Debra wrote: > I do know and have come to expect that Kakki is usually the first (and sometimes only) > person to use the word Marxist or communist when making observations, > sometimes with the implication that people on this list are one of those > trouble-causing, anti-American communists.
I sometimes wonder if you actually read my posts or just peruse them to see what you can belabor against me, Debra. I don't want to repost everything and the reason why once again here. You can look at the posts in the archives on the subject from around 1/16/03 - 1/20/03. It started off with me mentioning to Sarah about the ANSWER/IAC group which is openly and actively a Communist/Marxist group. Four or five people questioned me extensively at the time as to whether I was calling anti-war protestors Marxist and I repeated that I was not and that I was sure many people who protested the war were not aware of ANSWER's background. I am not just saying ANSWER is of that ideology to slander them. That is what they openly profess. They actively support Marxist groups around the world including support of North Korea. They also happen to be the first and largest organizer of the anti-war protests since 9/11. That is just fact reported in all the mainstream media. I don't think it is some far out there reaction to be curious about ANSWER's intentions and why they were so organized right away but that is about them and NOT the many other groups or individuals who are protesting based on their individual conscience or pacifist beliefs. > Who on the list has labeled themselves a Marxist or a communist? No one, as far as I know. No one as far as I know, either, and I don't care if some are. >To be a liberal or left-wing or look critically at or make negative comments > about the way the US government does things is NOT necessarily to be a > Marxist or communist. Something you'd probably say you agree with, > Kakki, and yet you imply differently. No, but here is where I get confused sometimes. My example the other day - what if I posted a bunch of articles from for example, KKK website to support tax reform? Would it be extraordinary for someone else here to point out that my sources are racist? No. Then what if I and some of my friends here all protested that someone was calling me a racist. What if I posted articles from Jerry Falwell here in a discussion on Christian scripture. Would it be extraordinary for someone else to point out that the person I quoted does not represent their idea of a good Christian? No. Then I come back and say you are bashing me as a Christian. One does not always follow the other, and I tend to assume most people here can parse it out. > I always see that "Marxist around every corner" paranoia as basic > right-wing thinking, which is where you start from, Kakki, even if you > don't think so. That is really kind of funny to me. I grew up through all those "Red scare" days and used to alternately laugh or be a little scared of the John Birchers. I thought it was all paranoia, too. But when I see this large ANSWER group proudly waving the banner and marching in the street with their Workers World Party placards and pamplets supporting North Korea and Maoist terrorist groups after all these years, I do kind of think "holy shit!" > I'm glad my actions and words fit my core beliefs enough > for someone to "label" me. It doesn't mean that on some issues my > beliefs might not fit that label, just that many of them do. And this is where I have come to think there is a fundamental difference between some of the left and those on the right. My ideologies do not control my every move every waking minute. They are not set in stone (because life and issues are fluid and ever changing) and it is not the only thing that influences who I am. In fact, I kind of dislike the word ideology because it implies that I am controlled by some proscribed set of beliefs that all come from some central clearinghouse, rather than developed and evolved from my own experiences and beliefs. I get the impression from some on the left that they really do think of those on the right as an enemy, that they must crusade against at all times. I see it differently - that we are all Americans and, in the larger sense, we are all people, not enemies divided by political ideologies. I don't feel I have to fight against people all the time in order to stand by my beliefs and opinions. That's why I probably naively jump into some discussions here thinking people can give and take, or at least be respectful. I have not had a full appreciation that maybe some people think that now it's ideological war time and they start firing off the big guns. That's why sometimes I have felt a bit singed. I have also noticed a big difference in the way people from different political parties interact with each other in Southern California vs. the Northeast. My experience in Cal. is that people (moreso Native Californians) are pretty laid back about it all. They don't get so agitated about the differences and would never say "I will no longer have friends who are not of the same belief as me." But I have to say that the people from the Northeast seem to be much more adamant in their politics. I'm not picking those people out here in particular. I noticed it years ago from my non-Republican relatives who live in the Northeast. They just hammer and hammer away and never give one inch in discussing politics and also tend to get more personal about it all. I am not saying that is wrong. It's just an observation that I have pondered trying to understand the dynamics of the whole thing, > The second characteristic of right-wing thinking is to rely on FACTS, as > though objective, beyond-human viewpoint, absolute right/wrong > information exists. Belief in that usually comes across as "I have the > FACTS, and you don't", which is something we've seen on the list also. > The more right-wing the person, the fiercer they are about that > assumption. I think the "right-wing" has felt barraged for years at the many lies slammed against them. That is why they have become so defensive and wanting, sometimes compulsively, to go to the facts. If someone says "Bush is a crazy, stupid imperialist oil czar who is bent on taking over the free world for those New World Order boys and look at all these connections that prove it. His father advises the Carlyle Group, and he is the cause of the ENRON scandal, too" is it so wrong for someone on the right to say, "here are facts which refute that?" If someone on the right were saying that about a left-wing representative, don't you think left-wing supporters might do the same thing? You can boil it down to you defending a friend against a false accusation made by another. Perfectly human behavior done everyday in all kinds of situations. > And the third characteristic of right-wing thinking is to basically > believe what the US government says. I don't know if that's a belief in > all authority or if it's specifically trust in the US government (at > least when the conservatives are in charge) because to not trust the > government is to be unpatriotic. And no right-winger wants to think of > himself or herself as unpatriotic. That equals un-American, which may > equal Marxist, and that's very very bad. And that is just what you say, a characture painted by the left since, it seems time, immemorial. I remember the comedians way back in Nixon's day playing it up to the hilt. Of course, it was those same right-wingers who came personally to show Nixon the door when his illegal actions were revealed. No excuses for him, no spin or cover-up. He could no longer be trusted and it was time for him to go. True conservatives are all for as little authority from the state as possible and I've also observed them to be much more highly critical of their own than those on the left. Kakki
