Repairman

I don't believe Dustin86 is posing the question for which he seeks an answer. Eioul, I am not suggesting that armed resistance to one's government is not an option; rather, that in the present and foreseeable future, an armed rebellion would not be necessary. We took up that argument of another thread you initiated; I don't know how much farther I can go with that. In an earlier posting in this thread, I laid out a scenario wherein the conditions of government would present grounds for armed resistance. But most importantly, the course of events, whether violent or not, would necessitate a set of rational principles, under which a resistance movement would find motivation. Mere survival is all one would need to resist any initiation of violence, but if the trend of "shoot first, ask questions later" became the order of the day in policing tactics, I have every reason to believe that a full-scale revolt would ensue, as it would be the moral react of the American people. Without a set of principles framing an ideal, a violent movement would likely result in the institutionalization of violence, (e.g. the Bolshevik Revolution). It's not enough to state what one is against; one needs to state what one is for. As for the striking men of the mind, as depicted in Atlas Shrugged, Ragnar Danneskjold was taking the battle to the oppressors. And he was fighter for a very well-defined set of principles, Objectivist principles, in a fictional setting. If I were to actually join an armed resistance movement, I would need to know what I am fighting for, among other things. At present, I'm willing to abide by the laws presenting the least risk to my valuable life. So, back to Dustin86 and his ergo proctor hoc approach to reason: What part of Objectivism advocates violent overthrow of governments?

Dustin86, As a matter of record, the terms imposed upon the British-American colonists were unnecessarily harsh. I am glad that you have picked up some information on the subject, and we could discuss the merits of resisting tyranny, if you wish. Historical facts aside, there is ample opportunity for the reformation of American attitudes toward government at present. The genocide or violent revolution of which you speak are in my opinion not necessary, and more to the point, would be harmful to Objectivist ideals. To be certain, the US government is using force against some American citizens, if not all through taxation. So far as I can tell, it's only the irrational few who resort to violent reaction. Any rational person, Objectivist or not, would take his/her conflict to court, or seek change through lawful reform. The opinion of one self-identifying Objectivist is by no means the basis for a reasoned argument. So, I'll ask again, by your own understanding, and I hope through some self-study, what part of Objectivism advocates armed rebellion against one's government?

Dustin86, It seems you're not very interested in the moral justifications for the American War of Independence. Rather, you seem bent on a clear definition of the moral justifications for a violent overthrow of one's government, by terms of Objectivist standards: If you're looking for "tipping point," wherein the "Objectivist collective" is mad as hell, and we're not gonna take it anymore, I offer you this conjecture: We ain't anywhere near such tipping point. On the other hand, if your government were to sent representatives to your door, taze you, expropriate your valuables, and leave you with the assurance that they, the government, would determine your living-standards, including the option of being impressed into a labor camp or service on the front-line of a foreign war, would any such scenario interest you in joining a resistance movement? Obviously, we ain't anywhere near that. But if one were to exist in such a hypothetical place and time, the resistance movement would benefit greatly if they had a set of principles, perhaps even a philosophic ideal motivating the commitment and loss of life that likely would result. Without intending to redirect this discourse, I site the lost opportunity of the Decline and Fall of the Soviet Union. Here was a population living under conditions much like the one in my for-mentioned scenario. When the time came for toppling the government of status quo, the common people were confronted with chaos on a scale of magnitude that they willingly embraced the return to strongman-authoritarianism, such as now exists. And it may be preferable for many within the current boundaries of such a dictatorship, as opposed to chaos. But that (chaos vs dictatorship) is a false set of alternatives, and we in the West know this. The rather clueless masses of Russia apparently do not. But again, it is not my intent to discuss the conditions of any foreign government. Only to point out that while the downfall of the USSR was relatively bloodless -- nonetheless complete -- the problems of their government were far from over. Whereas laws and institutions respecting individual rights existed within the British-American colonies of the 18th century, such laws and institutions were absent in Moscow in 1992, and are not likely to arise any time soon. As of 1789, an experimental form of government was initiated on the North American continent. It was not perfect, however it did serve to provide a more perfect unity among its governed people. Internal rebellions have occurred since then, but none that have ended the experiment. The process of ensuring liberty to ourselves and our posterity continues to be a complex process. I cannot say that I speak for all Objectivists. However, I believe my relationship to my government is based on rational self-interest, and within Objectivist standards. Speaking for myself, I see no motivation for any rational person to take arms against the government of the United States of America, whether on a federal, state, or local level. Certainly not at this point, and we ain't anywhere near that point. Is there any reason that makes you believe that Objectivism constitutes any threat of violent overthrow of the USA, (or any other nation-state for that matter)?

If we're discussing the American War for Independence, could we please stay on point, and not meander into a scatological and hypothetical scenario. The conflict between the American Colonists and Great Britain was violent. In contract to other historical uprisings, I would argue that none have resulted in as few deaths in the cause of extending personal liberty to so many people. The very idea that men have "natural rights," as opposed to rights granted by supernatural powers, or through monarchical bequest, was revolutionary. Those specific rights, "to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," spelled out a very well-defined objective in light of the fact that monarchical powers (powers of church and state) were the only established means of governing over law-abiding people up until that time. The immorality institutionalized under "the Divine Right of Kings" was in the temptation for abusing that power on the monarch's subjects. We are not subjects; we are free individuals. At times, it is necessary to maintain that freedom through violent action. And while it may be argued that contemporary Americans are voluntarily forfeiting their natural rights, we preserve most of the concepts of personal liberty as conceived by the Founders. Dustin86, if you have some notion about some scenario involving an imaginary government that may require violent rebellion aimed at regime change, then make your intentions known. Create a hypothetical scenario, if you wish. But trying to cast aspersions on the motives, results, and morality of America's Revolutionary War, and on its leaders, is a losing proposition. So if you feel so inclined, elaborated on the "immorality" of the defense of liberty carried out by the American Colonists from 1774 to 1781.

So where's the contradiction? Great Britain initiated force by imposing unnecessarily harsh terms on its colonists; the colonists resisted this initiation of force. Indeed, some blood is spilled in the course of human events. And if the course of events leads to greater freedom for the individuals who took the risk of defending themselves, then that's one giant leap for mankind. Defending one's self, or one's nation of free people, is a moral cause for bloodshed.

If it helps in any way: "Man's mind is his basic tool of survival....To remain alive, he must think." "But to think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly call 'human nature,' the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival-so that you, who are a human being, the question 'to be or not to be' is the question 'to think or not to think.'"--Ayn Rand, from Atlas Shrugged, page 1012. I happened to be re-reading the novel, so it wasn't too much trouble to transcribe it. In brief, using one's consciousness for constructive purposes is a volitional act, a choice. Evasion is also a choice, but not a wise choice.

As I interpret the OP, the word,"reverence", implies a form of worship, as in, the recognition of and praise for supernatural forces. Speaking for myself, I acknowledge reality, and to be certain, I hold the causes of reality, physical sciences and certain theories of psychology, in very high regard indeed. If one were to fall short of offering veneration to natural forces, a realist will, nonetheless, recognize the hazard of total disregard for reality. For example, a common sense appreciation for the force of gravity need not result in being awe-struck upon witnessing a rock fall from one's hand and land on the floor. I believe I expressed that in a variety of ways. On the other hand, if one experiences a sense of emotion watching a sunrise or the Aurora Borealis, I would hope and expect that it would be a joyous emotion. This sense of joy, of the joyful moments of life, are of the highest priority for an Objectivist. The emotion need not be worship. If it is a semantic misunderstanding, bear in mind Dustin86 seems to use the term, "reverence", in the same way that one might regard a deity. I can appreciate StrictlyLogical's and Devil's Advocates' responses. I find nature at its best quite pleasant; at its worst, a formidable inconvenience. Nature is a part of reality, but so is cancer and a great many other things that I doubt if anyone reveres.

The opening post of this thread poses some unspecified doubt as to the application of atheism as a workable part of Objectivism: Dustin86, Would you clarify your claim that "Objectivists are telling people to 'love the one they're stuck with';" what is the one in reference to? Throughout you commentary, you seem to suggest that Objectivists deify reality. Reality does not deserve reverence; it merely is, and for one to ignore it, one does so at one's peril. I don't know much more I could add to that without striking out into another tangential discussion. It was not my intent to open a dialog about your childhood experiences. Having a son who is roughly the same age as you, I couldn't help experiencing a tinge of pathos. But the set of facts that may or may not comprise your past do not alter reality. Fantasy worlds are fine for professional actors, or other creative people seeking to make a career out of fiction. But life is not a fiction; your life is not a fiction. You make of it that which it is. If it is not a life you love, make it one worth living. The Objectivist preference for reality over mysticism is arrived at through logic. It requires no faith, no worship. The Objectivist preference for a secular society, as opposed to one of theocratic statism, is entirely rational, and arguably All-American. The violent sectarian strife of theocracies both past and present are notably absent from the modern history of the United States, (post 1865.) The nearest to religious warfare we've experienced since then is that of the Muslim (*and radical Christian anti-abortionist) terror threat within our borders. The freedom to choose a religious creed, as well as the freedom to live by a rational code, is more than the privilege of American's; it is the natural right of all people, whether they know it or not. No one I know of prays five times a day to reality. I doubt if any of the self-identifying Objectivists on this forum would consider such an idea to be anything but mildly amusing. Reality is not something built inside one's head. It is experienced until you no longer exist. Thought?

Children do not stay children forever, although there are many adults who refuse to face reality with or without any religious belief. But to choose to divorce one's self from reality would be a foolish choice for anyone accept a very small child, protected from harm by parents. And even children embrace reality more than they are often given credit. Critical thinking comes to some children sooner than others. In a culture devoid of religion, reality would eventually administer to these children the lessons reality is well known for. These lessons are usually unpleasant for those who ignore reality into adulthood. In the present, we have the freedom to use our minds as we so please, as I hope we always will. For children (or adults) unwilling to abandon their faith, they are perfectly entitled to their religion(s).

Dustin86, It is not out of reverence that Objectivism acknowledges reality. Speaking for myself, it is out of self-preservation and purpose that I acknowledge reality as it is, without regard for that which it is not. The James Taggart meltdown is merely an illustration of what might happen to an individual in denial of reality, and suddenly confronted with the undeniable consequences of that denial. If the purpose of your initial post is to provoke a discussion of atheism as a component of Objectivist beliefs, you could come right out and state it. As I have come to understand, atheism is not so much a tenet of Objectivism as it is a derived conclusion. There are those who maintain that some sort of supernatural-omnipotent-omniscient being exist, and yet they have their own rationalization as to how this belief fits into objective reality. I am not one of those people. Imagine what society would be like if parents stopped frightening their children with threats of eternal damnation, and instead impressed upon them the consequences of ignoring reality. There would be little need for a term such as "God" in matters of morality. Reality would provide its own morality.

If I may rephrase New Buhhda's response, I have a long held rule: Consider the source. Recognizing the intent and experiences of your interlocutor(s) is/are an important part of the very same life's experiences that will enable you to be an effective communicator. Knowing nothing more about the persons you've quoted, I can add nothing more.

Yes. If you and the others wish to fund the government voluntarily, likely, no one would try to stop you. That situation would not be the initiation of force. No one forced you. Once you have legally authorized officials to forcibly collect your wealth, they are applying force to collect your wealth. Is it the initiation of force? Who, other than the government officials, is applying the force? Authorizing someone to use force merely puts the choice of using that force on that other party, be they an official representative or a thief. You have voluntarily given them the right to steal; they make the choice to do so or not.

Harrison Danneskjold: I hope this is merely a rhetorical question. I believe you and I, as well as most of the contributors to this thread would prefer to live in a world that frowns on irrational moral codes, but you'll forgive me for being realistic. We're a long way from that point. My application of Objectivist principles serves my needs, and if I were young enough, I might make a career of broadcasting rational values and promoting the virtue of rational egoism as a matter of self-fulfillment. I enjoy being right. Yet, no matter how hard I'd have worked at it, I wouldn't have changed the present state of politics in the US, and certainly not on the international stage, either. If I am to achieve and sustain my happiness, I must act within the perimeters of reality. At times, I feel like Henry Cameron, although I haven't been driven to drink. I have been driven to various forms of creativity, such as my writings on this forum. I could make a case for ignoring the anti-individualist, anti-capitalist, anti-rationality voice of the masses so often represented in the politics of our times. But I wouldn't. Neither will I make a case for taking actions that cause needless destruction or fail to convey the right message, even contradict ideals of Objectivism. Under the belief that there is no such thing as a collective consciousness, I can assume that there are more than a few young and independent minds that "get it," and that they may be the formation of a solid base upon which a rational society might develop. It really is up to that future generation. Until then, one's moral code is a matter for the present-day individual. No one ever said it was going to be easy.

DonAthos, If I may clarify: I am less concerned with the tactics used by others, and try to maintain my own standard. If there were to be a measurable spike in public interest of Ayn Rand, I certainly hope anyone speaking on behalf of "our side" reflects the highest standards of intelligence and wit. Having seen the rise of movements come and go over the years, I know of few that have the body of well-reasoned literature to guide such a movement as Objectivism. There are established institutes, of course, but I truly would hope to see the beginnings of a popular movement. From that, my only hope is that the participants maintain the dignity commonly seen on this forum. The conduct of a crowd can get ugly, so I'm not too favorable toward mobs of demonstrators, unless they've assembled orderly and purposefully. All said, I still see the greatest barrier to progress will be religion; one doesn't have to be a religious fanatic to distrust or even hate atheists, (not saying all Objectivists are atheist, but many are), especially if they form a mob. That fact alone puts me on notice to conduct myself with a higher standard.

Eioul, To be sure, we can agree on a few things, maybe more. We may disagree on the proportion of emphasis on public displays of outrage, as opposed to more gradual and cerebral persuasion. To your first question, I wanted to place the emphasis on persuasion of more rational thinkers to take a closer look at Objectivism. One of the best means of communication is through comedy, so for example, we would be better served with a front-man/woman able to host a regular nightly comedy-news program-just an example. Hopefully, we may see a talent able to deliver "proper humiliation." We can agree that educating people is critical, I would say, the most important. As for protocol or etiquette, I really don't care; anything goes until it breaks down into a name-calling contest.* To call any opponent "irrational" without providing evidence is little more than name-calling. Even if we can judge, let's take your example, Trump to be irrational, there are apparently a great many more people who judge him to perfectly rational. And the fact that he has such a fortune made through legal means helps their subjective opinions. But if Trump is the specific object of your opposition, I'd rather not construct an argument around this unfortunate success story. My primary concern is lending support to people who, like myself, had some vague idea of what is wrong with the world, and had no supporting comprehensive philosophy, nor a collection of thinkers, egoists, with which to exchange ideas, not for any other noble purpose than my own satisfaction. *Incidentally, I would be insincere if I were to suggest that I've never engaged in a bit of bad manners, even on this forum. But if there were a chance of finding the common ground, I tend to more restrained.

Without intention of changing the debate to a question of what constitutes a revolution or what doesn't, the industrial revolution also brought with it a very political change. As Ayn Rand pointed out in For the New Intellectual, for the first time in history, the producer became a major player in political affairs. All the same, it wasn't intended as a rebellion, but it had much more sustainability than, for example, the Pheasant Revolt of the 14th century. In regard to my argument, mob actions or forms of violating private or public property would less likely advance a rational social change, whereas a more gradual and intellectual revolt may succeed, or may not succeed, but definitely would reduce the likelihood of an escalation to pitched confrontation, leading to destruction.

This is an expression allegedly spoken by a famous Jesuit priest: "Give me the boy until the age of seven, and I'll give you the man." The Comprachico public school system is the primary reason the Revolution would fail, regardless of one's choice of weapon. I might have all of the necessary arguments to figuratively debate Trump into a corner and pummel him. But his significant share of the public would only believe that "the system is rigged." Any antics that audibly drown him out would only result in his escalation. I have little doubt that Trump could produce the loudest electronic sound system the world has ever seen. But he wouldn't need it; his adoring public would provide the all the noise he needs. Or if they are subdued, they can play the "victim card." People have been so instructed, and that is the state of democracy in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Now I realize the subject of this discussion could change from agreeing or disagreeing on a means of altering the course of history, to one of discrediting each others' examples. Nonetheless, if we are to succeed, the numbers must support the cause. At present, I would say that relatively few people have any awareness of an Objectivist movement; they've never heard of Objectivism. We may hold a shared opinion that Trump, the Pope, and Vladimir Putin are irrational. Yet, it is merely a subjective opinion until proven otherwise, and their respective fans support their claims to power; they outnumber our more independently-minded individuals, and in any political context, popularity matters very much. Whether you establish a liberal democracy, constitutional republic, kleptocracy, or a totalitarian dictatorship, if you can so influence the minds of the young, they will act on the instructions they've been taught. That is the underlying premise of my theory. Go ahead and shout down whomever you wish. I don't think that really impresses the sort of rational egoists needed for a more rational society. In fact, I would approve of some genuinely intelligent and proper humiliation of the perpetrators irrationality. It would help if we had a more public exposure accompanied by a charismatic spokesperson. Such is not the case at present. The liberation of the mind would be my primary choice of countermeasures, the one that could succeed and sustain freedom, and the earlier in life, the better. If it seems to be taking too long, so be it. I don't think anyone would benefit from a prolonged "dissing contest."

Judging one's opponent as irrational is subjective, until you have argued said-opponent down to the last syllogism. If we are to assume that the Objectivist argument has the strength to overpower said-opponent, then there is no reason for shutting down the debate. Having proved your argument as true, the opponent must withdraw, forfeit, or admit defeat. But they must be allowed their freedom of speech. Force by overwhelming audible volume is still a form of force. If one's revolution is to prove a sustainable success, you have merely forced your opponent to lowering his volume to a level only circulated among members of the counter-revolution. (At this point, I don't care to list the many counter-revolutions, or acts of repression against dissenting and/or unpopular opinion-makers, from Socrates to heresy, to the present, but only to suggest that counter-revolutions do happen. It would be naive not to expect them.) Once you have "silenced" your opposition, they become "victims" of your force. You may think you have silenced them, but they will only use your oppression to their advantage in their argument against you. While I agree that (rational) mockery is one of the most useful tactics, the opportunity for your opponent's response must be guaranteed, especially if the revolution promotes morality in Objectivist terms, otherwise you have undermined your desired society of objectivity. For example, let's take the matter of anti-mysticism as a desirable Objectivist social norm. If you were to shout down your religious opponents, or in anyway deny them their opportunity to speak their piece, you will only alienate and enrage them. You may momentarily hush them up; you may go through the motions of re-education. And rather than re-educate them, and their children, they will only pass their cherished beliefs along down the generations, until the day of their reprisal. Judging by our current political climate, religion will not go away easily. If we examine some of the more sustained, successful, and least violent revolutions in history, we will notice a certain "ground-work" or foundation preparing society for the sudden changes. The industrial revolution, perhaps the best example, emerged from a time of reason brought about by a change of theology, and discovery brought about through innovation approved by the ruling classes. And yet, Luddites resisted. The American Revolution emerged from a society well accustomed to religious dissent, free-trade, free-speech, and more than one hundred years of a concept, known as, The Rights of Man. To be sure, the monarchists resisted violently, and in five years were violently defeated by those who believed in an untried form of government. And yet, church leaders resisted the idea of separation of church and state. The Civil Rights Movement (circa 1945-1965) emerged from a society that had seen the virtues and accepted the value of African-American lives through their valor in war and their contributions in sports and entertainment. And yet, the racists resisted. They still resist, but so too do the Luddites and the church leaders. Nonetheless, I am reasonably confident that in spite of America's curious and often irrational trends in politics, the core values of the industrial revolution, American Revolution, and equal protection under the law for all minorities will be norms for many generations against the wishes of dissenters. The revolutions that succeed often do so because they were right, and the public was prepared. If we are to ever witness an Objectivist victory over irrational mystic, collectivist, and socialist norms, it will be a victory achieved only after the establishment of a base of majority, consisting of people who believe in free-minds and free-markets. To the specifics of these ideals, I leave to those future generations. For now, let's say you want a revolution. As an important part of the process, people will need to be informed, one might say, re-educated. Re-education under Chairman Mao and Pol Pot didn't end well. In fact, I don't think you can change the norms of society until the young are educated properly, rather than re-educated as adults. The ideas of an Objectivist Revolution will only succeed when people willingly accept them. People must arrive at the truth under their own efforts and volition. To force any ideas on anyone is folly. The education of a society of true individuals will begin with parents who see themselves as individuals. Teach your children well. I witnessed a generation of people who believed themselves enlightened and right, the New Left, force a (believed-to-be) revolutionary set of values onto the American political landscape. The results are the formation of otherwise unique individuals into diverse collective-identity groups, and an expansion of the social welfare state. In my opinion, neither bode well for the future, nor does the rise of the counter-revolutionary Christian Right. The downward trajectory of politics will not change direction until a properly educated public demands the proper change. And that change cannot be explained on a bumper-sticker, nor blasted through an amplifier. The revolution will not be televised. It may have all ready started with forums such as this one. All said, I absolutely support an Objectivist revolution. Long live the revolution.

"From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs." If a college professor had made the error of stating: "If this is a founding principle..." only to interrupted by a clever and attentive student pointing out the mistake, the likely scenario would be that the professor would acknowledge the minor faux pa, and move on. So, I thank you for the correction, but the error normally would be regarded as a violation less offensive than dropping a plastic bottle in with the aluminum can recycling bin. Instead, you're treating it as if it were a misdemeanor, punishable by relentless harassment. Perhaps I could appeal to the court of public opinion: Is this conflict really necessary?

dream_weaver, Odd you should mention Starnesville. I am re-reading Atlas Shrugged, and I'm just passing through those parts. Euoil, As mentioned, I can see your more knowledge-concentrated message throughout your posts. So, there is no need to re-read them. And if they were edited to form a comprehensive reply to Parcus' request, they would be regarded as a fine answer, based on content and strength. But you insisted on editing your answers as rebuttals, not to Marxism, but to my abbreviated first answer, which while lacking the accuracy of your multilayered series of posts, did indeed open up the conversation to what appears to be a very broad request for an argument against Marxism. I can see that you have the means of making a terrific argument against Marxism. Of that I have no doubt, as this quote states, if taken in the intended context. So long as you envelop your comments on Marxism within this pointless condemnation of my simple answer, I will defend my first comment as it is factual, if not lengthy or strong. ('Strength of argument' seems to be your criterion for receiving the highest grade.) I will concede that my answer is not as strong as yours; it wasn't intended to be. However, I maintain that a simple answer that prompts the inquirer to greater and/or more precise inquiry is often more appropriate to an elaborate one, such as that offered by the father in dream_weaver's anecdote. We're having a conflict over the proper means of persuasion, not Marxism. So, is this conflict really necessary?

So far, we have not established the standard. Am I correct to assume that you believe the standard of a superior argument must include extensive explanations of principles? Parcus isn't asking for the underpinning principles; in fact, he has left it so open as to allow a broad range of related facts, which may include principles. Being that he only requests an argument from the exploitation theory to Marx's calculations of labor values, one could prattle on needlessly, as if reciting from volumes of anti-Marxist literature. And yet, Parcus gives his approval to... ...this, which not much more than a mere headline. Accompanied by a few photos. Really? Showing headlines seemed to do the trick in this cases. You are making an argument that my argument is incomplete. This is absolutely true, and I have no apologies for it. I am assuming that Parcus expected a practical argument. I provided one. A simple one. Someone presents a simple question, I provide a simple answer, if I am able. Until an extended conversation develops, I see little reason for launching into a history lesson (although I have been known to do exactly that, and regretted wasting my time in the process.) So, as I see it, you are creating the straw man of my brevity. It has less to do with my omission of the theory of Marxist principles, than the precision my response, as blunt as it may be. I could offer much information, and cover a broad range of flaws in Marxism, or just enough to provoke a real argument/discussion about the many false premises of Marxist communism. I choose the latter. I have found through experience that brevity is the soul of wit. And applying that kernel of wisdom has served me well. In the real world, I have reformed my tendencies to function as a gasbag. Perhaps this doesn't meet with your approval. Too bad. It's my choice, not yours. For that matter, I have not seen your comprehensive argument against Marxism, from the exploitation theory of labor to the labor theory of value. No doubt you have one. But so far, all I'm reading here is your condemnation of my posts. And the tedium is noteworthy. Did I get any of this wrong? Is there any reason we shouldn't move on?

Eiuol, Perhaps we should make it clear as to what standard constitutes the better argument. In either case, I am not living my life to lecture people about Marxism, as a subject I find interesting, but not worthy of an extensive or critical study. Indeed, I would promote laissez faire capitalism, and I am aware of the basics of Marxist metaphysics. The point I am driving at is that one is best understood when one does communicate at the level of one's interlocutor. The people I know usually resent someone who talks down to them, as if that one were a philosophy professor, especially when he holds no such accredited certification. If you wish to exercise your freedom of speech by delivering academic diatribes to guests at a party, I would defend your right to do so. But you're criticizing me for not automatically providing an elaborate and needless monologue on the metaphysical foundations, history, personalities,vision, horrors, and possible future horrors of Marxist Communism in casual conversation is a bit pompous to say the least. I won't force people to think, and I don't believe you can, either. Thinking is an act of volition. People must come to their own conclusions, and if someone more studied on the subject can engage them in the process of thinking, then one can explore principles and the deeper depths of a subject. Marxism is an unknown quantity to most with whom I talk. If I should find that rare individual who wishes to know more, or who has significant familiarity with Marxism, then I will enjoy the conversation. But I take find no gratification in alienating acquaintances with prolonged instructions. I can appreciate your candor for wishing that more people understand Marxism and its influence on our world. It wouldn't hurt for more people to be better informed. But I will stand by my "keep-it-simple" policy in matters of discourse with casual acquaintances, until they ask for more. Each according to his ability, each according to his needs.

And the opening post reads: Parcus's request doesn't require an explanation about Marxist values. So why would you insist that any explanation of anything other than the moral, or practical application of Marxism is needed? For that matter, would you answer a question poised it this context with an explanation of the material dialectic? Unless you're conversing with someone with an academic background in philosophy, your interlocutor would likely go cross-eyed with boredom. For a fact, I could say exactly that, but then again, I didn't. Nor would I. And there's a reason why I didn't: Marxism has failed in nearly every nation brandishing a flag with a hammer and sickle, or an image of Marx at its May Day parade. In nations that continue to identify as Communist, the national economies have been integrated with so much capitalism that Karl Marx would be spinning in his grave if he knew it. Someone could respond to that, but they would look foolish denying the facts. I would have to assume my interlocutor has some knowledge of economic determinism and the global society of proletarian-workers. Generally, I would not have to go any farther than to point out the undeniable fact that Marxism failed, and that it failed because it was wrong. And I could explain why it was and is wrong, but why, as I've pointed out above, would I bore some unsuspecting victim with such details? Unless they specifically ask for them. I would enjoy an expanded conversation on Marx, his interpretation of the historic class-struggle, and the obscene life he led. And if you have a circle of associations who have enough time and knowledge of the subject to enjoy such a conversation, well bless your heart. I don't. I generally talk with people who a highly-functional, semi-literate wager-earners and business owners, and if they are not, they are usually beneficiaries of the social welfare-state, in which case, there is no sense in any such discussion. And I should assume that some of them vote, and that voting audience does concern me. Point being: Most people could not accurately explain the term, "proletariat," let alone use it in a conversation. Don't you suppose it's a bit presumptive, if not arrogant, for you to tell me what's important for my sake? I realize that most of the participants on this forum are informed and intelligent. The folks I normally engage face-to-face are for the most part concrete-bound. But they understand what works and what doesn't work. And if there's one thing that's wrong with the United States, it's not that people don't know what the founding principles of Marxism are; it's the tragic fact that Marxism or Marxist values are figuratively devouring the capitalist values that built this country. And for your sake, that ain't good.

I'm sure you left out a great many other areas of Marxist theory that are wrong. Why did you excluded them? I can tell you why I excluded them: its' not necessary.

I'm not concerned about the wrong audience. If they need an extensive explanation, I could provide that. But arbitrarily describing Marxism as evil and/or monstrous is not an argument, nor an explanation. As your motto suggests, if something is true in theory but wrong in practice, then the theory is wrong. Marxism is wrong.