5 Things Marx Wanted to Abolish (Besides Private Property) (parallels)

Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

I wanted to point out to ATS folks that what is going on in the USA, is only a long festering "disease", that has been designed to show it's primary severe symptoms in our current times.

Marx, the father of Communism, spawned several political uprisings over the years, and in a way, is responsible for millions of deaths. I would like to give 5 examples of his "beliefs", or goals... and apply them to todays USA.

These 5 points were brought up to be a good reminder by an article:

You Are Here
5 Things Marx Wanted to Abolish (Besides Private Property)

1. The Family

Marx admits that destroying the family is a thorny topic, even for revolutionaries. “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists,” he writes.

But he said opponents of this idea fail to understand a key fact about the family.

“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,” he writes.

The attack on the family unit, goes back a long ways in the USA. My opinion only, but it began in earnest after WW2. It was rising meteorically by mid 1950's a lot due in part to the Wizard of Madison Avenue, Edward Bernays.

The family unit got a severe jolt with the the need, or desires for women to get into the labor market again. Or, as some might say, for the "first time"?

Whilst this was the beginning of good things for the ladies, it also impacted family life, and also helped the Federal Reserve Bank, and the IRS, as they now could begin taxing the other half of the herd, so to speak.

The traditional family unit is a mere shadow of it's former 1970's "model"... so many things affect how families have evolved the last 5 decades! Technology, computers, etc; continually make it more and more difficult to find quality family time on a regular basis.

2. Individuality

Marx believed individuality was antithetical to the egalitarianism he envisioned. Therefore, the “individual” must “be swept out of the way, and made impossible.”

Individuality was a social construction of a capitalist society and was deeply intertwined with capital itself.

“In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality,” he wrote. “And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.”

All I can say is, the hive mentality is taking over. The divisions over left and right are more solid than anytime in history. Unless you think like a certain group, you are and can be "targeted" by that group...and all too often this is demonstrated by violence towards the individual.

If the above confuses you, PLEASE re-read the above and replace the word "bourgeois", and replace it the words "privileged", Or "White Privileged". Some more Orwellian double-speak for you.. after substituting words it reads just like todays social issues we are faced with.

3. Eternal Truths

“‘Undoubtedly,’ it will be said, ‘religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.
There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.’
What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.”

This has certainly been ongoing in the USA for a long time. Religion has been under strong attack, one who hardly dare say that Morality has been preserved... lack of morality is what is preferred, or what is "cool".

4. Nations

Communists, Marx said, are reproached for seeking to abolish countries. These people fail to understand the nature of the proletariat, he wrote.

“The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.”
Furthermore, largely because of capitalism, he saw hostilities between people of different backgrounds receding. As the proletariat grew in power, there soon would be no need for nations, he wrote.

“National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.”

Regardless of the root cause, or belief; one can surely see that there is a huge push to do away with national borders. They call it "globalism" these days.

5. The Past

Marx saw tradition as a tool of the bourgeoisie. Adherence to the past served as a mere distraction in proletariat’s quest for emancipation and supremacy.

“In bourgeois society,” Marx wrote, “the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past.”

The "Purple Revolution" has amped up it's antics.. the assault on all things historical, books, institutions, founding fathers even.. defacing, damaging historic statues, etc. And some say that Nov 4th the antics will get another major boost, nationwide are the rumours at this point.

People who are participating in the ongoing violence, are being the useful tool of this "Marxist" type of thinking.. and a societal "push" in this direction towards Marxists persuasions; will find that what they will wind up with, is far from desirable.

Just study history please. And you will see that these "movements" always had good sounding ideals, and goals, but once it was a done deal...the common man found himself in a cesspool much worse than they thought they were in with the "old system".

They might try to put lipstick on the "pig of Communism", by giving it fancy names... like globalism, liberalism, open borders, dreamer amnesty..but all of these modern terms are just a repeat and actuation of Marxist philosophy really.

Your thoughts may vary of course... but the USA is certainly "under attack" and headed for severe dire changes, unless it is halted by the people.

Believe me, you won't like what it will turn into down the road.

Pravdaseeker

a reply to: pravdaseeker

I agree. Some good points were made.

Will be interested in seeing the replies of our more leftist members.

a reply to: pravdaseeker

a reply to: DBCowboy

I may be Left Wing but I would never support the destruction of traditional values like destruction of the family.

It will open the door to a Brave New World style tyranny. In Brave New World, people are raised without a family and are made to see the state as their family which makes them easy to control.

This is why I consider myself a Conservative Leftist. I may believe in a lot of the Left's ideas such as free education, feminism (not rad fem), and the idea of pro choice but we do need to draw the line somewhere.

Mar's greatest blunder was that he couldn't understand the definition of bourgeoisie. he was never able to define it in any of his writings and manifestos, he was fixated on a single thought; his views on goods and value became so obscure he became a mad man rambling.

you are already pointing a finger in your op, you're taking the same road as Marx

a reply to: starwarsisreal

I don't think you are as left as you think

Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

Thanks for your thoughts there... I am just saying that historically, these "Marxist type" movements have never had good results.

The USA is going to go through whatever it is fated for...

More to the point I guess, is the people really need to deeply think about where their society is headed, and do they really want to go there?

Gotta go do some business in town so won't be able to reply til later today..

Thanks for your input mate.

Pravdaseeker



a reply to: odzeandennz

a reply to: 10uoutlaw

Actually Conservative Leftists are mostly Conservative Democrats. At one point in the past, there are a lot of us but sadly right now there are a few of us because many of us over the years either go further left or further right.

We are a dying breed.

1) The family is only under attack in that Christians allow more and more people to get divorced or commit adultery without saying anything about (it's legal so non-Christians don't care about it). Other than that the US just extended familial rights to gay people. So family rights are extending.

2) Individualism is as alive as ever. Anyone who says otherwise needs to pull their head out of their partisan ass.

3) Eternal truths, ie religion fails reality tests time and time again. It is only natural they will eventually be abandoned as humans outgrow the need for them.

4) Nations. Still exist and aren't going away any time soon despite what border hawks would suggest.

5) First. Marx wasn't advocating deleting history itself. He was against adhering to a tradition just because it is a tradition. Appealing to tradition is a logical fallacy. We shouldn't be doing something just because it was done in the past. We should do something because it has been proven to be a good thing to do.

2. Individuality

Marx believed individuality was antithetical to the egalitarianism he envisioned. Therefore, the “individual” must “be swept out of the way, and made impossible.”

Individuality was a social construction of a capitalist society and was deeply intertwined with capital itself.

“In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality,” he wrote. “And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.”

Because its Machiavellian cultish groupthink mind control by design.

Marx understood human nature, and groupthink -the larger the group the dumber the individuals in it- is basic human nature 101. This is inherent of all groups, just look at any rabid mob, whereas I've come to realize the reason conservative types are far less prone to total nutcase mob violence is because appeal to "collective" groupthink is an fundamental aspect of "liberalism". It's not that a similar sized group of conservatives or NY Giants fans are as prone to groupthink, especially not in a mob, but groupthink just isnt a core aspect of the ideology. These rules apply to ANY group, any ideology, whereas overt appeal to groupthink most effectively elicits the mob mentality pudding.

NOTE here I'm not actually trying to prop up conservatism, but I referenced it this way because for the past year its been an ongoing discussion about "why are the liberals rioting but the conservatives arent".

Well that's the answer.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

2) Individualism is as alive as ever. Anyone who says otherwise needs to pull their head out of their partisan ass.

Okay explain safe spaces then.

Explain how group identity politics isn't an overt appeal to groupthink.

And then we can go from there.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Individuality is being attacked, unless your individualism is the same as everyone else's.

(See college campuses)

The problem with today's left is they want to get rid of everything but have nothing to replace it with.
I guess "camaraderie" and molotov cocktails will have to suffice.
The next one I argue with I will demand their phone since they don't believe in private property.

Okay now note the designs towards attacking #1 Family and apply that to my comments on #2 Individuality.

This is what gangs do, the group becomes the new quote "family" unquote; while loyalty to the group is paramount.

And then note #3 Moral & Judicial 'truths', well I'd say that applies to gangs as well.

Now what are the differences between gangs and political parties? Well how closely they parallel each other depends on the place the time and the party in question.

Here the Two party System is the most hardcore gangsterism as there ever was, short of systems (such as Communism) where one gang monopoly rule becomes the norm.

But just look at some of the other basic attributes, and not much different in fact the parallels where corporations are & party's are concerned are the first points that come to mind: The groups having a 'brand name', the hierarchal structures, money and inter-group supremacy (monopolistic ambitions), and lets not forget they all use symbolic logo advertising.

Folks up yo I'm with The Party and I'm here to rob you.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
The problem with today's left is they want to get rid of everything but have nothing to replace it with.

Their hammer & sickle flags would sure seem to suggest otherwise.

In the Middle East though your sentiment was exactly how it played out, during the Arab Spring.

Our founding document is a pretty good place to start. The problem with our system is its been deeply corrupted, constantly over hundred plus years.

Our OS but needs a reboot with an upgraded version.

a reply to: pravdaseeker

It's common among conservatives to delude themselves into believing they some how stand against a grand conspiracy to Marxist ideals.

If Marx had never been born, there would still have been women's liberation. For instance, women's suffrage in Europe predated Marx's birth by more than a century. And there would still be less religious people. What you're essentially doing is blaming Marx for progress which is absurd on its face.

In the Western world, we had more than a millennium (the "middle ages") between the fall of the Roman Empire and the early-modern period. During that time, the Church had a stranglehold on society and society stagnated horribly because of it.

When things really started to change was in the 15th century when the earlier forerunners to Martin Luther started to challenge the hegemony of the Church (the Roman Catholic Church). Then Martin Luther comes along and the Protestant Reformation, which ultimately paved the way for The Enlightenment. (not to in any way lionize Martin Luther, an anti-Semetic PoS)

Concomitant to The Enlightenment was the Scientific Revolution which of course led to the Industrial Revolution and the rapid transition to industrial societies from the agrarian societies that had been the norm for thousands of years. Now we're in a period of post-industrialization and well into the Information Age.

What you characterize as the "attack on religion" (by which I assume you mean Christianity) to me is just people not buying into silly myths for which there is no more evidence than any other myth from any other time and society.

A single breeding pair of every animal on Earth piled into a boat? Really? A man living inside of a whale? Sure, seems legit. Come on. I was about 10 when I told my parents the whole Adam & Eve story had serious plot holes that I couldn't reconcile in my preadolescent mind. Marx didn't do that. No plot to dismantle "traditional values" did that. Reason did that.

In some ways it's like the pre-Enlightenment world, the Dark Ages, has some gravitational pull on the minds of conservatives, always pulling them backwards.

Of course, they don't mind living in countries established on secular rule of law, plugging their integrated circuit filled PCs into wall outlets and hopping on networks to communicate with people around the globe. None of which would have been possible if their ideological forebearers had anything to say about it.

And perhaps it's the attempt to resolve that cognitive dissonance that causes them to ignore the obvious in search of absurd, politically expedient explanations for the things that make them nervous.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: pravdaseeker

a reply to: DBCowboy

I may be Left Wing but I would never support the destruction of traditional values like destruction of the family.

It will open the door to a Brave New World style tyranny. In Brave New World, people are raised without a family and are made to see the state as their family which makes them easy to control.

This is why I consider myself a Conservative Leftist. I may believe in a lot of the Left's ideas such as free education, feminism (not rad fem), and the idea of pro choice but we do need to draw the line somewhere.

This is what New Labour tried to do with marriage tax allowance and other benefits. It actually became more profitable for a family to have both parents not marry, or even marry and separate. Then they would get two council houses, one for each partner. In the USA, a married couple would be taxed on their separate incomes as if it were a single income and thus be pushed into a higher tax band.

Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

Hello antediluvian, I am not blaming Marx for a darn thing, maybe the author of the article is. People will choose whatever belief system they decide, regardless of how unintelligent that decision might be.

And women may rightly so have had their suffrage movement without him. What I am saying is the family unit got impacted when a large amount of women decided to become workers instead of caregivers of their children.

Now you have kids raised in a hive community of day care, and come home with the bad habits of all the other kids they get herded around with, I.E., biting people, pulling hair, head butting, spitting on people, kicking shins, etc, etc.

Religion is religion, not necessarily Christianity... if I would have meant Christianity, I would have said so. ALL religions have some moral lessons within them.. some more than others. Do away with it completely and you have what is evolving now in our world, "a bunch of evil little monsters", whose parents could give a #e less about their behaviour. I see it every day; and dread what they will become as adults. It is a choice that people make, right or wrong, or one they must make because they can't get by on a single income as a family.

I do not believe reason did that, but poor parenting has taken away from traditional values. And yes, "they" do serve a purpose that is good for society.

And I really don't think if religious people were more prominent in society that none of the advancements would have happened.. do you really think that we would still be living in the dark ages if society had a lot more "religious" people in it?

I would rather have a good practicing Christian as a neighbour, than a just about anything else... at least they would not give me grief from time to time. They would probably respect my views, and my property, and if there ever was a problem, they come knock on the door and discuss it like adults. They don't key scratch your car, or poison your dog, etc, etc..and other such evil behaviour that so many think is just fine to do.

Pravdaseeker








a reply to: theantediluvian

Interesting fact:

Anarchists don't believe in property ownership either.

originally posted by: Kettu
Interesting fact:

Anarchists don't believe in property ownership either.

Okay so how do we divide it all up?

Let me guess, minorities women gays trans get all the nice houses, whites in slums & camps & prisons... except Hollywood people & MSM talking heads & Party officials they get to live in all the mansions.

Amiryte?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I'm not an anarchist, don't look at me.

Here's some info though:

The statement "property is theft" is one of anarchism's most famous sayings. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that anyone who rejects this statement is not an anarchist. This maxim works in two related ways. Firstly, it recognises the fact that the earth and its resources, the common inheritance of all, have been monopolised by a few. Secondly, it argues that, as a consequence of this, those who own property exploit those who do not. This is because those who do not own have to pay or sell their labour to those who do own in order to get access to the resources they need to live and work (such as workplaces, machinery, land, credit, housing, products under patents, and such like -- see section B.3.2 for more discussion).

A bit more explanation:

Private property, therefore, produces a very specific form of authority structure within society, a structure in which a few govern the many during working hours. These relations of production are inherently authoritarian and embody and perpetuate the capitalist class system. The moment you enter the factory gate or the office door, you lose all your basic rights as a human being. You have no freedom of speech nor association and no right of assembly. If you were asked to ignore your values, your priorities, your judgement, and your dignity, and leave them at the door when you enter your home, you would rightly consider that tyranny yet that is exactly what you do during working hours if you are a worker. You have no say in what goes on. You may as well be a horse (to use John Locke's analogy -- see section B.4.2) or a piece of machinery.

Little wonder, then, that anarchists oppose private property as Anarchy is "the absence of a master, of a sovereign" [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 264] and call capitalism for what it is, namely wage slavery!

www.infoshop.org...

Shrug...I see so many "conservatives" go on and on about how they're closer to being anarchists because they think being a Libertarian is "anarchy lite" or some stupid nonsensical BS.