Marxism Maoism Leninism Nazism Stalinism

It is way past time that these "ISM" s ,
Marxism particularly in this case,
are addressed not only by the media
but also hopefully in time
by our educational systems.
Which clearly have been infiltrated
by these very ideologies.

I have noticed as of late that many students
have been subject to an "Educational Blackout"
regarding the horrors of history regarding these
matters.
But on the other hand, I clearly see a driven
disdain for Capitalism.

What is odd is that this disdain is being driven
by the liberal wealthy elite capitalists themselves.
This is about control.
This should be a wake up call to any individuals
who value their freedom and God given rights.
The horrors of the Nazi regime are pointed out,
but the fact that they were Socialists are not.

The good old Democratic Party of old JFK is
long gone.
The current position is arrogance , greed, and
an insatiable hunger for power.
So much so, that their "Ends" will justify
any "Means". This is a sad and at the same time
dangerous state of affairs. Corruption.

Newt Gingrich made some recent comments
that I found to be very important regarding
this topic. Though he is addressing China in
the article, it must be noted that this influence
is gushing over into the United States.

(Chinese Money to influence American Society)
www.politico.com...
freebeacon.com...
www.washingtonpost.com... 30535e5_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ef7d527ace0e
Link Here: www.foxnews.com...

Probably not pointed out because the Nazi's weren't actually socialists. In name only.
Did the working class own the means of production? You know... the main bullet point of socialism?
Is North Korea a Democratic People's Republic? Also in name only.

I'm going to guess that your definitions of all the 'isms' isn't correct but just right wing fear-mongering rhetoric.

a reply to: Wildmanimal

My fonts appear to be BIG

I do not know why.

a reply to: okrian

Well it was "Socialism" for the
Nazi party people now wasn't it?

Because in the beginning, those
who were true to the party
Clearly did receive benefits.
To be clear, the working class
never owns/controls production.
It is either privately owned or State
owned.
So it is never truly in the hands of the people.
It is in the hands of those elite who make the
decisions for the State or Company.
You just go on guessing.
I will agree that you are free
to do that.

Thanks for the reply.

originally posted by: okrian
Probably not pointed out because the Nazi's weren't actually socialists. In name only.
Did the working class own the means of production? You know... the main bullet point of socialism?
Is North Korea a Democratic People's Republic? Also in name only.

I'm going to guess that your definitions of all the 'isms' isn't correct but just right wing fear-mongering rhetoric.

OP must have touched a nerve?

BTW, well written OP!

a reply to: seeker1963

THX, I edited my replies,,,
for clarity and point of view.

Newt is a smart guy but also a total hypocrite.

I wonder if he still wants pot dealers to get the death penalty.

a reply to: luthier

Well the link I provided was about
his statements on Marxism.

It was not about his views on capital
punishment regarding herb laws.

So, I do not agree with Newt on everything.

That is the beauty of the freedom of speech.
To agree to disagree without going for the jugular.
THX

a reply to: Wildmanimal

What are some of the things you liked about what he was saying?

a reply to: luthier

Good Question.
I liked the fact that he has brought
some light to these flawed Utopian Ideologies.

In every instance the dissenters are smothered,
imprisoned, killed, or mysteriously vanish in the
night.
The lucky ones were sent to reeducation camps.
The unlucky, The Gulag.

originally posted by: Wildmanimal
a reply to: luthier

Good Question.
I liked the fact that he has brought
some light to these flawed Utopian Ideologies.

In every instance the dissenters are smothered,
imprisoned, killed, or mysteriously vanish in the
night.
The lucky ones were sent to reeducation camps.
The unlucky, The Gulag.

I found it interesting because he also holds some strange views on the judiciary and separation of powers that seem fairly unconstitutional.

Like if he were elected he would ignore supreme court rulings. Among many others.

The death penalty for pot dealers and authoritarian drug laws as well...

I do think he is thoughtful unfortunately also a hypocritical mess at times.

a reply to: luthier

I have known a few White House Advisories
in my time.
D.C. has a way of tweaking the best of them.

Newt is no exception.
However, I think his recent article is spot on.

originally posted by: Wildmanimal
a reply to: luthier

I have known a few White House Advisories
in my time.
D.C. has a way of tweaking the best of them.

Newt is no exception.

I am with you on the utopian left ideals bit. I tend to be a bleeding heart libertarian. I recognize the struggle but it doesn't need to be a federal policy.

Does Bernie make sense in Vermont with 600k homogenous people probably.

As a president. Uh no..

a reply to: luthier

Agreed.
But the question is,
can you set up a Martin
Custom Adirondack Spruce
Guitar?

originally posted by: Wildmanimal
a reply to: luthier

Agreed.
But the question is,
can you set up a Martin
Custom Adirondack Spruce
Guitar?

Yep..
I have done a couple thousand Collings.

a reply to: luthier

Good to know.
We should chat more.
I have to log out for now.

The current position is arrogance , greed, and an insatiable hunger for power.

This describes the current Republican party exactly, so insatiable that they care more about making deals with Russian oligarchs than doing their job for the American people.

originally posted by: CB328

The current position is arrogance , greed, and an insatiable hunger for power.

This describes the current Republican party exactly, so insatiable that they care more about making deals with Russian oligarchs than doing their job for the American people.

You have more in common with Communism that you think Comrade!

a reply to: Wildmanimal

During my US Public Education I didn’t receive any instruction on Marxism and I doubt that US public students are getting any now. I went to school during the “Commies under the Bed” era.

The “good old JFK days” were a time of continued institution of social policies that were started during the FDR administration. These reforms, to a ‘mixed economy’ were continued by governance and administration, by moderates on both sides. After WWII the US was instrumental in setting up these social and economic mixed systems in Europe and Japan precisely to combat the spread of Communism. Stable societies are more resilient and less prone to being “hijacked by ideological dogma of any type.

So that’s the first critic of your ‘rant’.

Then Marxism is a constellation of philosophies. His most important work is “Das Capital” which is a critic of Capitalism. One that is remarkably prescient.

I quote your OP here:

“The good old Democratic Party of old JFK is 
long gone. 
The current position is arrogance , greed, and 
an insatiable hunger for power. 
So much so, that their "Ends" will justify 
any "Means". This is a sad and at the same time 
dangerous state of affairs. Corruption. “

So only the Democrats are corrupt?

And with regard to China:

They are a very Capitalist Society and struggling with corruption at all levels as well. I don’t even really know what to call their social and economic structures. It’s some hybrid which seems to working (FOR THEIR PEOPLE – NOT US) in some important aspects that libertarian capitalism is not. We could learn from them.

I like this article from the American Conservative:

You see what he means here. Capitalism — for Marx, the merchant class (the “bourgeoisie”) were the carriers of capitalism — turns everything into a market.

Capitalism is a revolutionary force that disrupts and desacralizes all things.

All that talk in The Benedict Option about “liquid modernity”? (note: I've no idea about this book?) That’s based in Marx, actually.

Zygmunt Bauman, the late sociologist from whom I took the idea, was a Marxist.

Look, most of us conservatives in the West are to some degree supporters of the free market. What we missed for a very long time was that it is hard to support a fully free market while at the same time expecting our social institutions — the family, the church, and so forth — to remain stable. This is an insight of Marx’s that we conservatives — and even conservative Christians — ought to absorb. I write about this a lot, though not in specific Marxist terms.

www.theamericanconservative.com...

And from the other side of the sprectrum:

Karl Marx had it right. At some point, capitalism can destroy itself.

You cannot keep on shifting income from labor to capital without having an excess capacity and a lack of aggregate demand.

That's what has happened.

We thought that markets worked. They're not working. T

he individual can be rational. The firm, to survive and thrive, can push labor costs more and more down, but labor costs are someone else's income and consumption.

That's why it's a self-destructive process.

socialistworker.org...

It’s not all the Marxists, democrats, liberals (in fact classical liberalism is hyper-capitalism bordering on fascism), progressives – all those people who don’t think like you. It’s the SYSTEM ITSELF.

We must stabilize the system, in order to avoid chaos. I don’t think Marxists are promoting chaos. The Marxist economist are mostly agreed that what is needed at this moment in time are NORMS that stabilize the society and economy. We know what those things are – it is the Capitalists that don’t want to acknowledge it.

And before you label yourself a Capitalist, read this definition by Marx as paraphrased by M. Roberts at thenextrecession.wordpress.com...

But for Marx, you are not a capitalist if you do not get your income predominantly from surplus-value (profit or dividends, interest and rent).

And only a very tiny percentage of people of working age do.

Indeed, Marxist economist Simon Mohun has shown that less than 2% of income earners in the US fit that bill.

Nearly 99% of us have to work (sell our labour power) for a living.

Even if some of us get some dividends, or rent, or interest from savings, we cannot live off that alone.

Yes, we workers ‘interact’ in the capitalist system but only through the exploitation of our value-creating (for capital) labour power. We are not a ‘full participant’ in capitalism, except in that sense.

BTW the title of the above article is Capitalism – where Marx was Right and Wrong.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: okrian
Probably not pointed out because the Nazi's weren't actually socialists. In name only.
Did the working class own the means of production? You know... the main bullet point of socialism?
Is North Korea a Democratic People's Republic? Also in name only.

I'm going to guess that your definitions of all the 'isms' isn't correct but just right wing fear-mongering rhetoric.

OP must have touched a nerve?

BTW, well written OP!

And that's all you need to write to get some stars around here from your righty buddies. It probably doesn't touch a nerve for me quite as bad as it would historians or anyone that has ever studied economic or political theory. I'm pretty well used to those on the right throwing around terms like 'socialist' 'communist' and 'marxist' with laughably ignorant disregard for truth. But hey, they sound scaaaarrrrry. Posts like this are not surprising.