tao,

are you an educator;

cause if you are i think you got it all amiss. If not, then try this on for size.

The October revolution which some are celebrating right now (cause its october), was simply a coup. There was no revolt for weeks. The Whites lost, and the Reds won. Lenin set Russia on the path of Isolation, not external states. Lenin loved Marx. So did Stalin. Mao loved Lenin. Mao loved Marx. Terrorists love Marx. The dictatorship of the proletariat leveled all Marxist states, and individuals sovereignty therein.

Today, things have moved on (mostly), and the cold war has closed down. But some here in Aus still find a way to recognise the pathetic peasant movements of the past, and in october too. Why is that i ask. Is there something deep and hidden in our country that nobody sees. Do some weirdos feel we are illegitimate as a nation; as if we have neglected to do something to gain legitimacy. I wonder what that could be?

Is it education, or at least the education system. Dominated by none other than the Left, who all to a non-gender specific person all love Marx. Wow-we goodness me. Now heres the cathcy bit; the Leftits all think they are invisible, but are not. They think they have domination, which they do but dont. They think they have a new language set which no-one can identify, which they dont.

And to complete my definitive analysis, i call them the GFN.

I would love to know what all the fuss is about this fantasy workers state, glory sunshine villa life of commy idealism, mixed with mud and blood and guts.

Please enlighten me tao

Just because a group is a minority, it does not necessarily mean that they do not weild an inordinate amount of power and influence.

"The feminists redefined the Marxist goalposts and declared that it was MEN (the patriarchs), not Capitalism, that held power advantages over women and minority groups (the proletariat), and that all men were now the enemy. Family life was a dangerous place for women and children because men used physical and emotional violence to maintain their power advantage, and women only ever reacted violently in self-defence." Erin Pizzey

"We, the mothers, sat around the kitchen tables rearranging the world according to Marx."

"Much of feminist ideology appears familiar to anyone who knows at least a little bit about communist ideology. A good number of feminists have solid communist backgrounds, such as Betty Friedan, who was (perhaps still is) for many years a functionary of the Communist Party of the USA. Many feminist university professors involved in women's studies confess to and proudly boast of their affiliation with communist ideology, for which they use the euphemism Marxism. Furthermore, one of the most influential factions of feminism, Marxist and socialist feminism,"
http://www.fathersforlife.org/communist_manifesto.htm

Any other scapegoats you guys might be able to find? How comforting it must be to know all the world's ills are the fault of those nasty ( and incredibly powerful- look at all the corporations, banks, governments, armies, revolutionary movements, terrorist cells, judiciarys and parliaments they run) feminists. Not to mention the Marxists, Commies, Muslims, Greenies, Tree Huggers, Athiests, Humanists, Lefties and Refugees.
The appearance that rich white men run the world is, of course, just a clever illusion, a fabulous deception by the giant worldwide feminist marxist conspiracy. Thank God you guys spotted it in time!

Posted by ena, Friday, 20 October 2006 7:59:31 AM

My, my, get out of the wrong side of bed, did we?

For your information I do not support for example the "World Bank". In theory the world bank lends money to poor countries in order to make them self sufficient etc.

It is more than likely the world bank is controlled by very powerful and rich americans and it is way of increasing their wealth.

There is a term 'succesful sociopathy' (google it)it makes for some very interesting reading. It's possible that more than a few feminists who may be sociopaths even though there are in theory more male sociopaths than female sociopaths.

For every rich and powerful man there is a woman who benefits.

Besides this article if I read it correctly is about feminism and it's relationship with marxism. It is not about the evils of capitalism, greenies, pollies etc.

Tao,
Your account of the history of Marxism and communism is correct, but I think there are 2 main problems with Marxist theory. Firstly Marx believed in revolution to overthrow the existing state, and I think that there are people who romanticize Marz because he was a revolutionary, as there are people in China who still revere or romanticize Mao. However these revolutions were often quite bloody wars and a lot of people have died during Marzist or communist revolutions.

Secondly he did not incorporate enough democracy into his theories, possibly because democracy was so new in those times. So after the revolution dictators normally stepped in and many communist countries have become dictatorships or bureaucratic dictatorships. Not incorporating enough democracy into his theories basically guaranteed that a country would become a dictatorship.

The formula for allowing a country to develop while not having discrimination or exploitation of people is very complex. I certainly do not see feminism as being of much use in developing that formula, as feminism has evolved into a very undemocratic and discriminatory system. The majority of feminists will use whatever males provide while not having anything positive to say about males, and Greer would be a good example of that. They will also not recognize or object to male discrimination when it is occurring, so feminism becomes a pseudo equality system only, and I would certainly not like to see any more feminists in the education system or in areas such as law or politics.

James H
Betty Friedan is another example of a feminist who used males. She called herself a Marxist but married a rich capitalist and had her children driven to school in a limousine. She never said much that was positive about males, but she never refused their money, and that is the way the vast majority of feminists now operate I have found.

She was also very abusive, and her husband and children were quite afraid of her. All her children had to attend forms of trauma counseling latter in life

Gadget, I believe you suffer from what Marxists, or dialectical materialists, call “vulgar thought”, a description of which follows:

“The most common feature of vulgar thought is its tendency to simplify a complex and multifaceted reality with overly broad, amorphous and one-dimensional definitions. Scientific thought strives to identify and examine in their mutual interaction the diverse and antagonistic elements of which every phenomenon is composed. It attempts to develop concepts that accurately express the complexity, that is, the contradictory nature, of the reality that is being reflected in the mind of the scientist.

Vulgar thinking, on the other hand, resorts to vacuous generalizations that ignore the essential internal contradictions that constitute the structure of the phenomenon it presumes to analyze. Such empty generalizations are known, in philosophy, as abstract identities, that is, identities from which all internal difference is excluded. They are abstract, in the bad sense of the word, because they are inadequate mental representations of reality: The material world simply does not consist of such internally undifferentiated phenomena.

Every "identity" contains difference within itself. Herein lies the basic flaw of vulgar thought: it operates with one-sided concepts of the lowest order, with such abstract identities that are incapable of providing a scientific and truthful representation of reality.” http://www.wsws.org/history/1997/apr1997/fascism.shtml

The above is an apt description of your “definitive analysis”, to which, I feel, it would be pointless responding.

Given the quality of your post, I doubt the best educator (not that I am suggesting that I am an educator) in the world could instill in you the characteristics of intellectually rigorous thought, or “enlighten” you as to its subtleties. There are none so blind as those who willfully refuse to open their eyes and minds. But hey, whatever gets you through the night.

Cheers