The specter that will not die. This is the most important election in my lifetime.
22 thoughts on “Marx’s Ghost”
What is “communism”? From Karl Marx himself:
Communism differs from all previous movements in that it overturns the basis of all earlier relations of production and intercourse, and for the first time consciously treats all natural premises as the creatures of hitherto existing men, strips them of their natural character and subjugates them to the power of the united individuals. Its organisation is, therefore, essentially economic, the material production of the conditions of this unity; it turns existing conditions into conditions of unity. The reality, which communism is creating, is precisely the true basis for rendering it impossible that anything should exist independently of individuals, insofar as reality is only a product of the preceding intercourse of individuals themselves. Thus the communists in practice treat the conditions created up to now by production and intercourse as inorganic conditions, without, however, imagining that it was the plan or the destiny of previous generations to give them material, and without believing that these conditions were inorganic for the individuals creating them.
In other words, Marxism was and to some extent still remains one of the most remarkable and powerful scams of human history. And as we see above it has always boasted a wealth of words and a poverty of ideas.
the American descent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed, against the backdrop of a passive, hapless [people.]
It’s not about Obama. I expect he will lose the next election. But that doesn’t mean we’ve won. Mention Marxism in this country and you will hear howls of derision rather than the serious contemplation it deserves.
We have a republic if we can keep it. We don’t seem to be keeping it. The rot is from top to bottom. They want to do it to mars as well.
Liberty is worth the fight.
That fight is to educate people like those in the occupy movement (if we can’t we need to marginalize them; which they seem to do a good job of themselves.)
only 53% of Americans preferred capitalism to socialism
The irony. Capitalist is a Marxist term! We need to not only educate that amazingly large 47% – how close to the edge are we willing to go? – we have a lot of work educating the 53% as well. Can it even be done?
Making a tractor from dirt is a trivial job in comparison.
Recently this blog mentioned the “shocking” story Obama’s membership in the socialist New Party. Given his Red Diaper Baby past, I guess the New Party was actually moderate compared to some of the other parties young Barry could have joined. What’s interesting and depressing to me is the widespread ho-hum reaction to that story. At one time having a president turn out to have been a member of the New Party or one of its ideological equivalents would have caused an uproar in the Land of the Free. Now we’ve come so far along down the road to serfdom that I guess we can breathe a slgh of relief that “Il Dufe” wasn’t a member of the Komsomol, as his Uncle Frank would have liked him to. Socialist? No biggie, just as long as I get my cut of the swag.
Historically (and related to the “Say No to Socialism” article you linked to), I see the turning point as the rise of the New Left-dominated McGovern wing of the Democratic Party. I’m old enough to remember what mainstream “liberals” were pre-McGovern. Sure, they were statists, but they were pretty much reformists who wanted to improve the situation with a few more taxpayer-funded safety-nets. After the New Lefties took over the Democratic Party, you can see a rise in Marxist rhetoric (especially class warfare) and anti-Americanism among the Dems. Just contrast Adlai Stevenson, John Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey with Obama and the current Thugocracy.
Rand,
Does that mean that you, like me, will actually vote for one Gov. Romney instead of some minor party candidate?
I have reservations about Romney. He did not get my vote in the primary. But come November I see him as the only viable alternative to a criminal who would destroy what made the US great.
However this coming election turns out, I don’t see the deep division relaxing.
Just contrast Adlai Stevenson, John Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey with Obama and the current Thugocracy.
Do so, and you’ll find that those old Democrats favored higher tax rates for the rich, and a more expansive safety net for the poor, than anything Obama would dare to suggest today. Obama’s rhetoric is mild next to FDR’s:
We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace–business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me–and I welcome their hatred.
I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.
You are such a sophist, Jim. Nobody in the posts above mentioned FDR, specifically perhaps because he was a progressive in the heyday of Marxism. Those who followed (and were specifically mentioned, Mr. Strawman), were far less progressive than either FDR or BHO.
You took the words out of my keyboard, Eric, except “sophist” is probably too complimentary for Jim. And I deliberately avoided FDR not only because his administration coincided with the Red Decade (wasn’t at least one of his advisiors or cabinet members outed as a commie?) but because it’s doubtful to me FDR had any real political philosophy.
“Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me–and I welcome their hatred.”
Obama keeps trying to say stuff like this but his actual actions show that he is united with these forces.
I hated the article once I started reading the racist attack it made against the people of South America. This is the sort of social darwinism which fueled some of the worst genocides in history. The author is a piece of sh*t.
I hated the article once I started reading the racist attack it made against the people of South America.
Let’s put aside for the moment that the “racist attack” didn’t happen. Sure, a serious and widespread genetic defect or some toxin in the water would go far to explain South America and its problems, but that wasn’t implied in the article.
You still have the situation that a whole region made and to some extent continues to make relatively bad decisions. Pretty much the point of the thing. There’s also not a South America “race”. It’s hard to be a racist attack without an identifiable race.
My wife is a Filipina. She said something many years ago that might explain what is happening in Central and South America without the need for a genetic explaination. She said that she didn’t know of a single former colony of Spain that ever amounted to anything. The legacy of Spanish colonization is one of endemic corruption at all levels of government and business. She saw it firsthand under the Marcos dictatorship. According to friends who’ve visited the Philippines recently, things are a lot better now but it still has a way to go.
Yes, with the powerful analytic tool of hindsight, the Spanish paradigm of rape and conquer leaves much to be desired.
Hindsight? Lefties don’t need no stinkin’ hindsight. They can just produce a magic chart.
Add “France” to the list and you can explain Africa as well.
The two best explanations I’ve read are that traditionally Catholic countries (esp. Spain and France) used a top-down heirarchical command system that emulated the institutional structure of the Catholic Church, and their colonies inherited the same. Such systems don’t work well, and instead of being discarded or evolving, the leaders are merely replaced with different faces occupying the same top-down slots, continuing the inherent dysfunction for centuries. Democracy doesn’t really fix this problem (note that the Pope is elected too).
The other aspect is trust, and traditionally Catholic countries put more cultural emphasis on confession and penance whereas early Protestants put the emphasis on not sinning in the first place (not cheating in business). Under the doctrine of predestination, which held sway for a while, people said they could tell which folks were doomed to hell from the outset because they showed it in their business dealings and behavior. The enhanced trust made it easier for Protestants to engage in more complicated business relationships, whereas low-trust areas (like Southern Italy), the lesson was not to trust anyone, not even your own family.
Ah but you are forgetting that awesome display of democracy and free market capitalism that is the former Spanish colony of Chile (snicker).
As far as Catholicism being an influence on the governing system… I doubt it is that much important. The Republic of Venice was Catholic and it couldn’t be further away from the government systems of the French or Spanish Monarchies.
If Great Britain never had the Magna Carta their history would be much different. GB had a peculiar history partially caused by their insular position in Europe. Since most royalty in Europe had blood ties in one way or another any rebellion which removed the monarch or reduced his power significantly had little chance of succeeding because his cousin or whatever would come in to his aid. Invading GB was a highly unlikely event and rebellions had more of a change of succeeding. I would argue it is more the other way around. In a country with less centralized power it is more likely that a new religion can take roots.
Ah but you are forgetting that awesome display of democracy and free market capitalism that is the former Spanish colony of Chile (snicker).
What’s funny about that? They are doing better in terms of GDP per capita than the rest of South America. And yet, they’re still way below the GDP per capita of a developed world country.
There are some other elements that go beyond the traditionally Catholic breakdown, of course, such as the difference between mass immigration from Europe to a new settlement (as happened in the US, Canada, Australia, etc), where the immigrants set up governmental systems that they would like to live under, and the broader pattern of European colonization where the Europeans sets up governments that would allow them to rule over massively greater numbers of natives, which includes top-down control of course. Both elements were at work in Spanish colonization.
Among economic factors, France and Spain were merchantilist instead of capitalist, requiring government permission to engage in almost any economic activity, and the permission required bribing your way through layers of ministers and bureaucrats. That’s the system still prevelant in the Third World, and like the top-down command structure, it’s never worked well anywhere.
And finally, Great Britain was a sea power and its Navy consumed its military spending. Its isolation meant it never had to keep a vast standing army as was common in Europe, so its government had to rely on popularity instead of force to stay in power. But that alone should’ve applied to Spain, and didn’t, so the question gets back to centralized power, society that mirrors the Catholic Church’s internal heirarchy, and merchantilist economics.
America needs a cross between Ronald Reagan and Peter Venkman.
Alan, you know you’re not suppose to cross the streams.
Mr. Henderson – America needs Jack Ryan. It’s not going to get him. The UK needs another Thatcher. It’s not going to get her; the Conservative Party has once again been taken over by upper-class twits, and the Labour Party by apparatchiks in total thrall to the unions.
IMHO one of the reasons, perhaps the main one, why she was so successful is that she is the daughter of a small businessman. Another reason is that before politics she had a career in science, where results count for a great deal more than BS – at least if the science has nothing to do with the watermelon agenda.
What is “communism”? From Karl Marx himself:
In other words, Marxism was and to some extent still remains one of the most remarkable and powerful scams of human history. And as we see above it has always boasted a wealth of words and a poverty of ideas.
the American descent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed, against the backdrop of a passive, hapless [people.]
It’s not about Obama. I expect he will lose the next election. But that doesn’t mean we’ve won. Mention Marxism in this country and you will hear howls of derision rather than the serious contemplation it deserves.
We have a republic if we can keep it. We don’t seem to be keeping it. The rot is from top to bottom. They want to do it to mars as well.
Liberty is worth the fight.
That fight is to educate people like those in the occupy movement (if we can’t we need to marginalize them; which they seem to do a good job of themselves.)
only 53% of Americans preferred capitalism to socialism
The irony. Capitalist is a Marxist term! We need to not only educate that amazingly large 47% – how close to the edge are we willing to go? – we have a lot of work educating the 53% as well. Can it even be done?
Making a tractor from dirt is a trivial job in comparison.
Recently this blog mentioned the “shocking” story Obama’s membership in the socialist New Party. Given his Red Diaper Baby past, I guess the New Party was actually moderate compared to some of the other parties young Barry could have joined. What’s interesting and depressing to me is the widespread ho-hum reaction to that story. At one time having a president turn out to have been a member of the New Party or one of its ideological equivalents would have caused an uproar in the Land of the Free. Now we’ve come so far along down the road to serfdom that I guess we can breathe a slgh of relief that “Il Dufe” wasn’t a member of the Komsomol, as his Uncle Frank would have liked him to. Socialist? No biggie, just as long as I get my cut of the swag.
Historically (and related to the “Say No to Socialism” article you linked to), I see the turning point as the rise of the New Left-dominated McGovern wing of the Democratic Party. I’m old enough to remember what mainstream “liberals” were pre-McGovern. Sure, they were statists, but they were pretty much reformists who wanted to improve the situation with a few more taxpayer-funded safety-nets. After the New Lefties took over the Democratic Party, you can see a rise in Marxist rhetoric (especially class warfare) and anti-Americanism among the Dems. Just contrast Adlai Stevenson, John Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey with Obama and the current Thugocracy.
Rand,
Does that mean that you, like me, will actually vote for one Gov. Romney instead of some minor party candidate?
I have reservations about Romney. He did not get my vote in the primary. But come November I see him as the only viable alternative to a criminal who would destroy what made the US great.
However this coming election turns out, I don’t see the deep division relaxing.
Just contrast Adlai Stevenson, John Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey with Obama and the current Thugocracy.
Do so, and you’ll find that those old Democrats favored higher tax rates for the rich, and a more expansive safety net for the poor, than anything Obama would dare to suggest today. Obama’s rhetoric is mild next to FDR’s:
You are such a sophist, Jim. Nobody in the posts above mentioned FDR, specifically perhaps because he was a progressive in the heyday of Marxism. Those who followed (and were specifically mentioned, Mr. Strawman), were far less progressive than either FDR or BHO.
You took the words out of my keyboard, Eric, except “sophist” is probably too complimentary for Jim. And I deliberately avoided FDR not only because his administration coincided with the Red Decade (wasn’t at least one of his advisiors or cabinet members outed as a commie?) but because it’s doubtful to me FDR had any real political philosophy.
“Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me–and I welcome their hatred.”
Obama keeps trying to say stuff like this but his actual actions show that he is united with these forces.
I hated the article once I started reading the racist attack it made against the people of South America. This is the sort of social darwinism which fueled some of the worst genocides in history. The author is a piece of sh*t.
I hated the article once I started reading the racist attack it made against the people of South America.
Let’s put aside for the moment that the “racist attack” didn’t happen. Sure, a serious and widespread genetic defect or some toxin in the water would go far to explain South America and its problems, but that wasn’t implied in the article.
You still have the situation that a whole region made and to some extent continues to make relatively bad decisions. Pretty much the point of the thing. There’s also not a South America “race”. It’s hard to be a racist attack without an identifiable race.
My wife is a Filipina. She said something many years ago that might explain what is happening in Central and South America without the need for a genetic explaination. She said that she didn’t know of a single former colony of Spain that ever amounted to anything. The legacy of Spanish colonization is one of endemic corruption at all levels of government and business. She saw it firsthand under the Marcos dictatorship. According to friends who’ve visited the Philippines recently, things are a lot better now but it still has a way to go.
Yes, with the powerful analytic tool of hindsight, the Spanish paradigm of rape and conquer leaves much to be desired.
Hindsight? Lefties don’t need no stinkin’ hindsight. They can just produce a magic chart.
Add “France” to the list and you can explain Africa as well.
The two best explanations I’ve read are that traditionally Catholic countries (esp. Spain and France) used a top-down heirarchical command system that emulated the institutional structure of the Catholic Church, and their colonies inherited the same. Such systems don’t work well, and instead of being discarded or evolving, the leaders are merely replaced with different faces occupying the same top-down slots, continuing the inherent dysfunction for centuries. Democracy doesn’t really fix this problem (note that the Pope is elected too).
The other aspect is trust, and traditionally Catholic countries put more cultural emphasis on confession and penance whereas early Protestants put the emphasis on not sinning in the first place (not cheating in business). Under the doctrine of predestination, which held sway for a while, people said they could tell which folks were doomed to hell from the outset because they showed it in their business dealings and behavior. The enhanced trust made it easier for Protestants to engage in more complicated business relationships, whereas low-trust areas (like Southern Italy), the lesson was not to trust anyone, not even your own family.
Ah but you are forgetting that awesome display of democracy and free market capitalism that is the former Spanish colony of Chile (snicker).
As far as Catholicism being an influence on the governing system… I doubt it is that much important. The Republic of Venice was Catholic and it couldn’t be further away from the government systems of the French or Spanish Monarchies.
If Great Britain never had the Magna Carta their history would be much different. GB had a peculiar history partially caused by their insular position in Europe. Since most royalty in Europe had blood ties in one way or another any rebellion which removed the monarch or reduced his power significantly had little chance of succeeding because his cousin or whatever would come in to his aid. Invading GB was a highly unlikely event and rebellions had more of a change of succeeding. I would argue it is more the other way around. In a country with less centralized power it is more likely that a new religion can take roots.
Ah but you are forgetting that awesome display of democracy and free market capitalism that is the former Spanish colony of Chile (snicker).
What’s funny about that? They are doing better in terms of GDP per capita than the rest of South America. And yet, they’re still way below the GDP per capita of a developed world country.
There are some other elements that go beyond the traditionally Catholic breakdown, of course, such as the difference between mass immigration from Europe to a new settlement (as happened in the US, Canada, Australia, etc), where the immigrants set up governmental systems that they would like to live under, and the broader pattern of European colonization where the Europeans sets up governments that would allow them to rule over massively greater numbers of natives, which includes top-down control of course. Both elements were at work in Spanish colonization.
Among economic factors, France and Spain were merchantilist instead of capitalist, requiring government permission to engage in almost any economic activity, and the permission required bribing your way through layers of ministers and bureaucrats. That’s the system still prevelant in the Third World, and like the top-down command structure, it’s never worked well anywhere.
And finally, Great Britain was a sea power and its Navy consumed its military spending. Its isolation meant it never had to keep a vast standing army as was common in Europe, so its government had to rely on popularity instead of force to stay in power. But that alone should’ve applied to Spain, and didn’t, so the question gets back to centralized power, society that mirrors the Catholic Church’s internal heirarchy, and merchantilist economics.
America needs a cross between Ronald Reagan and Peter Venkman.
Alan, you know you’re not suppose to cross the streams.
Mr. Henderson – America needs Jack Ryan. It’s not going to get him. The UK needs another Thatcher. It’s not going to get her; the Conservative Party has once again been taken over by upper-class twits, and the Labour Party by apparatchiks in total thrall to the unions.
IMHO one of the reasons, perhaps the main one, why she was so successful is that she is the daughter of a small businessman. Another reason is that before politics she had a career in science, where results count for a great deal more than BS – at least if the science has nothing to do with the watermelon agenda.