Watch what happens when Marxists set wages

[pErvinalia]

If you believe that corporations are bad, that the wealthy have been unjustly rewarded by treading on the necks of the poor, that their wealth is an ill-gotten gain, that they have too much and must be compelled, one way or another, to give up their wealth in order to provide equality of outcome for everyone, and you look to government to balance those scales of "justice" you are a Marxist, whether you understand it, believe it or accept it or not.

Wrong. If you believe that capitalism must be overthrown by an armed revolution, you are a Marxist.

It's not just that. Marxism is a pseudo-scientific social theory. It's bollocks, just like Praxeology is. Very few socialists are Marxists for this very reason. We've schooled Seth on this so many times in the past. He's so blinkered he'll never get it.

[Seth]

If you believe that corporations are bad, that the wealthy have been unjustly rewarded by treading on the necks of the poor, that their wealth is an ill-gotten gain, that they have too much and must be compelled, one way or another, to give up their wealth in order to provide equality of outcome for everyone, and you look to government to balance those scales of "justice" you are a Marxist, whether you understand it, believe it or accept it or not.

Wrong. If you believe that capitalism must be overthrown by an armed revolution, you are a Marxist.

Wrong. That's the lie that the Marxist elite want you to believe. They want you to believe that if you aren't advocating violent overthrow you aren't a Marxist because they learned, during the Russian Revolution and subsequent events that violence is not the only, or even the best way to bring about the Marxist ultimate goal. Marxism has morphed from that black-and-white definition you're pandering into something much more subtle and devious. Since the emigration of the Frankfurt School of Neo-Marxism to the United States, the Marxist dialect has been rewritten and is now focused on stealth, denial, secrecy and a long-term objective of turning the world to Marxism using propaganda and indoctrination in the public schools, beginning in the first grade and continuing throughout a student's educational experience, up to and including university.

By insisting on a rigid definition of Marxism as you have, you've demonstrate exactly how devious and evil the "Neo-Marxist" agenda actually is, because you support their new method, which has the same ultimate goal, without even recognizing you're doing it.

If you believe that the excesses of capitalism must be controlled by action at the negotiating tables and through consensus, you are not. The latter is what JimC is talking about. It is exactly what has been happening in Australia since it became a nation in 1901, in most European nations and several others besides.

There are no "excesses of capitalism" that are not well controlled simply through policing the markets and transactions against force or fraud. But modern "democratic Socialism" goes far, far beyond merely trying to ameliorate perceived "excesses," and you know it. Modern Socialism, which is a transitional state of Marxism, seeks to control personal and social behavior and determine outcomes not by policing capitalism but by centrally controlling it. And that's Marxism. Central control of economies and societies doesn't work, has never worked and can never work in the long term, as Hayek proves beyond any shadow of a doubt.

The fundamental premise in your statement that proves you are deep in the thrall of Marxism is your use of the term "excesses of capitalism." I know what you mean, and you know what you mean, but if I tell you what you mean you'll just deny it, so I'll let you cite some examples of such "excesses of capitalism" and I'll then show you how and why your objections, and your proposed solutions (if any) are all part of the larger framework and agenda of end-state Marxism.

Your turn.

[Seth]

If you believe that corporations are bad, that the wealthy have been unjustly rewarded by treading on the necks of the poor, that their wealth is an ill-gotten gain, that they have too much and must be compelled, one way or another, to give up their wealth in order to provide equality of outcome for everyone, and you look to government to balance those scales of "justice" you are a Marxist, whether you understand it, believe it or accept it or not.

Wrong. If you believe that capitalism must be overthrown by an armed revolution, you are a Marxist.

It's not just that. Marxism is a pseudo-scientific social theory. It's bollocks, just like Praxeology is. Very few socialists are Marxists for this very reason. We've schooled Seth on this so many times in the past. He's so blinkered he'll never get it.

Socialists don't think they are Marxists, but they are. They are the useful idiots of Marxism you see, and the forces that drive the quest for global Marxism know that and keep them propagandized and indoctrinated not to think they are Marxist dupes, but they are.

That's the evil genius of Neo-Marxist Frankfurt School theory.

[pErvinalia]

And capitalist are the useful idiots of corporatism. And given corporatism dominates the global economy, IT is the real threat we face, not the tiny number of Marxists who don't even inhabit any positions of power.

[Blind groper]

Seth

You really do have some weird and bizarre ideas. A reflection of certain right wing groups and their propaganda. You are gullible enough to swallow their bullshit whole.

As Jim pointed out, I am a retired businessman - though probably not truly wealthy, though I have sufficient assets to live comfortably. I gained my comfortable position through private enterprise, and I am certainly not opposed to it. But neither am I opposed to taxation at a higher level for people like me who earn more than others. We all have a duty to help others, and to try to make a better world. Some of this can be done via voluntary work and via charitable donations, but experience shows that few, if any, people give sufficiently.

I used to joke that I paid so much tax that I was supporting several people on pensions and a couple more on unemployment welfare. But in fact I was proud to be doing that. I never resented taxes, but took pride in paying my way.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

...The fundamental tenet of Marxism is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."...

One of the tenets, anyway.

Now show where either BG, I or anyone else on the forum you have mindlessly accused of being a Marxist have supported that.

Or advocated complete state ownership of the means of production.

Or advocated the violent overthrow of society.

You can't, so fuck off.

[Hermit]

By insisting on a rigid definition of Marxism as you have, you've demonstrate exactly how devious and evil the "Neo-Marxist" agenda actually is, because you support their new method, which has the same ultimate goal, without even recognizing you're doing it.

Firstly, alleged attempts by Marxists to deviously make use of non-Marxists for their own ends does not make the non-Marxists Marxists. At worst they become "useful idiots" as you have described them your self several hundred times in the past.

Secondly, Marxism is actually defined by Marx himself in The Communist Manifesto. There he wrote:

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

This not something any people you describe as "useful idiots" agree with. As JimC, Blind groper, I and others mentioned recently, they aim to improve capitalism through negotiation, not abolish it.

Thirdly, if you look for Marxists, you know, the ones Marx defined as aiming to implement communism by means of the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, who do you find? Certainly not the likes of Obama or any other national leader with ambitions to improve lot of ordinary people by curbing the manifest excesses of corporations, certainly not anyone with power or influence. They are miniscule enclaves within capitalist nations who have no power or influence over anyone whatsoever.

[pErvinalia]

You would say that. Marxist.

[Hermit]

You would say that. Marxist Useful idiot.

[Seth]

And capitalist are the useful idiots of corporatism. And given corporatism dominates the global economy, IT is the real threat we face, not the tiny number of Marxists who don't even inhabit any positions of power.

The thing about corporatism, if that's what it is, is that it's focused on profits, which means it must be focused on consumers and their needs and desires and meeting those needs and desires with the best product at the lowest price.

This means that even poor folk can afford goods that third-world poor people have never even heard of, much less seen.

If I have to choose between Marxist control and central planning in order to make things "fair" for everyone, and capitalism, I choose capitalism because at least under capitalism I have the opportunity to invent a better mousetrap and join the 1 percenters. Marxist proletarians have no hope whatsoever.

[Seth]

By insisting on a rigid definition of Marxism as you have, you've demonstrate exactly how devious and evil the "Neo-Marxist" agenda actually is, because you support their new method, which has the same ultimate goal, without even recognizing you're doing it.

Firstly, alleged attempts by Marxists to deviously make use of non-Marxists for their own ends does not make the non-Marxists Marxists. At worst they become "useful idiots" as you have described them your self several hundred times in the past.

And since you've been told hundreds of times you're a Marxist useful idiot, you cannot claim to not be a Marxist.

Secondly, Marxism is actually defined by Marx himself in The Communist Manifesto. There he wrote: In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

Meh. Marxism has come a long way from Marx himself and it has redefined itself several times, as in "Neo-Marxist Frankfurt School" Marxism. You're pettifogging again.

This not something any people you describe as "useful idiots" agree with. As JimC, Blind groper, I and others mentioned recently, they aim to improve capitalism through negotiation, not abolish it.

The "improvements" you suggest are Marxist in origin and practice, therefore you are a Marxist. You cannot "improve" capitalism by turning it into Marxist central planning, you just turn it into Marxism.

Thirdly, if you look for Marxists, you know, the ones Marx defined as aiming to implement communism by means of the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, who do you find? Certainly not the likes of Obama or any other national leader with ambitions to improve lot of ordinary people by curbing the manifest excesses of corporations, certainly not anyone with power or influence. They are miniscule enclaves within capitalist nations who have no power or influence over anyone whatsoever.

[/quote]

Obama is absolutely a hard-core Marxist and would love to overthrow the system with violence, and he's building a private army (DHS) to do just that if he can, just as he said he would during his first campaign right here in Colorado Springs. If he's not able, he's building the foundation and infrastructure for some future Marxist Progressive to do exactly that. Marxism is no longer interested in immediate gratification because Marxists have come to recognize that violent overthrow of capitalism doesn't work because the proletariat is more interested in a regular paycheck and food on the table than they are being drafted to die for some ideological need for quick change, so now it's the long game. The death of a thousand cuts. The slow boiling of the frog. That doesn't make it not-Marxism.

It's most definitely Marxism.

[Blind groper]

What will you say, Seth, when Obama graciously steps aside at the end of his term?

[JimC]

Arguing with a delusional paranoid is probably fairly pointless...

[Ian]

Have y'all been watchin' the news lately? Texas conservatives have got their panties in a bunch because they're convinced Obama is about to use some national guard exercise as a pretext to declaring martial law in the state, followed (naturally) by taking everyone's guns away.

Well, maybe it won't happen now, since they're onto him. Without the element of surprise, it won't work. Boy, there's no fooling these people, I tell ya...

[Seth]

Have y'all been watchin' the news lately? Texas conservatives have got their panties in a bunch because they're convinced Obama is about to use some national guard exercise as a pretext to declaring martial law in the state, followed (naturally) by taking everyone's guns away.

Well, maybe it won't happen now, since they're onto him. Without the element of surprise, it won't work. Boy, there's no fooling these people, I tell ya...

It's not a "national guard" exercise, it's called Jade Helm 15 and it's a US Army Special Forces training event taking place in 5 southwestern states that involves SF troops practicing their craft both in uniform and out of uniform. There is some rumbling that it's a covert attempt to take over Texas, but the Texas Governor has put the actual National Guard on alert just in case.

It's called Jade Helm 15 because SF troopies have been doing it for a very long time. I was in college in Florida in the 1970s when the Green Berets had an exercise like that up north along the Atlantic coast. They were practicing a massive beach landing and infiltration. They persuaded a bunch of locals to play along and play the part of OPFOR. The Army gave them MILES gear and MILES-equipped M-16s and told them to try to find and stop the SF landing and infiltration.

The local gator-boys and rednecks absolutely kicked the ass of the SF forces. Decimated them in short order. The military was so embarrassed by the ignominious defeat that they never invited locals to play in their war games again, even today.