This is, because Marxist ideas are rejected by a different class of totalitarian. To impose Marxism into a comunist system you must of course be imposing. To the best of my understanding, those students are not seeking to impose marxism through a comunist super state mechanism.
I know this is your bias, but your need to explain it confirms what I expected and did say, that my poor delivery will cause many to miss the point I was trying to make, leaving the knee jerk reaction of ooooo comunism is evil because of dictators. Dictators are evil, comunism is nothing more than the idea of caring about your fellow man, a human comunity in cooperation. Lets look at a piece of American history for proper perspective on the reality that man is corrupt, not the system. You presumably defend the capitalistic democracy, I make that presumption only for the sake of making the above point. Our founding father George Washington failed to attempt diplomatic efforts with Spain to open the Missisipi to traffic of American goods in the new countries interior. Trafficking goods from the interior to East coast was made difficult by the rocky mountanous wilderness and lack of infrustructure seperating the east from the interior. The primary motivation for not expending any effort to this goal was Washingtons land speculation. He had purchased mid area lands that stood to be a lucrative investment if the preeminance of the east was maintained and a suitable trafficking route established into the interior from his lands. This is a bad enough example of corruption but it does not stop here. Farmers unable to turn a proffit transporting thier grain to the east began distilling it and transporting whiskey instead as it was more lucrative to ship just the whiskey. The freemarket found a way to rectify this political inactivty. However the powers that be could not leave well enough alone. Hamilton began to squeeze these interior farmers dry by impossing a whiskey tax wich benifited eastern megaproducers make the comunity stills to the west unprofitable. Combined with land indebtedness they were pushed to the brink and the militia began to speak of revolt. Now all of this could have been avoided by simply doing nothing but the men in power would not do this. This is indeed the oposite of the Marxist ideal with the poor working farmers, working together as a comunity to turn a prophet from thier endevours. The other side fits perfectly with clasic antagonist of the proletariate. The land speculator politician failing in his duities intentionaly for personal gain, the political ally of big buisness putting down the efforts of the working class to raise itself up. How is this anything less than Tyrany? Do you believe it is less Tyranical because they are not killing thier own citizens? Well, we are not done with the story my friend. This revolt was not merely expected by Hamilton it was very likely intended. Hamilton had many motives for mobilizing the continental army, wich I will not go into here further. Also in the interior was a waining military industrial complex of supply lines from the Indian wars. These men, from Washington and Hamilton to retiered supply officers in the west fed the revult only to gain aproval for the mobilization of the continental army to put down that revult. I don't have time to look up the causualty count, it was not astronomical if I remmeber right but it was very real. Men who wanted nothing more than work thier farm and raise thier family were caught between militia radicals calling for independance and the US government. At first the militia was the imdeiate threat, and subjected to intimidation were publicly pro militia regaurdless of private positions on the matter. Some men worked with the militia only in the intrest of being a moderating voice trying to prevent violence but on the arival of the Army they will all insurgents. Many were marched over the mountains in the winter to the east for trials, not quite as many completed that march. One form of goverment is not inately supperior to anouther form. As far all examples of marxism being dictatorships, you look at big goverment. Do you feel big goverment is a necesity? I do not. I know that growing up there was a commune not more than a mile down the road. Many families voluntarily lived in a large house they had, and they ran a farm. They also gave second chances to people who needed a helping hand and could not get that second chance from the rest of society. It was in retrospect a very noble thing of them to do, that embodied both Marxism and liberties ideal of governing and the smallest level. Statism is evil, Marxism is not unless used as a tool of Statism. While the largest examples of Marxism are some of the worst examples of Statism, there is a wealth of Statist monsters thorught history both modern and ancient that have nothing to do with Marxism. I only seek to clearify our enemy, for it is real, and we need all the support and help we can get in confrunting it. If thier are Marxists out there who though Marxist reject statism, are they not our allies ever still? If not, at the least if there is an entity out there that rejects Marxism, and while embracing capitolism also embraces statism are they not more the enemy still and in that fact our common enemy?
