The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Paul Gottfried ArchiveBlogview
The Death of Marxism Revisited

About ten years ago I published a book, The Strange Death of Marxism, which argued strenuously that the present Left is not Marxist, but post-Marxist. Unlike traditional Marxists and European democratic socialists, the type of Left that has gained ground since and even before the fall of the Soviet Empire is culturally radical but only secondarily interested in economic change. Our present Left makes its peace with private enterprise and even large corporations, providing it can impose its idea of social and cultural transformation on increasingly powerless citizens and their increasingly indoctrinated children. Not that this Left is particularly friendly to anything that is private, including economic transactions. But it treats the economy as something that it can influence without having to nationalize, thereby avoiding those disastrous policies that socialist governments of the past tried to enact. Our own master class has sensibly concluded that it’s better to allow market forces to operate while making sure that public administration can dip, when it advances a pretext, into the profits. Further, the master class endlessly bullies the public into going along with increasingly complicated behavioral guidelines, supposedly intended to fight “discrimination.” It is the culture and only instrumentally the government that the post-Marxist Left seeks to dominate; and the type of administrative state that has expanded explosively in every Western country since the 1960s is an effective instrument by which social engineers and sensitivity commissars can do their work.

Although I haven’t change my view about how the Left has transformed itself since I wrote my book, it does seem that in some ways there’s been more continuity between the old and the new Lefts than I once suggested. Old-time Marxists here and in Europe became multiculturalists almost overnight, while our current leftists still admire Communists of the past (like Castro) and associate anti-Communists with fascism. Moreover, as I’ve watched the organized anti-Trump hysteria that is gripping our grievance-crowds, soi-disant entertainment industries, and unhinged media, it is obvious that the PC-multicultural Left is following the older, more cerebral Marxist Left in three critical respects.

  1. Like the Communists and also like the Italian Fascists, the multicultural Left never sees itself as occupying positions of authority and or being able to force the unwilling to comply with its demands. As the Left understands its situation, it is always struggling to take power. Also when it seems to be on the verge of getting somewhere (as in Obama’s America), it is still in danger of being crushed by hostile forces. Just as the Left once contended that no socialist revolution had ever been fully carried out and that Communist countries were still “on the way to becoming socialist,” so too are today’s PC regimes, as viewed by their advocates, only tentative first steps toward overcoming the past. They are first steps on the long march to power; and even these steps became threatened when Hillary Clinton failed to win the presidency.
  2. There is no way that the Left can retreat from what it has achieved in transforming society without the entire edifice of change being imperiled. This corresponds to Trotsky’s formula that if the revolution is made to retreat from stage D to stage C, then the entire march toward the new society could be reversed. Therefore the march out of the gloomy repressive past must be continued unconditionally, and any retreat from it is tantamount to counterrevolution — or in the leftist fear-mongering phrase, having women forced to have abortions in back alleys, re-imposing racial segregation, and jailing homosexuals. This kind of thinking makes perfectly good sense, if one begins with the assumption that one is in an “all or nothing” situation. It also doesn’t matter that President Obama stopped flights to the U.S. from Iraq in 2011 or that Bill Clinton spoke in a State of the Union address in 1994 about stopping the presence of illegals in the U.S. Nor should we notice that Donald Trump’s predecessor opposed gay marriage at the time he was elected to the presidency. It is our duty to protect whatever revolution is underway in its most advanced state. Any retreat from the present into the past, even the recent past, should be seen as an attempt to undo every bit of Progress that’s been gained until now.
  3. Anyone who threatens the still fragile, reversible process of change must be dehumanized. There can be no honest disagreements with those who either by design or because of dangerous ignorance are working against “hope and change.” One is therefore justified in condemning these reactionaries as the lowliest and most malevolent of beings. Like the Communists, the current Left, particularly in Western Europe, characterizes its opponents as “fascists.” Note that for the old Left, “fascism” had a quasi-scientific meaning. It referred to the defenders of a form of late capitalism, which had already reached a point of mortal crisis. “Fascists” repressed socialist revolution by creating right-wing nationalist dictatorships. In the process phony “fascist” revolutionaries drove real leftist revolutionaries underground.

For the multicultural Left, by contrast, the once meaningful Marxist term “fascist” has been reduced to a smear. It now signifies those the Left is combatting, that is, those who disagree with all or some aspect of the Left’s social agenda. Those who oppose this agenda may or perhaps should be attacked as Nazis and even Holocaust-deniers (which an acquaintance of mine recently called me for voting for Donald Trump). If the people under attack don’t deny Nazi crimes explicitly, their view of “social justice” is so hopelessly negative that presumably they would have enthusiastically endorsed Hitler. What else should one think of someone who is trying to push us back into the Dark Ages, perhaps as far back as 2008?

(Reprinted from American Thinker by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Cultural Marxism, Donald Trump, Marxism 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. Excellent analysis of the multicultural Left’s psychological underpinnings. Well done.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/pgottfried/the-death-of-marxism-revisited/#comment-1761050
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. What you call “the multicultural Left” is not left at all. It is, in fact an anti-left ideology, openly supporting a hierarchical society. The purpose is to split the lower orders into multiple ‘identity’ groups, hating and constantly fighting each other. This makes them easily manageable. Women should hate men, persons with darker skin should have grievances against their pale-skin neighbors, etc. While the guy in the penthouse is looking down at them all, having a good laugh…

    • Agree: utu, Thirdeye, sayless
    • Replies: @Lord of Wombats
    The only leftism that will work is on the national basis.

    The masses unite if they are homogeneous. Then, they can effectively make demands on the elites who are expected to represent and serve the people. But elites need not serve the peopleS since many peoples fail to unite.
    , @Thirdeye
    The identity politics "left" really resembles a fascist movement. It is about extracting perceived debts based on hereditary grievances. Its venom is directed at the working class. It is against free expression of ideas. It attempts to silence honest debate with smears that resemble something out of the McCarthy era. It uses violence to suppress free speech. It has aligned itself with imperialism.
  3. Agree. The Left-Right political axis must have been forgotten long ago. It does not make any sense.

  4. “Note that for the old Left, ‘fascism’ had a quasi-scientific meaning. It referred to the defenders of a form of late capitalism, which had already reached a point of mortal crisis. ‘Fascists’ repressed socialist revolution by creating right-wing nationalist dictatorships. In the process phony ‘fascist’ revolutionaries drove real leftist revolutionaries underground.”

    Marxism/Communism is like a one-way road or one-track rail system. You can only drive one way in the correct direction. Or the train you’re on can only move in one direction. Forward and Onward. Don’t Look Back.

    In contrast, Reaction is like a one-way road that leads in the opposition direction. It goes in the other direction, and in the other direction only.

    Fascism is like a two-way road system. One road takes you away from home, the other road takes you to home. It offers the option of both paths. Sometimes, you want to move away from home, the comfort the zone, the tradition, the status quo. You want to try new things and see what’s out there. Without this option, home feels like prison.
    But there are times when you want return home or go back to whence you came to retrieve what you may have forgotten or lost.
    Fascism believes that a radical revolution that is too sure of the Future is a fool’s dream. And though there was much that was wrong in the past, it is also full of treasures and meanings, and we need to go back sometimes and re-learn the old or timeless lessons.

    Communist movements that tried to wipe out the past and begin anew were bound to fail. They were too arrogant. What became of China when Mao’s Cultural Revolution waged war on all that was old and traditional?
    In contrast, Ataturk managed to adopt modernity and enforce change without waging wholesale murderous war on culture, tradition, and the past.

    But, the problem isn’t only with the so-called ‘left’.
    We need to be wary of radical capitalism that bred globalism that has turned out to be a far worse enemy of all that is traditional, conservative, and rooted. Communism sometimes turned crazy and murderous, but it was at least driven by humanist values. It was about moral duty of man to man. And this serious and sincere moral element maintained some degree of conservatism in communism.

    In contrast, the globalist-capitalism’s idea of ‘leftism’ is narcissist, nihilist, vain, self-aggrandizing, indulgent, and wallows in piggishness. Given its mania of egotism, its notion of ‘equality’ makes no sense. It’s a movement that praises someone like madonna who made her many millions by acting the wanton whore.

    On the other hand, that’s why current so-called ‘leftism’ won’t ever gain the power of communism. It’s too silly. A movement made up of Lena Dunhams, Bruce Caitlyn Jenners, Miley Cyruses, and Pussy Hatters won’t amount to a plate of beans.
    Antifa is more violent and aggressive, but their core ideology is pop-anarchism, mostly as punk fetish. They are too self-indulgent and immature — like skinheads — to formulate a coherent and cogent ideology. It’s all about the noise and hysteria.

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    But, the problem isn’t only with the so-called ‘left’. We need to be wary of radical capitalism that bred globalism that has turned out to be a far worse enemy of all that is traditional, conservative, and rooted. Communism sometimes turned crazy and murderous, but it was at least driven by humanist values. It was about moral duty of man to man. And this serious and sincere moral element maintained some degree of conservatism in communism.
     
    Could not agree more. It was radical capitalism that gave rise to globalization (the 'new world order'), which is destroying our countries, cultures and ways of life. The so-called New Left has been very helpful to the capitalists by constantly denigrating nationalism and patriotism as 'fascism'.
  5. I think we should make a distinction between the Syndicalists and Cynicalists.

    In the end, Syndicalists turn into Cynicalists if they win. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    Or Cynicalists attach themselves to every movement. They either ride it to victory and manipulate it OR they appropriate it to control it for their own interests.

    Take BLM. We know that Jewish elites don’t like black violence and thuggery. We know that they know the REAL problem with blacks is aggression, crime, and lunacy.
    BUT, Jewish elites still see white gentiles as their main rivals for power, and therefore, Jews seek to paralyze white pride and unity. This is done by ‘guilt-baiting’ whites about Jimmy Crow and Slavery. And so, Jews maintain the fiction that blacks are still oppressed by ‘racist whites’. And that is why Jews supported BLM even though, deep down inside, Jews know that black violence is the #1 threat to cities, the foundation of Jewish power. So, much of Jewish ‘leftism’ is really Cynicalist.

    There was once a time when many Jews were in the working class or even worse. Plenty of Eastern European Jews living under the Russian yoke were desperately poor, not least due to high birthrates. And even many Jewish merchants were peddlers and others who were just eking out a living. Back then, we can understand why a bunch of Jews were genuinely into Marxism, anarcho-syndicalism, and etc.

    But today, the last thing that Jews want is a bunch of angry mobs with class consciousness taking from the rich to give to the poor. The rich would be the Jews.
    So, much of Jewish ‘leftism’ has turned Cynical-ist.

    ‘Leftism’ is a broad category, and it can be just about anything depending on who gets to write its codes. Calling something ‘leftist’ is like calling something a search engine. Who gets to write algorithm for the software? Google writes its in a way that favors certain sites over others. Surely, search engines work differently China. Try looking up anything about Tiananmen Incident there.

    To be sure, one could argue that ‘leftism’ is broadly about equality and universalism. But there are so many ways to define ‘equality’ and ‘universalism’.
    When Vietnamese fought to drive out foreigners and create a homogeneous national state, that was called ‘leftism’. In that case, leftism was nativist and anti-invasivist.
    But in the case of France, we have a ‘leftism’ that calls for invasivism and displacement of native folks.

    Is ‘multi-culturalism’ leftist? Some may say so, but others would argue it is ‘rightist’ because, for example, it allows Muslims in Europe to maintain their reactionary and arch-traditional value systems and habits. Indeed, we often have the so-called Right in Europe making the ‘leftist’-seeming argument that Islam must be banned because it is too reactionary and ‘tribalist’.

    And just how did Jewish ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’ make peace with Zionism that is fiercely nationalist and tribalist?

    We need a fascist theory of politics and history because, all said and done, it’s really about the Power, especially among the intelligent. While dummies may earnestly and stupidly believe what’s been crammed into their heads, People of Intelligence are too smart to fall for all the highfalutin politico-babble. Rather, they manipulate such rhetoric to gain power. It’s like Stalin really knew that all the official rhetoric was a cynical ploy to concentrate all the power in his hands. And Mao knew that the Cultural Revolution was a power struggle between himself and his perceived rivals. It was the dummies, the Red Guards, who swallowed the rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. And when they got out of hand, Mao decided to come up with a new idea and send them to the countryside where they couldn’t make so much trouble.

    Recently, look how all those Jewish ‘progressives’ pretend to care about all those ‘refugees’ as they invoke the Statue of Liberty. But they’d been utterly silent when Obama, at the behest of Zionists, pushed a foreign policy that turned Middle East into a hellhole and reduced people into refugees. So, ‘leftism’ depends on partisanism and who-gets-to-control-the-contextual-narrative. Jewish progs leave out the stuff about Obama’s wars and focus ONLY on sympathy for those ‘poor huddle refugees’. It’s pure Cynicalism.

    Because we don’t have a fascist theoretics of power, we have too many people acting in naive sincere-ist mode. They don’t know that they are a bunch of dupes who are easily swayed this way and that. They don’t know why they are made to feel so righteous and impassioned about certain things than others. There was a time when the Left associated homo culture with capitalist excess and decadence. So, how did the new ‘left’ become so homopathic and homomaniacal? Isn’t it because many of the former leftists got rich and became addicted to wealth and power? This was true esp with Jews. With Jews having so much dough and privilege, why would they feel much affinity with the working class who make Labor troubles that undermine Wall Street and urban rich class? Why not favor the homos who, btw, are also useful for gentrifying cities of them pesky Negroes? So, a bunch of vain, egotistical, narcissistic, self-indulgent, and neo-aristocratic whoopsy-doers became the #1 face of ‘leftism’.
    It was part of the Cynicalism of Power, but so many people fell for it because they are dumb.

    Americans are still naive and easily duped because they begin with ideas, ideals, and rhetoric. They don’t begin with the Power. They aren’t Machiavellians.
    Now, it may be that even the powerful actually believe in the bogus crap that they peddle. Consciously, people can easily dupe themselves… but subconsciously, of course, they are driven by power. Bill Gates acts like Mr. Humanitarian, but how did he amass all that fortune? He was one of the most ruthless and cunning monopoly-capitalists that ever lived, that’s why. And Soros acts like he’s Mr. Progressive, but what really animates and drives him? He loves to play the money game to win. And he supports ‘progressivism’ to weaken and break down national barriers so that his ilk can penetrate markets and manipulate currencies.

    What we need is a magazine called THE POWER. Before it discusses politics, ideologies, rhetoric, and partisan talking points, it would focus on the personality, ethnicity, economics, and mechanics of Power. Its perspective would begin with the notion that people(at least those with talent, vision, and etc) are driven by Will to Power.
    This isn’t to say ideologies and values aren’t important. They do shape, limit, and direct the ways in which power manifests itself. Surely, power flows and grows differently in Saudi Arabia, Cuba, North Korea, South Africa, Brazil, Israel, Germany, and the United States. Given the founding principles of Israel, one is advantaged in power by invoking blood and soil. Given the guilt-ideology of Germany, it is fatal for any politician to invoke blood and soil. Still, whatever the ideologies or societal limits, the fact is all peoples of all nations want the power, and the Power is their main goal than serving some ideology. Anyone who thinks that knaves like Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama, Lindsey Graham, or Paul Ryan are about ideology first and power second is a fool.

    While it’s true that some men of power are more idealistic and more principled than others, they all want the thrill of power. Trump is a strange case because he’s been one of the most cynical businessmen of all time. Yet, he ran a campaign that pissed off both parties, and in office, he’s done things that offended the powers that be that are trying to destroy him. Why would Trump do this?

    Anyway, if we are to understand the psychology of those who have power over us politically, economically, and culturally, we need to probe into the part of the brain that is power-obsessed. Granted, except for gangsters and thugs, people are not ONLY FOR POWER. Power for power sounds too much like prostitution, orgy, or porny stuff. Just like people ideally want to associate sex with love and devotion, people want to associate power with ideals and cause. But the nature of globalism is to pornographize power. Is it any wonder that so much of current political culture is about homo anus and pussy-hats or vagina monologue or pussy riot?

    Sex used to be justified in relation to love and marriage. No longer. It is flaunted and indulged in as pleasure for its own sake.
    We haven’t gone that way with Power yet, at least not fully. But after the End of the Cold War, so much of what has happened has been about naked power grab and indulgence. Consider the Jewish oligarchic looting of Russia. Look at Wall Street predatory behavior and how it got away with bailouts. Look at all those gratuitous wars in the Middle East to serve Israeli supremacism and bankers. Look at the rotten behavior of the Chinese Rich and Russian oligarchs who’d rather invest their money in mega-rich condos in NY or real estate in Canada or California. Look how whore politicians like Trudeau ignores his own countrymen while sucking up to rich oligarchs from China, Gulf States, and etc.

    Power too is turning porny. More and more, as the culture grows shameless, we are seeing power for power’s sake, like in the Ridley Scott movie THE COUNSELOR.

    But unlike sex, naked power is still officially repressed or dressed up in ‘righteous’ feathers, and the globalist elites pretend that they are for justice and sound values. But this charade was blow up in the Hillary campaign. Here she was sucking up to every oligarch from Israel, Saudi Arabia, China, and Wall Street. Here she was being so cozy with the War Machine. Here she was rubbing shoulders with the self-indulgent and piggish celebs of Hollywood and music industry. Yet, she was supposed to be about decency and sound values. Enough Americans woke up and didn’t buy it. What they saw the pornography of power masquerading as morality. The reason why WOLF OF WALL STREET was a big hit was not cuz of its moralism. If anything, it was a porny celebration of power. Oliver Stone’s WALL STREET was plenty sensational too and Gekko became a cool anti-hero to many. Still, there was still a sense of right and wrong, a sense of shame on the part of Sheen character when he gets caught. But in WOLF OF WALL STREET, there is no shame. It’s the game of power all the way.

    Fascist theoretics would make us aware of that because it would probe into the power-psychology of the elites. END OF HISTORY is THE BEGINNING OF PORNOGRAPHY OF POWER.
    Now, fascism is NOT about the indulgence of power for power’s sake. Rather, it is an understanding of what the Power really is and understanding the relations of power among the various classes and between the sexes. Once that is understood, fascism tries to find a most sane, sound, and moral way to coordinate those powers and arrive at a moral unity. For there to be true morality, there has to be an honest understanding of truth.

    Mussolini and esp Hitler did a bad job with this — though they were right about some key things — , but failure doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try again. After all, there were many failures in the space program before a rocket was finally launched into space.

  6. @Mao Cheng Ji
    What you call "the multicultural Left" is not left at all. It is, in fact an anti-left ideology, openly supporting a hierarchical society. The purpose is to split the lower orders into multiple 'identity' groups, hating and constantly fighting each other. This makes them easily manageable. Women should hate men, persons with darker skin should have grievances against their pale-skin neighbors, etc. While the guy in the penthouse is looking down at them all, having a good laugh...

    The only leftism that will work is on the national basis.

    The masses unite if they are homogeneous. Then, they can effectively make demands on the elites who are expected to represent and serve the people. But elites need not serve the peopleS since many peoples fail to unite.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    The masses unite if they are homogeneous.
     
    Even identical twins aren't exactly 'homogeneous'; human beings are all different.

    For sure, some of 'the masses' are men and some are women. Some are right- and some are left-handed, some are taller and some shorter, some slim and some stocky. The possibilities for categorizing, grouping, and turning the 'identity' groups against each other are unlimited.

    According to marxist classics, masses of the working class can unite when they develop class-consciousness. Liberal identity politics serve the purpose of preventing this from happening. Simple as that.
  7. Why is it that Americans have such an unorthodox and distorted view of the “Left” or a “Leftist”?

    American “Democrats” are not Leftist they are center Right Liberals on the “Political compass” while “Republicans” are further to the Right and are more Conservative. [see below]

    Classical leftists only thrived in America during the Depression and were thoroughly purged from America by McCarthyists until 1956 during the “Red Scare” witch hunts. Later The New Left in America emerged during the Civil Rights movement and the Anti Vietnam Protests.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Political_chart.svg/390px-Political_chart.svg.png

    There are no Leftists left in the US, nor for that matter in Europe, they have been extinguished by the Capitalist class and it’s Centrist political parties.

    The Left will rise again when the current capitalist- Liberal paradigm immiserates a sufficient number of people to fight for social justice and economic reform!

    The readers are welcome to visit:

    http://www.votecompass.com/

    and answer a questionnaire to discover their own political orientation.

    • Agree: Mao Cheng Ji
    • Replies: @Simon in London
    The New Left obviously trace their descent from Leftist heresies, notably those born in the aftermath of the First World War/WW1 such as Frankfurt School Marxism. But they also have 19th c Liberal roots, which is where they get the idea that the needs of the One (special snowflake) outweigh the needs of the Many. Whether Liberalism is Left or Right depends on perspective; it emerged in opposition to traditionalist conservatism and monarchism (the original Right); it is opposed by classical Socialism (your Left).
  8. End of History is a Gangster Paradise.

    Gangsterism was institutionalized and industrialized.

    Power was always dirty and low-down. People were always pigs, and the powerful were always exploitative and nasty.

    But the difference is that the element of Shame and Ideals are gone, along with borders and rule of law.

    Francis Fukuyama said ‘liberal democracy’ is the final ideology and value system that all should aspire to. But the problem is ‘liberal democracy’ can mean just about anything. It has no Core Vision or Set of Ideas. Rather, it is a game theory that says democratic political system and capitalist economic system work best. That may well be true, but what would people do with freedom? A liberal-democratic-capitalist ideologue might argue that the Rule of Law and Market Dynamics will ensure individual liberty and equal opportunity for everyone for all eternity.
    But in the end, do people live for ‘liberty’? Isn’t freedom just a means to Power? And isn’t power about gaining control over others?
    Also, do people seek success & power only on the basis of individual ambition? Or do they have wider identities by race, tribe, religion, and/or ethnicity? After all, Mormons do have think in terms of Mormon power and not just individual success.
    Also, what if people who use their freedom to gain great wealth decide to support the kind of ideologues who serve their tribal or ethnic interests. And suppose these ideologues push for selective liberty, the kinds that favor the ruling elites while shutting down everyone else?

    Even in a liberal democracy, most people will believe what they’ve been taught and drummed into their skulls. Their ideological conviction could easily come to trump the ideal of ‘liberal democracy’. (After all, there was hardly any outrage upon the revelation of Edward Snowden.) So, if young ones in a liberal democracy are raised to believe that ‘hate speech’ is wrong, then they will call for censorship, like in the EU and Canada. And even in the US, despite its First Amendment protection, economic and political forces can act in concert to effectively shut down certain voices despite it being a violation of “no discrimination based on CREED”. Young ones think they believe what they believe out of freedom, conscience, and knowledge; they don’t understand that those ideas and views were planted in their minds by the powers-that-be. They fail to understand that stuff like homomania has been formulated to favor elite minority privilege, thereby favoring the power of the globalist elites who are a minority in all nations except their own. Globalists of all color favor elite minority privilege because, on the global scale, every nationality is a minority. Jewish elites are minorities in gentile nations, Chinese elites are minority in non-Chinese nations, Asian-Indians elites are minorities in all non-Hindu nations, Mexican elites are minorities in all non-Mexican nations, and etc. So, for them to play on the global level, they must make the entire world submit to elite minority demands.

    Also, freedom isn’t the same as power. For example, a Palestinian-American and Jewish-American has the same rights of speech and freedom guaranteed by the US Constitution. But Jews control media, politicians, and industries. In contrast, Palestinians don’t have much. So, when powerful Jewish people use their right of speech, it is infinitely more consequential and influential than when powerless Palestinian-Americans use their freedom of speech. Liberal Democracy ensures equality of basic rights, not equality of power and influence.
    So, the groups and individuals who are better at gaining wealth, power, and influence through industry, institutions, and government will have much greater power than everyone else. (And even though liberal democracy is about one-man/one-vote, those who control the media and can afford the ads have the power to sway millions of minds. So, the system is more like one-man-with-million-dollars-sways-million-votes.) Worse, they may then manipulate the rules of ‘liberal democracy’ in gangster-like ways to entrench their power and destroy their enemies. So, today, Jewish-Americans have much greater power over Palestinian-Americans because Jews are better at making money and gaining control of media. But tomorrow, Jews might use their power to pressure politicians to push through laws against ‘antisemitic’ speech, which could be interpreted to include anti-Zionist speech, in which case even the basic right of liberal democracy will be denied to Palestinian-Americans.
    Consider the rise of homo power. In a sane liberal democracy, homos should be tolerated and allowed to do their own thing. But the powers-that-be didn’t end there. They spent massive fortunes and media control to promote homomania as the dominant Culture and the neo-religion of America. They even associated homosexuality with marriage, thereby changing the entire meaning of matrimony. And then, the powers-that-be forced bakeries to make wedding cakes for homo ‘couples’. And the powers-that-be used terms like ‘homophobia’ to create the impression that those who oppose the homo agenda are sick in the head. And then, the powers-that-be hyped and celebrated homo-stuff so much that American sheeple think homo-ness is the happiest and most cheerful thing in the universe.
    In this way, liberal democracy is undermined. It went from guaranteeing tolerance for homos to forcing school-children to accept and praise homosexuality as the New Normal associated with the ‘rainbow’. It ended up destroying businesses that won’t go along with the desecration of marriage by Jewish supremacists in the Supreme Court.

    So, in the end, liberal democracy leads to Gangster Paradise of those who have the power. Also, the cases of EU, Canada, and US have demonstrated that just because people live in a liberal democracy doesn’t mean that they will support the principles of liberal democracy. They can be indoctrinated to be selective in their support of freedom. They will go along with the brand of ‘liberal democracy’ to support that which is deemed ‘correct’ in accordance to the ideas and passions approved by the powers-that-be. So, we have lots of influential people who will say, “I believe in free speech but not hate speech” — of course, they get to decide what is ‘hate’. And we have hardly any condemnation or actions taken to stop the violence against Trump voters who are deemed as ‘nazis’. If anything, the Jewish-controlled media have sent signals that it’s okay to punch and attack people like Richard Spencer. They called for Open Season.

    And in the Muslim World, we saw how liberal democracy heralded by Arab Spring was soon undermined by Islamists who came to power. For the Islamists, democracy and freedom don’t mean guarantees of free speech to criticize Islam or Muhammad. Certain things are sacrosanct and cannot be touched. Islamists may want democracy, but they are willing to sacrifice certain tenets if they offend their sense of righteousness. In this, they are no different from Jews of EU who demand that ‘liberal democracies’ clamp down and silence anyone deemed ‘antisemitic’ or ‘anti-immigrant’. People in Germany have been silenced, fined, or even jailed for uttering views that were regarded as ‘offensive’. This way, patriotic people of Europe cannot even say what is necessary to defend their own nations. Their hands are tied behind their backs.

    Liberal Democracy has become the plaything of globalists since they got all the power, wealth, media control, institutional control, and politicians in their pockets.
    Globalist version of Liberal Democracy is no longer constrained by communism that insisted on the moral imperative of the working class. Communism said the elites must serve the workers and couldn’t just serve themselves. So, even though communist nations were repressive and corrupt, the elites couldn’t just be gangster-gangsters. They had to be morally-justified gangsters with some restraint.

    Nationalism also had a constraining effect on the elites. It said the elites must be representative and responsive to the people of the nation. So, liberal democracy within a nation must serve that nation.

    But globalism that triumphed with the End of History was constrained by nothing. It didn’t have to answer to the proletariat like communism did. It didn’t have to answer to the patriots like nationalism did. Globalism said the elites of the world could just work on the individual or tribal basis to become as rich as possible. And globalism was weak on Rule of Law since different nations have different laws. So, if American businesses wanna override regulatory environmental laws in the US, they could just send their factories to Mexico or China. Rule of Law is effective only within national borders. Across borders, it turns into shambles since different nations have different laws. Of course, globalists call for a set of standards that is to apply across national borders, but they write and rig these laws to maximize their own power, position, and wealth. Look how the erosion of national sovereignty in the EU has led to rise of the elites and the fall of the national masses.

    Is it any wonder that the favored musical form of the globalists is rap music. It’s about Gangster Paradise. If kids are brought up with a culture that glorifies the gangster and thug, then they will be less appalled by such behavior among the globalist rich. If kids are dancing to Jay-Z’s thuggery or some other gangsta paradise trash, why would they be appalled by the gangster-behavior of so many rich folks, celebrities, and politicians? In a way, the rise of Trump owes to this gangster-narrative. He’s been effective at flaunting his prowess as a man of toughness and power. The odd thing is he has signaled against globalism-as-gangsterism-against-the-people. He is a real contradiction.

    Also, consider the rise of casinos. It used to be seen as a decrepit Vice Industry for degenerate gamblers that should be limited to Las Vegas and Atlantic City. But as the West grew more and more shameless and immoral, gambling spread like cancer all over. It was even moralized as the economic savior of depressed communities and those poor Indian-Americans. So, the immoral was made moral, and the globalist gangsters got to rake in more and more for themselves. Gambling was once considered seedy and sleazy, esp. when it was associated with the Italian Mob. It was a sin. But it was turned into a family-place-to-be with excessive advertising and promotion campaign. It goes to show that people can be sold anything. It’s like advertising long ago convinced women that it was ladylike to smoke. Spread images of glamorous women smoking, and people will associate glamour with smoking.

    If Las Vegas was made into a-family-place-to-be, Disney(once an industry for family entertainment) was turned into a whorehouse-for-kids. It spawned the likes of Britney Spears, Christian Agorilla, and Miley Cyrus. Disney would get these ‘wholesome’ kids and start them on whore-lite(which is ‘innocent’ by today’s standards), but they would invariably grow up into total skanks.
    Las Vegas was made ‘family-ish’, and Disney was made ‘porny-ish’.

    And look at the rise of MMA fighting. It used to be that boxing had boxing rules, wrestling had wrestling rules, and other sports had its own rules and limits. But MMA is about using all manner of nasty techniques to destroy the enemy and even ground and pound him when he’s down. And as athletes and celebrities now have tattoos all over, the message is loud and clear that excess, egocentism, and exhibitionism are what life is all about.

    And there is the globalization of both porn and pornification of culture. The internet has made porn global, and that means tons of young girls grow up seeing porn people as just another bunch of ‘cool ‘celebrities. And music culture has stuff like bumping-and-grinding and ‘twerking’ that was ‘invented’ by blacks who are the most uninhibited, savage, and aggressive race on the planet. Even though most blacks lack the brain power and ingenuity to rise to the top(like Jews have done), their cultural influence of gangsta-ism and punkass-ism legitimize globalism’s gangster-paradise-anti-ethos.
    So, even though Mark Zuckerberg and George Soros don’t act like rap music gangstas, their worldview is one of total monopoly, manipulation, and power-hunger.

    Also, globalist gangsterism is protected and promoted by diversionary tactic of making people focus on the wrong things as the source of evil. For instance, consider how the globalist media have so many morons worried that the West is about to be taken over by Nazis, KKK, or ‘fascists’. It is so laughable.
    Imagine a slave-owner who dupes his slaves into thinking that he is a noble protector of them against the Chupacabra monster. Even though HE is the one who is oppressing and exploiting the slaves, his moron minions cling to him for protection and ‘liberty’ from the Chupacabra monster that is supposed to be lurking all over.

    All this stuff about ‘Nazis’, ‘hate’, and ‘fascists’ is very useful for the globalist gangsters since it diverts the gaze of the masses away from the Real Power(held by globalist) and makes them focus on imaginary ‘Nazis’. Indeed, this is the profound stupidity of much of the ‘leftist’ bottomfeeders. Even though the West is really ruled by the financial crooks on Wall Street and degenerate homo-imperialists, they think the real danger comes from ‘nazis’, ‘kkk’, and ‘alt right’(which, as yet, is still a nascent movement, if it can be called a movement. The media promoted the ‘alt right’ in collusion with the Clinton campaign to smear Trump with it. Hillary’s speech on the ‘alt right’ was a giveaway that the media had been making a big stink about the AR for a purpose. Now that their ploy failed with the victory of Trump, the media are now scrambling to crush the Alt Right as fast as possible by having people punch ‘nazis’).

    The End of History is the End of Shame and the Beginning of Nihilism.

    Or, it’s about Inversion of Shame. In the Current Year, defending true marriage from degenerates is shameful while ‘gay marriage’ is ‘pride’. In the Current Year, a woman who opts for love, courtship, and marriage ought to be ashamed while skanks should flaunt their ‘slut pride’.

  9. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    All this talk of ‘white privilege’ misses the point.

    The real story of the world is White PriviLEECH.

    What is White Privileech? It is the non-white privilege of leeching off white talent, white achievement, white success, white rule of law, white ingenuity, white efficiency, white craft, white productivity, white innovation, white beauty, white conscience, white science, white technology, white maintenance, white management, white everything.

    All this immigration and Diversity stuff is about White Privileech. It’s about the non-white world saying they want to leech off white gold because they suck so bad at digging for their own gold. Even people in East Asia, the most successful part of the world after the West, want to come to the West and live with/under whites because they find it preferable to yellow rule and yellow ways of doing things. Yellows find more justice and freedom under whites than under their own kind. And blacks in Africa want to go to EU and leech off white achievements.

    Of course, when we say ‘white’, we really mean Anglo and Northern European. After all, non-white refugees, migrants, and invaders bypass Latin, Greek, and Slavic nations and head for northern European nations like UK, Sweden, Netherlands, and etc. Though it’s colder up there, there are more goodies up there and things are run more efficiently.

    Also, black men want to leech off white female beauty, and yellow women want to leech off white male beauty. Black men find white women superior to black women(who are deemed ugly), and yellow women find white men to be superior to yellow men(who are deemed to be dorky).

    Indeed, Jews love White Privileech because Jews found the greatest success by attaching themselves to the Anglo World. Granted, unlike most other groups, Jews eventually out-performed white gentiles and made a lot of whites dependent on Jewish innovation and ingenuity.
    Still, Jewish Triumph couldn’t have been possible without the Anglo and Northern European world. It was there that Jews found the most freedom, rule of law, opportunity for achievement, and infrastructure & instruments necessary for innovation and elbow space for genius.

    Suppose all the Jewish immigrants had gone to Latin America and lived under Latin rule. They would have faced too much corruption and ineptness all around. This is why Latin American Jews are more successful than others BUT can only rise so high. Latins run a corrupt and inefficient system, and there are too many obstacles for ambition and ingenuity.
    Or, imagine if all the Jews who came to America had instead gone to China or Africa. Chinese wouldn’t have allowed Jews all that freedom to rise to the top. Also, Chinese are very corrupt and have no use for Rule of Law and property rights. Jews could have rise only so high under a system like that.
    And in Africa, Jews would have been too busy running from savages with spears. One African nation where Jews did very well was South Africa and ONLY BECAUSE Anglos and Boers ran things. Apartheid may have been ‘unfair’, but it did allow stability and rule of law at least for whites, and Jews thrived within that stability. But once blacks took over, there’s been less and less order, and many Jews have fled.
    Or consider Zimbabwe. White farms were confiscated and given to blacks, but blacks ran things into the ground. So, Zimbabwe is now begging for whites to come back and run the farms again. Zimbabwe wants to leech off white productive, white efficiency, and white know-how. White Man is the Cow to Milk. Milk the White Cow.

    So, the real story of the world isn’t White Privilege but White Privileech. So many non-whites want to gain the Privilege of Leeching off Whites. They want to come to white nations, live under white rule, be treated by white medicine, be managed by whites, be taught by whites, be impregnated by whites(or impregnate whites), be led by whites, be provided for by whites, and etc.

    So, the paradox of PC is that it’s about non-whites bitching about White Privilege in the hope of leeching off it. Even though Non-whites say they’re just as good as whites, they don’t seem to believe in it with conviction.
    If indeed they really believe themselves to be just as good as whites, they should stay in their own nations and demonstrate that they can achieve just as much as whites do in white nations. But they realize that they cannot do on their own what whites can. (And Latin whites discover they cannot achieve as much as Anglo whites.) So, they want to come to white nations and leech off whitey.
    The fact that they can only have Good White Things by leeching off whites suggests that, on some level, they understand that they are not as good as whites. They fume with rage to hide this repressed shame. In terms of what they SAY, their loud message is “We are just as good as whites”, but in terms of what they actually DO, their actions imply, “We can’t have nice things on our own, and we must go to white nations to have nice things because whites do everything so much better.”

    With PC, they scream about ‘equality’ and denounce ‘white privilege’. But again, if they really believe they are as good, intelligent, and productive as whites, why can’t they replicate in their own nations what whites have done in white nations? Why have they failed over and over? Why is that their ONLY way to have Nice White Thing is to come to white nations and leech off whites?

    Yep, the story of the world is White Privi-LEECH.

  10. @Lord of Wombats
    The only leftism that will work is on the national basis.

    The masses unite if they are homogeneous. Then, they can effectively make demands on the elites who are expected to represent and serve the people. But elites need not serve the peopleS since many peoples fail to unite.

    The masses unite if they are homogeneous.

    Even identical twins aren’t exactly ‘homogeneous’; human beings are all different.

    For sure, some of ‘the masses’ are men and some are women. Some are right- and some are left-handed, some are taller and some shorter, some slim and some stocky. The possibilities for categorizing, grouping, and turning the ‘identity’ groups against each other are unlimited.

    According to marxist classics, masses of the working class can unite when they develop class-consciousness. Liberal identity politics serve the purpose of preventing this from happening. Simple as that.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass

    According to Marxist classics, masses of the working class can unite when they develop class-consciousness. Liberal identity politics serve the purpose of preventing this from happening. Simple as that.
     
    I'm with you Mao. Solidarity does not depend on homogeneity. The identity politics practiced by the coalition of the fringes is specifically intended to keep any real leftist thinking consigned to the political wilderness. Hillary is not some sort of evolved leftist. She openly expresses contempt for the working class. Not the entire working class mind you. Just the white part. See how it works?
  11. @Diogenes
    Why is it that Americans have such an unorthodox and distorted view of the "Left" or a "Leftist"?

    American "Democrats" are not Leftist they are center Right Liberals on the "Political compass" while "Republicans" are further to the Right and are more Conservative. [see below]

    Classical leftists only thrived in America during the Depression and were thoroughly purged from America by McCarthyists until 1956 during the "Red Scare" witch hunts. Later The New Left in America emerged during the Civil Rights movement and the Anti Vietnam Protests.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Political_chart.svg/390px-Political_chart.svg.png

    There are no Leftists left in the US, nor for that matter in Europe, they have been extinguished by the Capitalist class and it's Centrist political parties.

    The Left will rise again when the current capitalist- Liberal paradigm immiserates a sufficient number of people to fight for social justice and economic reform!

    The readers are welcome to visit:

    http://www.votecompass.com/

    and answer a questionnaire to discover their own political orientation.

    The New Left obviously trace their descent from Leftist heresies, notably those born in the aftermath of the First World War/WW1 such as Frankfurt School Marxism. But they also have 19th c Liberal roots, which is where they get the idea that the needs of the One (special snowflake) outweigh the needs of the Many. Whether Liberalism is Left or Right depends on perspective; it emerged in opposition to traditionalist conservatism and monarchism (the original Right); it is opposed by classical Socialism (your Left).

  12. Pt 1 is probably the most important, they always see themselves as the underdog, it’s crucial to their self-image.

  13. @Mao Cheng Ji

    The masses unite if they are homogeneous.
     
    Even identical twins aren't exactly 'homogeneous'; human beings are all different.

    For sure, some of 'the masses' are men and some are women. Some are right- and some are left-handed, some are taller and some shorter, some slim and some stocky. The possibilities for categorizing, grouping, and turning the 'identity' groups against each other are unlimited.

    According to marxist classics, masses of the working class can unite when they develop class-consciousness. Liberal identity politics serve the purpose of preventing this from happening. Simple as that.

    According to Marxist classics, masses of the working class can unite when they develop class-consciousness. Liberal identity politics serve the purpose of preventing this from happening. Simple as that.

    I’m with you Mao. Solidarity does not depend on homogeneity. The identity politics practiced by the coalition of the fringes is specifically intended to keep any real leftist thinking consigned to the political wilderness. Hillary is not some sort of evolved leftist. She openly expresses contempt for the working class. Not the entire working class mind you. Just the white part. See how it works?

    • Replies: @Anon
    Solidarity doesn't depend on homogeneity but it is most persistent and stable under homogeneity. US and USSR had solidarity during WWII but ONLY BECAUSE Nazi Germany was the common enemy. Once Nazis and Japanese were defeated, US and USSR became bitter enemies.

    In the US, the alliance of Jews, blacks, homos, Muslims, Asians, Mexicans, and etc is possible ONLY BECAUSE of Evil White Man trope.
    If white conservatives were to vanish into the thin air, the coalition would start to break down. Or the elites, mostly Jews, will have to find a NEW BAD GUY to keep it together. Jews might say WHITE LIBERALS are now the ones with 'white privilege', and so, Jews and all non-whites must unite against evil white liberals.

    What the white race needs most of all is unity between elites and masses. The GLOB knows that the masses cannot act without leadership. This is why they fear Trump. Trump is a white leader who has decided to represent white interests as part of national interest. He doesn't explicitly favor whites over non-whites, but he doesn't disfavor them either. He sees their interests as just as legit. This is threatening to the GLOB. White masses now have something of a leader. The GLOB wants to sever all ties between white elites and white masses. Ideally, according to the GLOB, white elites should serve Jewish super-elites and represent non-whites over whites. GLOB favors people like Hillary and Jeb(of "illegal immigration is an act of love").

    Some compare Trump with Caesar but his place in current politics is more like Spartacus. Of course, Trump is too compromised to be a true rebel-leader, but the elites what his example implies, inspires, and portends.

    At any rate, the problem is with the focus on class than race among white folks.

    Discussion of Jews and non-whites is on ethnic grounds, not class grounds. We don't talk of rich Jews or poor Jews. We talk of Jews. We don't talk of rich blacks and poor blacks. We talk of blacks. And even though there's a huge difference between rich white Hispanics and poor brown Hispanics, we maintain the fiction that they are one-and-same people. But when it comes to whites, it is taboo to say white folks as a racial group have shared interests. Whites can only have CLASS interests.

    ‘Working class’ implies white workers should be judged by economic utility than racial unity.

    In fact, white people should value white people because they are fellow Europeans, their brethren and sistren. That comes first before any economic consideration.

    After all, even more blacks are economically fallen behind, or useless. But can you imagine a Negro leader saying, “All them Negroes be lazy and shiftless. Gots to replace them with Mexicans who be better for the economy of the hood.” No black leader would talk like this. BUT, William Kristol advises white elites to dump the useless white working class and replace them with foreigners. He is trying to drive a wedge between white elites and white masses.

    Now, this isn’t to minimize the importance of the economy. It is crucial. But any national sense should begin with ethnos. And if YOUR PEOPLE have fallen behind, then you should identify with them, lead them, guide them, and help them. You shouldn’t say, “What useless bunch” and just go for foreigners. A nation is not a factory or a box store. Workers are hired and fired. Your countrymen are fellow citizens.

    Much of Conservatism Inc is about materialism over organicism. A race is an extended family.
    You care about members of your family even if some fail. A decent parent doesn’t say, “You know, my son isn’t smart enough to become a computer programmer and buy me a nice retirement home in Florida. I’ll disown him and adopt some Hindu or Chinese kid to be my new ‘son’, go to Stanford, and buy me good stuff.”

    Do Jews feel this way toward their own kind? Does William Kristol feel about poor Jews or religious Jews, “What a bunch of tards and lowlifes. Look at those useless Jews with funny beards and silly hats. Totally useless as economic units. The hell with them, and I’ll only care about industrious Hindus in Silicon Valley.”
    It seems to me that, even though Jews do work with talents of all races and groups, they also care about fellow Jews for the simple fact that they part of an extended organic and cultural family. So, when all those poor Jews were coming out shtetls and looking very pathetic, Jewish nationalists reached out to them, represented them, fought for them, and led them… like Moses did in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS by DeMille.

    So, even if it’s true that many people in the white working class have fallen behind and turned stupid(and even got dumb ass tattoos), it is the organismic obligation of successful whites to lead them, represent them, inspire them, and identity with them.

    We are racial, historical, and cultural beings before we are economic and material beings.

    Economics is about the mouth and stomach. It’s about consumption. We need to make stuff in order to live. We need to eat and have roof over our heads. We need foods and materials. Sure, economics is important for survival and well-being.

    BUT, we don’t derive meaning from economics. A family is about organic unity. Should a parent abandon his mediocre son to an orphanage and get a rich son? Vito Corleone cared about Fredo too though he wasn’t very bright.
    And should a son reject his parents and pretend to a child of other parents cuz he thinks the other parents are richer and cooler?
    It’s the emotional ties that bind that make a people. And even ideas must serve emotions. Why are we stirred by history? Because it tells the story of our people. And even though we can feel empathy and sympathy for OTHER peoples, what is wrong with feeling more about your own kind. If a Jew is saddened by a book on Nanking Massacre and a book Nazi Killing of Jews BUT is more moved by the latter book, is there something wrong with that? If a Negro is moved by a book about American Indians and a book about Negro slaves but is stirred more about the story of his brothas and sistas, is there something wrong? Emotions define values and ideas, and emotions are about attachment, and it’s natural for people to be most attached to their own families and then to extended family of the race and culture.

    Look at Israel. It is fundamentally an organismic state. Its immigration policy favors Jews with IQ of 100 over Hindus and Chinese with IQ of 130. Organicism trumps economism.
    Now, suppose Israel decided to kick out its mediocre IQ Jews and invite gentiles of IQ of 120 and over. Then, surely its economy would grow bigger. But it would no longer be ethnically and culturally Jewish. Is more wealth worth it to abandon one’s racial and cultural identity and unity?

    Though we need to send food to our stomachs and have roofs over our head, our truer and deeper worth comes from a sense of culture, heritage, lineage, and history. In that sense, the Jewish Bible is worth more than all the material wealth Jews got. It tells them how they came to be, who they are, where they came from.
    After all, if Jews were to keep all their wealth but forget their history and culture, they would just rich people with no sense of identity. They would have no sense of direction.
    But if Jews lost all their wealth but kept their Book and sense of history, they would still be rich in culture, and this would inspire them to rise again. Look at Germany and Japan after WWII. Totally smashed and destitute. But why did they rise again? Because they still had a sense of nation, culture, identity, and history.
    If today’s white working class are sinking lower and lower, it is because the rise of economism and hedonism judges everything by money and celebrity. It says nothing else has any value. Also, Christianity is too vague as an identity. It has worth as value system and moral guide, but since anyone can become Christian, it cannot serve as an identity. Identity has to be about blood, culture, and history.
    White working class must be brought back to blood. Their main identity shouldn’t be economic but racial and cultural. They must see themselves as European Folks, rich or poor. With a sense of culture(which is priceless), a poor man is just as worthy as a rich man. Jews have this sense of worth based on blood and culture. So, even those Jews who made it out of camps after WWII and had NOTHING but shirts on their backs felt just as worthy as some Jew with millions. Materially, he was nothing but culturally and ethnically, he was no less than the richest Jew.

    If you got a million bucks, would you rather lose the money and keep your memory OR keep the money and lose your memory? The latter is worse. To have a million bucks but not know your childhood, who your parents are, what your culture is… that is truly tragic.

    So, the notion of ‘white working class’ misses the point cuz it primarily economizes them. They should be valued simply because they are fellow whites. And if they lost their way, those who haven’t lost the way must reach out to them and make them rediscover the way. Like Moses did.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahkwQhQZWG8

    Working-class-ness is an interest, not a useful identity. For one thing, one can move in and out of classes. Or a parent might be working class but son might be upper class.
    The idea of a Mexican working class, Chinese working class, Hindu working class, and Hungarian working class mainly identifying as ‘working class’ is silly and unrealistic. Far more stable identity is race, culture, and nation.
    And this was what fascism was about. It said rich Italians, middle class Italians, working class Italians, farmer Italians, and poor Italians — they are all fellow Italians, and they should all have a sense of shared culture and history; as such, they should find the best way to coordinate all their efforts for a better future.
  14. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    There’s been some writings exposing that the government deliberately promoted so-called ‘modern art’ from behind the scenes so as to counterpose western non-communist societies as forward looking and modern to the unimaginative communist countries. It was a form of cultural warfare. Similarly, the current PC-multicult identity politics are a fraudulent substitution designed to draw people off into channels which do not threaten the bank accounts of the ruling classes. It appeals to the noble instincts of young people and gives them a ’cause’. Thus billionaires who have no qualms about putting American workers out of work can posture themselves as people’s champions by slapping unisex signs on company bathrooms. It’s a pretty neat trick. Just dole out some money to the various pied pipers out there who thus have the loudest megaphones. Big media is owned by corporations and the billionaire class so of course they lavish attention on the preferred noisemakers. It’s a closed circle. Divide and rule, an old story.

  15. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @WorkingClass

    According to Marxist classics, masses of the working class can unite when they develop class-consciousness. Liberal identity politics serve the purpose of preventing this from happening. Simple as that.
     
    I'm with you Mao. Solidarity does not depend on homogeneity. The identity politics practiced by the coalition of the fringes is specifically intended to keep any real leftist thinking consigned to the political wilderness. Hillary is not some sort of evolved leftist. She openly expresses contempt for the working class. Not the entire working class mind you. Just the white part. See how it works?

    Solidarity doesn’t depend on homogeneity but it is most persistent and stable under homogeneity. US and USSR had solidarity during WWII but ONLY BECAUSE Nazi Germany was the common enemy. Once Nazis and Japanese were defeated, US and USSR became bitter enemies.

    In the US, the alliance of Jews, blacks, homos, Muslims, Asians, Mexicans, and etc is possible ONLY BECAUSE of Evil White Man trope.
    If white conservatives were to vanish into the thin air, the coalition would start to break down. Or the elites, mostly Jews, will have to find a NEW BAD GUY to keep it together. Jews might say WHITE LIBERALS are now the ones with ‘white privilege’, and so, Jews and all non-whites must unite against evil white liberals.

    What the white race needs most of all is unity between elites and masses. The GLOB knows that the masses cannot act without leadership. This is why they fear Trump. Trump is a white leader who has decided to represent white interests as part of national interest. He doesn’t explicitly favor whites over non-whites, but he doesn’t disfavor them either. He sees their interests as just as legit. This is threatening to the GLOB. White masses now have something of a leader. The GLOB wants to sever all ties between white elites and white masses. Ideally, according to the GLOB, white elites should serve Jewish super-elites and represent non-whites over whites. GLOB favors people like Hillary and Jeb(of “illegal immigration is an act of love”).

    Some compare Trump with Caesar but his place in current politics is more like Spartacus. Of course, Trump is too compromised to be a true rebel-leader, but the elites what his example implies, inspires, and portends.

    At any rate, the problem is with the focus on class than race among white folks.

    Discussion of Jews and non-whites is on ethnic grounds, not class grounds. We don’t talk of rich Jews or poor Jews. We talk of Jews. We don’t talk of rich blacks and poor blacks. We talk of blacks. And even though there’s a huge difference between rich white Hispanics and poor brown Hispanics, we maintain the fiction that they are one-and-same people. But when it comes to whites, it is taboo to say white folks as a racial group have shared interests. Whites can only have CLASS interests.

    ‘Working class’ implies white workers should be judged by economic utility than racial unity.

    In fact, white people should value white people because they are fellow Europeans, their brethren and sistren. That comes first before any economic consideration.

    After all, even more blacks are economically fallen behind, or useless. But can you imagine a Negro leader saying, “All them Negroes be lazy and shiftless. Gots to replace them with Mexicans who be better for the economy of the hood.” No black leader would talk like this. BUT, William Kristol advises white elites to dump the useless white working class and replace them with foreigners. He is trying to drive a wedge between white elites and white masses.

    Now, this isn’t to minimize the importance of the economy. It is crucial. But any national sense should begin with ethnos. And if YOUR PEOPLE have fallen behind, then you should identify with them, lead them, guide them, and help them. You shouldn’t say, “What useless bunch” and just go for foreigners. A nation is not a factory or a box store. Workers are hired and fired. Your countrymen are fellow citizens.

    Much of Conservatism Inc is about materialism over organicism. A race is an extended family.
    You care about members of your family even if some fail. A decent parent doesn’t say, “You know, my son isn’t smart enough to become a computer programmer and buy me a nice retirement home in Florida. I’ll disown him and adopt some Hindu or Chinese kid to be my new ‘son’, go to Stanford, and buy me good stuff.”

    Do Jews feel this way toward their own kind? Does William Kristol feel about poor Jews or religious Jews, “What a bunch of tards and lowlifes. Look at those useless Jews with funny beards and silly hats. Totally useless as economic units. The hell with them, and I’ll only care about industrious Hindus in Silicon Valley.”
    It seems to me that, even though Jews do work with talents of all races and groups, they also care about fellow Jews for the simple fact that they part of an extended organic and cultural family. So, when all those poor Jews were coming out shtetls and looking very pathetic, Jewish nationalists reached out to them, represented them, fought for them, and led them… like Moses did in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS by DeMille.

    So, even if it’s true that many people in the white working class have fallen behind and turned stupid(and even got dumb ass tattoos), it is the organismic obligation of successful whites to lead them, represent them, inspire them, and identity with them.

    We are racial, historical, and cultural beings before we are economic and material beings.

    Economics is about the mouth and stomach. It’s about consumption. We need to make stuff in order to live. We need to eat and have roof over our heads. We need foods and materials. Sure, economics is important for survival and well-being.

    BUT, we don’t derive meaning from economics. A family is about organic unity. Should a parent abandon his mediocre son to an orphanage and get a rich son? Vito Corleone cared about Fredo too though he wasn’t very bright.
    And should a son reject his parents and pretend to a child of other parents cuz he thinks the other parents are richer and cooler?
    It’s the emotional ties that bind that make a people. And even ideas must serve emotions. Why are we stirred by history? Because it tells the story of our people. And even though we can feel empathy and sympathy for OTHER peoples, what is wrong with feeling more about your own kind. If a Jew is saddened by a book on Nanking Massacre and a book Nazi Killing of Jews BUT is more moved by the latter book, is there something wrong with that? If a Negro is moved by a book about American Indians and a book about Negro slaves but is stirred more about the story of his brothas and sistas, is there something wrong? Emotions define values and ideas, and emotions are about attachment, and it’s natural for people to be most attached to their own families and then to extended family of the race and culture.

    Look at Israel. It is fundamentally an organismic state. Its immigration policy favors Jews with IQ of 100 over Hindus and Chinese with IQ of 130. Organicism trumps economism.
    Now, suppose Israel decided to kick out its mediocre IQ Jews and invite gentiles of IQ of 120 and over. Then, surely its economy would grow bigger. But it would no longer be ethnically and culturally Jewish. Is more wealth worth it to abandon one’s racial and cultural identity and unity?

    Though we need to send food to our stomachs and have roofs over our head, our truer and deeper worth comes from a sense of culture, heritage, lineage, and history. In that sense, the Jewish Bible is worth more than all the material wealth Jews got. It tells them how they came to be, who they are, where they came from.
    After all, if Jews were to keep all their wealth but forget their history and culture, they would just rich people with no sense of identity. They would have no sense of direction.
    But if Jews lost all their wealth but kept their Book and sense of history, they would still be rich in culture, and this would inspire them to rise again. Look at Germany and Japan after WWII. Totally smashed and destitute. But why did they rise again? Because they still had a sense of nation, culture, identity, and history.
    If today’s white working class are sinking lower and lower, it is because the rise of economism and hedonism judges everything by money and celebrity. It says nothing else has any value. Also, Christianity is too vague as an identity. It has worth as value system and moral guide, but since anyone can become Christian, it cannot serve as an identity. Identity has to be about blood, culture, and history.
    White working class must be brought back to blood. Their main identity shouldn’t be economic but racial and cultural. They must see themselves as European Folks, rich or poor. With a sense of culture(which is priceless), a poor man is just as worthy as a rich man. Jews have this sense of worth based on blood and culture. So, even those Jews who made it out of camps after WWII and had NOTHING but shirts on their backs felt just as worthy as some Jew with millions. Materially, he was nothing but culturally and ethnically, he was no less than the richest Jew.

    If you got a million bucks, would you rather lose the money and keep your memory OR keep the money and lose your memory? The latter is worse. To have a million bucks but not know your childhood, who your parents are, what your culture is… that is truly tragic.

    So, the notion of ‘white working class’ misses the point cuz it primarily economizes them. They should be valued simply because they are fellow whites. And if they lost their way, those who haven’t lost the way must reach out to them and make them rediscover the way. Like Moses did.

    Working-class-ness is an interest, not a useful identity. For one thing, one can move in and out of classes. Or a parent might be working class but son might be upper class.
    The idea of a Mexican working class, Chinese working class, Hindu working class, and Hungarian working class mainly identifying as ‘working class’ is silly and unrealistic. Far more stable identity is race, culture, and nation.
    And this was what fascism was about. It said rich Italians, middle class Italians, working class Italians, farmer Italians, and poor Italians — they are all fellow Italians, and they should all have a sense of shared culture and history; as such, they should find the best way to coordinate all their efforts for a better future.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass

    We are racial, historical, and cultural beings before we are economic and material beings.
     
    Agreed. But Marx was an economist and Marx is under discussion here.
  16. Most don’t have much of an idea about the left.

    Marxism pretty much did not survive the cold war except with older academic types.

    But Marxism and Socialism are pretty much the political wing of atheism and have always been concerned more with freedom from morality for themselves than anything else. That is why sexual revolutions always accompanied actual revolutions.

    The revolution in the 60′s was moral and atheist in character. It was called the left because it was essentially atheist. Ultimately it was a kind of political bonding between immoral men, feminists and homosexuals. Most were open to anything because of the disillusionment of two world wars.

    That’s it really, this political union has colored and dominated our politics for the last 50 odd years and has led to incredible evils.

    Business has little part in it, except that business wants to make money and the bacchanalian misery unleashed has been very good for business. So many families atomized, oh yes very good for business.

    Will it end, not soon, they have so much power now through the mass media. But eventually yes, because Feminists like to kill babies, immoral men like also to kill babies so they don’t have to pay for them and homosexuals simply don’t care. This kind of decadence kills civilizations very quickly.

    In earlier revolutions the social turmoil unleashed killed the revolution stone dead, all those single mothers without support. Now of course they have learnt to print money and borrow and lower interest rates to keep the welfare state going. All so some feminists can bath in fantasies of female dominance and immoral men can chase any hole they can get.

    That is all anyone really needs to know about the left since WW2.

  17. Our present Left makes its peace with private enterprise and even large corporations, providing it can impose its idea of social and cultural transformation on increasingly powerless citizens and their increasingly indoctrinated children.

    That’s very adaptive of them, isn’t it? Once it is realized that something is impossible, they aim at the larger target.

    Marxism was to have a potent appeal to masses near the starvation or subsistence level; white-made technology and the material abundance it has originated robbed it of its power and prospects.

    Indoctrinators who wanted to be listened, feel admired, and gain power and social recognition needed new ways, new harmless neglected people to rescue and inequalities to erase: perceptive and inventive as they are, it took them short to find plenty.

    This said, when we talk of egalitarianism and more broadly post-modern leftist cults, it’s their hegemony what disrupts society, not their presence.
    A little dose of these ideas and advocates in a society is a plus. Helping the less capable and weak is an holy duty.

  18. @Anon
    Solidarity doesn't depend on homogeneity but it is most persistent and stable under homogeneity. US and USSR had solidarity during WWII but ONLY BECAUSE Nazi Germany was the common enemy. Once Nazis and Japanese were defeated, US and USSR became bitter enemies.

    In the US, the alliance of Jews, blacks, homos, Muslims, Asians, Mexicans, and etc is possible ONLY BECAUSE of Evil White Man trope.
    If white conservatives were to vanish into the thin air, the coalition would start to break down. Or the elites, mostly Jews, will have to find a NEW BAD GUY to keep it together. Jews might say WHITE LIBERALS are now the ones with 'white privilege', and so, Jews and all non-whites must unite against evil white liberals.

    What the white race needs most of all is unity between elites and masses. The GLOB knows that the masses cannot act without leadership. This is why they fear Trump. Trump is a white leader who has decided to represent white interests as part of national interest. He doesn't explicitly favor whites over non-whites, but he doesn't disfavor them either. He sees their interests as just as legit. This is threatening to the GLOB. White masses now have something of a leader. The GLOB wants to sever all ties between white elites and white masses. Ideally, according to the GLOB, white elites should serve Jewish super-elites and represent non-whites over whites. GLOB favors people like Hillary and Jeb(of "illegal immigration is an act of love").

    Some compare Trump with Caesar but his place in current politics is more like Spartacus. Of course, Trump is too compromised to be a true rebel-leader, but the elites what his example implies, inspires, and portends.

    At any rate, the problem is with the focus on class than race among white folks.

    Discussion of Jews and non-whites is on ethnic grounds, not class grounds. We don't talk of rich Jews or poor Jews. We talk of Jews. We don't talk of rich blacks and poor blacks. We talk of blacks. And even though there's a huge difference between rich white Hispanics and poor brown Hispanics, we maintain the fiction that they are one-and-same people. But when it comes to whites, it is taboo to say white folks as a racial group have shared interests. Whites can only have CLASS interests.

    ‘Working class’ implies white workers should be judged by economic utility than racial unity.

    In fact, white people should value white people because they are fellow Europeans, their brethren and sistren. That comes first before any economic consideration.

    After all, even more blacks are economically fallen behind, or useless. But can you imagine a Negro leader saying, “All them Negroes be lazy and shiftless. Gots to replace them with Mexicans who be better for the economy of the hood.” No black leader would talk like this. BUT, William Kristol advises white elites to dump the useless white working class and replace them with foreigners. He is trying to drive a wedge between white elites and white masses.

    Now, this isn’t to minimize the importance of the economy. It is crucial. But any national sense should begin with ethnos. And if YOUR PEOPLE have fallen behind, then you should identify with them, lead them, guide them, and help them. You shouldn’t say, “What useless bunch” and just go for foreigners. A nation is not a factory or a box store. Workers are hired and fired. Your countrymen are fellow citizens.

    Much of Conservatism Inc is about materialism over organicism. A race is an extended family.
    You care about members of your family even if some fail. A decent parent doesn’t say, “You know, my son isn’t smart enough to become a computer programmer and buy me a nice retirement home in Florida. I’ll disown him and adopt some Hindu or Chinese kid to be my new ‘son’, go to Stanford, and buy me good stuff.”

    Do Jews feel this way toward their own kind? Does William Kristol feel about poor Jews or religious Jews, “What a bunch of tards and lowlifes. Look at those useless Jews with funny beards and silly hats. Totally useless as economic units. The hell with them, and I’ll only care about industrious Hindus in Silicon Valley.”
    It seems to me that, even though Jews do work with talents of all races and groups, they also care about fellow Jews for the simple fact that they part of an extended organic and cultural family. So, when all those poor Jews were coming out shtetls and looking very pathetic, Jewish nationalists reached out to them, represented them, fought for them, and led them… like Moses did in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS by DeMille.

    So, even if it’s true that many people in the white working class have fallen behind and turned stupid(and even got dumb ass tattoos), it is the organismic obligation of successful whites to lead them, represent them, inspire them, and identity with them.

    We are racial, historical, and cultural beings before we are economic and material beings.

    Economics is about the mouth and stomach. It’s about consumption. We need to make stuff in order to live. We need to eat and have roof over our heads. We need foods and materials. Sure, economics is important for survival and well-being.

    BUT, we don’t derive meaning from economics. A family is about organic unity. Should a parent abandon his mediocre son to an orphanage and get a rich son? Vito Corleone cared about Fredo too though he wasn’t very bright.
    And should a son reject his parents and pretend to a child of other parents cuz he thinks the other parents are richer and cooler?
    It’s the emotional ties that bind that make a people. And even ideas must serve emotions. Why are we stirred by history? Because it tells the story of our people. And even though we can feel empathy and sympathy for OTHER peoples, what is wrong with feeling more about your own kind. If a Jew is saddened by a book on Nanking Massacre and a book Nazi Killing of Jews BUT is more moved by the latter book, is there something wrong with that? If a Negro is moved by a book about American Indians and a book about Negro slaves but is stirred more about the story of his brothas and sistas, is there something wrong? Emotions define values and ideas, and emotions are about attachment, and it’s natural for people to be most attached to their own families and then to extended family of the race and culture.

    Look at Israel. It is fundamentally an organismic state. Its immigration policy favors Jews with IQ of 100 over Hindus and Chinese with IQ of 130. Organicism trumps economism.
    Now, suppose Israel decided to kick out its mediocre IQ Jews and invite gentiles of IQ of 120 and over. Then, surely its economy would grow bigger. But it would no longer be ethnically and culturally Jewish. Is more wealth worth it to abandon one’s racial and cultural identity and unity?

    Though we need to send food to our stomachs and have roofs over our head, our truer and deeper worth comes from a sense of culture, heritage, lineage, and history. In that sense, the Jewish Bible is worth more than all the material wealth Jews got. It tells them how they came to be, who they are, where they came from.
    After all, if Jews were to keep all their wealth but forget their history and culture, they would just rich people with no sense of identity. They would have no sense of direction.
    But if Jews lost all their wealth but kept their Book and sense of history, they would still be rich in culture, and this would inspire them to rise again. Look at Germany and Japan after WWII. Totally smashed and destitute. But why did they rise again? Because they still had a sense of nation, culture, identity, and history.
    If today’s white working class are sinking lower and lower, it is because the rise of economism and hedonism judges everything by money and celebrity. It says nothing else has any value. Also, Christianity is too vague as an identity. It has worth as value system and moral guide, but since anyone can become Christian, it cannot serve as an identity. Identity has to be about blood, culture, and history.
    White working class must be brought back to blood. Their main identity shouldn’t be economic but racial and cultural. They must see themselves as European Folks, rich or poor. With a sense of culture(which is priceless), a poor man is just as worthy as a rich man. Jews have this sense of worth based on blood and culture. So, even those Jews who made it out of camps after WWII and had NOTHING but shirts on their backs felt just as worthy as some Jew with millions. Materially, he was nothing but culturally and ethnically, he was no less than the richest Jew.

    If you got a million bucks, would you rather lose the money and keep your memory OR keep the money and lose your memory? The latter is worse. To have a million bucks but not know your childhood, who your parents are, what your culture is… that is truly tragic.

    So, the notion of ‘white working class’ misses the point cuz it primarily economizes them. They should be valued simply because they are fellow whites. And if they lost their way, those who haven’t lost the way must reach out to them and make them rediscover the way. Like Moses did.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahkwQhQZWG8

    Working-class-ness is an interest, not a useful identity. For one thing, one can move in and out of classes. Or a parent might be working class but son might be upper class.
    The idea of a Mexican working class, Chinese working class, Hindu working class, and Hungarian working class mainly identifying as ‘working class’ is silly and unrealistic. Far more stable identity is race, culture, and nation.
    And this was what fascism was about. It said rich Italians, middle class Italians, working class Italians, farmer Italians, and poor Italians — they are all fellow Italians, and they should all have a sense of shared culture and history; as such, they should find the best way to coordinate all their efforts for a better future.

    We are racial, historical, and cultural beings before we are economic and material beings.

    Agreed. But Marx was an economist and Marx is under discussion here.

  19. @Mao Cheng Ji
    What you call "the multicultural Left" is not left at all. It is, in fact an anti-left ideology, openly supporting a hierarchical society. The purpose is to split the lower orders into multiple 'identity' groups, hating and constantly fighting each other. This makes them easily manageable. Women should hate men, persons with darker skin should have grievances against their pale-skin neighbors, etc. While the guy in the penthouse is looking down at them all, having a good laugh...

    The identity politics “left” really resembles a fascist movement. It is about extracting perceived debts based on hereditary grievances. Its venom is directed at the working class. It is against free expression of ideas. It attempts to silence honest debate with smears that resemble something out of the McCarthy era. It uses violence to suppress free speech. It has aligned itself with imperialism.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    The identity politics “left” really resembles a fascist movement.
     
    I don't think so. Fascism, the classical Italian version, is based on a national unity, with the class struggle diminished under the wise government control and mediation. The government guarantees fair wages and fair profits - all for the sake of the nation.

    Liberal identity politics eliminates the class struggle by a simple misdirection: you're conditioned to believe that you're oppressed not by your bosses, but by your fellow co-workers with other 'identities'. Dopey 'identities' are fighting each other for the ever diminishing piece of pie. So, no class struggle, but no fair wage either. Very smart. For the bosses, this is probably the best of all possible worlds.

  20. “Marx was an economist”

    Bullshit, Marx was nowhere close to being an “Economist” he was a dilletant jack of all trades, his views on capitalism, on commerce, were so twisted and erroneous, that his only point to be made was : Kill the rich people.
    He had absolutely no clue as to human nature, otherwise he would have known that his concepts were doomed from the start to failure, and his circle of comrades were the academic BS artists of that era, the “Salon” revolutionaries.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/courses/economics/the-ten-most-influential-economists-of-all-time/?entry=3
    , @Dissident
    I'm curious, how much Marx have you read?
  21. @Thirdeye
    The identity politics "left" really resembles a fascist movement. It is about extracting perceived debts based on hereditary grievances. Its venom is directed at the working class. It is against free expression of ideas. It attempts to silence honest debate with smears that resemble something out of the McCarthy era. It uses violence to suppress free speech. It has aligned itself with imperialism.

    The identity politics “left” really resembles a fascist movement.

    I don’t think so. Fascism, the classical Italian version, is based on a national unity, with the class struggle diminished under the wise government control and mediation. The government guarantees fair wages and fair profits – all for the sake of the nation.

    Liberal identity politics eliminates the class struggle by a simple misdirection: you’re conditioned to believe that you’re oppressed not by your bosses, but by your fellow co-workers with other ‘identities’. Dopey ‘identities’ are fighting each other for the ever diminishing piece of pie. So, no class struggle, but no fair wage either. Very smart. For the bosses, this is probably the best of all possible worlds.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Anon
    Precisely. Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera gives a good statement in the video linked in this comment on another thread (English starts about a minute in and is bizarrely played twice); the essence is the substitution of the "class struggle" with "class cooperation".

    Both Fascism and Communism have roots in Marxist theory, even if Marx himself inclined to the latter.
  22. @Authenticjazzman
    "Marx was an economist"

    Bullshit, Marx was nowhere close to being an "Economist" he was a dilletant jack of all trades, his views on capitalism, on commerce, were so twisted and erroneous, that his only point to be made was : Kill the rich people.
    He had absolutely no clue as to human nature, otherwise he would have known that his concepts were doomed from the start to failure, and his circle of comrades were the academic BS artists of that era, the "Salon" revolutionaries.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/courses/economics/the-ten-most-influential-economists-of-all-time/?entry=3

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    I don't give a shit about the opinions of "Universities", they are all leftist indoctrination camps, and they are all full of crap.

    Marx was not an economist, although certain ignoranti', certain academic fools may consider him as such. He was a bored BS artist trying to find something to "Do", and along with his twisted buddies and deciples, he brought mayhem and suffering to mankind such as has never been known.

    If he had indeed been an "Economist" he was beyond doubt the worst one to have ever set foot on planet mirth, as the catastrophic results of his economic expertise speak tomes as what not to do in this field.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.
  23. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    The identity politics “left” really resembles a fascist movement.
     
    I don't think so. Fascism, the classical Italian version, is based on a national unity, with the class struggle diminished under the wise government control and mediation. The government guarantees fair wages and fair profits - all for the sake of the nation.

    Liberal identity politics eliminates the class struggle by a simple misdirection: you're conditioned to believe that you're oppressed not by your bosses, but by your fellow co-workers with other 'identities'. Dopey 'identities' are fighting each other for the ever diminishing piece of pie. So, no class struggle, but no fair wage either. Very smart. For the bosses, this is probably the best of all possible worlds.

    Precisely. Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera gives a good statement in the video linked in this comment on another thread (English starts about a minute in and is bizarrely played twice); the essence is the substitution of the “class struggle” with “class cooperation”.

    Both Fascism and Communism have roots in Marxist theory, even if Marx himself inclined to the latter.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    Yeah. The underlying idea is known as 'corporatism': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

    In a modern, more evolved form it looks like it can produce some decent structures (short-term, at least), like Switzerland, and the Scandinavian model.

    But there's a problem, I think. By its nature it's trying to crate a more or less closed economy, to invest inside the nation. But capitalism can't really function like this for a long time: profits accumulate, and it has to expand. More shit is produced than the population consumes (because part of it is taken from them, as profit). In the 20th century it meant wars, acquiring colonies, this sort of thing. Today, I don't know, but contradictions of capitalism aren't going anywhere, even with class-cooperation...
  24. @Anon
    Precisely. Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera gives a good statement in the video linked in this comment on another thread (English starts about a minute in and is bizarrely played twice); the essence is the substitution of the "class struggle" with "class cooperation".

    Both Fascism and Communism have roots in Marxist theory, even if Marx himself inclined to the latter.

    Yeah. The underlying idea is known as ‘corporatism’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

    In a modern, more evolved form it looks like it can produce some decent structures (short-term, at least), like Switzerland, and the Scandinavian model.

    But there’s a problem, I think. By its nature it’s trying to crate a more or less closed economy, to invest inside the nation. But capitalism can’t really function like this for a long time: profits accumulate, and it has to expand. More shit is produced than the population consumes (because part of it is taken from them, as profit). In the 20th century it meant wars, acquiring colonies, this sort of thing. Today, I don’t know, but contradictions of capitalism aren’t going anywhere, even with class-cooperation…

  25. @WorkingClass
    http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/courses/economics/the-ten-most-influential-economists-of-all-time/?entry=3

    I don’t give a shit about the opinions of “Universities”, they are all leftist indoctrination camps, and they are all full of crap.

    Marx was not an economist, although certain ignoranti’, certain academic fools may consider him as such. He was a bored BS artist trying to find something to “Do”, and along with his twisted buddies and deciples, he brought mayhem and suffering to mankind such as has never been known.

    If he had indeed been an “Economist” he was beyond doubt the worst one to have ever set foot on planet mirth, as the catastrophic results of his economic expertise speak tomes as what not to do in this field.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    Marx was and is an influential economist your disagreement with his findings notwithstanding. You hate him because you hold him responsible for atrocities committed by others in his name.
    , @Lyttenburgh

    He was a bored BS artist trying to find something to “Do”, and along with his twisted buddies and deciples, he brought mayhem and suffering to mankind such as has never been known.
     
    Did he? Wow, that's some news! How and when? Also - are you saying that prior to, say 1848, the life on the plante Eart was some sort of Utopia with no war, mayhem, suffering and massive destruction?

    If he had indeed been an “Economist” he was beyond doubt the worst one to have ever set foot on planet mirth, as the catastrophic results of his economic expertise speak tomes as what not to do in this field.
     
    I'm not aware of such examples. Care to provide some?
  26. If the working class won’t get woke and propel us to utopiaville, maybe the problem is the model and not the working class.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    or it could be a problem within the model.

    Often the case is that the critique of the existing system is right on the nose - simply because it's right here and can be studied - while the proposed remedy is lacking in rigor, simply because it's, well, predicting the unknown. Things change, wait & see.
    , @WorkingClass
    The workers paradise is as unlikely to materialize as is the free market utopia. Both models are flawed because they are created by flawed humanity. Such models are useful only as frameworks for discussion of our common problems.
  27. @Authenticjazzman
    I don't give a shit about the opinions of "Universities", they are all leftist indoctrination camps, and they are all full of crap.

    Marx was not an economist, although certain ignoranti', certain academic fools may consider him as such. He was a bored BS artist trying to find something to "Do", and along with his twisted buddies and deciples, he brought mayhem and suffering to mankind such as has never been known.

    If he had indeed been an "Economist" he was beyond doubt the worst one to have ever set foot on planet mirth, as the catastrophic results of his economic expertise speak tomes as what not to do in this field.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    Marx was and is an influential economist your disagreement with his findings notwithstanding. You hate him because you hold him responsible for atrocities committed by others in his name.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    "Marx was and is an influential economist".

    He was not and is not an influential economist, as is his era the "Study" of economics, was based entirely upon the personal viewpoints of certain scholars/professors which were, are, all debatable and loaded with contradiction and controversy.

    Economic theory was, at that time based entirely upon personal viewpoint, and his viewpoint was steeped in hatred for the monied ruling classes, his viewpoint, had absolutely nothing to do with economic theory other than they, the rich folks, are suppressing you peasants, and therefore they must be eliminated.

    "You hold him responsible for atrocities committed by others in his name".
    Look if his concepts had not been thought up by him , the folks who murdered millions in "His name" through the application of his concepts, those folks would not have been able to commit said atrocities "In his name", through the application of HIS concepts.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

  28. @iffen
    If the working class won’t get woke and propel us to utopiaville, maybe the problem is the model and not the working class.

    or it could be a problem within the model.

    Often the case is that the critique of the existing system is right on the nose – simply because it’s right here and can be studied – while the proposed remedy is lacking in rigor, simply because it’s, well, predicting the unknown. Things change, wait & see.

    • Replies: @iffen
    and @workingclass

    If we take our point of departure to be the actually existing working class, it is beyond painfully obvious that it does not have the “human capital” that will allow it to be an effective revolutionary force within itself. There have been times when it has lent itself to the direction of a vanguard group and was successful as the mainstay of the revolutionary forces. Immediately upon such success, it begins its collapse and fails as a competent force capable of identifying and implementing effective courses of action and sustaining itself as a virtuous group. It is completely at the mercy and whim of the “vanguard” and awaits the inevitable degeneration into opportunism.

    You can’t get blood out of a turnip and you can’t create a competent ruling class out of turnip farmers.
  29. @iffen
    If the working class won’t get woke and propel us to utopiaville, maybe the problem is the model and not the working class.

    The workers paradise is as unlikely to materialize as is the free market utopia. Both models are flawed because they are created by flawed humanity. Such models are useful only as frameworks for discussion of our common problems.

  30. @Priss Factor
    "Note that for the old Left, 'fascism' had a quasi-scientific meaning. It referred to the defenders of a form of late capitalism, which had already reached a point of mortal crisis. 'Fascists' repressed socialist revolution by creating right-wing nationalist dictatorships. In the process phony 'fascist' revolutionaries drove real leftist revolutionaries underground."

    Marxism/Communism is like a one-way road or one-track rail system. You can only drive one way in the correct direction. Or the train you're on can only move in one direction. Forward and Onward. Don't Look Back.

    In contrast, Reaction is like a one-way road that leads in the opposition direction. It goes in the other direction, and in the other direction only.

    Fascism is like a two-way road system. One road takes you away from home, the other road takes you to home. It offers the option of both paths. Sometimes, you want to move away from home, the comfort the zone, the tradition, the status quo. You want to try new things and see what's out there. Without this option, home feels like prison.
    But there are times when you want return home or go back to whence you came to retrieve what you may have forgotten or lost.
    Fascism believes that a radical revolution that is too sure of the Future is a fool's dream. And though there was much that was wrong in the past, it is also full of treasures and meanings, and we need to go back sometimes and re-learn the old or timeless lessons.

    Communist movements that tried to wipe out the past and begin anew were bound to fail. They were too arrogant. What became of China when Mao's Cultural Revolution waged war on all that was old and traditional?
    In contrast, Ataturk managed to adopt modernity and enforce change without waging wholesale murderous war on culture, tradition, and the past.

    But, the problem isn't only with the so-called 'left'.
    We need to be wary of radical capitalism that bred globalism that has turned out to be a far worse enemy of all that is traditional, conservative, and rooted. Communism sometimes turned crazy and murderous, but it was at least driven by humanist values. It was about moral duty of man to man. And this serious and sincere moral element maintained some degree of conservatism in communism.

    In contrast, the globalist-capitalism's idea of 'leftism' is narcissist, nihilist, vain, self-aggrandizing, indulgent, and wallows in piggishness. Given its mania of egotism, its notion of 'equality' makes no sense. It's a movement that praises someone like madonna who made her many millions by acting the wanton whore.

    On the other hand, that's why current so-called 'leftism' won't ever gain the power of communism. It's too silly. A movement made up of Lena Dunhams, Bruce Caitlyn Jenners, Miley Cyruses, and Pussy Hatters won't amount to a plate of beans.
    Antifa is more violent and aggressive, but their core ideology is pop-anarchism, mostly as punk fetish. They are too self-indulgent and immature --- like skinheads --- to formulate a coherent and cogent ideology. It's all about the noise and hysteria.

    But, the problem isn’t only with the so-called ‘left’. We need to be wary of radical capitalism that bred globalism that has turned out to be a far worse enemy of all that is traditional, conservative, and rooted. Communism sometimes turned crazy and murderous, but it was at least driven by humanist values. It was about moral duty of man to man. And this serious and sincere moral element maintained some degree of conservatism in communism.

    Could not agree more. It was radical capitalism that gave rise to globalization (the ‘new world order’), which is destroying our countries, cultures and ways of life. The so-called New Left has been very helpful to the capitalists by constantly denigrating nationalism and patriotism as ‘fascism’.

  31. @Mao Cheng Ji
    or it could be a problem within the model.

    Often the case is that the critique of the existing system is right on the nose - simply because it's right here and can be studied - while the proposed remedy is lacking in rigor, simply because it's, well, predicting the unknown. Things change, wait & see.

    and @workingclass

    If we take our point of departure to be the actually existing working class, it is beyond painfully obvious that it does not have the “human capital” that will allow it to be an effective revolutionary force within itself. There have been times when it has lent itself to the direction of a vanguard group and was successful as the mainstay of the revolutionary forces. Immediately upon such success, it begins its collapse and fails as a competent force capable of identifying and implementing effective courses of action and sustaining itself as a virtuous group. It is completely at the mercy and whim of the “vanguard” and awaits the inevitable degeneration into opportunism.

    You can’t get blood out of a turnip and you can’t create a competent ruling class out of turnip farmers.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    Agreed. The point of organizing the working class is to increase their share of the fruit of their labor. For this modest goal neither Marxism nor Communism is required.
    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    You can’t get blood out of a turnip and you can’t create a competent ruling class out of turnip farmers.
     
    Turnip farmers don't belong. Marxist classics were thinking about manufacturing workers who are accustomed to cooperative collective labor. They were supposed to be led by the vanguard, their most class-conscious representatives. I don't see much difference between this concept and the standard 'bourgeois democracy' that exists everywhere these days. Typical corner-shop owner is hardly the ruling class material either. In fact, perhaps it's too similar.
  32. @WorkingClass
    Marx was and is an influential economist your disagreement with his findings notwithstanding. You hate him because you hold him responsible for atrocities committed by others in his name.

    “Marx was and is an influential economist”.

    He was not and is not an influential economist, as is his era the “Study” of economics, was based entirely upon the personal viewpoints of certain scholars/professors which were, are, all debatable and loaded with contradiction and controversy.

    Economic theory was, at that time based entirely upon personal viewpoint, and his viewpoint was steeped in hatred for the monied ruling classes, his viewpoint, had absolutely nothing to do with economic theory other than they, the rich folks, are suppressing you peasants, and therefore they must be eliminated.

    “You hold him responsible for atrocities committed by others in his name”.
    Look if his concepts had not been thought up by him , the folks who murdered millions in “His name” through the application of his concepts, those folks would not have been able to commit said atrocities “In his name”, through the application of HIS concepts.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    • Replies: @Lyttenburgh

    Look if his concepts had not been thought up by him , the folks who murdered millions in “His name”
     
    Oh, just brilliant! The trope "millions murdered in the name of cimmunism" reigns supreme! What about millions murdred yearly in the name of capitalism then?
  33. @iffen
    and @workingclass

    If we take our point of departure to be the actually existing working class, it is beyond painfully obvious that it does not have the “human capital” that will allow it to be an effective revolutionary force within itself. There have been times when it has lent itself to the direction of a vanguard group and was successful as the mainstay of the revolutionary forces. Immediately upon such success, it begins its collapse and fails as a competent force capable of identifying and implementing effective courses of action and sustaining itself as a virtuous group. It is completely at the mercy and whim of the “vanguard” and awaits the inevitable degeneration into opportunism.

    You can’t get blood out of a turnip and you can’t create a competent ruling class out of turnip farmers.

    Agreed. The point of organizing the working class is to increase their share of the fruit of their labor. For this modest goal neither Marxism nor Communism is required.

  34. @iffen
    and @workingclass

    If we take our point of departure to be the actually existing working class, it is beyond painfully obvious that it does not have the “human capital” that will allow it to be an effective revolutionary force within itself. There have been times when it has lent itself to the direction of a vanguard group and was successful as the mainstay of the revolutionary forces. Immediately upon such success, it begins its collapse and fails as a competent force capable of identifying and implementing effective courses of action and sustaining itself as a virtuous group. It is completely at the mercy and whim of the “vanguard” and awaits the inevitable degeneration into opportunism.

    You can’t get blood out of a turnip and you can’t create a competent ruling class out of turnip farmers.

    You can’t get blood out of a turnip and you can’t create a competent ruling class out of turnip farmers.

    Turnip farmers don’t belong. Marxist classics were thinking about manufacturing workers who are accustomed to cooperative collective labor. They were supposed to be led by the vanguard, their most class-conscious representatives. I don’t see much difference between this concept and the standard ‘bourgeois democracy’ that exists everywhere these days. Typical corner-shop owner is hardly the ruling class material either. In fact, perhaps it’s too similar.

    • Replies: @Lyttenburgh

    Turnip farmers don’t belong.
     
    Any *farmer* by definition belongs to the petite burgeoise, not the proletariat. Sad and funny folks are them, petite burgeoise! They are most voiceful proponents of the existing capitalist order and always are its firts victims. See the lot of the American farmers during the Great Depression. Or see Marvin Heemeyer.
  35. @Authenticjazzman
    I don't give a shit about the opinions of "Universities", they are all leftist indoctrination camps, and they are all full of crap.

    Marx was not an economist, although certain ignoranti', certain academic fools may consider him as such. He was a bored BS artist trying to find something to "Do", and along with his twisted buddies and deciples, he brought mayhem and suffering to mankind such as has never been known.

    If he had indeed been an "Economist" he was beyond doubt the worst one to have ever set foot on planet mirth, as the catastrophic results of his economic expertise speak tomes as what not to do in this field.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    He was a bored BS artist trying to find something to “Do”, and along with his twisted buddies and deciples, he brought mayhem and suffering to mankind such as has never been known.

    Did he? Wow, that’s some news! How and when? Also – are you saying that prior to, say 1848, the life on the plante Eart was some sort of Utopia with no war, mayhem, suffering and massive destruction?

    If he had indeed been an “Economist” he was beyond doubt the worst one to have ever set foot on planet mirth, as the catastrophic results of his economic expertise speak tomes as what not to do in this field.

    I’m not aware of such examples. Care to provide some?

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    First of all just what is " cimmunism" ?

    "What about the millions murdered in the name of capitalism then?"

    Apparently you do not know that "communism" is a dogma, a doctrine, and capitalism is the lack thereof.

    There was no capitalist "dogma" for which millions were murdered, on the other hand there most certainly was an actual "Dogma" under communism, and under which millions of innocent humans were robbed of their existance, their freedom of movement and their lives : Murdered.

    "I'm not aware of such examples ( catastrophic results) care to provide some "

    Well just how about communist East Germany were thousands of people were murdered for simply trying to cross the border into the west.

    Or how about communist Hungary where in 1956 also thousands of people were mowed down by the military forces for simply protesting the appalling social conditions

    Or how about the siberian labor camps in which people were worked to death?

    The list of crimes against humanity within the realm of communism is far too long to be posted here, and if you are unaware thereof, then shame on you.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, and pro jazz artist.
  36. @Authenticjazzman
    "Marx was and is an influential economist".

    He was not and is not an influential economist, as is his era the "Study" of economics, was based entirely upon the personal viewpoints of certain scholars/professors which were, are, all debatable and loaded with contradiction and controversy.

    Economic theory was, at that time based entirely upon personal viewpoint, and his viewpoint was steeped in hatred for the monied ruling classes, his viewpoint, had absolutely nothing to do with economic theory other than they, the rich folks, are suppressing you peasants, and therefore they must be eliminated.

    "You hold him responsible for atrocities committed by others in his name".
    Look if his concepts had not been thought up by him , the folks who murdered millions in "His name" through the application of his concepts, those folks would not have been able to commit said atrocities "In his name", through the application of HIS concepts.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    Look if his concepts had not been thought up by him , the folks who murdered millions in “His name”

    Oh, just brilliant! The trope “millions murdered in the name of cimmunism” reigns supreme! What about millions murdred yearly in the name of capitalism then?

  37. @Mao Cheng Ji

    You can’t get blood out of a turnip and you can’t create a competent ruling class out of turnip farmers.
     
    Turnip farmers don't belong. Marxist classics were thinking about manufacturing workers who are accustomed to cooperative collective labor. They were supposed to be led by the vanguard, their most class-conscious representatives. I don't see much difference between this concept and the standard 'bourgeois democracy' that exists everywhere these days. Typical corner-shop owner is hardly the ruling class material either. In fact, perhaps it's too similar.

    Turnip farmers don’t belong.

    Any *farmer* by definition belongs to the petite burgeoise, not the proletariat. Sad and funny folks are them, petite burgeoise! They are most voiceful proponents of the existing capitalist order and always are its firts victims. See the lot of the American farmers during the Great Depression. Or see Marvin Heemeyer.

  38. @Lyttenburgh

    He was a bored BS artist trying to find something to “Do”, and along with his twisted buddies and deciples, he brought mayhem and suffering to mankind such as has never been known.
     
    Did he? Wow, that's some news! How and when? Also - are you saying that prior to, say 1848, the life on the plante Eart was some sort of Utopia with no war, mayhem, suffering and massive destruction?

    If he had indeed been an “Economist” he was beyond doubt the worst one to have ever set foot on planet mirth, as the catastrophic results of his economic expertise speak tomes as what not to do in this field.
     
    I'm not aware of such examples. Care to provide some?

    First of all just what is ” cimmunism” ?

    “What about the millions murdered in the name of capitalism then?”

    Apparently you do not know that “communism” is a dogma, a doctrine, and capitalism is the lack thereof.

    There was no capitalist “dogma” for which millions were murdered, on the other hand there most certainly was an actual “Dogma” under communism, and under which millions of innocent humans were robbed of their existance, their freedom of movement and their lives : Murdered.

    “I’m not aware of such examples ( catastrophic results) care to provide some ”

    Well just how about communist East Germany were thousands of people were murdered for simply trying to cross the border into the west.

    Or how about communist Hungary where in 1956 also thousands of people were mowed down by the military forces for simply protesting the appalling social conditions

    Or how about the siberian labor camps in which people were worked to death?

    The list of crimes against humanity within the realm of communism is far too long to be posted here, and if you are unaware thereof, then shame on you.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member since 1973, and pro jazz artist.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Apparently you do not know that “communism” is a dogma, a doctrine, and capitalism is the lack thereof.
     
    Liberalism is the dogma of capitalism: sanctity of individual 'liberty' and 'property'. Just as deadly as any other dogma, with the dubious distinction of being more smug, pretentious, and hypocritical than any other...
    , @Lyttenburgh

    Apparently you do not know that “communism” is a dogma, a doctrine, and capitalism is the lack thereof.
     
    Communism is also soci-economic system of organizing the humanity's relations - like capitalism.

    As for capitalism not being a "dogma" - what about liberalism then? Liberalism in virtually all of its forms and the classical liberalism expose the market capitalist economy and bourgeoisie democracy as the only true and acceptable forms of government and organization of society. Capitalism has its own set of dogmas and holy cows - like the private property's ownership, and liberalism espouses the interests of the individual above the needs of everyone else. Ergo – the modern Western so-called Left of SJWs and identity politics, which is the logical conclusion of the liberal ideology.

    There was no capitalist “dogma” for which millions were murdered, on the other hand there most certainly was an actual “Dogma” under communism, and under which millions of innocent humans were robbed of their existance, their freedom of movement and their lives : Murdered.
     
    Rly? No one was murdered (and is murdered this very moment I'm typing this comment) in the name of the chief dogma of the capitalism - profit at all costs? No people were enslaved, robbed by colonizers or ethnically cleansed in the name of the capitalism?

    You make 3 accusations against the "communism" - people were "robbed" of their "existence" (did you mean property?), restricted of their freedom of movement and "robbed of their lives".

    1) You approach this whole quandary with a clear pro-capitalist bias and taking liberalism dogmas for truth. For liberals, naturally, the private property is sacrosanct. But this doesn't mean that such approach is either true or "universal". Capitalists were deprived from owning busnesses, that's true. So what?

    2) Can you explain to me how does freedom of movement help in the process of building first socialism and then communist society? Again, we must first subscribe to the dogma that the so-called "freedom of movement" (which never existed in its pure form to begin with) is somehow universally "holy" value.

    3) The state, any state, has the monopoly on violence. Therefore, the state cannot "murder" people which it executes in accordance to its laws.

    Well just how about communist East Germany were thousands of people were murdered for simply trying to cross the border into the west.
     
    Again - see above about the state's monopoly on the violence. They were killed by the agents of the state for violating the law. When a cop shoots a perp its considered, for the most part, justified.

    Or how about communist Hungary where in 1956 also thousands of people were mowed down by the military forces for simply protesting the appalling social conditions
     
    Neither Hungary nor any country was "communist" at the moment - it was in the process of building a socialism. Next - no, they were not "peaceful" protesters. We are talking about an armed revolt, which resulted in deaths of the Soviet Army personnel and SU civilians, which was subsequently put down.

    Or how about the siberian labor camps in which people were worked to death?
     
    Yes, the USSR had a penal sistem. There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that the people in the prison camps in the SU were "worked to death" deliberately. Were the conditions there hard? Yes! Did the people die there? Yes! But they were criminals. Are you always so teary about the fate of the criminals elsewhere?

    The list of crimes against humanity within the realm of communism is far too long to be posted here, and if you are unaware thereof, then shame on you.
     
    I asked you to provide me with "catastrophic results" of the communism. You failed, instead reposting all the usual propaganda cliches.
  39. At the first level, we are only up against Professor Legutko’s lumpen intelligentsia.

    Sometimes they will just spell it out in front of God and everybody:

    New York Magazine, February 10, 2017
    Andrew Sullivan
    One of the great achievements of free society in a stable democracy is that many people, for much of the time, need not think about politics at all.

    And yet, hysterical dogmatic liberalism is in the saddle.

    To paraphrase the Duke of Wellington via Steve Sailer, it’s going to be damn close.

  40. @Authenticjazzman
    First of all just what is " cimmunism" ?

    "What about the millions murdered in the name of capitalism then?"

    Apparently you do not know that "communism" is a dogma, a doctrine, and capitalism is the lack thereof.

    There was no capitalist "dogma" for which millions were murdered, on the other hand there most certainly was an actual "Dogma" under communism, and under which millions of innocent humans were robbed of their existance, their freedom of movement and their lives : Murdered.

    "I'm not aware of such examples ( catastrophic results) care to provide some "

    Well just how about communist East Germany were thousands of people were murdered for simply trying to cross the border into the west.

    Or how about communist Hungary where in 1956 also thousands of people were mowed down by the military forces for simply protesting the appalling social conditions

    Or how about the siberian labor camps in which people were worked to death?

    The list of crimes against humanity within the realm of communism is far too long to be posted here, and if you are unaware thereof, then shame on you.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, and pro jazz artist.

    Apparently you do not know that “communism” is a dogma, a doctrine, and capitalism is the lack thereof.

    Liberalism is the dogma of capitalism: sanctity of individual ‘liberty’ and ‘property’. Just as deadly as any other dogma, with the dubious distinction of being more smug, pretentious, and hypocritical than any other…

  41. @Authenticjazzman
    First of all just what is " cimmunism" ?

    "What about the millions murdered in the name of capitalism then?"

    Apparently you do not know that "communism" is a dogma, a doctrine, and capitalism is the lack thereof.

    There was no capitalist "dogma" for which millions were murdered, on the other hand there most certainly was an actual "Dogma" under communism, and under which millions of innocent humans were robbed of their existance, their freedom of movement and their lives : Murdered.

    "I'm not aware of such examples ( catastrophic results) care to provide some "

    Well just how about communist East Germany were thousands of people were murdered for simply trying to cross the border into the west.

    Or how about communist Hungary where in 1956 also thousands of people were mowed down by the military forces for simply protesting the appalling social conditions

    Or how about the siberian labor camps in which people were worked to death?

    The list of crimes against humanity within the realm of communism is far too long to be posted here, and if you are unaware thereof, then shame on you.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, and pro jazz artist.

    Apparently you do not know that “communism” is a dogma, a doctrine, and capitalism is the lack thereof.

    Communism is also soci-economic system of organizing the humanity’s relations – like capitalism.

    As for capitalism not being a “dogma” – what about liberalism then? Liberalism in virtually all of its forms and the classical liberalism expose the market capitalist economy and bourgeoisie democracy as the only true and acceptable forms of government and organization of society. Capitalism has its own set of dogmas and holy cows – like the private property’s ownership, and liberalism espouses the interests of the individual above the needs of everyone else. Ergo – the modern Western so-called Left of SJWs and identity politics, which is the logical conclusion of the liberal ideology.

    There was no capitalist “dogma” for which millions were murdered, on the other hand there most certainly was an actual “Dogma” under communism, and under which millions of innocent humans were robbed of their existance, their freedom of movement and their lives : Murdered.

    Rly? No one was murdered (and is murdered this very moment I’m typing this comment) in the name of the chief dogma of the capitalism – profit at all costs? No people were enslaved, robbed by colonizers or ethnically cleansed in the name of the capitalism?

    You make 3 accusations against the “communism” – people were “robbed” of their “existence” (did you mean property?), restricted of their freedom of movement and “robbed of their lives”.

    1) You approach this whole quandary with a clear pro-capitalist bias and taking liberalism dogmas for truth. For liberals, naturally, the private property is sacrosanct. But this doesn’t mean that such approach is either true or “universal”. Capitalists were deprived from owning busnesses, that’s true. So what?

    2) Can you explain to me how does freedom of movement help in the process of building first socialism and then communist society? Again, we must first subscribe to the dogma that the so-called “freedom of movement” (which never existed in its pure form to begin with) is somehow universally “holy” value.

    3) The state, any state, has the monopoly on violence. Therefore, the state cannot “murder” people which it executes in accordance to its laws.

    Well just how about communist East Germany were thousands of people were murdered for simply trying to cross the border into the west.

    Again – see above about the state’s monopoly on the violence. They were killed by the agents of the state for violating the law. When a cop shoots a perp its considered, for the most part, justified.

    Or how about communist Hungary where in 1956 also thousands of people were mowed down by the military forces for simply protesting the appalling social conditions

    Neither Hungary nor any country was “communist” at the moment – it was in the process of building a socialism. Next – no, they were not “peaceful” protesters. We are talking about an armed revolt, which resulted in deaths of the Soviet Army personnel and SU civilians, which was subsequently put down.

    Or how about the siberian labor camps in which people were worked to death?

    Yes, the USSR had a penal sistem. There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that the people in the prison camps in the SU were “worked to death” deliberately. Were the conditions there hard? Yes! Did the people die there? Yes! But they were criminals. Are you always so teary about the fate of the criminals elsewhere?

    The list of crimes against humanity within the realm of communism is far too long to be posted here, and if you are unaware thereof, then shame on you.

    I asked you to provide me with “catastrophic results” of the communism. You failed, instead reposting all the usual propaganda cliches.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    " chief dogma of capitalism = profit at all costs"

    "Profit" is not and cannot be a "Dogma".

    Profit is a result of the game of buying and selling things, period. Buying and selling does not constitute any type of "dogma"

    I am a musician and when I perform for money I am engaging in this game, and "selling" my music, and this action has absolutely nothing in common with any form of "Dogma".

    "Neither Hungary nor any country was communist at the moment"

    You as with each new generation of communists, you redundantly excuse and forgive all of the heinous crimes of the past communist generation with the sick reasoning that they were the "wrong" ones the Russians, the Chinese, the East Germans etc, and you are now the "Right" ones , and you will get it right this time.

    "They were killed by the agents of the state for violating a law" :

    They were killed for simply wanting to exist the unbearable conditions of the "Workers paradise" they were trapped within, and you write this off as if they themselves were the criminals instead of the "Agents of the state" who killed them.

    Look I consider you and the likes of you to be hopelessly lost, so lets just agree to not agree, period.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member ( IQ well above 150 ) since 1973, and pro jazz artist.
  42. @Lyttenburgh

    Apparently you do not know that “communism” is a dogma, a doctrine, and capitalism is the lack thereof.
     
    Communism is also soci-economic system of organizing the humanity's relations - like capitalism.

    As for capitalism not being a "dogma" - what about liberalism then? Liberalism in virtually all of its forms and the classical liberalism expose the market capitalist economy and bourgeoisie democracy as the only true and acceptable forms of government and organization of society. Capitalism has its own set of dogmas and holy cows - like the private property's ownership, and liberalism espouses the interests of the individual above the needs of everyone else. Ergo – the modern Western so-called Left of SJWs and identity politics, which is the logical conclusion of the liberal ideology.

    There was no capitalist “dogma” for which millions were murdered, on the other hand there most certainly was an actual “Dogma” under communism, and under which millions of innocent humans were robbed of their existance, their freedom of movement and their lives : Murdered.
     
    Rly? No one was murdered (and is murdered this very moment I'm typing this comment) in the name of the chief dogma of the capitalism - profit at all costs? No people were enslaved, robbed by colonizers or ethnically cleansed in the name of the capitalism?

    You make 3 accusations against the "communism" - people were "robbed" of their "existence" (did you mean property?), restricted of their freedom of movement and "robbed of their lives".

    1) You approach this whole quandary with a clear pro-capitalist bias and taking liberalism dogmas for truth. For liberals, naturally, the private property is sacrosanct. But this doesn't mean that such approach is either true or "universal". Capitalists were deprived from owning busnesses, that's true. So what?

    2) Can you explain to me how does freedom of movement help in the process of building first socialism and then communist society? Again, we must first subscribe to the dogma that the so-called "freedom of movement" (which never existed in its pure form to begin with) is somehow universally "holy" value.

    3) The state, any state, has the monopoly on violence. Therefore, the state cannot "murder" people which it executes in accordance to its laws.

    Well just how about communist East Germany were thousands of people were murdered for simply trying to cross the border into the west.
     
    Again - see above about the state's monopoly on the violence. They were killed by the agents of the state for violating the law. When a cop shoots a perp its considered, for the most part, justified.

    Or how about communist Hungary where in 1956 also thousands of people were mowed down by the military forces for simply protesting the appalling social conditions
     
    Neither Hungary nor any country was "communist" at the moment - it was in the process of building a socialism. Next - no, they were not "peaceful" protesters. We are talking about an armed revolt, which resulted in deaths of the Soviet Army personnel and SU civilians, which was subsequently put down.

    Or how about the siberian labor camps in which people were worked to death?
     
    Yes, the USSR had a penal sistem. There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that the people in the prison camps in the SU were "worked to death" deliberately. Were the conditions there hard? Yes! Did the people die there? Yes! But they were criminals. Are you always so teary about the fate of the criminals elsewhere?

    The list of crimes against humanity within the realm of communism is far too long to be posted here, and if you are unaware thereof, then shame on you.
     
    I asked you to provide me with "catastrophic results" of the communism. You failed, instead reposting all the usual propaganda cliches.

    ” chief dogma of capitalism = profit at all costs”

    “Profit” is not and cannot be a “Dogma”.

    Profit is a result of the game of buying and selling things, period. Buying and selling does not constitute any type of “dogma”

    I am a musician and when I perform for money I am engaging in this game, and “selling” my music, and this action has absolutely nothing in common with any form of “Dogma”.

    “Neither Hungary nor any country was communist at the moment”

    You as with each new generation of communists, you redundantly excuse and forgive all of the heinous crimes of the past communist generation with the sick reasoning that they were the “wrong” ones the Russians, the Chinese, the East Germans etc, and you are now the “Right” ones , and you will get it right this time.

    “They were killed by the agents of the state for violating a law” :

    They were killed for simply wanting to exist the unbearable conditions of the “Workers paradise” they were trapped within, and you write this off as if they themselves were the criminals instead of the “Agents of the state” who killed them.

    Look I consider you and the likes of you to be hopelessly lost, so lets just agree to not agree, period.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member ( IQ well above 150 ) since 1973, and pro jazz artist.

    • Replies: @Lyttenburgh

    Profit is a result of the game of buying and selling things, period. Buying and selling does not constitute any type of “dogma”
     
    Can any business operate at a loss? What about the fine notion of "duty to profit" of, say, big company with multiple shareholders?

    I am a musician and when I perform for money I am engaging in this game, and “selling” my music, and this action has absolutely nothing in common with any form of “Dogma”.
     
    But it does. You want to be paid more than less, while working less than more - right?

    You as with each new generation of communists, you redundantly excuse and forgive all of the heinous crimes of the past communist generation with the sick reasoning that they were the “wrong” ones the Russians, the Chinese, the East Germans etc, and you are now the “Right” ones , and you will get it right this time.
     
    Please provide an actual quote of me claiming that the communists of the past were wrong, and that I'm right.

    No - I said that they were right in their actions.


    They were killed for simply wanting to exist the unbearable conditions of the “Workers paradise” they were trapped within, and you write this off as if they themselves were the criminals instead of the “Agents of the state” who killed them.
     
    Cheap pathetic rhetoric, appeal to the emotions. Individual human wants taken up to extreme as the only yardstick to measure what is "right" - how liberal! See - you have more in common with the SJWs and their hurt feelings than you are willing to admit.

    Yes - they were criminals. Criminal is the one who breaks the law. Or do you have some other definition of the term?

  43. @Authenticjazzman
    " chief dogma of capitalism = profit at all costs"

    "Profit" is not and cannot be a "Dogma".

    Profit is a result of the game of buying and selling things, period. Buying and selling does not constitute any type of "dogma"

    I am a musician and when I perform for money I am engaging in this game, and "selling" my music, and this action has absolutely nothing in common with any form of "Dogma".

    "Neither Hungary nor any country was communist at the moment"

    You as with each new generation of communists, you redundantly excuse and forgive all of the heinous crimes of the past communist generation with the sick reasoning that they were the "wrong" ones the Russians, the Chinese, the East Germans etc, and you are now the "Right" ones , and you will get it right this time.

    "They were killed by the agents of the state for violating a law" :

    They were killed for simply wanting to exist the unbearable conditions of the "Workers paradise" they were trapped within, and you write this off as if they themselves were the criminals instead of the "Agents of the state" who killed them.

    Look I consider you and the likes of you to be hopelessly lost, so lets just agree to not agree, period.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member ( IQ well above 150 ) since 1973, and pro jazz artist.

    Profit is a result of the game of buying and selling things, period. Buying and selling does not constitute any type of “dogma”

    Can any business operate at a loss? What about the fine notion of “duty to profit” of, say, big company with multiple shareholders?

    I am a musician and when I perform for money I am engaging in this game, and “selling” my music, and this action has absolutely nothing in common with any form of “Dogma”.

    But it does. You want to be paid more than less, while working less than more – right?

    You as with each new generation of communists, you redundantly excuse and forgive all of the heinous crimes of the past communist generation with the sick reasoning that they were the “wrong” ones the Russians, the Chinese, the East Germans etc, and you are now the “Right” ones , and you will get it right this time.

    Please provide an actual quote of me claiming that the communists of the past were wrong, and that I’m right.

    No – I said that they were right in their actions.

    They were killed for simply wanting to exist the unbearable conditions of the “Workers paradise” they were trapped within, and you write this off as if they themselves were the criminals instead of the “Agents of the state” who killed them.

    Cheap pathetic rhetoric, appeal to the emotions. Individual human wants taken up to extreme as the only yardstick to measure what is “right” – how liberal! See – you have more in common with the SJWs and their hurt feelings than you are willing to admit.

    Yes – they were criminals. Criminal is the one who breaks the law. Or do you have some other definition of the term?

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    " you want to be paid more than less, while working less than more"

    You have no clue as to what you are talking about.

    As a musician it was never my goal to "work less" to "perform less" and get paid more, as I love my musical activities, and I cannot count the number of times in the last fifty years that I have continued to perform without being compensated for "Overtime".
    Playing, creating music is not some kind of distasteful activity for which one is happy when it is over with.

    "Criminal is the one who breaks the law" : so If someone breaks a "Criminal" law they are themselves the criminal.

    In my opinion you are out of your mind.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

  44. @Lyttenburgh

    Profit is a result of the game of buying and selling things, period. Buying and selling does not constitute any type of “dogma”
     
    Can any business operate at a loss? What about the fine notion of "duty to profit" of, say, big company with multiple shareholders?

    I am a musician and when I perform for money I am engaging in this game, and “selling” my music, and this action has absolutely nothing in common with any form of “Dogma”.
     
    But it does. You want to be paid more than less, while working less than more - right?

    You as with each new generation of communists, you redundantly excuse and forgive all of the heinous crimes of the past communist generation with the sick reasoning that they were the “wrong” ones the Russians, the Chinese, the East Germans etc, and you are now the “Right” ones , and you will get it right this time.
     
    Please provide an actual quote of me claiming that the communists of the past were wrong, and that I'm right.

    No - I said that they were right in their actions.


    They were killed for simply wanting to exist the unbearable conditions of the “Workers paradise” they were trapped within, and you write this off as if they themselves were the criminals instead of the “Agents of the state” who killed them.
     
    Cheap pathetic rhetoric, appeal to the emotions. Individual human wants taken up to extreme as the only yardstick to measure what is "right" - how liberal! See - you have more in common with the SJWs and their hurt feelings than you are willing to admit.

    Yes - they were criminals. Criminal is the one who breaks the law. Or do you have some other definition of the term?

    ” you want to be paid more than less, while working less than more”

    You have no clue as to what you are talking about.

    As a musician it was never my goal to “work less” to “perform less” and get paid more, as I love my musical activities, and I cannot count the number of times in the last fifty years that I have continued to perform without being compensated for “Overtime”.
    Playing, creating music is not some kind of distasteful activity for which one is happy when it is over with.

    “Criminal is the one who breaks the law” : so If someone breaks a “Criminal” law they are themselves the criminal.

    In my opinion you are out of your mind.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    • Replies: @Lyttenburgh

    Playing, creating music is not some kind of distasteful activity for which one is happy when it is over with.
     
    Phooey! What a fairy-tale picture you are trying to present us here! You sell your labour in the form of music performance for money so that earn your daily bread. That you also experience some positive emotions as the result of said work is absolutely unnecessary information. The simple fact remains - you can't perform pro bono publico - you can only do it for money, or find another (paying) job, which will relegate your performance to the sphere of hobby.

    so If someone breaks a “Criminal” law they are themselves the criminal.
     
    What is this "criminal law" you are talking about? What makes any law "criminal"?
  45. @Authenticjazzman
    " you want to be paid more than less, while working less than more"

    You have no clue as to what you are talking about.

    As a musician it was never my goal to "work less" to "perform less" and get paid more, as I love my musical activities, and I cannot count the number of times in the last fifty years that I have continued to perform without being compensated for "Overtime".
    Playing, creating music is not some kind of distasteful activity for which one is happy when it is over with.

    "Criminal is the one who breaks the law" : so If someone breaks a "Criminal" law they are themselves the criminal.

    In my opinion you are out of your mind.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    Playing, creating music is not some kind of distasteful activity for which one is happy when it is over with.

    Phooey! What a fairy-tale picture you are trying to present us here! You sell your labour in the form of music performance for money so that earn your daily bread. That you also experience some positive emotions as the result of said work is absolutely unnecessary information. The simple fact remains – you can’t perform pro bono publico – you can only do it for money, or find another (paying) job, which will relegate your performance to the sphere of hobby.

    so If someone breaks a “Criminal” law they are themselves the criminal.

    What is this “criminal law” you are talking about? What makes any law “criminal”?

    • Replies: @Authenticjazman
    "What makes any law criminal"

    Well maybe you consider the east German abberation of law regarding "Republikflucht" : Illegally "Fleeing the country" which called for the on the spot execution of violators, to be a "Legal" law but this is because of your perverted communistic worldview, and there is no possibility of a concensus between myself and yourself on this subject.

    "The simple fact remains-you can't perform ( music) pro bono publico-you can only do it for money or find another paying job, which will regulate your performance to the sphere of hobby"

    I have on many occasions performed for no pay, in such venues as old folks homes etc, for kids, etc.
    You simply have no clue as to what you are blathering about as all forms of art are nothing but paid "hobbies".
    Decades ago I played with a drummer who had been on stage with some of the most legendary figures in the jazz world, and he stated that his drumming was nothing but a "Paid" hobby.

    Look you are a clueless know-it-all fool in my eyes, so lets just cease this fruitless communication.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.
  46. @Lyttenburgh

    Playing, creating music is not some kind of distasteful activity for which one is happy when it is over with.
     
    Phooey! What a fairy-tale picture you are trying to present us here! You sell your labour in the form of music performance for money so that earn your daily bread. That you also experience some positive emotions as the result of said work is absolutely unnecessary information. The simple fact remains - you can't perform pro bono publico - you can only do it for money, or find another (paying) job, which will relegate your performance to the sphere of hobby.

    so If someone breaks a “Criminal” law they are themselves the criminal.
     
    What is this "criminal law" you are talking about? What makes any law "criminal"?

    “What makes any law criminal”

    Well maybe you consider the east German abberation of law regarding “Republikflucht” : Illegally “Fleeing the country” which called for the on the spot execution of violators, to be a “Legal” law but this is because of your perverted communistic worldview, and there is no possibility of a concensus between myself and yourself on this subject.

    “The simple fact remains-you can’t perform ( music) pro bono publico-you can only do it for money or find another paying job, which will regulate your performance to the sphere of hobby”

    I have on many occasions performed for no pay, in such venues as old folks homes etc, for kids, etc.
    You simply have no clue as to what you are blathering about as all forms of art are nothing but paid “hobbies”.
    Decades ago I played with a drummer who had been on stage with some of the most legendary figures in the jazz world, and he stated that his drumming was nothing but a “Paid” hobby.

    Look you are a clueless know-it-all fool in my eyes, so lets just cease this fruitless communication.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    • Replies: @Lyttenburgh

    to be a “Legal” law but this is because of your perverted communistic worldview, and there is no possibility of a concensus between myself and yourself on this subject.
     
    Aha, so basically we are having this dialog making rounds and rounds:

    You: Aiiiiiiiii! Catastrophes of the communism! Terror! Horror! Horror!
    Me: Sup?
    You: Commies are doing shit to people! They are monsters!
    Me: This "shit" is called "executing the law".
    You: Nu-huh! This law is not kosher! This is a criminal law!
    Me: What makes it criminal?
    You: This law is criminal because *I* say so!


    That's basically it. Prove that the GDR legislation concerning the regulation of it's citizens migration was "criminal" or "forever hold your... piece" (c).

    I have on many occasions performed for no pay, in such venues as old folks homes etc, for kids, etc.
     
    But you can't do that constantly. Soon you will have to perform for money, and when you do you'd like to have a hefty profit, especially if you want to have an opportunity to perform for free in the future without dying from hunger.
  47. @Authenticjazman
    "What makes any law criminal"

    Well maybe you consider the east German abberation of law regarding "Republikflucht" : Illegally "Fleeing the country" which called for the on the spot execution of violators, to be a "Legal" law but this is because of your perverted communistic worldview, and there is no possibility of a concensus between myself and yourself on this subject.

    "The simple fact remains-you can't perform ( music) pro bono publico-you can only do it for money or find another paying job, which will regulate your performance to the sphere of hobby"

    I have on many occasions performed for no pay, in such venues as old folks homes etc, for kids, etc.
    You simply have no clue as to what you are blathering about as all forms of art are nothing but paid "hobbies".
    Decades ago I played with a drummer who had been on stage with some of the most legendary figures in the jazz world, and he stated that his drumming was nothing but a "Paid" hobby.

    Look you are a clueless know-it-all fool in my eyes, so lets just cease this fruitless communication.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    to be a “Legal” law but this is because of your perverted communistic worldview, and there is no possibility of a concensus between myself and yourself on this subject.

    Aha, so basically we are having this dialog making rounds and rounds:

    You: Aiiiiiiiii! Catastrophes of the communism! Terror! Horror! Horror!
    Me: Sup?
    You: Commies are doing shit to people! They are monsters!
    Me: This “shit” is called “executing the law”.
    You: Nu-huh! This law is not kosher! This is a criminal law!
    Me: What makes it criminal?
    You: This law is criminal because *I* say so!

    That’s basically it. Prove that the GDR legislation concerning the regulation of it’s citizens migration was “criminal” or “forever hold your… piece” (c).

    I have on many occasions performed for no pay, in such venues as old folks homes etc, for kids, etc.

    But you can’t do that constantly. Soon you will have to perform for money, and when you do you’d like to have a hefty profit, especially if you want to have an opportunity to perform for free in the future without dying from hunger.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    " You : this law is criminal because * I * say so!"

    Yeah and this law is not criminal because you say so.

    You are trying, due to your diseased, deranged mind, you are trying to defend the indefensible.

    The east Germans, based on a criminal law, murdered thousands of innocent peasants simply because they committed the horrible crime of wanting to exit the unbearable conditions of their "Workers paradise", and you are defending these murderous actions, and the insane law they were based upon, you disgust me

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.
  48. Performing music is not part of capitalist ‘relations of production’ anyway. It’s arts & crafts, basically a side-show that exists in any socioeconomic system. I’m sure mimes in ancient Rome enjoyed their lives too; who cares. Why wouldn’t he go to work on an assembly line, or to sort mail at a post office, for 30 years or so, and them come back to tell us how he feels about it.

    • Replies: @Lyttenburgh
    Eh, artistic intelligentsia like Authenticjazzman might think of themselves to be a cut above the mere commoners, but even they are “covered” by Marxist class approach. Say someone playing a violin in an orchestra for a salary is proletarian all said and done. A saxophone player down the street corner who owns his sax and earns pennies from the passer-bys is a petite bourgeoisie – even if he earns less than a violin-playing proletarian :)

    They have needs and dogmas of behavior appropriate to their classes who have to function in the capitalist society. Instead of recognizing this they have only lots of hot air and Ego the size the Moon.
  49. @Priss Factor
    I think we should make a distinction between the Syndicalists and Cynicalists.

    In the end, Syndicalists turn into Cynicalists if they win. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    Or Cynicalists attach themselves to every movement. They either ride it to victory and manipulate it OR they appropriate it to control it for their own interests.

    Take BLM. We know that Jewish elites don't like black violence and thuggery. We know that they know the REAL problem with blacks is aggression, crime, and lunacy.
    BUT, Jewish elites still see white gentiles as their main rivals for power, and therefore, Jews seek to paralyze white pride and unity. This is done by 'guilt-baiting' whites about Jimmy Crow and Slavery. And so, Jews maintain the fiction that blacks are still oppressed by 'racist whites'. And that is why Jews supported BLM even though, deep down inside, Jews know that black violence is the #1 threat to cities, the foundation of Jewish power. So, much of Jewish 'leftism' is really Cynicalist.

    There was once a time when many Jews were in the working class or even worse. Plenty of Eastern European Jews living under the Russian yoke were desperately poor, not least due to high birthrates. And even many Jewish merchants were peddlers and others who were just eking out a living. Back then, we can understand why a bunch of Jews were genuinely into Marxism, anarcho-syndicalism, and etc.

    But today, the last thing that Jews want is a bunch of angry mobs with class consciousness taking from the rich to give to the poor. The rich would be the Jews.
    So, much of Jewish 'leftism' has turned Cynical-ist.

    'Leftism' is a broad category, and it can be just about anything depending on who gets to write its codes. Calling something 'leftist' is like calling something a search engine. Who gets to write algorithm for the software? Google writes its in a way that favors certain sites over others. Surely, search engines work differently China. Try looking up anything about Tiananmen Incident there.

    To be sure, one could argue that 'leftism' is broadly about equality and universalism. But there are so many ways to define 'equality' and 'universalism'.
    When Vietnamese fought to drive out foreigners and create a homogeneous national state, that was called 'leftism'. In that case, leftism was nativist and anti-invasivist.
    But in the case of France, we have a 'leftism' that calls for invasivism and displacement of native folks.

    Is 'multi-culturalism' leftist? Some may say so, but others would argue it is 'rightist' because, for example, it allows Muslims in Europe to maintain their reactionary and arch-traditional value systems and habits. Indeed, we often have the so-called Right in Europe making the 'leftist'-seeming argument that Islam must be banned because it is too reactionary and 'tribalist'.

    And just how did Jewish 'liberals' and 'progressives' make peace with Zionism that is fiercely nationalist and tribalist?

    We need a fascist theory of politics and history because, all said and done, it's really about the Power, especially among the intelligent. While dummies may earnestly and stupidly believe what's been crammed into their heads, People of Intelligence are too smart to fall for all the highfalutin politico-babble. Rather, they manipulate such rhetoric to gain power. It's like Stalin really knew that all the official rhetoric was a cynical ploy to concentrate all the power in his hands. And Mao knew that the Cultural Revolution was a power struggle between himself and his perceived rivals. It was the dummies, the Red Guards, who swallowed the rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. And when they got out of hand, Mao decided to come up with a new idea and send them to the countryside where they couldn't make so much trouble.

    Recently, look how all those Jewish 'progressives' pretend to care about all those 'refugees' as they invoke the Statue of Liberty. But they'd been utterly silent when Obama, at the behest of Zionists, pushed a foreign policy that turned Middle East into a hellhole and reduced people into refugees. So, 'leftism' depends on partisanism and who-gets-to-control-the-contextual-narrative. Jewish progs leave out the stuff about Obama's wars and focus ONLY on sympathy for those 'poor huddle refugees'. It's pure Cynicalism.

    Because we don't have a fascist theoretics of power, we have too many people acting in naive sincere-ist mode. They don't know that they are a bunch of dupes who are easily swayed this way and that. They don't know why they are made to feel so righteous and impassioned about certain things than others. There was a time when the Left associated homo culture with capitalist excess and decadence. So, how did the new 'left' become so homopathic and homomaniacal? Isn't it because many of the former leftists got rich and became addicted to wealth and power? This was true esp with Jews. With Jews having so much dough and privilege, why would they feel much affinity with the working class who make Labor troubles that undermine Wall Street and urban rich class? Why not favor the homos who, btw, are also useful for gentrifying cities of them pesky Negroes? So, a bunch of vain, egotistical, narcissistic, self-indulgent, and neo-aristocratic whoopsy-doers became the #1 face of 'leftism'.
    It was part of the Cynicalism of Power, but so many people fell for it because they are dumb.

    Americans are still naive and easily duped because they begin with ideas, ideals, and rhetoric. They don't begin with the Power. They aren't Machiavellians.
    Now, it may be that even the powerful actually believe in the bogus crap that they peddle. Consciously, people can easily dupe themselves... but subconsciously, of course, they are driven by power. Bill Gates acts like Mr. Humanitarian, but how did he amass all that fortune? He was one of the most ruthless and cunning monopoly-capitalists that ever lived, that's why. And Soros acts like he's Mr. Progressive, but what really animates and drives him? He loves to play the money game to win. And he supports 'progressivism' to weaken and break down national barriers so that his ilk can penetrate markets and manipulate currencies.

    What we need is a magazine called THE POWER. Before it discusses politics, ideologies, rhetoric, and partisan talking points, it would focus on the personality, ethnicity, economics, and mechanics of Power. Its perspective would begin with the notion that people(at least those with talent, vision, and etc) are driven by Will to Power.
    This isn't to say ideologies and values aren't important. They do shape, limit, and direct the ways in which power manifests itself. Surely, power flows and grows differently in Saudi Arabia, Cuba, North Korea, South Africa, Brazil, Israel, Germany, and the United States. Given the founding principles of Israel, one is advantaged in power by invoking blood and soil. Given the guilt-ideology of Germany, it is fatal for any politician to invoke blood and soil. Still, whatever the ideologies or societal limits, the fact is all peoples of all nations want the power, and the Power is their main goal than serving some ideology. Anyone who thinks that knaves like Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama, Lindsey Graham, or Paul Ryan are about ideology first and power second is a fool.

    While it's true that some men of power are more idealistic and more principled than others, they all want the thrill of power. Trump is a strange case because he's been one of the most cynical businessmen of all time. Yet, he ran a campaign that pissed off both parties, and in office, he's done things that offended the powers that be that are trying to destroy him. Why would Trump do this?

    Anyway, if we are to understand the psychology of those who have power over us politically, economically, and culturally, we need to probe into the part of the brain that is power-obsessed. Granted, except for gangsters and thugs, people are not ONLY FOR POWER. Power for power sounds too much like prostitution, orgy, or porny stuff. Just like people ideally want to associate sex with love and devotion, people want to associate power with ideals and cause. But the nature of globalism is to pornographize power. Is it any wonder that so much of current political culture is about homo anus and pussy-hats or vagina monologue or pussy riot?

    Sex used to be justified in relation to love and marriage. No longer. It is flaunted and indulged in as pleasure for its own sake.
    We haven't gone that way with Power yet, at least not fully. But after the End of the Cold War, so much of what has happened has been about naked power grab and indulgence. Consider the Jewish oligarchic looting of Russia. Look at Wall Street predatory behavior and how it got away with bailouts. Look at all those gratuitous wars in the Middle East to serve Israeli supremacism and bankers. Look at the rotten behavior of the Chinese Rich and Russian oligarchs who'd rather invest their money in mega-rich condos in NY or real estate in Canada or California. Look how whore politicians like Trudeau ignores his own countrymen while sucking up to rich oligarchs from China, Gulf States, and etc.

    Power too is turning porny. More and more, as the culture grows shameless, we are seeing power for power's sake, like in the Ridley Scott movie THE COUNSELOR.

    But unlike sex, naked power is still officially repressed or dressed up in 'righteous' feathers, and the globalist elites pretend that they are for justice and sound values. But this charade was blow up in the Hillary campaign. Here she was sucking up to every oligarch from Israel, Saudi Arabia, China, and Wall Street. Here she was being so cozy with the War Machine. Here she was rubbing shoulders with the self-indulgent and piggish celebs of Hollywood and music industry. Yet, she was supposed to be about decency and sound values. Enough Americans woke up and didn't buy it. What they saw the pornography of power masquerading as morality. The reason why WOLF OF WALL STREET was a big hit was not cuz of its moralism. If anything, it was a porny celebration of power. Oliver Stone's WALL STREET was plenty sensational too and Gekko became a cool anti-hero to many. Still, there was still a sense of right and wrong, a sense of shame on the part of Sheen character when he gets caught. But in WOLF OF WALL STREET, there is no shame. It's the game of power all the way.

    Fascist theoretics would make us aware of that because it would probe into the power-psychology of the elites. END OF HISTORY is THE BEGINNING OF PORNOGRAPHY OF POWER.
    Now, fascism is NOT about the indulgence of power for power's sake. Rather, it is an understanding of what the Power really is and understanding the relations of power among the various classes and between the sexes. Once that is understood, fascism tries to find a most sane, sound, and moral way to coordinate those powers and arrive at a moral unity. For there to be true morality, there has to be an honest understanding of truth.

    Mussolini and esp Hitler did a bad job with this --- though they were right about some key things --- , but failure doesn't mean we shouldn't try again. After all, there were many failures in the space program before a rocket was finally launched into space.

    Well argued, Priss.

  50. @Authenticjazzman
    "Marx was an economist"

    Bullshit, Marx was nowhere close to being an "Economist" he was a dilletant jack of all trades, his views on capitalism, on commerce, were so twisted and erroneous, that his only point to be made was : Kill the rich people.
    He had absolutely no clue as to human nature, otherwise he would have known that his concepts were doomed from the start to failure, and his circle of comrades were the academic BS artists of that era, the "Salon" revolutionaries.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    I’m curious, how much Marx have you read?

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    " I'm curious, how much Marx have you read?"

    Well to start with : " Das Kapital" and his "Manifest" both in German.

    And both of them comprised of insane, drunken, incomprehensible rambling.

    Marx was low grade BS artist and full of shiot, and anyone who professes to "Get" his point other than "Kill the rich" is lying through their teeth.

    He had no clue as to the nature of human beings, otherwise he would have sensed from the get-go that his concepts were unworkable, and the ensuing mayhem, mass murders and destruction of whole countries would have been avoided.

    And of course I know there are myriads of individuals who would disagree with me.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, and pro jazz artist.
  51. @Lyttenburgh

    to be a “Legal” law but this is because of your perverted communistic worldview, and there is no possibility of a concensus between myself and yourself on this subject.
     
    Aha, so basically we are having this dialog making rounds and rounds:

    You: Aiiiiiiiii! Catastrophes of the communism! Terror! Horror! Horror!
    Me: Sup?
    You: Commies are doing shit to people! They are monsters!
    Me: This "shit" is called "executing the law".
    You: Nu-huh! This law is not kosher! This is a criminal law!
    Me: What makes it criminal?
    You: This law is criminal because *I* say so!


    That's basically it. Prove that the GDR legislation concerning the regulation of it's citizens migration was "criminal" or "forever hold your... piece" (c).

    I have on many occasions performed for no pay, in such venues as old folks homes etc, for kids, etc.
     
    But you can't do that constantly. Soon you will have to perform for money, and when you do you'd like to have a hefty profit, especially if you want to have an opportunity to perform for free in the future without dying from hunger.

    ” You : this law is criminal because * I * say so!”

    Yeah and this law is not criminal because you say so.

    You are trying, due to your diseased, deranged mind, you are trying to defend the indefensible.

    The east Germans, based on a criminal law, murdered thousands of innocent peasants simply because they committed the horrible crime of wanting to exit the unbearable conditions of their “Workers paradise”, and you are defending these murderous actions, and the insane law they were based upon, you disgust me

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    murdered thousands of innocent peasants simply
     
    Over 28 years 136 persons died attempting illegal border crossing. Some were shot, some drowned, and some committed suicide.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deaths_at_the_Berlin_Wall

    In contrast, in the US, just in one year, 2015, at least 1140 were killed by police and other law enforcement agencies.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States

    , @Lyttenburgh

    Yeah and this law is not criminal because you say so.
     
    No, I'm saying that any law adopted by the legitimate government ruling over the state in accordance with the correct procedure is (pun intended) a lawful one. Congress voting for a bill to become a law is lawful - but so is the absolute monarch's ruling by the grace of the Divine Right's command to have a law.

    You are failing to provide a definition of a "criminal law". Try again.


    You are trying, due to your diseased, deranged mind, you are trying to defend the indefensible.
     
    Explain why it is "indefensible".

    The east Germans, based on a criminal law, murdered thousands of innocent peasants simply because they committed the horrible crime of wanting to exit the unbearable conditions of their “Workers paradise”, and you are defending these murderous actions, and the insane law they were based upon, you disgust me
     
    1) They were not “peasants”. But as I learned from the experience, certain category of people tend to lump a huge swathe of other human beings into the "peasant" type because they tend to think themselves above them. Usually, these judgmental people tend to belong to professions or backgrounds that despise the physical labour on principle.

    2) You are once again repeating an old lie about "thousands murdered while trying to escape the GDR". Data on this issue varies and I'd like to see your sources. So far, it's documentally proven only the death of 125 would be trespassers (that's right - in the period from 1961 to 1989) plus of 8 GDR border guards, murdered from the Western Berlin side.

    3) I have to ask- are you against any migrant legislation? Do you a "no-borders" type? Do you think, that people everywhere should just walk over state borders and the state should be prohibited to take any actions to regulate that?

  52. @Dissident
    I'm curious, how much Marx have you read?

    ” I’m curious, how much Marx have you read?”

    Well to start with : ” Das Kapital” and his “Manifest” both in German.

    And both of them comprised of insane, drunken, incomprehensible rambling.

    Marx was low grade BS artist and full of shiot, and anyone who professes to “Get” his point other than “Kill the rich” is lying through their teeth.

    He had no clue as to the nature of human beings, otherwise he would have sensed from the get-go that his concepts were unworkable, and the ensuing mayhem, mass murders and destruction of whole countries would have been avoided.

    And of course I know there are myriads of individuals who would disagree with me.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member since 1973, and pro jazz artist.

  53. @Authenticjazzman
    " You : this law is criminal because * I * say so!"

    Yeah and this law is not criminal because you say so.

    You are trying, due to your diseased, deranged mind, you are trying to defend the indefensible.

    The east Germans, based on a criminal law, murdered thousands of innocent peasants simply because they committed the horrible crime of wanting to exit the unbearable conditions of their "Workers paradise", and you are defending these murderous actions, and the insane law they were based upon, you disgust me

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    murdered thousands of innocent peasants simply

    Over 28 years 136 persons died attempting illegal border crossing. Some were shot, some drowned, and some committed suicide.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deaths_at_the_Berlin_Wall

    In contrast, in the US, just in one year, 2015, at least 1140 were killed by police and other law enforcement agencies.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States

  54. @Mao Cheng Ji
    Performing music is not part of capitalist 'relations of production' anyway. It's arts & crafts, basically a side-show that exists in any socioeconomic system. I'm sure mimes in ancient Rome enjoyed their lives too; who cares. Why wouldn't he go to work on an assembly line, or to sort mail at a post office, for 30 years or so, and them come back to tell us how he feels about it.

    Eh, artistic intelligentsia like Authenticjazzman might think of themselves to be a cut above the mere commoners, but even they are “covered” by Marxist class approach. Say someone playing a violin in an orchestra for a salary is proletarian all said and done. A saxophone player down the street corner who owns his sax and earns pennies from the passer-bys is a petite bourgeoisie – even if he earns less than a violin-playing proletarian :)

    They have needs and dogmas of behavior appropriate to their classes who have to function in the capitalist society. Instead of recognizing this they have only lots of hot air and Ego the size the Moon.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    ...incidentally, the best saxophone jazz I've ever heard live (not that I'm a connoisseur necessarily) was Vladimir Chekasin (with his trio) at the club of the Moscow bearing factory, in the early 80s. Go figure. Blue Note doesn't come close. Not to mention ticket prices...
  55. @Authenticjazzman
    " You : this law is criminal because * I * say so!"

    Yeah and this law is not criminal because you say so.

    You are trying, due to your diseased, deranged mind, you are trying to defend the indefensible.

    The east Germans, based on a criminal law, murdered thousands of innocent peasants simply because they committed the horrible crime of wanting to exit the unbearable conditions of their "Workers paradise", and you are defending these murderous actions, and the insane law they were based upon, you disgust me

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    Yeah and this law is not criminal because you say so.

    No, I’m saying that any law adopted by the legitimate government ruling over the state in accordance with the correct procedure is (pun intended) a lawful one. Congress voting for a bill to become a law is lawful – but so is the absolute monarch’s ruling by the grace of the Divine Right’s command to have a law.

    You are failing to provide a definition of a “criminal law”. Try again.

    You are trying, due to your diseased, deranged mind, you are trying to defend the indefensible.

    Explain why it is “indefensible”.

    The east Germans, based on a criminal law, murdered thousands of innocent peasants simply because they committed the horrible crime of wanting to exit the unbearable conditions of their “Workers paradise”, and you are defending these murderous actions, and the insane law they were based upon, you disgust me

    1) They were not “peasants”. But as I learned from the experience, certain category of people tend to lump a huge swathe of other human beings into the “peasant” type because they tend to think themselves above them. Usually, these judgmental people tend to belong to professions or backgrounds that despise the physical labour on principle.

    2) You are once again repeating an old lie about “thousands murdered while trying to escape the GDR”. Data on this issue varies and I’d like to see your sources. So far, it’s documentally proven only the death of 125 would be trespassers (that’s right – in the period from 1961 to 1989) plus of 8 GDR border guards, murdered from the Western Berlin side.

    3) I have to ask- are you against any migrant legislation? Do you a “no-borders” type? Do you think, that people everywhere should just walk over state borders and the state should be prohibited to take any actions to regulate that?

    • Replies: @Darin
    If your country just outlawed communism, would it be fine with you? If the law punished communists with death, would you obey and report yourself for excecution?
    , @Craken
    It's good to know there are still apologists for the Soviet gulag verbosely roaming the world. Keeping troll diversity alive!
  56. @Lyttenburgh
    Eh, artistic intelligentsia like Authenticjazzman might think of themselves to be a cut above the mere commoners, but even they are “covered” by Marxist class approach. Say someone playing a violin in an orchestra for a salary is proletarian all said and done. A saxophone player down the street corner who owns his sax and earns pennies from the passer-bys is a petite bourgeoisie – even if he earns less than a violin-playing proletarian :)

    They have needs and dogmas of behavior appropriate to their classes who have to function in the capitalist society. Instead of recognizing this they have only lots of hot air and Ego the size the Moon.

    …incidentally, the best saxophone jazz I’ve ever heard live (not that I’m a connoisseur necessarily) was Vladimir Chekasin (with his trio) at the club of the Moscow bearing factory, in the early 80s. Go figure. Blue Note doesn’t come close. Not to mention ticket prices…

  57. You evidently have never heard Charlie Parker or Stan Getz, or Sonny Rollins or Art Pepper, or Paul Desmond, or Wardell Gray, or Coleman Hawkins or George Coleman or Lucky Thompson, or Benny Carter or Gerry Mulligan, or any of the other hundreds of american jazz legends, otherwise you would know that these guys were the models for the Russian jazz players.
    These american jazz players were the guys whom the Russians, and all of the European jazz players lionized and copied.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

  58. Nah. I suspect Chekasin wouldn’t give a shit about your Parker or anyone else. He’s entirely original, self-made and self-taught jazzman, who created his own school.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    You can rest assured that your russian sax man was well versed in the Parker idiom as are all jazz players world wide without exception.

    You are beyond clueless in this subject : Jazz is destinct idiom, and an actual musical language, and it incorporates a specific manner of musical "Phrasing", and there is no such thing as an entirely divergent jazz style, because it would not fit into the specific language of jazz, regarding jazz "phrasing'", and the person involved would be doomed to solo performing.

    There are most certainly original styles, Parker was the best example of this, however each and every "Original" jazz style can still be identified through it's as Jazz "Phrasing" by other jazz players.

    If someone wants to create their own style fine no problems, but if it does not resemble the jazz idiom they cannot legitimately label it as : Jazz.

    And I am quite sure that you will not understand this.

    I played decades ago with a russian jazz pianist who had won the most prestigious award for classical piano in russia, and he was a Parker desciple, and worshiper.

    Look you exaust me with your ignorant nonsense, so lets agree to disagree and leave it at that.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

  59. @Mao Cheng Ji
    Nah. I suspect Chekasin wouldn't give a shit about your Parker or anyone else. He's entirely original, self-made and self-taught jazzman, who created his own school.

    You can rest assured that your russian sax man was well versed in the Parker idiom as are all jazz players world wide without exception.

    You are beyond clueless in this subject : Jazz is destinct idiom, and an actual musical language, and it incorporates a specific manner of musical “Phrasing”, and there is no such thing as an entirely divergent jazz style, because it would not fit into the specific language of jazz, regarding jazz “phrasing’”, and the person involved would be doomed to solo performing.

    There are most certainly original styles, Parker was the best example of this, however each and every “Original” jazz style can still be identified through it’s as Jazz “Phrasing” by other jazz players.

    If someone wants to create their own style fine no problems, but if it does not resemble the jazz idiom they cannot legitimately label it as : Jazz.

    And I am quite sure that you will not understand this.

    I played decades ago with a russian jazz pianist who had won the most prestigious award for classical piano in russia, and he was a Parker desciple, and worshiper.

    Look you exaust me with your ignorant nonsense, so lets agree to disagree and leave it at that.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    • Replies: @Lyttenburgh

    Look you exaust me with your ignorant nonsense, so lets agree to disagree and leave it at that.
     
    Perhaps its you who is ignorant here, seeing as instead of engaging in any intellectual conversation, providing proof for your points you instead just shriek with indignation, reasort to buzzwords, clogans and cliches and refuse to think about something new?

    Prove me wrong - and answer my questions. And no need to complain about your "exhaustion" - you've been treatening to cut this conversation for days now.
    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    You can rest assured that your russian sax man was well versed in the Parker idiom as are all jazz players world wide without exception.
     
    Being versed in something is different from lionizing someone.
  60. @Authenticjazzman
    You can rest assured that your russian sax man was well versed in the Parker idiom as are all jazz players world wide without exception.

    You are beyond clueless in this subject : Jazz is destinct idiom, and an actual musical language, and it incorporates a specific manner of musical "Phrasing", and there is no such thing as an entirely divergent jazz style, because it would not fit into the specific language of jazz, regarding jazz "phrasing'", and the person involved would be doomed to solo performing.

    There are most certainly original styles, Parker was the best example of this, however each and every "Original" jazz style can still be identified through it's as Jazz "Phrasing" by other jazz players.

    If someone wants to create their own style fine no problems, but if it does not resemble the jazz idiom they cannot legitimately label it as : Jazz.

    And I am quite sure that you will not understand this.

    I played decades ago with a russian jazz pianist who had won the most prestigious award for classical piano in russia, and he was a Parker desciple, and worshiper.

    Look you exaust me with your ignorant nonsense, so lets agree to disagree and leave it at that.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    Look you exaust me with your ignorant nonsense, so lets agree to disagree and leave it at that.

    Perhaps its you who is ignorant here, seeing as instead of engaging in any intellectual conversation, providing proof for your points you instead just shriek with indignation, reasort to buzzwords, clogans and cliches and refuse to think about something new?

    Prove me wrong – and answer my questions. And no need to complain about your “exhaustion” – you’ve been treatening to cut this conversation for days now.

  61. @Authenticjazzman
    You can rest assured that your russian sax man was well versed in the Parker idiom as are all jazz players world wide without exception.

    You are beyond clueless in this subject : Jazz is destinct idiom, and an actual musical language, and it incorporates a specific manner of musical "Phrasing", and there is no such thing as an entirely divergent jazz style, because it would not fit into the specific language of jazz, regarding jazz "phrasing'", and the person involved would be doomed to solo performing.

    There are most certainly original styles, Parker was the best example of this, however each and every "Original" jazz style can still be identified through it's as Jazz "Phrasing" by other jazz players.

    If someone wants to create their own style fine no problems, but if it does not resemble the jazz idiom they cannot legitimately label it as : Jazz.

    And I am quite sure that you will not understand this.

    I played decades ago with a russian jazz pianist who had won the most prestigious award for classical piano in russia, and he was a Parker desciple, and worshiper.

    Look you exaust me with your ignorant nonsense, so lets agree to disagree and leave it at that.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    You can rest assured that your russian sax man was well versed in the Parker idiom as are all jazz players world wide without exception.

    Being versed in something is different from lionizing someone.

  62. @Lyttenburgh

    Yeah and this law is not criminal because you say so.
     
    No, I'm saying that any law adopted by the legitimate government ruling over the state in accordance with the correct procedure is (pun intended) a lawful one. Congress voting for a bill to become a law is lawful - but so is the absolute monarch's ruling by the grace of the Divine Right's command to have a law.

    You are failing to provide a definition of a "criminal law". Try again.


    You are trying, due to your diseased, deranged mind, you are trying to defend the indefensible.
     
    Explain why it is "indefensible".

    The east Germans, based on a criminal law, murdered thousands of innocent peasants simply because they committed the horrible crime of wanting to exit the unbearable conditions of their “Workers paradise”, and you are defending these murderous actions, and the insane law they were based upon, you disgust me
     
    1) They were not “peasants”. But as I learned from the experience, certain category of people tend to lump a huge swathe of other human beings into the "peasant" type because they tend to think themselves above them. Usually, these judgmental people tend to belong to professions or backgrounds that despise the physical labour on principle.

    2) You are once again repeating an old lie about "thousands murdered while trying to escape the GDR". Data on this issue varies and I'd like to see your sources. So far, it's documentally proven only the death of 125 would be trespassers (that's right - in the period from 1961 to 1989) plus of 8 GDR border guards, murdered from the Western Berlin side.

    3) I have to ask- are you against any migrant legislation? Do you a "no-borders" type? Do you think, that people everywhere should just walk over state borders and the state should be prohibited to take any actions to regulate that?

    If your country just outlawed communism, would it be fine with you? If the law punished communists with death, would you obey and report yourself for excecution?

    • Replies: @Lyttenburgh

    If your country just outlawed communism, would it be fine with you?
     
    Define "outlawed communism". How can you outlaw something that does not exist yet?

    If the law punished communists with death, would you obey and report yourself for excecution?
     
    Russia has a moratorium on a death penalty. So - no executions here.

    And just for the record - I'm not a hard core fanatical communist aka the ones of the early XX, thankfully, I’m a product of a system which allowed people of my political persuasion to grow up and live without any trouble. Them back then – they were outlawed as the political force. And yes, they faced persecution and death penalty - but they persisted and in the end they won.

    What you are describing here are just meaningless mental experiments with no connection to reality. The same way the atheists troll the faithful with their questions, knowing perfectly well that there is no way to test such hypotheses.

    I don't deal with fantasies and insane "what if" scenarios - I deal with reality. Would you like to ask a real question about a real world?
    , @Lyttenburgh
    And one more thing, to elaborate on "reality vs abstracts" a little bit more. I did provide my definition of the "lawful" law. But you, judging by the wording of the question, decided to employ cheap trolling tactic instead of reading it. I wrote:

    No, I’m saying that any law adopted by the legitimate government ruling over the state in accordance with the correct procedure is (pun intended) a lawful one. Congress voting for a bill to become a law is lawful – but so is the absolute monarch’s ruling by the grace of the Divine Right’s command to have a law.
     
    Your theoretical law would require in the first place the following to be recognized as the lawful one:

    1) There would exist a death penalty in the country in the first place.

    2) That the death penalty could be applied to a wide range of infractions, not just "ordinary" criminal acts.

    3) That the Law of the Land would allow the discrimination on the political affiliation basis.

    4) Therefore, the Law of Land would promote one form of the ideology as the official at the expense of all others, who'd become a fair game.

    Plus – a legitimate government must pass such a low. Barring that - such law would be indeed criminal.

    I don't live in such country, so for me your question looks a tad silly, as any edgy "abstract" question looks to a normal person.
  63. @Darin
    If your country just outlawed communism, would it be fine with you? If the law punished communists with death, would you obey and report yourself for excecution?

    If your country just outlawed communism, would it be fine with you?

    Define “outlawed communism”. How can you outlaw something that does not exist yet?

    If the law punished communists with death, would you obey and report yourself for excecution?

    Russia has a moratorium on a death penalty. So – no executions here.

    And just for the record – I’m not a hard core fanatical communist aka the ones of the early XX, thankfully, I’m a product of a system which allowed people of my political persuasion to grow up and live without any trouble. Them back then – they were outlawed as the political force. And yes, they faced persecution and death penalty – but they persisted and in the end they won.

    What you are describing here are just meaningless mental experiments with no connection to reality. The same way the atheists troll the faithful with their questions, knowing perfectly well that there is no way to test such hypotheses.

    I don’t deal with fantasies and insane “what if” scenarios – I deal with reality. Would you like to ask a real question about a real world?

  64. @Darin
    If your country just outlawed communism, would it be fine with you? If the law punished communists with death, would you obey and report yourself for excecution?

    And one more thing, to elaborate on “reality vs abstracts” a little bit more. I did provide my definition of the “lawful” law. But you, judging by the wording of the question, decided to employ cheap trolling tactic instead of reading it. I wrote:

    No, I’m saying that any law adopted by the legitimate government ruling over the state in accordance with the correct procedure is (pun intended) a lawful one. Congress voting for a bill to become a law is lawful – but so is the absolute monarch’s ruling by the grace of the Divine Right’s command to have a law.

    Your theoretical law would require in the first place the following to be recognized as the lawful one:

    1) There would exist a death penalty in the country in the first place.

    2) That the death penalty could be applied to a wide range of infractions, not just “ordinary” criminal acts.

    3) That the Law of the Land would allow the discrimination on the political affiliation basis.

    4) Therefore, the Law of Land would promote one form of the ideology as the official at the expense of all others, who’d become a fair game.

    Plus – a legitimate government must pass such a low. Barring that – such law would be indeed criminal.

    I don’t live in such country, so for me your question looks a tad silly, as any edgy “abstract” question looks to a normal person.

  65. Dear Prof. Gottfried,
    I agree with your points. May I add that Karl Popper made a side-attack against that kind of thinking when he denounced the “deification of history” (i.e. historical change) and the idea that we can prophecy the direction of history out of social theories. He well saw how this kind of thinking promoted Marxist violence.

    Admittedly, he didn’t see that this kind of thinking was typical for the French revolutionaries and their followers – and that Hegel got his ideas about history more from those people than from Aristotle. But implicitly he defended the right of man to become conservative – to refute the way politics evolves -, and in the end he defended Conservatism outspokenly.

  66. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Marx discussions become theory and definition instead of reality and condemnation. Ask people who lived under Marx ideas what they saw. There was greed, power and human excess of worst sorts with excuses by party people. Peasants were murdered by believers, lives were ruined. There was not a reason on earth to trust Marx people or their Communist or Socialist people. Top people seize power, bottom people die. Nobody asks questions because they want to stay alive. Much is same as in old days but new liars pretend names changed and motives more true.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    There was not a reason on earth to trust Marx people or their Communist or Socialist people.
     
    There's no reason to trust people, period. Of course the only productive discussion is one of "theory and definition".

    Finding 'bad people' and then attributing their 'bad' behavior to theories they claimed to represent is the stupidest way to judge theories. By this standard no respectable theory has ever existed.
  67. @anonymous
    Marx discussions become theory and definition instead of reality and condemnation. Ask people who lived under Marx ideas what they saw. There was greed, power and human excess of worst sorts with excuses by party people. Peasants were murdered by believers, lives were ruined. There was not a reason on earth to trust Marx people or their Communist or Socialist people. Top people seize power, bottom people die. Nobody asks questions because they want to stay alive. Much is same as in old days but new liars pretend names changed and motives more true.

    There was not a reason on earth to trust Marx people or their Communist or Socialist people.

    There’s no reason to trust people, period. Of course the only productive discussion is one of “theory and definition”.

    Finding ‘bad people’ and then attributing their ‘bad’ behavior to theories they claimed to represent is the stupidest way to judge theories. By this standard no respectable theory has ever existed.

    • Replies: @jay
    Then the problems of capitalism can also be excused by the actions of 'bad people'. The truth is marxism just doesn't work and screws up economics. It is not an efficient distribution system of people responding to incentives like capitalism. Low taxes, low regulation, private property and sound currency make up the infrastructure of capitalism.Venezeula,Soviet Union even the Puritans who tried socialism out never managed to make it work on a large enough scale.
  68. “Finding bad people’ and then attributing their “bad” behavior to theories they claimed to represent is the stupidest way to judge theories”

    Then how else would you “Judge” theories other than by their results achieved through application.

    Or would you prefer to judge them before there are any results to be observed.

    Fact is, no matter how you try to twist it around :

    No applied Marxism in Russia , no Stalinistic mass murders, period.

    You are truely too far gone, and any discussion with you is nothing but a gigantic waste of energy and exercise in futility.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society meber since 1973, and pro jazz artist

    • Replies: @Lyttenburgh

    No applied Marxism in Russia , no Stalinistic mass murders, period.
     
    What "Stalinistic mass murders"? Honestly, I don't know what are you talking about.

    You are truely too far gone, and any discussion with you is nothing but a gigantic waste of energy and exercise in futility.
     
    For someone of your age you are doing fine discissing it for about a week now.
  69. It took almost 100 years of countless wars, riots, reigns of terror, insurgencies, restorations, revolutions, mass-executions – for the bourgeois republic to take hold in France. The US is similar, with its history of slavery, a massive ‘civil’ war, extermination of Indians, imperialism, and, recently, nuking Japan, exterminating millions in Vietnam, Iraq…

    In contrast, the Soviet political system fully moderated itself by about 1956 or so. About 25 years, if you count from 1931. About the same in case of China. Not too shoddy, I’d say, all things considered.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    [Virtually none of your comments are substantive; they'll almost all just low-IQ name-calling. You have ignored repeated warnings. You should transfer your ranting to RedState or Breitbart or FoxNews.]

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, and pro jazz artist.
    , @iffen
    Cultural Revolution 1966-1976
    Tiananmen Square Massacre 1989
    Holodomor 1932-1933

    French Revolution 1789-1799
    American Revolution 1775-1783
    American Civil War 1861-1865

    You’re off a hundred or two hundred years.

    I thought East Asians were supposed to be a whiz with numbers.

  70. @Mao Cheng Ji
    It took almost 100 years of countless wars, riots, reigns of terror, insurgencies, restorations, revolutions, mass-executions - for the bourgeois republic to take hold in France. The US is similar, with its history of slavery, a massive 'civil' war, extermination of Indians, imperialism, and, recently, nuking Japan, exterminating millions in Vietnam, Iraq...

    In contrast, the Soviet political system fully moderated itself by about 1956 or so. About 25 years, if you count from 1931. About the same in case of China. Not too shoddy, I'd say, all things considered.

    [Virtually none of your comments are substantive; they'll almost all just low-IQ name-calling. You have ignored repeated warnings. You should transfer your ranting to RedState or Breitbart or FoxNews.]

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member since 1973, and pro jazz artist.

  71. @Authenticjazzman
    "Finding bad people' and then attributing their "bad" behavior to theories they claimed to represent is the stupidest way to judge theories"

    Then how else would you "Judge" theories other than by their results achieved through application.

    Or would you prefer to judge them before there are any results to be observed.

    Fact is, no matter how you try to twist it around :

    No applied Marxism in Russia , no Stalinistic mass murders, period.

    You are truely too far gone, and any discussion with you is nothing but a gigantic waste of energy and exercise in futility.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society meber since 1973, and pro jazz artist

    No applied Marxism in Russia , no Stalinistic mass murders, period.

    What “Stalinistic mass murders”? Honestly, I don’t know what are you talking about.

    You are truely too far gone, and any discussion with you is nothing but a gigantic waste of energy and exercise in futility.

    For someone of your age you are doing fine discissing it for about a week now.

  72. @Lyttenburgh

    Yeah and this law is not criminal because you say so.
     
    No, I'm saying that any law adopted by the legitimate government ruling over the state in accordance with the correct procedure is (pun intended) a lawful one. Congress voting for a bill to become a law is lawful - but so is the absolute monarch's ruling by the grace of the Divine Right's command to have a law.

    You are failing to provide a definition of a "criminal law". Try again.


    You are trying, due to your diseased, deranged mind, you are trying to defend the indefensible.
     
    Explain why it is "indefensible".

    The east Germans, based on a criminal law, murdered thousands of innocent peasants simply because they committed the horrible crime of wanting to exit the unbearable conditions of their “Workers paradise”, and you are defending these murderous actions, and the insane law they were based upon, you disgust me
     
    1) They were not “peasants”. But as I learned from the experience, certain category of people tend to lump a huge swathe of other human beings into the "peasant" type because they tend to think themselves above them. Usually, these judgmental people tend to belong to professions or backgrounds that despise the physical labour on principle.

    2) You are once again repeating an old lie about "thousands murdered while trying to escape the GDR". Data on this issue varies and I'd like to see your sources. So far, it's documentally proven only the death of 125 would be trespassers (that's right - in the period from 1961 to 1989) plus of 8 GDR border guards, murdered from the Western Berlin side.

    3) I have to ask- are you against any migrant legislation? Do you a "no-borders" type? Do you think, that people everywhere should just walk over state borders and the state should be prohibited to take any actions to regulate that?

    It’s good to know there are still apologists for the Soviet gulag verbosely roaming the world. Keeping troll diversity alive!

    • Replies: @Lyttenburgh
    "Aplogist" is your NewSpeak of saying "someone who dares to use facts insted of blindinglg believing in all sorts of Eastablished Truths (tm)"? Yeah, in that case I'm one.

    I'm not trolling. The GULag sistem was just that - a national penitationary sistem. Every country has one. The American one nowadays has more inmates (way more) than the GULag had at the peak of its existence.

  73. @Mao Cheng Ji
    It took almost 100 years of countless wars, riots, reigns of terror, insurgencies, restorations, revolutions, mass-executions - for the bourgeois republic to take hold in France. The US is similar, with its history of slavery, a massive 'civil' war, extermination of Indians, imperialism, and, recently, nuking Japan, exterminating millions in Vietnam, Iraq...

    In contrast, the Soviet political system fully moderated itself by about 1956 or so. About 25 years, if you count from 1931. About the same in case of China. Not too shoddy, I'd say, all things considered.

    Cultural Revolution 1966-1976
    Tiananmen Square Massacre 1989
    Holodomor 1932-1933

    French Revolution 1789-1799
    American Revolution 1775-1783
    American Civil War 1861-1865

    You’re off a hundred or two hundred years.

    I thought East Asians were supposed to be a whiz with numbers.

    • Replies: @Anon
    You forgot the French Empire which lasted until 1870 and was replaced by a republic only because nobody could decide who should be king. Also MCJ isn't Chinese. Otherwise I'm largely in sympathy.
    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    You’re off a hundred or two hundred years
     
    How so? Perhaps you misunderstood my comment?
  74. @Craken
    It's good to know there are still apologists for the Soviet gulag verbosely roaming the world. Keeping troll diversity alive!

    “Aplogist” is your NewSpeak of saying “someone who dares to use facts insted of blindinglg believing in all sorts of Eastablished Truths ™”? Yeah, in that case I’m one.

    I’m not trolling. The GULag sistem was just that – a national penitationary sistem. Every country has one. The American one nowadays has more inmates (way more) than the GULag had at the peak of its existence.

  75. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @iffen
    Cultural Revolution 1966-1976
    Tiananmen Square Massacre 1989
    Holodomor 1932-1933

    French Revolution 1789-1799
    American Revolution 1775-1783
    American Civil War 1861-1865

    You’re off a hundred or two hundred years.

    I thought East Asians were supposed to be a whiz with numbers.

    You forgot the French Empire which lasted until 1870 and was replaced by a republic only because nobody could decide who should be king. Also MCJ isn’t Chinese. Otherwise I’m largely in sympathy.

  76. @iffen
    Cultural Revolution 1966-1976
    Tiananmen Square Massacre 1989
    Holodomor 1932-1933

    French Revolution 1789-1799
    American Revolution 1775-1783
    American Civil War 1861-1865

    You’re off a hundred or two hundred years.

    I thought East Asians were supposed to be a whiz with numbers.

    You’re off a hundred or two hundred years

    How so? Perhaps you misunderstood my comment?

    • Replies: @iffen
    Perhaps you misunderstood my comment?

    Perhaps.

    I thought that you were comparing the development of liberalism and political equality in France and the US in the 18th and 19th centuries with the quick work of the Chinese and Russians in the 20th century in achieving the sublime political utopia that the Chinese and Russian peoples enjoy today.
  77. @Mao Cheng Ji

    You’re off a hundred or two hundred years
     
    How so? Perhaps you misunderstood my comment?

    Perhaps you misunderstood my comment?

    Perhaps.

    I thought that you were comparing the development of liberalism and political equality in France and the US in the 18th and 19th centuries with the quick work of the Chinese and Russians in the 20th century in achieving the sublime political utopia that the Chinese and Russian peoples enjoy today.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    I don't see any utopia anywhere. What I do see is that the model of state socialism (USSR, China) had gone through the initial turbulent and violent period (obviously unavoidable, as with any new socioeconomic arrangement) into the balance and stability much faster and more smoothly than the liberal-democratic capitalist model. That's all.
  78. @iffen
    Perhaps you misunderstood my comment?

    Perhaps.

    I thought that you were comparing the development of liberalism and political equality in France and the US in the 18th and 19th centuries with the quick work of the Chinese and Russians in the 20th century in achieving the sublime political utopia that the Chinese and Russian peoples enjoy today.

    I don’t see any utopia anywhere. What I do see is that the model of state socialism (USSR, China) had gone through the initial turbulent and violent period (obviously unavoidable, as with any new socioeconomic arrangement) into the balance and stability much faster and more smoothly than the liberal-democratic capitalist model. That’s all.

    • Replies: @iffen
    into the balance and stability much faster

    It simplifies the process if you can execute or imprison the opposition.

    That's why it was so messy in Europe and the US. It took a long time to do it without resorting to shooting members of the other political parties. (Most of the time, well, later on, much later now that I think about it.)

    Besides, we got the omelet not the watery scrambled eggs.

    , @jay
    Both china and Russia had to give way to capitalism to some extent to survive. Hence why they are working better now.
  79. @Mao Cheng Ji
    I don't see any utopia anywhere. What I do see is that the model of state socialism (USSR, China) had gone through the initial turbulent and violent period (obviously unavoidable, as with any new socioeconomic arrangement) into the balance and stability much faster and more smoothly than the liberal-democratic capitalist model. That's all.

    into the balance and stability much faster

    It simplifies the process if you can execute or imprison the opposition.

    That’s why it was so messy in Europe and the US. It took a long time to do it without resorting to shooting members of the other political parties. (Most of the time, well, later on, much later now that I think about it.)

    Besides, we got the omelet not the watery scrambled eggs.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    As I mentioned, you should check the corresponding events in France, from the moment when the concept of 'liberal democracy' emerged around 1790, and to the time it finally managed to take hold about a hundred years later. You'll see a whole bunch of shootings, beheadings, massacres, and what-not. And in the US it's almost 200 years (1776-1964) also with a helluva lot of shootings.
  80. @iffen
    into the balance and stability much faster

    It simplifies the process if you can execute or imprison the opposition.

    That's why it was so messy in Europe and the US. It took a long time to do it without resorting to shooting members of the other political parties. (Most of the time, well, later on, much later now that I think about it.)

    Besides, we got the omelet not the watery scrambled eggs.

    As I mentioned, you should check the corresponding events in France, from the moment when the concept of ‘liberal democracy’ emerged around 1790, and to the time it finally managed to take hold about a hundred years later. You’ll see a whole bunch of shootings, beheadings, massacres, and what-not. And in the US it’s almost 200 years (1776-1964) also with a helluva lot of shootings.

    • Replies: @iffen
    As I mentioned, you should take note of the time stamps and the end products, none of which match.

    It is not even apples to oranges, it is more like apples to cauliflower.

    Liberal democracy doesn't have much in common with autocracy/ oligarchy.

    Granted that the dogmatic liberalism being pursued by today's lumpen intellectuals has more in common.

  81. @Mao Cheng Ji
    As I mentioned, you should check the corresponding events in France, from the moment when the concept of 'liberal democracy' emerged around 1790, and to the time it finally managed to take hold about a hundred years later. You'll see a whole bunch of shootings, beheadings, massacres, and what-not. And in the US it's almost 200 years (1776-1964) also with a helluva lot of shootings.

    As I mentioned, you should take note of the time stamps and the end products, none of which match.

    It is not even apples to oranges, it is more like apples to cauliflower.

    Liberal democracy doesn’t have much in common with autocracy/ oligarchy.

    Granted that the dogmatic liberalism being pursued by today’s lumpen intellectuals has more in common.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Going by the evidence, liberal democracy seems to have quite a great deal to do with oligarchy, the Greeks be damned. I don't see the meaning either of your time-stamps or MCJ's.
    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    Liberal democracy doesn’t have much in common with autocracy/ oligarchy.
     
    If you care to familiarize yourself with the basics of historical materialism, please do, and then we can continue. Otherwise, this is just a waste of time.
  82. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @iffen
    As I mentioned, you should take note of the time stamps and the end products, none of which match.

    It is not even apples to oranges, it is more like apples to cauliflower.

    Liberal democracy doesn't have much in common with autocracy/ oligarchy.

    Granted that the dogmatic liberalism being pursued by today's lumpen intellectuals has more in common.

    Going by the evidence, liberal democracy seems to have quite a great deal to do with oligarchy, the Greeks be damned. I don’t see the meaning either of your time-stamps or MCJ’s.

  83. @Mao Cheng Ji

    There was not a reason on earth to trust Marx people or their Communist or Socialist people.
     
    There's no reason to trust people, period. Of course the only productive discussion is one of "theory and definition".

    Finding 'bad people' and then attributing their 'bad' behavior to theories they claimed to represent is the stupidest way to judge theories. By this standard no respectable theory has ever existed.

    Then the problems of capitalism can also be excused by the actions of ‘bad people’. The truth is marxism just doesn’t work and screws up economics. It is not an efficient distribution system of people responding to incentives like capitalism. Low taxes, low regulation, private property and sound currency make up the infrastructure of capitalism.Venezeula,Soviet Union even the Puritans who tried socialism out never managed to make it work on a large enough scale.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    The truth is marxism just doesn’t work and screws up economics.
     
    According to wikipedia:

    Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that analyzes class relations and societal conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and a dialectical view of social transformation.
     
    It's a method of analysis. How could it screw up economics?

    One could explain planetary movements by forces of gravity or by angels and demons. Either way, it's not going to screw up the Saturn's trajectory.
    , @Lyttenburgh

    Venezeula,Soviet Union even the Puritans who tried socialism out never managed to make it work on a large enough scale.
     
    Oh, that's rich! The West (and the US especially) connived, or participated, in the murder of millions of Communists, relatives of Communists, neighbo(u)rs of Communists, those found in the vicinity of Communists, those accused of Communism…In Africa, S. America, SE. Asia, Central America, Serbia, Yugoslavia…Then, dripping with gore, they declare, “See, Communism doesn’t work!”
  84. @Mao Cheng Ji
    I don't see any utopia anywhere. What I do see is that the model of state socialism (USSR, China) had gone through the initial turbulent and violent period (obviously unavoidable, as with any new socioeconomic arrangement) into the balance and stability much faster and more smoothly than the liberal-democratic capitalist model. That's all.

    Both china and Russia had to give way to capitalism to some extent to survive. Hence why they are working better now.

  85. @iffen
    As I mentioned, you should take note of the time stamps and the end products, none of which match.

    It is not even apples to oranges, it is more like apples to cauliflower.

    Liberal democracy doesn't have much in common with autocracy/ oligarchy.

    Granted that the dogmatic liberalism being pursued by today's lumpen intellectuals has more in common.

    Liberal democracy doesn’t have much in common with autocracy/ oligarchy.

    If you care to familiarize yourself with the basics of historical materialism, please do, and then we can continue. Otherwise, this is just a waste of time.

    • Replies: @iffen
    If you care to familiarize yourself with the basics of historical materialism, please do, and then we can continue.

    Believe what I believe then we can think alike.
  86. @Mao Cheng Ji

    Liberal democracy doesn’t have much in common with autocracy/ oligarchy.
     
    If you care to familiarize yourself with the basics of historical materialism, please do, and then we can continue. Otherwise, this is just a waste of time.

    If you care to familiarize yourself with the basics of historical materialism, please do, and then we can continue.

    Believe what I believe then we can think alike.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, then suggest your own systemic analysis of major socio-politico-economic transitions and changes. "Liberal democracy doesn’t have much in common with autocracy/ oligarchy." doesn't strike me as a productive way of thinking.
  87. @iffen
    If you care to familiarize yourself with the basics of historical materialism, please do, and then we can continue.

    Believe what I believe then we can think alike.

    Well, then suggest your own systemic analysis of major socio-politico-economic transitions and changes. “Liberal democracy doesn’t have much in common with autocracy/ oligarchy.” doesn’t strike me as a productive way of thinking.

    • Replies: @iffen

    “Liberal democracy doesn’t have much in common with autocracy/ oligarchy.” doesn’t strike me as a productive way of thinking.
     
    And that is why I keep insisting that your comparisons are nearly worthless and are misleading.
  88. @jay
    Then the problems of capitalism can also be excused by the actions of 'bad people'. The truth is marxism just doesn't work and screws up economics. It is not an efficient distribution system of people responding to incentives like capitalism. Low taxes, low regulation, private property and sound currency make up the infrastructure of capitalism.Venezeula,Soviet Union even the Puritans who tried socialism out never managed to make it work on a large enough scale.

    The truth is marxism just doesn’t work and screws up economics.

    According to wikipedia:

    Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that analyzes class relations and societal conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and a dialectical view of social transformation.

    It’s a method of analysis. How could it screw up economics?

    One could explain planetary movements by forces of gravity or by angels and demons. Either way, it’s not going to screw up the Saturn’s trajectory.

  89. @Mao Cheng Ji
    Well, then suggest your own systemic analysis of major socio-politico-economic transitions and changes. "Liberal democracy doesn’t have much in common with autocracy/ oligarchy." doesn't strike me as a productive way of thinking.

    “Liberal democracy doesn’t have much in common with autocracy/ oligarchy.” doesn’t strike me as a productive way of thinking.

    And that is why I keep insisting that your comparisons are nearly worthless and are misleading.

  90. @jay
    Then the problems of capitalism can also be excused by the actions of 'bad people'. The truth is marxism just doesn't work and screws up economics. It is not an efficient distribution system of people responding to incentives like capitalism. Low taxes, low regulation, private property and sound currency make up the infrastructure of capitalism.Venezeula,Soviet Union even the Puritans who tried socialism out never managed to make it work on a large enough scale.

    Venezeula,Soviet Union even the Puritans who tried socialism out never managed to make it work on a large enough scale.

    Oh, that’s rich! The West (and the US especially) connived, or participated, in the murder of millions of Communists, relatives of Communists, neighbo(u)rs of Communists, those found in the vicinity of Communists, those accused of Communism…In Africa, S. America, SE. Asia, Central America, Serbia, Yugoslavia…Then, dripping with gore, they declare, “See, Communism doesn’t work!”

Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Paul Gottfried Comments via RSS