The communists at SocialistWorker.org are heartbroken, as right-to-work laws are allowing workers to make a choice about whether or not to join the union.
And most horribly of all (in their minds it is “a nightmare”), people are investing and opening businesses and creating jobs as a result:
A celebration gone wrong
One odd incident from the New Year celebrations: A woman in Phoenix, AZ poses for a picture with a handgun against the head of her brother. She pulls the trigger. Of course, the gun was loaded, otherwise the incident would not be in the news. But there is a bigger story here, I think:
In the discussion on Ayn Rand’s works, the Lady Rowyn sagely suggests:
There are a lot of authors worth reading whether or not you agree with their conclusions. And whether or not people make fun of them.
Indeed. I’ve read much of Karl Marx, and am amazed that he has any followers at all. Especially women, but really anyone who thinks the notions through.
Marx is worshiped today in academia; Rand is reasonable, which lets her out of that club. I’ve got a college textbook next to me called The Critical Experience (edited by David L. Cowles), an analysis of techniques of literary criticism. The great majority of them are Marxist, or spin-offs of Marxist techniques. (Amusingly, Google Books helpfully suggests that a “related work” to this textbook is The Communist Manifesto. No surprise.)
By one page into the Introduction, the textbook is complaining that literary criticism was dominated by “white, male, American, Protestant, upper-middle-class, and highly educated.” They have been successful in reducing each one of these, I think, especially the highly educated part.
The writers of this college book are effusive in their praise of Karl Marx, granting only the possibility of Charles Darwin having greater influence upon “history and thought.” This was written (or at least published) in 1992, after the fall of the Soviet Union:
Marx’s contributions to the political philosophy that bears his name are well known, but his writings have also influenced such diverse disciplines as history, economics, sociology, anthropology, psychology, theology, and literary criticism. The proliferation of Marxist theorists in in dozens of academic fields has given rise to a number of diverse scholarly traditions…”
Feminist Theory, Reader Response Criticism, New Historicism, Cultural Materialism, Pluralism and others all are described as having Marxist roots, so that everything can be read in terms of the class struggle, substituting gender or whatever for the oppressed class. (In Feminist criticism, we are cautioned to avoid “rigid phallogocentric” ideas, an odd sort of double meaning under the circumstances.)
But the glow when Marx is mentioned practically radiates from the page. They like him, they really like him.
I do not.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
On Chiefio’s blog, he has just discussed political notions of “left” and “right” and compared attributes of communism, socialism, progressivism and the UN’s “Agenda 21.” One commenter there, from South America, suggested that one problem was the accumulation of too much wealth. This triggered a response from me, which I post here:
I have written before about the left-right spectrum of politics in the US, and the fact that Hitler, by this measure, was very much on the American left. He was defended by the American left, in fact, until falling out with the Soviet Union.
On the right are those favoring a limited government, contained and constrained by the US Constitution. On left are those who would avoid this, from the openly communist to the mere anti-capitalist to those pushing for an ever-increasing role of government to anarchists. The anarchists are an interesting case; by destroying the Constitutional republican government, they hasten the implementation of a totalitarian replacement. This was true in Russia a hundred years ago, and they advocate in the same direction in the US today. Anarchists are clearly leftists, and make common cause with the communists at frequent opportunity.
Now we have an oddity in the US: Tea Party types, who advocate a smaller role for government, are called “fascists” and “theocrats” and “Nazis” by the left.
There is a difference between the US political left and right in the area of tolerance of ideas.
In general, the right argues vehemently against the left’s ideas, but does not advocate blocking them. For example, while many conservatives are looking forward to the New York Times’s business failure, and take a certain grim delight in the poor performance of far left media such as MSNBC with the American public, we don’t want them shut down just for saying what they say.
Suppressing the opposition
On the left, this issue is seen very differently as a general thing.