Hahaha Im just rereading MM's piece so I can rely on direct quoting and this is his first statement on the matter: "What I like about this statement is that it's ambiguous. "
-
-
X is Y except Y is really J Therefore X is J But why say X is Y in the first place? Yes MM is actually wrong about these things AND those things arent communism anyway so its rhetorically dishonest IF its taken seriously (which he doesnt seem to want)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
the interesting q’s are things like: what were US war aims in the 1940s? was the founder of the ACLU a diehard commie? how different were US progressivism and the ruskie version when they split? how heavily infiltrated was US govt/institutions?
-
Certainly pretty heavily in the State Dept. Do communist sabotuers make a nation of communists? Less clear.
-
have you ever read voegelin’s acct of representation? (or to phrase differently: when was Russia a nation of communists?)
-
Im aware of the effects of intolerant minorities on a system
-
I didnt say false I said less clear for a reason. If the sabotage is the primary end and not just incidental then its likely that they arent playing the long game.
-
Theres also elements of considering what is being called 'communistic' (poorly at that) is itself a consequence of any leviathan state but that just trivializes the whole thing.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.