Socialist Conspiracy at BYU, according to parents

[_beastie]

So Beastie, you now essentially admit that you are a Marxist, and hence, a supporter of the works and consequences of Marxism as we know they have been manifest during the last century?

I admitted no such thing. But I'm not surprised that someone with as loose of a grasp on reality as you demonstrate would draw such a conclusion.

[_why me]

Hey, whyme, did you happen to read any of droopy and bcspace's comments on the LDS Republican Party thread? You may be interested in knowing that one cannot be a good Mormon and be a democrat and/or a liberal.

Republican Mormons are an interesting lot. I have had many arguments with them. Basically they are hypocrites. I have often been amazed just how republican Mormons can support welfare square and the lds' welfare system and yet, be against welfare for the poor in their society. It just doesn't make sense.

However, liberal capitalism creates poverty or the illusion of wealth in the middle class. Without volunteerism, the american system of social darwinist capitalism would fall like a house of cards. Its roots are in greed, selfish individualism and the survival of the fittest. However, through altruist volunteerism, the system survives.

Also, droopy and bcspace are US centered. They haven't a clue just where Mormons are on the european political system. They would be surprised just how many european lds support 'socialist' oriented parties in europe.

[_why me]

So Beastie, you now essentially admit that you are a Marxist, and hence, a supporter of the works and consequences of Marxism as we know they have been manifest during the last century?

To understand marx, you would need to understand the quality of life at his time for the working people. The quality of life was not very good. Marx observed capitalism in action, saw the suffering of the working people and began his critique of the capitalist system. And he was basically right on the button with his analysis. He was a humanist in orientation and saw socialism as a humane alternative to capitalism. But he did not invent socialism Before him, were groups of people who were called utopian socialists. Marx brought a scientific analysis to socialism and a devastating critique of capitalism.

[_why me]

Droopy,

If one looks at the history of capitalism, one would discover death and destruction. Capitalism had a terrible beginning as it exploited wage labor and sacrificed millions of people to a life of misery at the behest of profit for a few. And when one looks at american history and just how capitalism destroyed the native population because of its stress on profit and private property, well, there is much blood from sea to shining sea.

The father of the american capitalism system was adam smith and his free market invisible hand. And if you would read Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States, you will see just how undemocratic america was at the time of Joseph Smith as wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few. Also, you will read about many protests by average people against their enforced poverty.

[_huckelberry]

So Beastie, you now essentially admit that you are a Marxist, and hence, a supporter of the works and consequences of Marxism as we know they have been manifest during the last century?

I admitted no such thing. But I'm not surprised that someone with as loose of a grasp on reality as you demonstrate would draw such a conclusion.

Huckelberry adds: I was a bit suprised by this conclusion from Droopy. It is a conclusion so far from the evidence that it takes the breath away. But Droopy has repeated reminded us all of his stratospheric intelligence and oceanic grasp of philosphical principals. As he has repeatedly explained these abilities are far beyond our abilities, we should perhaps not be surprised when he is able to divine observations of this kind of subtlety which we do not understand.

It does go a fair ways to explain how he sees a world full of Marxists. It is a bit like a once famous song John Birch Society Blues. However in the song the Bircher finally gets a hint. that's fiction of course.

[_moksha]

I have often been amazed just how republican Mormons can support welfare square and the LDS' welfare system and yet, be against welfare for the poor in their society. It just doesn't make sense.

This probably relates back to the idea that politics has a stronger draw on people than religion and thus people subordinate the ideals of religion to the expediencies of politics. In this case, doing so creates a paradox.

[_Danna]

It doesn't get much stupider than this. Marx 'said' democracy leads naturally to communism - of course he would. Non-communists didn't believe him, and he has been proven wrong. Somewhat like those christian counter-cultists who warn that Mormonism leads to atheism. And how is a (context independent) 'republic' some sort of defense against communism where liberal democracy is not?

Marx never said that democracy leads naturally to communism. To make this assumption, one needs to assume that capitalism is democracy. And of course, it isn't at all. What Marx did say, is that capitalism because of its internal contradictions and because of the struggle between worker and capitalist will lead to socialism.

Capitalism is far from democratic. Just look at the United State where there are two political parties who compete for influence, and yet both parties represent the capitalist ideology.

Not to mention the enslavement of others by capitialism to enhance the capitalist market through colonialism and imperialism and low wages.

But I am not conflating captialism with democracy. I going to quote an essay citing Engels as well as Marx here, because I don't have time to spend this, Marx and Engels were well aligned. You arguing past me on a different topic, I was just commenting on the Marxist theory, generally. of political evolution. I am certainly not defending Marxism. And I wasn't commenting on capitalism. My point was that just because Marx said something, doesn't make it true. Link here:

In 1847, Engels wrote, “The communists, far from starting useless arguments with the democrats in the current situation, appear for the moment in all practical party matters as democrats. Democracy in all civilized lands has the political rule of the proletariat as a necessary consequence and the political rule of the proletariat is the first precondition of all communist measures.”

In the 1840’s and again in the 1860’s, I have suggested, Marx and Engels saw the socialist movement as growing out of and fulfilling the promise of the revolutionary democracy (socialist democracy would, in Hegelian terms, aufheben bourgeois democracy – not simply destroy it, but rather transform it)

The “truth of ” bourgeois democracy – the resolution of its internal contradictions, the preservation-transformation of all that is positive in it – is socialist democracy. Therefore, in tactical terms, Marx and Engels favored a united front with all democrats in the late eighteen forties and a united front of working class democrats and Marxists in the eighteen sixties. Experience eventually taught them that some of their earlier hopes – that universal suffrage in a country with a working class majority would automatically lead to socialism – were illusory. Engels, and later Luxemburg, saw that reaction could use bourgeois democracy as a last defense against socialist democracy.

But even then, their more sophisticated analysis of bourgeois democracy did not lead them to abandon their commitment to the democratic principle. Rather, as Luxemburg stated so plainly, Marxists now saw socialism as the necessary pre-condition for the desirable deepening of all that had been positive in bourgeois democracy, a task to be achieved by stripping the latter of its bourgeois integument. In short, contrary to what sometimes parades as “Marxism,” Marx and Engels were critical of bourgeois democracy, not because it was democratic, but because it was bourgeois, and they proposed to effect their critique in practice by utilizing the space provided by bourgeois democracy for the achievement of socialist democracy.

In short - because 'democracy did not in fact naturally evolve into socialism - later Marxists had to resort to other methods to bring about communism.

Marxists agree with you on capitalism (same essay):

So when one asserts a connection between capitalism and bourgeois democracy, one is talking – as is the case with almost all Marxist “laws” – about a tendency, a structural predisposition, which can be and often is modified or even denied. In the extreme instance of fascism, capitalism becomes, of course, openly anti-democratic. And yet, with all of these qualifications Marxism does see a link between the bourgeois economy and bourgeois democracy.

[_harmony]

Droopy,

If one looks at the history of capitalism, one would discover death and destruction. Capitalism had a terrible beginning as it exploited wage labor and sacrificed millions of people to a life of misery at the behest of profit for a few. And when one looks at american history and just how capitalism destroyed the native population because of its stress on profit and private property, well, there is much blood from sea to shining sea.

What is really ironic is that Droopy would have been one of the exploited, as would 95% of the rest of us too.

[_bcspace]

Not exactly.

Yes, exactly. The "human face" is just left wing propaganda.

[_why me]

Danna,

To claim that democracy does not lead to socialism would be incorrect. For marx and engels, democracy could only come about through the rule of the working class at the expense of the capitalist class. This would lead to communism. America, for marx and engels, was a bourgeois democracy, the rule of the capitalists. Which of course would be correct.