3 ms·

Multiple time you omitted or avoided to respond to the obvious fact that what you call "Marxist" (which you use to evoke a negative red-scare emotion) is in fac

by jahaja 6y ago

Multiple time you omitted or avoided to respond to the obvious fact that what you call "Marxist" (which you use to evoke a negative red-scare emotion) is in fact Democratic Socialism - the attempt to extend democracy - not a Stalinist dictatorship. The issue is that extended democracy implies an extension to the economic sphere, and thus an overhaul of private property relations. This is the actual threat that is attacked by capitalists, and the Stalinist regime is used to paint all threats to these undemocratic institutions in a totalitarian light.

rayiner 6y ago
I'm using Marxism in exactly the same sense you are: people advocating for "an overhaul of private property relations." That is, as a I understand it, what "democratic socialism" really means. I don't use the term "democratic socialism" because its proponents in America have co-opted that term to mean Nordic-style "capitalism with a robust welfare state" (which I think would be fine). As far as I can tell, though, those economies do not embody the "overhaul of private property relations" you're talking about. After all, Article 73 of the Danish Constitution declares: "The right of property shall be inviolable." (Heritage Foundation ranks Denmark one of the 10 freest economies in the world, ahead of the U.S.) The concept is likewise enshrined in Article 17 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. The "overhaul" you're talking about is in and of itself a totalitarian violation of human rights.
- jahaja 6y ago
  I think your reply proves my point that it's not really about democracy at all. It's just about a fervent defense of the current undemocratic and unjust private property relations. What do you expect to find in constitutions written by free market economies? > The concept is likewise enshrined in Article 17 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights False, it was left intentionally vague to not explicitly endorse private property in the capitalist sense. > The "overhaul" you're talking about is in and of itself a totalitarian violation of human rights. That's also on point for Propertarianism. Where private property has been sacralized and to argue against it is against the law of nature, even if it's wrong and unjust. "The King declared that absolute monarchy is a divine right and any resistance is thus blasphemy and shall be dealt with accordingly".
  - rayiner 6y ago
    > I think your reply proves my point that it's not really about democracy at all. I never said it was about democracy! > It's just about a fervent defense of the current undemocratic and unjust private property relations. I would characterize it as a fervent defense of British constitutionalism, tracing back to the Magna Carta, but yes, the current system of property relations is a part of that. But it seems like we're not in any disagreement about my original post: I expressed worry that Marxist ideas were resurgent. We seem to be on the same page about what I mean by "Marxism." And you don't appear to disagree that those ideas are resurgent--and therefore my originally stated worry was not baseless after all.
    - jahaja 6y ago
      Well, I certainly hope they are, but I doubt that they are as institutionalized as you seem to suggest. I also think that using "Marxism" for a democratic movement and ideas is done to intentionally associate them with the authoritarian regimes of the 20th century.

by jahaja 6y ago

rayiner 6y ago

I'm using Marxism in exactly the same sense you are: people advocating for "an overhaul of private property relations." That is, as a I understand it, what "democratic socialism" really means. I don't use the term "democratic socialism" because its proponents in America have co-opted that term to mean Nordic-style "capitalism with a robust welfare state" (which I think would be fine). As far as I can tell, though, those economies do not embody the "overhaul of private property relations" you're talking about. After all, Article 73 of the Danish Constitution declares: "The right of property shall be inviolable." (Heritage Foundation ranks Denmark one of the 10 freest economies in the world, ahead of the U.S.) The concept is likewise enshrined in Article 17 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. The "overhaul" you're talking about is in and of itself a totalitarian violation of human rights.

jahaja 6y ago
I think your reply proves my point that it's not really about democracy at all. It's just about a fervent defense of the current undemocratic and unjust private property relations. What do you expect to find in constitutions written by free market economies? > The concept is likewise enshrined in Article 17 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights False, it was left intentionally vague to not explicitly endorse private property in the capitalist sense. > The "overhaul" you're talking about is in and of itself a totalitarian violation of human rights. That's also on point for Propertarianism. Where private property has been sacralized and to argue against it is against the law of nature, even if it's wrong and unjust. "The King declared that absolute monarchy is a divine right and any resistance is thus blasphemy and shall be dealt with accordingly".
- rayiner 6y ago
  > I think your reply proves my point that it's not really about democracy at all. I never said it was about democracy! > It's just about a fervent defense of the current undemocratic and unjust private property relations. I would characterize it as a fervent defense of British constitutionalism, tracing back to the Magna Carta, but yes, the current system of property relations is a part of that. But it seems like we're not in any disagreement about my original post: I expressed worry that Marxist ideas were resurgent. We seem to be on the same page about what I mean by "Marxism." And you don't appear to disagree that those ideas are resurgent--and therefore my originally stated worry was not baseless after all.
  - jahaja 6y ago
    Well, I certainly hope they are, but I doubt that they are as institutionalized as you seem to suggest. I also think that using "Marxism" for a democratic movement and ideas is done to intentionally associate them with the authoritarian regimes of the 20th century.