Posted on 06/26/2009 6:06:58 PM PDT by SERKIT
Definition of Marxism
Vic Biorseth, http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com
Definition of Marxism: The economic, social, political, pseudo-scientific philosophy, theory, belief, or system based on the works of Karl Marx of Germany. The theory seeks the elimination of the notion of private property in order to gain control of the economic "means of production" by taking it from the bourgeois (the wealthy or propertied class) for the benefit of the proletariat (working class.) His philosophy of history was called "historical materialism" in which his goal was to bring about the end of history, by means of an eventual perfect, classless, utopian society he called Communism.
Marxist notions of collectivization and redistribution of the property of the bourgeois puts it on a collision course with the economic philosophy of Capitalism and free markets, and also with the social-governmental philosophies related to Democracy, in the oldest, pre-Marxism sense of that word.
Marxism seeks to promote class warfare or, today, at least, class strife, and succeeds best where clear, major delineations exist between classes. Since the USA has an enormous natural "middle class" and little or no obvious delineation between classes, Marxism has only made inroads there among the SLIMC, which represents a very small but vocal minority that has a very high visibility, and a lot of influence. At the moment, the majority still rules in the USA. (Except when representative law is overruled and when new unrepresentative law is established by the unrepresentative courts.)
(Excerpt) Read more at thinking-catholic-strategic-center.com ...
A simple analogy
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that.
AMEN!
This appears to be what our current leaders are pushing fast and furious for ... socialism. Pass this around. Those who don’t understand what’s happening in our country right now need to read this!
Either way we are screwed!
The classroom story is perfect!
bookmark
Very good analogy. Thanks for posting it.
On her return visits to the States, she would tell me stories of Russians she knew. A common theme emerged. These were bright, capable people whose primary satisfaction came from pretending to work for the state, while actually doing as little as possible. There was no striving for excellence, no pride of accomplishment, no striving to build a good reputation, no "be all you can be." For these Russians, success meant being able to say "Look how little I got away with doing today! Fooled the boss again!"
What a way to live.
You are describing the Transportation Security Administration, or the AFL-CIO.
Great analogy! A great way to explain to the public school educated younger generation.
The standing joke was: "we pretend to work; and they pretend to pay us..."
Explanations of communism can get very tedious and convoluted. This one neglected the single defining characteristic that I relate to most concretely — communism’s view of human nature 1) denies original sin and fundamental human rebellion; and 2) asserts that people are born LOVING work; if left alone, they’ll all just work away and whistle while they do it.
Surprising the article did not mention these fatal flaws.
With obvious flaws like that, the theory had no chance in practice; hence the abject failure when tried.
Yes, I heard that. The joke is too close to the truth.
Don't just blame the leaders ... the mood is pervasive throughout the country. For example, the UAW would not agree to concessions to help GM's shareholders (Hey, they don't need those dividends, and we actually worked for it!)
Meanwhile, listen to the lyrics of John Rich's new song Shutting Detroit Down. It is getting lots of airplay even here in the Red States.
Everyone wants to blame the 'shareholders' or the 'boss-man'. Do they not realize that these people are the 'propertied-class' that Karl Marx so despised? As for myself, I scrimped and saved to become a 'propertied-class' person only to see these guys come in and claim it for their own.
Just call me 'John Galt'.
bfl
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.