The rich pay their "fair share"...

[JimC]

Seth, your definition of "marxism" is so broad it's virtually meaningless.

[klr]

Seth, your definition of "marxism" is so broad it's virtually meaningless.

I suspect the same point has been made before, possibly even using a very similar form of words. A form which I happen to favour.

[JimC]

I suspect the definition involves "anything except Libertarianism"

And Seth's personal brand of Libertarianism at that...

[Seth]

Seth, your definition of "marxism" is so broad it's virtually meaningless.

It's not my definition, it's the definition of Marxists and Neo-Marxists.

[JimC]

Seth, your definition of "marxism" is so broad it's virtually meaningless.

It's not my definition, it's the definition of Marxists and Neo-Marxists.

You apply the term to an absurdly wide set of people, counties or institutions, without any understanding that marxism is about the control of all property and means of production by the state, a situation that simply does not apply in almost all of your examples.

[Seth]

Seth, your definition of "marxism" is so broad it's virtually meaningless.

It's not my definition, it's the definition of Marxists and Neo-Marxists.

You apply the term to an absurdly wide set of people, counties or institutions, without any understanding that marxism is about the control of all property and means of production by the state, a situation that simply does not apply in almost all of your examples.

Nope, you're wrong. Ownership of the means of production (not merely control) and no private property are just one stage in the development of Marxism, which begins much less radically and is a continuum of increasing levels of pressure against capitalism and private property culminating in Communism, where nobody owns anything, there is no ruling class, and the "means of production" aren't owned or controlled by any institution but by the workers themselves.

When I talk about Marxism, I'm not discussing utopian Marxism, I'm discussing Marxism in fact and actual practice, which is far more subtle and insidious than your simplistic notions. Marxism is not simply the goal, it's the methods of achieving goals that are important in identifying Marxism.

[piscator]

Marxism is slavery that tricks people into becoming part of the Dependent Class, so we must be ever vigilant (semper vigilus). Look at what teh Marxism did to Walls, Ms!...

"I come from a town where all the blacks are getting food stamps and what I call 'welfare crazy checks.' They don't work," Alday was quoted as saying by the Jackson newspaper.

He had to go to the emergency room for pain, he said. "I liked to died. I laid in there for hours because they (blacks) were in there being treated for gunshots."
Alday now says he didn't intend the remarks for publication and bears no ill will toward anyone, citing past actions to help black people.

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2015 ... r_fir.html

[Tyrannical]

I've always felt the bigger problem was that the poor don't pay their fair share to support society, if not with money then by their labor. Picking up trash, cutting grass, covering up graffiti, helping to build homes for the poor are all examples of things they should be doing in return for the free money and benefits they receive.

[Tyrannical]

Seth, your definition of "marxism" is so broad it's virtually meaningless.

[Rum]

Seth, your definition of "marxism" is so broad it's virtually meaningless.

It's not my definition, it's the definition of Marxists and Neo-Marxists.

You apply the term to an absurdly wide set of people, counties or institutions, without any understanding that marxism is about the control of all property and means of production by the state, a situation that simply does not apply in almost all of your examples.

Nope, you're wrong. Ownership of the means of production (not merely control) and no private property are just one stage in the development of Marxism, which begins much less radically and is a continuum of increasing levels of pressure against capitalism and private property culminating in Communism, where nobody owns anything, there is no ruling class, and the "means of production" aren't owned or controlled by any institution but by the workers themselves.

When I talk about Marxism, I'm not discussing utopian Marxism, I'm discussing Marxism in fact and actual practice, which is far more subtle and insidious than your simplistic notions. Marxism is not simply the goal, it's the methods of achieving goals that are important in identifying Marxism.

The 'actual pratice' you refer to is called democratic socialism. It is what the Labour party here in the UK say they stand for and it involved a certain level of redistribution of wealth and an attempt however pathetically, to make society fairer. But you can rest easy Seth, because this type of toothless socialism and the politicians who practice it are still in the grip and ultimately under the control of the wealthy. So all is well with your world.

[mistermack]

The loony right bang on about marxist welfare programs, but that is only because they are too stupid to see what it's really for.
Far from promoting socialism, the welfare structure is actually there to preserve the capitalist status-quo.

Without the safety net, people who have nothing would band together and upset the apple cart.
Not necessarily by violence, they could get power by voting.
So the idea is to dribble out just enough socialism to maintain the privileges of the super rich.

And it works a treat. A big chunk of the ''dependent class'' don't even vote. Job done.

[piscator]

I've always felt the bigger problem was that the poor don't pay their fair share to support society, if not with money then by their labor. Picking up trash, cutting grass, covering up graffiti, helping to build homes for the poor are all examples of things they should be doing in return for the free money and benefits they receive.

If they competed with free enterprise, you'd have a problem with that too, so it just sucks all around to be you.

[piscator]

The loony right bang on about marxist welfare programs, but that is only because they are too stupid to see what it's really for.
Far from promoting socialism, the welfare structure is actually there to preserve the capitalist status-quo.

Without the safety net, people who have nothing would band together and upset the apple cart.
Not necessarily by violence, they could get power by voting.
So the idea is to dribble out just enough socialism to maintain the privileges of the super rich.

And it works a treat. A big chunk of the ''dependent class'' don't even vote. Job done.

Indeed. But see, this is just the camel's nose in Seth's tent. Pretty soon, that stinking camel is going to bribe impressionable young college students and unemployed hipsters into voting him right on in. Then, so many people will want the Marxism that it will poop all over God's Capitalism and the oriental rugs And then what will you have? I'll tell you what you'll have: A wide open door for Paul Pot and Joe Stalin.

[Seth]

When I talk about Marxism, I'm not discussing utopian Marxism, I'm discussing Marxism in fact and actual practice, which is far more subtle and insidious than your simplistic notions. Marxism is not simply the goal, it's the methods of achieving goals that are important in identifying Marxism.

The 'actual pratice' you refer to is called democratic socialism.

Yes, exactly, Marxism wearing the mask called "democratic socialism." That's what I've been telling you.

[JimC]

Seth, your definition of "marxism" is so broad it's virtually meaningless.

Well sure, that is definitely a marxist frog, with a gleam in its beady little eye suggesting it wishes to impose the tyranny of the masses on its amphibian brethren...