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.
Can you provide some examples? If my inclusion is so ludicrous it should be pretty easy to detail the flaws in it.
Undoubtedly many of the views currently prevalent in the Democratic Party are ones that we don't normally associate with the term "Marxism." That, however, would be of no consequence to Marxists from the former East Bloc, who would readily recognize their own perspectives in them.
I am aware that the views of persons who do not necessarily share a common philosophy may overlap at certain points, and that such persons cannot necessarily be lumped together. However, I see enough overlapping of the views of doctrinaire Marxists with positions that have become popular in the Democratic party in the few decades that I can't conclude that this development isn't attributable in some measure to literal Marxist influence.
With reference to my original post, I view this phenomenon as evidence that the Democratic Party has a significantly closer ideological affinity to Marxism than the GOP. If you think that the similarities between the positions of today's Democratic Party and Marxist ideology are too trivial to warrant even a superficial identification of one with the other--such as with colors on a map--I'd be genuinely interested to hear you reasons why.
I’m not going to build a list of all the Democrats I know or suspect are NOT Marxists; that’s a mite silly don’t you think? Your brush is waaaaaayyyyy too broad, and it’s really as simple as that.
There are LOTS of various ideas from history that are used in various ideologies in America, and we have adopted those that gain most agreement with the vast majorities of the populace through many administrations through a couple of hundred years or so. If the populace didn’t buy into them fully in enough numbers, they were dumped or modified. Your view of the Democratic Party as a largely Marxist-leaning ideology is nonsensical as I said before.
I believe neo-conservatism is a stealthy modification of socialism, disguised sufficiently by the use of corporate power tied in a Gordian Knot-like arrangement with centralized government that it is not immediately recognizable by the masses as a menace to our liberties. You see how I separate that from the Republican Party? Republicans have major problems to deal with in separating themselves from neo-conservatism.
You, on the other hand, have no problem with demonizing tens of millions of Americans as Marxists. So, are these horrible non-Republicans a grave danger to your future? Is calling them “blue” for whatever reason rather than “red” for whatever reason a significant element in your pursuit of happiness?
Oh, not so surprised. People in groups tend to ride the horse in the same direction.
You are referring to, "confirmation bias"? The tendency for humans to seek views the confirm their own point of view or beliefs is very much an individual thing. I would even suggest that in "group think" or mob mentality that many surrender aspects of their personal views that may slightly differ in order to belong to the collective that generally aligns with their own.
The most radical views today are true moderates, as the bulk of people lean against a respective view (republican or democrat, conservative or liberal) and merely point and condemn the opposition. Why bother thinking, easier to just point out that which is not part of your collective view, says so right here in the script.
You are referring to, "confirmation bias"? The tendency for humans to seek views the confirm their own point of view or beliefs is very much an individual thing. I would even suggest that in "group think" or mob mentality that many surrender aspects of their personal views that may slightly differ in order to belong to the collective that generally aligns with their own.
The most radical views today are true moderates, as the bulk of people lean against a respective view (republican or democrat, conservative or liberal) and merely point and condemn the opposition. Why bother thinking, easier to just point out that which is not part of your collective view, says so right here in the script.
Or point to what your side says that is right above all others. Why? because they say so.
There are LOTS of various ideas from history that are used in various ideologies in America, and we have adopted those that gain most agreement with the vast majorities of the populace through many administrations through a couple of hundred years or so. If the populace didn’t buy into them fully in enough numbers, they were dumped or modified.
That's essentially what the Marxist parties in Western Europe have done. When their ideas have lacked enough popular appeal to win elections, they've watered them down, viewing socialism as a goal that can be achieved only gradually, one element at a time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by happyappy
I believe neo-conservatism is a stealthy modification of socialism, disguised sufficiently by the use of corporate power tied in a Gordian Knot-like arrangement with centralized government that it is not immediately recognizable by the masses as a menace to our liberties.
You may be right. I think a lot of Republicans sense that neoconservatism is somehow alien to them, an attitude that is at odds with their own values at a fundamental level, although they may not be sure just how. And yes, I am aware that some Democrats have had this experience, too, with Marxists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by happyappy
You, on the other hand, have no problem with demonizing tens of millions of Americans as Marxists. So, are these horrible non-Republicans a grave danger to your future? Is calling them “blue” for whatever reason rather than “red” for whatever reason a significant element in your pursuit of happiness?
I am looking at what seems to me like a very influential strain in the Democratic Party, a phenomenon not unlike the way the neocons are calling the shots in the GOP now, despite the misgivings of other party members. My inclination to identify the Democratic Party with the color associated with Marxism isn't intended as a demonization of all Democrats. It is based on an observation of the general tone and direction of the party as it is currently led, and as compared with the Republican Party.
I think it would be accurate to say that Marxists use the Democratic Party as a vehicle to achieve their ultimate ends, taking the gradualist rather than the revolutionary approach as they have done more openly in Western Europe. The CPUSA will never get anywhere in America, and the Republicans simply won't have a lot of them, so the Democratic Party is probably the strategic political home of most such persons.
No doubt many Dems are quite unaware of the degree to which Marxist thinking has influenced the party. Americans in general are unaware of the influence that such thought has had on our thinking, especially Marxism of the Frankfurt School variety.
That's essentially what the Marxist parties in Western Europe have done. When their ideas have lacked enough popular appeal to win elections, they've watered them down, viewing socialism as a goal that can be achieved only gradually, one element at a time.
You may be right. I think a lot of Republicans sense that neoconservatism is somehow alien to them, an attitude that is at odds with their own values at a fundamental level, although they may not be sure just how. And yes, I am aware that some Democrats have had this experience, too, with Marxists.
I am looking at what seems to me like a very influential strain in the Democratic Party, a phenomenon not unlike the way the neocons are calling the shots in the GOP now, despite the misgivings of other party members. My inclination to identify the Democratic Party with the color associated with Marxism isn't intended as a demonization of all Democrats. It is based on an observation of the general tone and direction of the party as it is currently led, and as compared with the Republican Party.
I think it would be accurate to say that Marxists use the Democratic Party as a vehicle to achieve their ultimate ends, taking the gradualist rather than the revolutionary approach as they have done more openly in Western Europe. The CPUSA will never get anywhere in America, and the Republicans simply won't have a lot of them, so the Democratic Party is probably the strategic political home of most such persons.
No doubt many Dems are quite unaware of the degree to which Marxist thinking has influenced the party. Americans in general are unaware of the influence that such thought has had on our thinking, especially Marxism of the Frankfurt School variety.
Well, you’ve pared down the breadth of your brush, but it’s still far too wide.
You have a microcosm you’ve experienced and your mental processes have categorized it and now stereotyping is calling the shots. It’s a natural thing we all do and sometimes feel guilty about. Stereotyping is not wrong but natural, while making judgments based largely on the experiences that caused the stereotyping can be very wrong.
It seems to me you’ve used your microcosm and extrapolated a very large group that fits your stereotype. I have the opposite experiences with my microcosm and I’ve extrapolated something much different from what you’ve envisioned. You’ve now made judgments about a very large percentage of the populace and an entire political Party with its various components. That’s some leap. I don’t accept your judgments and believe they are ill-conceived.
There are obviously far-lefters and far-righters clashing for control of government and they’ve been at it for many decades. A former government official at a meeting I attended said, and I paraphrase here, “The small extremes of the political spectrum are the most energetic while the vast middle is passive, and then extremists end up running the government.” I believe those days are ending largely because of this new age of communication and, because those days are ending, so are the days when the extremists will run the government.
I believe your claims of Marxist influence remain in the “small extremes” as are the radical fascists of the far right. Neo-conservatives are far too large in number and the sooner that ideological mutation is thrown on history’s trash heap of failed ideologies the better—for ALL the world (and Marxism too, if it exists).
And several of the above are Republican agenda items. Taken a look at the factory farm maps around America? Taken a look at how many individual farms and businesses have been driven out and taken over by mega-corps? .
The thing I have noticed most about the red/blue state divide is this: I was born and raised in New York, a blue state. In New York, nothing is held sacred (on a local level)...cynicism and irreverence is embraced, and I love that. I love being able to look at my own church and say "I go there, but on this issue they are acting like a bunch of tools", or "wow, rejection of known scientific principles, what a bunch of dolts." In the red states, this doesn't fly...people are so serious about this crap that it's kinda freaky. They never see the humor in some aspects of life. Also, we blue staters (at least in the Northeast and upper midwest) tend to screw around with each other a lot, call each other stupid names, make fun of each other, etc. I tried that on some people in Kansas (red state) and got wierd looks. The rapport is not the same. I miss home sometimes.
Red Staters take **** so personally and are so serious. I want to scream out "It's just life! Take it in stride now because you will be dead someday and then this stuff won't be as funny."
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.
