THE RADICAL AMERICAN MARXISTS (that don't exist)

originally posted by: banjobrain
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: banjobrain
Yes, my half sister is who half Mexican told me at a Christmas party that she is a bit racist towards asian female drivers.

That's not racism.

I have had family members from West Virginia use the N word with a hard R and admit that they are racists, openly.
I have had Hispanic friends tell me they are racist towards African Americans.

Probably racism

I have had other white friends use the N word, hard R in social settings as well as jokingly.

Not proof of racism

I have met skin heads in Orange County who are open racists.

Sounds like they're racists.

But I have never once had a single person say, admit or divulge a Marxist ideology, or anything of the sort.

Again, this is not proof that Marxists don't exist in America, nor is it proof that you have never known anyone who isn't Marxist--it just shows that they haven't openly shared it with you. People say (or omit) a lot of things in life...people can be very fake on the outside while concealing what is in their hearts, be it Marxism, racism, or any other ism, both positive or negative.

Call it what you want, it doesn't take away from the inherent truth in my premise.

It's your experience, but your experience isn't synonymous with truth all of the time.

These same claims have been made through history. The French revolution predates Karl Marx and it was based upon this same argument. In fact the majority of non religious revolutions have been based upon the idea that a ruling class was exploiting a large impoverished population economically.

Just because actions predated an "ism" (Marxism, in this case) doesn't mean that the "ism" can not be applied to it. And historical claims don't always reflect reality, either. Remember, history is written by the winning side. It's all about perception, not always reality or truth. (that's a generalized comment--not saying that the anything you listed is not reality or truth, per se)

They are also human ideas. Again, history is filled with wars and conflicts that were based upon one group trying to wrestle away resources from another group. Tribes did it all the time and the practice predates written history.

Again, they are still Marxist ideas, or at least ideas that fall in line with Marxist philosophy. Certain aspects of capitalism (not crony capitalism) are inherent "human ideas" as well, and have persisted throughout history, but we still call it "capitalism" when certain ones combine to fall under an economic system.

I was proven to be wrong, they do exist, there is a communist group in America that boosts 20,000 members, or 400 members for every state in the union. But my larger point that this large existential Marxist threat to America was actually bolstered by this 0.0000618% of the US population. The amount of time a certain group spends talking about the Marxist threat, is exaggerated to the point of absolute absurdity. And if you read between the lines, you would see that my ultimate point was regarding the epidemic of politically charged gaslighting.

Then that would be a better foundation upon which to rest your argument, not just basing it on your personal experience and then making an absolute claim and pretending it to be true. It was your own OP that asked us to call out something--I called out what I saw (and still see) to be a flaw in your OP. I do, however, agree with the part I bolded above.

a reply to: banjobrain

Who says "Conservatives" are genuine conservatives?

The OP does not see threads on this site that talk about

1. Universal basic income----redistribution of wealth, classic style

2. 3rd, 4th ,5th industrial revolutions and other the venus project stuff. Along with "post-scarcity"-techno-flavored marxism

3. Global Marxism: How the west should pay for the world by
a) giving money to other nations---international outsourcing marxism
b) letting everyone and their mother into their country to pay for our sins----international insourcing marxism
c) carbon taxes-productivity----wealth redistribution-classic marxism

4. tax the bourgeois into oblivion to give to proletariat masses----classic marxism

5. All cultures and peoples are equal, are of equal skill and productivity, diversity is strength. The west simply stole from everyone and that is why they are poor. They were rich before the west came and took Everything!, they had 3rd genders, got to live in huts, play the drums, and got to pass the peyote. Stoner Drum circles are the bomb!
----A Rejection of reality where the only way to rectify is to institute marxism

6. Does not believe males and females are different; when males come out on top it is discrimination, when females are on top it is girl power, perserverance, and any other bs adjective that males cannot obtain.
----Another Rejection of reality where the only way to rectify is to institute marxism


The cardinal sin of the leftist though is the rejection of what drives motivation and incentive.

The concept of Incentive always kept me far enough away from leftism to not get infected.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

It's your experience, but your experience isn't synonymous with truth all of the time.

I admitted it and I was shown evidence of a Communist party here in America. Read my post.

I do still believe that the Marxist presence her in America is negligible. Would you consider a self identifying political group representing 0.0000618% of the population is an actionable political force, then we should start parsing the definition of the word negligible.

Just because actions predated an "ism" (Marxism, in this case) doesn't mean that the "ism" can not be applied to it. And historical claims don't always reflect reality, either. Remember, history is written by the winning side. It's all about perception, not always reality or truth. (that's a generalized comment--not saying that the anything you listed is not reality or truth, per se)

You can apply "isms" to just about anything if you try, my point remains that it is an improper application and simply applied to bait, scare and bait the population into a stuporous state, where emotions are more important than facts. In this case, the fact being that the COMMUNIST or MARXIST presence in America in conflated and inflated to instill hatred and distrust towards anyone who is left of center. I see "liberals" using racism in precisely the same manner, and they defend it the same way as you; "Just because they don't say they are racist, doesn't mean they aren't racist" we can take your entire opposition to my OP, and apply it to the notion of racism, a term which serves the same divisive purpose as Marxist.

Again, they are still Marxist ideas, or at least ideas that fall in line with Marxist philosophy. Certain aspects of capitalism (not crony capitalism) are inherent "human ideas" as well, and have persisted throughout history, but we still call it "capitalism" when certain ones combine to fall under an economic system.

Well then, I guess I would say the wrong ISM is intentionally being misapplied in the current American political atmosphere.

Then that would be a better foundation upon which to rest your argument, not just basing it on your personal experience and then making an absolute claim and pretending it to be true. It was your own OP that asked us to call out something--I called out what I saw (and still see) to be a flaw in your OP. I do, however, agree with the part I bolded above.

I made a series of claims, and I rested my argument on several things intentionally.

How many self identifying Marxists have you met? How did you detect their indoctrination into Marxism?

One thing that is interesting is that not ONE SINGLE MARXIST has chimed in here.

Calling all Marxists, what do you think?

Is America infected by a secret community of Marxists that evade my untrained eye?

Be proud and show yourselves, we are all just talking here.

originally posted by: jellyrev
The OP does not see threads on this site that talk about

1. Universal basic income----redistribution of wealth, classic style

2. 3rd, 4th ,5th industrial revolutions and other the venus project stuff. Along with "post-scarcity"-techno-flavored marxism

3. Global Marxism: How the west should pay for the world by
a) giving money to other nations---international outsourcing marxism
b) letting everyone and their mother into their country to pay for our sins----international insourcing marxism
c) carbon taxes-productivity----wealth redistribution-classic marxism

4. tax the bourgeois into oblivion to give to proletariat masses----classic marxism

5. All cultures and peoples are equal, are of equal skill and productivity, diversity is strength. The west simply stole from everyone and that is why they are poor. They were rich before the west came and took Everything!, they had 3rd genders, got to live in huts, play the drums, and got to pass the peyote. Stoner Drum circles are the bomb!
----A Rejection of reality where the only way to rectify is to institute marxism

6. Does not believe males and females are different; when males come out on top it is discrimination, when females are on top it is girl power, perserverance, and any other bs adjective that males cannot obtain.
----Another Rejection of reality where the only way to rectify is to institute marxism


The cardinal sin of the leftist though is the rejection of what drives motivation and incentive.

The concept of Incentive always kept me far enough away from leftism to not get infected.

Your are implying that all things things are motivated by Marxist beliefs, but you haven't proved that is the truth, it is just easy for you to apply that label because it is in common practice to do so.

After the election of Barack Obama, this so called Marxist political force had the political potency to pass universal income, to take over means of all production by the state and a whole list of things that can be interpreted as Marxist. So by that measure, you should be able to show me evidence of the political battles that ensued to create universal income, nationalize gas, nationalize oil, nationalize farming, nationalize communications or a whole host of things.

The thing is, I know and YOU KNOW those battles never occurred because Marxism is a dead ideology that is scarcely practiced these days. I think you are simply exemplifying what I wrote about in the OP, because it is easy to do and it is common place. Calling someone a Marxist or a communist is only true if they are, but you can call them that ALL DAY LONG, and many will believe you.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: banjobrain

Who says "Conservatives" are genuine conservatives?

Well your claims sound like you are some sort of reverse Marxist

everything is true, nothing is true, it's all real...ly fake

That video is dedicated to you dawg

a reply to: banjobrain

Well many people support organizations but never "join" them.

There are many organizations in the U.S.

Leftist Organizations - USA

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: banjobrain

Well many people support organizations but never "join" them.

There are many organizations in the U.S.

Leftist Organizations - USA

Thanks,

So how does the marxist/corporatist agenda work?

a reply to: banjobrain

It's my firm belief that most Americans want exactly the same thing: a productive job, a safe home, food/clothing, basic freedoms and to live peacefully. They may have different ideas on how to achieve such, but the basics still remain the same. A lot of people take issue with political ideologies and warp them to the extremes. But the truth is we're mostly centralists...we agree with some of the right and some of the left.

I, myself, am midline...I want a small government that is less intrusive into our daily life, I want to keep most of what I earn. But I also think that medical care is a basic right. There's the rub. Yep I said it. I don't see how I can begrudge anyone medical care.

The next four years can give us a pause as Citizens of this great country...they will either unite us, or destroy those links that keep us as a commonweal. Personally I think we should focus on uniting, leaving the namecalling out of it and finding a way to rediscover the threads that keep us together.

a reply to: banjobrain

Since you've singled my thread out, I guess it's only fitting that I respond.

I don't know if you saw or heard any of the protestors today over Jeff Sessions. They seem pretty crazed.

Anyways, as for anecdotal evidence, I had a college professor who admitted she was a Marxist.

That is not real evidence. Let's go over some points from Karl Marx's:

2. "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax"

Of course, since there is no such thing as Marxists, no one would support anything close to this. Or would they?

3. "Abolition of the rights of inheritance"

There has been calls for this very measure, it's marginal, I would say the 2nd pillar is one of the most prevalent currently.

5. "Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

While the Federal Reserve is a private institution, it is treated as an arm of the State, and is centralized with complete control over the mechanisms of our currency. I would say this point can be check-marked completed.

6. "Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."

FCC anyone? How about this push for censoring 'fake news'? Highways? Airplanes? Trains? How about licensing and regulations of vehicles?

This may sound tame, I've yet to get into the whole Cultural Marxism that has embedded itself in the American college system.

Now according to you, I don't know how you gauge what is political radical or not, that there are no radical leftists or Marxists in existence.

The most popular form of Marxism in America today, is Cultural Marxism, or political correctness. This is the backbone of radical Marxists. The school systems teaching 'white privilege', feminist studies, et al, are the purveyors of this trash. Dissenting opinions are not combated with on an intellectual level, they are screamed at, name-called, and in many cases people are physically assaulted.

The day after Trump was elected, by way of our electoral system, a movement was born in California to secede from the union. The claims over Trump being racist have no evidence to back, it's a knee-jerk reaction to condemn the right, who are called Nazis on a regular basis.

Here's a fun fact:

35% of Americans have a positive view on socialism.
www.gallup.com...

My article pointed out, these radical marxists are very few, the fringe groups. Those groups are painted as the voice of the majority on the left, and without any condemnation by the left, are supporting these loud radicals through their silence. I guess you just read the title and made assumptions.

I don't believe most people would say 'Hey I'm a Marxist.', most people probably have no understanding of the meaning. Yet, when someone were to voice support for conservative values, they would most likely be name-called or assaulted, especially in more left-leaning states like California. Just because someone does not wish to properly identify a belief, does not make that belief non-existent.



You know what this picture tells me? It tells me, one you do not go to many protests, and two the ones you do go to you ignore the actual messages being conveyed.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: banjobrain

Since you've singled my thread out, I guess it's only fitting that I respond.

I don't know if you saw or heard any of the protestors today over Jeff Sessions. They seem pretty crazed.

Anyways, as for anecdotal evidence, I had a college professor who admitted she was a Marxist.

That is not real evidence. Let's go over some points from Karl Marx's:

2. "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax"

Of course, since there is no such thing as Marxists, no one would support anything close to this. Or would they?

So Dwight Eisenhower, Republican and champion of WWII had a progressive tax rate of 90% at the top level... Does that make Eisenhower a Marxist or Communist?

3. "Abolition of the rights of inheritance"

There has been calls for this very measure, it's marginal, I would say the 2nd pillar is one of the most prevalent currently.

Well my family has held our properties for generations and despite being liberal and conservative, no one has supported this notion or even suggested it. I'm sure some have, but that is hardly popular in our liberal meetings we have whilst plotting to destroy America.

5. "Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

While the Federal Reserve is a private institution, it is treated as an arm of the State, and is centralized with complete control over the mechanisms of our currency. I would say this point can be check-marked completed.

I would argue that YES the FED is a private institution which is not beholden to the state, one of the best cases of privatization gone wrong IMO. I would also point out that the constitutional system envisioned by many of the founders was a
held in trust by the state and not private in nature. I am not sure if that is a good example of Marxist doctrine at all.

6. "Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."

FCC anyone? How about this push for censoring 'fake news'? Highways? Airplanes? Trains? How about licensing and regulations of vehicles?

a while back I looked at a list of "civilized nations" to understand third world nations, and it seems as if nearly ever single one (that is not third world) has centralized systems regulating Highways Airplanes Trains How about licensing and regulations of vehicles? Actually, third world nations even have centralization, so it is a norm around the world. Maybe you could give me examples of nations that do not have those types of systems centralized, I think they are virtually non existent.

This may sound tame, I've yet to get into the whole Cultural Marxism that has embedded itself in the American college system.

I can concede that many educators are liberal and that their views often times promote other liberal views, but I have to also state that mainstream conservative views are often times adversarial to the sciences, many social studies and the arts, so what do you expect? That is a self imposed exile from the educational system if you are oppose modern and current notions.

Now according to you, I don't know how you gauge what is political radical or not, that there are no radical leftists or Marxists in existence.

The most popular form of Marxism in America today, is Cultural Marxism, or political correctness. This is the backbone of radical Marxists. The school systems teaching 'white privilege', feminist studies, et al, are the purveyors of this trash. Dissenting opinions are not combated with on an intellectual level, they are screamed at, name-called, and in many cases people are physically assaulted.

Well I DO very much agree about political correctness, but I think you (conservatives) have affixed the term Marxist to it, to stir up yourselves more and solidify your own group into sense of solidarity against the "others'. I know a of politcaly correct person who thought Karl Marx is a singer from the 80's... But again, I think it is politically expedient to affix the word Marxism to anything you want to oppose because America and actual Marxists were enemies for DECADES.It is good branding, but it is terribly destructive to our country and all of our minds. It reduces everything to a base emotionality where all calculations are based upon the impact, instead of the truth. Also, conservatives engage in political correctness all the time,
the guy who sits down for the national anthem, and the people who automatically think cop killings are justified, and the people who have to use the term RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM, the people who defend marriage, the notion that America is Christian even though it was funded by FREE MASONS, I can sit and conjure many more, but it goes both ways.

The day after Trump was elected, by way of our electoral system, a movement was born in California to secede from the union. The claims over Trump being racist have no evidence to back, it's a knee-jerk reaction to condemn the right, who are called Nazis on a regular basis.

Well Texas wanted to secede when Obama was elected. As far as racism, you are getting it, the word RACIST is used in EXACTLY the way MARXIST is used. Same thing, knee jerk, it is easy, it is inflammatory and it unites liberals the same way RADICAL MARXIST unites conservatives. Both things suck ass IMO because they are one in the same, often times baseless, cheap and meant to gas-light.

Here's a fun fact:

35% of Americans have a positive view on socialism.
www.gallup.com...

I am sure that is true, but Marxism and socialism are not the same things at all, much like waged slavery and capitalism are not the same things. I know plenty of conservatives who would be absolutely furious and in the street if Social Security and Medicare were pulled, both socialist in nature.

My article pointed out, these radical marxists are very few, the fringe groups. Those groups are painted as the voice of the majority on the left, and without any condemnation by the left, are supporting these loud radicals through their silence. I guess you just read the title and made assumptions.

I don't believe most people would say 'Hey I'm a Marxist.', most people probably have no understanding of the meaning. Yet, when someone were to voice support for conservative values, they would most likely be name-called or assaulted, especially in more left-leaning states like California. Just because someone does not wish to properly identify a belief, does not make that belief non-existent.

You know what this picture tells me? It tells me, one you do not go to many protests, and two the ones you do go to you ignore the actual messages being conveyed.

Your thread was just an example since someone asked for an example. I got your point, but I know first hand BEING ONE, that Marxism is so uncommon, I have never heard someone talking about it in my presence, not even in a veiled, wink wink sort of way. Most liberals, want a safety net yes, many liberals want higher wages for all, cheaper education, a better quality of life... Nothing too radical. We all like keeping our money, we all know the national anthem, things like that.

This is a great thread. I am extremely liberal and on the far left. I am very frustrated by politics in this country. Every year everything gets worse. And every year we hear the same old Democrats, Liberals, and global communists are the cause. In this country, we are about as far away from communism as a government can get and still have a currency with any shred of value.

Here's my view on what is wrong with our politics. Wealth inequality in this country is at all-time highs. If you think wealth inequality is bad, it's actually much much worse than anything you could ever imagine:

www.youtube.com...

The problems with our country are NOT rocket science. The lobbyists force the politicians to pass laws creating cartels and monopolies in exchange for campaign financing. You have to understand if you pass any law that favors labor in any way in this country you are labeled a communist and wealth distributor. Our government is owned by the corporations. Our government is run and controlled by big business. If you think otherwise you are delusional. I think this quote from Mussolini is very descriptive of our current government:

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Benito Mussolini

It doesn't matter what you pay in taxes. What does matter is the purchasing power of your take home pay. What difference does it make what you pay in taxes if the cost of living keeps rising. The cartels and monopolies can charge whatever they want. Every year the middle class is driven deeper and deeper into poverty wages because everything they purchases is from the "company store". We do not have free markets. We have paid-for markets with no competition. You can disagree with my opinion but the fact is wealth inequality is at all-time highs (see video link). Every year wealth inequality gets worse.

And here's why politics in our country favor the corporations:

www.youtube.com...

The corporations know exactly how to play the American people like a fiddle. They say the most outrageous lies on TV to get a rise out of the viewer. They will say anything to make sure they get good ratings. So Democrats and Liberals are scapegoated. It keeps everyone's attention away from the real problems. The corporations use wedge issues to make sure the American people do not organize in favor of labor. Take abortion for example. Abortion is the perfect wedge issue for getting votes and creating divisions among the American people. I guarantee you just like in 2003 when the Republicans controlled all 3 branches of government there will be no law passed outlawing abortion. Just like last time, in 2017 it will not happen either. Our politics are about making sure no laws get passed favoring labor in this country.

But do not worry my comrades! I have good news for you! Marx said capitalism is always followed by communism. This is because the greed from unfettered capitalism would result in the collapse of our government's currency. Once the government's currency collapses people in the bread lines will demand MORE government not less. So see you in the breadlines comrades!

a reply to: banjobrain

You make some very good points.

I would like to point out, that Marxism is applicable to both socialism and communism.

Socialism is a theoretical transitional system towards communism(a stateless system). There has never been a true Communist state.

There have been two main avenues attempted towards Communism, the violent revolutions, which have always resulted in authoritarian dictatorships. The other, a newer form, is democratic socialism. Rather than violence, the authoritarian rule is voted on by the public, slowly chipping away a nation's freedom; the result is the same albeit slower and less bloody.

In Marxist theory, socialism, also called lower-stage communism or the socialist mode of production, refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism.

A wikipedia quote, but it is accurate. Marxism incorporates socialism as a fundamental step towards communism. We can argue all day long over how socialism is this or that, the roots stem from Marxist theory; it cannot remain separate from Marxism, it is part of Marxism.

The calls for violent revolution have increased since Trump's election win. These people do not understand ideological theories, but they do adhere to the principles of Marxism.

It's more likely a Marxist would call themselves a 'democratic socialist'. Occupy wall-street is a very good example of Marxism today, of course they wouldn't call themselves Marxist, Socialist yes anti-capitalist yes. They are just useful idiots.

*Note -
While the US has 'socialist' highway systems, we have been moving towards privatized highways. In fact, privatized highways have existed for hundreds of years.

en.wikipedia.org...

AB 680, passed in 1989, allowed up to four private highway franchises to be granted.[4] The 91 Express Lanes in the median of the Riverside Freeway were privately owned and operated by a private consortium (one of the members of which was Cofiroute, France's largest private highway operator) from 1995 to 2003.[5]

a reply to: TonyS

I agree with basically everything that you noted.

Thanks for the expansion on my comment.

originally posted by: banjobrain
originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Would you consider a self identifying political group representing 0.0000618% of the population is an actionable political force, then we should start parsing the definition of the word negligible.

I would agree to that, but in the same breath, I would reiterate my point that just because people aren't officially part of a Communist political group doesn't mean that they don't embrace Marxist ideals or/and are not Marxists at heart.

I'm a staunch supporter of military veterans, being one myself, but I'm not part of any veteran group and I certainly don't go around touting my veteran status to people during conversations--many people I know don't even know I'm a veteran. So, if you only went by the statistics of all members of veterans groups versus the population (and that would have to be from the population age 21 and older, since that's about the youngest you can be to be a veteran) then you would get a much, much smaller number of veterans in America than there actually are.

Do you see the flaw in your reasoning, math, and conclusion based on the sum of both?

You can apply "isms" to just about anything if you try, my point remains that it is an improper application and imply applied to bait, scare and bait the population into a stuporous state, where emotions are more important than facts. In this case, the fact being that the COMMUNIST or MARXIST presence in America in conflated and inflated to instill hatred and distrust towards anyone who is left of center. I see "liberals" using racism in precisely the same manner, and they defend it the same way as you; "Just because they don't say they are racist, doesn't mean they aren't racist" we can take your entire opposition to my OP, and apply it to the notion of racism, a term which serves the same divisive purpose as Marxist.

Again, you're losing in the logic battle, here, as again you have made a false comparison: I'm arguing against your conclusion that...well, from your own words:

originally posted by: banjobrain
It is sad to say, that for a long time I thought their were actual Marxists running around America handing out fliers, and being, well, Marxist.

It is sad to say, that just recently I realize that it is all a bunch of bully bull.

You assert the conclusion that there are not Marxists in America--"that it is all a bunch of bully bull," and we know that not to be true. Since it's not true (and should have been obvious prior you writing the OP, quite honestly), I pointed it out and then added the reality in life that just because people don't tell you something about themselves during conversation does not mean that they can't be hiding a truth.

It's not a defense to claim that there are Marxists out there, it's just a reality of life. I'm not using it to claim that every leftist/liberal/progressive is a Marxists, like the left often claims all conservatives are racists, but I'm pointing out that not everyone tells others every aspect of their life. Hell, even some husbands and wives keep deep secrets from each other--I guess you'll have to excuse me if I point out that friends and acquaintances with whom you speak may not be sharing their whole political philosophy with you, even if you ask directly.

Well then, I guess I would say the wrong ISM is intentionally being misapplied in the current American political atmosphere.

Again, that's a bit too broad of a brushstroke, but I get your point and I generally agree with it--it's a misapplied, over-encompassing stereotype against all people left of center.

How many self identifying Marxists have you met? How did you detect their indoctrination into Marxism?

Two, both of them art professors when I was in art school, and both proud to let you know it whenever politics came up.

They had tenure with the university, so they weren't afraid to share things like that. At the time, though, I was politically apathetic (12 years ago) and could have cared less. They never tried to push said political philosophy on anyone, though, so there's that.

One of them did, however, take to your aforementioned route of referring to me as a racist over a few discussions about how I didn't support some of Obama's first-term policies, even though I voted for the guy in 2008 (I was still politically stupid back then, obviously...although it was him or McCain, sooooo...). I couldn't have less racist bones in my body if I were a jellyfish, but in the end, all I could do is just call him out for his stupidity and then move on without him in my life--I don't need that negativity and crap in my life, you know?

Anyhoo, decent discussion, but I think I'm moving on.

Best regards.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: banjobrain

Look, here's just one of many examples of how Marxist ideology or philosophy is showing its ugly head in America: Class warfare. You have all of these people on the left (and a few on the right and middle) screaming about the One Percent--this evil class of people who take and take and take and hoard and hoard and hoard, all on the back of the misery of the middle- and lower-class people of American society.

Hating on people just because of their "class" in society, and hating on their "surplus value" that they have supposedly usurped from the laborer and demanding such "surplus" be forcefully taken and given back (via taxes, wealth distribution, whatever you want to call it) are all Marxist actions and ideals.

Here's the thing. That's not exclusively Marxism, that's a natural result of system corruption. It's existed long before Marxism was a concept. I have no problem with wealthy and unwealthy as long as it remains reasonable. There's a tipping point where the wealth gap becomes unsustainable and unbearable to the majority, and the upper class gets rightfully overthrown for excessive greed.

The wealth gap continues to grow, there are more and more have nots, while wealthy hoard more and more. There's a balance to be maintained, and they aren't maintaining it. That's what's causing this mentality to grow. It's not wealth that's the problem, it's excessive wealthy. Most wealthy people I have zero issues with, most wealthy people are far from excessively so. They don't individually posses a significant percentage of THE ENTIRE WORLDS WEALTH as individuals. These wealthy people I don't have a problem with, still lead lives of extravagance, can go where they want, eat where they want, have multiple houses, several cars, etc. Then there's the other ones who have a life where money is never a consideration for anything they ever need, and yet they still want more. They already can afford to live in complete extravagance with no worries ever. That, however, is not enough, they need to hoard more and more like some crazy cat lady with so many cats you can't see the floor and the house reeks of feces and death from the feces and dead cats you can't see beneath the mountain of cats. These people are a disease, they take and take and take, and like the cat lady feces and death follows, hidden behind their excess.

This is where the disconnect is. One group is concerned because the people hoarding cats are actually a source of animal cruelty, and the other group is concerned that these people who are concerned about the cat hoarder want to come and take their cats who are living happily and cruelty free. Sure there are some people that legitimately hate cats, but there are also some people that are legitimately cat hoarders. This is true with wealth.

Nothing will change unless the people from both sides can recognize their extremists (people that hate cats, and people that hoard cats) and come into an open and honest discussion on what to do about it.

The situation happens because hoarders have gotten a hold of our financial system and run rampant. This has resulted in more extremists who hate wealthy people and want death to get support as others less violent feel more and more helpless as the wealth gap grows and open themselves to considering the extremists views. Which as the hoarding gets worse and worse, causing more and more death and poverty the extreme view becomes less extreme, and if it hits the tipping point becomes a necessity.

So instead of shouting Marxism whenever anyone is concerned about the wealth gap, and extreme wealth gap, please recognize most people aren't out to take all your cats, you're not the real concern, most rich people aren't, it's the hoarders. These are real legitimate concerns, and ignoring them will simply result in the inevitable as time goes by, as the tipping point is hit, and history repeats yet again. Nothing is gained by screaming Marxist and ignoring legitimate concerns and problems. Wealth hoarders exist, they are a real problem, and the entire world suffers for it. This is no minor issues, in fact it may be THE issue. When the wealth gap remains reasonable, the complainers and threat of revolution remains small and contained. All that's needed is a reasonable wealth gap, and a stop to wealth hoarding, ignore this and the world suffers and eventually a reset will become an inevitability.

A real discussion needs to be had on this issue, one where denial of a problem isn't the argument on both sides.

A wealth hoarder is like a cat hoarder, the obsession with wealth like the obsession with cats becomes so great, that the need for more out ways the health of the economy or cats. The hoarder takes and takes without concern for the bubble breaking, eventually the economy collapses and disease, death and starvation kills all the cats. It's a disease, it's not reasonable or rational. It's a problem that cannot be ignored. Especially not on as grand scale as wealth and the world economy.

originally posted by: Puppyloveoriginally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: banjobrain

A wealth hoarder is like a cat hoarder, the obsession with wealth like the obsession with cats becomes so great, that the need for more out ways the health of the economy or cats. The hoarder takes and takes without concern for the bubble breaking, eventually the economy collapses and disease, death and starvation kills all the cats. It's a disease, it's not reasonable or rational. It's a problem that cannot be ignored. Especially not on as grand scale as wealth and the world economy.

You can hold that view, and to a point, you're correct--but only to a point, and to a much smaller degree than your alarmism makes it out to be.

But here's the thing--I come from a place where one's property (to include wealth) is there's to do with what they will, which includes hoarding.

The problem in your logic is that, generally speaking, this "hoarded" wealth is actually in the form of investments and holdings in the banking system, and these holdings and investments are what allow those of us who need home loans, or business loans, or personal loans, to be able to get these loans. They also (in the U.S., at least) pay a LOT of taxes on that wealth, much more than the lower- and middle-class incomes combined, so to say that they just "hoard" wealth is not the reality in which we live.

But like I said, it's theirs to do with what they will--if they want to stuff it all under a (lot of) mattress(es), so be it. The federal government or other entities shouldn't be able to tell them what to do with it. They earn it, they own it, they do with it what they will. There is a lot of stuff done by people that has a broad umbrella of effect, whether good or bad. It is my opinion that wealth has been targeted because of Marxist ideology, where people think that society or individuals are somehow entitled to the earnings of others to a dramatic level.

You can disagree, and I'm okay with that.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

If that were true we'd have a more stable economy and wouldn't have an ever growing wealth gap.

Yes a good portion is invested, but usually in such a way to make them and theirs richer. So they own more and more. It doesn't "trickle down" it's invested in such a way more and more "trickles" up.

As for theirs to do with what they will. I disagree same as a gun isn't yours to do with what you will. There's responsibility that comes with ownership of anything. That includes wealth. Just because you have something doesn't mean you have or should have the right to do whatever you want with it with no restrictions.

You own a car, you should not be allowed to run people over with it.
Own a gun no shooting your neighbor kids cause they play the music too loud.
Own a desk lamp, no knocking people over the head with it.
Own bleach, no poisoning someone with it.
Own a bat, no destroying your neighbors car.
Have keys, no keying your neighbors car.

But for some reason, when it comes to wealth, people seem to think the argument, "it's theirs to do with what they wish", is a reasonable argument, economy and everyone who suffers for it be damned.

I'll take having my car keyed any day over people being unfairly compensated in sweat shops in china causing both us and the Chinese to suffer due to these economy destroying "investments."

a reply to: Puppylove

The problem with your analogy, is that those people who don't have cats, have to get licenses and regulations that are so burdensome, they cannot get cats. The government picks who gets to have those cats, through lobbyists. People are coming out to say look what the free market has done, yet it's what the rules and regulations that only favor those people with the most cats has done.

A good example would be in my state of MO. You are required to have a certain degree in a certain field to start a certain business, that degree is only offered by one school in MO, everyone who had that business before the requirement were grandfathered in; anyone wanting to start now, are essentially barred unless they happened to go to that one school for that one degree. The people grand-fathered in are in full support of this legislation, because it prevents competition, that is not capitalism. It isn't socialism either, but massive amounts of rules and regulations are supported by Marxists, for the sole purpose of the system failing and claiming this is what happens under capitalism.

The radical Marxists are only tools to be used, for usurpers of the current system. They will help bring down the current system, and then discarded when the reigns of power are grabbed by an even more authoritarian dictator. This is where the disconnect comes, Marxism in theory and Marxism in reality, are two very different animals. The main reason is that the theory does not take into account human nature.

We can see an example of the disconnect in Obamacare. Supported by millions as a great socialist endeavor, yet in reality it was only to serve to enrich the already mega-corporate insurance groups and government authoritarians.

There is a reason all communist revolutions have turned into authoritarian oligarchies and dictatorships.