- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 92,648
- Reaction score
- 28,392
I disagree. The Frankfurt school aim was to postulate and promote the conditions needed to bring forth the communist state. That is a broad departure from Marx that saw communism as a inevitable reaction to capitalism rather than something that needed to be implemented. WWI was one of the several events that triggered this paradigm shift in communist theory. The fact workers remained loyal to their nation state and fought other members of their class made communist and socialist theorist realize that the nation state and principals of nationalism needed to be weakened. This would make members of their proletariat find more solidarity with their class than nation. Thus, making the implementation of communism more achievable. Based on that and implementing the goals of the Frankfurt school the strength of the nation state must be weakened in order to implement communism. Mass immigration is a way to achieve that because the influx of immigrants weakened the ties of the workers to their nation. @Greoric this is what you were getting at right?
Well, this doesn't reflect any better on him. Let's follow the train:
1. Some Marxist intellectuals in the 1930s theorized about the way to bring forth communism (which is stateless, BTW).
2. Some right-wingers today think that "mass immigration" weakens the ties of workers to their nation.
3. Therefore, opponents of Ryan's attempt to push through a bunch of visas for Irish people to America (on the grounds that such proposal is hypocritical) are Marxists?
That's not good reasoning. It's not really even reasoning. For one thing, it's totally backwards (wouldn't supporters of Ryan's actions be the people who are helping to bring about the conditions for communism and thus the inadvertent Marxists?). For another, the opponents of Ryan would have to agree with the false premise that immigration weakens ties of workers to their nation and the premise that weakening ties to a nation brings about communism, and they'd have to actually support/oppose (remember it's backwards) it for that reason. So, again, Greoric comes off looking like someone who just doesn't know what he's talking about (which is why he wisely reported to throwing out an empty personal attack rather than get into the weeds).
And another thing: He's a grown man. He's been reading the WR for a decade. And he still is completely clueless about mainstream liberal beliefs and finds it to be some kind of incomprehensible, alien ideology. How is that possible? Like, he doesn't even understand enough to say if he really even disagrees with real ideas.
Last edited: