Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Re: Anti-Semitism and Anti-Americanism

The proverbial “Anonymous” has sent me the following in regard to : "Anti-Semitism and Anti-Americanism":

“the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics never purported to be a communist state (they had read Marx - why don't you try?) Communism is a long way off, many revolutions will be needed. Ultimately, if Marx is correct, the state will wither away and the world will have no governments. Paris Hilton is not my heroine, but I loves her. Your oportunism makes me sick.”

Lawrence responds:

I have read Marx as anyone would know who read my notes. I described, for example, the days when some Communist Longshoremen attempted to recruit me to Communism. Why Leftists concentrate on insults rather than arguments is a matter of ongoing interest. Also, Little quibbles. They seem to love quibbles. I don’t use the term “Communism” in a way they like? Well, that must mean I haven’t read Marx or Engel or Lenin, or any of the others that read. And of course, Anonymous, what you have managed is an insult, not an argument.

Am I permitted to use the term “Communism” in accordance with common usage? Yes, of course. And yes, the Soviets in Russia fell short of Marx’s ideal, but then all the believers in Marxist-Leninism did. They embraced the idea with fanatical enthusiasm as General Giap’s heroic Viets did. But once they succeed, they follow the pattern of Soviet Russia. After success comes the purges, the killing of those who challenge or might challenge the “great leader.” Later on there is disillusionment and after that is capitulation and a striving to hang onto as much Socialism as possible while joining the modern, Western oriented economic system – the only system that provides the success Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin thought the Communist system (i.e., the system advocated by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin etc.) would eventually provide. Yes, of course they believed in steps leading up to a withering away of the state. I discussed that in earlier notes.

And have you never heard of McCarthy and “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” To be a member meant you were a Communist, not that you were living in a classless society. Your quibble makes no sense, Anonymous.

Now that I’ve read your insult and quibble, do you have real arguments? You obviously haven’t read many of my earlier notes or you would have discovered the disdain I feel for Leftists who don’t know how to argue, who satisfy themselves with a few insults, a quibble or two and a hasty exist stage Left.

Try reading the many notes in which I refer to Kojeve’s argument that Hegel not Marx was right. Marx said Hegel was wrong to think that the “end of history” was Capitalism, and that it was Communism instead. Francis Fukuyama following Kojeve wrote The End of History and the Last Man. He argued that Liberal Democracy, the modern version of Capitalism, was “the end of history,” meaning that Hegel and not Marx was correct.

As to Paris Hilton, I intended to use Hilton and a few others as “examples” of the people we revere in our society. Most readers would see that as obvious. And please note that I didn’t say that “all” Americans revere sports heroes, actors and other celebrities. My words were “. . . much of America is choosing to be debauched.” Since you take that out of context, I suspect you didn’t understand my note. . . or maybe you are merely saying that you consider yourself debauched but don’t happen to like Paris Hilton. Interestingly I used for names as examples of popular debauchery in the U.S., but you single out but one to distance yourself from. Does that mean you like the rest? Or does it mean that you too know how to use examples?

I have no ideas what you mean by “opportunism.”

If you can produce an argument or invoke or quote or reason from something you’ve studied, feel free to write again.

No comments: