An example of leftist racism

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

John Corbett

2021-01-10 22:01:59 UTC

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pro-trump-congressman-responds-to-cnn-commentator-calling-on-him-to-resign-flat-out-wrong/vi-BB1cBtbK?ocid=msedgdhp

A CNN commentator called on a black congressman to resign because he dared
to join other Republicans in objecting to the Electoral College results.
His unpardonable sin? He is black. In the minds of many liberals, black
should not be allowed to think independently of liberal dogma. They want
to keep blacks in their fold and under their thumbs. How dare they become
conservatives. These liberals still have a plantation mentality that
blacks are there to serve the liberal cause. Any black who strays from
their plantation is treated like they would a runaway slave.

By the way, those slaveowners were Democrats too. Some of them were black
too as is Keith Boykin, the CNN commentator who made his call for Byron
Donalds to resign in a tweet.

ajohnstone

2021-01-11 02:35:10 UTC

Permalink

You may have forgotten the quote i gave in a previous post from Malcom X
about liberal politicians but here it is again

"The white conservatives aren't friends of the Negro either, but they at
least don't try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in
a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them.
But the white liberals are foxes, who also show their teeth to the Negro
but pretend that they are smiling. The white liberals are more dangerous
than the conservatives; they lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from
the growling wolf, he flees into the open jaws of the "smiling" fox. One
is the wolf, the other is a fox. No matter what, they’ll both eat
you.”

Another time he said:

“The white liberal differs from the white conservative in one way.
The liberal is more deceitful and hypocritical than the conservatives.
Both want power. But, the white liberal has perfected the art of posing as
the negro’s (sic) friend and benefactor...The American negro is
nothing but a political football and the white liberals control this ball.
Through tricks, tokenism, and false promises of integration and civil
rights��= �"

I'm sure many in the BLM are well aware of what Malcolm X was saying and
still understand that it applies today. But the msm op-eds and editorials
are written not so much to dupe African-Americans but to fool white
workers.

Someone somewhere here said leftists always make race the issue. Actually
a real socialist makes class the key issue and it has been long recognised
keeping racial division going weakens working prople.

"The capitalists, white, black and other shades, are on one side and the
workers, white, black and all other colors, on the other side...." -
Eugene Debs

And to the white supremicists Debs said, "Foolish and vain indeed is the
workingman who makes the color of his skin the stepping-stone to his
imaginary superiority...what ails him is not superiority but inferiority,
and that he, as well as the Negro he despises, is the victim of
wage-slavery..."

John Corbett

2021-01-11 03:27:55 UTC

Permalink

Post by ajohnstone
You may have forgotten the quote i gave in a previous post from Malcom X
about liberal politicians but here it is again
"The white conservatives aren't friends of the Negro either, but they at
least don't try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in
a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them.

Jesse Jackson once said "The African American community has no better
friend than Donald Trump.". Under Trump African American unemployment
reached an all time low before the pandemic struck.

Post by ajohnstone
But the white liberals are foxes, who also show their teeth to the Negro
but pretend that they are smiling. The white liberals are more dangerous
than the conservatives; they lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from
the growling wolf, he flees into the open jaws of the "smiling" fox. One
is the wolf, the other is a fox. No matter what, they’ll both eat
you.”
“The white liberal differs from the white conservative in one way.
The liberal is more deceitful and hypocritical than the conservatives.
Both want power. But, the white liberal has perfected the art of posing as
the negro’s (sic) friend and benefactor...The American negro is
nothing but a political football and the white liberals control this ball.
Through tricks, tokenism, and false promises of integration and civil
rights�€ ¦"
I'm sure many in the BLM are well aware of what Malcolm X was saying and
still understand that it applies today. But the msm op-eds and editorials
are written not so much to dupe African-Americans but to fool white
workers.
Someone somewhere here said leftists always make race the issue. Actually
a real socialist makes class the key issue and it has been long recognised
keeping racial division going weakens working prople.
"The capitalists, white, black and other shades, are on one side and the
workers, white, black and all other colors, on the other side...." -
Eugene Debs
And to the white supremicists Debs said, "Foolish and vain indeed is the
workingman who makes the color of his skin the stepping-stone to his
imaginary superiority...what ails him is not superiority but inferiority,
and that he, as well as the Negro he despises, is the victim of
wage-slavery..."

I'm not sure you caught this but the CNN commentator who called Byron
Donalds to resign is black. Where does he fit in Malcolm X's diatribe?

ajohnstone

2021-01-11 12:59:43 UTC

Permalink

CNN commentator who called Byron Donalds to resign is black. Where does he fit

Again the focus should be on who serves the capitalist class and not
identity politics of colour or race or nationality or gender.

Indeed, Jackson did praise Trump when Trump was a financial donor to one
of Jacksons projects. Such are the two-faced reality of politicians and
billionaires. I'm sure you can trace plenty of similar quotes of the
Clintons and Trump praising one another.

I certainly have no wish to repeat the same error as you brought up, to
determine a person's political stance merely from his color or race. It is
what he or she thinks and does that counts.

The socialist party i have been a member of for near on 50 yrs said when
Jackson ran for the Democratic Party nomination:

"...Jackson makes a blatantly cynical appeal to the people whose despair
and frustration at American capitalism in 1988 makes them vulnerable to
any charismatic trickster..."

It described Jackson at the time as "...the demagogue Jesse Jackson, who
draws attention to the disadvantages which negro workers suffer even in
comparison with their oppressed white fellow wage slaves. Jackson claims
that the election of a black president can fundamentally alter this
situation. This is dangerous nonsense..."

I think i would be much more swayed by George Jackson of 'Soledad Brother'
fame who would i think be closer to Malcom X than to Jesse Jackson.

I'll forego the debate on the levels of African-American unemployment
since the reasons are much more nuanced than simplistic claims of Trump.

John Corbett

2021-01-11 18:14:08 UTC

Permalink

Post by ajohnstone

CNN commentator who called Byron Donalds to resign is black. Where does he fit

Again the focus should be on who serves the capitalist class and not
identity politics of colour or race or nationality or gender.

Keith Boykin's tweet was purely identity politics. Byron Donalds was
singled out because he is black.

Post by ajohnstone
Indeed, Jackson did praise Trump when Trump was a financial donor to one
of Jacksons projects. Such are the two-faced reality of politicians and
billionaires. I'm sure you can trace plenty of similar quotes of the
Clintons and Trump praising one another.

Not only that you can find lots of pictures of Bill and Donald playing
golf together and having a good old time. You can also find pictures of of
Bill playing golf with Obama and both look like they would rather be
anywhere else, even seating in a dentist's chair undergoing root canal.
The contrast is both stark and humorous.

Post by ajohnstone
I certainly have no wish to repeat the same error as you brought up, to
determine a person's political stance merely from his color or race. It is
what he or she thinks and does that counts.
The socialist party i have been a member of for near on 50 yrs said when
"...Jackson makes a blatantly cynical appeal to the people whose despair
and frustration at American capitalism in 1988 makes them vulnerable to
any charismatic trickster..."
It described Jackson at the time as "...the demagogue Jesse Jackson, who
draws attention to the disadvantages which negro workers suffer even in
comparison with their oppressed white fellow wage slaves. Jackson claims
that the election of a black president can fundamentally alter this
situation. This is dangerous nonsense..."

When Obama was elected in 2008, Jesse Jackson went to the rally in a
Chicago park, I believe the same one where the 1968 riots took place
during the Democrat convention. (can't remember the name and am too lazy
to look it up). Jesse Jackson was shown with tears streaming down his
face. Jay Leno joked that Jackson wasn't crying because a black guy got
elected. He was crying because he makes more the $250,000 a year.

Post by ajohnstone
I think i would be much more swayed by George Jackson of 'Soledad Brother'
fame who would i think be closer to Malcom X than to Jesse Jackson.

I'd have to google to find out who that guy is and again I am too lazy to
do that.

Post by ajohnstone
I'll forego the debate on the levels of African-American unemployment
since the reasons are much more nuanced than simplistic claims of Trump.

The fact is the US economy which had been stagnant before the Trump tax
cut suddenly jumped into overdrive and all levels of the economic spectrum
benefitted. Not only did unemployment drop dramatically, it dropped to
historic levels for women and minorities. Real wages soared after having
been in the doldrums for decades. Democrats have fostered the narrative
that the economy is about us vs. them. Rich vs. poor. Labor vs.
management. The conservative philosophy was stated by JFK when he observed
that a rising tide lifts all boats. When business is doing well, labor
will benefit. Democrats have convinced poor people that if corporations do
well they will do so at the expense of the poor and middle class. I just
had a conversation with my sister, who like you is a socialist. We were
discussing the benefits of the Trump tax cut. She pointed out that my
benefit was small as compared to what corporations got. So I should be
against getting that benefit because somebody else is going to get a
greater benefit. How myopic is that. That huge benefit resulted in
corporations expanding their businesses and in some cases bringing jobs
back home that had gone overseas. This in turn created a greater demand
for labor. Like everything else, the cost of labor is driven by supply and
demand. When there is a greater demand for labor, the cost of labor will
go up. Workers will have to compete to get good workers which drives up
wages. When jobs are scarce and the supply of labor exceeds demand,
businesses don't have to pay high wages.

ajohnstone

2021-01-11 23:42:49 UTC

Permalink

As someone who suggested he was a libertarian i find it surprising that
you believe it was the government fiscal policies that kick-started a
stagnant economy. Anyways, the trend towards an improved economy was
already there under Obama and Trump inherited and benefited. There was no
sudden shift in the income or employment rates for African-Americans under
Trump but only the continuance of what was already going on.

However, economic research does not support trickle-down improvement from
tax cuts.

David Hope of the London School of Economics and Julian Limberg of
King’s College London studied income, capital and assets in 18
OECD countries over the past half century and found that only those who
were directly affected the reduction in taxation benefited, and it did
little to promote jobs or growth for all other. Their findings counter
arguments, often made that policies which appear to disproportionately
reward richer individuals eventually feed through to the rest of the
economy.

“Our research suggests such policies don’t deliver the
sort of trickle-down effects that proponents have claimed,” Hope
said.

That was the latest finding but i can refer you to other reports.

Congressional Research Service (CRS), despite lofty promises from
President Donald Trump and the Republican Party, the $1.5 trillion in tax
cuts that went into effect last year have done little—if
anything—to raise workers' wages, boost economic growth, or spur
business investment. While the Republican tax law has not done much for
workers or the overall economy, it has sparked a wave of stock buybacks,
which primarily benefit rich executives.

"There is no indication of a surge in wages in 2018 either compared to
history or relative to GDP growth," the congressional research arm found,
a conclusion that is consistent with recent survey data showing Americans
have not seen a paycheck boost from the Trump tax cuts. The CRS report
suggested that worker bonus announcements by major corporations
immediately following the passage of the GOP tax bill in 2017 may have
been little more than "a public relations move."

Want another?

The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) reporters Peter Cary and Allan
Holmes explained companies instead distributed their savings amongst the
few Americans who hold stock in their corporations:

"The bulk of the $150 billion the tax cut put into the hands of
corporations in 2018 went into shareholder dividends and stock buy-backs,
both of which line the pockets of the 10 percent of Americans who own 84
percent of the stocks. Just 6 percent of the tax savings was spent on
workers, according to Just Capital, a not-for-profit that tracks the
Russell 1000 index." Trump claimed that the average family would see a pay
raise of about $4,000, a benefit that would "trickle down" from employers'
corporate tax cuts. Far from the $4,000 raises Trump alluded to, the
average paycheck went up about $233 per year.

The IMF concurs with their global studies of other countries also show no
correlation with tax cuts and higher wages or jobs growth.

Something else toconsider. One of the major drivers of higher share value
growth has been government central bank Quantitive Easing policies which
also fails to help the 90%. Stock-market financial boom but little
re-investment in production or infrastructure which would lift standards
of ordinary non-share holders.

But i'm a Marxist so you wouldn't expect anything different from myself
than to contest your claims that the capitalist class are the creators of
wealth - other than for themselves.

John Corbett

2021-01-12 01:10:29 UTC

Permalink

Post by ajohnstone
As someone who suggested he was a libertarian i find it surprising that
you believe it was the government fiscal policies that kick-started a
stagnant economy.

Why would you find it surprising that a libertarian would believe lower
taxes would have a beneficial on the economy? I wish taxes were even
lower. Much, much lower. I wish government spending was also much, much
lower.

Post by ajohnstone
Anyways, the trend towards an improved economy was
already there under Obama and Trump inherited and benefited. There was no
sudden shift in the income or employment rates for African-Americans under
Trump but only the continuance of what was already going on.

Obama's "recovery" was from historic lows. For eight years we heard Obama
supporters blame Bush for the stagnant economy and now they want to take
credit for the record numbers under Trump.

Post by ajohnstone
However, economic research does not support trickle-down improvement from
tax cuts.
David Hope of the London School of Economics and Julian Limberg of
King’s College London studied income, capital and assets in 18
OECD countries over the past half century and found that only those who
were directly affected the reduction in taxation benefited, and it did
little to promote jobs or growth for all other. Their findings counter
arguments, often made that policies which appear to disproportionately
reward richer individuals eventually feed through to the rest of the
economy.

I'm not surprised you could find economists to support just about any
position you like. You can become an expert economist without ever once
being right about anything.

Post by ajohnstone
“Our research suggests such policies don’t deliver the
sort of trickle-down effects that proponents have claimed,” Hope
said.
That was the latest finding but i can refer you to other reports.
Congressional Research Service (CRS), despite lofty promises from
President Donald Trump and the Republican Party, the $1.5 trillion in tax
cuts that went into effect last year have done little—if
anything—to raise workers' wages, boost economic growth, or spur
business investment. While the Republican tax law has not done much for
workers or the overall economy, it has sparked a wave of stock buybacks,
which primarily benefit rich executives.

The lowest unemployment rate in decades and wage growth unseen for even
longer and you want to tell us workers didn't benefit. Amazing. Everyone
who has a pension plan benefits from rising stock prices because pension
funds invest in the stock market. Rising stocks don't just benefit the
wealthy.

Post by ajohnstone
"There is no indication of a surge in wages in 2018 either compared to
history or relative to GDP growth," the congressional research arm found,
a conclusion that is consistent with recent survey data showing Americans
have not seen a paycheck boost from the Trump tax cuts. The CRS report
suggested that worker bonus announcements by major corporations
immediately following the passage of the GOP tax bill in 2017 may have
been little more than "a public relations move."
Want another?

Here's another.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/02/under-trump-americans-have-seen-their-best-wage-growth-in-40-years/

Post by ajohnstone
The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) reporters Peter Cary and Allan
Holmes explained companies instead distributed their savings amongst the
"The bulk of the $150 billion the tax cut put into the hands of
corporations in 2018 went into shareholder dividends and stock buy-backs,
both of which line the pockets of the 10 percent of Americans who own 84
percent of the stocks. Just 6 percent of the tax savings was spent on
workers, according to Just Capital, a not-for-profit that tracks the
Russell 1000 index." Trump claimed that the average family would see a pay
raise of about $4,000, a benefit that would "trickle down" from employers'
corporate tax cuts. Far from the $4,000 raises Trump alluded to, the
average paycheck went up about $233 per year.
The IMF concurs with their global studies of other countries also show no
correlation with tax cuts and higher wages or jobs growth.
Something else toconsider. One of the major drivers of higher share value
growth has been government central bank Quantitive Easing policies which
also fails to help the 90%. Stock-market financial boom but little
re-investment in production or infrastructure which would lift standards
of ordinary non-share holders.
But i'm a Marxist so you wouldn't expect anything different from myself
than to contest your claims that the capitalist class are the creators of
wealth - other than for themselves.

You're right. I don't expect much from you regarding your political
beliefs.

ajohnstone

2021-01-12 13:22:55 UTC

Permalink

Tax cuts reduces government revenue and leads to cuts in government
spending and with the US commitment to exorbitant defense budgets, then
there are the great number of subsidies to particular industries such as
fossil fuel and farming so the the cuts which come are to what is termed
the social wage, state welfare payments and social insurance. Or shedding
government responsibility entirely by privatizing its role - which i guess
is a libertarian option you support although the lessons are here in the
UK, the government under Johnson is now busy re-nationalizing public
services.

I wish to avoid the pandemic time period which is indeed an aberration. I
also wouldn't think by criticizing Trump's failures, i am lauding any
Obama success. I think you know from previous posts, i consider both
pro-business but with diverging policies. Choosing between Republicans and
Democrats is merely trading one master for another (although can we say
Trump is a Republican, after all, at his insistance, they issued no
election manifesto)

Yes we can bandy around conflicting economic statisics all day long and
cherry pick them. Many economists have made such a career from that but
here are some figures to challenge the Federalist

US manufacturing growth slowed to its lowest level in August 2019 when the
purchasing managers’ index fell for the first time since September
2009. So Trump failed to reverse the continuing decline in
manufacturing’s share of GDP.

From December 2016 to September 2019, nominal wages rose 6.79% from $22.83
to $24.38. But after factoring in inflation, average wages barely budged,
climbing just 0.42% in the period. Nominal wages have risen by an average
of 2.2% since Trump took office, but real wages fell 3.9% after adjusting
for inflation. The value of fringe benefits – including health
insurance, retirement and bonuses – declined by 1.7% during
Trump’s first three years. 1.9 million more Americans lack health
insurance coverage, raising the total to 27.5 million, i.e., 8.5% of the
US population in 2018.Real labour compensation, including fringe benefits,
has declined 4.3%. US labour share of nonfarm business income recovered
from a nadir of 52.4% in 2013 to around 57% during Obama’s second
term, labour’s share fell to 53% in 2018.

Job growth has slowed with Trump’s trade wars, with significant
job losses in electorally key states. While 2018 saw 223,000 new jobs
created monthly, this average fell to 184,000 in the last quarter of 2019.
The 1.2 million ‘long-term unemployed’ (jobless for at
least 27 weeks) accounted for 19.9% of the unemployed in January 2020.

There are only a few Marxist economists and Andrew Kliman is one. The
liberal economists call for re-distribution of wealth. The common refrain
on the non-Marxist left is "tax the rich to pay for the Crisis they
caused". Are you surprised that a Marxist refute that assertion? Something
you can use when you argue against your run-of-the-mill reformist
Democratic progressive, JC.

"...it’s very dangerous to sow illusions that a fairer division of
the pie is going to solve the crisis. If the pie does get divided more
fairly and sends profitability down further, we get into a depression.
There’s renewed panic in the financial markets and there is a
virulent reaction, maybe even fascism. Working people need to be prepared
to confront that but they are not going to be prepared if they’ve
been led to believe that the trickle-up notion that what’s good
for the working class is good for capitalist America. It isn’t. So
people have to fight for concessions like hell, understanding that the
only real solution that’s going to benefit them is a new
socio-economic system, socialism, in which what’s good for people
and what’s good for the economy are not antagonistic but are the
same thing. But that’s not the system we have now. That’s
where we’ve got to go..."

Kliman advocates for socialism, not reforming capitalism as do liberal
economists. He explains:

"..As long as there is capital, what are actually in control are the
economic laws of capitalism. Individual capitalists, including individual
state capitals and worker-run enterprises, must submit to these laws. When
all is said and done, accumulation and economic growth under capitalism
depend upon the extraction of ever-greater amounts of unpaid labor, not
reforms that limit that extraction...’ In fact, such reforms could
make things worse ‘… under capitalism, a new economic boom
requires the restoration of profitability, but downward redistribution of
income will reduce profitability … By causing investment to fall,
downward redistribution could lead to a deep recession, even a
depression...’

So as you can see, i argue just as much with the left than with the right
applying Marx

However, my personal slant on why the tax cuts of Trump did not have the
desired effect is that the re-investment by the American capitalists did
not go into restoring American industry but that hoarding took place -
look at the cash liquidity of corporations, what investment that happened
took place in new technology such as AI and automation and it led to
deskilling thus lowering wages, not a general rise for the low-paid , and
displacing secure stable jobs not creating new quality jobs.

John Corbett

2021-01-12 17:16:31 UTC

Permalink

Post by ajohnstone
Tax cuts reduces government revenue and leads to cuts in government
spending

Which if true would be the best argument for them but Congress doesn't
care if it has the money or not. They will continue to spend and it
doesn't matter which party controls it.

Post by ajohnstone
and with the US commitment to exorbitant defense budgets, then
there are the great number of subsidies to particular industries such as
fossil fuel and farming

I'm as much against corporate welfare as I am against all forms of
welfare. I am against any government program that takes money from some
people and gives it to somebody else to whom it does not belong. If I
robbed somebody at gunpoint and then donate what I took to a worthy
charity, I would still go to jail. For some reason we think it is
acceptable to do the same thing by force of law. I've never understood why
Robin Hood was considered such a heroic figure in lore. What's so heroic
about giving away other people's money.

Post by ajohnstone
so the the cuts which come are to what is termed
the social wage, state welfare payments and social insurance. Or shedding
government responsibility entirely by privatizing its role - which i guess
is a libertarian option you support although the lessons are here in the
UK, the government under Johnson is now busy re-nationalizing public
services.

I believe government should only spend money on things which benefit
everyone, not programs targeted to specific entities. The former would
include things like national defense, law enforcement, highways, etc. If
the federal government limited itself to only those things which the
Constitution authorizes it to do, federal spending would be decreased by
at least 80%. About ten years ago John Stossel did a report on 20/20 in
which he pointed out that for roughly the first 100 years of the United
States, the federal government spent an inflation adjusted $500 per
person. In actual dollars of course it would have been far less. By
contrast at the time the federal government was spending $20,000 per
person and I have no doubt the figure would be even greater today. What is
it that is so vital today that the people of the United States were able
to get along with for the first century of this country's existence. I'll
grant you that our position as a world superpower requires a great deal
more defense spending than what we did in the 1800s but even that could be
scaled way back if we would end our role as the world's policeman and
focus solely on our own defense.

Post by ajohnstone
I wish to avoid the pandemic time period which is indeed an aberration. I
also wouldn't think by criticizing Trump's failures, i am lauding any
Obama success. I think you know from previous posts, i consider both
pro-business but with diverging policies. Choosing between Republicans and
Democrats is merely trading one master for another (although can we say
Trump is a Republican, after all, at his insistance, they issued no
election manifesto)

I share your disdain for the two major parties but for much different
reasons.

Post by ajohnstone
Yes we can bandy around conflicting economic statisics all day long and
cherry pick them. Many economists have made such a career from that but
here are some figures to challenge the Federalist
US manufacturing growth slowed to its lowest level in August 2019 when the
purchasing managers’ index fell for the first time since September
2009. So Trump failed to reverse the continuing decline in
manufacturing’s share of GDP.

Trees don't grow to the sky. No matter how well any aspect of the economy
is doing, at some point there will be a slowdown. A strong economy is
indicated by higher highs and higher lows. I would bet the low in August
2019 was much higher than the high for 2009.

Post by ajohnstone
From December 2016 to September 2019, nominal wages rose 6.79% from $22.83
to $24.38. But after factoring in inflation, average wages barely budged,
climbing just 0.42% in the period. Nominal wages have risen by an average
of 2.2% since Trump took office, but real wages fell 3.9% after adjusting
for inflation. The value of fringe benefits – including health
insurance, retirement and bonuses – declined by 1.7% during
Trump’s first three years. 1.9 million more Americans lack health
insurance coverage, raising the total to 27.5 million, i.e., 8.5% of the
US population in 2018.Real labour compensation, including fringe benefits,
has declined 4.3%. US labour share of nonfarm business income recovered
from a nadir of 52.4% in 2013 to around 57% during Obama’s second
term, labour’s share fell to 53% in 2018.

Inflation as it pertains to individual circumstances skews the reality. It
factors in a wide range of expenditures. Inflation doesn't cause and
increase in someone's mortage payment if it is a fixed rate mortgage and
in doesn't increase the amount of somebody's car payment. A .42% increase
is still signficant given that for decades, real wages had been in
decline.

Post by ajohnstone
Job growth has slowed with Trump’s trade wars, with significant
job losses in electorally key states. While 2018 saw 223,000 new jobs
created monthly, this average fell to 184,000 in the last quarter of 2019.
The 1.2 million ‘long-term unemployed’ (jobless for at
least 27 weeks) accounted for 19.9% of the unemployed in January 2020.

Again, trees don't grow to the sky. Booms don't last forever. Slow downs
are inevitable. Slowing growth is still growth and the growth rate
remained healthy until the pandemic hit.

Post by ajohnstone
There are only a few Marxist economists and Andrew Kliman is one. The
liberal economists call for re-distribution of wealth.

AKA legalized theft.

Post by ajohnstone
The common refrain
on the non-Marxist left is "tax the rich to pay for the Crisis they
caused". Are you surprised that a Marxist refute that assertion? Something
you can use when you argue against your run-of-the-mill reformist
Democratic progressive, JC.

Only mildly.

Post by ajohnstone
"...it’s very dangerous to sow illusions that a fairer division of
the pie is going to solve the crisis. If the pie does get divided more
fairly and sends profitability down further, we get into a depression.
There’s renewed panic in the financial markets and there is a
virulent reaction, maybe even fascism. Working people need to be prepared
to confront that but they are not going to be prepared if they’ve
been led to believe that the trickle-up notion that what’s good
for the working class is good for capitalist America. It isn’t. So
people have to fight for concessions like hell, understanding that the
only real solution that’s going to benefit them is a new
socio-economic system, socialism, in which what’s good for people
and what’s good for the economy are not antagonistic but are the
same thing. But that’s not the system we have now. That’s
where we’ve got to go..."
Kliman advocates for socialism, not reforming capitalism as do liberal
"..As long as there is capital, what are actually in control are the
economic laws of capitalism. Individual capitalists, including individual
state capitals and worker-run enterprises, must submit to these laws. When
all is said and done, accumulation and economic growth under capitalism
depend upon the extraction of ever-greater amounts of unpaid labor, not
reforms that limit that extraction...’ In fact, such reforms could
make things worse ‘… under capitalism, a new economic boom
requires the restoration of profitability, but downward redistribution of
income will reduce profitability … By causing investment to fall,
downward redistribution could lead to a deep recession, even a
depression...’
So as you can see, i argue just as much with the left than with the right
applying Marx

Do you embrace the philosophy of "From each according to his abilities, to
each according to his needs."?

I'm still trying to understand your vision of a Marxist Utopia.

Post by ajohnstone
However, my personal slant on why the tax cuts of Trump did not have the
desired effect is that the re-investment by the American capitalists did
not go into restoring American industry but that hoarding took place -
look at the cash liquidity of corporations, what investment that happened
took place in new technology such as AI and automation and it led to
deskilling thus lowering wages, not a general rise for the low-paid , and
displacing secure stable jobs not creating new quality jobs.

What statists of all stripes fail to understand is that people of all
economic levels are going to act in their own self interest. They think if
they enact new rules, people are going to continue to act the same way.
That's silly. If the government zigs, they will zag. They will work around
any new government policies in order to best effect their bottom line.
That is true from the largest corporation to the poorest of the poor and
everyone in between. Government is not the solution. Government is the
problem.

ajohnstone

2021-01-13 01:37:39 UTC

Permalink

Post by John Corbett
Do you embrace the philosophy of "From each according to his abilities,
to each according to his needs."?

Yes i do and not as some far-off distant goal but an immediate demand with
no need for some transitional period. And the expression pre-dates Marx

It is little different from the Christian exhortation in Acts
4:32-3“Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and
soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his
own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles
gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great
grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as
many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the
proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet; and
distribution was made to each as any had need.”

Or from the Old Testament

“They shall build houses and inhabit them; and they shall plant
vineyards and eat fruit of them. They shall not build, and another
inhabit; they shall not plant, and another
eat.” — Isaiah 65:21

We are asked in the Bible if we are our brother's keeper...and the
socialist emphatically answers, yes.

“I am a Marxist monk, a Buddhist Marxist, because unlike
capitalism, Marxism is more ethical.” said the Dalai Lama.

Although i quote scripture, i'm not religious nor hold beliefs in the
supernatural, before you ask. But all faiths to some degree accept the
Golden Rule - treat all others as you would wish to be treated. Socialism
is about building the economic foundation to implement such aspiration.
It's about reciprocity. All for one, one for all, as the 4 Musketeers
declared or as the IWW says , an injury to one is an injury to all.

John McAdams

2021-01-14 01:37:07 UTC

Permalink

Post by ajohnstone

Post by John Corbett
Do you embrace the philosophy of "From each according to his abilities,
to each according to his needs."?

They were sharing *voluntary.*

Post by ajohnstone
Or from the Old Testament
They shall build houses and inhabit them; and they shall plant
vineyards and eat fruit of them. They shall not build, and another
inhabit; they shall not plant, and another
eat. Isaiah 65:21

Atheists should not be quoting the Bible. Even on its face, this
means people get to enjoy the fruits of their own labor.

In fact, it's a verse of promise, to God's people.

It means they will not be looted, or taken to a distant land with
others taking over their property.

Post by ajohnstone
We are asked in the Bible if we are our brother's keeper...and the
socialist emphatically answers, yes.

No, you mean the state is your keeper.

Post by ajohnstone
I am a Marxist monk, a Buddhist Marxist, because unlike
capitalism, Marxism is more ethical. said the Dalai Lama.
Although i quote scripture, i'm not religious nor hold beliefs in the
supernatural, before you ask. But all faiths to some degree accept the
Golden Rule - treat all others as you would wish to be treated. Socialism
is about building the economic foundation to implement such aspiration.
It's about reciprocity. All for one, one for all, as the 4 Musketeers
declared or as the IWW says , an injury to one is an injury to all.

Socialism is *not* about reciprocity. It's about either an elite
(vanguard party) or a popular majority (democratic socialism) taking
stuff from other people.

In fact, Americans are more generous and altruistic than people in
socialist countries.

https://www.aei.org/articles/a-nation-of-givers/

Since you are quoting scripture, here is a quote from Shakespeare:

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

ajohnstone

2021-01-14 18:27:15 UTC

Permalink

Yet again a number of assertions.

Americans are more generous and altruistic than people in socialist
countries.

There is a broad international commitment that wealthy countries should
provide annually 0.7 percent of GNP to assist poor countries. Five
countries (Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark, and the U.K.) exceed that
benchmark. The average for all wealthy nations is around 0.4 percent. The
U.S. ranks near the bottom at below 0.2 percent. But of course that all
changes when you look at who gets the most American foreign aid. Israel.
Egypt. Afghanistan. Hmmm? Could there be perhaps a less than altruistic
reason involved as in the restrictions USAID imposes. And also the
withdrawal of funding for international bodies such as UNICEF and WHO

But i note you say people and not governments. Nor differentiate between
foreign charities or domestic ones. Americn people are up there at the
top. And so i will concede, many Americans possess kind hearts and good
intentions. Have i said otherwise? $358 billion to charity in 2014, 81%
percent came from individuals.

But who gives most per head ? Luxembourg are the most generous, the only
country whose citizens gave on average $114. Norwegian’s give $96,
with Swedes and the Irish given $66. The United Kingdom only give $17 a
year each and American’s just $14, while German’s give $9.
(figures for 2012)

(As an aside, i'm curious just how much the charity is for animal welfare
or alms for the poor?)

It doesn't matter how often i say that Marx was anti-state, does it? Or
that socialism needs to established voluntarily and through the democratic
process.

Marx speaks of “a community of free individuals, carrying on
their work with the means of production in common”. Marx never
defined socialism in terms of the ownership and control of the means of
production by the State, but rather in terms of ownership and control by a
voluntary association of the producers themselves.

One reason many god-believers don't wish sermons from atheists about their
'holy' book is that atheists understand it a lot better.

Socialists take umbrage at some of its teachings.

1 Peter 2:18 - "Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not
only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh."

What do you have on? But please follow the commandments and obey Leviticus
19:19, "...nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of
material..." No mixed linen, cotton or woollen clothes, no plush mixed
cashmere/silk suits for you.

And before you tell me Jesus the Christ over-ruled Mosaic law - "Do not
think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come
to abolish them..." - Matthew 5.17

John Corbett

2021-01-14 23:21:25 UTC

Permalink

Post by ajohnstone
Yet again a number of assertions.

Americans are more generous and altruistic than people in socialist
countries.

I certainly hope so. I hope we aren't just handing out money
unconditionally. I hope we are getting something for our money. Neither
the US nor any other country has any obligation to aid any other country.
We do so at our discretion.

Post by ajohnstone
But i note you say people and not governments. Nor differentiate between
foreign charities or domestic ones. Americn people are up there at the
top. And so i will concede, many Americans possess kind hearts and good
intentions. Have i said otherwise? $358 billion to charity in 2014, 81%
percent came from individuals.
But who gives most per head ? Luxembourg are the most generous, the only
country whose citizens gave on average $114. Norwegian’s give $96,
with Swedes and the Irish given $66. The United Kingdom only give $17 a
year each and American’s just $14, while German’s give $9.
(figures for 2012)

Every person and every country should be free to give as much or as little
as they choose to charitable causes. Giving should never be considered an
obligation. I remember several occasions in which I was strong armed at
work to donate to United Way. I always refused because United Way supports
groups that I oppose. They tell you that you can designate which charities
your contribution will go to but that is just a scam. The directors decide
what percentage of the pot each charity receives and if someone designates
specific charities, that money gets deducted from their cut of the general
fund. The result is the same as if you didn't designate a charity. Groups
you are against will benefit from your contributions.

Post by ajohnstone
(As an aside, i'm curious just how much the charity is for animal welfare
or alms for the poor?)

That is strictly up to the person doing the giving. If somebody only wants
to donate to a shelter for homeless cats, that's their business. Nobody
has to justify their charitable donations to anybody.

Post by ajohnstone
It doesn't matter how often i say that Marx was anti-state, does it? Or
that socialism needs to established voluntarily and through the democratic
process.

Your vision of socialism is never going to be instituted voluntarily. It's
a utopian pipe dream as is my desire to see laissez faire capitalism
instituted.

Post by ajohnstone
Marx speaks of “a community of free individuals, carrying on
their work with the means of production in common”. Marx never
defined socialism in terms of the ownership and control of the means of
production by the State, but rather in terms of ownership and control by a
voluntary association of the producers themselves.

What if someone who already owns the means of production doesn't want to
give up ownership?

Post by ajohnstone
One reason many god-believers don't wish sermons from atheists about their
'holy' book is that atheists understand it a lot better.

I try to avoid arguing with anybody about religion. Whatever somebody
wants to believe is fine with me. Just don't try to force your beliefs on
me.

Post by ajohnstone
Socialists take umbrage at some of its teachings.
1 Peter 2:18 - "Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not
only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh."
What do you have on? But please follow the commandments and obey Leviticus
19:19, "...nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of
material..." No mixed linen, cotton or woollen clothes, no plush mixed
cashmere/silk suits for you.
And before you tell me Jesus the Christ over-ruled Mosaic law - "Do not
think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come
to abolish them..." - Matthew 5.17

John McAdams

2021-01-14 23:40:34 UTC

Permalink

Post by ajohnstone
Yet again a number of assertions.

Americans are more generous and altruistic than people in socialist
countries.

Funding foreign aid is political, not personal. It promotes a
political agenda. Often geopolitical.

As for the WHO and UNICEF, we are talking about transnational
bureaucracies that are corrupt.

Post by ajohnstone
But i note you say people and not governments. Nor differentiate between
foreign charities or domestic ones. Americn people are up there at the
top. And so i will concede, many Americans possess kind hearts and good
intentions. Have i said otherwise? $358 billion to charity in 2014, 81%
percent came from individuals.
But who gives most per head ? Luxembourg are the most generous, the only
country whose citizens gave on average $114. Norwegians give $96,
with Swedes and the Irish given $66. The United Kingdom only give $17 a
year each and Americans just $14, while Germans give $9.
(figures for 2012)

Where do you get that data? It's at odds with all I have seen.

Post by ajohnstone
(As an aside, i'm curious just how much the charity is for animal welfare
or alms for the poor?)
It doesn't matter how often i say that Marx was anti-state, does it? Or
that socialism needs to established voluntarily and through the democratic
process.

It can't be, and never has been.

You talk about Marx believing in free speech, but had he gotten power,
he would have silenced the opposition brutally.

Leftists only talk about free speech when their speech is threatened.
When they have the power of censorship, they use it enthusiastically.

Post by ajohnstone
Marx speaks of a community of free individuals, carrying on
their work with the means of production in common. Marx never
defined socialism in terms of the ownership and control of the means of
production by the State, but rather in terms of ownership and control by a
voluntary association of the producers themselves.
One reason many god-believers don't wish sermons from atheists about their
'holy' book is that atheists understand it a lot better.

Then why did you make another post showing you didn't understand the
scripture you were quoting.

Post by ajohnstone
Socialists take umbrage at some of its teachings.
1 Peter 2:18 - "Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not
only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh."

And what did he tell masters? Why don't you quote that part?

Given that slavery was a given, and at the time simply could not be
overturned, a slave being anything but a good servant accomplished
nothing, and just made both the master and slave worse off.

Post by ajohnstone
What do you have on? But please follow the commandments and obey Leviticus
19:19, "...nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of
material..." No mixed linen, cotton or woollen clothes, no plush mixed
cashmere/silk suits for you.

What objection do you have to that?

Post by ajohnstone
And before you tell me Jesus the Christ over-ruled Mosaic law - "Do not
think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come
to abolish them..." - Matthew 5.17

Those restrictions were intended for Jews, and Orthodox Jews continue
to honor many of them.

The were not intended to be binding on Gentiles.

You keep showing that you really know nothing about scripture. You
are just an atheist who keeps quoting ignorant atheist stuff.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Bud

2021-01-15 00:53:56 UTC

Permalink

Post by ajohnstone
Yet again a number of assertions.

Americans are more generous and altruistic than people in socialist
countries.

Funding foreign aid is political, not personal. It promotes a
political agenda. Often geopolitical.
As for the WHO and UNICEF, we are talking about transnational
bureaucracies that are corrupt.

Where do you get that data? It's at odds with all I have seen.

It can't be, and never has been.
You talk about Marx believing in free speech, but had he gotten power,
he would have silenced the opposition brutally.
Leftists only talk about free speech when their speech is threatened.
When they have the power of censorship, they use it enthusiastically.

Then why did you make another post showing you didn't understand the
scripture you were quoting.

Post by ajohnstone
Socialists take umbrage at some of its teachings.
1 Peter 2:18 - "Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not
only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh."

And what did he tell masters? Why don't you quote that part?
Given that slavery was a given, and at the time simply could not be
overturned,

Strange that God would be subservient to Man`s law.

a slave being anything but a good servant accomplished
nothing, and just made both the master and slave worse off.

What objection do you have to that?

Those restrictions were intended for Jews, and Orthodox Jews continue
to honor many of them.
The were not intended to be binding on Gentiles.
You keep showing that you really know nothing about scripture. You
are just an atheist who keeps quoting ignorant atheist stuff.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

John McAdams

2021-01-15 01:01:40 UTC