Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By rational definition, Marx couldn't possibly have been a Marxist. His greatest philosophical influences were Kant and Hegel. His social influences included Darwin and Rousseau. Ironically, Adam Smith was among his economic influences.
Marx was an anti-statist. He would undoubtedly have been appalled at many of the actions taken in his name. Unfortunately, most people know virtually nothing about Marx, or about the various movements of Marxism, socialism, communism, or anarchism which have derived influence from his writings. They just know that Gretchen Carlson and Steve Doocy tell them that they're all evil. I guess that's easier than actually reading Marx, and thinking.
Just as Jesus was not a Christian. And God, if he exists, would have to be an atheist.
I can't imagine many of the people who are against communism have ever read anything from Marx. It's quite interesting. Very idealistic... a bit too idealistic for my taste. But this allows me to be against Communism for a reason that is greater than anti-communist rhetoric.
By rational definition, Marx couldn't possibly have been a Marxist. His greatest philosophical influences were Kant and Hegel. His social influences included Darwin and Rousseau. Ironically, Adam Smith was among his economic influences.
Marx was an anti-statist. He would undoubtedly have been appalled at many of the actions taken in his name. Unfortunately, most people know virtually nothing about Marx, or about the various movements of Marxism, socialism, communism, or anarchism which have derived influence from his writings. They just know that Gretchen Carlson and Steve Doocy tell them that they're all evil. I guess that's easier than actually reading Marx, and thinking.
I'm assuming that you're unaware of the fact that The Nazi Party, once it came into power; made it a point to first persecute socialists, communists, labor activists, and other political leftists.
The left historically turns on the left: Brezhnev vs. Mao, Shining Path vs. MRTA, UNITA vs. MPLA, Vietnam vs. Democratic Kampuchea, Bloomberg vs. Occupy, Quan vs. Occupy,.... It's routine.
No less than the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Poles, among others in the Warsaw Pact, outlawed labor unions. It was asserted by the communists that socialism has reached its zenith under such a state, and there is no more need for labor activism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead
If you think that The National Socialist German Workers' Party was socialist just because they used the word "socialist";...
Everybody does, including all but a most unintrospective revisionist progressive left which always backtreads, and does damage control, when the dark underbelly of socialism is revealed to a disappointed public--every time.
Who scribbles "Socialist" and "Workers Party" on the doorbell expecting to attract anybody other than the progressive left to the porch?
A right wing conservative would no more want to be remotely near a gathering of Sozialisten, than the progressive left would want anything to do with a Tee-Partei. Who are you trying to fool?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead
...perhaps I can sell you on the notion that The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy because they use the word "democratic".
It is. Just as Democratic Kampuchea, just as the German Democratic Republic were, and just as the Democratic National Committee is also.
It's a good thing the Founders didn't create the U.S. as one.
Orwell was, of course, a part of the progressive left!
Orwell's concern was with authoritarianism, which can theoretically arise along any point of the political spectrum. In historical application, that authoritarianism has more frequently been the purview of the political right.
George Orwell believed we were all headed down the slope to something called Oligarchial-Collectivism.
The only difference is some societies would form first form collectives that would be dominated by a tyranical ruling class (i.e. the USSR and now People's China). Others (i.e. Britain and the USA) would first be dominated by a wealthy power elite (Oligarchs) that would have to use the same collectivist tools their socialist peers already had to keep the masses under their control and their power safe from the prying masses. Thus everyone would find themselves with essentially the same social and economic systems. Thus capitalism would be man exploiting man and socialism would just be the reverse.
It will dictate what you say and how you say it. Ordinary descriptors are to be determined by it alone as allowed or disallowed. The left wants you expressively disabled.
The authoritarian progressive-left wants you fearful of merely opening your mouth.
I'm liberal and I think this kind of political correctness is nauseating.
I have a feeling that if someone directed words like ugly, fat, dumb, baldie, c*ck sucker, etc. to you, you'd be just fine because they are just simple words and you are not an idiot.
Mick
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
