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]

Wrong - nobody gave Saddam the green light.

[luagha.livejournal.com]

Do a websearch on 'April Glaspie.' She was the US Ambassador who was called in and felt out by Saddam Hussein.

If you read the transcript from the New York Times, Saddam (with his interpreter) gets her to say, "But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." (she says, referring to the brewing, ginned-up conflict that Saddam was working on against Kuwait at the time.)

That's what I and scads of historians refer to as the 'green light' given by a stupid US Ambassador. No, it did not go to the president, or the congress, or anyone like that. It was Saddam feeling out the US Ambassador for her response on the situation. When he heard that the US response would be 'oh, it's just arabs fighting arabs,' he went for it.

It's a quick websearch, go for it.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

Since when does a "border disagreement" justify a full-on invasion?

[luagha.livejournal.com]

Like I said; she is commonly held to have misread the situation; and he took her words as far far more permission than they were meant.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

Saddam's misread does not a "green light" make.

[luagha.livejournal.com]

You are just really struggling to have to be right on something.

Everyone knows she said something dumb.

Saddam, like a badly trained dog, pushed the supposed 'permission' he received way too far.

We learned a lesson about what to say to aggressive middle eastern dictators when they ask us certain questions.

Why are you choosing to misunderstand for a pointless point?

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

Because saying "we have no position on a border dispute" is a thousand miles from "go ahead and invade the whole country."

Remind me not to ask you to "bring me a sandwich and step on it." I'd probably get a sandwich with your footprint on it.

[luagha.livejournal.com]

And that, I think, is the key that people are trying to get through to you. You need an understanding of realism. In the real world, real people do not necessarily think the way you do. You still think it's okay to have said, "We have no position in a border dispute," even knowing with hindsight the way Saddam took it. You refuse to learn the lesson.

I strongly advise the book 'Please Understand Me' by David Kiersey.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

Yes, it is okay to say "we have no position" because only an idiot would take that to mean "go ahead and invade."

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Surely Tariq Aziz misread the situation and reported back what he thought would happen?

But even so, globally, at any time, there are lots of little territorial disputes going on and for them, the threat of nukes doesn't seem to make much of an impact. Hell, if that were the real case the Indian/Pakistan border would be the most peaceful place on earth...

Nukes have been superb in protecting us from other nukes held by "real" nations and I think that they have a strong role for that moving forward.

I don't think that nukes are any deterrent to terrorists, anymore than the death penalty deters people determined to murder others.