Marxism Never Died, It Just Went Underground

[Speaker to Animals]

I do not oppose a merchant class's existence at all. I think it is healthy to have one.

What I oppose is rule by merchants. I do not think the merchant class should retain political power at all.

Political power should only be wielded by the military class with the consent of the property owners. The warriors actually carry out the political will, risking their lives in the process, and the property owners have to financially support the political will. Everything beyond that is bullshit. If you aren't paying for it, and you aren't fighting for it, then just go home and worry about something else.

To use your example earlier with the dildos and the Feudal lord, do you feel that he represented the interests of the population better than a merchant? To play Devil's advocate, at least the Merchant accumulated wealth by being good at a trade or being savvy at business, whereas the lord got there because his father was a lord. Merchants' interests are often diametrically opposed to the rest of a society's, but for most of history, most lords and rulers had a tenuous connection to those they ruled over.

In the medieval period, it depended upon the landlord.

I am no fan of an inheritence-based aristocracy either. What I mean by a new aristocracy is a merit-based one. The political leadership is selected by the few from the ranks of military commanders. They appoint folks from the merchant class to advise and regulate commerce. Most likely, those appointees would themselves have served before going into the business world. The political elite would appoint the best experts they can hire to advise and manage specific aspects of their domain.

The whole thing would run upon the principle of subsiarity; all political decisions are made at the most local level possible. The political structure would look something more like the Diocesian reform system that became the bases of feudalism and, today, the Catholic Church's governing structure (national conference-diocese-parish). In the medieval period that was something more like duchy-county-barony. We still ostensibly have that structure in America, but it is corrupted by a growing federal government which is the source of the culture war.

[Martin Hash]

As exemplified in this thread, liberty is under attack from multiple fronts: there's the people that deny America was founded on liberty, they are basically Tories who want a theocracy; there are the Marxists, of course, all the Collectivists really, who think the group's needs come before an individual's wants; and there are the Elitists that want liberty for themselves but not for other people.

The question is, without indoctrination in schools, who supports liberty? If not for The American Dream, and Leftist narcissism (Marxist liberty); liberty would probably be gone already.

p.s. Who on this forum supports liberty? Are there more than 2 or 3 of us?

[Speaker to Animals]

Of course it wasn't founded on "liberty". Get real. You cannot win a debate by appealing to myths as reality.

[Martin Hash]

Of course it wasn't founded on "liberty". Get real. You cannot win a debate by appealing to myths as reality.

Fuck you. I don't recognize your expertise in anything any more than you recognize mine, and it's my forum.

[Speaker to Animals]

Of course it wasn't founded on "liberty". Get real. You cannot win a debate by appealing to myths as reality.

Fuck you. I don't recognize your expertise in anything any more than you recognize mine, and it's my forum.

Great conversation.

When you want to acknowledge historical facts, get back to me. Until then, have fun with the cherry tree myths.

[Fife]

Point of order, if it please the court?

By "founding," do we mean 1776, 1787, 1803, 1865-1870, 1913, or some other time? Or some kind of continuum? It makes a difference on how I would engage the discussion.

[heydaralon]

I do not oppose a merchant class's existence at all. I think it is healthy to have one.

What I oppose is rule by merchants. I do not think the merchant class should retain political power at all.

Political power should only be wielded by the military class with the consent of the property owners. The warriors actually carry out the political will, risking their lives in the process, and the property owners have to financially support the political will. Everything beyond that is bullshit. If you aren't paying for it, and you aren't fighting for it, then just go home and worry about something else.

To use your example earlier with the dildos and the Feudal lord, do you feel that he represented the interests of the population better than a merchant? To play Devil's advocate, at least the Merchant accumulated wealth by being good at a trade or being savvy at business, whereas the lord got there because his father was a lord. Merchants' interests are often diametrically opposed to the rest of a society's, but for most of history, most lords and rulers had a tenuous connection to those they ruled over.

In the medieval period, it depended upon the landlord.

I am no fan of an inheritence-based aristocracy either. What I mean by a new aristocracy is a merit-based one. The political leadership is selected by the few from the ranks of military commanders. They appoint folks from the merchant class to advise and regulate commerce. Most likely, those appointees would themselves have served before going into the business world. The political elite would appoint the best experts they can hire to advise and manage specific aspects of their domain.

The whole thing would run upon the principle of subsiarity; all political decisions are made at the most local level possible. The political structure would look something more like the Diocesian reform system that became the bases of feudalism and, today, the Catholic Church's governing structure (national conference-diocese-parish). In the medieval period that was something more like duchy-county-barony. We still ostensibly have that structure in America, but it is corrupted by a growing federal government which is the source of the culture war.

Would you allow movement of discontent citizens in this system? If I do not like how my town or barony is running stuff, can I move to another one? For a good part of Feudalism's history, movement was heavily restricted. I think said system could be decent or tyrannical based on your answer to this question. Being stuck under a despotic lord and being unable to relocate is not much better than being stuck under a despotic centralized authority from the perspective of the unhappy individual.

[Speaker to Animals]

Point of order, if it please the court?

By "founding," do we mean 1776, 1787, 1803, 1865-1870, 1913, or some other time? Or some kind of continuum? It makes a difference on how I would engage the discussion.

I'd start with the original four colonies.

Even then, and even if you start with 1789, it's ridiculous to claim it was based on "liberty" in the way that he defines it. Compulsory military service. Only the property owners could vote. Work on Sunday and get the stocks in the town center. Abortion came with the death penalty for the man performing it. No marrying black women. Slavery. Indentured servitude.

It's laughable to call that "liberty nation".

[GloryofGreece]

I'm a History teacher at a public school in the mid Atlantic. Have mercy on my soul.

Are you able to have the kind of conversations with your colleagues that you have on the forum with us? I remember having 2 really good history teachers in high school and one good govt teacher. Even they were pretty embittered with their jobs and did not have much faith in the schools to fix these problems. I graduated about a decade ago. Nothing I have seen in the news has led me to think the schools have gotten better since then.

Its like most jobs in that regard. You mind who and what you're talking about. I don't have conversations about politics or religion with coworkers. I have 2 people out of 120 teachers I can talk candidly with. I am generally and hopefully respectful and diligent enough in my work that it speaks for itself most of the time. I don't have a lot free time to talk with colleagues so there that to.

I am not bitter about my job or at least try not to be. I am lucky to have a job and I tried for a very long time with tons of difficulty to get the current position I am in. Some people are lucky and some people are better at finding jobs than me.

The education "system" is fractured and malfunctioning just like society is overall. I'm not trying to "fix" it b/c I cannot fix it. No one person can. That would be naive and hubristic. I am also not overly gloomy about it either. I concentrate on what I can do now with what I have at my disposal and little else. Clean up your room and all.

[Fife]

Point of order, if it please the court?

By "founding," do we mean 1776, 1787, 1803, 1865-1870, 1913, or some other time? Or some kind of continuum? It makes a difference on how I would engage the discussion.

I'd start with the original four colonies.

The cancerous ones, I know. We've heard that bit. I should have included 1517 as an option, taking the Original American Cancer into consideration regarding the date of founding.