American Marxism

[Skepdick]

then what does this imply:
"If anybody who wants to change the world is a Marxist, then I don't think I have ever met any non-Marxists."

It means that they satisfy the definition.

IF you agree with it.

[Sculptor]

Marx was an economist primarily.
He was keen to expose the system that condemned generations of people to be tied to toil whilst those that owned the means of production were easily able to exploit them.

The truth of this has not changed since he made his observations. If you think progress has been made in the emancipation of workers in the last 150 years then you are probably living in the West and not paying attention to the poverty all around you, as much of the exploitation has been exported to poorer countries and there are social mechanisms in place to make you think that you have all the same opportunities as the rich - you do not.

The most powerful Marxians of the last century were the followers of Milton Firedman, such as Reagan, Pinochet, and Thatcher.
Because understanding what Marx was talking about does not mandate that you will want to redress the problems of inequality and exploitation; you can also use Marx as a playbook to create more inequality and to better understand how it is possible to convince your populace that their poverty is somehow their own fault. (ask any of the 17000 homeless on LA streets)
The last forty years or so has been characterised by the tendancy to increasing inequality, and the masking of those inequalities by the lie that "we are all in this together".
SO whilst captialism drags us all from one crisis to another those that have to pay the most for the economic disasters are generally the people who through thier toil, are the people who make the economy grow - the WORKERS. And whilst they pay again, and again, the rich just continue to exploit them and the situation to further enrich themselves.

[Sculptor]

American Marxism
by Mark R. Levin

Check it out.

He proves that a Marxist revolution is in process, American style.

What is this? A book, an article, a you tube?

Do you have a link?

Take it easy. He finds that sort of thing cery difficult

[DPMartin]

then what does this imply:
"If anybody who wants to change the world is a Marxist, then I don't think I have ever met any non-Marxists."

It means that they satisfy the definition.

IF you agree with it.

i don't, and i explained why, hence the answer i gave. Marxism isn't required to change the world, capitalism can be a way to change the world, and that doesn't make everyone a capitalist does it?

all it seems you're trying to do is convince others they have to be a Marxist to change things.

[Sculptor]

Levin makes the point that Marx was not a philosopher.

Neither was he an economist.

He was a journalist.

He was all three, and at levels way beyond the capacity for you or Levin (whever the fuck that is) to scratch the surface of understanding of half the ideas that Marx had.

[Skepdick]

i don't, and i explained why, hence the answer i gave. Marxism isn't required to change the world, capitalism can be a way to change the world, and that doesn't make everyone a capitalist does it?

all it seems you're trying to do is convince others they have to be a Marxist to change things.

What?!?! You have absolutely no idea how language works.

ALL world-changing is X.

Marxists say "World-changing is Marxism."
Capitalists say "World-changing is Capitalism"

Whatever you choose to call it - it's still world-changing. With respect to world-changing there's no diference between Marxism, Capitalism and any other world-changing ism.
They want the same thing - to change the world! Where they may divervge is in HOW they want to change it...

[DPMartin]

i don't, and i explained why, hence the answer i gave. Marxism isn't required to change the world, capitalism can be a way to change the world, and that doesn't make everyone a capitalist does it?

all it seems you're trying to do is convince others they have to be a Marxist to change things.

What?!?! You have absolutely no idea how language works.

ALL world-changing is X.

Marxists say "World-changing is Marxism."
Capitalists say "World-changing is Capitalism"

Whatever you choose to call it - it's still world-changing. With respect to world-changing there's no diference between Marxism, Capitalism and any other world-changing ism.
They want the same thing - to change the world! Where they may divervge is in HOW they want to change it...

gee, are we back peddling here?

[Walker]

Levin makes the point that Marx was not a philosopher.

Neither was he an economist.

He was a journalist.

He was all three, and at levels way beyond the capacity for you or Levin (whever the fuck that is) to scratch the surface of understanding of half the ideas that Marx had.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

That’s all ye need know about Marxism, Einstein.

That is the root from which all the failures of Marxism inevitably sprouted. It just ain’t natural.

[Walker]

From the dust jacket:

#1 NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER

The seven-time #1 New York Times bestselling author, Fox News star, and radio host Mark R. Levin explains how the dangers he warned against in the “timely yet timeless” (David Limbaugh, author of Jesus Is Risen) bestseller Liberty and Tyranny have come to pass.

In 2009, Mark R. Levin galvanized conservatives with his unforgettable manifesto Liberty and Tyranny, by providing a philosophical, historical, and practical framework for halting the liberal assault on Constitution-based values. That book was about standing at the precipice of progressivism’s threat to our freedom and now, over a decade later, we’re fully over that precipice and paying the price.

In American Marxism, Levin explains how the core elements of Marxist ideology are now pervasive in American society and culture—from our schools, the press, and corporations, to Hollywood, the Democratic Party, and the Biden presidency—and how it is often cloaked in deceptive labels like “progressivism,” “democratic socialism,” “social activism,” and more. With his characteristic trenchant analysis, Levin digs into the psychology and tactics of these movements, the widespread brainwashing of students, the anti-American purposes of Critical Race Theory and the Green New Deal, and the escalation of repression and censorship to silence opposing voices and enforce conformity. Levin exposes many of the institutions, intellectuals, scholars, and activists who are leading this revolution, and provides us with some answers and ideas on how to confront them.

As Levin writes: “The counter-revolution to the American Revolution is in full force. And it can no longer be dismissed or ignored for it is devouring our society and culture, swirling around our everyday lives, and ubiquitous in our politics, schools, media, and entertainment.” And, like before, Levin seeks to rally the American people to defend their liberty.

[Skepdick]

gee, are we back peddling here?

Are you? I am not.

[Sculptor]

Levin makes the point that Marx was not a philosopher.

Neither was he an economist.

He was a journalist.

He was all three, and at levels way beyond the capacity for you or Levin (wheoer the fuck that is) to scratch the surface of understanding of half the ideas that Marx had.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

That’s all ye need know about Marxism, Einstein.

That is the root from which all the failures of Marxism inevitably sprouted. It just ain’t natural.

QED: Your failure "to scratch the surface of understanding of half the ideas that Marx had."

[henry quirk]

He was all three, and at levels way beyond the capacity for you or Levin (wheoer the fuck that is) to scratch the surface of understanding of half the ideas that Marx had.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

That’s all ye need know about Marxism, Einstein.

That is the root from which all the failures of Marxism inevitably sprouted. It just ain’t natural.

QED: Your failure "to scratch the surface of understanding of *half the ideas that Marx had."

Here's Marx, in a nutshell: Capitalism bad.

He's not wrong. Capitalism skews toward state capitalism which is the brother of state socialism and state communism.

Capitalism has the advantage in that it, as a system, at least has actually been implemented. It mutates quickly, but for brief periods, here and there, actual Capitalism has existed. The same can't be said for Socialism or Communism. Both always begin and remain a state-overseen affair.

Marx's sin is not recognizing the State is the devil. With no state to be bought, Capitalism mutates into Free Enterprise. And, of course, with no state, Socialism and Communism, in any form, can't even get out of the starting gate.

If the State can be avoided from the start, then you get Free Enterprise from the start.

[Walker]

QED: Your failure "to scratch the surface of understanding of half the ideas that Marx had."

The thing is, Levin wrote the book, and you don't know what he scratched, because you haven't read it. In fact, you don't even know who Levin is, by your own admission, whereas I know that Marx was a crackpot.


American Marxism
by Mark R. Levin

Check it out.

He proves that a Marxist revolution is in process, American style.

[Walker]

Here's Marx, in a nutshell: Capitalism bad.

Left to his own devices, man turns to capitalism.

Kids cutting lawns, lemonade stands, selling your goods and services at a price the market will bear. It's the natural way, and when suppressed it becomes the black* market and barter.


* Trigger word! Racism! Let's get that changed, chop chop.

[henry quirk]

Here's Marx, in a nutshell: Capitalism bad.

Left to his own devices, man turns to capitalism.

Kids cutting lawns, lemonade stands, selling your goods and services at a price the market will bear. It's the natural way, and when suppressed it becomes the black* market and barter.


* Trigger word! Racism! Let's get that changed, chop chop.

I think left to his own devices, and after he's killed the slaver wannabes, man turns to Free Enterprise (just like Capitalism but with the emphasis on the man, not the capital). Man's first mistake is lettin' slavers live. His second is greed, allowin' his appetites to rule his common sense (sumthin' the slaver encourages). His third is lettin' clever slavers get a foothold in his transactions (the slavers, by way of the State, who are the State, regulate and tax...all for the greater good, of course).

Free Enterprise shifts, becomes the pursuit of capital, a kind of greed encouraged by the State, which, to perpetuate itself encourages artificial scarcity and abnormal appetite and therefore reinforces man's faux-need for regulators.

It's a vicious lil cycle: the free men has truck with the slaver; the slaver insinuates himself, sows doubt, fans greed, promises solutions, solutions that subtly reinforce (slaver-caused or slaver-enhanced) problems and never solves them.