I had a great exchange with a gentleman while I was working today. But firast I have to set the scene, so bear with me for a sec.
I'm a snack vendor in and around Atlanta. Most of my work is inside the perimeter (285). While Atlanta is a diverse city with many niche "sub city's", outside of those areas is your typical intercity crowd.
While delivering to one store today, a man came in and bought a single Black & Mild cigar. He was upset and started causing a scene because he felt he was charged too much for it. He tried to tell the cashier and the whole store that she could not charge that much BY LAW! And that if he were to call "consumer affairs"? that they would "shut down her store". He looked to me and say's "tell her I'm right". Well this dude just picked the wrong capitalist to try that on. I explained to him that we live (at least for the time being) in a free and open market economy, and that if that store wanted to charge $10 per cigar they had every lawful right to do so. Obviously he didn't agree and started shouting and so forth. So with a smile on my face and a subtle tone, I told him that we did not have "price controls" in this country. And that the owner could set the price at whatever they wanted. He walked out and got on his cell phone (to call "consumer affairs: I would imagine) but never came back in and just drove off.
The moral of this story is, that this is not doubt the crowd that put Obama in office. And it's not just intercity folks. It's college kids too. The University of Georgia has an independent newspaper called Black and Red. Last week a senior majoring in.... wait for it.........MAGAZINES, published an article in which she called WalMart "concentrated evil". Why? Because she discovered that WalMart sells it's products for more than it costs to manufacture them! You can't make this stuff up people. This is why WalMart is evil in her opinion. And this is what our Universities are teaching our young people?
Their truly is a dumbing down of society happening in our great country. The question is, what are we going to do about it?
I'm a snack vendor in and around Atlanta. Most of my work is inside the perimeter (285). While Atlanta is a diverse city with many niche "sub city's", outside of those areas is your typical intercity crowd.
While delivering to one store today, a man came in and bought a single Black & Mild cigar. He was upset and started causing a scene because he felt he was charged too much for it. He tried to tell the cashier and the whole store that she could not charge that much BY LAW! And that if he were to call "consumer affairs"? that they would "shut down her store". He looked to me and say's "tell her I'm right". Well this dude just picked the wrong capitalist to try that on. I explained to him that we live (at least for the time being) in a free and open market economy, and that if that store wanted to charge $10 per cigar they had every lawful right to do so. Obviously he didn't agree and started shouting and so forth. So with a smile on my face and a subtle tone, I told him that we did not have "price controls" in this country. And that the owner could set the price at whatever they wanted. He walked out and got on his cell phone (to call "consumer affairs: I would imagine) but never came back in and just drove off.
The moral of this story is, that this is not doubt the crowd that put Obama in office. And it's not just intercity folks. It's college kids too. The University of Georgia has an independent newspaper called Black and Red. Last week a senior majoring in.... wait for it.........MAGAZINES, published an article in which she called WalMart "concentrated evil". Why? Because she discovered that WalMart sells it's products for more than it costs to manufacture them! You can't make this stuff up people. This is why WalMart is evil in her opinion. And this is what our Universities are teaching our young people?
Their truly is a dumbing down of society happening in our great country. The question is, what are we going to do about it?
VIEW 5 of 5 COMMENTS
I will again ask, If "collective salvation" is not liberation theology. Than what is it?
Second, if "redistributing the wealth" is not a socialist/marxist view, than what is it?
OK. Let's have a proper discussion about this.
First point, if you need to "again ask" some questions (which is fine in itself -- asking is good!), you should avoid being all opinionated about those things ahead of time.
"Liberation Theology", termed that way, is far more a 3rd world phenomenon than a first-world (developed country) one. Third world countries have had far more severely unequal distributions of wealth than is usually found in developed countries, and the churches in those countries have often preached to the large numbers of very poor. LT was particularly found in Latin America and was (speaking very generally) seen as a means of achieving social change. Some LT advocates were far more radical in this than others. There is a reasonably strong link between the views of some adherents of LT and views associated with Marxism.
"Black Liberation Theology" is not entirely different in principle, but is quite distinct. It is particularly about the legacy of slavery and oppression of black people in the US. Again, some ... I shouldn't use "BLT" because that'll sound like a sandwich, but you get what I mean ... some BLT practitioners are more radical than others. But I am not aware of much connection between BLT and Marxism. BLT as I understand it is more a critique of and reaction to black oppression than an advocacy of class-based revolution.
Remember in all of this discussion the tension that can arise in the church (esp. the Catholic church) between the policies and practices of the "elites" (the Pope and the Vatican, basically) and the priests out in the local churches. The local priests are often more radical and "activist" than is compatible with the more conservative higher authorities in the church. You can see this in contexts like the Catholic church's reaction to Nazi Germany, where the Vatican eventually signed an agreement with the Nazis. (The mainstream Catholic church had its own horrid historical legacy of persecuting Jews.)
Remember, too, that the Church had long had its own historical battles of ideas to do with the liberation of the poor. For centuries. That's why I suggested you get a copy of "The Name of the Rose", which has as its background a doctrinal dispute (from the Middle Ages!) between Franciscan and Benedictine monks about Christ's attitude to the poor and what it means for Church practice. (In the film of the book, you see the Benedictines taking tributes from very poor peasants.) The thing you need to grasp is that debates about the poor and dispossessed have been at the heart of the Church since the time of Jesus. You might recall that Jesus himself had a lot to say about the poor. The Reformation occurred as a response to the growing wealth and corruption of the Church, at the expense of the poor.
Right then. What about Marxism/socialism?
Marxism is more complicated than I can do justice to briefly here. But it is an analysis of society based primarily on class, and it has at heart a view of the ownership of the means of production.. Marx challenged the idea of the private ownership of the means of production.
Read that again. Marx challenged the idea of the private ownership of the means of production. He wanted the ownership of the means of production ("capital", basically) to be socialised. This is a far stronger proposition than "sharing/spreading/redistributing the wealth".
You know how "a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square"?
Well, someone who is a socialist will likely advocate for redistributing wealth, but someone who advocates redistributing wealth is not necessarily a socialist (at least in the Marxian sense).
Hell, every time a Republican (or anyone!) votes for the US Farm Bill, they're voting to redistribute wealth on a grand scale.
So...
My main point on both issues is that whatever Obama's faith may be, it is NOT Christianity. Furthermore, whatever "redistribute the wealth" is. It certainly is not capitalism. Can we at least agree on those points?
Oh, hell no. You're fucking miles off. Those are the two dumbest non-propositions I've been asked to agree to in years.
I know it's hard for those on the Left to admit these are Obama's policy's. I guess we'll just have to debate until the end of time as to what Obam'a's goal for America is. I suppose anti-colonialism is a more accurate term than either Marxism or Socialism. It really doesn't matter what YOU want to call it. The main point I was making is that this president has a completely different vision for America than any other president in history. He does not believe in the free market. He does not believe in capitalism. Call me what you want but I have no doubt he is implementing the Cloward and Piven strategy.
Eh?
I'm not particularly "left" by world standards, but let me just say -- I have a hard time admitting that because there's NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR IT WHATSOFUCKINGEVER OUTSIDE THE FEVERISH IMAGININGS OF THE GLENN BECKS OF THIS WORLD.
So why should I admit something which is simply unsupported by anything but demented ramblings?
Really -- why?
I mean, if I said "Those on the Right have a hard time admitting that the world is a flat plate and underneath it's just turtles all the way down,", you'd be within your rights to smile, nod, and then walk away and totally ignore me. So why -- on what fucking planet, through what bizarre rationalisation -- should I take your claims here seriouslty?
Really -- why?
And if you're going to tell me that 42% of the US population pays not taxes, could you care to give me a link to the source of that claim. Otherwise it just sounds like one more example of "shit you made up"> It'd be nice to have that verified.