(2/3)Like Foucault (Marxist before, but essentially abandoned politics for more personal philisophy), Lyotard (Post-Marxist throughout), and Derrida (anti-Communist and essentially a Libertarian through the 80s as I understand it, then embraced Marxism AFTER the Berlin Wall fell)
-
-
Replying to @OhNoIts2016 @KEEMSTAR and
I think you will find Derrida wa a Marxist too, at least in the sixties. Post-modernism is a reaction by Marxist to the failures of Marxism and Maoism. George Orwell put it best " They (socialist) don't love the poor they hate the rich".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simon_enefer @KEEMSTAR and
Er, George Orwell was an *extremely* ardent socialist (https://www.biographyonline.net/socialism-george-orwell/ …), Ann Coulter was the one who said that. Orwell was an actual communist revolutionary in Spain, he just loathed Stalinism (in part bc Stalinists invaded Catalonia) and totalitarianism.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mediocre_danny @simon_enefer and
I read just a bit about Derrida’s political views, but Marxism was VERY popular w/his ilk in the 60s, it’s at least an influence. I just know he hated the French Communist Party, was called a “libertarian pessimist” in the 80s, & acted SUPER pro-Marx once the US was unchallenged
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mediocre_danny @KEEMSTAR and
Anyone who supported Marxism after the 1920s is as suspect as someone whi supports national socialism post 1945. They are branches of the same philosophical/political tree. If anything Marxismis worse. Responsible for at least 4 times as many deaths and untold misery.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simon_enefer @KEEMSTAR and
You might not like hearing this, but... capitalism is responsible for many more deaths than could be attributed to Marxism. It’s been used to justify genocide since the Age of Exploration, all deaths caused by artificial scarcity (and by Nestlé and Chiquita), and so much more.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mediocre_danny @simon_enefer and
That being said, modern Marxists don’t support the policies that led to so many deaths, bc they aren’t needed by socialism— the biggest tragedies were just bad agriculture No specific course of gov’t action is *needed* for socialism beyond the state not suppressing labor anymore
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mediocre_danny @KEEMSTAR and
3. The issue the wealth and power of the elite remains. How to align their interests with the rest of us? Venice is the only state to do this over an extended period. Read Julius Norwich history of Venice. Brilliant book, especially the section on how Doges were elected!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simon_enefer @KEEMSTAR and
In any properly (market) socialist system, the only rich would have received their money through their own labor or art, rather than through their property ownership. The main thing socialism objects to is the ability of owners to continue profiting massively without labor.
6 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mediocre_danny @KEEMSTAR and
1. This one of the flaws in Socialism. As someone who owns his own business I take the majority of the risk, work longer hours. Why would I do this if I am not reward?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
1. Owners VERY rarely take on the greatest risk. If a business fails, every one of its employees becomes unemployed. They all take on serious risk. People who acquire established companies usually have immense savings & other financial interests. Notable example: EA buyouts.
-
-
Replying to @mediocre_danny @simon_enefer and
And owners very often do not contribute significant amounts of labor, though many do. But all the responsibilities they may have can be taken on more effectively in a cooperative situation.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.