Replies

I think more that 0 is a cynical pragmatist who embraces Marxism only because it advances himself to do so. He understands he could never advance in the conservative or libertarian camp on his own dubious merit, and therefore must fly the flag which empowers him as a minority. Once he gets where he wants to go, or if it ever hindered his progress, 0 would throw Marxism into the dustbin as readily as he does any 'close adviser' who becomes a liability.

It is ironic that it is the left that periodically publishes psychiatric profiles of Republican and conservative candidates to demonstrate their unfitness for public trust because of their mental deficiencies. I believe an empirical investigation into the motivations which impel leftists to become what they are would be a far more fruitful field for the study of man than their junk science analysis of Republican candidates.

My own theory goes right to the subject's narcissism. I often use the analogy of the Skinner Box to illustrate the principle. Skinner demonstrated that he can control animals in a box of his design by rewarding them with pellets for desirable behavior. He even succeeded in getting chickens to play baseball by this method. In a sense Skinner was the God over what went on in his box. It is the primordial urge in mankind which is so vividly described in Genesis to play God which motivates man toward statism. What better box in which to play God than the entire apparatus of the federal government unless, of course, it is rule of the world by one world government?

So Obama is a God player and the solipsism invests him with a feelings of omniscience and omnipotence which we have heard him utter, for example, when he told Harry Reid, "I have a gift." His tolerance of children singing songs to him as though he were Chairman Mao is utterly damning of his psychic condition.

A reading of Whittaker Chambers reveals an insight into the mind of communist apparatchiks which is thoroughly frightening. But one characteristic which I find interesting is the separation between the leaders and useful idiots. Clearly Obama who has been a loner all his life regards himself as a leader who despises the rest of his own party as useful idiots.

This is what I was trying to allude to in the last paragraph of my last post. Stalin must destroy Trotsky. Leftist radicals must eventually destroy or be destroyed by their provisional allies the Islamic fundamentalists. Finally, the Democratic Party-or at least the leaders- must turn on itself like a pack of ravening dogs.

Obama sees himself as the top dog.

I like your psychological analysis of marxism. It works.

My longtime held psychological analysis is perhaps a useful adjunct as it is not competing but rather complementary.

Marx’s essential incorrect assumption which I think is subconsciously echoed by adherents and fellow travelers is basically this.

It’s simply one of scale and has to do with emotional ties.

If you think of it the nuclear family is one of many social units where “from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs” not only makes sense but demonstrably works and has for as long as humans have been around.

There are probably other social units (tribes, some voluntary associations) where this in fact works.

The error that the marxists make is quite simply one of extrapolation. If something works on these small scales than of course it will work on a national scale. And of course this has been proven to be false.

But since most everyone has grown up in a family of one sort or another and has directly experienced this arrangement, this is the subconscious appeal of this dangerous ideology. So there is almost a psychological weakness that predisposes many people to believe in the false premises (and promises) of marxism since this error of extrapolation is quite easy to make if one is not intellectually rigorous.