Fearless Leaders and the New Marxism

[Mr Liberty]

The issue is not what is compassion.

The issue is not whether Jesus was a Marxist. (He was not because he was very strong on unalienable rights, and while he was very big on compassion and generosity, he was quite opposed to it being accomplished through dishonesty or cheating or force or for one's personal benefit. And I don't recall him ever suggesting to Peter that he go take what Paul has and give it to somebody else. I'm pretty sure he thought what Paul gave should be Paul's decision. That is a concept I think some of our leftist friends have not quite grasped yet.) And there is nothing in all of Jesus's words that we have that suggests it was the Roman government's job to take care of anybody.

Marx had a lot of problems with Hegel's philosophy, but it was Hegel who, perhaps inadvertently, came up with the concept of the collective and that the person and property of all must always be subservient to the whole or the state. Marx embraced that concept whole heartedly with the idea that the state itself must break down capitalism and the existing culture forcibly in order to bring about a utopia in which everybody would presumably just voluntarily get along to the benefit of everybody else.

The concept that everybody is responsible for everybody flies in the face of the concept of the Founders that each soul is responsible and accountable for his own property and actions that must not intrude on the rights of another.

Jesus is not in charge right now, we are. The left and many on the right are Marxist. They want to install a socialist democracy in America. We are in their way, I intend to stay there.

The German economy had recovered by 1936. They had full employment. Germans were known to say "Freedom, ha, freedom to starve." They thought socialism had worked. The real reason the economy improved was a massive military buildup. I have read on this board "Freedom to not be sick" in support for socialize health care.
They Have been and continue to create "rights". (The right to own a house. The right to free health care.) These rights are nonexistent. Groups have no rights. By claiming they do, socialist confuse the masses.

Only individuals have rights. These are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Along with rights are responsibilities. We support our life, not the government. We are responsible for defending our liberty when anyone uses force upon us. I can pursue happiness, but I have no right to it. This was once a moral position for Americans, not a political one. I wish that my countrymen were willing to see that the government is evil, albeit a necessary one. It was created to protect our rights, not to violate them.

 

[theHawk]

So.. Jesus was a Marxist?

I mean, we already know the earliest Christians abolished private property and held everything in common.

Clearly, Christianity is a tool of fringe Jews (recall Jesus story) designed to to undermine society and push a communist goal.

Am I supposed to take you seriously here? Can you point out the quotation in the Bible that has Jesus saying "We are all responsible for each other?" You honestly think he wasn't pretty strong on a concept that we are all acccountable for our own thoughts and actions?

This is from the bible:
""If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?" (1 John 3:17)

" "When you have finished setting aside the tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied" - (Duet 26:12)

Thats called charity, and yes Jesus was big on that. That is not what socialism/communism is, otherwise North Korea wouldn't be in any need of charity for its deprived and oppressed people.

 

[Foxfyre]

The fact that Marxist concepts have not delivered as promised on a national scale anywhere or at any time they have been tried does not seem to deter our Marxist inclined friends, however.

Which goes back to Dr. Corsi's perception in his essay.

If we indeed do have academics who are teaching selective history, who are avoiding any honest look at such regimes as the USSR, Castro's Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, Mao's China etc. etc. that have tried Marx's ideas, are our young and gullible being taught that the only reason Marxism doesn't work is because it has not yet been fully accomplished? Is that the game plan?

If we can destroy traditional marriage, make the church unattractive, introduce diferent cultural norms to replace traditional values, and make government a god while doing away with respect for individual liberties, the government can at last be powerful enough to force the whole Marxist ballgame. And then at last it can work. And life will be wonderful.

And I fear that we have a whole generation with a lot of people who are thinking just that way.

 

[Greenbeard]

Groups have no rights. By claiming they do, socialist confuse the masses.

Does a corporate entity or other association of citizens have a right to free speech?

 

[Foxfyre]

Groups have no rights. By claiming they do, socialist confuse the masses.

Does a corporate entity or other association of citizens have a right to free speech?

Neither corportions nor assocaitions have any speech at all. Only individuals who make up those entities. And those individuals have an unalienable right to free speech in this country.

The problem of Hegelian-Marxism is that the government would determine what rights we would or would not have including what speech would and would not be allowed. That is what our Founders intended to eliminate: a government that would decide what rights the people would and would not be allowed to have. They intended that the people would own those rights defined as what requires no contribution from any other person.

Hegelian-Marxism, however, would not respect or define such things as unalienable rights but would make all subject to the state which presumably would have the power to provide the common good for alll.

 

[Foxfyre]

So if Hegel invented the collective, and Marx saw the collective as noble and the ultimate goal, then of course capitalism, profiteering, the rich, marriage, religion and other mores, values, and traditions would need to be dismantled, wouldn't that all play into the basic goals inherent in the Saul Alinsky model?:

'Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It.'

What targets did Alinksy have in mind? Some of his stuff makes for interesting reading.

And there was a generation of college students in the late 1970's and 1980's that were fed a massive diet of this kind of thinking. And they and their disciples are still out there.