Marxism, A World-view. Not A Dogma

There is some misconceptions about marxism in America. Some Americans believe that marxism is inherently anti-white. This is not true, marxism is concerned with social class and not race. Some people though have pursued an anti-white agenda in the name of marxism. Affirmative action is anti-white discrimination hence as a marxist I oppose it.

Marxism is a critique of bourgeois society, it is the act of siding with the proletariat in their struggle against oppression. As a marxist I am against all forms of racial discrimination whether it be against: whites, blacks, jews, or gentiles.

Not all wealthy people are involved with capitalist exploitation of the people. And so hatred of all rich people is not advised. Managers are necessary within the means of production, problems only arise when workers are not given fair wages.

Capitalism is destroying the earth through creating a neverending demand for consumer products in order to expand profits.

Preservation of national parks is of prime importance, for both the sake of the people and for the sake of the animals.

Air is public property hence preservation of nature is of prime importance, green life promotes good air and good air is essential to the health of the proletariat.

Being a marxist does not mean agreeing with everything Marx has said, marxist thinkers include people who have come before and after Marx. Being a marxist means agreeing that the world is defined in terms of social class and agreeing that liberating the proletariat is of prime importance.

Steps to liberate the proletariat include reducing mass immigration. Mass immigration is a capitalist ploy used to reduce wages. Other steps include nationalizing the banks, nationalizing the media, imposing strict censorship in the entertainment industry in order to prevent pro-drug propaganda and propaganda promoting sexual immorality, keeping the factories within ones nation, dismantling the stock exchange, nationalizing the auto-industries, nationalizing the oil companies, and providing tax funded university education and trade education.

Not all privately owned media should be abolished. Private media should exist within the realm of the internet and pirate radio stations.

Mass immigration is of such a concern to the proletariat I would support a right wing politician if they were committed to reducing the immigration.

The issue of health care is tricky. The capitalist system has perverted the medical industry so much that it has become very harmful to people and even if it was nationalized it would still be harmful to people. Che Guevara said that preventative medicine should be stressed.

Eliminating all private enterprise is not good, small businesses should not be nationalized. Home ownership should not be outlawed.

As far as the issue of zionism is concerned my position is one of neutrality.

A marxist doesn’t need to be a member of the communist party. Marxism is a world-view, marxism is not a political party. One can be a marxist and a member of any party. I would support any candidate who is willing to reduce immigration regardless of party affiliation because ultimately my loyalty is not to a party. My loyalty is to the proletariat. My loyalty is to the people.

Marxism is both nationalist and internationalist. It is nationalist because it makes of prime concern the people of ones own nation. It is internationalist because it has to be exported to other nations. It has to be exported because capitalism is international and capitalism is in a war against the people of the world.

Marx criticized the institution of family however not all marxists agree with Marx on that. Officials in the soviet union felt that it makes sense to promote sexual morality in order to encourage strong families. They figured that strong families made a strong proletariat. Their loyalty to the proletariat over-rode dogmatism. As a marxist I support strong families because strong families strengthen the proletariat.

Fidel Castro felt that homosexuality is bourgeois decadence. Homosexuality should be outlawed.

I am not opposed to religion because religion is something that the proletariat cling to and the purpose of religion is that religions promote propaganda which is intended to encourage strong families. Hence as a marxist I promote religion.

Sexual incontinence weakens the proletariat, hence as a marxist I promote chastity.

Liberty is part of marxist tradition. A marxist thinker who concerned himself with liberty was Jean Paul Sartre. Liberty is integral to marxism.

In the interest of liberty it makes sense to abolish institutionalized healthcare and make healthcare the purview of small businesses that are privately owned thus divorcing completely healthcare from the state and large corporations. The only doctors that exist should practice folk medicine.

Psychiatric institutions were used to imprison dissidents in some communist countries and that act was an abuse against the people, it is one criticism I have of communist countries.

Animal rights is essential to marxism, and other idelogies(even ideologies opposed to marxism). Animals are occupants of the realm of the state and thus are citizens.

Drugs are harmful to the proletariat. Drug dealers should be given life in prison. Pro-drug propaganda in the capitalist entertainment industry is the result of bourgeois decadence. Pro-drug propaganda harms both the bourgeois and the working class.

I do not support welfare. If a person does not work they should not eat. Or if they do manage to eat it should only be by people giving them charity voluntarily or by eating out of the trash. People who don’t work should be homeless if no one voluntarily gives them a place to live. Homelessness is a form of nomadism and I do not support outlawing homelessness because to outlaw nomadism is a form of racial discrimination(example:gypsies outlawed by nazis).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Marxism, A World-view. Not A Dogma

  1. janoklark says:

    I don’t see any spiritual or religious content in marxism (or capitalism either).

    I don’t see any moral content in it. The total destruction of morality, economy and culture are the real results of marxism.

    We’d be better to sit and meditate, do justice work, clean the house, chant and do japas…than to read this silly communism drivel. Better to pick up the Gita than the communist manifesto.

    • I can understand why you would say that about communism based on the American interpretation of communism. American “marxists” often do promote anti-morality drivel. However if you take the way communism was implemented during the decade after the revolution in Cuba you will see that Fidel Castro closed down the brothels and the gambling halls.

      Batista ruled Cuba prior to Castro

      ““ Brothels flourished. A major industry grew up around them; government officials received bribes, policemen collected protection money. Prostitutes could be seen standing in doorways, strolling the streets, or leaning from windows. One report estimated that 11,500 of them worked their trade in Havana. Beyond the outskirts of the capital, beyond the slot machines, was one of the poorest, and most beautiful countries in the Western world. ”

      — David Detzer, American journalist, after visiting Havana in the 1950s[21](The period of Batista rule)

      Batista established lasting relationships with organized crime, notably with American mobsters Meyer Lansky and Lucky Luciano, and under his rule Havana became known as “the Latin Las Vegas.”….. Batista would give Lansky and the Mafia control of Havana’s racetracks and casinos.”

      Robert Maheu, a veteran of CIA counter-espionage activities, was instructed to offer the Mafia $150,000 to kill Fidel Castro. The advantage of employing the Mafia for this work is that it provided CIA with a credible cover story.

      The Mafia were known to be angry with Castro for closing down their profitable brothels and casinos in Cuba.

      If the assassins were killed or captured the media would accept that the Mafia were working on their own.

    • My support for marxism has raised some eyebrows. I will explain why I have voiced support for marxism.

      Marxism has achieved the opposite of its stated objectives. I support marxism because marxism throughout history has abolished democracy and instituted a ruling class, and in some cases marxist governments could be described as monarchies.

      Think about the dynasty in North Korea, it is essentially a monarchy. Also examine the way the ruling class consolidated power in The Soviet Union. There was no democracy.

      I am not opposed to wealthy people, wealthy people should not be ashamed of themselves for being rich. If certain rich people are engaged in corruption I am opposed to those particular rich people.

      I support the idea of establishing a ruling council as the seat of power.

      I support a marxist style dictatorship and I do not support a white nationalist style dictatorship. The reason for this is I oppose discrimination against jews, gentiles, whites, and blacks.

      Marxists countries often have started out persecuting religion but then after awhile they generally grow to accept that they can’t get rid of it and they support it. As a marxist I support religion.

      If America were to ever have a monarchy I would support a diarchy. A diarchy is rule by two ruling families(Sparta was a diarchy). In the case of America it would be a good idea to have one of the ruling families be jewish and one of the ruling families be gentile.

      A monarchy could arise through marxist dictatorship or through outright blatant monarchism.

      State consolidation of the media would combat the dumbing down of people.

      I oppose the existence of hospitals because they are a product of bourgeois decadence but I do not oppose folk medicine.

  2. Rubin Rybnik says:

    I find your post to be somewhat reflective of some marxist qualities while completely skewed in others.

    You’ve over-simplified most of the issues and raised points that a die-hard republican would cheer to and that Engels would scoff at.

    Marx considered private charity to be a failure of government, the abandonment of welfare is something Marx would definitely not approve of, as social safety nets would be incorporated into daily life in a voluntary society.

    Stalin made enough of a mockery of Marxism, please don’t continue the deviationist trend. I’d call your statements “Independent” at best.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s