... to see you begin to embrace your Catholic heritage, and to watch you see the light of truth shining through in the One True Faith.
Not only is the letter to be read in every parish in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but it was mailed to me (and actually signed by) the Bishop of Scranton, PA, the Most Reverend Joseph Bambera. It is, in essence, exactly the same as what Ryan posted... so I won't post it again. If you choose to read it, you can do so HERE.
Archbishop Cardinal George of Chicago, however, was quite a bit more frustrated and spoke very strong words about where he saw this going:
"I will die in my bed, my successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr in a public square."
Ryan is 100% right... this is a storm of epic proportions that is brewing up all along the President's campaign of "hope and change", and it is NOT going to go away quietly.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
First they came for the Catholics...
It is time that all sects of Christianity and Jews alike stand with the Catholic. After much debate in this ongoing battle, since the passing of Obamacare, the administration has decided to make only one concession - "give em' a year."
“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
This is what happens, this is the real life, tangible "slippery slope" effect. Millions of Catholics voted for Obama. Millions still, supported Obamacare. Legislation that at its' core was/is the "individual mandate." For the first time in American history it became law that I go purchase a product based on my having been born. Obama took the FDR ball of perverting the Interstate Commerce Clause and ran with it by arguing I - F. Ryan - am effecting commerce by NOT participating. Now its a step further, the slope angle increases ...
"The HHS rule requires that sterilization and contraception — including controversial abortifacients — be included among “preventive services” coverage in almost every healthcare plan available to Americans ... AP reports, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius conceded that nonprofit institutions such as church-affiliated hospitals, colleges and social service agencies will have one additional year to comply with the requirement, issued in regulations under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul."
They are giving Catholic Hospitals (most prominently) one year to start offering contraception services. And as Bill Donahue, head of the Catholic League stated yesterday, "Make no mistake. This is the nose of the camel. Their intention is to eventually require all hospitals and all health programs operating under Church affiliation to cover and provide for abortions."
The Church has drawn a line in the sand ... they will fight, and we should fight with them.
“Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience,” said Cardinal-designate Dolan. “This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights.” He added, "The government should not force Americans to act as if pregnancy is a disease to be prevented at all costs.”
You can read the entire story HERE.
This is added to a SCOTUS descion in recent weeks on "Ministerial Exception." It was upheld in a 9-0 ruling. The long and short of it is the administration wanted to remove the exception which would allow, for example, the DOJ to go after the Catholic Church for discrimination against women for not allowing females to become priests.
I'm curious, Notre Dame. Are you guys regretting the award you gave the President now? Those Catholics who came out in favor of his health care plan, the Bishops whom are now "furious" (says the story), do you realize now that this guy is not your friend? That "making nice" with him doesn't work? That giving him awards doesn't abate his agenda? Get the picture NOW? I'm with you, make no mistake. I'm just sad that it took this long for you to realize that getting along with this man is not an option - he must be defeated.
The Catholic Bishops in America went even a step further this weekend, issuing a letter that from what I understand was to be read in every Parish across the nation (I'm curious if the two alter boys here had it read at their service). You can read a story about the unusually strong letter HERE. And although each Bishop personalized it slightly in their own way, I wanted it on "Bund Record." The following is from the Bishop of Marquette (Michigan):
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people — the Catholic population — and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.
In so ruling, the Obama Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Obama Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.
We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.
And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting usccb.org to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Obama Administration’s decision.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Bishop of Marquette
As I said, it's time to stand.
“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
This is what happens, this is the real life, tangible "slippery slope" effect. Millions of Catholics voted for Obama. Millions still, supported Obamacare. Legislation that at its' core was/is the "individual mandate." For the first time in American history it became law that I go purchase a product based on my having been born. Obama took the FDR ball of perverting the Interstate Commerce Clause and ran with it by arguing I - F. Ryan - am effecting commerce by NOT participating. Now its a step further, the slope angle increases ...
"The HHS rule requires that sterilization and contraception — including controversial abortifacients — be included among “preventive services” coverage in almost every healthcare plan available to Americans ... AP reports, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius conceded that nonprofit institutions such as church-affiliated hospitals, colleges and social service agencies will have one additional year to comply with the requirement, issued in regulations under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul."
They are giving Catholic Hospitals (most prominently) one year to start offering contraception services. And as Bill Donahue, head of the Catholic League stated yesterday, "Make no mistake. This is the nose of the camel. Their intention is to eventually require all hospitals and all health programs operating under Church affiliation to cover and provide for abortions."
The Church has drawn a line in the sand ... they will fight, and we should fight with them.
“Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience,” said Cardinal-designate Dolan. “This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights.” He added, "The government should not force Americans to act as if pregnancy is a disease to be prevented at all costs.”
You can read the entire story HERE.
This is added to a SCOTUS descion in recent weeks on "Ministerial Exception." It was upheld in a 9-0 ruling. The long and short of it is the administration wanted to remove the exception which would allow, for example, the DOJ to go after the Catholic Church for discrimination against women for not allowing females to become priests.
I'm curious, Notre Dame. Are you guys regretting the award you gave the President now? Those Catholics who came out in favor of his health care plan, the Bishops whom are now "furious" (says the story), do you realize now that this guy is not your friend? That "making nice" with him doesn't work? That giving him awards doesn't abate his agenda? Get the picture NOW? I'm with you, make no mistake. I'm just sad that it took this long for you to realize that getting along with this man is not an option - he must be defeated.
The Catholic Bishops in America went even a step further this weekend, issuing a letter that from what I understand was to be read in every Parish across the nation (I'm curious if the two alter boys here had it read at their service). You can read a story about the unusually strong letter HERE. And although each Bishop personalized it slightly in their own way, I wanted it on "Bund Record." The following is from the Bishop of Marquette (Michigan):
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people — the Catholic population — and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.
In so ruling, the Obama Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Obama Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.
We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.
And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting usccb.org to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Obama Administration’s decision.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Bishop of Marquette
As I said, it's time to stand.
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...
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...
Monday, January 30, 2012
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?
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?
Sunday, January 29, 2012
On Shatner...
To respond briefly to Ryan's post:
I think you missed my point. Obama wants to make the "state" bigger, more controlling and more entrenched than it has ever been... that is the antithesis of what Marx was preaching. He saw the end of the State as the ultimate progression of human society, with only the functioning structure of the "proletariat" and its infrastructure left to keep society running smoothly for all eternity.
Mind you, I don't disagree that Obama wants to fundamentally reshape the USA from what it was envisaged to be into something he thinks it should be... that could very well be the truth, and it is certainly true of many that Obama once held close to him (Wright, Ayers, et al), many of whom were (and are) extreme socialists.
Marxism isn't Marxism without the "pillars" though... and Obama can't possibly be seen to want to institute or impose those while in Office. He is not going to encourage the violent overthrow of the established system, as Lenin and Trotsky understood Marx to be saying, nor is he going to seize and shut down the financial centers as Engels demanded happen before social progress could begin.
Liberal ideology says that with each gain made, the next gain is set in motion (politically speaking). The infamous "slippery slope" wherein once in place, it is impossible to remove the liberal agenda from society's structure. Social Security is a good example, in that it is NOT doing what it was intended to do in 1936, but is now so entrenched in the American society that to discuss removing it or revamping it is to flirt with utter loss of credibility. The more dependent the populous is on the government, the stronger the government's position in their lives is, and the harder it is to change.
No amount of socialist agenda functions, however, if there is no "class struggle"... period. If the conservative (read "classical liberal") agenda can focus on ending the imagined or exaggerated claims of class struggle in America (where even the poorest of American citizens has access to Internet, cellphones and the best healthcare on the face of the earth), and bring greater attention to the opportunity that exists as part of the very fabric this nation was made with, THEN the socialist, liberal agenda will have nothing to break against...
That's when things will start working again.
I think you missed my point. Obama wants to make the "state" bigger, more controlling and more entrenched than it has ever been... that is the antithesis of what Marx was preaching. He saw the end of the State as the ultimate progression of human society, with only the functioning structure of the "proletariat" and its infrastructure left to keep society running smoothly for all eternity.
Mind you, I don't disagree that Obama wants to fundamentally reshape the USA from what it was envisaged to be into something he thinks it should be... that could very well be the truth, and it is certainly true of many that Obama once held close to him (Wright, Ayers, et al), many of whom were (and are) extreme socialists.
Marxism isn't Marxism without the "pillars" though... and Obama can't possibly be seen to want to institute or impose those while in Office. He is not going to encourage the violent overthrow of the established system, as Lenin and Trotsky understood Marx to be saying, nor is he going to seize and shut down the financial centers as Engels demanded happen before social progress could begin.
Liberal ideology says that with each gain made, the next gain is set in motion (politically speaking). The infamous "slippery slope" wherein once in place, it is impossible to remove the liberal agenda from society's structure. Social Security is a good example, in that it is NOT doing what it was intended to do in 1936, but is now so entrenched in the American society that to discuss removing it or revamping it is to flirt with utter loss of credibility. The more dependent the populous is on the government, the stronger the government's position in their lives is, and the harder it is to change.
No amount of socialist agenda functions, however, if there is no "class struggle"... period. If the conservative (read "classical liberal") agenda can focus on ending the imagined or exaggerated claims of class struggle in America (where even the poorest of American citizens has access to Internet, cellphones and the best healthcare on the face of the earth), and bring greater attention to the opportunity that exists as part of the very fabric this nation was made with, THEN the socialist, liberal agenda will have nothing to break against...
That's when things will start working again.
Spartacus...
All I have to say is that... as sad and tragic as it is to know Andy is gone, they couldn't have found a better replacement than they did. Liam McIntyre not only resembles Andy as he played the role, but has captured that same Stoic attitude that Andy gave the Thracian in the first season.
If the first episode is any indicator... this is going to be a great season.
If the first episode is any indicator... this is going to be a great season.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Vengence
Just finished watching the season premier of Spartacus. If you've seen it, you know it is awesome beyond words. If you haven't... There's nothing I can do for you.
Watched all the way through thinking I'd get scenes from next week's episode, and at the end of the credits a pic of Andy Whitfield, smiling, with his birth and death years. (Kid was born the year after me... So terribly sad.) "Hero on the screen. Legend in our hearts." Lasted maybe ten seconds. I am still teary eyed and it's been over an hour.
And since everyone seems to be ranting about Kindles... Have you guys read either With the Old Breed by Eugene Sledge or Helmet for my Pillow by Robert Lecke? Add those to your lists. Damn.
Watched all the way through thinking I'd get scenes from next week's episode, and at the end of the credits a pic of Andy Whitfield, smiling, with his birth and death years. (Kid was born the year after me... So terribly sad.) "Hero on the screen. Legend in our hearts." Lasted maybe ten seconds. I am still teary eyed and it's been over an hour.
And since everyone seems to be ranting about Kindles... Have you guys read either With the Old Breed by Eugene Sledge or Helmet for my Pillow by Robert Lecke? Add those to your lists. Damn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
