Marxist?

[chris_gerrib]

My favorite libertarian posted on Friday an article to the effect of anything not libertarian is Marxist. "Anything" as in "minimum wage" or a progressive tax code. Needless to say, I disagree with this theory. It took me a while - basically the time to drive downstate to my parents house - to figure out how to coherently express my disagreement. My objection to Rand’s article is that it's is historically illiterate. See, Marx didn’t develop his ideas in a vacuum.

When Marx was doing his thinking, he was living in an era with no minimum wage, no income tax, no old-age pension, no real labor laws and poorhouses for the bankrupt. It was, in short, exactly the sort of libertarian world Rand wants. Unless one was a white Anglo-Saxon male with money, life was less than good.

Now, Rand may say “but that’s corporatism" or some other abuse of libertarianism. That’s like a Marxist saying “but that’s Stalinism!” Corporatism is what happens when libertarians get control of government, just like Stalinism always follows Marxism. And corporatism sucks so badly that all sorts of mass movements, from anarchists to communists, rise up against it, frequently violently.

So while Marx was coming up with his ideas, other people were coming up with theirs, which included a lot of the progressive ideas like minimum wage, etc. Ideas that didn't involve a key aspect of Marxist thought, namely seizing private property and giving it to the workers. Ideas that, in short, supported capitalism, freedom and the idea that people shouldn't be treated like dogs. Ideas that were even mentioned in the comments to Rand's article, such as bankruptcy laws and requiring people to be paid in legal tender.

See, these are progressive ideas. After all, bankruptcy is by definition theft – the defaulter steals value from the creditor(s). Requiring people to be paid in real money is interfering with the free market. After all, why shouldn’t two people be allowed to agree on an alternative means of payment or a “trade” of labor for services?

Progressives, looking at the problems of industrialized, urbanized life, discovered that setting a floor or a “safety net” on society meant that the poor wouldn’t rise up and kill the rich. This was considered beneficial to all concerned. We can argue about the size and parameters of the safety net, but arguing that the net is “Marxist” is simply wrong.

Comments

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

Except bombers can no longer be expected to fight their way through any reasonable air defense. Even a B-2 will be just a fast platform to launch cruise missiles.

[banner.livejournal.com]

I know a lot of pilots who would disagree with you on that one. Pretty much any guy who drives a military jet, as well as the majority of defense planners. If it was solely about cruise missiles, they'd be converting DC-10's to cruise missile carriers.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Also note, pursuant to your point, that the bomber can launch from much closer to its target than can the land base or submarine. Hence, its missiles don't have to be as long-ranged.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Except bombers can no longer be expected to fight their way through any reasonable air defense. Even a B-2 will be just a fast platform to launch cruise missiles.

First of all, bombers have repeatedly fought their way through all sorts of air defenses. The general tactics for doing so without taking heavy losses are to (1) initially use Stealth or Wild Weasel attacks to knock down the air defenses, and (2) make as much use of standoff munitions as possible to engage the air defenses, and what they are protecting, without allowing the air defenses a shot at the bombers.

Secondly, you seem to be implying that a bomber launching standoff munitions ("cruise missiles," in your terminology, though it's not all what you're probably thinking of as "cruise missiles") is somehow not really functioning as a "bomber" at all and hence is being inefficiently utilized. There is nothing about the role of a bomber which implies that it must only attack by dropping unpowered bombs on a target.

Thirdly, I think that you believe that cruise missiles can as easily be launched by something other than a bomber at no disadvantage. This is very much untrue, since a bomber has the major advantage over any other platform that its direction of attack is highly flexible -- it need not strike from (predictably bearing) land bases or a known body of water. It may fly to (almost) whatever angle it wants from the target and launch its missiles; consequently, the problem of air defense against its missile attack is rendered greatly more difficult.

Finally, the advantage of a bomber over a mere flying cruise missile transport is that the bomber can actively defend itself through maneuver, and possibly active countermeasures; a transport aircraft attempting the same operations would be in great danger of interception by almost any enemy aircraft outfitted with any sort of air-to-air weapons.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

Jordan, you are missing the point. After we've nuked Moscow or Beijing twice or three times, the subsequent attacks are just bouncing rubble. Overkill on top of overkill accomplishes nothing.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

No, you're missing the point, because the object of having enough firepower to destroy the enemy several times over is being able to destroy the enemy at least once over even after he's carried out a first strike against you. I'm suprised that you would miss this point, given your claimed military history education: it's the basis of "Assured Destruction."

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

Another thing I find frustrating is you assume you are debating idiots. I am aware of mutual assured destruction, second strike and survivability. Even given all that, we have more than enough firepower for China AND Russia now. Besides, bombers are the least survivable leg.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Furthermore, I was talking about the use of strategic bombers to deliver conventional strikes, rather than nuclear ones. Strategic bombers have been used in this role in every medium-sized conflict America has fought since World War II -- specifically, in Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and the current War on Terror. And yes, in the last two named conflicts, they have often struck with standoff munitions.