4 ms·

About as biased as a source you can find, considering this is from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute [1], a right-wing pressure group designed to spread pro

About as biased as a source you can find, considering this is from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute [1], a right-wing pressure group designed to spread propaganda in college campuses. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercollegiate_Studies_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercollegiate_Studies_Instit...

CryptoPunk 6y ago
>>right-wing pressure group That's an odd way to describe human rights advocacy. Almost as disingenuous as describing a person who freely accepts a wage in exchange for providing a service as a "wage slave", or like Engels, decries private property while amassing a fortune in it.
- dzzo 6y ago
  That’s an odd way to describe... oh never mind.
- weregiraffe 6y ago
  It's odd to describe a person who freely accepts a lifetime of servitude in exchange for his live as a slave. They could have chosen death instead, after all. /s
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    Providing a service is not "servitude" in the context of 'slavery'. As for working as an alternative to starving, as Frédéric Bastiat wrote 170 years ago: "Man recoils from trouble, from suffering; and yet he is condemned by nature to the suffering of privation, if he does not take the trouble to work. He has to choose, then, between these two evils. What means can he adopt to avoid both? There remains now, and there will remain, only one way, which is, to enjoy the labor of others. Such a course of conduct prevents the trouble and the satisfaction from preserving their natural proportion, and causes all the trouble to become the lot of one set of persons, and all the satisfaction that of another. This is the origin of slavery and of plunder, whatever its form may be - whether that of wars, imposition, violence, restrictions, frauds, etc. - monstrous abuses, but consistent with the thought which has given them birth. Oppressors should be detested and resisted - they can hardly be called absurd."
joe_the_user 6y ago
Respectfully to the moderators. I'm surprised this has decent comments given it is indeed an extraordinarily biased source and engages flagrant, extreme attacks on anything on the left. Seriously.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  I think that it serves to show how used the left-leaning crowd is to such baseless attacks and how patient they are. As far as biased sources go, this one offers an interesting view and brings up the point made elsewhere, that the people who struggle daily to put food on the table may not have the bandwidth to think about global solutions to systemic problems. Also, it prompts me to remind people that neither Engels nor Marx told anyone they should sell all their material possessions and give to the poor. That would be Jesus and it's surprising that they are so often confused.
  - joe_the_user 6y ago
    Also, it prompts me to remind people that neither Engels nor Marx told anyone they should sell all their material possessions and give to the poor. That would be Jesus and it's surprising that they are so often confused. Yep, that's a good point. But ... the thing about this, the article raises things to think about in the reader. But the fact selection and the approach is essentially a standard hit piece. I'm pretty sure the OP doesn't know precisely the point you raise, that Marx and Engels didn't pretend to be Jesus. And the author is writing to other assuming that showing Engels as Hedonist will sink his appeal. But yes, the actual facts are more interesting than OP intends. But, as someone who other contexts moderates discussion, I think this has the problem of setting a bad example. People start to ask: "If this 100% bad faith article results in good discussion, why can't we do more of it? Why can't I do it? Now everything from Turning Point USA and such is OK to post" etc. Which is to say, you've gotten some benefits and you've paid some costs. The benefits are some OK but not extraordinary discussions of Marx and Engels, the costs are confusing your moderation policy. Even though I'm sympathetic to generally positive discussion of Engels, I don't think this is worth the cost. Just my rough calculation.

CryptoPunk 6y ago

>>right-wing pressure group That's an odd way to describe human rights advocacy. Almost as disingenuous as describing a person who freely accepts a wage in exchange for providing a service as a "wage slave", or like Engels, decries private property while amassing a fortune in it.

dzzo 6y ago
That’s an odd way to describe... oh never mind.
weregiraffe 6y ago
It's odd to describe a person who freely accepts a lifetime of servitude in exchange for his live as a slave. They could have chosen death instead, after all. /s
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  Providing a service is not "servitude" in the context of 'slavery'. As for working as an alternative to starving, as Frédéric Bastiat wrote 170 years ago: "Man recoils from trouble, from suffering; and yet he is condemned by nature to the suffering of privation, if he does not take the trouble to work. He has to choose, then, between these two evils. What means can he adopt to avoid both? There remains now, and there will remain, only one way, which is, to enjoy the labor of others. Such a course of conduct prevents the trouble and the satisfaction from preserving their natural proportion, and causes all the trouble to become the lot of one set of persons, and all the satisfaction that of another. This is the origin of slavery and of plunder, whatever its form may be - whether that of wars, imposition, violence, restrictions, frauds, etc. - monstrous abuses, but consistent with the thought which has given them birth. Oppressors should be detested and resisted - they can hardly be called absurd."

joe_the_user 6y ago

Respectfully to the moderators. I'm surprised this has decent comments given it is indeed an extraordinarily biased source and engages flagrant, extreme attacks on anything on the left. Seriously.

rbanffy 6y ago
I think that it serves to show how used the left-leaning crowd is to such baseless attacks and how patient they are. As far as biased sources go, this one offers an interesting view and brings up the point made elsewhere, that the people who struggle daily to put food on the table may not have the bandwidth to think about global solutions to systemic problems. Also, it prompts me to remind people that neither Engels nor Marx told anyone they should sell all their material possessions and give to the poor. That would be Jesus and it's surprising that they are so often confused.
- joe_the_user 6y ago
  Also, it prompts me to remind people that neither Engels nor Marx told anyone they should sell all their material possessions and give to the poor. That would be Jesus and it's surprising that they are so often confused. Yep, that's a good point. But ... the thing about this, the article raises things to think about in the reader. But the fact selection and the approach is essentially a standard hit piece. I'm pretty sure the OP doesn't know precisely the point you raise, that Marx and Engels didn't pretend to be Jesus. And the author is writing to other assuming that showing Engels as Hedonist will sink his appeal. But yes, the actual facts are more interesting than OP intends. But, as someone who other contexts moderates discussion, I think this has the problem of setting a bad example. People start to ask: "If this 100% bad faith article results in good discussion, why can't we do more of it? Why can't I do it? Now everything from Turning Point USA and such is OK to post" etc. Which is to say, you've gotten some benefits and you've paid some costs. The benefits are some OK but not extraordinary discussions of Marx and Engels, the costs are confusing your moderation policy. Even though I'm sympathetic to generally positive discussion of Engels, I don't think this is worth the cost. Just my rough calculation.