Dreams Of Violent Revolution Are The Milquetoast Fantasies Of The Scribbling, Tenured Class - Hate Mail

MARXISM IS NOT the most radical* form of socialism, the socialism that insists that the workers rightfully own the means of production and the profits of their work is entirely more radical.  So radical that something like that was Marx's dreamed of end of things in which even the state would disappear in an era of harmony and cooperation among People.  Some anarchists preach something similar, though anyone who expects human beings will ever live peaceful lives without some form of civil authority of some kind are unrealistic romantics.  There has never been such a thing in groups of people larger than a few dozen and I doubt there has ever been anything like it even in groups that small.

Marxist socialism in practice replaced the investor class with the gangsters who ran undemocratic governments, the history of Marxists with power is a history of worker oppression from the time when Lenin and Trotsky suppressed unions with bloodshed worse than the worst union suppressing atrocities that happened in the gangster gilded era in the United States and as they were beginning to take power in Russia.  It is remarkable how clueless those dear old American commies were as to why they couldn't gain a real toe-hold among "the masses" in the United States who, for some reason, passed up the chance to have what their heroes in the Soviet Union (later China) were giving The People in that imaginary worker's paradise and unimaginable oppression and terror. It's almost as remarkable how few of America's commies chose to flee this terrible place to live in Lenin's then Stalin's, etc. worker's paradise.  Of course, most of them were in the scribbling class, not the laboring class so it was all imaginary.  And not a few of them had tenure at American universities and colleges or good jobs on the movies, with a good package of benefits.

Imperfect as it is, as fraught with gangsterism as it is, the minimal democracy of the United States was always a better deal even for its beleaguered underclass than what communist rule brought virtually everywhere it was tried.  I will admit that Cuba, in some limited ways, did some good things there but at such a cost, I might not choose to live there but I would bet lots of Americans would, at times, like to access their medical system, ours given way to investors and managers and physician-gangsters.  Marxists are just more ruthless gangsters than those of the past in the United States, who had to contend to an extent with voters and who, some of them, retained some vestiges of Abrahamic religion either through family heritage or through even some of the more twisted forms of the Baptists, Calvinism or Catholicism.  That has certainly diminished in the succeeding generations of America's indigenous criminal classes, the old money rich, the new money rich, those in the white supremacist branch of America's indigenous fascism.  Now the modern sci-tech-age billionaires are, for the most part, inoculated with scientistic materialism and, so, are unbothered by Abrahamic morality as the worst of the Marxists were, even those who profess a religion or came from it like that poster boy for American gangster-billionaires, Peter Thiel, who came from an "evangelical" background.  I have no doubt that if our billionaire gangsters succeed in what they've partially achieved under Republican-fascism and in the Roberts Court, actual governance of the country, they will be as bad as the worst Marxists have been.

I don't think even the democratic-workers own the means- socialism I believed in is sufficient as more than a subsidiary tactic, in the end. I've had some experience of cooperatives and some of those who participate in them are pretty self-seeking and ruthless.  Some of them are as cold and stingy as the coldest tech-billionaires.  It takes more than some kind of nifty economic-legalistic scheme to produce a decent life for all.  I don't think there is any prospect of a decent life unless it is based on what The Law and the Prophets said, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, as both Jesus and Hillel confirmed was the basis of Abrahamic religion. That's my bottom line, that and the commandments to do to the least among us as we would do for The Lord.  You do that, you get equality, democracy and the possibility of as decent a life as it is possible for humans to produce, the only legitimate goal of all labor and wealth creation, the only legitimate goal of government and civil law.

* Re-reading this to edit it, I wonder if it isn't the extreme violence of Marxism that leads foolish People to mistake that for "radicalism" in that context.  From my considerations of Darwinism and the place that violence has in its imaginary force of progress and quite similarly in Marxism, I wonder if the bizarre notion that violence adds to that twisted sense of virtue, the delusion of of manly facing up to things doesn't have way too strong a hold on the imaginations of would-be radicals, so many of them buffalo-butted scholars whose only utility on a barricade would be to provide the enemy with a better target instead of someone who might fight.  If you took all of the actually productive work of all the academic Marxists put together, I'd bet it wouldn't buy lunch from them from a food cart.  There is nothing more radical in any political-economics than the teachings of Jesus, nothing more radical in its means or, especially, in its goals.