MARXISM has had more than a century of real-life application and it is uniformly one of the most extreme forms of gangster governance in the history of modern government, in the worst cases comparable only to the worst fascist dictatorships, and not always merely at the same level of murderous oppression with those but worse, and Nazism. In North Korea and in places and at times within those Marxist countries commonly believed to be less of a brutal oligarchic military dictatorship than that, as savagely brutal as any ancient, medieval, Renaissance or Baroque era realm under the total control of a criminally insane despot. China, a thoroughly modern government, at times is as evilly brutal as the cruelest of medieval local potentates.
We have seen communism given the test of time and what it leads to is gangster government with Victorian style capitalism on steroids and all the attendant evils of that only with scientific and engineering efficiencies that make it more effective. At least the last part of that is true of China, Russia is more organizationally primitive but no less oppressive. It is no accident that the fascist thugs ruling in Russia and places like Belarus and other parts of the former Soviet Union were members of the Communist Party, some of them high placed back before that fell. They are among the most accomplished fascist dictators in history. That is the real outcome of communism.
The only legitimate government is bound to be a rare thing because it depends on The People knowing the truth and, at the same time, being of good will so the power of a majority is put behind government not only of and by but, most of all FOR ALL The People. That our Constitution doesn't follow through on the promises made in the Declaration of Independence and as articulated by Lincoln is no accident. Nor is it a coincidence that it was crafted by aristocrats, slave-owners and financiers, not anymore than the means devised by members of the Constitutional Convention immediately turning to rigging the system to gain unfair advantage and use the power that was locked into place, whether for the winner of a fair election or not, the Supreme Court making that steadily worse over the course of the past fifty years on behalf of Republican-fascism. Communism wasn't the only thing being given a test of time, so was the modernist morality-free morally "neutral" view of government, the regime of ideological secularism. It gave us Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and II and Trump. And it gave us the Supreme Court and the Republican caucus in the Congress and the like of Krysten Sinema to act as a roadblock to the good will of the majority of voters who are becoming discouraged and cynical as a result of this long stalemate of bad will and privilege. Joe Manchin's obstruction is more old-fashioned robber-baron American style corruption.
So, you see, you expecting me to be less critical of the commies than I am my own government is absurd. Communism was never an answer anymore than the total and childish absurdity of anarchism was. I never realized what a total fraud anarchism was until I read Emma Goldman in full instead of lines taken out to be put on posters and buttons as advertised in old lefty magazines. Do they still sell those things? If you want to see what anarchism would lead to, look at the tragedy of any country where legitimate civil authority breaks down or a children's playground without responsible adult supervision is absent. The bullies and the gangsters and thugs rule. As they do under Marxism. Marx was a great critic of other peoples' ideas, he was a terrible judge of his own. He was a credulous believer in some of the stupidest ideas of both 18th and 19th century culture, especially materialism which is bound to always end in despotism because it rejects the possibility of morality. Whatever moral or merely sentimental content in Marx's least cold and depraved work there is, it is there despite his ideological materialism. His creation of an amoral system and misidentifying that with the supposed reliability of physical science would insure that what he made was an infernal engine of oppression and murder. Darwin did the same thing, only he was less encumbered with an emotional connection to those he was fully prepared to see die for the greater glory of the powerful and wealthy.
No comments:
Post a Comment