It is like the stimulus package it is made to appear an enormously lot ( deluge down like a tropical rain) but it evaporates as quickly…
Trickle is an improper optically ellusive metaphor.
In fact it is an illusively constructed optical effect, resembling some kind of hothouse speculative bonzeei study- to assess a major cataclysm up and down the social spectrum, if the Big One were to occur.
After all 4 trillion is barely 25 percent of the gross national income of the US, a mere pittence when the inflationary pressures caused by printing unlimited amounts of currency are factored in.
The irony sculptor would be from the perspective of the working class in general; of what the ‘Right’ represents and stands for in theory, but what it ends up being in practice.
The theory that all are created equal cannot be tested because we cannot know if man was created (or just a subject of evolutionary forces and processes in a godless universe).
An example of the theory of legal rights being flawed would be any example you took from a typical trial involving negligent representation and defense for the defendant because he hasn’t the money for a real lawyer. I’ve actually experienced this myself. Now it needn’t matter that technically any legal representation is representation enough… but when a statistical pattern emerges showing differences in outcomes because of some other consistent factor (being broke), you can safely say that ‘equal rights’ only exists in theory in at least this respect, because of the quality of representation being the same in most of the bad outcomes (most felonies end up in plea bargains rather than not guilty verdicts) And that’s only one instance of unequal rights. Felons being unable to vote or carry firearms is another.
So you have a constitution founded on a baseless claim that we’re created by a god and a baseless claim that we’re given equal rights by it (for it very well could be that yeah, ‘god’ exists, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that it give us rights). But forget about that; god or not, if the constitution’s language is general enough, no real grit will be given to examining what equal rights plays out to be in real-time, not just on scrolls of parchment.
But back to the irony. Now one would think that the party endorsing religious doctrine as part of it’s foundation, would be the one looking out for the practical needs of the people… and yet the politics and economics it practices doesn’t allow for that. They favor only relatively few at the expense of others (that lost value when the worker receives less than what it cost the employer in wages to produce, market and sell).
While the other party, the ‘Left’, are heathens who believe in neither divine creation or inherent rights (materialists would believe in no such thing), and yet have the working class interests as its sole purpose.
That’s irony Haus. No matter how you cut it. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t such a costly irony to so many millions of decent honest working people.
When those who can manage a large business can’t keep their money for doing so, they stop managing the large business - or just move somewhere else. In either case jobs go away and no one makes money. Instead the socialist government raises taxes even more on everyone else until only the wealthy running the government have anything worth having - Venezuela.
Without corporations making huge amounts of money, 100’s of millions of jobs go away and communism takes over – maximum taxation for minimum service (if any).
It is simple economics that has proven out time and time again = “science” on the peasants.
I really hate for this unworthy one to have to contradict Your Worship with the facts of real life but humility has offered me no choice -
How do you kill a snake - cut off its head
How do you get rid of the bees - kill the queen
How do you conquer a kingdom - capture the king
How do you control a corporation - buy out the board
How do you defeat an army - capture its generals
How do you destroy a nation - corrupt its government
Power, it seems, is always assembled from above. Take away what is on top and the rest disperses into dust. The arms and legs do powerful work. But cut out the heart and they lose all inspiration. Cut off the head and they lose all direction.
I agree that the feet do all of the walking – but they only get fed by the heart and the head.
Guys, the problem as i see it is the Trumpian no holds barred return to classic Capitalis, the so called gilded age where no controls were placed on unlimited acquisition. Deregulation, De unionization, and a nostalgic return to an era that developed reactions like Marxism
But such return is regular and compelling. , given the natural inclination of men.
This against tje effects of neo liberal idealism of the worker class which does mot exist either. The in between synthetic appeal went out with the death of gods. the leaders and movers whose spotless integrity to the common good has lost it’s luster, along with the individual appreception of the value and general meaning of a life worth living.
It was never “unlimited” and no one but the Marxists creating a strawman ever propose that it ever be unlimited. “It’s free and wild! You need us to control it or it will EAT YOU!!”
Is freedom or responsibility the antecedent without a connection, that overcomes basic human traits of very early. acquisition like wild wilderness to frolic in.
The wilderness as a romantic tableau has always been wild and dangerous where the inhabitants were literally dog eat dog, up unto the time of Brit landscape artists who tamed their aggression on canvas in their exquisite drawing rooms.
There is Constitution or constitution right or wrong way. Those issues, by now coincidental with such epithets like the power of the will of the people are strong constitutive forces to reckon with even to the present day. That is what I mean for example by the coined phrases of a silent majority.
The either this or that has been removed from the equisation and this silence has become deafening. Marx may have become too aware of it. Others as well.
Meno: A dicothomy can not fairly engage a substantial narrative without mediating between it’s constitution and regulation. Other they become rebel rousing platitudes. Marx was aware of it.
Observe: “There is either a constitution that limits government control or there isn’t. Marx didn’t like that.
If a constitution attempts to limit a government in the wrong way (as most have done) - the government takes over anyway.”
K: as you are completely ignorant of Marx or Marxism or communism…please feel free to
show us in Marx writing’s where he wrote about a constitutions that he disliked…
of course, you can’t…you wouldn’t know Marxism if it came up and bit your ass…
Sure there are people with political power who draw from Marx’s ideas and are identified with the left… but there is a lot of Marx which they don’t observe, and in doing so they create their own ideological brand that isn’t exclusively Marxist.
And there are instances when all of Marx is observed but additions to theory and practice are made. Leninism is an example; an upgraded and historically contingent attempt at pure Marxism in new conditions Marx had no experience of.
But really man, Democrats and fashion leftists (millennials and old yuppies) are the products of the kind of society that is run along the lines of something like, say, American capitalism/consumerism? This is to suggest that it couldn’t be Marx, or a Marxism, that has made them such flakes, since they are made by the environments they are in (not the environments in the textbooks). You know that, right? I mean I dunno man some of the stuff u guys say sometimes… I’m like ‘htf did he get that?!’
In any event, Democrats, like the type I mentioned above, only draw from Marx, and indirectly at that. But all of it lacks a key feature of Marxism that breaks the deal; the working class’s control of society is only ‘democratically representational’ (if at all), and nothing like the structure of government that would exist after the basic planks were established.
So despite socialized health care, free education and housing, and whatever else might be in the to-do list of a Democrat, he/she is still only a welfare capitalism crony.
actually Marx held that documents like the constitution are documents that
allow the powerful, wealthy owners of the means of production to use these
documents to be weapons against the poor and working class… the constitution
is a weapon to preserve the status quo for the ones who own society…
the constitutional safeguards are really just means to hold the lower classes
in their place as workers/slaves of the owners of the means of production…
it is a truism of Marx, that society is always in a state of war, of the
powerful and wealthy, who are always a small minority, who wage war
against everyone else…to maintain and hold power… which is why they
hold that money is the prime mover of people and why? because they hold
the money… thus they hold the power…it is simply human nature to
subscribe the thing that one has as to being the most important aspect in life…
I am very smart, so I hold that intelligence is the most important thing around,
because It makes my intelligence more important… as I have more of it then you do…
if you own property, then property becomes the most important thing because you
own property…it is human nature to make the thing we hold most of, to be the most
important thing around…
and so the owners of society make money the most important thing,
because that is what they have…so they use the constitution as a means
to maintain and hold their wealth…it is a weapon…
you completely miss why Marx held what he held… why those views as oppose
to other views? because he saw/felt that the way to free the common person,
was to overthrow the existing order which is just a way to maintain power
for the owners of the means of production…
you have to start with why marx held these beliefs and then work your way to
the solutions he “discovered”…if the wealthy owners of society use wealth
to hold onto their power, then they also use property that way…
why do you think property is so important to the owners of the means of
production? because they hold a shitload of it… it is a means of holding
everyone else in their grip…remove the idea of private property and you remove
one of the weapons of the wealthy/powerful…
that is why the communist is so adamant against private property… it is seen
as a weapon being used against everyone else…that is why property laws
are much more held sacred then laws about capital punishment… property
is held to be of greater value then human lives…and why the cops
hold property violence as being of more important then the loss of human beings,
because it is a means of the wealthy/powerful to hold onto their wealth and power…
it is a weapon against the poor…
it is interesting that the right never seems to have a sense of context…
you make blanket statements that means nothing because they have no context…
to say, as you do, “look at all of his followers- the party of hate and greed. In America-
the socialist/democrat party” and yet this means nothing because it has no context…
where we sit and not as followers of Marx because I am not, but where we stand is
we want a voice, a say in our lives and the only way we are going to have that is
by eliminating the owners of the means of production… the wealthy and powerful who
use the police and the documents like the constitution to maintain and hold onto wealth,
to have an equal class of people who have equal say in society…that is the only way
I can ensure that I have a voice and that you have a voice in the society we live in is
by making society, our society to be fair and just (for justice is simply the
use of equality for all)
I don’t want power… I want to ability to become who I am and have a say,
both say and ability to act, in our society… today, I am voiceless and powerless
to having a say in our society… me and millions of other Americans lack a voice
in how we live our lives…so to have my objective, which is to have a say
and voice in how my life is lived, I must then ensure how you can have a say/voice
in our society… that is the only way this works…
if none of us have any say, then society no longer functions…
and we cannot allow just some to have a voice, it is another all or nothing
type of proposition… either all of us are free or none of us is free…
that is the entire basis of thinking… the only way I can get my voice heard is to
get your voice heard…as all of us can be heard… it is all of us, or none of us…