American Marxism

Indeed not.
Because they became the elite.
I am afraid wherever you have inequalities of values important to a community, you have elitism and class "warfare
Marx said that the inevitable conflicts between "ruling class" (owners of the means of production) exploits the proletariat whose value (wages) become less than the value of their product.
Eventually this leads to either class conflict or when the proletariat/worker becomes the owner (elite) and exploits others in his place.
His suggested solution was Socialism whereby the means of production are owned by everyone in a democratically organised team with the aim of satisfying human NEED, not human individual greed of "the elite".

BLM is not a means of production. The example does not fit the Marxist model.

 

It's a prime example. BLM was a means to gather power that would lean toward a Marxist ideology. Dissolution of the family being a major part of that. There never IS a democratically organized team. Risk takers are never rewarded so they never take risks. It requires an "elite" that can show them how to do it (as in BLM). Castro headed the Elite in Cuba, Stalin in Russia etc. They lived as kings .What I think you describe, I believe is a "Utopian Marxism" that never takes place because it does not recognize the imperfection of humankind!

 

OH dear. I don't really know where to start.
BLM was the natural result of the elitism that Marx said would happen (he called it revolution).
The elitism was embedded in white power, the result of centuries of white control.
BLM never AFAIK advocated the dissolution of the family (meaning the domestic unit). In fact they accented the wider family, the black community.
Never a democratically organised team?? Risk takers never rewarded?
Really???

 

Marxism is (generally) the idea that capitalism leads to socialism leads to communism leads to anarcho-utopia, since the state will eventually fade away as the people lose their need for it.

The first three make sense. But the idea that the state exists only because the people need it and will fade away once they no longer need it is just complete ignorance of human nature. People don't seek power just to give it up.

 

Except that communism is the system which put the state more firmly at the centre of national affairs than any other system.
Capitalism requires LESS state control . So the highlighted is not accurate.

IMO there will always be a need for some state coordination. For example how can a country make progress in slowing down climate change unless it works through a central control? How could the USA get to the moon without central coordination of funds, research, design and manufacture of the rocket?

That is why you have a federal system where nationwide issues are dealt with through the federal government and state issues are dealt with at state level. But even at state level, how could things like roads, infrastructure, education, social support be done without central coordination?
People always need some state control.

Some would call this "communism" . IMO it is all about relative amounts of what the state is responsible for and what the individual is responsible for. Communism requires far more state control, socialism less and purebred capitalism (not possible IMO) less still.

 

Did not Marx call for Revolution to upset the existing status quo?

So you are saying white power is universal? I disagree and I find that statement to be racist. I do find some cultures to give superior advantages. I believe that is the absolute truth.

I disagree. Again, you establish a premium on race instead of humanity. That is no different or better than to say the black community is less than human. They are both racist as well as "collective" I might add. What is wrong with putting the emphasis and value on the individual?

Please explain how under Marxism risk takers are rewarded. Explain how you go beyond the average, invest your work into something that benefits others at the risk it won't work, then receive benefit when it does. That would elevate you above the average. Wouldn't that be the antithesis of Marxism?

Pixie, I understand you seem to see the world through a lens of Marxism. It is fair for me to ask how you justify that position.

 

Please stop rewriting my posts.
I said nothing close to what you accused me of.
I am reciting what they say justifies their revolution. It makes marx correct in that for centuries white people have been the elite. And no amount of excuses changes that.
When you bring up BLM, why do you think any reply won't involve race??
I could say you are a racist for using a black support group as an example of Marxism.. I didn't because that would be as facile as your accusation.
Please don't race bait me.

 

And who would run it but a group that considers themselves more informed and better at making decisions? They would decide how the masses are to live.

So you would silence the science that says Climate change is a natural phenomena, and eliminate those that differ? That is how attempts at your "state control" has worked in the past!

When I was a child my parents asserted "state control" over me. Now that I have reached adulthood, I am a free individual though I must acknowledge that others are free as well. I do not bow to a "central elitist group" that knows what is best for me. I work toward a consensus of free individuals and acknowledge that human nature dictates a desire of individuals to RULE over others. I resist that.

 

I assume you may be addressing me. I see no race baiting other than what comes from you. The mere idea of "Black Lives Matters" assumes emphasis on a particular race. That is racist. Apparently you have evolved into a position that segregates people by race. I see that just as racist as Jim Crow. The founders of BLM are admittedly Marxist. You defend Marxism. Why do you want to deny that? Why do you continue to separate by race?

The pendulum is swinging. There are those of us that want to stop it in the middle. Why can't you acknowledge ONE RACE, the human race?

 

Just to inform anyone viewing this thread and trying to determine whether or not BLM has it's roots in Marxist ideology, here is an article that has it's leaders as it's source.
https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/
I would add that many of it's "minions" are unaware of it's aims, but that does in no way deter the purpose of this organization.

 

Marxism is a (miserably failed) ideology belonging to the 20. century in Europe. There is no relation to today's world or even America. And it's better that way!

Nobody wants to repeat old mistakes that had cost around 100 million lives.

 

Capitalism leads to socialism and communism as state control grows (TBC, by 'state' I mean govt in general, not just 'the states') as is its tendency. Marx was of the opinion that govt would eventually fade away sometime after acheiving communism and the people would settle into a voluntary state of 'communalism'. The problem is that govt never fades away. It just keeps growing and growing until its either toppled by an opposing govt or toppled by its own people when they get sick enough of being oppressed, and the cycle starts all over again.

 

But it was you who introduced the BLM! So it is you who, in your words, segregated people by race.
Enough of your rewriting my posts and using your translation as a weapon.
And you can stop with the moral higjground...you criticise BLM and then haughtily go on about your morally correct "there is one race, the human race" lecture.
Expect no more posts from me. I don't care for gaslighting and inconsistencies.

 

Except that state control doesn't necessarily grow. In today's world, states interact with each other in trade deals, finance and banking, international investment for instance. This necessitates some centralisation and coordination of growth.
Marxism is dead. It is irrelevant to today's world which is why democratic mixed economies are used by most nations today. Some more and some less centralised but all mixed state and private ownership of production...and today, much more.these conversations are about historical theoretical economics and frankly are not about modern economies.

 

Interaction is innevitable. People will always trade what they have more of for what they have less of. Centralization is only necessary when one group wants to control another group's interaction. The very nature of centralization is oppressive and authoritarian. Its predicated upon the notion 'they're not doing it the way we think they should, and so we'll force them to do it our way.' In democratic terms, this is referred to as the tyranny of the majority, where 51% assume an obligation to over-ride the 49% 'for their own good'. This isn't to say its necessarily 'bad', in fact govt is impossible without this happening to some degree. But it is at its foundation oppressive.

The real problem is when centralization crosses the line between 'a necessary amount of efficiency' and 'maximum efficiency'. This is where the will of the individual, the freedom of choice, is sacrificed to improve 'the greater good' (aka- the 51%). This is the ultimate goal of Democratic Socialism (which is really just the modern manifestation of 'true' or unlimited democracy). When the majority reaches peak authority over the minority (which is at its foundation the individual), or peak centralization, we get 'democratic' slavery and death camps in the name of increasing efficiency, by eliminating those who are seen as 'inefficient' simply because they have values and priorities that differ from the majority in how they want their resources to be used. In the grand scheme, we either have to accept that resources will be used in ways that we think are wasteful (and even to a degree destructive) by people who live in a way we disagree with, or those people will have to be killed. I advocate for the former. The problem with democracy, in an historical sense, is the 51%, over a long enough timeline, will eventually choose the latter.

 

Great way to end our dialogue. I used BLM once as an example of Marxism ideology. You jumped to their defense. I did in no way rewrite your posts. I quoted and addressed them. You excuse Marxism as a valid way to govern and I challenge. This is a political forum. You don't get to state things unchallenged here.

 

You used an example of a group of largely black people freely exercising their right to free speech.
and then accused ME of making the discussion about race!
You may have "quoted" my posts but then reinvented them by your own interpretation. and then used THAT to argue. That is gaslighting.

Gaslighting is a colloquialism, loosely defined as making someone question their own reality.[1][2]
The term may also be used to describe a person (a "gaslighter") who presents a false narrative to another group or person which leads them to doubt their perceptions and become misled (generally for the gaslighters' own benefit), disoriented or distressed.

Now when you can actually convey the truth of what I post, get back to me. Because your interpretation is NOT what I said.

I most certainly do not "excuse" Marxism. I said it was hardly relevant to today's world, is not practised anywhere . How can I support something that doesn't exist? Marxism today is a THEORY which has long ago had its day. In fact I can't think of a single place or time where it DID actually exist.
Other than some instrument with which to criticise someone or thing, like being called a gypsy.

Now perhaps you can point to a marxist state? and BTW indicate at what stage of marxism it is currently?

 

Well let's say that trade is between he who demands and he who supplies. It doesn't really have to be about surplus.

Centralistion in the way I used it means that finance and decision making are channeled through the state (the centre). The only dominance it requires is that the state is run at the time by democratic choice of the electorate. Centralisation isn't oppressive...if the people don't like the central state's decisions they can replace the centre.
I disagree that a majority is motivated by "we are doing it for your own good". The stare is doing "it" because you elected them ti do so which they described via a manifesto before election. One hopes what it does benefits the country, though.
I highlighted some of your post because it points to a confusion between political (democracy) and economic (socialism) . What you are describing next is a critique of democracy and can happen in any economic system simply because of minority/majority pressure.
I have yet to see any "elimination" of minorities because of their being inefficient or disagree with the state's economic priorites.
Can you offer an example of the slaughter of the minority??

 

Think that through. Because BLM is not in the production business does not mean it does not support marxism. They claim publicly to be marxists.

 

No "gaslighting here" just addressing the subject. Perhaps you should go back to the OP and honestly address that. The subject refers to "American Marxism". Sure, Karl Marx floated a theory that was very idealistic. Then....he went on about how to implement it. So did others. It took on various forms and versions. America is very unique in that it is a hybrid of various ideas. In fact, our own design is a mix of western philosophers, Judeo Christian Values, Greek and Roman political tradition, and yes.....even Iroquois systems. However, Marxism does not fit in with any of those. Since before 1900 there have been those in our Nation that have tried to work it in. Of course they can not start with the "utopian design" presented originally by Karl Marx. They lean more toward the "Revolution" version. It was very subtle at first but as they begin to reach there goal (of upsetting our original system) they become more and more blatant. They do it largely through education/indoctrination. History became Social Studies, health education became sex education with all it's diversities, etc. More recently it is 1619 revisionism (that our Nation came into existence in 1619 opposed to 1776) and CRT which is merely a social instruction better left to parents and is Marxist revolutionary by design.

I would implore you, Pixie, to read the book "American Marxism". It does not go into the political theory of Karl Marx but more as to how it is being gradually implemented by it's pundits to the destruction of what America is all about. I have read it and Levin goes a whole lot deeper into things I already knew. He has time to do the extensive research and documents his evidence quite well. .....a very intelligent being!

 

There is no Marxism in any country because Marxism is a THEORY.
There is no practising Marxist state.
Marxism isn't "various forms and versions".
It is just Marxism.
None of your examples or "things I should worry about" are anywhere close to Marxist governance.
I suggest you read a copy of "how I became a frightened conspiracy theorist and never realised it was happening".

 

Marxism is about who owns the means of production.
BLM is not about who owns the means of production.

Under Marxism, the state owns the means of production.
Under socialism, the workers own it.
Under capitalism, private people own it.

I have no idea why BLM would want to support Marxism unless they too are confused about what it means. I suspect they think it means built in equality. It doesn't. Under any form of economic theory, there is still room for preference.

 

Marxism is all about power to the state. It is statism. The closer we get to that, the closer we get to achieve the aims of American Marxists. Socialism is just a step along the way. Under Socialism, risk takers have no incentive. Everyone is the same. When people run out of other peoples money the State takes over, as in Venezuela. Everyone is poor except those that run the state. Sure you can hide behind the idea that Marxism has never been achieved, perhaps because the "right people" have not yet tried it, but it sure is painful along the way!

 

You would have to ask them if there are any available to ask any more. The BLM management appears to have disappeared after stealing millions from their scam.