Karl Marx, You Were Wrong

[tonyz]

An interesting perspective - Ben’s right.

Karl Marx, You Were Wrong
National Review
By BEN SHAPIRO
May 2, 2018 6:30 AM

But campus diehards still make a case for him.

This week marks the birthday of one of history’s worst human beings, Karl Marx. Just because Marx’s philosophy would lead directly to the deaths of 100 million human beings over the course of a century, the imprisonment of tens of millions more in gulags and re-education camps from Russia to China to Vietnam to Cambodia to North Korea, and the oppression of hundreds of millions more hasn’t dissuaded those on the modern western left from embracing Marx’s bloody legacy. Realizing, however, that embracing Communism itself might alienate those who remember the Berlin Wall, today’s Marxists rally instead for identity politics. In the pages of the New York Times — the same newspaper that in the past two years has run opinion pieces endorsing Communism’s impact on female empowerment and female sexual activity and its inspirational effects on Americans — Kyung Hee University associate professor of philosophy Jason Barker celebrated Marx’s birthday, writing, “Happy Birthday, Karl Marx. You Were Right!”
What, exactly, was Marx right about?

He wasn’t right about economics — his theory of economics is tripe. He wasn’t right about history unfolding as a glorious Hegelian progression toward a socialist utopia either. But according to Baker, he was right about one thing: The dispossessed of the world would unite to change human nature by changing the system of oppression under which they lived. Marx, says Baker, was right about class exploitation — the rich exploiting the poor. But it’s in the guise of victim groups based on race and sex that Marx’s dialectic finds its true apotheosis:

Racial and sexual oppression have been added to the dynamic of class exploitation. Social justice movements like Black Lives Matter and #MeToo, owe something of an unspoken debt to Marx through their unapologetic targeting of the “eternal truths” of our age. Such movements recognize, as did Marx, that the ideas that rule every society are those of its ruling class and that overturning those ideas is fundamental to true revolutionary progress.

Here, Baker is merely rehashing the writings of members of the Frankfurt School Marxists such as Herbert Marcuse, who argued that human beings who have lived in the shadow of this culture, the victims of the power structure . . . now oppose to the “music of the spheres” which was the most sublime achievement of this culture their own music, with all the defiance, and the hatred, and the joy of rebellious victims, defining their own humanity against the definitions of the masters.

Instead of a revolution of the proletariat, then, Marxism now seeks a revolution of the victims — the various groups of dispossessed who feel that the system has been stacked against them. And it is far easier to unite such groups around intersectional themes than it is to unite them around income disparity. There may not be any serious brotherhood between those who don’t earn much money, but pure tribalism forms lasting ties — and Marxists are happy to mold those tribes into a new nation of rebels.

The hope, of course, is that such a new nation would in turn breed a new type of human being. Baker explains that we are “used to the go-getting mantra that to effect social change we first have to change ourselves.” But in reality, according to Marx, we cannot change ourselves because the system has already defined us. By redefining the system, we can “transition to a new society where relations among people, rather than capital relations, finally determine an individual’s worth.” All we have to do is band together to tear down capitalism, and man will blossom forth in his full beauty. Tearing down is building up.

This is dangerous nonsense. And while advocates of Marxism today disown the Stalinists and the Maoists and the Castro regime and Venezuela and North Korea, all of those nations thought they were fulfilling Marx’s dream, too. That’s because they were. There is no new human nature on the horizon; human beings aren’t defined purely by the system under which they live. Only a system that makes room for our all-too-human flaws, that counterbalances failings with consequences and selfishness with non-aggression, can channel those flaws into something useful.

No, Marx wasn’t right. But the Left will never let him go, because he offers the only true alternative to the religious view of human nature — the view of man that says he is not a blank slate, not an angel waiting for redemption, but a flawed creature capable of great things. To achieve those great things is hard work. To change ourselves on an individual level is hard work. To spout about the evils of society — that’s certainly easy enough.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...ed-in-poverty/

[Team Sergeant]

And low IQ idiot, but his ideas would work on sheep, low IQ sheep or vegans.

[Ret10Echo]

Something more to reflect upon

Classical Marxism vs. Cultural Marxism
- The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College - http://www.visionandvalues.org -
Marx at 200: Classical Marxism vs. Cultural Marxism
Editor’s note: This article first appeared at The American Spectator.

This Saturday, May 5, marks the bicentennial of Karl Marx’ birth, a cause for literal celebration in certain quarters of the academy.
It’s often charged among the political right that America is going communist, or at least socialist, or toward some form of Marxism. My concern is less classical Marxism than cultural Marxism, a strain of communist thought that even most of those engaging in it aren’t consciously aware of. If you Google “cultural Marxism,” the first thing that pops up is a Wikipedia definition dismissing it as a “conspiracy theory which sees the Frankfurt School as part of an ongoing movement to take over and destroy Western culture.”

A conspiracy theory? Well, that merely affirms the point. The vast majority of those advancing cultural Marxism aren’t even aware they’re doing so. Tell them and they’ll either blankly stare or mockingly laugh at you as a conspiracy monger.

In truth, cultural Marxism not only exists, but exists as a dominant form of Marxism in America and much of the West today.

http://www.visionandvalues.org/2018/...marxism/print/

[WarriorDiplomat]

Ben Shapiro is awesome......What credibility can our colleges and universities have left after these last so many years?....this ole boy always knew his place in society but never submitted I allowed nature, talent and interest take me to my station in life.....but every time I see a video of a "professor" of knowledge or read these shenanigans in our higher learning institutions I have to wonder what credibility do they have left of institutions meant to advance mankind known for intellects and discovery....these last few decades have peeled back the curtain and exposed them for what liberalism has done to them. I am OK with possibly not having the academic prowess to compete at the level of a Harvard or Yale caliber or pedigreed student. But racial quotas, diversity, and overall liberal ideals have destroyed places where the best and brightest were bring forth future leaders as they grew in wisdom. Where do these kids go the ones who worked hard and proved their metal to get their the ones society should invest in where the come together in incubators.....Fuck them and lets get rid of higher learning institutions it appears they are nothing more than dangerous institutions of dissent of the nation and nothing else with schools full of safe spaces with stuffed animals and crying kids sucking their thumbs wiping tears away.......Marxism will eventually work right I mean if people would just put their own ambitions aside and share everything the world would be a better place LOLOL

[miclo18d]

Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat

.......Marxism will eventually work right I mean if people would just put their own ambitions aside and share everything the world would be a better place LOLOL

I know this is sarcasm, but if that’s what people really believe that communism is about sharing, well, they’ve got another thing coming. Communism is about the state. Period. What is good for the state, just is.

Communism is like a bad marriage. Oh yes she’s hot, she sounds like a wet dream, the package looks great. Then when you get home from the honeymoon (revolution) the purge happens. Can’t go to the bar with your friends, clean the house, honey do lists, etc.

She takes and takes and takes, but never gives one iota. You keep believing this is how it’s suppose to be and that one day it will be right, she just hasn’t come around.

Then one day you wake up and realized you’re trapped in this, but then it’s too late. In this fairy tale, there is no divorce because she has a gun to your head and you have no way to defend yourself. You have no friends so you are dependent on her, but she works at waffle house and makes minimum wage (because she was in academia as a woman’s study student under Prof Marx and her degree could only get her a job a WH)so you get only a few crusts of bread, if you’re lucky and if you complain, she’ll starve you for a week or two.

The money she does make gets spent on making the house look nice, but really, the house was built in 1917 and is falling apart on the inside. Everyone else thinks that you have modern appliances that are equal to everyone else’s, but again! She spent the money on making them look nice but your dish washer doesn’t actually wash the dishes, you have to do them by hand.

No one ever gets invited to the house and you are never allowed to leave, because if you saw other people’s houses and saw that their dishwashers actually worked, you would stay there or even worse, you’d complain to her about it and she’d have to give you a BJ to shut you up (which we all know, that ain’t gonna happen).

In the end you want a divorce but she just sends you to the dank cold basement for a year or two until you learn to appreciate what’s upstairs (like a broken dishwasher). It sucked so bad in the basement you’d be more than happy to wash the dishes by hand!

And on it goes, you think you have it good, and besides, she’ll never sign those divorce papers, right?

[Box]

Communism is like a bad marriage.

...except there is not divorce.

Not even the concept of divorce because divorce is only for failed marriages - the state does not fail.
...it isn't "me" - its "you" when it comes to matters of the state - its NEVER the states fault

The state doesn't have to come around, YOU have to come around.
You need to realize that it isn't about going to the bar with your friends, or trying to get out of cleaning the house, it especially isn't about avoiding the honey do lists.

"She" needs those things done and it is YOUR job to do them. It is your job to serve.
...and how can one be so self absorbed and stingy to think that "she" actually owes us as much as an iota - "we" owe the state/her EVERYTHING
"She" is the reason for our very existence.

Moving on... this idea about sharing is also flawed. Who in the fuck EVER suggested that communism was about sharing? Sharing is such an American idea - so, so, silly.
We do not "share" - all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. That isn't sharing - that is the state giving you what the state thinks you need.

"Sharing" hahahaha - you poor uneducated fools - sharing is a failed capitalist concept borne of the ridiculous practice of charity.
NONSENSE - the STATE owns everything.

The real problem isn't that people are waiting for communism to 'evolve' the problem is that people are refusing to assimilate with the state. The internet is making it hard to force the right wing proletariat into submission. The leftists are much easier to manipulate because they don't mind an existence beholden to the state as long as they can do drugs and dress like the opposite sex.

Communism really is like a bad marriage - but you didn't wed a Waffle House cashier - you spoke your vows with Nurse Ratched

[Streck-Fu]

Marxism and Socialism are ideas meant to revolt against the old European and Russian Monarchy systems of rule where there was next to know opportunity to break free from the class divisions. It offered a possibility in the Pre-WWI societies but certainly not in the US where, even at our worst, we offered more legal opportunity than most of Europe.

Now, they are just treating Socialism as a "living concept" to mean, give me free shit without working for it....

[Golf1echo]

A US Marine might visualize Marxism with an image such as this...

[Badger52]

Didn't work for the Plymouth colony either.

[Ret10Echo]

Yeah.............Marx.......... Ya think?

arx’s Apologists Should Be Red in the Face
Posted By Paul G. Kengor On May 7, 2018 @ 11:44 am In Economics & Political Systems,Feature,Politics | Comments Disabled

Editor’s note: This article first appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

May 5 marked the bicentennial of Karl Marx, who set the stage with his philosophy for the greatest ideological massacres in history. Or did he?

He did, but deniers still remain. “Only a fool could hold Marx responsible for the Gulag,” writes Francis Wheen in “Karl Marx: A Life” (1999). Stalin, Mao and Kim Il Sung, Mr. Wheen insists, created “bastard creeds,” “wrenched out of context” from Marx’s writings.

Marx has been accused of ambiguity in his writings. That critique is often justified, but not always. In “The Communist Manifesto,” he and Friedrich Engels were quite clear that “the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property.”

“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property,” they wrote. “But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population.” And this: “In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.”

Full article here

[Ret10Echo]

So here is something to think about.


As a conservative you end up in a place where you are sending your child off to a (so called) institution of higher learning. These tend to be places where you are going to spend a significant amount of money. We are talking in the range of $80,000 to $200,000. So why do we spend more time contemplating a $400 dishwasher than an investment of that level combined with the impact that the (so called) institution of higher learning will have on our child? Why do we let an 18 year old make a decision that impacts us to that degree? I am baffled by this.

There are colleges out there that have your world view.

There are schools that have refused federal funding up to and including Supreme Court decisions.

Do your research. Put your money into institutions that have a similar world view and align with your personal standards and morals.

I can not emphasize this enough.

Please PM me if you have questions. I would be more than happy to explain how I navigated this.

R10

[cbtengr]

Originally Posted by Ret10Echo

So here is something to think about.


As a conservative you end up in a place where you are sending your child off to a (so called) institution of higher learning. These tend to be places where you are going to spend a significant amount of money. We are talking in the range of $80,000 to $200,000. So why do we spend more time contemplating a $400 dishwasher than an investment of that level combined with the impact that the (so called) institution of higher learning will have on our child? Why do we let an 18 year old make a decision that impacts us to that degree? I am baffled by this.

There are colleges out there that have your world view.

There are schools that have refused federal funding up to and including Supreme Court decisions.

Do your research. Put your money into institutions that have a similar world view and align with your personal standards and morals.

I can not emphasize this enough.

Please PM me if you have questions. I would be more than happy to explain how I navigated this.

R10

Very sage advice, I am way past worrying about my children, it's the future of my grandchildren that concern me now.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Ret10Echo

There are colleges out there that have your world view.

There are schools that have refused federal funding up to and including Supreme Court decisions.

Do your research. Put your money into institutions that have a similar world view and align with your personal standards and morals.

I can not emphasize this enough.

X-ring. It can be more spendy, but what's it worth not to subsidize the fostering of another creature that drives you batty?

[bblhead672]

Originally Posted by Ret10Echo

Yeah.............Marx.......... Ya think?



Full article here

Not enough coffee yet evidently, at first glance I read the title of that article as "Marx Apologists should be shot in the face." I said hell yeah! Then comprehension kicked in.

[Flagg]

Originally Posted by Ret10Echo

So here is something to think about.


As a conservative you end up in a place where you are sending your child off to a (so called) institution of higher learning. These tend to be places where you are going to spend a significant amount of money. We are talking in the range of $80,000 to $200,000. So why do we spend more time contemplating a $400 dishwasher than an investment of that level combined with the impact that the (so called) institution of higher learning will have on our child? Why do we let an 18 year old make a decision that impacts us to that degree? I am baffled by this.

There are colleges out there that have your world view.

There are schools that have refused federal funding up to and including Supreme Court decisions.

Do your research. Put your money into institutions that have a similar world view and align with your personal standards and morals.

I can not emphasize this enough.

Please PM me if you have questions. I would be more than happy to explain how I navigated this.

R10

Check out College of the Ozarks.

If only most colleges and universities followed their moral, financial, and operational leadership.

Talk about setting young men and women up for success instead of failure.