The Almighty Unions

[egbert]

Koch Brothers Behind Wisconsin Effort To Kill Public Unions

As the nation focuses on the efforts of Governor Scott Walker to take away collective bargaining rights from public employees in Wisconsin, new information is coming to light that reveals what is truly going on here.

Mother Jones is reporting that much of the funding behind the Walker for Governor campaign came from none other than uber-conservatives, the infamous Koch Brothers.

What’s more, the plan to kill the unions is right out of the Koch Brothers play book.

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/ ... ic-unions/

[.Morticia.]

The idea that the USA had a "John Wayne" political theory is a bunch of crap, anyway. It's no more realistic for you to suggest the US is either libertarian or "John Wayne" style than it is for Seth to suggest that western European socialism is the same as Marxist Communism.

What is marxist communism? Do you mean a classless society?

In the context of previous discussions here what is typically called communism by the resident nut is Stalinism/statism and totalitarianism.

[Coito ergo sum]

The idea that the USA had a "John Wayne" political theory is a bunch of crap, anyway. It's no more realistic for you to suggest the US is either libertarian or "John Wayne" style than it is for Seth to suggest that western European socialism is the same as Marxist Communism.

What is marxist communism? Do you mean a classless society?

Marxist communism is the brand of communism advocated by Karl Marx. As such it is more than mere classlessness. Marxism ostensibly works toward a classless society, but classlessness is not, by itself, Marxism. Marxism advocates and teaches the historical inevitability of a proletarian revolution. The proletariat are to take control of the government, and then implement reforms to benefit their class. These reforms include the confiscation of private property which is then taken under state control and run (so they say is intended) for the benefit of the people rather than for the interests of private profit. Such a system is socialism, although Marxists believe that eventually a socialist society would develop into an entirely classless and stateless socialist system. Marxism entails the suppression of the individual. Expressly, Marx wrote "Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand."

Marx's economic theory is based on class conflict and the basic premise that certain classes are exploiters and others are exploited. A person is exploited if he or she performs more labour than necessary to produce the goods that he consumes; likewise, a person is an exploiter if he or she performs less labour than is necessary to produce the goods that he consumes. You can see that Marx wrote in a different world than the one we live in today. In the US and western Europe, most people perform less labor than is necessary to produce the goods they consume, so the vast majority of us would be called "exploiters" in Marx's theory.

Marx also believed in the "inevitability" of the change from capitalism to statist socialism to communism. He suggested this as almost a law of nature. "it is evident that Marx deduces the inevitability of the transformation of capitalist society [into a socialist society] wholly and exclusively from the economic law of motion of contemporary society." (Lenin). And, Marxists believe that a socialist society will be far better for the majority of the populace than its capitalist counterpart, for instance, prior to the Russian revolution of 1917, Lenin wrote that "The socialization of production is bound to lead to the conversion of the means of production into the property of society… This conversion will directly result in an immense increase in productivity of labour, a reduction of working hours, and the replacement of the remnants, the ruins of small-scale, primitive, disunited production by collective and improved labour."

In my view, these words are written in the context of a different society and culture than the one in which we live. Our capitalism and mixed economies in the US and in western democracies have brought unprecedented prosperity to the common man. The attempts to implement Marxism have, it seems to me, all either made things worse or at least left things as they were. I also find Marx's definition of exploited/exploiter to be inapplicable to our world today, as most people do not labor at all, let alone grow their own food and make their own necessary goods. Back in the day, manual labor was the norm. Moreover, his contention of some force of economic nature that is driving mankind to a classless/stateless society seems more like a wish than anything supported by actual real life evidence. And, I find the idea of a stateless society incomprehensible, and not a single person I've asked to tell me what a stateless society would be liked has been able to articulate anything deeper than "everyone gets what they need and everyone does their part without being greedy." How a stateless society can govern, enforce laws, regulate product safety and all that sort of thing, is something nobody has ever been able to explain. In short, the stateless society myth is just that - it's the call for masses to wish for a new "golden age" like the golden ages all societies harken back to when people were all genius philosophers who knew the right way of doing things - only it's in reverse..Marx wants us to look forward to the COMING golden age of a stateless society of citizens all acting in the interest of the collective with no concern for individuality.

I've asked you before what you think it is, but you never answered me. Care to provide me with what you think Marxism is?

In the context of previous discussions here what is typically called communism by the resident nut is Stalinism/statism and totalitarianism.

Calling western social democracies either of those things is hyperbole, and likewise calling the US "libertarian" or "John Wayne politics" is similarly hyperbolic.

[.Morticia.]

you have conflated marxism and marxist communism.

Marxism comprises various schools of thought and is a system of analysis. The other is form of societal organisation.

[Coito ergo sum]

you have conflated marxism and marxist communism.

I did not. You asked me what Marxist communism was. I answered the question. When you asked "What is Marxist communism?" did you not want an answer?

Marxism comprises various schools of thought and is a system of analysis. The other is form of societal organisation.

Marxism is an economic and socio-political worldview that contains within it a political ideology for how to change and improve society by implementing socialism. Again, you asked me what Marxist communism was and I told you.

But, now you've piqued my interest. Can you explain what Marxism is in more detail? You've said what it comprises, and said that it is a system of analysis. What is the Marxist system of analysis? What school of Marxist thought do you subscribe to?

[Warren Dew]

What is marxist communism? Do you mean a classless society?

A society where everyone is in the same serf class is still not a classless society.

[Seth]

Koch Brothers Behind Wisconsin Effort To Kill Public Unions

As the nation focuses on the efforts of Governor Scott Walker to take away collective bargaining rights from public employees in Wisconsin, new information is coming to light that reveals what is truly going on here.

Mother Jones is reporting that much of the funding behind the Walker for Governor campaign came from none other than uber-conservatives, the infamous Koch Brothers.

What’s more, the plan to kill the unions is right out of the Koch Brothers play book.

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/ ... ic-unions/

Yeah? So the fuck what? uber-leftist George Soros is behind Obama's plan to "fundamentally transform" the United States into a global "open society."

I'm glad the Koch brothers are spending their money defending the Constitution and individual liberty and fighting against Progressivism and Marxism.

We're at war with Marxism, and I'm glad there are folks on the side of right and justice willing to put their money where their mouths are in the battle to prevent Marxism from overtaking America.

[Seth]

The idea that the USA had a "John Wayne" political theory is a bunch of crap, anyway. It's no more realistic for you to suggest the US is either libertarian or "John Wayne" style than it is for Seth to suggest that western European socialism is the same as Marxist Communism.

What is marxist communism? Do you mean a classless society?

In the context of previous discussions here what is typically called communism by the resident nut is Stalinism/statism and totalitarianism.

Indeed, because that's what the political elite call it, and because that's where the utopian ideal of a "communist classless society" always grinds to a halt; totalitarian horror and death.

That's what you don't get. You still actually think that a true "communist classless society" is possible. It's not. It will never happen, it will never be successful except in the smallest and most simplistic of human groupings, and it will never succeed where participation is compulsory, not voluntary. Human nature forbids it.

[.Morticia.]

What is marxist communism? Do you mean a classless society?

A society where everyone is in the same serf class is still not a classless society.

Why should marxist communism mean serfdom and everyone being the same?

Why shouldn't it mean freedom from materialism, freedom from authoritarianism and freedom to be individuals?

[.Morticia.]

This post was made by Seth who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This post was made by Seth who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

[Seth]

The idea that the USA had a "John Wayne" political theory is a bunch of crap, anyway. It's no more realistic for you to suggest the US is either libertarian or "John Wayne" style than it is for Seth to suggest that western European socialism is the same as Marxist Communism.

What is marxist communism? Do you mean a classless society?

Marxist communism is the brand of communism advocated by Karl Marx. As such it is more than mere classlessness. Marxism ostensibly works toward a classless society, but classlessness is not, by itself, Marxism. Marxism advocates and teaches the historical inevitability of a proletarian revolution. The proletariat are to take control of the government, and then implement reforms to benefit their class. These reforms include the confiscation of private property which is then taken under state control and run (so they say is intended) for the benefit of the people rather than for the interests of private profit. Such a system is socialism, although Marxists believe that eventually a socialist society would develop into an entirely classless and stateless socialist system. Marxism entails the suppression of the individual. Expressly, Marx wrote "Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand."

Marx's economic theory is based on class conflict and the basic premise that certain classes are exploiters and others are exploited. A person is exploited if he or she performs more labour than necessary to produce the goods that he consumes; likewise, a person is an exploiter if he or she performs less labour than is necessary to produce the goods that he consumes. You can see that Marx wrote in a different world than the one we live in today. In the US and western Europe, most people perform less labor than is necessary to produce the goods they consume, so the vast majority of us would be called "exploiters" in Marx's theory.

Marx also believed in the "inevitability" of the change from capitalism to statist socialism to communism. He suggested this as almost a law of nature. "it is evident that Marx deduces the inevitability of the transformation of capitalist society [into a socialist society] wholly and exclusively from the economic law of motion of contemporary society." (Lenin). And, Marxists believe that a socialist society will be far better for the majority of the populace than its capitalist counterpart, for instance, prior to the Russian revolution of 1917, Lenin wrote that "The socialization of production is bound to lead to the conversion of the means of production into the property of society… This conversion will directly result in an immense increase in productivity of labour, a reduction of working hours, and the replacement of the remnants, the ruins of small-scale, primitive, disunited production by collective and improved labour."

Which, of course, never came to pass, with the result that Stalin had to kill of 20 million people to try to maintain order and power as the Soviet system ground to a halt against the entropy of human nature. The grand Communist experiment failed utterly, and has failed utterly every single time it's been attempted, with the loss of at least a hundred million innocent lives in the process. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Only capitalism with all its flaws, has any hope of providing anything like equal opportunity for all, or raising the vast majority out of poverty and privation through the rising economic tide the free markets and capitalism create.

In my view, these words are written in the context of a different society and culture than the one in which we live. Our capitalism and mixed economies in the US and in western democracies have brought unprecedented prosperity to the common man. The attempts to implement Marxism have, it seems to me, all either made things worse or at least left things as they were. I also find Marx's definition of exploited/exploiter to be inapplicable to our world today, as most people do not labor at all, let alone grow their own food and make their own necessary goods. Back in the day, manual labor was the norm. Moreover, his contention of some force of economic nature that is driving mankind to a classless/stateless society seems more like a wish than anything supported by actual real life evidence. And, I find the idea of a stateless society incomprehensible, and not a single person I've asked to tell me what a stateless society would be liked has been able to articulate anything deeper than "everyone gets what they need and everyone does their part without being greedy." How a stateless society can govern, enforce laws, regulate product safety and all that sort of thing, is something nobody has ever been able to explain. In short, the stateless society myth is just that - it's the call for masses to wish for a new "golden age" like the golden ages all societies harken back to when people were all genius philosophers who knew the right way of doing things - only it's in reverse..Marx wants us to look forward to the COMING golden age of a stateless society of citizens all acting in the interest of the collective with no concern for individuality.

Well said!

I've asked you before what you think it is, but you never answered me. Care to provide me with what you think Marxism is?

Good luck with that. I doubt she knows.

In the context of previous discussions here what is typically called communism by the resident nut is Stalinism/statism and totalitarianism.

Calling western social democracies either of those things is hyperbole, and likewise calling the US "libertarian" or "John Wayne politics" is similarly hyperbolic.

You might want to note that I don't call modern social democracies "Stalinism," I merely state with great certainty that the inevitable end-game of all social democracies is Stalinism, or it's modern totalitarian equivalent. I've carefully explained how this comes about on many occasions, which Morticia of course ignores. Social democracies work fine so long as there is OPM in the system, or abundant natural resources available which can be sold on the capitalist free market to fund the social entitlements of social welfare economies. They don't begin to kill people until the OPM or natural resources run out, and then they deflagrate quickly into totalitarianism as the power elite try to maintain control against the starving, rioting proletarian class.

[.Morticia.]

This post was made by Seth who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

[Coito ergo sum]

What is marxist communism? Do you mean a classless society?

A society where everyone is in the same serf class is still not a classless society.

Why should marxist communism mean serfdom and everyone being the same?

Why shouldn't it mean freedom from materialism, freedom from authoritarianism and freedom to be individuals?

In my view, it's because that's the result of the implementation of Marxism in the political sphere. The abolition of private property destroys freedom, it doesn't foster it.

Moreover, everywhere communism has been tried, it results in the most authoritarian regimes you could find. It seems that there hasn't been one communist attempt that got past capitalism and went through statist socialism straight into a stateless/classless communism. Has there? Every one stops at the authoritarian regime stage.

Moreover, Marxism isn't concerned with freedom for or to be individuals. Marxism is concerned with the community, and the individual must subjugate himself to the community at large. That's inherent in the Marxist basic principle of "from each according to his ability to give, and to each according to his need." That concept destroys the individual because it is the State that is the determiner of what you are able to give, and what you need. You can't decide those things for yourself - a state where people can decide for themselves what they are able to do, and where they can decide for themselves what they need, is not a communist state, by definition.

[Seth]

What is marxist communism? Do you mean a classless society?

A society where everyone is in the same serf class is still not a classless society.

Why should marxist communism mean serfdom and everyone being the same?

Because it always does. That's a fact of history. Well, not quite. In actuality Marxist Communism, and Communism of every kind, always ends up with two classes: the proletarian working class and the elite ruling class that oppresses them in an attempt to maintain power, privilege and control.

Why shouldn't it mean freedom from materialism, freedom from authoritarianism and freedom to be individuals?

Because that's utopian nonsense that pays no attention whatsoever to basic human nature. Human beings are materialistic. They always have been, they always will be. It's an evolutionary mandate.

[Seth]

This post was made by Seth who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

See, what you don't understand is that I'm not talking TO you, I'm using you as a foil in a debate aimed at the lurkers.