Marxism

[Leeta]

Lumindelumine hit it right on the head about Liberation Theology. and Marxism. I had some encounters and discussions with some hard-line Marxists members of a Soviet hard line party in the early 70’s. They propounded using the Christian system and deleting from it all connection with the supernatural. Pelagian is exactly right. God is not active or present and is depending entirely on our efforts to bring about the new world.
They preached overcoming inhibitions, especially sexual ones, as the first step toward liberation from capatalism. And they practiced what they preached, especially with the group of gullible Americans I was with.

Inequality is not evil. Lack of respect and dignity is. No one is exactly like the other and will never be or even have the same opportunities. There are differences between the sexes and human beings which must be respected instead of banned. It makes everyone more interesting and diverse instead of the same and boring.

 

[Vaclav]

Marx? Whatdid you think I meant?

I meant what books of Marx did you read?

Wrong. Joint stock companies (the hallmark of Capitalism) existed a couple of hundred years before Adam Smith.

I mean that as the puerile definition, capitalism did not exist. It certainly did not exist in its present form.

Yes it has – in the form of brutal, bloodthirsty dictatorships.

No, it hasn’t. Not in the form that Marx predicted history will create communism. Note that we called those nations Communist.

When were people killed “in the name of capitalism?”

In a football stadium in Santiago, Chile. Hundreds of “political enemies” were rounded up and executed. Diem did that in Vietnam as well. South Korea’s dictators were fond of rounding up their political enemies and executing them too. Taiwan. And sense you are talking about the Capitalism of pre-Adam Smith days, would you like me to include those companies too?

You keep mistaking capitalism for a system of government or ideology – which it isn’t.

No, you keep separating capitalism from the social and political realities surrounding it.

Mass murder is part-and-parcel of Communism. It can’t not be.

Of course it can. Allende never rounded up and murdered people. The Socialist parties of Europe never rounded up and murdered anyone and they contained Marxists. The Labour Party of the United Kingdom are Democratic Socialists and Tony Blair (a recent convert) joined that party because he read Marx.

Agusto Pinochet was not a capitalist. Stalin was a Communist.

Of course Augusto Pinochet was a capitalist. He loved Milton Friedman and Maggie Thatcher considered him a “hero of the Cold War.” Capitalism was a huge reason for his revolution. Now it is you who are mistaking government for economics. Pinochet was a capitalist and a murdering thug. He freed markets and murdered political enemies. No different than Stalin except in economics. There’s nothing that says capitalism requires political freedom.

 

[Vaclav]

They propounded using the Christian system and deleting from it all connection with the supernatural.

Interestingly, some of the early Fascists theorized the same thing. Though, notably Hitler, Franco, and the Perons disagreed.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I meant what books of Marx did you read?

At one time or another, I’ve read everything he wrote.

I mean that as the puerile definition, capitalism did not exist. It certainly did not exist in its present form.

Ah, “in its present form.” So the “present form” of Capitalism is important, but the “present form” of Communism is not.

Joint stock companies – companies where people purchased stock and the money was used to acquire the means of production and distribution which were operated for profit in a competitive enviornment existed a couople of hundred years before Adam Smith wrote about it.

No, it hasn’t. Not in the form that Marx predicted history will create communism. Note that we called those nations Communist.

And they were communist. Communism is what it is.

In a football stadium in Santiago, Chile. Hundreds of “political enemies” were rounded up and executed. Diem did that in Vietnam as well. South Korea’s dictators were fond of rounding up their political enemies and executing them too. Taiwan. And sense you are talking about the Capitalism of pre-Adam Smith days, would you like me to include those companies too?

Neither Chile nor Vietnam were capitalist nations. Nor is Taiwan.

No, you keep separating capitalism from the social and political realities surrounding it.

As opposed to separating communism from the social and political realities surrounding it?

The fact remains that every nation that has tried communism has produced a bloody dictatorship.

Of course it can. Allende never rounded up and murdered people.

And Allende was not a capitalist.

The Socialist parties of Europe never rounded up and murdered anyone and they contained Marxists. a

Because the Communists didn’t have the power to do it.

The Labour Party of the United Kingdom are Democratic Socialists and Tony Blair (a recent convert) joined that party because he read Marx.

I’ve read Marx, too. That doesn’t make me a communist.

A free nation can tolerate wide differences in political views. A communist nation, on the other hand, cannot.

Of course Augusto Pinochet was a capitalist. He loved Milton Friedman and Maggie Thatcher considered him a “hero of the Cold War.” Capitalism was a huge reason for his revolution.

So how many people owned their own businesses in Chile under Pinochet?

Precious few. Pinochet practiced caudisimo, leadership by a strong chieftan.

Now it is you who are mistaking government for economics. Pinochet was a capitalist and a murdering thug.

A murdering thug he might have been, a capitalist he was not.

He freed markets and murdered political enemies. No different than Stalin except in economics.

Murdered his political enemies, yes. But free markets? No.

There’s nothing that says capitalism requires political freedom.

’
That’s true. But there is something that say communism requires brutal dictators. And nations that try communism always wind up with brutal dictators.

 

[Vaclav]

I love it when you get to pick and choose who you want to include in your favourite system.

Of course Stalin was no Marxist. Mao and Pol Pot certainly weren’t Marxists. They preached revolution from the peasants, not the Proletariat - but since you’ve read all of Marx you know that already. That goes right against the grain of Marxist class theory. North Korea and Vietnam would fall into the same category of not being Marxist nations.

The Soviet Union could not be Marxist either because it did not go through a prolonged state of Capitalism preceeding its revolution. As you know, capitalism must come before the Proletariat has a revolution. Unless you think that the Czars were capitalists.

I don’t really see any nation that has had a true Marxist/Communist revolution. Unless you can point one out that was capitalist then had a proletariat uprising.

As I said earlier, it has not existed.

 

[vern_humphrey]

First you say this:

I love it when you get to pick and choose who you want to include in your favourite system.

And then you say this:

And you totally missed the irony of what you said.

Marxism is what it is. And it is a system for creating brutal, bloody dictatorships. And it does that – every time.

Marxism is

what it is. And all the excuses in the world won’t change that.

There is none so blind as him who will not see.

Then if we dig up the mass graves, we won’t find any bodies, right?

 

[Vaclav]

And you totally missed the irony of what you said.

I did?

 

[cynic]

vern I propose the reason you hate marxism this much is not because it creates bloody dictatorships. Marxism removes my rights to property, to a business, my earnings, in other words the things that separate me from other, less capable individuals. Without the social/economic ranking system from failure —> success where would my preciouse self esteem be? Of course communism is a stupid idea, especially today, but in some atlernate reality where communism could work, you’d still oppose it, for **other **reasons. Why not be honest?

 

[vern_humphrey]

vern I propose the reason you hate marxism this much is not because it creates bloody dictatorships.

Or it could be because I have seen it in action. I was at Hue in '68 when the mass graves from Tet were opened. I was at Xuan Loc in '67 when we found the Montagards who had had their hamstrings cut and then thrown into burning huts.

Marxism removes my rights to property, to a business, my earnings, in other words the things that separate me from other, less capable individuals.

And to do that, it requires power – overwhelming power. And once the government has that power, it never relinquishes it – which is why Communism always produces bloody dictatorships.

Without the social/economic ranking system from failure —> success where would my preciouse self esteem be? Of course communism is a stupid idea, especially today, but in some atlernate reality where communism could work, you’d still oppose it, for **other **reasons. Why not be honest?

Huh?

If you were a cow, would you prefer clover or alfalfa. Why not be honest?

 

[cynic]

and what I’m saying is that if we were in some alternate fairyland reality where communism could be successful, where nobody was lazy or selfish, where dictatorships didn’t exist and everyone worked to towards the greater ideal without compulsion… then you would **STILL **be opposed to communism. Why? I don’t know, you probably believe owning property, keeping all your earnings and generally being a free agent in life are inherent rights (at least for people who earn enough). A state has no right to take away these ‘freedoms’ even if everyone would benefit… something like that. The point is you’re not being completely honest about where you’re coming from.

 

[vern_humphrey]

and what I’m saying is that if we were in some alternate fairyland reality where communism could be successful, where nobody was lazy or selfish, where dictatorships didn’t exist and everyone worked to towards the greater ideal without compulsion…

If Grandmother had wheels, she’d be a trolly car.

then you would **STILL **be opposed to communism. Why? I don’t know, you probably believe owning property, keeping all your earnings and generally being a free agent in life are inherent rights (at least for people who earn enough). A state has no right to take away these ‘freedoms’ even if everyone would benefit… something like that.

When you pretend to read my mind and know what I would do in some wildly improbabl scenario, have the courtesy to wear a turban and gaze into a crystal ball.

The point is you’re not being completely honest about where you’re coming from.

And the man who is pretending to read my mind and know what I would do in some wildly improbable scenario is being honest?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Marxism is a doomed attempt to separate the Social Gospel from the Real Presence.

Thus spake Ani Ibi.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Marxism is a doomed attempt to separate the Social Gospel from the Real Presence.

Thus spake Ani Ibi.

Doomed indeed – with tens of millions of victims in unmarked graves.

 

[JW10631]

Not tens of millions, Vern. There are more than 100 million dead at the hands of Marxism since 1917 - tens of millions more than the Nazis killed, and countless more than have died from epidemics, the Inquisition (first and formeost, the English Inqusition of Henry VIII), other wars, etc.

It is mildly amusing to read the posts from the pseudo-intellectuals who have read some of Marx’s nonsense and then procede to post here what brilliance Marx wrote in his books.

Once and for all - Marx and Marxism are garbage, from top to bottom. Those that promote Marx love to point out the nasty dictatorships the US was marginally aligned with - but they know nothing about Latin American political history. Latin American political history is laded with extremists who sought to kill off their political opponents, regardless of side.

All those “right wing death squads” (a term coined by the media and lovingly embraced by the Pax Christi pacifist types) can’t compare to what Castro has done. Cuba has 200 political prisons.

The Left hates Pinochet because Pinochet did to the Chilean Left what the Left always does when it take power - liquidates its opponents.

Those that love Marx should be encouraged to emigrate to Cuba and North Korea and sing the praises of Marx.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Not tens of millions, Vern. There are more than 100 million dead at the hands of Marxism since 1917 - tens of millions more than the Nazis killed, and countless more than have died from epidemics, the Inquisition (first and formeost, the English Inqusition of Henry VIII), other wars, etc.

It is mildly amusing to read the posts from the pseudo-intellectuals who have read some of Marx’s nonsense and then procede to post here what brilliance Marx wrote in his books.

There’s actually an apologist for Hitler lurking around here, too. Hitler liked chidren and dogs, you know (and so far as anyone knows, didn’t put dogs in the gas chamber).:whacky:

Once and for all - Marx and Marxism are garbage, from top to bottom. Those that promote Marx love to point out the nasty dictatorships the US was marginally aligned with - but they know nothing about Latin American political history. Latin American political history is laded with extremists who sought to kill off their political opponents, regardless of side.

The “Johnny does it, too” excuse never worked with me sainted Irish Mither, and it doesn’t work here, either.

All those “right wing death squads” (a term coined by the media and lovingly embraced by the Pax Christi pacifist types) can’t compare to what Castro has done. Cuba has 200 political prisons.

But when you need a smokescreen . . .

The Left hates Pinochet because Pinochet did to the Chilean Left what the Left always does when it take power - liquidates its opponents.

And Pinochet was an old-fashioned South American Caudillo – not a “capitalist” or ideologue.

Those that love Marx should be encouraged to emigrate to Cuba and North Korea and sing the praises of Marx.

Very few people who lived under communism – as ordinary people, that is – have much love for it.

 

[mrteachersir]

I am not arguing for communism… I am arguing that the communists emphasis on the formation of an egalitarian society should be emulated by everyone. We should not only focus on the egregious crimes against humanity that communist regimes committed.

Both Bishop Fulton Sheen in the Life of Christ and Pope Benedict XVI in Jesus of Nazareth mention some extremely salient points. In the Temptations, Christ is asked to turn stones into bread to save himself from hunger. He refuses. Botth Sheen and the Pope see this rejection as the rejection of the materialism behind Marxism and socialism. Christ refused to solve hunger: “Man does not live by bread alone, but by the Word of God.” The Pope makes some extremely good points: 1) when God fed the Israelites manna in the desert, it was after they grumbled to Him, 2) Jesus fed the 5000 after they had spent three days listening to Him; they went out of their way to look for Him, and listen to Him, and then they were fed.

The point is eloquently put by the Pope: “What did Jesus come to do if not end hunger and bring world peace? He came not to do these, but to bring God. (roughly quoted)” Only after we realize this, approach Jesus, obey his commands, and “Love the Lord with all your heart, soul and mind” will we be able to solve the ills of society, and then, it is not us, but God working through us.

This is where Marx screws up. There can be no equality without Christ, for only in Christ is there true freedom and equality. Materialism only brings inequality.

And, vern, Vaclav is correct: the current “Communist” countries aren’t really Marxist (nor are they really communist…they are socialist). Marxist history is as follows (briefly stated, of course):

Hunter/Gatherer (true communism) → Agricultural → Feudal → Capitalist–>Communist (small communities that controlled the means of production communally and were self-sufficient)

Lenin is the most Marxist of the bunch, because he attempted to institute some crash-capitalism (presumably to build the Russian infrastructure) before slowly incorporating communism. Stalin changed Lenin’s plan. He nixed the crash-capitalism, and instituted socialism (where a strong cetnral government controls all means of production, not to mention all areas of life) as a buffer between feudalism and communism. Mao, encouraged by the USSR’s “success” changed the theory to fit his needs: China was not feudal, so he thought that he could skip feudalism and capitalism to go straight to socialism and finally to communism; this was the impetus behind his Great Leap Forward (which destroyed an entire generation of Chinese education and resulted in mass starvation) and his Cultural Revolution (which resulted in thousands dead, and much ancient culture lost). Pot and Ho saw the “success” of Mao and emulated him.

Central to the brutality of all of these regimes is the simple fact that all of them rejected Christ’s necessary role to healing the ills of the world. They gave in to Satan’s first temptation (using Matthew’s chronology): turning stones into bread. This is also why the communes of the 1800s died out: they were founded on principles that rejected the necessity of Christ’s role as the Prince of Peace and as the provider of “our daily bread”.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And, vern, Vaclav is correct: the current “Communist” countries aren’t really Marxist (nor are they really communist…they are socialist). Marxist history is as follows (briefly stated, of course):

I disagree – for a very fundamental reason. Marx had a** theory** about what would happen if his ideas were put into effect.

But actual experience shows his theory was wrong. Countries that try communism don’t end up like Marx said – they end up as brutal dictatorships, and the reason is inherent in Marxism. To achieve Communism, the government has to have absolute power. And when a government has absolute power, it uses that power as it sees fit – which is to say, for the benefit of the ruling elite.

Marx is like the Comanche prophet, Isatai, who told his people if they wore the shirt and danced the dance, bullets would bounce off them. Then he led them out to attack the buffalo hunters at Adobe Walls. Didn’t quite work out like he predicted.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Very few people who lived under communism – as ordinary people, that is – have much love for it.

I’ve met two kinds of communists: those who live in democracies and those who live under communist regimes.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’ve met two kinds of communists: those who live in democracies and those who live under communist regimes.

My nephew, who is a university professor, is married to a Russian girl. Her family was part of the elite – she was a Young Communist, was put through the university by the Party and so on. When they got married, her mother came for the wedding – and she can’t say enough bad about Communism.

 

[Peregrino]

And, vern, Vaclav is correct: the current “Communist” countries aren’t really Marxist (nor are they really communist…they are socialist). Marxist history is as follows (briefly stated, of course):

Hunter/Gatherer (true communism) → Agricultural → Feudal → Capitalist–>Communist (small communities that controlled the means of production communally and were self-sufficient)

Lenin is the most Marxist of the bunch, because he attempted to institute some crash-capitalism (presumably to build the Russian infrastructure) before slowly incorporating communism. Stalin changed Lenin’s plan. He nixed the crash-capitalism, and instituted socialism (where a strong cetnral government controls all means of production, not to mention all areas of life) as a buffer between feudalism and communism. Mao, encouraged by the USSR’s “success” changed the theory to fit his needs: China was not feudal, so he thought that he could skip feudalism and capitalism to go straight to socialism and finally to communism; this was the impetus behind his Great Leap Forward (which destroyed an entire generation of Chinese education and resulted in mass starvation) and his Cultural Revolution (which resulted in thousands dead, and much ancient culture lost). Pot and Ho saw the “success” of Mao and emulated him.

Lol! Please don’t trouble Vern with these types of details. The simple fact that true Marxism does not equate with the communist/stalinist regimes influenced by Marx is lost on Vern. Vern sees red (pun intended) when you just mention the term “marxism”. Vern gets enraged about Pol Pot, socialized medicine and God know what else (homeschool coops might be anathema to Vern).

Blaming Marx for Stalin, Pol Pot and other despicable dictators is like blaming Jesus for the Borgia popes and every evil thing perpetuated by the Church and Christians. Marxism, like Christianity, has been implemented in many poor ways. One could easily argue that both are too “pie in the sky” to ever be completely implemented. While diametrically opposed on spiritual issues, Marxism and Christianity have a lot in common in the social justice arena.