Comments by "Itinerant Patriot" (@itinerantpatriot1196) on "Michael Malice - Why Communism Is Evil" video.

Marxism is a system based on a flawed understanding of human nature so any subsequent government built using those principles as a framework is destined to fail. Democratic socialism is a made-up term that is an oxymoron. If you ask most of the kids clamoring for weekend at Bernie's what socialism is you will get a variety of answers, none of which actually address the premise of a centralized system where the state owns the means of production. That little dipsh*t bartender from New York who got elected because people with money liked her audition tape and put money behind her is the poster-child for this. The woman had a degree in economics from a university with a supposed solid reputation yet the best she could do was get a job slinging beers at Rosie's. When you hear her talk about economic matters you understand why. Marxism, at it's core, is a Godless religion where Man is at the center, and we all know what happens when we are left to our own devices with no transcendent moral code to keep our base instincts in check. To quote the prophet Ozzie Osbourne: "Satan laughing spreads his wings." That is why the term evil is appropriate.
1
@MoonshineH So, enlighten me. Where am I off-base? If I'm wrong, what is Marxism?
1
@MoonshineH Semantics, okay, I get that. But explain it to me. Tell me where my assertions, beyond referring to it as system are wrong? You said I don't know what Marxism is, I mean beyond simply saying it is a set of economic and philosophical ideas what is it? Can ya go a bit deeper?
1
@MoonshineH Well okay, the dialectic, dialectic historicism to be more precise, a concept he ripped off from Hagel and then, in Marx's own words; "turned it on its head." And socialism isn't the end of history according to Marx, communism is. Now, getting back to my original post, communism fails because it's based on the social compact as Rousseau framed it, where man doesn't have a fallen nature and if left to his own devices would have been just fine. It was society and its corrupting influences, including religion which both Rosseau and Marx had a major axe to grind with, that messed him up. In order for a proper course correction, Rousseau argues for the general will to prevail. Marx goes a step further and argues that eventually communism will prevail, that capitalism will fall under its own weight because it is at odds with the general will. The problem of course is, when you make a case like that you have to provide evidence and Marx used notions like the super-structure and the labor theory of value which are based on nothing more than Marx's thoughts. And what about the ultimate revolution? The rising up of the working class? Workers of the world unite and all that horesh*t? Why did the world-wide revolution not materialize? That's easy. The proletariat decided they wanted to work within the capitalist system instead of tearing it down because it had the best track record for upward mobility. Put more simply, since people are self-interested by nature, not collective-minded, they chose option A, the thesis over the antithesis put forward by Marx and Engel. Marx understood that reality deep down which is why he argued for the need of a dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin, Stalin, and Moa agreed in the authoritarian approach and went one step further, deciding that those peasants and the damn middle class bourgeoisie who just weren't getting on board needed to be properly motivated. So what so you end up with? Re-education camps to adjust their thinking and mass graves for those who won't take the reprogramming no matter how many lashes you gave em. For Marx it would be necessary to overcome the corrupting influence of the super structure. For Locke, you would have to force that kind of thinking on people because they're just not wired for it. And because you have to force people into it, communism will never be achieved. So much for the Marxist inevitability of history. Socialism fails because of its centralized nature and the tendency for people like the halfwit professors who spout that crap in the classrooms to be put in charge of the means of production. It's a bit like going to the janitor for open heart surgery. I could go on, but I'll stop there. Marxism can't be boiled down to fortune-cookie wisdom and simple slogans. That much I know. I've read Marx. I just reject him because, well he's wrong. You really should expand on your thoughts a bit more. Maybe not as much I have here, but simply stating a definition isn't exactly defending a position. If you are going to come at someone and say they don't understand something, a well-reasoned argument comes in handy. Just sayin.
1
@MoonshineH Nope. I don't see it. It's okay. I appreciate the effort. I don't mind debating, we all have different takes on things.
1