Marxism

Bravissimo.

Change the name Marx to Reagan or any other "conservative" that thinks a 100% free capitalist market can work and we may have something here.Both sound great in theory neither can work

You keep claiming these Marxist policies of the United States. Can you please define Marxism and then show how it is being practices in the United States?Hint, taxes are not Marxist, even if they are used for social programs.
Socialism in many forms has been around since the founding of the republic. Since before the foundation of the republic.

quote:

---

Our Founders realized that a healthy work force was essential to our economic health and growth. It was for this reason that, in July of 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law an act For the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen, establishing the Marine Hospital Service.

​

This Federal government socialized healthcare insurance was funded by a tax that was withheld from the sailor’s pay, and then turned over to the government by the ship’s owner. This first payroll tax amounted to slightly over 1% of the sailor’s wages. An injured or sick sailor would make a claim, his record of payments would be confirmed, and he would be given a chit for admission to the local hospital.

---

Source
Heres is a copy of the legislation.
News: Pres. Signs H-Care Insurance Mandate-212 Years Ago!I read an interesting analysis of the origin of the US, the founding fathers and socialism. The founding fathers had no opinion on socialism because there was no concept of socialism at that time. Also, it must be remembered that they were the elites. They wanted to protect what they had from the rabble. They were no different than the wealthy of today.There is an important phrase in the preamble to the constitution. 'promote the general welfare"You claim so much Marxism but have nothing to back it up. You decry socialistic tendencies. The wealthy make their money because of society. Think of how much impact a wealthy person has on society. Part of the reason they are wealthy is because someone else(lots of someone elses) are not. Corporate execs make their money off of the backs of the laborers or general employees. Because corporations(walmart) pay low wages and ahve crappy benefits, government must kick in to give people things like heath care. It amazes me how people want all the benefits that a stable society gives them, but do not want to pay to maintain that stable society.

quote:

---

Note that these are top marginal rates only, not average effective rates. That is,

​

* the rate is not an average rate (total tax paid divided by total income), but a marginal rate (the rate paid on dollars of income over the "top bracket," listed below as "Taxable income over--");
* the rate does not take into account all possible exemptions and deductions, so taxes actually paid may have been lower than these nominal rates indicate.

​

---

These are the marginal rates(do you understand what that means?).Is there a correlation between high growth periods of our country and the stagnation we have now? Taxes a re not a liberal idea. Taxes for the wealthy are among the lowest they have been in a century.Is this Marxism?

---

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

There seems to be a general consensus formed by a largely right wing press (at least in Britain and I presume things are not dissimilar in the US) that current levels of taxation are at historically and dangerously high levels. That we are in the grips of a socialist plot to redistribute wealth from the deserving to the undeserving on ill conceived, impractical and purely ideological grounds. That unless we slavishly free ourselves to the dictates of "the market" that we are destined to doom and destruction by "big government". But the stats as I understand them don't back this up.The current financial problems are surely the demonstrable result of unregulated free-marketeering on the part of purely greed driven banks. The result of the wealthiest acting on the interests of the wealthiest at the expense of everyone else. In the current economic climate how can right wingers espouse the benefits of pure free-marketeering whilst decrying government intervention to force banks to act in the interests of wider society?

Both that post and post 58 are excellent and define the false communist movement accurately.I couldn't agree more when you say: ...and: It is little more than an excuse for dictator rule under the guise of communism "for the people." Depends. If you look at the principle ideals of ALL unions, the don't vary much. It can be argued that collectively all unions (world-wide) work with the same principles in mind. And are governed and over seen by the labor force.At least in principle it does resemble the ideals of Karl Marx. This is a fair point, that's why unions only serve as an example of the principles of Marx's idea of communism.- Oni

The most obvious being that history supports that notion. Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Il-Jong, etc, etc, etc, etc.Secondly, that is what it is defined by:

quote:

---

1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

​

2. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

​

3. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

---

Third, and most important, it could be no other way. All form of government need specific individuals to organize it. That obviously does not mean that a Direct Democracy would exist where everyone has an equal say and an equal status for the sole fact that some people have to be in charge. Anything less would be anarchy.Where does this fantasy that all the proletariat's simultaneously agree on all counts, without the least bit of organization, and every one skips off in to the sunset come from? In reverse the Communist Manifesto is a book of indoctrination. The best way to avoid it is to not take cues from anyone. Simply look at the sordid history and make your own conclusions.

quote:

---

Greed could also mean an unhealthy obsession with the excess of wealth in such a way that it deprives others.

---

I don't see penalizing successful people and redistributing poverty as a sign of "fairness." Like anything else in the economy, everything has a drawback, including greed. Companies like Enron and individuals like Bernie Madoff have committed actual crimes out of their greed. They are now defunct, out of the market, imprisioned, and all due to their greed. So let it be. Their greed was their downfall.The indoctrination I believe that is being perpetrated on the opposite end of the spectrum is that communism or marxism doesn't promote greed. Greed is a human condition, not an economic principle. You will find greed on any corner of the globe, regardless of what economic policy that particular country ascribes to. What society departs from this, that you would make it exceptional in the case of capitalism? Why is self-interest, which benefits everyone in the long run, so bad a thing? The only reason we have anything at all is from people pursuing their self-interests. The inventor invents for two reasons: He invents because he benefits monetarily and society benefits, which means he doubly invests (because a healthy society, an orderly society, an economically viable society, a free society, promotes self-interest).I think, like Phil Donahue in the clip I provided, a lot of people are taking a lot of things for granted and don't even realize it. That the dissenters on this thread even have the internet in which to bitch is all thanks to capitalism. Everything has a cost. Honestly, please show me where in nature that survival of the fittest doesn't apply and then tell me why it wouldn't apply to any economic policy. The problem I see with communism and its multiple derivatives is that there is this incredible sense of self-entitlement -- that the world owes us something.Let us take the argument about health care. Some argue that because health care is a necessity, it must then be the role of the government to give it. A valid point, except so is sustenance. Does the government pay for your food, even though you absolutely need it to survive? Why then is it not the government's responsibility to feed you? I don't believe that for a second for the mere fact that it would take all nations to be colluding with one another to purposefully oppress "ordinary citizens" so they can hoard power. At any time, any one can influence and persuade others to try a marxist economy.If then it is not a global conspiracy of the puppet masters, why has it not been tried? The answer is that it has been tried and it failed over and over again. That no one can accomplish simply testifies to the fact that it is an illusion, not that it hasn't been tried.Animal Farm, anyone? Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

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

Yes, I meant Krugman. I obviously wouldn't have mentioned Paul in contrast to Milton if I already haven't read some of his critiques.

---

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

This is a very poor example for your case. There are in place a lot of government programs to help feed people. Food stamps, school lunch programs, WIC programs. These are clearly a benefit to society. Also, our food production system is very socialistic. There are price supports for numerous agricultural products. There is no truly free market in food production or food consumption.There are many instances where government is right and correct to be involved. It is heavily involved in food. There are times when the government is right and correct to do things that benefit society. The purpose of the government is not to allow an unfettered free market.
as you stated. I am not a supporter of communism, but as you have been shown many times, communism has not been tried. Governments have been formed in the guise of communism, but they were not communism. Look at the definition of communism, read what Marx wrote. None of the people you list were communists. They portrayed themselves as but did not actually follow Communist of Marxist philosophy, NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAID OR CLAIMED.I find it hilarious that you listed Mussolini. You need to brush up on your history a little. Do you really think Fascism and Communism are the same thing? Hint Mussolini was Fascist.

quote:

---

Mussolini was among the founders of Italian Fascism, which included elements of nationalism, corporatism, national syndicalism, expansionism, social progress and anti-communism in combination with censorship of subversives and state propaganda.

---

Source

---

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

I didn't mean just Krugman's. Friedman is heavily out of favor in economic circles. You might want to read some of the other critiques, by numerous people other than Krugman.

---

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

I'm defining greed I'm not talking about people. I'm saying greed is in this situation as much or more than in anyone who is creating capital by working for it. I've already said that I despise the self-congratulatory attitude of conservatives that can look down on the poor. We are not having that discussion at this point. We are talking about what greed is. It's not capitalism. It's something in the fallen human spirit that gets brought out perhaps even daily in all of us and the poor are far from exempt from it. And besides, if you want to know, I'm far more part of that class than any other class.ABE: Who cares if the stock exchange brings out greed? We're all subject to greed, all of us. This is a fallen world, we're all moral failures. Big deal. We have to have SOME government because we have to have SOME restraint on our natural sinful propensities, but stop trying to point the finger at a way of life that's different from yours. If things were different you'd be playing the stock exchange too. This propensity to a sense of moral superiority is another sin we all commit. I live in Nevada and I actually pray against the gambling industry from time to time. And the legalized prostitution industry which is here too. But again this is a fallen world. We should try to restrain the worst propensities in our fallen human nature but we'll never have a pure world here until Christ returns.And again, how we make our money, as long as it's not by fraud, or anything harmful to others, is not sinful. How we spend it may be.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Ehh, no not really. Saying it that way makes it sound (at least to me) that they had a problem with the rich. When they did not. Their issue was with the way societies work in general.Productivity is the heart of any society. When the demand increases for productivity, due to any number of reasons, it is a crucial moment for a society's future. You can pick any system to work for you that meets the demand: slavery works well and results in high productivity, capitalism as well, and so does communism. Each of these systems can and do work to meet the demands of productivity. However...Marx and Engel felt that the best, and most benefitial to the worker, was THEIR system of communism because:

quote:

---

...it addresses the matters of alienation and exploitation of the working class.

---

Marx didn't have a problem with class struggle per-se, he simply felt their was a better way to handle productivity that removed the social classes. But he only cared about the removal of the social classes because it would eliminated exploitation and alienation of the working class by the wealthy. There's your problem, no one has said it was advantageous, at all. No one has said that it's theoretically advantageous either. All we have said is, the communist movements that have been tried are not the true ideals set forth by Marx and Engel.Slavery is advantageous, I would argue more so than capitalism AND Marx's comminism. But that would depend on what the goal is. Advantageous in what sense? Because, true Marxism/Communism is not the desire of dictators. It works for unions, at least in principle. So yes, it can work and it is compatible with reality. Obviously, unions are working within capitalist systems, so it is not socialism in all levels. But, the workers decide what their benefits will be for everyone, they have their own retirement plan seperate from SS, they have their own insurance pool, they ALL (from field workers to executives) pay into the union with union dues, there is ONE base pay for each position (apprentice, 2nd year app., 3rd year app., Journymen, etc.). This, in principle, is comminism, again, working within a capitalist system.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Heigh de ho, Hyroglyphx, salutations, a kindred spirit here? At least on this topic.I forgot to say that myself too, yes, when you have no control over the giving it can go to all kinds of things you don't support. It can end up in the pockets of a drug warlord for all you know. Certainly with this health care bill we'll be forced to finance the murder of unborn children.

Theo, I am referring to the masses, not a fraction of people. Could the government, or should the government pay for your food because you need food to survive? Does it benefit society or does it benefit the people on food stamps? How does food stamps benefit society? Are you saying that the government determines the price of food? No, Theo, the government does not exist to stop "free markets." The role of the government, which is complex, exists for a few basic reasons. People desire order and people desire to be secure in their liberty. The problem is they need a device in which to achieve these goals collectively. That device is government.In this country, the role was supposed to be small and specific to protection, infrastructure, and postal routes. They say that, but history disagrees. Let's say for the sake of the argument it hasn't been tried. Why has it not been tried, if it is theoretically so wonderful? I misspoke, Mussolini was certainly not a communist. Dictator, yes, communist, no.

---

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

And you could add Hitler to that list too. Not because he was communist in name but because (as I said earlier)

quote:

---

Straggler writes: I would suggest that history shows us that would-be authoritarian dictatorships either play the tribal nationalist card or the "power to the people" card to dupe the populace into letting them take control. The end results bear little sembleance to Marxism as I understand it to be conceptually.

---

So the question remains: Why must Marxism result in dictatorial rule by an elite? Regardless of those that have historically cited themselves as "Marxist" for largely PR purposes. If you define Marxism as the dictatorial rule of a social elite then it is a circular argument to argue that this is why it is necessarily the dictatorial rule of a social elite. The question remains as to why this must necessarily be the case. No? But it doesn't mean there has to be a dictatorship with an immovable and unaccountable ruling elite who cream off the best for themselves at the expense of all others. Does it? If so why? I think there can be a consensus of some sort (even in a large population) of what constitutes a contribution to society and the relative basis upon which that might be rewarded. Our current system lets the market dictate that almost entirely. And we end up in the situation where a sports star is essentially deemed as millions of times more worthwhile than a nurse. Is this necessarily right? Is it socially unavoidable? Maybe. Maybe not. I am asking the question. Nor do I. Who does? The question is - What is success? And on what basis should it be rewarded? Indeed. As you will also find community spirit and the inherent empathy with others who (but for the grace of God) could be yourself in different less fortunate circumstances. As long as there is a genuine collective franchisement in society. My main concern remains the size of the population in which it is possible for this collective identity to manifest itself to the degree required by Marxism in practise. Does it benefit everyone? The self interest of the Western world does not benefit those working in third world slum conditions for poverty wages to provide us with cheap goods and services so that we can maintain that differential. A differential I might add that is purely based on the luck of birth and which has almost nothing to do with aptitude, ability or willingness to work hard. Capitalism is great at providing a large portion of the wealthy with what they desire. But it indisputably has a massive cost in terms of requiring a majority labour market to do this in relative poverty and is also indisputably very wasteful in terms of finite natural resources. If you have to keep consuming you have to keep creating. Regardles of actual need. We operate the world on the basis of manufactured need in the first world largely supplied by impoverished labour in the third world. No truly Marxist system would rely on a dictatorial elite as far as I understand the term "communism" in that conceptual context. That every "communist" system has been a trenchant and authoritarian dictatorship implies to me that "power to the people" has been used to dupe the populace into accepting such extreme governance rather than as any sort of manifestation of anything actually envisaged by Marx. All EvC members are entitled to their view. But some members are more entitled than others. Edited by Straggler, : Spelling and wording

Making crap up again?
Tell me how does this bill do that? Be specific please.

---

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