Latest Update on the Health Care Bill — at 4 p.m. ET Today. Watch Facebook Live

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 1,936
Registered: ‎01-24-2014

Re: The Progressive Movement

Message 91 of 396 (90 Views)

olderscout--Kinda makes you wonder if somewhere out there, someone isn't writing this crap, which is then picked up by followers.  Look at all the posts and all the time that is being spent saying the obvious.  There is no connection between the progressive movement and neo-Marxism.  Just another huge diversion from the important issues at hand.


politics, cats, kids, and dogs!!
Recognized Social Butterfly
Posts: 782
Registered: ‎02-12-2011

Re: The Progressive Movement

Message 92 of 396 (91 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

In a way you are right. Republicans do look back to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers while the Democrats look to some unknown "it has to be better" future that has always failed but "this time it will be different". We on the right trust the individual, those on the left lack such confidence and opt for the communal approach with a powerful government trusted to always "do the right thing". History has shown that is dangerous.

 

And then, of course, the "From each....to each......" taxation plan.


I don't want to get in between you guys, BUT....what rk said was NOT accurate. The 'wisdom of the Founding Fathers' left us with documents which say why the Founders did what they did, what they intended to put in place of what they got rid of and how that new 'thing' was supposed to work. 

 

The Declaration of Independence came first, the Constituton followed.  The true meaning is set forth in each and every word used in the documents precisely as written. ALL else,....all the pamphlets, papers, treatises, that preceded and followed those memorialized words are irrelevant if, in any way, they contradict those words. 

 

A monarchy, a dictatorship IS "trust' placed in an individual as rk infers is the 'right' thing to do. There is no need to expound further on what rk said.  His own words establish how it is he and his cohorts view what they intend this Nation to be AFTER they are through molding it to their mindset.

 

The Preamble to that thing called the Constitution starts out with the precise phrase "We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the generatl welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 

 

That's the IDEA....the CONCEPT....the GOAL. It's WE, THE PEOPLE who establish this government.  It is WE, THE PEOPLE that government is to serve, and it is only WE, THE PEOPLE who can say otherwise. There IS no further discussion possible about that. Contest that and we fight.

 

 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 23,536
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: The Progressive Movement

Message 93 of 396 (93 Views)

Olderscout66 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

Olderscout66 wrote:

So rk9... the Marxism you perceive has no individual private property because all the "individuals" own everything together (which of course boils down to nobody owns anything). So how on earth can you conflate that with ANYTHING the Progressive movement has supported in the last 50 years?

Suppose someone said that no one owns the money they earn, that the government owns it and allocates it. Does that qualify as "not owning".

If they said that, they'd be right as rain - if it was YOUR money, I doubt you'd find anyone who would accept it as a medium of exchange or a store of value. As for the allocation, that too is very much a Government function - taxing income by taking from surplus income to finance the totality of the society that makes it possible for us all to "earn a living" in relative peace and tranquility.

O.K. - agreement with Marx. That didn't hurt much did it?

 

The actual production of all those Government services that make civilization possible moves the money from a relative few who do not use it for consumption or productive investment to the many who consume virtually every dime, driving demand which prods the economy to expand.

 

Leaving the money with the very few causes economic contraction, deminishes the general welfare and endangers the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Been happening for the last 30 years.

So you say. And I assume your solution is to use the tax codes to enact wealth redistribution.

 

As usual, you've had dozens of very good answers to your slippery question, but nobody fell for your word game and declared themselves a Marxist. You lost. Time to post another meaningless question you will never actually discuss.

There is no need for anyone to latch on a button "I am a Marxist" and slap it on their chest. My point is that the thinking of Marx is infused in the Progressive Movement and the the thinking of some of our posters. Example, what do you think about a factory totally worker owned and managed - no "bosses", no CEO, no stockholders?

No such enterprise has ever existed beyond a very small business. The ESOPs all have supervisors and managers, and so did the (almost) true Communist Christian Church in the 1st Century. As for a CEO, somebody needs to be able to make decisions on a daily basis without calling a town hall, and all the ESOPs have such an individual. As for stockholders, that's the employees - how else could they have a transferable, verifiable stake in the enterprise?

True, it never existed. Marx's aim for that gave the Russian people Stalin.

 

Marx saw great evil around him, and came up with one solution. Progressives see many of the same evils, but have very different solutions, none of which rise to the level of dogma as do the tenets of neo-Republicanism.

No - each has a package of solutions. However, each package shares one thing in common, a powerful central government in charge of everything.

 

How exactly does your tax-less, regulation-less, publicservice-less society function? You've claimed in the past you admit to a legitimate function of Government, but beyond some vague references to "keeping markets free" you're rather short on details.


 A bit of hyperbole there. The "keep markets free" refers specifically to the economy - but you knew that didntcha?


 


 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 19,022
Registered: ‎11-09-2011

Re: The Progressive Movement

Message 94 of 396 (98 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

Olderscout66 wrote:

So rk9... the Marxism you perceive has no individual private property because all the "individuals" own everything together (which of course boils down to nobody owns anything). So how on earth can you conflate that with ANYTHING the Progressive movement has supported in the last 50 years?

Suppose someone said that no one owns the money they earn, that the government owns it and allocates it. Does that qualify as "not owning".

If they said that, they'd be right as rain - if it was YOUR money, I doubt you'd find anyone who would accept it as a medium of exchange or a store of value. As for the allocation, that too is very much a Government function - taxing income by taking from surplus income to finance the totality of the society that makes it possible for us all to "earn a living" in relative peace and tranquility.

 

The actual production of all those Government services that make civilization possible moves the money from a relative few who do not use it for consumption or productive investment to the many who consume virtually every dime, driving demand which prods the economy to expand.

 

Leaving the money with the very few causes economic contraction, deminishes the general welfare and endangers the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Been happening for the last 30 years.

 

As usual, you've had dozens of very good answers to your slippery question, but nobody fell for your word game and declared themselves a Marxist. You lost. Time to post another meaningless question you will never actually discuss.

There is no need for anyone to latch on a button "I am a Marxist" and slap it on their chest. My point is that the thinking of Marx is infused in the Progressive Movement and the the thinking of some of our posters. Example, what do you think about a factory totally worker owned and managed - no "bosses", no CEO, no stockholders?

No such enterprise has ever existed beyond a very small business. The ESOPs all have supervisors and managers, and so did the (almost) true Communist Christian Church in the 1st Century. As for a CEO, somebody needs to be able to make decisions on a daily basis without calling a town hall, and all the ESOPs have such an individual. As for stockholders, that's the employees - how else could they have a transferable, verifiable stake in the enterprise?

 

Marx saw great evil around him, and came up with one solution. Progressives see many of the same evils, but have very different solutions, none of which rise to the level of dogma as do the tenets of neo-Republicanism.

 

How exactly does your tax-less, regulation-less, publicservice-less society function? You've claimed in the past you admit to a legitimate function of Government, but beyond some vague references to "keeping markets free" you're rather short on details.


 


 

Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 22,168
Registered: ‎07-11-2013

Re: The Progressive Movement

[ Edited ]
Message 95 of 396 (99 Views)

Isn't it true that "just saying so" is the sum total of "proof" of an alleged - but unproved - relationship between marxism and progressivism here on this site?

 

O'Reilly might "say so" - but he was just fired for all kinds of things - including lying - wasn't he?

 

 

 

KAKISTOCRACY
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 23,536
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: The Progressive Movement

Message 96 of 396 (93 Views)

As I posted earlier, lengthy chain-letter exchanges get pretty far afield so I said I would post on individual elements of Marxism that have a place in current politics.

 

Marx stated that the goal of getting people ready for the "workers paradise" required that there by strict State control over education. Today, Marxists insist that there be only State schools. They attempt to restrict private schools. They are opposed to anything such as charter schools that might loosen the hold of the State.

 

In our schools students learn dependence on the State resulting in the "snowflake effect". They learn that they must not hear any views beyond the "approved" ones and are encouraged to attack the free speech of any opposing voice. They are provided with "safe spaces" where they will not hear anything other than the "approved" view of issues.

 

In our area, schools are accepting students at six am and keeping them until six pm - providing for all their needs for more hours than the parents teaching them dependence on the State. The concept of educations has expanded well beyond actual education. 

 

Twenty-two (or more) years of such indoctrination sends them into the world with a favorable view of the teachings of Karl Marx with respect to the power of the State.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 2,917
Registered: ‎12-17-2010

Re: The Progressive Movement

Message 97 of 396 (84 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

pc6063 wrote:

  Rk-During the course of this thread, numerous posters have discussed why progressives are not neo Marxist,  all of which have been ignored.  

In fact, when factual data is put forth that undercuts your far-flung theory,  it would seem that you just become more vigilant to prove your erroneous case.


Actually the comments were more in the vein of, "No we're not because I say so" or something similar. Serious thoughts on the thinking of Marx as compared to the Progressive Movement have not only be responded to but delved deeply into. 

 

Sadly, the serious discussions have been over shadowed by posts such as the above.


And your addition to the 'discussion' is to repeat your opinion with no facts or examples or to make a snide remark.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 2,917
Registered: ‎12-17-2010

Re: The Progressive Movement

Message 98 of 396 (79 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

pc6063 wrote:

Snoopy48--hard to believe that some people can't ( or won't) understand that it isn't the amount of money an individual pays,  but  the  percentage of that individual's income that is accounts for the inequality.

Hope NONE of these prople are accountants or financial advisors.  If so, their clients are in BIG trouble.


Snoopy - hard to believe that some people can't (or won't) understand that zero is zero. Certainly some inequality there. Better seek the advise of an accountant.


Why do you need help?

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 23,536
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: The Progressive Movement

Message 99 of 396 (61 Views)

pc6063 wrote:

  Rk-During the course of this thread, numerous posters have discussed why progressives are not neo Marxist,  all of which have been ignored.  

In fact, when factual data is put forth that undercuts your far-flung theory,  it would seem that you just become more vigilant to prove your erroneous case.


Actually the comments were more in the vein of, "No we're not because I say so" or something similar. Serious thoughts on the thinking of Marx as compared to the Progressive Movement have not only be responded to but delved deeply into. 

 

Sadly, the serious discussions have been over shadowed by posts such as the above.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 1,936
Registered: ‎01-24-2014

Re: The Progressive Movement

Message 100 of 396 (62 Views)

  Rk-During the course of this thread, numerous posters have discussed why progressives are not neo Marxist,  all of which have been ignored.  

In fact, when factual data is put forth that undercuts your far-flung theory,  it would seem that you just become more vigilant to prove your erroneous case.


politics, cats, kids, and dogs!!