Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, doctrain, here's the quote - which bit is it you find issue with?
Quote:
The capitalist maintains his rights as a purchaser when he tries to make the working-day as long as possible, and to make, whenever possible, two working-days out of one. On the other hand...the laborer maintains his right as seller when he wishes to reduce the working-day to one of definite normal duration. There is here, therefore, an antinomy, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchanges. Between equal rights force decides. Hence is it that in the history of capitalist production, the determination of what is a working-day, presents itself as the result of a struggle, a struggle between collective capital, i.e., the class of capitalists, and collective labour, i.e., the working-class.
Yeah, I know - a bit longer than your average Fox news soundbite, and no pictures, but still - where is Marx wrong , here? - or are we going to get a knee-jerk "Written by Marx, so BAD! - and that's all you should want to know!" response? (Kinda like the East Bloc would treat criticism, back in the bad old days - only they'd knee-jerk the other way - "Written by Decadent Western Capitalist, so BAD! - and that's all you should want to know!")
One might add that concepts like 8-hour workdays and 5-day workweeks historically are results of struggles - so the old boy had a point.
"Class warfare" is what right wingers call the middle class when it dares stick up for their family, career, and livelihood.
When are independent voters going to wake up and realize how harmful this ideology is their self interest?
no class warfare is what that idiot in the white house is doing when he says the rich need to pay thier "fair share" but fails to tell you that they are already paying 80% of the tax burden in this country.... and provide all of the jobs...
"Between things like Anita Dunn’s professed love for Mao Tse-Tung and the not-controversy surrounding the president’s new campaign slogan (“Forward!”), we suspect White House staffers are getting awfully tired of responding to questions about whether the Obama administration employs at least a few communist-sympathizing officials."
"Rick Bookstaber, who currently serves on President Obama’s Financial Stability Oversight Council, may have just kicked off another round of these questions."
Have you read Marx's work? Very thought-provoking. Like any social treatise, people can take another's words and use them to justify horrible ends. But that's the fault of the one doing the justification.
So, doctrain, here's the quote - which bit is it you find issue with?
Yeah, I know - a bit longer than your average Fox news soundbite, and no pictures, but still - where is Marx wrong , here? - or are we going to get a knee-jerk "Written by Marx, so BAD! - and that's all you should want to know!" response? (Kinda like the East Bloc would treat criticism, back in the bad old days - only they'd knee-jerk the other way - "Written by Decadent Western Capitalist, so BAD! - and that's all you should want to know!")
One might add that concepts like 8-hour workdays and 5-day workweeks historically are results of struggles - so the old boy had a point.
After quoting Karl Marx, here are this White House Adviser's own words. You may find them delightful; but some of us here in the U.S., don't really get a warm and fuzzy feeling when we see the word "redistribution" used in the same passage with a reference to Marx, especially when presented by a White House Advisor.
"There is only so much to go around, and the efforts of one group or the other to assert a claim to a larger share can be called class warfare. It can be a war waged through changes in the taxes, in a restructuring of incentives and pay scales, an increase in the benefits given to the poor, or revolt. The first three are legitimate means in our society, and it is really taking a good joke to far to suggest it is damaging to the body politic for members of society to look at the differences in income and take action to redistribute in their direction."
I don't see this Obama advisor giving any praise to Karl Marx, it looks like he to that quote as a timeline to show what people where going through then as opposed to now.
What I find more shocking is this, in his own words
"The benefits that we call entitlements are similar in our more advanced society to the rights of subsistence for the serfs during Feudal times – rights which were implicit in the social contract between lord and serf, and which were broken at the peril of revolt. The social contract between the lord and serf, as with any contract, had obligations on both sides. The serfs paid a portion of their production and provided service to the lords. The lords organized the serfs to defend against invasion, enforced a rule of law, and assured the serfs, as much as possible in that age, of subsistence. Is this so different from social contracts of today?"
He's calling people modern day serfs. He must definitely be a crazy right wing nut job conspiracy theorist who needs a tinfoil hat.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
