The "proletariat" [the lower class workers] is interchangeable with anyone that wants to claims to be oppressed. {As we see today in the USA.}

 Trotsky believed that Marx and Lenin achieved the highest spiritual level possible for mankind.[Thus he wrote in his My Life] And this is what seems to me to point to a sort of self contradiction in his thinking. He believed that Communism was the perfect system. --Or at least the most perfect up until that stage of development of mankind. (It was thought to be the natural development of Capitalism. Thus there is no reason to say that it might not lead to some further advance in that kind of Marxist thought.]

Yet in the thought of Trotsky, Stalin had subverted and uprooted the Communist Revolution. [He called it the "Thermidor".] So one might be inclined to ask how is it that the will of one person can uproot the "Perfect System?"

Besides  this there is another flaw in this system. The "proletariat" [the lower class workers] is interchangeable\ with anyone that wants to claims to be oppressed. {As we see today in the USA.} 

It thus starts with a world in which there in unlimited plenty, and assumes that the only reason anyone does not have plenty of stuff is because they are being oppressed. 

music file z31

 z31 B minor

t the type of government has nothing to do with anything.. It is the people and their attitudes.

 Too much emphasis is given to types of government. You can see this cases where some superpower supports types of government that are in alignment with its own type--all the while not seeing that the type of government has nothing to do with anything.. It is the people and their attitudes. One example: The USA supported the nationalist in China against the communists. So while the sort of government of the USA works well for WASPs, it is clear to me that the nationalist in China were out of touch with the common people. One reporter [Audrey Topping] was driving with a officer of the nationalist party during the Chinese civil war, and while the nationalists were living high on the hog [like the maharaja as she said--parties every night] she saw people starving in the streets [eating grass]. She said to the government official she was with : "Though seeing these people suffering hurts me, it must hurt you more so.?" The answer she got was, "We do not consider them to be people." She thought to herself, "No wonder why there is  a revolution." 

[The same principle applies in spiritual areas where people accept doctrines which have little or no support from reason. They believe that they have arrived at this or that system because of rational reasons but in fact all follows from the desire to be part of some group .]

{That is not to say that some system might have indeed some support. In fact Kelley Ross in his formulation of the Kant Fries approach has a positive idea of spiritual values. And it i well founded on the extremely rigorous approach of Leonard Nelson.]

hidden motivations

 I realize that I have hidden motivations. And I can see  in others as well--almost too obviously. It is kind of like what Michael Huemer wrote about why people are irrational about politics. They are trying to fit in with a certain group they want to identify with. And I can see that this goes deeper than what Dr. Huemer suggests. Rather, I see that people often from their real and intense desire to fit with with a group, adopt all the opinions of that group, but believe sincerely and with all their heart that they came to their conclusions totally rationally.

אבי עזרי הלכות גירושין פרק ב.

 I have been hanging out at the sea and while there I have been pondering the issues that come up in the Avi Ezri [laws of Gitin 2] This relates to the Gemara Arachin pg 21 and kidushin 50. 

What is puzzling to me is the difference between gitin and sales --besides the need of desire. What I mean is there is the difference that in gitin you need desire. But what is hard for me to understand is that there seems to be some further difference.

For in selling if one makes a protest before the sale, the sale is void even if he nullifies the protest at the time of the sale. In gitin the get [divorce document] is valid. 

Just for background. In Arachin Rav Sheshet said if one makes a protest at the time of a get [divorce document] his protest in valid. The Gemara asks: is this not obvious? Answer: It is a case where he was forced to give the get [divorce document] and agreed. You might have thought since he agreed, the protest is void. So now we know the protest stands until he explicitly nullifies the protest. Rav Shach notes that this is the source of the law that says at the time of a forced get the husband has to say "I want it." For otherwise, why should we think he nullifies the protest? [The point of Rav Shach is that  a forced sale is valid. The act is an act, even with the desire to sell.  So is the case with gitin. The act of giving the get is valid but one needs an extra ingredient. The desire to divorce. So if he is forced according to the law of the Torah, then it should be valid automatically since his inner desire to to listen to the wise. Why should we think he then also nullifies the protest? I must be that he is forced to say I want it.

But now we know if he nullifies the protest explicitly, then the get [divorce document] is valid. Not so with selling. So there seems to be some added difference between gitin and selling.

Later I saw that Rav Shach answers this question. So, in fact, the only difference between gitin and selling is desire. But in giving a divorce document one must say "I want". And so when he nullifies all the previous protests, what is left is the current statement "I want" and so the get in valid. But in the case of selling he does not say "I want". So when he nullifies all previous objections, all that is left is the present statement against the previous ones, Both have equal weight. and so the sale is not valid.  

_____________________________________________________________________________

  אבי עזרי הלכות גירושין פרק ב. This relates to the גמרא ערכין דף כ''א and קודושין דף נ. What is hard to understand for me is the difference between גיטין and sales, besides the need of desire. What I mean to say is that there is one difference that in גיטין you need רצון. But what is hard for me to understand is that there seems to be some further difference. For in selling, if one makes a protest מודעה before the sale, the sale is void even if he nullifies the protest מודעה at the time of the sale. In גיטין the גט is valid. Just for background. In ערכין רב ששת said if one makes a מודעה at the time of a get his מודעה in valid. The גמרא asks: is this not obvious? Answer: It is a case where he was forced to give the get and agreed. You might have thought since he agreed, the protest is void. So now we know the protest stands until he explicitly nullifies the protest. רב שך notes that this is the source of the law that says at the time of a forced get the husband has to say "I want it." For otherwise, why should we think he nullifies the protest מודעה? [The idea of רב שך is that  a forced sale is valid. The act is an act, even with the desire to sell.  So is the case with גיטין. The act of giving the גט is valid but one needs an extra ingredient. The desire to divorce. So if he is forced according to the law of the Torah, then it should be valid automatically since his inner רצון  to listen to the wise. Why should we think he then also nullifies the protest מודעה? I must be that he is forced to say, "I want it".But now we know if he nullifies the protest מודעה explicitly then the get in valid. Not so with selling. So there seems to be some added difference between גיטין and selling.

Later I saw that רב שך answers this question. So, in fact, the only difference between גיטין and selling is desire. But in giving a divorce document one must say "I want". And so when he nullifies all the previous מודעות, what is left is the current statement "I want" and so the גט  valid. But in the case of selling, he does not say "I want". So when he nullifies all previous מודעות, all that is left is the present statement against the previous ones, Both have equal weight. and so the sale is not valid.  

אבי עזרי הלכות גירושין פרק ב. זה מתייחס לגמרא ערכין דף כ''א וקודושין דף נ. מה שקשה לי להבין הוא ההבדל בין גיטין למכירה, מלבד הצורך ברצון. מה שאני מתכוון לומר הוא שיש הבדל אחד שבגיטין אתה צריך רצון. אבל מה שקשה לי להבין הוא שנראה שיש הבדל נוסף. שכן במכירה, אם מבצעים מודעת מחאתה לפני המכירה, המכירה בטלה גם אם הוא מבטל את מודעת המחאה בזמן המכירה. בגיטין הגט תקף. רק לרקע. בערכין רב ששת אמר אם עושים מודעה בעת גירושין המודעה שלו בתוקף. הגמרא שואל: האם זה לא מובן מאליו? תשובה: זה מקרה שבו הוא נאלץ לתת את הגט והסכים. יכול להיות שחשבתם מאז שהסכים, המודעה בטלה. אז עכשיו אנחנו יודעים שהמחאה עומדת עד שהוא מבטל במפורש את המחאה. רב שך מציין כי זהו המקור של התקנה שאומרת בזמן הכפייה בעלה צריך להגיד "אני רוצה את זה". כי אחרת, מדוע שנחשוב שהוא מבטל את המחאה? [רב שך מציין  שמכירה כפויה תקפה. המעשה הוא מעשה, אפילו אם אין רצון למכור. כך גם לגבי גיטין. פעולת מתן הגט תקפה אך יש צורך במרכיב נוסף, הרצון להתגרש. אז אם הוא נאלץ על פי חוק התורה, אז זה צריך להיות תקף אוטומטית מאז הרצון הפנימי שלו להקשיב לחכם. מדוע שנחשוב שהוא גם מבטל את המחאה?  חייב להיות שהוא נאלץ לומר, "אני רוצה את זה". אבל עכשיו אנחנו יודעים אם הוא מבטל את מודעת המחאה במפורש ואז גט תקף. לא כך לגבי מכירה. אז נראה שיש הבדל נוסף בין גיטין למכירה.

מאוחר יותר ראיתי שרב שך עונה על שאלה זו. כך שלמעשה ההבדל היחיד בין גיטין למכירה הוא רצון. אך במתן מסמך גירושין יש לומר "אני רוצה". ולכן כשהוא מבטל את כל הדברים האחרונים, מה שנותר הוא המשפט הנוכחי "אני רוצה" ולכן הגט תקף. אבל במקרה של מכירה, הוא לא אומר "אני רוצה". אז כשהוא מבטל את כל הדברים הקודמים, כל שנותר הוא ההצהרה הנוכחית מול הקודמים, לשניהם יש משקל שווה. ולכן המכירה אינה תקפה.

The issue is never the issue. Rather anything the Left can do in order to undermine the USA is fair game.

 The main objective of the Left is to undermine the USA in any way possible. Instead of noting hat the average temperature during the age of the dinosaurs was 5 to 10 degrees Celsius higher than today. The Left tries to create panic that all life would vanish at such temperatures.

The issue is never the issue. Rather anything the Left can do in order to undermine the USA is fair game.

society divides naturally into classes.

 I wanted to mention that society divides naturally into classes. This is similar to what Jordan Peterson mentions about the fact that even lobsters have  a hierarchy. There is always one on top. But what I would like to suggest is that once the population of a society gets to be  any more than a village, the natural order draws people to divide into classes. [I mean not just division of labor, but rather actual upper, middle, and lower classes.  Like a wedding cake.] And people naturally get drawn consciously or unconsciously into the class where they belong.

It is not that some societies are divided into the land owners and the peasants just by law, rather that there is a natural order. In the West the natural order is based on competence. [Not birth].