On your Marx...get ready...set...go!

Of course Lenin didn't use a starters pistol when he leveled the Tsar's family and their white clad loyalists.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not responding so as to disagree with your last, for it was a well reasoned, level headed assessment as to why many a Leftist creedo applies to President Obama, just not Marxism. Particularly your mention of the 10 Pillars. But I wanted to briefly strike at the heart of all this confusion, on the Right in particular.

There are many innocent offenders, Beck being the least among them (due to his fascination with the ugly parts of history), all the way up to Hannity whom doesn't seem particularly concerned with technical definitions or subterranean arguments of any kind. But I call them "innocent" because none of them, from the water cooler conservative to Rush Limbaugh, mean to perpetrate any purposeful deception when tossing about proper nouns such as communism, socialism, Marxism, etc. The words have simply become interchangeable. Add to this lexicon a few more adjectives from the more historically oriented of the group (both Beck and Mark Levine spring to mind), such as "progressives" and "statists"; and add further my own descriptions such as "central planners" and "wealth redistributionists."

As Austin Powers said to his boss, "But what does it all mean Basil?"

Well of course we all mean to communicate a simple idea: using the apparatus of state to limit economic liberty. However the question here remains, is it important to discard any titles, any adjectives, that simply do not fit when referencing the headliners of the American Left? And even if we do, would the rank and file Right of center understand why, or be patient enough to hear the explanation? I am of course discarding any public relations concerns for the purposes of this discussion. I am not giving any weight to political convenience, i.e. refraining from using one label or another because it's "bad PR." I simply want to come to a consensus on what, if any, Leftist label from history represents the Leftist ideology present in President Obama and his acolytes.

To that end ...

You can Google the definition of Marxism all you want, but trust me when I write that the summary response will be: The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrch Engels that served as the basis for communism in which class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classles society.

I heard a quiz question once in which the questioner asked the participant if he could "define responsibility without using the word responsible." This is the quandary we find ourselves in. One can scarcely examine the definitions of any of the above labels without finding within that definition a reference to the other.

So, is Marxism a brand of communism? Or is communism an outgrowth of Marxism? He did pen the "Communist Manifesto" after all. I have always tended to think of "Marxism" as the intellectual organization of communism. A "how to" book if you will. Marx, in this theory, would be akin to communism the way Jefferson is to our Republic. As such, using the phrase "Jeffersonian Democracy" is another way of identifying a particular way to organize a representative republic.

Also under this theory one must acknowledge that since Marx wrote a very specific manifesto, to call someone a "Marxist" they must meet a very specific criteria. And this is to your point Titus. If they do not, then a less specific more benign, if you will, label should be applied. Such as "central planner" or "statist." Even progressive, which works particularly well in America (its' birthplace), given the catch all aim of their movement, starting in the early 20th century, was to "progress past" the restraints on government provided under our Constitution.

However, lets be sure. Below are the dreaded "10 Pillars" as authored by Marx (& Engel). Play this game, as I did. See how many can be matched with the current administration. Either through deed, or word, or evident ideology, see how many of the ten "match up" with Barack Obama. But before doing so, you must decide for yourself - "how many make a Marxist?" Does 6 out of 10 qualify one as a Marxist? 8? Must it be all 10?

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Source (a fellow blogger I might add): HERE

Here's my estimation:

#1 smacks of Fannie and Freddy. They now hold something on the order of 97% of all mortgages in America. Now you can argue this was true under Bush as well, however, that number hasn't just gone up, it has skyrocketed. To boot, the current PoTUS has gone much further. From mortgage bailouts, to "urging" private sector banks alter existing home loans, to demanding Judges alter set agreements, to flatly offering a complete mortgage bailout of all toxic assets. He proposed this in the campaign and there is word of a new TARP-like package working its' way through congress, mortgage specific. And let us not forget the PoTUS' backing of the SCOTUS' new interpretation of "eminent domain" - the state having the right to seize land and give it to another private entity under the auspices that the new owners will generate a tax revenue for the common good (in other words, take your land and give it to Wal Mart).

#2 speaks for itself. It is the essence of American progressive dogma. Instituted by FDR (if I remember correctly), they diametrically oppose, on principle, anything approaching a Flat Tax.

#3 The American Left defends the "Death Tax" as its called, to this day. A millionaire has no right to leave his already taxed money to his heirs without the government collecting a heavy taste, about half (to borrow a phrase).

I submit that in one form or another, Obama and his crowd are 3 for 3 at this point. Moving on ...

#4 Here I think we lose one. The property of "emigrants" is not being confiscated. And "rebels?" Well, I'm sure they would argue the Tea Party is a subversive group, but everyone's property rights are being threatened, per #1 above, not just these two groups.

#5 Say it with me - "The Fed!" The Federal Reserve, the incestuous relationship between this supposed private entity and the government (in particular the Executive Branch via the Treasury Dept) is clearly exercising the authority of a monopoly and, as Ron Paul supporters would legitimately argue, creating a fiat currency.

#6 Hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars have been allotted for "infrastructure", and "green" requirements are imposed in every form of private travel, so there is a case to be made (the TSA included), but its grey at best, not black and white.

#7 I would argue here lies a much stronger case - GM, and the EPA in specific.

#8 The latter half of this one interests me (who here thinks the American Left feels "all should work" after all?). Ameri-Core is the domestic "army" that the PoTUS exclaimed should be "Just as well funded" as the US military. Does that constitute an "industrial army" such as Marx articulated? Not exactly. But between Ameri-Core and Labor Union support and organization for the President, I think there's a case to be made.

#9 This one is antiquated if you take it in its' literal terms, but again, the PoTUS spending billions of tax payer dollars to force or create out of whole cloth a "green economy" isn't that far off the mark(x).

#10 Clearly the PoTUS favors free schooling, up to the collegiate level. Occupy Wall Street would seem to agree. Not to mention, the president got legislation passed that makes ALL student loans now available only through the government. How long before he begins forgiving such debt?

So, by my tally he meets a clear 6 out 0f 10, with another three "ify", and one disqualified. And certainly I have missed many an argument, in both directions, with a government so massive in scope as ours, so I by no means think mine is the last word here.

But I would like to know, does 60% a Marxist make?

What's your tally?