American Marxism

[Gary Childress]

"BTW, that's not a very professional argument either, IC."

Thanks, Gary. Don't let that fuckin guy bully me.

It's an appropriate response to the unproffessional one that was offered. And it is, at least, articulate.

It's ad hominem, though. From a logical standpoint, it's not an "appropriate" response.

[Gary Childress]

"Ultimately, I think everyone agrees that workers should be paid a fair share for their contribution to the economy."

This is a notorious ambiguity that by nature of its ambiguity, allows free market theorists to advance obscure arguments that explain nothing. There is no such thing as 'fair', G. But there is such a thing as democratic decision making... which substitutes the power of the individual to have a degree of control in deciding, for ubiquitous arguments over what exactly is 'fair'.

Seriously, what is 'fair'? Have you ever met a worker who didn't want more money, or a capitalist who didn't want to pay less?

No man, it's a trick. 'Fair' might mean 'competitive wage', which would make a dollar more than minimum wage seem reasonable.

A 'fair' exchange, if there were such a thing, would involve getting ALL of the profit derived from the sale of the product or service one provides as a worker, would it not?

You tryna tell me that because capitalism pushed wages down so low that Juan's raise to $1.85 per day for picking oranges, is 'fair'?

I don't think it helps to dispense with words like "fair". "Fair" is a human concept and we all have a notion of what it means. As with many words, it's difficult to measure or quantify but we know what is and isn't fair when something is in extremely stark contrast such as hundreds of farm workers making pennies to the dollar of a single person sitting in an office somewhere examining pie charts. It's a word that is extremely useful for discussing politics and justice. I don't know what is accomplished by doing away with such words. But maybe you can elaborate more on it. I don't understand what you would have me say in place of "fair".

[henry quirk]

Gary,

I wrote: Marxism could be a friggin' godsend and I'll still reject it, and, Free Enterprise might be friggin' awful and I'd still embrace it. Freedom isn't measured by efficiency or economics.

Your response...

I don't think your statement makes a whole lot of rational sense, Henry. Why would you embrace free enterprise if it were "awful" or reject marxism if it was a "godsend"?

As I say: with free enterprise, a man is free, and, in a marxism, he is not.

I thought the reason for rejecting Marxism was because it is inefficient compared to free enterprise and ultimately leads to greater human suffering?

That, of course, is the reason given by fence sitters of all stripes.

If marxism was a "godsend" (meaning it alleviated human suffering) then literally it would be the way of God and we would be rejecting God to reject what God wanted for us.

That's an age-type statement.

Now I'm not saying Marxism is a "godsend" or that free enterprise is "awful", just that you have the cart pulling the horse if you're not putting human welfare ahead of what would be misguided principles if those principles lead to greater human suffering.

I hold freedom above a full belly (which is all marxism really promises [and never delivers]).

Havin' suffered thru long bouts of privation, I know this as fact: it's better to be hungry and your own than fat & satisfied and The State's.

To each his own, I guess.

Ultimately, I think everyone agrees that workers should be paid a fair share for their contribution to the economy.

They ought be paid what they contract for.

And I think we can all agree that all of society should not be run by a privileged few who use the power at their disposal to further their own narrow interests while neglecting the welfare of the many.

Which privileged few? The state capitalist who buys favor from the legislator, or the legislator?

The question is, how do we accomplish this goal?

Hang the legislators.

What sort of institutions or ways of governing should be adopted?

Adopt nuthin', add nuthin': subtract, minimize, excise.

-----

pro wrote: democratically

Mob rule. You have this faith that somehow, some way, the aggregate choices of the people lead to good things.

At the same time: folks like yourself have nuthin' good to say about the people. I should compile a collection of what folks like yourself think about the people, in a thread, culled solely from this forum.

[Gary Childress]

And I think we can all agree that all of society should not be run by a privileged few who use the power at their disposal to further their own narrow interests while neglecting the welfare of the many.

Which privileged few? The state capitalist who buys favor from the legislator, or the legislator?

Both are privileged few. Private tycoons and legislators tend to work hand in hand. Would you agree?

[Gary Childress]

If marxism was a "godsend" (meaning it alleviated human suffering) then literally it would be the way of God and we would be rejecting God to reject what God wanted for us.

That's an age-type statement.

OK. Fair enough, then I would still ask why you would stand up for a principle if it were the case that it contributed more to human suffering than something you opposed? What sense does that make, Henry?

[henry quirk]

And I think we can all agree that all of society should not be run by a privileged few who use the power at their disposal to further their own narrow interests while neglecting the welfare of the many.

Which privileged few? The state capitalist who buys favor from the legislator, or the legislator?

Both are privileged few. Private tycoons and legislators tend to work hand in hand. *Would you agree?

*Obviously...as I say, just above The state capitalist buys favor from the legislator.

Thing is: without the legislator, the state capitalist is just another free enterpriser who rises or falls like any other. Take away his favored status and leave him be.

[henry quirk]

If marxism was a "godsend" (meaning it alleviated human suffering) then literally it would be the way of God and we would be rejecting God to reject what God wanted for us.

That's an age-type statement.

OK. Fair enough, then I would still ask why you would stand up for a principle if it were the case that it contributed more to human suffering than something you opposed? What sense does that make, Henry?

I answered. Bein' free and hungry is better than bein' well-fed and The State's, And if folks like pro get their way The State becomes omni-present (and you'll be even more hungry).

[Gary Childress]

If marxism was a "godsend" (meaning it alleviated human suffering) then literally it would be the way of God and we would be rejecting God to reject what God wanted for us.

That's an age-type statement.

OK. Fair enough, then I would still ask why you would stand up for a principle if it were the case that it contributed more to human suffering than something you opposed? What sense does that make, Henry?

I answered. Bein' free and hungry is better than bein' well-fed and The State's, And if folks like pro get their way The State becomes omni-present (and you'll be even more hungry).

OK. So, in the end, your argument hinges on marxism being awful and free enterprise being a godsend. Just wanted to point that out to you. Otherwise, it would make no sense to want something if it were to the detriment of human welfare. But your position is that marxism is a detriment to human welfare.

[henry quirk]

OK. Fair enough, then I would still ask why you would stand up for a principle if it were the case that it contributed more to human suffering than something you opposed? What sense does that make, Henry?

I answered. Bein' free and hungry is better than bein' well-fed and The State's, And if folks like pro get their way The State becomes omni-present (and you'll be even more hungry).

OK. So, in the end, your argument hinges on marxism being awful and free enterprise being a godsend. Just wanted to point that out to you. Otherwise, it would make no sense to want something if it were to the detriment of human welfare. But your position is that marxism is a detriment to human welfare.

Freedom is the godsend; free enterprise is just a label for free men transactin' with other free men. Marxism or socialism or progressivism or whatever it is they wanna call it is a label for what happens when folks decide a full belly & safety is more important than self-direction. self-reliance, and self-responsibility, and when folks let someone else (legislators, or the people) call the shots.

Freedom, by definition, is not safe and it offers no guarantee of a full belly (and despite what they say, neither does marxism [but, even if it did, even if marxism did fill bellies and ensure safety, I would reject it...the anthill is not for me]).

[Immanuel Can]

"BTW, that's not a very professional argument either, IC."

Thanks, Gary. Don't let that fuckin guy bully me.

It's an appropriate response to the unproffessional one that was offered. And it is, at least, articulate.

It's ad hominem, though. From a logical standpoint, it's not an "appropriate" response.

It was not at all ad hominem. Rather, it was an observation on the wording he used, and the absurdity of wording it as he did.

His allegation was that the "professionalism" of this forum put his claims beyond my reasonable ability to question. But he worded it, clearly, very unprofessionally. I merely pointed that out -- although, I admit, I could be accused of being guilty of the sin of obviousness.

As the saying goes, "Sauce for the goose..." It is most appropriate.

[Gary Childress]

It's an appropriate response to the unproffessional one that was offered. And it is, at least, articulate.

It's ad hominem, though. From a logical standpoint, it's not an "appropriate" response.

It was not at all ad hominem. Rather, it was an observation on the wording he used, and the absurdity of wording it as he did.

His allegation was that the "professionalism" of this forum put his claims beyond my reasonable ability to question. But he worded it, clearly, very unprofessionally. I merely pointed that out -- although, I admit, I could be accused of being guilty of the sin of obviousness.

As the saying goes, "Sauce for the goose..." It is most appropriate.

"Spoiled brat" is an ad hominem and has no bearing on the argument.

[Immanuel Can]

And if I think I am, I'm not a brilliant economist: I'm a spoiled little jealous brat.

BTW, that's not a very professional argument either, IC.

It's a definition, Gary.

Somebody who does not accept their due and instead resorts to coveting what others have stands in explicit violation of the Ten Commandments ("Thou shalt not covet"), and is, analytically, a spoiled, jealous little brat. So I stand by the remark.

However, you should also note that I did not call you that, nor did it occur to me to imply it of you. I marvel that you thought it applied to you.

I would understand you drawing that conclusion if you were a regular advocate of Marxism: ressentiment (to use Nietzsche's word) is their chief motivator. To them, the comment attributed to Orwell regarding the British Socialists would apply. He allegedly said to the Socialist Society, "You don't love the poor; you just hate the rich." That's Marxism.

Authentic or not, what is attributed to Orwell is memorably true. Generally speaking, and with few exceptions, Socialists are not known for their spirit of sharing and charity. They're not great contributors to the poor. Rather, they're known for their sense of personal entitlement, envy, resentment, and bitterness -- especially in Western climes, where they all enjoy privileges of which the majority of the world can only dream, while they still seem bitterly resentful of anybody who isn't "equal" with them. Little do they imagine how much "inequality" the Developing World (in respect to which or Western Socialists actually practice precious little charity) could easily claim against them personally if some universal "equality" were actually the standard.

That's bratty. That's spoiled. And that's jealous. So if the shoe fits them, let them wear it.

[Gary Childress]

I answered. Bein' free and hungry is better than bein' well-fed and The State's, And if folks like pro get their way The State becomes omni-present (and you'll be even more hungry).

OK. So, in the end, your argument hinges on marxism being awful and free enterprise being a godsend. Just wanted to point that out to you. Otherwise, it would make no sense to want something if it were to the detriment of human welfare. But your position is that marxism is a detriment to human welfare.

Freedom is the godsend; free enterprise is just a label for free men transactin' with other free men. Marxism or socialism or progressivism or whatever it is they wanna call it is a label for what happens when folks decide a full belly & safety is more important than self-direction. self-reliance, and self-responsibility, and when folks let someone else (legislators, or the people) call the shots.

Freedom, by definition, is not safe and it offers no guarantee of a full belly (and despite what they say, neither does marxism [but, even if it did, even if marxism did fill bellies and ensure safety, I would reject it...the anthill is not for me]).

OK. As I stated, you are for free enterprise because you believe it is better than marxism, it is more in tune with human welfare. No one but a maniac pursues something that is not conducive to their well-being. So the argument is over. That's the only point I was making.

[Gary Childress]

And if I think I am, I'm not a brilliant economist: I'm a spoiled little jealous brat.

BTW, that's not a very professional argument either, IC.

It's a definition, Gary.

Somebody who does not accept their due and instead resorts to coveting what others have stands in explicit violation of the Ten Commandments ("Thou shalt not covet"), and is, analytically, a spoiled, jealous little brat. So I stand by the remark.

Probably the biggest "spoiled brats" are CEOs and other uber-wealthy who think they are entitled to thousands of times the compensation of ordinary workers in order to do their job, don't you think?

[Immanuel Can]

Probably the biggest "spoiled brats" are CEOs and other uber-wealthy who think they are entitled to thousands of times the compensation of ordinary workers in order to do their job, don't you think?

Envy is envy, Gary.

That's what our rich, spoiled, bratty Western "social justice" types don't understand. They think that the wealth of the corrupt rich somehow provides some excuse for them to be envious. It's as if they think that hating a man because he has $10 more than you might be petty, but hating a man for having $1 million more than you is miraculously transformed into virtuousness.

But the action is exactly the same, and the values are exactly the same: "I hate that guy because he's doing better than me." It's that simple.

It's soooo childish, either way. And it's amazing how devoid of gratitude we in the West are. We've been born into the richest societies that have ever existed, and showered with encouragement, education, health care, food, benefits and opportunities that people in the majority of the world can only dream of...and all we can do is hate those who have gotten more than we have...

How is it we even have the nerve to open our selfish mouths?

Believe me, Gary...I've lived and travelled quite a bit in the Developing World, and I know this first hand: people there aren't poor because they deserve to be. And we aren't rich because we deserve to be. They're as good as people as we are, and in some ways better.

Anybody born in a Western, capitalist country should be getting out of bed every morning and falling on his knees beside his bed to thank God he wasn't born in any of the places that about 2/3 of the world were....or in a Communist country. And that's how he should start his day -- even if his job is only being a doorman. And we all ought to do something to help those people who are less fortunate than us, and spend a whole lot less time griping about what we think we "haven't gotten."