2/25/24: Update to 10/22 post:
In order to show that the left is ideologically Marxist, take a note from history ( if it is still taught ), and see the parallels. The left-center-right paradigm is from Marxist theory. Read up on it, and be informed. I did.
Krugman wants to compare the opposition to fascists. Fascists are Nazis, and so are the Republicans! So, what's the latest thing going around? Christian Nationalists, that's what. Let's take that one apart, and see what's under the hood.
Adolf Hitler was born a Catholic. Consequently, any Catholic has to be a Nazi, right? However, if Hitler was anything in terms of religion, he was pagan. The Nazis subscribed to the philosophy of Nietsche, who thought of Christianity as a sort of slave mentality. There is nothing in Hitler's philosophy that was Christian. So, this pagan sets up the Nazi party in Germany, starts a world war, and tries to wipe out the Jews. such a person is EEEEEVIL, right? Of course he is. But some of the thinking that was behind Nazism is right there inside the Marxist paradigm. Read up on it and find out. Listen to progaganda, on the other hand, and allow yourselves to be deceived.
Hitler is as far away as one can get from communism, right? After all, they are polar opposites. That is, if you believe that ideology. But Hitler described the Nazi Party as Socialist. That's what Nazi means, after all. It means, "National Socialism". If Hitler, being born a Catholic, can think up Nazism, then all rightists must be Nazis, right? And all Christians that are nationalist must also be like Hitler, and are fundamentally dangerous. Ooo! Such nasty people!
If you cannot see through the fallacies and the irrationality of their arguments, then you will be deceived by them. One is tempted to condemn Krugman and his leftist friends as liars, but some of these people really believe that stuff. If you believe it, then you aren't a liar. But you may be crazier than a bed bug.
One doesn't get to totalitarian governments via free speech. One gets there through incessant propaganda. When it comes to totalitarianism, the Democrats have got a lock on that one, because of their fondness for censorship. If they are so afraid of dissident ideas, then it must challenge what their most closely held beliefs. But beliefs can be challenged and upheld as true. Or they can be challenged and found wanting. What are the Democrats so afraid of?
end update, the original post from 10/1/22 is directly below:
It has been mentioned here that Democrats really don't want an opposition, and the proof is in reading Krugman's book--"The Conscience of a Liberal".
This needs to be discussed further, as some folks may not believe it. Or they'll deny it. But it is there, perhaps not stated directly, but it can be deduced easily from what he writes. It is in his major thesis, so it can hardly be missed. To put it succinctly as possible, Krugman blames the "polarization" on effective political opposition of "movement conservativism". Conservatism is naughty, basically.
He claims that "movement conservatism" is fascist. Again, not in so many words, but it can be deduced. Hence, it is a rather naughty thing to have any dissent. What is "polarization" if it is not dissent?
Krugman says that there was the "good old days" when Eisenhower Republicans stopped opposing Democrats. Everybody got along splendidly and the country prospered. True enough, the "good old days" really were better than now, but is dissent the cause of our troubles? He compares the eighties to the so-called Gilded Age. Krugman concedes that there was rapid progress during what he disparaging calls the Gilded Age. It should also be remembered that the progress in the Reagan years happened for a reason, as the prosperity that ended in the sixties and early seventies led to the one-term presidency of Jimmy Carter. Carter is remembered for the stagflation, a phony energy crisis, and weak foreign policy. Reagan turned that around and won 49 states in 1984.
Krugman would have everyone believe that Cold War would have been won anyway without Reagan. Prosperity would have returned without Reaganomics. But would it have? It didn't seem that way at the time. If it was Krugman wanted, and Reagan was suppressed, everyone would be more equal, and there would have been a utopia. There may well have been more equality, but it would have been the kind that the Soviets enforced. Everything that went with communism would have been the condition here. We've seen empty store shelves, long gasoline lines, poor quality of consumer goods, and what have you. Those were the usual thngs in the former Soviet Union. Reagan exposed these weaknesses and the Soviet Union collapsed. It was no accident. Reagan declared he would put the Soviet Union on the ash heap of history, and he did it. It would seem that Krugman is calling the seventies and asking for his old Soviet Union back.
It is well known that communism does not brook any dissent. There are no civil liberties. There is no economic freedom. It would seem that "polarization" is not necessarily such a bad thing. If everything was perfect, there would be no need for a change. But what if there were no opportunities for improving things? Then you get the stultifying society that the Soviet Union was, and what the USA is becoming more and more like--ala Krugman and his ilk.
In the Communist Manifesto, it was acknowledged that people would not accept communism freely. Therefore, there had to be a dictatorship. Also, communists believed that it had to be world-wide to succeed. Hence the constant agitation for overthowing the old order. If the communists did succeed, and it became world-wide, then how would there ever be any way to improve conditions? If all dissent is bad, then how can problems ever be identified and corrected? They could not, and that is why conditions in communist held regions are so poor. But if everybody was miserable, maybe they wouldn't feel it as much. Everybody would be equally miserable. Is that what the left wants?
Communism offers no incentives. Even the Russians said the same after the Soviet Union ended. The mania for equality cannot coexist with advancement of civilization. Some "polarization" is necessary because perfect agreement is not possible except in a dicatorship, and not even there. It can only be suppressed, and everyone pretends that things are fine, even if they are not. It's why Communists need dictatorships. The communists believe that they could create a new man, who would no longer respond to incentives. They tried it and it failed. Even if it succeeded, such a "new man" could not be expected to understand the minds of others if they are not allowed to speak freely.
At the heart of it all is that leftists believe that dissent is bad. Experience has shown otherwise. The communists believe that you can create a society of angels, but such is impossible. Dissent is necessary, regardless of whether or not you think it is good or bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment