yeah, blah blah. If my point was so obviously not "made", then you should have had no trouble rebutting it. But you didn't. You ignored it, like all points that are inconvenient to your bubbled existence.Forty Two wrote:You often confuse, as you've done here, a point being expressed with a point being established. I haven't "ignored" anything, and you've not established that cultural Marxism as a concept is merely empty rhetoric or a dumb conspiracy theory. You may have said so, but your usual belief that you saying so means a point has been "made" as in established, is something you need to understand is not the case.pErvin wrote:
"Cultural Marxism" as a term is little more than empty rhetoric. It's actually a dumb conspiracy theory - a point made to you before that you conveniently ignored. The concepts behind it have very little to do with actual Marxism.
Regulations and taxes are not socialism. I thought you understood that from your posts in the socialism thread.Read The Fabian Freeway, by Rose Martin. It discusses incrementalism in the US and UK. https://mises.org/sites/default/files/F ... Book_3.pdf While we are not yet socialist in terms of government ownership of the means of production - Both Britain and the United States are heavily regulated and heavily taxed societiespErvin wrote:This is just absolute nonsense. Neoliberalism has been the dominant and growing ideology since the late 70's, and has seen capitalism absolutely dominate our societies. Actual Marxism is about the destruction of capitalism and the capitalist state. In no way could the dominance of capitalism since the 80's be seen as synonymous with "[incremental] socialism". That's fucking ridiculous.We've seen the propaganda of the Marxists and communists coming to fruition as they adopted "incrementalism" and incrementally socialism is becoming more and more accepted in western countries,
Not to mention, this is absolute nonsense as well. Regulations have been significantly reduced since the late 70's. That's what neoliberalism does.
This is all just more "cultural Marxism". It has very little to do with actual Marxism.In 2016, the US electorate was ready to nominate an avowed socialist as a major party nominee. We are today faced with cocktail of neo-Marxism, multiculturalism and postmodernism which has taken hold of universities and even public primary schools. Today's leftists have absorbed the "debunking" critique of our democratic liberties and are drawn to the hardball tactics of its organizer-activists. This is evident by the level of support for socialism among the under-30 crowd, and the readiness by which that crowd agrees with beating people up who don't toe the leftist line. The current leftist goal is nationalization of the energy sector - you find it in their actions -- http://www.weeklystandard.com/why-they- ... le/2001393 And, you find their aggressive activism in the efforts to shut down Trump rallies, and now Jordan Peterson rallies, and Milo Yiannopoulus rallies, and anyone else who they can silence.
And despite the support for "socialism" (do these people actually know what socialism is? Most Americans have no idea), we have the most capitalist society since the turn of the previous century. The idea that socialism is currently a threat to anything is ridiculous.
I didn't say socialism was "synonymous" with Marxism. But, feel free to identify a socialist ideology that is about goodness and compassion.pErvin wrote:Are you becoming Seth? Socialism isn't synonymous with Marxism. Marxism is only one form of socialism. There are plenty of socialist ideologies that are about goodness and compassion. Marxism is definitely offensive and dangerous at large scale. But there is no marxist threat to our societies. Governments have been moving steadily to the right since the 80's. That is, they are moving towards fascism (greater entanglement of corporations and the state, greater surveillance, reduced worker rights, more legal restrictions on protests, reduced press freedoms, etc, etc).Among young people especially, the absurd notion of communism as a utopian ideal, and socialism as almost synonymous with kindness and goodness and compassion, while capitalism is more and more viewed as evil, is really taking root.
Democratic socialism. Libertarian socialism.
We don't have "liberal capitalism". We have increasing crony capitalism and corporatism. It's pointless debating you. You live in an entirely different universe.You make my point, though, when you misapprehend what I said there. I said socialism is drawing greater acceptance, whereas capitalism is drawing greater negatives. You then responded by referring to Marxism as being different from the "good" socialism (which you do not identify), and then you compare that to fascism, not capitalism. It's a success of the left to have folks confusing fascism with liberal capitalism.
Once you learn to read properly, you might have a hope of constructing a coherent argument. I never said it was an objective truth. I've explained my views to you enough times before for you to surely understand that the same ethic that I apply to punching nazi's is just as good an ethic for a right-winger to punch a communist. That's why your paragraph above is irrelevant.No, it is quite relevant. Once you understand that your opinion of Nazis, or alleged Nazis, and their views or alleged views, is not an objective truth,pErvin wrote:This is all irrelevant to the question of punching Nazis (or anyone).So, while, obviously, which is a danger to you or me or someone else is always a matter of opinion. To some people, democracy and social democracy and the idea of human rights is a danger to society. If you were to look at some fundamentalist religious folks, they think the idea of individual rights and secular government is damaging and dangerous to society. Each person picks his poison in that regard. The tough part seems to be for certain people to understand that one's own concepts of right, morality, goodness, and one's own concepts of what constitutes a danger to society, are not objective truths.
Ok Seth.However, now that so many folks are approaching things, wittingly or unwittingly, from a postmodernist perspective, the modern and Enlightenment notions of reason and rationality are largely eschewed, like human nature (there is none, it's just a social construct), social progress (social construct), reality (social construct) and morality (social construct), truth (subjective and relative), and reason (a tool of the patriarchy). It's this postmodernist ideology, nested in a bed of Marxist thought.
