Tucker Carlson on Bernie Sanders

[_honorentheos]

It's more fun to call it out as postmodern Marxist given it being in vogue in certain circles as the root of everything wrong in the world. Finding out he has Marxist ideas might ruin Ajax's day, too. Or enlighten him.

I did not realize the Breitbart crowd has streaks of Leftist economic views. It makes sense if they are reflective of Trump's base, though. In any case, it would do them good to realize their views are more Marx than Smith when it comes to socioeconomics despite Carlson saying they all love capitalism while offering zero commentary that illustrated that point. No wonder the Fox News crowd is so confused over what labels belong where toward whom.

[_ajax18]

I did not realize the Breitbart crowd has streaks of Leftist economic views. It makes sense if they are reflective of Trump's base, though. In any case, it would do them good to realize their views are more Marx than Smith when it comes to socioeconomics despite Carlson saying they all love capitalism while offering zero commentary that illustrated that point. No wonder the Fox News crowd is so confused over what labels belong where toward whom.

Tucker's point was that we don't really have a free market. If we did, our views would realign with Adam Smith. It's the same with mass and illegal immigration. If we didn't have a semi socialist system in place, a porous border wouldn't be an issue. It's the same with marijuana or other drugs. If we didn't have pay to support the people who incapacitate themselves for the rest of their lives on disability, what would I care what they take or do to their body?

[_honorentheos]

Tucker made that statement but again, his point was these wealthy heads of corporations are exploiting their workers and the common citizen. It's a fundamental column of Marxist thought, Ajax. You have internalized Marxist thought.

[_ajax18]

Tucker made that statement but again, his point was these wealthy heads of corporations are exploiting their workers and the common citizen. It's a fundamental column of Marxist thought, Ajax. You have internalized Marxist thought.

Marx doesn't have to be wrong about everything.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Tucker made that statement but again, his point was these wealthy heads of corporations are exploiting their workers and the common citizen. It's a fundamental column of Marxist thought, Ajax. You have internalized Marxist thought.

Marx doesn't have to be wrong about everything.

...in a July 1862 letter to Engels, in reference to his socialist political competitor, Ferdinand Lassalle, Marx wrote, “It is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother had not interbred with a n*****. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product. The obtrusiveness of the fellow is also n*****-like,” according to the book “Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy.”

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

Marx doesn't have to be wrong about everything.

What do you think Marxism is about? Tucker's premise is essentially the tent pole argument of Marxism. Saying Marx got this one thing right is basically saying Marx WAS right.

[_honorentheos]

Ajax, I've said before that you are really a Marxist at heart but just don't realize it.
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 77#p989177

Now that Fox News is providing cover, maybe it's time to grow out your beard?

[_ajax18]

Ajax, I've said before that you are really a Marxist at heart but just don't realize it.

As Schmo pointed out, Marxist don't see the rise of social security/disability as a disaster the way I do. Was Marx a globalist such that every human being has a right to be a citizen of whatever country they choose supporter? I don't support the idea that all inheritances should go to the state for redistribution. No individual can choose to save and leave money for his posterity but only to mankind in general. That's a tenet of Marxism as well that I strongly disagree with.

I support what seems true, fair, and just based on what I know. Corporations underpaying people to the point the taxpayer is required to pick up the tab on their healthcare and food costs doesn't seem fair to me at all.

[_honorentheos]

Ajax, I've said before that you are really a Marxist at heart but just don't realize it.

As Schmo pointed out, Marxist don't see the rise of social security/disability as a disaster the way I do. Was Marx a globalist such that every human being has a right to be a citizen of whatever country they choose supporter? I don't support the idea that all inheritances should go to the state for redistribution. No individual can choose to save and leave money for his posterity but only to mankind in general. That's a tenet of Marxism as well that I strongly disagree with.

I support what seems true, fair, and just based on what I know. Corporations underpaying people to the point the taxpayer is required to pick up the tab on their healthcare and food costs doesn't seem fair to me at all.

Marxism isn't inherently any of those things you describe above except for the last two sentences.

If we wanted to simplify things, Marx based his theory on a handful of core tenants that argue economics/power/class are primary to understanding human history.

One of those has to do with understanding economics is about production - creating or harvesting what we need. And when considering production, we need to consider the means of production or how things get made or harvested for use. But we also need to consider the modes of production, which encompass the means as well as the where, when, why and by whom things get made and to what ends.

In Marx's theories the means of production are controlled by a limited few in the industrialized world. These are the people Tucker Carlson (hypocritically, in my opinion) was calling out and who Bernie Sanders more sincerely is at war with in his politics. They own Apple, they own Amazon, they own Walmart in Carlson's bit - they own the stuff needed to get things made. And they also own the results, the produced goods or services.

In this view, the majority of people lack control of the means of production, and instead have only their labor to sell. In the modern world, you would add ideas, skills, education, that nice piece of paper that says you can legally practice optometry...stuff like that. And those who own the means of production buy your labor, skills and education which you contribute in order to produce something, whether it's a good or service. Ultimately, they buy these from you at a price that you agree to that also keeps the total cost of your contribution plus all the other overhead within a price range a minimum number of others are willing to pay to acquire the results of production.

The problem, in Marx's view, comes about because there is an imbalance between owning the means of production and only having your labor to sell that leads to the owners of production exploiting the providers of labor/skills/ideas who don't have access to the means of production so that they work to reduce the cost of production to as low a cost as possible while selling the results at as high a price as possible. This means they are also trying to negotiate for your labor and skill at the lower price possible.

Ultimately, this goes on to further ideas regarding one of the modes of production we call capitalism which results in excessive production which only those who control the means of production benefit from because production no longer is addressing our global needs as a society but the needs of the owners of the means of production to make a profit or sell the results of production at a higher price than it costs to produce. Since you're outside of the end result, you don't directly benefit from the selling of what's produced only indirectly by the fact it allows you to keep selling your skill and labor. Scarcity happens in the middle of abundance.

The result gives rise to conflict between these two classes which everyone has heard of as the bourgeoisie (those who own the means of production) and the proletariat (those who don't own the means of production).

Within Marx's view, you and the immigrant are both part of the proletariat as neither of you control the means of production. So to Marx, what you should be concerned with relates to the mode of production that incentivizes the economics that pit you against one another.

So, let's ask ourselves: What mode of production (what how, where or why) would most strongly favor seeing the cost of labor driven down by flooding the labor market with more potential sources of labor willing to sell themselves at a lower price than you might to do the same job? One that favors competition and views profit as the just reward of risking one's capital or the means of production? Or one that favors seeing those doing the laboring not being exploited?

I don't know what Schmo said about Marxism, but the actual theories of Karl Marx and your own thinking are so parallel it's almost comical when you bad mouth it while ranting about the very things Marxism also viewed as problematic.

[_Some Schmo]

I don't know what Schmo said about Marxism, but the actual theories of Karl Marx and your own thinking are so parallel it's almost comical when you bad mouth it while ranting about the very things Marxism also viewed as problematic.

I didn't say anything about Marxism. What ajax is referring to (likely) is where I said I thought we still needed SNAP, as opposed to ajax who (based on how he posts) probably thinks it should be entirely scrapped.