re: Why do Marxists resist being called Marxists?

Nope.

Marxism is government by collective.

Collectivism works in voluntary arrangements- co-ops, religions, families, neighborhoods.

Collectivism stops being a good thing when it is imposed by governments. At some point the government is entitled to ignore the rights and identity of the individual (and individual preferences) in favor of what “the group” needs.

I don’t think there’s a left or right when it comes to government. I think there’s a scale that runs from complete anarchy to government control. Neither is ideal.

The “ideology” that the government uses to exert its control is often just the spoonful of sugar in the medicine.

You can call collectivism: socialism, Plato’s Republic, communism, Marxism, progressiveism, Democratic Socialism, theocracy, monarchy, aristocracy, or fighting climate change but it’s still pure and simple the ignoring of fundamental, individual rights in favor of the collective.

It’s Tyrannical by definition. IOW: calling Marxism, Socialism is putting lipstick on a very ugly pig.

Why does Antifa wear masks? Same thing.

Thieves and killers don't want to be ID'd as thieves and killers.

quote:

---

1) Does anyone know why actual socialists think it’s an insult to be called a socialist?

---

Maybe has something to do with this:

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev said: "We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism, until they suddenly awake to find they have communism."

quote:

---

Not many liberals left. They became progressives who are Marxist.

---

The real liberals vote republican now.

Democrats have turned into "progressive" fascists.

Nah. Check the last election tally.

quote:

---

I believe that I cannot confer rights to someone that I do not posses. Therefore, I can't give government my consent to steal from you.

---

Yet you give the government your consent to use force to ensure the exclusive use of property that did not come into existence as the fruit of somebody's labor?

Why can the government grant a deed on unimproved land? Where did that right come from? It is not a fruit of someone's labor such that ownership and exclusive use is conferred by Locke's labor theory of property.

quote:

---

I wouldn't call, "I cannot confer rights to someone that I do not posses" a "set of principles", but it is a principle. I don't think a single principle makes an ideology.

---

It's the non aggression principle. What's crazy is most people recognize it innately, but have been taught to believe "sometimes you have to give up your principles for the greater good of society".

quote:

---

If society is facing an existential threat, the threshold is much lower.

---

Are you for forcing people into the military?


Also, if someone is threatening you or your family, you have a right to defend it. That is not giving up principles. In fact, it's just the opposite; It's living a principled life.

quote:

---

Sometimes you have to give up your principles for the greater good of society.

---

Who gets to decide what the "greater good" is?

Depends on what system of law you follow - but the person who fenced it in and took care of it, has staked a claim for ownership.

Sometimes he represents it to the outside world by building fence around it. Sometimes, he plants things on it. Sometimes he builds things on it. Sometimes he files a piece of paper in the public records that says he owns it.

If nobody else shows up and says they own it, then he, by the intent to possess as owner alone - and caring for it owns it.

The government (usually the court system) enforces his claim, and settles his claim against his neighbor- or other ransoms that may seek to take it so that we aren’t having literal fist fights about it.

But either way, the ownership interest comes from the intent to possess as owner, combined with actual possession over a certain period of time. In Louisiana - it’s
30 years.

And PS That’s not a lie. It’s how the law of property developed.

quote:

---

It's the non aggression principle.

---

Yes, a principle, not an ideology.

quote:

---

Are you for forcing people into the military?

---

If the existence of society depends on it, yes.

I am also for taking more tax money/assets to pay for defending our society from extinction.

I am also for the government managing the means of production in order to defend our society.

The US engaged in all 3 of these in the last major conflict in which we were involved. We persevered, and even flourished ever since. But I can imagine there may be times when we may need to do the above when other threats to society besides simply threat of external invasion exist.

quote:

---

Yes, a principle, not an ideology.

---

It is an ideology. Libertarianism is 100% about this one principle.

Libertarianism is an ideology, agreed?

You clearly believe in no limits on what government can do to society, so long as YOU, and enough people who think like you, "believe" it will "save us".


I'll never understand why so many people have such a religious faith in government to do what's right, yet at the same time, everyone looks at politicians as liars who are out for their own careers and power.