Progressive taxation is no more equivalent to Communism than tax cuts for the wealthy are equivalent to Law-Of-The-Jungle Social Darwinism.
Indeed I interpret Marx’s quote as being distinct from Marxism itself.
I don’t care if she was speaking to Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. She provided a wonderful soundbite to be used against her. Kudos to her, for that.
And still, if that room of guilt-ridden taxophiles felt so strongly about, they could just give more now. Why wait for Uncle Sam to send around the hat?
Do you know that they haven’t, to charity? Can they not advocate that the common good would be served by the government mandating that everyone as wealthy as they pay more tax?
You’re all missing the key statement in the linked article.
Bill Clinton was a greater President than George Washington???
What was Grandma smoking?
True, Bill does have better teeth than George did (those false wooden choppers worked really badly on corn-on-the-cob). Beyond that, the comparison tends to favor GW rather heavily.
As to the claim in the OP, I think the GOP prescription benefits plan was also conceived of as benefiting the “common good*”, so GWB is obviously a Marxist, even though he is clean-shaven.
*defined as “re-electing Republicans via a plan that we don’t have the money to pay for”
Yes, there’s a slight difference; Marx was speaking of a wholesale restructuring of society through a revolution of the proletariat, while Clinton was talking about possibly restoring some taxes which had previously existed.
What else have ya got?
Because, of course, first they have to make sure all the rich people get taxed at the same rate. It would be inconsiderate of them to keep all the fun for themselves!
No, I used the correct word already- “redistribution.” Taxation is not control.
No it isn’t. It’s just liberal. Everything doesn’t fall into extremes of “fascism” and "“communism.” That’s just lazy debating.
Now this I agree with.
I was using hyperbole. I actually think the iron age would probably be sufficient. 
So Hilary was wrong in saying that the tax cuts should be rescinded? Since wealthy people can be relied on to donate to charity as much as they would pay in taxes, the use of coercion by government is both wrong-headed and pointless. If I understand your assertion.
They can. Most liberals do. But coerced donation is not charity, so your first point must be invalid.
And saying “the common good is served if the wealthy pay more” seems more or less synonymous with the “from each according to his ability” part of the OP.
No, it makes you Robin Hood.
Not that the politics of envy isn’t a core principle of much liberal thought. And there is a continuum from liberalism to socialism. Taxation is control, and control is ownership. And ownership by the state is socialism. Or fascism, as has been pointed out.
But I agree with Brutus. This ought to be a good soundbite for Hilary to deny during her next election cycle.
Regards,
Shodan
State control without direct ownership is not “fascist” in the sense of being a defining characteristic of fascism; it is a technique fascist regimes have used, but they don’t hold any copyright on it. The Swedish state also exercises substantial control of industries and businesses without direct ownership, and that is usually described as social democracy – I have never, ever heard anybody describe Sweden as fascist.
What a load of crap. What Hillary said is that the wealthy should pay their fair share. Bush has allowed them to pay less than their fair share. The only thing Hillary is “taking” from the wealthy is an amoral and irresponsible give-away from Bush.
there’s nothing wrong with Robin Hood, but in point of fact, Robon Hood stole, i just want the state to get what it’s got coming to it. The rich could not be rich without the state or without the people who do all the work for them. Inequities in pay scales and exploitation of the working class has resulted in a disproportionate, dysfunctional distribution of wealth which must be corrected by the state in order to preserve the state.
Please spare us your dime store psychology. I don’t envy anybody anything. My politics are influenced by actual compassion for other human beings. I guess a genuine social ethos is such a foreign concept to conservatives that it doesn’t seem real. They don’t believe liberals actually care about what we say we care about so concoct motivations which reflect their own hollow values (“I want money”). I don’t want money, I want social programs. I want a single income to be able to support a household again. I want equal access to education. I want poor kids to have health care. I want corporations to pay people in a manner which actually reflects the value of their production. I don’t give a rat’s ass about ever being rich myself. If I won the lottery tomorrow, I’d probably donate it all to charity. Don’t confuse your own values with mine.
So? There is a continuum on the color spectrum from blue to red. I guess that means blue must be red. There’s also a continuum from conservatism to Naziism. As a matter of fact, there’s a continuum from conservatism to communism. How about that! Continuums are fun…and meaningless.
No it isn’t.
Your ridiculous chain of logic fails in it’s first predicate. taxation is not control.
Why would she deny it? She said nothing extraordinary. Are you confusing her with another guy who makes ridiculous statements about other countries being imminent threats to US security and then, after a bloody invasion, and after no threat is found, denies that he ever said such a threat existed?
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
Say what?!
Karl Marx, “The Communism of the Rheinischer Beobachter”, 1847.
Marx, “Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”, 1844.
Care to reassess your statement, tomndebb?
Seems I’m not very clear on why she should need to deny it. The cutting taxes and spending like a drunken sailor routine that’s going on now is a financial disaster for this country. One or the other part of the equation, or both, needs to be changed, and will be a perfectly valid part of the electoral debate.
I think you’ve been wooshed. Tomndebb is saying that if you say that the philosophies of Clinton and Marx are identical because they both call for redistribution of wealth, you then have to say that both of their philosophies are identical to that of the early Christians, who also redistributed wealth and held property in common.
In other words, it’s possible to believe wealth should be redistributed without being a Marxist.
Ooooh, those wascally wiberals! Good catch, Olentzero, but he/they/it will probably try to weasel out of it, you know how they are. Probably going to try and pretend that they were being droll and ironic, kinda like they think that anyone with the good sense that God gave a goose is going to know that Hillary Clinton is not a fundamentalist Christian.
Boy, that’s so typical, isn’t it, O? You nail them on a factual error like that, and they try to pretend that they were kidding. Does their pefidy know no bounds?!
Olentzero if I’m reading this correctly I think you’ll find that something just rushed voer your head and quite a speed.
Or Whoooosh 
maybe tom was just being dry but he may also have confused Marx with Hegel, who was a devout Christian all his life (specifically a Lutheran). After his death there were two schools of Hegelists, “Left Hegelists” and “Right Hegelists.” The Right Heggies were Christian Fundamentalists who found justification for Hegel’s philosophy in the New Testament. The lefties were (of course) Godless atheists.
Since there really was an early Christian/commie movement descended from Hegel, maybe that’s what tom was thinking of.
What about the other half of the statement/joke?
Please tell me Hilary’s not a fundy.
'S possible; it’s happened before.
Nah, just a Methodist.
For shame.
And here I thought it was us Merkins who were unable to understand subtle comedy. Maybe Americanization really is having a deleterious effect on our transAtlantic friends.
Neither Marx nor Clinton are fundamentalist Christians. However, notice that a fundamentalists are constantly claiming that they are getting back to the fundamentals of the early Christian community. With me so far?
Now, one of the chief features of the early Christian community was that property was communal among the members, each giving what they had and receiving what they needed equally.
Now then, since Marx also proposed holding property in common and the OP has also accused Hillary of holding that same view, tom has cleverly stated that maybe they are really fundamentalist Christians getting back to one of the key characteristics of the early Christian community, when they are clearly no such thing.
Thusly, he has eviscerated the OPs arguments that you can lump people together into one group based on one simple statement.