Metastatic Marxism
Ideas have consequences. Some ideas are mightier than swords. Deadlier too. As Terry Pratchett warns: “Unfortunately, wild and unstable ideas have a disturbing tendency to move around and take hold.” Some of the wildest and most devastating ideas came from Karl Marx. Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, those ideas still corrupt American youth. The most vulnerable are students exposed to the influence of anti-capitalist instructors in the fields of economics, philosophy, history, and political science. A multitude of falsehoods thrive in our academic centers where tenured faculty members pass their dogmatic views on to kids who are still thinking mostly with their hearts. They don’t come with horns and pitchforks—some are very nice people, intelligent and full of good intentions, as was a recent Marxist guest speaker at The King’s College.
As millions of people in the former communist countries mourn the victims of practical Marxism, leftists of all flavors are struggling to raise the red banner one more time. Socialist professors and their brainwashed disciples are in the forefront of the fight against American imperialism and economic neo-colonization. Our universities have become hatcheries for anti-globalists trying to persuade the developing nations that breaking their economic links with the West will protect their people from exploitation.
Traditional Marxism has been marginalized but not before it had metastasized. Hoping to catch in their webs as many confused souls as possible, today’s socialists redefine their idol’s ramblings for class struggle to mask it as a fight for race and gender equality. The infiltration of failed ”progressive” ideas diverts civil rights and environmental movements from the real problems of our generation. It is getting so bad that even the president of the United States sees no problem surrounding himself with Maoists.
Those are some of the reasons why, 20 years after the fall of the Iron Curtain, we still cannot celebrate the victory over the “empire of evil.” Yes, socialism is far from dead. We cannot pronounce it dead until it evaporates from those heads where the lies of the omniscience and omnipotence of government still reside. One thing we need to teach our children is that for democracy to really mean freedom and not a dictatorship of special interests, it cannot coexist with pervasive bureaucratic control of our economic affairs.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top37 Comments to “Metastatic Marxism”
Tokarev is correct. Too bad Llama can’t Speak Truth to Power.
I still don’t like the fact that some of you acted baby by complaining about Llama to the one who holds the scepter. I miss his cogent posts and his insights.
Shame on you!
Report comment to moderator
Uhm, “Maoists?” Politely, there simply is insufficient warrant for such a statement. Even the clip that GB played — a commencement speech — was hardly proof (unless one was irony-impaired, I suppose). Rash words are rarely the sort that build up, let alone change hearts. I would suggest that the turn to the invective is a turn to the totalitarian, no less than the turn to the special interests.
OF course, speaking of those special interests, I actually tend to side with Dr T’s point, if I would also note that such a view would seem to involve a fundamental breaking up of large entities (this, I learned fro Teddy Roosevelt).
Report comment to moderator
What a useless, name-calling rant – blissfully ignorant of fact or even a verifiable point!
Get a life!
Report comment to moderator
Oh, for crying out loud, in her own words she referred to Mao as one of the two people (Mother Theresa being the other) to whom she turns the most. And while they show the short clip of that sound byte, the more lengthy clip in its entire context lacks the “irony” you say is there. She was dead serious.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza,
I also think that one lady in the White House who admits that Mao is a major source of inspiration in her lie is hardly “surrounding”
But please tell us about the facts that the commentary ignores.
Report comment to moderator
ooops, I meant “inspiration in her LIFE” of course
Report comment to moderator
Reader – it’s not limited to “one lady in the White House.” The new manufacturing “czar” also “agrees with” Mao and thinks the free market is “nonsense” (see link below). The White House staff seems to have a Mao fixation.
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/10/another-obama-czar-praises-mao-the-manufacturing-czar-says-free-market-is-nonsense-video/
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy, I don’t think it’s fair to compare the two – one mentions Mao in passing, the other admits that Mao is her favorite political philosopher.
If I quote Hitler it does not make me a Nazi.
But if I say that I turn to Mein Kampf for answers to life’s mysteries, there’s something quite wrong with me
Report comment to moderator
I wish I could hear the whole speech. He may have a point – free market does not really exist in his world where big business and big labor struggle to get the government one their side against all of us as consumers.
Report comment to moderator
Reader – it’s true there’s a difference between the two quotes. Still, the manufacturing czar did more than merely mention Mao in passing – he stated he agreed with Mao’s assertion that political power comes down the barrel of a gun. Essentially what he was saying is that it’s going to be all about power and to heck with rules and fair play. This is a very nihilistic view to be espoused by someone in a position of high governmental power. Even if public officials think such things privately, it’s disheartening when they come out and say to the public, hey, with this administration it’s all going to be about power, and we don’t care what’s fair; or, the “free market is nonsense,” when economic freedom and fair competition are the very things the government is supposed to be protecting.
Report comment to moderator
well, that’s the problem as I see it – government is “supposed” to provide a level playing field but in reality they always confer favors (nothing special about the Dems here)
Report comment to moderator
True, they always do grant favors, some more than others (and like you say, it’s not a matter of R versus D). But if some are worse than others in this regard, though none are perfect, then what we hope for is that they won’t be too extreme about their favoritism.
Report comment to moderator
we don’t have to hope – we must raise our voices and demand that they serve us with justice (no favors for rich or poor)
and we should not fear them, they should fear us
Report comment to moderator
Once more for the irony-impaired, Dunn’s own words:
CNN has plenty more examples of conservatives quoting Mao.
This kind of silly issue-raising is the very same that conservatives rightly protest when liberals pick at their words.
Report comment to moderator
Amen.
Report comment to moderator
We cross-posted. My amen was to Reader.
Report comment to moderator
or maybe she understands she messed up and now she plays the card – “I was only joking”
I listened to the rest of the speech to see how her words about Mao fit in the context and I failed to see how it could be “intended as irony”
Report comment to moderator
“…two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa — not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most…”
either I am terrible at detecting irony or the lady sucks at using it
Report comment to moderator
again – I don’t have a problem with even the President quoting Mao, Hitler, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot or any other cannibal to make a good joke
but saying those guys are your “favorite political philosophers” and that you “turn” to them for advice is more than poor taste
Report comment to moderator
#5 What facts are in this commentary? Just a typical diatribe against academia and baseless accusations like:
“Socialist professors and their brainwashed disciples are in the forefront of the fight against American imperialism and economic neo-colonization. Our universities have become hatcheries for anti-globalists trying to persuade the developing nations that breaking their economic links with the West will protect their people from exploitation.”
Utter nonsense, with no empirical support whatsoever.
Report comment to moderator
Harris – that was Anita back pedaling after she got busted on tape. Her explanation and the larger context of her speech don’t jibe.
Report comment to moderator
Nononononono Harris. “Surrounded by Maoists” is too strong, yeah, but the “irony” defense doesn’t wash.
Report comment to moderator
either I am terrible at detecting irony or the lady sucks at using it
When all else fails, I would go with incompetence.
and Klasko, this is so clearly a commencement address, that context simply overwhelms any assertion of hidden conviction.
No, at the end, Reader has it right: this may be simply matter of poor taste (Though, given that the audience laughs suggests that the listeners in the room caught the irony. So perhaps for the conservatives out there, she should have given a Very Big Palin-esque Wink )
Report comment to moderator
Oh, re-read the above, Reader — it was Ms Dunn’s incompetence, not yours that I was referring to.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza,
You’re right that the commentary has no reference to quantifiable research on the leftist bias of American academia.
Do you dispute Dr. T.’s claim though? If so, could you please direct us to a website with numbers where we can be persuaded that those professors are pro-free-market?
Thank you in advance
Report comment to moderator
Harris,
I will not hide the fact that, compared to Anita, I am less competent in giving commencement speeches or understanding Chairman Mao
But when those kids laughed, it may have been because the speaker put together Mother Teresa and Mao as her two favorites. (I don’t even believe that the vast majority in the audience new anything about Mao beyond him being former Chinese dictator.)
Yes, it was intended to bring out laughter, but not because she was not serious about Mao’s philosophy…
I hope I’m wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Tokarev occasionally forgets to insert links with data that could strengthen some of his points but with the internet it’s so easy for spinoza or random to prove him wrong
Here’s what I found in less than a minute:
“Daniel Klein of George Mason University and Charlotta Stern of Stockholm University looked at all the reliable published studies of professors’ political and ideological attachments. They found that conservatives and libertarians are outnumbered by liberals and Marxists by roughly two to one in economics, more than five to one in political science, and by 20 to one or more in anthropology and sociology.
In a quantitative analysis of a large-scale student survey, Matthew Woessner of Penn State-Harrisburg and April Kelly-Woessner of Elizabethtown College found strong statistical evidence that talented conservative undergraduates in the humanities, social sciences and sciences are less likely to pursue a PhD than their liberal peers, in part for personal reasons, but also in part because they are offered fewer opportunities to do research with their professors. (Interestingly, this does not hold for highly applied areas such as nursing or computer science.)
Further, academic job markets seem to discriminate against socially conservative PhDs. Stanley Rothman of Smith College and S. Robert Lichter of George Mason University find strong statistical evidence that these academics must publish more books and articles to get the same jobs as their liberal peers. Among professors who have published a book, 73 percent of Democrats are in high-prestige colleges and universities, compared with only 56 percent of Republicans.”
Report comment to moderator
#19
I think you may have it right this time, Reader.
I listened to the speech in context and it was distirbing to hear so prominent a person use Mao as a positive example, especially to a room full of students. It does make one wonder just what’s going on in the classroom.
Report comment to moderator
Further, academic job markets seem to discriminate against socially conservative PhDs. Stanley Rothman of Smith College and S. Robert Lichter of George Mason University find strong statistical evidence that these academics must publish more books and articles to get the same jobs as their liberal peers. Among professors who have published a book, 73 percent of Democrats are in high-prestige colleges and universities, compared with only 56 percent of Republicans.”
I’m sure that Reader appreciates the irony here, that this complaint is the one minorities repeatedly face: “our group has to work twice as hard to get respect….” That such in-group v. out-group behavior is common does not remove the question of justice or equity, but an awareness of such inequity ought to broade our sensitivity to others. If we see it only as our injustice, that wrong can curdle in us in some spiritually very unhelpful ways.
But back to our subject.
Reader: I wonder if this is a difference analogous to that between the quant-driven and the qual-driven in economics (and social sciences). Those more data oriented will look at the quote and ask for other corroborating evidence (”one swallow not making a spring” being a useful proverb); those looking at qualitative data may be more ready to jump (”hey! I saw the swallow, where’s by bathing suit?”). Thus, some find a single quote to be compelling others do not (I actually think you are a quant, hence your “I hope …”).
Report comment to moderator
does it make sense for anyone to discriminate in the labor market based on anything but skills and achievement? i think not – you’ll be outcompeted when your non-discriminating rivals attract the best minority employees that you rejected or refused to promote.
so it may be that the academia is not a free market – does anyone have any thoughts?
Report comment to moderator
Harris: minorities repeatedly face: “our group has to work twice as hard to get respect….”
if you refer to racial minorities here, they may have this problem precisely because of government attempts to rectify past problems with EOE acts that turned out to have undesirable unintended consequences
what else is new about government interference
Report comment to moderator
“look at the quote and ask for other corroborating evidence”
I guess they’ll have to contact the authors and check the numbers and methods of the quoted “reliable published studies of professors’ political and ideological attachments”, “quantitative analysis of a large-scale student survey”, and “strong statistical evidence” – the scholars must have checked quite a few swallows before publishing
Report comment to moderator
Harris,
I just realized that at the end of #29 you refer to Anita Dunn and not the socialist bias in academia – so my comment in #32 is a little off
You’re right, it’s unlikely that the lady supports Mao’s atrocities even if she finds attraction in some of his ideas. But when a public figure is caught saying such things the expected response is an apology – “I was trying to make a joke, I do not approve of Mao’s mass murders, communism is a horrible system…” or something like that
Report comment to moderator
for a satirical perspective from folks who have been there, done that, check out the website called The People’s Cube http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=4214
Report comment to moderator
Reader — this business about the academy and conservatives is interesting. Why aren’t there more? The easy answer of (personal) prejudice doesn’t seem to really explain the sheer pervasive aspect — yes, there is not just one swallow, but flocks.
Some part is surely due to self-selection, who knows perhaps some sort of Ricardian mechanism
. Why do some study 18th C literature and others decide their future lies marketing? My real hunch is that underneath there are issues of long standing cultures, and even (horrors!) social class.
Going a bit off topic: I would also say that some part of the problem is a failure on the conservative side to seriously engage the issues. Historically, religious conservatives have found this engagement fairly challenging. The result is that we encourage fewer or our young people to do the heavy lifting of academics, with its discipline, and yes its quant. (I do have personal stake here: the son-in-law is interviewing for his first post, in Classics.)
Report comment to moderator
Harris, I think you may have stumbled on the answer here.
How does one get selected to join the history faculty at one school – it mostly depends on what the other historians think (they are the trusted experts). Once the number of historians who feel strongly about an issue reaches a critical point in a department, they have all the power they need to surround themselves over the years with like-minded colleagues.
It may even explain why the Ivy League lost its Christian identity.
p.s.
tell your son-in-law to check the Institute for Humane Studies (IHS) at George Mason University
Report comment to moderator
When I was in college Marxism was all the rage. And from what my kids tell me, it still is. The professors always prefaced their remarks with how tragic it is that no country ever got Marxism right. If someone could just do it right it would be utopia.
Obama has surrounded himself with socialists, Marxists, Maoists, Communists, etc. The amazing thing is they are starting to come out of the closet now and openly admit their extremism. Even Obama said this about himself during that period, and what his friends and collegues are saying now.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!