Democrats drift into Marxism. Why?

[Twilight Hue]

When individual states started legalizing gay marriage (before it was legalized nationwide) republicans tried to ban it at the federal level. Same with cannabis. Republicans are always the ones trying to block individual states from legalizing it.

Speaking of rights. It's very interesting that you wept over plastic shopping bags, but not over women's uteruses. What should we glean from this?

You clearly don't pay attention. I have several past postings where I criticized Republicans on the abortion issue.

Plus it never was over the bags itself ad nauseum.

It was over the taking away the right to choose in a supposedly free country.

That sound familiar?

 

[Father Heathen]

Oh the people in government that some trained Marxists can influence....

...and? What does taking a knee have to do with Marxism?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not when the US is rapidly plummeting down the freedom index it isn't.

Conservatives have been screaming about Communists in the shadows for over a century now because they are afraid of communists lurking in the shadows basically just as an Evangelical is afraid of the devil being around every corner. And they've had some very absurd and stupid claims, like how long haired men and short haired women is communist (yes, they have really claimed that stupid crap).

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I disagree. The left-wing push for big centralized mandate oriented government is far too obvious to deny.

It's already clear in states like NewYork and California that have essentially an entrenched rigged one party system going on for decades now.

Centralized government and/or one-party state isn't what Marxists want because Marxists don't want a state at all. There's a reason most Marxist revolutionary fighters throughout time were left libertarian and anarchist. Both are mutually exclusive with a strong centralized government. Marx specifically criticized the state as an institution for the bourgeoisie to hold the classist power and the state would wither away as an unnecessary appendage of a post-capitol society.

You're talking about some else's dream, not the Marxists. And no, I'm not a Marxist, I just read the dang book.

 

[metis]

It's impossible for me to take the OP even remotely seriously, and I write this not because of any party affiliation since I am an independent, and I have been one for five decades even though I was a Republican.

 

[Revoltingest]

When individual states started legalizing gay marriage (before it was legalized nationwide) republicans tried to ban it at the federal level. Same with cannabis. Republicans are always the ones trying to block individual states from legalizing it.

They also had Democratic allies who opposed
gay marriage, eg, Clintons, Obama. The Pubs
appear worse on that issue, but the reason
it took SCOTUS to legalize it was lack of
interest by Democrats. Their civil rights record
is pretty dismal too.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

...and? What does taking a knee have to do with Marxism?

Obviously everything because it's something some liberals did combined with making it obvious you don't know anything about communism or Marxism.

 

[Father Heathen]

They also had Democratic allies who opposed
gay marriage, eg, Clintons, Obama. The Pubs
appear worse on that issue, but the reason
it took SCOTUS to legalize it was lack of
interest by Democrats. Their civil rights record
is pretty dismal too.

I never said that the dems didn't suck. They just appear to suck less in this regard.

 

[Father Heathen]

Centralized government and/or one-party state isn't what Marxists want because Marxists don't want a state at all. There's a reason most Marxist revolutionary fighters throughout time were left libertarian and anarchist. Both are mutually exclusive with a strong centralized government. Marx specifically criticized the state as an institution for the bourgeoisie to hold the classist power and the state would wither away as an unnecessary appendage of a post-capitol society.

You're talking about some else's dream, not the Marxists. And no, I'm not a Marxist, I just read the dang book.

In their mind "Marxists" are some sort of cartoon villain, like Cobra.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Centralized government and/or one-party state isn't what Marxists want because Marxists don't want a state at all. There's a reason most Marxist revolutionary fighters throughout time were left libertarian and anarchist. Both are mutually exclusive with a strong centralized government.

You're talking about some else's dream, not the Marxists.

To be fair, I can see how the misconception is fairly popular, since Marxism-Leninism heavily emphasizes statism, or at least many of its proponents do. I've known a few Marxist-Leninists who actually support a one-party state with authoritarian rule.

I view Lenin, Mao, and Stalin as the primary reasons for the bad reputation communism and socialism have had in many communities. When brutal, ruthless dictators repeatedly cite an ideology as their inspiration, it's expected that said ideology would end up with a poor reputation and a lot of misconceptions surrounding it.

 

[metis]

To be fair, I can see how the misconception is fairly popular, since Marxism-Leninism heavily emphasizes statism, or at least many of its proponents do. I've known a few Marxist-Leninists who actually support a one-party state with authoritarian rule.

Exactly, and this is the main reason why Engels broke off from Marx and they became bitter enemies.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It was over the taking away the right to choose in a supposedly free country.

There was no right to choose involved. We selfishly and with a sense of overinflated entitlement became used to getting a freeby. Now we can still get those plastix bags you just rightfully pay for what you get, and you get a much better bag than those flimsy free ones that may not even survive the trip to your car.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To be fair, I can see how the misconception is fairly popular, since Marxism-Leninism heavily emphasizes statism, or at least many of its proponents do. I've known a few Marxist-Leninists who actually support a one-party state with authoritarian rule.

To be realistic they are no different than Fundamentalist Christians trying to argue biology amd against evolution, and the points made are just as equally bad.

 

[Revoltingest]

Marxism was one thing envisioned by Marx.
But time has passed, & the definition of "marxism"
has evolved over a couple centuries from its
original arcane theoretical construct.
Consider a representative common definition....
Definition of Marxism | Dictionary.com
the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, especially the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

Set aside the possibility of some claims, eg, there'd ever
be a classless society. A "socialist order" requires a
government in order to prevent non-socialist voluntary
associations, ie, capitalism. Is it possible to reconcile
statelessness with socialism? No. As we see, the more
socialist a country, the more authoritarian it is, eg, PRC,
USSR, Cuba, Khmer Rouge.

So when the OP refers to "marxism" its fans here create
2 problems in their objections....
1) Marxism is more than their extremely focused 19th
century definition.
2) The OP speaks of "drift into", which is about movement
in the direction of marxism....not being marxist. This allows
tending towards some, but not all characteristics.

 

[Revoltingest]

I never said that the dems didn't suck. They just appear to suck less in this regard.

No argument here.
Using the Bible as both science & law text is troubling.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Marxism was one thing envisioned by Marx.
But time has passed, & the definition of "marxism"
has evolved over a couple centuries from its
original arcane theoretical construct.
Consider a representative common definition....
Definition of Marxism | Dictionary.com
the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, especially the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

Set aside the possibility of some claims, eg, there'd ever
be a classless society. A "socialist order" requires a
government in order to prevent non-socialist voluntary
associations, ie, capitalism. Is it possible to reconcile
statelessness with socialism? No. As we see, the more
socialist a country, the more authoritarian it is, eg, PRC,
USSR, Cuba, Khmer Rouge.

So when the OP refers to "marxism" its fans here create
2 problems in their objections....
1) Marxism is more than their extremely focused 19th
century definition.
2) The OP speaks of "drift into", which is about movement
in the direction of marxism....not being marxist. This allows
tending towards some, but not all characteristics.

Marxism has so many subsets and schools of thought that assuming the word refers to a uniform ideology is bound to result in inaccuracy. It's much better to ask people what they subscribe to instead of assuming it from a brief dictionary definition.

Also, modern-day China is heavily capitalistic. There's nothing Marxist about the way billionaires exert influence or the amount of power corporations have there.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Kneeling is Marxist now? Okay then.

Apparently. But at least Pelosi has gone back to some of her senses. Especially Taiwan and giving the finger to Communist China.

 

[Debater Slayer]

To be realistic they are no different than Fundamentalist Christians trying to argue biology amd against evolution, and the points made are just as equally bad.

Sometimes Marxist-Leninist support for brutal authoritarianism strikes me as eerily similar to fundamentalist Christian and Islamic thought: being relentless and trampling on freedom for the "greater good."

Of course, what often ends up happening is that freedoms are lost and the greater good is also curtailed in the process.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

To be fair, I can see how the misconception is fairly popular, since Marxism-Leninism heavily emphasizes statism, or at least many of its proponents do. I've known a few Marxist-Leninists who actually support a one-party state with authoritarian rule.

I view Lenin, Mao, and Stalin as the primary reasons for the bad reputation communism and socialism have had in many communities. When brutal, ruthless dictators repeatedly cite an ideology as their inspiration, it's expected that said ideology would end up with a poor reputation and a lot of misconceptions surrounding it.

I would tell those people that calling Leninism, Maoism and Stalinism 'Marxism' they're missing the point of Marxism in a way akin to believing People's Democratic Republic of Korea citing a democratic republic for their organizational structure.

Marx's writing talks about dismantling structures of state, usually through political action by everyday people, not enshrine them in totalitarian dictatorships run by the very tippy top class the proletariat were fighting against in the first place.

I think what's reasonable to say is that wrestling control (as well as the very means of resource hoarding) from the upper class is hard, and many countries which tried failed.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There was no right to choose involved. We selfishly and with a sense of overinflated entitlement became used to getting a freeby. Now we can still get those plastix bags you just rightfully pay for what you get, and you get a much better bag than those flimsy free ones that may not even survive the trip to your car.

Actually it's none of your business what people and enterprises want to do. The left are not the kings who decides what and what not is givin or used.

Plastic bags are still legal you know although the authoritarian Democrats dictate otherwise in spite of that.