straightUp Loc: California

A few days ago, in a thread about w***e s*******y our friend Justice101 went off on a tangent about the liberal left and Marxism. When he started posting collections of links and expecting me to read them so I can find out what his point is I asked him to make his point in his own words and use the links as sources if it helps his argument.

I'm assuming our friend is either incapable of authoring his own thoughts or just isn't confident that he can, because what he did instead is copy and paste opinions from yet another article written by someone else and THEN he added more links to more articles, still by other people, as if to support the opinions of the main article he was copy-pasting.

But I told him that on Sunday (today) I would post a response in a separate thread. I also told him that my responses would be directed at the authors rather than the parrot, which I think is fair. The author of the main article that Justice101 copied is Jon Miltimore.

Here is the post I am responding to... https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/tpr?p=4447816&t=272715.
Here is the article where most of the content was copied from... 5 Things Marx Wanted to Abolish (Besides Private Property)

The post is pretty long and filled with fallacy so I will be posting my response to each of the "five things" that the author said Marx wanted to abolish in separate posts.

One more thing before I start. Just because I made the effort to understand Marxism doesn't mean I am a supporter. What I find myself trying to explain is how we Americans actually came up with what I think is a better alternative but it's impossible for anyone to truly appreciate the American alternative if we refuse to understand c*******m in the first place.

OK, here we go... first up on the list of 5 things that Marx "supposedly" wanted to abolish... Family...

straightUp Loc: California

Here’s what Marx actually wrote, verbatim.

“Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the C*******ts.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its compliment in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians and in public prostitution. The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.”

Jon, I highlighted the part that you surgically removed. Then you interjected your own words… “Best of all, abolishing the family would be relatively easy once bourgeois property was abolished.”

You were grammatically correct in breaking the quotes but people like my friends on OPP aren’t always so good and catching little tricks. You basically sucked the entire point out of what Marx was trying to explain, that the bourgeoisie family necessitates the absence of the proletarian family. He was describing the situation as a zero sum game, and I’ll be damned if it ain’t true.

But this is a t***h that the the bourgeoisie today does NOT want the proletariat to know about. Now, I can see at the end of your article the list of publications you’ve written for. So, I’m just letting you know how obvious it is to some of us that you are protecting the bourgeoisie. So, of course you would sabotage the point that Marx made about how the bourgeoisie family, leisurely heirs to fortunes and power, force working class families into such consuming labor that they are left with very little time or space for each other to be a family.

So if you didn’t sabotage the point, Justice101 may have understood that Marx was actually suggesting that we PROTECT the family, not abolish it.

OK, now for the part that Justice101 copy-pasted from an article by Richard Schulman... https://foundersbroadsheet.com/the-destruction-of-the-black-family-by-progressives/


Richard, America’s black underclass exists for a lot of reasons that vary depending on region but r****m is without a doubt a major factor. How much of that is systemic, I couldn’t tell you. But there is no question that in every state that legislated Jim Crow laws it WAS systemic and that CAN have a real effect on black families today, because it can take several generations to pull a family up from an underclass. Blaming the “War on Poverty” is a lame excuse, but I guess it's all you got.


No one is saying the United States is systemically r****t. That accusation is directed specifically at certain states and municipalities as a result of the s******c r****m in those governments. Even then, no progressive is using that to justify any of the illegal activities you listed. Most of those activities were a) exaggerated by right wing media b) conducted by combination of misguided and often apolitical hoodlums and right wing detractors. It’s also worth noting that ALL of the politically motivated murders in the past decade have been committed by those on the right.


J101, Progressives are usually pro-choice because they don’t assume every situation is the same as you just implied and they prefer to give the FAMILY the FREEDOM to make decisions they feel is best for the situation. In contrast, the Right wants to give the government the authority to take that freedom AWAY from the family.

And that’s the extent of it. The Right offers zero suggestions for how to feed the children or how to care for them. Most a******ns happen BECAUSE families are economically disadvantaged - usually for the precise reason Marx indicated with the words Jon Miltimore took out. So if the state forces women to give birth while cutting the welfare they depend on to feed their babies. They are most likely going to seek illegal a******ns. So, I’m sorry but the “pro-life” folks are NOT pro-life at all. They’re just simple-minded.

BTW, a pregnancy starts with an embryo, not a fetus. An embryo doesn’t develop into a fetus until the ninth week. According to the CDC, 80% of the a******ns in the U.S. occur BEFORE the ninth week. Being aware of this, progressives know that “the k*****g of healthy fetuses in the womb” rarely happens and when it does, it is almost always the kind of situation we call “life threatening” for the mother.

So… Here ends the first of five parts... where Jon Miltimore tries to assert that Marx wanted to abolish the family. I exposed logical fallacies in both Miltimore's article and Schulman's article (not surprisingly) and I exposed the irony in Justice101's rants.

My next post will be a similar debunking of Miltimore's second accusation, that Marx wanted to abolish individuality.

straightUp Loc: California

Again, you are taking words out of context so as to replace the original meaning with your own f**e meaning. Here’s the quote as Marx actually wrote it and I am again highlighting the part that you removed.

“You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.”

So he wasn’t talking about individuals in the sense that Americans today use the term. In 1848 when he wrote those words the middle-class was an exclusive group of very wealthy property owners that he was referring to as the bourgeois. This is confusing for today’s Americans because since then, the American Progressive movement succeeded in making the middle-class AND land ownership accessible to anyone willing to work for it.

But there is a very simple test that ANY American can take to find out if he/she is in the bourgeois category. All you have to do is ask yourself… can I afford to stop working, without having to rely on the government for income? Less than 5% of the American people can say that. I don’t think ANYONE on OPP can say that. Many of them might think that since they own a house and have a retirement account, they qualify as that category that the c*******ts were seeking to destroy but if they still have work to pay their bills, then no… They are proletarian, the class that the c*******ts were fighting for.

But in 1848 the middle-class was still a very small and powerful group and anyone that had to work for a living were denied the freedom of individuality that the bourgeois enjoyed. The freedom and individuality that indeed the bourgeois leveraged to deny that freedom to the working family. THIS is why Marx said they need to be swept out of the way... so that the working class can be individuals too.

So, in much the same way that he was expressing disdain for the bourgeoisie family as an analogy to the collective power of capital that denies the the existence of the proletarian family, here, he is referring to the bourgeoisie individual as an analogy to the freedom and individuality of capital at the expense of the freedom and individuality of the proletarian.

In simple terms, the bourgeois individual has the money and the power to do anything he likes, where the proletarian individual, who can’t afford to miss any days at work simply doesn’t have that freedom and is therefore less an individual and more a cog in a machine.


The individuality of a capitalist society wasn’t just deeply intertwined with capital, it was entirely dependent on it. One would have to own enough capital to where he doesn’t need to work and therefore has all the time and money he needs to do wh**ever he wants. THAT is what Marx meant by bourgeois individuality.


The term, has also taken on a rhetorical meaning in American society today, where it’s used by the wealthy oligarchs to divide the working people. The biggest threat to the American plutocracy, even today, is the legal right for American workers to act collectively. In 1935 Congress passed a law that gave that right to the workers so they could organize labor, bargain collectively and file class-action lawsuits. The oligarchs have been trying ever since to sabotage this collective power and one strategy is to sell the importance of individuality as an expression of American freedom. When Reagan spoke of “rugged individualism” he was encouraging workers to abandon their collective power by offering romantic images of old west homesteaders.

As they say, “United we stand, divided we fall.”


So Marx is again emphasizing that c*******t ONLY seek to abolish the individuality and the freedom that the bourgeois has to leverage the capital they own against the individuality and freedom of the workers.


Kim, you’re lying. You are ignoring the higher priorities of the left while emphasizing the sensationalized culture war that the oligarchs are using to divide the American people. Although you may find L**T folks marching the streets, they are not actually asking for any new laws or any special treatment, they are simply marching to protest the politics of the right which is where ALL of the laws pertaining to sexuality and identity are being proposed and legislated. The left is standing up for them because they see all Americans as equal. The fact that they are gay or t***s or wh**ever, is entirely inconsequential. If the Right started legislating laws to exclude people with unibrows, the Left would be defending them for the same reason.

If you actually look at the agenda of the left by viewing their legislature, instead of spectacles on the street you will find the agenda far more concerned with affordable medical coverage, fair wages, education and essentially the critical needs of every American that wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

'Gonna take a break here... I'll post the next one - Marx wanted to abolish Eternal T***hs - a little later, but just to note... Does anyone else see the absurdity of abolishing an eternal t***h?

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

straightUp Loc: California

Anyone can make memes, big boy...

EmilyD

Do you read them? Or just look at them... 😐

If you did't read them, they are quotes from Karl Marx. Are you not interested in his quotes?

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

In the month of Tammuz (June):

June 26, 1969, Greenwich Village, NY, Stonewall Inn Gay uprising gave birth to the L**T movement.

June 26, 2003, In Lawrence v Texas, the US Supreme Court legalized homosexuality.

June 26, 2013, In United States v Windsor, the US Supreme Court overturned The Defense of Marriage Act.

June 26, 2015, In Obergefell v Hodges, the US Supreme Court struck down the historic, Biblical and age-old definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and legalized same sex marriage.


Black L***s M****r’s financial controversies has the organization back in the news, and has renewed interest in Marxism in general, particularly its attacks on the family. And with good reason. Not only are the B*M Global Network Foundation—the mothership of B*M—and Marx at war with the most essential institution in society, so are most Marxists in between.

Karl Marx said as much In the C*******t Manifesto of 1848, in which he called for the abolition of the family. The family was already absent among the proletariat, Marx and his co-author Friedrich Engels wrote, and among the bourgeoisie, the family was a mere “money relation.”

Most importantly, Marx said that c*******m would ensure that children would be educated by the state and not by their parents. C*******ts, he wrote in the Manifesto, would “rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.” The making of the “New Man” was the priority, and the family was an obstacle.

As soon as they won their first victory, in Russia in 1917, the c*******ts now in power put into practice these policies. Alexandra Kollontai, the Soviet’s first People’s Commissar for Welfare, put it succinctly when she wrote, “The old family, narrow and petty, where the parents quarrel and are only interested in their own offspring, is not capable of educating the ‘new person’.” Soviet schools even encouraged students to snitch on their parents.

>>> Biden’s Anti-Marriage “American Families Plan” Fails to Build Back Better

Engels, particularly, was at war with what he called the patriarchal family, because he believed—wrongly—that it had introduced the concept of individual private property, which Marxists h**e.

We can see in these statements and beliefs the first few battles in a war we have in full flower today over whether parents have a right to have a say over their children’s education.

But it didn’t stop with Marx and Engels. Hungarian c*******ts managed to establish a Hungarian soviet for a short time in 1919. They quickly realized that the way to completely change society was to destroy the most important civil society institution, the family. Its culture and education commissar, George Lukacs, therefore instituted a system to instruct young children into sexual perversions.

Lukacs’s biographer described it this way: “Special lectures were organized in schools and literature printed and distributed to ‘instruct’ children about free love, about the nature of sexual intercourse, about the archaic nature of bour­geois family codes, about the outdatedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasure. Children urged thus to reject and deride paternal authority and the authority of the church, and to ignore precepts of morality.”

None of this went down well with the typical Hungarian, needless to say, and the Hungarian soviet lasted only 133 days.

The fight against the family—sometimes using sex, sometimes in other ways—continued for Marxists. Luckas escaped with this life and influenced a group of neo-c*******ts academics in Germany that we know as “the Frankfurt School.”

Three of their most famous scholars were Theodore Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse. One of their key intellectual contributions was the idea that it was the family that created the authoritarian character. The patriarchal father created in his children the desire to obey and submit to authority.

Marcuse didn’t stop there. He emigrated to the United States in the 1930 to escape Hitler, and while here wrote an influential best seller in 1959, Eros and Civilization, which is seen as a founding document of the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. Marcuse was very clear why the revolution was important—to destroy the family. He wrote:

The body in its entirety would become . . . a thing to be enjoyed—an instrument of pleasure. This change in the value and scope in libidinal relationships would lead to a disintegration of the institutions in which the private interpersonal relations have been organized, particularly the monogamic and patriarchal family.

C*******ts indeed tell us again and again that they are at war with the family because they know it is a handy way to destroy society. Eric Mann, an influential c*******t in Los Angeles, was candid in an interview in 2015 that whether the issue was race, sex, or climate, the goal is to o*******w the government of the United States.

Which brings us to B*M GNF. Eric Mann is influential partly because he recruited Patrisse Cullors, one of the founders of B*M, into his Labor-Community Strategy Center in Los Angeles at the young age of 17. He then trained her there for 10 years on how to be a Marxist organizer. So, when Cullors says of herself and Alicia Garza that they “trained Marxists,” that is what she means.

So it should hardly surprise us that among the 13 Guiding Principles of B*M we see a call for the “disruption” of the nuclear family. These ideas are now being taught to our children throughout the United States through the B*M curriculum that goes out to school districts.

B*M GNF has run into difficulties lately. Reports say it has not yet appointed an executive director since co-founder Patrisse Cullors resigned from the post, that $60 million remains unaccounted for, and that B*M GNF sent its Canada affiliate (on whose board sits Cullors’s wife) millions of dollars for the purchase of the Toronto mansion that served as the headquarters for the C*******t Party of Canada.

But B*M GNF remains as ideologically committed as it has always been. It understands too, as did Marx, Lukacs, the Frankfurt School scholars and Eric Mann, that c*******ts must destroy the family if they are to take over society.

EmilyD

A couple of B*M's "travel" vehicles:
...

straightUp Loc: California

Here's #3...

Marx is actually correct. It’s a similar condition to what inspired the saying… “history is written by the victors” Those in power control the media, even when that media takes the form of a sermon. What you are calling an eternal t***h was authored by the rulers of only one of the four ages that Marx mentioned. So even if that IS the eternal t***h, that would still leave us with the fact that before the Christians, the Romans and Greeks insisted on the idea of multiple gods and almost two thousand years later the rationalists suggested the absence of any gods at all. So it doesn’t matter what you think the t***h is or if you think that the ancient pagans and the rationalists were wrong and only the Christians were right. Marx wasn’t arguing what the t***h is. He was only stating that the narrative (true or false) always came from the ruling class and they often were different.


Timothy and Craig... working together to being fresh lies to their readership. This is an easy one to debunk because the government never mandated their closures. The CDC issued a medical opinion suggesting that businesses should close down to reduce t***smission of the v***s until they can figure out what to do about it, but ultimately it was up to the businesses to make their own decisions. The Churches (probably because they are more concerned about the people) chose to take the advice where the casinos (probably because they are more concerned about profit) chose to stay open.

Justice101 – what does any of this have to do with what Miltimore’s false accusation that Marx wanted to abolish eternal t***hs?


Timothy and Craig... You are lying by omission. All churches were still allowed to hold full services including the singing of worship songs… just not indoors. All churches were also allowed to hold services indoors with a limited capacity. Yes, other places remained open, such as grocery stores because the fact is very simple… people die if they don’t get food to eat, water to drink and medicine to take. On the other hand, no one is going to die just because they can’t sing worship songs indoors while doctors and scientists try to figure out what to do with the v***s. So get over it.

Justice101 – Once again, I don’t know how you are linking Miltimore’s false accusation that Marx wanted to abolish eternal t***h with these false accusations that churches are being targeted by politics.


Justice101 – Tim and Craig are being whiny about people they literally know nothing about. They have not identified a single person or event. There was a crowd of people, some damage was done and there was a political overtone associated with the protests against police violence. There are no provable connections between these dots to link any of it to ANY political faction much less a Marxist ideology.



Justice101 – I can’t argue with anything Oxnevad states here but again… there is no connection between this issue and ANY political faction much less a Marxist ideology.

straightUp Loc: California

I didn't read them OR look at them for several reasons...

1. I'm busy responding to Justice101's post... I just posted my response to the third thing that his sources say Marx wanted to abolish.
2. I'm not open to cheap distractions. If blade wants to engage he can read my posts and respond.
3. I'm aware of how easy it is to misquote or simply lie on a meme and how shallow a meme actually is... there is rarely any context.

I'm sorry Emily, but even though I was critical of Justice101's inclination to parrot, I still recognize the effort he put into assembling the opinions of others into a narrative and in return I am putting a lot of effort into my response. So like I said, I'm not open to the normal rush of cheap distractions, insults or i***t memes.

If you aren't up to understanding my counterpoints to the collection of opinions in Justice101's post - at least to where you can debate my reasoning, then I won't be responding. You can always leave if that get's boring.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Mark Levin’s American Marxism: A Much-Needed Home Run
Taking on the reality of the American Left.

As usual, Mark Levin pulls no punches.

His very first chapter in his new book, American Marxism — “It’s Here” — opens with a seriously precise description of the challenge America faces:

The counterrevolution to the American Revolution is in full force. And it can no longer be dismissed or ignored, for it is devouring our society and culture, swirling around our everyday lives, and ubiquitous in our politics, schools, media, and entertainment. Once a mostly unrelatable, fringe, and subterranean movement, it is here — and it is everywhere.…

The counterrevolution or movement of which I speak is Marxism.

It is Marx’s C*******t Manifesto, recall, that famously divided the world into “oppressor” and “oppressed.” Levin astutely notes that the use of this formula in today’s America by the Left means that “Either you are part of the righteous revolution for liberation and t***sformation or you are not.” This explains, “but only in part, the cowardice of corporatists, professional athletes, broadcasters, artists, actors, writers, and journalists who, in the face of such tumult, buckle under the pressure, seek to avoid the mob’s notice through various forms of appeasement and capitulation, and in some cases participate in their own t***sfiguration and even disembowelment.”

No more prescient description could be made of an event that occurred before American Marxism‘s release (its official publish date is next week) — the ostentatious corporate campaign against the Georgia v****g law that saw Major League Baseball’s All-Star Game summarily removed from Atlanta. The CEOs for Atlanta-based Coca-Cola and Delta Airlines quickly denounced the law — although quite notably they were stone silent about stricter v****g laws in Delaware, President Biden’s home state. This was a vivid example of Mark’s description of corporations buckling under the pressure “to avoid the mob’s notice.” (And in this case it specifically damaged the black-owned businesses of majority-black Atlanta.)

In discussing the role of mobs, Mark zeroes in on the “Marxist-anarchist ideology” of A****a and Black L***s M****r. In fact, well after Black L***s M****r’s popularity had surged in 2020, a 2015 video surfaced that revealed B*M co-founder Patrisse Cullors describing herself and her fellow B*M organizers as “trained Marxists.”

T***h counts. Mass movements, Mark also notes, “rely significantly on indoctrination and brainwashing.” Which is exactly the case with B*M and A****a.

American Marxism has an entire chapter dev**ed to “H**e America, Inc.” In it, Mark explains the long history of those who have openly pushed the Marxist agenda in America’s colleges and universities. He writes that the “progressive intellectuals of the late 1800s” were hostile “toward capitalism and the constitutional-republican system that established barriers against tyrannies of various kinds, including that which is born from the mob or centralized autocracy — and, of course, what would become known as progressivism.”

On the eve of American Marxism’s publication, America had just passed through the traditional July 4 holiday. And Mark’s description of the results generated by “H**e America, Inc” was on vivid display. The headline on the July 6 New York Post was nothing if not a confirmation of Mark’s point: It read,

Red, White and Woke

July 4th Weekend Became Liberal Bashfest of USA

The Post reported,

Liberal politicians and commentators took special joy in celebrating July 4th by denouncing America. The Statue of Liberty was not a symbol of freedom but a symbol of hypocrisy. The f**g was polarizing. The national anthem doesn’t speak for everyone (or anyone).

Among the remarks by these H**e America Marxists was this jewel of a tweet from Democrat Congresswoman Cori Bush of Missouri:

Cori Bush@CoriBush
When they say that the 4th of July is about American freedom, remember this: the freedom they’re referring to is for white people.

This land is stolen land and Black people still aren’t free.

Bush was answered by Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who precisely echoed Mark Levin’s point: “H**eful, d******e lies. The Left h**es America. Believe them when they tell you this.”

Indeed.

American Marxism also lasers in on critical race theory (CRT), correctly calling it what so many outraged parents across the land have seen as it is taught to their school-age children. Mark writes, “In short, CRT is an insidious and r****t Marxist ideology spreading throughout our culture and society.”

He cites George R. La Noue, research professor of public policy and political science at the University of Maryland Baltimore County. La Noue writes of

the two best-selling proponents of CRT, Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi.… CRT begins with the presumption that race is the primary way to identify and analyze people and consequently posits a racial hierarchy that supposedly exists with w****s on top and b****s at the bottom. Individual behavior is insignificant because everyone in America functions within a society of s******c r****m, structural r****m, and institutional r****m.

Not only is this correct, but in fact DiAngelo and Kendi and CRT itself are nothing more than recycled George Wallace-ism. Wallace, for those who came in late, was the 1960s-era Democrat governor of Alabama who proudly proclaimed he supported “segregation today … segregation tomorrow … segregation forever.” Or, in other words, Wallace, as with CRT proponents, believed that “race is the primary way to identify and analyze people.”

American Marxism is, without question, a very important and valuable book. It is exactly the right book at the right time.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Are they false?

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

This is the response I would expect from a cheap distraction who has his head up a computer's ass.

The quotes are from the writings of Karl Marx (and Engels).

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Nothing honest about this one. Too much self righteousness, and arrogance.

EmilyD

You don't need to get so triggered. I merely asked you if you read them in response to your snarky post: "Anyone can make memes, big boy..." You did not read them. Thus the strange response you gave. Since this topic you created is about Marx, it seems that quotes he made would be an interesting additive to the conversation.

Interesting that you couldn't find the ONE minute it would have taken you to read them....

Such a busy, busy bee you are... 😐