If you give a Marxist a dime...

[PoliticalChic]

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Thomas Jefferson.

But after all these comes the most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the aske of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.
Equality: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

Unlike you, those of us who have actually studied Jefferson recognize that, like the Bible, one can advance both sides of any argument with Jefferson's writings.

Stop pretending.

 

[Tehon]

You've never read Marx. Why pretend?

You might take a look at this one, too.
10 planks of Communist manifesto
Communist Manifesto 10 Planks

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.



"Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street"
Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street - Shadowproof

And this:

"Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too.Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917(Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately."
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.



Now....what were you saying about 'pretending'?

Now....what were you saying about 'pretending'?

You're still pretending.
This is taken from Karl Marx's critique of the German Socialist party platform.

Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- I

That the workers desire to establish the conditions for co-operative production on a social scale, and first of all on a national scale, in their own country, only means that they are working to revolutionize the present conditions of production, and it has nothing in common with the foundation of co-operative societies with state aid. But as far as the present co-operative societies are concerned, they are of value only insofar as they are the independent creations of the workers and not protégés either of the governments or of the bourgeois.
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- III

Seems I hit a nerve.

I can tell, because you've attempted to ignore direct and dispositive quotes that I provided.



Perhaps you'll learn to be more circumspect in future posts.

Hit a nerve? hardly. The excerpts I posted refute any of your beliefs that Marxism is related to government control of the private sector and wealth redistribution.

Nonsense.

For your edification....when you've dug yourself into a hole....stop digging.

It's in black and white. You can avert your attention but it doesn't go away just because you want it to.

Critique of the Gotha Programme

And it's like I said, you've never read him.

 

[Tehon]

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Thomas Jefferson.

But after all these comes the most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the aske of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.
Equality: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

Unlike you, those of us who have actually studied Jefferson recognize that, like the Bible, one can advance both sides of any argument with Jefferson's writings.

Stop pretending.

So then show me the other side or just shut your yap.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You might take a look at this one, too.
10 planks of Communist manifesto
Communist Manifesto 10 Planks

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.



"Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street"
Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street - Shadowproof

And this:

"Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too.Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917(Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately."
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.



Now....what were you saying about 'pretending'?

Now....what were you saying about 'pretending'?

You're still pretending.
This is taken from Karl Marx's critique of the German Socialist party platform.

Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- I

That the workers desire to establish the conditions for co-operative production on a social scale, and first of all on a national scale, in their own country, only means that they are working to revolutionize the present conditions of production, and it has nothing in common with the foundation of co-operative societies with state aid. But as far as the present co-operative societies are concerned, they are of value only insofar as they are the independent creations of the workers and not protégés either of the governments or of the bourgeois.
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- III

Seems I hit a nerve.

I can tell, because you've attempted to ignore direct and dispositive quotes that I provided.



Perhaps you'll learn to be more circumspect in future posts.

Hit a nerve? hardly. The excerpts I posted refute any of your beliefs that Marxism is related to government control of the private sector and wealth redistribution.

Nonsense.

For your edification....when you've dug yourself into a hole....stop digging.

It's in black and white. You can avert your attention but it doesn't go away just because you want it to.

Critique of the Gotha Programme

And it's like I said, you've never read him.

It's "And, as I said....."

not

"And it's like I said,..."


You need not continue to prove you're a dunce.....we've established it already.


Everything I've posted is true and accurate.....as always.


You: If you were twice as smart, you'd still be stupid.
Can we leave it at that?

 

[DOTR]

just saying. and I'm pretty sure I pay way more taxes than you do.

I'm pretty sure you would be wrong jillianstein. This is the oldest of Internet tropes from liberals, especially liberals of a certain persuasion.
It's probably more that the few shekels you pay just SEEM like a lot more to you.

 

[DOTR]

Republicans are the modern Marxists. They've gone so far right, they've come back around on the left, and they're now indistinguishable from Stalinists.

Democrats are now the true capitalists, the heirs of Adam Smith. Smith pointed out the necessity of progressive taxation and tight regulation of capitalism, lest it devolve into cronyism and monopolies. Under Republican policies, croneyism, monopolies and the gradual destruction of capitalism are what we've gotten.

You have never read Adam Smith. Why pretend?

You've never read Marx. Why pretend?

I didn't. Marx is toilet paper not worth reading.

 

[DOTR]

All those military escapades don't come cheap.

our founders warned about standing armies....that was one reason that they wanted an armed populance

Our founding fathers also banned income tax and redistribution.
And we got along fine.

 

[DOTR]

....or the 100 million men, women and children slaughtered in the name of Marx.

Which is why we oppose you right-wing Stalinists. We won't let you do it again.

Can't stop us. And it's started already.

 

[whitehall]

Aside from the philosophical differences, apparently a Marxist socialist will resort to mass murder if he is disappointed about an election. Case in point a Sanders supporter opens fire on a republican baseball team barely a month ago.

 

[DOTR]

....or the 100 million men, women and children slaughtered in the name of Marx.

Which is why we oppose you right-wing Stalinists. We won't let you do it again.

Stalinists, Nazis, Fascists.....all Leftist's like you.


And, your post is proof of the axiom: To know what the Left is guilty of, watch what they blame the other side for.



Did I mention that you're a moron?

true......the thought process you speak of is extrapolation---they attribute things that are THEIR traits to those they hate

I think it's called "projection" and yes it is part of the mental illness. For instance... leftists will call people to their right Marxists
Don't give up that advantage. They can't help it and it always works to let you know what they really want... or in the case of the lefty posters here... what the Internet told them to want this morning.
When they started saying a year ago" Trump must agree to accept defeat" and "Russians are casting doubt on our election process" then you knew immediately their plan was to cast doubt on the election results. Works every time.

 

[DOTR]

Aside from the philosophical differences, apparently a Marxist socialist will resort to mass murder if he is disappointed about an election. Case in point a Sanders supporter opens fire on a republican baseball team barely a month ago.

That sanders supporter didn't have access to a Gulag system for mass murder and reeducation. So he did what he could was the best Marxist Democrat he could be.

 

[DOTR]

Aside from the philosophical differences, apparently a Marxist socialist will resort to mass murder if he is disappointed about an election. Case in point a Sanders supporter opens fire on a republican baseball team barely a month ago.

What's funny is it wasn't the Republicans who screwed Sanders out of a primary win. It was the DNC and Hillary.

 

[Tehon]

Republicans are the modern Marxists. They've gone so far right, they've come back around on the left, and they're now indistinguishable from Stalinists.

Democrats are now the true capitalists, the heirs of Adam Smith. Smith pointed out the necessity of progressive taxation and tight regulation of capitalism, lest it devolve into cronyism and monopolies. Under Republican policies, croneyism, monopolies and the gradual destruction of capitalism are what we've gotten.

You have never read Adam Smith. Why pretend?

You've never read Marx. Why pretend?

I didn't. Marx is toilet paper not worth reading.

 

[DOTR]

Republicans are the modern Marxists. They've gone so far right, they've come back around on the left, and they're now indistinguishable from Stalinists.

Democrats are now the true capitalists, the heirs of Adam Smith. Smith pointed out the necessity of progressive taxation and tight regulation of capitalism, lest it devolve into cronyism and monopolies. Under Republican policies, croneyism, monopolies and the gradual destruction of capitalism are what we've gotten.

You have never read Adam Smith. Why pretend?

You've never read Marx. Why pretend?

You might take a look at this one, too.
10 planks of Communist manifesto
Communist Manifesto 10 Planks

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.



"Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street"
Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street - Shadowproof

And this:

"Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too.Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917(Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately."
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.



Now....what were you saying about 'pretending'?

Now....what were you saying about 'pretending'?

You're still pretending.
This is taken from Karl Marx's critique of the German Socialist party platform.

Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- I

That the workers desire to establish the conditions for co-operative production on a social scale, and first of all on a national scale, in their own country, only means that they are working to revolutionize the present conditions of production, and it has nothing in common with the foundation of co-operative societies with state aid. But as far as the present co-operative societies are concerned, they are of value only insofar as they are the independent creations of the workers and not protégés either of the governments or of the bourgeois.
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- III

What Marxists say and write and do are different things. They don't come right out and say "we are going to kill 30 million of you goyim, starve anothervthree generation with wackyveconomics, attack Christianity sign friendship pacts with nazis, and cast the world into war. "
No... they say "Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the"....then they start killing.

 

[DOTR]

When was your birthday?

 

[DOTR]

Just as they didn't say (re:first post) "hey let us tax a few people a little bit for this war and then we will soon tax most of the nations wealth and STILL spend way more than we squeeze from you and we will use the money to fund our reelections"

Marxists lie.

 

[DOTR]

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Thomas Jefferson.

But after all these comes the most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the aske of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.
Equality: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

Jefferson speaking of the problems of a landed aristocracy in France. You left that part out. He wasn't speaking of a place which enjoyed freedom.

The above started with

"This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe. The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands..."

 

[DOTR]

The excerpts I posted refute any of your beliefs that Marxism is related to government control of the private sector and wealth redistribution.

Yeah the "excerpts you posted" refute everyone's beliefs. That is what internet excerpts are supposed to do.
However, reality refutes yours. All she has to do is look at the gulags of USSR , reeducation camps of the Maoists and the walls the Marxists built to keep people inside their "workers paradises". Your internet "excerpts" look silly on the killing fields of Cambodia or the prison camps of North Korea or the Cuban boat lift taking thousands to freedom while Castro shouted Marxist jingles through a megaphone.

 

[Tehon]

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Thomas Jefferson.

But after all these comes the most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the aske of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.
Equality: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

Jefferson speaking of the problems of a landed aristocracy in France. You left that part out. He wasn't speaking of a place which enjoyed freedom.

The above started with

"This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe. The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands..."

Jefferson speaking of the problems of a landed aristocracy in France. You left that part out. He wasn't speaking of a place which enjoyed freedom.

It's irrelevant to the point but thanks for your input none the less. It shows you are trying.

 

[PoliticalChic]

All those military escapades don't come cheap.

our founders warned about standing armies....that was one reason that they wanted an armed populance

Our founding fathers also banned income tax and redistribution.
And we got along fine.

Absolutely correct!

1. The Civil War produced the first tax on personal income: the Revenue Act of 1861. Interestingly, it was called an ‘indirect’ tax, defined as taxing an ‘event:’ a tax on the event of receiving income….therefore it didn’t have to be ‘apportioned,’ merely imposed uniformly throughout all areas “not in rebellion.”
   1. The tax was moderately progressive, 3% on all income over $800. This meant that most workers didn’t have to pay any tax. Revenue Act of 1861 - Wikipedia
2. The following year, due to a greater need, Congress increased both the rates and the progressivity. The exemption was lowered to $600 @ 3%, and a new 5% on income over $10,000. This, then was the first “progressive,” not flat tax. The law also imposed a duty on paymasters to deduct and withhold the income tax, and to send the withheld tax to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Revenue Act of 1862 - Wikipedia
   1. After the war exemptions were increased, and rates lowered, and in 1872, the tax was abolished.
   2. But, having had a taste of taking and using free money, politicians passed more than 60 bills designed to reinstate the income tax over the next 20 years. David G. Davies, “United States Taxes and Tax Policy,” p. 22.
3. Socialist, Populist, and Progressive movements paralleled this move, and this desire based on “taxing the rich.” In 1894, the Democrat-controlled Congress passed a bill that included a flat income tax…but part included taxes on income from real estate and personal property, and this triggered a court challenge as a direct tax infracting the Constitution’s apportionment rule,…
   1. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), with a ruling of 5–4, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the unapportioned income taxes on interest, dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they violated the provision that direct taxes be apportioned. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. - Wikipedia.
   2. Interesting decision, since the same principles had been upheld vis-à-vis the 1861 Revenue Act…. Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881),[1] was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the Federal income tax imposed under the Revenue Act of 1864. Springer v. United States - Wikipedia

1. The Progressives were horrified! They had been focused on forcing the “money class” to pay “in proportion to their ability to pay…’ which, essentially was the first half of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs - Wikipedia
   1. The Progressives launched a campaign designed to reverse this decision, and that culminated with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, in 1913.