Obama's class warfare and racism on full display.

[cybercoma]

Obama wants to redistribute wealth. That means that people who have worked their entire lives to create a business will have it stripped from them and given to people who have done nothing but sit on welfare for the span of their lives to this point.

Put the buzzwords and phrases away and give the gears between your ears some grease, my friend. I know you're smarter than this.

[blueblood]

This is just hysterical fear mongering. Speak facts please.

As dumb as mr. Canada is, there is a cause of concern about his plans to jack up taxes on those grossing 250k. That's a lot of small businesses and people. It's a slap in the face for being successful.

[dre]

But I am glad that you realize that Marxism is unsuited for actually creating a society that can build the means of production. Instead, it can only take over a society that was built by a more vibrant and prosperous philosophy. Like a parasite, it can come in and take over a successful host, and then destroy it, or, at best, merely cripple it.

Marxism is a means of analysis, and a set of predictions not a political system. How the hell is a means of analysis supposed to "take over a society"?

Instead, it can only take over a society that was built by a more vibrant and prosperous philosophy

No... it cant "take over" anything. Marxism is simply a method for predicting and analyzing social change in a capitalist society, the idea that tensions between workers and owners would eventually result in some kind of social revolution and the result would be a prolonged period of common ownership (socialism).

[dre]

Obama wants to redistribute wealth. That means that people who have worked their entire lives to create a business will have it stripped from them and given to people who have done nothing but sit on welfare for the span of their lives to this point.

:lol:

[Bonam]

Marxism is a means of analysis, and a set of predictions not a political system. How the hell is a means of analysis supposed to "take over a society"?

No... it cant "take over" anything. Marxism is simply a method for predicting and analyzing social change in a capitalist society, the idea that tensions between workers and owners would eventually result in some kind of social revolution and the result would be a prolonged period of common ownership (socialism).

Marxism is a political philosophy, with political Marxism a key component.

[punked]

As dumb as mr. Canada is, there is a cause of concern about his plans to jack up taxes on those grossing 250k. That's a lot of small businesses and people. It's a slap in the face for being successful.

If by a lot you mean around 2 percent.

[jbg]

If by a lot you mean around 2 percent.

The problem, as I explained earlier, is that high living costs inflate gross incomes in major cities on both coasts and state and local tax levels in those jurisdictions further escalate expenses. $250,000 in Tuscumbia, Alabama is a lot of money; in the New York City area it really isn't.

[Moonlight Graham]

Marx's take on history makes no sense in any context, as one can see by the complete nonsensical outcomes of history's attempts to implement Marxism.

As Cybercoma I think correctly states, Marx's theories were more explanatory than prescriptive. Marx analyzed history, economics, and class, and outlined what social relations were happening in capitalist society and what was going to occur in the future (socialism, and then its final stage, communism). But Marx wasn't very clear on the political system that would replace capitalist liberal democracies. So Marx wrote about what would occur, not as much about how it would occur.

Lenin was the one who didn't want to wait for the long, historical collapse of capitalism and evolution to socialism and communism (the utopian state where all borders melt because classes cease to exist). Lenin wanted revolution and wanted socialism/communism to occur in Russia immediately, so Lenin reinvented Marxism to work politically, and hijacked Marx' concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in an inaccurate way (as most scholars would argue). From wikipedia:

In Marxist socio-political thought, the dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a socialist state in which the proletariat, or the working class, has control of political power. The term, coined by Joseph Weydemeyer, was adopted by the founders of Marxism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, in the 19th century. The use of the term "dictatorship" does not refer to the Classical Roman concept of the dictatura (the governance of a state by a small group with no democratic process), but instead to the Marxist concept of dictatorship (that an entire societal class holds political and economic control, within a democratic system).

Lenin created the Vanguard Party to institute the revolution towards communist Russia, and took this "dictatorship of the proletariat" in the incorrect sense to mean that this Vanguard Party would rule as a dictatorship in the classical Roman sense most are familiar with. I don't see anything that Marx wrote that said he was against democracy in the ruling of a socialist/communist society. I think this misuse of the "dictatorship" term was in large part simply a ploy by socialist leaders like Castro, Lenin etc. to maintain their own power than institute honest Marxism. It would be interesting to see how communism in the 20th century would have worked out had it been a democratic rather than dictatorial political system.

I'd also argue that Marx' analysis of history may indeed be proven correct one day. The Occupy and Arab Spring protest movements have shown what happens when the middle/lower classes become disillusioned with capitalist exploitation & inequality, and there could be more of these "anti-bourgeoisie" movements by the proletariat in the coming decades if economic inequality continues to grow significantly as it has over the past 30 years. Marx' flaw in his historical analysis is that underestimated the perseverance of capitalism and the ability of the "bourgeoisie" to placate the "proletariat", or the susceptibility of the "proletariat" to be placated. So maybe it will take communism another 100-200 years to overthrow capitalism, or maybe we'll just end up with more social democracies with large income redistribution and welfare state programs along the lines of the Scandinavian countries...or maybe that type of system is just one step towards the eventual evolution of a communist-like society?

Edited October 9, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[Bonam]

As Cybercoma I think correctly states, Marx's theories were more explanatory than prescriptive. Marx analyzed history, economics, and class, and outlined what social relations were happening in capitalist society and what was going to occur in the future (socialism, and then its final stage, communism). But Marx wasn't very clear on the political system that would replace capitalist liberal democracies. So Marx wrote about what would occur, not as much about how it would occur.

There is a difference between "what Marx said" and "Marxism", just as there is a difference between "what Christ said" and "Christianity" or "what Darwin said" and "Darwinism". When I talk about Marxism, I talk about the political philosophy of Marxism, as it has been applied and manifested around the world through many political parties and groups in many nations, rather than strictly to the writings of Marx.

Now, Marx framed history as a struggle between various economic classes, and that was the underlying premise of his analysis. My opinion is that history is much more complex than that, with struggle and conflict originating from a great many sources, economic classes certainly not least of them, but not the only one and not by any stretch the great driver of history. Applying Marx's theories to history is like trying to use the same tool for every job, when in reality one needs many different tools.

I'd also argue that Marx' analysis of history may indeed be proven correct one day. The Occupy and Arab Spring protest movements have shown what happens when the middle/lower classes become disillusioned with capitalist exploitation & inequality, and there could be more of these "anti-bourgeoisie" movements by the proletariat in the coming decades if economic inequality continues to grow significantly as it has over the past 30 years.

The Arab spring movement showed that people do not like to live under tyrants and dictators. That such dictators can placate them with bread and circuses but when the economy gets slow and there isn't enough bread to go around, such people would rather not be under the thumb of a dictator. The Occupy movement showed that during times of high unemployment there are a lot of bored college students and recent grads.

Marx' flaw in his historical analysis is that underestimated the perseverance of capitalism and the ability of the "bourgeoisie" to placate the "proletariat", or the susceptibility of the "proletariat" to be placated.

Hardly the only flaw, as I mentioned above. His analysis is like trying to explain ALL physical phenomen with the theory of gravity and nothing else. Yeah, it's a good theory, and explains some phenomena. Unfortunately, it's only one of four fundamental forces. A large number of phenomena cannot be explained using gravity but must be explained using other theories. And, in this analogy, I am if anything giving Marx's theories far more credit than they are due.

So maybe it will take communism another 100-200 years to overthrow capitalism, or maybe we'll just end up with more social democracies with large income redistribution and welfare state programs along the lines of the Scandinavian countries...or maybe that type of system is just one step towards the eventual evolution of a communist-like society?

A communist society is an abomination that stands in fundamental opposition to human nature, reason, and freedom. Capitalism may not be the perfect system either, in fact, unrestrained capitalism is not practiced in any nation anywhere on Earth. But I know this much, even if communism "overthrows" any system again in the future, the society thus created will last only so long as it can keep feeding on the bones of whatever was created before it. And once the legacy of any prior achievement has been consumed, it will collapse or reform away from communism.

[bleeding heart]

Again, all you're revealing is that you don't even know what the left-right paradigm entails. Considering the left is defined by a desire from greater governmental management of the economy through taxation/regulation/licensing, libertarianism (which is just a fancy new term for classical liberalism) is by definition a right wing ideology. You're unfamiliar with high-school level political discussion, yet here you are.

All you have to do is look it up. It's really that simple. As Bubber humbly suggests, you can google the very term itself, and discover that your admonishments about my ignorance takes on a self-admonitory colour.

"Libertarianism" by definition is not solely a right-wing phenomenon. It has been part of "the left" for ages, notably among people more sympathetic to anarchism, and opposed to leftish dictatorial power.

But that's only a small aspect, and a simplification; look it up, and learn. Education is your friend.

Edited October 10, 2012 by bleeding heart

[kraychik]

All you have to do is look it up. It's really that simple. As Bubber humbly suggests, you can google the very term itself, and discover that your admonishments about my ignorance takes on a self-admonitory colour.

So because there's a Wikipedia entry for it, you believe that it isn't a contradiction in terms? If I look for it, I'm sure I can find a link explaining free market communism. I've explained in detail how libertarianism is simply a rebranding of classical liberalism, and is by definition a right-wing set of values on the traditional left-right paradigm. Again, it's pointless having conversations with leftists like you who constantly try to redefine everything. All you do is put on full display your obliviousness of basic political terminology.

[kraychik]

He was writing the manifesto of a political party. Outside of that immediate end, his theories themselves were not prescriptive. He gave no details about how society would run after the Revolution. The Revolution itself was not a prescription either, as he believed it was simply the direction that capitalism was taking and would be inevitable. i could be more detailed in why I'm saying this--and maybe I should--but I frankly don't want to spend the time writing that much at the moment.

Of course Marx's writings were prescriptive. You're really parsing words here by pointing out that he viewed a "classless society" as inevitable, and that somehow this isn't prescriptive. In his own delusional mind, Marx saw the illness of society and knew the cure.

[bleeding heart]

So because there's a Wikipedia entry for it, you believe that it isn't a contradiction in terms? If I look for it, I'm sure I can find a link explaining free market communism. I've explained in detail how libertarianism is simply a rebranding of classical liberalism, and is by definition a right-wing set of values on the traditional left-right paradigm. Again, it's pointless having conversations with leftists like you who constantly try to redefine everything. All you do is put on full display your obliviousness of basic political terminology.

For the last time, you could prove it to yourself, if you bothered to do a little reading.

Sure, start with wiki, or don't start with wiki...it doesn't matter. There is all kinds of information...we're talking history, kraychik, and, surprise surpise, elementary facts offend you.

You are terrified of demonstrable truths!

Doesn't get much funnier than this.

Edited October 10, 2012 by bleeding heart

[kraychik]

Marxism is a means of analysis, and a set of predictions not a political system. How the hell is a means of analysis supposed to "take over a society"?

Marxism is as much a means of analysis as "critical race theory" or Scientology. It's a nonsensical analysis of history and prediction of the future masquerading as scientific. The ideology has taken over societies, as well. The fact that this confounds you really says a lot about the quality of discourse on MLW. I guess the former Soviet Union, Cuba. North Korea, Vietnam, and China don't enter your awareness.

No... it cant "take over" anything. Marxism is simply a method for predicting and analyzing social change in a capitalist society, the idea that tensions between workers and owners would eventually result in some kind of social revolution and the result would be a prolonged period of common ownership (socialism).

Right, because ideologies can't take over societies. More wisdom from the person who thinks the Muslim Brotherhood isn't an Islamist organisation.

[kraychik]

For the last time, you could prove it to yourself, if you bothered to do a little reading.

Sure, start with wiki, or don't start with wiki...it doesn't matter. There is all kinds of information...we're talking history, kraychik, and, surprise surpise, elementary facts offend you.

You are terrified of demonstrable truths!

Doesn't get much funnier than this.

I studied these things at an academic level before "politics" entered your "hobby section" with Wikipedia being your be all and end all of education. I guess "left-wing libertarianism" doesn't evoke a sense of cognitive dissonance in the politically ignorant.

[kraychik]

There is a difference between "what Marx said" and "Marxism", just as there is a difference between "what Christ said" and "Christianity" or "what Darwin said" and "Darwinism". When I talk about Marxism, I talk about the political philosophy of Marxism, as it has been applied and manifested around the world through many political parties and groups in many nations, rather than strictly to the writings of Marx.

Now, Marx framed history as a struggle between various economic classes, and that was the underlying premise of his analysis. My opinion is that history is much more complex than that, with struggle and conflict originating from a great many sources, economic classes certainly not least of them, but not the only one and not by any stretch the great driver of history. Applying Marx's theories to history is like trying to use the same tool for every job, when in reality one needs many different tools.

The Arab spring movement showed that people do not like to live under tyrants and dictators. That such dictators can placate them with bread and circuses but when the economy gets slow and there isn't enough bread to go around, such people would rather not be under the thumb of a dictator. The Occupy movement showed that during times of high unemployment there are a lot of bored college students and recent grads.

Hardly the only flaw, as I mentioned above. His analysis is like trying to explain ALL physical phenomen with the theory of gravity and nothing else. Yeah, it's a good theory, and explains some phenomena. Unfortunately, it's only one of four fundamental forces. A large number of phenomena cannot be explained using gravity but must be explained using other theories. And, in this analogy, I am if anything giving Marx's theories far more credit than they are due.

A communist society is an abomination that stands in fundamental opposition to human nature, reason, and freedom. Capitalism may not be the perfect system either, in fact, unrestrained capitalism is not practiced in any nation anywhere on Earth. But I know this much, even if communism "overthrows" any system again in the future, the society thus created will last only so long as it can keep feeding on the bones of whatever was created before it. And once the legacy of any prior achievement has been consumed, it will collapse or reform away from communism.

Everything you've said is true, but you must bear in mind that you're engaging a communist. Moonlight Graham isn't even trying to hide it, he's openly stating that Marx's theories "may be proven right someday". How much honesty or objectivity can you expect from such a person?

[kraychik]

All you Republicans have for an October surprise is that Obama is black? Way to go! Looks like a guarantee of four more years to me.

So you're not just a socialist, but you're also a racist? I can't say I'm surprised.

He is a despicable person as well as an incompetent President. Hopefully, keeping fingers crossed, he finishes his tenure at 11:59 a.m. on January 20, 2013.

As we get closer to November 6, it seems more likely that Obama will not be reelected. Consider that the first debate was the worst performance we've ever seen in a televised presidential debate, and that the subsequent polling showed Romney receiving the largest post-debate bump ever. Hopefully, it only gets worse for Obama from here on out. We'll know soon enough.

[bleeding heart]

I studied these things at an academic level before "politics" entered your "hobby section" with Wikipedia being your be all and end all of education. I guess "left-wing libertarianism" doesn't evoke a sense of cognitive dissonance in the politically ignorant.

So you didn't learn the basic history of libertarianism at the "academic level"; which is fine...but why pretend you know of that which you demonstrably do not?