this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
5 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
2 readers
1 users here now
For discussion of political opinions, including unproven accusations by public figures. Please post any newsworthy item in the News community, this community is for sharing opinions rather than sharing news.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Makes sense that the document should change as the world changes.
“Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment… Each generation is as independent of the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness… It is now forty years since the constitution of Virginia was formed. The same tables inform us, that, within that period, two-thirds of the adults then living are now dead. Have then the remaining third, even if they had the wish, the right to hold in obedience to their will, and to laws heretofore made by them, the other two-thirds, who, with themselves, compose the present mass of adults? … That majority, then, has a right to depute representatives to a convention, and to make the constitution what they think will be the best for themselves.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
I don't think your response addresses the substance of the article. The Constitution makes provisions for amendment. The Marxists want the whole thing to be scrapped because it is an impediment to their plans to institute a totalitarian system.
Marxism is about having the means of production be in the control of the workers instead of company owners/executived. From my understanding, what this would look like is company decisions being made by the employees voting on the decision or voting for a person who makes that decision.
At no point does the article mention anything about the law schools wanting this.
The only ties to Marxism they specify is that CRT was created by a marxist. CRT, however, does not call for workers to own companies. It also doesn't help workers to own companies. Therefore, I do not consider it Marxist. Who created it doesn't matter, what it does matters.
If a marxist created a car, it is not marxist. If a monarchist created a car, it is not monarchist. If a libertarian creates a way for governments to spy on citizens, it's authoritarian. The creator's ideology doesn't matter, what the creation does is what matters to me.
You need to educate yourself on cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt School. Marxism is much broader than you suggest.
I tried to find articles on Cultural Marxism which backed their claims with evidence, but could only find evidence backed articles for critiques of cultural marxism theory like this one.
Can you send me articles about cultural marxism that link evidence for the claims they make?
Here is Marcuse, a famous cultural Marxist himself, talking about his generation reifying Marxism and bringing it into a modern context.
Decent Gottfried article on the topic.
Also check out this fun 21st century take on Bioleninism.