American Marxism

[henry quirk]

You could add it would be impossible for you to own any personal property at all.

Yep. Life, liberty, property: the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two.

[Gary Childress]

To Marx, then.

I'm curious: which explanation from the Marx apologists are we to believe?

Is it a) "There never has been genuine Marxism in history,"

is it b) "There has been, but all it does is impoverish and kill people"?

If it's a) then obviously the question is, "Why hasn't there been," closely followed by, "If there hasn't ever been, how do you know there ever could be, or is Marxism just a permanently utopian delusion," followed by, "What makes YOU a better understander of Marx than the entire combined populations of Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, North Korea, Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany...etc.?"

If it's b) then the obvious question is, "Why on Earth would we ever want a repeat of that?"

I think some maintain that things like socialism and communism are ideals, the same as democracy is an ideal.

But democracy is at least a partially-attainable ideal, one that has been at least produced in imperfect forms around the world.

Marxism, by contrast, is said by its proponents never to have existed in any representative form at all. That fact has to be explained, since so many millions of people have manifestly tried to produce it, over a period of 150 years and across widely diverse human cultures, and have, according to the Marxist apologists, never managed to get any "real" Marxism at all out of the effort.

However, if we take the other view of Marxism, and if we give it the same view we take of democracy -- that is has been tried, at least in partially-attainable forms -- then every single such example has resulted in economic collapse and piles of corpses. That, too, requires an explanation.

We must conclude from the history of Marxism, that either it is Impossible or it's homicidal and disastrous. Which view would you prefer, Gary?

As for me, I believe it's fair to say it's both: it's been tried and proved impossible in any ideal form, and all the failed forms kill people and destroy economies. That's what the data proves.

So again I return to the obvious question: why on earth would we try THAT again?

When you say "marxism" are you referring specifically to something(s) that Marx believed or stated or are you referring to communism or socialism in general? Or what exactly are you calling "marxism"?

What do you think the world would be like without the contributions ofpeople like Marx to the plight of the working class of his day? Do you think things would be better or worse had people not expressed opposition to what was happening in the sweat shops and coal mines, etc?

[Immanuel Can]

So again I return to the obvious question: why on earth would we try THAT again?

When you say "marxism" are you referring specifically to something(s) that Marx believed or stated or are you referring to communism or socialism in general? Or what exactly are you calling "marxism"?

All of the above. There have been many attempts to apply Marx...some went under the banner "Communist" and some "Socialist," some "Soviet" or "collectivist," and some, other things, such as "racial equity" or "social justice" or CRT. The name keeps changing because people need to disown the horribly legacy of the previous failures, so they can once again claim that their "project" is free from that history.

Of course, it never is, and always ends up with the same results.

What do you think the world would be like without the contributions ofpeople like Marx to the plight of the working class of his day?

A lot more of them would be alive, and more of them would have wealth. That's easy.

Do you think things would be better or worse had people not expressed opposition to what was happening in the sweat shops and coal mines, etc?

Opposition to those things is good. But when it came, it didn't come from Marxism -- which, I am told, has never existed anywhere -- but rather, if you look into it, you'll find that classical liberals reformed such institutions as mental hospitals, addiction facilities, sweat shops, workhouses, public education, health care, poor relief, and a host of other things that were of immense benefit to the "lower classes." Unfortunately for Marxists, an overwhelming and alarming percentage of them were Christians and Jews, not Marxists.

But I'm still curious, Gary: do you think Marxism has ever existed anywhere, or do you believe that all the millions of people who claimed they were following Marx were simply wrong, and Marxism has never existed anywhere? Which way do you want to tell the story?

[mickthinks]

You still here, Manny?

The American right has been screaming "The Socialists are coming!" ever since the Southern Oligarchs' (aka White Supremacists') failed insurrection and the federal government imposed Reconstruction (aka Black Lives Matter 1.0) on them.

Throw off the old Klansman's blinkers that Levin and his ilk peddled to you and you'll see things more clearly.

[promethean75]

Uh oh, you better watch out. It's the great replacement.

https://youtu.be/VUbxVfSqtt8

[promethean75]

Inflation need not necessarily occur due to the effects on economy by the inconveniences of a pandemic. Disrupted supply chains and delays in shipping, for example, only become a problem when the prices of commodities are raised by the capitalist class, essentially transferring the loss of profits onto the worker and consumer. He doesn't make less because you will pay more. You take the loss, not him. All the while he's done nothing in the chain of production but yell at workers to work faster. And yet everywhere I see people blaming the pandemic - which they are even calling a 'hoax', after six million people have died in two years - for the current inflation.

But if this irony isn't enough, they call the governments, who they think are conspiring, 'communist', when they are anything but.

It truly is astonishing to me how dumb these people are.

[promethean75]

What the hell is Sam Witwickey doing with Fidel and Che? This isn't a Transformers set, is it?

rsz_1rsz__methode_times_prod_web_bin_133833aa-9ed7-11eb-8da6-6f8eecc82ac3.jpg (29.44 KiB) Viewed 1037 times

[Immanuel Can]

You still here, Manny?

I wasn't...but I am now.

The American right has been screaming "The Socialists are coming!" ever since the Southern Oligarchs' (aka White Supremacists') failed insurrection and the federal government imposed Reconstruction (aka Black Lives Matter 1.0) on them.

The Southern Oligarchs of the pre-war period were indeed white supremacists...and to a man, Democrats, too. So were all the slave owners, all the founders and most of the charter members of the KKK, and all the governors who opposed Desegregation and turned the firehoses and dogs on the Freedom Marchers -- all of them were Democrats.

As for the Socialists, they're not "coming"; they're here. They came back, essentially, with the Frankfurt School, and they've been at their dirty games ever since. As for BLM, Patrisse Cullors and her crew of embezzlers and frauds, the founders, pride themselves on being "trained Marxists"(their term).

But here, I'm not telling you anything you can't find out from any basic history text. So check it out.

[Immanuel Can]

You still here, Manny?

Hey, let me put the question to you that I was putting to others:

Has Marxism (or "real Communism" or "real Socialism," you choose the term you want) ever existed?

If it has, where's the example or model you accept?

[Gary Childress]

You still here, Manny?

Hey, let me put the question to you that I was putting to others:

Has Marxism (or "real Communism" or "real Socialism," you choose the term you want) ever existed?

If it has, where's the example or model you accept?

I don't know the answer to that question, only what I've heard others say. Personally, I still think it's probably a bit like asking whether a "real democracy" has ever existed. I mean, we've had representative democracies or societies that have come close to real democracy to various degrees but not everyone votes in elections, and not every issue is put up to a vote by the people, rather representatives are elected to do the voting on issues for us, once they're elected. By the same token, I suppose there have been societies that have practiced socialism to various extents. I think all the most advanced societies in Europe and the US practice socialism to some extent. I mean, I think taxing the wealthy in order to install some social programs for the poor is essentially socialism to a degree. Social security for the elderly is another largely socialist program. I don't imagine anyone would call such things "capitalist". But I don't know for sure.


¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Immanuel Can]

You still here, Manny?

Hey, let me put the question to you that I was putting to others:

Has Marxism (or "real Communism" or "real Socialism," you choose the term you want) ever existed?

If it has, where's the example or model you accept?

I don't know the answer to that question, only what I've heard others say. Personally, I still think it's probably a bit like asking whether a "real democracy" has ever existed.

I don't think it is, Gary. After all, "democracy" is just a procedural description. There are many kinds, and none have a specific teleology. By contrast, Marxism is a fully formed utopian political ideology, with not merely procedural suggestions, like democracy, but with a definite teleology, definite promises about what it will achieve. Any democratic person is going to say that democracy in various forms has been "tried." But Marxists' claim is that Marxism -- real Marxism, they say -- has NEVER been tried. Not anywhere. Not anytime.

But let's suppose that Marxism is only procedural, like democracy. Then we might ask, where has the Marxist "procedure" been tried? Is there any country in the history of the world where a reasonable attempt at Marxism has been made?

[Gary Childress]

Hey, let me put the question to you that I was putting to others:

Has Marxism (or "real Communism" or "real Socialism," you choose the term you want) ever existed?

If it has, where's the example or model you accept?

I don't know the answer to that question, only what I've heard others say. Personally, I still think it's probably a bit like asking whether a "real democracy" has ever existed.

I don't think it is, Gary. After all, "democracy" is just a procedural description. There are many kinds, and none have a specific teleology. By contrast, Marxism is a fully formed utopian political ideology, with not merely procedural suggestions, like democracy, but with a definite teleology, definite promises about what it will achieve. Any democratic person is going to say that democracy in various forms has been "tried." But Marxists' claim is that Marxism -- real Marxism, they say -- has NEVER been tried. Not anywhere. Not anytime.

But let's suppose that Marxism is only procedural, like democracy. Then we might ask, where has the Marxist "procedure" been tried? Is there any country in the history of the world where a reasonable attempt at Marxism has been made?

I know, I know. You're "anti-commie" and that's as far as your thinking process goes. It doesn't appear you even read that last part of my post. Not sure why anyone should waste their time trying to talk to a bigot, but I guess I have nothing better to do.

[Gary Childress]

Hey, let me put the question to you that I was putting to others:

Has Marxism (or "real Communism" or "real Socialism," you choose the term you want) ever existed?

If it has, where's the example or model you accept?

I don't know the answer to that question, only what I've heard others say. Personally, I still think it's probably a bit like asking whether a "real democracy" has ever existed.

I don't think it is, Gary. After all, "democracy" is just a procedural description. There are many kinds, and none have a specific teleology. By contrast, Marxism is a fully formed utopian political ideology, with not merely procedural suggestions, like democracy, but with a definite teleology, definite promises about what it will achieve. Any democratic person is going to say that democracy in various forms has been "tried." But Marxists' claim is that Marxism -- real Marxism, they say -- has NEVER been tried. Not anywhere. Not anytime.

But let's suppose that Marxism is only procedural, like democracy. Then we might ask, where has the Marxist "procedure" been tried? Is there any country in the history of the world where a reasonable attempt at Marxism has been made?

Democracy means giving the people the power to rule over their own lives. Democracy is not "just a procedural description." A procedure is something like putting votes in a ballot box to determine what people want. That's not the essence of democracy. That is a WAY of administering things that is "democratic" to whatever degree. But, no, democracy isn't just a procedure.

[Immanuel Can]

I know, I know. You're "anti-commie" and that's as far as your thinking process goes. It doesn't appear you even read that last part of my post. Not sure why anyone should waste their time trying to talk to a bigot, but I guess I have nothing better to do.

Now, now, Gary...play nice. I think I treat you pretty well...we may disagree sometimes, and sometimes not, but I don't insult you, do I?

I have good reasons for opposing Marxism. Anybody would. It's quite literally, and by orders of magnitude, the most lethal creed the human race has ever known. That is, if we count numbers of bodies. And it's utterly ruined every economy where it's been tried, causing untold additional misery. So for anybody that likes human beings, and wants them to stay free, alive and prosperous, Marxism is the opposite of that.

So that's a pretty good reason, don't you think?

[Gary Childress]

By contrast, Marxism is a fully formed utopian political ideology, with not merely procedural suggestions, like democracy, but with a definite teleology, definite promises about what it will achieve. Any democratic person is going to say that democracy in various forms has been "tried." But Marxists' claim is that Marxism -- real Marxism, they say -- has NEVER been tried. Not anywhere. Not anytime.

But let's suppose that Marxism is only procedural, like democracy. Then we might ask, where has the Marxist "procedure" been tried? Is there any country in the history of the world where a reasonable attempt at Marxism has been made?

"Marxism" has little more nor less been "tried" than democracy has or hasn't been "tried". I don't know what it means for someone to ask whether "real Marxism" has ever existed or ever been "tried" any more than for someone to ask if "real democracy" has ever existed or been tried. What is accomplished by posing such a dilemma of "either it's existed/been tried or it hasn't." It's like asking if goodness has ever existed or been tried. It really doesn't matter one way or the other whether an ideal has been tried or not. It's still an ideal one works toward regardless of how close or not one comes to perfection.