No, I never heard of the Dr. in question. Now I am curious, why do you ask?
You just sounded a lot like my advisor, that’s all. He’s a cool guy. VERY involved with all the injustice going on in the Central American countries you described.
Way to go Bunnyhurt. I agree 125% with the spirit of your post but I have a few questions about the letter.
You wrote:
“*I have adopted a cynicism here to rival conservatives: they represent class structure, the very rich and very poor (this is also the dogmatic cornerstone of Marxism–based on Christian concepts of class opposition–go figure). Liberals, whatever that could mean, ideologically represent middle ground and equality. The very rich and very poor are humiliated by this institutional middle ground and seek to demonize it whenever possible. The real problem is when the very poor gleefully vote against their interests (usually in religious patriotic guise).” *
First, a quibble. I think its only vulgar Marxism that reduces class structure to “the very rich and very poor.”
Second, I agree that in ideological terms liberalism represents a middle ground between Marxist socialism and conservatism. But, in our present-day political makeup, liberalism (at least economic liberalism) has been pushed so far to the margins that it’s perceived as almost as bizarre as Marxism. Putting Marxism entirely aside, I see no reason why the very poor need to be “humiliated” by liberalism. I do not suggest that liberal economic policies as they were enacted c. New Deal - 1975 or so were perfect. But I do suggest that the reason “the very poor” vote against their interests isn’t to do with that (as you yourself suggest when you mention religious and patriotic motives). (I also suspect that the majority of the very poor either don’t vote at all or vote for liberal Democrats wherever they can find them.) So I’m not really sure what you’re getting at. Are you indicting liberalism itself for the poor’s disaffection? If so, I sympathize to a degree, but ultimately find many more proximate causes for the ease with which liberalism is demonized far and wide. BTW, have you (or has anyone else) read Thomas Frank’s book, One Market under God? It has awesome explanatory power.
Mandelstam: I haven’t yet read One Market Under God, but I have read Commodify Your Dissent.
Absolutely brilliant book. 
Well, since my total household income is somewhere in the top 15%, I don’t receive any kind of government aid, and I don’t have any problems with schools TRYING to teach religion to my future children, I’d probably be better off with the conservatives, though as a drug user I’d prefer a true libertarian government.
Tell that to whoever said (on the previous page) that “trickle down economics” leads to only the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. 
Sweeping proclamations indeed.
[quote]
Second, I agree that in ideological terms liberalism represents a middle ground between Marxist socialism and conservatism. But, in our present-day political makeup, liberalism (at least economic liberalism) has been pushed so far to the margins that it’s perceived as almost as bizarre as Marxism.
[quote]
Lets see if I can put this into perpective. Marx wanted a classless society. This could only be achieved through economic equality. Many modern “non-conservative” economic programs entail handouts. That is, welfare-like systems. It also involves upping other social programs like public education, public housing, public public public. From where I stand this is well on the path to Marx’s ideals. Oh, I know, its a slippery slope, isn’t it? But this was the plan outlayed, step by step. We’re entering the phase of class-based socialism (where wealth was distributed, but unevenly).
Before anyone cares to misinterpret what I said in the preceding paragraph, I would like to assert that I am not grouping liberal programs as explained above with communism, merely showing why there is a perceived correlation.
Mandelstam,
I was merely allowing for the fact that Marxian philosophy begins at where feudal conservatism ends, very rich and very poor, ie, cornerstone. In other words, progressive policies will prevent both from ever occurring, but here is where things get critical concerning the need for money.
As for the Christian-Marxist connection, this is more fascinating than either subject by itself and I think it explains alot about each and both. I am aware, for instance that the phrase “from each their ability, to each according to their needs,” came from the pre-Christian Pythagoreans, aka, Qumran Essenes. I am also aware the Christianity was, like Marxism, a movement only for the poor, as evidenced by Christ’s admonition to the young prince to make himself poor to follow him. This is my main problem with all of it. It is not an either/or universal simplicity. All of Christ’s parables speak of rich versus poor, with the poor learning their lesson, yet Christ was percieved as their champion, because he institutionalized poverty as godly.
Likewise, Marx imagined an industrial system based on agrarian communism. Big mistake. Why? Because heavy industry is based on innovation and machines, not peasant farmers and workers. The workers were always quasi-expendable in industrialism, and Marx wrote them into the equation for good (and Lenin wrote them out of small farming altogether). It seems then that money was the avoided issue. By failing to opt to tax the rich a certain amount and limiting their ability to escape it, he missed an elegant proposition and his dogma was always stressed to supply an adequate replacement to taxation, since this alone can provide basic shelter, health care insurance (not hospitals, another demand-side versus supply-side issue) and free higher-education, thus eliminating the need to HAVE money, but does not eliminate the need for money itself. Big difference.
I have one other common problem with Marx via Christ, and it is all about the idea or metaphor of corruption, in other words, placing a moral label on a control system. Where did one class of people (workers) think they could take over the reigns of an economic system and not be corrupted? Because Marx implied so, they simply weren’t in a corrupt class! I think Marxism made its biggest mistake when he neatly divided the world into absolute terms, and placed opposition between them. Without going into detail, I think the idea of money (an ancient tool) got into Marx’s theoretial way so he eliminated it. This caused most problems in communist production, since price was never allowed to be a factor of limiting or increasing production, which merely required a nod from a central bureaucrat (too many incorruptible people needed in Marxism). This resulted in unwanted toater-ovens piling up somewhere and made one broken bridge elsewhere the bottleneck to all distribution (because they shunned the capitalist idea of competition and redundancy.)
As for Marx’s competency. I read in Edmund Wilson’s <i>To the Finland Station</i> that Marx adamantly opposed communism being introduced into Russia and China, because “they weren’t ready for it.” (I’m sorry, I don’t have the page reference). If this is true, then he diminished his own ideas far more that be realized. If a nation has to be ready for it, this can also mean that they can therefore be passed the point of ever needing it. I’m sorry if this is a vulgarization, but all absolutisms give me a headache, because they contain maddingly simplistic assumptions with excruciating detail.
I also think you are right about the poor not voting being the real problem, I was confusing middle-class folks voting for the interests of the rich because they still had ideals meant for the very poor, and thereby assumed the ultra-rich deserved their power (from God I assume). My mistake. Thanks for posting.
Gadarene, and anyone else interested. Here is a link to an article-length synopsis of Frank’s latest.
http://www.thenation.com/directory/view.mhtml?handle=frank_thomas
Badtz: “Well, since my total household income is somewhere in the top 15%, I don’t receive any kind of
government aid…”
You’ve probably heard this before, Badtz, but just a reminder. Even under those (allegedly) big-government-
hating conservatives and, even in your elevated strata, you get plenty of government aid. Perhaps you meant to define that narrowly as in a welfare payment of some kind. But I needn’t remind you (I hope) that, just at random, the government “aids” you through social security, it helps to build the roads and bridges you drive on, it regulates the food that you eat (reducing the chances of your being harmed unawares my dangerous additives, etc.), it fosters public education, it defends the realm, it insures the banks where you deposit your savings, it manages monetary policy, it gave us the Internet… I will stop now as I suspect that wherever you are, you’re screaming “Uncle.” Also, IMO it’s a bit shortsighted to buy into the illusion that conservative politicians don’t support big government. Undoubtedly, they don’t like social welfare programs; but they seem mighty attached to the big Pentagon, big prisons, big pork barrel projects, and big stock-market bailouts just to name a few.
aynrandlover, I have no problem with the idea of liberalism as a kind of gradualist approach to achieving some Marxist ideals. That’s why I agreed with *Brian that liberalism was a middle ground. I just feel that we’ve moved so far to the right that, in real terms, the current middle ground is no longer liberal. It is, rather, a blend between conservative (neo-liberal) economics and liberal-leaning social views on issues such as abortion, separation of church and state, affirmative action, etc. And it’s shifting further right as we speak.
Brian, I was actually more interested in what you were trying to say about liberalism than I was in your views on Marxism. But thanks for the latter anyway.
I’m not sure where you got the idea that Marxism was a movement only for the poor. Sure, Marx expected the working classes to respond to his call, but his ideas were widely embraced by the middle- and upper-class intelligentsia. Engels was a manufacturer. Tying Marxism to Christianity is interesting and worthwhile, but its roots are much more firmly in Hegel (among other German Romantics) and in the classical tradition. Plato thought that private property corrupted; Thomas More reiterated that claim in the early 16th century; Rousseau attacked it in the mid 18th c. In other words, the desire for equality, and the impulse to see property as the big problem is at the center of humanist thinking (where Christianity, of course, plays a big role). Even Adam Smith (who is almost always misunderstood by those who cite him on laissez faire), understood that wealth was potentially demoralizing, and that capitalism needed to be supplemented by some kind of strong anti-materialistic bulwark (like charity and education).
The other things you’ve said are also very interesting to me, but rather complicated. I’m happy to discuss them with you and everyone else, but I leave that up to you as perhaps a thread on Marxism would be in order. If you wish it, I’ll start the thread and include the link to this one. In either case, welcome.
Mandelstam,
I would love to participate in the thread on economic values. I am concerned that humans have lost sight as to why they even advocate economic policy at all. As for private property, I get into hot water every time here, there are alot of slick-Ricks out there that can actually demonstrate the value of stewardship over resources, and even detail the problems of commons. Although there are ways around everything, I am very concerned not so much about the private property of artificial contructions, like houses and cars, but about the ability to profit from owning someone else’s “property” like houses and cars.
My point of departure for progressivism in general begins with the Federal Reserve, a quasi-federal bankers institution. Until they lend people money directly to buy houses, we have no business giving them the store and insuring bank deposits with our own printed money. Did I say money? (There is my view in a nutshell. It is not Marxist, it is not capitalist). We print and insure the money for people to get rich on. If they want to print their own money, they would not get rich, they would go broke. Why does the public go along with it other than by hoping to tax it? We own the money supply, it is ours, it is a metaphor of wealth, not real. We can tax as we please, because it is our economy, and there is an actual perfect amount to tax depending on certain factors. It is far better to tax than print worthless money. This is getting abstract, and I think Marx missed something big here via his prejudice.
I wasn’t trying to say that Marxism was designing an economy for poverty in the same way Christity was designed to pacify the poor, but I instinctively feel that by demonizing the economic middle-man, Marxism missed the point, which is not to eliminate the middle-man in some passionate fashion of leader-follower, but to all become middle-men in the abstract.
Brian (and anyone else eager to give this topic a whirl). Thread on economic values soon to come. At the mo’ I’m swamped with work so probably tomorrow or Friday. I agree, too, on the Fed.