True Marxism


C'mon lace, where did I put forward that Hitler in any way deserved to be called a Christian? I specifically said "The issue is that powermongers will take whatever is at hand and see it benefitting them."

I was addressing your point about the Nazis perverting Christianity. Any madman will pervert whatever faith or philosophy they deal with. That Hitler saw himself as a Christian is still germane as the OP suggested he was an atheist, which is how we got here. And as well, what he saw himself as does affect who gets seen as the enemy - without Arabic history or the Christ-killer tag, what excuse is there to demonize Jews? It certainly doesn't come up from Hindu or Buddhist cultures.

The Nazis perverted German society to their evil purpose - industry, nationalism, socialism, the arts, youth, pageantry, martial ardor, anger over Versailles, Darwin, eugenics, history, mythology, the occult, and yes, Christianity!

Most of these are relatively neutral in of themselves. They are not essential to Nazism and have little to do with Nazi ideology.

But what is NOT neutral is Nazi ideology itself, especially its assertion that "races" compete with each other, and it is the right and destiny of the Master Race to subject other races in pursuing the Will To Power. Even Hitler never publicly advocated genocide, but still genocide was the consequence of Nazi anti-Semitic hatred and policy.

The marginalization and oppression of Jews has been longstanding ever since the Roman Empire. Unfortunately, Church clergy often encouraged hatred of Jews to a receptive audience of peasants anxious to wipe out their debts, take over Jewish industries, and drive away suspicious exotic foreigners. Also, since The Church was an integral part of the state apparatus, unbelief in the state religion was interpreted as disloyalty. Some kingdoms forcibly converted Jews or expelled them, example, Edward I of England (1290), Ferdinand of Spain (1492).

However, that was not the whole story. Nations such as Holland, Poland, the Ottomans, and even Germany, accepted large numbers of Jews who founded communities (called Shteltl) that existed for many centuries right up until the holocaust. They became an important part of widespread German culture in Central Europe. By the early 17th century, European rulers began to tolerate religious dissent in exchange for a poll tax. By the early 19th century, Jews were given full rights of citizenship in Western European nations. Finally, the Catholic Church came to appreciate Judaism as the "root of the tree" of Christianity and teaches that to this day.

Unfortunately, as a result of history, Jews commonly distrust both nationalism and Christianity in their host nations to present-day. Thus, Jewish intellectuals were frequently in the vanguard of revolutionary movements, and naturally antagonized conservative elements of society, such as industrialists like Henry Ford. Jewish professional success and wealth further attracted envious hatred during the depression from disaffected social outcasts like Hitler (just as wealthy Christian Armenians attracted envious hatred from Turks). Prominent Jewish revolutionaries include internationally: Zionist founder Theodore Herzl, international communism founder Karl Marx, Marxist Leon Trotsky, German Marxist Rosa Luxemburg, anarchist Emma Goldman, radical individualist Ayn Rand (and her associates), etc. And domestically: ACLU co-founder Felix Frankfurter, Yippie founder Abbie Hoffman, feminist politician Bella Abzug, MS magazine founder Gloria Steinem, Left apologist Noam Chomsky, NOW founder and Marxist Betty Friedan, Bush hater George Soros, feminist attorney Gloria All-red, uber-feminist Andrea Dworkin, GLAAD co-founder Arnie Kantrowitz, same-sex marriage attorney Evan Wolfson, progressive feminist Naomi Wolf, ACLU president Nadine Strossen, FCC opponent Howard Stern,...

According to Simon Monetefiore in his recent work "Stalin", many Bolshevik intellectuals, Stalin familiars, and henchmen (notably, Lazar Kaganovich) were also disproportionately Jewish, thus giving the Nazis plenty of propaganda about "Jewish Bolshevism". This is ironic given the extremist anti-Semitism often erupting in Stalin's policies. This is also ironic given the tradition of Jewish bourgeois professionalism and success of Jewish capitalists.

Even in the USA, which has a longstanding tradition of positive Christian feeling and identification with the Hebrews of the Old Testament, and is the guarantor and economic supporter of Israel, the overwhelming majority of Jews are Democrats and hold Leftist positions. In 2004, 76+% of American Jews voted for John Kerry. In 2000, 79% of American Jews voted for Gore.

It's simplistic to try and attach killing as a by-product of philosophies that don't deal with it or decry it. Whether a powermonger sees their power as innate, deriving from God, or otherwise, it has no bearing on whether others can be arbitrarily lumped together with them. Individuals are such, and writing off someone's actions as a natural function of their belief about the way the universe works shows intellectual inability. Unfortunately, that is often the case and can be coupled with arrogance.

I looked for my complete works of Marx and Lenin ordered directly from the Soviet Union via the college course I took in Marxism. But I could not find them to dust them off.

I feel we might agree that our intentional actions morally defines us as individuals. However, we are also collectively morally responsible for evil causes that we either join or do not oppose when we have the power to do so.

The ideology of Marxism states quite plainly that the bourgeoisie are the natural oppressors and class enemy of the proletariat. Furthermore, Marx preached that the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" must overcome bourgeois society. Ultimately, bourgeois society and its values will be abolished in favor of the collective communist vision - via force where necessary.

To that end, all bourgeois property confiscated, private property rights abolished, free trade abolished, every person forced to work for the collective, all media and transport controlled by the state, the entire economy collectively planned and operated, children communally raised and educated, women's traditional social society abolished, the social custom of marriage abolished, traditional morality abolished, and religion abolished.

"When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. "

Source: The Communist Manifesto

To sum up, every traditional human value destroyed, every human being enslaved to the state, and the state given Ultimate Power.

In every society, there are evil men like Hitler, Stalin, Beria, Mao, etc amongst us. Most of the time, they are relatively harmless and cause little damage. It is only when a society creates positions of Ultimate Power that they intrigue and murder to the top. Only the most evil, ruthless, and clever men achieve it. Thus, the mass murdering thug Stalin succeeded Lenin whereas deluded well-meaning intellectual Trotsky found himself exiled in Mexico - until one of Stalin's agents put an ice pick in his head. Congratulations!

Marxist communist ideology is exactly what was attempted in Russia, Eastern Europe, China, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Africa, and South America - always with the same results! Men such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Beria, Mao, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Castro, et al, achieving Ultimate Power and turning their victims into corpses piled unimaginably high are the inevitable results of true communism.

A very few socialists, though not necessarily sympathetic to the excesses of the capitalists, still realized the true nature of communism and wrote about it:

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever. "
-George Orwell

But you claimed previously that isn't "true communism" because the horror show didn't engulf the entire globe?! This is insanity!

That said, "Marxist-style Communism" has never existed. The Soviet and Chinese systems (and their various satellites) subordinated everything to power - state power, which was antithetical to the Marxist view. While there may well have been true ideologues within the ranks (practicing doublethink, as happens in every dictatorial state), the goals and practices of those nations certainly didn't align with the most basic Marxist principles. That they even tried is nothing short of propaganda, and by this point in time, people should have learned better. As for Marxist thought itself, it's pipe dream thinking with no relation to the real world we live in. The same however applies to those with a evangelical approach to capitalism. There will never be any pure system in the world; the needs and perversity of people will both stand in the way of that. Neither should people be forced to only have one option as their economic system.

It is not the "perversity of people" that stands in the way of pure Marxism. Human beings, by their nature, need economic and social freedom to live properly. The difference between the systems of Marxism and Capitalism is that Capitalism is the system of economic and social freedom and Marxism is the system of economic and social slavery. Now that is not the whole story, but that is certainly the essential story. Certainly, individual rights, civil rights, objective law, and free democratic institutions are also necessary for people to live properly, especially in the modern world.

Previously, you claimed that Soviet and Chinese communism were not "true Marxist style communism" because they were not "global", now your claim is that they were not true Marxism because they "subordinated everything to State Power".

The fact is that State Power is the essence of Marxism, it is explicit and implicit in almost every Marxist statement. Marx's ultimate altruistic vision is the elimination of all class distinctions, all vestiges of bourgeois society abolished, and everyone and everything put under Collective State Power!

I invite you to read the communist manifesto. Please note:

"We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. "

Thus, popular revolution by the working class is essential to achieve dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. state power.

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. "

Thus, the proletariat will maximize their state power until they control absolutely everything, which will somehow increase economic production!

"Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production."

Thus, robbery, disruption of bourgeois production, and attacks on the old social order (i.e. traditional society), are necessary to achieve communist society.

Stalin and Mao didn't kill people "to further their communist ideology", they killed to further (and demonstrate) their power. Certainly there were actual atheists in the forces of both who took things out on theists, but that was hardly the standard. Like Hitler or Idi Amin, the goal was power, and the espoused philosophies simply propaganda used as a means to an end. As you note though, class and ideology were reasons, and counter to the assertions of the OP, the killings carried out on their orders and in their names cannot be all ascribed to atheism. I in no way would ascribe the actions of the Nazis to Christianity, but it should be recognized that that did play somewhat into the demonization of Jews. Were you aware that the Catholic Church 'forgave' Jews for killing Jesus in 1965, and that up to that, supported the idea that they were collectively responsible?

Certainly, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et al, murdered their victims to further and demonstrate their power. However, their means of achieving power, and their vision of what to do with power, was to further communist ideology!

Russia under Lenin and Stalin implemented true Marxist goals! Stalin did not just murder the Kulaks. He instituted the Marxist collective agriculture. He confiscated Kulak land and food, forced them onto collective farms that produced very little, and then took that too (for the good of the state)! Much of the confiscated crops rotted on the way to government warehouses because of the poor conditions of state run transport. Naturally, millions starved to death! The Ukraine once known as "the bread basket of Europe" due to abundant grain harvests became desolate. Russia became a net grain importer from the United States!

Stalin also employed a series of "five year plans" to quickly industrialize Russia. Even though it eliminated consumer goods in the short term, and left the proletariat in unspeakable poverty, ultimately it was towards the greater good! Additionally, all workers were required on pain of exile or death to know the official statistics on the progress of Soviet industrialization. This too was a Marxist dictate to eliminate specialization and involve everyone as participants in all aspects of the economy. Initially, all comrades received the same rations! However, this was later modified due to the "greater needs" of engineers and managers. All of these 5-year plans, 7-year plans, etc, were complete disasters! Not only did central planning not address people's needs, and fail to grow the Soviet economy, ultimately, the Soviet economy shrank drastically because nobody knew what the hell they were doing and produced junk that nobody could use!

Additionally, per Marx, artificial lines of ethnicity and region dividing people from one another were abolished. Thus, nations swallowed by the Russian Empire but not digested were brought into the greater Mother Russia via massive ethnic deportations and resettlements. Finally, bourgeois class enemies were purged throughout society. Thus, black market "speculators" were shot. The imprisoned Czar Nicholas and his family were shot. Officers in the military from "imperialist" families were purged and shot. This had consequences in the eventual war with Nazi Germany.

Mao adapted Marxism to Chinese society. The economy was centrally planned as per China's own version of the 5-year plan - the Great Leap Forward (1959). Mao implemented Marxist collective farming and Soviet revolutionary planting methods as per the pseudo-scientist, Lysenko. Lysenko claimed that more crops could be grown if the old bourgeois method of planting seeds with enough soil was abolished in favor of planting seeds densely packed together - which then choked each other out. It was also decided that sparrows were eating too much grain that could otherwise be in inner party member's stomachs. Therefore, a war against sparrows was declared to eliminate the bourgeois threat. This central planning was partly successful. The sparrow population was greatly reduced and the next summer an enormous horde of insects practically wiped out the grain crop. It is estimated that 30 to 40 million people starved to death - especially, young girls. The farmers were declared "class enemies" for not meeting quotas and death squads were sent to force them to give up supposedly hoarded grain. Finally, the starving peasants turned to cannibalism. Ultimately, China too had to buy grain from the United States (1961). Finally, peasants forced to be steelworkers could not meet demands, so they melted down junk metal, which the government used to build bridges that promptly collapsed. Central economic planning - ya gotta luv it!

Mao launched the "Cultural Revolution" (1966) to purify Chinese society. Bourgeois Confucianism was abolished in favor of Mao's "little red book". Mao's adaptations never contradicted Marx, Lenin, or Stalin in any essential.. Bourgeois Buddhist monasteries and literature were destroyed throughout China and Tibet. Bourgeois traditional respect for elders and ancestors were officially undermined. Show trials were held by ideologically correct proletarian workers to judge bourgeois class enemies (such as rich peasants), and sentenced them to prison or death. There are reports that some were even eaten! Bourgeois urban professional people were forced to work on farms harvesting crops as per the Marxist dictate to eliminate specialization and involve everyone as participants in all aspects of the economy. Children were mass inducted into the national youth group, The Red Guard, and learned communist songs, parades, and correct ideology. Children were even recruited to lecture class enemies in the show trials! Children were taught nursery stories about factories and tractors.

Interestingly, the international brotherhood preached by Marx only partially bore fruit between the Soviet Union and China. Though, they often cooperated to bring benefits of the worker's paradise to new lands such as Korea, they also began to militarize their border to the point where millions of Soviet and Chinese faced each other over the longest most heavily guarded border in the world! By contrast, the capitalist imperialist exploiter nation of the United States still has the longest undefended border in the world with Canada.

China still has a dictatorship of the proletariat written into its ridiculous unwieldy "constitution" - it is full of communist party declarations and exhortations. For example, all land is owned by the state, the state has the power of life and death on the spot at its discretion, all business enterprises are at least half owned by the state. As per Marx, all communications, the press, and all transport are run by the state (except taxis). No bourgeois democratic ideas are allowed - hence the Tiananmen Square crackdown. Gangs of thugs regularly invade villages to force women to abort babies up to 9 months enforcing China's "one child" policy. If a child is accidentally born alive, they drown it in buckets of water. You might reasonably say that Marx did not advocate this state of affairs. But it is all logically sound if you agree with the principle of the primacy of collectivism over individualism. Because where there are NO individual rights and there are ONLY collective rights, collective society must logically do what it considers best for itself.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Having clarified that, let's get into the communism blanket statements.

His "opiate of the masses" has to be seen through the following context: Marx and Engels were saying that while people learn from religion to hope for relief of their misery in an imaginary "other" world, those in power and the Capitalists have no such illusions and make sure they benefit on their expense in this world, as their shameless exploitation proves (they wouldn't be as ruthless if they really believed in the afterlife and Judgment Day). As long as people hope for the end of misery in a happy afterlife, those who can will continue to exploit them for their own benefit right here.

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/texts/Marx_Opium.html";


I'll give you that Marx and Engels viewed organized religion as a tool of the oppressive classes and a crutch of the proletariat rather than the primary enemy itself. The irony is that Marxism itself adopted a definite religious evangelical character of proletariat liberation via communist revolution to secure state power and the elimination of "class oppressors", namely, the bourgeoisie and the nobility.

Secondly, even though his economic theory was undoubtedly faulty, the embracement of this ideology as a critique of the Capitalist System by tens of millions everywhere was due to what you would call the excesses of capitalism but others would call the Capitalist System's essence, especially if we look at Industrial Revolution societies. As with any major political events in history, blanket statements like "evil ideology" don't explain anything. On the contrary, one has to look at how evil the exploitation of the masses was, to understand what epoch-making movements and events like the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, the Russian revolution etc were all about. In the case of Marxism, I highly recommend for anyone to read about Industrial Revolution societies to understand what was happening and why communism became such a subversive force (even if it later ultimately failed terribly in its implementation everywhere and there was nothing like liberation for the common man).

I assert that Marxist style International Communism is "evil" because its doctrine preaches that the bourgeoisie, meaning middle class society, that managed to achieve a living as craftsmen, professionals, gentleman farmers, merchants, industrialists, etc, are the natural oppressors and "class enemies" of the poor. It further asserts that property mostly earned by sweat and tears should be confiscated and taken for use by the masses (the proletariat) and collectively governed. Of course, this means in effect, that the state assumes Ultimate Power over everyone and everything. And further, the strongest and most ruthless eventually take that Ultimate Power. The end result is starvation, gulags, and firing squads for anyone labeled a "class enemy". See this movie, "The Inner Circle", to see what Marxist style Communism really means. Also read "We the Living" by Ayn Rand (who also lived in Stalin's Russia) to understand its banal horror.

Now, though Marxist communism is horribly misguided and evil in theory and practice, this does not mean that communism per se is that. Communism simply means a classless society whose members act collectively to the benefit of all. Some social structures have a naturally communist character. For example, the family unit is completely unequal, yet it is collective and everyone serves each other's needs. Family members care and look out for one another. This is a special dynamic coming out of natural strong feelings and ties between related individuals. People can relax and be themselves around family because they know they will not be rejected or taken advantage of. However, outside the family, that is seldom the case. People must have their defenses up because though most people are indifferent, a significant number are actively predatory. Marxism seeks to abolish the family relationship because Marxism correctly recognizes that the intimacy of family provides a natural barrier versus their envisioned utopia of an all-powerful all-pervasive totalitarian collective.

A primary driving force throughout history has been The Powers attempting to control and exploit the common man versus his attempt to assert basic rights. Until the 19th century, society was heavily classed so that most people were socially and politically subservient to the elite classes. Furthermore, the lords and The Church controlled almost all the land. Peasants and serfs lived there only at lordly pleasure. However, as towns began to grow in wealth and population and as warfare advanced beyond vassal knights, the landed aristocracy diminished in importance and the king's court and national government grew in importance. Even the church came under the king's authority. The middle class professionals and gentleman farmers grew more prosperous. However, when the industrial revolution commenced, many people fled from rural poverty to the cities, forming a vast urban underclass.

The cause of the problem was that tenant farmers were forced off land via a combination of exorbitant rents, crop failures (such as the Irish potato famine), and overpopulation. Thus, underclass suffering was caused mainly by the landed lords' monopoly of the land. The English glorious revolution, the French revolution, the Napoleonic wars, the emancipation of serfs, the wars of national liberation (e.g. Greece) shook up the oppressive lords, and helped the underclass, but not enough. The indifferent industrialists too did little to alleviate their suffering. As industry grew in importance, labor grew slightly in value, fortunes grew, wealth slowly distributed, and conditions slowly improved. However, this took generations and in the meantime, enormous numbers of people died in abject poverty from horrid working conditions, overwork, bad nutrition, high infant mortality, and the environmental damage caused by burning coal.

The 17th through 18th centuries was the era of human rights theorists like John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, et al. However subsequently came the social theorists/activists (in contrast to pure philosophers) proposing social remedies to order and better society, such as Rousseau, Voltaire, Thoreau, Bismark, and extremists like Marx. Marx was erudite and obviously wanted to help the underclass, but he also obviously hated middle class society and advocated its destruction. His successors, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, took up his cause.

International Communism was certainly a subversive force, but it really did not gain much popular support in Europe compared to competing nationalism, socialism, and more genteel democracy. International Communist revolution was supposed to begin first in industrial Germany, but instead began in Russia, mainly because of Russia's extreme conditions. Though popular with intellectuals, communists never won democratic majorities (in Europe). It had to be forcibly imposed by the Red Army. Basically, the same pattern occurred worldwide.

reply

Thirdly, romanticizing Capitalism conveniently looks at the aftermath of Communist societies but doesn't look at the horrors Christian Capitalist societies brought all over the world. Depending on when exactly we start to look, there is nothing but exploitation, tens of million innocents killed and genocides. I would be happy to post actual genocides and numbers of millions dead in every continent for only one reason: Because people still apply double standards. This doesn't mean that Communism was a good thing, of course not, but let's not romanticize our own past and forget the fate of indigenous populations all over the world and the poor within our own societies. The West has hardly any moral superiority on that department and we better never forget that if we really want a better and more just world. One could start with reading the history of Western Colonization, that's a pretty good start but it isn't even the whole story, especially if we dare look within our own societies.

First, capitalism, Christianity, and Western imperialism are separate things from one another. Second, capitalism is simply the freedom to hold property, accumulate wealth, and buy and sell goods at market. It is neutral in the sense of being good or evil, except that if properly allowed, it tends to lead to general prosperity. However, imperialist capitalism was NOT good when native people's rights were violated via their property (and persons) unjustly seized and taken. The worldwide exploitation by European colonial imperial empires came from greed and callous disregard for native people. Christianity was sometimes used to justify it, and sometimes was used to combat it. I don't believe that Jesus ever preached mass murder, enslavement, and exploitation. In the modern day, capitalism is NOT good when political power and justice is bought and sold at the expense of the rights of common people.

Fourthly, romanticizing Capitalism not only fails to explain the birth of Communist ideology and the birth of Fascism as a counter-movement, but forgets that all the benefits we enjoy in the West today were a direct result of this ideological battle, the battle against the excesses of Capitalism by workers (and their unions) and the poor, often with the help of religious groups as in the case of child-labour in Britain.

This is an overstatement. First, fascism did not merely originate as a counter-movement to communism. Second, there were many 19th century progressive movements, socialist movements, and Christian groups founded to better the lot of the common man (for example the movement to abolish international slavery). Admittedly, of socialist movements, Marxism was the most comprehensive, most radical, most well defined, most influential, and most successful. Thus, Marxist ideas have been popular among academics, social theorists, and activists ever since.

I completely agree that workers organized into labor unions and via legislation, secured much needed working condition reforms, social services, and sorely needed social safety nets.

Though small business conducts most economic activity and employs the most people, large corporations have accumulated incredible wealth and power. Like capitalism itself, large corporations are neither good nor evil in of themselves. They simply produce a product and sell it on a grand scale. Unfortunately, corporate environments usually produce corporate officers who are manipulative soulless individuals having what might be called "the corporate mentality". Their values are almost solely determined by the bottom line. They willingly lie and back stab to get what they want. They care as much about other people as you care about a chicken salad and view them in much the same way. Corporate environments are not limited to business corporations. The US Army also has a corporate environment and plays many of the same games. The people at the top most determine how pervasive is the corporate mentality.

I challenge anyone to come up with any of the Rights we enjoy today, be it the abolition of child-labour, health-insurance, maternal-leave, rest-days (Sundays), amount of work hours, vacations, collective bargains, minimum wage, you name it, as the result of the voluntary, good-will benefits given to workers by industrialists or big employers anywhere.

At least in the USA, there were such employers, especially when labor was in high demand. Ideas for benefits often started with a particular employer and diffused through society.

As far as I know, Sunday has long been traditionally a day of rest.

Henry Ford: "Why I favor 5 days work for 6 days pay"
http://www.worklessparty.org/timework/ford.htm

Some of the richest individuals have been incredibly generous. Dale Carnegie founded public libraries all over the USA. PBS is almost solely supported by individual donations, private endowments, and corporate donations. There are a huge number of university scholarships from bequests by rich individuals. Bill Gates donates computers and software to schools all over the country.

As a matter of fact, and read the history of the abolition of child-labour for some sobering enlightenment, the vast majority of those who had the means of production always opposed these things as unpractical and inexpedient to say the least.

Child labor, bad as it can be, at least gives sustenance for children who otherwise would quite possibly starve to death. I certainly do not like it, but it often beats hell out of bad alternatives. Usually, rich Western societies can afford to raise their children in peace and prosperity because they have the luxury to do so. The West is rich because it has a long history of capitalism combined with democratic institutions and enforcement of basic human rights. People in the Third World are not so lucky.

Also, the high standard of Western Europe after WWII regarding public education and health insurance was the direct result of this propaganda conflict between Communist countries and Western countries.

Perhaps propaganda conflict influenced it, but most people sure as heck would prefer to be educated, employed, and have their health checked in a Western nation than a Communist one. Barbed wire is the ultimate argument against Communism.

For those Americans who will now jump to attack this Western European standard as unsustainable and wasteful, at least in terms of the health insurance system, I will answer that the problem was not the system itself when it was implemented but the low-birthrates today. Indeed, with high birthrates this system would be fine, so it is not an ideology issue but a numbers issue, and it is a very deep discussion why those low birthrates are the case today, with the highest standard of living ever, when poorer previous generations were indeed reproducing in higher numbers. Not an easy issue and certainly not prone to fast ideological talking points as a critique.

Americans have little to say, as their social service system will also go bankrupt. The public debt is an insane 8+ trillion dollars.

Any system that is essentially a pyramid scheme requiring ever increasing numbers of entrants to sustain the demands of those above is unstable and will ultimately fail.

Chile has a private fully funded social security system that is not due to go bankrupt like the socialist systems of the USA and Western Europe.

As for health insurance, I have no problem with the government requiring employers to provide it. But socialized health care means that health care is guaranteed, but not available (except for the elite).

And I would ask American Christians if 60 million Americans without health insurance is the way to go. Not just morally, but in terms of diseases not being cured and spread because some poor person can't afford to go to a hospital.


Health insurance is not the only way to get health care. Hospitals are required by law to accept people in need of emergency health care. Additionally, the government will pay for most basic indigent situations.

The USA spends the most money on medical research and has the most advanced cutting edge health industry in the world. Doctors come from worldwide to practice. Patients come from worldwide to get care. The biggest problem is the high costs. This is due to the explosion in court cases, taxation on individualized health benefits, and the unavoidable high costs of advanced medical technology.

One problem is the Trial Lawyers Association lobbies politicians to defeat attempts at tort reform. Thus, specialized lawyers file constant lawsuits, valid or invalid, in the hopes of hitting the legal lottery for a big payday. They look for juries that can be manipulated to be sympathetic to the plaintiff rather than to find actual fault. They also intimidate doctors and insurance companies into settling rather than risk losing everything.

The result is that malpractice insurance rates are sky high and many doctors refer problem cases rather than risk a bad outcome and a lawsuit. Obstetrician/gynecologists typically have insurance annual premiums as high as their salaries. Unfortunately, a certain percentage of pregnancies inevitably have problems.

John Edwards, the Democratic candidate for vice president, did over one hundred million dollars in awards from specializing in lawsuits against gynecologists.

Another problem is that the IRS will not allow companies to give employees lump sums to shop around for their own individualized health plans without taxing the benefits.

Lastly, medical science has advanced amazingly but it is still very costly. Everyone wants premium health care at low cost and this is simply not realistic. Unfortunately, very well insured hypochondriacs often waste doctor's time and resources.

And I would ask American Christians if the largest numbers of homeless on the streets in the Western world is something defendable when Judgment Day comes. Because blaming the victim or saying any social ideal is bad probably will not cut it with Jesus Christ.

A large number of the street people have severe mental illness (and are thus not easily housed), they are runaways, or they are illegal immigrants. Many, perhaps most, suffer problems out of their control. Some street people are not really homeless, but they live raggedy lives in crappy housing. I am open to suggestions for effective solutions! Where I live, it is not uncommon for many Mexican immigrants to live in one apartment and work their way to a better situation. Children of immigrants usually assimilate well into American society and get good jobs. Thus, one generation sacrifices for the next.

And I would ask us Westerners if the policies that since the days of Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher (and everyone who followed) have resulted in incredibly higher inequality not all over the world but also within Western societies is really such a great blessing.
1999:
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/0198295669/toc.html
2005:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4185458.stm
The 2005 UN report:
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/media%2005/cd-docs/fullreport05.htm

I agree that globalization is challenging as hell and the results are certainly mixed. For example, the USA has lost its computer technology, consumer electronics, and manufacturing industries with associated good jobs overseas, replacing them with low-paying service jobs. However, I certainly do not blame Bill Gates or Sam Walton for that. This is an evolving dynamic that is complex and not trivially addressed.

As the 2005 UK report alluded, a huge problem is the growing gap between the skilled and unskilled in Western nations. IMO, revitalizing the low end of the economy would be very helpful for people at the bottom of society. I advocate zero taxation for the first $20,000 of income and a flat rate for most of the rest.

And I would ask us Westerners if the income of the richest 1% (50m people) being the same as the income of the poorest 60% (2.7bn people) makes sense.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1442073.stm

And I would ask Americans if the growing inequality within USA, with now the richest 1 percent of US citizens owning 40 percent of the total wealth of the country, while 80 percent of US citizens own just 16 percent is the way to go.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2613

The poverty of the world's masses is a problem as old as humanity. However, now it's a problem in the West as well. There have been improvements, for example scientific agriculture has greatly reduced starvation in India, and new high tech employment is of benefit throughout Asia.

Bill Gates by himself owns a noticeable piece of the economy. Some of his employees are billionaires in their own right! Microsoft employs millions of people all over the world. The Clinton administration and some Leftist state governments actually saw his incredible wealth as a way to solve their own budget problems and sued him accordingly. One smart thing Bush did was drop the lawsuit and not kill or drive away the Golden Goose.

Here is a secret I will tell you. If you want a prosperous society, then you must tolerate men like Bill Gates. Sure, he has hundreds of billions, but he also creates wealth where none was before. In addition to his employees, he contracts with all kinds of other companies that provide him services. Most of his great wealth consists of Microsoft stock.

The state of Florida greedily imposed a "luxury tax" on goods arbitrarily considered "luxuries". They thereby ruined their once thriving yacht industry. For example, college students normally crewing those yachts to make money during the summer had no jobs. But the Leftists in secure government jobs felt good over their compassion and social activism!

I tell you, it is GOOD when rich people buy fancy sports cars, sail fancy yachts, and throw wild parties. In doing so, they employ salesmen, managers, mechanics, sailors, yacht builders, yacht maintenance, caterers, bar tenders, trophy girlfriends, jewelers, etc!


Also:

"According to the Economic Policy Institute, "Between 1947 and 1973, median family income grew from $20,102 to $40,979, or by 104%. This growth rate worked out to 2.8% a year on average, or a doubling in income every 25 years. After 1973, however, the growth rate...slowed markedly. Over the 24 years from 1973 to 1997, median family income rose an average of 0.35% a year. At this rate, it will take 198 years for family income to double." (1) "

Compare this to sub-groups and their gains:

"Looking at after-tax income puts the growing disparities in even sharper focus. Between 1977 and 1999, the top fifth of households increased their annual income after federal taxes by 43 percent while the middle fifth gained 8 percent and the bottom fifth lost 9 percent. The top 1 percent of households gained 115 percent. "

http://faireconomy.org/press/archive/1999/Divided_Decade/divided_decade.html

Also on inequality (numbers and percentages differ, trend is the same):

http://www.osjspm.org/101_income.htm
http://www.forbes.com/work/2005/08/29/us-income-inequality-cx_0829oxan_usincome.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2670_129/ai_72272553

Most American middle income earners live with very little saved money. The largest expense is federal taxes. Taxes have been ratcheting upwards since 1913 taking an ever increasing share of wealth. Thus, both husband and wife work, parents have less time with children, there is less disposable income, and hence less economic activity. This is mostly due to The Left but now even President Bush has become a tax & spender. Reagan/Thatcher were wise enough to understand that tax cuts increase wealth because more money in the economy increases economic activity, which grows the economy, and even increases total tax revenue! I don't doubt that income disparities also get worse, but that is because great wealth naturally has more opportunity to invest for high return. The alternative is to force wealth into hiding or to flee to Costa Rica and thus not grow the economy. European nations such as Germany have followed the Reagan/Thatcher model because it works.

So if anyone dares look at the hard facts globally and within our own societies, it is about time we forget about a dead ideology like Communism and understand that Capitalism does indeed need a human face which will not come if we let the financial institutions and multinationals have their way unchecked. If it were for them, they wouldn't be outsourcing, they would be paying 10 cents an hour right here. Unless one is reading the Wall street Journal while planning his next estate purchase and is not a worker at any level below the upper 10%, things don't look good. And we better understand that fighting poverty and raising the standard of living all over the world including our societies is not some socialist utopia but a matter of political will which depends in us stopping beating dead horses but taking things in our hands.

Because if the eradication of poverty and obscene inequality in the world and within our own societies is a socialist ideal, then I am a socialist even though conservative in many other respects.

Just like Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King.

Replica

I agree that financial institutions and multinationals typically play all kinds of games to increase their bottom lines any way they can. Unfortunately, some are powerful enough to buy political favors to get unfair advantages. For example, Shell pays the Nigerian government to run farmers off their land that might interfere with their oil drilling.

However, rather than advocate policies of wholesale taxation, which destroys the economy, and socialism, which usually makes problems worse, I believe it's better to try and empower and encourage the bottom and middle of society. I believe in abolishing taxation for incomes under $20,000, enact flat tax on individuals and corporations to make taxation fairer, abolish inheritance tax, school vouchers to break the public school monopoly, allow individuals to invest in private social security, cut government spending, enact moderate industrial policy to slow loss of important industries, build nuclear reactors, build hydroelectric dams, encourage Mexico to open its oil fields, encourage alternative energy research, encourage space research, etc.


illegitimus!

reply

[deleted]

Looooong phuquing post, man!

The OP is from half a decade ago! I was a much younger man then!


“There is NO such thing as a free lunch.” - Milton Friedman

reply