The fatal flaw in political Marxism

Discussion in 'Politics' started by BennyF, Sep 18, 2011.

  1. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    448
    "You said that I probably admired a slave owner. That's what you said, that's what was incredibly stupid, and that's what I take personal offense at."
    - me

    Because you accused me of admiring a slave owner, and by definition, the slavery itself. Slavery by any person is a crime against the person being enslaved. This is similar to the act of tyranny that is practiced by some governments, including our own when they require that we buy healthcare. It would be just as tyrannical if they required that we buy an avocado every day.

    In addition, I do not use colors when describing people. This vile practice, which you implied that I participated in, robs people of the part of their humanity that allows them to make individual decisions about their food, music, dating habits, clothes, etc. In addition, anyone who has thrown race out of their consciousness cannot possibly treat anyone as an inferior because of a racial difference.



    You missed my point completely. You may think about people in racial terms, but I do not.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2011
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    Oops, BennyF just dug the hole deeper...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    I think you just like to call yourself a Socialist. Sure there is one side to every human but we cannot deny that humans (each of us) have other sides.

    Surely you don't have a "whats mine is yours" attitude but i don't think that is even possible.

    If you have two of one thing do you give one away?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    448
    Oops, you just accused me of .....

    What exactly were you accusing me of, anyway?
     
  8. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    I'm not familiar with the author but he tells several lies in this piece, which I think undermines his credibility. The rest is the same fearmongering that you accuse Obama of doing. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not socialized medicine, as much as I would like it to be, because the insurance is all in the hands of private corporations.

    Passing health care under reconciliation is not a "change of the rules", in fact Republicans pass legislation under reconciliation all the time.

    Despite their howls against Obama, Republicans employed the same procedure to pass major Bush agenda items (which were supported by all four aforementioned Senators):

    – The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 1836, 3/26/01]
    – The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 2, 3/23/03]
    – Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 [HR 4297, 5/11/06]
    – The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 [H. Con Res. 95, 12/21/05]

    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/03/24/37020/budget-reconciliation/


    Medicare would benefit from being able to negotiate as a group for lower prices. This is exactly what the (socialist) Veteran's Administration does to lower costs and it's scandalous that Republicans placate the pharmaceutical lobbies by forbidding it. If this were a free market, the drug companies wouldn't be worried about having to negotiate a fair price for a substantial chunk of business.

    Converting bank bailouts to common stock would benefit the banks and it would only be a temporary measure.

    The conservative tax cuts for the wealthy took money and services out of the hands of the poor and middle class. This was effectively a tax on the middle class.

    I'm in favor of Rahm Emanuel's idea of mandatory government service, and why not? Don't you like your country? This is a time of war if you haven't noticed. You know who else emphasizes community service? The Boy Scouts. Ooooo, scary.

    I'm actually in favor of socialist policies because I'm a Democratic Socialist. There are many countries in Europe who know better than you what living behind the iron curtain was really like, and they support Democratic Socialism. It doesn't mean the same thing as a Communist dictatorship, it only means that the government's purpose is to help the people. Almost every industrialized nation has socialized medicine, including Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, and their health care costs are lower than ours. You and people like you are trying to use the long dead communist empires to scare people into voting against their best interests. It's sick and it's wrong.
     
  9. elte Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,344
    I thought it would be a good idea to be able to go to a building on the block to borrow a chainsaw or even a car. But people are far from having the right attitude. I do have a lot of things, but I consider them as tools that I need to do what I do.

    I would like people to have the attitude of borrowing what they need. That attitude could go further and everyone's money be kept in a common pot. Mental evolution isn't far along enough for those things yet.

    It's not about anyone being deprived of anything. The main thing is to advance civilization so that everyone has what they need.
     
  10. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    448
    Health care insurance was available prior to the passage of the law, and it was "in the hands of private corporations" prior to the passage of the law. What the law did was to add the requirement to purchase it, with any violations punishable by the confiscation of tax refunds and possible jail sentences. Did you buy an avocado today, as required by law?

    This is governmental tyranny, and Karl Marx would be proud of Barak Obama if he could see him today.
     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    Take your pick:
    digging the hole deeper
    duplicity
    being an admirer of a slave-owner.

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2817881&postcount=1
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2816519&postcount=804
    (Etc.)

    Franklin:
    (Wiki).
    This indicates he was a slave-owner.
    This document shows that he wasn't exactly opposed to slave-trading.
    Here.
    This states categorically that he was a slave-owner.

    Any more denials from you?
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2011
  12. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    See, you're got a problem, BennyF, any legislation that benefits the middle class is going to be painted as socialist in your eyes. But somehow you want to claim to be the hero of the middle class. You can't reconcile these views without lying to yourself and the public.
     
  13. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    No health care insurance was not available to many before the passage of this law. The law prevents discrimination due to a pre-existing condition, which would have prevented people from buying insurance, even if they could afford it. The punishments are minor and subsidies are available if you cannot afford it. There is no difference between this and having to buy car insurance.

    The real tyranny is the millions of people who are deprived of health care (other than the minimum of emergency care) every day and allowed to die.
     
  14. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    448
    President Obama "needs" for you to have a health insurance policy. If the one you have doesn't match certain government regulations, it doesn't qualify, no matter how appropriate it may be for you and your family.

    Do you still want everyone to have what they need, or can some people go hungry?
     
  15. elte Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,344
    He doesn't really want that. He just goes along with the present system because he knows its a long long way to get things to where he really would like them to be.
     
  16. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    So everyone has to be a goddamn lawyer in order to be sure their insurance company isn't cheating them? Many policies don't pay out what they led you to believe they do, and they can drop you any time for any reason, leaving you to die.

    If I wanted to be as fearmongering as you, I could say that the Republicans are leading us towards fascism, which only means that government is merged with corporate interests, which fits what they do! Get ready for the government death camps! I hope you aren't allergic to Zyklon B.
     
  17. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    I think that is the attitude of the overwhelming majority of people. Excpet for the "common pot" part. Seems somewhat primitive to me like early man would have one hammer so they put the hammer in one place so anyone can grab it. Realistically it is hit and miss if that will work. When you have 90 people you have 90 personalities, you should hope they are all the same for that kind of system the multiply that by millions. Heh...good luck.
     
  18. elte Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,344
    I know it doesn't work with the present way people think. Communes have even been started and failed. I still think it is right, though.
     
  19. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    I think we can agree that BennyF's argument is a strawman. Socialist policies in a Democratic state are a long way from abolishing private property.
     
  20. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    448
    You are so wrong.

    Middle class families should be able to stay in the middle class by owning a small business if they so choose. If there's someone in the family that thinks he can run a convenience store, a bar, a shoe store, a dry-cleaning business, or a small direct-mail company, he should not be burdened with so many tight rules and regulations that he can't make a profit. When the President of a 15-person bank has 18 regulators in his building, that's excessive.

    Middle-class families should also have the opportunity to work for large corporations as factory managers, office managers, construction workers, hospital nurses, truck drivers, salespeople, bank tellers, and, in the case of cities and towns, teachers, librarians, clerks, public works crew members, and many other jobs that pay enough to maintain a middle class lifestyle. However, if the corporations won't hire a lot of people, as is the case now, because the health care law requires that every person on the payroll be enrolled in a plan, and if the financial reform law requires high payroll taxes (partly paid by the employer) and high social security taxes on every person's paycheck, then this reduces the incentive to hire, which also reduces the size of the middle class itself, which then causes class envy and later, if the middle class keeps shrinking, riots and revolution, as seen in Russia early in 1917, long before Lenin was in charge.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2011
  21. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Present way people think or just human nature? You can't really change human nature and why should we? Even still, if there were things about human nature worth changing i would not put that at the top of the list. Just not worth the risk to individualism.
     
  22. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    448
    "President Obama "needs" for you to have a health insurance policy. If the one you have doesn't match certain government regulations, it doesn't qualify, no matter how appropriate it may be for you and your family.

    Do you still want everyone to have what they need, or can some people go hungry?"
    - me


    President Obama set up the present system.
     
  23. elte Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,344
    Who knows if individualism is all that good anyway? I like mine, now, for sure, but that is largely because people have been so nasty, even I was at times, before i noticed how bad people's attitudes are. I think it could be interesting if there were really such a thing as being "one with God." That would be the opposite of individualism.
     

Share This Page