- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why do Marxists resist being called Marxists?
Posted on 8/19/19 at 2:04 pm to stuntman
Posted on 8/19/19 at 2:04 pm to stuntman
quote:
Libertarianism is 100% about this one principle.
I believe that principle is necessary for Libertarianism, but not sufficient.
quote:
Libertarianism is an ideology, agreed?
Agreed.
quote:
You clearly believe in no limits on what government can do to society, so long as YOU, and enough people who think like you, "believe" it will "save us".
I'll never understand why so many people have such a religious faith in government to do what's right, yet at the same time, everyone looks at politicians as liars who are out for their own careers and power.
I believe in the government as structured by our Founders.
But pretty much this, "believe in no limits on what government can do to society, so long as YOU, and enough people who think like you, 'believe' it will 'save us'." is universal to any society.
No matter how independent you want to believe you are, you are dependent on society. We are social organisms.
2
Posted on 8/19/19 at 2:10 pm to Wednesday
quote:
This is the scariest...
That's only because you have never truly been faced with the extinction of your society.
quote:
most Marxist shite
Dude, it's FACIST, mot "Marxist". It is not necessarily the State OWNING the means of production, but it is the State controlling the private interests to provide to the State the means necessary to survive.
quote:
I’ve ever seen someone confess to supporting on TD.
I admit to supporting the Union cause in the Civil war, also the Allied causes of the First and Second World Wars. Perhaps you should look up the measure undertaken by the US government in terms of conducting the wars in Europe and Asia.
quote:
And the last time we forced people into military service was the Vietnam War. I wouldn’t exactly describe that as a runaway success.
And I wouldn't characterize the Vietnam war as a struggle for the existence of our society. It was sold that way, but not enough of society bought in, so that, eventually, it was ended. That's actually a great example of how society can dictate to the government what it will tolerate and what it will not.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 2:11 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
But pretty much this, "believe in no limits on what government can do to society, so long as YOU, and enough people who think like you, 'believe' it will 'save us'." is universal to any society.
No matter how independent you want to believe you are, you are dependent on society. We are social organisms.
Hence, ideology matters a ton.
BTW, no individualist is against the idea of society. The best parts of society are the ones w/ the least amount of government involvement.
Voluntary cooperation, not state force, is what makes for a more cohesive society.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 2:15 pm to stuntman
quote:
Wait, so owning property didn't happen until after government was created?
Didn't say that.
quote:
Then what's the big deal about "taking the Indians' land"? It was never theirs, right?
Didn't say it was a big deal or that it was theirs.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 2:17 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I am also for taking more tax money/assets to pay for defending our society from extinction.
I am also for the government managing the means of production in order to defend our society.
The US engaged in all 3 of these in the last major conflict in which we were involved. We persevered, and even flourished ever since. But I can imagine there may be times when we may need to do the above when other threats to society besides simply threat of external invasion exist.
There is a difference in ramping up to fight an already defined, hot global threat and making it an ordinary way of life. In your premise there is always a justification to government taking and taking and taking. Forced compliance. Too many poor people? Take from the "haves". No universal health insurance coverage (not access), take from those that have it through their employment. It never ends in your head to take take take.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 2:18 pm to HotTakeHerald
quote:
Didn't say that.
Sure seems like you're arguing that property rights only exist because of government. If I misread that, then where do you believe property rights come from?
Posted on 8/19/19 at 2:23 pm to stuntman
quote:
Hence, ideology matters a ton.
I never claimed otherwise.
quote:
BTW, no individualist is against the idea of society. The best parts of society are the ones w/ the least amount of government involvement.
Voluntary cooperation, not state force, is what makes for a more cohesive society.
Nor has what I have said contradicted any of the above.
I swear, sometimes I'm reminded of having conversations with my ex when I'm on this board. She had zero modulation, everything was either 1 or 0, full speed or stop. If I said, "I like ice cream", it was ice cream at every meal. If I protested one time, she replied, "I thought you said you like ice cream?"
Sometimes I like ice cream, sometimes I don't (usually when I'm drinking beer.)
I'm not promoting a system of government that controls the economy at all times, just when it is absolutely necessary. That's the flexibility I referred to. I'm opposed to government BY ideology, I didn't say I think ideologies are useless. We simply cannot govern by an ideology so strictly as to remove all flexibility required to maintain the society in times of severe stress.
I am opposed to both Socialism and Libertarianism as strict systems of government, but I am for a system of government that utilizes principles from both ideologies as needed to provide the greatest good to society. I think our system of government allows for just that.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 2:24 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
And I wouldn't characterize the Vietnam war as a struggle for the existence of our society
The people that started the Vietnam War characterized it as a struggle for the existence of our society tho. That was the rationale they used to support the draft.
Just like “supporting the existence of our society” is the rationale for other socialist policies.
Marxism says that it exists to protect the members of society.
The rationale I use to determine whether government action is legitimate - is whether it protects the rights of its citizens. Any government that does anything else, is collectivist. And prone to tyranny.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 2:27 pm to stuntman
quote:
Sure seems like you're arguing that property rights only exist because of government. If I misread that, then where do you believe property rights come from?
Which kind of property?
Right to property that is the fruits of labor come from labor.
Homesteading the unimproved value or the rent of previously communal property typically comes from the government. I certainly don't recognize it as a legitimate right.
This post was edited on 8/19/19 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 8/19/19 at 2:31 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I believe in the government as structured by our Founders..
Actually - after reading your thoughts on this thread, no you don’t. How do I know that. Because you in your next breath said:
quote:
But pretty much this, "believe in no limits on what government can do to society, so long as YOU, and enough people who think like you, 'believe' it will 'save us'." is universal to any society
Go look up something called the tyranny of the mob. It was a notion ascribed to by all of the Founders. The entire structure of our government was designed so that our inalienable rights, remained inalienable. They couldn’t be voted away, no matter how many people thought it was a good idea. They listed examples of them in the Bill of Rights.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 2:36 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I never claimed otherwise.
The first post of mine was based solely on the idea that ideology matters. You were trying to claim that the non aggression principle isn't enough to be considered an ideology. It is. Every square inch of libertarianism is based on that one principle.
So, to me, it seemed like you were arguing against the idea that ideology matters to society...especially since my reply was to someone who said "frick ALL ideologies".
My mistake for thinking you were against ideology informing decisions politicians should make, but you can see how that was easily assumed, right?
quote:
I am opposed to both Socialism and Libertarianism as strict systems of government, but I am for a system of government that utilizes principles from both ideologies as needed to provide the greatest good to society. I think our system of government allows for just that.
Ok, this is where the hangup is. Again, who gets to decide the "greater good"? The lack of ideology in government is what allows for the kind of all encompassing government we have now.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 2:47 pm to Wednesday
quote:
China wasn’t Communist
Definitely was but no longer is.
We really need to nail down what is socialism as even this board seems confused...Are the Scandinavian countries "socialist" or capitalist countries with socialist programs? Just so we can be clear that if one advocates for Scandinavian style programs are they actual socialists or capitalists (or whatever) just advocating for a more significant social safety net via some socialism?
Posted on 8/19/19 at 3:03 pm to stuntman
quote:
You were trying to claim that the non aggression principle isn't enough to be considered an ideology. It is. Every square inch of libertarianism is based on that one principle.
I still disagree.
I'll use Christianity as an example. The founding principle of Christianity is Love - love of God and love of one another. But while Love of God and erybody is necessary, it is not sufficient to be a Christian - you must also believe in the Resurrection. But without Love, the Resurrection is meaningless.
quote:
So, to me, it seemed like you were arguing against the idea that ideology matters to society...especially since my reply was to someone who said "frick ALL ideologies".
My mistake for thinking you were against ideology informing decisions politicians should make, but you can see how that was easily assumed, right?
Yes, your reasoned approach is quite understandable. My declarative was simply based in the context of seeing ideologues on the board insisting that an ideological approach (namely their ideology) is what is required, and that if you think any principles of any other ideologies might be appropriate, you must be an opposing ideologue (If you believe in government regulation of anything, you must be a 'Marxist', for example.)
I also encounter it with Marxists. They think if I support any free-market principles, I must be some sort of rabid Libertarian ideologue.
quote:
Ok, this is where the hangup is. Again, who gets to decide the "greater good"? The lack of ideology in government is what allows for the kind of all encompassing government we have now.
Perhaps it's not cause an effect. Maybe the problems in our economy and governance is not a product of a lack of ideology, maybe we simply lack abiding by some guiding principles.
So, rather than saying we are in trouble due to a lack of ideology, I would rather say we are acting in an unprincipled manner.
But to answer your question, we do, as according to our Constitution and the system of government prescribed therein. It is a government of the People by the People for the People, when it fricks up, it's our fault. But we just play it by ear as we go along...
Posted on 8/19/19 at 3:09 pm to Wednesday
quote:
1) Does anyone know why actual socialists think it’s an insult to be called a socialist?
Let's start with definitions
quote:
Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
quote:
Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that views class relations and social conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and takes a dialectical view of social transformation. It originates from the works of 19th-century German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
According to your OP, the problem was that the person claimed that Omar was not a socialist. I don't have any record of Omar calling for communal control over property or the means of production.
As far as I can tell, unless valid evidence is given of her ACTUALLY endorses community control at the detriment of private ownership, she is not socialist.
The definition of socialism is not "anything that isn't capitalism". It has a set defined rule in that is requires you advocate or materialize state run control over all property and business rights.
If you want to use a broad brush with socialism then public schools, social security, and most labor laws are socialism.
But let's just call it for what it really is, you just don't want your tax dollars to go to programs that you disagree with. Ironic considering their are plenty of useless programs GOP politicians like.
quote:
Like so much of Trump’s speech, the statement was false. I have news for the Donald: The United States—like every other country with an advanced economy, such as the U.K., Germany, France, and Japan—is already a partly socialist country, with a mixed economy and many government programs that serve the public good.
By this defintion, Social Security is a “socialist” program: it’s a government-run pension system that cuts out private money managers. Medicare – a single-payer, government-run health insurance program for those over 65 – is too. Medicare-For-All would simply extend this to the rest of the population.
The minimum wage, maximum hour, and child labor laws that go back over a century are likewise “socialist” programs, in that the government intervenes in the capitalist market to require employers to meet minimum standards that might not be met in a pure, unregulated “free” market. Agricultural and energy subsidies are likewise socialist programs. I could go on and on.
Stripped of the Red-baiting and name-calling, the real debate isn’t between capitalism vs. socialism, but about the appropriate balance between the two.
Conservatives want to reduce Social Security and Medicare benefits and reduce the numbers who qualify, while progressives want to increase and expand these programs. Many progressives want to move towards a Medicare system covering all Americans, not just those over 65 (“Medicare for All”) while centrist Democrats want to protect the ACA which is a hybrid between private insurance and government insurance and regulation, and conservatives want to go back to the all-private system which pre-dated the ACA.
The government already supports higher education (that’s socialism) but progressives want to make a public college education free or debt-free. Conservatives support government subsidies for agriculture and the oil energy (that’s socialism) while many progressives believe this is “reverse welfare” for the rich and want to reduce them.
America is already Socialist, Trump
This post was edited on 8/19/19 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 8/19/19 at 3:14 pm to cwill
quote:
Definitely was but no longer is.
We really need to nail down what is socialism as even this board seems confused...Are the Scandinavian countries "socialist" or capitalist countries with socialist programs? Just so we can be clear that if one advocates for Scandinavian style programs are they actual socialists or capitalists (or whatever) just advocating for a more significant social safety net via some socialism?
Boom Baby.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 3:19 pm to volod
America will never be a socialist country.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 3:23 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Jesus, the idiocy never ends on this board.
Especially when you are posting
MAGA
Posted on 8/19/19 at 3:23 pm to Wednesday
quote:
Go look up something called the tyranny of the mob. It was a notion ascribed to by all of the Founders.
It was Tyranny of the "Majority" as DeTocqueville wrote about it.
Our Founders didn't "ascribe" to it, they tried to avoid it.
quote:
The entire structure of our government was designed so that our inalienable rights, remained inalienable.
Well, except sometimes...
#3: "No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner...
...nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
#5: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury...
...except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger"
The Founders recognized that extraordinary circumstances may call for extraordinary measures.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 3:29 pm to Wednesday
now up to 5 pages of them spouting bullshite to deny it
You are prescient.
You are prescient.
Posted on 8/19/19 at 3:33 pm to Wednesday
quote:
Except the Jihad Squad, Bernie Sanders, Heels Up Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and several other Democrat Candidates for office who are trying to become president by advocating that the entire Medical Industry (every doctor, nurse, hospital, clinic, and aspirin) should be paid by the government, and our entire food supply and energy supply should be controlled by the government.
But you’re right. Other than that. Nobody really is advocating for socialism.
Since when did we start caring about affairs?
If the medical industry is being paid for by government, how is that any different from a private construction company laying road.
Our food supply and energy supply is heavily subsidized by government today.
I appreciate farmers but the benefits they receive are by definition a form of welfare. Whether its considered justified or not is matter of opinion outside the context of what it is.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News