Left Unity: A Marxist Leninist AND A Socialist Anarchist discuss

ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Apetivist: Anti-Authoritarianist, Socialist, Freethinker, Atheist, Human Rights and Education Advocate

“Marxism–Leninism is an authoritarian communist ideology which was the main communist movement throughout the 20th century. It was the state ideology of the Soviet Union, its satellite states in the Eastern Bloc, and various countries in the Non-Aligned Movement and Third World during the Cold War, as well as the Communist International after Bolshevisation. Today, Marxism–Leninism is the ideology of several communist parties, and remains the official ideology of the ruling parties of China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam as one-party socialist republics, and of Nepal in a multiparty democracy. Marxist–Leninist states are commonly referred to as “communist states” by Western academics. Marxism–Leninism holds that a two-stage communist revolution is needed to replace capitalism. A vanguard party, organized through “democratic centralism“, would seize power on behalf of the proletariat and establish a one-party socialist state, called the dictatorship of the proletariat. The state would control the means of production, suppress opposition, counter-revolution and the bourgeoisie, and promote Soviet collectivism, to pave the way for an eventual communist society that would be classless and stateless. Marxist-Leninists oppose liberal democracy, anarchism, fascism, and imperialism.” ref

I am an anti-capitialist, socialist-collectivist-mutualist-anarchist

“Social anarchism, sometimes referred to as socialist/red anarchism, is the branch of anarchism that sees individual freedom as interrelated with mutual aid. Social anarchist thought emphasizes community and social equality as complementary to autonomy and personal freedom. It attempts to accomplish this balance through freedom of speech, which is maintained in a decentralized federalism, with freedom of interaction in thought and subsidiarity. Social anarchism is considered an umbrella term that mainly refers to the post-capitalist economic models of anarcho-communism, collectivist anarchism, and sometimes mutualism. It can also include non-state controlled federated guild socialist, dual power industrial democracy and economic democracy, or federated worker cooperatives and workers’ and consumers’ councils replacing much of the present state system whilst retaining basic rights. In addition, it includes the trade union approach of anarcho-syndicalism, the social struggle strategies of platformism and specifism, and the environmental philosophy of social ecology. As a term, social anarchism overlaps with libertarianism, libertarian socialism, and left-libertarianism, emerging in the late 19th century as a distinction from individualist anarchism after anarcho-communism replaced collectivist anarchism as the dominant tendency.” ref

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “I want all that too really I do Damien and I would think the majority of Marxist Leninists and even Maoists want that.”

My response @AthopeMarie, We all want a fairer world and it is simply how we attain that we find issues but we should find solutions together not separate.

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “To me, the anarchist on one side and the state communist or socialist on the other side will not be able to attain this human flourishing your wishing for, and tell we come together and form a synthesis. There are certain things I’m willing to accommodate Anarchists on…” “… but you must hear us out when it comes to our reasoning for a protectionary state. Can understand our purposing it would be a little more useful for us to move forward and if you can show where some implementations of the state are wrong then perhaps we can work on a solution.” “I used to be an Anarchist in my thinking but when I realized the incapability to develop a harmonization within locals and federations it became quite unsettling to me. With these separate groups within them will build some unhealthy levels of divisionalism.”

My response @AthopeMarie, I don’t see anarchism as limited to a single goal of statism it is an equality and freedom goal.

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “Okay I understand how you see it and I know that you think it’s possible but I’m already pointing out a lot of the flaws in Anarchist thinking and I want us to come together to figure out how to overcome those flaws just as you can help us overcome some socialist State flaws.”

My response @AthopeMarie, I am a rationalist, not a skeptic, so I always hear people out when I am offered thinking. Here is the first book on axiology I read: “The new science of axiological psychology”

“This book uses scientific validity measures to create empirical value science and a normative new science of axiological psychology by integrating cognitive psychology with Robert S. Hartman’s formal theory of axiological science. It reveals a scientific way to identify and rank human values, achieving values appreciation, values clarification, and values measurement for the twenty-first century. The book is part of the Value Inquiry Book Series (VIBS)–an international scholarly program, founded in 1992 by Robert Ginsberg, that publishes philosophical books in all areas of value inquiry, including social and political thought, ethics, applied philosophy, aesthetics, feminism, pragmatism, personalism, religious values, medical and health values, values in education, values in science and technology, humanistic psychology, cognitive science, formal axiology, history of philosophy, post-communist thought, peace theory, law and society, and theory of culture.” ref

Here is that book on amazon: The New Science of Axiological Psychology (Value Inquiry Book 169) (Hartman Institute Axiology Studies, 169) Hardcover $140.89

“This book uses scientific validity measures to create empirical value science and a normative new science of axiological psychology by integrating cognitive psychology with Robert S. Hartman’s formal theory of axiological science. It reveals a scientific way to identify and rank human values, achieving values appreciation, values clarification, and values measurement for the twenty-first century.” ref

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “Awesome I will buy it.” “I don’t even see within that model how there can be any form of leftist unity even if that leftism comes in the form of anarchism. There will be no Central organization that will be able to get people back on the proper path. This is one of my largest gripes about that ideology.”

My response @AthopeMarie, And you claim a singular organization in communist thought? I don’t see all anarchists as unified but so too communist thinkers pick on all the little differences as well. Both anarchists and communists have differences but we all unify generally on anti-capitalism as I said.

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “I think it’s quite possible particularly on strong social efforts within a socialist society particularly if we didn’t have to fight so many external forces and be so utterly concerned about internal collaborators to develop a strong and healthy socialist state.” “I think it would be far more possible with a central Authority as opposed to decentralized non-authorities to attain such a goal. Now I think that communism is a global limit, not a national movement but we must bear out that it will happen on National levels until we see…” “… be withering of the state. The withering of the state will only be possible if we can provide a way for all the people to form a healthy Cooperative Society one that is not continually fighting external forces as well as internal forces.” “I am just following up about disagreements in the socialist ranks. Yes, it exists and we must work hard to dissolve unworkable methods and ideology and to integrate the workable ones.” “What in your mind is a leader? What would disqualify that person from inspiring you or providing means that you don’t have standing alone by yourself? Are you anti-organization?”

My response @AthopeMarie, I am not anti-leading in a cooperative way, I am against individual lawgivers. I am pro-direct democracy and community servant leaders that help out in the community not authority hierarchy leaders. I am a pro-federation organization between communities and in communities.

“Direct democracy or pure democracy is a form of democracy in which the electorate decides on policy initiatives without elected representatives as proxies. This differs from the majority of currently established democracies, which are representative democracies. The theory and practice of direct democracy and participation as its common characteristic was the core of work of many theorists, philosophers, politicians, and social critics, among whom the most important are Jean Jacques Rousseau, John Stuart Mill, and G.D.H. Cole. One strand of thought sees direct democracy as common and widespread in pre-state societies. In direct democracy, the people decide on policies without any intermediary or representative, whereas in a representative democracy people vote for representatives who then enact policy initiatives. Depending on the particular system in use, direct democracy might entail passing executive decisions, the use of sortition, making laws, directly electing or dismissing officials, and conducting trials. Two leading forms of direct democracy are participatory democracy and deliberative democracy. Semi-direct democracies, in which representatives administer day-to-day governance, but the citizens remain the sovereign, allow for three forms of popular action: referendum (plebiscite), initiative, and recall. The first two forms—referendums and initiatives—are examples of direct legislation. As of 2019, thirty countries allowed for referendums initiated by the population on the national level.” ref

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @Convict_No9653, “I agree and it doesn’t mean that the Vanguard Party are snobbish academic elites either it means that they have spent a considerable amount of time learning complex aspects of Socialism/Communism in order to cut through the misinformation and disseminate a consistent message to all.”

TheDaveMaybe ☭ @Convict_No9653 Replying to @ApetivistAct2, “Exactly. People get confused by what a “professional” revolutionary means. It doesn’t necessarily mean “college-educated” (although it can), it just means people educated in Marxist theory who have a good enough understanding of it in order to run the state, on the working class”

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @Convict_No9653, “The thing that gets me is that other types of socialists think that there will not be any form of democracy in such a society which is not true.” “In fact, we have the benefit of hindsight and history to improve the movement as opposed to learning so much on the Fly. So, I think a lot of people who are anti-state think that the state that we are speaking of will appear are some crushing fist up on their life.” “I see the state as protectionary and also as you explained administratively. I do not see how without a planned economy how a group of local communities can properly set forth a system that meets the needs of all people even within their local communities. It will take…” “…massive planning even to get resources unavailable to a local community. Without some centralized management and regulatory rules, it will be impossible to achieve.”

TheDaveMaybe ☭ @Convict_No9653 Replying to @ApetivistAct2, “Exactly. Workers can only run society by themselves once full communism has been achieved. Until then, you need a dictatorship of the proletariat and a vanguard party.”

TheDaveMaybe ☭ @Convict_No9653 Replying to @AthopeMarie, Full communism is just communism. A society without classes or states or currency and where the workers run society.”

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “I think anarchists understand how great a communist society would be but they do not understand the necessity to pass through a socialist State first. This is what I’m saying. You’re not going to achieve the Communist Society without the administrative regulatory aspects of the state.”

My response @AthopeMarie, to @ApetivistAct2, I appreciate that it may take stages but that doesn’t remove my desire for a stateless and classless society. I want as much classless now as possible and strive for relationship anarchism treating everyone as an equal.

“Relationship anarchy (sometimes abbreviated RA) is the application of anarchist principles to intimate relationships. Its values include autonomy, anti-hierarchical practices, lack of state control, anti-normativity, and community interdependence. RA is explicitly anti-amatonormative and anti-mononormative and is commonly, but not always, non-monogamous. This is distinct from polyamory, solo poly, swinging, and other forms of “dating”, which may include structures such as amatonormativity, hierarchy of intimate relationships, and autonomy-limiting rules. It has also been interpreted as a new paradigm in which closeness and autonomy are no longer considered dilemmas within a relationship.” ref

Self-Sovereignty, Self-Efficiency, Self-Mastery, and Solidarity: Relationship Anarchism & Anarchist Naturalism

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “Relationship anarchism as you call it is something we all should reflect on. Just because a comrade is in an administrative position doesn’t mean he thinks he’s any better than you and it doesn’t mean they get any better treatment or live a better life than you.” “Marxist Leninists are theorists and collectivist actors not fixed to the USSR and have the errors (perceived or real) of former and present Communist leadership to sharpen our approach to a socialist movement.”

My response @AthopeMarie, to @ApetivistAct2, I had a video chat with a Marxist Leninist friend so I am not one but can be friends and see a shared anti-capitalist goal. Here is that video:  

JUSTIN CLARK (HISTORIAN and Marxist Leninist): Atheism, Humanism, Politics, Economics, and Marxism

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “I watched it.” “I watched that video and there were things that were not said that I would have said with my understanding of Marxist Leninism. I’m not saying he did a bad job I’m just saying that different thinkers have different approaches. I can tell you sit down with more than just one Marxist Leninist and disgust these things because we understand the weakness found within jumping over a state. If you have no problem with going through a state as mentioned earlier then you are not an anarchist you are a socialist.”

My response @AthopeMarie, to @ApetivistAct2, And I tell you to sit down with more than one anarchist and learn more from them as well. I am open to learning from all socialists and communists, even if I don’t agree as knowledge and experience are good to aid new thinking. I am a thinker, so I am happy to consider ideas.

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “Dude, I was an anarchist, okay, I sat down with lots of anarchists and spoke with them on multiple occasions about what was wrong with the state and I never heard a single retort to what I am saying here and you’re not even offering it you’re just saying you don’t prefer it.” “Damien, I love that you are a thinker, we’re all thinkers here, and declaring that you’re a thinker actually separates you from us, as not being thinkers, and I do not appreciate that attitude.”

My response @AthopeMarie, to @ApetivistAct2, I am saying “I am a thinker” as I am open to considering opinions, and did not state it as not like others and not in response to you or how you are, so no need to take it as such. You claimed I needed to consider Marxism–Leninism, and that is what I addressed, saying “I am a thinker.”

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “I’m willing to sit with you and Corey and I’m willing to sit with other anarchists and speak about this. I’m just saying that it’s necessary of course for us all to have communication but if I tell you that I have set with many Anarchists, you tell me you said with one Marxist Leninist.”

My response @AthopeMarie, to @ApetivistAct2, Yes, I have talked with a few Marxist–Leninists, one guy got mad that I wouldn’t believe like him, and he blocked me here on Twitter.

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “Okay let me say this if I can offer some strong concrete examples of what I’m speaking about here would you be willing to become at least theoretically and Marxist Leninist? And if you guys have strong counter-examples to me, I will be willing also to make concessions.” “I don’t think either of us wants to be ideologues.”

My response @AthopeMarie, to @ApetivistAct2, I will consider all ideas offered but I don’t feel that I need to give anyone what it seems like you are trying to ask for me. I don’t ask that anyone think like me nor ask them to give any agreement but to use evidence and reason as their main guide. I allow reason to move.

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “See you are confusing insistence with me viewing your position as untenable and you confuse both rather than seeing that I’m saying that your position is untenable you’re saying I’m insisting that you change. So you’re more resistant to change than you claim. I am willing to change if I can have a concrete strong example as to why anarchism will provide a greater revolutionary path than state socialism/ communism. And you think that everyone’s going to have your same passive attitude but they won’t.”

My response @AthopeMarie, to @ApetivistAct2, And I welcome you to share your thoughts when you join us for a video chat on our “Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries” show.

The “Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries” Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ Atheist Leftist @Skepticallefty & @AthopeMarie (my youtube & related blog) are working jointly in atheist, antitheist, antireligionist, antifascist, anarchist, socialist, and humanist endeavors when we feel like it.

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “I look forward to it.”

Here is another interaction between us on Twitter: Link

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “I’m an atheist Marxist, not a Revisionist ‘Marxist’ that thinks Capitalism can be massively reformed. If you don’t support the proletariat class owning the means of production that means you don’t support socialism. Don’t accept any imitations.”

My response @AthopeMarie, to @ApetivistAct2, Right on, I am an anarchist socialist as you know reached with my own thinking not theory not that theory is not good, and I strive to be a rationalist in all my thinking, atheism, political, or otherwise. While many skeptics may tend to strive to master doubt, I as a rationalist, strive to master reason.

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “Until there’s sufficient reason to accept a premise it’s not irrational to doubt.”

My response @AthopeMarie, to @ApetivistAct2, I agree. However, doubt requires reason to give it meaning or to show it is or could be unreasoned. All skeptics require reason to ensure it is not simply denialism. If you think doubt can be applied without reason then you have a problem of potential unreasonable doubt.

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “Do you mean philosophical skeptics in this context?”

My response @AthopeMarie, to @ApetivistAct2, What skepticism do you think can happen devoid of reason? You used the term irrational thus related to rational thought thus reason is involved is it not?

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “In my first example “Until there’s sufficient reason to accept a premise it’s not irrational to doubt”, yes. In my follow-up question, not necessarily as Philosophical Skepticism challenges that there’s no possible way to ascertain knowledge or the possibility of knowledge. In this case, a skeptic would not have any route to reason or rationality. So that’s… See to me, only Philosophical Skeptics try to master or think they’ve mastered doubt. Common skeptics generally don’t think this way they are equally capable of utilizing reason. The two don’t exclude one another. That’s the reason for my second question.”

My response @AthopeMarie, to @ApetivistAct2, Do you mean the skepticism movement related to the atheist movement that is not grounded in philosophy? It makes lots of claims of what skepticism means that are not actually skepticism. How did a Skeptic decide what is to be questioned or how to form that question or to ask it is a way that question is reason is not involved? The answer is a Skeptic can’t without reason.

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “I am not one to say the ‘atheistic brand of skepticism’ is detached from some philosophical groundings but that it isn’t optimal if they’re speaking at the same time of the scientific method (SM). Some things though can’t be determined through the SM and thus requires a different approach if one can be found and if not, it must be left in the unknown category until then.”

My response @AthopeMarie, to @ApetivistAct2, All things are unknown until we reason them into the knowable by the offered information or evidence. What makes a thing thought as information or evidence evolved reason.

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “I agree and I didn’t say it’s correct. I don’t think it is. I agree some reason would have to be applied to reach the conclusion that no knowledge could be acquired. …why I asked.”

My response @AthopeMarie, to @ApetivistAct2, Knowable like certainty, are epistemic properties of beliefs, and how we discern, what we can call a thing or thinking, as related to the term Knowable or knowledge is by employing reason.

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “I agree. I’m just pondering if you meant PS or colloquial or modern usage of the word.”

My response @AthopeMarie, to @ApetivistAct2, Skepticism is not a path to knowing or knowledge it is simply a means to inquire or challenge and this is good but it is also limited as well because it is not the method of establishing truth or knowledge but a way to request or require reasons but to establish it needs reason.

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “I know what reason is. I’m saying not all forms of skepticism employs reason in the way we both agree it should be used. There is Philosophical Skepticism as I mentioned earlier and doesn’t make much sense to me although I’ve heard others defend it.”

My response @AthopeMarie, to @ApetivistAct2, All skepticism requires reason philosophical or otherwise. I’m a rationalist who strives to master reason and only have reason as my master. The scientific method emerged from philosophy and is grounded in philosophy standards, one of which is reason.

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “I know this. Natural Philosophy. But its direction has moved from cognitive musings alone and thus derived a materialistic direction. This is pronounced through ‘Philosophy of Science’ thus bisecting the cognitive musing and writings from Experimental-based Science.”

My response @AthopeMarie, to @ApetivistAct2, Experience or experiments relate to reason both to evaluate and to establish. If a skeptic is logical then they use reason, if they employ criminal thinking then they use reason. I do know that many skeptics in the atheist movement use reason but call it skepticism. Use all kinds of thinking and call it atheism as well. Like antitheist or antireligionist.

My response @AthopeMarie, to @ApetivistAct2, I meant “critical thinking” not criminal. Lol

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “Correct. Oh, I got it.”

My response @AthopeMarie, to @ApetivistAct2, I figured you would get it, even if I didn’t tell you, because you use reason.

☭ Apetivist @ApetivistAct2 Replying to @AthopeMarie, “Uh… Sometimes I use reason… Yes, often these terms are used quite inaccurately. This is why they need you-sies and me-sies and other-lings to assist them to untangle these terms.”

“Fan of Absurdism here.” – another responder

My response @AthopeMarie, to the responder, And you choose Absurdism from other possible choices, by randomness, or reason?

“Did I choose it, or did it choose Me?  Must one embrace the Chaos, one finds oneself within?” – another responder

My response @AthopeMarie, to the responder, If so, it is something you reasoned to reach to get to that conclusion of being a “Fan of Absurdism.”

“Can we be certain that anything is as we assume it to be given our limited senses and faculties?  Do we separate “ideas of reason” from “concepts of the understanding”?” – another responder

My response @AthopeMarie, to the responder, So, you understand what chaos is from not chaos by reason. You made a truth claim that one must do something, and you believe that is a reasoned thing to do or you would not say it, not that this belief equals reason just that you think it does, am I wrong?

Marxism-Leninism (a claimed two-stage communist revolution) has yet to transition to communism as believed. It has inspired a strong support for the centralized state (the claimed transition stage), not communism and statelessness (the claimed final stage).

Believing a communist military power or an army to defeat capitalism was not a reality once nuclear bombs were common and the only way to get to communism is to educate the people and build solidarity, wars will never win us full communism.

We on the left are similar because the bourgeoisie are constantly undermining our efforts.

“Today, Marxism–Leninism is the ideology of the ruling parties of China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam (all one-party ‘socialist republics‘), as well as many other communist parties, while the state ideology of North Korea is derived from Marxism–Leninism.” ref

“Marxist literature defines state capitalism as a social system combining capitalism with ownership or control by a state. By this definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production. This designation applies regardless of the political aims of the state, even if the state is nominally socialist. Some scholars argue that the economy of the Soviet Union and of the Eastern Bloc countries modeled after it, including Maoist China, were state capitalist systems, and some western commentators believe that the current economies of China and Singapore also constitute a form of state capitalism.” ref

“Communist China has relentlessly pursued economic growth for decades, creating more billionaires than the U.S. and lifting 800 million people out of poverty but leaving 600 million more to live on $150 a month.” https://nbcnews.com/news/world/china-created-more-billionaires-u-s-now-it-cracking-down-n1278438

“China still has the most billionaires in the world, despite losing 160 of them amid Beijing’s crackdowns last year in 2021.” https://fortune.com/2022/03/18/china-most-billionaires-2021-lost-160-crackdown-colin-huang

Marxism-Leninism (a claimed two-stage communist revolution) defended centralized statism,

not stateless communism, the goal.

Here is another chat with a different ML

“The purpose of the state in to oppress one class at the behest of another, in the case of ML, the capitalist class at the behest of workers. So long as capitalism is dominant world-wide there will not be a transition beyond this stage on any sustained & meaningful scale.” – ML

My response, China has millionaires and billionaires so they although claiming to be ML are not seeming to actually do that.

“Yes, millionaires and billionaires who are swiftly executed when they step outline because they aren’t running the country as they would in a capitalist state. They function as adapters to facilitate trade with the outside capitalist world, trade which has allowed unprecedented improvement in the quality of life for workers.” – ML

My response, So still ok with capitalism (unfair wealth accumulation as there should be no billionaires) under ML and the rest is theory and opinions?

“Capitalism isn’t just when there are rich private owners, elsewise capitalism has existed since the first city. It’s when these private owners of capital are the driving class of a society. In China, they are not. In the US they are.” – ML

My response, Per Hurun Global Rich List (2022) Mainland China has 1,002 billionaires but America has 716 billionaires. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_billionaires

“China has 1.402 billion people, the US has .329 billion people. So, China has less than 1/3 the billionaires per capita the United States. (1002/1.402)/(716/.329)= .328. Billionaires who face death when they endanger society, instead of being in total control over society.” – ML

My response, To me, there should be no billionaires in the world, and would not be without unjust humanity and unfair wealth accumulation.

“MLs contend that that cannot be made to happen until capitalism is not dominant world-wide. In the meantime, the capitalist class is allowed to exist in a subjugated state so that trade may be facilitated and living standards may rise for workers.” – ML

My response, Marxism–Leninism holds the state would control the means of production, suppress opposition, counter-revolution, and the bourgeoisie, right?

“The idea is that a party or parties democratically controlled by the workers would wield the state to advance the interest of the working class and subjugate other classes towards this end. Until capitalism is no longer globally dominant there isn’t a transition past this. If Anarchists can do better then I want them to. Do so and show us. Raise living standard for millions of workers for a sustained period of time while global capitalism is dominant as it is now without the use of a state and with the capitalist class fully abolished.” – ML

My response, Capitalism is unethical and I as an anarchist want an ethical society.

“I want the highest standard of living for the common person world-wide as possible. Thus far ML has had the most success at this. If Anarchism can show me that they’re able to do better then I’ll adopt that route. I care about results first and foremost.” – ML

My response, I want the highest standard of living for the common person worldwide as possible, as well that is why I propose the states. We need worldwide direct democracy, if that happened, there would be no billionaires anywhere.

“MLs also want a world without billionaires. The difference is we don’t think you can go straight to statelessness on any large & sustained scale until capitalism is no longer globally dominant. If Anarchists can show otherwise, then I want them to.” – ML

My response, I would think MLs also want a world without billionaires. So, you agree it is wrong to happen under a ML system even if you believe that a ML system is best, right?

“Being an ML doesn’t mean uncritically supporting everything ML states do. We can talk about China and Vietnam having billionaires, but Cuba doesn’t. Not sure about Laos. I agree it’s more ideal to NOT have them.” – ML

My response, I appreciate your saying, “Being an ML doesn’t mean uncritically supporting everything ML states do.”  I can appreciate being an ethical thinker.

“I’m not opposed to direct democracy under a capitalist system, but under socialism, under a dictatorship of the proletariat, it’s sort of unnecessary, because the soviets (workers’ councils) WERE direct democracy.” – ML

My response, The dictatorship of the proletariat has not delivered equality and in China, it has allowed billionaires. So, it sounds like it is indeed needed.

“Oh yeah if you want me to list things, I think China’s done wrong I can go on for a while lol. Support for Khmer Rouge, support for Mujaheddin, brief but very destructive war with Vietnam, etc. Their foreign policy was horrendous until the mid-80’s. I don’t like China having billionaires. Having said that, China does have worker councils, which is way more democratic than what the US has or does. Yeah, China has problems I don’t deny. China and Vietnam may have billionaires, HOWEVER, these two links are why I still support them:  “they have made remarkable progress in poverty reduction.” – ML

Another set of resources

“The transition to that second stage is a historical epoch that could potentially take centuries.” – ML

“It will take around 100,000 years or actually never?” – Anarchist

“Maybe, maybe not. I can tell you for sure that no large-scale anarchist project will ever be able to last more than a few years at most.” – ML

“The state will never wither away on its own, that’s more utopian than any anarchist idea I’ve ever heard of. The chances of a successful anarchist revolution is irrelevant, to the fact that MLs have never and will never succeed in achieving communism.” – Anarchist

“The state is an apparatus of class power. Once class, as well as external threats, have been resolved, the state has no purpose and gradually depletes in power. These conditions, especially external threats, have never come close to existing. If they never do, then a state will remain necessary.” – ML

“Right so in other words, the state will be in a perpetual state of existence in an ML society. Pass.” – Anarchist

My response, The state is an exhibition of classism it will not dissolve itself, and neither has it ever achieved anything close to classlessness. China has billionaires and millionaires while millions of others are in or next to poverty.

“The poverty in China has been rapidly shrinking for decades, and the National Bourgeois have been jailed or even executed when they step out of line. China at most is in the very earliest stages of socialism still (due to the total lack of development under Qing and ROC).” – ML

My response, “China still has around 13% of its population falling below this poverty line of $5.50 per day in 2020.” “China’s growth has been rapid but different people have benefited to very different extents, so inequality has risen during the reform period.” “Apart from the increasing income inequality, the education sector has long suffered from problems such as funding shortages and unequal allocation of education resources, adding to the disparity between China’s urban and rural life. Rural education has been marginalized by the focus on immediate economic development and the fact that urban education enjoys more attention and investment by the central government.” “In China, women are more vulnerable to suffer from severe poverty than men. More women experience multidimensional poverty than men (38.9% compared to 25.2%).” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China

Political compass test: Link

LeftValues test: Link  

Closest Match: Anarcho-Communism

Anarcho-Communism is a form of anarchism that advocates for the abolition of capitalism and the state, as well as the collective ownership of the means of production. Anarcho-Communists support a decentralized economy and government, with Anarcho-Syndicalism being a common way of organizing such a society.

Next closest matches

Council Communism: 97.5%

Council Communism is a form of Left Communism that emerged in Germany and Holland in the early-20th century. Council Communists reject participation in liberal democracy, support spontaneous revolutions, and believe in disempowering political parties in favor of the workers’ councils.

Eco-Anarchism: 91.3%

Eco-Anarchism, or Green Anarchism, is a form of anarchism that places a particular emphasis on environmental issues. It is often linked to more distinct ideologies such as Anarcho-Syndicalism. Eco-Anarchists are generally revolutionary and support using a decentralized egalitarian economy to achieve environmental goals.

Orthodox Marxism: 89.4%

Orthodox Marxism is a form of Marxism that adopts views that conform to Marxist theory as it was originally written, particularly on the topic of dialectical materialism. Orthodox Marxists are highly revolutionary and internationalist and hold that nonindustrial societies are incapable of achieving socialism.

Left Communism: 87.3%

Left Communism is a form of Marxism that leans towards so-called ultra-left positions. These include unconditional support for revolution and internationalism, a rejection of unions and participation in liberal democracy, and a rejection of national liberation and self-determination.

Centrist Marxism: 87%

Centrist Marxism is a form of Marxism that adopts Marxist views on society and the economy while also refraining from taking a definitive position on revolution and reformism. Many Centrist Marxists may also be more nationalistic than other Marxists.

Democratic Socialism: 85.2%

Democratic Socialism is a form of socialism that seeks to utilize liberal democracy as a means to achieve a socialist economy and society. Democratic Socialists reject revolution and a centrally planned economy, instead supporting moderate social ownership in the form of publicly owned utilities and democratic workplace self-management.

Eco-Marxism: 80.8%

Eco-Marxism is a form of Orthodox Marxism more commonly found in the modern day that places a particular emphasis on environmental issues. Eco-Marxists generally favor central economic planning as a way of combating climate issues.

Market Anarchism: 78.9%

Market Anarchism is a form of anarchism that mixes anarchist goals such as the abolition of hierarchy, the state and capitalism with heightened individualism and a moderate reformist approach. This should not be confused with Anarcho-Capitalism.

Left-Wing Nationalism: 66.4%

Left-Wing Nationalism is an ideology that mixes left-wing economics with non-xenophobic nationalism and patriotism. Many Left-Wing Nationalists are simultaneously supportive of international solidarity, and may be supportive of armed struggle.

Social Democracy: 37.4%

Social Democracy is a center-left ideology that advocates for mixing left-leaning values such as social welfare and corporate regulation with capitalism and liberal democracy in the form of a mixed economy. Many modern Social Democrats favor Keynesian economics.

Marxism-Leninism: 35.1%

Marxism-Leninism is a form of Marxism that was forged in the 20th century in the Soviet Union. Marxist-Leninists heavily favor the use of a communist political party as the platform for both achieving revolution and establishing socialism. Many Marxist-Leninists are somewhat more nationalistic and patriotic than many other Marxists, and may favor industrial progress over environmental goals.

Utopian Socialism: 0%

Utopian Socialism is a form of pre-Marxist socialism that believes highly in an egalitarian, moralistic and idealistic foundation for a socialist society. Utopian Socialists generally reject violent revolution and often believe the ruling class can be convinced to adopt socialism.

8values test: Link 

Being a humanist is extremely important to me, so much so, it is a driving force in my political thinking, and that is why I call myself an anarcho-humanist. 

Anarcho-Humanist

Anarcho (anarchist-socialist) “no gods and no masters” & Humanist “do no harm and do good”

I was a Right-winger and Christian, mainly until I turned atheist at 35. But it was not until around 41 when I was told my thoughts were anarchism and then experiencing anarcho-capitalists made me realize that I was a socialist around 42.

“Leftists want white people to feel guilty”

No, we want us all to understand the injustices of the past, so we can acknowledge the truth of the wrong done and strive to stop injustices. But some white people hear about injustices and instead of championing change, make excuses.

To Marxist-Leninism, I don’t agree as an anarchist about the state being a proven necessity, or that it is the best possible stage for a transition period. Also to me, history seems to show us over and over that those who hold the state will never give up its power and will instead use that power to oppress citizens. Moreover, never has this claimed stage of statism actually transitioned to communism’s statelessness so it is not proven it even will or can.

Marxist-Leninists seem to believe in historical materialism but also, to me, seem to often sidestep, minimize, or outright deny the evidence in front of them, that the Soviet state or the Chinese state were/are oppressive and not transitional at all, nor is there a great desire to achieve it with any urgency I see. This seems to be the major divide between anarchists and state socialists. Marxist-Leninists seem to refuse to accept that their ideology invariably leads to people holding onto power and often using this power to dominate others and has not ever led towards a transition to stateless communism. They say it will but it has not yet. 

I was and am open to hearing Marxist-Leninists out but not when they leave the facts in history. I also strive to be nice to others, even with others in disagreements as it is an honorable way of behavior, to me. To me, they feel they have proof of consept but what I see is there is only a claim or theory that Marxism-Leninism will lead to full communism, it has not done so, thus it has no evidence to persuade me to begin with, and I there are other choices in transitions stages even if I believe that a statism stage was needed. Marxist-Leninists seem to act like it is Marxism-Leninism or nothing, I disagree with that.

State Capitalism: economies of the Soviet Union/Eastern Bloc, Maoist China/current China

relate to state capitalism

ref

ref

Arcane Capitalism: Primitive socialism, Primitive capital, Private ownership, Means of production, Market capitalism, Class discrimination, and Petite bourgeoisie (smaller capitalists)

7,522-6,522 years ago Linear Pottery culture which I think relates to Arcane Capitalism’s origins

Show #1: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Samarra, Halaf, Ubaid)

Show #2: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Eridu: First City of Power)

Show #3: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Uruk and the First Cities)

Show #4: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (First Kings)

Show #5: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Early Dynastic Period)

Show #6: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (King Lugalzagesi and the First Empire)

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Low Gods “Earth” or Tutelary deity and High Gods “Sky” or Supreme deity

“An Earth goddess is a deification of the Earth. Earth goddesses are often associated with the “chthonic” deities of the underworld. Ki and Ninhursag are Mesopotamian earth goddesses. In Greek mythology, the Earth is personified as Gaia, corresponding to Roman Terra, Indic Prithvi/Bhūmi, etc. traced to an “Earth Mother” complementary to the “Sky Father” in Proto-Indo-European religion. Egyptian mythology exceptionally has a sky goddess and an Earth god.” ref

“A mother goddess is a goddess who represents or is a personification of nature, motherhood, fertility, creation, destruction or who embodies the bounty of the Earth. When equated with the Earth or the natural world, such goddesses are sometimes referred to as Mother Earth or as the Earth Mother. In some religious traditions or movements, Heavenly Mother (also referred to as Mother in Heaven or Sky Mother) is the wife or feminine counterpart of the Sky father or God the Father.” ref

“Any masculine sky god is often also king of the gods, taking the position of patriarch within a pantheon. Such king gods are collectively categorized as “sky father” deities, with a polarity between sky and earth often being expressed by pairing a “sky father” god with an “earth mother” goddess (pairings of a sky mother with an earth father are less frequent). A main sky goddess is often the queen of the gods and may be an air/sky goddess in her own right, though she usually has other functions as well with “sky” not being her main. In antiquity, several sky goddesses in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Near East were called Queen of Heaven. Neopagans often apply it with impunity to sky goddesses from other regions who were never associated with the term historically. The sky often has important religious significance. Many religions, both polytheistic and monotheistic, have deities associated with the sky.” ref

“In comparative mythology, sky father is a term for a recurring concept in polytheistic religions of a sky god who is addressed as a “father”, often the father of a pantheon and is often either a reigning or former King of the Gods. The concept of “sky father” may also be taken to include Sun gods with similar characteristics, such as Ra. The concept is complementary to an “earth mother“. “Sky Father” is a direct translation of the Vedic Dyaus Pita, etymologically descended from the same Proto-Indo-European deity name as the Greek Zeûs Pater and Roman Jupiter and Germanic Týr, Tir or Tiwaz, all of which are reflexes of the same Proto-Indo-European deity’s name, *Dyēus Ph₂tḗr. While there are numerous parallels adduced from outside of Indo-European mythology, there are exceptions (e.g. In Egyptian mythology, Nut is the sky mother and Geb is the earth father).” ref

Tutelary deity

“A tutelary (also tutelar) is a deity or spirit who is a guardian, patron, or protector of a particular place, geographic feature, person, lineage, nation, culture, or occupation. The etymology of “tutelary” expresses the concept of safety and thus of guardianship. In late Greek and Roman religion, one type of tutelary deity, the genius, functions as the personal deity or daimon of an individual from birth to death. Another form of personal tutelary spirit is the familiar spirit of European folklore.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Korean shamanism, jangseung and sotdae were placed at the edge of villages to frighten off demons. They were also worshiped as deities. Seonangshin is the patron deity of the village in Korean tradition and was believed to embody the Seonangdang. In Philippine animism, Diwata or Lambana are deities or spirits that inhabit sacred places like mountains and mounds and serve as guardians. Such as: Maria Makiling is the deity who guards Mt. Makiling and Maria Cacao and Maria Sinukuan. In Shinto, the spirits, or kami, which give life to human bodies come from nature and return to it after death. Ancestors are therefore themselves tutelaries to be worshiped. And similarly, Native American beliefs such as Tonás, tutelary animal spirit among the Zapotec and Totems, familial or clan spirits among the Ojibwe, can be animals.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Austronesian beliefs such as: Atua (gods and spirits of the Polynesian peoples such as the Māori or the Hawaiians), Hanitu (Bunun of Taiwan‘s term for spirit), Hyang (Kawi, Sundanese, Javanese, and Balinese Supreme Being, in ancient Java and Bali mythology and this spiritual entity, can be either divine or ancestral), Kaitiaki (New Zealand Māori term used for the concept of guardianship, for the sky, the sea, and the land), Kawas (mythology) (divided into 6 groups: gods, ancestors, souls of the living, spirits of living things, spirits of lifeless objects, and ghosts), Tiki (Māori mythology, Tiki is the first man created by either Tūmatauenga or Tāne and represents deified ancestors found in most Polynesian cultures). ” ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Mesopotamian Tutelary Deities can be seen as ones related to City-States 

“Historical city-states included Sumerian cities such as Uruk and Ur; Ancient Egyptian city-states, such as Thebes and Memphis; the Phoenician cities (such as Tyre and Sidon); the five Philistine city-states; the Berber city-states of the Garamantes; the city-states of ancient Greece (the poleis such as Athens, Sparta, Thebes, and Corinth); the Roman Republic (which grew from a city-state into a vast empire); the Italian city-states from the Middle Ages to the early modern period, such as Florence, Siena, Ferrara, Milan (which as they grew in power began to dominate neighboring cities) and Genoa and Venice, which became powerful thalassocracies; the Mayan and other cultures of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (including cities such as Chichen Itza, Tikal, Copán and Monte Albán); the central Asian cities along the Silk Road; the city-states of the Swahili coast; Ragusa; states of the medieval Russian lands such as Novgorod and Pskov; and many others.” ref

“The Uruk period (ca. 4000 to 3100 BCE; also known as Protoliterate period) of Mesopotamia, named after the Sumerian city of Uruk, this period saw the emergence of urban life in Mesopotamia and the Sumerian civilization. City-States like Uruk and others had a patron tutelary City Deity along with a Priest-King.” ref

“Chinese folk religion, both past, and present, includes myriad tutelary deities. Exceptional individuals, highly cultivated sages, and prominent ancestors can be deified and honored after death. Lord Guan is the patron of military personnel and police, while Mazu is the patron of fishermen and sailors. Such as Tu Di Gong (Earth Deity) is the tutelary deity of a locality, and each individual locality has its own Earth Deity and Cheng Huang Gong (City God) is the guardian deity of an individual city, worshipped by local officials and locals since imperial times.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Hinduism, personal tutelary deities are known as ishta-devata, while family tutelary deities are known as Kuladevata. Gramadevata are guardian deities of villages. Devas can also be seen as tutelary. Shiva is the patron of yogis and renunciants. City goddesses include: Mumbadevi (Mumbai), Sachchika (Osian); Kuladevis include: Ambika (Porwad), and Mahalakshmi. In NorthEast India Meitei mythology and religion (Sanamahism) of Manipur, there are various types of tutelary deities, among which Lam Lais are the most predominant ones. Tibetan Buddhism has Yidam as a tutelary deity. Dakini is the patron of those who seek knowledge.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) The Greeks also thought deities guarded specific places: for instance, Athena was the patron goddess of the city of Athens. Socrates spoke of hearing the voice of his personal spirit or daimonion:

You have often heard me speak of an oracle or sign which comes to me … . This sign I have had ever since I was a child. The sign is a voice which comes to me and always forbids me to do something which I am going to do, but never commands me to do anything, and this is what stands in the way of my being a politician.” ref

“Tutelary deities who guard and preserve a place or a person are fundamental to ancient Roman religion. The tutelary deity of a man was his Genius, that of a woman her Juno. In the Imperial era, the Genius of the Emperor was a focus of Imperial cult. An emperor might also adopt a major deity as his personal patron or tutelary, as Augustus did Apollo. Precedents for claiming the personal protection of a deity were established in the Republican era, when for instance the Roman dictator Sulla advertised the goddess Victory as his tutelary by holding public games (ludi) in her honor.” ref

“Each town or city had one or more tutelary deities, whose protection was considered particularly vital in time of war and siege. Rome itself was protected by a goddess whose name was to be kept ritually secret on pain of death (for a supposed case, see Quintus Valerius Soranus). The Capitoline Triad of Juno, Jupiter, and Minerva were also tutelaries of Rome. The Italic towns had their own tutelary deities. Juno often had this function, as at the Latin town of Lanuvium and the Etruscan city of Veii, and was often housed in an especially grand temple on the arx (citadel) or other prominent or central location. The tutelary deity of Praeneste was Fortuna, whose oracle was renowned.” ref

“The Roman ritual of evocatio was premised on the belief that a town could be made vulnerable to military defeat if the power of its tutelary deity were diverted outside the city, perhaps by the offer of superior cult at Rome. The depiction of some goddesses such as the Magna Mater (Great Mother, or Cybele) as “tower-crowned” represents their capacity to preserve the city. A town in the provinces might adopt a deity from within the Roman religious sphere to serve as its guardian, or syncretize its own tutelary with such; for instance, a community within the civitas of the Remi in Gaul adopted Apollo as its tutelary, and at the capital of the Remi (present-day Rheims), the tutelary was Mars Camulus.” ref 

Household deity (a kind of or related to a Tutelary deity)

“A household deity is a deity or spirit that protects the home, looking after the entire household or certain key members. It has been a common belief in paganism as well as in folklore across many parts of the world. Household deities fit into two types; firstly, a specific deity – typically a goddess – often referred to as a hearth goddess or domestic goddess who is associated with the home and hearth, such as the ancient Greek Hestia.” ref

“The second type of household deities are those that are not one singular deity, but a type, or species of animistic deity, who usually have lesser powers than major deities. This type was common in the religions of antiquity, such as the Lares of ancient Roman religion, the Gashin of Korean shamanism, and Cofgodas of Anglo-Saxon paganism. These survived Christianisation as fairy-like creatures existing in folklore, such as the Anglo-Scottish Brownie and Slavic Domovoy.” ref

“Household deities were usually worshipped not in temples but in the home, where they would be represented by small idols (such as the teraphim of the Bible, often translated as “household gods” in Genesis 31:19 for example), amulets, paintings, or reliefs. They could also be found on domestic objects, such as cosmetic articles in the case of Tawaret. The more prosperous houses might have a small shrine to the household god(s); the lararium served this purpose in the case of the Romans. The gods would be treated as members of the family and invited to join in meals, or be given offerings of food and drink.” ref

“In many religions, both ancient and modern, a god would preside over the home. Certain species, or types, of household deities, existed. An example of this was the Roman Lares. Many European cultures retained house spirits into the modern period. Some examples of these include:

• Brownie (Scotland and England) or Hob (England) / Kobold (Germany) / Goblin / Hobgoblin
• Domovoy (Slavic)
• Nisse (Norwegian or Danish) / Tomte (Swedish) / Tonttu (Finnish)
• Húsvættir (Norse)” ref

“Although the cosmic status of household deities was not as lofty as that of the Twelve Olympians or the Aesir, they were also jealous of their dignity and also had to be appeased with shrines and offerings, however humble. Because of their immediacy they had arguably more influence on the day-to-day affairs of men than the remote gods did. Vestiges of their worship persisted long after Christianity and other major religions extirpated nearly every trace of the major pagan pantheons. Elements of the practice can be seen even today, with Christian accretions, where statues to various saints (such as St. Francis) protect gardens and grottos. Even the gargoyles found on older churches, could be viewed as guardians partitioning a sacred space.” ref

“For centuries, Christianity fought a mop-up war against these lingering minor pagan deities, but they proved tenacious. For example, Martin Luther‘s Tischreden have numerous – quite serious – references to dealing with kobolds. Eventually, rationalism and the Industrial Revolution threatened to erase most of these minor deities, until the advent of romantic nationalism rehabilitated them and embellished them into objects of literary curiosity in the 19th century. Since the 20th century this literature has been mined for characters for role-playing games, video games, and other fantasy personae, not infrequently invested with invented traits and hierarchies somewhat different from their mythological and folkloric roots.” ref

“In contradistinction to both Herbert Spencer and Edward Burnett Tylor, who defended theories of animistic origins of ancestor worship, Émile Durkheim saw its origin in totemism. In reality, this distinction is somewhat academic, since totemism may be regarded as a particularized manifestation of animism, and something of a synthesis of the two positions was attempted by Sigmund Freud. In Freud’s Totem and Taboo, both totem and taboo are outward expressions or manifestations of the same psychological tendency, a concept which is complementary to, or which rather reconciles, the apparent conflict. Freud preferred to emphasize the psychoanalytic implications of the reification of metaphysical forces, but with particular emphasis on its familial nature. This emphasis underscores, rather than weakens, the ancestral component.” ref

“William Edward Hearn, a noted classicist, and jurist, traced the origin of domestic deities from the earliest stages as an expression of animism, a belief system thought to have existed also in the neolithic, and the forerunner of Indo-European religion. In his analysis of the Indo-European household, in Chapter II “The House Spirit”, Section 1, he states:

The belief which guided the conduct of our forefathers was … the spirit rule of dead ancestors.” ref

“In Section 2 he proceeds to elaborate:

It is thus certain that the worship of deceased ancestors is a vera causa, and not a mere hypothesis. …

In the other European nations, the Slavs, the Teutons, and the Kelts, the House Spirit appears with no less distinctness. … [T]he existence of that worship does not admit of doubt. … The House Spirits had a multitude of other names which it is needless here to enumerate, but all of which are more or less expressive of their friendly relations with man. … In [England] … [h]e is the Brownie. … In Scotland this same Brownie is well known. He is usually described as attached to particular families, with whom he has been known to reside for centuries, threshing the corn, cleaning the house, and performing similar household tasks. His favorite gratification was milk and honey.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref

Hinduism around 3,700 to 3,500 years old. ref

 Judaism around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (The first writing in the bible was “Paleo-Hebrew” dated to around 3,000 years ago Khirbet Qeiyafa is the site of an ancient fortress city overlooking the Elah Valley. And many believe the religious Jewish texts were completed around 2,500) ref, ref

Judaism is around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (“Paleo-Hebrew” 3,000 years ago and Torah 2,500 years ago)

“Judaism is an Abrahamic, its roots as an organized religion in the Middle East during the Bronze Age. Some scholars argue that modern Judaism evolved from Yahwism, the religion of ancient Israel and Judah, by the late 6th century BCE, and is thus considered to be one of the oldest monotheistic religions.” ref

“Yahwism is the name given by modern scholars to the religion of ancient Israel, essentially polytheistic, with a plethora of gods and goddesses. Heading the pantheon was Yahweh, the national god of the Israelite kingdoms of Israel and Judah, with his consort, the goddess Asherah; below them were second-tier gods and goddesses such as Baal, Shamash, Yarikh, Mot, and Astarte, all of whom had their own priests and prophets and numbered royalty among their devotees, and a third and fourth tier of minor divine beings, including the mal’ak, the messengers of the higher gods, who in later times became the angels of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Yahweh, however, was not the ‘original’ god of Israel “Isra-El”; it is El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon, whose name forms the basis of the name “Israel”, and none of the Old Testament patriarchs, the tribes of Israel, the Judges, or the earliest monarchs, have a Yahwistic theophoric name (i.e., one incorporating the name of Yahweh).” ref

“El is a Northwest Semitic word meaning “god” or “deity“, or referring (as a proper name) to any one of multiple major ancient Near Eastern deities. A rarer form, ‘ila, represents the predicate form in Old Akkadian and in Amorite. The word is derived from the Proto-Semitic *ʔil-, meaning “god”. Specific deities known as ‘El or ‘Il include the supreme god of the ancient Canaanite religion and the supreme god of East Semitic speakers in Mesopotamia’s Early Dynastic Period. ʼĒl is listed at the head of many pantheons. In some Canaanite and Ugaritic sources, ʼĒl played a role as father of the gods, of creation, or both. For example, in the Ugaritic texts, ʾil mlk is understood to mean “ʼĒl the King” but ʾil hd as “the god Hadad“. The Semitic root ʾlh (Arabic ʾilāh, Aramaic ʾAlāh, ʾElāh, Hebrew ʾelōah) may be ʾl with a parasitic h, and ʾl may be an abbreviated form of ʾlh. In Ugaritic the plural form meaning “gods” is ʾilhm, equivalent to Hebrew ʾelōhîm “powers”. In the Hebrew texts this word is interpreted as being semantically singular for “god” by biblical commentators. However the documentary hypothesis for the Old Testament (corresponds to the Jewish Torah) developed originally in the 1870s, identifies these that different authors – the Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and the Priestly source – were responsible for editing stories from a polytheistic religion into those of a monotheistic religion. Inconsistencies that arise between monotheism and polytheism in the texts are reflective of this hypothesis.” ref

Jainism around 2,599 – 2,527 years old. ref

Confucianism around 2,600 – 2,551 years old. ref

Buddhism around 2,563/2,480 – 2,483/2,400 years old. ref

Christianity around 2,o00 years old. ref

Shinto around 1,305 years old. ref

Islam around 1407–1385 years old. ref

Sikhism around 548–478 years old. ref

Bahá’í around 200–125 years old. ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Expressions of Atheistic Thinking:

• Around 2,600 years ago, Ajita Kesakambali, ancient Indian philosopher, who is the first known proponent of Indian materialism. ref
• Around 2,535 to 2,475 years ago, Heraclitus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher, a native of the Greek city Ephesus, Ionia, on the coast of Anatolia, also known as Asia Minor or modern Turkey. ref
• Around 2,500 to 2,400 years ago, according to The Story of Civilization book series certain African pygmy tribes have no identifiable gods, spirits, or religious beliefs or rituals, and even what burials accrue are without ceremony. ref
• Around 2,490 to 2,430 years ago, Empedocles, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher and a citizen of Agrigentum, a Greek city in Sicily. ref
• Around 2,460 to 2,370 years ago, Democritus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher considered to be the “father of modern science” possibly had some disbelief amounting to atheism. ref
• Around 2,399 years ago or so, Socrates, a famous Greek philosopher was tried for sinfulness by teaching doubt of state gods. ref
• Around 2,341 to 2,270 years ago, Epicurus, a Greek philosopher known for composing atheistic critics and famously stated, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ref

This last expression by Epicurus, seems to be an expression of Axiological Atheism. To understand and utilize value or actually possess “Value Conscious/Consciousness” to both give a strong moral “axiological” argument (the problem of evil) as well as use it to fortify humanism and positive ethical persuasion of human helping and care responsibilities. Because value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic/psychopathic evil.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

The “Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries”

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ Atheist Leftist @Skepticallefty & I (Damien Marie AtHope) @AthopeMarie (my YouTube & related blog) are working jointly in atheist, antitheist, antireligionist, antifascist, anarchist, socialist, and humanist endeavors in our videos together, generally, every other Saturday.

Why Does Power Bring Responsibility?

Think, how often is it the powerless that start wars, oppress others, or commit genocide? So, I guess the question is to us all, to ask, how can power not carry responsibility in a humanity concept? I know I see the deep ethical responsibility that if there is power their must be a humanistic responsibility of ethical and empathic stewardship of that power. Will I be brave enough to be kind? Will I possess enough courage to be compassionate? Will my valor reach its height of empathy? I as everyone, earns our justified respect by our actions, that are good, ethical, just, protecting, and kind. Do I have enough self-respect to put my love for humanity’s flushing, over being brought down by some of its bad actors? May we all be the ones doing good actions in the world, to help human flourishing.

I create the world I want to live in, striving for flourishing. Which is not a place but a positive potential involvement and promotion; a life of humanist goal precision. To master oneself, also means mastering positive prosocial behaviors needed for human flourishing. I may have lost a god myth as an atheist, but I am happy to tell you, my friend, it is exactly because of that, leaving the mental terrorizer, god belief, that I truly regained my connected ethical as well as kind humanity.

Cory and I will talk about prehistory and theism, addressing the relevance to atheism, anarchism, and socialism.

At the same time as the rise of the male god, 7,000 years ago, there was also the very time there was the rise of violence, war, and clans to kingdoms, then empires, then states. It is all connected back to 7,000 years ago, and it moved across the world.

Cory Johnston: https://damienmarieathope.com/2021/04/cory-johnston-mind-of-a-skeptical-leftist/?v=32aec8db952d  

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist (YouTube)

Cory Johnston: Mind of a Skeptical Leftist @Skepticallefty

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist By Cory Johnston: “Promoting critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics by covering current events and talking to a variety of people. Cory Johnston has been thoughtfully talking to people and attempting to promote critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics.” http://anchor.fm/skepticalleft

Cory needs our support. We rise by helping each other.

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ @Skepticallefty Evidence-based atheist leftist (he/him) Producer, host, and co-host of 4 podcasts @skeptarchy @skpoliticspod and @AthopeMarie

Damien Marie AtHope (“At Hope”) Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, Psychology, and Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Historian.

Damien is interested in: Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Equality, Ethics, Humanism, Science, Atheism, Antiteism, Antireligionism, Ignosticism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarchism, Socialism, Mutualism, Axiology, Metaphysics, LGBTQI, Philosophy, Advocacy, Activism, Mental Health, Psychology, Archaeology, Social Work, Sexual Rights, Marriage Rights, Woman’s Rights, Gender Rights, Child Rights, Secular Rights, Race Equality, Ageism/Disability Equality, Etc. And a far-leftist, “Anarcho-Humanist.”

I am not a good fit in the atheist movement that is mostly pro-capitalist, I am anti-capitalist. Mostly pro-skeptic, I am a rationalist not valuing skepticism. Mostly pro-agnostic, I am anti-agnostic. Mostly limited to anti-Abrahamic religions, I am an anti-religionist. 

To me, the “male god” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 7,000 years ago, whereas the now favored monotheism “male god” is more like 4,000 years ago or so. To me, the “female goddess” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 11,000-10,000 years ago or so, losing the majority of its once prominence around 2,000 years ago due largely to the now favored monotheism “male god” that grow in prominence after 4,000 years ago or so. 

My Thought on the Evolution of Gods?

Animal protector deities from old totems/spirit animal beliefs come first to me, 13,000/12,000 years ago, then women as deities 11,000/10,000 years ago, then male gods around 7,000/8,000 years ago. Moralistic gods around 5,000/4,000 years ago, and monotheistic gods around 4,000/3,000 years ago. 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Jeweler, Poet, “autodidact” Philosopher, schooled in Psychology, and “autodidact” Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Pre-Historian (Knowledgeable in the range of: 1 million to 5,000/4,000 years ago). I am an anarchist socialist politically. Reasons for or Types of Atheism

My Website, My Blog, & Short-writing or Quotes, My YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com