Hey Lil'MarxistMoonbatTommyTomTomForNews!! You should read this!!
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > *You Just Might Be a Marxist* > > Posted By *Rand Simberg* On October 28, 2010 @ 12:00 am In *Uncategorized*| > *5 > Comments<http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/you-just-might-be-a-marxist/?print=1#comments_controls> > * > > With his new > book<http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2010/10/27/misguided-attack-on-stanley-kurtz/> > [1], Stanley Kurtz has done what the media refused to do — finally vet the > president and his radical past, two years too late to prevent him from > becoming president, but just in time to issue a restraining order on him > next Tuesday. > > Yet people seem to be under the misapprehension that in order to be a > Marxist, one has to be as explicitly so as the president has been with his > deliberate associations with socialist and communist organizations and > individuals. But Marxism isn’t a doctrine so much as an attitude. It is > founded on a couple of key illogical and immoral foundations, which many > people find superficially appealing, human nature being what it is. > > The first is the notion that what people “need” is an objective rather than > subjective notion, which can be determined by benevolent third parties. > After all, if one is going to reorder society and redistribute wealth, it is > only “fair” that people be allowed to get what they “need” before depriving > them of anything beyond that to satisfy the “needs” of others. This concept > is exemplified by the famous phrase: “To each according to his need, from > each according to his ability.” > > But of course, in the real world, the difference between “need” and > “desire” is purely subjective, and varies with the individual and their > degree of self-actualization. At its most basic, there is no “need” for > anything except air, food, and shelter. And such needs can be met in a North > Korean prison. But when someone is lecturing someone else about what they > “need,” what they really mean is that because they don’t perceive a need for > those things, no one else really has one either — whether it’s flat-screen > television, an SUV, a lobster dinner, a second home, or another handgun. > They are perhaps happy to live in a rabbit warren, eat macrobiotic food, and > ride their bicycle to work, and don’t think that anyone else should “need” > more. And of course, since those selfish people don’t really need more, the > rest of their resources are now available to satisfy the unmet “real” needs > of the rest of society. > > The other mythical foundation of Marxism is the labor theory of value, and > its corollary, that “intrinsic” value exists. Like the “need” myth, it is > one of subjectivity versus objectivity. Marxists believe that there is a > knowable objective value for everything, and the very act of work creates > it. That is, if a worker works a certain number of hours, his output is > intrinsically valuable. > > But of course, a little thought reveals this to be nonsense. Nothing has > intrinsic value. Absent a person to value it, nothing has value at all. And > the value of things is entirely subjective. *If it weren’t, no trade would > occur.* Every voluntary exchange occurs because two people have something > to trade, and each person places a higher value on the other person’s object > than their own. If they both valued both equally, there would be no point in > swapping. Even though there is a price denominated in dollars on an item in > a store, that doesn’t mean that’s what it is worth. It won’t move off the > shelves unless its price is lower than its value to some of the customers. > If it is higher than the value to everyone, it will not be sold. > > Both of these notions undermine the logic of the free market, and when they > are implemented into policy and law, as they have been over the past century > or so, the growth of wealth of the nation, and sometimes its absolute value, > is accordingly reduced. And while they are intrinsically Marxist notions, > many hold them who do not consider themselves Marxists. > > So, with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, let me disabuse them of their false > consciousness: > > If you believe, as the president > does<http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/spread-the-weal.html> > [2], that “it’s good for everyone when we spread the wealth around,” you > might be a Marxist. > > If you believe that “the rich” don’t “need” tax rate reductions, you might > be a Marxist. > > If you believe that, at some point, other people have “made enough > money<http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-st-louis/president-obama-knows-when-you-have-earned-enough-money> > [3],” you might be a Marxist. > > If you believe that we have to “keep people in their homes,” even when they > have never had any equity in them, and despite the fact that they can’t > afford the mortgage and the market is not being allowed to clear, then you > might be a Marxist. > > If you believe that there is a floor on the value of everyone’s labor, and > it is a single number applicable in every state of the union, regardless of > the cost of living, then you might be a Marxist. > > If you believe that handing someone who pays no taxes a government check is > a “tax cut,” you might be a Marxist. > > If you believe that the government should pay the “prevailing local wage” > on government projects, you might be both a Marxist and a racist, since > Davis-Bacon was instituted to shut lower-paid minorities out of such > projects. > > If you believe that unemployment checks are the surest, fastest way to > stimulate the > economy<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/01/pelosi-unemployment-checks-best-way-create-jobs/> > [4], you might be a Marxist. > > If you believe that the capital gains tax should be increased, even though > it would result in reduced government revenue, because that’s what is > required for > “fairness<http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_701191.html> > [5],” you might be a Marxist. > > If you believe that you know better than someone else what they “need,” and > are willing to impose your belief on them at gunpoint and force them to > purchase it, and not allow them to purchase things that *they* think they > need, then you just might be a Marxist, too. > ------------------------------ > > Article printed from Pajamas Media: *http://pajamasmedia.com* > > URL to article: *http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/you-just-might-be-a-marxist/ > * > > URLs in this post: > > [1] new book: * > http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2010/10/27/misguided-attack-on-stanley-kurtz/ > * > > [2] as the president does: * > http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/spread-the-weal.html* > > [3] made enough money: * > http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-st-louis/president-obama-knows-when-you-have-earned-enough-money > * > > [4] surest, fastest way to stimulate the economy: * > http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/01/pelosi-unemployment-checks-best-way-create-jobs/ > * > > [5] that’s what is required for “fairness: * > http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_701191.html* > > > > > > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
