• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

  • Total voters
    15
Buster Keaton said:
Class envy works great for the Democrat Party
The Democrat Politicians are dependent upon ignorant and envious voters
Click to expand...
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.
 
ataraxia said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
ataraxia said:
We can also discuss the merits of alchemy vs necromancy there.
Click to expand...
HUH?
 

So did Mussolini.


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


Do you think the system would be better if the government paid the other half as well?
 
SkyChief said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Yes, you obviously get frustrated.

SkyChief said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?

SkyChief said:
I just don't care, George. If I may impart ANYTHING on you, it is this: I just don't give a shit.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you really aren’t debating.
 
aociswundumho said:
So did Mussolini.
Click to expand...
What’s your point? Mussolini is not running the Nordic countries.
aociswundumho said:
The market will always produce private goods cheaper than the state. The problem is the state won't let the market work.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about producing private goods? That does not apply to anything I said.

aociswundumho said:
Do you think the system would be better if the government paid the other half as well?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
The Democrat Party is funded by billionaire oligarchs
 

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.
 

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

Why did you deliberately lie about your definition of Neo-Marxism in the OP?
 
Buster Keaton said:
The Democrat Party is funded by billionaire oligarchs
Click to expand...
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
 
aociswundumho said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
spud_meister said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Questerr said:
The concept of public schools didn't even exist when the Founders were writing the Constitution.
Click to expand...
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:

SkyChief said:
. . . I am not against taxes. Of course there needs to be taxes to maintain government and the federal Courts. and the military, infrastructure, etc. . . .
Click to expand...
Then a poster argued that public schools and healthcare are "basic infrastructure":

ataraxia said:
Education and healthcare are the most basic infrastructure of any modern developed economy. . .
Click to expand...

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


The poster (indirectly) acknowledged the mistake:

ataraxia said:
they should be. . . .
Click to expand...

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.
 
aociswundumho said:
You agree capitalism requires private property rights to be respected and enforced, correct?
Click to expand...

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


  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.
 
Questerr said:
And you claimed that the Founders would have put public schools in the Constitution if they wanted the Federal government to pay for them.
Click to expand...
BULLSHIT. I did not claim that. You fabricated that nonsense.
Questerr said:
How could the Founders do that when the concept of public schools didn’t even exist yet?
Click to expand...
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.
Questerr said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
bomberfox said:
Its just the logical conclusion of said revolution. In context he has it right.
Click to expand...
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.
 

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?
 
Questerr said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 

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.
 
Questerr said:
What was the document the founders used to establish the power of the Federal governments?
Click to expand...
What a stupid question.

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…