Ow

poor james.

To be fair to his leftist critics, go to google and type in 'feminazi'. There you will find all the reference materail you could ever need to support an academic paper -for or against.

We can off course find it difficult or impossible to get the stuff in Australia, as the GFN-deniers have a good stranglehold over research direction. BUt, suprisingly, in Perth we have some stuff. And who knows, perhaps there is more here than when i last looked.

I find it amazing that the leftists in parliament and everywhere generally howl about the Americanisation of Australia, but when it suits them they just compare our domestic politics with that of Canada and the US. I dunno why. we're as different as chalk and cheese.

Socialists are a bit fanciful, and wont liken thereselves to Chile or Argentine. or somewhere. Weird.

And HRS,

the figures for Marxology are of the screen. In China, which you mentioned, the revised figure (from Falun Gong) is 65 million. Russia, over 25, million and then there is the lesser experts such as Cambodia, DPRK, Germany etc.

Well may we save God save the queen...

I would agree that Universities are dominated by post-modernist, identity politics, however I would suggest that such tendencies are anathema to true Marxism.

Feminists seek to gain equal rights for women WITHIN the framework of the capitalist system. Marxists, or socialists, seek to educate the ENTIRE working class as to its historical task of overthrowing the capitalist system and transforming society into one in which inequality doesn’t exist.

The goal of Marxists is to eliminate the fundamental cause of inequality which is the vastly unequal ownership and distribution of productive wealth – minority capitalists own the means of production, while the majority of people are forced to sell their labour for subsistence. Feminism, and other identity politics, can only attempt to address the surface symptoms of inequality, by attempting to redistribute what little wealth the majority has amongst each other, never seriously challenging the fact that the lion’s share of the wealth is in the hands of the few.

Identity politics, by playing off one section of society against the other – men against women, blacks against white, us against them – ultimately serve to obscure the true cause of inequality which everyone must struggle against, which is the profit system. This ultimately serves the capitalists, the true enemy of the people - divide and conquer.

HRS –
“Q. What political system has killed more people than any other?
A. Marxism.

Q. How many people have Marxist killed?
A. Estimates vary, but it is generally believed to be over 50 million.”

I gather here you consider that Stalinism, Maoism etc are Marxist systems, when in fact they were/are not. Stalin’s theory of “socialism in one country” was counter-revolutionary and had nothing in common with Marxism, or scientific international socialism, other than borrowing some pseudo-marxist phraseology and co-opting the first true workers state in the world. Many of the people Stalin murdered, locked up or exiled were the true Marxists who opposed him.

Rainer,we know what Kenny meant.It should have read," As child I watched my mother being beaten."Less tongue in cheek and more sincerity Rainer will earn you more browny points.

The more we involve Govts and the legal system in our personal lives,so will our growth as individuals and our personal relationships diminish.This egotisical battle of the sexes promilgated by loopy feminists and hard done by whimpish males,will only end in misery for all involved.We have to find common ground without the litigation and new laws or suffer the further destruction of our personal relationships.The lawyers and extremists as always,will only play one off against the other.The emphasis should be less on rights and more on personal responsibilities.

The post war generation since 1945 have become very self indulgent,ill disciplined and have failed to develop as sincere personalities because real hardship has not forged their character.We have just become too spoilt.

Tao
Certainly the number of deaths attributed to Marxism does vary according to whatever version of Marxism is being considered.

People such as R.J Rummel for example have calculated the number as being over 110 million, and this figure included early deaths from starvation, ill health and general depravation brought about by the collapse of a country’s infrastructure. There have been times when members of Marxist type regimes have wanted an initial collapse of a country’s infrastructure so as to bring about a complete revolution of that society.

Should feminists in the education system believe in equality then most have an extraordinarily odd way of going about it. The person who has described themselves a being a Marxist and a feminist and was awarded an honorary doctorate last year and has said that men are “surplus to requirement” and men are “more trouble than they are worth” has also employed 5 men to carry out work on her recently purchased property in QLD. It appears that she has nothing but negativity towards men when trying to impress her feminist colleagues or University colleagues, but at other times she finds men very useful. I have personally found this situation to be highly typical of nearly every feminist I have ever met in the education system.

Feminism in the education system has nothing to do with equality. You can now say anything you like about the male gender in an Australian University as long as it is negative, and the people who are being indoctrinated and trained in Universities to devalue males are now going into other areas of the education system and other areas of society.

The devaluing of the male gender has become the primary characteristic of feminism, as a part of some type of feminist's revolution. It has become a primary characteristic of University education in this country and is also becoming a feature in high schools and primary schools. Feminism has very little to do with equality. Everything to do with bias, prejudice and discrimination.

HRS

Just because leaders of a state call themselves Marxists, and use pseudo-Marxist terminology, it does not make that state Marxist (if indeed there can be any such thing as a Marxist state). Similarly, just because a feminist calls herself a Marxist, it does not mean that she is in fact a Marxist.

To illustrate:

Just because John Howard calls himself a friend of the “battlers” does not mean he is a friend of the “battlers”. The reality is that he makes policy and laws that are against the interests of those “battlers”.

Just because Kim Beazley and the ALP call themselves the “Labor” party does not make them friends of the working class. The reality is that they make policy and laws that are against the interests of the working class.

Both leaders and their parties are actually working for business (i.e. they are bourgeois parties), and compete with each other to make themselves more useful business.

cont….

The Soviet Union under Stalin, China under Mao, Cuba under Castro, are/were not “Marxist” states. They had/have very little in common with the type of society that Marx envisaged. Calling them “Marxist type” systems means nothing.

The only state that could come close to being “Marxist” was the Soviet Union in the first few years after the 1917 October Revolution when the working class had taken power via the Bolshevik Party. However even the leaders of the Revolution were aware that one revolution in technologically and economically backward Russia would not make a true socialist society. They believed that, in order for the Revolution to transform society, it had to be taken up by the international working class, particularly, at the time, the German working class – that is Marxist theory.

Unfortunately, following the Revolution, Russia, already devastated by WWI, was racked by civil war, isolated and surrounded by capitalist states which actively assisted the counter-revolutionary White Army. For these and other reasons the Bolshevik party degenerated and Stalin was able to usurp power. Stalin then came up with his theory of “socialism in one country” which was diametrically opposed to Marxist theory of an international socialist revolution.

So while Stalin and others called his theory, and by implication the Stalinist Soviet Union, Marxist, THEY WERE NOT MARXIST. And they were not Marxist-Type.

Given that what you call “Marxist type” states ARE NOT Marxist, it is incorrect to attribute deaths caused by Stalinism etc, to Marxism.

Finally, I don’t disagree with you about the domination of feminists in universities, however a true Marxist (i.e. one that fights to educate and unify the working class in its struggle against the profit system) would not say that men are surplus to requirements. Irrespective of whether she calls herself a Marxist, true Marxists would probably consider such a person a petty-bourgeois radica