Conservatives and anti-intellectualism

Good post. some people hate intellectuals because they fear those that know more than they do. And correct the ignorant are more easially misled and controlled.
 
blackascoal said:
There does appear a relationship to anti-intellectualism and the conservative movement.

It's spread all over the world stage today.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a relationship between anti-intellectualism and the communist movement.

It's spread all over the world stage today.


I can do that too! Except mine is more true.
 
gonzojournals said:
There seems to be a relationship between anti-intellectualism and the communist movement.

It's spread all over the world stage today.


I can do that too! Except mine is more true.
Click to expand...

Communism was the biggest anti-intellectual movement in history. But I'm wary of anyone who cites as their primary opposition "intellectuals".
 
AssHatZombie said:
There never was one. They were always actually fascist. There are plenty of those.
Click to expand...
They were always socialist. Agreeable to Marx the first step towards communism is an imperfect form of colletivism called socialism.

Totalitarian socialists are not the same thing as Fascists.
 
Watermark said:
Anyone else not surprised that almost every totalitarian movement of the 20th century was backed by a wave of nativism and anti-intellectualism? The Khmer Rouge actually shot people for wearing glasses.

In a simialar way, our modern conservatives act. They oppose any effort to think of a situation in depth. Conservative commentors actually cut peoples mics and throw them off set because intellectual arguments are too complex for them to handle, and justify this with some sort of non-sensical ad hominem attack. It's a dangerous age whenever someone can be attacked simply for knowing more than someone else.
Click to expand...

lol
most of those totalitarians where leftists...
 
Damocles said:
They were always socialist. Agreeable to Marx the first step towards communism is an imperfect form of colletivism called socialism.

Totalitarian socialists are not the same thing as Fascists.
Click to expand...

But there was never really an equal distribution of wealth, it was fascism. as the markets were served (poorly) by an entitity that was a combination of state and industry.
 
WRL said:
lol
most of those totalitarians where leftists...
Click to expand...

I didn't draw a difference between "leftees" and "rightees". I said that all movements of either kind that survived based on anti-intellectualism were dangerous.

And communism was as anti-liberal as a philosophy can get.
 
Oh Jesus the reason over a hundred million people where murdered and nearly every communist state ended in economic collapse isn't because they never tried hard enough, or didn't follow this marx's 'perfect' model, which has never worked, to the letter. How absurd...
 
WRL said:
Oh Jesus the reason over a hundred million people where murdered and nearly every communist state ended in economic collapse isn't because they never tried hard enough, or didn't follow this marx's 'perfect' model, which has never worked, to the letter. How absurd...
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
AssHatZombie said:
But there was never really an equal distribution of wealth, it was fascism. as the markets were served (poorly) by an entitity that was a combination of state and industry.
Click to expand...
When the state owns everything it is not a mixture of state and industry. As in the Soviet Union. It was socialism, the main definition of which is "Imperfect collectivism" your definition would be "communism" as everything would have been perfectly evenly distributed, from each according to their ability to each according to their need. According to Marx it would lead to true Communism, that idiotic Utopian ideal of his.
 
Damocles said:
When the state owns everything it is not a mixture of state and industry. As in the Soviet Union. It was socialism, the main definition of which is "Imperfect collectivism" your definition would be "communism" as everything would have been perfectly evenly distributed, from each according to their ability to each according to their need. According to Marx it would lead to true Communism, that idiotic Utopian ideal of his.
Click to expand...

Whether you call the people who run things CEO's and Politicans (the revolving door) or Party Members is irrelevant. It's the same thing regardless of the labels used. They are all actually oligarchical collectivism, but fascism is achieved through the mental frames of the business world, and imperfect socialism is achieved through the language of social justice and fairness. The endpoint is the same.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Whether you call the people who run things CEO's and Politicans (the revolving door) or Party Members is irrelevant. It's the same thing regardless of the labels used. They are all actually oligarchical collectivism, but fascism is achieved through the mental frames of the business world, and imperfect socialism is achieved through the language of social justice and fairness. The endpoint is the same.
Click to expand...

Fascism is achieved through nationalism, statism, a mostly free-market, and the marginalisation of opposing political beliefs (and politicians in general).

Just because you can't think of a different word to express your disdain does not mean that fascism is an appropriate one.
 
gonzojournals said:
Thank you, Damo.
Click to expand...

You must have missed this bit of genius I just penned:

Whether you call the people who run things CEO's and Politicans (the revolving door) or Party Members is irrelevant. It's the same thing regardless of the labels used. They are all actually oligarchical collectivism, but fascism is achieved through the mental frames of the business world, and imperfect socialism is achieved through the language of social justice and fairness. The endpoint is the same.
 
AssHatZombie said:
You must have missed this bit of genius I just penned:

Whether you call the people who run things CEO's and Politicans (the revolving door) or Party Members is irrelevant. It's the same thing regardless of the labels used. They are all actually oligarchical collectivism, but fascism is achieved through the mental frames of the business world, and imperfect socialism is achieved through the language of social justice and fairness. The endpoint is the same.
Click to expand...
Really, it looks like I answered it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top