I should have written tenets. I don't think Marx's abode was large enough for 10 tenants. I tend to agree. I don't believe Marx relished, looked forward to, or even wanted violence. He just recognized it as necessary, a necessary evil if you will, to achieve his brand new society devoid of any vestiges from the past. Nor do I think Marx necessarily wanted tyranny. However, tyranny is the natural and inevitable end result of his communism. Marx simply ignored man's near insatiable desire -- drive -- for power, and power means control by any means. Marx's thoughts are a recipe for freedom from economic servitude as you contend. It was also a recipe for tyranny even though that was not conscious. I agree. While Marx did not desire violence or want tyranny, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were all in favor. A step higher, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao did not really want enslavement, brutality, and murder. They just viewed all of that as kinda a necessary evil, at least that is what they professed. Stalin is attributed as replying to the question "How long will you keep killing your people" "Only as long as I have to." No, they are not correct. Everyone is born with inalienable rights. Liberty is the freedom to use those rights. So everyone has liberty from birth, and liberty can be lost only by government intervention. The government can put you in prison, or dictate the only type of job you can have, or dictate the only type of abode you can live in or the type of clothes you can wear or what food you can eat, all of which takes away your liberty. You are talking about people having difficulty in exercising their rights. If one is in a controlled economic environment he has difficulty exercising his liberty but he has not lost it. If one is sick he has difficulty exercising his liberty but he hasn't lost it. If one has no transportation he has a little difficulty exercising his liberty but he has not lost it. Ergo one has not lost liberty because he is in some sort of economic servitude or because he has some unfulfilled want. Exceptions I referred to was where the difficulty essentially takes liberty away, a total invalid for example. But this is just a construct. No government dictates that a certain number must lose their jobs because it measured too high inflation. OK, you get your points back.
Speaking of which: is the present violence - let's call it Antifa on Proud Boys violence (since Trump and Biden identified it as such in the debate) - caused by BLM protests (which recently gained support in global protests), degenerating into violence, looting and property damage? If so, what is the cause of the BLM movement? And what of the 'Proud Boys' (who Trump claims not to know about...): "The Proud Boys is a white nationalist hate group that was founded in 2016. The group has been accused of inciting violence during clashes across the United States. Within minutes of Trump's comment, members of the group were posting in private social media channels hailing the president’s words as “historic.” "In one Telegram channel dedicated to the Proud Boys, members claimed the comment was a tacit endorsement of their extreme tactics". I have been claiming the cause of BLM protests (which can descend into violence) is an economic one, as identified by Trump himself in his famous "You are living in poverty, your neighborhoods are like war zones" speech, re inner city black ghettos. Obviously the Proud Boys aren't concerned about black on black violence, only the violence that errupts when white law enforcement officers tasked with managing the violence engage in what is perceived by blacks to be evidence of "white supremacy". My solution: eradicate the ghettos. But the above quote indicates the existence of a genuine white supremacist movement, which will not tolerate any protests by blacks based on conditions in the black ghettos. Which suggests BLM violence DOES have a social as well as an economic basis. Therefore the US must face these realities and work to eradicate the race-based ghettos. The US's image in the world is at stake. China is becoming acutely aware of US hypocrisy re "human rights". (Btw, by general global agreement, the Trump-Biden 'debate' was a total shambles....."aw, that's not fair, he interrupts too..." . It's almost enough to have us all clamoring for governance via a one-party meritocracy.... (note my underlined) Demonstrating the problem faced by all (Marxist) social democrats, namely: self-interested-ness, as opposed to community spirited-ness, is naturally strong in individuals because our 'modern' brain still has vestiges of the prehuman reptilian brain (a relic of evolutionary history), evident in brain physiology, meaning a Marxian desire for socialist cooperation is opposed by competitive survival instincts in individuals. Stalin's comment reveals this excruciating reality in all its horrific force. But Right Wing ideology re 'inalienable right to liberty' fails to understand any of this. Addressed immediately above...your assertions fail to recognize the role of individual survival instincts on the Right's view of such formulations as "inalienable rights". Now you are proving my point; but I don't expect you to see it. The government can also provide for (not merely promote) the common welfare, without doing any of those things you list there. But you have no understanding of modern economics. Government can provide for the common welfare including above poverty minimum standards, either by implementing Marx's plank no 2 (progressive taxation, with 90% rate on incomes above say $1 million, given the vast total wealth in the US - a tax regime which the Right hates - or by accessing the currency-issuing capacity of a sovereign currency issuing government (which few understand at this stage). If you have difficulty in escaping from poverty, you need assistance...and at a societal level, only government can solve this probem; otherwise individuals "having difficulties" AS A SUBSECTION OF SOCIETY are condemned to living in Trump's ghettos (I trust you understand my reference this time). Like I said, we all WANT liberty. Nice attempt at a rational argument, but no cigar... Sickness is an individual calamity; poverty is an eradicable , systemic, economic problem*. (Lepers were once confined to ghettos). * and as we have seen in the US, a social/racial problem as well. Yes, meanwhile every working-age person ought to be participating in an "economy that work for all". (Social democrat Sanders) . NAIRU, and the so-called Philips curve, are fundamental dogmas of neoliberal economics. That's why employers always argue that an above-poverty minimum wage will either decrease employment or increase inflation.
The BLM is 99% nothing but anarchy. The social and economic injustice is just window dressing. A group whose primary mantra banner is "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now." has virtually no altruistic basis in its movement. I have no idea what relevance the Proud Boys have with this. They are at least responding to something half way desirable -- protect the police -- though their violence deserves as much condemnation. We should address the BLM movement (along with maybe the Proud Boys) like any anarchy: stomp it out with whatever force is required. The Right's view of inalienable rights??? That is not the Right's view; that is God given. Along with inherent liberty, self interest and the drive to survive are also a natural quality at birth. DUH. Socialist cooperation is not a natural born instinct as you imply; you are simply saying that it is desirable to instill some cooperative attitudes into a society. I agree. The only question is what type of cooperation and how much. But not instituting a certain economic system does not take away a person's born-with liberty and inalienable rights. I also disagree with the type and extent of your suggestion system. Not that it doesn't sound good, but because it can never be realized in practice, not quite even after it is pushed harder and harder by actually taking away individual liberty.. Give me a f@@@ing break. I tend to agree. However, as I said, we do not agree on the kind and degree of assistance, nor do we agree how liberty is affected or effected.
Here's the problem: entrenched poverty - as it exists in black ghettos - breeds violence. How difficult is that to understand? Entrenched poverty in ghettos is NOT window dressing. Now "stomping the violence out with whatever force is required" will not solve the problem in the long term (as we have seen over the last 6 decades, with the periodic rioting and burning in inner city suburbs). The idea of "rights" (such as justice, and liberty) come from God, and are perceived by humans (uniquely among animals), by virtue of the capacity for self-awareness residing in the evolved cerebral cortex ('thinking' brain). BUT....the description of those Rights of course is very much disputed between those for whom "justice and equality" is uppermost, compared with those for whom "justice and liberty" is uppermost is uppermost. ...compare "inalienable Rights" in these constitutions 1. US: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness 2. France: liberty equality fraternity. 3. UN: life, liberty, security. You prefer the first, I prefer the last. Hence a dispute over "inalienable rights", even though we agree they are "God-given" . On the contrary I explained why socialist co-operation, necessary to achieve everyone's well being, is NOT a natural attribute of instinctively self-interested human beings, or any other animal for that matter. Spot your error? Socialist co-operation arises from a (non-instinctive) conscious desire for "fairness", or equity; in the French revolution: "equalite" . 1. All animals are born "free" (in our predatory world); but only humans are sufficiently aware to perceive "inalienable rights". 2. Obviously the nature of an economic system is intricately connected with the extent of the liberty experienced by the participants. {Slavery, instituted for most of human history, is the obvious example). Obviously I have failed to disabuse you of the belief in TINA (ie, there is no alternative). You are a tough student, because of your particular (ideological) conception of liberty. Other conceptions of liberty include equality of access to above poverty employment, and security, considered as absolutely essential ingredients in any true experience of liberty. But will give the airline worker today pleading for assistance in this pandemic a break? [Can you begin to imagine the psychological distress of this sudden unexpected and enforced unemployment, with no end in sight in that particular industry?) One among thousands of workers......Congress can't their act together BECAUSE the Repubs don't want to pay the higher taxes needed to fund another rescue package, and the Dems - like the Repubs - have been indoctrinated by the high priests of the reserve bank who mindlessly spout their obsolete monetarist economic orthodoxy which denies the capacity of the sovereign currency-issuing US federal government (via its treasury and reserve bank) to create and spend its own currency - in this case to pay all vital living expenses for the idled workers. So, given the resulting stalemate among all those indoctrinated (except maybe AOC), well-paid, comfortable, seat-warmers in congress, the airline worker mentioned above is now facing surviving in her car. Indeed, just like congress... So let the - entirely unnecessary - pain and misery of thousands begin, Great Depression style,: mr Jerome Powell, you haven't learnt anything
I understand the thought but it is not believable because there is little to no indicated proof of it. There was very little violence during the depression or any great recessions. We've had ghettos and the projects for decades and there was hardly any outbreaks of violence. The preponderance of the BLM and Antifa rioters are not burning, looting, destroying, killing because they live in abject poverty. They are doing it because they are anarchists. The belief that security is a God given born with inalienable right is inane. Error???? That is precisely what I said. That too is pretty much what I have said. Having liberty is not dependent on economic environment or security, but experiencing or exercising liberty in many cases probably is If you are referring to the current stimulus/rescue efforts for the pandemic, the Republicans did not want to fund Pelosi's boondoggle bail out to the tune of a trillion dollars or more of a few states and other Democrat entities for stuff that had zero to the pandemic. Or did I miss your point?
No indicated proof of it? Ever heard of the 'peasant revolts', protesting economic servitude in the middle ages in Europe? The Kings' armies always put those down in bloody fashion....until the French revolution that is, when the army no longer upheld its responsibility to protect the King....... Fast forward to the US: yes, economic servitude is tolerated by slaves because they have no choice, but the civil war required to gain their 'freedom' (for Christ's sake!) did not overcome the ruthless greed of the capitalist system, hence the demoralization and violence in present day inner-city ghettos as observed by Trump: "you are living in poverty, your neighborhoods are like war zones". Proof enough? Only in the mind of an instinctive predator (don't feel too bad; it's unconscious in all animals including humans) as observed by Christ himself ("Lord, forgive them for they know not what they do"). Rather, learn and understand. Unless one is secure, in a predatory world, there is NO liberty. In a predatory world, liberty must be designed. No, you said I claimed that "socialist co-operation" is natural (to achieve acceptable minimum community standards) . I have spent quite a bit of time trying to explain that, on the contrary, individual self-interest (as opposed to socialist co-operation) is 'natural' (therefore agreeing with you!) So you are reduced to postulating a difference between "having liberty" and "experiencing liberty".... I would rather experience liberty thank you, in a system capable of eliminating economic disadvantage. You missed my point. Thousands of workers in specific industries will need federal government help for the foreseeable future as the pandemic continues to cause havoc around the world, forcing international borders to remain closed. Only the nation's treasury can provide that assistance without crippling the economy under a mountain of debt. Perlosi herself doesn't understand this, so I will accept your assertion she is merely playing silly political games rather than promoting policies that can directly alleviate the plight of workers idled through no fault of their own.
