Marxism

SUCH civility, such charity, such goodness of spirit.

Whew! Thanks for the correction.

How does my saying that there are also rich liberals work out to a political inclination? Jesus didn't have political inclinations, He didn't say a word against the Roman Empire that so many of His fellow Jews were revolutionaries against. He's willing to save anyone of any political inclination and He'd probably chide some of us for being too much of this world when we should just be privately involved in helping people.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That is a complete fabrication of how things really work. Sharing is consistent with human nature, you can see this in primate behavior, as well as the concept of justice, which is based on everyone getting fair shares.Capitalism = exchange plus profit. If you don't realize this then you know very little of how the capitalist system actually works. The more profit you make the better a capitalist you are.If you borrow money from the bank, you have to pay back what you borrowed plus interest = more than you borrowed. This is capitalism.If you borrow a hammer from a friend, all he asks is that you give it back in the condition it was lent in within a reasonable time. This is human nature.If you buy a product from a company you will usually pay the cost of materials plus the cost of manufacturing the part (includes all the overhead and labor) plus a margin. If the margin is 40% (common) then you pay Next we can talk about how the profit is shared within the company, to see if that represents just payment for work done.I don't know about you, but for me, greed and selfishness is about getting more than your fair share of any transaction, and that seems to be a built in element in unregulated capitalism. Capitalism doesn't work because it is inconsistent with human nature, much less a workable economic system.Now we can also discuss whether there are any fully implemented actual economic systems that are 100% capitalistic, or whether every one in the world today has some kind of regulation because capitalism on it's own is an abject failure. In every case I know of the regulations are to more justly balance the profits among people and to take into consideration the social aspects in regulating transactions.Bill Gates is not rich because he personally made things. He is rich because he charged more than a fair price. There is a reason that monopolies are outlawed: they are the personification of pure captilistic greed.Enjoy.

---

quote:

---

All form of government need specific individuals to organize it. That obviously does not mean that a Direct Democracy would exist where everyone has an equal say and an equal status for the sole fact that some people have to be in charge.

---

How can a government run without people in charge running it? The vision was for the proletariat's, the working class, to end the class struggle that Marx and Engels saw was endemic of the overall problem. If this is the case, this is simply changing who controls power, not the abrogation of it. Then why is there so much political strife and division now and always has been? Are people suddenly and inexplicably going to come to some sort of consensus under Marxist rule? If so, why? That's a social phenomenon that is certainly not unique to any society. I don't see that as being relevant, except to note that people look upon the extraordinary because human nature marvels at those who break from the common modality and break free from the mold. Marxism is a cookie cutter that wants to make everyone the same and stamp out individuality. I don't see that as virtuous.

quote:

---

I don't see penalizing successful people and redistributing poverty as a sign of "fairness."

---

Marxists! Success is something defined by the individual. What I imagine success as working hard, earning respect, and in the interest of high achievement, being compensated for that achievement.Should a highly specialised doctor make the same amount of money as a person who operates a cash register? If not, why not? And would that simple principle of being more highly compensated for a higher level of profession be the same under Marxism? If so, why? If not, why not? I don't understand. Can you please elaborate? Sure it does. Do you think these people work there with a gun to their head? What you consider a shitty job is an amazing job for them that is keeping them and their family alive. If you can't provide a basis for why they can't leave their job, then you have no basis for even mentioning it in a negative connotation. Capitalism is the only economic system that has proven to limit poverty in the known world. There is no room for comparison. Until it can be demonstrated that a better form of system exists, it is useless to even disparage it. Who's fault is it that third world countries are third world? Are you suggesting that a country like the Bahamas would be better off without capitalism? Because from my vantage point, the only reason why Bahamians are still alive is because of capitalism. They have no natural resources and almost 90% of their economy comes from tourism. They benefit from it. Just because one nation is more prosperous than another doesn't mean the smart nation should be guilted for their success. It would be wise, like China finally wised up to, and to get in the game and compete. Because what else can you do? The question that still begs to be answered by anyone is: If Marxism is theoretically so amazing, yet hasn't been tried, why has no one dared to implement it?Or is the truth that it has been tried numerous times, and numerous times has failed? Touche!

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

I asked you if the government should be paying for food (everyone's food) on the basis that people need food? You know what stimulates the economy even better? Working and paying for your own food.

quote:

---

Are you saying that the government determines the price of food?

---

I can't seem to find any evidence of that. If you have any corroborating evidence that the United States government tells grocery stores how much to sell milk for, please post it.Regardless, prices are determined by the market not the government. If you sell something for too much, people will go to the lowest bidder. If you want to compete for economic survival, you have to let the market dictate how much you sell something for. Only in the case of monopolies, which is a rarity.

quote:

---

In this country, the role was supposed to be small and specific to protection, infrastructure, and postal routes.

---

All we can know is what they stated, and the very clear message was the maximization of individual rights while minimizing the government's role.

quote:

---

I misspoke, Mussolini was certainly not a communist. Dictator, yes, communist, no.

---

It was a list of dictators who are communists. My inclusion of Mussolini was accidental since he and other fascist regimes were against communism.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Hi Straggler, Then review the Cuban revolution for context. (of course you will need to refer to the real history, not some regurgitated interpretation).You also see the same thing where coups or revolutions are supposed to end in a democracy ... and suddenly you have a military leader ...Enjoy.

---

Care to answer the question? So far you haven't answered my questions. All I get are whiney responses.Why don't you try backing up your comments, with facts maybe.I will try again.
What do you know about U.S. tax law? What do you think the top tax rate is and how do tax rates work?If someone is in the 32% tax rate are they taxed 32% for all their income?Is the top tax rate 10%, 35%, 60%, 75%?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

You missed the point of me defining and telling you the difference between communism and Socialism.Taxes to fund government programs and regulating business in order to keep them from abusing and doing harm to other members of society IS NOT Marxist or communist it is socialist. Please learn the difference. These words have specific meanings. If you don't understand what they are then how are we to understand what you're trying to say?Communism is not socialism.Calling a socialist a communist is like calling a libertarian a Nazi. That's how big the difference is.(yes Nazi party ideas are to the "right" not the "left" but are a huge leap from libertarian)

Ah, so you go to work for strangers I take it, and give your paycheck to strangers, and your home is shared publicly with strangers, and your car is not really your car and so on? It's all publicly divided, I take it? Of course profit is involved. That kind of goes without saying. Nobody makes products so they can break even, as it would tend to defeat the entire purpose of business. A more succinct term would be called business or commerce or credit. Yep, amongst friends or neighbors. But amongst strangers, there needs to be a system of collateral as there is less guarantee that you will recoup those funds that you invested in the hammer should that hammer mysteriously disappear. There would also be no incentive in lending the hammer out, and there would be no incentive on returning the hammer as it is "public domain" in a marxist society. Is that extraordinarily strange? Because I'm wondering what place on earth deviates from such simple economic principles that doesn't include an incredibly repressive society. If you as the consumer feel that you are not getting your fair share, you have the option to go to a lower bidder. Those kind of incentives drive the market, RAZD. No need for government spooks to determine the lives of free people in a free society to trade freely as they please in a free market. Plead your case and I will follow. He's rich because he sold massive amounts of his products. Simple supply and demand. The market had the demand, he had the supply. That's economics 101.Can you explain to me what version of society (as it applies to economics) you think a nation should aspire to? Because these invectives of the horrors of capitalism really make no sense without a detailed alternative.If RAZD could form his perfect society with willing participants, what would it look like?

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

No they aren't. Those practices are standard in any civilized society that ever existed --- abe: OK, exaggeration -- they are COMPATIBLE with all civilized government. They are not socialism. Well, I think somebody has been manipulating the language back in academia somewhere probably in the last few decades? for this to have become a rule we now have to obey in order not to be sent to political correctness hell.Here's a rough idea of how I use the terms: Socialism is a form of spreading the wealth and Marxism is the most ideologically tyrannical version of it. The idea of socialism started back in the 19th century among liberal Christians. Marx himself was from a liberal Christian family that had converted from Judaism and made use of many of those concepts in his theories.I really think you are insisting on too stringent a distinction and, like I said, it must have started somewhere back in academia, probably to make socialism palatable by erasing any connection with Marxism, right?If you know something of the history of this objection to equating the two perhaps you could spell it out? Actually the case can be made and I've seen it made though I don't claim the ability to make it myself for you here, that Nazism and all forms of Fascism have more in common with the Left than the Right. Something about having to control and dictate to people instead of allowing them freedom to live as they please. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sorry Hyro, but do you know who the bourgeoisie were in Marx's time? They weren't the rich, specifically. They could have been, but they were also the middle class. It didn't have to do with money, although those with money could also be bourgeois, or the more common name: Capitalist. Why? because they owned capital. They were the employers. Hyro, you're not understanding Marx's concept of "class". You're looking at it as upper/middle/lower class, but this is not the kind of 'class' Marx was talking about. Source

quote:

---

Marxism defines the bourgeoisie as the social class that owns the means of production in a capitalist society.

​

In contemporary (capitalist) societies, the term bourgeoisie can refer to middle, upper middle, and/or upper classes, and/or their lifestyle and values.

---

There is a difference between Marx's use of the word 'class' and the contemporary use (the way you're using it). They mean two different things in two different times in history. Opinion's are one thing, we all have them. The fact that no one has stated that their particular opinion is the right one is the point.We are simply stating facts. The communism that has been tried is not Marx and Engel's theory. No one has lead anyone to believe it's a better theory than any other. I even argued in favor of slavery being better for production. Are you going to accuse me of thinking slavery is the only way to go? C'mon, Hyro. I think Straggler's answer was great. Message 84

quote:

---

Who would benefit and who would lose out?

​

Ask yourself that and surely the answer is obvious. No?

---

If no one stands to benefit, it's like asking why we haven't abopted any other form of social economics that no one would benefit from.Besides, you are making a big deal about Marx's theory. Marx did absolutely nothing. His original theory is gone. Never used. Thrown away. All we are left wih is this fake representation of communism by fascist governments.Any mention of a communist "state" with a ruling elite that controlled production, distribution and wages would have been in complete disagreement with Marx and Engel's theory.You need to understand this already. We keep repeating it. Again, its unions in a capitalist system, so you're going to get that exploitation, that Marx was against. This is why I said "in principle" they resemble Marxism. Marxism CAN"T work in a capitalist society. But it was just an example of ideologies. Whether they have worked or not, or whether they have been corrupted, etc., is irrelevant to my point. So did communism. No. You pay it to your local. To yourself. Wait, you're confusing something here. I'm not talking about the union reps, or the union lobbyist, or any of that. I'm saying the way a local union is run (example: Local 349 IBEW) in principle resembles Marx's idea of communism.That is all. Ugh, so tempted to make a dick joke. You're seeing the big picture: lobbyist, the shady business guys, the one's who steal from the workers, the greedy side (the capitalist side) of unions. I agree, that is very ugly.But go to any Local and talk to those guys. Go to an area where huge corporate monsters have tried to drive wages down, but unions (that is to say, the memebers of the union) have stopped it. In right to work states where the wages are just lower except for union workers, example: right here in Miami. Union electricians (which is what I did before comedy) made 4-5 dollars more an hour than non-union guys.Now, I'm not saying unions are perfect, but they have done well for people in the past, and currently during this economy.So maybe just have a little chubby for unions? Not a huge bone.- Oni

Ok maybe you don't realize it is crap. Whatever sources you are using they are lying to you. You constantly make comments about things you don't understand. Maybe you should understand the subject before you make uninformed comments.
Here is an overview of fascism. Maybe you should read it.

quote:

---

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfʃɪzəm/, is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives; values; and systems such as the political system and the economy.[5][6] Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum,[7][8][9][10][11][12] although some scholars claim that fascism has been influenced by both the left and the right.[13][14]

​

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.[15] They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism.[15] In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they claim that pluralism is a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.[16][17] They advocate the creation of a single-party state.[18] Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.[19] Fascists reject and resist autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated.[20] They consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and threat to the nation.[20] They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[21]

​

Fascism is strongly opposed to core aspects of the Enlightenment and is an opponent of liberalism, Marxism, and mainstream socialism for being associated with failures that fascists claim are inherent in the Enlightenment.[22] Fascists view egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism as failed elements of the Enlightenment.[23] They oppose liberalism as a bourgeois movement and Marxism as a proletarian movement for being exclusive economic class-based movements.[24] They present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that promotes ending economic class conflict to secure national solidarity.[25] They believe that economic classes are not capable of properly running a nation, and that a merit-based aristocracy of experienced military persons must rule through regimenting a nation's forces of production and securing the nation's independence.[26] Fascists support a "Third Position" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of laissez-faire capitalism and the severe control of state socialism.

---

Source

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Here for you to read THIS TIME is what I wrote in message 27

quote:

---

I do believe you don't fully understand the words you are using.

​

socialism generally refers to an economic system, while communism generally refers to both an economic and a political system.

​

Communism, seeks to manage both the economy and the society by ensuring that property is owned collectively, and that control over the distribution of property is centralized in order to achieve both classlessness and statelessness. To keep everyone equal in a society.

​

Socialism seeks to manage economy through social control. Socialists, see capitalism as a possible part of the state and believe that socialism can exist in a capitalist society. One of the ideas of socialism is that everyone within the society will benefit from capitalism as much as possible as long as the capitalism is controlled somehow by a centralized planning system to keep it within a state in which it doesn't do serious damage to any members of the society.

​

Please don't let the "Conservative" brainwashing of the 1980's persist in modern times. Calling someone a socialist and a communist is very ignorant and lacks understanding. To top it off many people throw the word Nazi in with these two even though the Nazi Party was founded to fight the "evil" communists.

---

Why do you distant socialist policies from socialism? Do you think Socialism is bad even though socialist governments have been proven to work? They are two very different words with different meanings.... so no.
Calling a socialist a communist is like calling a libertarian a Nazi. Except they would be wrong Nazism was founded as an extreme effort to fight communism. It is an extreme "right" wing idea.You continue to show your ignorance by throwing dictatorships into the mix. So you're saying that anything that oppresses people is to the left?Wow... Do you understand economics beyond Glen Beck's Chalk board?Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

Thanks for proving that greed is indeed the basic element of capitalism. If it were an exchange system and nothing more then A can be exchanged for B and B can be exchanged for A at any time. Thus the loan would be repaid with the same amount that was lent, just as the hammer was returned by the good neighbor. Profit means charging more than the actual value of the product, it means charging B+P for A. Asking for more than the value of an item is being greedy. He's rich because he not only charged more than the product was worth, but as much as he could coerce out of people with little other choice.So I'm glad that you agree that "Capitalism works because it feeds off the greed of people" and that all your equivocating shows exactly the same attitude: that greed is justified by capitalism. Nice quote mine. Now you have shown that you are dishonest as well as equivocating.For the casual reader the full quote would be and even a casual reader will note that eliminating that final bit substantially changes the meaning.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrty

---