Make big companies pay tax? A joke.

[pErvinalia]

Thanks for the in-depth response Seth, but you'll forgive me if I paraphrase it : everyone who doesn't agree with your "Libertarian capitalism" is a Marxist. That includes, according to you, all Europeans on the left and right, UK conservatives, therefore all centre and left of centre parties, the Democrats, and all socialists. And Marxists.

I'm not sure you really understand what Marxism is. It is NOT everyone except Seth.

Yep. Pretty much hit the nail on the head there, ronmcd.

[Seth]

Thanks for the in-depth response Seth, but you'll forgive me if I paraphrase it : everyone who doesn't agree with your "Libertarian capitalism" is a Marxist. That includes, according to you, all Europeans on the left and right, UK conservatives, therefore all centre and left of centre parties, the Democrats, and all socialists. And Marxists.

I'm not sure you really understand what Marxism is. It is NOT everyone except Seth.

Ah, but I do understand what Marxism is, that's the point. It's you who does not understand, or will not acknowledge the roots of your ideology, not me.

As I said, if you answered the questions I posed affirmatively, you are solidly a Marxist, even if you don't believe or acknowledge it. The core principles of Marxism are very easy to define and it is, as you have seen, very easy to identify those who subscribe to those core principles. Marx called people like you "useful idiots" because you support Marxist ideology without even bothering to critically examine your preferred social organization.

The single root concept of Marxism that in and of itself defines a Marxist is the notion that the worker is never adequately compensated for the "value" of his labor and therefore is being "exploited" by the employer, who is enjoying unjust profits off the labor of others. Anyone who subscribes to this notion is axiomatically a Marxist. The other questions merely confirm the core beliefs of closet Marxists.

European Socialism is inherently and irrevocably based in the Marxist dialectic, no matter how many twists, turns and impedimenta are piled on the basic social arguments to cover up the core "class warfare" belief of Marxism. You may deny it all you like, but any rational outside observer can clearly see how closely connected European Socialism is to undiluted Marxism and how the one has become burdened with all manner of rationalizations and self-justifications for what Marx himself boldly proclaimed in the Communist Manifesto.

All European Socialists are Marxist useful idiots who advance the causes and programs Marx laid out in the Communist Manifesto and other works without even understanding that they are doing so...that's how stupid they are.

[ronmcd]

Ah, but I do understand what Marxism is, that's the point. It's you who does not understand, or will not acknowledge the roots of your ideology, not me.

As I said, if you answered the questions I posed affirmatively, you are solidly a Marxist, even if you don't believe or acknowledge it. The core principles of Marxism are very easy to define and it is, as you have seen, very easy to identify those who subscribe to those core principles. Marx called people like you "useful idiots" because you support Marxist ideology without even bothering to critically examine your preferred social organization.

The single root concept of Marxism that in and of itself defines a Marxist is the notion that the worker is never adequately compensated for the "value" of his labor and therefore is being "exploited" by the employer, who is enjoying unjust profits off the labor of others. Anyone who subscribes to this notion is axiomatically a Marxist. The other questions merely confirm the core beliefs of closet Marxists.

European Socialism is inherently and irrevocably based in the Marxist dialectic, no matter how many twists, turns and impedimenta are piled on the basic social arguments to cover up the core "class warfare" belief of Marxism. You may deny it all you like, but any rational outside observer can clearly see how closely connected European Socialism is to undiluted Marxism and how the one has become burdened with all manner of rationalizations and self-justifications for what Marx himself boldly proclaimed in the Communist Manifesto.

All European Socialists are Marxist useful idiots who advance the causes and programs Marx laid out in the Communist Manifesto and other works without even understanding that they are doing so...that's how stupid they are.

And there we have it, as we can see in the highlighted phrases - politically motivated smear paranoia and fear of anyone who accepts elements of socialism in their political system. Any country or individual who subscribes to any form of mixed economy blending socialism and capitalism is a Marxist.

By that logic, all those same people and countries are ALSO fascists, libertarians, and anarchists.

No Seth, you really don't understand what Marxism is or who Marxists are.

[pErvinalia]

[Warren Dew]

Anyhow, it's practically impossible to get huge corporations like Google and eBay to pay their fair share of taxes because it's cheaper for them to have teams of legal experts that will find loopholes and tax shelters. Corporations are not meant to pay taxes, the working poor are!

Let's not forget the teams of lobbyists they have to create the loopholes and tax shelters in the first place.

[Seth]

Ah, but I do understand what Marxism is, that's the point. It's you who does not understand, or will not acknowledge the roots of your ideology, not me.

As I said, if you answered the questions I posed affirmatively, you are solidly a Marxist, even if you don't believe or acknowledge it. The core principles of Marxism are very easy to define and it is, as you have seen, very easy to identify those who subscribe to those core principles. Marx called people like you "useful idiots" because you support Marxist ideology without even bothering to critically examine your preferred social organization.

The single root concept of Marxism that in and of itself defines a Marxist is the notion that the worker is never adequately compensated for the "value" of his labor and therefore is being "exploited" by the employer, who is enjoying unjust profits off the labor of others. Anyone who subscribes to this notion is axiomatically a Marxist. The other questions merely confirm the core beliefs of closet Marxists.

European Socialism is inherently and irrevocably based in the Marxist dialectic, no matter how many twists, turns and impedimenta are piled on the basic social arguments to cover up the core "class warfare" belief of Marxism. You may deny it all you like, but any rational outside observer can clearly see how closely connected European Socialism is to undiluted Marxism and how the one has become burdened with all manner of rationalizations and self-justifications for what Marx himself boldly proclaimed in the Communist Manifesto.

All European Socialists are Marxist useful idiots who advance the causes and programs Marx laid out in the Communist Manifesto and other works without even understanding that they are doing so...that's how stupid they are.

And there we have it, as we can see in the highlighted phrases - politically motivated smear paranoia and fear of anyone who accepts elements of socialism in their political system. Any country or individual who subscribes to any form of mixed economy blending socialism and capitalism is a Marxist.

By that logic, all those same people and countries are ALSO fascists, libertarians, and anarchists.

No Seth, you really don't understand what Marxism is or who Marxists are.

Nice strawman argument.

The "blending" of socialism with anything is like leavening bread with ergot; the entire batch is corrupted and will drive you insane if you eat it.

This is because the fundamental premise of socialism is inherently flawed and evil: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The unspoken premise of this Marxist statement of policy is that each person owes the collective the sum total of his ability, but is only due whatever amount the collective deems he "needs."

That's simple slavery. It's forcing people into involuntary servitude to the needs and desires of others as determined by the political power structure, who ALWAYS use that redistributionist power as bribery to the lower economic classes at the expense of the higher, more productive economic classes, in order to solidify political control of the nation by, as Tytler puts it, granting largess from the public treasury.

That dynamic is clearly obvious in the Marxist Progressive agenda of the Obamanation as Obama panders to the dependent class, promising them not just largess from the government, but pure Marxist redistribution of wealth from the "rich" as a form of political control and advancement of the Marxist dialectic.

That you deny these facts is unsurprising because the current Marxist dialectic commands its agents NOT to use the term "Marxist" in any context, and to reframe the dialectic and agenda as "Progressivism" or perhaps an even more vague "Forward." This is the most common tactic of the political left; to apply a new set of nose-glasses to the bust of Karl Marx whenever the public actually figures out that everything they say is nothing more than regurgitated Marxist propaganda. Change the name, but keep the message the same.

That's why it hardly matters that "ACORN" is out of action, because the operatives of ACORN, and its mission, remain unchanged, only the name and trademark have been changed to obfuscate what's going on.

Those who would try to confuse and obfuscate by renaming Marxism to "Democratic Socialism" or some other manufactured label are being either ignorant or dishonest because you can't inject a little socialism into a capitalist or other free society without poisoning the whole barrel of apples. This is because, as I said, the ideology upon which socialism is based is inherently evil and works fatal corruption on whatever it touches.

So yes, I understand exactly what Marxism is, and I've been entirely consistent in applying that label correctly in the face of Marxist denial, pettifoggery and obfuscation.

[Ian]

Seth, your reasoning (if we want to call it that) implies that anything other than pure anarcho-capitalism is something which contains strains of collectivism and is not only therefore Marxist but represents a slippery slope towards communism. That is not so, and I believe that on some level you can understand why so many of us subject that sort of black-and-white logic to ridicule. It has little basis in historical reality; rather, it's based on your own worst fears.

If you're genuinely unable to distinguish a Democrat from a Bolshevik, you might want to step back and re-assess what you know about how the world works. Your arguments are flawed at their most fundamental level - they are not based on critical thinking. And that does not go over well on a forum populated by skeptics.

[Seth]

Seth, your reasoning (if we want to call it that) implies that anything other than pure anarcho-capitalism is something which contains strains of collectivism and is not only therefore Marxist but represents a slippery slope towards communism. That is not so, and I believe that on some level you can understand why so many of us subject that sort of black-and-white logic to ridicule. It has little basis in historical reality; rather, it's based on your own worst fears.

If you're genuinely unable to distinguish a Democrat from a Bolshevik, you might want to step back and re-assess what you know about how the world works. Your arguments are flawed at their most fundamental level - they are not based on critical thinking. And that does not go over well on a forum populated by skeptics.

I disagree. As I said, it is the key component of socialism, that the individual is the subject of the collective and is obligated to labor on behalf of others against his or her will that is indeed Marxist and a very slippery slope towards communism. Democrats and Bolsheviks differ only in their methodology and brutality, not in their fundamental beliefs.

This fundamental precept of Marxism, it's intermediate stage progeny Socialism, and it's end-state utopia of Communism is evil and is inherently incompatible with individual liberty.

The divide between individual liberty and Socialism cannot be bridged. The two philosophies are utterly incompatible with one another, and the existence of any socialist/collectivist demand on the individual extinguishes personal liberty completely and inevitably end up being expanded into tyranny and despotism.

And absent the power on the part of the collective to enforce its dictates on the involuntary servitude of the individuals who make up the collective, Socialism ceases to exist. Socialism, as a part of Marxism, simply presumes a priori that the individual is subservient to the needs of the collective, and that one assumption makes it impossible for any person in a Socialist society to be truly free, because the collective will always have a claim upon their labor and property that can be taken and used to benefit others against the individual's will.

The fundamental meaning of liberty is that one is only obliged to labor on one's own behalf or on the behalf of those for whom one has voluntarily accepted responsibility.

Anything less is simple slavery, and any taint of Marxist collectivism fatally poisons the entire system because of the above stated presumption of ownership of the body, goods and labor of the individual.

So yes, the issue is exactly black and white. Either I am a free man or I am a slave to the will of others. There is no middle ground.

I choose to be a free man and to defend that freedom with whatever force is necessary, for I will not be enslaved by anyone.

[ronmcd]

This fundamental precept of Marxism, it's intermediate stage progeny Socialism, and it's end-state utopia of Communism is evil and is inherently incompatible with individual liberty.

You have created a non-existent "Marxism Monster" in your mind, and attributed all manner of powers to it that make no sense whatsoever. Possibly even a personality and a morality, all the better for you to fear and demonise it I suppose. Much less easy to demonise something as dry as a political system, something that should be discussed rationally.

Sure, Marxism exists, but the devious Marxism Monster which whisks the unwary from innocently supporting socialised healthcare to guaranteed enslavement ... it doens't exist. You claim any element of socialism IS marxism, and those who claim to be of sane mind and who deliberately choose to implement such elements are being fooled by your Marxism monster.

Are we humans so stupid and gullible that we cannot marry elements of socialism with a capitalist society? (edit - look around! it works) You have a very low opinion of humanity Seth. Unless it agrees with your unbelievably narrow and (yes) extreme political viewpoint.

Incidentally, where is this capitalist libertarian standard that we should all be following? Presumably you don't think Obama's America is it. So are there any current states which have this form of system? Or maybe it existed in the past Seth. When and where? Give me an example.

[pErvinalia]

Seth, your reasoning (if we want to call it that) implies that anything other than pure anarcho-capitalism is something which contains strains of collectivism and is not only therefore Marxist but represents a slippery slope towards communism. That is not so, and I believe that on some level you can understand why so many of us subject that sort of black-and-white logic to ridicule. It has little basis in historical reality; rather, it's based on your own worst fears.

If you're genuinely unable to distinguish a Democrat from a Bolshevik, you might want to step back and re-assess what you know about how the world works. Your arguments are flawed at their most fundamental level - they are not based on critical thinking. And that does not go over well on a forum populated by skeptics.

[Azathoth]

Incidentally, where is this capitalist libertarian standard that we should all be following? Presumably you don't think Obama's America is it. So are there any current states which have this form of system? Or maybe it existed in the past Seth. When and where? Give me an example.

Read any Dickens lately?

[Seth]

This fundamental precept of Marxism, it's intermediate stage progeny Socialism, and it's end-state utopia of Communism is evil and is inherently incompatible with individual liberty.

You have created a non-existent "Marxism Monster" in your mind, and attributed all manner of powers to it that make no sense whatsoever.

Except it happens to be true, and it makes perfect sense if you understand the goals of Marxism and the long-term plan Marxists have been following for a hundred years under the Progressive banner (lately) to suborn the Constitution and destroy the United States and turn it into a third-world vassal state of global socialism.

Possibly even a personality and a morality, all the better for you to fear and demonise it I suppose. Much less easy to demonise something as dry as a political system, something that should be discussed rationally.

I'm quite rational. I've presented cogent, well thought out arguments and you have been able to refute exactly NONE of them. All you do is classic Alinsky evasion, obfuscation, pettifoggery and ad hominem. No Marxist I've ever encountered has had the balls to even try to defend Marxism in a rational debate. This is because it's an indefensible ideology that falls apart under any sort of rational scrutiny, so Marxists carefully avoid having to actually defend it. You're a classic example of that.

Sure, Marxism exists, but the devious Marxism Monster which whisks the unwary from innocently supporting socialised healthcare to guaranteed enslavement ... it doens't exist.

Except it does exist. That you continue to deny it is highly predictable Marxist dialog.

You claim any element of socialism IS marxism, and those who claim to be of sane mind and who deliberately choose to implement such elements are being fooled by your Marxism monster.

Most of them are useful idiots. The real dangerous ones are the George Soros' and Barack Obama's of the world who manipulate the credulous proletariat into believing the sort of crap you're spewing.

Ever ask an Obama fan WHY the rich should "pay their fair share" or "pay a little more?" The answer is ALWAYS "because they can afford it," which directly translates in to Marxist class warfare rhetoric. There are no principles or ethics at work in the Marxist dialectic, just pure greed, envy and vested self-interest in taking what others have worked for in order to serve your own selfish needs and desires.

Are we humans so stupid and gullible that we cannot marry elements of socialism with a capitalist society? (edit - look around! it works)

It works? Really? And that explains why the EU and every other socialist nation that's used up its OPM or natural resources is on the brink of economic collapse how, exactly?

Sorry, but Marxism never works, anywhere, ever. It can't because it's mathematically and economically impossible for it to work. Socialism APPEARS to work, for a while, for some people, right up until the OPM runs out and the chickens come home to roost. Then it collapses in an orgy of violence, death and destruction.

You have a very low opinion of humanity Seth.

No, I have a very low opinion of you and your ilk, and the credulous masses who approve of stealing from others to suit their cupidinous desires merely because they can. Socialists are without ethics or morals and are just greedy pricks who want what doesn't belong to them.

Unless it agrees with your unbelievably narrow and (yes) extreme political viewpoint.

Yes, I suppose the notion that individual freedom is paramount and that involuntary servitude to the collective is a bad thing is rather narrow. Still, it's the right thing to believe.

Incidentally, where is this capitalist libertarian standard that we should all be following? Presumably you don't think Obama's America is it. So are there any current states which have this form of system? Or maybe it existed in the past Seth. When and where? Give me an example.

About the closest we've come is the United States prior to about 1912, when the central government was relatively small and ineffective and stayed largely within it's legitimate constitutional constraints.

Woodrow Wilson, one of the most evil Presidents in history, and his predecessor Teddy Roosevelt and their ilk started us down the path to tyranny, and the death-knell of the Republic was issued by the Supreme Court in the case Wickard v. Filburn in 1942, which radically and unconstitutionally expanded Congress' power to "regulate commerce among the several states..." so that it is almost without limit, something never intended by the Founders.

The solution, of course, is to amend the Commerce Clause to provide that Congress' ONLY authority insofar as regulating "commerce among the several states" consists only and solely of the power to mediate, arbitrate and resolve disputes over interstate commerce brought before it by the legislatures of the several states, and in no other fashion whatsoever, which would force the government to comport with the original intent of the Founders and would overnight eliminate about 80 percent of the federal government.

[ronmcd]

Incidentally, where is this capitalist libertarian standard that we should all be following? Presumably you don't think Obama's America is it. So are there any current states which have this form of system? Or maybe it existed in the past Seth. When and where? Give me an example.

About the closest we've come is the United States prior to about 1912, when the central government was relatively small and ineffective and stayed largely within it's legitimate constitutional constraints.

Woodrow Wilson, one of the most evil Presidents in history, and his predecessor Teddy Roosevelt and their ilk started us down the path to tyranny, and the death-knell of the Republic was issued by the Supreme Court in the case Wickard v. Filburn in 1942, which radically and unconstitutionally expanded Congress' power to "regulate commerce among the several states..." so that it is almost without limit, something never intended by the Founders.

The solution, of course, is to amend the Commerce Clause to provide that Congress' ONLY authority insofar as regulating "commerce among the several states" consists only and solely of the power to mediate, arbitrate and resolve disputes over interstate commerce brought before it by the legislatures of the several states, and in no other fashion whatsoever, which would force the government to comport with the original intent of the Founders and would overnight eliminate about 80 percent of the federal government.

Yup, as I thought. Your view of politics is based on US only, and your rose-tinted view that there was a golden age sometime in US history before the Marxism Monster appeared (or was invented, perhaps, by right wing politicians).

Seth, I hate to break it to you, but the United States is and always has been as shit as every other country. American Exceptionalism is a lie. And US right wingers who see the dastardly Marxism Monster in everyone except themsevles are just as deluded as communists who still think their preferred system could work, this time ...

[Seth]

Yup, as I thought. Your view of politics is based on US only, and your rose-tinted view that there was a golden age sometime in US history before the Marxism Monster appeared (or was invented, perhaps, by right wing politicians).

Of course my view is of politics in the US. Why shouldn't it be? I don't give a fuck if you want to live in Marxist slavery.

Seth, I hate to break it to you, but the United States is and always has been as shit as every other country.

Your (incorrect) opinion is noted.

American Exceptionalism is a lie.

That's what Marxists want us to believe. It's a lie however, and America is exceptional among all the nations of the earth. And it's better than every socialist nation on earth as well.

And US right wingers who see the dastardly Marxism Monster in everyone except themsevles are just as deluded as communists who still think their preferred system could work, this time ...

There you go again, blathering the Marxist Big Lie in a vain and hopeless attempt to persuade the credulous that you are correct, all without even once addressing substantively any of the issues I've brought forward.

As I said, you're a perfect Marxist useful idiot parroting Marxist propaganda and using Alinsky-style evasion, dissembling, obfuscation and pettifoggery to avoid having to critically examine your ideology.

Here's a direct question for you: Why should I labor and be taxed to pay for YOUR social welfare needs?

Think you can answer it directly?

[ronmcd]

Here's a direct question for you: Why should I labor and be taxed to pay for YOUR social welfare needs?

Think you can answer it directly?

No no no. You are welcome to your political opinions, and we will obviously never agree. The point isn't that I am left of centre and you are right of centre, it is that you claim that anything other than your view is Marxist, that any element of socialism in a society will inexorably lead to Marxism. Bollocks. Choosing a level of socialism is a deliberate and entirely sensible decision, not a devious plan by the Marxism Monster.

On why social welfare, it is the mark of a humane society to support those on hard times. The level of that support is variable across all societies, and you might argue that benefits are too high as many here in UK do, but the principle is key. When you Seth fall on hard times then I would hope your society would help. There will always be those who need help, no fault of their own, and I prefer a society where we all contribute in the good times and benefit in the bad.

When people and society generally takes your viewpoint, that mine is mine and yours is yours and why should I pay for common good, THAT is likely more of a slippery slope to a larger extent than supposedly creeping socialism. Everything and anything common then becomes acceptable to challenge in terms of ... why should I pay for this? Your absolutist view conflicts with reality, even in the halcyon fantasy you imagine US history to have once been. Why does your money go on common defense when you personally don't have an Apache and some Marines to guard your home? If I don't ever use government funded service X or Y, why should I pay for it, even though at some point I might?

Just depends on the type society you want to live in, I suppose.