- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why do Marxists resist being called Marxists?
Posted on 8/19/19 at 9:46 am to WildTchoupitoulas
Posted on 8/19/19 at 9:46 am to WildTchoupitoulas
Marxists believe in what’s best for the “group.” As a results, some individuals have to sacrifice (or be sacrificed as is ultimately what happens in Marxist societies) for the good of the group. Sometimes the sacrifice is of one individual’s property in favor the group. Sometimes it’s the sacrifice of one person’s rights in favor of the group. Sometimes it’s the sacrifice of one person’s life in favor of group.
There’s no difference between classifying the haves and the have nots; the philistines and the plebeians; or the workers and the bourgeoisie; or caste systems based on skin tone. It’s all classifying groups, and making individual rights subservient to the group.
frick that ideology.
It’s inhuman and unworkable. It ignores that each of us has different wants, needs, desires, talents and shortcomings. It’s a cancer on a free society. It is fundamentally anti American
There’s no difference between classifying the haves and the have nots; the philistines and the plebeians; or the workers and the bourgeoisie; or caste systems based on skin tone. It’s all classifying groups, and making individual rights subservient to the group.
frick that ideology.
It’s inhuman and unworkable. It ignores that each of us has different wants, needs, desires, talents and shortcomings. It’s a cancer on a free society. It is fundamentally anti American
1
Posted on 8/19/19 at 9:50 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I don't see how you could make racial distinctions under those conditions.
I'm not trying to say that the racial aspect of progressive politics is Marxist. Maybe I've made that too unclear. I'm saying that is the same tactic that marxism uses on class and replacing that with race instead. It is just another attempt at rebranding power hierarchies to fit a narrative that attempts to clawback power from the rich and powerful and redistribute their property to the victims of that power hierarchy. That where I see the relationship.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 9:53 am to Wednesday
quote:
Why do Marxists resist being called Marxists?
The same reason 19th century socialists in America started calling themselves “progressives” and later “liberals”. Because they know if people know they’re really Marxists they’ll never get anywhere when it comes to their Communist agenda.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 10:03 am to wutangfinancial
quote:DPOTD
Any philosophy that pins people against each other by race or class is a marxist IMO but that apparently isn't technically correct to the "intellectual" crowd.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 10:05 am to Wednesday
Whenever a national American politician says that the state should own all of the tech and manufacturing companies, and that the state should own WalMart and Amazon, and that the state should control all media, then we can get into a discussion of how thinly we can divide different philosophical origins and ideas. Until then, America is a capitalistic country and no one is suggesting that it should be otherwise.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 10:10 am to Wednesday
I’ve known many Marxists. The people you’re talking about aren’t Marxists. Not every person who is liberal is a Marxist.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 10:10 am to Wednesday
quote:I tend to think of Marxism as old Karl’s THEORIES as to HOW and WHY certain things have happened and will happen in the future ... for example, the notion that human social order has progressed (and will continue to progress) inexorably through certain “stages” ... anarchy to tribalism to feudalism to monarchy to capitalism to socialism to communism.
What is the definition of Marxism?
How is it distinguishable from Socialism?
By contrast, I see capitalism, socialism or communism as ideologies as to how society SHOULD be ordered. A socialist might not have any desire to “progress” to communism, just as a democratic socialist might have no desire to “progress” to full-blown socialism.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 10:10 am to TBoy
quote:
Until then, America is a capitalistic country and no one is suggesting that it should be otherwise.
Except the Jihad Squad, Bernie Sanders, Heels Up Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and several other Democrat Candidates for office who are trying to become president by advocating that the entire Medical Industry (every doctor, nurse, hospital, clinic, and aspirin) should be paid by the government, and our entire food supply and energy supply should be controlled by the government.
But you’re right. Other than that. Nobody really is advocating for socialism.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 10:12 am to AggieHank86
Marxism is a collection of Karl’s theories. About how government should be run.
Shame these theories never fricking work when put into practice.
Shame these theories never fricking work when put into practice.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 10:16 am to wutangfinancial
quote:
attempts to clawback power from the rich and powerful and redistribute their property to the victims of that power hierarchy.
This is not unique to Marxism. Any system whereby the majority view the extent of concentration of wealth is to the detriment of society as a whole can be prone to redistribution. The French Revolution was not based in Marxist ideology, it was simply that enough people found that the wealth was for too concentrated to be for the overall benefit to society as a whole. That's just human nature and what is deemed "fair" by cultures.
The US had its own economic revolution in the early 20th century when the masses felt that the wealth generated by their labor wasn't being made available to the benefit of society in general. This effort was largely led by Republican Progressives. The "Progressive" label was commandeered by Wilson and the Democrats when there was a rift in the Republican Party regarding the redistribution of wealth (generally speaking), with the Progressives for it, and the conservatives against it.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 10:18 am to Wednesday
quote:
But you’re right. Other than that. Nobody really is advocating for socialism.
I understand the goal of this discussion is to reach a typical Poli Board conclusion that everyone who is not a Trump supporter is a Marxist, or something close to that. But it is really a tired fiction. No one is advocating for a communist America, despite the right wing saying it for, what, a hundred years now? It was bull then and it is bull now.
As for the issue of access to medical care, there is a compelling policy argument that allowing health care to be rationed by for-profit insurance companies results in inadequate care for the population in exchange for exorbitant profits of those private actors who control the insurance market. Many (actually most) western governments have concluded that the private control of health care access in this manner is detrimental to the public health. I am one who agrees with that.
There is a legitimate discussion here. The balance is public health versus private control of access through the insurance market.
But that discussion is not advocacy for a communist takeover the economy. Not close. There is a legitimate policy discussion to be had, and valid points on both sides.
You would have a hard time properly characterizing every western nation with a national health system as a communist country or a Marxist nation. By that definition, Marxism would be ruling the world. But that is simply untrue.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 10:20 am to Wednesday
quote:
Socialist is just a specific striation or Marxist.
quote:that's embarrassingly stupid. socialism is not a subform of Marxism. It's the other way around. Karl Marx wanted to destroy capitalism and "dethrone God". Socialism has existed at least 2 thousand years longer than Karl Marx. Have you read the book of Acts?
2) Does anyone know why actual socialists think socialism isn’t a form of Marxism?
Maybe God. Leftists are just stupid.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 10:30 am to Wednesday
quote:
frick that ideology.
frick ALL ideology.
I don't believe government by any pure ideology would last. A system of government deriving its powers from the consent of the governed should be flexible enough to make the compromises required to represent the varied interests of the governed, and thereby provide the greatest good to the greatest number. Indeed, I think it's inevitable.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 10:34 am to xiv
Leftists aren’t liberal. I’d never refer to a leftist as a liberal. It’s the biggest misnomer, and yet another example of leftists attempting to co-opt the English Language into shite that sounds good, so that people don’t realize the really, really bad idea their euphemism, or new PR campaign is trying to cover up.
Calling Marxism by another name, doesn’t make it a good idea. And will never make it so.
Calling Marxism by another name, doesn’t make it a good idea. And will never make it so.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 10:36 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
This is not unique to Marxism
Probably important to point this out. I have never thought of it like that. The French Revolution and the U.S. Revolution were rooted in the rights of individuals not collectivism but the end goal was to seize power from the wealthy, I guess. In my opinion this just makes it obvious that progressives have gone full circle in their philosophy. They used to be champions of individualism but they have shifted to collectivism (intersectionality).
Posted on 8/19/19 at 10:38 am to Wednesday
quote:That’s kinda what you’re doing, though. You’re trying to expand the reach of the term to demonize everything left of you. Marxists are far more radical than what you’re describing. Do you not know any?
Calling Marxism by another name, doesn’t make it a good idea. And will never make it so.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 10:46 am to Wednesday
“Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink”
PJ O’Rourke
PJ O’Rourke
Posted on 8/19/19 at 10:47 am to xiv
quote:
That’s kinda what you’re doing, though. You’re trying to expand the reach of the term to demonize everything left of you. Marxists are far more radical than what you’re describing. Do you not know any?
You are partially right in saying this. When you listen to progressives talk about what they want to do to "transform" the economy, that reeks of socialism. Their ideas typically lead to them being labeled "socialists." In practice however, we have means to limit those ideas when implemented through legislation or policy. Take for example the ACA. This is not a socialist policy technically, however coercing an entire industry to change their business practices is a workaround to seizing means of production. Changing a business model through government coercion is seizing the entrepeneurship in the business which is a means of production. Just like confiscatory taxation is seizing capital from the business.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 10:57 am to Wednesday
Soave explains it in his book. Leftists have two languages. The one they use among themselves and the ones they use out in the general public. They are proud to display their knowledge of Marxism and why it's coming while talking to other leftists.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 11:19 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
A system of government deriving its powers from the consent of the governed should be flexible enough to make the compromises required to represent the varied interests of the governed, and thereby provide the greatest good to the greatest number. Indeed, I think it's inevitable.
This is precisely why ideology IS important in society.
I believe that I cannot confer rights to someone that I do not posses. Therefore, I can't give government my consent to steal from you. At what number of individuals does that principle magically change?
But, because most Americans don't have that ideology, we now have this insane behemoth of a government because of "compromises to represent the varied interests of the governed".
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News