That’s it? Why the hell did you start this thread?
Esprix
You’re quite welcome, Andy. Sometimes things get kind of hot around here and the accusations fly. You’re probably right to question the invective directed at Jesse Helms.
But old Jesse doesn’t need any exaggeration at all to qualify as a first-class asshole in my book. I try to be tolerant of other peoples’ opinions (with varying degrees of success), but Helms is one guy I can point at and say, “that sonofabitch is just wrong.” The only reason I think he isn’t nearly universally vilified except by the Klan and naturally termagent people is because so many people just don’t know that much about him, and probably a lot of others just can’t believe that a man of his narrow caliber could ascend to such high office in this day and age.
To equate Karl Marx’s theories with Pol Pot is like equating Nietzschean philosophy with Hitler. The brutal dictatorships that these later historical figures practiced do not mean that the earlier philosophies from which they claimed to have found inspiration would have sanctioned their deeds.
Just one example: Niezsche’s idea of the “Ubermensch” or “Superman” was grossly distorted almost beyond recognition by Hitler in his attempt to set up a pure super-race. Now, Nietzsche wasn’t the biggest fan of democracy, but he never advocated the idea of a dictatorship somehow forcing into history the development of the Ubermensch, and he never conceived of the Ubermensch as some kind of leader of a “pure” Aryan race. Those were traits that Hitler imposed on an idea that he either didn’t really understand or one that he willfully misappropriated.
To pursue the Nietzsche analogy a little further, i will say that i don’t agree with Nietzsche on everything, or even on most of what he says. I strongly disagree with his anti-democratic views. Does this mean that there’s nothing in Nietzsche that i can use? No, because he doesn’t just talk about politics. He also talks a lot about art, religion, music, etc. There are some good points in there. I tend to agree with his concept that “God is dead” in his cultural critique of the role of the Christian Church in modern Europe. So i can use bits of Nietzsche without being a full “Nietzschean.”
The same thing goes for Karl Marx. I believe i can use certain aspects of his economic theories in criticizing the state of the world. Does this mean i’m a full Marxist? No, because i believe that history indicates that Marx’s critique of 19th-century industrial Europe doesn’t entirely apply to the 21st-century world. And because i use some bits of Marx (for the sake of argument, since i cannot claim to really use Marxist thought a lot in my own thinking), and because some totalitarian regime also claimed to be influenced by Marx, does this mean that i am the moral equivalent of those guys? Not any more than using Nietzschean philosophy equates me to Hitler–which means, not at all.
Jesus, what a loaded question. Have you stopped beating your wife??
By asking this, you’re either **a)**demonstrating your ignorance of the many different kinds of communism that have emerged over the past two centuries, or btrying to get a rise out of me. Since you mention Bakunin in your post, it seems like you know something about 19th-century social philosophers, and so i must conclude that the answer is b). And i won’t take the bait.
I completely disagree. Marxism was not merely a philosophy – it was a political system. It called for the abolition of private property, the centralization of power for “the people,” and called for class warfare and perpetual revolution. All of these exceed philosophical inquiry. Marxism was a call for action direct.
If you have any references to Nietzche directly calling on his followers to organize and abolish the free press or collectivize property, please post that.
Re Marxism, if you’re comfortable discussing art, music, etc., from a perspective that re-interprets everything through the lens of victimhood and oppression and advocates class warfare, you’re missing a great deal of the point of the music or art while dabbling in what is essentially a hate movement. Marxist criticism is polemic.
quote:
(BTW, you don’t hate communism?)
You asked, “Is your hatred of communism so strong that you can’t differentiate between the various systems that are identified as “leftist” or “Marxist”?” This implies that hating communism is some sort of intolerant vice alongside hating foreigners, etc. So I asked, don’t you hate communism?
It’s an entirely legitimate question, and I’m concerned that you didn’t answer it.
Once they gained power, they began moving in the prototypical Marxist direction of quashing opposition, closing down dissident newspapers, and nationalizing industry. I think anyone can see what direction they were heading in. If say, Germany or Britain would start doing these things, I think you’d have no difficulty perceiving the trend and being concerned about it.
The land reform was good, but history shows us that all Marxist regimes make some reforms when they first come to power. Then they come down with the iron fist. They perform popular acts to consolidate power, and when they have consolidated power, they show their true colors.
Their efforts for literacy were undertaken so they could indoctrinate schoolchildren with Sandinista philosophy.
So why do you leave out that they were being funded by a foreign superpower themselves?
I’d trace Marxist suppression of dissent back to Marxist philosophy, but that must not be right because it doesn’t blame the U.S.
I believe the Sandinistas allowed an election only because they had little choice. It happened despite them.
Not to defend that bastard Somoza, but just the liquidation of the kulaks exceeded everything he did.
If Hitler had died in 1938, you could defend him on the same grounds as above – just because he didn’t get the chance to do it doesn’t make his philosophy right.
You do know that Israel was founded essentially by people who could be termed “terrorists” – the Stern Gang, the bombing of British police, the assassination of Folke Bernadotte.
Your argument is tautological – it’s evil to support evil.
…such as holding elections? My whole exchange with you started out in response to you statement…
I made the simple observation that the Sandinistas are the ones responsible for holding elections that resulted in more representation of people through the electoral process.
Your counter-argument is that they were forced to do it by outside pressure. You have shown no proof for this. Just your flat statement that Marxists could NEVER allow elections. The fact is that the Sandinistas held elections!!
But assuming for the sake of this argument that the Sandinistas were “forced” to have elections against their will, the other fact is that they WON the 1984 elections. So even if they were “forced” to have elections (as you argue), the Sandinistas in power in 1984 reflected election results and hence was more representative of the people.
See the BBC (hopefully you will consider this reliable) for a quick summary of the 1984 results.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/...000/2538379.stm
Oh for crying out loud-you can’t predict he would have done so, either. Allende was actually advised to declare marshal law and refused to do so, on the grounds that it would be a violation of democracy.
And he died for that.
I’m reading a book right now about El Salvador-it’s almost hair raising. The simple fact is-the extremist, military, right wing thugs caused so much misery that people turned to communism out of DESPARATION.
Treat people right, and they won’t have any reason to turn to communism. D’uh.
You say tautology, I say truism.
Daniel
I’ve noticed that throughout this thread, you have repeatedly assailed other posters for not recognizing that historical events do not happen in a vacuum. And then, you’ll go and make blanket statements about Marxism and express indignation when anyone questions you.
So, let’s consider this: Marxism, as developed under Marx and Engels, did not emerge from a vacuum. It didn’t call for revolution just because it hated personal liberties and democracy. Marxism developed during the nineteenth century when the disparity between a few, land-owning, wealthy capitalists (i suppose you’d call them “captains of industry”) and the masses of poor, oppressed, starving workers was so great that it looked like a crisis would erupt at any moment–and indeed, things were constantly boiling over, in marches, strikes, and even an occasional revolution.
The way it seemed to Marx and Engels, and a whole range of social thinkers (i repeat, they weren’t the only “communists” during this time), was that a worldwide proletariat revolution was imminent. Marx thought it was inevitable–he didn’t come up with the idea of class struggle all on his own; he saw it all around him, being waged on the working class. In his historical analysis, concluded that it would just keep going on and on in an economic version of Hegelian dialectic until one big workers’ revolution finally ended everything.
So, yeah, it was a political system, but based on philosophical precepts (esp. Hegel) in the analysis of the social situation of 19th-century Europe. The problem as i see it is that so-called Marxists of the 20th century tried jumpstart the revolution by starting it inside individual nations–something that Marx never envisaged (for him, it was going to happen worldwide as the workers put aside their nationalist differences and joined together in overthrowing the common enemy of the bourgeoisie).
I was using Nietzsche to make a point about how philosophers can be misappropriated by later thinkers. Nietzsche wasn’t primarily a political philosopher, but he had clear ideas about what political systems he favored, and they did not include democracy. My point was that Hitler ignored other aspects of Nietzschean philosophy by focusing on the Ubermensch idea, and he grossly distorted it by merging it with Nietzsche’s unrelated ideas about democracy.
I’ll have to consult my Nietzsche books to pull out some direct references to politics, but my point about later interpreters distorting earlier philosophers to suit their own agendas stands in any case. By ignoring Marx’s contention that the proletariat revolution would be worldwide and simultaneous, modern-day Marxists missed a major point in Marx’s thought.
Well, i have to agree with you to a certain extent, although i wouldn’t characterize it as a “hate movement.” Marxist cultural critics see our culture as actively repressing the rights of workers, of women, of minorities, and so forth. Sometimes they have a point, although at other times their interpretations strike me as too myopic. As you say, there is a lot more to art than just class and social politics.
But i can’t deny that even my favorite artists and musicians lived in particular historical epochs that privileged certain types of people and groups over other kinds. Where i differ with most Marxist critics is that i’m still a romantic who believes that these artistic individuals can play a part in supporting their respective cultural hegemony or fighting against it, or just complicating it somehow. Most Marxists would see these individuals as completely historically determined, but i still believe in the role of a subjective self. So sue me. 
One further point about using a political philosopher in one’s critical theory: you could say the same things about Plato that you do about Marx. Plato advocated a society ruled by philosopher-kings; he also advocated kicking out all the poets and artists, who didn’t really contribute much to society but trouble (heh). But plenty of subsequent thinkers throughout history have used Platonic philosophy in their critical writings without ever advocating the kind of society that Plato did.
No, i didn’t mean to imply that it’s wrong to hate communism. If you hate the idea of a classless society where the workers control the means of production, then that’s your right. What i was trying to get you to admit is that different communists–and even different Marxists–have seen different paths toward this goal. Some advocate violent revolution, while others believe it can only be reached through voluntary consensus. Some have disengaged from industrial society to live in communes, hoping that they would provide a model for the rest of the world. Others have tried incremental steps towards this goal, including through democratic forums.
I consider your “yes” or “no” question disingenuous, because it ignores these various models of communism. At the risk of getting my words twisted out of shape by you–:sigh: why do i bother?–i will say i sympathize to a certain extent with the goal of communism, namely a classless society where everybody lives together without feeling the need to exploit or oppress anyone else. I also hope that we will have peace in this world. But i consider to be these utopian ideals to strive towards through non-violent measures. In the 19th-century, Marx thought the revolution would have to be violent, because the circumstances of his time were quite violent (from the standpoint of social justice). Today, the social situation in industrial nations has changed quite a bit, and although there is still repression, it can usually be combatted through peaceful means. This is, i feel, a huge improvement over class relations from the past centuries. However, we still have a lot of room for improvement.
So does that answer your question?
Another thing is, that in Central America-people did not have democracy. In El Salvador, there was nothing but bloody oppression. People TRIED to go about changing things non-violently-but it only got them killed.
So they got desparate.
Had Duarte been able to take office as he should have in 1972, we would not have had the problems we did.
Okay, Spudbucket, you win. The Contra insurgency, international sanctions on the Sandinista regime, the worsening economy caused by embargoes, the collapse of the Sandinistas’ superpower source of funding – none of these had any influence on the Sandinistas ay-tall.
That’s your story and your sticking to it – no matter how loudly any credible historian short of an abject Marxist would laugh at you.
Many people wanted change – any change – from Somoza. When Nicaraguans saw what the Sandinistas were really like, they booted them. People wanted something different, but that doesn’t mean they wanted Marxism.
The Sandinistas gained power with all the usual pie-in-the-sky promises, which must have sounded good at the time. Most dictators have some legitimate complaints to make. I mean, you know that even Batista started out as a reformer.
:rolleyes:
Neeexxt!
Leonid Brezhnev didn’t look all that desperate sitting in one of his several dachas scarfing down caviar, but there you go.
Communists treat people right?
When did that start?
Quick, Guinastasia, run and tell Solzhenitsyn. He seemed to have his nose all out of joint about something.
But you’re promoting a false dichotomy. Communism wasn’t the only alternative. In the 1930s, Germans had a lot of legitimate grievances – an economy in shambles, onerous conditions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, etc. But National Socialism was not the only alternative.
Try this: “Treat people right, and they won’t have any reason to turn to Nazism. D’uh.”
Does that make you uncomfortable?
“Hitler thought it was inevitable–he didn’t come up with the idea of Jewish conspiracies all on his own; he saw it all around him, being waged on the German people. In his historical analysis, concluded that it would just keep going on and on until one Final Solution ended everything.”
Marx was also notoriously anti-Semitic. (Yes, I know he was Jewish.) See Marx’s “On The Jewish Question” (1843), also known as “A World Without Jews.” He regarded Judaism as a cultural phenomenon based on the acquisition of wealth (sound familiar?) Marxist apologists presented only bowdlerized versions, if any, of this work, which did not have an unexpurgated English translation until 1955!
“What is the object of the Jew’s worship in this world?” Marx asks. “Usury. What is his worldly god? Money… What is the foundation of the Jew in this world? Practical necessity, private advantage… The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange.”
Here Marx is embrace the image of the Jew that underlies anti-Semitism. And yes, I know that some Marxist will try to double-talk their way out of this embarrassing testament. Such deliberate blindness is one of the major faults of modern Marxists. Reading their philosophers and engaging in their arcane debates, they conceive of themselves as more intelligent, more informed than the masses. To admit Marxism is wrong would be to admit they were wrong – which upsets their cherished world view. So it always has to be something else that made Marxism fail. Thus they go on, giving support to a system that has killed millions upon millions.
Right now, Guinastasia is immersing herself in the misdeeds of Somoza, but I wonder if she knows who the kulaks were and how many of them died. For some, those sorts of facts just aren’t sexy enough.
Marx depicted Jews as worshipping money and practicing usury, saying that their true religion was the acquisition of wealth: “emancipation from usury and money, that is, from practical, real Judaism, would constitute the emancipation of our time.”
We’ve seen the hatred that results from directing this type of thinking at a group. What Marx directs at the Jews here, he and his followers direct at the “bourgeois” as well.
To me, it seems that Marxists and the way-out-there-left don’t love the oppressed so much as they hate someone else. They might ally themselves with certain groups, stir them up, fill them with propaganda, but they’re just trying to use these people as a loaded gun.
When some group starts trying to make us adopt that system at the point of a gun, let me know. We can form a contra movement.
For Marxists, the goal seems to be the palace – each and every time.
Um, I’m a Russian history major-I THINK I know who the kulaks were. :rolleyes:
I’m not talking about the higher ups. But seriously-what DOES drive people to become communists? Why do they do it?
My point is, any time someone attempted even the tiniest bit of reform in El Salvador, they were violently put down.
What would YOU do? How would YOU suggest they try and stop the oligarchy and the military?
I’m not saying communism is right. In fact, I think it’s a bloody morally bankrupt system. But, at the same time, I want to know-why would these peasants, priests, reformists-whatever-why would they embrace it?
Okay, I’m glad we agree about the failure of communism. You can wage a campaign to oust dictators without turning to communism. The Russians had many legit grievances against the czar, but their revolution was hijacked by Lenin, et al, and much for the worst. The American Colonies overthrew a monarch’s rule and established something better.
Yes, but had the Tsars instituted reform and moved towards a constitutional monarchy, then the Soviet Union would not have been.
That’s my whole point-simply repressing people and making them more and more miserable is merely delaying the inevitable.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious *
**Okay, Spudbucket, you win. **
Cool! So we are in agreement then, that the Sandinistas (Marxists) brought more representation to the Nicaragua people. Yes?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious *
**The Sandinistas gained power with all the usual pie-in-the-sky promises, which must have sounded good at the time. **
Actually they gained power through a armed revolution. They kept power through the 1984 by instituting land reform, improved health care (particularly in rural areas), and pulling off an impressive literacy campaign. Yes they promised these things but they actually implemented them…
Is it so hard to believe that the group who overthrew a hated dictator and instituted reforms that improved the day to day quality of many people’s lives could be popular?
We can debate why the Sandinistas lost the elections in 1990 if you wish but the fact that they held elections, lost them and arranged for a transfer of power shows them to be democratic.
Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. You can’t compare Hitler’s paranoid delusions about Jewish conspiracies, and his idiotic idea of an Aryan super-race, to Marx’s dialectic materialism.
For one thing, Hitler’s idea of the past wasn’t based on the dialectic. He based his version of history on ridiculous ideas of a Teutonic mythic “golden age,” which largely existed only in the minds of 19th-century German writers and artists (Wagner is a good example).
However much you disagree with Marx’s conclusions, Marx based his historical analysis on real conditions of mid-nineteenth-century Europe. There were increasingly nasty conflicts between, say, factory owners and workers. The labour movement and the drive towards unionization were based on the truly awful conditions of factory and mine work. Workers, seeing that the profit-driven management had no reason to alleviate these conditions or to extend anything like benefits, were trying to take matters into their own hands through strikes and demonstrations. You can’t deny these historical factors–and you can’t compare them to Hitler and other anti-Semites’ ideas about a Jewish conspiracy.
Was Marx’s analysis of history as a series of conflicts between the haves and have-nots too simplistic? No doubt. Was he wrong in concluding that a worldwide proletarian revolution was imminent? Obviously, yes. Marx was wrong about a lot of things. But to say that he was inspired by the same kind of madness that Hitler was is just plain wrong (you’d be more convincing if you made the comparison between Hitler and Stalin).
You know, Hitler’s paranoid delusions about a worldwide Jewish conspiracy have more in common with the American right’s belief in a worldwide Communist conspiracy during the mid-twentieth century than they do with Marx. When you think about it, you can see a lot of parallels between those two. But that doesn’t equate them by any means, either.
When I think “democratic,” the first thing I think is “Marxist.”
:rolleyes:
Actually, revolution is more likely to happen when the situation is starting to improve then when the situation is consistantly bad. That’s what happened in El Salvador, where the government, just before the revolution initiated some pretty feeble land reform programs, and that’s what happened in Russia, where more power was starting to shift into the hands of the Duma. So, the lesson is sort of the opposite…if you’re in charge of a repressive state, you have to keep the pressure on, because when you start liberalizing, you’re going to face unrest.
We can certainly compare the number of people who died as a direct result of those beliefs. And Marx comes out ahead in that grand total.
The anti-Semitism expressed by Marx and Hitler had many facets in common: that Jews were dedicated to the accumulation of wealth with disregard to the suffering it caused others. The libel was the same.
And yes, Hitler could cite real-world conditions as well – such as the crushing debt placed on Germany. Anyone can cite real-world conditions as a basis for whipping up hatred. Marx did it just as well as anyone.
Hitler has become our benchmark for evil, so anyone who is not evil in precisely the same way is somehow not so bad – or so some would argue.
So I won’t say Marx was inspired by the same kind of madness – just that Marx himself inspires the same kind of madness. Far more people have died from Marxism.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, their archives have opened up and we have learned that the Rosenbergs were guilty, Alger Hiss was a communist, there were communists in the state department, the Soviets did fund the Communist Party USA, and more. These are established facts, not “paranoid delusions,” and to imply that they were “paranoid delusions” is a typical far-left trick of trying to stigmatize opposition to communism. Communism killed more people than Hitler, so opposition to it is not the type of paranoia you want to taint it as being.
Great!! Glad to know that you have seen the light (or at least realized) that your original over-general statement can be shown to be wrong. 
See you in the funny papers.
Someone doesn’t have to be a Marxist to be evil.
And if we’re going to go with raw numbers, as evidence as to who was worse, according to Bonner’s Weakness and Deceit: U.S. Policy and El Salvador,
-Bonner, 139
*ORDEN-“rural paramilitary organization set up by the government in the 1960s; officially abolished after the coup in October 1979, but its members continued to operate.”
-Bonner, xiv