|
Marx's theory seeks the elimination of the notion of private property in order to gain control of the economic "means of production" by taking it from the bourgeois (the wealthy or propertied class) for the benefit of the proletariat (working class.)"
That's the seriously condensed Readers Digest version. Ah, but HOW does it suggest this happen? How does it suggest the proletariat arrive at the point of forcibly removing the bourgeois? Thats the part far right conservatives either appear to avoid or simply don't understand despite claiming Obama is a socialist. And with good reason. It completely negates the specious attacks on liberals, Obama in particular, as having Marxist agendas.
Marxism in addition to the above, says that the bourgeois (owners) will tend to invest only in themselves, in increasing their profit, while the proletariat (laborers)will experience decline. This is understood in Marxism to be the direct result of the proletariat holding value in labors, while the bourgeois holds it's value in ownership and profit. The bourgeois will seek to reduce the need for labor, thus becomeing more profitable, while the proletariat thus becomes weaker as labor will hold less value.
This is where in the disparity in classes really begins to widen. Marx holds that at a certain point, the divide will become so wide, the disparity in class so great, that the proletariat will have no other option than to forcibly overthrow the bourgeois and sieze control of all assets, with the neccessary end result being the equal distribution of property in order to remove class.
Marxism as a rule relies on class disparity in order to manifest itself. It's the basic premise, that class disparity is what will lead to the forcible realigment of society into a socialist collective.
Nowhere in Marxism is there a premise that allows for natural or gradual transitioning as a matter of public and governmental cooporation towards a socialist state. Which is EXACTLY what conservatives repeating the socialist accusations are saying will happen with Obama or liberals in dominance of the government.
It relies on discontentment of the proletariat, and economic secularity in the bourgeois to produce a forced takeover by the proletariat.
What this means for far right arguments , is manyfold. And it's not good.
It means, that democrats in seeking to make taxes more progressive, are in effect reducing class disparity. By doing this, they are in fact, moving AWAY from the tenets of Marxism. They are protecting capitalism as a beneficial corrollary effect of insisting on more progressive taxation, by acknowledging that disparity in the classes, leads to lowered productivity and value in the workforce which in turn leads to a breakdown in economic prosperity as a whole.
It means, that they aknowledge that a captialist state is strongest when it invests in itself on all levels.
Only by acknowledging the true worth of the working class, by acknowledging that they are the true source of economic prosperity and contentment, and maintaining their value accordingly, can you maintain a strong capitalist society. And that is what Liberals do.
Granted, extremes on both sides, both Conservative and Republican exist, of this there is no doubt. But that there has arisen to dominance in the worlds most successful captialist country (America) these particular two parties at odds with eachother, is a natural expected event with capitalism. Too extreme of either isn't good for the whole. Just like our divided government provides checks and balances against concentration of power, so too do the two parties work to ensure neither leads to an imbalance of economic control.
The biggest problem today, is too few want to admit, that both sides are at their best, when they practice their philosophies in moderation, and work together to reach the common good. So after a time of extreme partisanship like we see now, it's been less effective, and disparity grows. The emphasis has become control and domination by one political ideology, rather than the actual governing of a nation.
It's become an us or them mentality for conservatives more so than libs , which in reality is exactly the sort of mindset that Marxism and Communism MUST have as prequsuite to manifest.
The far right had no problem with widening the economic disparity in society, which according to Marxism, is a mandatory and reactionary ingredient for socialism and communism to eventually become dominant. In fact, they treated it as a natural part of capitalism, which it is not. Capitalism works, because in our nation, as the founders wrote into our constitution, we have recognized, that no one group can dictate for the whole, nor is any one group more important than the other. Both weak and strong, working together are essential to the success of capitalism. So in effect, the conservative philosophy of leaving the not so well off because their labor holds less value, to fend for themselves, while insisting the well to do who hold wealth through property and investment which hold a much higher value, get to hold even more, is promoting class disparity. The mandatory reactionary ingredient needed for Marxism to take hold and lead us to socialism.
But the conservatives repeating the "Obama is a Marxist" rehtoric don't want to address this at all. It flies in the face of accusing libs and Obama in particular, as communists.
Where am I getting this you may ask? In part from the basic theories of taxation under which our captialist country operates. The ideas upon which it was founded. Remember your history? "Taxation without representation". That is the biggest premise we are taught starting in grade school regarding the war for independence isn't it? There was no accountability. We had no say.
Accountability is part of the deal between government and it's citizens for paying taxes. It gives the citizens the right to hold it's government accountable for it's actions and inactions. It provides protection of citizens property since it is implicit in it's neccessity of citizens ownership. Which once again, flies in the face of Marxism. Can't just seize and distribute the wealth for no reason, without incentive, if property is privately owned. And you can't pay taxes on property if it isn't yours. Why would anybody?
There are further examples of our previously republican-conservatives led government ignoring the basic tenets of our constitutional rights, that can easily be considered yet a few more stones in the path to Marxism.
Remember no bid contracts?
I expect my government to promote fair competition and trade, by fairly awarding contracts to the best applicant based on value. Not simply who's cheaper, but who can do the best job for the best price. But we wouldn't know if that's the case with a no bid contract, would we? Which means there is no accountability held to the government for the spending of our money. That, is the road to dictatorship. Just trust the government to spend our tax money in our best interests, or to spend it wisely without any regard for allowing the people who provided that money to see that it was spent wisely or properly? That is not accountability. That is siezure and use without representation.
It's apparent in most of these accusations, that most repeating the Marxist socialist mantra really have no idea what it all really means. The only part considered, is someone wants to take their money, and give it to someone else. The problem? That's what we've been doing our entire lives, and it's what makes a country like ours possible. We are a nation built upon the efforts of all for the one. We all pay, so that we can all be as one. Safe, secure, and strong, as one nation |
