Allies Against Neo-Marxism

Non-traditional media (Greenwald, Taibbi and Mate come to mind). These people despise the establishment more than Trump supporters.

Classical liberalism. Good. Added.

Members of trade unions as well. Not so much public sector unions but construction trades definitely.

quote:

---

Members of trade unions as well. Not so much public sector unions but construction trades definitely.

---

Agreed.

Marxist systems are always minority led. And promote minorities at the expense of the majority. It’s even true in China

After the coalition is in place, the next challenge would be to get "progressives" to admit exactly what they are, just in case any of them have any designs on joining it.

Many of them have been so successfully conditioned that they still believe their world vision and "principles" are anything but warmed over, revisionist marxian methodology and ideals, and generally deny indignantly any such accusation.

When in reality that's all their frame of reference is - marxian, anti-West psycho-babble dressed up in frills, laces, and high-sounding platitudes, and called "progressivism."

Again, they're just another group that is who they are as much because of what they weren't told in the propaganda mills and by media as what they were.

As for these "classical liberals" if any of them still exist after they lost so bigly in the Revolutions of 1848, they should be considered only with serious reservations.

Still interesting that Karl wrote his Manifesto that very same year.

C. Wright Mills in his book The Marxists admits that the objectives of classical liberals and marxists are basically the same.

They only differ in the manner in which to achieve their objectives.

Mills during periods of his life was both. He later determined that "liberalism" had failed miserably, so he returned to his first love.

What did Karl Marx have to say about classical liberalism? I know he despised Edmund Burke, who supported home rule for the Irish and was anti-empire.

quote:

---

I haven’t explored the idea but I’m concerned that Marxism is the intellectual product of liberalism.

---

Mills is saying that they are two sides of the same hand as far as objectives - so symbiotic in a way.

Most of whom the Communists regard as "useful idiots" come out of the ranks of those who refer to themselves as "liberals."

Only differing in how to achieve their objectives.

One of them all in favor of bloody revolution if that's what it takes.

Liberalism came first with the appearance of the encyclopedists and so-called Illuminati who were integral to the Revolutions of 1848 in which they didn't fare so well.

So Marx took his lead from them, but like Mills he considered them failures in what he wanted to achieve - and he wasn't particularly interested in waiving force as a method to realize the success of his system.

According to Mills his system was the next step - however radical - for what the classical liberals wanted to achieve.

If one substitutes "classical liberals" with "social scientists" who observed the social condition under the Industrial Revolution, Mills describes how they and Marx - regarded society and how to deal with and effect change.

Quote from Mills - a primary source who lived it while teaching and fraternizing with neo-Marxists in a hotbed of it - Columbia University:

"The Social Science that ignores or rejects marxism is more often than not a social science that has little or no concern with the pivotal events and the historic acceleration characteristic of our immediate times.

It is a social science of the narrow focus, of the trivial detail, the abstracted, almighty fact.

A few differences between Marx's style of work and some leading types of contemporary social science will suffice to suggest their character.

When marxists speak of bourgeois social science, these are the things they mean:

1. the social scientists study the details of small-scale milieus; Marx studied such details also, but always within the structure of a total society.

2. the social scientists knowing little history study at best short-run trends; Marx using historical materials with superb mastery takes as his unit of study entire epochs.

The values of the social scientist generally lead them to accept society pretty much as it is; the values of Marx lead him to condemn his society- root, stock, and branch.

Marx sees problems as inherent contradictions in its existing structure.

The social scientists see their society as continuing in an evolutionary way without qualitative breaks in its structure.

Marx sees in this society a qualitative break; a new form of society, in fact a new epoch is going to come about by means of Revolution."


Unlike most of those who attempted to warn us over the years, Mills seems to be in his glory describing it, even taunting the nation on how entrenched and pervasive it had already become here and across the West even before the '60s.

His book has a copyright of 1961.

I don’t know. I assume he would see them as rivals and hate them.

I thought the founding fathers and locofocos were liberals?