Perhaps Plato would agree :-)... but I'm not so sure, I think to be a successful politician you need good instincts as to what speaks to people in the first place. Maybe you need some philosophy to be a 'good' one, but then you probably won't be a successful one.

It’s true, a fair amount of demagoguery and sophistry goes into political campaigning, which is we know is antithetical to some philosophers. But in their defense, I think going over the heads of intellectuals in order to appeal to the masses is an important skill. For me, the problem of an ideology is not whether it is put forth in an emotional manner, but whether or not the ideology is correct.

A “sense of justice” is found in chimps, who will protest if they learn others receive more for the same work. Whether you call it nature, God, or what have you, justice is primary to any formal declarations.

I’m not sure they are at odds with each other since a great deal of philosophy goes into forging ideology. But perhaps one should begin with philosophy before venturing into politics.

My understanding was that in the case of Miller, we have someone more than externally endorsing someone but present within Trump's circle.

So in this case, do you feel this is insignificant/not worth considering, a difference not worth considering, or otherwise find other parallels in Dem or left candidates?

You do not think there are reasons to suppose a higher support of Trump among alt right and racists or a significant difference of support?

Do you find the alt right element to be negligible now, negligible before any supposed "turn" or both?

Miller is definitely a hardliner on immigration, but I’m not sure that makes him a racist. However, I am welcome to learning about any racist statements he has made or policies he has written.

I am not concerned with who racists support or what they think. Identity politics, however, seems to be something Biden wants to institutionalize at the highest levels of government. That is a clear path to racism.

I was never concerned about the alt-right. I was more concerned about the free press they and other such groups were given.

No, I do not think one man’s views can be said to be shared by any majority of people. I do not follow or care much about alr-right figures, but I think Trump has largely lost their support according to some reports (example). Spenser supported Yang, now Biden. David Duke endorsed Gabbard. I’m sure some support Trump. I do think there are racists who support every candidate.

He was the alt-right poster boy for the media in the previous election, and was used to great effect to convince pliant minds of guilt by association. I wager he finally figured out that Trump wasn’t the great racist white hope the media made him out to be.

Personally I don’t judge a candidate by who supports them.

If you want to play that game, how about Richard Spencer?

Do you not view racism as a factor in Trump's base?

I do not.

The identity politics, the government bailouts, the tax-raising, the “diversity and inclusion” (racism), the free tuition, the “enforcement mechanism” to achieve net-zero emissions...mostly the overall inclination towards increasing political power at the expense of social power strike me as particularity disconcerting.

Not on board with any inquiry into truth. I guess if the Donald says it, that's all we need to know, yes?

An “inquiry into truth”? Is that the euphemism we’re using these days?

https://joebiden.com/

I’m not on board with that. More taxpayer dollars wasted on frivolous conspiracy theories. Have you read Biden’s policies?

Right off the top of the dome. I got more where that came from.

That’s a lie, I have said plenty on all of the above topics. Unfortunately you’re blinded by your hatred, as are most, and you all will tear down this country to defeat the folk devils you yourself have invented. You can break free of this, Tim. It involves thinking for yourself.

That's right, nos4, that's all it is, and that's all we are. Right?

I hate to generalize, but yes, pretty much. I have seen little that isn’t gossip, conspiracy theory, or political correctness, all of it compounded by simple election propaganda and celebrity endorsement.

The thread does not refer to Marxists, but specifically to Marx.

True, the term Marxist, like almost all political terms, is quite ambiguous. But when someone claims to be a Christian, it's quite rare for him to be inspired by the Koran, isn't it? And communists who defend capitalism is a contradiction in terms. These are pretty obvious things. But conservative politicians want to put all communists in the same boat and attribute to them all the barbarities of some. This is very typical of political propaganda. This should be avoided in a serious discussion.

Not the same barbarities, just the same bad ideas. Besides, capitalists shouldn’t defend communists lest they lose ther capitalism membership, right?

Why? I don't care if you are conservative or liberal. After all, I'm not going out for a drink with you.

Fair enough. I’ll assume you are.

The RNC was a huge disappointment because, unlike the DNC, it didn’t have great performances like Billy Porter.

There is a point that trade and capital have been a part of the human experience since prehistoric times.

On these grounds I would argue that trade and capital has never been systematized, and that “capitalism” was always an expression of human nature rather than a system someone invented and convinced people to act out.

That’s fair if it was sarcastic. The word “socialism” is often used wrong in the US. This is not only true of anti-socialists, but of self-proclaimed socialists who point to the Nordic model as socialism, like Bernie Sanders for instance. I suppose then that “socialism” is either a term of abuse or praise (depending on whom it’s coming from) in the United States rather than an economic system. And it’s true, the US is a massive welfare state with astronomical levels of government spending.

Talking about white privilege is required in order to understand the effects/affects of racism. The removal of white privilege would effectively be and/or signal the end of racism. That does not require taking anything away from white people. It requires cultivating a society where white privilege no longer exists because no one suffers the effects/affects and/or injuries stemming from racism.

The irony is the only way to “remove white privilege” is to believe the same as the racist, except to discriminate “positively”. First you must believe that your skin color offers you some sort of advantage, that a dark skin color offers disadvantage, then treat people accordingly. All this talk about how whites are better off and have an upper hand because they are white reeks to me of white supremacy. It’s no wonder that people reject it out of hand.

This is true, but tragically his fallacious and emotional approach to this topic is probably the approach of most people, at least in America. I understand the position of the intellectual who sees himself above it, there is truth to it, but it is also a form of arrogance. The Left has been obliterated precisely because its repose to people like NOS4A2, has simply been to declare them ignorant. And no doubt they are, but the error, even though it is incredibly juvenile, must be refuted. Simply dismissing people like him leaves them with with the impression that they have a powerful argument that cannot be refuted. Tragic, and fallacious as it is, it leaves them with the impression that their negative stance is both comprehensive and true. It is simply not good enough for intellectuals to use an ad hominem, believing it gives them an excuse to evade their responsibility of refutation. No doubt, there is a time to walk away and leave ignorance to itself, precisely because it wastes time, but in this case, the very likely fact that NOS4A2's position is common, provides good grounds to refute it.

Yet you said the “the greatest socialist country that has ever existed on the face of the earth”, which is the biggest load of shite anyone has ever written In this thread. You have refuted nothing, unfortunately, and have only solidified my belief in that I am reading pure wind.

If they defend capitalism, they can't be Marxists. It would be contradictory to everything Marx wrote and predicted. Whether or not they benefit from it is another matter. We're discussing whether Marx was right, not whether he was honest. Don't get off topic.

I denied that those parties that call themselves communist a) are communist (that is, to defend the communist revolution); b) have the slightest power to do so.

Trying to draw a circle around who is or isn’t a Marxist or communist is a fools errand. If people call themselves Marxists or communists, however, it is a good indication that they are or are at least trying to be.

I thought the topic was Marx’s “The Nationalization of the Land”, which I said has been tried and failed to result in anything Marx predicted in that piece.

Why do you want to know? Would anything happen if I was? I think you should know from what I've written. There are some things I think Marx was right about and some things I don't. Does that make me a Marxist?

I was asking because I didn’t want to assume that you were.

Even if he's not I can assure you that you are a socialist, and would never pack up your goods and move to a purely capitalist country. American is actually the greatest socialist country that has ever existed on the face of the earth. This is not my opinion, this is an empirical fact. America redistributed 4.5 Trillion dollars into the stock market. And the Pentagon cannot account for a whopping 21 Trillion dollars! But you know, a medical system for your aging grandmother is too expensive, it could end up costing 1 Trillion dollars! America has engaged in more wealth redistribution than all the Marxist and Socialist countries combined!

It’s just not true that the US is a socialist country. The vast bulk of the means of production is privately owned.

Trump dismisses secret audio of sister calling him ‘cruel': ‘Who cares?’

“Every day it’s something else, who cares?” President Trump said in a statement, according to the Washington Post. “I miss my brother, and I’ll continue to work hard for the American people. Not everyone agrees, but the results are obvious. Our country will soon be stronger than ever before!”

Gossip-mongers and their readers care, but that’s about it.

For God's sake! Apart from the Communist-Capitalist parties that are as Marxist as my aunt - well my aunt is quite a bit more than they are - the rest are just unimportant residues that fade away on their own. The world is capitalist, man. If you were afraid, you can relax.

That’s nonsense. They may benefit from the current economic hegemony, like Marx and everyone here, but they spread the gospel of Marx wherever they go. Are you a Marxist?

And one wonders:
Why is the scarecrow of communism still being used when there are virtually no communists today? Why does it keep coming back to a 19th century thinker who's already quite old-fashioned?

I can think of only two possibilities:
1. To throw a smokescreen over the problems of capitalism.
2. Because Marx was right about a few basic points about capitalism.

They are not exclusive. There may be others I can't think of now, of course.

There are plenty of communists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_parties

The history speaks for itself. So why would we shy away from criticism?

There is so much error and confusion here I do not think I can address all of it. This is the tragic fate of our time. Misinformation cannot be countered because it's easier and swifter to assert distortions than it is to refute them.

The land was controlled by the party and the supreme leader in every case you have cited. These were not democratic movements. The workers were neither free or in power. This is a serious point because it refutes your false, straw man, poisoning of the well, example. You are of course, free to deny it and believe what you want, but this will not make your belief accurate.

I never said it was a democratic movement. In fact I said the opposite. My point was that the nationalization of property didn’t result in the conditions Marx predicted, that it often, even necessarily resulted in murder and plunder.

With all due respect, the fact that you would even ask such a question can only prove that you haven't read Marx. His entire program was about the worker's emancipating themselves from a class system of oppression. This had nothing to do with dictators or new ruling class parties.

With all due respect, in the following quotes you cited nothing about “democratic nationalizations”, which was obviously a phrase you made up. There is no such thing as “democratic nationalizations” when it comes to appropriating someone’s property, and no amount of glittering generalities will change that.

You have here cited a quote you don't even comprehend. Marx was specifically asked about violence, I can't remember where exactly, there are 50 volumes, but his reply was, (paraphrase) "of course, we don't advocate violence, but the ruling class will not let us have democracy." And this is indeed the tragic truth of revolution. The rulers are desperate to hold onto power and will use violence to crush dissent. They will not allow democracy!

The communist revolutions have led to despotism and terror, and have themselves crushed dissent with violence. The Velvet Revolution, on the other hand, was a revolution for democracy against communist rule, which was rightfully dismantled in favor of a parliamentary republic wherein they could hold their first democratic elections in half a century.

Unto whom was the land nationalized in the examples you cite? Were these democratic nationalizations?

Like I already said, it was given to the peasantry. No, they were not “democratic nationalizations”, which I think is a nonsense phrase. Since we’re asking for citations, whereabouts did Marx speak of “democratic nationalizations”?

Please give a citation where Marx's political theory validates the actions of Mao?

“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.”

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

“ The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch04.htm

“ The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm

Answer my questions. All you are doing is asserting the same narrative over and over again. Please provide citations to back up your assertions. Please stop blaming Marx for Right Wing dictators and totalitarian political parties.

Bother, if I don't soon find intelligent life on this Forum I am departing to greener shores.

Mao was a Marxist-Leninist communist by his own admission. Article one of the Chinese constitution clearly states that “The People’s Republic of China is a socialist state under the people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants.” I’m not sure where you get this right-wing stuff, but it’s purely ahistorical.

“We are Marxists, and Marxism teaches that in our approach to a problem we should start from objective facts, not from abstract definitions, and that we should derive our guiding principles, policies and measures from an analysis of these facts.”

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_08.htm

“We Communists never conceal our political views. Definitely and beyond all doubt, our future or maximum program is to carry China forward to socialism and communism. Both the name of our Party and our Marxist world outlook unequivocally point to this supreme ideal of the future, a future of incomparable brightness and splendor. ”

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_25.htm

The answer to the question “to whom was the land nationalized”, it was stolen from landlords and “rich peasants” and redistributed to the peasantry.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Land_Reform

A New Jersey judge invalidated a city council election and ordered a new one after allegations of voter fraud, according to a ruling issued Wednesday.

The May 12 election for Paterson's Third Ward city council was "rife with mail in vote procedural violations," Judge Ernest Caposela said in his ruling, though he left the decision on whether there was voter fraud to the criminal courts.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/20/politics/paterson-new-jersey-city-council-voter-fraud/index.html

I wouldn't be so sure. "He claimed to be a Marxist", it would be more correct.

I’ll take him at his word.

About forcing something out of the bourgeoisie I would see no problem if what is taken out of it is its greed and power to exploit, its control of the instruments of justice and the perversion of democracy for the benefit of a minority.

I think it’s better to bring people up than to pull people down. Perhaps it’s not the bourgeoisie that needs our attention.

Mao was a devout Marxist who sought to bring about communism. It’s right there in everything he wrote. No need for the revisionism. He and his revolutionaries stole land, often by murder, struggle session or by sending them to labor camps, for this stated purpose: “to eliminate feudal, exploitative land ownership by landlords and implement peasant land ownership, so as to free the rural labor force, develop agricultural production, and open the way for the industrialization of New China.”. What is this but one example of “the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions”? the “violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie”?

But mostly I’m speaking about the concept of one class appropriating the land of another, the euphemism “nationalization”, which always brings about the contrary to Marx’s predictions.

Can you tell me what this has to do with Marx? Of course we should all stand against this kind of Right Wing totalitarianism, fascism is dangerous no matter what name it uses. Marx knew that qualitative democracy was the only real solution to political tyranny. Not sure where you locate democracy in Mao, Stalin or Hitler?

I was more so speaking about Marx’s idea of the nationalization of land. Mao saw such a necessity, nationalized the land—a euphemism for the confiscation of property by force—and did so with the most ruthless efficiency. As it turns out, the nationalization of land does not make living on other people's labor a thing of the past. As it turns out, the nationalization of land never made the class distinctions disappear, and state brutality, starvation and murder became the order of the day.

We can review past situations where the nationalization of property has occurred, for instance in Mao’s land reforms, and find that these types of “intelligent restructuring” often led to mass murder, famine, cannibalism and economic disaster.

State or mob confiscation of land is barbarism of the highest order, no matter which cadre of intellectuals think the know how to do it best.

Trying harder is not necessarily the answer. Often this just leads to frustration and the person might become of a worse moral disposition than before. There are many factors involved with trying to change one's morality, and learning to have realistic goals might be one of the first. However, inspiration (and this is directly related to will power), might be the most important of all. As you say, some do not even believe in will power. If a person doesn't believe in will power, how could one even be inspired to try to change one's morality? So the question here might be what provides the prerequisite inspiration for a person to actually change one's morality. It's easy for a person to look at oneself and say I have some bad habits, I should get rid of these, but what inspires a person to actually carry out the work required to drop those habits. It's not like the person gets paid for that work, so the motivation must come from something else.

I really like your thinking here. Nicely said. I will just say, though, that inspiration is followed by a choice, some sort of follow-through, which begins and ends in the individual. Man becomes inspired. He is the genesis of his inspiration, and all subsequent follow-through. He is not the passive object and I cannot speak about him as such.

Yes, and I was pointing out, that just because a person decides to move something from one place to another, this does not mean that the person can actually do it. That's the problem with your view of morality. You seem to think that a person can just pick and choose one's morality, as if one's current moral disposition has no bearing on what type of moral principles the person has the capacity to uphold.

I don’t believe a person just picks and chooses a morality, as if from a menu, just that he can come to believe in certain moral principles by his own volition, by weighing the pros, the cons, the value and justice of certain moral principles, and that the sum of his moral principles can be called a “morality”. I would say this is a choice, a matter of choosing.

Trump pardoned Susan B Anthony on the 100th year anniversary of the 19th amendment.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53825403

I note you carefully steered clear of my last question. How are you defining "just"?

So unless you are simply happy to keep chanting propaganda slogans, can you supply the argument that backs up this opinion.

Why is this something you merely say rather than something I ought to believe?

I’m just telling you what I believe, not what you ought to believe. What do you believe?

Altering one's beliefs is not sufficient for changing one's behaviour, as my examples demonstrate. There is the further matter of one's disposition and will power. If an individual does not already have the moral disposition which allows one to adhere firmly to one's beliefs, and not give in to temptation, then altering one's beliefs is an ineffective procedure. The person would just become more and more hypocritical, believing that resisting certain actions is the good and right thing to do, but still lacking the necessary will power to abstain.

Sure, one must change his conduct to align with his morality. If one has difficulty doing so he has to try harder. If he doesn’t, then yes he becomes a hypocrite. Will power is often difficult to muster, especially for people who do not believe in it.

Do you agree that things were happening, things were moving, prior in time to the existence of living beings capable of making decisions. If so, then you ought to see that it is not necessary for a "decision" to be made in order for something to move from one place to another.

I never said it is necessary for a decision to be made in order for something to move from one place to another. I was just saying that you or I can decide to move something from one place to another, altering our situation, changing the world.

That’s fair. I apologize for pooh-poohing your argument.

Ah, that's what you got out of it- a debate on the ontology of sleep vs. non-existence. Yes we all know they are not the same thing. Doesn't mean that not being conscious the waking-kind-of-way is not the gist here.

I got out of it a bad argument for antinatalism, or “never being born being optimal”, which you stated before you started playing “would you rather” with sleep.

I did really read it. I figured the gist of it, beyond the jargon and labelling, was that if you prefer sleep to being awake you would probably prefer non-existence to existence, as if they were in some way comparable.