Marxism

Hi Everyone,I have the feeling that this interesting discussion could all easily derail into name-calling as this is a hot topic. I would like to see less arrogance in the exchanges, particularly Theodoric and Faith.Thanks!Edited by AdminSlev, : No reason given.

---

- EvC Administrator -Understanding through Knowledge and Discussion Discussion

Hi Faith, So what is your personal solution then? I don't see any evidence that Christian conservatives are any more likely to take care of the poor than atheists or liberal Hindus. Most people who have a lot of money are going to want to hang onto it, that's why some live in tax havens where they can avoid contributing their due. Someone else here (sorry I can't remember who) said that in smaller societies, people look after each other's welfare. Our sense of community has been disintegrating for decades and when one neighbour does not know another, it's largely up to government to take over that role of social welfare. That means we pay taxes so that people can get an education and (here in the UK) basic health care and a minimum standard of living. These are human rights. Again, I ask you -- if the rich were allowed to keep their money and not pay taxes, how would we be able to guarantee the above? They can afford to pay a proportion of their income for these things and still have plenty left over for themselves. I pay taxes too, and it hurts when they go up and we're on one income because the other of us is unable to get a permanent job. Yet I do not resent paying taxes because we need schools, police, firefighters, a justice system, a welfare state, and so on. Where will those things come from if we don't pay? From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Well no, I don't see how the method of acquisition matters -- they should still pay taxes. But I did raise a question about who "works their butt off" more -- someone who got lucky with the stock market, say, or the person on minimum wage holding down two physically demanding jobs in order to keep their family afloat. I said this was general, not universal. My evidence is personal experience and the experiences of family and friends. People who have the qualities of being ruthless, unable to empathise, and greed have a disproportionate tendency to make it big in capitalism. These are also people who will not give willingly to society. So again I'll ask you, what is your alternative system? Given that there is little sense of community left in many areas, and what we know about human nature and money. I actually know nothing about the man, but I read this in Message 9: I was wondering why you would support a person with such views.

You are speaking of two different things. You go back and forth between lines of credit (i.e. loans) to purchasing items outright.For loans, there has to be some kind of incentive for say, a bank, to loan you their money. That incentive is interest. It makes loaning the money worth while, otherwise what is the point? You as the consumer have the choice to get a loan elsewhere because their APR is too high and tantamount to extortion. RAZD, honestly, that is the only way any company can survive in which to give you goods. What business exists to loose money, that you think this is exclusive to greedy people?Is you having a savings account and wanting to place more money in to that account for your economic security tantamount to greed? Or are you just being responsible? What in your estimation is the line between greed and business savvy? He provided something the world had never seen, which means no one can say "he charged more than its worth." The people determined its value based on the value they extract from it. They have the choice to buy it or not to buy it. If no one buys it, it forces the seller to bring down prices because they otherwise aren't making a return investment. You have to spend money in order to make money. If you want to be derogatory and equivocate greed with capitalism, I really could care less what you call it. Just know that you are describing business and nothing more. Provide me any other system in modern civilization that deviates from this simple economic model. No, you're just making assumptions because you have nothing else to go by except to say that it is greed. I just took a snippet because its a redundancy. I saw nothing about it extraordinary.

quote:

---

Message 94: 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.

---

Yep, nothing extraordinary about it, whatsoever! In fact, even more money is embedded in the product because large companies have to pay millions of dollars in taxes. Instead of paying for them at the end of the year, they do this piecemeal by marginally hiking up prices to offset what they need to pay in taxes.So much goes in to making a product. Raw materials, research and development, assembly, paying employees, shipping costs, etc. If they didn't make some kind of profit then it would be you that is the greedy one, expecting people to make shit for you and them getting little in return.If you don't like a companies prices, shop elsewhere. The sheer irony in this is that you aren't forced to give your money to anyone. The only group of people who forcefully take your money, whether you like it or not, is the one thing you think is the solution to all the problems: Government.I have asked you to present to me your system of business that deviates from the economic principle you see as "greed." If you have nothing substantive to add to the debate with specifics, then you really have no room to complain about anything. You are otherwise just regurgitating marxist sound bites.

---

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

Hyro can I ask - Do you believe that the aim of Marxism is to make everyone equal regardless of what they actually do in society? Administrating a government is not the same as ruling in ones own interests at the expense of everyone elses.I ask again - Why must Marxism result in an authoritarian dictatorship in your view? You seem to just assume this as a given. But I am not sure on what basis. Simply citing a list of dictators who have falsely played the "power to the people" card in order to gain power is not sufficient. Families are arguably Marxist in setup. Tribes of people have been historically successfully Marxist in essence. Groups where everyone has a stake in the same things and where everyone identifies that it is collectively beneficial to protect each other from misfortune and share resources on the basis that you and yours benefit from that collective when most needed (i.e. times of illness, job loss, home loss etc. etc.) are essentially Marxist. Local communities can act very collectively when the long term benefits of doing so are obvious to everyone including those contributing the most in that community. My concern is how large that grouping can be whilst retaining that collective spirit required to make this work. Are you saying it is impossible to recognise some achievements as contributing more to society than others and thus being more deserving of reward on that basis? Is it not even conceivably possible to agree that some jobs are more socialy worthwhile than others? Which Marxists? Or are you going to give us a list of dictators again? In a capitalist society success is basically measured in terms of material wealth. How that wealth is achieved is largely immaterial. Inherited wealth, successfully playing the capitalist system without actually doing anything socially productive (e.g. currency speculation or whatever) leads to just as much (if not considerably more) wealth than actually doing things that benefit society in any way. No. Who says that they should? Is that really what you think Marxism means? In a Marxist system as I understand it ones rewards would be much more related to ones role and contribution to society. A highly specialised doctor would have entailed a great deal of investment in terms of training and a great deal of hard work and talent on the part of the individual. The benefit to society of that would be high and thus the rewards for such an individual would be relatively high.It is not about making everyone equal. It is about redefining what constitutes success in terms of what benefits society as a whole. That is my understanding in a nutshell anyway. Aside from your rather niche Bahamas example are you saying that the countries of Africa, Asia and South America who provide us in the West with cheap goods are lacking natural resources, natural talents or the willingness to work? Because turkeys don't vote for Christmas. 10% of the world population own 85% of the worlds wealth. 1% of the population owns 40% of the worlds wealth. The people in a position to implement such a system (i.e. those with wealth and power) are those who will lose most from doing so. They would be better served by convincing everyone that the whole idea is utter nonsense regardless of whether it has any merit or not.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

With this one sentence, Hyro has fully demonstrated his utter and insurmountable cluelessness.

Thank you for your even-toned response. I was getting irritable myself, sorry. I don't know. I'm just trying to explain why conservatives don't like the socialist OR Marxist solutions. These days that's pretty much true, but in the past it wasn't true. It was Christianity that brought concern for the poor to the world. The pagan world used to throw them out on the streets. So did the "Christian" world later on though or stick them in dungeons.Christian conservatives do, however, give more money to the causes of suffering people than any other group. That's just a statistical fact.As someone on this thread pointed out, the very rich Gates and Buffett are also the biggest givers. Why doesn't that ever get acknowledged by the anti-capitalists? We could think about what is one's "due" I suppose. My point is very simple. If they acquired it by legal means, how on earth does anyone justify taking it away from them? How does theft get rationalized when a person is rich? AND their generosity gets ignored too. The rich in America are ordinary people who got rich, they aren't the oppressive ruling class.And most of them aren't Christians. I already said that it's too bad that conservatives don't have MORE of an attitude of contributing than it seems they do, but I'm not going to condone stealing from them. I really do care about this being a free society and if people happen to get rich in legitimate ways WHATEVER they want to do with their money is their business. Some of it may be sinful but that's THEIR business. There are other ways of improving education and health care than by giving government the power to determine how it's going to be done -- which is always wasteful, at least here, and forces on all of us philosophical positions not everyone agrees with. I don't want to get into a discussion of how much taxes anyone pays. I pay far more than I should at my poverty level and possibly the rich pay a lot less proportionally, and I'm not interested in defending the tax system. I figure everyone should be taxed but it should be proportionally equal, nobody should have to pay more just because they can.Again I answer. What right do we have to take the possessions of anyone who earned it legitimately? How is theft so easily rationalized in people's minds? The money spent by the rich benefits society in many ways. There seems to be some strange idea that if the rich have money that means others have less of it. That's ridiculous. There isn't a finite pool of money, wealth does grow in a healthy society and the activities of the rich, from employing people to spending money, contribute to it. It isn't as if it's being locked away in a tower rather than put into circulation where it employs people and builds infrastructure and generally benefits society. Yes yes yes, but how is it your business to dictate how they use it? Please let that into your consciousness. It isn't anyone's business but theirs what they do with their money. It's THEIRS. They should pay taxes like everyone else but beyond that it's STEALING to take it from them to finance things YOU think they should finance.People in a free society MUST be allowed to act from their OWN conscience or it isn't a free society. I object to the welfare state. The rest we need, although I'm not in favor of public schools any more at least not mandatory public schooling (and I know in the UK public is different than here - I mean government standardized schools.)But we DO pay, we all pay, and THEY pay taxes, and I don't know where you are getting this idea the rich don't contribute to society. The fact is that they contribute lots more than the rest of us. In America the most wealthy started the library system, founded all kinds of educational and charitable institutions we take for granted. Good grief. Well that IS the Marxist slogan that I am fighting against here. Do you know it's Marxist? It's theft, it's government tyranny, it's wrong. The question as I recall it was who earned their money more legitimately and I answered "all of the above." I didn't equate working their butt off with earning it legitimately although I do have to insist that the idea that most of the wealthy DIDN'T work hard for it is false. You cannot rationalize stealing because you don't like the personalities of those who have more money than you. You can't base policy on your personal feelings about people. You have no evidence whatever that your judgment is any more than a very narrow personal experience colored by your own envy.Linda Lou, you don't seem to realize that you are advocating an attitude that would absolutely destroy the free societies the west struggled for centuries to create. It's legitimate to criticize injustice without being obliged to define a solution to it. "From each according to his ability" is stealing. Yes, that's exactly what you did, you read that and jumped to the conclusion the writer wanted you to jump to, and that's what I answered. You assume Horowitz agrees with what was quoted from Taylor as that is what is insinuated there, without the slightest evidence. HE DOESN'T HAVE SUCH VIEWS. This is lying propaganda.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Are you honestly saying that in general the rich are not also the most fiscally right wing? You see no correlation between wealth and political inclination whatsoever? Would Jesus promote free-market notions that personal greed is natural and that it should be allowed to prevail unhindered as the ultimate driving force behind economics? Or do you think he would be inclined to promote a form of everyone contributing to assist those who are jobless, homeless, ill and unable to afford adequate healthcare etc. etc. etc.?Which side of the debate do you think Jesus would land on here based on his teachings?

Faith you have made many claims on this thread. Claims that are not supported by reality.I am sorry if the admin feels I am arrogant, but I do think you need to explain some of the things you have said. Here is a list of things I have asked for from you, which you have declined to answer. If I do not get answers I will assume you know you are wrong.1) You have claimed that Marxism is now part of the US government.
Please explain how and give an example.
2) You keep railing on Marxism, but as of yet have not shown that you understand what Marxism is.Please give your definition of Marxism
3)You claim that "Marxists" are doing indoctrination in schools. Please show evidence of this.
4)You have claimed that the wealthy pay a ridiculously high percentage of their incomes in income tax.
Do you understand how the US tax system works? Do you understand the difference between average tax and marginal tax?
Do you acknowledge that taxes for the wealthiest people are among the lowest they have ever been?A number of times you have admitted you didn't understand your points enough to argue them. For example, your comment that Fascism has more to do with the left than the right. I think it is incumbent on you to show that you understand these arguments you make. Do you see other people making statements and claims with out being able to back them up?All I am trying to do is keep things honest here. This is not a place to just post talking points. If you can not back up the argument you should not be making the argument. I am not trying to make you look foolish. You are the only one that can do that.

---

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

FISCALLY? I don't know. I'm talking general political attitudes. In America Hollywood celebrities are virulently left wing and they are extremely rich. There is also George Soros for an example of an extravagantly wealthy leftist. The free market is not about greed any more than Marxism is.Jesus was not political.We live in a fallen world. We are all sinners. Greed is natural to every human being, that includes you. The best government system is one that recognizes that we have these tendencies and doesn't try to stamp them out but leaves us to ourselves, otherwise regulating us through laws that protect us from each other. The American founders seem to have recognized these truths about human nature. But Marx wanted to put us all in a box and tell us how to live. That's why murder is the natural result of his system. Jesus would encourage us all individually to take care of the unfortunate, He would not advocate a political system for the purpose. As said above.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

A dictatorship is a dictatorship is a dictatorship.I think right wing philosophies mistakenly equate financial freedom with actual freedom. The two are not the same. It is quite possible to have the right to do whatever you want with your money but if you have no money, are uneducated, live in squalid housing and are working like mad just to survive then you lack any realistic opportunity to change that situation then this much vaunted fiscal "freedom" counts for nothing at all.Such a person would arguably be significantly freer in a society where decent education and work opportunities are much less dependent on ones background and parental ability to pay and are available to all who are willing to work to reach their potential. Even if the cost of that is paying more tax when you do use your potential to achieve more so that others can enjoy the same oportunities that you have.It is about equalising opportunity. Not attempting to make everyone equal.

This is right-wing media propaganda. There are as many right-wing celebs as there are left-wing.See here: List of celebrities with links to the Republican party.Here's a few:

quote:

---

-Shirley Temple Black, actress, ran for Congress as a Republican, former U.S. Ambassador, served under four Republican Presidents.
-Jim Bunning, Baseball Hall of Fame pitcher, U.S. Senator from Kentucky.
-Clint Eastwood, actor, composer, director, producer, registered Republican, former Mayor of Carmel, California.
-Fred Grandy, actor, former U.S. Congressman from Iowa.
-Jack Kemp, professional football player, former U.S. Congressman from New York, candidate for U.S. Vice President in 1996 with presidential nominee Bob Dole.
-Lawrence Kudlow, CNBC host, journalist, former Associate Director for Economics and Planning in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under President Reagan.
-Steve Largent, Pro Football Hall of Fame wide receiver, former U.S. Congressman from Oklahoma.
-Judy Martz, Olympic speed skater, former Governor of Montana.
-Tom Osborne, College Football Hall of Fame head coach, U.S. Congressman from Nebraska.
-Jim Ryun, Olympic distance runner, U.S. Congressman from Kansas.
-Joe Scarborough, MSNBC host, former U.S. Congressman from Florida, served on the President's Council under George W. Bush.
-Arnold Schwarzenegger, actor, bodybuilder, Governor of California.
-Fred Thompson, actor, former U.S. Senator from Tennessee, 2008 Presidential candidate.
-J.C. Watts, football player, former U.S. Congressman from Oklahoma.
-Ben Stein member of Nixon White House Staff.
-Dave Robisch, professional basketball player, currently an elected Trustee of Springfield, IL#Township, Illinois.
-Ducky Schofield, professional baseball player, currently an elected SMEAA board member.
-Sonny Bono ,record producer, singer, actor U.S. Congressman from California.
-Danny Aiello, actor. "I turned in my card to become a Republican because I did not want to be known as a Democrat under that person's regime."
-India Allen, actress and model former Playboy Playmate. "I'm a die-hard Republican."
-Kim Alexis, model.
-Bob Backlund, professional wrestler.
-Dennis Miller, actor, comedian
-Scott Baio, actor
-Adam Baldwin, actor.
-George A. Borgman, jazz journalist. Listed as Republican in Who's Who in America.
-William F. Buckley, Jr., Libertarian journalist and founder of the National Review magazine.
-Dean Cain, actor
-Mary Carey, porn star
-Dixie Carter, actress, once jokingly described herself as "the only Republican in show business"
-Kellye Cash, Christian singer and former Miss America; was twice elected to Tennessee Republican State Executive Committee
-Jim Caviezel, actor.
-Robert Conrad, actor.
-Alice Cooper, singer.
-Anthony Cumia, radio personality
-Linda Dano, actor
-Robert Davi, actor. Member of the Republican group The Sunday Night Club.
-Ted DiBiase, former professional wrestler.
-Shannen Doherty, actress.
-Jerry Doyle, actor, Babylon 5, (ran unsuccessfully for the 24th House seat from California as a Republican in 2000; now calls himself an independent)
-Robert Duvall, "One guy asked me, 'How can you be an actor and be a Republican?' I can vote either way. But how can you boil it down to political affiliation? All the atrocities against blacks in the South were committed by Democratic sheriffs."
-Dale Earnhardt, Jr., NASCAR driver. "Politically, Junior does side with a voting block known as NASCAR dads. He’s a Republican and he supports George W. Bush."
-Larry Elder, a radio show host. Elder is, "a member of the Republican Party who holds libertarian ideals."
-Sully Erna, lead singer for rock band Godsmack. "I'm a Republican...I don't love Bush, I'll tell you that, but I want a Republican in office."
-Jamie Farr, actor.
-Shandi Finnessey, Miss USA 2004.
-Bob Gale, co-screenwriter of Back to the Future, "I'm a registered Republican...and very anti-Communist from way back." (original source doesn't contain quote)
-Vincent Gallo, director, actor
-Kelsey Grammer, actor.
-Erika Harold, former Miss America.
-Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Survivor contestant and host of The View The Washington Times, Centrists at center stage, by James G. Lakely
-Patricia Heaton, actress.
-James Hetfield, musician, lead singer/rythym guitarist for Metallica.
-Honky Tonk Man, professional wrestler. Member of the Pro Wrestling Republican Coalition.
-Lisa Kennedy, former MTV veejay, game show host.
-Rob Konrad, NFL fullback.
-Derek Jeter-professional baseball player
-Dean Jones, actor, Republican activist, 2003 guest of the California Republican Assembly.
-Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, actor, former World Wrestling Entertainment athlete.
-Patrick Johnson, NFL wide receiver.
-Shirley Jones, singer and actress, registered Republican who has sung at the 1988 Republican National Convention and the 2003 Christmas Tree Lighting in Washington, DC, at George W. Bush's request.
-Don King, boxing promoter.
-Ernie Ladd, former American football player and professional wrestler. Campaigned for George W. Bush in 2000 and attended the 2000 Republican National Convention.
-Tommy Lasorda, former major league baseball manager.
-Al Leiter, professional baseball player.
-Heather Locklear, actress won "Republican Babe of the Week"
Audra Lynn, Playboy Playmate "Uhhh(laughs) Republicandefinitely!!"
-Don Mattingly, former professional baseball player.
-Mimi Miyagi, porn star. Republican candidate for governor of Nevada.
-Heidi Montag, reality television personality.
-Chuck Norris, actor. Campaigned for George Bush in 1988 and supported George W. Bush in the 2000 and 2004 elections, appeared in campaign ads with Mike Huckabee and campaigned for him in the 2008 Presidential primaries.
-Alex Rodriguez, professional baseball player. Gave $2,000 to President Bush in '03.
-Dina Merrill, actress, co-chair of the Republican Majority for Choice.
-Richard Petty, race car driver.
-John Popper, lead singer of Blues Traveler. Describes self as "a Libertarian who is a Republican when pushed."
-Freddie Prinze, Jr., actor
-Tom Prichard, former professional wrestler. Member of the Pro Wrestling Republican Coalition.
-Emily Procter of CSI: Miami stated herself to be a Republican in Esquire.
-John Ratzenberger, actor. Supported John McCain in 2008 and attended The 2008 Republican National Convention
-Ivan Reitman, director and producer.
-John Rhys-Davies, actor.
-Kid Rock, singer.
-Mickey Rooney, actor, states he is a Republican in his autobiography Life is Too Short.
-Mickey Rourke, actor.
-Jane Russell, actress, stated "I have always been a Republican."
-Aaron Russo, Hollywood producer planned to run for Governor of Nevada as a Republican.
-Curt Schilling, baseball pitcher, spoke for Bush in '04 election.
-Rick Schroder, actor,
-Jessica Simpson, entertainer. The Washington Times, Centrists at center stage, by James G. Lakely
-Gary Sinise, actor,
-Tony Sirico, actor. "I am a far-to-the-right Republican."
-Rickey Skaggs, singer.
-Grace Slick, singer. "I am a life-long Republican." interview, "Turn -Ben Stein On", Comedy Central, 1999?
-Fred Smerlas, former NFL nose tackle.
-Frank Thomas, professional baseball player.
-Donald Trump, business executive, "I'm actually a Republican."
-Leeann Tweeden, model and television personality, former Playboy Playmate.
-Peter Ueberroth, former MLB commissioner.
-Jon Voight, actor
-Ultimate Warrior, professional wrestler.
-Jamie Smith, Reporter. Supports President George W. Bush.
-Jimmie Walker, Actor/Comedian
-Terri Welles, actress and model, former Playboy Playmate.
-Bruce Willis, Actor
-Brady Quinn- NFL quarterback

---

The two that hurt the most are James Hetfield and the Ultimate Warrior. The Jesus would agree with Marx's theory. True communism is achieved only when there is an abolishment of a governing state.- Oni

I don't equate them, I support both. Taking from the rich to support the poor is stealing. That's all I'm saying. It's theft. It's immoral. The government should not be doing that. Leave people to their own consciences. Right, so stealing is going to solve the problem.Freedom does not mean equal opportunity. That is not what it ever meant. It means freedom from coercion. We need other solutions than coercion and theft to help people in the situation you are talking about. It's STEALING, it's ROBBERY, it's THEFT. It's TYRANNY, it's COERCION, it's MEDDLING in people's business. Why is this so hard to get? Taxes should be equal. Beyond that, LET PEOPLE GIVE ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN CONSCIENCE.Preach giving if you like. Pound on the doors of the rich to collect from them. Equalizing opportunity by taking from some against their will is UNJUST.Ask people to give. Float a ton of propaganda to exhort people to give. But coercion and theft are wrong.

Hi Onifre, I would dispute that. Fixed. I knew I knew I was right to hate that guy.Are there any Republican musicians who don't suck?Mutate and Survive

The New Testament advocates government.

Alice Cooper and James Hetfield? I like 'em both.The funniest one was Mary Carey - Porn Star - Oni