Elections Had No Idea That Kamala's Daddy Was a Marxist

oski

oski

Best Ref Ever
Joined
Dec 13, 2023
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
6,504
I hadda fact check it because of how insane it sounded on the surface which seems par for the course with many things Trump says.

He was right here. Yikes.

Now, he never actually claimed aloud, "Hey everyone... I'm a Marxist." But it turns out that his most famous book, “Capital Accumulation and Income Distribution” combined the work of David Ricardo, who Marx took economic theory from, along with Michael Kalecki, a notable Polish marxian economist, and Karl Marx, himself.

At a loss here. Help me out, pimps.
 
oski said:
I hadda fact check it because of how insane it sounded on the surface which seems par for the course with many things Trump says.

He was right here. Yikes.

Now, he never actually claimed aloud, "Hey everyone... I'm a Marxist." But it turns out that his most famous book, “Capital Accumulation and Income Distribution” combined the work of David Ricardo, who Marx took economic theory from, along with Michael Kalecki, a notable Polish marxian economist, and Karl Marx, himself.

At a loss here. Help me out, pimps.
Click to expand...
The thing about marxism, to my superficial understanding, is that it is about the class struggle between the working class and the upper class. It critiques capitalism as benefitting the upper class to the detriment of the working and believes that working class revolution is a desired outcome for economic change.

If we put aside the US vs. USSR and capitalism vs. communism cold war rhetoric, it's not really an extreme position and one that history has demonstrated to be true repeatedly. Quite a few revolutions between the 17th and 20th century turned on this exact principle -- that the working class grew tired of exploitation by the upper class and overthrew the systems of government in order to create a more favorable economic environment.

In the modern era, most countries attempt to avoid this working class revolution by mixing capitalism with economic redistribution policies. Essentially putting guard rails around free market capitalism because they recognize that unfettered capitalism results in the type economic imbalances that ultimately lead to working class revolutions.

So, while being marxist definitely raises eyebrows, I think whether someone is or isn't marxist turns on the specifics of their economic philosophy and not solely on what other economists they drew ideas from.
 
That an academic sources, or cites XYZ author is not informative of their political ideology. He may have been, but academic research isn't inherently a confession of one's political ideology.

Here's the opening to the preface of the book:

"The aim of this work is twofold. It seeks to provide a systematic interpretation and critical assessment of the main, contemporary lines of approach to a theory of accumulation and income distribution in the capitalist economy. At the same time, an attempt is made to develop an analytic reconstruction of some of the substantive problems and issues that arise in such a theory."

While I haven't read the book in it's entirety, it's a study of the capitalist economy. There are obviously "problems and issues" with the way capital is accumulated and income is distributed. It's a subject we commonly cover in the contemporary discourse on the economy.

I haven't seen any evidence that he belonged to any marxist political party, or was an activist for any group with stated goals of upending capitalism. So I'm pretty skeptical of the claim, but even if that's true, I don't see what difference that should make.

He's not running for office.

She's clearly not a Marxist. She has a long history of supporting corporatist policy. She's married to a lawyer for Walmart and Merk. Among her top donors are Bloomberg, Euclidian Capital, and Sequoia Capital.

So what does it matter what her dad's economic positions were in 1978?
 
Last edited:
jx820 said:
That an academic sources, or cites XYZ author is not informative of their political ideology. He may have been, but academic research isn't inherently a confession of one's political ideology.

Here's the preface to the book:

The aim of this work is twofold. It seeks to provide a systematic interpretation and critical assessment of the main, contemporary lines of approach to a theory of accumulation and income distribution in the capitalist economy. At the same time, an attempt is made to develop an analytic reconstruction of some of the substantive problems and issues that arise in such a theory.

While I haven't read the book in it's entirety, it's a study of the capitalist economy. There are obviously "problems and issues" with the way capital is accumulated and income is distributed. It's a subject we commonly cover in the contemporary discourse on the economy.

I haven't seen any evidence that he belonged to any marxist political party, or was an activist for any group with stated goals of upending capitalism. So I'm pretty skeptical of the claim, but even if that's true, I don't see what difference that should make.

He's not running for office.

She's clearly not a Marxist. She has a long history of supporting corporatist policy. She's married to a lawyer for Walmart and Merk. Among her top donors are Bloomberg, Euclidian Capital, and Sequoia Capital.

So what does it matter what her dad's economic positions were in 1978?
Click to expand...

Wrong she's a secret communist
 
She was to the left of Bernie Sanders as a senator. Whatever labels you want to give it the fact remains is she is far to the left of the US electorate.

Especially in the Midwest and sun belt.

When she is *at best* a continuation of the failed and unpopular Biden admin or at worst the most socialist(with racial hierarchies) President we’ve ever had the choice is pretty easy. Trump
 
panamaican said:
The thing about marxism, to my superficial understanding, is that it is about the class struggle between the working class and the upper class. It critiques capitalism as benefitting the upper class to the detriment of the working and believes that working class revolution is a desired outcome for economic change.

If we put aside the US vs. USSR and capitalism vs. communism cold war rhetoric, it's not really an extreme position and one that history has demonstrated to be true repeatedly. Quite a few revolutions between the 17th and 20th century turned on this exact principle -- that the working class grew tired of exploitation by the upper class and overthrew the systems of government in order to create a more favorable economic environment.

In the modern era, most countries attempt to avoid this working class revolution by mixing capitalism with economic redistribution policies. Essentially putting guard rails around free market capitalism because they recognize that unfettered capitalism results in the type economic imbalances that ultimately lead to working class revolutions.

So, while being marxist definitely raises eyebrows, I think whether someone is or isn't marxist turns on the specifics of their economic philosophy and not solely on what other economists they drew ideas from.
Click to expand...
Interesting take, but you left out how Marxist philosophy is the basis of communist principles which are believed to have killed tens of millions of people, mostly from starvation.
 
oski said:
Interesting take, but you left out how Marxist philosophy is the basis of communist principles which are believed to have killed tens of millions of people, mostly from starvation.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't leave out anything. Marxism and communism are related but they're not the same. Communism is based on the idea that a classless society is better than one with different economic classes -- it's political via economics. Marxism is about how different economic classes engage with each other - it's about economics and not really concerned with how people are governed.

Many communists like Marxism because they believe that the working class revolution that Marx advocates for is the only true path to the classless society. But events like the French Revolution show that the working class revolution doesn't have to result in communism, it can result in democracy and a reset on capitalism. The outcome is driven by the goals of those who run the working class revolution itself.

One of the reason communism fails is that, even in the event of a working class economic revolution, it becomes impossible to create and maintain a classless economic society afterwards. People stratify and they want to stratify. But it doesn't fail because of marxism, it fails because of it's own principles.

An issue in the US is that because of the relationship between Marx, Russia and communism, people kind of just blend all of these ideas into one. But they're not interchangeable. Class struggle doesn't have to result in the removal of all classes.
 
Nationalism and Communism both come from the same faith so it's gonna have shitty results either way. Would still prefer the one that doesn't create hell on earth by attempting to create heaven on earth.
 
Kingz said:
She was to the left of Bernie Sanders as a senator. Whatever labels you want to give it the fact remains is she is far to the left of the US electorate.
Click to expand...

By what measure? I wish she was to the left of Bernie... but she's not. She was a party line rubber stamp in the senate voting with the party more than 99% of the time.

She broke with the party on a few endorsements of political appointemts (judges, secretaries), a trade agreement that would replace nafta, and a 2019 bill to give Isael money and crank up sanctions related to Syria.

Her current policy proposals are:
  • Tax breaks for working families offset by increases in corporate tax and the rich.
  • Tax breaks to builders who construct homes for first-time home buyers.
  • Down-payment assistance, with more support for first-generation homeowners who have a proven track record of paying rent on time.
  • Revive the border bill (enact permanent restrictions on asylum, give the president the power to quickly deport migrants. Boost the ranks of border agents, deportation officers, immigration judges and asylum adjudicators).

I'm sure there's a quote or two somewhere in her past that sounds pretty lefty. Even some of her positions at the outset of her 2020 campaign leaned left.

But nothing about how she's governed to date, or how she's promising to govern going forward is radical or out of line with the general electorate.
 
oski said:
I hadda fact check it because of how insane it sounded on the surface which seems par for the course with many things Trump says.
Click to expand...
Why did it sound insane to you?

There are plenty of Marxists out there especially in academia.
 
jx820 said:
By what measure? I wish she was to the left of Bernie... but she's not. She was a party line rubber stamp in the senate voting with the party more than 99% of the time.

She broke with the party on a few endorsements of political appointemts (judges, secretaries), a trade agreement that would replace nafta, and a 2019 bill to give Isael money and crank up sanctions related to Syria.

Her current policy proposals are:
  • Tax breaks for working families offset by increases in corporate tax and the rich.
  • Tax breaks to builders who construct homes for first-time home buyers.
  • Down-payment assistance, with more support for first-generation homeowners who have a proven track record of paying rent on time.
  • Revive the border bill (enact permanent restrictions on asylum, give the president the power to quickly deport migrants. Boost the ranks of border agents, deportation officers, immigration judges and asylum adjudicators).

I'm sure there's a quote or two somewhere in her past that sounds pretty lefty. Even some of her positions at the outset of her 2020 campaign leaned left.

But nothing about how she's governed to date, or how she's promising to govern going forward is radical or out of line with the general electorate.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Absolutely hilarious to think she's even close to Bernie's leftism.

She's a standard, moderate, corporate Democrat. If this was the primaries, progressive Democrats wouldn't give her a second look.
 
Possum Jenkins said:
Exactly. Absolutely hilarious to think she's even close to Bernie's leftism.

She's a standard, moderate, corporate Democrat. If this was the primaries, progressive Democrats wouldn't give her a second look.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they do this with everyone. I wish democrats were half as cool as the GOP tells me they are, they just aren't.
 
I doubt she has any real hard political beliefs. I don't think she is left or right. More like an empty vessel, a mindless politician.
 
oski said:
Interesting take, but you left out how Marxist philosophy is the basis of communist principles which are believed to have killed tens of millions of people, mostly from starvation.
Click to expand...
BAM !

Seeing this daily in life. Buyden said there was no manifesto.

​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,262,834
Messages
57,188,800
Members
175,574
Latest member
BroScienceTalkatWork

Share this page

Back
Top