Colin Powell Endorses Obama on 'Meet the Press'

[agzg]

Academics who study and write about international affairs prefer the term Marxist rather than Communist, that's all. It boils down to the fact that Marxists call for collectivization of industry (communism) AND lack of government (or really, lack of nation to raise government from as it's all based on class), and Fascists tend to call for corporation of industry AND totalitarianism.

Russia (or the USSR, rather) as a "Communist" country employed collectivization AND totalitarianism, therefore was not a true Marxist country.

So, purely used, either refers to BOTH the economic and political atmosphere of a given country.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

Academics who study and write about international affairs prefer the term Marxist rather than Communist, that's all. It boils down to the fact that Marxists call for collectivization of industry (communism) AND lack of government (or really, lack of nation to raise government from as it's all based on class), and Fascists tend to call for corporation of industry AND totalitarianism.

Russia (or the USSR, rather) as a "Communist" country employed collectivization AND totalitarianism, therefore was not a true Marxist country.

So, purely used, either refers to BOTH the economic and political atmosphere of a given country.

And this is where academics completely tip their hands and reveal their leftist bias.

On the left, we have a system that could function without totalitarianism although it never has, and on the right we have a system that at its end must be totalitarian.

Why would we assume that Marxism could be practiced without the authority of the state? Because Marx said so?

[agzg]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

And this is where academics completely tip their hands and reveal their leftist bias.

On the left, we have a system that could function without totalitarianism although it never has, and on the right we have a system that at its end must be totalitarian.

Why would we assume that Marxism could be practiced without the authority of the state? Because Marx said so?

This is just simple accepted thought among political theorists. I never said Marxism works. I just said that for it to be Marxism, it must be collectivization and lack of government. And yes, because Marx said so. He gets that right because he came up with the world view.

My grad school was anything but leftist. Considering I studied Security and Intelligence studies within the perview of an MPIA, we couldn't afford to lean too far left and we couldn't afford to be taught by those who leaned too far left or we wouldn't be able to find jobs.

ETA: Fascism wouldn't be fascism without the totalitarianism. Hence why it has to fulfill both the economic and political criteria in order to be fascism.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

This is just simple accepted thought among political theorists. I never said Marxism works. I just said that for it to be Marxism, it must be collectivization and lack of government. And yes, because Marx said so. He gets that right because he came up with the world view.

My grad school was anything but leftist. Considering I studied Security and Intelligence studies within the perview of an MPIA, we couldn't afford to lean too far left and we couldn't afford to be taught by those who leaned too far left or we wouldn't be able to find jobs.

Maybe, but it might not make sense to set the spectrum up like that and if you lean right, it probably bothers you more. There are philosophies we could place on the right that would no more require totalitarianism than the definition of Marxism does, and yet, political theorists go with fascism.

How many of your professors will be voting for McCain, do you think?

ETA: go back and look at your definition of fascism in your text box. On the left we have a clearly defined if completely unpracticed ideal and on the right we have fascism. We can't say exactly what it is, but it's the opposite of Marxism and it requires totalitarianism.