[Rhodes22-list] Marxism in USA - Big Al delete, Political

[Robert Skinner]

Ed, I have interspersed my comments and 
responses with yours, in the form of a 
debate.  I suspect that you may be tempted 
to agree with some of what I say.

Tootle wrote:
> 
> Robert Skinner said:  "2. Health care - Rationalize the chaotic patchwork of
> health care in the US.  While there must be limits of what can be provided
> as the basic floor under all US citizens, it is essential that there be some
> minimum of health care for all."
> 
> It is basic to Marxism to use the power of government to compel people.
> Where is it said in the American Constitution the central government is to
> impose minimum floors of health care or educational attainment, et al?

It is basic to any government to collect 
taxes for the common weal.  Your labeling 
some government action Marxist does not make 
it so, nor does it make it bad.

The constitution is not the only measure of 
right action.  Given that the emergency rooms 
are now both the health care provider of last 
resort and the most expensive way to deliver 
it, it seems to make both economic and moral 
sense to provide universal preventative care 
at some level.  

Requiring and providing immunization against 
childhood diseases and treating some adult 
illnesses such as tuberculosis seems like a 
reasonable thing to do.  Providing viagra to 
septuagenarians doesn't.  Contagious disease 
is a community problem.  Erectile dysfunction 
is not.  The truth (or reasonable course) 
lies somewhere in between.

> The neo-Marxist wants to compel minimum health care to all.  How is this
> result to be obtained?  Use the power of central government to impose their
> ethereal minimum floor.  That floor is achieved by confiscating from those
> who have attained some wealth and give it those needing that 'minimum
> floor'.

Not knowing what your functional definition of 
a Marxist is, it is difficult to know what you 
mean by the term "Neo-Marxist".  And any tax 
is confiscatory.  Parsing the result, the 
above is a nul statement as it stands.

> Everyone needs to understand, no matter how noble the cause, it is still
> Marxism, totalitarianism, and those who advocate it by what ever term they
> use to describe themselves, be it Progressive, Liberal, Enlightened, are
> still advocating Communism, Totalitarism!

I don't like taxes either, but I pay them.

> The question was posed by Bob Skinner, "Who would you have starve as you
> express your antipathy toward tax-supported social programs?"  The question
> belies the truth.  No one starves who chooses not to.  You have many
> organizations, both religious and otherwise that feed others.  Many churches
> assist with what we call soup kitchens.  Other organizations supply
> sustenance such as "Meals on Wheels" .  That argument is simply an
> falsehood.

I agree that there are organizations, both 
secular and religious, who help the poor 
with food and other needs.  They provide 
very valuable and morally/politically 
correct support.  

But I disagree that they alone can reach 
and sustain all in need.  There are those 
who are mentally and/or physically 
disabled, or just "out of the loop" who 
can or will only be helped by those who 
must do so by law and with tax-supported 
resources, despite their intense revulsion 
or social/political approbation.

> And the statement was made, 'Anyway, as George the second said, "The
> constitution is just a piece of paper."  Right?'  Wrong, it is a
> intellectual concept as a basis for freedom.  It is a way of for people to
> achieve their potential.  It is an economic system that has been shown to
> provide greater benefit to mankind than Marxism.  Its results speak for
> themselves.

I am glad to see that you agree that George 
Bush was completely out of contact with 
reality when he said that.  I'm sorry that 
you misunderstood my attempt at irony.

> It was further stated, "As a citizen of this country, I have the right --
> and obligation -- to work toward keeping it relevant and successful in the
> here and now.  So do you."   Yes, and I have an obligation to point out to
> others, those like you who espouse a economic system that will destroy the
> economic system that created what we now have.

I disagree with that characterization.  There 
are few, if any, absolutes in this world.  
Pure capitalism is one of the cruelest 
tyrannies that one can imagine.  Only when 
feudal barons (might is right) are limited in 
their excesses by the rule of law (the Magna 
Carta comes to mind), do the grand majority 
come to enjoy the fruits of their labor.  And 
that ain't Marxist - it's just fair.

> I rather think that it is important to understand what Harry Jaffa pointed
> out, "Free speech is a priceless and indispensable attribute of a free
> society because it is a necessary means for deliberating upon public policy.
> But this deliberation does not extend to everything.  Free speech is not
> false when it denies the use of the liberty to those intent on destroying
> the free society."

Sounds good, but there are a few difficulties.

One man's "free society" is another man's 
segregation or another woman's discrimination.  
A lot depends on your definitions and point 
of view.  And these change with time.  Given 
that, who will determine who is destroying 
whatever is defined as a free society by the 
definers of that time and place?

I firmly believe, at the core of my being, 
that freedom to debate any issue is the 
necessary basis of a truly functional and 
responsive society.

> It must be told, and told over and over, that those advocating Marxism are
> advocating the destruction of America.

I reply, "I do not accept your definition of 
my actions in your terms, as your terms are 
not sufficiently defined to be useful in 
rational discussion."

With regret that I must be so harsh in my 
analysis,
/Robert