When is it ok to hate someone for their politics?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If capitalist liberals are said to be different than communist Marxists, it is 'split[ing]... leftist hairs'

Imran, the basic fault line is thinking in terms of "class warfare." Such thinking presupposes permanent classes based on privilege and oppression.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And?

You have no clue what Marxism is, do you?

And I tell you what, Bill Clinton didn't think in terms of "class warfare", so where are you getting this from? The usual place, your ass?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


Imran, the basic fault line is thinking in terms of "class warfare." Such thinking presupposes permanent classes based on privilege and oppression.

So your culturally based "permanent divisions" are better than ideas of econmically based "permanent divisions"?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And?

You have no clue what Marxism is, do you?

Wait, just wait a minute....did you seriously ask this of Ned?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And?

You have no clue what Marxism is, do you?

And I tell you what, Bill Clinton didn't think in terms of "class warfare", so where are you getting this from? The usual place, your ass?

That kind of response is what I call splitting hairs. That socialism and the so-called social contract preceded Marx is largely irrrelevant. He wrote the Communist Manifesto, which is the Bible of the Left. True, most of the left no longer calls for "violent overthrow" and "dictatorship of the proletariat." But the solutions to how to deal with wealth distinctions are there.

The basics are steeply progressive tax income taxes, inheritance tax, undermining private property rights, state monopolies of the means of production, hostility to religion and the institution of marriage.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


So your culturally based "permanent divisions" are better than ideas of econmically based "permanent divisions"?

There are no permanent divisions in a free society. Marxist thinking is archaic. It applies to a world that no longer exists, at least in the West: a world of legal privilege for the elite.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Wait, just wait a minute....did you seriously ask this of Ned?

GePap, then define Marxism for us, please.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned



There are no permanent divisions in a free society. Marxist thinking is archaic. It applies to a world that no longer exists, at least in the West: a world of legal privilege for the elite.

You are always so darn funny, specailly when you don't try.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


GePap, then define Marxism for us, please.

You mean for you, right? Cause I think most other people in this discussion have a relative grasp of the notion.

And since you are immune to information (great immunity to have in apolyton), I will not waste the time typing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That kind of response is what I call splitting hairs.

Damn... I guess that means that saying there is a difference between capitalist right wingers like Bill Frist and capitalist moderate leftists like Even Bayh is 'splitting hairs'.

Then again, to a Friedman or Hayek-ist Libertarian, it may be (which is why we ignore them on this point ).

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


You mean for you, right? Cause I think most other people in this discussion have a relative grasp of the notion.

And since you are immune to information (great immunity to have in apolyton), I will not waste the time typing.

GePap, of course you respond to a somewhat serious discussion with a know-it-all series of insults so common to you and to the left.

[Ned]

BTW, Imran, "class warfare" is a short-hand way of describing the essence of "dialectic materialism."

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


GePap, of course you respond to a somewhat serious discussion with a know-it-all series of insults so common to you and to the left.

A serious discussion is one in which both sides provide reasoned arguements and are willing and able to acknowledge valid points made by the other side.

They rarely begin from polemics. All I have seen from you lately are polemics, BAMs, and opinions.

I am open to a serious discussion, if the other side (ie. you), were willing or capable of it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

That kind of response is what I call splitting hairs.

Damn... I guess that means that saying there is a difference between capitalist right wingers like Bill Frist and capitalist moderate leftists like Even Bayh is 'splitting hairs'.

Then again, to a Friedman or Hayek-ist Libertarian, it may be (which is why we ignore them on this point ).

Capitalist?

I suspect each of these gentlemen rather are free traders. Capitalism is the result of free trade. The ideology that supports it is individualism, the rights of man. People who believe in individualism believe in freedom, that legitimate government is based on consent, and the abuses of freedom are dealt with by the rule of law.

So, in truth, I suspect that there are practically no differences between Bayh and Frist except party label.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


A serious discussion is one in which both sides provide reasoned arguements and are willing and able to acknowledge valid points made by the other side.

They rarely begin from polemics. All I have seen from you lately are polemics, BAMs, and opinions.

I am open to a serious discussion, if the other side (ie. you), were willing or capable of it.

I seriously doubt it, GePap. But go ahead and make any points you want on this topic.

For example, explain to me why Marxism has nothing to do with Class Warfar, if you can.