Economics Wall Street angered by communistic claw backs [Archive]

Taco John

10-22-2009, 05:57 PM

Wall Street angered, bemused as U.S. pay czar acts
Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:10pm EDT

NEW YORK/CHARLOTTE, N.C, Oct 22 (Reuters) - Wall Street on Thursday reacted with a mixture of dismay and resignation to the Obama administration's long-anticipated move to slash the pay of top executives at the top beneficiaries of bailout funds.

Pay czar Kenneth Feinberg's announcement that he would slash the pay of the highest paid employees under his jurisdiction drew howls of indignation from one major target, Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), while other responses were more muted.

In a sign that the moves had been largely discounted by investors, shares in Citigroup (C.N) and Bank of America (BAC.N) were up slightly, although they lagged a broader rally in financials, while stock in insurer American International Group (AIG.N), which has gotten the most aid of anyone, surged 6 percent.

Bank of America, the largest U.S. bank, which has had a testy relationship with the government ever since its takeover of Merrill Lynch, was the most outspoken critic of the move.

"People want to work here, but they want to be paid fairly," said Scott Silvestri, Bank of America's spokesman, who defended the bank's pay practices, saying it has strived to align shareholder interests with compensation.

Silvestri said Feinberg's rulings will put Bank of America at a competitive disadvantage with competitors who are not under the thumb of the pay czar -- and that the bank's employees are already being lured away.

BofA's angry response stood in stark contrast to that by Citigroup, which said it is "pleased" Feinberg's decision has been issued and it will now work toward compliance.

AIG chief executive Robert Benmosche moved to reassure employees that salaries were not be cut across the board.

"It is important that all of you know that the Special Master's jurisdiction is quite limited, and we expect Feinberg's upcoming decisions on compensation to cover only the top 25 employees at AIG," Benmosche said in an internal memo distributed around the company late on Wednesday.

One Wall Street veteran, John Gutfreund, Salomon Brothers CEO in the 1980s, said the reform efforts might be too little, too late.

"I think they should have thought about it sooner for goodness sakes," Gutfreund said. "When they skewed the rules to favor the large institutions, they didn't think about the consequences as much as they might have."

Feinberg, a Washington lawyer, was appointed by the Obama administration in June to oversee compensation at seven firms that received massive taxpayers bailouts.

Some investors said the Feinberg ruling simply confirmed the rocky path faced by the biggest bailout recipients.

"Once you have fallen into the arms of the Treasury, which is what these companies have done, then you are on an unknown highway," Marshall Front, of Front Barnett Associates.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews/idUSN2219967120091022?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=11604

banyon

10-22-2009, 06:04 PM

They made their bed.

"Communism" occurred when they pleaded with Congress to bail their a**es out.

Taco John

10-22-2009, 06:17 PM

They made their bed.

"Communism" occurred when they pleaded with Congress to bail their a**es out.

No. Communism occured when Congress went ahead and bailed them out. Pleading is not communism. It's pleading. Bailing them out is communism and then using that bail out to restructure the industry how it sees fit, is more communism.

Two wrongs don't equal a right.

Saul Good

10-22-2009, 06:20 PM

I was going to agree with banyon until I read Taco's post.

vailpass

10-22-2009, 06:22 PM

I was going to agree with banyon until I read Taco's post.

I was going to agree with them both until I read your post.

petegz28

10-22-2009, 06:35 PM

Banyon has a point. Taco has a better one.

It's one thing for the kid to ask for money they don't deserve. It's another for the parents to give it to them.

SHTSPRAYER

10-22-2009, 06:59 PM

Larry Summers.

LOL

How could anybody defend voting for B.O.?

Direckshun

10-22-2009, 07:06 PM

Don't accept the money if you do not want to be told what to do with it.

petegz28

10-22-2009, 07:10 PM

Don't accept the money if you do not want to be told what to do with it.

What about companies who had it forced upon them?

banyon

10-22-2009, 07:28 PM

What about companies who had it forced upon them?

I've never heard any credible evidence that occurred.

SHTSPRAYER

10-22-2009, 07:30 PM

Even communists (the ones who will actually admit it on not put on a front like B.O. and Banyon) can see through the guy's BS:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/pers-o20.shtml

BucEyedPea

10-22-2009, 07:32 PM

Govt money=control

BucEyedPea

10-22-2009, 07:33 PM

Even communists (the ones who will actually admit it on not put on a front like B.O. and Banyon) can see through the guy's BS:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/pers-o20.shtml

banyon's not for communism for corporations—just for the people.

SHTSPRAYER

10-22-2009, 07:35 PM

banyon's not for communism for corporations—just for the people.

ROFL

KCTitus

10-22-2009, 07:41 PM

I've never heard any credible evidence that occurred.

It's not hard to find...I used this new thing called Google.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=ayqseC8JU2.I

“Is this America -- when you do what your government asks you to do and then retroactively you also have additional conditions?” Kovacevich said. “If we were not forced to take the TARP money, we would have been able to raise private capital at that time” and not needed to cut the dividend to preserve cash, he said.

SHTSPRAYER

10-22-2009, 07:42 PM

It's not hard to find...I used this new thing called Google.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=ayqseC8JU2.I

ROFL

petegz28

10-22-2009, 08:01 PM

I've never heard any credible evidence that occurred.

I have. I was skeptical about it but I have since been corrected. It did happen.

Taco John

10-22-2009, 10:06 PM

banyon's not for communism for corporations—just for the people.

I doubt that's true. He seems to be fully on board with this communistic restructuring of the finance industry by the looks of his comments in this thread.

Swanman

10-22-2009, 10:22 PM

The only reason to inject money into those companies was to get the credit markets loosened up after the idiots went all-in on subprime and got burned. However, the idiots in Congress (both parties, for you left and right wingtards) decided to not put strict conditions on the payouts so instead of using the funds to make loans and thaw out the credit markets, they hoarded it and used it to pay large bonuses to executives. For that I completely blame the govt, you can't write a blank check without conditions.

BucEyedPea

10-22-2009, 10:28 PM

I doubt that's true. He seems to be fully on board with this communistic restructuring of the finance industry by the looks of his comments in this thread.

I thought he didn't support the big banks bailout. He's usually anti-corporate generally.

Taco John

10-22-2009, 11:21 PM

I thought he didn't support the big banks bailout. He's usually anti-corporate generally.

He may not have supported the bail outs, but now that government has their hooks in this industry, he's all for seeing the communist reconstruction of executive pay commence.

kcfanXIII

10-23-2009, 12:03 AM

why in the hell do we need a pay czar?

HonestChieffan

10-23-2009, 05:33 AM

I've never heard any credible evidence that occurred.

http://img2.allposters.com/images/MEPOD/10049847.jpg

petegz28

10-23-2009, 06:24 AM

BucEyedPea

10-23-2009, 06:46 AM

The bigger concern here is the Fed coming out with "pay guidelines" for banks that didn't take $1 of TARP funds. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs has a standing agreement that the Fed will bail them out if needed.

Correct. I read earlier that this administration wanted to go after more than this industry too. After it was reported they back tracked. They're just trying to see how far they can take such things. He's communist. Next will be the living wage, which a number of lefties, including religious support. Both are communism— wage controls.

BucEyedPea

10-23-2009, 06:48 AM

He may not have supported the bail outs, but now that government has their hooks in this industry, he's all for seeing the communist reconstruction of executive pay commence.

This is true but it's not like it's their own money anymore when they get a bail out like that. That's the danger is such a move. Ownership of the major means of production takes many forms. That's the bait.
Instead of controlling their wages, the govt's only right here is to set guides on what they can't do with the money they gave them. Not that that would work either since they don't know enough about that industry to run it.

tiptap

10-23-2009, 06:56 AM

No. Communism occured when Congress went ahead and bailed them out. Pleading is not communism. It's pleading. Bailing them out is communism and then using that bail out to restructure the industry how it sees fit, is more communism.

Two wrongs don't equal a right.

No Communism occurs when there is no asking and the government nationalizes anyway. Democracy requires that interests have an effect on the government practices. You can argue the government made the wrong decision by being socialistic but not that it was Communistic with a central control. It was responding to appeals.

BucEyedPea

10-23-2009, 07:00 AM

No Communism occurs when there is no asking and the government nationalizes anyway. Democracy requires that interests have an effect on the government practices. You can argue the government made the wrong decision by being socialistic but not that it was Communistic with a central control. It was responding to appeals.

May I ask who asked the govt for those bailouts? As far as I know it was GoldSachs, Bush and Bernanke that pushed this whole thing. They own our Treasury Dept.

Marx used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably. So did the people of his era in the mid nineteenth century. Communism is socialism. It's just the phase where the state dictatorship is gone but socialism is still practiced. Communism is not limited to the Lenins, Stalins and Maos of the world. It's just that the word nowadays has a stigma to it. You still can't change what it is though: ownership ( which means control) of the major means of production. ( you, I, bankers etc.)

HerculesRockefell

10-23-2009, 07:13 AM

why in the hell do we need a pay czar?

Because the Messiah says we do, now don't question his motives

SHTSPRAYER

10-23-2009, 07:33 AM

May I ask who asked the govt for those bailouts? As far as I know it was GoldSachs, Bush and Bernanke that pushed this whole thing.

And that POS Paulson.

This was the swindle of the century.

BucEyedPea

10-23-2009, 07:56 AM

And that POS Paulson.

This was the swindle of the century.

He's included under Goldman Sachs. Treasury has been a revolving door of former GS alumuni, that return to GS employment once their stint is done at Treasury. Reich ring a bell?

SHTSPRAYER

10-23-2009, 08:14 AM

He's included under Goldman Sachs. Treasury has been a revolving door of former GS alumuni, that return to GS employment once their stint is done at Treasury. Reich ring a bell?

It's a good ol' boy network and it includes Summers and Geitner.

blaise

10-23-2009, 08:19 AM

why in the hell do we need a pay czar?

So they can parade things like executive pay cuts in front of the public and make it seem like we need the Obama administration to save us all from rampant corruption.

Taco John

10-23-2009, 10:24 AM

banyon

10-23-2009, 06:50 PM

I have. I was skeptical about it but I have since been corrected. It did happen.

So, I don't suppose you're going to actually offer any of this so-called evidence?

tiptap

10-23-2009, 08:11 PM

The distinction that you are attempting to make is meaningless. Communism isn't negated because the industry being communized is asking for it.

It is the question of the legitimate right for the majority to decide on the Representatives to act as government's "regents" within the limits and the rights of the individual to act against the wishes of that majority.

RINGLEADER

10-23-2009, 08:50 PM

So, I don't suppose you're going to actually offer any of this so-called evidence?

I feel like Timothy Robbins during that scene in the Shawshank Redemption where the word "obtuse" gets thrown around...

petegz28

10-23-2009, 09:25 PM

So, I don't suppose you're going to actually offer any of this so-called evidence?

Read the thread a little slower...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6197368&postcount=15

KCTitus

10-23-2009, 10:11 PM

So, I don't suppose you're going to actually offer any of this so-called evidence?

Good grief...I came back to this thread to apologize to banyon for my snarky comment about using Google to find the evidence he desired only to find a second request for evidence.

I mean, seriously, at this point if you're not going to read something from Bloomberg News service about this, what possible source do I need to provide?

The only other source I have is the Wall Street Journal. Does this work?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122402486344034247.html

It was Monday afternoon at 3 p.m. at the Treasury headquarters. Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke had called one of the most important gatherings of bankers in American history. For an hour, the nine executives drank coffee and water and listened to the two men paint a dire portrait of the U.S. economy and the unfolding financial crisis. As the meeting neared a close, each banker was handed a term sheet detailing how the government would take stakes valued at a combined $125 billion in their banks, and impose new restrictions on executive pay and dividend policies.

The participants, among the nation's best deal makers, were in a peculiar position. They weren't allowed to negotiate. Mr. Paulson requested that each of them sign. It was for their own good and the good of the country, he said, according to a person in the room.

During the discussion, the most animated response came from Wells Fargo Chairman Richard Kovacevich, say people present. Why was this necessary? he asked. Why did the government need to buy stakes in these banks? [...]

After Mr. Kovacevich voiced his concerns, Mr. Paulson described the deal starkly. He told the Wells Fargo chairman he could accept the government's money or risk going without the infusion. If the company found it needed capital later and Mr. Kovacevich couldn't raise money privately, Mr. Paulson promised the government wouldn't be so generous the second time around.

If this doesnt work, we're living in two separate realities and have no real objective point of reference to one another. It's almost as if we're arguing the color of the sky...Im going with blue...maybe we can find agreement there.

Jenson71

10-24-2009, 06:27 AM

Marx used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably.

No, he didn't.

banyon

10-24-2009, 08:32 AM

Good grief...I came back to this thread to apologize to banyon for my snarky comment about using Google to find the evidence he desired only to find a second request for evidence.

I mean, seriously, at this point if you're not going to read something from Bloomberg News service about this, what possible source do I need to provide?

The only other source I have is the Wall Street Journal. Does this work?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122402486344034247.html

If this doesnt work, we're living in two separate realities and have no real objective point of reference to one another. It's almost as if we're arguing the color of the sky...Im going with blue...maybe we can find agreement there.

After Mr. Kovacevich voiced his concerns, Mr. Paulson described the deal starkly. He told the Wells Fargo chairman he could accept the government's money or risk going without the infusion. If the company found it needed capital later and Mr. Kovacevich couldn't raise money privately, Mr. Paulson promised the government wouldn't be so generous the second time around.

Apparently. You're living in one where giving someone the option to do or not do something is "forcing" and I'm not.

banyon

10-24-2009, 08:34 AM

Read the thread a little slower...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6197368&postcount=15

Maybe you should read the sentence a little slower:

“Is this America -- when you do what your government asks you to do and then retroactively you also have additional conditions?” Kovacevich said. “If we were not forced to take the TARP money, we would have been able to raise private capital at that time” and not needed to cut the dividend to preserve cash, he said.

This is this guy's assertion, not evidence of anything. How did they force him?

petegz28

10-24-2009, 08:37 AM

Maybe you should read the sentence a little slower:

This is this guy's assertion, not evidence of anything. How did they force him?

K, continue to play this game.

banyon

10-24-2009, 08:41 AM

K, continue to play this game.

It's not a game. I asked how the government forced anyone and you can't give an answer. It's pretty simple really.

BucEyedPea

10-24-2009, 08:41 AM

No, he didn't.

Yes he did.

In Marx and Engels earlier days (during Communist Manifesto time) they referred to themselves as 'communists' and other tendencies as 'socialist'. Later relied more on the word socialism. It was a utopian movement that intellectually just had two phases.

Ultimate end is that it's the same economic system. One enforced by dictatorship until man was perfected enough to practice is voluntarily.

Upshot———————————>no real difference in the system except lack of force in communism

BucEyedPea

10-24-2009, 08:43 AM

It is the question of the legitimate right for the majority to decide on the Representatives to act as government's "regents" within the limits and the rights of the individual to act against the wishes of that majority.

Legitimate right? wtf is that? They never protect property rights, they keep attacking them. Those are rights too...that should be enforced AGAINST any majority's wishes.

BucEyedPea

10-24-2009, 08:49 AM

As a political ideology, communism is usually considered to be a branch of socialism; a broad group of economic and political philosophies that draw on the various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution.[4] Communism attem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

The dominant forms of communism, such as Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism are based on Marxism, but non-Marxist versions of communism (such as Christian communism [Jensen's branch] and anarcho-communism) also exist.

banyon

10-24-2009, 09:10 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

You really need to learn Venn Diagrams.

All Communists are socialists does not equal all socialists are communists.

just like All humans are mammals does not mean all mammals are humans.

Jenson71

10-24-2009, 02:51 PM

Yes he did.

In Marx and Engels earlier days (during Communist Manifesto time) they referred to themselves as 'communists' and other tendencies as 'socialist'. Later relied more on the word socialism. It was a utopian movement that intellectually just had two phases.

Ultimate end is that it's the same economic system. One enforced by dictatorship until man was perfected enough to practice is voluntarily.

Upshot———————————>no real difference in the system except lack of force in communism

No, he didn't.

Socialism was a specific and exclusive step before the natural communist end. There was an evolution in the word socialism, but it wasn't with Marx and Engels that the evolution occurred.

It's funny you mention how Marx wrote of this utopian movement because Marx specifically argued against the utopian idealists of his days by basing his arguments in the most scientific analysis of the world that he could come up with in order to specifically not be utopian.

SHTSPRAYER

10-24-2009, 03:10 PM

No, he didn't.

Socialism was a specific and exclusive step before the natural communist end. There was an evolution in the word socialism, but it wasn't with Marx and Engels that the evolution occurred.

It's funny you mention how Marx wrote of this utopian movement because Marx specifically argued against the utopian idealists of his days by basing his arguments in the most scientific analysis of the world that he could come up with in order to specifically not be utopian.

College brat prattle.

:rolleyes:

Jenson71

10-24-2009, 03:16 PM

College brat prattle.

:rolleyes:

If you think political theory is something only for college kids to talk about, then **** you for your disrespect of our country, its founders, and its people. I'm glad a generation of men in the 1770s had enough self-respect to learn it and make a great country. I'm saddened that they have descendants like you, a lazy, worthless, greasy piece of shit.

Do you have any self-respect and decency? Do you ever get pissed at how pathetic you are on this board? It's amazing you can't act like a goddamn decent human being around here.

SHTSPRAYER

10-24-2009, 03:54 PM

If you think political theory is something only for college kids to talk about, then **** you for your disrespect of our country, its founders, and its people. I'm glad a generation of men in the 1770s had enough self-respect to learn it and make a great country. I'm saddened that they have descendants like you, a lazy, worthless, greasy piece of shit.

Do you have any self-respect and decency? Do you ever get pissed at how pathetic you are on this board? It's amazing you can't act like a goddamn decent human being around here.

Put a cork in it, Biffy.

tiptap

10-25-2009, 10:48 AM

Legitimate right? wtf is that? They never protect property rights, they keep attacking them. Those are rights too...that should be enforced AGAINST any majority's wishes.

We disagree on this. I am an Indian Giver. I don't think an individual has the ultimate property right. After all it is the government that acts as arbiter for what rights people have to property. In the US, excepting the original 13, the property was distributed by Government issue from the beginning. And the original 13 moved from recognizing the Kings right to grant property and access to wealth to the people by way of their government.

I don't like property inheritance particularly. It economically equates to passing wealth by title associated with a family or in other words royalty.

I do think there has to be a tension between the extremes on this. I think you do have to allow a great deal of freedom to property as well as the ability to curb such.

I am happy to have your view to temper the excesses in the other direction.

This historically was much less an issue since one could essentially just move West and start over. But that isn't the case any longer. And so the tension is higher.

Chief Faithful

10-25-2009, 10:55 AM

Since when was the Executive Branch given the power to appoint Czar's that can decide appropriate pay in the private sector? This is consolidation of power that is very Socialist.

BucEyedPea

10-25-2009, 07:09 PM

We disagree on this. I am an Indian Giver. I don't think an individual has the ultimate property right. After all it is the government that acts as arbiter for what rights people have to property.

That's unfortunate because our Constitution protects property rights regardless of how they were orginally granted. You should live in China or in a feudal system with a Lord and King.

BucEyedPea

10-25-2009, 07:09 PM

Jenson71

10-25-2009, 09:10 PM

You're wrong. And the people of that era used those words interchangeably too.

No, I'm right. In the stages of historical development, socialism is after capitalism and before communism for Marx and Engel's philosophy.

SHTSPRAYER

10-25-2009, 09:11 PM

No, I'm right. In the stages of historical development, socialism is after capitalism and before communism for Marx and Engel's philosophy.

Kind of like Communism is after Colonialism but you moonbats always conveniently leave that out of your narrative.

Jenson71

10-25-2009, 09:17 PM

Kind of like Communism is after Colonialism but you moonbats always conveniently leave that out of your narrative.

It's just better if you not talk.

Taco John

10-25-2009, 11:20 PM

No, he didn't.

Socialism was a specific and exclusive step before the natural communist end.

That's a really dopey thing to say. A specific and exclusive step? Hardly. Socialism is like a collection of ingredients to create Communism, not some "specific step." Socialism isn't any one thing - it's a collection of a lot of little things, with the end goal of communitizing (as in community, as in communism) everything.

tiptap

10-26-2009, 07:03 AM

That's unfortunate because our Constitution protects property rights regardless of how they were orginally granted. You should live in China or in a feudal system with a Lord and King.

Did you read the rest of my quote. I think (I know you disagree) that we are on a path of a feudal system that protects property rights of families, not unlike royalty, in place of judging that property is held for the benefit of all as well as the individual. It is a fear of China or feudal system that drives my thoughts on the excesses of private ownership without constraint.

BucEyedPea

10-26-2009, 08:17 AM

Did you read the rest of my quote. I think (I know you disagree) that we are on a path of a feudal system that protects property rights of families, not unlike royalty, in place of judging that property is held for the benefit of all as well as the individual. It is a fear of China or feudal system that drives my thoughts on the excesses of private ownership without constraint.
I gave you communism ( socialism essentially) and a feudal system as a choice. Communism/socialism are a sort of feudalism....and an argument could be made that they're primitivism.

The answer to what you perceive as a path toward feudalism is not more feudalism or socialism. The answer is freedom which will not happen without protection of property rights and free-market capitalism.

Don't forget, in the socialist systems the rich elite are even smaller with poverty for all else—equally. That's why the gap you see is growing.

banyon

10-26-2009, 08:31 AM

No, I'm right. In the stages of historical development, socialism is after capitalism and before communism for Marx and Engel's philosophy.

She hasn't read any of the books, so she's relying on a thirdhand internet paraphrasing for her understanding, but as someone who has read them, you are of course correct.

BucEyedPea

10-26-2009, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by Jenson71 View Post
No, I'm right. In the stages of historical development, socialism is after capitalism and before communism for Marx and Engel's philosophy.
Nothing I said in this thread or earlier on this, contradicts what you said here. You're using a strawman.

The final stage, called communism is the same economic system just without a govt dictating it. It's a two stage philosophy.
I've read his material, I've discussed it with Marxists, and there's even Marxist forums where they discuss this aspect as well.

You are wrong on the part where Marx, or the people of that time, didn't use the two words interchangeably. Marx as well as Engels
used the two words at different points in their movement. They were still advancing the same ends.

Also, freedom by the left is redefined as being "free" from want. It is not about the original meaning of the word. That's the mindset of the left.

BucEyedPea

10-26-2009, 09:03 AM

No, I'm right. In the stages of historical development, socialism is after capitalism and before communism for Marx and Engel's philosophy.

ROFL at your neg rep here. You're the one that needs the education. LMAO Classic projection.

petegz28

10-26-2009, 09:43 AM

ROFL at your neg rep here. You're the one that needs the education. LMAO Classic projection.

When asked to explain Communism, Lenin replied, "Communism is Socialism in a hurry." Socialism has nowhere to progress but to Communism.

BucEyedPea

10-26-2009, 09:45 AM

Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)

As a political ideology, communism is usually considered to be a branch of socialism...

http://www.economicexpert.com/2a/Communist.htm

1.2 "Communism" and "socialism"

Much confusion surrounds the words "communism" and "socialism", particularly in the United States. The aim of this paragraph is to dispel that confusion. In terms of ideology and politics, communism is a sub-category of socialism.Communist ideology is a specific branch of socialist ideology and the communist movement is a specific branch of the larger socialist movement. A person who calls himself or herself a "communist " is a certain kind of socialist;

BucEyedPea

10-26-2009, 09:48 AM

When asked to explain Communism, Lenin replied, "Communism is Socialism in a hurry." Socialism has nowhere to progress but to Communism.

Excellent quote! Communism in actual practice is an oxymoron if it still has a state. Since no nation, including any socialist state, has ever gotten rid of their state communism has never been practiced. Except in religious orders like Jesuits which Jenson should join. Notice that no country has ever titled itself as a communist state. It's been the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics but it was still called a communist. That's what I mean about interchangeably using the terms.

Marx was a still communist as well as a socialist. Therefore, anyone promoting Marx is essentially promoting communism. ( If the person is of the Christian left then it's Liberation Theology.)

Jenson71

10-26-2009, 11:13 AM

That's a really dopey thing to say. A specific and exclusive step? Hardly. Socialism is like a collection of ingredients to create Communism, not some "specific step." Socialism isn't any one thing - it's a collection of a lot of little things, with the end goal of communitizing (as in community, as in communism) everything.

And in Marx's stages of historical development, capitalism is like a collection of ingredients to create socialism.

Jenson71

10-26-2009, 11:16 AM

Nothing I said in this thread or earlier on this, contradicts what you said here. You're using a strawman.

The final stage, called communism is the same economic system just without a govt dictating it. It's a two stage philosophy.
I've read his material, I've discussed it with Marxists, and there's even Marxist forums where they discuss this aspect as well.

You are wrong on the part where Marx, or the people of that time, didn't use the two words interchangeably. Marx as well as Engels
used the two words at different points in their movement. They were still advancing the same ends.

Also, freedom by the left is redefined as being "free" from want. It is not about the original meaning of the word. That's the mindset of the left.

Yeah. There's no showing you otherwise. You are a classic ignorant fool that thinks you know everything, shouts from the rooftop, and everyone else that does know recognizes this.

No wonder you rail against the current education system. You can't compete in it. You need your own niche that can remain unchallenged because it's separated from reality.

These talks about socialism, Marxism, communism are above your head. Don't even try.

Jenson71

10-26-2009, 11:22 AM

Excellent quote! Communism in actual practice is an oxymoron if it still has a state. Since no nation, including any socialist state, has ever gotten rid of their state communism has never been practiced. Except in religious orders like Jesuits which Jenson should join. Notice that no country has ever titled itself as a communist state. It's been the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics but it was still called a communist. That's what I mean about interchangeably using the terms.

If you mean that that is what you mean, then don't say things like "Marx used communism and socialism interchangeably." There is, of course, a difference.

Marx was a still communist as well as a socialist. Therefore, anyone promoting Marx is essentially promoting communism. ( If the person is of the Christian left then it's Liberation Theology.)

Marxism = communism!?! Is this original scholarship you're doing? Going to publish it?