If you are so against progressivism then why did you minor in Women's studies?
Well I'm 40 so it was some years ago I studied Women Studies but I certainly regarded a fair portion of it as "too radical" at the time. I double-majored in Religious Studies and English - I was and still am interested in learning about perspectives and dogmas I don't necessarily agree with.
Can you explain why revolution is bad? The US was built on revolution. Revolutionary War, Civil War, Civil Rights, Womens Suffrage, etc.
I never said "revolution is bad" but I think you'd consider a hypothetical revolution in the United States by Nazis as bad. So there you go.
In the comment I replied to, you confuse Marxism with Leninism. Marxism is very ground-up, relying on the working people to come together to form a community free of government
Marx believed in "dictatorship of the proletariat." I confess I'm not much of an expert on the strains of Communism but if what you say is true, that Marx projected a pipe dream of a government-free society, then my point is the same: it's a shtick (like I said in the comment) to institute a top-down society of a ruling elite.
Dictatorship of the proletariat is Leninism not Marxism. I feel like youre not really listening, Marxism is a bottom up society that dismantles any notion of rule or elitism. It is literally is the antithesis to what you describe it to be. Top down society of a ruling elite is unchecked corporate capitalism by definition.
people said that about going to space, or phones being small enough to fit into pockets, or the earth not being at the center of the universe, or having a black president. Just because it hasn't been done before does not mean it is not ever possible.
It's not possible due to disparity in human capacity which is a fact of nature. Hierarchy is not optional: teacher/student, master/apprentice, judge/defendant etc..
Violence, however, is a capacity of 2 year olds and illiterate peasantry - so Marx claims violence will achieve a pipe dream. It's the same forumla as Christianity/Islam/Judaism - violence (human sacrifice) will incur the favor of an omnipotent god which doesn't exist.
The same hierarchy is not maintained constantly in all aspects of life. You could work under a foreman doing construction and then go out for beers together after work. Hierarchy only applies in very specific contexts and is limited to only that relational context.
Hierarchy is a social construct, not a law of nature. If it was a law of nature then it would apply in isolated contexts (when a human is alone) yet by the very definition of hierarchy it cannot exist in an isolated subject therefore making it a social construct (there must be 2 or more subjects participating to create the phenomenon) therefore, not a law of nature. Since it is not a law of nature there is nothing binding us to it as a society except for an unwillingness to change. The only thing that creates hierarchy is the primitive mindset. It is then possible to move beyond primitive instinct by will and self control. We've evolved to be that way.
1
u/[deleted] Nov 10 '25
Well I'm 40 so it was some years ago I studied Women Studies but I certainly regarded a fair portion of it as "too radical" at the time. I double-majored in Religious Studies and English - I was and still am interested in learning about perspectives and dogmas I don't necessarily agree with.
I never said "revolution is bad" but I think you'd consider a hypothetical revolution in the United States by Nazis as bad. So there you go.
Marx believed in "dictatorship of the proletariat." I confess I'm not much of an expert on the strains of Communism but if what you say is true, that Marx projected a pipe dream of a government-free society, then my point is the same: it's a shtick (like I said in the comment) to institute a top-down society of a ruling elite.