Sapper Redux said:
I always find it amazing how offended some people get at the idea that we should try to make a truly fair and just society.
I'm not speaking specifically about Marx. I'm discussing the trend of lumping things like social justice under Marxism as though it's only communists who desire social justice and not something woven into a number of philosophies. To say nothing of transgender issues, on which Marx was silent and communism in general has been historically very anti-LGBTQ.Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:
I always find it amazing how offended some people get at the idea that we should try to make a truly fair and just society.
I think it's more the fact that his philosophy in practice has killed millions more on purpose, and hundreds of millions on accident.
Sapper Redux said:I'm not speaking specifically about Marx. I'm discussing the trend of lumping things like social justice under Marxism as though it's only communists who desire social justice and not something woven into a number of philosophies. To say nothing of transgender issues, on which Marx was silent and communism in general has been historically very anti-LGBTQ.Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:
I always find it amazing how offended some people get at the idea that we should try to make a truly fair and just society.
I think it's more the fact that his philosophy in practice has killed millions more on purpose, and hundreds of millions on accident.
There are none so blind as those who will not see...Quote:
Holding Marx personally accountable for the actions of communist dictators in the 20th century seems a bit silly to me.
Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:I'm not speaking specifically about Marx. I'm discussing the trend of lumping things like social justice under Marxism as though it's only communists who desire social justice and not something woven into a number of philosophies. To say nothing of transgender issues, on which Marx was silent and communism in general has been historically very anti-LGBTQ.Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:
I always find it amazing how offended some people get at the idea that we should try to make a truly fair and just society.
I think it's more the fact that his philosophy in practice has killed millions more on purpose, and hundreds of millions on accident.
Social Justice has been hijacked to mean acceptance of any new weird leftist project in recent years; Tampons in men's bathrooms, or Justice for George Floyd, the Me Too movement, or micro aggressions and Toxic masculinity.
If it was about feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, etc etc I think more people could get behind it.
You own a pink ***** hat, don't you.Sapper Redux said:Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:I'm not speaking specifically about Marx. I'm discussing the trend of lumping things like social justice under Marxism as though it's only communists who desire social justice and not something woven into a number of philosophies. To say nothing of transgender issues, on which Marx was silent and communism in general has been historically very anti-LGBTQ.Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:
I always find it amazing how offended some people get at the idea that we should try to make a truly fair and just society.
I think it's more the fact that his philosophy in practice has killed millions more on purpose, and hundreds of millions on accident.
Social Justice has been hijacked to mean acceptance of any new weird leftist project in recent years; Tampons in men's bathrooms, or Justice for George Floyd, the Me Too movement, or micro aggressions and Toxic masculinity.
If it was about feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, etc etc I think more people could get behind it.
Justice for a cop murdering a man and fighting sexual abuse are "weird" now?
Martin Q. Blank said:You own a pink ***** hat, don't you.Sapper Redux said:Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:I'm not speaking specifically about Marx. I'm discussing the trend of lumping things like social justice under Marxism as though it's only communists who desire social justice and not something woven into a number of philosophies. To say nothing of transgender issues, on which Marx was silent and communism in general has been historically very anti-LGBTQ.Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:
I always find it amazing how offended some people get at the idea that we should try to make a truly fair and just society.
I think it's more the fact that his philosophy in practice has killed millions more on purpose, and hundreds of millions on accident.
Social Justice has been hijacked to mean acceptance of any new weird leftist project in recent years; Tampons in men's bathrooms, or Justice for George Floyd, the Me Too movement, or micro aggressions and Toxic masculinity.
If it was about feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, etc etc I think more people could get behind it.
Justice for a cop murdering a man and fighting sexual abuse are "weird" now?
*Sigh* Anyone with one week of jiu jitsu training know that that knee didn't murder Floyd. It wasn't even a full blood choke in any sense. That event was just catalyst for a pre-planned agenda simply awaiting its moment. But one could argue that elements of BLM are just rewarmed Marxist principles replacing class with race. To the organization's credit, they didn't even try to hide it. And combating sexual abuse is noble. The Believe all Women farce is not. Toxic masculinity is just the war cry of those picked last for dodge ball...Sapper Redux said:Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:I'm not speaking specifically about Marx. I'm discussing the trend of lumping things like social justice under Marxism as though it's only communists who desire social justice and not something woven into a number of philosophies. To say nothing of transgender issues, on which Marx was silent and communism in general has been historically very anti-LGBTQ.Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:
I always find it amazing how offended some people get at the idea that we should try to make a truly fair and just society.
I think it's more the fact that his philosophy in practice has killed millions more on purpose, and hundreds of millions on accident.
Social Justice has been hijacked to mean acceptance of any new weird leftist project in recent years; Tampons in men's bathrooms, or Justice for George Floyd, the Me Too movement, or micro aggressions and Toxic masculinity.
If it was about feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, etc etc I think more people could get behind it.
Justice for a cop murdering a man and fighting sexual abuse are "weird" now?
Sapper Redux said:Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:I'm not speaking specifically about Marx. I'm discussing the trend of lumping things like social justice under Marxism as though it's only communists who desire social justice and not something woven into a number of philosophies. To say nothing of transgender issues, on which Marx was silent and communism in general has been historically very anti-LGBTQ.Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:
I always find it amazing how offended some people get at the idea that we should try to make a truly fair and just society.
I think it's more the fact that his philosophy in practice has killed millions more on purpose, and hundreds of millions on accident.
Social Justice has been hijacked to mean acceptance of any new weird leftist project in recent years; Tampons in men's bathrooms, or Justice for George Floyd, the Me Too movement, or micro aggressions and Toxic masculinity.
If it was about feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, etc etc I think more people could get behind it.
Justice for a cop murdering a man and fighting sexual abuse are "weird" now?
Quote:
And large scale communists states have inevitably descended into authoritarian ones, something which might be unavoidable.
Sapper Redux said:
I always find it amazing how offended some people get at the idea that we should try to make a truly fair and just society.
Hey...so.. um said:Sapper Redux said:
I always find it amazing how offended some people get at the idea that we should try to make a truly fair and just society.
Define fair and just? Most people want to live in a fair and just society. We just all disagree on the definition of these terms.
Your idea of fair hiring practices is giving preferential treatment to blacks, women and gays. Mine is to hire the best person for the job.
My idea of fairness and justice comes from God and the Bible. Where does yours come from?
Rocag said:
Modern conservatives use "Marxist" as a catch all for anything they don't like. Literally anything can be described as Marxism and conservatives will just nod along as if it makes any sense at all. Few of them have any real understanding of what Marxism actually is, and even fewer have actually read Marx's works.
Personally I think Marx should be viewed within the context of the times in which he was living. His criticisms of the economic and labor conditions of the time have a lot of validity. When he wrote the Communist Manifesto, for example, slavery was still legal in lots of places including the United States. Child labor, which he opposed, was common. It's not hard to see why someone would look at the extreme suffering and exploitation of the poor and not want radical change. His predictions for the future were a mixed bag. Capitalism is in little danger of collapsing even if he was correct on the ever increasing wealth gap between the rich and poor. And large scale communists states have inevitably descended into authoritarian ones, something which might be unavoidable.
Holding Marx personally accountable for the actions of communist dictators in the 20th century seems a bit silly to me. Marx wasn't to blame for the conditions that made political upheaval inevitable, he just predicted they would happen. Can the wars of aggression waged by capitalist states be blamed on capitalism? There's lot of death and blame to go around for everyone.
The only way to enforce any kind of order is with authoritarian force, at least on a large scale. We've seen it with communism, feudalism, and democracy. In all these systems you eventually end up with oligarchy (see Michels Iron Law of Oligarchy), and the rule of the many by the few always needs the threat of violent enforcement.Hey...so.. um said:Quote:
And large scale communists states have inevitably descended into authoritarian ones, something which might be unavoidable.
The only way to enforce communism is by authoritarian force.
Communism works one of 2 ways. 100% buy in from everyone or by threat of force. It is impossible to get 100% buy in so force is needed.
Sapper Redux said:Hey...so.. um said:Sapper Redux said:
I always find it amazing how offended some people get at the idea that we should try to make a truly fair and just society.
Define fair and just? Most people want to live in a fair and just society. We just all disagree on the definition of these terms.
Your idea of fair hiring practices is giving preferential treatment to blacks, women and gays. Mine is to hire the best person for the job.
My idea of fairness and justice comes from God and the Bible. Where does yours come from?
If I steal your salary for decades and prevent you from receiving any training or any promotions, is everything fair and just if I stop but keep everything I took? Or should there be some form of compensation and method of achieving justice?
Rocag said:
Every historical text should be considered within the context of the times in which is was written. This isn't done to make excuses for the author, as you seem to indicate, but to better understand the message they were attempting to convey. This isn't a controversial stance. If you want to understand why Marx was criticizing capitalism, then first you need to understand what the existing conditions were.
It's entirely possible for Marx to both be a racist and have valid criticisms of capitalism. One does not negate the other. Is it problem? A problem for who, I'd ask. Despite the incessant cries of conservatives, most liberals and leftists aren't actually Marxists. So pointing out that Marx was a racist isn't the gotcha moment you seem to think it is. I have no intention of holding him up as some divine figure to be worshiped.
And I certainly wouldn't argue against the claim that communists regimes have done some horrific things throughout history including several acts of genocide. That is absolutely true. But on the other hand the same could be said of countries with dictators and monarchies and democratically elected governments as well. Capitalist nations and explicitly Christian nations have all gotten in on the genocide party. So when that happens, who is to blame? I'm not going to make a "No True Scotsman" argument for Marxism, as you seem to think is what I'm doing. All I'm saying is lets hold every system to the same standard.
Rocag said:
Every historical text should be considered within the context of the times in which is was written. This isn't done to make excuses for the author, as you seem to indicate, but to better understand the message they were attempting to convey. This isn't a controversial stance. If you want to understand why Marx was criticizing capitalism, then first you need to understand what the existing conditions were.
It's entirely possible for Marx to both be a racist and have valid criticisms of capitalism. One does not negate the other. Is it problem? A problem for who, I'd ask. Despite the incessant cries of conservatives, most liberals and leftists aren't actually Marxists. So pointing out that Marx was a racist isn't the gotcha moment you seem to think it is. I have no intention of holding him up as some divine figure to be worshiped.
And I certainly wouldn't argue against the claim that communists regimes have done some horrific things throughout history including several acts of genocide. That is absolutely true. But on the other hand the same could be said of countries with dictators and monarchies and democratically elected governments as well. Capitalist nations and explicitly Christian nations have all gotten in on the genocide party. So when that happens, who is to blame? I'm not going to make a "No True Scotsman" argument for Marxism, as you seem to think is what I'm doing. All I'm saying is lets hold every system to the same standard.
Zobel said:
Whoever did the stealing should do the compensation to the person who received the injury. Not their kids. This principle is established in the US constitution, article 3 section 3.
Serious question, how do you figure that amount out? And how much wealth has already been transferred by the government to African Americans?Sapper Redux said:Zobel said:
Whoever did the stealing should do the compensation to the person who received the injury. Not their kids. This principle is established in the US constitution, article 3 section 3.
So there are no long term consequences over generations to things like Jim Crow and slavery?
The fascinating thing about a discussion of Marx here is that it always seems to devolve into a discussion of the ignorance of 'the right' of Marx' true values/beliefs. Yet, it is the American left that exclaims and embraces his virtues and ideas…despite his overt bigotry:Sapper Redux said:Zobel said:
Whoever did the stealing should do the compensation to the person who received the injury. Not their kids. This principle is established in the US constitution, article 3 section 3.
So there are no long term consequences over generations to things like Jim Crow and slavery?
More at the link but the end of that quote is exactly right. Marx' ideas have led, per his own bigoted opinions, to the subjugation and impoverishment/death of predominantly 'people of color' across the globe, and the claims to his legacy arise on the left, which is not the blame of the American right.Quote:
Patrisse Khan-Cullors, a founder of the Black Lives Matter organization, had no problem defining herself and at least one of the two other founders, Alicia Garza, as "Marxists." (Opal Tometi is the third founder.)
"The first thing, I think, is that we actually do have an ideological frame," Khan-Cullors said in a 2015 interview with Real News Network. "Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists."
In addition, there is no question that the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation has a radical and Marxist agenda, if one goes by its official 2015 platform, which calls for the end of the nuclear family, among other extremist suggestions.
It's interesting to see this organization embrace Marx at a time when so many are calling for a historical reckoning for wide swaths of once-venerated heroes.
We've seen an explosion of calls to remove symbols of America's past in the name of "anti-racism."
Previous generations and historical figures have been subjected to a ruthless "presentist" standard by which almost all fall victim.
But if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Theodore Roosevelt must fall, why not the fathers of communism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels?
Though Marx and Engels are perhaps most known for their ideas about class conflict and revolution, they both dabbled in theoriesincreasingly popular at the timeabout race and racial hierarchies.
Not only that, but their private correspondence demonstrated an even larger degree of hostility to black-skinned people, as their writings were littered with racial slurs.
In an 1887 letter, Engels wrote that blacks were closer to "the animal kingdom" than the rest of humanity, in a reference to his mixed race son-in-law.
In a letter to Engels, Marx wrote of Ferdinand Lassalle, a contemporary socialist of his day:Marx had ugly things to say about various other races, too, and despite being ethnically Jewish, said that the "worldly religion" of Jews was "huckstering."Quote:
It is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes who had joined Moses' exodus from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother on the paternal side had not interbred with a n. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product.
Erik van Ree, a lecturer at the Institute for East European Studies of the University of Amsterdam, wrote of Marx and Engel's racism in a paper for the Journal of Political Ideologies. He explained how racial classifications and explanations of economic development were a component of early Marxist thought:Importantly, van Ree concluded that Marx and Engels' statements on race went beyond "unthinkingly repeating the stereotypes and prejudices of the day."Quote:
In Marx and Engels's understanding, racial disparities emerged under the influence of shared natural and social conditions hardening into heredity and of the mixing of blood. They racialized skin-color groups, ethnicities, nations, and social classes, while endowing them with innate superior and inferior character traits. They regarded race as part of humanity's natural conditions, upon which the production system rested. 'Races' endowed with superior qualities would boost economic development and productivity, while the less endowed ones would hold humanity back.
"Whereas formal definitions and theories of race indeed cannot be found in their writings, their scattered comments add up to quite a coherent position on the question," van Ree wrote.
By the standards of modern "anti-racist" ideologies, Marx, Engels, and the whole body of their work should be canceled, not celebrated.
Marx and Engels undoubtedly had racist views, but it's important not just to dwell on the statements and prejudices of the times in which they and other historical figures lived, but to judge the end results of their actions and ideas.
Sapper Redux said:Zobel said:
Whoever did the stealing should do the compensation to the person who received the injury. Not their kids. This principle is established in the US constitution, article 3 section 3.
So there are no long term consequences over generations to things like Jim Crow and slavery?
Sapper Redux said:Zobel said:
Whoever did the stealing should do the compensation to the person who received the injury. Not their kids. This principle is established in the US constitution, article 3 section 3.
So there are no long term consequences over generations to things like Jim Crow and slavery?
Hey...so.. um said:Sapper Redux said:Zobel said:
Whoever did the stealing should do the compensation to the person who received the injury. Not their kids. This principle is established in the US constitution, article 3 section 3.
So there are no long term consequences over generations to things like Jim Crow and slavery?
Two wrongs don't make a right. Those things were wrong. Affirmative action is wrong. DEI is wrong. Things in the past beng wrong don't make today's wrongs okay.
Quo Vadis? said:Sapper Redux said:Zobel said:
Whoever did the stealing should do the compensation to the person who received the injury. Not their kids. This principle is established in the US constitution, article 3 section 3.
So there are no long term consequences over generations to things like Jim Crow and slavery?
Nobody is disagreeing with you. Give me a plan. Who pays? Who gets the money? Do black rich people get reparations?Sapper Redux said:Hey...so.. um said:Sapper Redux said:Zobel said:
Whoever did the stealing should do the compensation to the person who received the injury. Not their kids. This principle is established in the US constitution, article 3 section 3.
So there are no long term consequences over generations to things like Jim Crow and slavery?
Two wrongs don't make a right. Those things were wrong. Affirmative action is wrong. DEI is wrong. Things in the past beng wrong don't make today's wrongs okay.
So the verifiable fact that slavery and Jim Crow have resulted in massive disparities of wealth and opportunity should be allowed to persist despite them having obvious historical causes with known consequences because you perceive it harms you?
