Marxism

I'm no leftist at least not by world wide standards . Amazingly I've lived in the south eastern United States all my life. I was raised in South Carolina by a very religious family who thought Ronald Regan was almost god like.My leftist atheistic indoctrination runs deep.... Then it's your job to point this out and exactly how I've done so. Yet your point has not been made and we see it as evading our questions with emotional stances. I thought I provided fairly text book definitions. Given communism tends to chain off into a few other categories but still is never fascism or Socialism. Funny how tend to think the same of Fundamentalist Christians who "meddle" and try to change a free secular nation... but I fear that will change the subjectI don't think you're stupid I just seek to understand the way you're thinking and you aren't explaining yourself

I so shouldn't have responded to this thread tonight (I need some sleep) but alas, here we are. You're quite welcome. As difficult a pride swallowing siege it may be to admit when one is wrong, right is right. Truth is my chief concern and I have to keep an open mind in order to see it. Unlike people who pray for Bush or Obama to fail, just so they can say they were right, I would rather be proven wrong for the sake of all. I have always found it fascinating to see socialists and capitalists arguing, when their main reactions are the same. Both seem to have virtuous reasons behind their philosophies, the only difference is how they perceive it. Both see it as an issue of fairness, but they interpret what is fair differently.Socialists tend to view it as have's and have not's. If you are wealthy and the other is not, apparently because the have not's have some reason for being a have not, generally because of some disparity that is beyond their control and the playing field was never fair: race, gender, poor, etc that invariably continues in a cycle.Me being a libertarian, you and I more than likely agree on many social issues. From this aspect most libertarians tend to deviate away from conservatives and gravitate more with liberals. Where libertarians tend to part ways and sort of rejoin with conservatives is in the sphere of economics.My sense of fairness comes from allowing people to choose their own destiny. If you do well for yourself, then you shouldn't be expected to pick up the slack for those who didn't. For instance, my daughter's concept of fairness, in my opinion, is very skewed. If my son has earned something, her sense of fairness is also receiving the same thing on that occasion, apparently just for gracing us with her presence! Her rationale is that if one has, the other should have too. My theory is that both should have the equal opportunity to earn in every instance, but sometimes they both don't earn it (whatever it may be at the time) simultaneously. I'm not then going to reward her just for existing. There is no principle in that.That, in a very scaled down and metaphorical version, is how I view our current discussion. I hope that gives you some insight. That is definitely a very sad state of affairs and an all too common theme. It really hits home how much bad leadership produces shit. While I certainly feel sympathetic for all the employees that lost their jobs (I've been there too), the reality is that most businesses do not succeed. Knowing that, I view it how I view death. Death is sad, there are no two ways about it. No one likes it, no one wishes upon anyone. Despite that, being realistic we know it is an inevitability. Competition exists in every form of society, not to mention nature. Whether we like it or not, that is the state of affairs. It is therefore imperative that we do all we can for survival.If we extrapolate that and look at history, never has poverty been vanquished completely. It has been mitigated, it has been stifled, but never eradicated. I dare say it is easier cure AIDS than poverty. It's sad, but true. The dictionary is quoted as saying:

quote:

---

An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.

---

The encyclopaedia is quoted as saying:

quote:

---

In such a system, individuals and firms have the right to own and use wealth to earn income and to sell and purchase labor for wages with little or no government control. The function of regulating the economy is then achieved mainly through the operation of market forces where prices and profit dictate where and how resources are used and allocated.

---

Your business, by all accounts, sounds as if it falls in to this category. The CEO executives who drove your business in to the ground, also seem to fit the category. The difference being in bad investing, bad business practice, and unethical business practices. I don't believe at all that capitalism has to be unethical. In fact, if you want to succeed in the long haul, it is in a company's greatest interest to be ethical. Those that don't end up like AIG or Enron from pure greed. Agreed. Nothing is without faults, so we surely agree. My concept of regulation and the government's role is the job of mediating, making sure companies are playing by the rules, watching for illegal transactions, etc. Someone needs to be there to protect citizens from fraud and to keep the hucksters who dupe people accountable for their actions.What I don't like seeing is government micromanaging to the point where it forces, through mandate, risky business moves. For instance, it has been a government mandate for banks to make risky loans that they know will default, and sure enough do.
The increase of ridiculous taxes like the new soda tax being another one of the more obvious ways to extort money.The Obama Adminstration of course paints a benevolent picture of caring about obesity, citing,"While many factors promote weight gain, soft drinks are the only food or beverage that has been shown to increase the risk of overweight and obesity, which, in turn, increase the risk of diabetes, stroke, and many other health problems."In reality this is just one more tax, in a sea of silly taxes, to pay for a health care system that will indebt the US economy an additional 1 trillion dollars in to the already mindboggling debt.The government often operates like an unethical mega-corporation. That is one thing that I have often found ironic, if not downright hypocritical of those of the socialist persuasion.I would be interested on getting your take on it. As a utilitarian at heart, I wholeheartedly agree. I agree that the aim of socialism is to take the best of those two worlds. While I still remain skeptical of socialism (because of my fundamental belief that as government increases, personal freedoms decrease) I am obviously not blind. I can see that most European nations exist as socialists and in general do very well for itself. When I say "the market," it is a reference to the collective of individuals trading and selling.To conclude with this portion, I think this was far more constructive and I hope we can constrain our passions enough in the future to continue debating as amicably as tonight.On a personal and caring note, it has been a while since I checked up on you and your cancer. Is it still in remission? I genuinely hope so and urge you to always fight the good fight.

---

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

It is sometimes said that we could improve our schools by closing all of our college departments of education. I have some sympathy with that view (that schools of education do more harm than good).I have a similar view about business schools. Before there were business schools, the top management of a company tended to be engineers who understood the product. In todays world they are usually MBAs who understand only the bottom line. And I think that change has done more harm than good.Hmm, this is way off topic for the thread

Thanks, madear. Indeed it does look difficult and indeed it appears there's little commonality we can achieve. The difference in your youth and my age is that year after year my generation heard the daily news on the radio, regularly observed evidence of the totalitarian oppression and abject poverty in the totalitarian socialist block nations in weekly magazines and decried failures of dangerous attempts of the citizens of those nations into some Western block nation, etc. The people shot by guards at the Berlin Wall, the millions brutally massacred under China's Chairman Mao zedong, Cuba's brutality under Castro; you name it; sooner or later big socialist government reduces the sheeple to impoverishment, oppression, imprisonment and death. The reason I cited that was to refute you claim that socialism had Biblical support. Our generation was of the do or die mindset. The scanty few who died didn't amount to anything compared to the 100 plus millions who, after loosing their property, freedoms and arms, lost their lives at the hands of their own socialist governments.The tough years of our experience involved hard work, frugality, dandilion, popcorn and milk meals, rabbit hunting, wood chopping, cold winter nights, carrying water, wiping the butt with pages from Monkey Ward catalogs, etc. No luck, madear. Though our family were not Christians yet, failure, sacrifice, risk, sharing help and provisions, and determination was expected. In retrospect, God's providence was the underlying foundation of our nation's involvement to relieve the planet's oppressed in the decades to follow such as food relief, etc. Yup. Ingrained into the mindset from one generation to another as we are observing, where all too often, big, buldging government subsidized poverty affords soda pop, beer, cigaretts big screen TVs, designer jeans, ipods, video games, weekly food banks, school meals; on and on we could go as poverty becomes the easy idle non-productive glutinous way, paid for by the ever decreasing percentage of workers who haven't quite yet lost all incentive to keep on working. Three phrases stick out here; "just get,.... education.... and good job." The only way to "just get" is for someone who has to "just give." The more that the "just getters" get without risk, failure, hard labor, sacrifice, etc the greater the political support they "give" to candidates who promise them that they will force the "just givers" to "just give" to the "just getters." Get it, madear?"Education:" My Daddy made it all the way through grade 8. Though I worked 2 to 3 hours a day in the Bob Jones University snack shop to help pay the expenses, I made it all the way through three semesters before dropping out to go back home to help Dad with is business. A semester including advanced typing , elementary ancient Greek and business accouning, and of course, Bible, history, etc were an asset, but nothing that I "just got" because the rich were mandated to "give" it to me."Good job:" Yah, you mean like 35 cents an hr, or the later $72 a month I got later in boot camp, eventually topping $100 a month and topping off at over $200 a month? Do you know how much an hour that amounts to? I think I peaked out a few years later working 10 hr shifts on the Erie railroad as a gandydancer (track builder). That lasted for three months or so, intil the track was finished. Well so much for "just getting" a good job.Nowadays the "just getters" get enough by "just getting" that before accepting work their "just getting" mindset figures which deal "gets" me the most; the easy freebies I can "just get" from the "just givers without working, sacrificing, being frugal etc, or the deal where I get a tad more but must work, sacrifice, be frugal, etc? Of course, having been increasingly indoctinated into socialism and having being rewarded by the socialist polititians and media who need their support we see which way the former US of A republic has moved. .I worked for one of my most demanding jobs for a year and a half as a young man. The solution included no expectancy of "just getting" from other workers. This job afforded little time to job hunt, but on one day off I came upon a construction crew just beginning to build a college library. By God's good providence I nailed a pick & shovel, cememt finishing etc job for around 2 bucks and hr. and gave notice to the undesirable employer.You do realize, don't you, that "granting good jobs to those who need them." comes solely from businesses owned by richer folks willing to risk and work, who can only add on employees if their profits are on the increase so as to invest and expand. Sorry, but socialism encourages none of that. Gotta hit hay so as to have energy to work harder tomorrow so as to give more to the "takers" who have managed to lend enough political support to the "give" promising polititians for their constituents, the "takers."Yes, there's greed in all systems, but the nice thing about capitalism is that the greedy have the liberty to be what they want to be whereas with socialism, the greedy eventually become powerful enough to force free people to be what they don't want to be. Edited by Buzsaw, : improve readabilityEdited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

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

Hi Buzsaw, a number of things to look at here. The fact that you fail to realise that "totalitarian socialist" is an oxymoron, rather suggests that you do not know what socialism is (or Marxism for that matter). Again I suggest that you read other recent discussions here which may go some way toward clarifying this for you. I never said this. I don't think the thought would even occur to me. There were also kings in ancient middle eastern society. I don't believe we should be ruled by kings. How many times have I heard people talk about welfare scroungers, the lazy poor, people who sit around all day using government money to watch satellite TV. They must be lacking the "hard work" and "frugality" that you mention. I really don't like to see people lumped into a stereotype like this, especially when personal experience has shown me that this stereotype is largely a myth.I was looking for some evidential basis to add weight to what I was going to say here and found an excellent article, American Poverty as Structural Failing: Evidence and Arguments, a study published in a peer-reviewed journal.Some of the reasons it cites for poverty: lack of jobs in certain areas such as inner cities, low levels of education, illness or disability, having many children, having children at an early age, a low minimum wage, the disappearance of well-paid blue collar work and the emergence of low-paid service jobs, and the fact that "our social policies have done relatively little to support families compared to our European neighbours." The UK has free health care (paid by taxes) and provides a tax allowance for each child and for married couples; other European countries go further and subsidise childcare and mothers who stay at home to raise their young children. This study shows that countries with such support systems are able to lift people out of poverty more quickly than the USA. These are socialist policies that use tax money for the benefit of all.It may be tempting to blame the poor for their situation but the above factors are the tip of the iceberg regarding a complex problem, and many are beyond an individual's power to control. The world has changed a bit since you were young, and if you lack a university education or job skills it's not so easy to find a blue collar job. You're looking at working at McDonald's or in a call centre for minimum wage. Many people in my city work in factories, though these jobs are dying out as goods are manufactured more cheaply overseas. Factory jobs don't tend to pay so well here as it is. And if you look at reasons why a person does not go to university, they can be myriad.The article also mentions that unemployment is necessary in a capitalist system, because it is not to employers' benefit for the labour pool to have full employment. It's like a game of musical chairs, where there will always be winners and losers in the hunt for a limited number of jobs. Since the system is designed to produce losers in the game, it is ethical that support for them is also provided. Maybe you will be willing to explain what Faith would not. The rich are mandated to pay taxes. Taxes pay for police, schools, roads, firefighters, the justice system, and so forth. Do you agree that the rich should pay taxes; and if so, don't you think that makes your above statement a little nonsensical? I'm not sure what the evidential basis for this claim is, but I've heard plenty Americans insist that nothing should be given to the scroungers who haven't made it in the system. Ironically these are people who call themselves fervent Christians. If you look at the article I cited you will see that the USA already lags behind most industrialised countries in providing social policies designed to lift people out of poverty and keep them out. I don't think I understand what you mean by saying "just getting" several times over. The way I'm reading this now, it's saying, "I never expected any help and I survived so everyone else should just do the same."One quality at the heart of socialist policy is compassion for fellow human beings. I thought this was also at the heart of Christianity. The story of the good Samaritan, for example. It is naive to believe that people will all take on this role fully and voluntarily, so this becomes the government's responsibility. I wonder why so few of them are setting up shop in downtown East St. Louis or Los Angeles, where their jobs are desperately needed. Or why they don't take a compassionate turn and keep manufacturing jobs in their own country rather than farming them out overseas. Or why, out of the goodness of their hearts, they don't all give their employees fair pay and conditions. Look Buzsaw, these things aren't happening in real life, and that means government has to step in and provide regulations to protect workers and incentives to increase jobs in impoverished areas. The north of England used to be a booming manufacturing and shipping base; there is now disproportionate unemployment and poverty. Would you support government intervention to revitalise those areas, or should those people just get on with things themselves because it's their fault they haven't been more hard-working and frugal? Again, you've got the definition of socialism completely wrong and are equating it with the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, etc. Please look at what others are saying on this thread, they're doing a good job so I see no need to reiterate.

Kitsune, you have not lived long enough to have observed that via progressionism the early stages of socialism have progressed representative government (republicanism) into the early stages of socialism in the 1960s and 1970s when Marxists like Angela Davis et al were in the colleges and universities indoctinating socialism into the mindsets into the young impressionable minds of baby boomers at the same time that President Johnson et al, in one of his first speeches after the assination of President Kennedy stated that Viet Nam was going to be a long war, drafting our brightest and ablebodied into a bloody war which they were not allowed to win (as is now the case in Afganistan).Via the late 20th century and now the early 21st century the brainwashed school kiddies have grown up to accept the democratic socialist pseudo-representive progressive stage of socialistic government as you sheeple in Europe have bought into.Now, the democratic socialist pseudo-repesentive minded sheeples in America who (thanks to revised education), who are oblivious to the Marxist (final stage of progressive socialism) holocausts perpetrated upon the sheeple having been mentally fattened for the progressively socialized slaughter (Marksist stage) as per the socialist block nations of the bloody 20th century purge. Interestingly, this as with all major stages of history has been prophesied, the Biblical eschatoligical great tribulation, which, according to the prophecies will be the greatest halocast ever, being global and perpetrated by what appears to be a Muslim socialist murderous beast.Interestingly also: Socialist block nations have in modern era wars consistently allied with Muslim nations against Israel and the Western republics. The only difference in the mindsets of Chairman President Obama and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is Obama's bent toward Islam and Obama's global aspirations for the apocalyptically prophesied final stage of a 2 horned progressive socialist religious monarchy having authority over all nations, tribes and tongues, having imposed upon them mandated prayer to a speaking image and moneyless mark/number monetary system in order to buy or sell. .My deluded dear, the above is all prophesied for the latter days of the gentile empires. This end time fulfillment will not come, according to II Thessalonians 2 where we read that global apostacy will prevail before it all of the corroborating events such as this will happen. Thus the apostacy of so many of you intelligent but deluded sheeple here on this board. I say this as a warning of the precipice you are headed for and not to insult or demean.

---

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

Care to put a time frame on that Buz?I'll help you define some periods.If you say "Soon" that'll be within 10 years then.
If you say "Very soon" that'll be within 5 years.
If you say "in the near fture" I'll put 15 years to that.
If you say "in my lifetime" that'll be about 25 years (I hope ou'll get to live a whole lot longer, but I have to make a guess here ).So, care to wager a little on when this will all happen. I'll probably outlive you, so I'll know how right you were.

Wow, this is so out-there that I just don't know where to begin. Paranoia, little? I'll pass on further discussion I think.I don't know why I've bothered writing detailed factually-supported posts on this thread; I could just as easily have spent my time exchanging "liar liar pants on fire" remarks for all the use it's been Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.

Quite probably. But my ontological views shift here and there as I live life. I'd probably disagree with some of the things I said the last time we talked about it. Unfortunately I doubt if I'll be able to get very involved here again until the summer. I've got to get through a book list and write 2 or 3 papers every module for night school, which can be tricky with work and family commitments. Besides, I need to take things in small doses here because I've got adrenal problems Nobody's perfect . . .

I empathize Kitsune, I empathize.It seems people who don't know the definitions for things like marxism, communism, socialism, etc., argue with the most misdirectioned-passion and are simply not correctable. Re-read Razd's message #77, he's spot on: Alas, I wasn't joking when I replied to Hyro that my time debating him would be better spent re-examining the spring tension of my clothes-pins.

No no, RAZD. I don't know about ICANT, but that is NOT my objection to welfare. It's not that some are getting "more than they deserve" (I don't even know what that means -- in my view nobody "deserves" anything).It's that welfare is STEALING.Now everybody wants to know how welfare is more a case of stealing than taxation for services like road maintenance and running the government and things like that. I tear my hair out at the question, it's just plain obvious the difference to me and no answer I give seems to satisfy anyone so what's the point in trying to answer it but I'll try again anyway.The fact that people NEED things doesn't it make it right for them to STEAL them from other people. Isn't that a basic thing we all understand? Oh I can't afford my rent this month, I'll just go rob my neighbor who makes more money than I do. Are you for that solution to your neighbor's need? That's how welfare works. People need things so the GOVERNMENT does the stealing from their neighbors FOR them. I can't afford food today I'll just go order it in a restaurant and walk out on the bill. Well, they NEED the food, right? So you're all in favor of their stealing it then, right? If you're not, how can you be in favor of the government's stealing it from the restaurant through taxing them in order to feed needy people?Wrong no matter how it's done. Wrong wrong wrong.But we all share public works -- yessssss we share them at different rates blah blah blah, trucks delivering food to my grocery store use the roads a lot more frequently than I do blah blah blah. I can't believe people raise such nonsensical ideas to "prove" that ALL taxation is stealing. No it's not. Some taxation IS needed to run a country. It's NOT right to take money out of some pockets simply to put it in others.I'm going to say this and get off the forum and go back to work and hope I'm not tempted to come back to read all the nasty and querulous rejoinders I usually get. Then I hope to have the self control to go to the biology thread instead anyway.Cheers.

And yet as I said, Christianity (the New Testament version) preaches love for your fellow humans. Telling them they should "get on with it" and help themselves, rather than "steal" money from "honest, hard-working people" so blatantly goes against that, I just can't comprehend the lack of logic. I usually agree with RAZD and I think he expressed this well; I would add that "apoplectic mode" often involves threats of the rapture, "666" stamped on people's hands, the Illuminati conspiracy, 2012, and so on and so forth -- at least it's good for a chuckle.Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.

Do you not think that there are basic human rights that everyone is entitled to? I am struggling to understand where this idea comes from. Is it that you think people are needy through their own fault, and that they should fix it themselves? Or that it should just be their hard luck because no one should be obliged to help them? If the government doesn't provide social support, who will -- or is it OK to let people be without homes, food, or health care?

Have you not read the Sermon on the Mount? Where Jesus says"As for the poor, fuck 'em"

We don't want a government that would let people starve or go without adequate shelter.And we don't want a government that lets people freeload at government expense.Too little money or too much oversight and people go cold or hungry.Too much money or too little oversight and people freeload.A perfect system isn't possible. No matter how good the system, there will always be people going cold and hungry and other people freeloading. All you can do by tweaking the system is improve the accuracy and change on which side you err. Hopefully the one constant and the one ideal we all share is a that there should not be cold or starvation or freeloading.--Percy