"The Death of Conservatism": A Premature Burial

Townhall.com ^ | November 21, 2009 | Rich Tucker

[Tublecane]

“Are you running in 2012?”

No, I won’t be old enough. But watch out in 2020!

[Tublecane]

“to what extent does he put forth the theories attributed to him in such a fashion as to suggest they will produce a society beneficial to anyone, and to what extent does he suggest that such theories may be useful to produce a society which is beneficial to an ‘elite’?”

His big thing was that the next stage of history would be a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, resulting from a revolt against the current bourgeois. I don’t think Marx specified what would happen after the workers expropriated the means of production, other than that it would be better. It was left to others to say of what a proletarian state would consist. Since the proletariat is too big to rule as a block, one can assume there would be an elite within them, hence Lenin’s revolutionary vanguard.

Eventually—we don’t know when or how but are assured it is inevitable—the proletarian state will whither away. What remains is the classless society. And for all it does to justify Marxist morality, Marx spends almost no time describing the socialist paradise.

Most of his time was spent criticizing the existing order, and relatively little to justifying the next phase of historical development. Even less discussing whether the next stage will produce a ruling minority, just like this one did. The implication is things will be better, in every way imaginable, and eventually, infitely better.

[PGalt]

Thanks for the ping, c_I_c. Great post, Tublecane. Thanks for starting this thread, Kaslin. Fascinating FR commentary. What article?

Thread BUMP!

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[Hardastarboard]

I hate Marx and Communism so much that I could never bring myself to read any of his work, but I've seen explanations of the theories over and over again. Marx believed that the proletariat (working class) would eventually tire of being exploited, rise up and seize the means of production, and institute a worker's paradise where all were equal and all were provided for. He thought that workers should be entitled to the fruit of what they produced, not the capitalist / owner of the machines they used to product the goods.

He believed that each person should contribute to, and benefit from, society as much as they could. The quote that best expressed this is "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need". Of course, man has unlimited needs and wants, and limited abilities, so while that piece of poetry sounds wonderful, in practice it is doomed to fail.

The descriptions I've read of him personally were that (like a lot of Marxists) he never had a real job, and free loaded off of friends and family. Given that description, and the state of education and communications in the day, I'm sure he never heard of the experiment you mention.

[riri]

Same with Lenin. His mother sent him money throughout his life so he could spend his days reading. Again, another worthless intellectual who caused nothing but violence and human waste.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I would also point out to Mr. Tanenhaus that the government and all of its taxes, fines and regulations, is the reason that so many industries have gone overseas. It isn't because of greedy corporations. I might as well tell that to the squirrels that play in my yard, I know. Actually, I do, and they look at me with just as much comprehension.

Grin. Don't forget to include labor unions in the mix but be careful about telling the squirrels. It might give them ideas. Few things are as bad as a squirrel picket line circling the house.

[T Lady]

*PING*

It is crystal clear how deeply in denial the Left is regarding Conservatism. It is far from dead.