Slog - Comments on Henderson Marxism

Comment by Michael

Michael — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:46:57 -0800

Or people are bad because of elitist attitudes that are arrived from ideas like this: "a person was bad...because he/she had a poor education" or "did not read the right (or enough) books"

Comment by SeMe

SeMe — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:54:58 -0800

yeah, but the first guy who brought up these themes in his films was a musolini admirer and mccarthy era fbi informer, frank capra. he brought the evil of money theme home in his film, its a wonderful life. the fact that he was a fascist sympathizer conservative is still a mystery.

Comment by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me

You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:59:29 -0800

Chuck is such an Ellsworth Toohey that he repeatedly makes a Banner of The Stranger. When will Dan have his Gail Wynand moment?

Comment by keshmeshi

keshmeshi — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:40:11 -0800

I would say that a general indifference to the welfare of others makes one a bad person, particularly when that indifference translates into actively hurting others. It doesn't matter what the motivation is, money, power, dominance, or just plain old sadism.

Comment by Big Sven

Big Sven — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:47:54 -0800

If only Rosa Luxemburg had had "the Henderson Kids"!

Comment by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me

You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:12:05 -0800

The moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own rational self-interest. The only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual human rights, embodied in pure, consensual laissez-faire capitalism.
The right to (live one's own) life is the fundamental right of human beings this is the right to act in furtherance of one's own life � not the right to have one's life protected, or to have one's survival guaranteed, by the involuntary effort of other human beings. One of the corollaries of the right to life is the right to property which represents the product of one's own effort. One person's right to life cannot entail the right to dispose of another's private property, under any circumstances. One has the right to transfer one's own property to whomever one wants for whatever reason, but such a transfer is only ethical if it is made under the terms of a trade freely consented to by both parties, in the absence of any form of coercion, each with the expectation that the trade will benefit them. Human beings have the right to manipulate nature in any way they see fit, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. From this, the right to property arises.
A society is moral to the extent that individuals are free to pursue their goals. This freedom requires that human relationships of all forms be voluntary (which means that they must not involve the use of physical force), mutual consent being the defining characteristic of a free society. Thus the proper role of institutions of governance is limited to using force in retaliation against those who initiate its use � i.e., against criminals and foreign aggressors. Economically, people should be free to produce and exchange as they see fit, with as complete a separation of state and economics as of state and church.

Comment by Toby

Toby — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:25:51 -0800

Thank you, #6, for posting your philosophical manifesto.

But seriously, I pretty much agree with the sentiment, if not the precise reasoning.

Comment by Issur

Issur — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:26:41 -0800

Great posting Charles. Like you I was brought up in privilege with house servants and a private driver. Yet I feel that Hegel and Marx have the answers for historical progress. According to Marx some day the idiot working class goyium will revolt and Capitalism will be overthrown.

But until the goyium abandon their toxic religion Christianity, it's not my responsibility to soften their lives. We must wait till the goyium recognize Judaism as the superior thought system, and abandon Capitalism for the real revolution to happen. Shana Tova, Happy Jewish New Year!

Comment by Bellevue Ave

Bellevue Ave — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:00:20 -0800

So honey bucket became a marxist based on australian children's television program.

is anyone shocked?

as for Issur, you talk and talk but nothing happens.

Comment by Big Sven

Big Sven — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:34:05 -0800

Waiting for the world to adopt communism... waiting for the world to adopt judaism... communism... judaism...

Boy, this is going to take a while!

Communism... judaism... communism... judaism... communism... judaism... communism... judaism...

I'll just head out for a drink while I'm waiting. The struggle will continue without me.

Comment by Issur

Issur — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:44:02 -0800

Judaism will exist and grow no matter if anyone accepts it because God wants to see Israel strong and want all Jews to be as observant as they can be.

The goyium are capable of little more than getting drunk and raping their shiksas. Yet we must be patient and keep telling them about how Marxism could make their lives better.

Shana Tova, Happy Jewish New Year! And all blessings to The Stranger in the coming year, Seattle's best paper for Israel and the local Jewish community.

Comment by bazz

bazz — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:47:05 -0800

As an Australian, I am genuinely proud that our local programming changed your perspective on life. Genuinely baffled, but genuinely proud.
And #9, THANK you!