Posted on 08/01/2005 1:48:30 PM PDT by txgirl4Bush
LOL. I think you're right. It works with property taxes when they are not included in your mortgage payments. Those (insert bad words here) goernment officials sure are good at hiding their activities.
Duh...goernment = government.
I think Adam Smith had it right. Position in class has nothing to do with happiness, yet people perceive it that way and will attempt to move up in class.
The contradiction of the bourgeois is in holding power with limiting bloodshed as a principle, first for sensible moral reasons, but later on as a phobia of blood and money shed that contradicts Christ's work on the cross.
Thus while the Proletaria is gradualy calling for bloodshed for his or her own welfare, the bourgeois is gradualy bending over backward (or forward!) to avoid it and make it unPC. Attempts at pacifying the US proletariat through liberal bourgeois policies against the shedding of blood have been like AIDS cocktails: the disease spreads while subdued in impotence for now, the low potency making its spread in fact more acceptable, with Americans throughout society becoming more and more irresponsible at all levels..
Note also that while the bourgeois withhold bloodshed even more, the Proletariat seem to encourage it, with the MSM supporting implicitly terrorists during attacks on fundamental US structures and calls for lack of blood. Worse the bourgeois becomes stingy. RINOs pop left and right, being conservative only because it helps them enrich themselves, look more "appropriate" (to use Judge Greer's strange style obsessions) and "conserve" themselves from auto destruction and needless spending.
Worse, Christians believing in self sacrifice are loped together with Proletarians, getting even more burden of proof for their religion with the concerted attack of proletarians and the selfish disregard new conservatives have dor them (illegal immigrants are not called vigilante).
Thus the bourgeois has power but refuse to assuming in its bloodshed necessities, voting for zero tolerance policies against any hard thought or work on guns and what not. The bourgeois is indeed in a state of contradiction, brought in part by its proletarianization, yet also in part to distance itself from it.
Thus while the enemy now has a tendency to vote for bloodshed of innocent, the bourgeois votes against bloodshed volunteered for consolidating their own structures (hard work, self defense etc).
If you add all state, local, federal taxes and include health insurance premiums which subsidize everyone that does not pay - and then include mandatory car insurance that is also a means of wealth redistribution, you have the govt controlling 60-70% of the economy.
Does not sound like capitalism to me.
"Here's what Karl Marx did: he gave totalitarians a great story line to enslave people."
You got that right and his usefull idiots are still busy at work - the left won't be happy until they have ruined everything that made this country great.
A gross oversimplification. K.C. Burke has already dealt with the origins of that much-misunderstood term "proletariat," and the bourgeoisie weren't actually the "wealthy ruling class" but a beneficiary of that class that was the principal obstacle, in Marx's view, to the accession of the proletariat to power.
That does not invalidate the author's claims, but it does make it seem that he hasn't done the homework necessary to really understand the enemy.
The real reason that the Marx of the Manifesto was not the same as that of Capital is that in the intervening 20 years much that was grandly predicted in the former never came to pass. The proletariat - the real one in Germany - faded away. It did NOT experience increasing poverty, increasing illiteracy, increasing unemployment and "alientation." By the time that Marx died this "imminent" development had been put off first years, then decades, and now resides in some mythical future toward which all good little Marxists are supposed to work.
Losers.
Good post!
At the start of WWI all the good Marxist Socialist parties of Europe were caught up in nationalistic fervor.
Marx's theories require a totalitarian, utopian society, because it looks on man as being a hive creature, no different than a worker ant or bee. And if you don't want to participate in the utopia, you must be eliminated.
Mark
Please define Fee Simple for me . If it is your property,why is it taxed ecery year.
bttt
I won't comment negatively on Marx. There are some about who might be upset so as to lose their composure.
One thing that rarely comes up in discussions abou Marx is that he was such a complete loser, never worked, never did anything, except blame society for his supreme loserness.
He was relentless,hopeless depair.
His anti-God, anti-capitalist
Anti-society,anti-anything good
antitheticalness derived from
relentless misery.
His solution? Get a job?
No. Heh.
To fix the mess that he was,merely the entire society needed to be reformed.
Take away the winners , voila...no more losers. Like him.
*****
Anyone that starts on this, just start mentioning names.
Names you know. Famous is okay, but personal will wake em up.
Your Grandfather. Both Grandfathers. Your uncle who got his arm blowed off in Nam, and well he got a house on a lake and a nice boat...
My father for example, started with squat, ended up pretty good, anyone give anything to your family?
Invariably they will know an example of someone who got it done, someone they are proud to know. Someone they secretly fear is much better than them. Well they can do it too.
Use this to get on message that it is attitude and hard work. Attitude and hard work.
They will nod in agreement, it never fails.
Then buy em a beer. Ya know? Hope and faith and a positive attitude will just knock em out. They will get it by osmosis.
Can't fail.
Read a little, when you have the opportunity, about Cordell Hull.
worth reading - thanks
Mostly because he wasn't actually a economist, but a philospher who thought of himself as an economist.
Ironically, he wasn't even the smarter of the duo (the other being Engels).
He stole some previous writings from others, through his own spin on it, daydreamed, and created what essentially is just class warfare rhetoric.
The chinese communists (Mao in particular) read his stuff, knew he was a crackpot, and deviated from it but still imposed harsh and brutal results and methods that were still insane.
Maos version of communism, while still tragic in its effects, did deviate from tradional marxism while still maintaining its communist identity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.