Karl Marx

Remove all ads!

America has discovered Karl Marx. For most of the last 50 years, Professor Marx has had to linger in obscurity, a fate of many important historical figures in America, but mostly because Karl was in the shadow of his "little brother," Joe Stalin. Joe was that large granite figure, looming behind the Iron Curtain, from which he menaced the Free World and was the cause of numerous Russian missles pointed at almost everyone else on the planet - the state of "Russian paronia" not withstanding to scrutiny.

But with the election of Barack Obama, Marx was discovered by the political pundits of AM talk radio as an imporant historical figure, looming at us now from behind the iron fence our very own White House, and menacing our pretend system of capitalism and the free market. And while he can be no threat to either capitalism or the free market, he just might blow the lid off the phony reality that we have neither. Unintended consquences, you see, happen where you least expect them.

Any good Corporatist who is worth his/her weight in rhetorical hackery will tell you that we now have a servant of the Big borther of Maxism and Communism at the levers of the presidency; no the very namesake of Marxism itself! How lucky for Professor Karl to discover such a commanding reputation in the USA. Perhaps he may even get his own reality TV show. Can the learned German professor and historian replace the uneducated low-lifes from "Jersey Shore" in the hearts and minds of Americans? Fat chance. Is guido a Marxist? I don't THINK SO.

But Marx looked closely at a repeating circumstance of history: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." The Founders of the United States and the instigators of the American Revolution (later helping the Revolution to extend to France) saw the same thing, but did not see it in the problem of economics, but in political rights; that the class struggles of history emerged from a lack of political rights, or basic liberties. And so they designed a politcial system by which those rights could be protected and more fully realized (that these rights were self-evident). The Founders despised both the monarchy and the aristocracy (where wealth and power were concentrated at the expense of the "average" citizen). And it only made sense that the liberties in our political lives, should be extended to economic matters as well. A system of free markets and competition suited them and their new republic just fine. So far, so good.

Enter Marx, our villain, who claimed that the Founder's solution was no solution at all, but was likely to be creating much the same class struggle as the previous system of aristocracy, that the republic, now growing into a democracy by Marx's time, was designed to remedy. Everyone is a critic. Maybe he should have his own talk radio program.

His solution was "less" liberty, something called "the dictatorship of the proletariat." I said he was a villain, didn't I? He claimed that the loss of liberty was "temporary." R-I-G-H-T. And we know how that usually works out in a dictatorship, Karl. The recent historical record shows that the dictatorship of the proletariat gives way to -- democratic principles and the free market. See? The Founders knew what they were talking about all along. No reality TV for you, Sucka.

It was important for me to cover this ground about Marx that everyone is already familiar with to make my point, the real issue here: Barack Obama, that "servant of Marx." We had an election in this country. Guess who won. The Founders gave Americans the choice of what THEY want as government. That's called liberty as the notion of "representative government." Barack was elected for a reason, for change. Whether or not he can deliver on that change will determine if he gets another chance in 2012, and if his party stays in power. That's how the Founders intended it. That is NOT what Karl Marx intended.

Marx claimed that the middle and lower classes, the working classes, are exploited by the rich in capitalism. That can only happen with a loss of liberty. Once the rich, the "capitalists" take over the levers of government, then there is a threat to liberty, and to the interests of the working classes - and dare I say, the American people. We saw this with the bailouts, when people on "Main Street" wondered where their bailouts were. But Obama is just being a good corporatist - he is putting the interests of corporate America over mainstream America. In a free market, in real capitalsim, if I, as an investor I walk into save a failing company, with my money, what does that make me? A good Samaritan? Hell no, an investor - a business partner; that's what it makes me. Even a good corporatist should argue that. Well? No?

I mean, isn't Barck taking money from MainStreet to give to coporate America? Isn't he "redistributing" wealth? Taking it from the poor and middle-classes and giving it to the rich - to the fat cats on Wall Street? Wait, is he really a Marxist? redistributing wealth and all?

Well, if I exercise my LIBERTY and I vote for my interest, as a middle-class voter, for say, better health care, a better retirement, a better education, that makes me a Marxist? Right? Wow. If Citi Corp gets money from the taxpayers, then they are Marxist (how else could they keep their name on the stadium in New York?). And if the government spends money on any of us, that makes it a Marxist as well. With all the Marxists running around these days, I still wonder why Professor Marx doesn't have his own reality TV show. Too bad for him.

 

I prefer Groucho myself.

 

I don't understand why the first half of your post was necessary, and I fail to see what you're driving at overall. Your posts are usually very well thought-out, so maybe I'm just being unintentionally dense. Lots of people call Obama a Marxist as an insult, and some few probably believe it. That proves what exactly? It's not like they voted for him in the first place anyway.

 

Chandos, I would pay good money to see you dress up as old Karl and host a television show!

I think what Chandos was driving at was that some people throw around the term "Marxist" when they barely graduated tenth grade civics. They have no idea what the man really said, believed or advocated -- they just use the term as an ad hominem assault on anyone who they disagree with (or think they should disagree with*) I'm not usually an elitist but in this regard I am -- people should have a pretty good handle on an adjective before they start throwing it around. It's why I don't go around calling people Maoists -- I admit that I don't know enough about the good Chairman to make that evaluation.

*and what I mean by that is people often actually have a lot more in common with another fellow, but because that person is black, or a Democrat, or White, or Mormon, opr whatever, they are so busy calling that person names they don;t actually listen to the guy long enough to find out that they actually have frigging common ground!

 

Because I had to lay down some foundation of what Marx actually said, and how with the election of Obama the term is being used. I don't recall another politician being called a Marxist, at least not on a regular basis.

I think it is ironic that when people act within their own self-interest, at least these days, they are labled as 'Marxists" - for instance the debate on health care, or the corporate bailouts. You are right, Aldeth, none of this IS Marxist, it's just an insult. Yet, the Tea potters have pointed their banners at the term, using it as a political battle cry. In that sense, it becomes much larger than just an "insult" as you suggeset. It becomes a rallying cry.

But Karl Marx is a real person, who attempted to answer serious questions. And Marxism is a real historical and social term. How these terms are used in the media is worth exploring.

LKD - Yes. And thank you.

I suspected you of being a closet Marxist, T2. But more the Zeppo type.

 

OK, my view of socialism is that if it is not balanced by decency and morality, it ends up taking too much from the "haves" and giving it to the "have-nots". In some (not all) cases, the haves are hardworking individuals and the have - nots are have nots because they are lazy, shiftless buggers. But there are also have nots who are that way because of circumstances not under their control. With me so far?

What scares me is the thought of working my butt off and then having the government come and take the fruits of my labours and give it to the druggie down the street. I don't mind paying my fair share, but I don't want to pay too much.

My question is this: Is Barack Obama advocating policies that take away too much from the "haves" -- defined by me as the hardworking middle class -- and giving to the undeserving have nots?

 

I agree - most people who talk about Obama being a Marxist actually know what a Marxist is, possibly beyond that it has something to do with Communism. And accusations are common for people in political office. The thing that is different this time, is that you usually only see this level of vitriol taking place during political campaigns, and even then it's usually 527 ads. Are politicians in constant "campaign mode" at this point?

I guess the divergence of opinion is that I don't take the Tea Potters seriously. They are people who NEVER supported Obama and most certainly voted for McCain in 2008. Anyone who hates Obama that much is someone he cannot win over. They will vote for whomever the Republicans nominate in 2012. Why I can see how it can become a rallying cry, I think the people they will rally are people who wouldn't have supported Obama anyway.

EDIT: (LKD posted as I was typing)

What has Obama taken (or even proposed to take) from the hardworking middle class? He gave them a tax break! I have criticisms of Obama, but they mostly center on what he has NOT done, not what he has done.

 

Marx didn't really advocate anything, he was trying to foretell the future by looking at history. He saw communism as something that would inevitable happen when the working class got fed up by being exploited. Thankfully or sadly depending on your point of view the "capitalists" caught on to where the wind was blewing in most of the world and allowed enough reforms to even out the most glaring differences between classes to stop a revolution in Western Europe and North America.

The dictatorship of the proletariat was supposed to be a regrettable nescessity as the proletariat were kept too ignorant by the capitalist to organise a revolution and a society as a mass but needed to be led during a transient period by an "enlightened elite" and of course as we know this is where all attempts at socialism, marxism, communism or whatever you want to call it got stuck. Partly because the inherent inability of people to give up power but probably also because Marx underestimated the will of the common man to be free and equal and to share. Even if a poor man might think it is fair if a rich man shares his wealth with him he probably do not think it is very fair if he has to share what little he has with someone who has even less.

 

I'm usually not a straight man.

As far as Marx, generally the current definition of the term 'middle class' is counter to the basics of the ideas Marx presented. He did not anticipate the rise of a middle class -- he thought of it as a petite bourgeoisie which would be gobbled up by capitalism as the small business owner could not compete with large corporations. We know this to be a flawed premise in his work -- capitalism actually made the middle class much stronger as it started to incorporate professionals necessary for capitalistic growth.

Just a nick-picky point -- the rich would not exploit the middle class only the working (or lower) class and the middle class was in an 'almost rich' category which would simply go away.

I also think Marx did not believe the "American experiment" would last very long. Giving the working class the power to vote is quite contrary to many of the assumptions he made -- either that or he simply assumed the working class would not be able to make reasonable decisions in choosing leaders (those leaders actually being pawns of the elite). Which could be true to some extent.

I really don't give much credibility to anyone spouting 'Marxist' as a slur.

 

Usually? You flop flop between straight and gay?

How about a quiz show?

 

...so that's why you picked a muscular, half naked avatar.



EDIT: Yes, yes, I'm well aware of the fact that this is a pot meets kettle moment, but I couldn't resist.

 

I also found your initial post a little rambling, Chandos. I wasn't sure if you were giving us a history lesson, complaining about the modern conservative pundits, or complaining about Obama. Maybe all three?

Anyway, like others, I don't take anyone seriously who calls Obama a Marxist. I think, however, that I know where the root of this confusion is. The typical Democratic platform for decades has been one of wellfare, one of 'helping out the underpriveledged'. This can often look like some form of marxism, socialism, or communism. After all, you're taxing the rich and giving money to the poor. That's the definition of Robin Hoo... I mean, communism, isn't it? Well, no, actually, it's just a modern manifestation of panem et circenses. The modern colloseum is Two and a Half Men (oh, how it's fallen) and the modern bread line is the wellfare check.

Mind you, I don't think the Republicans are doing any better. They're all but trying to re-instate the aristocracy. Actually, the Dems have a bit of that air, too.

As for the current fervor, it is indeed campaign fervor. I think it started under Clinton, probably with the circus that was his impeachment. Then the Dems reacted under Bush, releasing a constant salvo of fire at him for anything and everything (and often things that were inaccurate or stretched). Now the Republicans are responding to that with Obama. As with any fight, the intensity get's ramped up after every salvo. I'm just waiting for someone to come along, put the two parties in seperate corners, and let the polite third parties who've been waiting quietly this whole time play with the toys... er, government.

 

Speaking of rambling posts....

First, you claim that the democratic platform has been "one of welfare." Can you prove that? For instance, I believe that one of the planks in the Republican platform is about welfare as well - for the overpriveledged: Tax cuts for business, tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts on capital gains. And then there is coporate welfare, and both parties are actively engaged in this form of welfare, equally.

Which one? Or are you leaving me to guess, which one you mean?

Not really.

Again, not really.

A "Marxist" is someone who believes that Karl Marx was right. To delvelop a real, valid argument, one has to prove that Obama believes that Marx was right. There have been many accusations of Obama being a Marxist, recently, but no one has taken the time to prove just HOW he is a Marxist. Yet, before Obama, so called "liberals" were often compared to Stalin. They used the looming figure of Stalin to project that liberals/progressives were "communists." I've been a "victim" of this myself, and I think it's more amusing than insulting (hence, the "RED" in Chandos the Red).

The interesting thing here is now that there is no more Cold War, they switched from Stalin to Marx as the bogeyman to whip-up hystria among those who don't know any better. Stalin seems to have lost his groove, while Marx seems to be the hot button for the oppostition. I found that a rather odd transition, considering that Marx is hardly a threatening figure in history, yet Stalin was. Nevertheless, in order to prove that Obama was not a Marxist, I had to first define what a Marxist was, hence the beginning of my post - by constructing Karl Marx, I was able to (at least I believe) deconstuct the notion that Obama is a Marxist. He's just a corporatist - but I'm still not sure which one is worse....

 

Umm, no:

Since those corporate fat-cats aren't in need and they aren't promothing the basic well-being of them, I don't think that's welfare. That's just the Republican 'trickle down' theory of economics (for all it's worth).

Yeah, that was kind of the point. I was poking fun at how loosely the terms are used today, thus the following 'Well, no...'.

Here I have to disagree with your conclusion, but since you didn't show any logic, I have nothing to disagree with. Could you tell me how you came to that 'not really' conclusion?

Ok, so you were doing all three. That's probably why it seemed a little rambling.

 

Your lack of any logic and knowledge left me no choice except a flat answer. If you care to explain how you arrived at this faulty conclusion, I would be glad to respond. There is nothng that I have seen that indicates that the "Democratic Platform" is about welfare. Unless, you are speaking of the "general welfare of the public." In that case I agree - sort of.

Ummm, Yes.

You can make up any definition you want; I can still play your silly game: Democrats have a theory of "trickle up" economics and by paying money to the poor, who will go out and spend it on goods and services, that in turn generates even more income for business and the rich. And as a reslut of the increase in consumer spending creates jobs for the working class.

Of course, Demcratics would rather provide more welfare for corporations, just like Republicans. But that is a little different than "welfare" for the rich.

Why is that?

 

Hmm, point.

The dems have been the champion of welfare for years, be it gov't assisted housing, government loans for college, welfare checks, free cell-phone service, or whatever. All has been intended to provide the poor with more resources and more chances. Some is good, some is understandable but ill-considered, and some is just bad ideas. I think every Democratic candidate I've heard has promised to tax the rich more and give more government aid to the poor.

Mind you, I'm not making this as an overall criticism of the Dems, I'm just pointing out a standard platform. Some of it has been good, some has been bad. Just like the Reps and their approach to economics, sometimes helping the corporations really does trickle down to the lower classes, but sometimes it doesn't, and some of the ideas put forth to promote it are just plain stupid.

Chandos, that wasn't a definition I made up. That was Wikipedia's definition, and it matches the rest I've seen. Welfare is for those in need. If they're not in need, it isn't welfare, it's just giving.

That may be, and it may even work, but it's still welfare.

Just because it seemed to bounce around topics a lot. You went from a history lesson (one topic), to criticism of conservative pundits (another topic, but an understandable transition), to a criticism of they're target: Obama (another topic, and not really expected considering you were just defending him). It made the whole thing seem a little busy.

 

Of course it was busy! Chandos is a busy guy! That's why I love him, in a manly, straight, purely heterosexual way!

I asked for any evidence that Obama was unfairly taxing the wealthy and giving too much to the undeserving. No one provided me with any. This leads me to conclude that he is not doing this. Ergo, even under the broadest definitions of "socialist", "communist", or "Marxist", Obama is none of the above, according to the data I currently have. As Aldeth cogently pointed out, Obama actually gave the middle class a tax break!

Which leads me to be further entrenched in the belief that the people criticizing Obama are doing nothing more than going through partisan motions and have little of real substance to add to the debate on what to do in the current economic situation.

 

LKD, qualify that as people criticizing Obama as a Marxist, and I agree 100%. Sorry, but I'm a stickler for that stuff. I'm sure you didn't intend to generalize to all criticism, but I want to make sure.

 

To me, all the "socialist" stuff levelled at Obama requires some serious documentation. It implies that he represents a drastic detparture from capitalism to socialism. I have yet to see any evidence that Obama is starting to re-vamp American society in an anti-capitalist manner. He isn't doing anything else that other politicians have done.