Small business owners not sold on the candidates

I mean, seriously: if you throw this stuff around, couldn't you at least try to not completely mischaracterize these things? The core principle behind Karl Marx's philosophy is for the government to have authority to take property and power from the rich and give to the poor?



I mean, come on, most people would point to Marx's philosophy of class struggle, his observations about the working class and the capitalist class, about the perpetual struggle these classes were engaged in, to the private ownership of means of production and to the ultimate goal of a classless society.

And hey, a classless society as postulated by Marx is not a society where the rich are taxed more heavily and the money is given to the poor, so that everybody is equal.

An Obama presidency will be terrible for the small business owners across this country.

Simple. When some have a lot and others have little, the right thing to do is for the government to have authority to take property and power from the rich and give to the poor so that everyone will be more equal. This is the core principle behind Karl Marx's philosophy.

But hey, I'll give the final word to John McCain:

Foxfyre wrote:

Simple. When some have a lot and others have little, the right thing to do is for the government to have authority to take property and power from the rich and give to the poor so that everyone will be more equal. This is the core principle behind Karl Marx's philosophy.

So Reagan was a Marxist? He expanded the tax credits in 1986, giving people who didn't pay income taxes money from others who did. This is exactly what McCain's campaign is to portray as socialism.

What about Teddy Roosevelt? He was an advocate of progressive taxation.

When the criteria you use to call Obama a socialist includes Republican heroes you might consider that your criteria is absurd.

I mean, seriously: if you throw this stuff around, couldn't you at least try to not completely mischaracterize these things? The core principle behind Karl Marx's philosophy is for the government to have authority to take property and power from the rich and give to the poor?



I mean, come on, most people would point to Marx's philosophy of class struggle, his observations about the working class and the capitalist class, about the perpetual struggle these classes were engaged in, to the private ownership of means of production and to the ultimate goal of a classless society.

And hey, a classless society as postulated by Marx is not a society where the rich are taxed more heavily and the money is given to the poor, so that everybody is equal.

In political economy 2 and its terminology, we have shown that the laborer sinks to the level of a commodity and indeed becomes the most miserable commodity possible, that the misery of the laborer stands in an inverse relationship to the power and size of his production, that the natural result of competition is the accumulation of capital in a few hands, which is the most frightening type of monopoly, that finally the difference between the ground-rentier 3 and the capitalist 4 as well as the difference between the farmer-renter and the factory laborer disappears and the entire society must fall into two classes: those with property and those propertyless souls who labor.

1.) Political economy begins with the notion that labor is the soul of production, yet it gives nothing to labor and everything to private property. . . . We now see, however, that this blatant contradiction is a contradiction of estranged labor with itself and that political economy only has drawn out the laws of estranged labor.

2.) From the relationship of estranged labor to private property follows the conclusion that the liberation of society from private property, etc., from servitude, expresses its political form in the emancipation of the laborer , and not only the emancipation of the laborer, for in the emancipation of the laborer is contained the emancipation of all humanity, and it contains this because the entirety of human servitude is involved in the relationship of the laborer to production and all relationships of servitude are only modifications and consequences of this primary relationship. . . .

From the relationship of estranged labor to private property follows the conclusion that the liberation of society from private property, etc., from servitude, expresses its political form in the emancipation of the laborer , and not only the emancipation of the laborer, for in the emancipation of the laborer is contained the emancipation of all humanity, and it contains this because the entirety of human servitude is involved in the relationship of the laborer to production and all relationships of servitude are only modifications and consequences of this primary relationship. . . .

When some have a lot and others have little, the right thing to do is for the government to have authority to take property and power from the rich and give to the poor so that everyone will be more equal. This is the core principle behind Karl Marx's philosophy.

Progressive taxation is NOT enriching the poor at the expense of the rich. At least that is not its intent. Progressive taxation is a practical effort to fund the necessary functions of government that benefits all.

The appropriate structure of that is certainly a debatable subject, but I venture you won't find anywhere in Reagan's words or philosophies of taxation that justifies taking property from one citizen who legally and ethically earned it and giving it for the express benefit of another who didn't just to 'spread the wealth around'.

Now I am not in any way suggesting that Obama has proposed abolition of private property or the socialization of it. But he definitely sees the way to make the poor richer is by making the rich poorer and justifies that as an issue of greater equality between all the people which is what Marx was all about..

But if you don’t like comparisons with Marxism, we could always go with Robin Hood.

Obama has no plan to encourage the masses to be successful and independent.
Obama has no plan to reward hard working self reliant people.
Obama has no plan to increase individual freedoms.