Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Mouthwash, May 15, 2017.
You need to read more. Unless you don't count the various communist parties in the west as Marxist.
Their icon was (is) Lenin. Marx, Engels, Hegel and others were considered more like founding fathers.
Of course, classical marxism was transformed and developed by Lenin and others.
Pondered on adding him in the post as pope of Marx, to stay in the metaphor of divine right
Well, thanks for this J, I had no idea the pigs in Animal Farm were supposed to be the Bolsheviks. I mean, I don't think anyone knew before you figured it out
The parallel is in the idea that our social arrangements are isometric with some greater reality. The pigs in Animal Farm (and the real-life Bolshies too for that matter) tried to justify their social arrangements by claiming they were just assigning roles based on who was good at what. Misogynists are doing the same thing when they say there is some 'biological' or 'natural' reason for women's subordinate role.
Lenin was (and is) right-wing deviation from Marxism.
It was an act of genocide and it was a holocaust, no need to make victims compete
the world is just as much better for the staggering wealth and opportunity that American slaves gave us
They're giving people the shirt off your back
Glad to educate you, but that was addressed to someone that had not read the book.
Please explain. Militarist and totalitarian I could understand, but those can be either right or left. In traditional conservative, that would make Stalin pro-csarist. He was emphatically not. Modern conservative, ie reduced regulation, pro-capitalism, fits even less. Your argument seems to be right-wing is all things bad, therefore Stalin is right-wing. Sommerswerd's son could point out the logic flaws in that position.
Militarism and authoritarianism are in fact inherently right-wing.
I also didn't get what's right-wing about Marxism-Leninism. Dictatorship of proletariat? Idea about socialism in one country?
Not to mention right-wing ideas are in most cases inherently anti-communist.
Just like Marxism-Leninism, which actually responded to genuine worker control of the means of production (ie, communism) with massacre.
Chomsky on this question.
What you mean? About massacre.
The most famous such episode being the Kronstadt rebellion.
Moderator Action: One word answers are unacceptable in RD threads. Short answers are fine if they move the discussion along or add a differing viewpoint worth considering. "Nonsense" does not meet either of those criteria. One point infraction. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Authoritarianism and militarism can both be uttered by people on the left and by people on the right, and by everyone in between.
While the USA was indeed dominated by right-wing authoritarianism, and while I do agree that the right is more prone to aligning with these values, there's nothing inherently right-wing about those concepts.
Lately it has been the left who are acting like totalitarians, especially on university campuses.
I mean stuff like this is just disgraceful:
What? That isn't what I said. And the Bolsheviks were pretty emphatic in rejecting the "inevitability" propounded by the Orthodox Marxists, else they wouldn't have felt the need for the Terror and the subsequent, as you say, horror shows.
I'm not saying that most Marxists aren't socialists of some stripe. Evidently they are. I'm saying that "Marxist" refers to a theoretical position, rather than a political one, and its proponents represent every shade of leftist opinion from social democracy to insurrectionary anarchism.
It's not just an association, though, it was an actual euphemism. "Cultural Marxism" is just a way of framing the New Left in terms of traditional anti-Semitic narratives.
On the contrary, they are right-wing by definition.
This "the real authoritarians are college students" stuff is only more laughable now that we have such a terrifying President.
Actually, in an ideal scenario (which will never happen), the total wealth of the United States, which was $84.9 Trillion as of 2015, would be divided equally among its citizens (all 321.4 million of you). This nets a one-time payment of $264k per capita. If the United States can continue generating such wealth as a communist regime, everyone would be getting $56k (PPP) per annum.
There are a lot of assumptions that go into such a scenario, but the point is communism does not have to be a grand sharing of poverty.
The real problem with a communist ideal is one that of dynamism. It is a static proposition that just does not work with how humans are. Not without sacrificing much of people's freedom to be themselves.
No they are not.
I think you should explain why you think they're right-wing be definition.
Maybe the lesson is that "right-wing" and "left-wing" are only really useful terms when we're talking about electoral politics.
Separate names with a comma.