Krypto-Communist
6th October 2005, 01:12
I came across this by accident. It was written in a college newspaper not too long ago. Can you believe this ignoramus? He compares the teaching of Marxism to the "flat earth theory". Not to mention the gross display of ignornace regarding communist theory.
"Everybody will be equally poor blah blah blah"
"Communism has killed a billion people"
"Greed is inherent in human nature"
The stench of ignorance is strong with this one.
Also, may I make a suggestion? Can you create a new section dedicated solely to displaying the idiocy of capitalist supporting writers? People will search the net and post opinion pieces written by people who support America, and the capitalist system, bourgeoise liberals who don't have the guts to condemn American imperialism, etc..
Sound like a good idea?
Suppose for a moment that there was a science professor at this university who believed that the world was flat. He decided to discard every shred of evidence that was contrary to his belief. Furthermore, he indoctrinated thirty years’ worth of students with his distorted beliefs. The readings he assigned were taken from books printed from the time human beings believed that if a ship went too far, it would fall off the edge of the world. Because this professor was supposed to be an expert in his field, some students believed what he told them. His irrational beliefs began to spread. And he wasn’t the only one teaching things that contradicted the evidence of history. His colleagues shared his opinion. What should be the fate of such teachers? Provided the university kept them on staff, they should be laughingstocks among their academic colleagues in other universities. But what if they were lauded as great social benefactors for teaching lies? Wouldn’t that kind of world make you sick?
That exact phenomenon is happening in universities all over the country. It is not happening in science, however, but in politics and economics. The lie they’re teaching is Marxism.
This was driven home to me last year when I had to read the “Communist Manifesto” three separate times. Prior to that, I had read it once simply so I could see for myself the philosophical birthplace of everything that seemed so wrong to me. And for me, reading it once was enough. But professors from three different classes forced it into their required coursework. The only defense I can offer for them is that capitalism has been the predominate theme underlying American politics, philosophy, and literature for at least a century and a half. However, if a professor is going to give his class a piece of Marxist literature, he should, in the name of intellectual objectivity, give the class a piece of pro-capitalist, or at least anti-Marxist, literature of the same quality. When it comes to the Manifesto, the quality is very easy to match, and even easier to exceed.
Anyone who has read the Manifesto, and who has any grounding in legitimate philosophy and literature, will concur that it is an emotion-based document that relies on the anger and the political dissatisfaction of its audience. Nobody but Anton LaVey uses as many exclamation points in his writing as does Karl Marx. This is because Marx’s arguments all rely on the emotional response of his readers, who usually already agree with his ideas. The Manifesto was useful in its day for provoking revolutionary anger in an already restless and oppressed citizenry. But to hold it up as a piece of serious philosophy is ridiculous. For a philosophical argument to be legitimate, its author must start with a given premise and build a rational, step-by-step case from there. Emotional appeals are, by and large, completely removed from the process. When they are not, it often indicates that the author does not have reason on his side and must therefore appeal to emotion, reason’s most irrational yet powerful handmaiden.
If any self-proclaimed Marxist is proud to base his beliefs on this incoherent and emotional document, then I suggest he read it. Many college-age Marxists have not actually read the “Communist Manifesto.” So, if a Marxist has not read the philosophy to which he is lending his name, vote and lip-service, why would he claim to adhere to it? Perhaps it’s in an attempt to “break away from his roots” and “find himself,” to rebel, or to “express who he really is.” These are the same reasons people offer for dropping out of college, covering themselves in tattoos, or using drugs.
These reasons, if not philosophically safe and valid, are at least weak justifications. Or they would be, except for two problems. First, a rebellious college-aged Marxist is forgetting that his parents were probably of college age in the late 1960s or early seventies, and may have helped give birth to the movement he’s using to break away from his roots. Second, college Marxists are the rule, not the exception. If a person wants to break away from the mainstream, moving left is not the way to do it. So many politically vocal young people in universities are Marxists that if someone joins them, he’s entering the majority-ruled camp. That’s fine if he actually believes in Marxism, but if he wants to make a fashion statement, he’d better look twice at the statistics.
Why is a system that is such an obvious historical failure being held up by so many people in universities as something to admire and work towards? This system was the cause of the greatest social and political failure in the history of humankind— Soviet Russia. Has there ever been a philosophy that has caused as much hatred, bloodshed, misery and universal poverty as Communism? Not in the whole of human experience. And yet against all logic, so many raise their flags in support of Marxism. It’s no wonder all their flags are red—the history of their ‘philosophy’ is covered in innocent blood. And they still dare, as they did in the sixties, to paint the symbol of peace on their chests and palms.
We allow the college Marxists to ignore history, and that’s why they exist in such large numbers today. We can’t allow this any longer. Whenever anyone defends a philosophically sound system that stands in diametric opposition to Marxism, the Marxists sneer. They sneer at those of us who evaluate reality and history, who look at their great social experiments and judge their philosophy by the result of those experiments. Their system is a historical failure. Since Marxism is a forcefully egalitarian philosophy—and since it is impossible to raise all human beings higher than their individual maximum potentials for goodness, pureness, productivity, and success—the best the system can do is drag everyone down to match the lowest common denominator.
So why do proponents of this philosophy still exist? Some are stubborn. Most, more than likely, are making some kind of political fashion statement. But the guiltiest — i.e. the thinkers, the experts in their fields, those who are intelligent enough to know better — are performing an abhorrent intellectual evasion, and they are leading countless numbers of young minds down the sewer with them. If they think Marxism is a philosophy to be treated lightly, or ignored, or supported despite the damning finger of history, there is no greater accusation anyone can level against them than the blood of every human innocent that has been slaughtered in its name.
"Everybody will be equally poor blah blah blah"
"Communism has killed a billion people"
"Greed is inherent in human nature"
The stench of ignorance is strong with this one.
Also, may I make a suggestion? Can you create a new section dedicated solely to displaying the idiocy of capitalist supporting writers? People will search the net and post opinion pieces written by people who support America, and the capitalist system, bourgeoise liberals who don't have the guts to condemn American imperialism, etc..
Sound like a good idea?
Suppose for a moment that there was a science professor at this university who believed that the world was flat. He decided to discard every shred of evidence that was contrary to his belief. Furthermore, he indoctrinated thirty years’ worth of students with his distorted beliefs. The readings he assigned were taken from books printed from the time human beings believed that if a ship went too far, it would fall off the edge of the world. Because this professor was supposed to be an expert in his field, some students believed what he told them. His irrational beliefs began to spread. And he wasn’t the only one teaching things that contradicted the evidence of history. His colleagues shared his opinion. What should be the fate of such teachers? Provided the university kept them on staff, they should be laughingstocks among their academic colleagues in other universities. But what if they were lauded as great social benefactors for teaching lies? Wouldn’t that kind of world make you sick?
That exact phenomenon is happening in universities all over the country. It is not happening in science, however, but in politics and economics. The lie they’re teaching is Marxism.
This was driven home to me last year when I had to read the “Communist Manifesto” three separate times. Prior to that, I had read it once simply so I could see for myself the philosophical birthplace of everything that seemed so wrong to me. And for me, reading it once was enough. But professors from three different classes forced it into their required coursework. The only defense I can offer for them is that capitalism has been the predominate theme underlying American politics, philosophy, and literature for at least a century and a half. However, if a professor is going to give his class a piece of Marxist literature, he should, in the name of intellectual objectivity, give the class a piece of pro-capitalist, or at least anti-Marxist, literature of the same quality. When it comes to the Manifesto, the quality is very easy to match, and even easier to exceed.
Anyone who has read the Manifesto, and who has any grounding in legitimate philosophy and literature, will concur that it is an emotion-based document that relies on the anger and the political dissatisfaction of its audience. Nobody but Anton LaVey uses as many exclamation points in his writing as does Karl Marx. This is because Marx’s arguments all rely on the emotional response of his readers, who usually already agree with his ideas. The Manifesto was useful in its day for provoking revolutionary anger in an already restless and oppressed citizenry. But to hold it up as a piece of serious philosophy is ridiculous. For a philosophical argument to be legitimate, its author must start with a given premise and build a rational, step-by-step case from there. Emotional appeals are, by and large, completely removed from the process. When they are not, it often indicates that the author does not have reason on his side and must therefore appeal to emotion, reason’s most irrational yet powerful handmaiden.
If any self-proclaimed Marxist is proud to base his beliefs on this incoherent and emotional document, then I suggest he read it. Many college-age Marxists have not actually read the “Communist Manifesto.” So, if a Marxist has not read the philosophy to which he is lending his name, vote and lip-service, why would he claim to adhere to it? Perhaps it’s in an attempt to “break away from his roots” and “find himself,” to rebel, or to “express who he really is.” These are the same reasons people offer for dropping out of college, covering themselves in tattoos, or using drugs.
These reasons, if not philosophically safe and valid, are at least weak justifications. Or they would be, except for two problems. First, a rebellious college-aged Marxist is forgetting that his parents were probably of college age in the late 1960s or early seventies, and may have helped give birth to the movement he’s using to break away from his roots. Second, college Marxists are the rule, not the exception. If a person wants to break away from the mainstream, moving left is not the way to do it. So many politically vocal young people in universities are Marxists that if someone joins them, he’s entering the majority-ruled camp. That’s fine if he actually believes in Marxism, but if he wants to make a fashion statement, he’d better look twice at the statistics.
Why is a system that is such an obvious historical failure being held up by so many people in universities as something to admire and work towards? This system was the cause of the greatest social and political failure in the history of humankind— Soviet Russia. Has there ever been a philosophy that has caused as much hatred, bloodshed, misery and universal poverty as Communism? Not in the whole of human experience. And yet against all logic, so many raise their flags in support of Marxism. It’s no wonder all their flags are red—the history of their ‘philosophy’ is covered in innocent blood. And they still dare, as they did in the sixties, to paint the symbol of peace on their chests and palms.
We allow the college Marxists to ignore history, and that’s why they exist in such large numbers today. We can’t allow this any longer. Whenever anyone defends a philosophically sound system that stands in diametric opposition to Marxism, the Marxists sneer. They sneer at those of us who evaluate reality and history, who look at their great social experiments and judge their philosophy by the result of those experiments. Their system is a historical failure. Since Marxism is a forcefully egalitarian philosophy—and since it is impossible to raise all human beings higher than their individual maximum potentials for goodness, pureness, productivity, and success—the best the system can do is drag everyone down to match the lowest common denominator.
So why do proponents of this philosophy still exist? Some are stubborn. Most, more than likely, are making some kind of political fashion statement. But the guiltiest — i.e. the thinkers, the experts in their fields, those who are intelligent enough to know better — are performing an abhorrent intellectual evasion, and they are leading countless numbers of young minds down the sewer with them. If they think Marxism is a philosophy to be treated lightly, or ignored, or supported despite the damning finger of history, there is no greater accusation anyone can level against them than the blood of every human innocent that has been slaughtered in its name.