I was on the road, in and out of meetings from about 6 am until after midnight, so I did not have the luxury of replying to Habib’s comments until now.

 

So, according to Marx, religion is false. It is a societal construction that enables the bourgeoisie to keep the proletariat in their oppressed condition and prohibit them from revolution. Religion must be destroyed by men since it was created by men so the proletariat may revolt. Then, in the global state that would result, religion would be completely abolished and non-existent. Where does Obama fit it again?

Maybe you should revisit your google search of "Karl Marx quotes" and provide the definition of Marxism that Marx was rejecting (Hint: It's not going to help your argument) .

 

Marx and Obama both deny they are Marxists. Whether they are textbook Marxists, some derivative thereof, or flat out deny they fit the definition is secondary to the fact that their stated beliefs bear eerie similarities to the classic definition of Marxism (provided here by the American Heritage Dictionary) which reads as follows: “The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society.”

 

Bill Clinton denies he was an adulterer. He denied that he had sex with Ms. Lewinsky. Maybe I also need to read what the definition of “is” is. Denial of the facts does not render the facts invalid. Marx co-authored the Communist Manifesto and set in motion one of the worst, most devastating eras of societal engineering in world history. Whether he finds any definition of Marxism satisfactory in describing his personal beliefs is not the issue. The man codified the concepts that made “Marxism” doable for tin pot despots around the world.

 

There is one party in the U.S. that has attempted to emphasize the differences and implied injustice between socio-economic classes for political advantage in election after election. That’s quite simply because there are a lot more poor and struggling folks than there are wealthy, successful folks. A poor man’s vote still counts as much as a rich man’s vote in America. By pandering to the so called poor and middle-classes shameless power hungry politicians promise the moon and deliver green cheese election after election.

 

Obama has taken this emphasis on “class warfare” to an entirely new level in this campaign making him IMO the most “Marx-like” mainstream presidential candidate in our nation’s history. Marx-like, because he is all about distinguishing and dividing the so-called classes. There’s no way to provide tax cuts to 95% of all Americans by raising taxes on the top 5%. It simply, economically, mathematically cannot work… but that hasn’t kept Obama from promising it as reality. (Hint: Saying you can walk on water, and walking on water are two very different things. 50 million people believing you can walk on water will not keep you from drowning if you attempt to do so at sea in a storm.) Roughly one-third of all American wage earners do not pay federal income taxes at all. How can you legitimately lower taxes for 33% not paying them already? Giving them a handout is not a “refund” or a “rebate”, it is welfare.

 

Marx compares religion to pain killing-hallucinogenic drugs. Obama suggests that the proletariat in this country clings to guns, religion, antipathy and xenophobia as a way of coping with their frustrations. Whether Obama intends to abolish religion, or simply views it as a crutch in the manner Marx describes it matters little to me. He does not represent my views. (Hint: If you’re suggesting that this is not in fact what he believes, then perhaps he shouldn’t go around making such reckless statements.)

The mechanism by which Marx's global state would operate, after its creation by a global revolution of the proletariat, is an example of welfare? Marx didn't advocate welfare. Welfare, much like religion, was a ruse by the bourgeoisie to keep the proletariat just satisfied enough that they would not take control of the means of production through violent revolution. Obama?

So, even a commie like Marx realizes what a waste of resources welfare is when applied to otherwise healthy and capable-of-doing-productive-work proletariats? I have to agree that Marx has a point on this one issue myself… but I do not define the bourgeoisie as the top 5% of income earners… I define them as power hungry politicians who insist upon selling their constituents lies in order to garner their votes and maintain their power. If average people on welfare could understand the oppression politicians have placed them under by providing welfare, tearing apart their family structure, robbing self-reliance and success from generations of their families, we absolutely would have a revolt.

 

Obama’s clearly articulated schemes for redistributing wealth bear a strong resemblance to Marxist concepts. The irony here is that Obama is as bourgeoisie as one can get. He’s made millions “since” becoming a politician. I don’t see him giving it away. He’s certainly no Ghandi. Becoming POTUS will only enable him to earn more and distance himself more from the people he claims he wants to serve. IMO, he’s a power hungry charlatan espousing a dangerous bigger government ideology that keeps guys like him in power.

 

Unfortunately, too many with a vote will not grasp these facts until it’s too late.

Oh my

See, we older folks on here who work and pay taxes and support families are so far removed from college (yes, some of us conservatives even went to good colleges) that we don't do enough "reading" to know what we're talking about.

 

Shure nuff, I shure do preshadit gettin edekated bout all them high falutin thangs from all them college boys right on this here board.

An interesting phenomenon for students learning information for the first time is a tendency to assume that because the recently gleaned information is new to them, it must therefore be new or unknown in that particular form to others not sitting in on that particular lecture series. We have been conditioned by advances in technology to believe that “newer is better”. It stands to reason, (in young minds) that “College 2.0” must be better than what mom and dad experienced. While there may be some truth to this assumption in certain (very specific) matters, I do not believe it holds true overall. I can’t believe that an engineer who learned his craft with a slide rule AND has maintained his proficiency into the computer age is at a disadvantage to those who have only known computers… In fact, I know many just like this who are at a significant advantage by knowing both the old and new ways of exercising their profession. This is true in medicine, law and in many other career fields.

 

While it may benefit one's grades for a brief season of their life, it is impractical to get too hung up on limited and technical textbook definitions. The real world is far more organic and far less precise than what you learn in school where events that unfolded incrementally over many days, weeks and years are condensed into just a few sentences or paragraphs, giving a false appearance of razor sharp lucidity that was not possible at the time, and is only attainable through the lens of history.

 

It is also an eye-opener to realize that every textbook is tainted by its author’s particular worldview, and every professor is limited by his or her own belief system. It takes a much broader “education” to recognize the political, spiritual and philosophical leanings of textbook authors—and even more subtly—the agenda of those who authorize certain textbooks over others.

 

IMO, it’s the combination of the technical with real world knowledge and experience that builds one’s wisdom over time.

1. Those darned college kids.

 

2. I never got a response to post #38

 

3. I want to say something- I have no problem with wealth redistribution. I think a lot of conservatives on here say things like, "It's my money that I worked hard for, why should anyone else get it?" Those same people, assuredly, make plenty of donations to various charities. Our position is not that the poor deserve no money, and that redistributing wealth is evil, but that government is ineffective at doing so, and we'd prefer to do it on our own.

Marx and Obama both deny they are Marxists. Whether they are textbook Marxists, some derivative thereof, or flat out deny they fit the definition is secondary to the fact that their stated beliefs bear eerie similarities to the classic definition of Marxism (provided here by the American Heritage Dictionary) which reads as follows: “The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society.”

 

Their stated beliefs do not bare “eerie similarities.” You drew the comparison between Marx and Obama’s stated beliefs, now we’re backpedaling to a vague, broad dictionary definition that allows you a bit more room to package Marx into something he wasn’t. Marx did not simply believe there were two classes, one poor and one rich, and that the poor were getting the short end of the stick. Marx believed the entire world was a manifestation of this two-class system and at every corner the rich exploited the poor for their benefit, relying on societal constructions to keep them in their chains. The only solution was a global revolution. If Obama shares these views of society or revolution then you are privy to something I am not.

 

You've had to turn a blind eye to nearly every aspect of Marx while attempting to thread a tenuous link between Obama and Marx based on a few quotes, including a quote of Marx rejecting French socialist revolutionaries because they were not sufficiently revolutionary for his liking. Yet, the meaning and significance of this quote is irrelevant in your opinion. What you described as relevant is that Marx denied being a Marxist and that Obama has denied being a Marxist (although, I don't believe he's been formally charged). So, they both must be Marxist? That is illogical.

 

Bill Clinton denies he was an adulterer. He denied that he had sex with Ms. Lewinsky. Maybe I also need to read what the definition of “is” is. Denial of the facts does not render the facts invalid. Marx co-authored the Communist Manifesto and set in motion one of the worst, most devastating eras of societal engineering in world history. Whether he finds any definition of Marxism satisfactory in describing his personal beliefs is not the issue. The man codified the concepts that made “Marxism” doable for tin pot despots around the world.

 

Marx’s writing precipitated communism, that’s not in dispute.

 

There is one party in the U.S. that has attempted to emphasize the differences and implied injustice between socio-economic classes for political advantage in election after election. That’s quite simply because there are a lot more poor and struggling folks than there are wealthy, successful folks. A poor man’s vote still counts as much as a rich man’s vote in America. By pandering to the so called poor and middle-classes shameless power hungry politicians promise the moon and deliver green cheese election after election.

 

No, both parties do it. “Joe Six-Pack” is not in the bourgeoisie. And neither approach anywhere near the level of what Marx did. Most anyone would agree that classes exist in any society. Most would disagree that there are only two classes in society, that every event in the world can be explained by the bourgeoisie exploiting the proletariat, and that the rifts between them are so wide that the only achievable way of closing them is a massive revolution where power is forcefully taken from the bourgeoisie.

 

Obama has taken this emphasis on “class warfare” to an entirely new level in this campaign making him IMO the most “Marx-like” mainstream presidential candidate in our nation’s history. Marx-like, because he is all about distinguishing and dividing the so-called classes. There’s no way to provide tax cuts to 95% of all Americans by raising taxes on the top 5%. It simply, economically, mathematically cannot work… but that hasn’t kept Obama from promising it as reality. (Hint: Saying you can walk on water, and walking on water are two very different things. 50 million people believing you can walk on water will not keep you from drowning if you attempt to do so at sea in a storm.) Roughly one-third of all American wage earners do not pay federal income taxes at all. How can you legitimately lower taxes for 33% not paying them already? Giving them a handout is not a “refund” or a “rebate”, it is welfare.

 

Obama is now the most “Marx-like” candidate because he is “distinguishing and dividing the so-called classes.” You’ve just asserted, and not for the first time, in the previous paragraph that the poor should be stripped of the right to vote, are you “distinguishing and dividing” the classes? Marx argued that capitalism was inevitable, while its fall to revolution was also inevitable. He felt his role in this inevitable stage of history was to allow the proletariat to realize they were being oppressed so that they would revolt, securing the means of production for themselves. Government as we know it would be swept away in the ensuing violence, replaced by a single, global state. Obama’s tax plan, while I don’t particularly agree with it, no where reaches the advocacy of revolution and violence that Marx’s plans proposed.

 

Furthermore, much of Marx’s predictions and arguments have proved false since his writings, particularly his economic models tying the value of labor to the value of the goods produced. No global revolution has taken place, there is a distinct “middle class” as well as, arguably, more classes, or at least nuance between them that Marx had not accounted for. Present day Marxist then must mitigate these shortcomings and transpose them onto a different world. They choose to argue that the revolution remains inevitable, but it is now the West that seeks to prohibit it, basing their argument on the theories of imperialism Lenin proposed.

 

Marx compares religion to pain killing-hallucinogenic drugs. Obama suggests that the proletariat in this country clings to guns, religion, antipathy and xenophobia as a way of coping with their frustrations. Whether Obama intends to abolish religion, or simply views it as a crutch in the manner Marx describes it matters little to me. He does not represent my views. (Hint: If you’re suggesting that this is not in fact what he believes, then perhaps he shouldn’t go around making such reckless statements.)

 

So, even a commie like Marx realizes what a waste of resources welfare is when applied to otherwise healthy and capable-of-doing-productive-work proletariats? I have to agree that Marx has a point on this one issue myself… but I do not define the bourgeoisie as the top 5% of income earners… I define them as power hungry politicians who insist upon selling their constituents lies in order to garner their votes and maintain their power. If average people on welfare could understand the oppression politicians have placed them under by providing welfare, tearing apart their family structure, robbing self-reliance and success from generations of their families, we absolutely would have a revolt.

 

Obama’s clearly articulated schemes for redistributing wealth bear a strong resemblance to Marxist concepts. The irony here is that Obama is as bourgeoisie as one can get. He’s made millions “since” becoming a politician. I don’t see him giving it away. He’s certainly no Ghandi. Becoming POTUS will only enable him to earn more and distance himself more from the people he claims he wants to serve. IMO, he’s a power hungry charlatan espousing a dangerous bigger government ideology that keeps guys like him in power.

 

Now we’ve come full circle. No longer is Obama comparable to Marx he’s just a bad politician with bad plans. You can disagree with Obama every day and twice on Sunday. It is of no consequence to me. I don’t particularly agree with the guy on much either. But, the incessant reliance on the pejoratives “Marxist,” “communist,” “socialist” to describe Obama is overtly disingenuous. Those terms are contradictory! You can make an argument that Obama doesn’t represent you, or does not share your ideas, or that his policies will not be successful. But, you can’t make an argument that he and Karl Marx would agree on much of anything without redefining what it was exactly that Karl Marx professed.

Edited October 16, 200817 yr by Habib

Their stated beliefs do not bare “eerie similarities.” You drew the comparison between Marx and Obama’s stated beliefs, now we’re backpedaling to a vague, broad dictionary definition that allows you a bit more room to package Marx into something he wasn’t. Marx did not simply believe there were two classes, one poor and one rich, and that the poor were getting the short end of the stick. Marx believed the entire world was a manifestation of this two-class system and at every corner the rich exploited the poor for their benefit, relying on societal constructions to keep them in their chains. The only solution was a global revolution. If Obama shares these views of society or revolution then you are privy to something I am not.

 

You've had to turn a blind eye to nearly every aspect of Marx while attempting to thread a tenuous link between Obama and Marx based on a few quotes, including a quote of Marx rejecting French socialist revolutionaries because they were not sufficiently revolutionary for his liking. Yet, the meaning and significance of this quote is irrelevant in your opinion. What you described as relevant is that Marx denied being a Marxist and that Obama has denied being a Marxist (although, I don't believe he's been formally charged). So, they both must be Marxist? That is illogical.

 

 

 

Marx’s writing precipitated communism, that’s not in dispute.

 

 

 

No, both parties do it. “Joe Six-Pack” is not in the bourgeoisie. And neither approach anywhere near the level of what Marx did. Most anyone would agree that classes exist in any society. Most would disagree that there are only two classes in society, that every event in the world can be explained by the bourgeoisie exploiting the proletariat, and that the rifts between them are so wide that the only achievable way of closing them is a massive revolution where power is forcefully taken from the bourgeoisie.

 

 

 

Obama is now the most “Marx-like” candidate because he is “distinguishing and dividing the so-called classes.” You’ve just asserted, and not for the first time, in the previous paragraph that the poor should be stripped of the right to vote, are you “distinguishing and dividing” the classes? Marx argued that capitalism was inevitable, while its fall to revolution was also inevitable. He felt his role in this inevitable stage of history was to allow the proletariat to realize they were being oppressed so that they would revolt, securing the means of production for themselves. Government as we know it would be swept away in the ensuing violence, replaced by a single, global state. Obama’s tax plan, while I don’t particularly agree with it, no where reaches the advocacy of revolution and violence that Marx’s plans proposed.

 

Furthermore, much of Marx’s predictions and arguments have proved false since his writings, particularly his economic models tying the value of labor to the value of the goods produced. No global revolution has taken place, there is a distinct “middle class” as well as, arguably, more classes, or at least nuance between them that Marx had not accounted for. Present day Marxist then must mitigate these shortcomings and transpose them onto a different world. They choose to argue that the revolution remains inevitable, but it is now the West that seeks to prohibit it, basing their argument on the theories of imperialism Lenin proposed.

 

 

 

Now we’ve come full circle. No longer is Obama comparable to Marx he’s just a bad politician with bad plans. You can disagree with Obama every day and twice on Sunday. It is of no consequence to me. I don’t particularly agree with the guy on much either. But, the incessant reliance on the pejoratives “Marxist,” “communist,” “socialist” to describe Obama is overtly disingenuous. Those terms are contradictory! You can make an argument that Obama doesn’t represent you, or does not share your ideas, or that his policies will not be successful. But, you can’t make an argument that he and Karl Marx would agree on much of anything without redefining what it was exactly that Karl Marx professed.

 

Habib, that was a very thoughtful and well spoken piece on Marx. :thumb:

 

If there is anything I would add to any such discussion (and I'm sure I'm threadjacking here so forgive me) is that for Marx, and later Lenin, most everyone resided in one of two classes. There was little to no middle class in Lenin's Russia or even many parts of Marx's Europe. Because of that a Revolution was a natural evolution of perceived injustice. (Also true in the French Revolution which predates the other 2 guys.)

 

Here in the US there was very much a small middle class in the early 20th century. It was so small that many feared a Bolshevik Revolution here. When so much of the Capital was tied into so few of the people the class resentment was fueled. It was the rise in the mid 20th century of the middle class in this country the prevented such ideas from taking hold. In our current economic crisis we might see the middle class shrink even more and this is where the "class warfare" rhetoric can be damaging on and for both sides.

Habib,

 

I am not against the poor. I am against keeping the poor… poor, so they will remain in a perpetual state of need, thereby “needing” supposed heroes in government “looking out for them” thus empowering cycle after cycle of politicians who continue to pander to the “so-called” needs and issues of the poor without actually doing one thing to elevate the poor from their state of poverty.

 

My contention is that the majority of politicians spewing concern for the poor are far less concerned with what might actually benefit the poor, than they are covetous of the votes represented by the poor, and the ultimate power those votes might provide their ambitions. Mother Teresa did not pander to the poor anywhere near the level we see in our politicians. I find it hard to believe she was less concerned for them than Obama, Kerry, et. al. That's because she wasn't worried about their votes. She simply rolled up her sleeves and served them.

 

While it cannot be denied that a lack of financial resources certainly contributes to a person’s state of impoverishment, money alone is never the answer. I simply point to the hundreds of lottery winners who squander millions only to find they are worse off than before they hit the jackpot. Eliminating poverty occurs on a person-by-person basis, it involves spiritual and moral teaching and involvement far beyond simply handing them a check monthly. Handing them a bigger check monthly only serves to keep them in their state of impoverishment akin to shackling them with a larger chain.

 

I have a difficult time understanding how a person as intelligent as you appear to be, cannot see or admit the hollow deception of political panderers like Obama who insist upon fueling division between the evil, stingy rich folks and the poor and middle income folks. Like I said before, regardless of your definition of Marxism, it is constructed upon the precept of class struggle and the ultimate redistribution of wealth to the attainment of a “classless” society.

 

There is one candidate in this election that clearly espouses the goal of pulling down the rich to elevate the poor. You hinted at it yourself, Communism, Marxism and Socialism have failed everywhere they have been attempted. Why do we think this is even remotely an answer in the U.S.?

What Obama is spreading around sure smells a whole lot different than wealth!!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/janet_daley/blog/2008/10/16/joe_the_plumber_was_the_real_star_of_the_third_debate

 

good article on this subject

Yahooooooo! Cigarettes and Beernuts for everyone!:dancingpa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sorry, thought this was an ACORN thread:eek:

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh::thumb::thumb:

What Obama is spreading around sure smells a whole lot different than wealth!!

 

Another nice one. :lol: Also very true. :thumb:

Habib,

 

I am not against the poor. I am against keeping the poor… poor, so they will remain in a perpetual state of need, thereby “needing” supposed heroes in government “looking out for them” thus empowering cycle after cycle of politicians who continue to pander to the “so-called” needs and issues of the poor without actually doing one thing to elevate the poor from their state of poverty.

 

My contention is that the majority of politicians spewing concern for the poor are far less concerned with what might actually benefit the poor, than they are covetous of the votes represented by the poor, and the ultimate power those votes might provide their ambitions. Mother Teresa did not pander to the poor anywhere near the level we see in our politicians. I find it hard to believe she was less concerned for them than Obama, Kerry, et. al. That's because she wasn't worried about their votes. She simply rolled up her sleeves and served them.

 

While it cannot be denied that a lack of financial resources certainly contributes to a person’s state of impoverishment, money alone is never the answer. I simply point to the hundreds of lottery winners who squander millions only to find they are worse off than before they hit the jackpot. Eliminating poverty occurs on a person-by-person basis, it involves spiritual and moral teaching and involvement far beyond simply handing them a check monthly. Handing them a bigger check monthly only serves to keep them in their state of impoverishment akin to shackling them with a larger chain.

 

I have a difficult time understanding how a person as intelligent as you appear to be, cannot see or admit the hollow deception of political panderers like Obama who insist upon fueling division between the evil, stingy rich folks and the poor and middle income folks. Like I said before, regardless of your definition of Marxism, it is constructed upon the precept of class struggle and the ultimate redistribution of wealth to the attainment of a “classless” society.

 

There is one candidate in this election that clearly espouses the goal of pulling down the rich to elevate the poor. You hinted at it yourself, Communism, Marxism and Socialism have failed everywhere they have been attempted. Why do we think this is even remotely an answer in the U.S.?

 

Again, communism, Marxism, and socialism are not being advocated in the U.S. Where does Obama advocate a classless society as you’ve charged, and how is it different than your commitment to ending poverty as stated above? Where does he advocate pulling down the rich to the level of the poor as you’ve charged? Revolution? Means of production? Abolition of private property? We’ve had a progressive tax structure in this country for longer than you or I have been alive, and there is nothing anti-capitalist about it. Why is it that the Democratic candidate this year is its first and only advocate? Or that it is suddenly wealth redistribution, but wasn’t under Reagan or Bush? Even with Obama’s tax increase, the rate on top earners is relatively low, historically. Now, I don’t agree with it, but it’s nowhere near socialism or Marxism. As Jules Winnfield would say, “it ain’t the same ballpark, it ain’t the same league, it ain’t even the same sport.”

 

How do you react when Bush is labeled a fascist, totalitarian, or Stalinist? Much the same way I would react, I imagine. Why not in this case? I disagree with the Patriot Act. However, simple disagreement does not mean I should go about falsely attributing these labels to Bush’s policies. Now, if Bush attains absolute power and enacts martial law, then I’ll probably call him a fascist. I’m analogizing here, but that’s another sport.

 

If we want to discuss Obama’s policies (and McCain’s) then we should do just that. Shirking debate over economic policies for pejorative labels that aren’t accurate does nothing. It’s counterproductive. I’m not arguing that Obama’s plans are great. And I’m tepid over McCain’s as well. I’m arguing that Marxism, socialism, or communism are not accurate labels. There is nothing revolutionary or anti-capitalist about anything Obama advocates.

 

I’ve never charged that you are against the poor, or that we aren’t in dire need of an overhaul of the welfare system, and I don’t disagree with the gist of your thoughts, but that hasn’t been the topic of our debate. Now, if we really want to discuss the implications of the Presidential candidates’ proposals or what they should be proposing then we should, by all means.