A question for Conservatives

[Londoner]

Have you ever read a complete text by Marx?

Have you ever studied Marx in a university context, where you unpacked his terms inside their historical context?

Here is why I ask.

I notice that Conservatives make constant references to Marx, but I never get the sense that they've studied his work in depth. I get the sense that they've been exposed to Marx mostly by interested 3rd parties (Talk Radio, partisan literature, the echo chamber) who provide only cherry picked quotes.

I have a friend who has been referring to Marx for years. I finally found out he had never read anything by Marx and it scared me.

When I tried to investigate why he would do such a thing, I discovered something horrific.

First, I should mention, I understand that Conservatives have created a universe which circulates talking points to their members. [This is what all political parties do] These talking points, which contain references to Marx, are pumped through a vast media network and repeated endlessly until they are experienced as "facts". I get this, and I realize that these talking points are designed for lemmings who can't think for themselves. Both parties have this regrettable element.

The horrific part is that so many people do not experience any cognitive dissonance when they use a reference that they've never fully investigated.

Here is my question, again. Why do Conservatives use terms that they've never studied? Is there anything about their personalities that would explain this? Does the movement attract a certain type of person? Is it a quasi-religious thing whereby they trust "higher powers" for their information? Is it really enough that William F Buckley read some Marx at Yale, which lead to an industry of secondary criticism (twice removed from the source), which criticism has produced fully formed opinions in people who've never consulted the source?

Please help me understand.

[Please don't say "liberals do it too". We already know this. The question is not "why do commie liberals act stupidly or unethically?". We know why? -they're commie liberals. The questions is: "why do good conservative americans act stupidly or unethically?"]

Is it possible that huge portions of the Right have never studied a word that use daily? Is it really possible that the party of Lincoln has been taken over by morons?

(Lie to me. Tell me you've studied Marx. Stretch the truth. Invent some rationalization about how you don't need to read an author to understand him -- and how you can trust news personalities to educate you and your children. Anything. Just don't tell me that you've never directly studied one of your key terms)

(Conservatives rely on the term "Marx" more than anything in their lexicon -- it is their lynchpin to criticize the Left. What if most of them have never read Marx and don't even understand his theories?)

(Is the most powerful political movement in my lifetime -- the Reagan Revolution -- kept afloat by an army of useful idiots?)

 

[kyzr]

You need to take a grad level course in "common sense". Intellectualism only goes so far, and then like the Brits, they find out that socialism doesn't work, just look at their healthcare system mess. When you want to discuss systems that actually work, we'll talk.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Have you ever read a complete text by Marx?

Have you ever studied Marx in university context, where you unpacked his terms inside their historical context?

Here is why I ask.

I notice that Conservatives make constant references to Marx, but I never get the sense that they've studied his work in depth. I get the sense that they've been exposed to Marx mostly by interested 3rd parties (Talk Radio, partisan literature, the echo chamber) who provide only cherry picked quotes.

I have a friend who has been referring to Marx for years. I finally found out he had never read anything by Marx and it scared me.

When I tried to investigate why he would do such a thing, I discovered something horrific.

First, I should mention, I understand that Conservatives have created a universe which circulates talking points to their members. [This is what all political parties do] These talking points, which contain references to Marx, are pumped through a vast media network and repeated endlessly until they are experienced as "facts". I get this, and I realize that these talking points are designed for lemmings who can't think for themselves. Both parties have this regrettable element.

The horrific part is that so many people do not experience any cognitive dissonance when they use a reference that they've never fully investigated.

Here is my question, again. Why do Conservatives use terms that they've never studied? Is there anything about their personalities that would explain this? Does the movement attract a certain type of person? Is it a quasi-religious thing whereby they trust "higher powers" for their information? Or is this just a malignant strain of Machiavellianism, e.g., say anything to "fight the other side".

Please help me understand.

[Please don't say "liberals do it too". We already know this. The question is not "why do commie liberals act stupidly or unethically?" rather: "why do good conservative americans act stupidly or unethically?"]

History, all types, and Literature were what I excelled @ in High School. I used to read my history book just for fun in study hall.

That said, I see no need to read Marx's literature fully. I've skimmed over it before, but it's easy to pick out the main points, the crux, all that really matters, and pwn it. Random curiosity always fuels my Google searches for historical figures, events, etc.

I study objectively, what I need to to be properly informed, and versed, but reading up on Marx's childhood, or his mannerisms is really unnecessary.

I also wouldn't generalize on the scope you are sir. I could just as well ask: "Why is this Briton's teeth so bad? Why is he so concerned with us, our politics, when his own nation is going to hell in a hand basket?"

See how easy that was?

 

[Mad Scientist]

Oh, like I can't criticize crack smokers because I've never smoked crack? Well I don't have to because I've seen how it destroys people.

I don't need a degree in Communism to see how it's never worked in any place it's tried and destroyed millions of lives.

I know people who actually lived in actual repressive countries (Like Iran, China, Vietnam) so I don't need you spoiled, pointy headed intellectuals trying to lecture me.

Besides, you have a bigger problem: Islam is taking over your country. Enjoy your Sharia Law faggot.

 

[Londoner]

You need to take a grad level course in "common sense". Intellectualism only goes so far, and then like the Brits, they find out that socialism doesn't work, just look at their healthcare system mess. When you want to discuss systems that actually work, we'll talk.

You didn't answer my question.

I was not advocating socialism. If you want to know my own beliefs. I side with John Lock and a minimalist state built around the maximization of individual freedom. I think the free market gets incentives right, where Marx gets human nature wrong; and I think his prediction of the ascendancy of the proletariat, and the eventual withering away of the state is utopian rubbish.

Your complete avoidance of the question proves my point. My fear is that conservatives are using ideas and data that do not come from direct study, but popular conservative media.

My fear is that your comment about British healthcare didn't come from studying it in a rigorous university context, but mainstream republican sources. [FYI: British living standards have been declining ever since the costs of Empire bankrupted us. That's why we all have bad teeth. America is headed there. Denmark and France, however, are making American health care seem as if from the 3rd world. My wife is from Denmark and my parents are from different countries: mother = England, father = USA. This gives me experience of 3 health care systems. British HC is a joke. USA is fast becoming an inefficient overpriced monopoly that uses Government to crush foreign and generic drug competition -- thus giving welfare to big business. Denmark is incredible because the service is quicker and more comprehensive. And you don't have administrators sitting between doctor and patient - administrators whose sole job is to grease share holders by diminishing care to sick people]

(psst: our views are closer than you think. I'm just trying to figure out where Republicans are getting their information. Have they studied Marx directly in a context designed to fully unpack his thought, or do they get ready-made conclusions and data from other sources, far removed, mediated by political interests?)

 

[code1211]

Have you ever read a complete text by Marx?

Have you ever studied Marx in university context, where you unpacked his terms inside their historical context?

Here is why I ask.

I notice that Conservatives make constant references to Marx, but I never get the sense that they've studied his work in depth. I get the sense that they've been exposed to Marx mostly by interested 3rd parties (Talk Radio, partisan literature, the echo chamber) who provide only cherry picked quotes.

I have a friend who has been referring to Marx for years. I finally found out he had never read anything by Marx and it scared me.

When I tried to investigate why he would do such a thing, I discovered something horrific.

First, I should mention, I understand that Conservatives have created a universe which circulates talking points to their members. [This is what all political parties do] These talking points, which contain references to Marx, are pumped through a vast media network and repeated endlessly until they are experienced as "facts". I get this, and I realize that these talking points are designed for lemmings who can't think for themselves. Both parties have this regrettable element.

The horrific part is that so many people do not experience any cognitive dissonance when they use a reference that they've never fully investigated.

Here is my question, again. Why do Conservatives use terms that they've never studied? Is there anything about their personalities that would explain this? Does the movement attract a certain type of person? Is it a quasi-religious thing whereby they trust "higher powers" for their information? Is it really enough that William F Buckley read some Marx at Yale and has created a literary movement against his ideas? Are Conservatives getting their Marx from trusted sources inside the party? Are other people doing their thinking?

Please help me understand.

[Please don't say "liberals do it too". We already know this. The question is not "why do commie liberals act stupidly or unethically?" rather: "why do good conservative americans act stupidly or unethically?"]

Is it possible that huge portions of the Right have never studied a word that use daily? Is it really possible that the party of Lincoln has been taken over by morons?

(Lie to me. Tell me you've studied Marx. Stretch the truth. Invent some rationalization about how you don't need to read an author to understand him -- and how you can trust news personalities to educate you and your children. Anything. Just don't tell me that you've never directly studied one of your key terms)

I have not read Marx's work.

I don't know why on Earth you might be concerned with this as it relates to the American populace. Most Americans don't vote. Most believe that the USA's form of government is a democracy.

Most cannot name their Congressman. Few can tell you if they live in a township or a county or a parish or all of these or none of these. The political illiteracy in this country is embarrassing. Understanding the actual framework of real world political and social institutions is beyond the desires of most Americans.

Understanding the theoretical constructs of a social philosopher who never actually put the wheels on the road is beyond the reach and grasp of most Americans.

I suspect that you are correct in assuming that most who refer to Marx are parroting things that they have heard without understanding. However, not understanding something that never existed and not understanding something that governs daily activity are two different things.

I would gladly sacrifice the National understanding of anything to do with Marx, either Karl or Groucho, for a universal basic understanding of American Republican Governance.

As it happens, I feel that Groucho has had a greater impact on my country than Karl.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Londoner wrote:

You didn't answer my question.

I did.

Your complete avoidance of the question proves my point. My fear is that conservatives are using ideas and data that do not come from direct study, but popular conservative media.

Looks like your foreign self really knows little bout us then.

(psst: our views are closer than you think. I'm just trying to figure out where Republicans are getting their information. Have they studied Marx directly in a context designed to fully unpack his thought, or do they get ready-made conclusions and data from other sources, far removed, mediated by political interests?)

Psst: WTF are you so concerned with where, or how us U.S. GOPers, and rightists get our info? In case you missed it sir, your own nation is sadly going to shit.

Yall have mass, bloody, destructive riots, your royals are being attacked by POS trash, your economy's in the shitter.

Get them priorities straight, mmmm k?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I had to read communist Manifesto for a class in college. I did not like it. I liked the teacher less, but for the same reasons.

The problem with marxists is their slippery language, where normal concepts are pushed through the looking glass, there to be beheaded for les majestie by the red queens.

The other problem is pseudo intellectualism. Long words are strung together in an attempt to make the writer look like he has a clue, but mostly are an exerciside in broken wind. A discussion will go on for 300 polysyllabic malapropisms to prove the obvious, but untrue.

And there is the religious aspect of "I believe this to be so, therefore it will be so." Usually flying in face of reality.

So I have to admit that my study of Marx is superficial, and only one text. It cured me of any desire to dig any deeper. I have seen many marxists, and that also serves as a prophylactic against further interest. There are many horrible christians, but by and large they are quite nice. I have met but one Marxist I would consider a decent evangelist for his faith.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Have you ever read a complete text by Marx?

I'm not a conservative but I'll quote one:

"A communist is someone who reads Marx. A anti-Communist is someone who understands Marx."

 

[rdean]

Have you ever read a complete text by Marx?

Have you ever studied Marx in a university context, where you unpacked his terms inside their historical context?

Here is why I ask.

I notice that Conservatives make constant references to Marx, but I never get the sense that they've studied his work in depth. I get the sense that they've been exposed to Marx mostly by interested 3rd parties (Talk Radio, partisan literature, the echo chamber) who provide only cherry picked quotes.

I have a friend who has been referring to Marx for years. I finally found out he had never read anything by Marx and it scared me.

When I tried to investigate why he would do such a thing, I discovered something horrific.

First, I should mention, I understand that Conservatives have created a universe which circulates talking points to their members. [This is what all political parties do] These talking points, which contain references to Marx, are pumped through a vast media network and repeated endlessly until they are experienced as "facts". I get this, and I realize that these talking points are designed for lemmings who can't think for themselves. Both parties have this regrettable element.

The horrific part is that so many people do not experience any cognitive dissonance when they use a reference that they've never fully investigated.

Here is my question, again. Why do Conservatives use terms that they've never studied? Is there anything about their personalities that would explain this? Does the movement attract a certain type of person? Is it a quasi-religious thing whereby they trust "higher powers" for their information? Is it really enough that William F Buckley read some Marx at Yale, which lead to an industry of secondary criticism (twice removed from the source), which criticism has produced fully formed opinions in people who've never consulted the source?

Please help me understand.

[Please don't say "liberals do it too". We already know this. The question is not "why do commie liberals act stupidly or unethically?". We know why? -they're commie liberals. The questions is: "why do good conservative americans act stupidly or unethically?"]

Is it possible that huge portions of the Right have never studied a word that use daily? Is it really possible that the party of Lincoln has been taken over by morons?

(Lie to me. Tell me you've studied Marx. Stretch the truth. Invent some rationalization about how you don't need to read an author to understand him -- and how you can trust news personalities to educate you and your children. Anything. Just don't tell me that you've never directly studied one of your key terms)

(Conservatives rely on the term "Marx" more than anything in their lexicon -- it is their lynchpin to criticize the Left. What if most of them have never read Marx and don't even understand his theories?)

(Is the most powerful political movement in my lifetime -- the Reagan Revolution -- kept afloat by an army of useful idiots?)

Most have never read the constitution but they go on about it endlessly.

There is a satire from that Onion that explains it perfectly.

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

[The Rabbi]

It would be more meaningful to ask whether any liberal has actually read a book on economics. Periodically I'll post some basic econ quiz and it is amazing how many libs gripe about the "conservative bias" of the test, when in fact there is no bias at all.

 

[Londoner]

Oh, like I can't criticize crack smokers because I've never smoked crack? Well I don't have to because I've seen how it destroys people.

I don't need a degree in Communism to see how it's never worked in any place it's tried and destroyed millions of lives.

I didn't imply that one needed to practice or get a doctorate in Communism to understand it. I asked if you studied the actual theories created by Marx, or if you were getting the bulk of your information from conservative media. Even if you haven't studied Marx at university, I want to know if you've read his work carefully. This should be a requisite of using a truly complicated term over and over, no?

If you studied the theories, you'd see where they differ from what is being practiced under his name. You might even conclude, as I have, that his theories cannot work.

The reason I asked the question in the first place is because I suspected that many Republicans were getting their information from popular conservative media. This is why many of them don't know the theoretical difference between the postwar Keyneseanism of American Liberalism and the variant of communism practiced by, say, Maoist China.

That is, it seems like republicans use Liberalism, Marxism, Socialism, and Fascism interchangeably. I contend that this kind of stupidity -- once it becomes a real part of the public debate -- is toxic. It's toxic because it replaces complicated issues and policy-driven debate, with empty scare words. It's even worse when the process (of clogging public debate with fake scare words) is being funded by a political machine which funnels money from business to talk radio for the purpose of keeping the serfs in the dark about who is really looting the treasury.

What if a huge section of the Republican base is being fed opinions from politically interested sources, rather than actually studying what the words mean? [Do you know how often Republicans & Conservatives use the word "Marx" or "Socialism"? It would be shocking to discover that they didn't really understand the theories in full; it would be doubly shocking if this ignorance caused them to confuse Marx's theories with governments who merely use his name and lexicon, but, unlike Marx, have absolutely zero concern for the poor]

The ideas of Marx were not put into practice by the old Soviets any more than "freedom" and "Democracy" were put into practice by FDR. Just because a particular government claims to represent a particular thinker or theory or ideal doesn't make it true. (I think you trust government too much)

Again. Have most Republicans studied Marx, or are they getting their opinion of Marx from politically interested sources?

I'm not defending Marx. I side with Locke's minimalist state, built around the protection of property rights, and the maximization of individual freedom, which is centered around small government and a right to non-interference. This is not the question. The question is why the Republican party is constructing a generation of people who don't understand what they are saying.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

The ideas of Marx were not put into practice by the old Soviets

According to Marx, they will never be "put into practice" they are inevitable.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Oh, like I can't criticize crack smokers because I've never smoked crack? Well I don't have to because I've seen how it destroys people.

I don't need a degree in Communism to see how it's never worked in any place it's tried and destroyed millions of lives.

I didn't ask if you practiced communism, nor did I asked if you had a degree in it. I asked if you studied the actual theories created by Marx.

If you studied the theory, you'd see where they differ from what is being practiced under his name. You might even conclude, as I have, that his theories cannot work.

The reason I asked the question in the first place is because I suspected that many Republicans were getting their information from popular conservative media. This is why many of them don't know the theoretical difference between the postwar Keyneseanism of American Liberalism and the variant of communism practiced by, say, Maoist China.

That is, it seems like republicans use Liberalism, Marxism, Socialism, and Fascism interchangeably. I contend that this kind of stupidity -- once it becomes a real part of the public debate -- is toxic. It's toxic because it replaces complicated issues and policy-driven debate, with empty scare words.

What if a huge section of the Republican base is being fed opinions from politically interested sources, rather than actually studying what their words mean? [Do you know how ofter Republicans & Conservatives use the word "Marx". It would be shocking to discover that they didn't really understand his theories -- and that they confused his theories with the practices of states who merely used his name and lexicon]

The ideas of Marx were not put into practice by the old Soviets any more than "freedom" and "Democracy" were put into practice by FDR. Just because a particular government claims to represent a particular thinker or theory or ideal doesn't make it true. (I think you trust government too much)

Again. Have most Republicans studied Marx, or are they getting their opinion of Marx from politically interested sources?

I'm not defending Marx. I side with Locke's minimalist state, built around the protection of property rights, and the maximization of individual freedom, which is centered around small government and a right to non-interference. This is not the question. The question is why the Republican party is constructing a generation of people who don't understand what they are saying.

I keep refuting your points, why do you keep dodging mine?

 

[misteroboto]

wow - all the responses have been personal digs insults or excuses about how ppl dont have to really read


its not surprising given the audience tho

 

[Midnight Marauder]

wow - all the responses have been personal digs insults or excuses about how ppl dont have to really read


its not surprising given the audience tho

All?

You're reading select few ones?

 

[Londoner]

Yall have mass, bloody, destructive riots, your royals are being attacked by POS trash, your economy's in the shitter.

Mother England is coming back stronger than ever in 2011. We've got some things in the works that I'm not allowed to divulge. It's bigger than iPad 2. Just you wait. You haven't heard the last from the greatest empire in history.

 

[California Girl]

Yall have mass, bloody, destructive riots, your royals are being attacked by POS trash, your economy's in the shitter.

Mother England is coming back stronger than ever in 2011. We've got some things in the works that I'm not allowed to divulge. It's bigger than iPad 2. Just you wait. You haven't heard the last from the greatest empire in history.

You're becoming a bore.

 

[georgephillip]

Does Capitalism become a Revolutionary force after it emasculates Government?

Since I've never studied Marx I can't be sure if he actually posed this question or not; however, its unpacking might be relevant to those of us on both sides of the Atlantic.

 

[Political Junky]

Oh, like I can't criticize crack smokers because I've never smoked crack? Well I don't have to because I've seen how it destroys people.

I don't need a degree in Communism to see how it's never worked in any place it's tried and destroyed millions of lives.

I know people who actually lived in actual repressive countries (Like Iran, China, Vietnam) so I don't need you spoiled, pointy headed intellectuals trying to lecture me.

Besides, you have a bigger problem: Islam is taking over your country. Enjoy your Sharia Law faggot.

Iran is not Communist or Socialist.