Originally posted by: azazyel
I really love how I'm seeing more and more of Buchanan here. I really enjoy how much he points how our current administration's slide towards Marxism. The whole issue of Trotskyism and the drive for perpetual revolution/war.
Painting the White House Red
I'm sorry, that article is just plain stupid. He hits on two aspects of Marxist thought and uses that as evidence the White House is on a Marxist slope. The first being the idea of perpetual war, the second being the idea of globalization.
On the first, he draws a bad parallel between the idea of constant political shifts within a socialist/communist state, the perpetual revolution, between the chimp in chiefs pledge to bring a democratic revolution to the world. The problem is, of course, that either Bush or the author of this tripe has no idea what a revolution is. A revoltion by its nature must come from within, not without. You cannot send in an army to a foreign land and call it a revolution. Marx and Engels advocated the working class rising up and throwing of the reigns of oppression or whatever, not the US sending its army around the globe to kick over petty tyrants and create magic democracies out of pixie dust, which appears to be the Bush plan.
Secondly, even if this were in line with Marxist ideology, so what? Are you saying it would be a bad thing if all the oppressed peoples of the world in North Korea, Iran, and wherever else took up arms to rid themselves of the dictators that oppress them in favor of a democratic system? I am going to wager you consider democracy to be preferable to dictatorship and that if people want democracy they should have it. So I'll ask again, what is the problem?
On the issue of globalization, supporting the same means does not mean supporting the same end. The mere fact Dubya thinks globalization does not mean he views it the same way as the Marxists who supported it as well. We can be fairly sure that Bush does not support it due to a belief that it will destroy capitalism as Marx and Engels did.
Finally, there is a great deal of false equivocation that takes place. What the west thinks of as democracy, for example, is not what Marx thought of when he wrote it. What the west thinks of as communism, and what the eastern european states he cites had, is not what Marx wrote about. Just because Bush and Marx use many of the same words does not mean they are being used in the same way nor that they mean the same thing.
All and all, the article is utter crap.
Facebook
Twitter