So I've been consuming media from the poisoned wells of both major political party, and something I've been hearing a lot of lately is John Edwards' Two Americas. Something about that really nagged at me, tugged at some parts of my brain, but I never really paid it any mind until this morning when I was up at 6am with my son watching "The Al Franken Show" on Sundance On Demand.
This talk about a rich America and a poor America, the haves and the have-nots, and taking from the rich to give to the poor is Marxist. Think about it for a second. Edwards is saying that there's a bourgeoisie and a proletariat, and that he's fighting for the proletariat.
If you don't believe me, read this quote pulled from Wikipedia about Marxism:
Marxists believe that capitalist society is divided into two powerful social classes:the working class or proletariat: Marx defined this class as "those individuals who sell their labor and do not own the means of production" whom he believed were responsible for creating the wealth of a society (buildings, bridges and furniture, for example, are physically built by members of this class).
the bourgeoisie : those who "own the means of production" and exploit the proletariat. The bourgeoisie may be further subdivided into the very wealthy bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie: those who employ labor, but may also work themselves. These may be small proprietors, land-holding peasants, or trade workers. Marx predicted that the petty bourgeoisie would eventually be destroyed by the constant reinvention of the means of production and the result of this would be the force movement of the vast majority of the petty bourgeoisie to the proletariat. An example of this would be many small business giving way to fewer larger ones.
Now, read what John Edwards had to say when he introducted his idea of "Two Americas":
Today, under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one: One America that does the work, another America that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks. One America that will do anything to leave its children a better life, another America that never has to do a thing because its children are already set for life. One America -- middle-class America - whose needs Washington has long forgotten, another America - narrow-interest America - whose every wish is Washington's command. One America that is struggling to get by, another America that can buy anything it wants, even a Congress and a President.
They're the SAME idea!
And we're going to vote a Marxist into power? No way. Absolutely not. I can't even begin to think that people would willingly be duped into voting into power a person who advocates, who espouses, who preaches the very philosophy we spent the previous 50 years fighting against. The same ideology that we built a giant military and massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons to defend ourselves from. A way of thinking that we were so against that elected leaders like Reagan to defend us against it.
It's madness, and all the more so because NO ONE, NO ONE has said so much as a word against the idea. This hurts my head.
Just my opinion, but Al Franken is an idiot.
I see your point, but Soviet Communism (or any major practiced form of Communism) is a far cry from Marxism. Marxism in its purest sense is humanistic and for the betterment of classes and people as humans. The Soviets killed more people than the Nazis did by a large margin.
But don't you think there's some truth to Marx's ideas? Aren't the rich getting richer and more powerful and the ghettos expanding? I don't think Edwards is taking such a hardline stance as you're making it seem he is. He's an ass, yes, but a Marxist, no. (And as to your Communist implication, certainly not).
I agree with Dave, but, Currently the poor are getting angry, I am a member of poorest of the middle class and I see it. The oppertunities for the poor seem to be non-existant while wealthist Americans have advantages for success. And the social pressure that drives the poor into becoming fed up with capatalism. If you look at it as the rich having and gaining more power and influence then also the poor are going to slowly become fed up. A constant trend of benefiting the rich with no breaks for the poor will continue to drive them further and further to the edge.