son of witless

Well we can't really know for sure, but we can look at countries where Liberals and Marxists have been in charge. Now if we would have had 4 years of Hillary following 8 years of Obama, I would say we might look like Venezuela does now after years of Chavez and Maduro.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/03/22/desperate-and-hungry-thousands-venezuelans-risk-life-in-mafia-infested-illegal-mining.html

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Since the President's advisor is pushing for the 'deconstruction of the administrative state', isn't it time to admit that the extreme right has more in common with communism's 'withering away of the state' than liberals have in common with communism or marxism? Or at least that you share the same goal?

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Are you referencing the Administrative State by Waldo?

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

The extreme right and I do mean extreme is closer to anarchy. You know, no government. You just described who's closer to communism and didn't even know it. The administrative state means everything is run by government (public) not private. You are so brainwashed little comrade. Get an education.

meridianlesilie Loc: mars

----sorry i think it would have been worse !! we would be taken over with sharia law !!our guns would have been taken away if we had disaster like louisiana
did she would not have any thing come to aid like she did for them ..the tornadoes we had so far !!!!& i think even god is getting on our side !! b/c california is getting out of there drought ..seems they went it to it when obama was in office !!!!i looked it up i am starting in 1976 -77 then in 1986-1992 then in 2007-2009 then 2011- 2017 ...i googled it ..got it off of wikipedia ..if you do not believe it you can seem like carter was in 76-77 clinton -then 86-92
obama -2007 -09 then 2001-17 so seem like they have one in bad yrs of rotten prez yrs looks like so wake up & see !!!!!

Loki Loc: Georgia

The only problem is that with Communism, the State never withers away; it just gets bigger and bigger until it collapses under the weight of it's own incompetent bureaucrats. No matter what it says, any time the state gets smaller it is anti-Socialist and anti-Communist.

mongo Loc: TEXAS

The best example of a country being destroyed by liberals is Argentina. At one time it was the richest, self supporting country in the world.

SEMPER FI

son of witless

I don't think you know what you are talking about, but I will give you the chance to prove that I do not know what I am talking about. So please expand on your " communism's 'withering away of the state' ". I am all about allowing everyone to speak and make a fool of themselves, so please continue, because I am totally unfamiliar with what you are saying.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

That is a problem. The difference between theory and practice. So far, history has shown your observations correct.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Neither brainwashed, nor uneducated, nor clueless to use another of your dismissive terms. I am open minded and not scared of exploring new concepts.

So when Marx talks about labor and it's alienation from the means of production, you see, I think about the idea of everyman a business man. It's not that far of a leap.

It's your blindness that makes you condescending, little capitalist. There are gradations of administration by the state. You know, where not everything is run by the state although there are guidelines to follow. Your all or nothing perspective limits your own ability to see subtlety, so perhaps you should follow your own advice. You know nothing of Marx.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

It's a term coined by Engels. It refers to the idea that when every man is the owner of his own production, there would be no class distinctions, no class conflict and no need for a state to regulate (or decide the outcome of) that conflict. Not quite that simple, of course, but that's it in a nutshell.

There is no point in further discussion as you've already prejudged as foolish anything I say. However, I will point out that your unfamiliarity with what I say puts into question who is a fool.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

I wasn't referring to Marx because you referenced the Administration of the State. Correct? That subject was written extensively about by a man named Waldo. That's who I thought you were referencing. Open minded? A liberal. Give me a break. If you are, you are definitely a dying breed. Where am I blind. You make unsubstantiated supposed facts and then get upset when called out. I don't know what my all or nothing perspective is. I am not against government. I just would like too limit it to what the Constitution defines as its' role. I read Marx in college. Thought he was full of it and you are right, I don't know much about him anymore; if I ever did. Every man is a business? Nice idea. Then all the freeloaders would be failing businesses. Good. No more government freebies. You might be on to something there.

Loki Loc: Georgia

It's how bureaucracies work. They NEVER get smaller. They get larger, and more inefficient until they collapse and fail under their own weight. Think of it as the "Big Bang Theory of Bureaucracy." Bureaucracies are like a cancer, and the apparatchiks that they are composed of are erythrocytes running wild.

son of witless

You hurt my fragile feelings calling me a fool. I am quite sensitive. I will try better to win your approval. So here goes.


You said " Since the President's advisor is pushing for the 'deconstruction of the administrative state', isn't it time to admit that the extreme right has more in common with communism's 'withering away of the state' than liberals have in common with communism or marxism? Or at least that you share the same goal? "


I am generally familiar with most types of odd useless knowledge. You caught me in an embarrassing deficiency in that I never bothered to study Engles. I have read Marx, and I used to be familiar with Trotsky, who I consider the only Communist worthy of studying. However, since Communism in practice is totally different than theoretical Communism I do not see where Engles matters. Communism in practice is all about the state getting bigger and bigger because what Engles said never works anywhere. The variation in ability of the citizen to own his own production means that some will always do better and put the others out of business, creating inequality and creating the need for a bigger and bigger state. In practice Communism is never about the " 'withering away of the state' ".

I therefore say confidently that your statement asserting the extreme right has more in common with Communism than Liberals is wrong and quite a stupid thing to believe.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

I did put out a provocative hypothesis, didn't I? It's too bad you took it personally, but really I was using a word you brought into the conversation.

Your point about some citizens will always be more equal than others (the variation in ownership) is one I would not argue. It's common sense. However, that wasn't the point.

You put forth a scenario about what the country would be like if Hillary had won, that we would be heading to increased statism and communism. Since only a tiny fraction of Americans are communist, I assumed you were speaking theoretically . If you think that most American liberals would accept a totalitarian state, you are quite mistaken.

I pointed out that in Marxist thought, the withering away of the state is an end goal. It's not that different from the conservative ideal of a minimalist state.

I don't think that either side will reach their goal of extermination or minimization of the state. I do agree with Loki that bureaucracies can be creaky, unresponsive, and even counter productive. It's in their nature and they do need shaking up once in a while. The 'State' itself will not diminish because it is a collective expression of power. The only real question is: who gets to use it and for what ends?

I'm under no illusions that the federal gov't will be reduced in power (shrunk financially) under a Trump Presidency or Republican Congress. Resources may be diverted, but they will be put to use for the services of what Tom Wolfe called the Masters of the Universe and the suppression of anyone who stands in their way. I eagerly await the savings from the budget cuts being put to use in cutting deficits and debt, but I won't hold my breath. I have a suspicion about where that money will end up.

In the pockets of the Masters and the US gov't more deeply debt to the Chinese. Both more alike than different.