PDA

View Full Version : Are Conservatives comfortable with 30% Communism?



Molon Labe
10-21-2010, 04:42 PM
I was thinking from the previous threads about what it means to be conservative. When many of us say we loathe Marxism are we really so sure?

Wonder how many consveratives actually realize that the entire Western world have already accepted as axiomatic 3 of the 10 tenets of Marxism and for most politicians, conservatives, Republicans included.....these three aren't even questioned anymore.

The three are:


2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.


5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly


10. Free education for all children in public schools. Combination of education with industrial production

They've all been accepted now for around a full century. Wonder how many conservatives are comfortable with 30% Communism.



This is another reason why I think dialectic thinking is best avoided.

Troll
10-21-2010, 05:43 PM
I support the FairTax and dismantling of the Federal Reserve and the Education Department.

Just out of curiosity, what are the other tenets of Marxism? I think it might be being a little generous to say that most 'conservatives' accept only three of them.

marv
10-21-2010, 07:38 PM
I disagree with (5) and (10). A graduated income tax is reasonable - but the operative word is "reasonable". Having worked in the Federal Reserve system, I'll only agree that it's been abused by Democrats. I know what it's real function is.

As to the "Fair Tax", it sounds good, BUT........unless the Income Tax IS also eliminated, it'll just become another federal tax. Then we'll have BOTH! That's why I've always favored the "Flat Tax".

Molon Labe
10-21-2010, 07:59 PM
I support the FairTax and dismantling of the Federal Reserve and the Education Department.

Just out of curiosity, what are the other tenets of Marxism? I think it might be being a little generous to say that most 'conservatives' accept only three of them.

http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/hdn003.htm


1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.


There are other little nasties as well that have to come to fruition like the abolition of truth, religion,countries and nationalities.

FeebMaster
10-21-2010, 09:19 PM
Comfortable?


They love it.

patriot45
10-21-2010, 09:29 PM
Comfortable?


They love it.

C'mon Feeb, the Fairtax executed as written (the 16th abolished) Is something you can get behind, right!?

Rockntractor
10-21-2010, 09:31 PM
C'mon Feeb, the Fairtax executed as written (the 16th abolished) Is something you can get behind, right!?

Please! He's the Anarchist.:rolleyes:

patriot45
10-21-2010, 09:35 PM
Please! He's the Anarchist.:rolleyes:

Well, abolishing the IRS is anarchy!

Rockntractor
10-21-2010, 09:51 PM
Well, abolishing the IRS is anarchy!

He wants 0 taxes and he wants the whitehouse reduced to an office in a strip mall
He would really like the Whitehouse to just be a post office box but he can't because he wants the post office abolished.

Molon Labe
10-21-2010, 10:06 PM
Please! He's the Anarchist.:rolleyes:

that's about as right wing as one can get. So when someone says we have comprimised on communism by accepting some of the tenets....I think it's time to pause, reflect and think about what it means to be on the right.

FeebMaster
10-21-2010, 10:30 PM
C'mon Feeb, the Fairtax executed as written (the 16th abolished) Is something you can get behind, right!?

Hypothetically, as written? Sure.

It will never, ever happen as written. Passing it as written is about as likely as actually cutting government spending. You'll get the sales tax, or a VAT on top of the income tax. You will never get more than a handful of people into government that are willing to give up the control the IRS and everything else the fairtax would eliminate gives them.

patriot45
10-21-2010, 10:31 PM
Hypothetically, as written? Sure.

It will never, ever happen as written. Passing it as written is about as likely as actually cutting government spending. You'll get the sales tax, or a VAT on top of the income tax. You will never get more than a handful of people into government that are willing to give up the control the IRS and everything else the fairtax would eliminate gives them.

Yeah, thats my take too. They would never give up the power to tax!

But I like the Fairtax!

malloc
10-22-2010, 06:31 AM
You will never get more than a handful of people into government that are willing to give up the control the IRS and everything else the fairtax would eliminate gives them.


Yeah, thats my take too. They would never give up the power to tax!

I truly believe that nearly each and every vain, self-loving and conceited congresscritter on Capital Hill would give up their power to tax before they would give up the seat that holds their festering carcasses and feeds their Adonis syndrome. That's what it is going to take to get rid of the progressive income tax scheme which punishes and thus discourages success. Congresscritters are going to have to be made to believe that they won't be congresscritters anymore unless they do away with that scheme. I don't think the American electorate has the will to go down that road, regardless of the huge benefits and lack of drawbacks.

djones520
10-22-2010, 06:43 AM
Well, since #5 and #10 where introduced in America long before Marxism existed, I'd say they're not sole tenets of Marxism.

John Adams was pushing free education for all before he was elected President. Was he a marxist?

Alexander Hamilton under the auspice of George Washington created the National Bank.

So wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Marxism is 20% based on American values?

Molon Labe
10-22-2010, 08:11 AM
Well, since #5 and #10 where introduced in America long before Marxism existed, I'd say they're not sole tenets of Marxism.

John Adams was pushing free education for all before he was elected President. Was he a marxist?

Alexander Hamilton under the auspice of George Washington created the National Bank.

So wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Marxism is 20% based on American values?


That doesn't make those things GOOD. Hamilton was very wrong on a great many things. A Central bank was one of them. Anything centrally controlled has little to be desired.

The free education thing is only a problem because Marx linked it to social engineering and indoctrination on a national scale. If communities saw fit to organize their communities for free education there is nothing wrong with it. But "free" is only free when someone else is paying for it.

djones520
10-22-2010, 08:13 AM
That doesn't make those things GOOD. Hamilton was very wrong on a great many things. A Central bank was one of them. Anything centrally controlled has little to be desired.

The free education thing is only a problem because Marx linked it to social engineering and indoctrination on a national scale. If communities saw fit to organize their communities for free education there is nothing wrong with it. But "free" is only free when someone else is paying for it.

I'm not saying if they're right or wrong. I'm just saying your original premise is wrong, since these are not sole values of Marxism, and existed long before Karl Marx was a twinkle in his parents eyes.

Molon Labe
10-22-2010, 08:59 AM
I'm not saying if they're right or wrong. I'm just saying your original premise is wrong, since these are not sole values of Marxism, and existed long before Karl Marx was a twinkle in his parents eyes.

I guess I'm skeptical that there's a reason Marx felt that those 10 tenets were vital to Communism coming about and even though the ideas existed before Marx, they are still values of Marxism.

Funny how none of the Marx "experts" have weighed into the discussion to offer us clarity. :rolleyes:

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-22-2010, 10:01 AM
I guess I'm skeptical that there's a reason Marx felt that those 10 tenets were vital to Communism coming about and even though the ideas existed before Marx, they are still values of Marxism.

Funny how none of the Marx "experts" have weighed into the discussion to offer us clarity. :rolleyes:

But if others had the idea first, then it's not a Marxist idea. Marx agreeing with an idea, but with his own twist for example Public Education, doesn't make Public Education inherently bad. It's kind of silly to down an entire idea that others had long before Karl Marx was born simply because Karl Marx felt it might be useful to his system. John Adams seemed to think it'd be useful to OUR system, but he wasn't a Marxist. Different takes on the same idea.

I think a well educated populace is a good thing; Our Founders didn't want a nation full of idiots. The question shouldn't be IF Public Education should be available here, but HOW it should be run.

One way of running Public Education could simply lead to a better educated populace, another way could lead to a Marxist leaning populace.

Everyone should be able to get an education, whether rich or poor, in my opinion. If that means the kind of system we have now but reformed, fine. If it means something a bit different which still makes education available to even the most (truly) needy, great. That's not leveling the playing field so that results are guaranteed, but making sure that everyone has an opportunity to achieve the American dream. Not equal results, but equal opportunity.

Arroyo_Doble
10-22-2010, 10:07 AM
Well, since #5 and #10 where introduced in America long before Marxism existed, I'd say they're not sole tenets of Marxism.

John Adams was pushing free education for all before he was elected President. Was he a marxist?

Alexander Hamilton under the auspice of George Washington created the National Bank.

So wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Marxism is 20% based on American values?

I thought there were rules against using reason around here.

Molon Labe
10-22-2010, 10:23 AM
But if others had the idea first, then it's not a Marxist idea.

This isn't really the point. It not the idea of making education accessible and "free" that is a problem. The reason this is an important tenet of Communism, is how Marx envisioned education to be used.

He wanted it free because he wanted all people to be literate in order to be indoctrinated in collective thinking. There's a big difference between being literate and teaching people to be critical thinkers.
The U.S. education system (hell, the entire western culture) doesn't even focus on critical thinking skills.

He wanted education "centralized" into a monopoly by the state. (Combination of education with industrial production). Well....we have that today. A monopoly of education and a system that teaches us to be good little workers, compliant and not to question authority........AND NOTHING ELSE.

Our education system has little that resembles teaching critical thinking skills. That's the way Marx wanted it. I doubt very seriously the founding fathers ever envisioned and education system in orbit around a Federal Department where one size fits all. I'm surprised to hear so many conservatives are actually OK with this....

Looks like you were right Feeb.

Molon Labe
10-22-2010, 10:24 AM
I thought there were rules against using reason around here.

:rolleyes:

Arroyo_Doble
10-22-2010, 10:26 AM
A monopoly of education and a system that teaches us to be good little workers, compliant and not to question authority........AND NOTHING ELSE.

Good little workers for whom?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-22-2010, 10:34 AM
I guess I'm skeptical that there's a reason Marx felt that those 10 tenets were vital to Communism coming about and even though the ideas existed before Marx, they are still values of Marxism.

Funny how none of the Marx "experts" have weighed into the discussion to offer us clarity. :rolleyes:


This isn't really the point. It not the idea of making education accessible and "free" that is a problem. The reason this is an important tenet of Communism, is how Marx envisioned education to be used.

He wanted it free because he wanted all people to be literate in order to be indoctrinated in collective thinking. There's a big difference between being literate and teaching people to be critical thinkers.
The U.S. education system (hell, the entire western culture) doesn't even focus on critical thinking skills.

He wanted education "centralized" into a monopoly by the state. (Combination of education with industrial production). Well....we have that today. A monopoly of education and a system that teaches us to be good little workers, compliant and not to question authority........AND NOTHING ELSE.

Our education system has little that resembles teaching critical thinking skills. That's the way Marx wanted it. I doubt very seriously the founding fathers ever envisioned and education system in orbit around a Federal Department where one size fits all. I'm surprised to hear so many conservatives are actually OK with this....

Looks like you were right Feeb.

I agree much is wrong with the system as it currently exists, but I don't know how it could or should be reformed. To be honest I was mostly private schooled, so I have little idea what public education teaches students these days.

If it were up to you, how would you reform Public Education?

Molon Labe
10-22-2010, 12:42 PM
Good little workers for whom?

Have you ever heard the term "the worst get to the top" . It's inevitbale that large central institutions...be that Governments and or large corporate entities ALWAYS attract personalities who wish to engineer society or control other peoples lives. So what's permeated our education system for decades is policy geared towards acceptance of the way things are....and that hard work is the only thing that get's you to the top. And it's all right out of the little Marxist handbook.

So you take half truths like "Work hard and you can be rich and successful"....and turns them into values that stifle.




If it were up to you, how would you reform Public Education?

Key word is "localize". I'd end the DOE right from the start.
Then parents teachers and communities in localities would get their wasted federal funds back.

They can then decide how best to use (or not use) their tax monies for education.

noonwitch
10-22-2010, 01:01 PM
The only people who support number 3 are people who stand to inherit nothing.

AmPat
10-22-2010, 01:55 PM
that's about as right wing as one can get. So when someone says we have comprimised on communism by accepting some of the tenets....I think it's time to pause, reflect and think about what it means to be on the right.

Since Communism was preceded by Democracy, I'd say Communists were accepting Democratic tenets.

Molon Labe
10-22-2010, 02:05 PM
Since Communism was preceded by Democracy, I'd say Communists were accepting Democratic tenets.

Are you talking true Democracy or free society?

Communism believes in democracy. They are all for people getting to vote...in the workplace and at the ballot box. You just can't vote on private property...it's a non issue.

I've never heard someone suggest that the tenets of communism are part of a free society.

AmPat
10-22-2010, 02:29 PM
Are you talking true Democracy or free society?

Communism believes in democracy. They are all for people getting to vote...in the workplace and at the ballot box. You just can't vote on private property...it's a non issue.

I've never heard someone suggest that the tenets of communism are part of a free society.

Let's just localize it to the three you mentioned as your 30%.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Combination of education with industrial production Did our free societies have these before 1917?

Molon Labe
10-22-2010, 03:05 PM
Did our free societies have these before 1917?

2 No

5 No

10 I guess you could say yes. Mandatory completely funded by taxes education wasn't begun untill around the early to mid 1800's....and the last laws weren't passed until about 1918. But like I said before, it isn't the "free" concept, it's the compulsory #2 that's used to fund it on a national scale.

AmPat
10-22-2010, 03:18 PM
2 No

5 No

10 I guess you could say yes. Mandatory completely funded by taxes education wasn't begun untill around the early to mid 1800's....and the last laws weren't passed until about 1918. But like I said before, it isn't the "free" concept, it's the compulsory #2 that's used to fund it on a national scale.
I'm not for the progressive tax either. Like anything with the word progressive in it, it is bad in the same way as cancer is progressive.I want to scrap it for a flat or fair tax.

I'm certain we had a centralized bank but I don't know when. Wasn't hamilton the first serious proponent of this?

Molon Labe
10-22-2010, 04:00 PM
I'm not for the progressive tax either. Like anything with the word progressive in it, it is bad in the same way as cancer is progressive.I want to scrap it for a flat or fair tax.

I'm certain we had a centralized bank but I don't know when. Wasn't hamilton the first serious proponent of this?

Central banking was rearing it's ugly head from the start but we've only actually had one since i think around around 1913 or so.

Odysseus
10-22-2010, 05:46 PM
I oppose all three, although I make a critical distinction on the education issue. I have no problem with the people in a community pooling their money to maintain a school and hire teachers. I do have a problem when the community coercively compels attendance at its school and uses its power to attack competing private schools.


that's about as right wing as one can get. So when someone says we have comprimised on communism by accepting some of the tenets....I think it's time to pause, reflect and think about what it means to be on the right.

No, liberty and anarchy are opposites. Liberty, the individual right to live, create and own property and dispose of it, demands commonly agreed upon laws, enacted with the consent of the governed, in order to protect the rights of all citizens. By its very nature, liberty must have commonly accepted definitions of rights and responsibilities, even if each individual enforces his own interests. Anarchy is the absence of the rule of law, which means the absence of any common agreement on rights and the means to enforce agreements, substituting the law of the jungle, that the strongest takes what he wants without regard to ownership or creation. Leftists deliberately conflate the two because they know that conservatives object to anarchy, and the more that they confuse the issue, the more they can gain support for statist policies that ultimately beget anarchy. That's why Arroyo keeps calling Somalia a Libertarian anarchy, rather than a tyrannical anarchy.

Molon Labe
10-23-2010, 04:36 PM
I oppose all three, although I make a critical distinction on the education issue. I have no problem with the people in a community pooling their money to maintain a school and hire teachers. I do have a problem when the community coercively compels attendance at its school and uses its power to attack competing private schools.



No, liberty and anarchy are opposites. Liberty, the individual right to live, create and own property and dispose of it, demands commonly agreed upon laws, enacted with the consent of the governed, in order to protect the rights of all citizens. By its very nature, liberty must have commonly accepted definitions of rights and responsibilities, even if each individual enforces his own interests. Anarchy is the absence of the rule of law, which means the absence of any common agreement on rights and the means to enforce agreements, substituting the law of the jungle, that the strongest takes what he wants without regard to ownership or creation. Leftists deliberately conflate the two because they know that conservatives object to anarchy, and the more that they confuse the issue, the more they can gain support for statist policies that ultimately beget anarchy. That's why Arroyo keeps calling Somalia a Libertarian anarchy, rather than a tyrannical anarchy.

What I said was Anarchy is the far right of the political spectrum and tyranny of the collective is the far left.

And...No..... Anarchy in the basic rudimentary understanding of it is YOUR definition as the absence of rule of law. The "chaos" definition everyone resorts to shows a lack of understanding.

Political theory anarchism means nothing of the sort. Anarchists are all for liberty and the right to live, creat and own property. Those are core principles. There main principle are no theft of property and do no harm unless in defense of life and property. And to do all of this by Voluntary means, with no coercion...meaning no standing government. What you're basically saying is a community of Feebmasters would be tyrants. Not true. The main principles I disagree with is in its practical application. That... I'm not so sure of. I myself am a minarchist. As little government as possible.

But this thread isn't anything about that.

It's about Conservatives being comfortable with things that would make Marx smile.

Odysseus
10-24-2010, 03:42 PM
What I said was Anarchy is the far right of the political spectrum and tyranny of the collective is the far left.

And...No..... Anarchy in the basic rudimentary understanding of it is YOUR definition as the absence of rule of law. The "chaos" definition everyone resorts to shows a lack of understanding.

Political theory anarchism means nothing of the sort. Anarchists are all for liberty and the right to live, creat and own property. Those are core principles. There main principle are no theft of property and do no harm unless in defense of life and property. And to do all of this by Voluntary means, with no coercion...meaning no standing government. What you're basically saying is a community of Feebmasters would be tyrants. Not true. The main principles I disagree with is in its practical application. That... I'm not so sure of. I myself am a minarchist. As little government as possible.

But this thread isn't anything about that.

It's about Conservatives being comfortable with things that would make Marx smile.

Actually, both are valid definitions. On the one hand, anarchy can mean "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)," which is the ultra libertarian version, but it can also mean the "absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder." However, the former state is purely theoretical, while the latter is what actually exists in the world when we see anarchy. The absence or inefficiency of a supreme power usually means a failed or failing state, such as Somalia. The arguments of leftists against minimal government are that it results in the latter form of anarchy, which it does not. In fact, it is government that attempts to do all things that eventually becomes unable to do any one thing well, and fosters the kind of anarchy that the left claims to fear, but actually hastens.

BTW, if I haven't mentioned, "Jihad me at 'hello'" is one of the funniest tag lines that I've ever read. If I ever write an article on the encroaching dhimmitude of the west, I'd like to use that as a title, with appropriate credits, of course.

AmPat
10-24-2010, 08:45 PM
But this thread isn't anything about that.

It's about Conservatives being comfortable with things that would make Marx smile.I;m not "comfrotable with any of it. Do you have a better suggestions?
I've read comments here from several posters who want to eliminate the progressive tax for instance.
I also believe that Marx wasn't the originator or father of the three things you mentioned.