• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Karl Marx, Jew-Hating Douchebag

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

>

That is true. I also noticed that the majority of people intensely dislike reality. They much prefer idealized fantasies.

Marx is a great example of this. Heck, I wore a t-shirt with the old bugger's face on it when I was in high school and still believed that fantasy of Socialism.

The popular version of Socialism and Marx taught in popular culture and popular media turns out to be the diametric opposite of the real world factual result.

Instead of libertating mankind as Socialism promised, we see now that it is merely a modern, more sophisticated, and more effectve version of feudalism benefiting the upper classes. That's why the Fabians designed and implemented it. Smart guys.
 
I don't know how, or through what lens you interpret politicial theory, but a " more effectve version of feudalism benefiting the upper classes" is equal to what you get with Social Darwinism, e.g. Ayn Rand and similar nihilistic right winged political ideas.

On the other hand, in a social democracy, the rich are proportionally taxed harder than the poor, to pay for benefits for everyone, e.g. in Denmark everyone is offered a college education payed by taxes, if they get the needed GPA. In that regard, the rich pay for the poor kids, whose parents would never be able to pay it privately. Or in France, people who earn more than 1 million Euro are now taxed 70% of whatever they earn more than that. That's why the Gerard Depardieu 'escaped' to Putin's harsh capitalistic Russia.

Please do research modern social democracy, the black/white archetypes of communist versus 'freedom' is no longer appropriate in a discussion about actual modern social democracies in Europe, for instance. Right-wingers in the US and elsewhere will continue to slander the left by calling everyone Communists, but I can only shake my head and wonder why such arguments are even taken seriously by anyone? I imagine it's a lack of insight into the real world post 1950, combined with the residual effects of Red Scare propaganda.
 
There is no shame in being ignorant of how the world actually works. The average person is daily inundated with a barrage of media propaganda, and suffers from over a decade of institutionalized classroom indoctrination to believe things that are not true.

I empathize with your misconception that democratic socialism taxes the rich and benefits the lower classes. I once shared it.

Unfortunately, the only way to overcome that delusion is examine the accounts of public finance. There are few intellectual pursuits as tedious and unpleasant as sorting through government budgets, but the truth is there. I had the advantage of formal public finance training. Most do not.

If you were to look at the books, you would discover that the majority of government benefits go to rich people, not poor people as you mistakenly believe. The working classes are taxed. Those taxes are then transferred to societal elites via corporate and banking structures which make use of subsidies and special tax loopholes.

It is true that certain voting blocks are kept fed to capture of their votes the same way a farmer must expend a portion of his earnings on feed and care for his livestock to keep them producing. In the accounting world this is known as an "expense".

Reality is uncomfortable and often ugly, I understand. You do yourself a disservice by living a fantasy. Be like Neo in the Matrix movie and live true. Even though that path is arduous and often uncomfortable, in the end, it's better.
 
Yea, silly me, I thought it was for the benefit of the poor when you can get free healthcare, free higher education etc etc paid by progressive taxation.

If you think there's something messed up with the way that banks are subsidized after the financial crisis, that's of course completely valid. Eventually, it's best to locate the source of the problem, to avoid it happening again. And the source of the problem is DE-REGULATION, not government control.

During all the years with Greenspan, it was the philosophy of Ayn Rand that ruled, extreme deregulation, not the opposite. Did you realize that? This is not something which is up for debate, it's simply how it is. Greenspan admired her crass capitalism, e.g. see: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15atlas.html?pagewanted=all.
For Ayn Rand it wasn't a problem if someone suffered and others flourished, because that was just 'the beauty' of free enterprise.

I gotta say, only the Tea Party and similar right-winged organizations would be so politically false or stupid to think that DE-REGULATION, even less gov. control, would help. If you think that less government control will help in the future, you're really quite naive.

A very left-leaning social democrat or a socialist would say that banking should now be a public (government) job, because private enterprise is unable to do it without going for max profit, all the time, and without literally destroying society. That's definitly classic socialist thinking, but maybe it's the best? I can tell you that several European nations are considering that right now so they won't ever again have to bail out the pricks. Understand, without banking you can't loan money for a new house or whatever, so banking is a necessary evil, and that's why some parts of the financial sector indeed did get bailed out, even if it's sickening to think about.

Finally, and this is objective knowledge: In capitalistic societies the gap between rich and poor is way higher than among social democratic countries. Until you understand why that totally undercuts your argument about 'feudalism', you're just pissing in the wind.
 
Last edited:
You are not silly or stupid, just unaware.

Always perform your Grammar before performing your Logic and Rhetoric. You threw out a host of false premises (grammar). Naturally, false conclusions result.

Socialized healthcare is not free.

Higher education is not free.

You think some country has a "progressive tax structure".

You seem unaware that corporations love regulation and write most of them. (see: Regulatory Capture)

You think Ayn Rand advocated free markets.

You think the current economic system is capitalistic.

In order to honestly and rationally evaluate any idea, you must first excise falsehoods and property define your terms.

True, it's a lot of work, but worth it.
 
I see you've been indoctrinatied with the Tea Party word-games which seek to avoid talking about anything substantial with any sort of substance.

So, when I write "... free healthcare, free higher education etc etc paid by progressive taxation" you twist my words, straight from the Tea Party script-book. Of course nothing's 'free', but 'free healthcare' means that's it's free when needed, for anyone (regardless of income), paid for by progressive taxation. It's obvious, and we all know it.
Do you really think that people can't see through those little games? Can't you see through them yourself?

Anyways, I give up (again) on having a reasonable discussion with you. You argue like a T-shirt and don't respond to my points. But I'll just say again: In laissez-faire capitalistic societies the gap between rich and poor is much higher than among social democratic countries. Until you understand why that totally undercuts your argument, you're just pissing in the wind.
 
Last edited:
I don't really know what is the "Tea Party". I saw them wrapping themselves in American flags several years ago, and thus chose not to waste any time investigating them.

Your reversion to Ad Hominem name-calling demonstrates your fear of evaluating your premises. That fear inhibits your growth.

You can overcome it.
 
Tony B. said:
alien_visit.jpg
Click to expand...

best post here.

List any great leader, thinker, man/woman of action and you are going to find some disagreeable things about them.

The message or ideas are more important than they are.

For sure Marx was an anti Semite but back then that was far from unusual (not condoning it, just pointing out a simple fact)
 
Last edited:
Jimi H. said:
free healthcare, free higher education etc etc paid by progressive taxation"
Click to expand...

Nice idea and many nations such as Australia and the one I live in have this... Oh and we have not collapsed as a nation, as a matter of fact it would seem we are doing financial better than you guys in the USA... now who would have thought :eek:
 
Australia does not have a "progressive tax system". In Australia high net worth individuals pay a lower portion of their income in taxes than do the middle class or majority.

Again, you have to Look at the Books. People hate doing this. They would rather believe whatever some corporate news outlet tells them. They have no clue about the huge array of tax loopholes, subsidies, and special exemptions wealthy people enjoy. Wealthy people like it that way.

My best friend works at Deloitte | Audit, Consulting, Financial Advisory, Risk Management and Tax Services in Los Angeles. His job consists of nothing but sitting around all day helping rich people exploit various national tax systems. He believes if people are too stupid or lazy to look at what's going on, they deserve to be fleeced like sheep because they behave like sheep. I disagree.

Making excuses for Karl Marx's vileness is like making excuses for the fat guy selling a book on how to lose weight. It's pathetic and sad.
 
Charlie, Karl Marx was a product of the times he lived in. Sure he was biased, bigoted, and maybe even a bit assholish, but he was trying to find a way for the poor to be liberated from being crushed by the rich. Factory workers were basically slaves of the factory owners, and the owners didn't want the workers to know that if it wasn't for the workers, the owner wouldn't be rich.
What about Thomas Jefferson, author of the US Constitution? He owned slaves for heavens sake.
 
Charlie Prime said:
Australia does not have a "progressive tax system". In Australia high net worth individuals pay a lower portion of their income in taxes than do the middle class or majority...
Click to expand...
If you want less loopholes for rich organizations, vote left. It's politicial science 101.

Charlie Prime said:
Did you watch the entire video I posted?
Click to expand...

Why don't you respond to what he said?:
"Charlie, Karl Marx was a product of the times he lived in. ... What about Thomas Jefferson, author of the US Constitution? He owned slaves for heavens sake."
 
Jimi H. said:
If you want less loopholes for rich organizations, vote left. It's politicial science 101.
Click to expand...

That's the scam. Your ignorance of it harms you and everyone.

Here's my dilemma. If you point out a scam to a victim and they refuse to believe it, do you bare any responsibility for their victimization?
 
Charlie Prime said:
That's the scam. Your ignorance of it harms you and everyone.
Click to expand...
This is just one more pointless reply, completely void of substance or acknowledgement of the discussion that people offer you.

I rarely do this, but I'm putting you on ignore right now Charlie. I don't need the aggravation of hearing about your monomaniacal ideas, or looking at your pretentious avatar one second longer.

Ciao!
 
Charlie Prime said:
Australia does not have a "progressive tax system". In Australia high net worth individuals pay a lower portion of their income in taxes than do the middle class or majority.

Again, you have to Look at the Books. People hate doing this. They would rather believe whatever some corporate news outlet tells them. They have no clue about the huge array of tax loopholes, subsidies, and special exemptions wealthy people enjoy. Wealthy people like it that way.

My best friend works at Deloitte | Audit, Consulting, Financial Advisory, Risk Management and Tax Services in Los Angeles. His job consists of nothing but sitting around all day helping rich people exploit various national tax systems. He believes if people are too stupid or lazy to look at what's going on, they deserve to be fleeced like sheep because they behave like sheep. I disagree.

Making excuses for Karl Marx's vileness is like making excuses for the fat guy selling a book on how to lose weight. It's pathetic and sad.
Click to expand...

actually that was meant to point out that a free education system and health care is not going to kill your nation. I should have deleted the "Progressive" bit...
That was not an excuse as far as Mr Marx is concerned but an accurate observation of the times in which he lived ... you know read a book or two.

You are making a cross cultural correlation which can be dangerous, the problem with history is we tend to attach our current cultural bias to it. To us it is repugnant and for sure in the case of Mr Marx antisemitism is... but at the time it was very normal to hold these attitudes as it is/was a product of their own socialization.
Our job is to point out to future generations why it was wrong and not to crucify the dead.

Oh and I am going to head this off now before I get hit with the antisemitic tag myself.
It is a little hard to be antisemitic to part of your own heritage.

Right on with some Marx.

On the Jewish Question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting wiki and I seem to remember reading about this at university (while going through the Marx phase many of us do).

Personally Marx's ideas are flawed and he also failed to recognize in full how humans work as social groups over time.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top