Occupy Admits Its Real Goal: Communism … Que: @RedScareBot

August 21, 2012

(IBD) The Left: An Occupy organizer admitted over the weekend that the goal of his protest group was to “overthrow the capitalist system and build communism.” So the cat’s out of the bag again on this bunch. Where is the outrage?
The true agenda of the Occupy movement has been revealed — it’s a totalitarian one. Billing itself as a spontaneous people’s revolution and embraced by the media and Democrat political establishment, Occupy is really a destructive band of thugs whose goal is the violent demise of democracy.
Speaking at a “People’s Assembly” in Washington, former Amalgamated Transit Union local 689 president Mike Golash told Occupy members his goal was to “make revolution in the United States, overthrow the capitalist system and build communism.”

The Occupy organizer added that he was “trying to learn something from the examples of the Soviet Union, Red China and Castro’s Cuba. … What can we learn from them so we can build a more successful movement to transform capitalist society?” he asked.
This attachment to the miserable failure of communism — an ideology that left 100 million people dead in the 20th century and met its demise as an idea after millions rose up in 1989-90 to repudiate it — is insane.
Remarks like Golash’s were common among the Occupy mobs who filthied up Los Angeles and other cities last year — perfectly representative of Occupy thinking.
Such talk never fazed anyone at the “People’s Assembly” either. Maybe that’s because it’s of a piece with the thinking of Occupy master planner, SEIU boss Stephen Lerner, who in 2011 said he wanted to bring down the stock market and destroy banks such as JPMorgan.
Occupy flourishes because it draws support and legitimacy from the media and like-minded Democratic politicians who pitch a fit anytime someone accuses them of supporting the destruction of democracy.
Not long ago, Democrats pounded Rep. Allen West for pointing out that Congress is loaded with soft-core communists who sugarcoat themselves as the “progressive caucus.” They are Occupy’s loudest supporters.
Democratic leaders such as then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hailed Occupy as “spontaneous,” while President Obama himself heaped sympathy on the group, even intervening in a local police matter to keep Occupy Portland members from being arrested.
It’s a disgrace. Occupy is nothing but a far-left group, learning nothing from the past yet drawing support from the left. Is communism the agenda they really stand for? From Golash’s remarks, it looks like it.


Envious Marx

July 21, 2011
In an early meditation on “raw” or “crude” Communism (der rohe Communismus), by which he meant the Communism of Babeuf and Buonnaroti, Marx explained its appeal as a universalization of envy. By implication, he distanced himself from it:

Universal envy establishing itself as a power is only the disguised form in which greed re-establishes and satisfies itself in another way. The thought of every piece of private property as such is at the very least turned against richer private property as envy, and the desire to level, so that envy and the desire to level in fact constitute the essence [of the hatred of the results] of competition. Crude communism is only the fulfillment of this envy and leveling on the basis of a preconceived minimum.

This is a highly sophisticated moral discourse that cuts to the quick of the mechanisms of ressentiment parading as idealism. But for all such insight, Marx ended up stoking the very fires he here critiqued. Helmut Schoeck notes: “It is only in Marxism, the abstract and glorified concept of the proletariat, the disinherited and exploited, that a position of implacable envy is fully legitimized.” – The Augean Stables

the obvious is that Marx was not consistant on his view of Envy, Jealousy and Greed. The Post Marxists were very concerned with libidinal desire and attempted to fuse Marx with Freud. It became necessary to ask if there was a violent human reaction because of envy then existentially why must this be so? Was it inherent? Marx really resolved nothing. (image source)


What they promised is equality through order. But now all that remains is the order.

July 17, 2011

They have declared war against every code and standard, while replacing them with themselves as the arbitrators. The absolute judges of right and wrong. This is tyranny. Cultural tyranny swiftly leads to political tyranny and we have both of those today in the form of a political priesthood of organizers, activists and leaders who are determined to control every aspect of our lives. Without any accountability of their own, says the Sultan.

when everything becomes a reference… (a reference to what? power), there is no longer a principle. It’s like a brand name without a product.

The Progressive Reactionarism of the Postmodern Left

June 27, 2011

The absurdity of the postmodern left is that it is a chimera crossbred of contradictions mixing together technocracy and environmentalism. Hunting through the trash for discarded food and triumphantly blogging about it on a 500 dollar device. Big government projects and making your own shoes. Stand up to the man and tell him to appoint more bureaucrats. Read Dawkins and then blog about visiting a Middle Eastern mosque. Reject materialism in the latest carefully branded 200 dollar shoes made from recycled rubber tires.  

If the old left at least had something resembling rational project, the postmodern left has its broken vestiges, dressed up in directionless rage, superstition, anti-materialism and primitivism. The end result of this progressive reactionarism isn’t just ugly, it’s unsustainable.

….They’re not so much socialists, as they are idiots who think that the economy is a function of their genius and all foreign policy problems can be settled with a beer summit and a heartfelt apology. It’s not just that they’re ruining America– it’s that they’re frequently too stupid to even know they’re doing it.  more via Sultan Knish

Post Marxism

September 16, 2009

the essence of Post Marxism is that materialism accounting for libidinal influences in a linear time line somehow can be accounted for by an altruistic leader. but it isn’t the leader that is the problem.  The top person must get the parts to cooperate and so in a totalitarian system even a so called well intending leader must make compromises to those who expect elitist favors.  you can not fool the educated into sublimating their sexual desires. people can be brainwashed, but if the ladies aren’t being charmed and the men aren’t getting whores… (or whatever) you have problems.  in some ways a totalitarian with a conscience is the most likely to fail.  Without some elegant competitive system of trust you have tyranny.

so who would want to fuse libidinal desire with Marxism? who would be so interested in co-opting Freud and take him out of context? (not that I agree with Freud all the time), but there were powers that be that were talking about discourse and intelligence. they were asking for the abstract because they didn’t want to be objectified. is this what you think is intelligent? someone who is dishonest and decides that the best way to avoid admitting you like to fuck little boys is to create a system that pretends it takes into account libidinal desire, but does not analyze the sexual difference that would be accounted for in Capitalism. hmmmmm


Post Marxism

September 16, 2009

the essence of Post Marxism is that materialism accounting for libidinal influences in a linear time line somehow can be accounted for by an altruistic leader. but it isn’t the leader that is the problem.  The top person must get the parts to cooperate and so in a totalitarian system even a so called well intending leader must make compromises to those who expect elitist favors.  you can not fool the educated into sublimating their sexual desires. people can be brainwashed, but if the ladies aren’t being charmed and the men aren’t getting whores… (or whatever) you have problems.  in some ways a totalitarian with a conscience is the most likely to fail.  Without some elegant competitive system of trust you have tyranny.

so who would want to fuse libidinal desire with Marxism? who would be so interested in co-opting Freud and take him out of context? (not that I agree with Freud all the time), but there were powers that be that were talking about discourse and intelligence. they were asking for the abstract because they didn’t want to be objectified. is this what you think is intelligent? someone who is dishonest and decides that the best way to avoid admitting you like to fuck little boys is to create a system that pretends it takes into account libidinal desire, but does not analyze the sexual difference that would be accounted for in Capitalism. hmmmmm