Originally Posted by
Brian4Liberty
I believe he is trying to take a side in a recent online kerfuffle between Dave Smith and James Lyndsey/Xi Van Fleet over semantics on the definition of communist/Marxist. IMHO, it is a futile discussion, and unnecessary rift between people who should be on the same side.
https://x.com/ConnorMOKeeffe/status/1827408607958204498
Originally Posted by
Brian4Liberty
It seems to me that this debate over the use of terms is about a political strategy being proposed by Dave Smith and the author. They don't believe that Trump should say "Marxist" or "communist" when referring to Kamala Harris, as this may make her desirable to the left.
IMHO, this is a very short term concern that will be moot after November 5th.
Now in regards to this proposed definition of "socialism" in the article, I have to disagree. I never heard from Democrats or socialists in the past that they wanted "private property to be abolished". They did want to redistribute wealth from the "rich" to the "poor" in the form of a welfare state. That evolved into a desire for free healthcare for all, guaranteed housing for all, paid college for all, UBI, etc.
This was touted as a Utopia known as "European socialism". In my experience, socialism was always simply about free stuff. Communism was where they started to abolish private property.
Is Kamala Harris a Marxist? It's not a yes or no question. There are comparisons to be made. Kamala's background (father and probably mother were Marxists), her actions in Congress, the things she has said and supported, all scream Marxism. It's not exactly full Soviet style Marxism yet, but that very well may be the final destination. Her Marxism is not identical to the USSR or China, but it does rhyme.
On the other hand, the point attempting to be made in the article is that Kamala is nothing but a puppet for the global kleptocratic plutocracy. That is also true, and should be pointed out as much as possible, for reasons both political and factual. But do things ever get out of hand for global plutocrats? Yes, they do, and sometimes for many decades. But eventually, Marxist states will evolve into something like what is occurring in China right now. A government/crony corporatist/oligarch type of situation, with limited private property and totalitarian control.
Is that Marxism or rule by a dictator with a govt/oligarch collective? Or is it Fascism? At that point what difference does it make. It a hybrid of all of the above, and debates over the best terminology are moot.
Yeah, there are a lot of words that this kind of thing frequently applies to -
especially in the realm of politics and political philosophy & ideology (e.g., "communism", "socialism", "capitalism", "anarchy", "liberalism", etc.).
For example, one person hears "capitalism" and thinks "bankers, billionaires, and assorted other cronies who hang out on the corner at the intersection of Wall Street and the government", while another person hears the same word and thinks "voluntary entrepreneurialism engaged in by free people unfettered by extortionate government-imposed bureaucratic managerialism" - and yet another person may think yet another thing, and so on.
Ultimately, words (
all words - even including relatively innocuous and unassuming ones such as "a" or "the" or "and") are just arbitrary conceptual labels, composed of arbitrary vibrations (when spoken) or arbitrary squiggles (when written). For any given word, there will be greater or lesser agreement about what concepts the relevant vibrations and squiggles are supposed (more or less exactly) to denote. For better and for worse, that is an inescapably inherent feature of how any "general purpose" language (such as English) will function - otherwise, it couldn't be "general purpose".
Speaking for myself, I fully support and endorse referring to Kamala Harris,
et al. as "communists" or the like (
à la James Lindsay, Xi Van Fleet,
et al.), and I
also fully support and endorse taking exception to those references (
à la Connor O'Keeffe, Dave Smith,
et al.) - so long as those making such references or taking such exceptions are able to usefully specify (or clarify) what they mean when called upon to do so. Beyond that, games of "dueling dictionaries" are just pointlessly semantic dick-wagging contests.
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us