Obama Medicare Czar is a Hardcore Marxist

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Perhaps I'm still not understanding, but it seems like you're both misinterpreting
"hardcore Marxism" and assuming that Marx's theory of proletariat revolution is correct, neither of which is needed to believe that healthcare is a sphere in which redistribution of wealth is required in order to achieve a humane system.

As I understand Marxism, it's the lack of redistribution of wealth that was supposed to lead to proletariat uprising, not the redistribution of wealth. As I understand history, we have no evidence that this is the case.


edit to say -- okay, that is a gross oversimplification of Marx on proletariat revolution, but it's certainly closer to the original than claiming that redistribution of wealth will lead to uprising.

[edit on 7/8/2010 by americandingbat]

Originally posted by jokei

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Any Questions?

Anything better than a blog post to back this up?

Sorry, I think you missed my question above - I'd be quite interested if you have any other verification for your OP.

I have a blog myself, I'd hate to think someone was using my insane ramblings to prove their points... reliable sources?

Originally posted by links234

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Obama Medicare Czar is a Hardcore Marxist

Any Questions?

— Doc Velocity

I have two!

Is there anything other than 'redistribution of wealth' that proves he's a Marxist?

And

If he is a Marxist, why is this a problem?

Probably because Marxism is responsible for around 100 million dead people?

reply to post by links234

Exactly.

Gee, where's Senator McCarthy when you really need him? Let's waste our time going on witch hunts, getting distracted by what someone perceives someone else's ideology might be and then freaking out because of it.

A few checks and balances or a different perspective never hurt. A truly strong capitalist market and society wouldn't feel the least threatened by some diversity and some challenges to their own ideology.

A weaker one might take a look and see how to improve, might take the opportunity to listen.

This kind of freaking out and inciting people based on a perception using words that conjure the image of some big scary monster lurking under the bed to take everything away from them is childish and insulting.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by links234

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Obama Medicare Czar is a Hardcore Marxist

Any Questions?

— Doc Velocity

I have two!

Is there anything other than 'redistribution of wealth' that proves he's a Marxist?

And

If he is a Marxist, why is this a problem?

Probably because Marxism is responsible for around 100 million dead people?

Would you answer that first question as well?
I disagree Obabo is a Marxist. I also disagree that Marxism is responsible for the deaths of 100 Million people, Marxist Dictators perhaps - but then they didn't truly follow Marxism.

Anyone want to chip in with figures for a capitalist death toll?

Perhaps if you go back, re-read the posts (if you did in the first place), then you know - read-up on Marxism you might see where Obabo etc and Marxism differ.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


1.Why can we not take one ideal from a form of political ideology and apply it within the context of the current system without being labeled and categorised as belonging to the system the ideal was borrowed from? To illustrate if i download one disco track onto my Ipod filled with rock does that make me a 'disco fan'?

2.What drove our rapid advancements last century?
Invention,glory and the thirst for knowledge.Most of the pioneers of medicine did not icumulate incredible wealth.They did however display incredible dedication,persistance and desire to acheive world changing accomplishments.
The quest for super wealth derived from medicine is relatively new.

Marxism is a particular political philosophy, economic and sociological worldview based upon a materialist interpretation of history, a Marxist analysis of capitalism, a theory of social change, and an atheist view of human liberation derived from the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The three primary aspects of Marxism are: Marxism is a particular political philosophy, economic and sociological worldview based upon a materialist interpretation of history, a Marxist analysis of capitalism, a theory of social change, and an atheist view of human liberation derived from the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The three primary aspects of Marxism are:

1.The dialectical and materialist concept of history — Humankind's history is fundamentally that of the struggle between social classes. The productive capacity of society is the foundation of society, and as this capacity increases over time the social relations of production, class relations, evolve through this struggle of the classes and pass through definite stages (primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism). The legal, political, ideological and other aspects (e.g. art) of society are derived from these production relations as is the consciousness of the individuals of which the society is composed.
2.The critique of capitalism — Marx argues that in capitalist society, an economic minority (the bourgeoisie) dominate and exploit an economic majority (the proletariat). Marx argues that capitalism is exploitative, specifically the way in which unpaid labor (surplus value) is extracted from the working class (the labor theory of value), extending and critiquing the work of earlier political economists on value. Such commodification of human labor according to Marx, creates an arrangement of transitory serfdom. He argued that while the production process is socialized, ownership remains in the hands of the bourgeoisie. This forms the fundamental contradiction of capitalist society. Without the elimination of the fetter of the private ownership of the means of production, human society is unable to achieve further development.
3.Advocacy of proletarian revolution — In order to overcome the fetters of private property the working class must seize political power internationally through a social revolution and expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership. Upon this, material foundation classes would be abolished and the material basis for all forms of inequality between humankind would dissolve.

SOURCE: en.wikipedia.org...

The United States has proven # 2 over and over again to the point it is truth rather than philosophy.

I am not a supporter of Marxism however you should open your eyes and realize most every philosophy has some possitve merrits to it. Democracy is flawed and so is Marxism.

It is the blending of the best of many philosophies that will make the near perfect nation. American Hybrid Democracy and Capitilism is an utter FAILURE like it or not. It needs a lot LOT of work,



[edit on 8-7-2010 by Xeven]

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Uh, go look at the free trade policies America had pre-Wilson. It was government regulated business, protectionist trade policies, and high tariffs that made this country a superpower, and it is why free-market capitalism is not helping the third world.

If you only look at the "actual numbers," you're not seeing the big picture, which is reality. The "actual numbers" show success in state-directed economies, but let's back off and take a higher-level look... OH! Those state-directed economies that we're calling "successful" are actually these tiny little populations of 4 million and 8 million and 20 million... Hell, yeah, it's easy to showcase your successes when they're just isolated pockets of humanity — like lab experiments — but those state-directed economic strategies are falling flat when you attempt to apply them to massive or multinational populations.

I would like to direct you to none other than the Soviet Union. During the 'golden age' of the Soviet Union, the communist economy was growing at a rate 7% faster than that of the United States. The reason for this was that the Soviet Union's government directed the economy in its early years, and under Khrushchev in the 1950s it began a program of increasing international trade with other countries, communist or not. They also began to move towards a deregulated state, while maintaining government influence; i.e. 'State Capitalism'. The
'stagnation' of the Soviet economy only began to happen after Brezhnev began reversing these policies in favor of the earlier method. However, this method, through necessary, had run its course, and it was time to allow for a freer, albeit regulated, market to flourish.

The same development is currently happening in China. Maoism ran as far as it could, and now state capitalism has taken over - crafting the financial powerhouse that will soon be the dominant country of the world.

Markets that are affixed with the "miracle" label all have, to some degree, a level of state intervention. The United States Agency for International Development, inspired by the Marshall Plan, worked hand in hand with the governments of Taiwan and Japan in directing the economies to become booming markets. South Korea's economy, which during its rapid expansion in the 1960s saw GDP growth by 8-9% yearly, also benefited from state intervention.

The great free-market miracle of the Chicago School, Chile under the dictator Pinochet, is also a ruse. Chile's economy is based on their copper exports, a industry that Pinochet maintained the nationalization of.

Witness the EU's fall from economic grace. Oh, golly, the Euro was going to kick the dollar's ass last year, wasn't it? Greece is trying to sell off islands, now, to cover their debt.

This is because the EU economy isn't regulated enough - it's trampled by the corporate giants that are wrecking the same financial mayhem in America. Until we get together and start taking the various Goldman Sachs of the world down a notch, it is going to keep happening.

The EU countries, as well as America, could benefit from slighter protectionist policies when it comes to free trade.

What works in Norway and Singapore and Mauritania IS NOT going to work on an American population of over 300 million. It's falling apart in Britain, it's not working in France, it's sucking wind in Japan and even in Canada.

Why the comparison? The northern European countries (the protectionist, socialist ones) that are doing relatively well don't even remotely have the same economic policies as the EU. Just because you say it isn't going to work doesn't make it so; I gave you a sampling of countries above where it did work.

Averting your eyes doesn't eliminate the problem.

Pot calling the kettle black?

reply to post by Doc Velocity

Any Questions?

Nope. I would have been surprised if Barry appointed someone that wasn't a Marxist.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


What about Jason Furman?

Austan Goolsbee?

Kenneth C. Griffin?

Timothy Geithner?

Ben Bernanke?

In fact, just go here: Head Counts: Tracking Obama's Appointees, and do a little research and see how many Marxists you dig up.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Someone336]

reply to post by Someone336

Here you go:



Here's another one:




Bernanke was appointed by BUSH!

Geitner is a tax dodger and the IRS REPORTS to him!

The others are all crooks.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by ProfEmeritus]

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

Bernanke was appointed by BUSH!

And reconfirmed by Obama, remember?

And why not take Reason Magazine's (you know, the leading libertarian rag?) word for it on Bernanke:

In reality, Bernanke is following the monetarist depression-prevention model hatched by Nobel laureate and libertarian patron saint Milton Friedman. Bernanke has repeatedly invoked the late libertarian economist in support of lowering interest rates to zero, bailing out banks, and pumping untold trillions of dollars into the financial system. The implicit goal of these policies is to ignite artificial inflation.

Friedman Economics
Is Fed chairman Ben Bernanke a follower of John Maynard Keynes or Milton Friedman?

Geitner is a tax dodger and the IRS REPORTS to him!

Tax dodging? I can't think of anything more unMarxist! Also unMarxist was the words that Geithner said during March 2009 House of Rep's hearing on financial reform:

I've never been a regulator, for better or worse. And I think you're right to say that we have to be very skeptical that regulation can solve all of these problems. We have parts of our system that are overwhelmed by regulation.

Hm. What about this report from Reuters, in January of this year:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has expressed some skepticism behind closed doors about the broad bank limits proposed on Thursday by his boss, President Barack Obama, according to financial industry sources.

Obama's proposals would prevent banks or financial institutions that own banks from investing in, owning or sponsoring a hedge fund or private equity fund.

He called for a new cap on the size of banks in relation to the overall financial sector that would take into account not only bank deposits, which are already capped, but also liabilities and other non-deposit funding sources.

The proposed rules also would bar institutions from proprietary trading operations that are for their own profit and unrelated to serving customers.

Geithner aired concern on bank limits

Clearly, Timothy Geithner, like Ben Bernanke, is far more market minded than socialist. The same can be said for Obama's appointee, Jason Furman, wrote an article in the defense/criticism of Wal-Mart entitled Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story.

Austan Goolsbee is a professor at the Chicago University's economics school...

The Chicago school of economics describes a neoclassical school of thought within the academic community of economists, with a strong focus around the faculty of University of Chicago, some of whom have constructed and popularized its principles. It is at times referred to as freshwater school of economics, in contrast to the saltwater school based in coastal universities (notably Harvard, MIT, and Berkeley). The University of Chicago department, considered one of the world’s foremost economics departments, has fielded more Nobel Prize winners and John Bates Clark medalists in economics than any other university.

The "Chicago School" is perhaps one of the better known American "schools" of economics. In its strictest sense, the "Chicago School" refers to the approach of the members of the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago over the past century. In a looser sense, the term "Chicago School" is associated with a particular brand of economics which adheres strictly to Neoclassical price theory in its economic analysis, "free market" libertarianism in much of its policy work and a methodology which is relatively averse to too much mathematical formalism and willing to forgo careful general equilibrium reasoning in favor of more results-oriented partial equilibrium analysis. The Chicago school is associated with neoclassical price theory and libertarianism in its support of lower taxation and private sector regulation, but differs from pure free-market economics in its support of government-regulated monetary policy.

Wikipedia: Chicago School of Economics

Carol Browner? The Socialist International pushes for the more state capitalist method of economics, which I demonstrated above is necessary for times of economic insecurity. Hopefully she can balance all the Chicago School stuff flying around.

Mark Lloyd - of course corporate ownership of media is a problem! Please, educate yourself:

Who Owns the Media?

Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling

Kevin Jennings - quite questionable, yes. Hardly Marxist, however.

Dawn Johnsen - Of course the state has no right to tell a woman she can't get an abortion! This is somewhat Democrats and Libertarians can agree on. Again, not Marxist.

David Hamilton - So what if he is tied to Acorn? Is helping impoverished people a sin now?

Harold Kon - World court? World laws? Sign me up! And he criticizes Bush!

Cass Sunstein - have you ever read his books? He is a bit a statist, yet he maintains a healthy respect for free markets, as well property right. Believe it or not, he is not very Marxist.

John Holdren - again, questionable. However, I beg the question, where is the Marxism?

Rosa Brooks being linked to George Soros - do you ever know who George Soros is or what he has done? Aside from the rhetoric thrown at you by Fox News, that is. He helped bring an end to Communist dictatorships around the globe, financing revolutions and helping countries transition into capitalism. I'll say it again - he helped former Communists countries transition into capitalism. What kind of Marxist does that? Please, tell me. He also finances terrible, Marxist (read: helpful, unMarxist) organizations such as Human Rights Watch.

Van Jones - an eco-capitalist. Read up on that concept, because it sure ain't Marxism!

I know it's hard, trying to fit something together that just doesn't fit. I'll let you in on a little clue here: all these people are linked by one thing: socially liberal views. That is what they are appointed to do and work with. Notice that all financial related people are Chicago School advocates, i.e. free market capitalists.

Isn't redistribution of wealth good for capitalism too? if wealth ends up in the hands of few, then capitalism will not work.

reply to post by masterp


Actually capitalism is a redistribution of wealth, it redistributes the wealth created by the working class by it's labour and redistributes it up to the capitalists (owners of the means of production).

Socialism would redistribute wealth by getting rid of the private owners and putting the workplace in control of the workers, who would then benefit directly from the wealth created by their labour.

The private owner (capitalist) is an unnecessary middle man.

reply to post by ANOK


Ok, this is the classical definition of capitalism, but for capitalism to work, money should flow down as well as up.

Imagine a situation where only 1 man owns everything and has all the money: his riches would mean nothing, since no other person could buy anything from him.

reply to post by masterp


Well that is the inevitable isn't it?

As capitalism progresses the trickle down of wealth gets smaller and smaller. As the wealth of the people gets lower the less they purchase, resources become more expensive and scarce as the capitalist tries to maintain profit (war for oil, and taking jobs overseas, are good examples), again the people purchase less.
Companies close due to lack of business, people lose jobs and there are no jobs to replace what's lost. Resources become more scarce as the workers do not have the means to secure those resources that are held privately.
The privately owned means of production get smaller and smaller as companies close, less is produced. Now we have an abundance of labour but no way to put that labour to work to secure the resources we need because privately owned resources are either destroyed, or not produced at all, if the capitalist cannot make themselves a profit.

When we hit this unbalanced situation, as has happened many times in history, we get social upheaval usually followed by a major war.

If capitalism was allowed to reach it's ultimate path one person would own everything, and they wouldn't care if people bought anything from them because they would already have everything, they wouldn't need money anymore, or us. Oh they would love to get rid of us, we are their necessary evil...

[edit on 7/9/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by Someone336

Please, educate yourself: Who Owns the Media?

Sorry, but I don't consider the far-left takebackthe media "progressive" propaganda organization anything more than the Joe Goebbels of the left. Education requires acquiring facts, developing reasoning and discrimination, and drawing your own conclusions, not buying left-wing hog-wash propaganda.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Fox News crushed an otherwise very important story... to suit their corporate sponsors, before subsequently winning a court case allowing them to distort the truth in their presentation of the idea.

Now that the media is controlled by corporate blocks, the various forms of media bias are being presented full force. The slant of the Fox News backers is conservative, so naturally, Fox News runs to the fight. The same goes for MSNBC with the left wing. If both are to distort the truth, as they legally can, to suit their agenda, then how is the populace what truth to be discerned is lurking in there?

The main point of the news is to now provide two things: propaganda for both the state and the corporate imperialists behind the state, and to bombard the individual with advertisements. The ownership of the media is centralized in ever shrinking blocks of corporate monopolies, so in a sense, we have no 'free media'; it is all twisted and contorted. Public funded media, on the other hand, could avoid the pitfalls of corporate dominance and deliver the free press that is absolutely necessary for the continuation of a free society.

reply to post by Someone336

Public funded media, on the other hand, could avoid the pitfalls of corporate dominance and deliver the free press that is absolutely necessary for the continuation of a free society.

Public funded media is even more biased. It receives much of its funding by proposals from the President and voting at that funding by Congress. Since you freely admit that the government is also controlled by Corporations, in the form of lobbyists and underhanded contributions to Congressional members, CPB is fully at the mercy of the government. Even the non-government portion of public broadcasting is dependent upon corporate grants, and therein lies the rest of the problem.

Face it. All news broadcasts slant their news to the organizations that keep them in business. It's a simple fact of life.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


It's funny, because the BBC News is one of the most unbiased news agencies on the planet. I wonder how that is?

Face it. All news broadcasts slant their news to the organizations that keep them in business. It's a simple fact of life.

Why should I suck it up and 'face it' when the interests running the media are picking and choosing the stories for us to hear. In the case of Fox News, the story was on Monsanto's bovine growth hormone, and the dangerous effects it could potentially has on people. Monsanto's lawyers shut the project down, and viola! the populace is none the wiser. I can't figure out why these things are ok to you.