Hmmm…guess Laura was wrong about that, huh?

Thank you for the thoughtful replies. This is just the sort of answer I was looking for.

You haven’t left much to say but I’ll have a hack at it.

Marxism is by nature and definition revolutionary. An examination of the 162 year history of Marxism reveals that it has been and remains a threat to any constituted government; especially one that is structured to support Capitalism.

Today’s Einstein Quote on iGoogle greeted and surprised me a bit and created an itch on my superstitious zone between the shoulder blades.

“A man must learn to understand the motives of human beings, their illusions, and their sufferings.”

The history of Marxism is one of failure, not only to realize the religious goal in a practical world of ‘self emancipation of the working class,’ but as a system capable of fostering prosperity ANYWHERE it has been brought about by either ‘concentrated force to overthrow concentrated force’ or ‘practical critique,’ ‘political action’ and ‘gradualism.’ It is a religion without a deity that advances, like other major religions, fueled by emotion and ignorance of what Herr Einstein was expressing above.

Natural motives of human beings and Marxism (revolutionary socialism) don’t mix. We are by nature, as demonstrated wherever the individual is left alone to be enterprising and SELF SERVING, a spieces that is resistant to bounds on our ambition and imagination.

Prosperity and vitality demonstrated in nations that protect and poster individuality and individual achievement will always have prosperity while ‘dictatorships of the proletariat’ are universally held together only by the bonds of fear and loathing of captive populations.

We have a governing document that is the antithesis of mindless anarchy, boundless religious fervor and kool aid. THAT is how Marxism has, can and will short-circuit ours and anybody else’s constitution.

I prefer champagne because it takes time patience and hard work to create and I don’t need to aspire to being a party boss to afford it.

You and I have discussed most of these points before so I am not going to bore the others. However, regarding socialism, I would like to reiterate that the socialism (and Marxism for that matter) that the world leaders are trying to implement have a foundation of atheism. We are not talking about the biblical kind here where we should share our excess with our misfortunate brother. We are talking about the attempted end of organized religion as we know it and replacing it with a trust in the State and in the Earth.

I actually have a copy of The Communist Manifesto. Though I haven’t pored through it as much as I’d like, the general thought is that of above as well as disarming the public and confiscating all of our land. If you have noticed, there have already been sincere attempts to illegalize ALL public (sovereign, Constitutionally protected individuals) firearms and there has been an abuse of Eminent Domain.

I don’t have a problem with a “radical”, depending on what he/she is radical about. I have a problem with such people like Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, et al due to the fact that their radicalism caused mass deaths and/or imprisonment – and not necessarily behind bars.

Regarding S.S. bankruptcy dialogue: I heard it talked about all the time while Bush was in office. It was during his tenure when I started hearing for the first time how there was actually a remaining time period before running out of money.

I don’t have a problem with taxation in general since we must get our funding for projects from somewhere. I have a problem with income taxation since it was achieved in 1913 in an illegal manner. Also, I have a problem with the govt taxing its law-abiding citizens for the purpose of funding 3rd world tyrannies (money that they are never required to pay back, by the way) so that the Ruler can only abuse it and further enslave his countrymen. Does Rwanda ring a bell? (This applies to paragraph #2 regarding disarmament as well. The Rwandan govt had spent several years confiscating the peoples’ weapons so that when it came time to slaughter them with machetes, they had no way to defend themselves.)

Finally (since I don’t have the time to address more of the issues or the ones that I have already addressed in greater depth), more and more conservatives are separating themselves from the GOP (including yours truly) due to the fact that the Republicans are constantly dropping the ball. You see, that is one of the beauties of a blog such as this is that we have a good balance of political vantage points at our disposal which gives us all a better idea of others’ points of view. This is one of the reasons for the Tea Party movement (which I have several issues with, but that’s a different conversation for a different day) – people are getting fed up with govt in general and are quickly, and painfully starting to realize that the folly is clearly bipartisan.

Wish I could talk more but I have to take a train to Manhattan today.

Peace

You start out your response quickly asserting………….

“How, specifically, does belief in Marxism poison the socio-political environment or short-circuit the Constitution?”

You really want me to “attempt” to address your points. Not to be too disagreeable, shall we start with the basics of a civics class, say 3rd grade level?
Do you need a history of EVERY nation where it has been implemented?
Do you want me to explain what you must surely have been taught and discarded like so much ideological garbage?
How bouts ya take a look-see at the bill of rights, restrictions on government. Perhaps a readers digest course in individual rights and responsibilities as laid down by founders who wanted a central government as small as possible, and primarily to defend boarders and insure no disruption in “free” trade between states.

You ask too much. Baby Steps are my advise for you. And don’t stick your for into outlets and not everything is good to put in your mouth, such as espousing the greatness of Marxian Theology.

“

I just posted my response to your 1st response. Now I read you second.

Me thinks I gave you too much credit. If you believe the pap Drew the Blue dishes out, you have left center field we reasonable people can meet and discuss options.

I know you to be a good and intelligent person, and I love your seekers mind, but Laura, Drew and D’F as playmates? Good character is corrupted by bad company.

I will always try to persuade you to move towards “what I believe” to be more politically sound directions, but short of shock therapy ( the kind of thing the Cubans and Chinese and Venezuelans could tell you about), I just increase the dosage of political Prozac I add to article and response, and keep looking into your eyes for signs of sanity. (Humor attempted more than insult)

An intelligent response. I was actually taking stock of my response, and Eriks article as a whole.

Then I read your lackluster partner in thought D’Funzy again and to top off the re-inforcement Mr. “Don’t you make my brown eyes” Blue. And I am seeing red. Not anger of course, but the anti-capitalist direction you side of the spectrum would encourage.

1st of all, after I re-read your “very influencial” response, I re-read Eriks article. You may have noticed what your compatriots missed. This was not a hit piece of one party. While you seemed to address the point of the article with usual persuasion, your fellows are out in left field with catchers masks on, as usual.

Do you notice how they focus on RNC attacks? They are so partisan all they can do is go back to the “old and tired” RNC rich white racist lines.

You alone make some very valid points, “we elected them, we get what we vote for, Tea Partiers have the same Ideaology above accomplishment” and towards the end, “We have gotten exactly the government we have worked so hard through our apathy, laziness and ignorance to achieve”

Here’s the surprise, If you had left out all of the “your a whiner talk”, you would find that Erik, and Silverwun and I would have been in complete agreement with you on all those very important points.

However, Eriks article is not slanted. It is a call for the lazy electorate to think. It is a call to correct what you so rightly claim is wrong with us a a citizenry.

The difference being or course the perceived outcome between you and he (we). A call to promote citizens who have a demonstrated fervor to return to the principles of our founders, without the use of empty rhetoric and emotional persuasion, only to be followed up by dragging this country into a entitlement hole that we cannot recover from.

.

It is so much easier to point fingers than to take responsibility and to do something. If there is guilt by association, if all Dems are guilty because a few are, then people like Ron Paul are guilty by association too. But instead of drawing a line in the sand, pointing fingers seems the standard response to a lot of GOP BS on here, rather than addressing the issue and calling it for what it is. That is integrity- but no, instead of saying its wrong, period, regardless of who is responsible for it it bocomes the “Well, the Dems did it too…” When did two wrongs ever make a right? THAT is what I am talking about in regard to whining.

You have claimed more than once that you belong to no party (much like another on here) with the exception of one out of 48 articles where you address a man that NO one but the most hardened GOP operative would defend, that was kicked out of office by his own party, you do nothing but consistently condemn Dems, in particular our president. All the while you say nothing about what the GOP is doing, even when offered their very own words on a platter. Crickets chirp…

You may say you are an independent, that you are beholden to no party line, but your words belie that. Either that, or you just hate whoever is in power, in which case you are a reactionary and have no guideposts of your own other than in standing in perpetual opposition-a personal party of NO. Which is it? Be honest with yourself and us. I have a feeling that if we were able to look back far enough, we wouldn’t find you speaking about Bush in the way you are about Obama and he pushed an agenda even more strongly than Obama.

Drew,

You aren’t going to get any answers to your questions. Your points are not going to be addressed- not by anyone on here. They are too honest and make too much sense. They are too reflective of the “openmindedness” that is claimed by people on here to be out and out attacked by anyone with intelligence and will not be debated because there is no reasonable or logical way to do it without exposing irrational bias for what it is.

If you are looking for answers I understand- but you are expecting too much… Be content with asking the questions and letting the readers answer them for themselves.

So, can we discuss some of the other items I see in several posts?

No one addressed my question:

How, specifically, does belief in Marxism poison the sociopolitical environment or short-circuit the Constitution?

Also, what is it about Radicalism that scares people so much? Obviously a radical who is promoting something negative is dangerous, that’s obvious. But the adjective “Radical” itself is hardly an indictment. It might be said that many of our civil liberties were gained by people in the past who were so concerned by the status-quo that they diligently pursued a political remedy, often to the point of being called radical.

Also, can we talk about that recently often used, rarely defined term; Socialism? Can those of you who lean toward the Red side of the spectrum please present a coherent definition and a compelling argument against?

Since I have worked in Social Services as an advocate for the disadvantaged, my perspective reflects a very positive experience with all sorts of social programs, which otherwise might be labeled Socialism – as if it were a negative word.

Social Security is not just Retirement income, but Medicaid, Disability, Unemployment, and Survivor Benefits. Now the most common argument I hear against S.S. is that it’s bankrupt. I don’t recall hearing a lot about this issue while Bush was in office, the last time was when Hillary tried to pass Health reform back in ’98 I think. I think the ‘bankrupt’ argument is interesting because it presupposes that by nature Social Security should not present an additional expenditure over the current budget. But this is an unrealistic view, with more families having kids later in life (or not at all), and with the average life expectancy increasing.

If you’ve ever embarked on a project to improve your home you may have gone over budget and depleted your savings. The result is perhaps that you need to borrow more money to complete the project. You can complain that you didn’t save enough, or that your wife SAID you’d have enough, or whatever, but the end result is that raising the needed money through an increase in monthly payments will result in a roof over your head.

To tie this analogy into S.S., America simply needs to reserve more money to pay for these programs. Now everyone says government programs can get more efficient, but I think any administration that seriously improved on the efficiency of S.S. would have a nice foot note in history, so I’m tending to believe that there really isn’t that much wiggle room, there are just a lot of old people to take care of and it costs money.

So the solution would be to raise taxes. Not just on the Rich, although I do believe in progressive taxation and so we should start there, but also on the middle class. These programs provide basic survival assistance to some of our nations most beloved demographics – our parents. They all get old and get sick and then die, and it costs society no matter how you slice it.

So in my opinion you can’t complain about raising taxes and call it socialism just because the percentage of income tax collected passes some imaginary marker in your head, and at the same time disparage Social Security or Welfare programs. These fundamental expenditures and social safety nets are what makes America one of the greatest countries in the world.

And I find it a bit disturbing that those who would call themselves conservatives overwhelmingly associate themselves with the Republican party who sapped trillions of dollars from the U.S. economy over the last decade to drop bombs on Iraq, while simultaneously decrying the call for a public expenditure on Health Care reform. I suppose we’re in the minority, but the Christian Liberals and Christian Democrats groups on FaceBook, although a minority among Christians, provide me with some hope. And I’ve even found reconciliation with the Catholic Church, who’s followers tend to be a bit more pragmatic in regard to the sort of approach they take to community service.

Thoughts?