Marxism

(formerly LindaLou)
Hi to everyone, I've been reading here and there but not posting because I am going to night school -- lots and lots of reading to do. But some of the comments in this topic truly beggar belief.Faith, there's a book I've taught many times called Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck. (He also wrote The Grapes of Wrath.) Steinbeck was in California during the Great Depression and saw how people were living. In 1930s America there were few welfare programmes. If you didn't find work, you lost your home and faced starvation. Migrant workers like George and Lennie in the book had no friends, no family, and moved from place to place in order to do back-breaking physical labour for very little money. Candy, an old man on the ranch, had been maimed in an accident and was working as a cleaner, but his ability to do even the smallest job in the ranch was fading with age. His biggest fear was that he would be fired any day, and would then be begging on the streets. These may be characters in a fictional book, but they were based on the social reality of that time.No rich Americans were giving to the poor in the sense you seem to wistfully wish they would, nor are they doing so now, nor will they. With the exception of a few philanthropists, people who get wealthy in our society do not tend to be kind-hearted, empathic people who have the benefit of their fellow humans at heart. More of a general (though not universal) rule is that the higher up the boss, the more of a greedy, hard-hearted b*stard he or she is. Socialism exists to force people like this to contribute to society because they won't do it willingly.I would also question this statement, Are you telling me that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett work harder than the person with a day job at Wal-mart and a cleaning job at night who struggles to support their family on minimum wage? Which of these has earned all their money "fairly and squarely"? And what sort of support do you think there should be for someone who has lost their job through no fault of their own and cannot find another one -- is that just their tough luck, because to help them through tax money is "stealing" from people who work?Like others here, I am also wondering if you will say anything about the quotations presented by Horowitz. He's clearly racist, yet you seem to be holding him up as a shining example of . . . something. Do you condone his beliefs?

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.

As others have attempted to do here, Faith, I am still looking for an answer to what your alternative is to socialism. When I asked you you said, So making people pay money is stealing, by your definition. And you admit yourself that few people are willing to do it voluntarily, certainly not to the extent that they would be compelled to in a proportional tax system. Surely this should lead to the conclusion that whether you agree with taxes or not, they are necessary in order for society to function. Unless you can come up with something better than I don't see the point of going on about government "stealing" from the rich. I wonder if you feel the same about looking after the environment, though that of course is a different topic. Should people be given their freedom without government interference to litter, pollute the waterways and the air, not bother to recycle if they don't want to, and not give a damn about the consequences for others?There are plenty of people in the world who are concerned about the poor, not just Christians. (One of the Five Pillars of Islam is alms-giving, which is mandatory.) This is lovely, but it's not enough to hold up an entire society. Try imagining, as others here have asked you to, what things would be like if people didn't have to pay taxes. And if they gave to whomever they wanted to. How would we guarantee that people will receive their basic human rights? Who's going to maintain the roads and the schools, the police and the firefighters, in inner cities where only the poor and disadvantaged live? Who's going to make sure that if people are out of a job, there's a safety net so that they don't end up begging on the streets? It won't happen Faith. You'd have complete social disintegration. You might try looking up old families that have passed money down the generations. They come from all political walks of life. We have them here in the UK but they are in the USA as well. Where did you get this idea that every rich American started out as an "ordinary person"? Maybe you also subscribe to the old American dream that you can have whatever you want as long as you pull yourself up by your bootstraps and keep your nose to the grindstone? What else would you suggest? Someone has to decide where the taxes go. You can debate about styles of government but some group in charge is going to have to apportion the tax money. Government-funded healthcare here ensures that anyone can receive the care that they need regardless of ability to pay or insurance policy details. After the new legislation is in force in the USA there will still be millions with substandard or no health insurance. Ah, the trickle-down theory beloved of Ronald Reagan. Ask how many people who lived through that, if they truly believe that the whole of American society benefitted from lower taxes on the rich. (I grew up there in the 80s; I'm sure you know what my own answer would be.) This sounds like a non-sequitur to me. Paying taxes like everyone else is what they should do.If you'd rather that they decided how the money was spent, let's sit and watch someone who loves doggies give all their millions to animal shelters while human beings are fending for themselves on the streets. At least the poor doggies will have homes. Try asking any British person what they think the originally Tory (Conservative) policy of privatisation has been doing to our society for the past 30 years or so. Public transport is more expensive but it doesn't cover many of the areas it used to because it is profit-driven. Hospitals, schools, part of the London Underground and other public areas built with private funding will be paying debts for years and charging the public in order to get the money to do so. To add a slice of personal experience, I am doing substitute teaching. This used to be managed by the local councils, who sent teachers to where they were needed. At some point this was privatised, meaning each school can call any of dozens of different agencies. It's impossible for a substitute teacher to know which agencies every school uses, let alone belong to all of the agencies that cover schools in one area, and each agency pays different amounts depending on their agreements with schools. It's great for schools who want to shop around but awfully crappy for those of us trying to make some money as substitute teachers. The agencies win and we lose; that's capitalism for you. Of course I know where it came from. And you have so far completely failed to prove that any other kind of system would be able to provide for people's human rights. Yet I can think of many examples where this is clearly not the case. It's not hard to think of people I know who work in companies where they are not allowed sick days without losing a day's pay; where they are made to work for months with no time off; where they are not allowed to go to the toilet when they need to; where they are given impossible workloads and deadlines by bosses who assign these without having a clue about the logistics yet hold people to account. These same bosses are the ones who get the bonuses, the company cars, the free "team building" holidays, and the top-salaried positions. There is no logical way you could claim that they deserve what they have because they worked harder than the others who work under them. Look at the people who run factories and the situation is often exaggerated further. Why do you think the union movement began with them? So what do you think is wrong with this extrapolation from Theodoric's source: Horowitz praises the "political incorrectness" of a man who says that whites are more law-abiding and intelligent than blacks, and "immigrants are a slimy mass of brown glop."? You want us to listen to what this guy has got to say. It sounds to me like both of them would be at home in the British National Party.

Well I looked at Theodoric's source plus several others in order to try to get an idea of what the truth is. It seems to be that, among other things, Horowitz published an article about black-on-white murders by Taylor in his magazine. Taylor is clearly a white supremacist. Now would you allow a white supremacist column space in your hypothetical magazine if you did not sympathise with his views? Wouldn't you rather distance yourself as far from such people as you could? Horowitz makes the feeble claim that he doesn't actually share Taylor's views -- so why publish them in his magazine? Source is simply Wikipedia.

Straggler has been echoing my thoughts (strange but true) so I'll simply say that I will look forward to a reply to Message 152. I have had difficulty in establishing what you are essentially arguing here; at first it appeared that you believed the rich should not be taxed at all, now you are saying they should be, but you have not said how much or what exactly the money should be used for. I am concerned about the statement that taxes should not be used to help people who cannot support themselves, but I will wait for you to elaborate on that.Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.

Hi Buzsaw,I would first like to say that the autobiographical anecdote you included in your last post is the most interesting thing I've read here in a while. You should write more about it somewhere else. I lived in Nebraska myself but long after the times you spoke of.I wonder if we can find some common ideological ground but I think it's going to be difficult, unlike the alt med stuff. I think we've had vastly different experiences and look at the world in quite different ways. But that's what makes interesting conversation, isn't it?As far as the Biblical Old Testament and economic systems are concerned, I don't see why there's an implicit idea here that we should be content to imitate what some tribes in the Middle East did thousands of years ago. Even when I was a Christian I would have seen no sense in this. We live in a vastly different society and that requires vastly different solutions. And thank goodness for that -- I would not want to be a woman in ancient Hebrew times.Maybe I should first explain that I am not wishing for the complete eradication of capitalism. I've got nothing against people setting up their own businesses and profiting from them. It's what the economy needs. It also encourages people who are natural entrepreneurs or who are naturally inventive to be productive in society. It sounds to me like you and your family had a positive experience and I think I can understand that. But maybe you can spare a thought for others who were also in the situation of losing their homes and hitting the road; those who ended up in California in shanty towns, for example. Those who weren't lucky enough to possess the bit of know-how or luck to pull themselves out of poverty. There were many of them, and there are many now. I have only learned the nature of ingrained, generational poverty since I have been working in the city as a teacher. It's tempting when you are on the outside of this to think, "Why don't they just get an education and a good job? Are they lazy or something?" Poverty and disadvantage are complex problems with no easy solutions, and beneficent wealthy business-owners are unfortunately not always waiting to grant the boon of fairly-paid jobs to those who need them.I know someone closely (too closely) who grew up in poverty and made good for himself in the capitalist system. He decided he was always going to have control over his life, always have plenty of money. What he has is never enough, and he hoards it. He had great "boss" qualities that got him high on the corporate ladder: he was cold, distant, demanding, a workaholic himself. He was never happy even with the money he had, and the thought of giving to charity would have felt threatening to him. There are many people like this in the capitalist system and while I am not entirely sure what Faith is trying to say, I do know that we can't expect such people to contribute much to society unless they are fairly taxed.There are too many people here in the UK who take advantage of those who work under them, in order to enjoy lower-stress highly-paid jobs with lots of perks. I know some of these, and I know about the suffering of those who work for them. And I've experienced it myself. "Thank God for rich folks" indeed. Some of them spread misery like a contagious disease, using their power over others to make themselves richer still.While such people are not going to disappear any time soon, we can mitigate their negative effects on society. Governments can pass laws against the worst abuses and enforce them. A decent minimum wage can guarantee a certain standard of living. And those who are considering buying their second yacht or the next in a fleet of BMWs can afford to pay more in taxes in order to support those who are not as fortunate as themselves. And without a welfare state, the poor suffer. There has to be a safety net for those who fall out of the system. Just because your family were able to save themselves (good on them), you can't expect everyone to be able to do the same. The world doesn't work like that for everyone. That's excellent for him. But the fact of the matter is that most wealthy people like to hang on to their money. The group of people in the USA who give the highest proportion of their money to charity is the working poor. I think there's some misunderstanding here of what socialism and its aims are, and what the real nature of blocs that called themselves communists really was -- maybe you can dip into some of the other discussions on this thread. But surely all it takes is some concern for the welfare of fellow human beings to want to see the excesses of the rich curbed in order to benefit the less advantaged in society.Edited by Kitsune, : typoEdited by Kitsune, : No reason given.

I'm not sure if we are going to get much further in this discussion, but I would like to try. I titled my post "Faith's position" because I would like you to define what that is, since it would be helpful for everyone here to know. So far you have reacted against what you say is wrong, and you have said that people need to pay taxes. That's still rather vague, and it is also unclear what you see is the difference between "legitimate work of government, to keep society running and protected for all of us" and "taking money out of the pockets of people who earned it to simply give away to others." What is your definition of each of those?I am also curious about what you mean when you say that taxes should not be used to support people who cannot support themselves. How does that fit with the above? If you could explain what it is you are arguing about, there would be less confusion and perhaps less frustration for you because you believe people are misunderstanding you.There is also the point I made about someone giving all their millions to animal shelters while there are needy people on the streets. At least the dogs will have homes. IMO this is rather misguided but it is possible and legal. There needs to be another way of helping those people if the charitable giving of others doesn't do it.

I am not familiar with the case you described, but the killing of a white person by a black person does not IMO legitimise the act of allowing a white supremacist column space in one's magazine. It's furthering hatred and division. If I ran a magazine here, I would not invite a member of the British National Party to write anything, even if the topic was garden parties. I would not give them the slightest bit of publicity. I am not captivated by the qualities you seem to admire in this person because he looks like a right wing extremist to me, but I am also struggling to see how he fits into a discussion of socialism.Just a thought too -- it might be an idea to take a step back and take a breath before you post again, as Percy says he does himself; it's unlikely that anyone here will radically change their point of view and there seems to be a wide spectrum in this thread. A well-reasoned argument will carry more weight here than an emotional one.

I'll leave the question of clarifying your position open for now; I do not believe you have done so here, as other posters will I am sure agree, and I don't think I can carry on discussing until I know where you are coming from. In answer to your other question, after having done some research on the web, then perhaps you might try doing the same and opening your eyes to the real agenda of Mr. Horowitz. One of the best articles I have seen so far can be found here.

Faith I think you need to understand, as has been explained to you elsewhere, that a post here generally should consist of a reasoned refutation of someone's argument, rather than repeated statements of "You're wrong because you don't believe what I do and I'm not going to listen to you or talk to you anymore." I wonder if you even looked at the article I posted?If you'd like to rejoin the thread discussion at some point with some actual information or elucidation, that would be refreshing.

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.

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 . . .

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?