Cutural Marxism is a Sociological Technology

The U.S. elite accomplished such without the need for Marxism. In fact, they had achieved control of the country through free market capitalism, which eventually lead to crony capitalism.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

That's relativism you are describing which is another effect of the topic. It's the inability to put the past in its own context but instead judging it by modern mores and values. It's all relative. It's the same quality that leads us to put cultures of perfectly equal footing obsessively and renders us unable to value judgments vis a vis better or worse aspects. They are all relative.

originally posted by: monkeyluv
The U.S. elite accomplished such without the need for Marxism. In fact, they had achieved control of the country through free market capitalism, which eventually lead to crony capitalism.

Nope they have subverted even that.

You think the market is free, but it's not and hasn't been. It's an interventionalist mess.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: TheTory

the politics is their morality.

Evolved social relationships and evolved morality seems incomprehensible to them.

I don't know much about art or architecture, although I would imagine that the Communists push small cubic dwellings and large public works in architecture.

M. Stanton Evans has written two droll books about the Communists in the US Government who made policies like giving away Eastern Europe and China to Soviets. And to this day the media says there were no Communist "Spies" in the McCarthy hearings.

Who needs spies when you control the other government's policies?

And there were spies too.

The books are
Stalin's Secret Agents

and
Blackl isted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies

These were written from the information released during the time the Kremlin was open to the West.

Yes, McCarthy was exactly right.

People on the left still claim that he was a witch hunter and deny the facts of the high level communist infiltration of our government.

Witness - Whittaker Chambers

The long awaited, long delayed, personal testament of Whittaker Chambers who shared with Alger Hiss in the most controversial case of our time, not only in the enigmatic features of the case itself, in the violent partisanship of belief — or disbelief — in the two men involved, but more largely in its ultimate significance, established by the verdict, of the existence of Communist infiltration in high places.

whittakerchambers.org...

You still hear people lamenting Alger Hiss as some sort of unfortunate victim despite the now well established fact of his espionage for the soviet union.

It would seem that the left is beginning to cease denying the fact and now appears to be embracing communism openly.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: monkeyluv
The U.S. elite accomplished such without the need for Marxism. In fact, they had achieved control of the country through free market capitalism, which eventually lead to crony capitalism.

Nope they have subverted even that.

You think the market is free, but it's not and hasn't been. It's an interventionalist mess.

Actually, the market is a mess because of less regulation. When Glass-Steagle was repealed it gave the banks and investors the ability to create financial instruments that were very shady and volatile. That would not have been bad in and of itself if they only gambled with their own money, but with the repeal they were able to use our money as well.

When it all failed, they relied on us (socialism) to bail them out and created many market bubbles to boot.

We need more regulation an intervention to stop people from using our money to gamble on fake, completely fabricated investment schemes.

a reply to: greencmp

It would seem that the left is beginning to cease denying the fact and now appears to be embracing communism openly.

Whom on the Left of any significance openly embraced communism?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: greencmp

It would seem that the left is beginning to cease denying the fact and now appears to be embracing communism openly.

Whom on the Left of any significance openly embraced communism?

Everyone who currently embraces socialism openly.

Whatever qualifications you wish to employ to obfuscate the nature of communism, it is socialism, international Marxism.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

I don't see anything actually happening, just faster or slower decent into totalitarianism, which might be nice for awhile.

This may seem like an odd question, but its where my brain went (it does that).

How can individualism work with 320 million people?

There are posters that state: "I should be able to do what I want". But, in reality, you really can't because you are in a society.

As a Globalist, I see the "whole" as necessary for both the planet and humanity. Does that or will that require totalitarianism?

As I say: "It's the WHO and HOW" - - not the "WHAT, WHEN, IF.

No matter the "ism" - - anything can be done right or wrong.

originally posted by: introvert

Whom on the Left of any significance openly embraced communism?

Well who isn't?

In Marxist theory, socialism, also called lower-stage communism or the socialist mode of production, refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism

Grampaw Karl Komrade. Grampaw Karl.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

I don't see anything actually happening, just faster or slower decent into totalitarianism, which might be nice for awhile.

This may seem like an odd question, but its where my brain went (it does that).

How can individualism work with 320 million people?

There are posters that state: "I should be able to do what I want". But, in reality, you really can't because you are in a society.

As a Globalist, I see the "whole" as necessary for both the planet and humanity. Does that or will that require totalitarianism?

As I say: "It's the WHO and HOW" - - not the "WHAT, WHEN, IF.

No matter the "ism" - - anything can be done right or wrong.

I think that is an honest response and an accurate summary of the world view of many.

It is also exactly the attitude that horrifies people who respect life, liberty and property.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: greencmp

It would seem that the left is beginning to cease denying the fact and now appears to be embracing communism openly.

Whom on the Left of any significance openly embraced communism?

Everyone who currently embraces socialism openly.

Whatever qualifications you wish to employ to obfuscate the nature of communism, it is socialism, international Marxism.

I figured you would have some names to go with that, considering you stated they were "openly embracing communism".

I, myself, am a socialist and I have not advocated for communism. In fact, I have yet to find any socialist that does, except for communists.

What many people don't seem to be able to comprehend is that it is true you have to have socialism to create communism, but you do not have to advocate for communism to believe in socialist principles. That is the black and white logical fallacy that too many buy-in to and spread ignorantly.

In other words, you are obfuscating the nature of socialism to project a false narrative.

a reply to: introvert

It is black and white, either you are a socialist or you are not.

While it is true that many believe in a "social safety net" and the interventionist welfare state, they are not socialists, just misinformed socioeconomic interventionists. Perhaps you are among them in which case I would advise you to stop erroneously identifying with socialism, state ownership of the means of production.

a reply to: greencmp

It is black and white, either you are a socialist or you are not.

True, but just because I am a socialist does not mean I am a communist or advocate for communist principles. See, you are obfuscating the issue.

While it is true that many believe in a "social safety net" and the interventionist welfare state, they are not socialists, just misinformed socioeconomic interventionists. Perhaps you are among them in which case I would advise you to stop erroneously identifying with socialism, state ownership of the means of production.

A social safety-net is socialist in nature. It is using the collective wealth of the people to provide basic needs for those that need the assistance. Socialism is much more complicated, yet simple at the same time.

Also, socialism is not only defined as state ownership of the means of production. In fact, I think that is an incorrect definition as that is more akin to communism. Socialism, among many of it's definitions, is collective/social ownership of the means of production.Very important distinction that needs to be understood.

a reply to: introvert

You are completely wrong.

Simple Definition of socialism from Merriam-Webster

: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies


Full Definition of socialism
1
:  any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2
a :  a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b :  a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3
:  a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


I was trying to give you an out, a way to save face without overtly exposing your ignorance of the definition of socialism.

a reply to: greencmp

I believe I was correct in what I said. Look at the definition you posted and pay close attention to what I said, compared to the definitions you posted.

1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


Various?

OR?

Socialism is a bit more complicated than the black and white picture you are trying to paint. The government does not have to have control for a socialist system to be in place. All that is needed is collective cooperation. State control is more akin to communism and I do not advocate for any such thing.

I appreciate you leaving me an out, but it appears in your attempt to be so arrogant you have forgotten to read what you post and pay attention to the small details that make a world of difference.

originally posted by: introvert

I, myself, am a socialist and I have not advocated for communism. In fact, I have yet to find any socialist that does, except for communists.

I actually support a kind of progressive layered socialism and controlled capitalism.

The more we hear about brain scans, the more I believe we are who we are born, then influenced by the culture we're brought up in.

I think there are born followers, born leaders, and everything in between.

I think any government has to have accommodations for all. There needs to be a way for the leaders and entrepreneurs to evolve. But, the reward does not need to be money. IMO - - those born to lead will do so no matter what (its who they are born to be). The question is, what do you reward accomplishment with other then money, or material gain?

Definitely a cultural change issue. Of course, changing a culture is probably the hardest thing in the world to do.

a reply to: introvert

By various, they mean the variants of socialism which include communism, national socialism, fascism, state capitalism, syndicalism, guild socialism, etc.

a reply to: introvert

Sounds like you are a sort of fascist. You believe in collectivism but want to keep production in private hands but for the benefit of the collective?

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: introvert

By various, they mean the variants of socialism which include communism, national socialism, fascism, state capitalism, syndicalism, guild socialism, etc.

Now you are continuing to obfuscate by not addressing the most important part of what you posted. That was the "or". They made an important distinction between collective ownership and government ownership. That is important as it creates the separation between simple socialism and communism.

Also, you have provided more evidence of ignorance when you included national socialism and fascism. Fascism is not a variant of socialism and the Nazis were not socialists. I know you tried, unsuccessfully, to push that narrative in the recent past when it was popular to do so, but it was not true then and it still ins't today.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

Sounds like you are a sort of fascist. You believe in collectivism but want to keep production in private hands but for the benefit of the collective?

Where did I say that? Have a quote?

a reply to: Annee

I actually support a kind of progressive layered socialism and controlled capitalism.

So do I. I think a good mix between the two is what is important. As of now, we only have socialist programs or ideals when it's necessary to bail-out the failures of capitalism.

Let's quit denying reality and be open about our socialist roots and needs.