‘Revolutionary Marxism’ course??

[Yarddog]

Big-government types can't accept the fact that eventually raising taxes lowers revenue, but it's a fact.

It is not a fact but only a wild claim by "so-called" small government republicans. We know they only call themselves small government types because they have expanded government more than democrats.

IRS records show that raising taxes very rarely causes lower revenue and it is only when taxes are drastically raised that lower revenues may occur. If you cvan back upi your claim, please provide them.

 

[xAmadeusx]

You have got to be kidding me! That is either them most ludicrous tongue-in-cheek bait I've ever seen set on this forum, or it is the product of a woefully uninformed mind. I've a feeling it is the former, as I've seen from your posts you are not uninformed. So what's the deal, Will? Wanting to get a rise out of me? Or do you really want a definitive discussion of the vast differences between the two systems? I would think the list of freedoms we have in this capitalism-fueled republic vs. the tyranny and authoritarianism of old-style communism would be enough for you to see with answer to your question without having to ask it. Let me know ... Which is exactly what we have in the US. I'm a conservative Republican, you're a moderate to liberal Democrat. we have our "mirrors" in Washington constantly presenting, debating, discarding and invoking new ideas every day. Communism had only one idea -- do what the state tells you and don't make waves and you will be happy. Or else.OK, then I withdraw my comments in my first response above in this post. But I'm leaving them there, not for you, but for others who might want to play games. Anyway, I more or less answered this in that first response, however, I must also address your question regarding the combinations we have so active in the US. In reality, only two conflict regularly and in such dynamic ways as to create dysfunction in the government: liberalism and conservatism. Our government has become so polarized by this constant debate it has stalemated the governing bodies' ability to effectively govern. Rather than government not working when one theory dominates, it is when neither can gain an upper hand that dysfunction occurs. Look at the last three years. The Democrats had free reign for the first two years, but found that the public hated what they did with that free reign, voting them out of office. Now, with conservatism on the upswing again, Democratic senators and representatives are fearful of doing anything lest the voting public become angry over whatever actions they take. One of the most telling indicators of that is the unanimous defeat of Empty Suit's budget three weeks ago in the House. The vote was 414-0. Not even the Democrats wanted to own a budget that has no hope of balancing the budget, not just in the next five or ten years, but ever. Our government doesn't work because our electorate are like scared sheep in a thunderstorm, running one direction when lightning strikes in front of them, and then stopping, turning and running back the other way when lightning strikes there, too.

Capitalism works because it allows for free market pricing fed by supply and demand. Capitalism encourages freedoms among the governed because the more free the governed are, the more likely they will contribute to both supply and demand and feed the economy. Communism doesn't work at all, because there is no incentive to produce, as the guy next to you who refuses to work, shows up when he wants and is usually drunk when he does is still going to get paid the same rate you do. Communism has a Five-Year Plan for everything, none of which ever come to fruition because the government doesn't know how to make the economy work because it killed or imprisoned all the capitalists when it became the governing theory of the country.

I've gone on much longer than I intended here, but I hope you get the idea. God bless.

You seem to be implying Marxism is inherently evil, which it is not. Pure marxism doesn't have a "ruler" in the traditional sense, however throughout history dictators have used it for their own personal gain and lust for power so it is easy to get that impression. Communist country's today are just as warped and twisted as our supposedly superior "democratic" country's are. You can spout out ideology all you want, in the end the people with power make the rules, just as they always have. It seems to me you can twist yourself into a knot debating politics, but you can't change the nature of the beast. Which is : money, control, power. The desire of all goverment. It saves us Christians alot of stress for us not to look at these corrupt kingdoms of men, but the pure kingdom of god that awaits us. Just my opinion. To get back to the original point, I don't see what is wrong with people learning about Marxism, everyone should examine diffrent ways of thinking and looking at the world. I don't think this course is going to breed a cult of Communist zealots, hell-bent on destrying the "'murican" way of life.

 

[Godcreatedsteve]

I just wish they'd get all that Marxism out of the Bible.

For instance: It says Jesus wanted to confiscate ALL the money of a wealthy young job-creator just to create another entitlement for the lazy poor! (Luk 18:22). Outrageous! I simply cannot believe the Son of Man was a communist. That passage must have been inserted by some liberal who was jealous of those who earned more than he did.

Then it says that Paul actually went around ORDERING Christians to give THEIR hard-earned money to poorer Christians in Jerusalem who probably didn't want to work for it. (1Co 16:1-4). By what authority did he undertake this involuntary distribution of wealth? Nope. Don't believe it.

Then to cap it off, it tells us that in the first church at Jerusalem, Acts 2:44-24 "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."

So you're trying to tell me the first Christian church was a Stalinist/Marxist dictatorship? Incredible.

I just wish someone would come along and REMOVE the sort of passages which so many of us good Christians find so offensive today.

 

[Yarddog]

I just wish they'd get all that Marxism out of the Bible.

For instance: It says Jesus wanted to confiscate ALL the money of a wealthy young job-creator just to create another entitlement for the lazy poor! (Luk 18:22). Outrageous! I simply cannot believe the Son of Man was a communist. That passage must have been inserted by some liberal who was jealous of those who earned more than he did.

Then it says that Paul actually went around ORDERING Christians to give THEIR hard-earned money to poorer Christians in Jerusalem who probably didn't want to work for it. (1Co 16:1-4). By what authority did he undertake this involuntary distribution of wealth? Nope. Don't believe it.

Then to cap it off, it tells us that in the first church at Jerusalem, Acts 2:44-24 "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."

So you're trying to tell me the first Christian church was a Stalinist/Marxist dictatorship? Incredible.

I just wish someone would come along and REMOVE the sort of passages which so many of us good Christians find so offensive today.

 

[WilliamB]

I just wish they'd get all that Marxism out of the Bible.

For instance: It says Jesus wanted to confiscate ALL the money of a wealthy young job-creator just to create another entitlement for the lazy poor! (Luk 18:22). Outrageous! I simply cannot believe the Son of Man was a communist. That passage must have been inserted by some liberal who was jealous of those who earned more than he did.

Then it says that Paul actually went around ORDERING Christians to give THEIR hard-earned money to poorer Christians in Jerusalem who probably didn't want to work for it. (1Co 16:1-4). By what authority did he undertake this involuntary distribution of wealth? Nope. Don't believe it.

Then to cap it off, it tells us that in the first church at Jerusalem, Acts 2:44-24 "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."

So you're trying to tell me the first Christian church was a Stalinist/Marxist dictatorship? Incredible.

I just wish someone would come along and REMOVE the sort of passages which so many of us good Christians find so offensive today.

"...and down goes Frazier!"