessity that made it fail and made Napoleon follow on Robespierre.

	Marx never relinquished necessity but placed it in the material aspect of society. ~~[…]~~		Marx never relinquished necessity but placed it in the material aspect of society.

			It needs a lot of time to see the terms which are most integrative. The point is what to relate freedom to. The R. paradox permits you to deal both with the individual and society primarily from the point of view of freedom. The reform of consciousness emerged.

	P. has a lecture which he gave on the emergence of reform of consciousness in 1927 or '29. P. gave this lecture to a small group including Kolnyai, [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Karl_Winter Ernst Karl Winter], and Otto Bauer. Winter wanted to build up an anti-Fascist group in Vienna. P. was interested only on his own ideas.		P. has a lecture which he gave on the emergence of reform of consciousness in 1927 or '29. P. gave this lecture to a small group including Kolnyai, [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Karl_Winter Ernst Karl Winter], and Otto Bauer. Winter wanted to build up an anti-Fascist group in Vienna. P. was interested only on his own ideas.
Line 87:		Line 111:
	This is enormously strongly expressed in Owen. Society determines the individual's outlook and precipitates this question and catalyzes it. There is no concern with freedom and Owen is the originator if the ideological criticism of freedom. Marx may have taken it from here.		This is enormously strongly expressed in Owen. Society determines the individual's outlook and precipitates this question and catalyzes it. There is no concern with freedom and Owen is the originator if the ideological criticism of freedom. Marx may have taken it from here.

	{{Page \|n°=34}} ~~[…]~~		{{Page \|n°=34}} What P. should now follow up is the analysis of society in connection with intimations of its reality? That's called necessity.

	If one goes on from Owen to Hegel or Marx one cannot assume a very great interest in the subject. There is a prejudice against Hegel that it is some empty metaphysics. And for Marx that it is just some materialism which has been disproved.		If one goes on from Owen to Hegel or Marx one cannot assume a very great interest in the subject. There is a prejudice against Hegel that it is some empty metaphysics. And for Marx that it is just some materialism which has been disproved.
Line 115:		Line 139:
	Of course we have sports because they are needed in an industrial civilization, but the form they take is indeterminate. It is the playfulness which is the essential thing about culture, and there is something similar to culture in history. It is like {{Page \|n°=36}} creativity - art and play and the free patterning in culture. Just watch the flight of the birds and try to explain it by maximizing or minimizing anything.		Of course we have sports because they are needed in an industrial civilization, but the form they take is indeterminate. It is the playfulness which is the essential thing about culture, and there is something similar to culture in history. It is like {{Page \|n°=36}} creativity - art and play and the free patterning in culture. Just watch the flight of the birds and try to explain it by maximizing or minimizing anything.

	~~[…]~~		It is as if you knew that something was a series of forces exploding and you try to describe it as the shortest distance between two points. If you didn't know what happened (that there are forces exploding), you try to make out that its a minimum procedure, but it isn't.

	In Christianity there is a dogma that God can't do the impossible (that is the inconceivable or self-contradictory) but the possible he can do.		In Christianity there is a dogma that God can't do the impossible (that is the inconceivable or self-contradictory) but the possible he can do.

Santiago Pinault: /* Freedom and Technology (3) */

2019-11-30T23:09:08Z

Freedom and Technology (3)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:09, 1 December 2019
Line 9:		Line 9:
	What is freedom? It is the fear of eternal death. Others say that it is the hope of eternal life and people differ on what that means but they don't differ on what eternal death means. Whether they say integrity or conscience it is the same thing. This fear and its corresponding hope is hat freedom is. This has a f[e]ar and hope, and is meaningless if it is not a condition that we are in.		What is freedom? It is the fear of eternal death. Others say that it is the hope of eternal life and people differ on what that means but they don't differ on what eternal death means. Whether they say integrity or conscience it is the same thing. This fear and its corresponding hope is hat freedom is. This has a f[e]ar and hope, and is meaningless if it is not a condition that we are in.

	P. makes the ~~test… […]~~		P. makes the test point that we are not safe in compelling others without limit. We know in a sense that we just don't have it. This fact disintegrates any conceivable value system under which we could live.

	The reason is the entrance ~~[…]~~		The reason is the entrance of the machine to the tissue of society which causes more and more horrible interventions into human life.

	The fact that our existence ~~[…]~~		The fact that our existence is precarious doesn't lie with the condition that the world will explode but in the series of dangers at disconnected points, and of an unexpected character. These have been turning up ever since society has become industrial.

	{{Page \|n°=25}} With the freedoms, ~~[…]~~		{{Page \|n°=25}} With the freedoms, although we want them we don't have them. How does this come about? There is a disintegration of our value system and some values become absolutes which is a negation of the reality of society.

	The moral values of every day have less and less connection with basic values. The answer is the lake of recognition of society.		The moral values of every day have less and less connection with basic values. The answer is the lake of recognition of society.

	What happens to freedom we don't know, and we just cannot cease living up to the moral requirements everyone knows we are true, ~~[…]~~		What happens to freedom we don't know, and we just cannot cease living up to the moral requirements everyone knows we are true, i.e., truth, justice and love being valid precepts. They cannot be deduced from logic or science.

	This answers ~~[…]~~		This answers the perplexities much more. It is not a blue-print but it gives direction in which to move.

	The discovery of society takes us out of the superficial dangers of the market economy (superficial meaning immediate). ~~[…]~~		The discovery of society takes us out of the superficial dangers of the market economy (superficial meaning immediate). Society is covered up by the apparent freedom of the market world, but it's supersession a Rousseau paradox which is not solved. How is it possible in a technological society that society survives as well as also the individual's inner life. We still don't know.

	Putting it in simpler ~~[…]~~		Putting it in simpler terms we can use “society”, “inner-freedom” and also “power”, “fear” and the relationship of power to freedoms. We might find more of a connection here: fear generates potential power and we realize that this is a danger to freedom. This is only realized on the freedoms level but not on the freedom level.

	{{Page \|n°=26}} […] P. thinks that the truth is what we are saying − that in a technological civilization our inner freedom is invalid, is vain. […]		{{Page \|n°=26}} […] P. thinks that the truth is what we are saying − that in a technological civilization our inner freedom is invalid, is vain. […]

Santiago Pinault: /* Robert Owen (5) */

2019-04-24T11:04:17Z

Robert Owen (5)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:04, 24 April 2019
Line 269:		Line 269:

	We should certainly have an introductory chapter and this gives the pictures of the world that we need for Owen. It comes before, and we should have a preface and an introductory chapter and this would already give a rehearsal of the whole book. We would give the whole problem but not the answer so the reader would be introduced to the problem right away. For the answer we would have nothing except suggestive phrases.		We should certainly have an introductory chapter and this gives the pictures of the world that we need for Owen. It comes before, and we should have a preface and an introductory chapter and this would already give a rehearsal of the whole book. We would give the whole problem but not the answer so the reader would be introduced to the problem right away. For the answer we would have nothing except suggestive phrases.
	(One of Graham Green’s mystery stories ~~[…]~~
			(One of Graham Green’s mystery stories has a preface by the publisher who doesn’t trust the average reader to pick-up the story and really gives away the whole of the back-ground of the story. He just tells the reader instead of letting him pick up the background gradually.)

	We will give away the problem in the first chapter, but not the answer, so the reader understands what he gets here. One should take the reader understand what he gets here. One should take the reader into his confidence. (The detective story idea was a mistake in The Great Transformation – a real mistake).		We will give away the problem in the first chapter, but not the answer, so the reader understands what he gets here. One should take the reader understand what he gets here. One should take the reader into his confidence. (The detective story idea was a mistake in The Great Transformation – a real mistake).
Line 287:		Line 288:
	Margaret Cole knows the whole literature and is the Queen of the Fabians, and what she writes on The Village of Union is proof positive that it never occurred to anyone to look into The Village of Union. She thought the second was just an elaboration of the first.		Margaret Cole knows the whole literature and is the Queen of the Fabians, and what she writes on The Village of Union is proof positive that it never occurred to anyone to look into The Village of Union. She thought the second was just an elaboration of the first.

	{{Page \|n°=52}} The points we make have …		{{Page \|n°=52}} The points we make have never been made at all. There is however a limit to this thing. The world is not so much interested in Robert Owen or even socialism.

	She has a long list of things that in which Owen first, e.g., education etc. but she must have left our another 20. …		She has a long list of things that in which Owen first, e.g., education etc. but she must have left our another 20. Where she falls down is his penetration of the forms if industrial life under a market system.

	The fact was that later on the government and important people like Ricardo said that 100,00 pounds should be invested at 5% to employ the unemployed …		The fact was that later on the government and important people like Ricardo said that 100,00 pounds should be invested at 5% to employ the unemployed …

Santiago Pinault: /* K.P. Personal (5) */

2019-04-18T22:53:57Z

K.P. Personal (5)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:53, 18 April 2019
Line 396:		Line 396:

	=== K.P. Personal (5) ===		=== K.P. Personal (5) ===
	~~{{Question}}~~		Losing Emmet<ref>Emmet Mulvaney. See [[Abraham_Rotstein,_Weekend_Notes_XV#p17\|“Weekend Notes” XV, 17]]</ref> made a big difference. P. couldn't work but he got into subjects of is interest, e. g., the freedom question.
	Losing Emmet made a big difference. P. couldn't work but he got into subjects of is interest, e. g., the freedom question.

	Twenty years ago P. didn't know English economic history and he learned it in three to four years − 1937-40, by teaching it continuously. In that way you really get to know it.		Twenty years ago P. didn't know English economic history and he learned it in three to four years − 1937-40, by teaching it continuously. In that way you really get to know it. [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	[[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	==Editor's Notes ==		==Editor's Notes ==

Santiago Pinault: /* Freedom and Technology (3) */

2019-04-18T22:45:22Z

Freedom and Technology (3)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:45, 18 April 2019
Line 77:		Line 77:
	This is the full circle in which left thought moves: the left is bound to the absolute (unconditional) and being in the false consciousness of fighting against religion and morality. P. is the only one to give the left position true rigor of the unqualified. The left necessarily must formulate a position in an absolute way and take up the position outside of society and claim validity through…		This is the full circle in which left thought moves: the left is bound to the absolute (unconditional) and being in the false consciousness of fighting against religion and morality. P. is the only one to give the left position true rigor of the unqualified. The left necessarily must formulate a position in an absolute way and take up the position outside of society and claim validity through…

	P. got the idea of ineluctable alternatives from Ulysses which he read in 1922 in the 'Westbarstrasse'.<ref>Must be the Vorgartenstrasse… Cf. Felix Schafer, [[Felix_Schafer,_First_Memoirs_(1964-1966)\|First Memoirs (1964-1966)]]</ref> This lecture was an advance and gave a more definite subject {{Page \|n°=33}} but we didn't have definite criteria. What are the points we are linking up here to the extent to which we have the reality of society? It was vague bringing in too many different things.		P. got the idea of ineluctable alternatives from Ulysses which he read in [[1922]] in the 'Westbarstrasse'.<ref>Must be the Vorgartenstrasse… Cf. Felix Schafer, [[Felix_Schafer,_First_Memoirs_(1964-1966)\|First Memoirs (1964-1966)]]</ref> This lecture was an advance and gave a more definite subject {{Page \|n°=33}} but we didn't have definite criteria. What are the points we are linking up here to the extent to which we have the reality of society? It was vague bringing in too many different things.

	We are here distinguishing three problems, one set by the Rousseau paradox, one set by the market economy and one set by the technology civilization.		We are here distinguishing three problems, one set by the Rousseau paradox, one set by the market economy and one set by the technology civilization.
Line 135:		Line 135:
	{{Page \|n°=38}} P. would forget about his studies on Hegel and Marx etc. and outline our story, otherwise it would be a different book and destroy the book.		{{Page \|n°=38}} P. would forget about his studies on Hegel and Marx etc. and outline our story, otherwise it would be a different book and destroy the book.

	Marcuse is very well usable for our outline of Hegel but he didn't know the young Hegel. [[#mw-page-base\|↑ ~~Top~~]]		Marcuse is very well usable for our outline of Hegel but he didn't know the young Hegel. [[#mw-page-base\|↑]]

	== Marx (3) ==		== Marx (3) ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:55, 1 December 2019
Line 163:		Line 163:
	{{Page \|n°=39}} One might take a simple view that Marx saw the positive sides of technological progress and that that alone would continue in socialism.		{{Page \|n°=39}} One might take a simple view that Marx saw the positive sides of technological progress and that that alone would continue in socialism.

	Marx was fascinated by the machine industry and production. The very idea of production was new ~~… […]~~		Marx was fascinated by the machine industry and production. The very idea of production was new and everything was thought of as production. Evolution and the emancipation of man came somewhat later. Feuerbach had emancipation, not individually but collectively. This idea of production also applied to man. This was Owen's insistence on the practical man, the the product of circumstance, and in Fourier man was a product of collective enterprise.

	Adams says that by political ~~… […]~~		Adams says that by political economy Marx meant being an economist. This is not so and the economy Feuerbach thought of was an exteriorization of human values.

	Marx thought that political economy was a sphere of social existence which could be compared to law, religion, social morality. ~~[…]~~		Marx thought that political economy was a sphere of social existence which could be compared to law, religion, social morality. It had to be analyzed philosophically. Business life was a sub-system of society. It consisted both of people acting and the thoughts they were acting on, the idea. There was a convolute of behaviour and principles, like the profit principle in competition and the origin of production. Marx thought the two are inseparable and without the principles of political economy you couldn't have a market economy. This one of the most important ideas of Marx.

	At that time Marx thought Feuerbach had created man's image {{Page \|n°=40}} and Marx thought that man created money and it was an objectification of the economic sphere.		At that time Marx thought Feuerbach had created man's image {{Page \|n°=40}} and Marx thought that man created money and it was an objectification of the economic sphere.

	Marcuse summing up idealism said the German idealists thought that all qualities of mind exist for freedom - to produce this and this alone. ~~[…]~~		Marcuse summing up idealism said the German idealists thought that all qualities of mind exist for freedom - to produce this and this alone. Freedom terminates in the self-assurance of complete appropriation if the mind possesses and knows the world as its property. Otherwise man is not free. The true content of history is the realization of the self-consciousness of freedom. (This is all pure metaphysics and freedom is entirely a meat-structure.)

	If Engels said the German working class is the heir to German classical philosophy he meant it was about freedom. Now this concept of freedom is a pure metaphysical construct and therefore consciousness of freedom is a construction.		If Engels said the German working class is the heir to German classical philosophy he meant it was about freedom. Now this concept of freedom is a pure metaphysical construct and therefore consciousness of freedom is a construction.
Line 187:		Line 187:
	One must know a great deal to put all this aside and P. doesn't advise me to know it.		One must know a great deal to put all this aside and P. doesn't advise me to know it.

	Mannheim is greatly troubled in the same way as Rousseau: mankind will only be free if they all want the same thing as society wants and that is possible only if you educate them that way. Hegel says that wisdom and virtue consist of living according to the customs of your people. Margaret Meade says the same - make people wish that they are supposed to want. It is the Rousseau idea again. ~~Alle~~ these problems revolve around the same terms.		Mannheim is greatly troubled in the same way as Rousseau: mankind will only be free if they all want the same thing as society wants and that is possible only if you educate them that way. Hegel says that wisdom and virtue consist of living according to the customs of your people. Margaret Meade says the same - make people wish that they are supposed to want. It is the Rousseau idea again. All these problems revolve around the same terms.

	What then happens with freedom? Society is real and a man should comply. Then one can't insist on freedom, otherwise life is not liveable.		What then happens with freedom? Society is real and a man should comply. Then one can't insist on freedom, otherwise life is not liveable.
Line 215:		Line 215:
	The illusions were that the working class could do the job of history, that history was pre-determined and one could bank on it and thirdly that all this was scientific.		The illusions were that the working class could do the job of history, that history was pre-determined and one could bank on it and thirdly that all this was scientific.

	Lenin showed that history was not so, that you ~~had…~~ {{English to type}}		Lenin showed that history was not so, that you had … […] {{English to type}}

	This was a movement based on science ans was a misunderstanding of what science could do.		This was a movement based on science ans was a misunderstanding of what science could do.
Line 547:		Line 547:
	Myself: What about Pearson's advocacy of free trade in his Nobel Speech?		Myself: What about Pearson's advocacy of free trade in his Nobel Speech?

	Pearson was using free		Pearson was using free … […]

	If NATO was built into a military		If NATO was built into a military … […]

	Economic means that the different industries are built. […]		Economic means that the different industries are built. […]