[Craig] Why wait, the free market allows that result now. What's stopping a real marxist from joining a commune in Vermont, a kibbutz in Israel or a collective farm in some marxist paradise.
[Arlo] Nothing. But Marx would likely argue that dropping out the system results in a loss of power and agency, something he felt would be maintained (and improved) in a system where the means of production were returned to those who labor, and people's interests were freed from the commodity fetishism and unrelenting property acquisition cycles encourage by capitalist doctrine. Don't confuse what Marx called "proto-communism", the agrarian-esque Ludditism, that exists before (and apart from) the power that derives from participation inclusive of the means of production and the raw materials of that production. For example, although the Amish serve as a good example of proto-communism, and a better example of Marxism than Platt's perennial "Pol Pot", Marx would also lament that the Amish lack true power (somewhat because of their adherence to an orienting religion myth, and somewhat because they achieve communalism by virtue of denying production power as opposed to reclaiming it). But let's not argue past each other here, Craig. The original point here was whether or not Marx advocated freedom. YOU might interpret his arguments as leading to a loss of freedom, but there is no denying that Marx was firmly of the belief that man's freedom was his goal. He may have been "wrong", but he never advocated tyranny or brutal dictatorship, and especially never the patriotic state nationalism advocated by Lenin and Strauss. 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/
