Marxism vs neo-Marxism . . . Which Is Worse?

[George50]

Class envy works great for the Democrat Party
The Democrat Politicians are dependent upon ignorant and envious voters

You have it backwards.

When Republicans in congress want to take money from the middle class and poor and give it to their donors who make more than a billion dollars a year, that doesn’t sound like class envy on the part of those at the bottom. That sounds like class warfare started by those at the top!

Republican Politicians are dependent upon ignorant voters who are being robbed blind and diverted by stupid culture wars. They are kind of like the Indians in the story where the Europeans bought Manhattan Island for $24.00 in beads and other trinkets.

 

[SkyChief]

Why do you think this distinction is of any interest today other than of historical interest? Isn’t there there a history discussion section this should be under?

This thread is a POLL on public opinion, and it is exactly where it should be.

It asks . . . Which Is Worse? Marxism or neo-Marxism? There is no right or wrong answer to the question.

I do not challenge anyone who votes in the poll - no matter which way they vote. If the topic (Marxism vs neo-Marxism) doesn't interest you, then move along.

We can also discuss the merits of alchemy vs necromancy there.

HUH?

 

[aociswundumho]

Apples and oranges.

Nordic countries offer citizens extensive social benefits that are largely absent or much less comprehensive in the US. These include universal healthcare, free higher education, generous parental leave, and a strong social safety net that includes unemployment benefits, childcare subsidies, and housing allowances, all of which are largely funded by taxes.

So did Mussolini.

We pay for those things that Nordic countries have in this country too, just not through taxes. Add those things in and who pays the most for the whole package? Personally, I don’t give a crap about big vs small government. I’d just prefer to do whatever is the most efficient and less costly for the whole package.

The market will always produce private goods cheaper than the state. The problem is the state won't let the market work.

In my opinion, are a number of things that the US is doing that are stupid. For example, in 2023 the first country on your list, Norway, spent 9% of their GDP on healthcare. We spent 17.6%. Half of ours is government spending the rest is private spending (mostly employers) or 8.8% for private.

Do you think the system would be better if the government paid the other half as well?

 

[George50]

FALSE. You obviously don't even know the difference between Direct Taxes and indirect taxes. If you did, then you wouldn't make such a ludicrous statement.

Direct or indirect it does not matter. As I said all taxes are a centralized, confiscatory mandate!

You do not have the choice to not pay them. That is because they are mandated.

OMG There IS SO MUCH that you don't understand. I'm not even going to waste time explaining it to you - you're not at a level where you can understand why we must make the distinction between Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes.

Don't feel bad. I'm pretty sure that not one Marxist in this thread could make the distinction between the two. If they could, then they wouldn't be Marxist!

You have no Idea why I'm frustrated. I waste so much time on this explaining simple concepts to ignorant people who can never grasp it.

Yes, you obviously get frustrated.

I don't need to name ANY of them. informed people KNOW who the Marxists are. It's obvious.

If you want to pretend that there are no Marxists in Congress, THEN YOU DO THAT.

LOL. Yes, I see now, you can’t name a single Marxist in Congress who fits your definition of advocating for abolishing private property.

Obviously that’s because there aren’t any even though you say there are many. Why do you say that with zero evidence?

I just don't care, George. If I may impart ANYTHING on you, it is this: I just don't give a shit.

It sounds like you really aren’t debating.

 

[George50]

So did Mussolini.

What’s your point? Mussolini is not running the Nordic countries.

The market will always produce private goods cheaper than the state. The problem is the state won't let the market work.

Who said anything about producing private goods? That does not apply to anything I said.

Do you think the system would be better if the government paid the other half as well?

First you deleted why I showed the split between the two. It was to show that half of our healthcare spending was already included in your 25%. The other half is not.

My point was that I think it would be better if we spent 9% of our GDP on healthcare than the 17.6% that we do now. As I said I don’t care who pays for it. Big or small government doesn’t make a difference to me. I just want to do it the most efficient way. One way or another it all comes out of our pockets anyway.

 

[Buster Keaton]

You have it backwards.

When Republicans in congress want to take money from the middle class and poor and give it to their donors who make more than a billion dollars a year, that doesn’t sound like class envy on the part of those at the bottom. That sounds like class warfare started by those at the top!

Republican Politicians are dependent upon ignorant voters who are being robbed blind and diverted by stupid culture wars. They are kind of like the Indians in the story where the Europeans bought Manhattan Island for $24.00 in beads and other trinkets.

The Democrat Party is funded by billionaire oligarchs

 

[Questerr]

I did. It's an honest sentiment shared by many good Americans.

That's a false assumption. I am not against taxes. Of course there needs to be taxes to maintain government and the federal Courts. and the military, infrastructure, etc. . .

Some taxes yes, some taxes, no.

BS. Of course there is. Marxists and NeoMarxists were mocked and ridiculed 30 years ago for their subversive ideology. Today they've infiltrated government at all levels -we have many Marxists in Congress. These nincompoops are making our LAWS. That should be a wake-up call for all freedom loving Americans.

Marx wanted to destroy capitalism - the very economic system on which our country was founded. No wonder so many Americans distrust Marxists. Marxism is a cold slap to face of liberty and freedom.

"If socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialists." - Friedrich Hayek


You you you you you you you you you you you - LOL you said the word 'you' SIXTEEN TIMES in your dumb post!!


Your incessant sanctimonious crap - someone at YOUR level pretending to be morally superior to a person who wants freedom and liberty, instead of the bootheel of Marxism on our necks. There is SO much irony there.

Your posts are nonsense - it's mostly crap based on false premises, emotions and bigotry (an irrational hatred for those who don't agree with you).

Why did you deliberately lie about what you said in your own OP? I didn't know libertarians were too cowardly to own up to personal responsibility.

 

[Questerr]

Those things are not really "Basic infrastructure".

Infrastructure includes National Parks, the electrical grid, bridges, interstate highways, waterways, harbors, airports, etc. etc.

Education and healthcare are NOT infrastructure that the federal government should be levying taxes for. Those types of infrastructure should be handled at the State level. If the Founders had wanted the federal government to build public schools, then they would have had public schools.


LOL

We'll be fine. Government has become too large, and too powerful. Our lawmakers pass laws which undermine our liberty and freedom, and makes the government even MORE powerful.

"I am convinced that there are more threats to American liberty within the 10 mile radius of my office on Capitol Hill than there are on the rest of the globe." -- Ron Paul

Anyways, we're DEEP in the weeds here. Lets' discuss the differences between Marxism and NeoMarxism, and why one is worse than the other.

The concept of public schools didn't even exist when the Founders were writing the Constitution.

 

[Questerr]

Not really. This thread is a POLL which asks the Question: Marxism vs neo-Marxism . . . Which Is Worse?

You are welcome to start your own thread about the Nordic Model.

In this thread we're discussing the differences between (Classic)Marxism and NeoMarxism.

Why did you deliberately lie about your definition of Neo-Marxism in the OP?

 

[George50]

The Democrat Party is funded by billionaire oligarchs

LOL. You have it backwards. It’s the Republicans who are funded by billionaire oligarchs!

Billionaire Clans Spend Nearly $2 BILLION On 2024 Elections - Americans For Tax Fairness

With A Week To Go, 150 Families Have Outpaced By $700 Million What 600 Individual Billionaires Spent in 2020 With a week to go before Election Day, just 150 billionaire families have already smashed the billionaire campaign-spending record, contributing $1.9 billion in support of presidential...

americansfortaxfairness.org

 

[spud_meister]

Today I learned capitalism is when the government does stuff.

I'm glad you finally figured that one out.

 

[aociswundumho]

I'm glad you finally figured that one out.

Yep, and the more stuff the government does the more capitalist it becomes. Hence Cuba and North Korea are the most capitalist countries on earth.

 

[spud_meister]

Yep, and the more stuff the government does the more capitalist it becomes. Hence Cuba and North Korea are the most capitalist countries on earth.

I dunno man, the US government owns way more slaves that are forced to labour in "prisons". I think it might be more capitalist than Cuba.

 

[aociswundumho]

I dunno man, the US government owns way more slaves that are forced to labour in "prisons". I think it might be more capitalist than Cuba.

Good point. Government using prison labor is pure, free market capitalism. Hence Stalin was the most prolific capitalist who ever lived. You should teach this stuff.

 

[SkyChief]

The concept of public schools didn't even exist when the Founders were writing the Constitution.

The poster mistakenly classified public schools as being infrastructure. They are definitely NOT infrastructure, so therefore the federal government should not impose taxation to fund public schools.

It started here:

. . . I am not against taxes. Of course there needs to be taxes to maintain government and the federal Courts. and the military, infrastructure, etc. . . .

Then a poster argued that public schools and healthcare are "basic infrastructure":

Education and healthcare are the most basic infrastructure of any modern developed economy. . .

This is not true, so I explained why it is not true.

Those things are not really "Basic infrastructure".

Infrastructure includes National Parks, the electrical grid, bridges, interstate highways, waterways, harbors, airports, etc. etc.

Education and healthcare are NOT infrastructure that the federal government should be levying taxes for. . . .

The poster (indirectly) acknowledged the mistake:

they should be. . . .

Now you're arguing that "The concept of public schools didn't even exist when the Founders were writing the Constitution."

As if that's relevant.

 

[Questerr]

The poster mistakenly classified public schools as being infrastructure. They are definitely NOT infrastructure, so therefore the federal government should not impose taxation to fund public schools.

It started here:


Then a poster argued that public schools and healthcare are "basic infrastructure":



This is not true, so I explained why it is not true.



The poster (indirectly) acknowledged the mistake:



Now you're arguing that "The concept of public schools didn't even exist when the Founders were writing the Constitution."

As if that's relevant.

And you claimed that the Founders would have put public schools in the Constitution if they wanted the Federal government to pay for them. How could the Founders do that when the concept of public schools didn’t even exist yet?

And asking again: why did you deliberately lie about your definition of Neo-Marxism in your OP?

It’s not a good look for you to refuse to answer that question.

 

[Dans La Lune]

You agree capitalism requires private property rights to be respected and enforced, correct?

There is no model of privatization that does not involve government control.

Well, there were no private property rights in Nazi Germany. It was a particularly vicious dictatorship, and if the Nazis wanted something you have, you either gave it to them or wound up in a concentration camp or worse. You also could not sue them in court, because the courts were completely controlled by the Nazis.

1. Financial Relief and Revenue Generation:
   
   • Budget Deficits: The Nazi government faced significant budget deficits due to its military spending. Privatization was one method to raise funds and reduce the financial burden on the state.
   • Revenue and Expenditure Relief: By selling off state-owned assets, the government aimed to generate revenue and reduce its expenditure, which was crucial for financing the rearmament program.
2. Political Support:
   
   • Enhancing Support for the Government: Privatization was used as a political tool to enhance support for the Nazi government and the Nazi Party. By transferring ownership to private entities, particularly those aligned with the regime, the government sought to build a coalition of industrialists and business leaders who would support its policies.
   • Control and Influence: The nationalized industries were not always under the control of the Nazi government, as many members of the German parliament were not Nazis. Privatization allowed the regime to place these industries under the control of Nazi Party members or sympathizers, ensuring alignment with the government's interests.
3. Economic Control:
   
   • Regulation and Interference: Despite the transfer of ownership, the state maintained significant control over the economy through regulation and political interference. This was in contrast to the liberalization policies seen in later privatizations in the European Union.
   • State-Driven Aryanization: After 1936-37, the aryanization process intensified, leading to the forced transfer of Jewish-owned businesses to non-Jewish Germans. This process was often conflated with privatization, as it involved the transfer of ownership to private entities.

Implementation and Scope​

1. Sectors Involved:
   
   • Steel and Mining: The German Public Railway Network and the mining sector, which had been nationalized following the German Revolution of 1918/19, were sold off to private investors, many of whom were industrialists who had supported the NSDAP in previous elections.
   • Banking and Finance: Banks, including those previously owned by Jewish individuals, were re-privatized and transferred to German monopoly banking companies.
   • Public Utilities: Local public utilities, such as water supply and transportation services, were transferred to the private sector, often to organizations within the Nazi Party.
2. Key Operations:
   
   • Urban Transportation: Heinz Marschner proposed the reprivatization of urban transportation, which had come under public control during the period of inflation. This proposal was supported by the Nazi government, and privatizations soon followed.
   • Banking Sector: Hans Baumgarten analyzed the conditions required for the reprivatization of the German banking sector, and discussions of privatization became increasingly common after the Nazi government took office in 1933.

Historical and Comparative Analysis​

1. Unique Nature:
   
   • Contrast with Other Western Countries: Unlike other Western capitalist countries, which did not systematically reprivatize firms during the 1930s, the Nazi regime's privatization policy was a significant departure from the mainstream.
   • Fascist Italy: The strategy of privatization in Nazi Germany was influenced by the policies of Fascist Italy, where state monopolies on match production, life insurance, telephone networks, and tolled highways were ended after Mussolini came to power.
2. Modern Comparisons:
   
   • Neoliberal Privatization: While modern privatization policies in the European Union have been parallel to liberalization and deregulation, Nazi privatization was implemented within a framework of increasing state control and political interference.
   • Political Motivations: The political motivations behind Nazi privatization, such as enhancing support for the government and aligning business interests with the regime, are similar to those seen in more recent privatizations, particularly in the EU

...

Let me know what about this is unclear.

 

[SkyChief]

And you claimed that the Founders would have put public schools in the Constitution if they wanted the Federal government to pay for them.

BULLSHIT. I did not claim that. You fabricated that nonsense.

How could the Founders do that when the concept of public schools didn’t even exist yet?

This is classic Straw-Man nonsense. I never said (or even implied) that "the Founders would have put public schools in the Constitution". That's a straw-man that YOU fabricated.

And asking again: why did you deliberately lie about your definition of Neo-Marxism in your OP?

It’s not a good look for you to refuse to answer that question.

You ask really stupid questions, and I'm not chasing you down that rabbit hole. Your posts are nonsense - based on red herrings, straw-men, false premises, and other logical fallacies.

 

[Napoleon]

Marxists had the excuse of ignorance that it’s a recipe for genocidal authoritarianism and extreme poverty. Neo-marxists should know better so they’re worse.

 

[soylentgreen]

Its just the logical conclusion of said revolution. In context he has it right.

So then I am right when i say that the american revolution was nothing more than a power grab by a handful of wealthy land owning white men to create a state where they control the taxes to their benefit. And screw the fact that many of their fellow poorer americans had to die fighting a a war that only benefited a few.

 

[Questerr]

BULLSHIT. I did not claim that. You fabricated that nonsense.

This is classic Straw-Man nonsense. I never said (or even implied) that "the Founders would have put public schools in the Constitution". That's a straw-man that YOU fabricated.

You ask really stupid questions, and I'm not chasing you down that rabbit hole. Your posts are nonsense - based on red herrings, straw-men, false premises, and other logical fallacies.

You: “If the Founders had wanted the federal government to build public schools, then they would have had public schools.”

Why do you keep lying about your own statements?

 

[SkyChief]

You: “If the Founders had wanted the federal government to build public schools, then they would have had public schools.”

Why do you keep lying about your own statements?

Yes, that's what I said, but that's not what you claimed that I said.

You seem to be incapable of formulating a sensible argument. All of your dumb questions and arguments are based mostly on lies, mistruths, misinformation, poor comprehension, and logical fallacies.

All of your posts in this thread reveal a profound lack of knowledge and insight regarding Marxism, and the differences between Classic Marxism and NeoMarxism.

Your repetitive posts and dopey questions are nonsensical.

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[Questerr]

Yes, that's what I said, but that's not what you claimed that I said.

You seem to be incapable of formulating a sensible argument. All of your dumb questions and arguments are based mostly on lies, mistruths, misinformation, poor comprehension, and logical fallacies.

All of your posts in this thread reveal a profound lack of knowledge and insight regarding Marxism, and the differences between Classic Marxism and NeoMarxism.

Your posts and dopey questions are nonsensical.

What was the document the founders used to establish the power of the Federal governments?

Why did you lie in your op about the differences between Marxism and Neo-Marxism and why did you double down on that by lying about what you said in your OP?
I get why you are lying. If my argument was as weak and uneducated as yours, I would lie as well.

 

[SkyChief]

What was the document the founders used to establish the power of the Federal governments?

What a stupid question.

Why did you lie in your op about the differences between Marxism and Neo-Marxism and why did you double down on that by lying about what you said in your OP?
I get why you are lying. If my argument was as weak and uneducated as yours, I would lie as well.

Your posts are complete nonsense.

You keep asking the same stupid questions over and over. If you were capable of formulating a sensible argument, then you would. Thankfully you're not.

All you can do is post nonsense, based on lies, mistruths, misinformation, poor comprehension, false pretenses, deceit and logical fallacies.