Democrat Sprays Cashier In Eyes With Lysol

[Revoltingest]

The thing is although I do appreciate your intelligent mind and thoughtful post I would just like to make one comment on what I would consider a fallacious argument. You've heard the old adage for Lord Acton, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" although I am paraphrasing the actual quote. The point I am making is corruption in government has NOTHING to do with whether a government is left-wing or right -wing. The idea that all left-wing governments are guaranteed to be corrupt is just propaganda. As if the implication is having right-wing governments is the only answer because they are not corrupt.

People have needs and desires. It is our needs and desires which are the source of all that is evil in the World. Human nature is the problem. Having bad actors in positions of power who turn on the people they have power over has nothing to do with the form of government. Here are two really great books on how power corrupts:

https://www.amazon.com/Powerholders-David-Kipnis/dp/0226437310

And,

https://www.amazon.com/Technology-Power-David-Kipnis/dp/0387970827/ref=sr_1_1

In the Power and Technology one Kipnis uses plays of Shakespeare showing how power and the exercise of power corrupts the mind.

Yes, left-wing governments in the past have had leaders who were insanely corrupt and evil. But this has nothing to do with good government as this video claims:

You cannot deny Marx makes some very good criticisms against laissez faire capitalism. I am just sick and tired of the endless propaganda we cannot have any degree of communism while implicitly saying and promoting economic slavery as our only answer.

Reich wing governments are just as corrupt as left wing ones!

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Benito Mussolini



I apologize. It's not that I am against this country it's just that I am against all forms of political and religions fandom. I am okay with comic book fandom!



Thank you for service.

Again, we largely agree.

But Marx had 2 major problems.....
- He assumed that humans would be better than they are, which
would be necessary for a highly centralized powerful government.
- His cure is worse than the disease.

 

[oldbadger]

Not all cashiers have a screen. The response to Covid-19 in the U.S. has been slow and lack-luster. There is no uniformity of regulation nor uniform enforcement of regulation. The death toll here reflects that reality.

Thank you for the info.
Our graphs are not turning down yet in the UK. This illness is looking a lot darker as the days go by, I'm afraid.

 

[Stevicus]

Crimes of omission are even worse than crimes of commission. Libertarians are the very worse. They are selfish self-centered jerks to don't care if grandma dies in the street.

Someone working a cash register spraying someone in an act of rage-I-quit has is not predicated on one being a Democrat. Republicans are just as much a holes as Democrats. To claim otherwise is pure delusion.

It doesn't matter what the ant-government Republicans and Libertarians think anyway. Marx said laissez faire capitalism is always followed by communism. This is because unfettered greed would result in the government's currency being concentrated in two few hands. Once the currency is concentrated in two few hands it will collapse to having nothing in value. This is exactly what is happening now. Once the currency collapses to nothing millions of people in the breadlines will be begging and screaming for communism. This graph proves Marx is right:

Quandl

Just look at the 3Y version of the curve above. Once the 3 trillion dollars of printed Covad-19 money get's collated to Trump's new found billionaire friends and family then the dollar will probably be worth 1/3 as much. From 2001 to 2016 the price of pizza went from $8 for plain large to $13.50. I imagine we will see $20 pizza within three years.

The only mechanism that would stop collapse of the dollar's value would be a massive redistribution of wealth either though UBI, pay raises, or huge increases taxation on the billionaires paying for free-stuff. But this will never happen because the Libertarians are for long term communism. I've been thinking of a possible solution of UBI controlled by the Fed where the amount being sent was money printed by the Fed. This way the Fed had a mechanism to fight inflation while keeping the economy robust independent of the cartels and monopolies gouging consumers.

The problems of our country are not rocket science. Corporations are legally responsible to do whatever it takes without any morals and ethics to provide maximum returns to the shareholder. I have had many conversations with libertarians on whether having a livable wage is necessary. Every single libertarian I've talked to say having people being slaves is not a problem. No libertarian I've talked to has ever said they drawn the line at livable wages. All of them claim the only right solution is no controls at all. The problem is we have no free-markets in this country. The whole system of the economy is rigged in favor of the CEOs, billionaires, and Corporations. The billionaires and CEOs pay the lobbyists to pass legislation creating cartels and monopolies in exchange for campaign financing. The result is the American worker is gouged to the hilt and has become an economic slave.

The words of FDR are more true today than when he spoke them during the Great Depression era of 90% taxes:

"An old English judge once said: 'Necessitous men are not free men.' Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for. For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness. Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government."

We've had 30 years of tax breaks for the rich and the gutting of consumer and environmental protections. Unless we have UBI along with Universal healthcare the dollar will collapse to nothing in value. Marx is right in claiming laissez faire capitalism is unstable. No matter what laissez faire capitalism creates crisis after crisis. Communism of some degree is needed to stabilize the excesses of inequality caused by people inevitably rigging the system to fail and create a new crisis.

But as George Carlin says NOTHING will ever change:

Revoltingest has a "red, white, and blue --roster-- jammed up his --hole-- everyday". The sad thing is Revoltingest is the true communist because people like him are responsible for the collapse of the dollar's value.

See you in the breadlines comrades!

You make some good points here. I was just thinking about this topic while reading another thread about a mayor in a Mexican town being ambushed and murdered, allegedly by the drug cartels who took exception to his quarantine of the town due to the coronavirus. The drug shipments must get through at all costs, quarantine be damned.

Elsewhere in Mexico, there was an armed robbery of a gold mine, with the robbers getting away on an airplane.

These, to me, are examples of anarcho-capitalism in the raw. This is where capitalism faces a bit of a contradiction, since they often decry and denounce "Big Gov" and their interference and intervention in the so-called "free market." Yet, their own position as "owners" depends solely a measly scrap of paper and government's recognition of it in order to give it force of law and all the apparatus of the state to enforce it.

Without that, they would need to employ their own private armies and hope that they remain loyal, something not unlike ancient dukes and feudal warlords (or drug cartels). That's one possible future we might see in a laissez-faire capitalist society. It may or may not be followed by communism, although it could lead to centuries of stagnation before it ever gets to that point.

Other possibilities could be a rise in nationalism, which we're already seeing in other parts of the world and here in America. This is kind of tricky, since capitalists have thrived in America by extolling and encouraging patriotism and loyalty to American ideals and "our way of life," particularly during the Cold War and our epic crusade against communism. Ironically, the capitalists in this era were at their most generous and reasonable when it came to negotiating union contracts and providing a decent standard of living for working class Americans. They moved out of the tenements and slums and into nice, suburban homes - with cars, TVs, and the relatively nice and stable "Leave it to Beaver" lifestyle which many Americans still regard as a kind of "Golden Age" which has since passed.

Apparently, capitalists of that era found it acceptable to compromise with the working classes and address their needs, probably because they required their loyalty and patriotism to build up the military forces required to do the real looting and pillaging overseas. That was ostensibly more lucrative, so they could afford to give some of the spoils to the folks on the homefront. Ordinary Americans were enjoying the good life and patting themselves on the back because of the wonderful "system" we have.

But we're finding that it's not so easy anymore to rule over the rest of the world like so many banana republics and corporate subsidiaries, and that's where the system is starting to crack. That's where the nationalism comes from, since some feel the solution is to double-down on patriotism, gear up the military, and show these "dern ferriners" who's boss again. Trump's idea of "making America great again" is rooted in older, paleo-conservative ideals which don't seem to have the same effect anymore, except for certain segments of the population - the remnants of what used to be known as the "silent majority" during Nixon's era.

But America has gotten soft and lazy, and the "loyalty" and "patriotism" which once existed has degenerated into a cynical, disingenuous put-on. Ironically, the capitalists don't even want people to really believe this stuff, since a "true believer" becomes most dangerous to the capitalists. That's why they had to drum out people like Patton and MacArthur, because they were "true believers" who genuinely wanted to eliminate any threat of communism, but the capitalists would have none of that.

 

[Revoltingest]

You make some good points here. I was just thinking about this topic while reading another thread about a mayor in a Mexican town being ambushed and murdered, allegedly by the drug cartels who took exception to his quarantine of the town due to the coronavirus. The drug shipments must get through at all costs, quarantine be damned.

Elsewhere in Mexico, there was an armed robbery of a gold mine, with the robbers getting away on an airplane.

These, to me, are examples of anarcho-capitalism in the raw. This is where capitalism faces a bit of a contradiction, since they often decry and denounce "Big Gov" and their interference and intervention in the so-called "free market." Yet, their own position as "owners" depends solely a measly scrap of paper and government's recognition of it in order to give it force of law and all the apparatus of the state to enforce it.

Without that, they would need to employ their own private armies and hope that they remain loyal, something not unlike ancient dukes and feudal warlords (or drug cartels). That's one possible future we might see in a laissez-faire capitalist society. It may or may not be followed by communism, although it could lead to centuries of stagnation before it ever gets to that point.

Other possibilities could be a rise in nationalism, which we're already seeing in other parts of the world and here in America. This is kind of tricky, since capitalists have thrived in America by extolling and encouraging patriotism and loyalty to American ideals and "our way of life," particularly during the Cold War and our epic crusade against communism. Ironically, the capitalists in this era were at their most generous and reasonable when it came to negotiating union contracts and providing a decent standard of living for working class Americans. They moved out of the tenements and slums and into nice, suburban homes - with cars, TVs, and the relatively nice and stable "Leave it to Beaver" lifestyle which many Americans still regard as a kind of "Golden Age" which has since passed.

Apparently, capitalists of that era found it acceptable to compromise with the working classes and address their needs, probably because they required their loyalty and patriotism to build up the military forces required to do the real looting and pillaging overseas. That was ostensibly more lucrative, so they could afford to give some of the spoils to the folks on the homefront. Ordinary Americans were enjoying the good life and patting themselves on the back because of the wonderful "system" we have.

But we're finding that it's not so easy anymore to rule over the rest of the world like so many banana republics and corporate subsidiaries, and that's where the system is starting to crack. That's where the nationalism comes from, since some feel the solution is to double-down on patriotism, gear up the military, and show these "dern ferriners" who's boss again. Trump's idea of "making America great again" is rooted in older, paleo-conservative ideals which don't seem to have the same effect anymore, except for certain segments of the population - the remnants of what used to be known as the "silent majority" during Nixon's era.

But America has gotten soft and lazy, and the "loyalty" and "patriotism" which once existed has degenerated into a cynical, disingenuous put-on. Ironically, the capitalists don't even want people to really believe this stuff, since a "true believer" becomes most dangerous to the capitalists. That's why they had to drum out people like Patton and MacArthur, because they were "true believers" who genuinely wanted to eliminate any threat of communism, but the capitalists would have none of that.

Organized crime as anarcho capitalism?
That seems to conflict with common use of the term's being about the underlined things below....
Anarcho-capitalism - Wikipedia
Excerpted....
Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and economic theory that advocates the elimination of centralized states in favor of self-ownership, private property and free markets. Anarcho-capitalists hold that in the absence of statute (which they describe as law by arbitrary autocratic decrees, or bureaucratic legislation swayed by transitory political special interest groups), society tends to contractually self-regulate and civilize through the spontaneous and organic discipline of the free market which they describe as a voluntary society.[1][2] They support wage labour as a voluntary trade, and believe that neither protection of person and property nor victim compensation requires a state.[3


But I'll freelly grant that the closest way to achieve anarcho-capitalism
is with some level of government regulation, a court system, & police powers.
The problem I see is that the current level in Ameristan is a wee bit high in
most areas, & even a teensie bit low in the environmental protection area.

As for spraying Lysol in someone's eyes, that is wrong under any system.
Unless it's voluntary, & there's a safe word.

 

[Stevicus]

Again, we largely agree.

But Marx had 2 major problems.....
- He assumed that humans would be better than they are, which
would be necessary for a highly centralized powerful government.
- His cure is worse than the disease.

Humans could be better, if they were given the proper motivation. Not everyone is necessarily motivated by money or material compensation. Some have been motivated by religion, some by patriotism for their nation or empire. Some are motivated by loyalty to an individual, such as a king or a duke or a drug lord. Many are motivated by fear.

 

[Stevicus]

Organized crime as anarcho capitalism?
That seems to conflict with common use of the term's being about the underlined things below....
Anarcho-capitalism - Wikipedia
Excerpted....
Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and economic theory that advocates the elimination of centralized states in favor of self-ownership, private property and free markets. Anarcho-capitalists hold that in the absence of statute (which they describe as law by arbitrary autocratic decrees, or bureaucratic legislation swayed by transitory political special interest groups), society tends to contractually self-regulate and civilize through the spontaneous and organic discipline of the free market which they describe as a voluntary society.[1][2] They support wage labour as a voluntary trade, and believe that neither protection of person and property nor victim compensation requires a state.[3

The problem here is that all of this implies the unrealistic expectation that all people will act civilized and honorably on a voluntary basis.

But I'll freelly grant that the closest way to achieve anarcho-capitalism
is with some level of government regulation, a court system, & police powers.
The problem I see is that the current level in Ameristan is a wee bit high in
most areas, & even a teensie bit low in the environmental protection area.

As for spraying Lysol in someone's eyes, that is wrong under any system.
Unless it's voluntary, & there's a safe word.

I agree that some measure of regulation is necessary, but even then, there has to be some way to safeguard against corruption and potential abuses of power. Capitalists are driven to protect their property and assets, which is why they've always been willing to pay whatever it takes to do so. Whoever it is they pick to do the job of protecting becomes a very important figure upon whom their very lives depend. They want someone strong enough to be able to protect them, but they don't want them to be so strong that they end up becoming tyrants who want absolute power.

That's why they favored a system of checks and balances here in the U.S. and in other liberal democracies. It was done so that, as a nation, we could protect our shared interests while sharing power - so that no single individual or faction could ever hold all the power. That's as close as any country might come to "anarcho-capitalism," but even that didn't really last. Geopolitics changed to the point where some Americans felt it necessary to build up a huge centralized government within a superstate - or a "superpower" as we like to call ourselves. And that was also good for capitalism, so they went along with it, too, just like the rest of the super-patriotic red-blooded Americans we all are.

 

[Revoltingest]

Humans could be better, if they were given the proper motivation. Not everyone is necessarily motivated by money or material compensation. Some have been motivated by religion, some by patriotism for their nation or empire. Some are motivated by loyalty to an individual, such as a king or a duke or a drug lord. Many are motivated by fear.

The important things is to be aware of all those tendencies, &
how they result in emergent properties in society & the economy.
Any system must assume that we won't be anything other than
what we are.

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem here is that all of this implies the unrealistic expectation that all people will act civilized and honorably on a voluntary basis.

That is indeed a cromulent criticism of anarcho-capitalism.
But I favor minarcho-capitalism. which allows for the
useful governmental powers I listed.

I agree that some measure of regulation is necessary, but even then, there has to be some way to safeguard against corruption and potential abuses of power.

Regulation exist to address that, eg, anti-monopoly law.

Capitalists are driven to protect their property and assets, which is why they've always been willing to pay whatever it takes to do so. Whoever it is they pick to do the job of protecting becomes a very important figure upon whom their very lives depend. They want someone strong enough to be able to protect them, but they don't want them to be so strong that they end up becoming tyrants who want absolute power.

We've been living with capitalism here in Ameristan for several centuries,
& so far we've avoided tyrants, cries that Trump is Hitler notwithstanding.

That's why they favored a system of checks and balances here in the U.S. and in other liberal democracies. It was done so that, as a nation, we could protect our shared interests while sharing power - so that no single individual or faction could ever hold all the power. That's as close as any country might come to "anarcho-capitalism," but even that didn't really last. Geopolitics changed to the point where some Americans felt it necessary to build up a huge centralized government within a superstate - or a "superpower" as we like to call ourselves. And that was also good for capitalism, so they went along with it, too, just like the rest of the super-patriotic red-blooded Americans we all are.

Always remember that I'm a responsible secular humanist,
constitutional originalist, classical liberal, draft dodging,
hate-the-government scofflawtudinal, gun tote'n, iconoclast.

 

[Stevicus]

The important things is to be aware of all those tendencies, &
how they result in emergent properties in society & the economy.
Any system must assume that we won't be anything other than
what we are.

It also should be flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances. We've been able to do that here in the U.S., but it has required greater centralization and regulation which conservatives and capitalists balk against.

That is indeed a cromulent criticism of anarcho-capitalism.
But I favor minarcho-capitalism. which allows for the
useful governmental powers I listed.

As long as such a principle is practiced evenly and fairly among all classes, then it could work. But that's where it gets tricky, since humans (even those exercising useful governmental powers) can still play favorites and make decisions not based on objective, rational logic.

Regulation exist to address that, eg, anti-monopoly law.

It took a while before even that was introduced.

We've been living with capitalism here in Ameristan for several centuries,
& so far we've avoided tyrants, cries that Trump is Hitler notwithstanding.

We've had a somewhat rocky history. I agree that we've avoided tyrants, although I guess "tyranny" is in the eyes of whoever is on the receiving end of the government's buggy whip.

Always remember that I'm a responsible secular humanist,
constitutional originalist, classical liberal, draft dodging,
hate-the-government scofflawtudinal, gun tote'n, iconoclast.

True enough. Trouble comes in when people bring in these other motivations, such as religion, nationality, race, or some other aspect where people are divided into "one of us" or "other."

 

[Revoltingest]

It also should be flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances. We've been able to do that here in the U.S., but it has required greater centralization and regulation which conservatives and capitalists balk against.

People have learned much in a couple hundred years.

As long as such a principle is practiced evenly and fairly among all classes, then it could work. But that's where it gets tricky, since humans (even those exercising useful governmental powers) can still play favorites and make decisions not based on objective, rational logic.

All systems have their tricky aspects.
I prefer minarcho-capitalism as the best & least tricky (IMO).

It took a while before even that was introduced.

It's back to the learning from experience thingie.

We've had a somewhat rocky history. I agree that we've avoided tyrants, although I guess "tyranny" is in the eyes of whoever is on the receiving end of the government's buggy whip.

True enough. Trouble comes in when people bring in these other motivations, such as religion, nationality, race, or some other aspect where people are divided into "one of us" or "other."

Me likee.

 

[dfnj]

Again, we largely agree.

But Marx had 2 major problems.....
- He assumed that humans would be better than they are, which
would be necessary for a highly centralized powerful government.
- His cure is worse than the disease.

Marx's criticisms of capital accumulation seem pretty accurate to me. This is has nothing to do with a centralized power government. You are just tool of propaganda.

I disagree with your opinion and I think you completely misunderstood my position. The cure for the problems unfettered laissez faire capitalism isn't communism. The problem with laissez faire capitalism is unfettered greed. You seem to be under the delusion we have only two choices. Either we have laissez faire capitalism or we have communism. Why is it one or the other with people like you? Why can't we just have government temper the excesses of people gaming the system by ensuring we have free and open markets without legislation creating cartels and monopolies? If government doesn't get rid of the existing laws which are creating cartels and monopolies then who is going to change the laws? Big government is the only answer to the problem. But people like you oppose all forms of government leaving laissez faire capitalism to run a muck as if laissez faire capitalism is a panacea.

The muck will continue and government will continue to pass laws creating more cartels and monopolies because this is what the lobbyists are paid to do.

More people have probably died from poverty under laissez faire capitalist systems than have ever died under communist systems but it's probably too hard to measure.

"The investigators found that approximately 133,000 deaths to individual-level poverty in the United States, 119,000 to income inequality, and 39,000 to area-level poverty"

"More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty — less than $1.25 a day. 1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. 805 million people worldwide do not have enough food to eat."

My original post is corruption in government has nothing to do with the type of government. But you chose to criticize Marx is if the cure for communism is a perfect cure!

The interesting thing about Marx is the idea CEOs are "stealing" productivity from the workers. And I've heard people say raising taxes and redistribution of money is stealing. What I don't understand is why some people think one form of stealing is better than the other form of stealing. Stealing is stealing. Everything is corrupt. Whether our political system favors the billionaires or the worker making the median wage is a political choice. It just seems to me the pendulum has swung way to far in the billionaires favor. How bad can taxes really be if billionaires are getting richer and richer every year the worker making the median wage is driven deeper and deeper towards having a poverty wage. There's a lot of stealing going on!

 

[Willamena]

In the news....
Lysol Assault: Leicester Police Say Woman Sprayed Walmart Cashier In Eyes
LEICESTER (CBS) — Police are looking for a woman who they say sprayed a Leicester Walmart cashier in the eyes with Lysol. The assault happened after she was told there was a limit on how many cans of the product customers could buy.

Lysol and other disinfectants have been in high demand as people try to protect themselves against the coronavirus. The incident happened March 27.

“The female suspect was informed by a cashier that there was a limit on the number of Lysol disinfectant cans that she was trying to purchase,” Leicester police said. “The female responded by spraying the cashier in the eyes with the Lysol requiring a response from EMS.”

What does this have to do with her being a Democrat?

 

[Revoltingest]

Marx's criticisms of capital accumulation seem pretty accurate to me. This is has nothing to do with a centralized power government. You are just tool of propaganda.

I disagree with your opinion and I think you completely misunderstood my position. The cure for the problems unfettered laissez faire capitalism isn't communism. The problem with laissez faire capitalism is unfettered greed. You seem to be under the delusion we have only two choices. Either we have laissez faire capitalism or we have communism. Why is it one or the other with people like you? Why can't we just have government temper the excesses of people gaming the system by ensuring we have free and open markets without legislation creating cartels and monopolies? If government doesn't get rid of the existing laws which are creating cartels and monopolies then who is going to change the laws? Big government is the only answer to the problem. But people like you oppose all forms of government leaving laissez faire capitalism to run a muck as if laissez faire capitalism is a panacea.

The muck will continue and government will continue to pass laws creating more cartels and monopolies because this is what the lobbyists are paid to do.

More people have probably died from poverty under laissez faire capitalist systems than have ever died under communist systems but it's probably too hard to measure.

"The investigators found that approximately 133,000 deaths to individual-level poverty in the United States, 119,000 to income inequality, and 39,000 to area-level poverty"

"More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty — less than $1.25 a day. 1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. 805 million people worldwide do not have enough food to eat."

My original post is corruption in government has nothing to do with the type of government. But you chose to criticize Marx is if the cure for communism is a perfect cure!

The interesting thing about Marx is the idea CEOs are "stealing" productivity from the workers. And I've heard people say raising taxes and redistribution of money is stealing. What I don't understand is why some people think one form of stealing is better than the other form of stealing. Stealing is stealing. Everything is corrupt. Whether our political system favors the billionaires or the worker making the median wage is a political choice. It just seems to me the pendulum has swung way to far in the billionaires favor. How bad can taxes really be if billionaires are getting richer and richer every year the worker making the median wage is driven deeper and deeper towards having a poverty wage. There's a lot of stealing going on!

Greed:
I don't believe that fettering greed (ie, desire for money or power) is possible.
Instead, fetter behavior, eg, no stealing, no ruining the environment, no monopolies.

Stealing:
We're going to tolerate some stealing, at the very least from government taxing
us to do desirable things. We should not tolerate stealing which fails us, eg,
taxing us to wage useless wars, to imprison vast segments of the population.
We should enjoy our greed within the useful rules of the game.

Capitalism vs communism vs socialism:
My views are perhaps a smidgeon less black & white than you think.
Capitalism is wonderful. But the political reality is that we need some
regulation of it. An advantage of it is that it enables enuf taxation to
achieve desired social goals, eg, guaranteed income, health care.

Marx:
He'd fit right in on RF....all criticism....terrible proposals....no real world solutions.
He's a loonie gadfly so dangerous that he makes even L Ron Hubbard look good.
(That one was fun.)

 

[Revoltingest]

What does this have to do with her being a Democrat?

It's a very long story which started with a flurry of
posts in multiple threads over the last week or so.
In short....
It's non-fictional parody about what a bad idea it is
to make every foul act be about the tribe of the perp.

 

[columbus]

Marx:
He'd fit right in on RF....all criticism....terrible proposals....no real world solutions.
He's a loonie gadfly so dangerous that he makes even L Ron Hubbard look good.
(That one was fun.)

You might want to learn about Marx from someone besides Ayn Rand.

He was a contemporary of Darwin.

Darwin was a virulent racist. His findings were bastardized into eugenics and Nazism. They've long since been improved upon by modern research. That doesn't change the seminal nature of his work.

Similarly, just because people like Stalin turned Communism into a state religion, with the usual results, doesn't mean everything he wrote was from Satan.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

You might want to learn about Marx from someone besides Ayn Rand.

How kind of you to advise me.
I'll reciprocate that you learn about socialism & communism from
sources other than Morgen Freiheit & National Guardian.

He was a contemporary of Darwin.

I'd heard of Darwin's influence on Marx.
But it cannot be presumed that having been so
influenced means that one's ideas are good.

Darwin was a virulent racist. His findings were bastardized into eugenics and Nazism. They've long since been improved upon by modern research. That doesn't change the seminal nature of his work.

I've heard that argument. Oddly, only from fringe Bible literalist
anti-evolution types. Evidence for the argument is sorely lacking.

Similarly, just because people like Stalin turned Communism into a state religion, with the usual results, doesn't mean everything he wrote was from Satan.

Let me see if I understand your claims.....
Marx gets credibility because he was influenced by Darwin.
Hitler is evil because he too was influenced by Darwin.
Fascinating.

Btw, how does a Marxist fanboy claim to be conservative?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Again, we largely agree.

But Marx had 2 major problems.....
- He assumed that humans would be better than they are, which
would be necessary for a highly centralized powerful government.
- His cure is worse than the disease.

1st problem: Very true!
2nd problem: In my little reading of Marx, I felt he was talking less about a cure, and more about inevitabilities brought about by the symptoms of the disease.

 

[columbus]

Let me see if I understand your claims.....

You don't.
I never said anything about Darwin influencing Marx or vice versa. I'm just pointing out that both were rather primitive, seminal, versions of modern reality. Comparing Marx to modern politics is like comparing Darwin to modern genetics.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

You don't.
I never said anything about Darwin influencing Marx or vice versa. I'm just pointing out that both were rather primitive, seminal, versions of modern reality. Comparing Marx to modern politics is like comparing Darwin to modern genetics.
Tom

Then why so feverishly defend Marx?
Groucho, I could understand....but not Karl.

 

[columbus]

Then why so feverishly defend Marx?
Groucho, I could understand....but not Karl.

Feverishly?

Aren't you the classical liberal? Ya know, like Jefferson and Washington? The people who supported slavery and genocide, as long as wealthy white men* could demand Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?
Tom

*like you