Are you a Marxist?

[bridgit]

Cause that's what 'they' say you are

[billyoc]

1. Yes

[bridgit]

2. Very well so there's that = 1

[indep_kidd]

3. Nieman Marxist

Those tools (or fools? both?) can say whatever they want.

I just hope the Nieman Marxist never gains anything more significant than her post in Alaska.

[Heidi]

6. Welcome to DU!

Glad you're here. :thumbsup:

[bridgit]

35. heh-heh, "Nieman Marxist", I like you already; Welcome to DU, indep_kidd...

:kick:

[CJCRANE]

4. Groucho Marxist

[shadowknows69]

16. DUzy!!!

[bridgit]

36. What!? THAT is a DUzy!? No wait...you're prolly right

[MilesColtrane]

112. ?

[silverojo]

134. I kind of lean toward Harpo Marxism, myself. - n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

149. you probably

watch Oprah, too :)

[Heidi]

5. You have forced me to out myself.

I am Gummo.

[bridgit]

38. Very well. Then you do know you've left me little but a similar option for I am...

[Heidi]

54. I may have to turn you over my Marxist knee, young lady.

You are NOT Dumbo. :hug:

P.S. :loveya:

[ProfessorGAC]

7. Well, I'm Not

So, i'd ask them to prove it. That'll make their head explode, since they can't prove it. Geez, i've gotten papers published that detailed the inherent strengths of capitalism. (Although, i've strongly advocated strict regulation, not laissez-faire.)

But, given that, they couldn't possibly describe me as anything but a democratic capitalist.

So, i would dare one of them to tell me that to my face.
The Professor

[Dollface]

17. Prove it? They'd have to figure out what it means first.

[ProfessorGAC]

19. Probably So

I'd still reiterate it, though, until they cried.
GAC

[Dollface]

24. Sounds like they'd be sorry if they started with you.

:-)

[ProfessorGAC]

25. Well, I'm Definitely Not Afraid To Debate

Have a fun election day!
GAC

[bridgit]

41. Thanks, Prof., I think that's right. Let them prove it! In fact prove it *to* my face!

:kick:

[Richard Steele]

8. No, I'm a toothless hillbilly. Don't apologize, it's a common mistake. nm

[bridgit]

44. ds? coming to du suggests to me that only hillbilly's are capable of having no teeth...

well, maybe some teeth somewhere but who knows just where ;)

[blindpig]

117. funny, that..

People come around this place all of the time complaining about the stupid, overweight, toothless great unwashed who moronically vote against their own interests. They accept the lamest, most facile propaganda as The Written Word, ignoring the glaring contradictions because perhaps one smidgen of it rings true to them. The fools may believe Obama to be a marxist!

And how different is that from the rote recitals, paper thin propaganda, mindless quibbling and so-called history served up by the foremost servant of capitalism, the US government, and other hired gunsels that make communism the greatest evil on the planet?

Some people just don't know their own interests....

[comtec]

9. NO, because I have common sense, Marx was a dreamer, I'm a realist

I'm a SOCIALIST!
Marx was an idiot.
good ideas, but a unrealistic view of thing, imho.
I believe some jobs deserve more compensation than others.
My doctor deserves every penny because he spent a DECADE learning his craft, and he keeps me and my wife alive.
My brother in law, who is a great parson, needed a year of hands on to learn his craft.
Both are very useful for society... but my BiL's skills don't deserve the same wages as my Doctor. (ironically he does make as much hourly as the doctor because of his skills, under the table)
I work in IT and assorted "smart" areas. I'd like to think that makes what I do more valuable then when i was flipping burgers.

Human nature wants to be rewarded for hard, thinking work. we want our brilliance to be rewarded. compensation comes in many forms - not just monetarily.

Marx truly did not understand this.

However I believe there should be a safety net, and as a better paid worker, i am willing to pay my fair share to insure that net is there. I hope I never E V E R need to use that net, but others do, and I'm happy to help them because its not just the decent thing to do, it's better for society overall.

a rising tide lifts all boats. The dingies to the mega tankers. We are all in the same ocean of life.

[Unvanguard]

63. Marx was the ultimate realist. He disliked idealism and said as much.

This was one of the major problems with his position, as far as I'm concerned.

As far as "to each according to his need" goes, this maxim is much misunderstood. It is not a universal principle of just distribution for all societies, but a particular principle of distribution for a communist society where labor has become "life's prime want"--and thus not something that need, or should, be rewarded beyond its inherent internal goods.

Human beings want our brilliance to be recognized, certainly, but that is not the same as having it attached to great quantities of material wealth. Not, at least, in a society where social status is not determined by such shares of wealth.

[readmoreoften]

97. This is an Capitalist-American loyalty oath thread. Please don't interrupt it with history and fact.

The goal is to prove how totally, hardcore pro-capitalist and anti-socialization Democrats are. If citizens in a communism society get to choose between two communist leaders it's called totalitarian. If citizens in a capitalist empire only get to choose between two capitalist parties (complete with loyalty oath threads proving how "like totally" capitalist they are) its called "real substantive freedom"--by the way "real substantive freedom" hasn't been trademarked yet, if you're interested.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. I support democratic socialist regulation of and institutions

within a capitalist economic system. To that extent I share common ideological perspectives with marxist democratic socialists.

But we here in Stupidia cannot have an honest discussion about democratic socialism because the word 'socialism' has been poisoned by the rightwing propaganda machine, so we have to dance around the word and pretend that it is something else.

[bridgit]

64. I say we put puritan fundamentalism on the boat and send it back to where it came from

[ShortnFiery]

11. Nope, I adore that document we refer to as The Constitution.

;)

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Which by the way says nothing much about economic systems.

Democratic socialism is not somehow unconstitutional.

[tekisui]

13. Yes, proudly, I love these guys:

[bridgit]

47. Harpo used to say he wanted a big house with lots of windows...

so that smiling children could be in each window waving goodbye & hello to him when he went off to work and came home at the end of the day :hug:

[RB TexLa]

14. No

[shadowknows69]

15. Probably to an extent

I like to think of myself as a melting pot of ideals.

[skooooo]

121. Me too...sort of. nt

[Vattel]

18. From each according to his abilities

to each according to his needs? That is a great principle for a family, but can a society be structured on that principle without undue loss of freedom and/or incentives for hard work and innovation? (Not a rhetorical question.)

[dysfunctional press]

29. ideally, yes it could. realistically? probably not. human nature and all...

:shrug:

but now that they've identifed the part of the brain responsible for hate, there may be hope yet.

btw- do you think that our current "every person for themselves, and may the best one win" principle is really a better one to structure a society around?

[Vattel]

57. No I don't.

At a minimum, justice requires a level playing field and we don't even have that. For that reason some redistribution of wealth is a demand of justice.

[bridgit]

48. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is the justification...

for the obscene profits of Exxon, AIG CEO's as well it would seem.

[yardwork]

145. There's a LOT more to Marx's writings than that. Take a look.

[fed_up_mother]

20. No! Thankfully, the vast majority of democrats have more common sense than that.

[readmoreoften]

26. Yeah I'm real glad folks didn't have the "common sense" to reject Marxist concepts like

ending child labor and free universal public education in the 20th century. Luckily we haven't embraced that stinking Marxist socialized medicine. That would be an awful idea.

[fed_up_mother]

27. You think Marx was the only person against child labor?

Geesh

And there's way more to Marx than the three things you mention. Australia has universal health care, laws against child labor, and universal public education. I guess most Australians won't be surprised to learn their Marxists. :sarcasm:

[Beer Snob-50]

21. do you think most of "them" know what a marxist is?

i betcha most think it is something very very sinister.

[bridgit]

155. all i think they know for sure is that it's one of those shaped, antique words...

that goes straight to the center of the reptilian brain where 'they' have been mashing that 'fight or flight' button for decades

[Burma Jones]

22. See my Avatar.....

[bridgit]

42. Whew! That was a close one. Glad now your Av wasn't...

[slampoet]

23. If you mean like Chico and Zeppo....

[zippy890]

28. I have my Communist Manipesto

:rofl:

from Stephen Colbert's show the othe night

[bridgit]

50. Stephen's show last night was a laugh riot!

:rofl:

[Xenotime]

30. It's more rewarding than being a bonehead capitalist.

[bridgit]

39. I'm just glad there's more alternatives than Marxist & bonehead capitalist

[Marr]

31. No, I'm just honest.

Republicans won't ever tell you what they really want; a wealthy class and an impoverished, servant class. They would like to do away with the middle class altogether.

Tax policy should not be used as it has been for the last 30 years. That is, it should not transfer wealth from the bottom to the top. Our system should be structured so as to strengthen the middle class, and yes, that means taxing the ridiculously enriched top 1% more.

[bridgit]

49. I do not believe what republicans believe in; that America is nothing but a rationale...

for socio-econo elitism, ignorance, bigotry & white collar crime...I'm suppose that I am antithetical to that notion

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Not any more. But, I can hum the Internationale with my Marxist wife.

[Unvanguard]

62. The "Internationale" is not a specifically Marxist song.

More "socialist" in a broad sense.

Edit: And I can hum (and sing) it, too. :)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

79. Well, when I sing, think blender + rusty nail.

[Bitter_Clinger]

33. The way that I hang on to every cent

I earn, you have to be kidding!

[bridgit]

40. hahahaha, ding! You got it, good one ;^) and welcome to DU

:kick:

[TBF]

34. I'm not sure that I am, probably closer to socialist. If only Obama were so liberal.

I believe he can be a president in the tradition of Bill Clinton, and that may be as much change as this country can handle at once. We'll see. People are hurting, and they need help. No more bail-outs for billionaire bankers. Let's help our own for once.

[treestar]

37. No. They don't know the meaning of the term when they use it

on American liberals.

[bridgit]

46. Ding! There it is! They don't know jack or dick!

:kick:

[NeedleCast]

43. I live in Northern Virginia so, obivously, yes

although I just found out about a week ago.

[bridgit]

45. Hm, now that's the 'real america', right? With real rivers & roads & stuff?

:hi:

[slackmaster]

51. Life-long Marxist-Lennonist here

[bridgit]

52. That reminds me, I'm starting up a jazz xylophone trio called The Trotsky's

[Vattel]

58. There was an L.A. band called "Trotsky Icepick"

[gypsylud]

53. I have Marxist tendencies yes

[librechik]

55. nope. I'm a proud Democratic Socialist

because I think America is better when it shares--and votes.

[bridgit]

56. That makes sense to me

:)

[deaniac21]

59. I'm an Anarcho-Syndicalist.

[bridgit]

65. .......

[Solon]

69. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

[bridgit]

72. No, no, Wiki; that's the easy part, still...

I encourage a return to wampum, in the meantime Anarcho-syndicalism is the feel-good construct

[Solon]

76. Well, there were a few examples of it existing, during the Spanish civil war...

there were communities based on the principles of it, in addition, today some parts of Venezuela and Mexico are also organized along similar lines, and it seems to have worked or is working in all those cases. Though during the Spanish Civil War, it was crushed, militarily, by both Franco's faction and the Soviet Union.

[bridgit]

83. Understood, you've pointed out some rather contentious locales in which...

it existed to varying extents. I suppose my essential opposition to it is the tangential effort to incorporate a concept that abhors incorporation itself: anarchy, a romantic harkening to rebellion, revolution, open mics and designer coffee shops trending toward a pastime enjoyed by some, few, or they that are able to be seen living off grants or trust funds and so more able to negate, or circumvent rules & regs that many others are seen as adhering to as a flow, or event sequence of commerce however common.

But of course we're not talking Franco' Spain, or Chavez' Venesula...we're talking America where we consider the Amish to be fools

[tama]

92. Amish

are anarcho-primitivists, or very close to. Their religious "leaders" are drawn by the lot from volunteers. And they are no fools but the most succesfull ethnicity in USA. Especially when PO really starts to make it felt.

[tama]

93. Amish

are anarcho-primitivists, or very close to. Their religious "leaders" are drawn by the lot from volunteers. And they are no fools but the most succesfull ethnicity in USA. Especially when PO really starts to make it felt.

[hiphopnation]

107. here's some more on the anarcho-syndicalists

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA


:bounce:

[baldguy]

154. Dennis? Is that you?

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

60. I think Marx' analysis of the structure and function of capitalism was

rather spot on. Not so keen on his prescriptions, though. I favor more the Swedish or Danish approach: Democratic Socialism or Social Democracy. Whatever ya wanna call it.

[cemaphonic]

136. yep, a lot of what Marx wrote is actually bedrock mainstream economic science these days

But yeah, his ideas of what follows Capitalism are seriously flawed. First you have a proletariat revolution that seizes control of a government, and with it the economic means of production. But how is this power effectively wielded by the people? Marx is pretty sketchy about the details, but he seems to have envisioned a sort of direct democracy, which I can't see as being remotely workable on a scale any larger than an extended family. Certainly not on the level of an industrialized nation-state. The other alternative, is to have an oligarchy ruling "in the name of the people." This is the Marxist-Leninist model, and we all saw how that turned out.

Then, this is supposed to be replaced by communism, where the socialist state withers away and is replaced by a classless, stateless society. Again, the mechanism for this is very sketchy, and I don't think it's remotely credible. Plus, I can't see how an industrial economy could possibly function. With no centralized government, you can't have a command economy, and a market economy wouldn't work very well in a fully egalitarian state either. Such a state would have a hard time fielding a military as well, and thus would be very vulnerable to conquest or a usurping military dictatorship.

[plasticsundance]

158. Nordic economies lead in competitiveness:

EU’s ‘Nordic three’ beat US in competitiveness challenge

The Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009

[Unvanguard]

61. No, though I think there's a lot of value in Marx.

"Marxists" these days tend to be rather dogmatic and orthodoxy-minded, and that is an approach that is rather contrary to Marx's critical one.

[Selatius]

66. Are you?

[bridgit]

68. Answering a question with a question are we? See above: bridgit Oct-30-08 11:37 AM #56

[Help_I_Live_In_Idaho]

67. I am a Democratic Socialist

More so every day that I listen to the Capitalist thieves that run this country

[Jed Dilligan]

70. I don't think anyone has seriously challenged his analysis of capital.

The whole "workers of the world unite!" side of him is more or less obsolete. But the rich are still pigs.

[bridgit]

74. I do think it possible to unite the workers of the world, that's what scares the shit...

out of the so-called illuminati & oligarch'. But they/we have to want to unite and be willing to pay the price of that union, which after watching early trade union formation & history even in America; many simply don't have the stomach for, and you are right...

Not only are the rich still pigs (well, clearly quite a few) but they're still rich

[Jed Dilligan]

81. But now the only conceivable way to do it is to turn

their mass media against them, which seems physically impossible.

I tend to foresee a historically typical empire collapse scenario followed by the rebirth of civilization somewhere other than the current centers of power. It would be nice to think we possess as much agency as Marx ascribed to us, and maybe we did at the dawn of industrial capital. Now I tend to agree more with Ozzy Osbourne: "Heirs of the Cold War, that's what we've become, inheriting troubles, and mentally numb..."

[bridgit]

84. I see the collapse, I see the cold turkey rehab, I see the membrane we'll need to transit...

and pop out the other side like brand new babies. And like the old SNL skit with Plimpton, "Just enjoy the Ozzy" I see the troubles we've inherited and the mentally numb :thumbsup:

[Unvanguard]

86. Of course people have. Marxist economics have been long-debunked.

But elements of his social theory are still alive and well.

[Jed Dilligan]

89. Link?

[Unvanguard]

122. I have none for you, but check any economics textbook from the last eighty years.

And look at the modern consensus (well, there's no consensus, but there is on this aspect) on how labor remuneration is determined.

"Surplus-value" and the notion of subsistence wages being the baseline have been long shown to be nonsense, and much of the rest of Marxist economics collapses with that.

[Jed Dilligan]

126. Well, if you have nothing...

I guess I win. The consensus of economists of course reflects what rich pigs want people to think.

[Unvanguard]

127. "Of course", yes.

:eyes:

[readmoreoften]

98. Well, so have Adam Smith and Milton Friedman.

[Unvanguard]

123. Yes and no.

Adam Smith was basically right (in a broad, general sense) about the way free markets work, and Marx himself was perfectly willing to acknowledge this.

Milton Friedman, whatever you think of his specific policy proposals (which, when implemented, have not turned out well), made massive and genuine contributions to the economic theory of monetary policy, and even if the Keynesians are right, contesting him required them to pay more serious attention to that area of policy than they had in the past.

[Oeditpus Rex]

71. 'No! I'm a Revisionist!'

[JVS]

78. Oh coitus!

[Oeditpus Rex]

82. Six glasses of vin ordinaire and 'e's ready to agitate!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

73. Fuck No. Course, 'They' Think I'm A Terrorist Too.

[kwassa]

75. "I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune...."

WOMAN: Well, how did you become King, then?

ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,... ...her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king!

DENNIS: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

ARTHUR: Be quiet!

DENNIS: Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

ARTHUR: Shut up!

DENNIS: I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

ARTHUR: Shut up, will you? Shut up!

DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.

ARTHUR: Shut up!

DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!

DENNIS: Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?

[bridgit]

80. Heh, true enough

:kick:

[Unvanguard]

87. Comrade Dennis has always reminded me decidedly of myself.

:)

[Lex]

77. THEY wouldn't know how to write 1 paragraph on what a Marxist is.

nt

[readmoreoften]

100. 95% percent of "we" wouldn't know how to either.

[Lex]

109. Yes, but "we" aren't hurling it around as an insult, now are we?

nt

[JackRiddler]

85. I'm not an -ist, but Marx has more to say about today's world than Greenspan.

[bridgit]

88. Now that I think about it. Did Greenspan ever say anything that made any sense?

[Naturyl]

90. No, but pretty close.

I'm not a full-fledged socialist, but I do favor VERY progressive economic policies.

A return to 75% or higher top tax rates would please me. So would health care and a guaranteed minimum income for all.

[Blue_In_AK]

91. What a silly question.

Of course I am -- I live in Alaska. EVERYBODY knows we're Marxists up here.

[bridgit]

106. Hm, I see. My husband's niece lives up there; her husband is one of those ice trucker dudes...

:)

[alcibiades_mystery]

94. Yes, I am

I'm a post-structuralist Marxist, with a good bit of Nietzsche thrown in.

[readmoreoften]

99. Good god, a voice of reason.

Thanks for de-demonizing the thread.

[bridgit]

104. Like Obama said, "They don't know what to call me." I'd say *the poor dears*...

But McCain and his hatchet men & women aren't poor and there's nothing *dear* about them

[SeattleGirl]

95. No. I'm an Obamist

Any anyone who doesn't like that can kiss my big white ass.

[bridgit]

105. Now let's not get all that way, gf, I suffer a similar fate: I'm an optimist in spite of it all...

:hi:

[tama]

96. No

Marx was just another technodeluded European hegemonist and imperialist, real communists (rurals, natives, people of the land with unsevered connection to Nature and Community) would never accept dictatorship of the "proletariat" - which means the parasitic class of the industrial workers.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

101. Paleo Communist checking in. n/t

[RavingMadwoman]

102. Am I a Marxist?

No. I'm a smartass. I understand that kind of thing is frowned upon in Marxism. Unless it's Groucho Marxism.:D And "they" can just kiss the fattest part of my a**

[bridgit]

103. Welcome to DU...

:kick:

[alcibiades_mystery]

108. It's not at all "frowned upon" by Marxism

Indeed, if you read Marx himself, he is actually very funny indeed. The way he takes down Proudhon in "The Poverty of Philosophy" is hilarious, and his footnotes to Capital are likewise hilarious retorts to all manner of imbeciles. The snarky reply is actually one of the common traits of Marxian discourse. You're just completely wrong in your understanding.

[blindpig]

110. Hmmm, anything but a communist..

That seems to be the consensus. Wonder why that is?

Why is it that communism is the most demonized of all the flavors of socialism?

Could it be because they have been the most successful in taking down the capitalist? And might that be the reason that communism has borne the brunt of the most thorough propaganda effort in history?

I wonder.

[bridgit]

111. Every system has it's downfalls. But communism, applied cross multiple time zones...

as a for instance; gives the observer an opportunity to witness just what happens when a bad idea rains down bureaucratically filling all the causeways with unified communal ideas even bad ones i.e. Mao's Great Leap Forward via the killing of sparrows crapping on statues, and the smelting of ore in the backyards of 'the people' contributing to brittle steel for years and tons of wasted ore to name a couple but hey...'the people' were in control, right? Capitalism is getting it's comeuppance as we key these things; but when some systems get a bad idea it seems to be slathered port to starboard, stem to stern, keel to crow's nest

[Two Americas]

113. why is it....

Why is it that any and all negative and destructive government actions associated with socialism are used to discredit and dismiss all socialism, while the much greater number of negative and destructive government actions associated with capitalism are never seen as having anything to do with capitalism? Why is socialism seen as a monolithic idea, and all-or-nothing proposition, that "has been tried" and should be rejected, while capitalism - despite the massive destruction it has caused - is seen as "human nature" or the natural order of things? Why do we see the introduction of free market capitalism into China as a good thing, despite all evidence to the contrary, but do not see the introduction of socialism here - with programs such as Social Security - as something that can be credited to socialism?

It is not what you are looking at that is the problem here, it is the lens through which you are looking at everything.

[blindpig]

114. Yeah, what he said.

:toast:

[Joe Chi Minh]

115. "Why is it that any and all negative and destructive government actions

associated with socialism are used to discredit and dismiss all socialism,..."

Chomsky comments on that particular trick they are very fond of. He points out that all twisted propaganda requires at least a small element of truth - from which, of course, they extrapolate wildly. I suppose an example would be: all moles are mammals, therefore all mammals are moles. The first part's right!

Imo, one of the most sickening and disgraceful examples of all in recent years, even by their standards, has been the chorus of accusations by the cold-blooded, avaricious, traitorous and genocidal, Neocon supporters, that if you don't support the illegal, imperial and asymmetric wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, based on a tissue of lies by the Bush administration, then you are not supporting the troops.

Never mind that those who are being killed, maimed and psychologically damaged beyond endurance, with even the physically and mentally infirm being sent back into action again and again, are treated like sh*t when they get back, whether in terms of medical care or any other kind. I believe MCain even supported a bill reducing their pensions.

[tama]

116. Sigh

Communism is not socialism, it's what is supposed to come after socialism - the eutopia. Anarchists don't care about socialism because they want to go directly to communism.

Neither do "tribal" primitive communists care about socialism or marxism, because they are still living in eutopian paradise, where and when ever not fucked by civilization. :)

[blindpig]

119. Yeah, I like me some Bakunin too.

The problem is getting there. Commies and anarchists agree on the goal, but after years of consideration it seems to me that anarchists have no plan(!) for executing or maintaining a revolution.Despite my personal preference for the spontaneity of anarchism an examination of history shows that the anarchist view of revolution to be magical thinking. The purpose of those disagreeable things like the vanguard party and the dictatorship of the proletariat have been and almost surely are necessary to preserve the revolution against reactionary counter-revolution. Those bastards will not go quietly into the night.

Sometimes what ya want and what will get the job done are two different things. Capitalism is devouring us and the rest of nature, we do not have the luxury of consulting our preferences.

[LeftyMom]

129. OMG, I have the best link ever for you.

You'll love it. I'll dig it up and PM.

[Unvanguard]

128. Or maybe it was because of the massive global disaster Leninism has been.

From their betrayal of the revolution in Russia through the slaughter of the Civil War, to Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot....

Communism is not, of course, confined to Leninism, but if that's the effective opposition to capitalism of which you speak, I'll pass on your revolution.

[blindpig]

138. Hmm, compared to capitalism?

Yeah, capitalism's done real well. If you wish to believe the just so stories that we've been spoon fed for generations without a serious examination of history, that's your business.

Way too many socialist, anarchists and even marxists will not embrace revolution except on their own specific terms, but the world doesn't work like that and cannot and will not wait.

[Unvanguard]

141. Yes, compared to capitalism.

Capitalist governments tend to stay away from mass slaughter, at least these days. It's not particularly profitable.

Racial/ethnic/nationalist tensions are something of a different story, but they have little to do with economic systems.

[blindpig]

142. Right.

The people of Iraq, Afganistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, San Salvador, Guatamala, Democratic Republic of Congo etcetra & so forth might disagree with you.

You might also consider the methodology used to arrive at these enormous numbers laid at the feet of socialist nations. Or you might continue to believe the propaganda, unexamined.

Check out the Congo and tell me that mass slaughter ain't profitable.

[Unvanguard]

143. The numbers simply don't compare.

The highest estimates for Vietnam, for instance, are somewhere around three million. For the Russian Civil War, we're talking something in the range of twenty million. (Obviously not all those people were killed directly by the Bolsheviks, but that's not the point. Just as Bush is responsible for the humanitarian disaster in Iraq, so Lenin and the Bolsheviks were responsible for the humanitarian disaster they caused in Russia.)

I'm not denying the reality of capitalist atrocities, but revolutions are very bloody, very socially destructive things. Leninism with its intense revolutionary dogma and its utter unwillingness to compromise or to stop when public opinion turns against it (which tends to happen as the corpses pile up) only makes the problem far worse, and to compound the problem doesn't even succeed at achieving the ends in reference to which its horrific means are allegedly justified.

And mainstream historical scholarship with respect to casualty numbers is perfectly reliable. It's not one big conspiracy; that's not how capitalist ideology functions. It can be ideologically inconvenient to recognize that people who disagree with you sometimes do actually have real historical fact on their side, but it's part of intellectual honesty to do so.

[blindpig]

151. That's right, they don't.

The highest estimates for Vietnam, for instance, are somewhere around three million. For the Russian Civil War, we're talking something in the range of twenty million. (Obviously not all those people were killed directly by the Bolsheviks, but that's not the point. Just as Bush is responsible for the humanitarian disaster in Iraq, so Lenin and the Bolsheviks were responsible for the humanitarian disaster they caused in Russia.)

Well, that's what I'd call blaming the victim. If the reactionaries hadn't declared war on the revolution civil war would not have occurred. Are the people to forever refrain from asserting themselves for fear of the oppressors violence? In that case there would be neither an American nor French revolution.

I'm not denying the reality of capitalist atrocities, but revolutions are very bloody, very socially destructive things. Leninism with its intense revolutionary dogma and its utter unwillingness to compromise or to stop when public opinion turns against it (which tends to happen as the corpses pile up) only makes the problem far worse, and to compound the problem doesn't even succeed at achieving the ends in reference to which its horrific means are allegedly justified.

In the end all compromise fails, as has been seen with the European Social Democrats and the New Deal. The enemy is relentless, look how the New Deal, a very modest proposal from the socialists point of view, has been hammered at and chipped away, with the last bastion, Social Security now in the enemy's sights. Look at how the social Democrats of all nations became war mongers at the drop of a hat in WWI. Compromise, you will be assimilated.

And mainstream historical scholarship with respect to casualty numbers is perfectly reliable. It's not one big conspiracy; that's not how capitalist ideology functions. It can be ideologically inconvenient to recognize that people who disagree with you sometimes do actually have real historical fact on their side, but it's part of intellectual honesty to do so.

Perfectly reliable my ass.Much of the so-called data was gotten from Nazi intelligence, and we know that they didn't have a dog in that fight, did they? Of course it's not a conspiracy, it's bidness as usual. The facts can be found, once one refuses to accept as given that which is spoon fed from the hand of authority.Those horrific numbers attributed to the Soviet Union essential lay the blame for damn near every death in the country from 1917 to 1950 at the door of the Communist Party. Ain't trying to whitewash, Stalin was responsible for very many judicial murders, but tens of millions, I don't think so.

[L. Coyote]

118. Damn. Now you make us look up archaic vocabulary? I'll get back to you on edit.

Off to the Google first to figure out what "marxist" means. :rofl:

On first edit: Oh crap! There is more than one kind of "Marxist"! (Yeah, it's capitalized.) Back to the Google!
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/about/writers.htm

Okay. Healthcare is socialist, even Marxist. Rewarding labor fully is Marxist. I'm alreay part marxist (small m) in that case, but I don't know which kind :rofl:

[JanMichael]

120. But of course I am. That's been known here on DU since 2002.

What a silly question.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

124. There ain't no Sanity Claus

I rest my keyste... err I mean case.

[Raine]

125. No, I'm an American capitalist nt

:shrug:

[LeftyMom]

130. I agree with his thesis that history is largely the story of class struggle

and that class conciousness if vital to empowerment of the working class.

I think his ideas about actually building a revolutionary movement and a post-capitolist society were, at best, a bit thin.

[Tiggeroshii]

131. I am a socialist leaning anarchist(libertarian socialist)

But I will never call myself a Marxist.

[enigmatic]

132. pragmatic socialist n/t

[RainDog]

133. I'm a marxist-a-lot

but not a marxist. I'm a mixed economy-ist.

[cliffordu]

135. The Marx brothers were OK, I tend to run towards the three stooges, m'self....

[Greyhound]

137. FREE HARPO!!! VIVA GROUCHO!!

Tutsi-Fuitsi, getcher tutsi-frutsi ice cream right here...

[TexasObserver]

139. Say the secret word, and I'll bring down the duck.

Is that Marxist enough?

[bridgit]

148. "If I hold you any closer I'll be standing behind you."

[TexasObserver]

153. Ah, the joy those 50s Marxists!

Here's what I say to those alleging we're Marxist:

"So, the 35% Bush tax rate is fine, but the 38% Clinton/Obama top tax rate is Marxist?!"

[VOX]

140. I'm a white anglo-saxon semi-heathen who's been pushed to the brink of socialism.

And I'm a hell of a lot more liberal than I was in 2000. I've had it with all the horseshit cronyism and the lining of the pockets.

[yardwork]

144. Yes.

[Tutonic]

146. Yes, that and more.

[bridgit]

147. Aunt Bea, is that you? I knew you'd come back...

[dkofos]

150. They can't define it so maybe I AM.

[codjh9]

152. 'They' don't know the diff. between socialism and communism 99% of the time. I'm for socialism

a la western Europe.

[Vidar]

156. Personally, I have no problem with that epithet.

[plasticsundance]

157. Quotes from Karl Marx for the ill-informed Americans

"Democracy is the road to socialism." - Karl Marx

"I am not a Marxist." - Karl Marx

"It is not history which uses men as a means of achieving - as if it were an individual person - its own ends. History is nothing but the activity of men in pursuit of their ends." - Karl Marx

[Truth2Tell]

159. No. But

I respect Marxists a lot more than I respect Republicans.

I am the Walrus.

[Greyhound]

160. "I once shot an elephant in my pajamas,

how he got in my pajamas I'll never know"