At 2:37 PM -0700 6/29/02, R wrote:
You are not "thinking for yourself" here, as what you wrote above
which a spirit
of proselytism makes an essential part" ("Thoughts on French
Affairs," 1791). In short, your rhetoric is stuck on the right in
the 18th century!
--
Yoshie
yoshie, i'm surprised at you. i've grown accustomed to your comments being the even tempered voice of reason so often on this message board.
the fact that the charge about marxism being a secular religion is old or has parallels in the 18th century is irrelevant. it's still true that marxism is accepted in many quarters with faith at the level of religion; true long ago and true now.
I rather doubt that Marxism is "accepted in many quarters" in the USA at all, much less "with faith at the level of religion." Where is evidence for your assertion?
i should have stated "accepted in many marxist quarters" to make it super easy for you to follow. i wasn't talking solely about the USA, yoshie; you're being a bit parochial. in the USA the left wing was emasculate and spaed during the McCarthy era. Today, it's nonexistent.
Evidence? The same place you keep the evidence for your assertion.
At 2:37 PM -0700 6/29/02, R wrote:
most politics produces a reaction in the "true believers" that is indistinguishable from religious faith.
Eric Hoffer, _The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements_, 1951. A Cold-War classic.
read it about 45 years ago.
You and Joe have learned what to think and how to talk about Marxism from what the dominant ideology says about it (and other revolutionary movements) and how it says it, though it appears you haven't realized that.
my uncle was a communist in france, yoshie, dating back to pre WW II days. he grew up in alsace- lorraine, where he was regularly beaten up by young nazis on his way home from school. while living in paris, i spoke with him and with his friends who were marxists, and other varieties of communists, and true believers further left than that. i learned first hand. it was an interesting and enlightening experience for an ignornant young punk straight from the fascist harbors of the USA.
the dominant ideology of the politically ignorant USA is not what i accept as an authority on Marxism or anything else, except neo fascism which it exemplifies. in your world, yoshie, saying someone uncritically accepts the dominant political ideology (if you can call it that) of the US is an insult. saying they don't realize it is also an insult. again, i'm surprised at your lack of manners.
Please yoshie, although it suits your biases to believe so, Joe and I are not the same person.
I recommend that you read conservative thinkers' works on Marxism (and other revolutionary movements). Start with David Hume perhaps, given what you say below.
thanks, yoshie, i guess. are you stating that David Hume wrote about marxism? That would be a neat trick for hume....
At 2:37 PM -0700 6/29/02, R wrote:
to make the blanket generalization that pointing out the connection between political fanaticism and religious fanaticism, political faith and religious faith was brought forward in the 18th century only establishes that the fact was known centuries ago and is still true.
What is political fanaticism? Religious fanaticism? Political faith? Religious faith? What is faith? A strongly held belief? Are faith and fanaticism the same thing? You've yet to define what they mean, much less prove the connection between them and explain what the connection means. -- Yoshie
sorry, yoshie. you'll have to do that yourself.
R
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20020630/e836680b/attachment.htm>