78-81 Communists in Congress?

[Baron Von PWN]

It seems to me Mr. West is playing a somewhat intellectually dishonest game here. He is taking a political ideology/bent which has evolved from Marx's political theories, and calling it communism.

Which from a strictly political scientific perspective while dodgy could be argued. However he is making this link with, in my opinion, full knowledge that the general public will make the association with the Communist dictatorships of the 20th century. "oh my god 80 members of congress are basically Stalin!"

Progressives or democratic socialists as they would be called anywhere else. Are not the traditional picture of communists. Their aims may be similar in an extremely broad way, but their means are extremely different as well as how they wish to achieve those aims.

[GreecePwns]

1. The Marxist view of history is such that the mode of production dictates social class structure.

2. Marx notes that the natural flow of history took the world out of the feudal age and into capitalism.* Therefore, he supported the development of capitalism (the rather unrestrained variety we saw in the Industrial Age) in countries which had not yet left the Feudal Age (like Germany).

3. Capitalism, according to Marx, has 2 classes: bourgeois and proletariat. The capitalist system for various reasons would concentrate power into fewer and fewer capitalist hands until there were so few that the proletariat revolution would occur.

4. This revolution will lead us to socialism, where the old mode of production is destroyed and replaced by a new one. Marx lists several specific changes that socialism will bring.

5. This new society will be of a single class. "When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class." Since there are no class antagonisms, there is no political power, and eventually the state withers away.

*Classical economists saw 3 classes: laborer, capitalist and landlord, who all were at constant struggle for power. The switch to capitalism was marked by a vast decrease in the power of landlords, leaving us only two classes.

Where I believe BBS makes the mistake in is confusing what Marx would call petty-bourgeois socialism and conservative socialism (the examples he listed in his (1) group and non-revolutionary varieties such as Fabian socialism, social democracy etc) assomething that developed afterwards, when it is something Marx dedicates an entire section to in the Manifesto itself.

[Phatscotty]

It seems to me Mr. West is playing a somewhat intellectually dishonest game here. He is taking a political ideology/bent which has evolved from Marx's political theories, and calling it communism.

Which from a strictly political scientific perspective while dodgy could be argued. However he is making this link with, in my opinion, full knowledge that the general public will make the association with the Communist dictatorships of the 20th century. "oh my god 80 members of congress are basically Stalin!"

Progressives or democratic socialists as they would be called anywhere else. Are not the traditional picture of communists. Their aims may be similar in an extremely broad way, but their means are extremely different as well as how they wish to achieve those aims.

Well, how about we examine the actual positions of the progressive party and compare it to the 10 point plan of the Communist Manifesto.

Sound good?

[Symmetry]

It seems to me Mr. West is playing a somewhat intellectually dishonest game here. He is taking a political ideology/bent which has evolved from Marx's political theories, and calling it communism.

Which from a strictly political scientific perspective while dodgy could be argued. However he is making this link with, in my opinion, full knowledge that the general public will make the association with the Communist dictatorships of the 20th century. "oh my god 80 members of congress are basically Stalin!"

Progressives or democratic socialists as they would be called anywhere else. Are not the traditional picture of communists. Their aims may be similar in an extremely broad way, but their means are extremely different as well as how they wish to achieve those aims.

Most economic views nowadays evolve from Marx. They also evolve from other theorists, but it's not as if a single set of views evolved from Marx. An economist who hasn't read Marx is a bad economist. Especially if they haven't read him for purely ideological reasons.

Also, progressives outside of the US would be considered conservatives in most of the world. I'm not kidding you on this, just travel around.

[GreecePwns]

Phatscotty, I'll give you progressive taxes, public transport/communications, and public education for everyone as definite similarities. The others are a complete stretch, except for maybe a single public bank.

Again, the progressives wanted to do this through nonviolent, democratic means (hence the name democratic socialists), which would put them at odds with Marx.

[Baron Von PWN]

It seems to me Mr. West is playing a somewhat intellectually dishonest game here. He is taking a political ideology/bent which has evolved from Marx's political theories, and calling it communism.

Which from a strictly political scientific perspective while dodgy could be argued. However he is making this link with, in my opinion, full knowledge that the general public will make the association with the Communist dictatorships of the 20th century. "oh my god 80 members of congress are basically Stalin!"

Progressives or democratic socialists as they would be called anywhere else. Are not the traditional picture of communists. Their aims may be similar in an extremely broad way, but their means are extremely different as well as how they wish to achieve those aims.

Well, how about we examine the actual positions of the progressive party and compare it to the 10 point plan of the Communist Manifesto.

Sound good?

Ok but that would be a link to marx and not the communist dictatorships of the 20th century. Which many different political ideologies have links to. He was an incredibly influential political theorist and not only for the left.

That being said Marx's ten point plan is very broad and gives allot of wiggle. Not only that but many of his proposals weren't exactly all that crazy. Such as creating central banks or public education systems.

Now I know you're all hoped up on the Ron Paul juice, but I suspect you don't associate those things with the likes of say Stalin, Mao or Lenin. You might disagree with the ideas on principle but surely you don't believe they are essentially "communist" ideas on par with seizing all modes of production.

[Baron Von PWN]

It seems to me Mr. West is playing a somewhat intellectually dishonest game here. He is taking a political ideology/bent which has evolved from Marx's political theories, and calling it communism.

Which from a strictly political scientific perspective while dodgy could be argued. However he is making this link with, in my opinion, full knowledge that the general public will make the association with the Communist dictatorships of the 20th century. "oh my god 80 members of congress are basically Stalin!"

Progressives or democratic socialists as they would be called anywhere else. Are not the traditional picture of communists. Their aims may be similar in an extremely broad way, but their means are extremely different as well as how they wish to achieve those aims.

Most economic views nowadays evolve from Marx. They also evolve from other theorists, but it's not as if a single set of views evolved from Marx. An economist who hasn't read Marx is a bad economist. Especially if they haven't read him for purely ideological reasons.

Also, progressives outside of the US would be considered conservatives in most of the world. I'm not kidding you on this, just travel around.

That might be true for the Democrats as a whole, but not for the progressive sub-set of the democrats. I think they would be considered at least centrist or mildly left in Europe. At least from the Canadian political landscape they sound close to our NDP.

[Symmetry]

It seems to me Mr. West is playing a somewhat intellectually dishonest game here. He is taking a political ideology/bent which has evolved from Marx's political theories, and calling it communism.

Which from a strictly political scientific perspective while dodgy could be argued. However he is making this link with, in my opinion, full knowledge that the general public will make the association with the Communist dictatorships of the 20th century. "oh my god 80 members of congress are basically Stalin!"

Progressives or democratic socialists as they would be called anywhere else. Are not the traditional picture of communists. Their aims may be similar in an extremely broad way, but their means are extremely different as well as how they wish to achieve those aims.

Most economic views nowadays evolve from Marx. They also evolve from other theorists, but it's not as if a single set of views evolved from Marx. An economist who hasn't read Marx is a bad economist. Especially if they haven't read him for purely ideological reasons.

Also, progressives outside of the US would be considered conservatives in most of the world. I'm not kidding you on this, just travel around.

That might be true for the Democrats as a whole, but not for the progressive sub-set of the democrats. I think they would be considered at least centrist or mildly left in Europe. At least from the Canadian political landscape they sound close to our NDP.

Fair point, I over exaggerated, but certainly they wouldn't be considered communist by any other standard.

[Baron Von PWN]

It seems to me Mr. West is playing a somewhat intellectually dishonest game here. He is taking a political ideology/bent which has evolved from Marx's political theories, and calling it communism.

Which from a strictly political scientific perspective while dodgy could be argued. However he is making this link with, in my opinion, full knowledge that the general public will make the association with the Communist dictatorships of the 20th century. "oh my god 80 members of congress are basically Stalin!"

Progressives or democratic socialists as they would be called anywhere else. Are not the traditional picture of communists. Their aims may be similar in an extremely broad way, but their means are extremely different as well as how they wish to achieve those aims.

Most economic views nowadays evolve from Marx. They also evolve from other theorists, but it's not as if a single set of views evolved from Marx. An economist who hasn't read Marx is a bad economist. Especially if they haven't read him for purely ideological reasons.

Also, progressives outside of the US would be considered conservatives in most of the world. I'm not kidding you on this, just travel around.

That might be true for the Democrats as a whole, but not for the progressive sub-set of the democrats. I think they would be considered at least centrist or mildly left in Europe. At least from the Canadian political landscape they sound close to our NDP.

Fair point, I over exaggerated, but certainly they wouldn't be considered communist by any other standard.

No argument from me on that front.

[Symmetry]

Shucks. Replace "Hegel" with "Engels" and that's about it.

[BigBallinStalin]

1. The Marxist view of history is such that the mode of production dictates social class structure.

2. Marx notes that the natural flow of history took the world out of the feudal age and into capitalism.* Therefore, he supported the development of capitalism (the rather unrestrained variety we saw in the Industrial Age) in countries which had not yet left the Feudal Age (like Germany).

3. Capitalism, according to Marx, has 2 classes: bourgeois and proletariat. The capitalist system for various reasons would concentrate power into fewer and fewer capitalist hands until there were so few that the proletariat revolution would occur.

4. This revolution will lead us to socialism, where the old mode of production is destroyed and replaced by a new one. Marx lists several specific changes that socialism will bring.

5. This new society will be of a single class. "When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class." Since there are no class antagonisms, there is no political power, and eventually the state withers away.

*Classical economists saw 3 classes: laborer, capitalist and landlord, who all were at constant struggle for power. The switch to capitalism was marked by a vast decrease in the power of landlords, leaving us only two classes.

Where I believe BBS makes the mistake in is confusing what Marx would call petty-bourgeois socialism and conservative socialism (the examples he listed in his (1) group and non-revolutionary varieties such as Fabian socialism, social democracy etc) assomething that developed afterwards, when it is something Marx dedicates an entire section to in the Manifesto itself.

My examples of socialism are responses after Marx--not necessarily how Marx labeled this or that, but what the political application evolved into. I see three distinct groups which evolved from Marxism. To be clear, for example I'm not saying (3) = Marxism.

EDIT: Marx can wax romantic as much as he likes about his ideal society, but to me it's the application that matters. What I'm focusing on is how humans actually interact(ed) with his writings, as oppose to Marx and Engels' fiddling with their imaginations.

[Phatscotty]

Why can't we just make clear distinctions between the individual and the collective.
Why can't we just make clear distinctions between property rights and public ownership.
Why can't we just make clear distinctions between spreading the wealth and keeping the fruits of your own labor.
Why can't we just make clear distinctions between economic liberty and central planning.
Why can't we just make clear distinctions between a limited government and a tyrannical government.
Why can't we just make clear distinctions between fiscal responsibility and fiscal profligacy.

This isn't complicated

Like Allen West said...

If you don’t think we have to stand upon truth and be able to identify and clearly contrast the different principles and values and ideologies of governance here in this country, then we’re never going to get to the fact of accepting the true debate happening in America. We don’t need a bureaucratic nanny state. We need to stay a Constitutional Republic. I think a lot of people need to study that and understand what it is.

[BigBallinStalin]

Shucks. Replace "Hegel" with "Engels" and that's about it.

I deleted this when I saw GP's response, but I'll still stand by my point because later I realized that my post and GP's are two ships sailing past each other in the dark. He's laying out Marxism as expressed by Marx, and I'm discussing the political application of Marxism over time (and how various later movements strayed from Marxism) and how Allen West's "Communist" label is inaccurate, yet his argument might be saved. It's two different topics.

Nightstrike eyerolls and straw man fallacies* don't allow people to take you seriously, so is there anything substantive that you can add this discussion? If not, I'll spare the thread and not respond. <shrugs and smiles>

****

show

[Symmetry]

1. The Marxist view of history is such that the mode of production dictates social class structure.

2. Marx notes that the natural flow of history took the world out of the feudal age and into capitalism.* Therefore, he supported the development of capitalism (the rather unrestrained variety we saw in the Industrial Age) in countries which had not yet left the Feudal Age (like Germany).

3. Capitalism, according to Marx, has 2 classes: bourgeois and proletariat. The capitalist system for various reasons would concentrate power into fewer and fewer capitalist hands until there were so few that the proletariat revolution would occur.

4. This revolution will lead us to socialism, where the old mode of production is destroyed and replaced by a new one. Marx lists several specific changes that socialism will bring.

5. This new society will be of a single class. "When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class." Since there are no class antagonisms, there is no political power, and eventually the state withers away.

*Classical economists saw 3 classes: laborer, capitalist and landlord, who all were at constant struggle for power. The switch to capitalism was marked by a vast decrease in the power of landlords, leaving us only two classes.

Where I believe BBS makes the mistake in is confusing what Marx would call petty-bourgeois socialism and conservative socialism (the examples he listed in his (1) group and non-revolutionary varieties such as Fabian socialism, social democracy etc) assomething that developed afterwards, when it is something Marx dedicates an entire section to in the Manifesto itself.

My examples of socialism are responses after Marx--not necessarily how Marx labeled this or that, but what the political application evolved into. I see three distinct groups which evolved from Marxism. To be clear, for example I'm not saying (3) = Marxism.

Can you elaborate on which systems of thought did not in some way evolve from Marx?

[Phatscotty]

It seems to me Mr. West is playing a somewhat intellectually dishonest game here. He is taking a political ideology/bent which has evolved from Marx's political theories, and calling it communism.

Which from a strictly political scientific perspective while dodgy could be argued. However he is making this link with, in my opinion, full knowledge that the general public will make the association with the Communist dictatorships of the 20th century. "oh my god 80 members of congress are basically Stalin!"

Progressives or democratic socialists as they would be called anywhere else. Are not the traditional picture of communists. Their aims may be similar in an extremely broad way, but their means are extremely different as well as how they wish to achieve those aims.

Well, how about we examine the actual positions of the progressive party and compare it to the 10 point plan of the Communist Manifesto.

Sound good?

Ok but that would be a link to marx and not the communist dictatorships of the 20th century. Which many different political ideologies have links to. He was an incredibly influential political theorist and not only for the left.

That being said Marx's ten point plan is very broad and gives allot of wiggle. Not only that but many of his proposals weren't exactly all that crazy. Such as creating central banks or public education systems.

Now I know you're all hoped up on the Ron Paul juice, but I suspect you don't associate those things with the likes of say Stalin, Mao or Lenin. You might disagree with the ideas on principle but surely you don't believe they are essentially "communist" ideas on par with seizing all modes of production.

Let's explore that. Do you mean to say "Seizing all modes of production at one time?" However, where do you think all this government growth will eventually lead to?

Surely you can see that our Government is seizing, buying, growing, taxing, regulating more and more every year. They aren't taking everything over all at once, but it is growing exponentially. The more it grows, the less likely and more difficult it will be to shrink the government and it's power. Granted you can notice the pattern of government growth and control and the sectors and businesses the government keeps getting involved in is a one way street. It only grows.

After a while, the government will have seized not only all modes of production, but control over all property (fannie mae freddie mac own over 97% of every mortgage in America) as well.

[Symmetry]

It seems to me Mr. West is playing a somewhat intellectually dishonest game here. He is taking a political ideology/bent which has evolved from Marx's political theories, and calling it communism.

Which from a strictly political scientific perspective while dodgy could be argued. However he is making this link with, in my opinion, full knowledge that the general public will make the association with the Communist dictatorships of the 20th century. "oh my god 80 members of congress are basically Stalin!"

Progressives or democratic socialists as they would be called anywhere else. Are not the traditional picture of communists. Their aims may be similar in an extremely broad way, but their means are extremely different as well as how they wish to achieve those aims.

Well, how about we examine the actual positions of the progressive party and compare it to the 10 point plan of the Communist Manifesto.

Sound good?

Ok but that would be a link to marx and not the communist dictatorships of the 20th century. Which many different political ideologies have links to. He was an incredibly influential political theorist and not only for the left.

That being said Marx's ten point plan is very broad and gives allot of wiggle. Not only that but many of his proposals weren't exactly all that crazy. Such as creating central banks or public education systems.

Now I know you're all hoped up on the Ron Paul juice, but I suspect you don't associate those things with the likes of say Stalin, Mao or Lenin. You might disagree with the ideas on principle but surely you don't believe they are essentially "communist" ideas on par with seizing all modes of production.

Let's explore that. Do you mean to say "Seizing all modes of production at one time?" However, where do you think all this government growth will eventually lead to?

Surely you can see that our Government is seizing, buying, growing, taxing, regulating more and more every year. They aren't taking everything over all at once, but it is growing exponentially. The more it grows, the less likely and more difficult it will be to shrink the government and it's power. Granted you can notice the pattern of government growth and control and the sectors and businesses the government keeps getting involved in is a one way street. It only grows.

After a while, the government will have seized not only all modes of production, but control over all property (fannie mae freddie mac own over 97% of every mortgage in America) as well.

Scotty, have your read anything by Marx? Your posts kind of indicate that you haven't, but your tone suggests that you know his thoughts inside out.

I'm guessing you've mainly read out of context quotes. Would that be correct?

[BigBallinStalin]

1. The Marxist view of history is such that the mode of production dictates social class structure.

2. Marx notes that the natural flow of history took the world out of the feudal age and into capitalism.* Therefore, he supported the development of capitalism (the rather unrestrained variety we saw in the Industrial Age) in countries which had not yet left the Feudal Age (like Germany).

3. Capitalism, according to Marx, has 2 classes: bourgeois and proletariat. The capitalist system for various reasons would concentrate power into fewer and fewer capitalist hands until there were so few that the proletariat revolution would occur.

4. This revolution will lead us to socialism, where the old mode of production is destroyed and replaced by a new one. Marx lists several specific changes that socialism will bring.

5. This new society will be of a single class. "When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class." Since there are no class antagonisms, there is no political power, and eventually the state withers away.

*Classical economists saw 3 classes: laborer, capitalist and landlord, who all were at constant struggle for power. The switch to capitalism was marked by a vast decrease in the power of landlords, leaving us only two classes.

Where I believe BBS makes the mistake in is confusing what Marx would call petty-bourgeois socialism and conservative socialism (the examples he listed in his (1) group and non-revolutionary varieties such as Fabian socialism, social democracy etc) assomething that developed afterwards, when it is something Marx dedicates an entire section to in the Manifesto itself.

My examples of socialism are responses after Marx--not necessarily how Marx labeled this or that, but what the political application evolved into. I see three distinct groups which evolved from Marxism. To be clear, for example I'm not saying (3) = Marxism.

Can you elaborate on which systems of thought did not in some way evolve from Marx?

How exactly is your qualifier relevant to my response here http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=169375&start=30#p3699778? Again, two different meanings.

[BigBallinStalin]

If we can just agree that Marxism is Marxism, half of this would not be necessary.

But language isn't that simple. It's interpreted subjectively and by many individuals, and their interaction leads to outcomes of a generally accepted term and/or of a term that is only accepted in certain groups, and blah blah blah. This post of mine tries to explain the meaning of Marxism as related to this thread.

1-10, how warm would you say Obama is to Marx and his ideas and theories.
1-10, how warm would you say Obama is to Adam Smith and his ideas and theories.

It's difficult to say because you're asking me to surgically remove each person's many ideas which are embedded in a specific context of a specific time in history, and then apply them to today. Too much blood gets on the floor while the old ideas are ruined beyond recognition due to the elements.

[Symmetry]

Dude, I'll attack you on some questions, but this was an honest request. I'll attack your response, most likely, but, to throw myself out there, I think most political and economic systems draw on Marx. He's not necessarily the key, but an economist who hasn't read Marx is likely a poor economist.

[BigBallinStalin]

Dude, I'll attack you on some questions, but this was an honest request. I'll attack your response, most likely, but, to throw myself out there, I think most political and economic systems draw on Marx. He's not necessarily the key, but an economist who hasn't read Marx is likely a poor economist.

Your question is discussing something different due to your qualifier, which I underlined. Is it relevant? I don't know, so I asked.

Would you like to discuss something unrelated? For example, how much does an idea have to draw from one particular book in order for us to say that "X draws from Marxism"? How would that contrast with "X is rooted in Marxism"? So, it depends on what exactly you mean by "draw on" Marx...


Here's a tangent that's very related to Marxism and his economics and it'll probably clear up some of your questions:

I tend to view Marx as Descartes. Descartes comes along and messed shit up for everyone in the philosophical fields, until pragmatists and many others whittle away at cartesian doubt, radical skepticism, the cogito argument, and all that jazz. For me, it culminates with Wittgenstein's connecting human action (or rather "certitude") with reality. Descartes strongly motivated that field of study, which overall I view as beneficial.

With Marx, he's also a motivator, and during the Economic Calculus Debate (1920s to 1930s), there were Marxists economists going at it with "non-Marxist" economists. During a crucial point, Mises and Hayek lay out the arguments which highlight the fundamental problems with central economic planning (and it's very related to how GP describes Marxist economics), and why it would fail.

Note that today there are extremely few Marxists, or adherents of Marx, in economics. They got crushed in that debate, and history really taught them the impact behind their opposition's arguments. This is partly why Marxist scholars have "retreated" from economics and have congregated into other fields of study.


My Problem with the Marxist Discourse:
Marx and the interpretations of his adherents muddied the waters from which many have yet to recover analytically. This is mainly evident by how many of them tend to treat social science from a holistic perspective, remove the individuals' agency (or severely downplay it), are submerged in normative/value judgments (which makes their analysis extremely susceptible and conducive to logical fallacies like appeal to emotion), and yada yada yada.

It's really funny to read self-labelled Marxists like James C. Scott because at times, these kind of writers actually endorse markets (capitalism), but then they quickly apologize for doing so. It's really interesting. There's this cognitive dissonance in fields which strongly take roots from (or identify with) Marxist discourse. Another example: some professors of cultural studies will repeat that culture isn't homogenous, its meaning is interpreted subjectively, agency matters, but then they'll say things like "this new Gatorade plant in Ghana is destroying their culture!" but they forget that the people of Ghana have agency, that culture is not homogenous, and they even forget that they themselves become the cultural imperialists by imposing their view of Ghana's culture on Ghana and demanding that it remain the same, i.e. how it was before Gatorade.

Arguably, this cognitive dissonance is related to the inherent problems of "Marxist" analysis. I'm just sayin' that it needs some serious corrections.

What many subscribers of Marxist discourse need to understand is the market process, methodological individualism, New Institutional Economics, knowledge problems, etc. Since many of them don't understand the market process, their opinions and arguments about capitalism and markets are... severely lacking. It's kind of like reading zimmah's explanations about science and evolution (but it's not that bad). Even Weber's methodology is similar to methodological individualism, but it's something that's missed or wasn't fully understood.

Remember that "retreat"? A lot of these scholars have lost touch with economics, which might explain a good chunk of their problems. However, ever since Gary Becker's call for "economic expansion," we've seen a huge burst in sociological economics, cultural economics, and even "freakonomics." Furthermore, there's the problem of mainstream economics and the "natural/physical sciences v. social sciences" debate, which hasn't been settled.

I could go on and on, but I'll stop here. Sorry for spelling mistakes or errors, too tired.

[Phatscotty]

If we can just agree that Marxism is Marxism, half of this would not be necessary.

But language isn't that simple. It's interpreted subjectively and by many individuals, and their interaction leads to outcomes of a generally accepted term and/or of a term that is only accepted in certain groups, and blah blah blah. This post of mine tries to explain the meaning of Marxism as related to this thread.

1-10, how warm would you say Obama is to Marx and his ideas and theories.
1-10, how warm would you say Obama is to Adam Smith and his ideas and theories.

It's difficult to say because you're asking me to surgically remove each person's many ideas which are embedded in a specific context of a specific time in history, and then apply them to today. Too much blood gets on the floor while the old ideas are ruined beyond recognition due to the elements.

I understand, but just take a stab, go with your gut, estimate.

Maybe you could proximate if you think Obama is more of a capitalist than a Communist or socialist, or more of a free market guy than a government control guy, more an indiviualist than a collective guy, or vice versa.

[Phatscotty]

Seriously, if we can not even identify what our leader is/isn't, or is more likely/less likely to be, how in the world could we possibly go and vote for/against him?

Are we really this confused?

[Baron Von PWN]

It seems to me Mr. West is playing a somewhat intellectually dishonest game here. He is taking a political ideology/bent which has evolved from Marx's political theories, and calling it communism.

Which from a strictly political scientific perspective while dodgy could be argued. However he is making this link with, in my opinion, full knowledge that the general public will make the association with the Communist dictatorships of the 20th century. "oh my god 80 members of congress are basically Stalin!"

Progressives or democratic socialists as they would be called anywhere else. Are not the traditional picture of communists. Their aims may be similar in an extremely broad way, but their means are extremely different as well as how they wish to achieve those aims.

Well, how about we examine the actual positions of the progressive party and compare it to the 10 point plan of the Communist Manifesto.

Sound good?

Ok but that would be a link to marx and not the communist dictatorships of the 20th century. Which many different political ideologies have links to. He was an incredibly influential political theorist and not only for the left.

That being said Marx's ten point plan is very broad and gives allot of wiggle. Not only that but many of his proposals weren't exactly all that crazy. Such as creating central banks or public education systems.

Now I know you're all hoped up on the Ron Paul juice, but I suspect you don't associate those things with the likes of say Stalin, Mao or Lenin. You might disagree with the ideas on principle but surely you don't believe they are essentially "communist" ideas on par with seizing all modes of production.

Let's explore that. Do you mean to say "Seizing all modes of production at one time?" However, where do you think all this government growth will eventually lead to?

Surely you can see that our Government is seizing, buying, growing, taxing, regulating more and more every year. They aren't taking everything over all at once, but it is growing exponentially. The more it grows, the less likely and more difficult it will be to shrink the government and it's power. Granted you can notice the pattern of government growth and control and the sectors and businesses the government keeps getting involved in is a one way street. It only grows.

After a while, the government will have seized not only all modes of production, but control over all property (fannie mae freddie mac own over 97% of every mortgage in America) as well.

It simply isn't true that government control has only grown, or that it is a one way street towards growth. There have been tax cuts, deregulation it grows and it shrinks. For instance any blame the financial crisis on deregulation on the part of government. What you are so concerned about is a reaction to that.

You talk about the bad old days of FDR and how you're afraid that you will go back towards that. Yet in order to return to that you have to have moved away.

So no I don't believe that the regulations put in by Obama is some kind of slippery slope to a communist dictatorship in the USA.

[Phatscotty]

It seems to me Mr. West is playing a somewhat intellectually dishonest game here. He is taking a political ideology/bent which has evolved from Marx's political theories, and calling it communism.

Which from a strictly political scientific perspective while dodgy could be argued. However he is making this link with, in my opinion, full knowledge that the general public will make the association with the Communist dictatorships of the 20th century. "oh my god 80 members of congress are basically Stalin!"

Progressives or democratic socialists as they would be called anywhere else. Are not the traditional picture of communists. Their aims may be similar in an extremely broad way, but their means are extremely different as well as how they wish to achieve those aims.

Well, how about we examine the actual positions of the progressive party and compare it to the 10 point plan of the Communist Manifesto.

Sound good?

Ok but that would be a link to marx and not the communist dictatorships of the 20th century. Which many different political ideologies have links to. He was an incredibly influential political theorist and not only for the left.

That being said Marx's ten point plan is very broad and gives allot of wiggle. Not only that but many of his proposals weren't exactly all that crazy. Such as creating central banks or public education systems.

Now I know you're all hoped up on the Ron Paul juice, but I suspect you don't associate those things with the likes of say Stalin, Mao or Lenin. You might disagree with the ideas on principle but surely you don't believe they are essentially "communist" ideas on par with seizing all modes of production.

Let's explore that. Do you mean to say "Seizing all modes of production at one time?" However, where do you think all this government growth will eventually lead to?

Surely you can see that our Government is seizing, buying, growing, taxing, regulating more and more every year. They aren't taking everything over all at once, but it is growing exponentially. The more it grows, the less likely and more difficult it will be to shrink the government and it's power. Granted you can notice the pattern of government growth and control and the sectors and businesses the government keeps getting involved in is a one way street. It only grows.

After a while, the government will have seized not only all modes of production, but control over all property (fannie mae freddie mac own over 97% of every mortgage in America) as well.

It simply isn't true that government control has only grown, or that it is a one way street towards growth. There have been tax cuts, deregulation it grows and it shrinks. For instance any blame the financial crisis on deregulation on the part of government. What you are so concerned about is a reaction to that.

You talk about the bad old days of FDR and how you're afraid that you will go back towards that. Yet in order to return to that you have to have moved away.

So no I don't believe that the regulations put in by Obama is some kind of slippery slope to a communist dictatorship in the USA.

A tax cut does not always mean less money for the government, and it usually means more, since the tax base could also expand while the tax cuts occur, or tax cuts could stimulate growth which provides more money than at the higher tax rate (like history has shown TC's almost always do). Deregulation similarly usually provides growth, thus more money for the government to spend, which almost always translates into bigger government. Many do blame the crisis on deregulation, but that does not mean all deregulation is bad... only that crappy deregulation that Clinton signed and Bush exploited and Obama is stuck with. Besides, the deregulation, which led to explosive real estate growth, expanded the size of government in many ways, like housing committees, new laws, new regulations, and ultimately....the bailouts.

LOL I've said a lot about FDR so I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, but when I think about it the way you put it, I would be happy to go back to the time of FDR....think of all the future damage we could have prevented!

The regulation by Obama, Congress, and every PnC since, are a snowball of regulation that keep growing. Government growth far outpaces economic growth, especially in the last 8 years, and specifically in the last 3 years.

For example, some might look at the Patriot Act, and say it was necessary and it worked etc, but now we have NDAA, which we could not likely have without the Patriot Act. Only now, 10 years later, do we begin to see how it all fits together. NDAA is excatly the reason I have been against the Patriot Act since day 1.

We are a little off issue here but I wanted to address all your points.

[gradybridges]

If a person believes in Communism, let them share their beliefs open and in the public. If the people don't like that viewpoint, they will be voted out of office. It's this backhanded re-labeling of their ideas that are causing us to move closer to Communism without most people realizing or recognizing it. Be open about your beliefs and let the public decide who they want to be representing them.

I just wish the Republicans would be honest about what they are doing. The Repubs relabled themselves as The Tea Party to gain control of the House in 2010 and have been using religion, abortions, and guns(for the last 30 years) to hide their real objective of killing unions, tax breaks to millionairs on up, and unregulating Wall Street. I just wish they would be honest about what they really believe in.

This thread mad my head hurt.