|
|
Post by dionysios on Aug 24, 2015 2:32:57 GMT
Cuban liberator Jose Marti (who was not a Marxist) wrote of Karl Marx that he chose to advocate the cause of the weak and for this he deserves honor.
I quite agree with that and consider his detractors's words as worthless. He was brilliant at analyzing exploitation.
My main disagreement with Karl Marx concerns an opinion of his about a subject which contradicted the main thrust of his life's work and in which he was not an expert and obviously involved less reflection on his part. I am talking about Marx's dumb and ill considered endorsement of Charles Darwin.
Darwin's ideology was allied with social Darwinism, exploitation, and brutal, careless capitalism - the things which Marx dedicated his life against.
Darwinist science is retarded, and it's reputation is founded upon sarcasm about creation. I have found Jerry Bergman's book on Darwin the most succinct criticism which has gathered most of the finest critiques and facts into one place. The creationist leaders like Ken Ham act hypocritical and stupid about astronomy denying what we all observe, but their work on biology especially but also geology shreds assinine Darwinism. That so many Americans and Europeans believe shows how dark and ignorant these civilizations are. Even pagans like American Indian activist Vine DeLoria and Himdu writers see through evolution. It's an ideology and spurious science that befits fascist systems like america and Nazi Germany.
Communism had a lot going for it, and the criticism that it didn't last ultimately because is theism constituted a significant part of its foundation is a legitimate criticism.
|
|
|
|
Post by dionysios on Aug 27, 2015 20:41:29 GMT
Marx and Lenin's opposition to religion does have good reasons. Most who claim identity as Christians are actually heretics who follow evil religions in spite of what they may think. Lenin's rejection of these heresies is correct. His error is in so doing to reject God all together. For this reason, Marx's and Lenin's writings about religion are less brilliant than their analysis of more mundane subjects, but not absolutely useless. For example, Marx's agreement with Fuerbach that religion is the opiate of the masses is something which we can accept because it is a true characterization of the mass of heresies. I also think anti-communism is a common characteristic among many of the heresies which distinguishes them at least ideologically as facets of the capitalist bourgeois democracies as opposed to any kind of institution of God. Such phones churches merely cowardly follow the propaganda of the system they reside under because they are of this world - not some other.
I think to a large degree, genuine Marxists and genuine Orthodox Christians have had the same enemies. For example, the Russian church under the czars was a very corrupt department of the Russian state that persecuted Old Believer Christians as well as communists. In the mid-1800's there was in fact an alliance between the two as they had a common enemy.
The ongoing revival of Christian orthodoxy in the west and throughout the world is mostly oblivious and blind to this fact and rushes to embrace all the saints and other unfortunate appendages of that degenerate czarist church whom the communists so rightly opposed.
All things work together for good to them that love God, and I for one mightily appreciate the analysis and heritage of die-hard Marxists like Lenin, Stalin, and W.E.B. DuBois and find the propaganda of their detractors so much useless vomit.
|
|
|
|
Post by dionysios on Aug 30, 2015 23:10:22 GMT
Khruhschev's 1956 denunciation of Stalin was a lie and probably false in every accusation. It also disrupted and initiated a decline in the communist movement worldwide. After the Bolshevik Revolution, the western states sent armies which failed to overthrow Lenin's government. Their strategy then changed to penetrate it from within using Trotsky and a network of covert western and Nazi agents, a conspiratorial and terrorist network sabotaging and destroying the USSR from within. This strategy also failed and was exposed by the Moscow trials of the 1930's which the western press parroting the Nazi propaganda denounced as show trials. The elimination of this network by the Moscow trials eliminated a fifth column of traitors which would have likely caused the loss of World War II if they had been left in place to cooperate with the invading Nazis just a few years later. When this conspiratorial network failed, the western capitalists then built up and sent Hitler to smash the USSR by force which was also defeated. Stalin and Molotov's 1939 pact with Germany was a good thing in that it had temporarily frustrated the westerners strategy and bought time for the Soviet Union which expected the Nazi invasion. Unfortunately, Khruhschev's speech revived Trotskyism and Khruhschev abandoned the Marxism of the Stalin era and apostacized back into capitalism. Those old school communists throughout the world who resisted this are known as anti-revisionists, or Stalinists. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-revisionism The trend that began with Khruhschev culminated with Gorbachev as these were all capitalists and westernizers. The Restoration of Capitalism in the USSR www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/BlandRestoration.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by dionysios on Aug 30, 2015 23:33:54 GMT
Following Khruhschev's lead, the Communist Party USA degenerated in the 1950's especially after Khruhschev's 1956 speech. One of the old communist objectives abandoned by Khruhschev was a black led communist revolution and overthrow of the southern state governments in the USA including its secession from the US.
The CPUSA devolved into four inner cliques:
1) a right wing group led by John Gates wanting to abolish or minimize the party
2) a centre group led by Eugene Dennis trying to conciliate everyone
3) a soft left group led by longtime Stalin era Party Chairman William Foster who in fact retired at this time to Chairman emeritus being replaced by Gus Hall. Foster's acquiescence to Khruhschev's changes was likely far and away the biggest mistake of his life from the Marxist perspective.
4) a hard left group composed largely of black and Puerto Rican anti-revisionists (Stalinists) led by Harry Hayward.
A schism resulted with Eugene Dennis's group going against the hard left caucus who were expelled and began the Provisional Organizing Committee which unfortunately experienced subsequent splits and disorganization.
The upshot of all this is it caused the communist party to lose control and overall guidance of the upcoming civil rights movement. Disciples of Harry Haywood like Nelson Peery did eventually manage to establish significant communist organizations years later, but the intervening chaos in the 1960's allowed the capitalists and U.S. government to intervene and control the movement by placing people like Martin Luther King at the head of it. King told people to disarm which was a fatal handicap to anyone wanting to overthrow the establishment.
Thus, the civil rights movement of the 1960's was a reform and not a revolution. The chief difference is that the establishment remains securely in place. The same thing can be said of Roosevelt's New Deal which permitted a degree of controlled socialism to pacify the discontented masses and this prevent a revolution like the Bolsheviks had accomplished from happening in the US.
Incidentally, Harry Haywood did become the chief influence upon Malcolm X in the last two years of his life when he famously changed his views abandoning the racism of the Nation of Islam.
|
|
|
|
Karl Marx
Sept 3, 2015 5:42:34 GMT
via mobile
Post by dionysios on Sept 3, 2015 5:42:34 GMT
"The bourgeois democracies are the moderate wing of fascism."
- Josef Stalin (1924)
|
|
|
|
Karl Marx
Sept 5, 2015 1:45:25 GMT
via mobile
Post by dionysios on Sept 5, 2015 1:45:25 GMT
I've had a copy of 'The Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey' for years as well as sympathetic books about him by Tony Martin. Now that I compare Garvey to communists like Haywood and W.E.B. DuBois, Garvey's writings have never been particularly deep, enlightening, nor interesting.
When I recall conversations with admirers who affirm that Garvey was a forerunner of Elijah Muhammad's racist Nation of Islam and that Garvey made deals with the Ku Klux Klan, it becomes evident that many of his actions were consistent with racism.
Garvey was also anti-communist saying that communism is a white man's answer to white problems. Aside from this petty racial categorization, this is hypocritical as Garvey was decidedly capitalist which is definitely a philosophy and economic system borrowed from white men.
Not to criticize Garvey more than is meet, but I think a few well intended leftists have mistakenly praised him undeservedly. I will be discarding his books from my library as they are useless as I have never learned anything worthwhile from them. It is a historical source of black racism and will be recognized for what it is.
|
|
|
|
Karl Marx
Sept 5, 2015 2:22:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by dionysios on Sept 5, 2015 2:22:16 GMT
Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus wrote a magnificent book tracing the history of all the 70 nations since the Tower of Babel. In the conclusion to this book, he wrote that only two nations actually exist: the righteous and the wicked. This truth transcends the histories of the seventy nations, and it accurately describes the history of Afro-Americans and other nationalities in the twentieth century.
The Paleologues were the last Byzantine dynasty (1261-1453) which ruled Constantinople after the Crusaders invaded and occupied it. With a few outstanding exceptions, the Paleologues were degenerate cowards who became westernized, especially inwardly and spiritually. They were afraid of Europe and the papacy and therefore often did their bidding. I have long said that Malcolm X's famous characterization of field negroes applies to the Paleologue dynasty who loved the papacy more than the papacy itself. These leaders had departed from the ways of their fathers which is why God took away their empire from them and gave it to the Ottomans.
Still, many genuine saints and faithful loyalists of ancient Christian tradition yet persevered in this time in spite of the Paleologues. And Saint Epiphanius's universal proverb about the two nations applies to the late East Roman Empire as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by dionysios on Sept 5, 2015 2:25:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dionysios on Sept 13, 2015 17:15:20 GMT
I recently got an old hard bound copy of 'The Civil War in the United States' by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published in the 1930s which is a collection of articles written by them for a British newspaper during the American civil war.
Frederick Douglas, of course, took the same side as his fellow leftist Marx in this and other issues. To his credit, Douglas does not have the antipathy towards religion that Marx, Lenin, and many other leftists suffer from. I recall reading in a volume of his collected writings, a thoughtful criticism of leftist atheism in combatting the misuse of religion to promote slavery. He wrote something to the effect that the misuse of the Bible and religion by heretics and enemies of truth and freedom does not discredit nor negate the Bible and true religion.
I think this is a vestige of a more ancient era in the west before the apostate division resulting in an effeminate religion in the service of fascism on one hand versus an atheistic socialism on the other.
|
|
