Obama's service corps

[dave12]

You're kidding? I had no idea a Social Welfare/Social Democratic/Socialist Governmental body's role was to expropriate privately generated capital in order to fund institutions of public interest.

As well, Obama's specific political and philosophical inclinations do not affect the interrelatedness of Social Democracy and Socialism; I was pointing out the characteristics of each overarching idiom, not Obama's stance. However, if we were to discuss his stance, labeling him a Marxist is incorrect; I often find this mislabeling more prevalent with Americans than any other nationality (no offense intended). As Marxist doctrine never gained a true foothold - so to speak - in American Academic Culture, its definition is often muddied and misunderstood. To be specific, Obama no doubt concerns himself with equalizing the productive and consumptive aspects of economy via governmental reform (class struggle), and obviously propagates a religion of liberation (all the change blah blah in his speeches), but such is not Marxism: Nor does studying under a class-struggle influenced theological community make one a Marxist.

Obama's incorrect labeling as a "Marxist" notwithstanding, that label itself has become to overarching, too politicized, and incorrectly used far too often.

Whichever German state coomand and control philosophers name you wish to supplant Marxism with will do, but my vague generality of Marxism is effective to convey my point. The Commie Manifesto is a brief, succinct overview of "Marxism" and that nitwit Barry embraces it wholeheartedly. Thats what the Alinsky Community Organizing team does. They make marxist street agitators then send them into communities to rub raw tensions to exploit for power.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Whichever German state coomand and control philosophers name you wish to supplant Marxism with will do, but my vague generality of Marxism is effective to convey my point. The Commie Manifesto is a brief, succinct overview of "Marxism" and that nitwit Barry embraces it wholeheartedly. Thats what the Alinsky Community Organizing team does. They make marxist street agitators then send them into communities to rub raw tensions to exploit for power.

Huh? The Communist Manifesto is not a succinct overview of Marxism, but merely a pamphlet meant to elicit a revolutionary response; there is no "succinct overview of Marxism", and I am not sure your vague generality carried your point well - no disrespect intended.

If you are searching for a brief overview - at least ontologically - Private Property and Communism describes the theoretical (though Marx would disagree and say actual) processes underpinning 'Communism'.

 

[dave12]

Huh? The Communist Manifesto is not a succinct overview of Marxism, but merely a pamphlet meant to elicit a revolutionary response; there is no "succinct overview of Marxism", and I am not sure your vague generality carried your point well - no disrespect intended.

If you are searching for a brief overview - at least ontologically - Private Property and Communism describes the theoretical (though Marx would disagree and say actual) processes underpinning 'Communism'.

While I understand what your saying I think u are intentionally discounting my point that Barry draws his philosophical take on governance from the top down structure of command and control government that claims its goal is the "worker". Marxism through its many nuanced variations and incarnations is essentially just that. I use the term Marxism because its the most commonly known and as well, i believe, Marx first clearly elucidated the utopians system/ideals. Which have failed everywere. It is also the writings of Marx and Co. that all modern versions of "Group responsibility" styled systems of government draw there reasoning. Intellectual nitwits can sit around debating the nuance of each but as long as they continue to preclude human nature from that debate they will continue to destroy counties and societies in their aim to achieve a socialist utopia were everyone has everything his neighbor does.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

While I understand what your saying I think u are intentionally discounting my point that Barry draws his philosophical take on governance from the top down structure of command and control government that claims its goal is the "worker". Marxism through its many nuanced variations and incarnations is essentially just that. I use the term Marxism because its the most commonly known and as well, i believe, Marx first clearly elucidated the utopians system/ideals. Which have failed everywere. It is also the writings of Marx and Co. that all modern versions of "Group responsibility" styled systems of government draw there reasoning. Intellectual nitwits can sit around debating the nuance of each but as long as they continue to preclude human nature from that debate they will continue to destroy counties and societies in their aim to achieve a socialist utopia were everyone has everything his neighbor does.

I'm not intentionally discounting anything - my entire studies were on this topic, and I am a stickler.

Marx was actually not a Utopian Socialist whatsoever; in fact, his writings are overly-empirio-scientific in order to prove just that. Marx viewed the Romantic Utopian Socialist of his day as irrelevant and aimless. His writings sought to expose the inner 'Geist' of Political Capital in-and-of-itself, and thereby seek to remove the abstract phenomenology from capital exchange - returning capital exchange to a "Communistic" method of production and consumption.

He very much viewed his work as a revolutionary facet through which to achieve labor equity, and to level the stratified socio-economy of his time; it is for this reason he payed so much attention to the dissemination of political capital. Both Das Kapital and Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy display this very well. The only inklings of Utopian Socialism within Marx's greater body of work are his earliest writings.

 

[dave12]

I'm not intentionally discounting anything - my entire studies were on this topic, and I am a stickler.

Marx was actually not a Utopian Socialist whatsoever; in fact, his writings are overly-empirio-scientific in order to prove just that. Marx viewed the Romantic Utopian Socialist of his day as irrelevant and aimless. His writings sought to expose the inner 'Geist' of Political Capital in-and-of-itself, and thereby seek to remove the abstract phenomenology from capital exchange - returning capital exchange to a "Communistic" method of production and consumption.

He very much viewed his work as a revolutionary facet through which to achieve labor equity, and to level the stratified socio-economy of his time; it is for this reason he payed so much attention to the dissemination of political capital. Both Das Kapital and Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy display this very well. The only inklings of Utopian Socialism within Marx's greater body of work are his earliest writings.

Well that's great but my understanding is the be all end all of his philosophical musings was to facilitate a nationalist free world dominated by the workers, because of his great disgust 4 the human tragedy of his recent history and the death of millions of said working class in petty squabbles of the elites of Europe. That said if he had seen what devastation his writings have visited on said working class he would've stop writing. And still you are avoiding my central point that al;l this leftist nonsense is nothing more then populist power grabbing that in the end hurts the people that elevate it to power. So again I say that Barry has the belief that people are to stupid to lead themselves, buy health insurance, determine how many children they have and as such we all must give over sovereignty over our income, individual liberty, and free will to some bureaucrat that knows better. Im unconvinced by your argument that for simple conversations sake the term "Marxism" covers that ideology , because regardless of nuance the end result is the same. As i stated above. Additionally as i stated in the beginning I merely thought that the two of you would have a more productive argument if it was acknowledged Barry's leftism instead of arguing the nuance of leftism. I apoligize if i was misunderstood. Lastly i dont feel compelled to argue against leftism. Reality makes my point quite soundly. When was the last time someone ran a Guantlet to receive the blessing of a leftist government, and how many have run one to get away from one?

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Well that's great but my understanding is the be all end all of his philosophical musings was to facilitate a nationalist free world dominated by the workers, because of his great disgust 4 the human tragedy of his recent history and the death of millions of said working class in petty squabbles of the elites of Europe. That said if he had seen what devastation his writings have visited on said working class he would've stop writing.

I would advise further reading, and once again no disrespect intended.

Marx's work contain no Political Philosophy/Methodology - so to speak - and the form of Government was unfortunately left vague and ambiguous within his writings. The brand of Communism which took root in Post-War Europe was ostensibly distinct from Marx's own views; a distinction that Lenin himself embraces within his own writings (really, the similarities lie more within the dialectical epistemology of Marx/Engels and Lenin, as opposed to the actual form and content of a Socialist Society)

Marx also distinctly and staunchly opposed Nationalism, by the way; the Socialist Revolution was to be global, and only therein would it succeed. I find it odd you mention the Manifesto, but apparently failed to read the last line:

"Workers of the world unite!"

Marx viewed nationality, religion, and so on as merely additional facets through which the dominant class expropriates the working class - as merely abstract expressions of the social relations of production. So, no, no nationalism there.

And still you are avoiding my central point that al;l this leftist nonsense is nothing more then populist power grabbing that in the end hurts the people that elevate it to power. So again I say that Barry has the belief that people are to stupid to lead themselves, buy health insurance, determine how many children they have and as such we all must give over sovereignty over our income, individual liberty, and free will to some bureaucrat that knows better. Im unconvinced by your argument that for simple conversations sake the term "Marxism" covers that ideology , because regardless of nuance the end result is the same.

Apologies, but this paragraph is unfathomably hard to understand; I'm not sure of your intended point, could you be more clear? Based on your last sentence, I would once again disagree as you have trouble reconciling your perception of 'Marxism' with Marxism itself, but I would rather have you clarify so I do not unfairly attribute any viewpoints to you.

As i stated above. Additionally as i stated in the beginning I merely thought that the two of you would have a more productive argument if it was acknowledged Barry's leftism instead of arguing the nuance of leftism. I apoligize if i was misunderstood. Lastly i dont feel compelled to argue against leftism. Reality makes my point quite soundly. When was the last time someone ran a Guantlet to receive the blessing of a leftist government, and how many have run one to get away from one?

Possibly, could you answer a few questions for me, which you insinuate in this quote:

1) Where did I state Obama's viewpoints are not leaning to the political left?

2) Where did I make the case for "leftism"? (incredibly vague term, by the way).

I am interested to see where I did, as I mentioned neither. There is no nuance between Social Democracy and Socialism: They are distinctly separate political methodologies and the apparatuses created as a direct result of that methodology is completely separate as well; this is not perception, a simple reading of leading scholars from both camps will elucidate that quite clearly. I would suggest you do that.

 

[dave12]

I find it odd you mention the Manifesto, but apparently failed to read the last line:

Yes i did. Its referenced in my paragraph long run on sentence. As stated earlier this was the debate I wanted to avoid. One, this is a terrible venue for it. Two, Modern Liberalism and Collectivism are difficult to debate because on paper and in theory they all seem to work yet in actuality they all fail and then the Leftist Collectivists say "Well the power structure didnt have pure enough ideology" and since 110 million people have died as a direct result of its practice I believe (Granted its merely opinion) that we should give it a rest and go with what works. Human nature plays a roll in all facets of human behavior and creation. If man creats something it will invariably have flaws the way to deal with this is address the flaws in as unobtrusive fashion as possible. Not creat a system of government to manage it.

Apologies, but this paragraph is unfathomably hard to understand; I'm not sure of your intended point, could you be more clear?

Common sense rarely is clearly seen by liberals.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I find it odd you mention the Manifesto, but apparently failed to read the last line:

Yes i did. Its referenced in my paragraph long run on sentence. As stated earlier this was the debate I wanted to avoid. One, this is a terrible venue for it. Two, Modern Liberalism and Collectivism are difficult to debate because on paper and in theory they all seem to work yet in actuality they all fail and then the Leftist Collectivists say "Well the power structure didnt have pure enough ideology" and since 110 million people have died as a direct result of its practice I believe (Granted its merely opinion) that we should give it a rest and go with what works. Human nature plays a roll in all facets of human behavior and creation. If man creats something it will invariably have flaws the way to deal with this is address the flaws in as unobtrusive fashion as possible. Not creat a system of government to manage it.

Apologies, but this paragraph is unfathomably hard to understand; I'm not sure of your intended point, could you be more clear?

Common sense rarely is clearly seen by liberals.

And apparently grammar is rarely employed by independents? I merely asked you to clarify your incoherent sentence; frustrated mud-slinging is not appropriate.

Nor am I debating (as I said above) the merits of Socialism; I'm merely correcting your very mistaken assumptions.

At any rate, would you mind clarifying the jumble above?

 

[dave12]

And apparently grammar is rarely employed by independents? I merely asked you to clarify your incoherent sentence; frustrated mud-slinging is not appropriate.

Nor am I debating (as I said above) the merits of Socialism; I'm merely correcting your very mistaken assumptions.

At any rate, would you mind clarifying the jumble above?

Glad to see you address the statements content rather than composition. (And this is headed toward debate territory and I don't see how thats possible on a web forum, in any meaningful fashion). Your consistent referencing my not being well read because you claim my premise is flawed and tell tale that you do not have a logical rebuttal. Additionally, I have no idea what I could have said that would give you the impression I'm an independent but I'll use your tact. Go read "Conscience of a Conservative".

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Glad to see you address the statements content rather than composition. (And this is headed toward debate territory and I don't see how thats possible on a web forum, in any meaningful fashion). Your consistent referencing my not being well read because you claim my premise is flawed is tell tale that you do not have a logical rebuttal. Additionally, I have no idea what I could have said that would give you the impression I'm an independent but I'll use your tact. Go read "Conscience of a Conservative".

I think you're missing the point: The content and form of a statement are intrinsically linked. How am I to give your statement proper merit, and respond accordingly, without understanding it?

I have also directly addressed all your assumptive statements about Marxism in its many forms. At any rate, I've asked you to clarify that statement three times now; is this something you plan on doing?