Quote from: iamnotback on January 24, 2017, 04:41:33 PM

Quote from: CoinCube on January 24, 2017, 04:33:59 PM

Slavery is indeed gone if we define slavery as the legal and socially acceptable practice of reducing one individual to the status of another individual's property.

SJW's semantic obfuscations aside, slave labor is socially acceptable and legal in Asia. The Chinese autocrats used it to undercut USA wages.

I provided two possible definitions of slavery which one are you using or are you arguing for a different definition of slavery?

Definitions must be clearly laid out or arguments have no meaning. Without clearly defining slavery arguments about "slave labor" are fundamentally incoherent.

Quote from: iamnotback on January 24, 2017, 04:41:33 PM

I'm calling bullshit on Marxist social justice moralizing.

Where slave labor is economically competitive, nature provides it. All this posturing about the power of man to be more noble, is social justice bullshit. The social justice warriors annoy me so much with their holier than thou lies.

Nature is competitive.

Being in touch with reality is the most rational. These moralists who go off into bullshit which is not reality are very dangerous.

Are you trying to make the case that my comments above or elsewhere are those of a Marxist? I have written about the importance of religion in the Health and Religion my position there is decisively anti-Marxist.

It is actually your argument that it's all just nature and economics that fits in very well with the "Marxist" ideology.

Karl Marx's Analysis of Religion
http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofreligion/a/marx_4.htm

Quote

According to Karl Marx, religion is like other social institutions in that it is dependent upon the material and economic realities in a given society. It has no independent history; instead it is the creature of productive forces. As Marx wrote, The religious world is but the reflex of the real world.

According to Marx, religion can only be understood in relation to other social systems and the economic structures of society.

In fact, religion is only dependent upon economics, nothing else so much so that the actual religious doctrines are almost irrelevant. This is a functionalist interpretation of religion: understanding religion is dependent upon what social purpose religion itself serves, not the content of its beliefs.

Marxs opinion is that religion is an illusion that provides reasons and excuses to keep society functioning just as it is. Much as capitalism takes our productive labor and alienates us from its value, religion takes our highest ideals and aspirations and alienates us from them, projecting them onto an alien and unknowable being called a god.

My question for you iamnotback is do you agree with Marx analysis of religion above? Are you "a Marxist" on this issue?