*they have reached a degree of conformity which has wiped out individuality to a remarkable extent.*

So let me see. We would have what is probably the most diverse
and tolerant society ever known. From the dope growing hippie
in Nimbin or Bridgetown, to the surfer kid in Byron or
Margaret River, to the Hare Krishna chanting devotee, our
society bankrolls the lot. From the kid entrepreneur on the
net to the 2 million small businesses, people are doing their
thing, as they wish.

From running a few goats to produce goats cheese, to taking
peoples dogs for a walk for a living, anything is possible.

Yet here sits your Eric, telling me that society has lost
its indivuality and is becoming conformist.

Hehe :)

.

Ah, Poirot, Grok has been talking about the EARLY Marx - you and Fromm are talking about the LATE Marx, post-1848, post-Indian Mutiny, post-Commune. Even in those 30-35 years, Marx and the progressive movement learnt a huge amount about what was possible and what wasn't - and all the while, even then, it was all evolving, transforming, 'emerging'. So what has 'emerged' in the 130-140 years since then ? What did the 'progressive' movement have to take on board by way of Leninist butchery [a.k.a. 'red terror'] in the meantime in order for the original purposes of the revolutionary movement to retain any coherence ?

No, there has to be something better, which incorporates the formal democracy and human rights of capitalist societies and builds on these, and also does not depend on the extermination of any and all suspected class enemies, so that 'Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master - free'.

Joe

> Ah, Poirot, Grok has been talking about the EARLY Marx
- you and Fromm are talking about the LATE Marx, post-1848,
post-Indian Mutiny, post-Commune. Even in those 30-35 years,
Marx and the progressive movement learnt a huge amount about
what was possible and what wasn't - and all the while, even
then, it was all evolving, transforming, 'emerging'. So what
has 'emerged' in the 130-140 years since then ? What did the
'progressive' movement have to take on board by way of Leninist
butchery [a.k.a. 'red terror'] in the meantime in order for the
original purposes of the revolutionary movement to retain any
coherence ?

Lenin was a butcher compared to whom? The imperialists who invaded Russia (or had others do the job for them) immediately upon both the April and October revolutions -- who were in fact engaged in and just finishing slaughtering *tens of MILLIONS* of people in their "war to end all wars" -- and who would soon be _repeating_ this crime against humanity on an even more ghastly scale? And who are continuing the process up to this very day..?

Lenin, in fact, was an *exemplary revolutionary leader* LM, in many ways -- who did the best he could to lead a revolution under incredibly difficult circumstances. Would that you might spend a little more time understanding the true world situation of the period -- and the necessary actions which must be undertaken in any war and revolution (and the tragedy of failure). I invite *anyone* to do better.

>No, there has to be something better, which incorporates
the formal democracy and human rights of capitalist societies
and builds on these, and also does not depend on the
extermination of any and all suspected class enemies, so that
'Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization,
becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master -
free'.

Again, LM: 'stalinism !== socialism' -- and you really, really don't understand important things about socialism that everybody should. For whatever reason (like decades of bad/collaborationist leadership in your country, etc.)

> If Marx had suggested that the dialectic tension between
the bourgeoisie and the proletariat would result in the
emergence of the middle class, he may actually have been
remembered for offering up something important!

How do I respond to such profound ignorance? Someone help me, please! Squeers? Loudmouth?

Dear grok,

In February 1917 the czar was overthrown in the Russian Revolution. In October 1917 the Russian Revolution was over. Lenin and his Marxist thugs staged the Bolshevk coup. Lenin was a butcher compared to the czar. His Cheka slaughtered more people in three months than the czar's Ochrana did in the previous 25 years.

As Napoleon had done previously Lenin talked of freedom while bringing autocracy. He like Napoleon was a counterrevolutionary. No real revolution brings dictatorship and tyranny.

Lenin was the first of the twentieth century dictators followed by Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler. The Russian people are still not free of the heritage of Marxist-Leninist tyranny, Putin is a product of the KGB.

Marxism like fascism and other noxious ideologies still has its followers hoping for power. Maybe they’ll stage a comeback. I can only hope not.

Grok,

Thanks for your question: Lenin's butchery was much like other butcheries, a = b = c = ...... , no matter how he justified it, and it raises other questions:

* is butchery necessary for a revolution to achieve and maintain power ? Or are gulags and laogai sufficient ? If so, are they compatible with the human rights of ordinary people ?

* if so, how is such a revolution in any way superior morally to whatever it is assuming to transcend ?

* is such butchery (of class enemies by socialists, of minorities and others by fascists, of non-believers by Islamists, of Muslims by Hindu fanatics, etc.) unavoidable - is it necessary to the revolutionary process, to clear the ground for the New Man, Aryan rule, Shari'a law, the Hindutva, etc. ?

* where does it stop ? Which groups are next ? Should we study the history of the Khmer Rouge more closely for pointers ?

Most importantly,

* can there be better ways to achieve our goals, for which Marx tried, 130-160 years and many technological and social epochs ago, tried to lay the ground-work ?

Which raises the crucial question: is socialism relevant in the same ways any more ?