Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Borges
I think you're missing my point. I'm fully aware of the textbook definition of “Marxism,” and of its definition as applied to various studies (economic, literary criticism, history). My point is that by elevating the theory in academe, students have been inoculated against the horrors of communism, which “Marxism” ushers in.

I've read Das Kapital. One aspects of that substantially plagiarized work is Marx’ view on how “the worker” will happily serve as a cog in a great industrial machine owned by and serving the State (and serving himself, since the State is his god and his provider). Marx only needed to accurately condemn capitalism and plant the seeds for the workers’ revolution and of what we are today calling “trickle up economics” to sow the field of communism. Ironic that professors view their students in much the same way that Marx viewed the working class, as malleable pawns that could be forced into a role and would be happy there, completely overlooking the human need to live a life of individual purpose. So, he did plant the seeds of the communist political structure. The Bolsheviks implemented it by force. Gramsci saw that it could not succeed and launched the second wave of the Marxist revolution, replacing the working class with a multitude of disparate groups we refer to as members of the "victim classes." Many voted for Obama as unwitting participants in this neo-Marxist revolution, thinking they were bettering race relations, unaware they were putting a communist in power. As I said, my point is that by blurring the distinction between Marxism/communism in academe, they have made communism palatable to “the educated” in this country, whom, by the way, I continually discover to be far less educated than they believe themselves to be and far more indoctrinated than they are aware. Of course, they consider themselves socialists, as if that is some sort of happy midway point between capitalism and communism, which it is not. It is a strategy of achieving the communist state. Even the “evolutionary” and “peaceful” Fabians acknowledged this as their goal, led by Keynes, at Bretton Woods, where the IMF/World Bank were launched. And, of course, surprise, surprise, the American counterpart to that scheme was Harry Dexter White, who was later found to be a communist operating in an espionage ring.

Again, my point is as it was in my first post. If we discuss Obama and his appointments as having some faith in “Marxist theory,” we're doomed. The people need to wake up and understand that we are on the road to communism. We need to look at what is happening as Joe McCarthy did and not be deceived and deluded by academic theory and dialectics.

68 posted on 11/15/2008 9:08:11 AM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Camelot? JFK hated communism. Obama is a communist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]


To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
There has been so much cross-disciplinary theory written with a basis in Marx that academe virtually has no choice but to educate liberal arts students about its basic tenets. Same with Freudian Theory.

Communism is essentially a secular, worldy vision of an unachievable Paradise. Auden called Marxism (the dialectical rode to 'paradise') the leading Christian heresy of modern times.
70 posted on 11/15/2008 1:39:24 PM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
By the way where do you think it's plagiarized from? I've heard it's very similar to the work of David Ricardo.
81 posted on 11/19/2008 8:55:10 AM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson