Comment Re:Gruberology (Score 1) 36
But I guess that would offend your Holy Narrative, so don't let facts trigger fretting.
do you want me to follow him around with a video camera 24x7 for the next ~16 months (until he launches his presidential campaign) to see if he commits a charitable act?
You, sir, are a man of creepy obsessions.
Considering your support for things as they are
Wait, I thought I wanted to roll things back to pre-Civil War times? Would you please give me consistent policy orders, sir?
You putting any chips on martial law yet? You never know, man. He just might charm the country into wanting it.
No.
Marx wanted to see the people who actually do things receive a better part of the pie and a better chance at their own destiny.
tl;dr: capitalism.
Marx's opposition in regards to private property lied in its runaway accumulation and how it aided in the oppression of workers, but he did not oppose private property on its own.
To ask such a binary question is absurd, really.
We're dancing around who owns the definition of "runaway accumulation". And it's not an absurd question. As this country has drifted in the collectivist direction, the system has been increasingly set against traditional private property notions. It would be silly to call the SCOTUS "Marxist", but I'd say that the overlap in the thinking between the two is slowly increasing. The idea that there is any federal basis for screwing around with individual education, housing, health care, retirement, &c is totally due to the Progressives.
The people own the means of production.
Yeah, yeah, yeah: but on the planet where the sun rises in the East, how do you instantiate this ownership, except via the state?
Property and means of production are not the same.
One may be a subset of the other, but AFTQ: was Marx for or against private property?
Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. -- Ambrose Bierce