The destruction of church and society - Karl Marx

3,140 Views | 88 Replies | Last: 3 days ago by AGC
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

Hey...so.. um said:

Sapper Redux said:

Zobel said:

Whoever did the stealing should do the compensation to the person who received the injury. Not their kids. This principle is established in the US constitution, article 3 section 3.


So there are no long term consequences over generations to things like Jim Crow and slavery?


Two wrongs don't make a right. Those things were wrong. Affirmative action is wrong. DEI is wrong. Things in the past beng wrong don't make today's wrongs okay.


So the verifiable fact that slavery and Jim Crow have resulted in massive disparities of wealth and opportunity should be allowed to persist despite them having obvious historical causes with known consequences because you perceive it harms you?


Verifiable fact? Is correlation causation now? Has nothing happened in between? Are people not responsible for their own actions at any point in time after whatever arbitrary event you select? This is really bad argumentation professor.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
When do we start the count from? What year?
Hey...so.. um
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper Redux said:

Hey...so.. um said:

Sapper Redux said:

Zobel said:

Whoever did the stealing should do the compensation to the person who received the injury. Not their kids. This principle is established in the US constitution, article 3 section 3.


So there are no long term consequences over generations to things like Jim Crow and slavery?


Two wrongs don't make a right. Those things were wrong. Affirmative action is wrong. DEI is wrong. Things in the past beng wrong don't make today's wrongs okay.


So the verifiable fact that slavery and Jim Crow have resulted in massive disparities of wealth and opportunity should be allowed to persist despite them having obvious historical causes with known consequences because you perceive it harms you?


Ignoring the fact that you still haven't answered any questions but just responded with more questions, it has nothing to do with harming me. It as everything to do with being morally wrong. You don't steal from one group and give to another because of something that happened before anyone was even born who is alive today.

Secondly, there is no objective way to determine how much, to who, from who, how far back do you go, when to distribute money, how long, etc.

Everything is subjective and you just want everyone to agree with your version of fair, but it isn't based on anything objective but strictly emotional and subjective.

The biggest problem is this has become your religion so much that no amount of facts will sway you from this illogical position.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And sapper, you might check out this whole Jesus thing. When He returns, all injustice of all kinds will be taken care of. What man cannot do, He can and will do. All wrongs will be made right. It will be a perfect world like God originally created before sin entered the picture.

Makes me smile.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
FIDO95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

Hey...so.. um said:

Sapper Redux said:

Zobel said:

Whoever did the stealing should do the compensation to the person who received the injury. Not their kids. This principle is established in the US constitution, article 3 section 3.


So there are no long term consequences over generations to things like Jim Crow and slavery?


Two wrongs don't make a right. Those things were wrong. Affirmative action is wrong. DEI is wrong. Things in the past beng wrong don't make today's wrongs okay.


So the verifiable fact that slavery and Jim Crow have resulted in massive disparities of wealth and opportunity should be allowed to persist despite them having obvious historical causes with known consequences because you perceive it harms you?
That is not a verifiable fact. That is a lie that continues to be perpetuated. Perpetuating that lie and/or allowing it exist robs attention to the real causes of poverty. Those same causes are found worldwide across a variety of cultures, peoples, and government policies. If you fail to address the "elephant in the room", the problem will continue to expand.



edit to add longer conversation on the topic



No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
88Warrior
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper Redux said:

Hey...so.. um said:

Sapper Redux said:

Zobel said:

Whoever did the stealing should do the compensation to the person who received the injury. Not their kids. This principle is established in the US constitution, article 3 section 3.


So there are no long term consequences over generations to things like Jim Crow and slavery?


Two wrongs don't make a right. Those things were wrong. Affirmative action is wrong. DEI is wrong. Things in the past beng wrong don't make today's wrongs okay.


So the verifiable fact that slavery and Jim Crow have resulted in massive disparities of wealth and opportunity should be allowed to persist despite them having obvious historical causes with known consequences because you perceive it harms you?


Sorry…but the only thing keeping certain folks down these days is their culture…Prior to the Civil Rights Act and "Great Society" programs the percentage of black babies born to single mothers was around 22%. Now that figure is closer to 75%…It's not the lasting stigma of slavery, Jim Crow, so called institutional racism or any other implied discrimination…No amount of dollars are ever going to fix this….ie…welfare, food stamps, Pell Grants, Affirmative Action or DEI programs….Liberals and their "soft bigotry of low expectations" doesn't help the situation as well…
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper Redux said:

Hey...so.. um said:

Sapper Redux said:

Zobel said:

Whoever did the stealing should do the compensation to the person who received the injury. Not their kids. This principle is established in the US constitution, article 3 section 3.


So there are no long term consequences over generations to things like Jim Crow and slavery?


Two wrongs don't make a right. Those things were wrong. Affirmative action is wrong. DEI is wrong. Things in the past beng wrong don't make today's wrongs okay.


So the verifiable fact that slavery and Jim Crow have resulted in massive disparities of wealth and opportunity should be allowed to persist despite them having obvious historical causes with known consequences because you perceive it harms you?
Marriage inequality is a verifiable fact that has resulted in massive disparities of wealth and opportunity.

The Marriage Gap Between Rich and Poor Canadians: How Canadians are split into haves and have-nots along marriage lines

Maybe we should force people to get married before having children. That would be more effective than reparations.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The best welfare program is become a conservative Christian. Go to school, work hard, no addictions, stay out of jail, get married, and no babies out of wedlock.

It works. Who knew?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
ABattJudd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rocag said:

Capitalism is in little danger of collapsing even if he was correct on the ever increasing wealth gap between the rich and poor.
I think this argument one of the biggest strawmen of Marxism. As an economics teacher, I see pearls being clutched about the widening wealth gap and I just think, "...so?"

A wealth gap, in and of itself, is no indicator of societal injustice or lack of opportunity. The wealth gap is larger today than it was 40 years ago. And our poor today are EXPONENTIALLY better off than they would have been 40 years ago. That's what matters.
"Well, if you can’t have a great season, at least ruin somebody else’s." - Olin Buchanan
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There it is. Surprised given this subject that it took almost 2 full pages to get a Thomas Sowell post.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

A wealth gap, in and of itself, is no indicator of societal injustice or lack of opportunity. The wealth gap is larger today than it was 40 years ago. And our poor today are EXPONENTIALLY better off than they would have been 40 years ago. That's what matters.

Not even trying to get into everything else on this thread but thought this needed a rebuttal. First, a huge wealth inequality is an objectively bad thing. Money is power, and the actions of a very small number of very rich people can badly impact all of society. This is even worse when you consider that they can easily use that money to corrupt and subvert otherwise legitimate government.

Second, "the poor" are not better off than they were 40 years ago. By many metrics, that is objectively wrong. Compared to inflation, entry level jobs pay worse than 40 years ago, while education, healthcare, and housing are all astronomically more expensive. What does a poor person need to improve their situation? An entry level job, an education, housing, and healthcare. All of those things are much harder to get now than 40 years ago.

The second point goes back to the first point. GDP and mean household income has been rising steadily and consistently for the last 40 years. However, median household income compared to inflation hasn't improved at all, and may actually have gone down. Why is that? GDP and mean numbers are heavily influenced by the small number of very, very rich people getting richer very quickly. In other words, our economy is growing as well as it ever has, but all the money is going to fewer and fewer people every year.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Second, "the poor" are not better off than they were 40 years ago. By many metrics, that is objectively wrong. Compared to inflation, entry level jobs pay worse than 40 years ago, while education, healthcare, and housing are all astronomically more expensive. What does a poor person need to improve their situation? An entry level job, an education, housing, and healthcare. All of those things are much harder to get now than 40 years ago.
Depends on how you measure. Income by public spending is up a great deal in that time frame too.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Macarthur said:

There it is. Surprised given this subject that it took almost 2 full pages to get a Thomas Sowell post.


We're unsurprised you have no rebuttal.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:


Quote:

Second, "the poor" are not better off than they were 40 years ago. By many metrics, that is objectively wrong. Compared to inflation, entry level jobs pay worse than 40 years ago, while education, healthcare, and housing are all astronomically more expensive. What does a poor person need to improve their situation? An entry level job, an education, housing, and healthcare. All of those things are much harder to get now than 40 years ago.
Depends on how you measure. Income by public spending is up a great deal in that time frame too.


What is income by public spending?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Welfare.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Got it. So the point was that the poor are better off now compared to 40 years ago, because welfare spending by the govt is higher?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
not arguing the point one way or another in that regard. but if you're looking at "better off" especially from a societal perspective you have to include the stuff society is doing, and taxation and transfers are a part of that.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fair enough
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Rocag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
40 years ago was 1985. It's not obviously apparent that the poor are significantly better off now than they were in 1985, and certainly not exponentially better. I think we'd need to define what metrics we're using to judge that on. It's quite a bit more complicated than "Well they can afford a cell phone and TV, they're obviously doing OK."

And I'd also point out that it is those so-called socialist government programs like Medicaid, unemployment insurance, SNAP, WIC, and others like them that are doing a lot of the heavy lifting in protecting the poor from some of the worst consequences of poverty. Programs that in a purely capitalist society would not exist.
88Warrior
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

not arguing the point one way or another in that regard. but if you're looking at "better off" especially from a societal perspective you have to include the stuff society is doing, and taxation and transfers are a part of that.


You are correct sir! (In my best Ed McMahon voice….)
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rocag said:

40 years ago was 1985. It's not obviously apparent that the poor are significantly better off now than they were in 1985, and certainly not exponentially better. I think we'd need to define what metrics we're using to judge that on. It's quite a bit more complicated than "Well they can afford a cell phone and TV, they're obviously doing OK."

And I'd also point out that it is those so-called socialist government programs like Medicaid, unemployment insurance, SNAP, WIC, and others like them that are doing a lot of the heavy lifting in protecting the poor from some of the worst consequences of poverty. Programs that in a purely capitalist society would not exist.


Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, maybe you've forgotten that society was different before then. I have relatives born in the Great Depression who helped others instead of the government. Doctors played a very different role in society before government intervened. Christians started a great many things you take for granted which the government has stepped in to administer and regulate (ironically removing the burden of effort and restraining accountability).

The notion that altruism doesn't exist in capitalism is false framing. We live in a society where the poor reject help at times because it comes with strings (think addicts who refuse shelters that requires them to be sober). Many game the system because it's easy. Immigrants are taught how to do it when they arrive. I have coworkers with a work ethic that refused to take advantage of it, but it's out there.

Capitalism is how an economy is organized, not a moral principle.
Scoopen Skwert
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There is already wealth redistribution.

40% of Americans pay income tax.
13% of AA pay income tax.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rocag said:

Modern conservatives use "Marxist" as a catch all for anything they don't like. Literally anything can be described as Marxism and conservatives will just nod along as if it makes any sense at all. Few of them have any real understanding of what Marxism actually is, and even fewer have actually read Marx's works.
The use of derisive labels (such as fascist or nazi) for political opponents in the US has largely come from the left since at least the 1940's, per the American Communist handbook.


If the assorted terms 'Marxist, communist, fascist, or nazi' have thus lost their precious accurate meaning in political discourse this is the reason why, imho.
Rocag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The 1940's is WAY too late to be the starting date for this. Rightwing anti-communist groups had already been framing anyone who opposed them as communists for decades by that point. The first "Red Scare" in America happened right after World War I, for example. This actually predates the very existence of either the Nazi or Fascist parties.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AGC said:

Rocag said:

40 years ago was 1985. It's not obviously apparent that the poor are significantly better off now than they were in 1985, and certainly not exponentially better. I think we'd need to define what metrics we're using to judge that on. It's quite a bit more complicated than "Well they can afford a cell phone and TV, they're obviously doing OK."

And I'd also point out that it is those so-called socialist government programs like Medicaid, unemployment insurance, SNAP, WIC, and others like them that are doing a lot of the heavy lifting in protecting the poor from some of the worst consequences of poverty. Programs that in a purely capitalist society would not exist.


Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, maybe you've forgotten that society was different before then. I have relatives born in the Great Depression who helped others instead of the government. Doctors played a very different role in society before government intervened. Christians started a great many things you take for granted which the government has stepped in to administer and regulate (ironically removing the burden of effort and restraining accountability).

The notion that altruism doesn't exist in capitalism is false framing. We live in a society where the poor reject help at times because it comes with strings (think addicts who refuse shelters that requires them to be sober). Many game the system because it's easy. Immigrants are taught how to do it when they arrive. I have coworkers with a work ethic that refused to take advantage of it, but it's out there.

Capitalism is how an economy is organized, not a moral principle.
Buddy, churches and charities were literally begging the government to intervene during the Great Depression because of how dire things were. And I wouldn't look to medicine before Medicare and Medicaid as a model. The long-and-short of it was that poor people didn't get the treatment they needed.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well, Nazis and Fascists were reacontionaries against communism so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Rocag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So let's get this straight...

  • Poor people in the present have a quality of life exponentially better now than they did in the distant past.
  • We now have government programs meant to assist the poor that did not exist in the past.
  • Prior to those government programs, charity and community did more to help the poor.
  • Many conservatives want to eliminate those government programs that assist the poor, assuring people that charity and community will take care of the poor.

But didn't we just establish that when it was up to charity and community the poor were "exponentially" less well off? Why then would we want to go back to that?

Zobel: That those political parties were reactionaries against communism has nothing at all to do with nortex's assertion that the practice of labeling your political opponents Nazis or fascists or communists or Marxists is a direct result of a directive found in the 1943 American Communist handbook.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ah i missed what you were saying sorry.

but the obvious problem with what you're saying here is that the amount of wealth / standard of living today vs, say, the 1940s is dramatically different. everyone has a life with access to technology that is unimaginable to even the richest person of the 1940s. in a material sense - not in the actual good life, but in the material sense - everyone lives much better than people used to.

i can't stress enough that this is not because of government programs.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AGC said:

Sapper Redux said:

Hey...so.. um said:

Sapper Redux said:

Zobel said:

Whoever did the stealing should do the compensation to the person who received the injury. Not their kids. This principle is established in the US constitution, article 3 section 3.


So there are no long term consequences over generations to things like Jim Crow and slavery?


Two wrongs don't make a right. Those things were wrong. Affirmative action is wrong. DEI is wrong. Things in the past beng wrong don't make today's wrongs okay.


So the verifiable fact that slavery and Jim Crow have resulted in massive disparities of wealth and opportunity should be allowed to persist despite them having obvious historical causes with known consequences because you perceive it harms you?


Verifiable fact? Is correlation causation now? Has nothing happened in between? Are people not responsible for their own actions at any point in time after whatever arbitrary event you select? This is really bad argumentation professor.


Just bumping this for you since you're back in the thread, professor. Don't just cherry pick what you think are easy points.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

AGC said:

Rocag said:

40 years ago was 1985. It's not obviously apparent that the poor are significantly better off now than they were in 1985, and certainly not exponentially better. I think we'd need to define what metrics we're using to judge that on. It's quite a bit more complicated than "Well they can afford a cell phone and TV, they're obviously doing OK."

And I'd also point out that it is those so-called socialist government programs like Medicaid, unemployment insurance, SNAP, WIC, and others like them that are doing a lot of the heavy lifting in protecting the poor from some of the worst consequences of poverty. Programs that in a purely capitalist society would not exist.


Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, maybe you've forgotten that society was different before then. I have relatives born in the Great Depression who helped others instead of the government. Doctors played a very different role in society before government intervened. Christians started a great many things you take for granted which the government has stepped in to administer and regulate (ironically removing the burden of effort and restraining accountability).

The notion that altruism doesn't exist in capitalism is false framing. We live in a society where the poor reject help at times because it comes with strings (think addicts who refuse shelters that requires them to be sober). Many game the system because it's easy. Immigrants are taught how to do it when they arrive. I have coworkers with a work ethic that refused to take advantage of it, but it's out there.

Capitalism is how an economy is organized, not a moral principle.
Buddy, churches and charities were literally begging the government to intervene during the Great Depression because of how dire things were. And I wouldn't look to medicine before Medicare and Medicaid as a model. The long-and-short of it was that poor people didn't get the treatment they needed.


This is a great way of misunderstanding recency bias, so that you don't have to engage with the argument. It's foolish and arrogant to assume that without what is, nothing else has ever been, rather than understanding what existed previously and how it's evolved. Enjoy your victory over the straw man.

Edit: re-reading this, I think Kamala could have written it.
Rocag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well, except in that many of the technologies that have enabled the modern technological world were heavily subsidized by government funding. The internet, for example, was created by DARPA. The American space program directly led to modern satellites that enable cell phones and GPS and many other things. The modern world with all of our luxuries probably would not exist without government programs and funding. You can't just hand wave that away.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rocag said:

So let's get this straight...

  • Poor people in the present have a quality of life exponentially better now than they did in the distant past.
  • We now have government programs meant to assist the poor that did not exist in the past.
  • Prior to those government programs, charity and community did more to help the poor.
  • Many conservatives want to eliminate those government programs that assist the poor, assuring people that charity and community will take care of the poor.

But didn't we just establish that when it was up to charity and community the poor were "exponentially" less well off? Why then would we want to go back to that?

Zobel: That those political parties were reactionaries against communism has nothing at all to do with nortex's assertion that the practice of labeling your political opponents Nazis or fascists or communists or Marxists is a direct result of a directive found in the 1943 American Communist handbook.


No, you've done alchemy. You've assumed that because the poor are better off than ever in history, that it's all because of what the government does, rather than private sector technological advancement and growth. You've also assumed that charity does a worse job, and measured well being off materially rather than morally or intellectually. Accountability and work ethic have dissipated. The poor could be even better off but the government can't provide culture change; charity and communities demand changes from individuals that the government never could.

If rigor instead of simplicity was applied to your history, if you asked yourself if we have cultivated a better idea of what it means to be human rather than merely subsisting, the answer is no.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
it is absurd to think that human innovation is dependent on government funding.

if anything your examples show that government is a brake on rapid, effective innovation. DARPA may have "invented" the internet, but the phones - and the transistor, no less - came from bell labs, and all of the wealth-creating, life-changing technologies on the internet are private innovation. DARPA landed a rocket after NASA hit space milestones, but SpaceX has pantsed them.

human innovation happens from necessity and is fueled by excess capital and time. neither of these two sources of fuel come from govenrment funding in aggregate. they only come from wealth and technology - neither of which government is capable of producing.
Rocag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Both of your examples (Bell Labs and Space X) are or were heavily dependent on government contracts and funding. Bell Labs was founded using money the French government awarded Alexander Graham Bell, for example. That isn't to say that human innovation is dependent on government funding, but a large number of the society changing technological advancements that have occurred in the last century probably would not have happened without it because the funding for that research might not have been available to begin with.

This also isn't to say that there haven't been many private sector discoveries that didn't include government funding, because there absolutely have been. The point here is that it is blatantly wrong to depict our modern world as solely the product of private capitalist systems. It's just not true.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

it is absurd to think that human innovation is dependent on government funding.

if anything your examples show that government is a brake on rapid, effective innovation. DARPA may have "invented" the internet, but the phones - and the transistor, no less - came from bell labs, and all of the wealth-creating, life-changing technologies on the internet are private innovation. DARPA landed a rocket after NASA hit space milestones, but SpaceX has pantsed them.

human innovation happens from necessity and is fueled by excess capital and time. neither of these two sources of fuel come from govenrment funding in aggregate. they only come from wealth and technology - neither of which government is capable of producing.

I agree that innovation requires time, money, and intelligent cooperation, but that can happen in any well run organization be it a wealthy individual, a guild, government agency, or corporation. The government gave us the Apollo missions and the Manhattan project, which I would argue are all time high points of human innovation. Transistors, LEDs, automobiles, aircraft, and countless medical advances were made by private entities. There's no monopoly one way or the other here.

As an aside, SpaceX is a terrible example. Nearly all of their initial funding and the vast majority of their current funding comes from NASA contracts, which is government money. SpaceX would not exist without taking government money.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Page 2 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.