[Platt]
Yes, we are not surprised that you consider Castro's Cuba a success. 

[Arlo]
Gee, we've had this conversation before too. But I'll repeat myself one last
time, seeing as you are now in full Limbaugh mode. I don't consider Cuba a
success, I consider Cuba an embarrassment towards US foreign policy. 

[Platt]
Nor that you deny a connection between Marx's "original thinking" and the
horrors of communist countries such as China and North Korea.

[Arlo]
Unlike you, I've read and studied Marx. And I encourage anyone else to do so
who actually believes the talk-radio bunk you dole out.

Marx's aims were perverted by people like Lenin, and finally Stalin, and then
these subsequent nationalist dictatorships that, in good neocon tradition, felt
that people were too selfish and stupid and needed the strong hand of
patriotism and nationalism to guide them.

[Platt]
The question was about nations, not isolated small groups. By the way, what
ever happened to all those Hippie communes?

[Arlo]
And I answered that. Nations everywhere that tried to apply Marx fell prey to
neoconservative nationalistic bunk, and ended up propping up a regime that
ruled through propaganda, unquestionable loyalty to the state, nationalistic
pride to the point of arrogance, and the idea that this Glorious Nation myth
was needed by the poor, stupid masses. 

Marx, as I said here many time, as recently as in a good conversation with
Micah, was about the abolition of "government". It is sometimes now called
"anarcho-communism". Unless you can point out to me somewhere in Marx where he
says that tyrannical dictorships is the goal of communism.

[Platt]
Yes, only Arlo would consider armed political bullies like the KGB to be
"contextually irrelevant." 

[Arlo]
You are just drotting them out in an attempt to shift the rhetoric. I've
answered this now three times in as many posts. I understand your goal is to
shift the dialogue away from threatening grounds (state nationalism, the
obvious ties between Lenin and Strauss in their considering man as too selfish
or stupid to govern without a strong nationalist myth, and the reality of
Marx's writings that anyone can pick up and read for themselves). This is the
insipid, vile talk-radio crap that you always dole out, and it precisely this
that degenerates any conversation into the same evil stupidity that is always
had. So cry me a river about being "personally insulted", as if poor Platt the
innocent is wrongly picked on. 

[Platt]
See comment about "embarrassing crap" in my reply to Craig's post.

[Arlo]
As I said, anyone who has read Marx knows I am correct. Oh you can disagree, to
be sure, and I do disagree with Marx on many counts. And anyone who has
actually read him and wants to debate/discuss it, I am game. But this
talk-radio inspired bile pushes me to my limit. You want to squalk Hannity
soundbites, go right ahead. Anyone who can pick up a book by Marx and read it
will see that I am right, and I encourage anyone who might be buying into
Platt's inspid crap to do so. 

The only ongoing embarrassment to this forum, Platt, is your disgusting, vile
and insipid rhetoric. I deal with it too much. Many just ignore it. Ian led
with the courage to call it out. But its an absolute disgusting thing to have
to deal with here, and something we should all be ashamed of.


moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

Reply via email to