IYes. I believe that people can change their beliefs. Do you see any evidence that the one term Marxist, flexible with our enemies, president Barrack Hussein Obama is any less a committed, radical Marxist now than when he attended college? I do not.
Name me a Marxist policy he's enacted.
I see a President who privatized wealth and put the risk on the public.
I see a President who concentrated wealth and power at the top more so then the previous President.
I see a President who is pushing policies that essentially are subsidies from the middle class to the Rich and Corporate World.
I see a President who's defining healthcare bill expands private insurance and sets up private insurance exchanges.
I see a President who's running up the deficit to reduce corporate taxes with dozens of credits and deductions.
I see a President who's willing to take big losses to get out of corporate ownership equity positions.
I see a President who's reorganization plan for GM and Chrysler basically ****ed over the Unions by putting them in a ever decreasing corpus principal position to pay for increasing legacy costs
But none of that matters because you think he's a Marxist because.....you think he's a Marxist. It doesn't actually matter what has actually happened. Your
sole argument for why Obama is a Marxist is a religious one. You do not have actual evidence. You want him to be a Marxist. Therefore he is to you. Even though he's done virtually nothing an actual Marxist would do. Therefore, you redefine Marxism to be anything you dislike, even when it's
THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT MARX WROTE. You want him to be, therefore he is to you.
Yes. He is no longer. He is a long dead European guy who got mixed up with the wrong crowd. He pissed off all his friends. And he wrote a great number of fairy tales. He wanted to be scientific so he wrote as if his economic/historical/philosophical tall tales were based in science.
Does not show you know what he wrote.
The question we must ask ourselves is do you know who he was?
I (and Marx) don't define a Marxist as someone who's policies stratify society even more than it was before. You apparently do.
I (and Marx) don't define a Marxist as someone who enacts and supports free trade. You apparently do.
I (and Marx) don't define a Marxist as someone who concentrates power and wealth at the top. You apparently do.
You have demonstrated your grasp of Marxism is about as deep as the depth of the existing North American Shallow Sea...which no longer exists.
I do believe you are describing Marx's mythical utopian vision of a communist society. The problem with utopias is that they do not exist. This one least of all.
WELL I'M DAMN SORRY I ACTUALLY USE THE PROPER DEFINITIONS OF WORDS. Know, what? I'm not sorry. I don't go about unilaterally redefining words because it suits my argument. I don't go about changing ideologies because they don't fit what I want them to be. You redefine words, phrases and ideologies as you see fit with no regards for their definitions.
You called a class stratifying President a Marxist. That is insane.
I admit I am no expert. Marx's collected writings requires 50 volumes. I have read three of his significant works. He is a very bad prophet. But he is a great seductress. Everyone wants something for nothing. Marxism, and the one term Marxist, offer that don't they?
You may have read them, but you demonstrated no understanding. What kind of Marxist screws over the worker in a national union? Oh wait.
That's Obama.
If there is no private property how can there be any taxes upon it? Do you begin to see your mistake? It is as if you cannot see the endings are different from the beginnings.
More fail. In a Marxist Society (notice I did not say state, go learn why as you clearly do not get it), all of the wealth created is given to the community. Effectively that is a 100% tax. All goods and services produced are not kept by the individual, but instead collectively pooled. If the organization takes everything you make, is that effectively a 100% tax? Absolutely.
In the beginnings Marx had to come up with the rationale and the method to wreck capital formation. He demonized the successful, the wealthy, the owners. Does any of that sound familiar? Can you not just hear Radical Karl saying, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that! Someone else made that happen."
Marx also wrote that the workers in a violent uprising would overthrow the elites. All Obama has done is given words bashing some of the wealthy on their low taxes. And Obama's speech, if you read for clarity which you clearly did not was merely that successful people had help. And that they benefit from state owned resources. Marxist ideology by definition does not have such principles because there is no personal success as everything is communal.
Marx had his preferred method for wrecking capital accumulation. He advised steeply progressive taxes. The more you had the higher the percentage the government needed to take. Does that sound at all familiar to you?
Marx's preferred method for wreaking capital accumulation was the elimination of the bourgeoisie.
That is basic Marxism 101. How do you not know that?
Furthermore, Switzerland is Marxist by your definition. And states with strong welfare and collective programs such as those in East Europe which have flat taxes aren't Marxist by your definition. More idiocy from your unilateral redefining of words.
Now we are back to the end state. Marx foolishly believed that after he wrecked capital, demonized the wealthy, the successful, the wealth creators, that somehow there would be excessive plenty created. Does that seem like a child-like dream to you? In fact he believed that in such a society that each person would strive to generate as much wealth as their skills, talent and hard work would allow. Of course, in this fairy tale the wealth makers would voluntarily give up everything for the state (is it still there?) to distribute to everyone, those I call the takers, based upon their needs.
Look, merely because I call you out for changing words does not mean I back Marxism. I agree with you it's fantasy land bordering on criminally insane. But that does not mean you have the right definitions. And Marx would eliminate the wealth creators, wealth and the merchant class. He did not demonize them as the end goal: He would
eliminate them. That alone would create lots of problems.
This statement is irrelevant. One does not wreck capital formation by taxing a mythical "Middle Class" less. One wrecks capital accumulation by taxing the wealth creators more.
Wrong. One wrecks capital accumulation in a Marxist view by eliminating those who accumulate capital. How you missed this is really appalling.
I don't see how you can reasonable think you can talk about Marxism after failing to understand that basic part of Marxism. And we used to tax wealth far worse then before. Didn't seem to stop capital accumulation. We used to have a 91% top tax rate. And the rich still got rich. Imagine that.
Really, learn to read critically. You will be astonished at just how many things become clearer after you learn how.
Jesus Christ. Sounds like you got your education from Fox on what Marxism is.
