Marxism

Sounds like something out of a Mel Brook's movie.-Oni

Or maybe Monty Python:Spectator I: I think it was "Blessed are the cheesemakers".Mrs. Gregory: Aha, what's so special about the cheesemakers?Gregory: Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

This lie again Buz?

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Earlier today it dawned on me that perhaps the difference between us is that I take things literally and at the literal meaning. When I'm talking about the meaning of a word I'm talking about the literal meaning. Then I break it down1.The Literal meaning
2.The History
3.The emotions attached to itI thought maybe you're lumping all of these together?When you say Do you mean to say Communism tends to lead to tyranny and oppression?I would agree with youIf you said fascism tends to lead to tyranny and oppressionI would also agree with this statement.I however cannot agree that they are the same thing because ideologies behind them a very different.I do hope I made some progress in trying to discuss with you.
I do believe you're interpreting my literal understanding as arrogance and I really don't think I'm better.

If I can make a professional comedian laugh, then there's hope for me yet

Well I hope you progress well with your medical condition and with your impressive workload. I have a new baby which means I am physically exhausted but up and unable to sleep with my mind racing at ridiculous hours of the morning. Prime EvC participation time. But (purely to take the opportunity to misquote Animal farm for the second time in this thread) some are more perfect than others

I am going to give a generic reply because I can see that if I try to get carefully into what each person said in response to me I'll go utterly crazy again. I'll try not to be incendiary myself but apparently just about anything I say has that effect.Once again, for the twentieth or thirtieth time at least (?) I tried to say my objection to welfare programs is that they STEAL. I said it in the teeth of the dozenth or so misstatement of my position, in this case RAZD saying I believe welfare is wrong because I believe people don't deserve it.After all my repetitions of my position as being against STEALING I have to regard that as simply bizarre. Something very strange is going on here as if nobody can actually read the WORD "stealing" or understand it.Something here makes it impossible for simple concepts to get across this enormous communication gap.The upshot of what EVERYONE here said in response to my last post APPEARS TO BE that you think stealing is just fine. You don't address the concept but your statements imply that.As if you really believe stealing is OK if it's done by the government to help needy people. You must simply deny that it's stealing although what I said ought to have made it clear that it is. You seem to be saying that if you don't SEE your neighbor being robbed, if it's done on paper by the IRS and THEN given to another neighbor who is poor, that's not stealing.But it's just indirect stealing and you just don't want to face the implications of that.I do assume that you wouldn't condone the poor person's directly robbing his neighbor, but it's apparently ok with you if the IRS does it for him.You all just go on about how the person NEEDS stuff as if that makes stealing OK. You'd probably say well DIRECT stealing isn't OK but would you also say that if somebody else does it for him instead, under threat of imprisonment if he doesn't pony up, that's not stealing or that kind of stealing is OK with you?Because they are needy it's OK for them to steal. That seems to be what you are all saying. But again, only if you don't have to notice that it's stealing, right?You won't face the concept of stealing itself. There's something schizophrenic going on here.I'm almost scared to post this because of how my posts have been misunderstood and misrepresented and made into accusations against me already. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I do thank you, DC85, for your polite and thoughtful post this time. But I'm now very leery of saying too much about any of these concepts.Yes, I believe you put your finger on a big part of the communication problem when you note that you focus on literal definitions and that's not my focus.It's not COMPLETELY right to say I'm merely saying Communism in practice leads to tyranny, but I'm willing to accept that definition for the sake of agreement and it's true enough.But I was trying to say something more sophisticated about how it really does become fascism. It's been a while since I read the studies that convinced me of that, however, so I will drop it.Yes, I think you went a long way to helping our communication problem.Thank you.

One more generic post to describe how I have experienced this thread, again in the hope it will get something across for the sake of communication and not to be incendiary.I probably jumped too aggressively on onifre at the beginning when I argued against his statement that there's never been any Communism or Marxism in America or however that went. Apparently ICANT had said there was, and onifre was giving what I've often encountered from leftists (yes I know some of you don't think you are leftists but this is how the ideas of most of you come across to me. It is always leftists who deny that there ever was any communism in America.)Soon as I said that a huge barrage of miscommunications got going denouncing me for my claim that communism has indeed been very real in this country. It did take the form of browbeating me about dictionary definitions instead of addressing anything I said by way of the evidence I was using. I referred to an American who had grown up with parents who belonged to the American Communist Party. You'd think that would be some kind of evidence. I don't understand why it isn't. I knew plenty of people just like him in the sixties who had very similar backgrounds. I took it for granted in those days that a Communist background was a normal way of being an American.Instead of addressing any of that you indignantly called me ignorant for what I called Communism/Marxism and what the people around me called Communism/Marxism, because according to your pure definitions that wasn't Communism/Marxism. You wanted me to give you a textbook definition instead of tkaing anything I said as having any reality at all. Because the Communism McCarthy was fighting and the Communism of my friends didn't meet some abstract definition of Communism, therefore it didn't exist.I also mentioned a friend who was a professor of history and probably still is and taught courses on Marxism in the university, and probably still does, and gave me books about Cultural Marxism.Then because my original source of information was David Horowitz you discredited his experience on the basis of your false idea that he's a racist and false idea that he was trying to get leftists removed from their professorships, all lies. I'm sure you still believe that about him because he wrote against reparations for slavery and because he tries to get universities to make room for the conservative viewpoint. I don't want to go down those rabbit trails. The subject was Marxism in America and his childhood and adulthood were lived in that milieu and constitute evidence for it whatever you think of his social policies now.Why are your sources better than mine?I have a feeling that of my last three posts this one is likely to go the wrongest and start the bomb-throwing again so I may have to avoid answering whatever you all say about it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No. Not really. But what is "stealing" and what is necessary for the functioning of society and on what principles are you making that distinction? This is the part we all keep asking and you just won't tell us.Taxes used to educate children who would otherwise receive no education. Is that stealing? Supporting those bankrupted by repeated ill health. Is that stealing? Supporting families impoverished by job losses derived from macro-economic circumstances over which they have no control. Is that stealing? Using taxes to pay bankers bonuses? Is that stealing? What things are stealing and what things are necessary to run society in your view? On what basis are you making your distinction? This is, has been throughout this thread, and remains wholly unclear.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I'm trying to grasp your boundaries It is okay to "steal" to take a rapist off the street and to keep you safe from them.... However it is not okay to help you recover from disease or to help you recover from complete inability to survive due to job loss?Why should the government help you by keeping killers , rapists and other criminals off the street? Why not learn to protect yourself or pay for private protection? of course not but these are here not only to help people but to keep a vital part of the economy from failing. I also contend it's there for you also if you some day need the help. It wouldn't be stealing if you got the money back when you needed the help would it?

Okay. Your use of "STEAL" is incendiary.As far as I know, "steal" means to unlawfully take something. As long as welfare recipients are within the law they are not stealing. And as long as taxation is in accordance with the law, that is not stealing either. And that's more incendiary language. You are falsely accusing people of condoning stealing. People do not like to be the target of such clearly false accusations, so you should not be surprised when they react rather strongly to the language you choose to use. And that is more incendiary language, because it also amounts to a false accusation of condoning stealing. I hope that I have helped explain to you why you are misunderstood.We belong to a community, and meanings of words are shared among people of that community. It is perfectly okay for you to have your own private meaning of "steal" that disagrees with the meaning used by most other people. But when you use that private meaning in a public forum, you should expect to be misunderstood.

Thank you Faith, for proving my point. ... feeling that some people would be getting more than they deserve.Enjoy.

---

OK, there's the problem. You must deny that stealing is stealing. You think that if it's been written into law that it becomes not stealing. Some laws simply rationalize stealing. The welfare laws do that.You'd call it stealing if a king subjected his peasants to a law that meant they had to give him 90% of their earnings. It would be a law but it would be a law rationalizing stealing.So are the welfare laws.But you did succeed in clarifying the problem here, so thank you for that. You really ARE denying that it's stealing.

Wow, you all really do think stealing means something else than stealing. The problem is very very clear.OK, I made MY point, though here it's as good as talking to the wind.I'm out of here again.