I have some sad news to report. The bloggers on this website have increasingly displayed marxist tenddencies. Many members on this site are marxist, and they are proud of it. They believe that marxism is a good idea. Unfortunatly the modern left often agrees with them. So in this blog I will explain why marxism is a horrid form of goverment.
Everytime marxism has been tried it has failed. Communist Russia killed mor people than Nazi Germany. The USSR's economy was never good, and could not keep up with the capitalist economy of the United States. The Bolshevik revolution was a rather violent affair, but than again that is what Marx wanted.
That is right. Marx wanted the people of the world to rise up and overthrow their goverments. Marx wanted a violent communist revolution.
Marxism was not limited to the Soviet Union. It is currently practiced by North Korea, which is one of the worst places in the world to live; especially when compared to the economic prosperity of South Korea.
Speaking of comparisons, would anyone have prefered to live in Eastern Germany instead of Western Germany? If you would then you are a fool. There was a wall that was designed to keep the west Germans out of the Eastern half.
Marxism always creates dictators, and is therefore contrary to our democratic principles. These dictators are usually cruel and kill alot of people.
Marxism takes away the drive of people to create wealth. This may sound cynical, but entrpeneurs are partly driven by the desire for wealth. Entrepeneurship creates jobs, which creates a roaring economy, and also creates the cashflow necessary for the goverment to redistribute our wealth.
However, marxist goverment forms do not have a good cash flow and they do not have jobs, so they are poorer than capitalist goverments. Even the most poor in America have a good life when compared to the average citizen in the communist country. For instance the GDP per capita in China is 6000. How many Americans only make 6000. I bet even the illegals do better.
I have more to say but I want eat. So remember "Better dead than Red."
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
so communism isn't effective. how does that make all of us marxists?
It seems that you need a little education on the word "marxist" as you are using it fairly improperly.
Karl Marx did insite a violent revolution, but it was to create a classless society! Now, he didn't succeed, but it doesn't mean that the idealist nature was wrong.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
That passage comes directly from the Communist Manifesto (Marx/Engles 1848). As you can plainly see, the proletariat (upper class) would be merged with the bourgeoisie (lower class) through the revolution. What Marx didn't consider was that the reason Communism won't work is that people will lose the competition factor, and everyone will do just enough to get paid. There was no room for advancement. Everyone did whatever they did and they got paid the same as everyone else, and so on it goes.
Now, the way you use the term "Marxist" is to describe the so called "liberal/progressives" and "liberal...scumbags" is improper as a true Marxist would believe in a communist society and a nation like Russia or Germany (Pre-WWII Germany, Pre-Cold War Russia) would believe in a govenment with a dictator (so a dictatorship, or totalitatrian government). And while Russia did kill more people than Nazi-Germany, it proves nothing.
Now, Stalin and Hitler were amazing men, they did terrible things, but they were amazing men. They are known the world over for the awful things that they did and they are often overlooked for the less damaging things. Books like Mein Kampf (Hitler 1925-26) really add insight into how these men rose to power. The book is one of the better written books to come out of Germany Post-WWI.
As for a Totalitarian govenment, the term meaning used to describe "...[a] modern regime in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior..." This means that someone gets to power and says, "Do this or I'll kill you." Much like Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Hitler. Hmm...Marxists? I think not.
Totalitarianism isn't even remotely based in Marxism. Marxism dictates that there is no one above anyone else and values the communinty. Totalitarianism dictates that there is one person above all other that has TOTAL CONTROL over everything. Two very different thought process.
I would appreciate it if you would take a Political Sciences Class, take two or three if you have to, but in the meantime, come up with a more accurate word. People might hate you for dragging a Philosophers name through the mud.
Nicholas Aden
THat though the proletariat was a classless society. I have read Marx, and I do not hink you have.
All goverments based on Marxism are tolitarian. Take a history class. By the way I'm pretty sure I know more about political theory than you do.
"Fortune is like a woman." Machiavelli-Since you are such an astute political philosopher can you tell me why?
"Communists are those who read Marx and Lenin. Anticommunists are those that understand Marx and Lenin." Regean.
"Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."-C.S. Lewis
Umm...I did not say that the proletariat was a classless society, in fact I believe I used the term 'upper class' to describe them. Thanks for the try though.
You are right, I have not read Marx, I am in the midst of reading the Communist Manifesto. When I finish it I will have read Marx. Gimme 2-3 days.
The only reason they are based on Marxism is that people say "oh yeah! let's all be equal!" and then a dictator takes over.
Well, I thank you for the gracious (though clearly sarcastic) title. "astute political philosopher" Hmm...That'd be a fun job. I cannot, however, tell you why fortune is like a woman. Perhaps you could assist in my enlightenment.
I'm reading Marx, I understand what he is saying, and I am clearly saying that Communism WILL NOT WORK and that it is more of an IDEA. It makes perfect sense, if it could be properly implimented it would work, but people are too power hungry.
Before you insult me, please consider what you think I mean and what it is that you are trying to insult me for.
You have not read Marx.
Because fortune is mastered by the impetuous; you have to knock her about.
"Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."-C.S. Lewis
I am not a fan of marxism, but it is incorrect to say that there has never been a successful society that embraced its principles. The People's Republic of China is still (technically) a marxist/communist state, and it is one of the most powerful and quickly developing nations in the world today (which is something we Americans would do well to remember).
percivale
THat is why they are successful. These things are true.
"Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."-C.S. Lewis
I have been browsing around a lot. I have seen a lot of posts that had very liberal ideas. None that are Marxist. I know that you think that they are one in the same. Obviously, this is because you've been spoon fed these sorts of ideas for a very long time. To throw your quote back at you, I am sure that you are very well read. You also clearly have no idea what you're talking about. What a valuable education!
I am a liberal. Or at least, that is the group I most conform with and it's a pretty close match. Here's another thing I am. I am someone who thinks that Communism is a completely unworkable idea in the real world. Bits of it sound nice. Other bits don't, but it doesn't matter. The only way to have anything close to a functioning communist society is to work with incredibly small communities.
I do not believe that Marx was right. He proposed a theory which has been mostly unworkable. To get it out of the way, no I have not read Marx, but I do understand the philosophy.
One of these days you'll regret being a sexist chauvinist, but that's another issue. Just don't expect enlightened people to instantly be able to understand your medieval point of view on women.
Liberals have a tendency to believe that it is the goverments job to take wealth from the wealthy, and give it to the poor. This is a modified form of marxism.
Liberals tend to support the enlargement of goverment, and communist states have very large goverments.
Communism wants people to rely on the state for what they need, which is the same as liberalism. Liberals do not want to improve education by privitizing it, nor do they want to reduce welfare.
Libs want everyone to be reliant on them for their sustenance.
I'm not a sexist chauvinist; Machiavelli is.
"Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."-C.S. Lewis
No one cares about Machiavelli's personality at the moment. For someone who isn't sexist, you sure make it a point to say a lot of anti-woman, anti-feminism things.
Taxing people to support the poor is not Marxism. In Communism, there are no rich people. In Communism, there is no class. Government support of those who need it is not Communism. It is sort of Socialism, which is also not Marxism, because Socialists don't beleive in the abolishment of class. Liberals also don't beleive in a government controlled economy, just a government regulated one.
Tell me, Mr. I beleive in a Small unobtrusive government, why is it the government's right to say who can marry who?
Liberals don't want people to rely on them for sustenance, they want people who need help to be able to get it.
Hi Ransom.
Tell me, have you ever heard of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act? This Act is the largest program of entitlement and wealth distribution in the history of this country (costing more than $500 billion). And, it wasn't "the libs" who hatched this program. This was a republican sponsored program, passed by a republican led majority and advocated and then signed into law by a republican president.
Modern conservatives are just as guilty of wealth redistribution as their liberal counterparts in this country...they just direct the benifits of that redistribution to DIFFERNT benefators.
percivale
I am not a fan of what you term the "modern conservative." Republicans may be bad for the country, but libs are a helluva lot worse.
"Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."-C.S. Lewis
> Republicans may be bad for the country,
> but libs are a helluva lot worse.
And that's why everyone should vote Libertarian.
http://www.lp.org/
percivale
"Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."-C.S. Lewis
Interesting. I have always found it ironic that one of the primary planks of the "Constitution" Party's platform is its advocation of the "biblical foundations" of American jurisprudence. Of course, such a thing isn't Constitutional at all, (can you say, "First Amendment?") and I think that Mr. Jefferson's words strike to the heart of that issue as they so often do...
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law, or lex non scripta, and commences that of the statute law, or Lex Scripta. This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it...If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_cooper.html
And I am to the far right. However, i consider myself a Buchannan conservative.
"Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."-C.S. Lewis
Look, the ideas might seem pretty and perfect, but the reality is that not everybody deserves the same. Some people work harder, and that is why communism doesn't work.
Welcome to U.S. History II, better known as common sense if you want to talk and actually sound knowledgeable about Marxism and/or Red Communism (two TOTALLY different things, might I add); please promise to listen before you try to verbally butcher me into submission to your blog- it won't work anyway.
Karl Marx's ideology, better known as Marxism, was basically socialism. While often confused with Red Communism, it emphasized ideals of equality of people within a country, so that no one person was in control. This was applied to everything, including income, to ensure the nonexistence of hierarchies. His ideals were based on justice, equality, and peace. And don't call me a Red; I did a paper on this for AP History with a teacher who also teaches Holocaust Studies in high school and college (and who sympathizes with the Jews), he gave me an A, and he is the last person who would ever think of defending a communist in the connotation you associate with the word.
Red Communism, on the other hand, was developed by Lenin. Listen closely: LENIN. He revived it under the premise of Marxist ideals but then quickly changed to values of athiesm, totalitarianism, and a relative oligarchy. He led the revolutionary Chinese to overthrow the Kuomintang, or the Chinese nationalist government. The new Chinese government, in turn, helped the Communists in Korea (since they were already allies), and were ready to invade South Korea against the Americans.
So, I hate to tell you, but the guy you're after is Lenin, not Marx.
The people on this site who exhibit Marxist principles are merely trying to promote peace and equality.
Sorry to disappoint you, though.
xoxo rhapsodygirl <3
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
check out my blog at www.progressiveu.org/blog/rhapsodygirl
Questions welcome.
Comments encouraged.
Challenges loved.
Silence discouraged.
Fight apathy with words <3
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Conservative Christians think the ideal woman is a stay-home mother whose life is the family. The Nazis thought the ideal woman was a stay-home mother whose life was the family. Therefore, conservative Christians are Nazis.
It works both ways...
"CONSERVATIVE, n.
A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."
- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"