Marxism means well–for the little guy, egalitarianism seems more fair–promoting social justice, right?
To ignore the danger and evil of communism is so fashionable in the chattering classes, but socialism/Marxism/Communism destroys liberty, civility and a moral civilization in favor of statist totalitarianism. The commies hoped for world revolution, but capitalism and the rise of the middle class screwed up their plans, now they are betting on a Gramscian strategy of playing the culture and the language, winning by an inside game that grabs hold of cultural icons like equality and fairness and inventing an expanded notion of social justice that covers for redistributionist manipulations and a return to a medieval oligo-plutocracy (wonder if that could be a word to describe medieval societal structure that Marx seemed to like so much).
Would anyone question the good intentions of the Marxists we have known?
Influencing children is one ongoing strategy, like common core but going back a long way in the annals of Dewiyite pedagogy.
The left has control of the chattering class, academic life, politics, by promoting statism and the status of experts, the Nomenklatura.
Ignorant Americans think that socialist/Marxist are well meaning, but in the real world statist socialism is a cruel master.
Some think that ideological warfare that includes an effort to characterize the opponent is not worth the time or is excessively confrontational or contentious. I say that leaves the battlefield to the enemy of American culture. And we lose.
Allowing Marxists a foothold in the culture through the indoctrination and rhetoric has been a strategic mistake that we may not survive.
Common core is part of the grand plan.
People who would prefer a more nuanced way to expose evil are searching for a nice way to kill a viper in the sheets. I think it important not to yield and not to hesitate to use descriptors like communist. Communists are culturally ravenous, they enjoy the fight, but that puts the more mannerly and civilized at a disadvantage, so we should not become our own worst disability by shrinking from using labels that properly describe evil and following up with adequate attacks on the inveterate invidious deceptiveness that is socialism at work.
For example, Saul Alinsky and Frank Marshall Davis, both dedicated Communists, were mentors of the current resident of the White House. Does that mean the resident gets to describe his ideology as “Progressive” or would he prefer the label neo-socialist, neo-communist, one committed to the post Stalinist socialism/communism? Or would it be better to call it neo-neo-socialism, the socialism after the fall of the Russian Marxist experiment of 70 savage years?
How is it that Americans who would claim to be well educated know so little about their enemies and the evil ideologies those enemies hod to?
Do you think there are more communists in the White House now or during the administration of FDR?
Robert Stacy MacCain is an articulate voice on the issue of why it makes a difference to know what the enemy is and what the enemy might want to be labeled. How the enemy might want to frame the conversation or debate.
Thanks to Mr. McCain, who speaks to these things eloquently but he also recalls the insightful Ludwig von Mises, who said in Socialism:
Marxism criticizes the achievements of all those who think otherwise by representing them as the venal servants of the bourgeoisie. Marx and Engels never tried to refute their opponents with argument. They insulted, ridiculed, derided, slandered, and traduced them, and in the use of these methods their followers are not less expert. Their polemic is directed never against the argument of the opponent, but always against his person.
Here is Mr. McCain:
No comments:
Post a Comment