From: ibshambat@gmail.com   
      
   Marx was wrong on most of his central contentions. There is no such thing as a   
   historical inevitability; people's choices have taken different parts of the   
   world into any number of places at any number of times. The businessman is not   
   a thief; he is    
   someone who gets things done. And religion is not “the opium for the   
   masses.”   
      
   Why am I saying this? Because the world's major religions, with the exception   
   of Buddhism, were started not by economic or political leaders but by the hoi   
   polloi. Both Christ and Mohammad were anti-establishment radicals with no   
   experience of economic    
   or political power; and while Mohammad became politically powerful in his   
   lifetime as a result of inventing Islam, Christ died on the cross.   
      
   We see the same thing in contemporary religious movements. Christian   
   fundamentalism was not invented on Wall Street or in DC and militates against   
   both. The New Age movement was started by academic dropouts who militated   
   against the academic and medical    
   establishments. Taliban was begun by politically and economically powerless   
   students in Pakistani madrasas. Not Luther, not Cromwell, not any number of   
   other influential leaders of Protestant Christianity, were part of political   
   or economic “elites”    
   prior to starting their activities.   
      
   Why do these religions carry the appeal that they do to the less well-off?   
   Probably because they were started by people who were not part of “the   
   ruling class” but became far more powerful than any of these “ruling   
   classes.” Whether through force,   
    miracle or persuasion, these people's beliefs then were adopted by people   
   with economic and political power as much as they were by the hoi polloi. They   
   were claimed by the kings and nobles; then they were claimed by the colonists   
   and the bourgeoisie.    
   So that when Marx saw an order of exploitation, he impugned the religions that   
   were possessed by both the exploiters and the exploited alike and saw them as   
   being part of the problem.   
      
   Marxists claim to speak for the working classes, but so do Christian and   
   Islamic fundamentalists. In America, we see a phenomenon that inverts the   
   claims of Karl Marx. There are more Marxists among the “elites” than there   
   are among the “masses”;    
   and there are more conservative people among the “masses” than there are   
   among the “elites.”   
      
   Seeing all this, Reagan appropriated the Marxist and hippie rhetoric and took   
   it into the opposite direction. He said that the “liberal elites,”   
   “liberal establishment” and “big liberal government” failed to   
   represent the values of the    
   American people and that they were dictating to them a foreign totalitarian   
   order that was against their beliefs. His message resonated with many people,   
   and he became an exceptionally powerful president. He inverted the Marxian   
   rhetoric and turned it    
   into its opposite. The result was a very effective political force that   
   continues to exert a vast influence – both for right and for wrong – to   
   the present day.   
      
   So that while Marx militated against one set of elites, Reagan conservatives   
   militate against another set of elites. Both have followers among the   
   so-called “masses.” And then of course there are people among these   
   “masses” who claim that both    
   sets of “elites” are jerks and do not represent their interests or their   
   values. Marx claimed to champion “the working class,” but his message has   
   carried greatest appeal in the West to the well-off students and academics.   
   And Reagan claimed to    
   run against the government, and now there is a huge government building near   
   the White House with his name on it.    
      
      
   Both the founder of America – Thomas Jefferson – and the founder of the   
   Soviet Union – Vladimir Lenin – came from privilege. The first championed   
   democracy, social mobility and opportunity for all men, and the last claimed   
   to champion the    
   proletariat. In both cases, we see people coming from the “elites” who   
   took an anti-elitist stance. Both countries became global superpowers. And in   
   both countries there was – and remains – a strong anti-elitist sentiment   
   that can be taken, and    
   has been taken, into any number of opposite directions. Some militate against   
   economic “elites”; others militate against ones in media and academia. The   
   first fail to realize and respect the role of entrepreneurship in creating   
   prosperity. The second    
   fail to realize and respect how much prosperity and democracy owe to science,   
   journalism, education and the arts.   
   When the Soviet Union fell, the first two things that came back were   
   consumerism and religion. A huge McDonald's was built near the Red Square, and   
   the vast Christ the Savior Cathedral was rebuilt with a billion dollars of   
   private donations. Both appear    
   to have great appeal both to the more educated and the less educated; and Marx   
   was obviously wrong to see both as an artifact of exploitation of working   
   people by the propertied class.   
      
      
   Whereas Reagan was also wrong on a number of fronts. He was wrong about the   
   environment; people have not created nature and cannot re-create nature, and   
   blindly plundering it for gain that can be much better realized through   
   smarter technologies leaves    
   the world a worse place than one has found it. He was wrong about government   
   being the source of oppression and corruption; there are many private   
   religious, communitarian and economic entities that commit hideous violations   
   against people, and unlike    
   the government in a democracy they are unelected, unbalanced and unchecked.   
   And his anti-academic policy has proven to be a disaster. When higher   
   education is unaffordable and the primary educational system is weak, the bulk   
   of the population lacks the    
   knowledge that it needs to make informed political and personal decisions.   
      
   Both have been vastly influential, and I expect both to remain vastly   
   influential. Which means that it is necessary to confront the people claiming   
   the legacy of both where they were wrong. Marx was wrong about religion,   
   business and historical    
   inevitability, and Reagan was wrong on education, environment and the   
   preference of unelected private power over elected public power. Both have   
   claimed to champion the people against the elites, and both have many   
   followers among the elites. It remains    
   up to us - both ones coming from elites and ones not coming from elites - to   
   make sense of both influences and refute them where they have gone wrong.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)