26 Feb 10
Originally posted by shavixmirIf you think objectivism is a philosophy based on a financial system you are woefully off track. Like it or lump it objectivism is a complete philosophical system built up from metaphysics through epistemology then ethics, and only after these foundations have been laid can we move onto politics and aesthetics.
Can you contradict dialectic materialism?
Anyhoo, it's better to have a financial system based on philosophy than a philosophy based upon a financial system.
Ayn Rand can suck my nuts.
26 Feb 10
Originally posted by FMFSecret language? Its like those who call Obama and company socialists but then people chime in yelling, "But socialism means X and he does not fit that specific definition because he is not advocating the state take over all industry. However, in the interim he does take over banks, auto corporations etc and impliments socialist like policies. Likewise, the progressive movement has implemented Marxist like policies. The progressive tax is an example. The more money you make the more money you should pay. In short, this redistributiion of wealth is a Marxist like ideology and is where Obama and company live.
No. Why would I want to engage with people using their own secret language? Whodey is the one who is saying that U.S. "politicians [are] implementing Marxist like policies as they deny being Marxists" so the onus is on him, not me, to explain that peculiar assertion. You let it pass without asking him for his definition, so presumably you are inclined to ...[text shortened]... I hardly think you and I have much chance of discussing politics in any meaningful way.
As for Marxism in general, I would love to hear what you think of it FMF. Why won't you devulge how you feel about it? Are you as ashamed of Marxism as politicians in the US who embrace Marxist like ideology?
26 Feb 10
Originally posted by whodeyWell I'm not a marxist, so I have no reason to be "ashamed". Hey. I'm getting the hang of your secret language and your 7-day Political Science Masters Degree!
Are you as ashamed of Marxism as politicians in the US who embrace Marxist like ideology?
26 Feb 10
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFI am discussing the effects of Marxism, not the actual specific definition. For example, I don't think Obama and compay wish for us to pick up our pitch forks and storm the White House and impose upon them the same living conditions and income as the average Joe. After all, they want to be the ones calling the shots and enjoying their wealth. As we saw in the former USSR, "true marxism" is unattainable. We will always have a ruling class who are better off than the average Joe. However, when one imposes Marxist like policies, this ruling class slowly shrinks. Really the only question becomes, do you want a ruling class shrinking in the private sector? Unfortunatly for the cronies in government, the private sector is a necessary evil. After all, those in government don't produce anything and no wealth is generated by them. It is akin to a leach not wanting its host to die, but at the same time, reducing the host to minimal activity so that all energy and blood supply can be directed towards itself.
Well I'm not a marxist, so I have no reason to be "ashamed". Hey. I'm getting the hang of your secret language and your 7-day Political Science Masters Degree!
26 Feb 10
Originally posted by whodeyYou are discussing the "effects" of something that you have a politically illiterate and completely cockeyed definition of. Assuming you do have a definition. Perhaps you don't. You don't define marxism. You can't define marxism. You don't appear to know what it is. It seems to refer to whatever you don't approve of. Your definition of it can only be described as thoroughly unintelligible. To us and, seemingly, to you too. And yet you want to "discuss its effects"?
I am discussing the effects of Marxism, not the actual specific definition.
26 Feb 10
Originally posted by whodeyI can see you're going to parade your ignoance like a tatty flag throughout this thread, so please just assume mocking laughter surrounding any and all of my replies to you.
I am discussing the effects of Marxism, not the actual specific definition. For example, I don't think Obama and compay wish for us to pick up our pitch forks and storm the White House and impose upon them the same living conditions and income as the average Joe. After all, they want to be the ones calling the shots and enjoying their wealth. As we saw in ...[text shortened]... host to minimal activity so that all energy and blood supply can be directed towards itself.
It's remarkable to think that you could describe 'the effects' of something you patently - and to some extent admittedly - have little to no understanding of.
'Marxism' sems to be for you - as I have noticed it is for a surprising amount of Americans - a wholly empty cipher.
But I am sure your lack of anything resembling basic knowledge in what Marxism was/is will not deter you from making 'contributions'. Carry on, do, I need a laugh.
26 Feb 10
Originally posted by whodeyYou equating everyone to the left of you as 'Marxist' is ridiculous. Marxism and socialism are not synonymous. Wealth redistribution is a facet of Marxism, but not everyone who advocates a redistribution is a Marxist. Equating Obama's policies in any way as being or resembling 'Marxism' is just stupid.
Secret language? Its like those who call Obama and company socialists but then people chime in yelling, "But socialism means X and he does not fit that specific definition because he is not advocating the state take over all industry. However, in the interim he does take over banks, auto corporations etc and impliments socialist like policies. Likewise, th ...[text shortened]... it? Are you as ashamed of Marxism as politicians in the US who embrace Marxist like ideology?
Marx represented a specific trend in socialism. One that was the dominant trend for many years. If you want to comment on the effects of that Marxist trend within socialism, then do so. If you just want to use the term 'Marxism' as a tool to bludgeon everyone to the left of you, then don't waste your time.
26 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeya lot of the tactics used by conservatives and other anti-government types seem to borrow very heavily from the Marxist handbooks.
FMF has once again inspired Whodey. Instead of asking whether the actual man was good or evil, whatever that means, we will ask the question how has Marxism influenced us today and in days past? Has the political influence been good or has it set mankind back or a combination thereof?
You can almost see them with their fists in the air, calling for the "workers to unite" and rise up against the elites who "control the means of production" -- except that the revolution is now aimed at elites who are "liberal" rather than "economic" - and the main "means of production" is now "the media" or "the government" instead of "the factory" and "the farm".
If Lenin were alive today, he would likely be a popular angry radio talkshow host.
27 Feb 10
Originally posted by rwingettWealth redistribution is indeed a facet of Marxism. So do you think that this facet has been a "good" contribution? Is this attack on private property a good thing?
You equating everyone to the left of you as 'Marxist' is ridiculous. Marxism and socialism are not synonymous. Wealth redistribution is a facet of Marxism, but not everyone who advocates a redistribution is a Marxist. Equating Obama's policies in any way as being or resembling 'Marxism' is just stupid.
Marx represented a specific trend in socialism. One ...[text shortened]... 'Marxism' as a tool to bludgeon everyone to the left of you, then don't waste your time.
In addition, you talk as if you disdain Marxism. In fact, everyone here does as well. So what specifically about Marx to you hate?
27 Feb 10
Originally posted by whodeyI think it's been mixed. It woke capitalists up to how they've been violating the right of property for the poor.
FMF has once again inspired Whodey. Instead of asking whether the actual man was good or evil, whatever that means, we will ask the question how has Marxism influenced us today and in days past? Has the political influence been good or has it set mankind back or a combination thereof?
27 Feb 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo violating the property of the rich is good because some have violated the property of the poor in the past? Do two wrongs make a right?
I think it's been mixed. It woke capitalists up to how they've been violating the right of property for the poor.