Marxism Full Circle?

[stebo0728]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/ ... JV20120121

I'm going to lay out a blueprint for an American economy that's built to last. And most importantly, a return to American values of fairness for all, and responsibility from all.

Any of you still question his Marxist roots?

The quote above is a feel good paraphrase for:

...From each according to their ability....To each according to their need...

Newsflash Mr. Obama. Those aren't American values.

[AZhitman]

So, what "responsibilities" are going to be expected of welfare recipients and unemployment recipients?

Aaaaaand, what "fairness" will be expected of Congress? Paying for their healthcare? Documenting hours actually worked and being paid for production (like the rest of the world)?

Keep pandering to the lowest-common-denominator, Barry. Some of us aren't as stupid as your voters.

[IBCoupe]

Stebo, do you not think those are American values? A fair shake and putting in your fair share?

[szh]

I suspect that people will differ strongly on the meaning and interpretation of the word "fair".

Z

[IBCoupe]

That wouldn't surprise me, but I'm meaning to do one of two things:

1. Undermine the notion that it's a "marxist" notion.

OR

2. Undermine the notion that its relation to marxism makes it bad, or otherwise unamerican.

[stebo0728]

Stebo, do you not think those are American values? A fair shake and putting in your fair share?

Fantastic that you ask. I have a sneaking suspicion you already know the answer, whether you agree or not. The problem is when government sets the boundaries of what defines a fair shake, and a fair share. Government has the unique ability of using deadly force to accomplish its goals. An example of government's ineptitude in settling such matters. Affirmative action. Start with and admirable goal, such as eliminating various forms of discrimination in education, and the work place. We'll just set aside the fact that discrimination is not an ill conceived practice, only the abuse of it is. But lets say, everything being considered equal, we want to make sure everyone has a fair shot. Government doesn't stop there, mandatory ratios get imposed. The stage gets set for government sanctioned "reverse discrimination". Now for this "fair share". Progressive trends seek to "give" a fair share, not "take" a fair share. This in unamerican, is its a analogous model of the "crown owns all wealth" model that our forefathers sought reprieve from.

You have to also acknowledge that the man saying this was greatly influenced by marxist doctrine. The left, from day 1, has tried to paint over this, to excuse it away, and he makes your job impossible by nonchalantly uttering things like this.

You wont, at least with me, excuse away the marxist undertones of a statement made by a person raised a marxist.

[AZhitman]

I don't need a bunch of lying cretins trying to keep ME "accountable" or "responsible". My integrity exceeds theirs, as a rule, so their credibility with me is crap.

Further, I don't believe in "fairness". We're all given different gifts, skills, talents, genetic predispositions, opportunities, and struggles from the get-go. No one can undo that OR use it to their advantage except the person themselves. Attempts to do otherwise have historically failed.

It's hypocritical to promise a "return to American values" of one type and not another. How about a "return to American values" of the sanctity of marriage? The value of life? The values of hard work and self-sacrifice? Of caring for your community? Of looking out for your neighbor? Of earning your keep? Of not lying to the American people? Of going to church on Sunday? Of not skewing numbers to make oneself look better and get re-elected?

[stebo0728]

And personal liberty, and personal responsibility please!!!

[IBCoupe]

We'll just set aside the fact that discrimination is not an ill conceived practice, only the abuse of it is.

Ooooh, nice! So tell me, when is it okay to have a policy of refusing to hire black people, as a class?

Government doesn't stop there, mandatory ratios get imposed.

Affirmative action isn't quotas. It wasn't intended to be, and the reason you know it isn't is that it's unconstitutional for a government to impose them in the United States. So let's go ahead and make that much clear. On the other hand, a "mandatory ratio" might mean "Here's a goal you should work towards," which is perfectly fine, and perfectly innocuous, doesn't lead to the introduction of unqualified minority workers, and allows an employer to cooperate with government's goal of ending a couple centuries-worth of social engineering against blacks and hispanics.

Progressive trends seek to "give" a fair share, not "take" a fair share. This in unamerican, is its a analogous model of the "crown owns all wealth" model that our forefathers sought reprieve from.

Well that's bunk. You may go ahead and say that their definition of "fair" is incorrect, but it's pretty bold to claim that they're not seeking to "take" a fair share, when the thing you rant and rave about is the FairTax, as opposed to our current system: a progressive tax that seeks to distribute the tax burden fairly.

You have to also acknowledge that the man saying this was greatly influenced by marxist doctrine.

What the hell is that based on? For a marxist, he sure operates a lot like a moderate conservative...

[stebo0728]

Ooooh, nice! So tell me, when is it okay to have a policy of refusing to hire black people, as a class?

Did I say systematic discrimination against a class was acceptable? No, I said discrimination in general can be acceptable. We discriminate voting age. A director casting a role for a while trailer trash wife beater should have every right to pass up on the dew rag wearing black dudes in line. Thats not what he's looking for. My point is, discrimination is not the problem, its the abuse of such, one such abuse would be systematic discrimination of a class.

By the way, putting them in a class to begin with doesnt help things. Considering them on individual basis works much better.

Affirmative action isn't quotas. It wasn't intended to be, and the reason you know it isn't is that it's unconstitutional for a government to impose them in the United States. So let's go ahead and make that much clear. On the other hand, a "mandatory ratio" might mean "Here's a goal you should work towards," which is perfectly fine, and perfectly innocuous, doesn't lead to the introduction of unqualified minority workers, and allows an employer to cooperate with government's goal of ending a couple centuries-worth of social engineering against blacks and hispanics.

You can talk all day about what it should be, you're cool story above sounds nice. Thats not what its become, perhaps I'm unclear as to whether the rations are more government imposed, or more business owner imposed, but the ratios exist just the same, and you absolutely have rampant unqualified minority workers, many of which you can find in the education system.

Well that's bunk. You may go ahead and say that their definition of "fair" is incorrect, but it's pretty bold to claim that they're not seeking to "take" a fair share, when the thing you rant and rave about is the FairTax, as opposed to our current system: a progressive tax that seeks to distribute the tax burden fairly.

We've gone around and around on this, probably not much point of doing it more now, but what the hell. You've explained, in rather great detail, in past threads, how the progressive movement seeks to "leave" everyone with an equal share. So tell me what I have wrong again about the position. If you're suddenly uncomfortable considering "leaving" wealth behind, maybe we're making progress. As I've argued at length in the past, seeking to "leave behind" absolutely assumes an ownership of the resource in question, in this case, wealth. If you would rather think of wealth as privately owned, I'll do a little happy dance.

What the hell is that based on? For a marxist, he sure operates a lot like a moderate conservative...

We'll agree to disagree on that, I dont see anything conservative about this man. If you do, I'll leave you to it.

[IBCoupe]

Thats not what he's looking for. My point is, discrimination is not the problem, its the abuse of such, one such abuse would be systematic discrimination of a class.

And my point is that certain kinds of discrimination are a problem unto themselves because they are inappropriate discrimination. We discriminate on the basis of age when it comes to voting because we want only those mature enough to give consent to be able to run the government. We discriminate on the basis of dress because we want to maintain an appearance, at least, of professionality. Those discriminatory behaviors are acceptable not because they are not "abuses," but because they actually have something to do with the goal they're trying to achieve.

There's a difference between the kind of racial equality sought after by the government here, and that sought after by the government in France. Do you know how many North Africans are in French prisons? No, you don't, because no one does. France refuses to acknowledge race when it takes statistical measurements of its population. Nobody argues that discrimination is never acceptable. Nobody argues that racial distinctions can't ever be made. But it's not a matter of whether it's an "abuse," but rather a matter of whether it's pertinent.

Thats not what its become, perhaps I'm unclear as to whether the rations are more government imposed, or more business owner imposed, but the ratios exist just the same, and you absolutely have rampant unqualified minority workers, many of which you can find in the education system.

So, if it's not imposed by the government, I don't see how the government's to blame. If business owners choose to hire underqualified personnel in order to appease their self-imposed racial quotas, then the market will make short work of them, if not the government. I haven't studied the realm of employment discrimination, so a quota may actually be illegal under federal law.

And I'd like statistics to back up your apparently off-the-cuff assertion about the "education system."

how the progressive movement seeks to "leave" everyone with an equal share.

Equal burden, not equal share. I don't know how it is you think the word "share" ought to be used here because it's kind of ambiguous in this context, but the more apt term is "burden." That's what I said a progressive system seeks to achieve.

As I've argued at length in the past, seeking to "leave behind" absolutely assumes an ownership of the resource in question, in this case, wealth. If you would rather think of wealth as privately owned, I'll do a little happy dance.

You've argued at great lengths, but it's still not the case. The only assumption in there is the same assumption that's in there for any kind of tax system: that the government has a right to tax you for the purposes of funding the programs you and your brethren vote into place. There's no special assumption about who's got a right to what in a progressive system that doesn't exist in any other taxation system. Your objection is a red herring.

We'll agree to disagree on that, I dont see anything conservative about this man.

I could come up with a list of things I perceive to be rather center-right in their construction, chief among them the PPACA. You won't accept them, so let's pretend that we've already gone round on that one. Regardless, what the hell is the basis for saying that he's got marxist roots?