The saying, “Every woman is a whore” is actually much more demeaning to the man who speaks it than it to women. By reducing woman to the lowest common denominator, the misogynist actually, only reveals his own crassness. He demonstrates, that in his own imagination, every woman must be inferior, because he cannot imagine the world being otherwise. Obviously, a whore, requires a whore-monger, and the whore-monger, is at the very least equal in the exchange, and often I would argue the superior participant. Therefore, if every woman is a whore, than every man is a whore-monger. This idea that women are selfish and money-grubbing, while men are somehow the sole guardians of love and honor is simply bullshit. When the hatred of women, rests on nothing more than an conflict of interests between the sexes, to declare one necessarily better than the other, without any regard to the context is simply illogical. Meaning, whatever anger an individual man might have towards women as a group, a great part of that anger comes from an internal fault which needs correction, rather that simply from the wickedness of woman.
Materialism vs. Idealism, Dualism vs. Libertarianism vs. Hard Determinism
The Marxist-Leninists insist that they are materialists, and that in their materialism they differ sharply with the utopian socialists, who are based only in the world of ideas and are therefore impotent in real struggle.
Materialism being the belief that the interactions of “Matter” is the source of all of out ideas, and that our ideas, and therefore ideals, cannot exist apart from matter.
I don’t object. I live in the material world afterall. I am a material being.
However, “Marxism” without ideals appears to be a very harsh ideology, which I find a hard time visualizing entirely apart from ideals.
Go on any, website of the extreme left, and read any standard article, and you will find them expressing “Ideals” since after all, we as human being speak in terms of ideals.
Isn’t this a contradiction?
Seeing, as I understand that living in the material world, I am the subject of forces I cannot control, pre-determined forces, I am certainly no libertarian, but that doesn’t mean I give up on all self-determination towards liberty, as small as I may be against the tide of economic determination. I have always been, therefore, a dualist of some sort, supporting both the individuals struggle for liberty, and the laws of determinism.
How does Marxist materialism differ, from all the other philosophers who uphold dualism, and materialism?
Philosophies which combine contradictions, as there is no other way of resolving them, other than by tolerating both.
Do Marxist-Leninists realize, that although they might object to the Bourgois-liberal historian categorizing them as being no different than Fascists, that despite important differences, they do in fact, on a merely amateur level share much more in common with Nationalists, Fascists, Populists, Social-democrates, Trotskites, Left-Anarchists and the like?
Furthermore, why does it seem that the “Correct line” is so difficult for Orthodox Marxist-Leninists to uphold? Why is is, that even the successor of Enver Hoxha, the icon and symbol of anti-revisionism, Ramiz Alia, restored capitalism in Albania?
Other than merely predicting failure, in the form of “counter-revolutions” and “betrayals” can those who defend Marxist-Leninism, have some kind of eternal moral by which they can justify all of the actions and reactions, which are taken in this process of philosphy through action?
Nevertheless, as much as I can respect both democracy itself and the crushing of ruling-class democracy in the name of a desired objective, it does seem to me that the very structure of the system itself requires this very two-faced expression, “Democratic centralism.”
Take for example the “democratic” question on the subject of Stalin’s “Aggravation of class struggle under socialism” or Trotsky’s line, “Continuation of class struggle within the party.”
Which is correct?
If I am right the Trotskites equate the Marx-Lenin-Stalin line, with Fascism because it holds “the Party” together as a united unit or “nation.” (Even while it isn’t actually a nation, but a cross-national party, acting as a united-nation.)
While the Marx-Lenin-Trotsky line would claim that the divisions which continue to exist within the party should be taken as a continuation of class struggle?
In practice, what is the difference?
Stalin holds a system together after a revolution, and plans to continue changing certain things gradually, when that change is possible. Meaning he first has to deal with the outside threats of the capitalists, and the internal threats of dissent and the growing uncomfortableness of those dissenting.
Trotsky on the other hand, wants to continue revolution directly without regard, to disagreement within, and the coming threats of other states without.
Is my assessment correct?
So why, is it that those of us who originate on the populist-nationalist anti-liberal right wing are more willing to identify nationalism with Stalin’s Communism, and consider it a positive thing, while Trotskites take it as negative, and M-L’ers themselves deny it.
Stalin is a “Community-ist” and a “Party-ist” and in this, preserves nations, institutions and peoples, while Trotsky is a “Break-up-ist” who insists on changing the definition of class, in order to meet some ill-defined objective of perfect human equality.
Would the Marxist-Leninist please respond, as I am trying to understand what exactly your view is, and why you justify, Stalin’s position behind his actions, on behalf of that portion of the worlds “working class” which fell under their political control?
Yes, I finally got around to reading, “1984.” It wasn’t cool. It wasn’t scary. It wasn’t even thrilling. It read like the very poorly written erotic novel of a jilted liberal goth, who got beat up by his fellow punks, because, he just wasn’t revolutionary enough. Sad.
A lot of people when discussing this novel, act as if it is some big revelation that the character of Goldstein is in fact a representation of Leon Trotsky. For me, however, this was no bottle of vodka. Then there was the hilarious anti-sex league! Oh, could there be anything dirtier to put in such a deep, deep, novel. As if we are seriously suppose to believe it with wide eyes. Sometimes, a little denial is exactly what is needed.
I suppose my heart was suppose to break, when we read of the poor people who can’t get razor blades. Just grow a beard for Big Brothers sake! “The Proletarians are Animals!” Right, so that would be Stalinism, you are critiquing there?
What is surprising however, is how despite Orwell’s simplistic straw-men, and despite how, quite frankly, Mark Twain was a better propagandist for the modern world than Orwell is against it, this book gets so much positive reputation. 2 + 2 = 5! How horrible! As if the guiding of false thinking doesn’t already go on without an evil totalitarian state.
Orwell believed that both Communism and Fascism were perversions of true Social-Democracy. He is constantly credited with being so insightful in this. In realizing that people don’t just want comfort in life. They want meaning, and meaning leads to evil totalitarianism. No, Shit, I want meaning! Here’s a question, how do you execute democracy without authority? Using Orwell’s Newspeak methods, it would be just as easy to write a “4891″ in which everybody reading, would be forced to come to the conclusion that the state is good.
We are at war with Eurasia! No, wait, strike that, Eastasia! Don’t you dare think we are at war with Eurasia! We don’t want you to who we are at war with. No, damn it, now we are at war, with Eurasia, tell those stupid workers we’re at war with Eurasia again! No, trash the history books. Quack! Quack!
War is an Artificial pacemaker,
hooked up to,
Who lived through slavery,
Was very Ignorant of his own Strength!
Under the Spiffy Chest-Nut tree,
I persecuted the state,
And the state persecuted me,
There they lie, and here we lie,
Under the Spiffy Chest-Nut Tree!