To the Resident Marxists...

[Skeptic]

Two simple questions:

1). You keep telling us about "the workers" and what they want.

How the heck would you know what workers want, when you never worked a day in your life?

2). You keep telling us about "the capitalists" and "the rich".

How the heck would you know what capitalists want, when you never earned a dollar in your life?

Just asking.

[a_unique_person]

What's it like driving a bulldozer for the IDF?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Just asking.
Just trolling.

[Rat]

There still are Marxists? Wow....

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Two simple questions:

1). You keep telling us about "the workers" and what they want.

How the heck would you know what workers want, when you never worked a day in your life?

2). You keep telling us about "the capitalists" and "the rich".

How the heck would you know what capitalists want, when you never earned a dollar in your life?

Just asking.

Baha

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
What's it like driving a bulldozer for the IDF?

I don't, but is there a job open? :D

JK

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by The Fool

Just trolling.

No, dead serious, actually. Say what you want about the "old guard" communists, but at least they actually put their money where their mouth was: the American Communist Party until the 1950s was made up mostly of people who weathered the great depression as workers in factories. If someone who was a foreman for 20 years tells me he's a worker opressed by the capitalists, I might disagree, but at least I'll listen.

This all changed in the 1950s, when the exposition of Stalin's crime caused the vast majority of actual workers (and sympathizers who knew anything about work) to leave the party in bitter disappointment and renounce communism. Essentially the only marxists left since then are students who took Marx seriously because he wrote well, even when what he wrote was utter nonsense. There is also the psychological angle: calling yourself a "communist" or a "revolutionary" who is "against the rotten capitalist system" lets you feel instantly superior to people with real achievements--above all, to your parents.

It is therefore a VERY safe bet that the resident marxists on this forum, like virtually all marxists today, are college students who never actually worked a day in their lives. You see, nobody else IS a marxist nowadays. What I want to know is, in that case, how can they not see they are making fools of themselves?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Skeptic
There is also the psychological angle: calling yourself a "communist" or a "revolutionary" who is "against the rotten capitalist system" lets you feel instantly superior to people with real achievements--above all, to your parents.

Jesus that is so true.

It is therefore a VERY safe bet that the resident marxists on this forum, like virtually all marxists today, are college students who never actually worked a day in their lives. You see, nobody else IS a marxist nowadays. What I want to know is, in that case, how can they not see they are making fools of themselves?

Ahh hahahaha!

JK

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[B]

It is therefore a VERY safe bet that the resident marxists on this forum, like virtually all marxists today, are college students who never actually worked a day in their lives. You see, nobody else IS a marxist nowadays. What I want to know is, in that case, how can they not see they are making fools of themselves?
Are redneck college students allowed an opinion, or is it only marxist students who's views are worthless?

[Rat]

Originally posted by The Fool

Are redneck college students allowed an opinion, or is it only marxist students who's views are worthless?
You say this as if the two are incompatible. If all students are either rednecks or marxists (true in my experience) then the 'or' should be an 'and'. Really, these logical inconsistancies let the side down.

[Gem]

I would be a Marxist if Communist wasn`t based on Utopian values.

I tend to lean on the political left when in a democracy.

Gem

[jj]

Originally posted by Skeptic
It is therefore a VERY safe bet that the resident marxists on this forum, like virtually all marxists today, are college students who never actually worked a day in their lives. You see, nobody else IS a marxist nowadays. What I want to know is, in that case, how can they not see they are making fools of themselves?

With the potential exception of Malachi, who is there?

Marxism is dead, face it, d e a d dead.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by ratcomp1974

You say this as if the two are incompatible. If all students are either rednecks or marxists (true in my experience) then the 'or' should be an 'and'. Really, these logical inconsistancies let the side down.

Not quite sure what you are getting at here. I was asking if one category of students political opinions are invalid due to the fact that they are not "working" does this render other students opinions equally invalid.

But while I'm thinking about it....Does this also apply to the unemployed? I don't work on weekends, Should I only be able to have a valid opinion on weekdays?

[Rat]

Originally posted by The Fool


Not quite sure what you are getting at here. I was asking if one category of students political opinions are invalid due to the fact that they are not "working" does this render other students opinions equally invalid.

But while I'm thinking about it....Does this also apply to the unemployed? I don't work on weekends, Should I only be able to have a valid opinion on weekdays?
Well, I was just taking the p. You seemed to be asking "A, or not B?". Don't lose any sleep.

It doesn't necessarily apply to the unemployed. For the reasons given, it doesn't necessarily apply to students (though students shouldn't be allowed opinions for other reasons), but it really applies to the idle. Few student communists can hold their own in an argument, I find. That doesn't mean it's necessarily an invalid argument, just that they're no good at making it stick.

[Cain]

Who are the "resident Marxists"? (I've previously been called a Marxist on this board).

What makes you think they're Marxists? And by "Marxist" I am specifically relating to the tenets of Marx as outlined in important works, not the politicized term used for propaganda purposes.

Oh, what's that, you have absolutely nothing? Go away, troll.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Cain

Oh, what's that, you have absolutely nothing? Go away, troll.

Can anyone have their own opinion with out receiving ad Hominem replies?

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Baker
Can anyone have their own opinion with out receiving ad Hominem replies? No, Baker, you ignorant slut.

(apologies to SNL :D) ;)


:)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


Can anyone have their own opinion with out receiving ad Hominem replies?

The whole topic is an ad-hominem. He has made assumptions about posters being marxist, unemployed students, and attacked that assumption.

I am still waiting for stories of a bulldozer driver called skeptic.

[xouper]

Cain: (I've previously been called a Marxist on this board).I apologize (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21962) for calling you a Marxist and I retract it.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool


Not quite sure what you are getting at here. I was asking if one category of students political opinions are invalid due to the fact that they are not "working" does this render other students opinions equally invalid.

But while I'm thinking about it....Does this also apply to the unemployed? I don't work on weekends, Should I only be able to have a valid opinion on weekdays?

Hey Fool, I have a question for you. I didn't want to start another thread about it.

In Australia on the news was there a report of a 19 year old New Zealand tourist gang-raped by five homosexual men for his ATM PIN card number?

I was just wondering what the Aussie media is saying about it. I read this article here (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33209) about the incident.

JK

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Hey Fool, I have a question for you. I didn't want to start another thread about it.

In Australia on the news was there a report of a 19 year old New Zealand tourist gang-raped by five homosexual men for his ATM PIN card number?

I was just wondering what the Aussie media is saying about it. I read this article here (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33209) about the incident.

JK

What do you think they are saying? He is seriously injured, in hospital. They have caught most of the perpetrators. They appear to have been homeless druggies.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by The Fool

Are redneck college students allowed an opinion, or is it only marxist students who's views are worthless?

The term redneck comes from that common sight of a dark red burn on the back of the neck of southern agrarian workers.

Growing up in the midsouthern US, I've met a lot of rednecks. One of my best friends was a redneck. He worked at farms, a lumber company, and others places where the work was all calluses and sunburns.

A redneck who calls himself your friend is a valuable companion. He will stand back to back with you when you find yourself in a tough spot. No matter what time of night it is, you can always give him a call if your stranded.

And yes, I knew some rednecks who went to college. Often while they were on summer break, it was back to ballcaps and sunburns as they had had pretty hard work ethics and their parents expected them to provide for themselves.

Yes, I would say a true redneck who went to college might have a worthwhile opinion about labor.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Two simple questions:

1). You keep telling us about "the workers" and what they want.

How the heck would you know what workers want, when you never worked a day in your life?

2). You keep telling us about "the capitalists" and "the rich".

How the heck would you know what capitalists want, when you never earned a dollar in your life?

Just asking.

Gosh, you know so much about me it's eerie!

If I don't work, then why do I keep going to my job every day?

And if I've never earnt a dollar in my life, why do I keep filing these tax returns?

Since skeptic seems to know so much about everything, maybe he can explain it to me.

[BillyTK]

Being a Marxist* of both the Karl and Groucho** persuasion, I have some questions I'd like to ask as well:

3) How do you know you'll hit the ground when you jump out of a sixth storey window, unless you've tried it?

4) How do you know the world hasn't really disappeared when you go to sleep?

5) How do you know the world isn't an illusion created by some particularly spiteful demon?

6) How many good little capitalists steal from their company's internet access to post here?!! :p

* It's true I've never earned a dollar in my life--stirling's a better bet here.
**Mostly the latter.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Hey Fool, I have a question for you. I didn't want to start another thread about it.

In Australia on the news was there a report of a 19 year old New Zealand tourist gang-raped by five homosexual men for his ATM PIN card number?

I was just wondering what the Aussie media is saying about it. I read this article here (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33209) about the incident.

JK
Don't know much about it. I saw something about it on morning TV before I left for work and I've read the article you sited.

The Australian media coverage of this has been pretty much the same as the article you sited. I suspect this article sourced its info from Australian media so I'm not surprised the facts pretty much match.

The only comment I would make is that you have not made too many wild claims so far. Congratulations. I would caution you about assuming these offenders are homosexual. Rape is a crime of violence, humiliation and domination. In Prisons, for example, many guys do not consider it a homosexual act if they are the penetrator. If the victim was gay (don't know this either) it is quite possible that this was a gay hate bashing and the pin number thing was a side issue....Basically, its still a "who knows" situation until more facts are available.

anyway......what has this got to do with skeptics thread topic? Lets not highjack it. Feel free to start a thread if the topic grabs you....

[The Fool]

Originally posted by corplinx


Yes, I would say a true redneck who went to college might have a worthwhile opinion about labor.
I totally agree. So I can't see the point of suggesting that people who to not "work" have any more or less valid opinions on any issue.

[Skeptic]

I totally agree. So I can't see the point of suggesting that people who to not "work" have any more or less valid opinions on any issue.

Not on ANY issue. Only on the issue of "what the workers want", or the "worker's revolution", or on any other thing that involves work. OF COURSE the opinion of someone who never worked in their lives is less valid about such subjects; it's like a virgin giving sexual advice, say, or a blind man giving drawing lessons.

[Skeptic]

I am still waiting for stories of a bulldozer driver called skeptic.

AUP: You seem to be criticizing the IDF and its actions on moral grounds, claiming that the use of bulldozers by it is unethical or immoral.

You are, however, on record as supporting the destruction of israel and the genocide of the jews there--while claiming that you are "not an antisemite" because you only support such a massacre in a "strictly limited geographical area", the one you decided must be judenrein.

As a supporter of genocide, you have put yourself beyound the pale of any moral discussion, and are not in a position to criticize ANYBODY for being immoral. You most certainly have no right to criticize those you wish butchered for behaving "unethically"--that is, for fighting back against the butchers in ways that occasionally insult your refined taste of morality and fairness.

And yet you do it, apparently totally unaware of how morally bankrupt you are.

Morally and ethically, you are on the same level as Jogren Stroop(sp?), the German general who put down the Warsaw ghetto uprisizing. In his report on the action, he was SHOCKED that the evil jews were behaving in such a "criminal" way, instead of quietly dying in the gas chambers.

How DARE they, eh, AUP?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[B
Not on ANY issue. Only on the issue of "what the workers want", or the "worker's revolution", or on any other thing that involves work. OF COURSE the opinion of someone who never worked in their lives is less valid about such subjects; it's like a virgin giving sexual advice, say, or a blind man giving drawing lessons. [/B]

So a person who was to say something like...

"Only the academics themselves, and the rabid critics of political correctness, consider "political correctness" powerful enough to actually effect anything significant in the "real world"--that is, outside academia."

....would need to be an academic in order to make this assertion? After all, what would a non academic know about what academics think?
What do you think?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
or a blind man giving drawing lessons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/872434.stm

From the article...

A financial analyst who was devastated when she lost her sight has taken up a new career: painting.
Lisa Fittipaldi, from San Antonio in Texas, has created more than 400 works of art.
Her pictures now sell from $2,800 to $10,000 and hang in some of the most exclusive galleries in the United States.

I would consider taking lessons off someone who can sell their art for 10K.....

[Tmy]

Silly rabbit, there are no Marxists!

People are branded as such for making statements like "we should tax the rich more" but that doesnt make them marxist.

[Dancing David]

It has been a long time since I have read Marx, so I am not sure I would label myself a Marxist.

The idea that laborers in a factory would have some measure of control and profit in a company is a good one. But such things have to begin to be profitable before they can work, and in the current market , where you can get rich and run, it ain't going to happen.

Regressive taxation is stupid because it robs the wealthy of thier incentive to get more rich. I am for the wealty paying the same tax rate as every body else. (I think it is stupid that you can write off 50% of bussiness expenses too, I can understand capital investment. But not plane tickets and bussiness lunches)

I am very unhappy with what is happening in the banking industry but I expect to see the market place balance itself out.

Where I become a rational socialist/communist is that I feel that our nation can afford to help those in need. Everyone should have a safe place to sleep and enough to eat. Maybe not a nice place to sleep, but a safe place.

Especially when it comes to kids, we can afford the midnight basketball, we can afford to have dorms where kids could sleep and eat and get tutoring.

I feel that we also need to get rid of all the insider crap in the stock market.

Some marxist that makes me, I feel that violent revolution is a waste of time

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Some marxist that makes me, I feel that violent revolution is a waste of time
I'm up for violent evolution--give nature a helping hand, y'know? ;)

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Two simple questions:

1). You keep telling us about "the workers" and what they want.

How the heck would you know what workers want, when you never worked a day in your life?

2). You keep telling us about "the capitalists" and "the rich".

How the heck would you know what capitalists want, when you never earned a dollar in your life?

Just asking.

Umm.. you know nothing about me or what I do. I've been working since about 15.

I would love to anwser these questions, but I'm moving to Florida tomorrow and I have to finish packing today, and get about 100 things done, then I'm off to the Bahamas for 2 weeks, then I'm going to Atlanta, then Tenessee, then back to Florida, so it will be a while before I can post again.

later :p

[Temporal Renegade]

I'm a capitalist, but I'm not rich!:(

[jj]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I totally agree. So I can't see the point of suggesting that people who to not "work" have any more or less valid opinions on any issue.

Not on ANY issue. Only on the issue of "what the workers want", or the "worker's revolution", or on any other thing that involves work. OF COURSE the opinion of someone who never worked in their lives is less valid about such subjects; it's like a virgin giving sexual advice, say, or a blind man giving drawing lessons.

Well, while I'm hardly anything like a Marxist, I did wonder just how you know who works and who doesn't.

But I find anyone who speaks for me without asking my opinion first to be at least mildly suspect.

[Mike B.]

Well it would be interesting to see a sociological study of who Marxists are in the West.

Just like I bet if you did a study on Republicans in America, the majority would be white and live in the suburbs or the South or Mid-West.

[Cain]

Originally posted by xouper
I apologize (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21962) for calling you a Marxist and I retract it.

Accepted.

An apology is unnecessary, especially a public one.

Still, you're not the first -- and probably not the last -- to call me a Marxist on this board.

Skeptic: please define Marxism and name the offending parties on this board.

Baker wrote:
Can anyone have their own opinion with out receiving ad Hominem replies?

Yes, I'm sorry, that troll comment was completely out of line. His two original questions were honest and can only bring about honest, fair-minded debate. Pasted again for your viewing pleasure:

How the heck would you know what workers want, when you never worked a day in your life?

How the heck would you know what capitalists want, when you never earned a dollar in your life?

Indeed.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Cain


Accepted.

An apology is unnecessary, especially a public one.

Still, you're not the first -- and probably not the last -- to call me a Marxist on this board.

Skeptic: please define Marxism and name the offending parties on this board.

Baker wrote:


Yes, I'm sorry, that troll comment was completely out of line. His two original questions were honest and can only bring about honest, fair-minded debate. Pasted again for your viewing pleasure:

How the heck would you know what workers want, when you never worked a day in your life?

How the heck would you know what capitalists want, when you never earned a dollar in your life?

Indeed.

I haven't read any of your posts yet on the forum so I don't know if you are a communist (Marxist).

Calling someone a Marxist is not a pejorative. Calling someone a Communist is also not a pejorative. Calling someone a Socialist is not a pejorative.

They are scientific terms to describe political ideology. If people air viewpoints, political viewpoints, that are aligned with the three scientific terms above, they are lumped into those ideologies. There is nothing inappropriate about it either.

If I call someone a commie and they weren't in fact a commie but were a marginal socialist, I can take their word for it that they are not a commie but I would never apologize for it. I would just say something like: "OK, you say you are not a commie, but being a pathetic thieving socialist is just as nasty."

Communism and socialism (mild communism) are scientifically determined ideological perversions. Neither are descriptive pejoratives.

BTW, what is your political ideology? I am an arch-conservative right-wing Republican and a member of the mysterious mystical vast, vast, super vast, endless, without end, infinite, universal right-wing conspiracy.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by xouper
I apologize (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21962) for calling you a Marxist and I retract it.

What is his political ideology then? Did he say he wasn't a Marxist, and if not, what is his declared political ideology?

JK

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
What's it like driving a bulldozer for the IDF?

What's it like blowing up a busload of innocent men, women and children?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by jj


With the potential exception of Malachi, who is there?

Marxism is dead, face it, d e a d dead.

I think Ion would qualify...

[subgenius]

Originally posted by The Fool


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/872434.stm

From the article...

A financial analyst who was devastated when she lost her sight has taken up a new career: painting.
Lisa Fittipaldi, from San Antonio in Texas, has created more than 400 works of art.
Her pictures now sell from $2,800 to $10,000 and hang in some of the most exclusive galleries in the United States.

I would consider taking lessons off someone who can sell their art for 10K.....
Remarkable. Especially for a Marxist.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I am still waiting for stories of a bulldozer driver called skeptic.

AUP: You seem to be criticizing the IDF and its actions on moral grounds, claiming that the use of bulldozers by it is unethical or immoral.

You are, however, on record as supporting the destruction of israel and the genocide of the jews there--while claiming that you are "not an antisemite" because you only support such a massacre in a "strictly limited geographical area", the one you decided must be judenrein.

As a supporter of genocide, you have put yourself beyound the pale of any moral discussion, and are not in a position to criticize ANYBODY for being immoral. You most certainly have no right to criticize those you wish butchered for behaving "unethically"--that is, for fighting back against the butchers in ways that occasionally insult your refined taste of morality and fairness.

And yet you do it, apparently totally unaware of how morally bankrupt you are.

Morally and ethically, you are on the same level as Jogren Stroop(sp?), the German general who put down the Warsaw ghetto uprisizing. In his report on the action, he was SHOCKED that the evil jews were behaving in such a "criminal" way, instead of quietly dying in the gas chambers.

How DARE they, eh, AUP?

Pretty run of the mill ad-hom there. Can't you do any better.

What do you do as a bulldozer driver for the IDF? I saw one in action on 4 Corners last night. They are terrifying things in action. And the IDF response for Rachel Corrie. She wasn't hit by the dozer at all. She was hit by a falling beam.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Pretty run of the mill ad-hom there. Can't you do any better.

What do you do as a bulldozer driver for the IDF? I saw one in action on 4 Corners last night. They are terrifying things in action. And the IDF response for Rachel Corrie. She wasn't hit by the dozer at all. She was hit by a falling beam.

Rachel Corrie died because she was stupid. Here's why:

1) You do not play around bulldozers. To do so is deadly because the operator of the bulldozer cannot see you on the ground and can't hear you scream when you get trapped under 30 tons of tracked-steel as it rolls over you.

2) Rachel Corrie should have protested from the street away from the target building but instead she chose to stand in the midst of the bulldozer. It was suicidal, a similar trait the Palestinians used except they use bombs strapped to their chests.

3) Unless Rachel Corrie was really dumb, she knew that Israeli policy was to demolish the homes of terrorists. The Israeli government informed the international community that they were using the demolishing of homes of terrorists to respond to terrorist actions. She had no business being in the midst of counter-terrorist operations.

JK

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Rachel Corrie died because she was stupid. Here's why:

1) You do not play around bulldozers. To do so is deadly because the operator of the bulldozer cannot see you on the ground and can't hear you scream when you get trapped under 30 tons of tracked-steel as it rolls over you.

2) Rachel Corrie should have protested from the street away from the target building but instead she chose to stand in the midst of the bulldozer. It was suicidal, a similar trait the Palestinians used except they use bombs strapped to their chests.

3) Unless Rachel Corrie was really dumb, she knew that Israeli policy was to demolish the homes of terrorists. The Israeli government informed the international community that they were using the demolishing of homes of terrorists to respond to terrorist actions. She had no business being in the midst of counter-terrorist operations.

JK

So why did the IDF lie about the matter?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


So why did the IDF lie about the matter?

They didn't lie. The media was right there filming the whole incident.

JK

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


They didn't lie. The media was right there filming the whole incident.

JK

There was no film of rubble falling on Rachel.

[Temporal Renegade]

Not to belittle what had occured any, but didn't she know the inherant dangers of the situation beforehand? Did she honestly think that nothing would happen to her there, that her 'human shield' status would have protected her, simply because she was American?
(Not trying to stir things up, just want to know)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Temporal Renegade
Not to belittle what had occured any, but didn't she know the inherant dangers of the situation beforehand? Did she honestly think that nothing would happen to her there, that her 'human shield' status would have protected her, simply because she was American?
(Not trying to stir things up, just want to know)

They were interviewing some of her colleagues. They appear to be idealists who want to help the Palestinians. If it is stupid to be idealistic....

[Temporal Renegade]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


They were interviewing some of her colleagues. They appear to be idealists who want to help the Palestinians. If it is stupid to be idealistic....

Nothing wrong with helping someone; however, with all that was going on there at the time of her arrival, it doesn't seem smart to put yourself in harms way just to make a point. They weren't going to stop the bulldozer if she wasn't there; they weren't going to stop it when she was there.

[tedly]

Mike B.
You know I'm eventually going to have to type the entire text of John Ralston Saul's "The Doubter's Companion" into these fora. He has as his definition

MARXIST - The only serious functioning Marxists in the West are the senior management of large, usually transnational corporations. The only serious Marxist thinkers are NEO-CONSERVATIVE.
Marxism is primarily an analysis of how society works - or rather, how it must work. This dialectic is based on the struggle of the classes and the battle of the unregulated market-place in which the strongest win. It is a market-place which cannot be tempered, according to Marx. It must and will run free and so function as a battleground between those who have power and those who don't. The market-place will seek to maximize profits even if this is to the disadvantage of most. Profits and power are the truth of the economic struggle and economic determinism will decide the social structure.

Most functioning Marxists had stopped believing this sort of stuff by the end of the Second World War. They had come around to the ideology of stable bureaucratic management. In that they resembled the technocrats of Western governmental and corporate bureaucracies.

But these Western corporate managers and their academic acolytes were in fact thrown into a state of confusion by the collapse of 1929. It seemed as if the pure capitalist analysis, of which they were the official inheritors, had failed. An unrestricted market-place had led not to ongoing growth and prosperity, but to total economic collapse. The ideology of a natural and general equilibrium produced by competition had been given its chance and had self-destructed for all to see and suffer the consequences.

A good thirty-five years passed before the corporate leaders were able to erase from their own memory, and from that of the public, this failure. They then re-discovered with a virginal ideologic enthusiasm the virtues of the unregulated market.

This time they were supported by an intellectually sophisticated explanation for the dialectic provided by a group of economists centred at the CHICAGO SCHOOL. They were able to dispense with the idea that public institutions could achieve social stability, protect the weak or encourage a wider distribution of wealth. Their new argument would have made Marx proud. It was not that they did not wish to help the weak or promote fairness. It was the natural rules of the market-place - the dialectic - which made the class struggle inevitable.

The only disagreement between the Neo-conservatives and Marx is over who wins the battle in the end. This is a small detail. Far more important is their agreement that society must function as a wide-open struggle.

Some people are surprised that Marxism should have re-emerged on the Right. However ideas, once launched, become public property. And they often reappear in several disguises before discovering their true form.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Temporal Renegade


Nothing wrong with helping someone; however, with all that was going on there at the time of her arrival, it doesn't seem smart to put yourself in harms way just to make a point. They weren't going to stop the bulldozer if she wasn't there; they weren't going to stop it when she was there.


Which seems to be a good argument for abandoning peaceful protest and resorting to violence.

[xouper]

tedly: But these Western corporate managers and their academic acolytes were in fact thrown into a state of confusion by the collapse of 1929. It seemed as if the pure capitalist analysis, of which they were the official inheritors, had failed. An unrestricted market-place had led not to ongoing growth and prosperity, but to total economic collapse. The ideology of a natural and general equilibrium produced by competition had been given its chance and had self-destructed for all to see and suffer the consequences.That's a highly controversial interpretation of events. I feel a good case can be made that the collapse was primarily caused by government interference in the economy.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by xouper
That's a highly controversial interpretation of events. I feel a good case can be made that the collapse was primarily caused by government interference in the economy.

The only role the government had in it was to prop up the bubble at the request of the people making heaps of money out of it.

[xouper]

a_unique_person: The only role the government had in it was to prop up the bubble at the request of the people making heaps of money out of it.Your comment contains a highly questionable assumption, that such things as the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 were requested by people with a capitalist agenda.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by xouper
Your comment contains a highly questionable assumption, that such things as the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 were requested by people with a capitalist agenda.

Prior to the stockmarket crash, each time it looked like falling, the government was urged to prop it up with lower interest rates.

[xouper]

a_unique_person: Prior to the stockmarket crash, each time it looked like falling, the government was urged to prop it up with lower interest rates.If by that you mean that the stock market boom of the 1920s was artificially fueled by excessive cheap credit created by the Fed, then I agree with you. It was blatant interference in the workings of the free market, and was not the fault of capitalism. Just prior to the crash in 1929, the Fed reversed course and hiked interest rates six times, severely contracting the money supply. Again, not the fault of capitalism.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by tedly
The only disagreement between the Neo-conservatives and Marx is over who wins the battle in the end. This is a small detail. Far more important is their agreement that society must function as a wide-open struggle.
Interesting and provocative idea, but to say that the disagreement between the Neo-conservatives and Marx is only a small detail is fundamentally flawed; they're diametrically opposed in terms of theoretical basis and analysis.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by xouper
If by that you mean that the stock market boom of the 1920s was artificially fueled by excessive cheap credit created by the Fed, then I agree with you. It was blatant interference in the workings of the free market, and was not the fault of capitalism. Just prior to the crash in 1929, the Fed reversed course and hiked interest rates six times, severely contracting the money supply. Again, not the fault of capitalism.

You think the capitalists weren't applauding or even backing those actions all the way? How many capitalists were asking for interest rates to be raised.

[xouper]

a_unique_person: You think the capitalists weren't applauding or even backing those actions all the way?Seems to me you are applying the label "capitalist" incorrectly here. Besides, once the government has stuck its nose in the market and begun meddling, how can you blame people for trying to make the best of playing within the new rules? That is not an inherent flaw of capitalism.

How many capitalists were asking for interest rates to be raised.Perhaps those who lent out their capital?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by xouper
[...]Besides, once the government has stuck its nose in the market and begun meddling, how can you blame people for trying to make the best of playing within the new rules? That is not an inherent flaw of capitalism.
That's because this is what capitalism is, and that's why it's flawed? ;)

[Temporal Renegade]

Originally posted by a_unique_person



Which seems to be a good argument for abandoning peaceful protest and resorting to violence.

Personally, I think that both sides really do want this to end; but, neither side really knows how to stop it (especially with people on both sides in power who do NOT want to stop it, because they don't want to seem weak in the eyes of the world)

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by tedly
Mike B.
You know I'm eventually going to have to type the entire text of John Ralston Saul's "The Doubter's Companion" into these fora. He has as his definition

MARXIST - The only serious functioning Marxists in the West are the senior management of large, usually transnational corporations. The only serious Marxist thinkers are NEO-CONSERVATIVE.
Marxism is primarily an analysis of how society works - or rather, how it must work. This dialectic is based on the struggle of the classes and the battle of the unregulated market-place in which the strongest win. It is a market-place which cannot be tempered, according to Marx. It must and will run free and so function as a battleground between those who have power and those who don't. The market-place will seek to maximize profits even if this is to the disadvantage of most. Profits and power are the truth of the economic struggle and economic determinism will decide the social structure.

Most functioning Marxists had stopped believing this sort of stuff by the end of the Second World War. They had come around to the ideology of stable bureaucratic management. In that they resembled the technocrats of Western governmental and corporate bureaucracies.

But these Western corporate managers and their academic acolytes were in fact thrown into a state of confusion by the collapse of 1929. It seemed as if the pure capitalist analysis, of which they were the official inheritors, had failed. An unrestricted market-place had led not to ongoing growth and prosperity, but to total economic collapse. The ideology of a natural and general equilibrium produced by competition had been given its chance and had self-destructed for all to see and suffer the consequences.

A good thirty-five years passed before the corporate leaders were able to erase from their own memory, and from that of the public, this failure. They then re-discovered with a virginal ideologic enthusiasm the virtues of the unregulated market.

This time they were supported by an intellectually sophisticated explanation for the dialectic provided by a group of economists centred at the CHICAGO SCHOOL. They were able to dispense with the idea that public institutions could achieve social stability, protect the weak or encourage a wider distribution of wealth. Their new argument would have made Marx proud. It was not that they did not wish to help the weak or promote fairness. It was the natural rules of the market-place - the dialectic - which made the class struggle inevitable.

The only disagreement between the Neo-conservatives and Marx is over who wins the battle in the end. This is a small detail. Far more important is their agreement that society must function as a wide-open struggle.

Some people are surprised that Marxism should have re-emerged on the Right. However ideas, once launched, become public property. And they often reappear in several disguises before discovering their true form.

This is somewhat true, but not exactly. I go over this idea a little in my paper on Iraq, but essentially what it comes down to is that Marx was correct in his analysis of how markets work, what many have done, like the neo-cons, and also fascists is turn Marxism upside down, and instead fo protecting the worker they protect the wealthy.

They use Marx's accurate description of the marketplace to determine how to keep the marketplace in favor of the wealthy, instead fo Marx's intention of keeping it infavor of the workers.

Marxism is like the theory of relativety and nuclear fission, it can be used for good or bad. Right now, its being used for bad :(

Most people dismiss it, but as tedly said, that's because the treuly powerful people in society are using the ideas and principles of Marxism to their advantage and so they don't want other people to understand what it is they are doing, so Marx is publically dismissed, althought privately at work, doing the opposite of what it is intended to do.

[repairman]

JK
I am an arch-conservative right-wing Republican

I think that we all knew that!!!!!;)

[tedly]

Malachi

It's not tedly who said that. I wish I were as well read in economics and political philosophy as the author, I'm not. My whole post is a direct quote from John Ralston Saul's "The Doubter's Companion" , the best bathroom book since Bierce.

Xouper labels his analysis as 'highly controversial' - perhaps his subtitle gives a better picture " A dictionary of aggressive common sense" or perhaps this definition:

A BIG MAC The communion wafer of consumption. Not really food, but the promise of food. .... It is, with Perrier, one of the sacred objects of the leading philosophical school of the late twentieth century - public relations.

Humour is always controversial. For the heavier stuff read his "Voltaire's Bastards"