Marxism

Who said this is it's job?I thought the idea of the government was to governHere are some other words that are considered synonyms for governmanage
administrate
direct
overseeWell... It seems the government is here to manage the country and make sure the country running smoothly.Wouldn't you say a business that has become powerful and abusive to the point where it is causing harm to general population should be regulated?Wouldn't you say looking out for the health and well being of a country as a whole would help the country and make it stronger?I say it would be poor management not to do these things

But any one of us could make that exact same statement and mean it as wholeheartedly as you do. The disagreement comes over what constitutes "running society" and the founding principles upon which we want society to be run. I would say establishing fairness of opportunity such that individuals can be enabled to fourish on the basis of ability and hard work rather than being consigned to a set social position from birth is very much part of running society. Or at least running a just society. So taxes used to educate children who would otherwise receive no education is stealing? Supporting those bankrupted by repeated ill health is stealing? Supporting families impoverished by job losses derived from macro-economic circumstances over which they have no control is 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 very unclear.Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotes

Oh. Theory again, about to take down reality again. Sounds like a huge bureaucracy is going to be created right there to calculate and enforce this value, which is going to turn out to be so high the farmer can't afford to hire the workers, and the bureaucracy will also extract some of the profits for their service and all together this will raise the price of the farmer's product beyond anybody's ability to buy it and put the farmer out of business and he'll go on welfare and the farm will go to ruin and the workers will be out of a job.ABE: Actually now the government will take over the farm and run it themselves and calculate the value of the workers somehow or other and they'll all get taken care of more or less on money taken from the rest of the population while the farmer will be reduced to poverty. Marx is a genius at abstract theory and an idiot when it comes to reality. OK by me if it's voluntary. But here's where violence and revolution come in to force this on the factory owner. Yes, I understand that there was a lot of injustice back then that did need correction and that is why Marx's theory got taken so seriously. If there hadn't been the problems, there wouldn't have been a Marx. If business owners had taken care of their workers better there wouldn't have been a Marx. Too bad his solutions weren't in the realm of reality. The bigger the government grows the less it has anything to do with the people. It's of and by and for the people in theory only these days. Millions have joined the Tea Party movement but they have been ignored and misrepresented and smeared. Only SOME of "the people" count, those that agree with this administration. Yes. The right has the voice of the radio but not the voice of the mainstream media who either ignore us or slant their stories against us. But from the sound of it this "real value" isn't really so real, it's an abstraction born of theory that looks good on paper but in reality would probably bring the whole system crashing down. They are in business to make money. What other incentive could there possibly be for having the headaches of running a business? Anecdotal. Who knows how much of reality fits this. But I also don't get the psychology here. You assume there is no burden on the business owner, as if the workers do it all and he just pockets the money. Business owners I have known spend prodigious amounts of time keeping the place running and have to deal with all kinds of disasters you have no idea about. The worker has no right to complain about what other people do with their money. Make sure the worker gets paid reasonably and that's enough.of course you can start worker-run businesses if you like too. Fine by me.Listen I've worked for a business here where I hardly got paid enough to live on. I live in a "right-to-work" state where wages AREN'T regulated and I don't like it. Now I work for myself but I don't even make what I made back then, but since I'm "self-employed" working at home although I have no employees but myself, this puts me in the camp of the hated "business owner" so I have to pay income tax on my pittance of an earning that some years I haven't been able to pay at all and the church stepped in to pay it. It's not always easy to tell. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Ronald Reagan was genius at abstract theory and an idiot when it comes to realityoh wait... yes that's what I intended to say.... Yet Obama has proven to be more conservative then Bush as far as expanding Government. Yet I heard nothing about massive Tea parties back then... except for the person who started them Mr. Ron Paul who has now been plowed down by the the idiots who hijacked the "movement" Who has the mainstream media? It ISN'T the left because the corporations pay for and own the mainstream media.....I thought the left wanted to destroy business... hmmmmI think you need to rethink this without listening to the druggie on the radio of course they are but if they become to powerful to the point of doing harm to general population shouldn't they be regulated?Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

Hi Hyroglyphx, perhaps you should read what I've said again. Curiously, both of them still characterize the common element of capitalistic greed in taking more than is necessary. Do you know that Muslims regard charging interest as immoral? Fascinating concept, lending without interest.Islamic banking and finance - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Islamic banking refers to a system of banking or banking activity that is consistent with the principles of Islamic law (Sharia) and its practical application through the development of Islamic economics. Sharia prohibits the payment or acceptance of interest fees for the lending and accepting of money respectively, (Riba, usury) for specific terms, as well as investing in businesses that provide goods or services considered contrary to its principles (Haraam, forbidden). While these principles were used as the basis for a flourishing economy in earlier times, it is only in the late 20th century that a number of Islamic banks were formed to apply these principles to private or semi-private commercial institutions within the Muslim community.

---

In other words, your thesis that interest is necessary for banks to provide loans is false. Have you tried to buy a PC without microsoft on it? Some choice. Shoe on the other foot? It's okay to denigrate marxism, but don't anyone dare say anything derogatory about capitalism? Really, this is a lame complaint: look at the issue of the big banks and lending companies, and what outrages people is the greed and selfishness of the top managements at the expense of the rest of the people. Greed is rewarded in capitalist economies. It is not an assumption that you clipped off the part of my post that made look like I said something else. It is not an assumption that with the clipped part restored your comment on it looks ridiculous and irrelevant. It is not an assumption that you made a mistake.The fact that you can't admit your mistake is just another black mark. Of course you couldn't admit that Penn and Teller were wrong either. Must be fascinating to live in a flexible reality world. In other words you don't comprehend the difference, and have blundered on in ignorance. Let me see if I can make it simple for you:Me: You will normally be charged A + B + C to buy a product from a company.You: Is charging A + B extraordinarily strange?Your reply would be hilarious if it wasn't so ludicrous, because A + B ia a fair price for a product, and you have completely ignored the issue that C is the excess (greedy) profit over and above the fair price. Congratulations again for admitting that greed is "nothing extraordinary" and a normal part of big business.FYI - those taxes are part of the cost of producing the product (the B part), and they don't come out of the excess profit charged (the C part) - it's overhead. Once again you have equivocated between charging a fair price and charging an excessive price for the value delivered, and tried to obscure the issue by bringing in a red herring fallacy.Certainly your simplistic claim that "Capitalism is about exchange and nothing more" is falsified. You just don't get it do you?Amusingly I have not asked for companies to give me goods, but rather to sell them at their fair value. That value is the cost of materials plus the cost of labor and the overhead of operating the business (that part of the cost that you asked if it was "extraordinarily strange" to charge). Everybody gets a salary and goes home for the day having earned their living making the product. They get a fair wage and the company sells product at a fair price.Anything more than that is greed.What you don't have is a company charging another 60% above the fair price, and where that excess only goes into the top management pocket, over and above salary, and that is not shared with the people that actually make the product.Curiously, even capucin monkeys understand that some people getting more out of a deal than others is not fair.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...17_monkeyfairness.html Notice that in Message 94 I claimed that "... 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" and that the above article substantiates this argument.Meanwhile you have provided no evidence to support your arguments, and have used equivocation, red herrings and misquotes in your argument.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrty

---

You assume an awful lot about me. I wasn't political in the days of Reagan though I thought I was a liberal and more or less was insofar as I was political at all, following the trends around me, and I don't listen to talk radio at all, haven't for at least ten years.I'm not even particularly political now really, but since I was around the sixties radicals a lot back in those days I do know something about Marxist influences in this country, and whether they are "pure" or not is irrelevant to me. Most here are probably a generation younger than I am, at least, and you've grown up UNDER that influence and don't have my perspective on it.About media influence I see anti-rightist bias in almost every story I read these days. Corporations must not be as right-oriented as you think they are.And I've said at least half a dozen times that business has to be regulated.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

considering most what was said at the time was fabricated and propaganda and still is concerning Communism. I now more then ever am sure you don't know what you're talking about. You've proven this because you honestly think fascism , Socialism and Communism are the same thing. I need examples. Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

Any chance you could provide a sample of this bias? Didn't think so.

---

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

I wish I could without spending too much time at it. I also wish that you'd just take my word for it that this is how it reads to me. I KNOW you don't read the same stories the same way I do. Even if I showed you what I mean you wouldn't accept it. I see the bias, you wouldn't. I'd supply the information and we'd be arguing nastily for hours about whether it's really anti-right wing or not. It doesn't matter. I SEE the bias, you wouldn't because you share it as does most everybody else here. Do you see the anti-right wing bias HERE at least, because it's so thick it would take a sledgehammer to dent it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You figure I got that anti-Communist propaganda from the Communist radicals themselves? Odd.As for equation between all the isms, as I said communism in theory is a very different thing from what it is in practice. You think only about the theory. In practice it tends to become fascism.As for anti-right wing bias in the media please read above post.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I agree to an extent. However the competition you describe no longer exists. you need the banks the banks don't need you. They're aware of this and charge outrageous interest and fees. To say don't go there or don't shop there in the current state is really an ignorant thing to say. He controls the market and has a product everyone needs so he charges outrageous prices and people have little choice but to pay it. I don't know what country you're living in but this what the United States is now.

No... I wasn't the one who said in theory.I think Communism leads to oppression. I simply pointed out that you don't have a clue what you're talking about because USSR style communism is still not fascism.You also still have the Bizarre idea that Socialism and communism are the same thing. considering you don't have a clue what you're talking about I must assume they weren'tEdited by DC85, : No reason given.Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

Could you be seeing what you want to see? Maybe what you're told you see?Like recently right wingers have been complaining about the coverage of the tea parties... I've seen these people in action a large percentage of them don't have a clue what they're protesting and going off on hate rants.While I disagree with Ron Paul on most issues this "movement" is not the tea party that he started and has been hijacked by idiots. It's now dangerous. I've witnessed these people first hand!

And I don't know any more than I've said but I've said a lot. For the zillionth time I've NEVER said we aren't to pay taxes. You're just making stuff up from some prejudice of your own and not paying the slightest attention to anything I've written. Yeah, Mohammed got that from his patchy knowledge of Judaism and Christianity. I'VE NEVER SAID PEOPLE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY TAXES. Where are you getting this, from some post you're writing in your own head? It sure isn't coming from me. I wonder who this "Faith" is you're talking to. She sure isn't me. I'm sorry, I didn't SAY "every" but I guess if I don't cross every comma and dot every t you're going to have me saying all kinds of things that never entered my mind.FOR THE MOST PART THE RICH IN AMERICA CAME UP THE HARD WAY. Including the ancestors of those who are now born rich.Gee you really are consumed with envy I think. Greed is only one of the sins. No, I abhor that kind of thinking, as I also abhor the attitude of some conservatives I know that since they managed to get their act together by hard work that everybody who didn't must be a freeloader. Which I also said somewhere back there.I'll try to get back to you but I have to say that this post is going to drive me crazy if I spend any more time on it right now.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi Kitsune. Good to see you back.First off there is no Biblical support for government instituted socialism. That the little new religion of Christianity willfully and voluntarily shared with one another in their little circle at a time when they were being persecuted and oppressed does not equate to government instituted national socialism imposed upon all citizens.In II Thessalonians 3 we read, King David was so conscientious about private enterprise that when a citizen offered the kingdom a property to do sacrifice on. King David declined, paying full price for the lot. From Abraham all the way through the rich man, Zacheous, the Bible is rife with the rich and the poor, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all being rich. Having been born in Western Nebraska in 1935 where there was a severe drout on top of the depression, I'm no stranger to poverty. Nobody died of starvation and begging on streets was rare. When I was about 2, Dad sold all he had at auction which along with some meager savings bought us an old 16 ft round top travel trailer with $45 cash left. He hitched up to the old Model A Ford and the family of five headed for Wyoming. We three children and the parents lived in the trailer while did some weed control for work. There was a short period when we lived in a root seller with a dirt floor. As soon as we could we rented an old ranch cabin which had Kerosene lighting, a wood cook stove and an out house. While there, Dad nailed a job as a mechanic at an oil company. When I was in the 2nd grade we progressed to out first house with a flush toilet, but the one room school house in the country still had a wood stove and an out house. From there Dad became employed by a Chevrolet garage as a mechanic. He saved up enough for a down payment on a house in town. During the war in about 1944 Dad sold the house and put down on an old garage down town with an appartment overhead. We moved in there and after the war Dad got a new car dealership. In a few years he was able to rent the apartment and put down on a nice brand new house at the edge of town. Then he bought an old cattle ranch and built a house on it from scratch.Abe) Thanks to enterprising rich folks, my dad was able to work his way up the ladder to provide for his own, hire employees and support benevolent organizations who aided the poor and needy.The only money Dad gave me when I got married and finished my 4 yr commitment to the US Airforce was $100, so again, I had nothing handed to me for my own start. There have been times when I've had to scrimp and scrape but through the kind of work ethics and frugality which my parents taught and from the invaluable Biblical principles, like my Dad, I've been able to build upon poverty via free enterprise and hard work.I've gone in to all of this detail so as to show the progression from poverty to better times without robbing from the rich.
Thank God for rich folks. The more, the better. They are the ones who have to build businesses and hire the poor and the middle class. Many of them are ones who have had the means to buy from my own business and build it from a little rented tin building where I stocked it with what I had to sell untill I could afford something better. OTH, government has become the problem, continually building itself up, ever increasing taxes to pay for it's expansion and imposing ever more regulations etc which suppress free enterprise.Whatever government subsidizes increases. Poverty is no exception. People as poor as my parents were would enovate and work to scratch up their own living. It worked back then and it would work now.Back in the 1960 an old radio radio talk show man, Richard Cotton use to say: 1) The more of them there and the more incentive they have to produce without government intermention and taxing, the more jobs they will provide so that the poor can get off their butts and go to work.2) You appear to have no conception of how much the aggregate rich give. The more they make, the more incentive to give for write offs etc, for their own advantage. The founder of Catepillar gave 90% of his income away to needy causes.Socialism works to equalize everyone monetarily which eventually eliminates the rich and impoverish the middleclass until like last centuries socialist blocks of nation impoverishes all, the workers having lost all incentive to produce, innovate and progress. Your implication is that these good industrious and productive people simply had all that they have achieved void of any risk, study, work, like it was handed to them on a silver platter.You're forgetting how many thousands these folks have afforded jobs to so as to avoid poverty. The hard working folks whom they have afforded jobs to, in turn are, because of rich people like these able to share some of their earnings to benevolent causes. Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.