Marx's Funky Bunch...

{enough with the puns, please...}

So, you're elaboration on how far left the US has gone since its founding, and more specifically over the last 60 years, is clear and understood.  This is neither news nor debatable, in my eyes.

I have a clear recollection of also discussing the propensity of such talking heads as Beck-Hannity-Levin-etc who repeatedly use a pseudo-historical perspective to forward their views and agendas.  As I said then, and as I reaffirm now... it is neither accurate nor just to make these claims.

If you want my honest tally of how many of the "pillars" we have established here in the US, then I'd have to say only ONE... the progressive income tax.  It was first imposed by Abraham Lincoln's administration and was repeatedly put up against other, alternative forms of taxation (property, flat rate, sale tax, etc) and has always come out (legislatively, that is) on top as the best means to pay for the organs of government.  History has shown that it can be a fair and productive means of generating public revenue without hampering or stalling the national economic engine, when it is managed in a way that doesn't over-burden the tax paying citizens.

There are aspects of our society that I am not happy with... we do not need nor should we have a Federal-level Department of Education, dictating how, when and where monies will be spent on a national level.  Education should remain a responsibility of the most local form of government available:  no greater than a State level, I feel, and the bulk of THAT level functioning at the district or municipal level... period.  The same is true for Federal welfare spending... that should be the sole responsibility of the States.  Both exist, however... and to label both as "pillars" of Marxism is both inaccurate and unfair.

Free education is NOT a monopoly of the government, nor is welfare spending.  The bulk of both still lies at a more local level, but any Federal level is too much for me.  Even in countries where "socialism" is the norm, it is NEVER the free education institutions that give the best educations.  England promises free education through the university level, and they have many fine "public schools"... but it is the graduates of Eton, Cambridge and Oxford that show the real value of private education, isn't it?

I do NOT equate Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac as institutions that can be compared to the first "pillar".  Both institutions were formed to allow prospective owners to purchase property with the guaranteed assistance and assurances of the Federal government.  I'm not saying its a good thing... only that it was a means by which people could more easily "own" that which Marx said should never be "owned":  property.  Regardless of the means by which a person acquires property, that property is theirs... from the center of the earth to the top of the sky.  It always has been and should remain a tenant of individual liberty in this country that the ownership of property is every citizen's inherent right, and that right should remain protected... which I feel it is.  It is the burden of the guarantees made by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that are causing the problems and contributing to fiscal failures... mismanagement and poor planning... NOT the institution of ownership itself.  I know you understand this... I'm not explaining it to you by any means.  I am simply stating my understanding of the problem and why it is not an applicable comparison.

Now, to my final point.

If I understand your position, you are saying that using words like "marxism" in reference to any sort of socialist agenda (or supporter thereof) is acceptable because it is a term in common usage, and the specific details of that term no longer apply in the modern context.  In short, I'm "nit-picking" when I say it isn't applicable.

I see that point, and I admit it is probably accurate and applicable.

I would counter with a reference back to another discussion we had, not all that long ago...

You made it very clear that images and symbols such as the letters "CCCP" are offensive in the extreme because of the specific and literal associations that are attached to them by history.  I tried to make the case that a person could be justified in wearing a hockey jersey with the letters CCCP on it for no greater reason that that country fielded the best hockey team (professional or otherwise) for the better part of forty years in the middle of the last century... bar none until 1980.  That team "owned" the very best players from the NHL, Europe and any other team skating on the face of the earth from 1954 to 1991... and I am quite sure that many fans of the game still say names like Mikhailov, Tretyak, Petrov, and Maltsev with a hushed and reverent tone very similar to that used by fans saying the names Gretsky, Orr, and Lemieux.  BUT, to wear their jersey today is to risk giving offense because of the symbols on the front, not the name on the back.

Symbols matter... details matter... and a clear understanding of the historical context matters, per your past arguments.  If that is NOT true, please let me know.  To forget history is to doom ourselves to repeat it, and by allowing terms and ideologies such as Marxism, Lenninism, Trotskyism, Maoism and the differences between them and terms like "socialism", "communism", "collectivism" is to water-down our understanding of them all to the point where we risk facing them again in the future under another guise.

I'm not picking a fight... we don't have to debate this any further.  You are correct when you say it is a term in common usage, and that the terms have become almost interchangeable.  I'm not going to contribute to that trend, however...