« Michael O. Church's classes | Main | Why isn’t Iran scared? »

September 18, 2012

Comments

The super-rich and the elite fulfill the role of the vanguard party, which is required under Marxist theory.

"The irony of Marxism is that the super-rich and the elite, the people who Marx hated, are most likely to be Democrats, the party associated with Marxism. " -- HS

There's nothing ironic about it. Marxism puts more power in the hands of the government. And the elites are the ones best positioned to control the government. If you really want to limit the power of the elite then you have to limit the size and power of government.

There's no irony. Those at the top of Marxist hierarchies not only get better goods and services than the rest, but they also get to micro-manage the rest. This is the outcome of every society in proportion to its acceptance of Marx. Marxist societies are two tier and poor. Free market societies are spectrum "tier" and rich. The pro-Marx sales job that you and almost all other Jews proffer is just that ... a sales job. It's still about the usual things, getting to the top, stifling the spectrum, micro-managing everyone. Speaking of which, your man won! Soda cup size is now limited by people with guns! Fuck, yeah!

I wonder whether Marx's love for the working class extended beyond the theoretical. After all, the person most closely associated with Marx is the very rich Friedrich Engels.

It's not irony; it's just the Republicans (and conservatives in general) using the vestiges of Cold War propaganda to denigrate their enemies, Democrats and real Marxists, by associating them with a radical, "extremist", and "failed" ideology. I am a Marxist-Leninist, and we generally do not consider US liberals as our allies. Democrats are just part of the bourgeois elite.

Also, I consider it an insult to be called a "liberal" or "Democrat", or to hear Democrats, progressives, or liberals be called "Marxists", "socialists", or "communists".

I don't vote in bourgeois elections either.

Half Sigma, you are basically running a Marxist-Republican blog (I'm referring to what Marx actually wrote, not what people think he wrote), and I think I'm on to this and this is causing my head to explode, I can't think what is happening to your other readers.

@ Black_Rose

Where is your egalitarian streak when it comes to putting out? You once said you liked guys who are lean and muscular. Where is the "fairness" when it comes to who you let inbetween your legs? Why does Marixst theory not apply to sexual have nots? I ask because hierarchy is natural to humans and exists largely to determine who gets the most desirable sexual partners. That's why attempts to eliminate "inequality" fail. Someone must get the best poon. The only sexual socialism was monogamy and marriage which CULTURAL Marxists have destroyed.

You're analogy is false. Most private equity and hedge fund managers see themselves as Randian superheroes and hate Marx. Yet they are exactly the sort of parasitical rent-takers that Marx thought would bring about the collapse of Capitalism. And Marx may yet be proven right. Companies like Bain and Sun Capital are all about hollowing out productive companies, sucking out the value for share-holders over a short time frame, and then moving on. The other group of rich elites who tend to be ultraconservative are people in the extraction industries - coal, oil, precious metals, etc. While these people do produce value, in most cases government regulation, subsidies and enforcement of property rights directly support their wealth. These sort of people are not real entrepreneurs.

The rich elites who are sympathetic to Marxism tend to be people who actually produce things people buy - software moguls, Hollywood producers, etc.

"I wonder whether Marx's love for the working class extended beyond the theoretical." It certainly did: he shagged them whenever he got the chance.

Im a marxist european,

Both European left and right would consider Democratic party a moderate party with conservative leanings.No one would ever call democrats as Marxist.

In a way democratic party hurts the leftist movements in united states more than the republicans.By associating itself (or allow to be) with liberalism, Democratic party marginalize those who are to extreme left.

Conquistador: monogamy is actually distributism, not socialism. Google distributism, it is interesting.

@Conquistador

Excellent comment.

Socialism hasn't existed as an actual political stance in the U.S. for several decades. Social issues are really the main driver in political differences, The Democrats aren't really Marxist or even leftist economically, so rich have no problem voting for them because richer people tend to be more socially liberal. Similarly, poor people are socially conservative so they vote Republican.

"Conquistador: monogamy is actually distributism, not socialism. Google distributism, it is interesting." -- T

It's true that monogamy is distributive in the sense that more people get a piece. But the female selection process is anything but egalitarian.

The revolutionary vanguard has arisen from the ranks of the high bourgeoisie and petty nobility since the French Revolution: Robespierre, Danton, Che, Lenin, Castro, and on and on.

Jhez: the idea that the US is to the right (by any of the various definitions of left/right) is incorrect.

If we're talking simply economics, recognize that the US is not the most economically free. Here is a ranking of economic freedom: http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking The US is 10th on that list, below two European countries. In other indices the US is below Sweden. So the current state of economic liberty in the US might be classified as center-right according to European standards.

Both political parties in the US want to reduce economic liberty. In US terms the Republican party is center-left and the Democratic party is far-left. If we were to adjust these for Europe by shifting everything over a category, we end up with the Republican party as centrist and the Democratic party as center-left.

If you are familiar with Switzerland's political parties the Republican party seems to match CVP/PDC/PPD (a centrist Christian Democracy party), while the Democratic party seems to match SPS/PSS (A Social Democratic party). If you tell my what country you are from I will try to match our parties to the parties in your country so you have a sense of the true positions of the parties in the US. It is difficult to tell from their words, their actions matter more (and don't match their words).

Of course talking about the ideology of political parties in the US isn't really meaningful. The US is a cobbled together post-colonial empire. In Africa and the Middle East the borders were drawn by Europeans, thus they lumped together people of different ethnicity. Thus elections in Africa are really just censuses, with the biggest ethnic group getting the next dictator.

The US is the same way, except that our ancestors decided to lump us all together into one empire out of fear of Europe. Thus all politics in the US is ethnic/cultural/regional.

We have one party (the Democrats) that represents the north-east and the western coast, and another party (the Republicans) that represents the south-east and the inland west. We have a swing region, the great lakes, that determines the winner.

Read the book Albion's Seed if you want to understand America.

Sheesh, HS.

Sit down now. Are you ready? Here goes. Rich people (in general) /vote for Republicans/. Poor people vote for Democrats. This is true, incidentally, even if you consider white voters only. It's even true if you consider white southerners only (though the entire line graph of income vs. Republican voting may shift upward a little bit.).

Granted, there are other ways of defining class (specifically, working class) other than income, but you are specifically focusing on income/wealth. There are reams of data backing this up. Check the GSS data, or better yet, google "Andrew Gelman" and "Red State Blue State."

I'm not saying there aren't rich people who are Democrats, or that there aren't (some) poor people who vote for Republicans, but generally speaking, the conventional wisdom is still true.

From Peter A:
"The other group of rich elites who tend to be ultraconservative are people in the extraction industries - coal, oil, precious metals, etc. While these people do produce value, in most cases government regulation, subsidies and enforcement of property rights directly support their wealth. These sort of people are not real entrepreneurs.
The rich elites who are sympathetic to Marxism tend to be people who actually produce things people buy - software moguls, Hollywood producers, etc."

So, let me get this straight:
Nobody buys oil, the industry is entirely supported by government regulation and subsidies. And, Hollywood is completely non-dependant on enforcement of property rights, which is why they are totally cool with Chinese violation of copyrights, and were forced at gunpoint into demanding that the copyright on Mickey Mouse extend 12 times longer than the patent on penicillin.

"Socialism hasn't existed as an actual political stance in the U.S. for several decades. " -- Bob

And yet the federal government owns a 26% stake in General Motors.

Marxism, in theory, posits that human inequality and exploitation comes about from the technology standards of the time, and that the economy deterministically follows whatever technology is available at the time.

In contrast, most leftist Americans believe that human inequality and exploitation arises from human qualities, such as greed and racism, and not from the economic structure of the time. They are what Marx would call "sentimental socialists." A fair number of far-left Americans are sympathetic to Marx, but again, they tend to view inequality as a moral problem, not a techno-economic one as Marx would.

Obama-era Democrats are also far, far away from being international socialists. The last DNC condemned outsourcing, high finance and corporations investing globally. Obama's Democrats are more keen on having corporations being bought out and serving the public good (like GM), which means employing Americans, using American goods and existing to uplift the American middle class, while steering clear of Chinese goods, Swiss bank accounts and Indian employees. They have more with Mussolini than with Lenin.

Not_David_Brooks:

Obama led those making $250000+ by 6 points. The group below that McCain led, but only be 2 points.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

"

The revolutionary vanguard has arisen from the ranks of the high bourgeoisie and petty nobility since the French Revolution: Robespierre, Danton, Che, Lenin, Castro, and on and on.
"

I don't think Hebert was successful as a pre-revolutionary.

I like Church's classes, especially how he demarcated the gentry from the elite. It would seem that the gentry who are sympathetic to the financial and material interests of the labor ladder would be progressives or actual revolutionary Marxists.

I always those that being an ideological Marxist required high verbal ability, and it is best if they recruited people who have SAT CR > 700 or SAT CR+M > 1380 as people who can learn the relevant knowledge. NAMs who are merely aligned with the Democratic Party or preaching "equal opportunity" and "economic justice" (for their race) don't make good Marxists. Being a Marxist in a liberal democratic states requires one to possess some knowledge of history, economics, and political philosophy, and the capacity to think independently, beyond the framing of the bourgeois education and media.

However, since the system is meritocratic enough, and rewards the general intelligence that the SAT tests, it would seem people of high intelligence have little economic incentive to be actual Marxists. Furthermore, Cold War propaganda made Marxism relatively untrendy among the professional classes, and, therefore, it would seem the best way of appearing rebellious against the economic system or sympathetic towards the poor, while appearing intellectually credible, is to support left-wing parties in bourgeois democracies.

Here's what a Maoist said:


90% of market participants do not fully understand how the systems really works
in general or in specific detail, nor do they have complete or equal
information. The Nobel economists this year were selected on their work on the
dysfunctional market produced by asymmetric information. For those who are not
actively involved, the market produces innovative new instruments and paradigm
every six months. Yet such new instruments and trades are only the mechanics of
the market. The structure of the economy is an expression of political power
rather than economic rationale. The basic rules are politically written, all
market participants must observe the rules in order to play and survive or
prosper. Market participants do not necessarily support or believe in finance
capitalism. Wall Street has its share of socialists, probably a higher proportion
that the working class. Yet like members of the working class, Wall Street
socialists toil in a system they hope (or the smart ones know) someday will
fall. There are as many (if not more) rednecks in the US working class as there
are in any other segment of the population. ______ Socialism does not find the
proletariat a fertile garden. Since it requires a certain degree of intellectual
prowess to understand the system, members of the laboring class generally are too
exhausted physically to devote much of their attention to the mechanics of
finance. _____ Yet the basic rule of finance capitalism is not too complicated or
difficult to understand. It is to privatize profit and socialize risk.
Structured finance is built on that principle, relying on the too big to fail
syndrome. The biggest losers in the Eron bankruptcy are the employees who lost
all their pension denominated in worthless Eron shares.


http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2001/msg02012.html

It seems this is his way of saying that most people are too stupid. "Physical exhaustion" is merely a euphemism.

T:

The 2008 elections were exceptional circumstances. (The economy crashing, war fatigue, the historic nature of the election, etc.)
Expect this election to return to the usual pattern.

BTW, as I stated before I am also a Catholic, and, therefore, I am also a spiritual egalitarian as well as an economic egalitarian. (There are not many opportunities for me to proclaim myself a "Marxist-Leninist" in Church activities, but if anyone asks, I will candidly tell them my political views.) I cannot, with any integrity, call myself a Democrat or a Republican (or even an independent as that term has connotations of political disinterest and moderateness, while I am (or was) a fervent Marxist-Leninist.) Someone actually called me a "Democrat" when I gave a succinct summary of my political views; I felt insulted.

Yes, I understand the contradiction, and I am currently a "quiescent Marxist-Leninist" since I have not socialized (on the Internet) with any M-Ls nor have I read any political literature in the last few month, as I am focusing my leisure intellectual labor on scientific topics.

Despite my Marxism and mild interest in HBD, I believe that through faithful obedience and love of God, one, regardless of their physical and mental abilities, will be able to fulfill their ultimate (spiritual) purpose of being united with God and experiencing the beatific vision for all eternity.

However, I still gravitate towards social class/HBD blogs such as Half Sigma, since it is a fruitful milieu to discuss issues like whether the US is a meritocracy or if g becomes differentiated at higher levels. Social and mental inequalities and how they influence individual outcomes in a given socioeconomic system (in the case of the United States, liberal democratic capitalism) still fascinate me. It seems g is an indispensable concept for understanding the labor market in a relatively meritocratic political economy and where it has some positive effect on job performance in some intellectually demanding professions.

Which are the societies that best exemplify Marxism?

Regarding inequality and wealth, I remember this from the Liturgy of the Word two weeks ago:

"My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. 2 For if a man comes into your [a]assembly with a gold ring and dressed in [b]fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, 3 and you [c]pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” 4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil [d]motives? 5 Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor [e]of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and [f]personally drag you into [g]court? 7 Do they not blaspheme the fair name [h]by which you have been called?"

James 1:1-7

"Which are the societies that best exemplify Marxism?"

East Germany

http://gowans.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/democracy-east-germany-and-the-berlin-wall/#comments

The elite are cultural marxists. This way they get the benefits of being rich AND morally righteous, at the same time.

Karl Marx was nothing but a complete and total shill for the rich. His entire treatise is a warning to the wealthy about the threat and the competition they face from the middle class (the bourgeoisie.) His angle was to have the rich use the proletariat against the bourgeoisie in a divide-and-conquer strategy.

Remember, Marx was a student of the French Revolution. He noticed that the French revolution was started by the highest members of the Third Estate. Thus, he crafted an economic theory that the elites can use to destroy their eternal competition: the middle class climber.

The modern democrat party is an exemplar of this Marxist, anti-middle class practice: free trade, high taxes, inflation, etc.

"The irony of Marxism is that the super-rich and the elite, the people who Marx hated, are most likely to be Democrats, the party associated with Marxism."

You can't draw that conclusion based on the fact that they supported Obama. Obama had an appeal among the wealthy that Democrats generally don't. If you look at CNN's exit polls for 2008, you'll see that support for McCain dropped off at the high end of the income distribution ($200k plus), but in the Congressional elections support for Republicans increased monotonically with income throughout the entire distribution.

Obviously you can't conclude anything about people making $30M per year based on a poll that topped out at $200k, but the important thing to note is that support for Obama followed a different pattern than support for Democrats generally.

"Which are the societies that best exemplify Marxism?"

That's a meaningless question. Marx mostly studied the "contradictions" in the Capitalist system. He never laid out a real blueprint of what kind of society should emerge after the inevitable revolution of the proletariat, just some vague generalizations.

I am going to mention Jews and Marxists in this comment. I know I will be hated for it, but I am still going to mention Marx's Jewish ancestry, and the fact that Marxism has largely been a Jewish intellectual movement. Furthermore, I am soon going to discuss the leading role of Jews in the Soviet Union, as well as the Communist parties of the West. Then, I am going to discuss the role of Jews in the Democratic party, who provide over half of its donations, according to the Washington Post (many estimates put this at 70%), and I would be remiss if I was to neglect to mention the role of Jews in modern America's Marxist-leaning media (most of the MSM, actually). On second thought, forget it, no one wants to hear about that. Instead, I will just gripe about Obamacare.

[HS: The Tsars treated the Jews like crap, so it's hardly surprising that they joined up with an anti-Tsarist movement.

And Jews are overpresented in ALL political idealogies, both liberal and conserative ones (except ones that are overtly Christian or anti-Semitic) because Jews have higher IQs.

No mysteries here.]

"The last DNC condemned outsourcing, high finance and corporations investing globally."

Throwing a bone to the unions. Modern marxists are not interested in victim groups of yesteryear ie. workers, it's all about faggots, niggers, wetbacks, femcunts and jihadists.

"The elite are cultural marxists. This way they get the benefits of being rich AND morally righteous, at the same time."

It sort of mimics Orwell's dystopian vision. The Inner Party gives preferential treatment to proles and keeps them separate from the outer party lest they be utilized as a vanguard

HS: "And Jews are overpresented (sic) in ALL political idealogies (sic), both liberal and conserative ones (except ones that are overtly Christian or anti-Semitic) because Jews have higher IQs."

No. As you know, Jews are over-represented in con LEADERSHIP. They are horribly unrepresented among the GOP. Jewish cons also tend to flakiness and fascism (e.g. Bloomberg and Frum.) I mean soda cup mandates? Really? Gun in my face because the cup is "too big?" There is too much Marxist hostility from the tribe for Jewish cons to stay strong.

"Throwing a bone to the unions. Modern marxists are not interested in victim groups of yesteryear ie. workers, it's all about faggots, niggers, wetbacks, femcunts and jihadists."

Wow, charming!

"The Tsars treated the Jews like crap, so it's hardly surprising that they joined up with an anti-Tsarist movement."

I agree, HS, but there is another reason why some Jews so readily fell under the thrall of Marx.

Marxism represents the ultimate centralization of power, the final stage of technological civilization. Civilization favors peoples who are verbally skilled, socially aggressive (Jews, Indians, Levantines). Northern Europeans prefer to mold nature rather than herd people. This is why Davy Crockett kept moving west...light out for the territories and don't get 'sivilized'!

Americans of Northern European stock (the Anglo-Saxon race, as the old guard immigration restrictionists used to call them) suffered greatly with the closing of the frontier at the end of the 19th century, and America when from a great reservoir of the Nordic strain, where ca 1900, fully half of the population were blue-eyed, to a melting pot of various European ethnicities within two generations (think Radio Days, any mafia gangster film that starts out in the 'old neighborhood'), still long before anyone had ever heard of multiculturalism!

But these are just tendencies, and dont excuse anti-Semitism. Besides, American whites are so mixed now that any attempt to draw a line between 'Mediterraneans' and 'Nordics' is a futile gesture.

Secret of NAM:

According to Kevin MacDonald, Jews at least have immense influence in the GOP's foreign policy, or in the United States' foreign policy in general. Jews were instrumental neoconservatives.

Black_Rose,

From your link:

"And there were travel restrictions. Skilled workers were prevented from travelling to the West. But at the same time, vacations were subsidized, and East Germans could travel throughout the socialist bloc."

Slave states, just like Cuba today. Much of the populace was only allowed to travel to other slave states because it was known that the slaves would flee. What limits to government brutality and lies were likely when this was the norm?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republikflucht

If a child were never allowed to leave his house and the direct control of his parents, would you accept as fact his claims or the claims of his parents that he was doing well, with excellent health and a sterling standard of living? Or would you question the claims, just as a reasonable man would question East German or Cuban health claims (with their enslaved doctors)?

Plus ... the author thinks HBD is bunk, which seems to be the norm for Marxists.

Black_Rose,

I just figured out the "guaranteed employment" thing! Since Marxists claimed to be proponents of the Labor Theory of Value, employing someone to produce something that no one would choose to buy made sense; value was decided by labor used and not by what people would willingly trade for the goods and services that were produced. Theoretically. So do Communists still espouse the LToV, or did they jettison that the way that Randites jettisoned the "objective beauty" foolishness?

Secret of NAM,

Just admit you are a Nietzschist because you use the terminology of "slave state", a subjective and ideological term, (like "slave morality"). The working class benefited under the aegis of the Marxist-Leninist state with full employment, housing, and health care, and did not feel any overt oppression (they had little desire or utility to exercise bourgeois civil liberties that would be afforded to the upper classes in capitalist states); only the properties owners and capitalist sympathizers felt like "slaves" in East Germany and most communist states.

So are you really a Nietzschist, or just captivated by pro-capitalist bourgeois propaganda against these former legitimate, sovereign states?

Secret of NAM,

I suppose you believe that any political economy is a "slave state" if it does not allow property owners and other superior people (i.e. people possessing high g who should on the basis of their productivity and intellectual merit) should wield disproportionate political power over the mediocre masses and be untrammeled by the political and economic interests of the masses. To you, it does not seem that the welfare of the masses matter.

Black_Rose

"According to Kevin MacDonald, Jews at least have immense influence in the GOP's foreign policy, or in the United States' foreign policy in general. Jews were instrumental neoconservatives."

I agree completely. I did a count once of the number of Jews in Bush 2's circle of foreign policy advisors. Overwhelming. But this is no different than with my people (libertarians) as the thought leaders are also inordinately Jewish even though the pool of Jewish libertarians is minute. Though they receive endless badgering and scorn from most of their tribe, Jews who espouse something beside lib or Marxist views have a lot less competition for top spots.

Black_Rose,

By "slave state" I mean that the citizens are not allowed to leave. I could also say "prison state" if that has fewer connotations. There was no right of exit for many East Germans, just as in Cuba or N Korea today. This guarantees that the picture of the East German state would have been overly rosy because knowledgeable citizens were constrained by the fear of becoming political prisoners and unable to leave to speak openly.

We could be wrong, but libertarians presume that the best indicator (on average) of what is good for a man is what he chooses for himself when uncoerced. If he's not allowed to choose to leave a place, then it's hard to tell what is good. I know that lots of liberals believe that they can scientifically decide what the best life for citizens is (hence cup size restrictions) and I'm sure this was only magnified among East Germans. Maybe they were right, but it's hard to tell when so many citizens fled in terror.

Remember Neill Blomkamp, of "District 9" fame?

Turns out he's now making a movie about the ideas contained in this blog:

Elysium - Synopsis:
"In the year 2159, two classes of people exist: the very wealthy who live on a pristine man-made space station called Elysium, and the rest, who live on an overpopulated, ruined Earth. Secretary Rhodes (Jodie Foster), a hard line government official, will stop at nothing to enforce anti-immigration laws and preserve the luxurious lifestyle of the citizens of Elysium. That doesn’t stop the people of Earth from trying to get in, by any means they can. When unlucky Max (Matt Damon) is backed into a corner, he agrees to take on a daunting mission that, if successful, will not only save his life, but could bring equality to these polarized worlds."

First HBD overtones in D9, now this... if I didn't know better, I'd say he's a reader of this blog.

Only in america would someone think democrats are marxist. American democrats are old fashioned conservative republicans and the GOP is filled with cranks and loons.

The comments to this entry are closed.