WHAT'S NEW

About
My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
Activism
Past Blog Posts
Various &
a Sundry Blogs
Favorite
Websites
My Stuff
On The Web
Audio-Visual
Library
Favorite
Articles
This Month's Scripture Verse:

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
2 Timothy 3:1-5

SEARCH THIS BLOG

Monday, December 11, 2017

ONIM For December 11, 2017

10 Best Fact Checking Sites Found Here.

If you are not sure about the validity of a news story linked to below, you can use  mediabiasfactcheck.com to check out the credibility of the source of most of the stories linked to here.





Christian News



World News



Israel-Palestine News



Donald Trump News




Pick(s) Of The Litter



 






Friday, December 8, 2017

The Pro-Life Hypocrisy Of The GOP

Being pressed for time because of a busy schedule, it is useful to write this review on an article that is a must read and needs little to no further explanation. John Pavlovitz (click here for his short self description) on how the GOP is political party that is not really interested in being pro-life. Rather, that political party's concern for human life outside of the womb shows the duplicity of its claim to be pro-life.

If the GOP is not pro-life, then what is it? Pavlovitz describes it perfectly in the following sentence (click here for the article):

The unborn are easy to advocate for because you can idealize them into something palatable to you, something benign and comfortable, something in your own image.

Pavlovitz concisely and correctly points out the inconsistencies between the GOP's pro-life claims, which, btw, are based solely on its stand against abortion, with its lack of concern for the lives of others, especially those of non-whites. This selective approach of choosing which victims to defend is an age-old undertaking. It consists of helping only those one can canonize as being guiltless. Perhaps that is one reason why groups from the poor to immigrants to Black Lives Matter to Palestinians and others do not merit any sympathy from the GOP. For faults can be found in each of those groups. And for as long as the GOP can be associated with protecting little angels, they have a lock on the votes of many a ignorant religiously conservative  Christian voter. 

Because faults can be found in most other groups of victims, there remains not compelling reason to do what requires the most energy of any human task: to change. Thus, doing something to save the lives of those other than unborn children is not necessary for many a religiously conservative Christian. That is because changing might mean abandoning materialistic riches or admitting sins. So being able to find faults in victims excuses many of these Christians from changing.

I won't say anything else about the article. There are a couple of minor points he makes with which I could disagree. But Pavlovitz's article is one of the best articles I've read and I prefer people reading his article instead reading whatever insights I could offer.


 

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 6, 2017

 When the first comment below was written, the article had a comment section though no comments were posted. That may no longer be the case.

Nov 14

To Kevin DeYoung and his blogpost on the recent revelations of the sexual sins of harassment  and molestation that accompany our public figures. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

As with other social sins, what we are seeing with the all of the sexual sins from harassment to molestation is an all-or-nothing approach to the the problem. For a long time, it was tolerated and now all forms of sexual misbehavior from an inappropriate sexual comment to blatant molestation are receiving the same degree of public condemnation. And with that all-or-nothing approach is practiced by a society that is very punitively oriented. And it is that reliance on punishment that all but guarantees the problem will continue at levels that are too high. For the all-or-nothing approach to punishment will inhibit people from admitting they need help in controlling their behavior. And the all-or-nothing approach to punishment will give others a sense of well-earned self-righteousness.

My attack on our misuse of punishment should not be interpreted as a desire to tolerate sexual harassment and molestation. Nor should it be construed as a rejection of ever using punishment in responding to these sexual sins. However, we need to address our overuse of punishment in society. Inappropriate sexual behavior is not the only problem behavior that is promoted by our faulty approach to punishment, racism is another sin that is enabled by our overuse of punishment.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec 4

To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost that says because the Puritans survived by trade, we should follow their example and employ free market and trade polices. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

What can really be learned from the Puritans' experience with collectivism and trade? Can we conclude that collectivism never works because it didn't work for the Puritans? Those who know logic would look at the question as a ridiculously rhetorical question. For how does one example prove that collectivism never works? This is especially true since collectivism vs individualism exists on a continuum so that most nations  employ neither a purely individualistic free market systems nor a collectivist system. We should also note that there are a number of different collectivists systems. So what can we conclude from the Puritans who eventually used the Bible to justify the taking of land from the Native Americans they use to trade with?
What do the Puritans trade or market experiments teach us? They can only teach us how their trade and market practices worked for them in their particular situation. We should note that from near the beginning of the nation, the US embraced  protectionist trade policies and those policies helped the US develop industries that eventually became competitive with their counterparts from other nations. The US employed protectionist policies from its beginning as a sovereign state through WW II and even employed protectionist policies during the Reagan Administration.  So what does the above lesson teach us about free trade and markets in general?
We should note that free markets foster the idea of comparative advantage where each nation's economy should revolve around its current strengths. And such works great for developed nations like the US. The problem comes when a nation wants to develop for whatever reason. For development flies in the face of maintaining comparative advantage and protectionism allows that development to take place. To prohibit nations from employing protectionism in order to develop not only "kicks away the ladder," as some refer to it, that allowed currently advanced nations to grow and diversify their economies. It enforces an economic caste system on the developing countries. In other words, strict adherence to free trade only serves those nations that are wealthy and developed. And what we have to realize in the light of Johnson's attempt to use the Puritan's situation as an example for all to follow, the situation in which the Puritans and their Native American neighbors does not consist of the complex relationships that exist between developed and undeveloped nations in today's world.

Finally, we should note the difference between free markets and trade with Democracy. For the more that  Free markets and trade limit government intervention, then the more they limit democracy when a government is a working democracy. We should note that not all governments that profess to be democracies are actual democracies. An example showing how free markets and trade limit democracy can be seen in the WTO threat to put exorbitant sanctions on the US because the US used the democratic process to require meat manufactures to label the country of origin each product was from. Thus, the WTO worked against the democratically expressed wishes of the American people. Another example could have been seen if the US joined the TPP. For the TPP allowed corporations to sue governments if governments passed laws that were perceived as costing corporations profits. And those lawsuits would be heard not in a nation's court of laws, but in TPP tribunals. Also we should note that the coup that replaced a democratically elected leader in ChilĂ© with a military dictator did so, in part, in order install a free market system in that nation. Such is another example of free markets butting heads with democracy. Of course, we should note that since the US has become more and more a free market nation, not only has wealth disparity in America increases, but the US is now classified by some as an oligarchy rather than a democracy (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ).

We should note that the Puritans' relationship with its neighboring Native Americans up until the Puritans took land from them  did not show all fo the complex relationships that nations, both developed and undeveloped, can have. Thus, using the Puritans as a sole example for how we should act today while forgeting how our nation relied on protectionism in order to develop its industries is not conducive to employing sound logic.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost praying the profit system as the only viable economic system despite any injustices it incurs. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

The above article by Joe Carter is saying that because of the growth and development that the profit system enables, justice is no longer a relevant issue when determining economic policies. We should note that Carter is following the words of the economist Arnold King in saying that.

Yes, there are many problems with Carter's article. But perhaps, the greatest problem is seen when comparing what Carter says with a statement made by Martin Luther King Jr when he spoke against the Vietnam War (see  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm  ):

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.


We should compare this quote with what Carter is advocating because the criteria Carter is using is purely materialistic. This goes back to a comparison King made between Communism and Capitalism. While King denounce Lenin's materialism, he noted that Capitalism has its own kind of destructive materialism that is different than Lenin's. Carter's criteria for measuring the value of the profit system is purely materialistic and does not include the different kinds of harmful relationships, such as racism and war, that being so focused on things can cause between people. Thus, perhaps materialistic criteria should note be the only criteria used in determining the value of the profit system.

We could also add that we could employ the profit system in some areas of our economy and society rather than in all. Such would recognize that, like all other systems, the profit system carries tradeoffs and thus does not provide the sole solution to all of our economic problems.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To James Kalb and his blogpost that pits the Left against a sound understanding of human nature. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The first problem with Kalb's article is that it oversimplifies as much as it misidentifies the left. Hope and Change was not the left, it was liberal.  In addition, what the left observed about conservative Christianity is that it sides with wealth and power while claiming that it has all the answers to the ultimate questions of life.

The second problem with Kalb's article is that his conservatism becomes comparable with how Martin Luther King Jr saw the West when he spoke against the Vietnam War (see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm   ):

The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.


With the way Kalb writes about the left in the article above, could we not easily substitute the word 'conservative' for the word 'Western.' And if so, don't conservative who would agree with Kalb join him as he speaks just like the pharisee from the parable of the two men praying spoke (see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+18%3A9-14&version=NIV)? When we consider all of the violence that has been visited on others in the name of Christ, can conservatives who believe they are the vanguards for Christianity honestly believe that they have everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them while maintaining a significant degree of mental health?

Finally, when we talk about the left and human nature, aren't also dealing with how we should share society with others? The Conservative answer to that question is that we must share society as having a privileged status that entitles them to exercise some degree of supremacy over others. But how does such a self- image not promote violence?

But we might also want to question the conservative grasp of reality. For isn't their emphasis on limited government merely code for saying that they want to elect a government they can ignore. In addition, doesn't their emphasis on limited government carry with it the idea that when human nature can contain such vast amounts of greed, that those with the most wealth and power require the least accountability? Isn't such an idea contradicted by history?





Tuesday, December 5, 2017

The Latest Scandal Points To More Than Just Sex

Of course, the latest scandal has to do with what was previously winked at and allowed to fly in under the radar. But, and fortunately so, that is no longer the case. Sexual intimidation and assault will not, at least for the near future, be ignored.

What does the above point to? Doesn't it indicate the bipolar way we approach issues. We react in ways that indicate that we  either totally ignore abuse or we conduct witch hunts  in order to punish every instance. But what if we didn't ignore past behaviors and offered help to those who were beginning to show the lack of necessary self-restraint when working with women? What if we caught behaviors and attitudes that would eventually lead up to sexual assault and then intervened in order to prevent sexual assault? Wouldn't more people be better off?


The all-or-nothing or bipolar way of dealing with issues is a carry over from Cold War thinking as well as our two-party political system. In the days of the Cold War, one was either a Communist (actually a Bolshevik) or a good guy. So that anyone leaning toward the left was demonized and was thus often severely punished. That is what the US interventions and sponsored coups in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Greece (1967) and Chilé (1973), to name a few, were all about. When we look at the post-WW II history of American interventions and sponsored coups, we see scores of actions that served our strategic or business (a.k.a., 'national') interests rather than the needs of the people there. For most of the time, we replaced democratically elected leaders with tyrants and military dictators simply because those tyrants and dictators served our interests.

But more important than the concern for the type of thinking we employ is the objectification of people that enabled some to go on and sexually intimidate and assault others. This objectification isn't confined to movies about sex or locker room talk. This objectification of people existed in other areas of life long before any of the sexual assaults now being reported on existed. This objectification has existed in our economic system and foreign policies  for decades. 

Martin Luther King Jr. explained one root of this objectification when speaking against the Vietnam War (click here for source):
I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

What follows the valuing of things over people is the objectification of people. People lose all intrinsic value and can only gain importance when they can help us gain more of the things we want. While other people lose value when their existence infringes on our gaining of things. And we should note what King meant when referring to things: gadgets, profits, and property rights.

We have also seen the objectification of people in our foreign policies when we have either participated in coups or supported governments where the new leaders are tyrants. One could provide a depressing list of past American interventions to make this point, or one could simply point to our support of Saddam Hussein before he invaded Kuwait. Yes, our government supported Saddam Hussein while he was in power and was committing atrocities. According to many of our foreign policies, the people of a given nation do not matter to us, but the cooperation of a given nation's  leader(s) in positively contributing to our strategic or national (a.k.a., 'business') interests do. And that is true regardless of the political party affiliation of the President.

How could we not expect the sexual objectification of women by men when workers are counted as disposable objects of profit? I saw people being made disposable when teaching. I saw adult students who lost their jobs or, to add insult to injury, who also had to train their replacements. And all too often, those job losses are there solely to increase the ROI for major shareholders. So while workers are expected to be loyal to their employers, many of these same employers see no reason to return the favor. That is because major shareholders do not see the intrinsic value of their employees. Nor do they care that when workers lose their jobs, communities lose their income to provide services for people.

Now if we don't care about the people who are objectified by our economic system or foreign policies, why should we care about people whose value is determined by how they can sexually please us especially when our appetites are aroused?  After all, aren't the strong preying on the weak in the first two situations? And if we allow that, why shouldn't that also occur in sexual situations and relationships? Of course, we know that morally speaking, sexual intimidation and assaults must never occur. But when people are recognized as having only extrinsic value, then moral concerns are put aside.

The sexual objectification of people that preceded and led to the recently reported sexual assaults nor the assaults themselves cannot be tolerated. But can we really stop these sexual assaults and the sexual objectification that precedes them when we passionately embrace the objectifying of people for other reasons? Perhaps we can for some for the immediate future. But will that last? After all, if we objectify people for economic or foreign policy reasons, what is to stop us from objectifying people for other reasons? 










 

Monday, December 4, 2017

ONIM For December 4, 2017


10 Best Fact Checking Sites Found Here.

If you are not sure about the validity of a news story linked to below, you can use  mediabiasfactcheck.com to check out the credibility of the source of most of the stories linked to here.

Christian News

World News

Israel-Palestine News

Donald Trump News

Pick(s) Of The Litter 

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For November 8, 2017

Nov 3

To Jonathan Parnell and his blogpost on what Ministers can do when they suffer from ‘pathological self-criticism.’ This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

I have been aware of pathological self-criticism because my home life, when I was a kid, fostered it. My father was an alcoholic and my mom had other problems. I know people who grew up in an abusive household who also suffer from pathological self-criticism.

Now the kind of self-criticism my examples refer to may not be the kind of self-criticism being referred to in the article above. But the self-criticism we experience is often pathological.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nov 4

Should note that there is a test to make sure one is not a robot when entering a comment on the general Gospel Coalition site. The test for the comment below was to answer the following: 17 - 3 = . I typed in the answer of 14 and was notified that my answer was incorrect.

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that supports President Trump’s military ban on transgendered people. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

The problem with Carter's article here is that he merely claims that the presence of transgendered troops will be 'detrimental' to our military. He offers no evidence to support that claim. Thus, he is acting similarly to Trump when he issued the order because Trump issued that order without consulting the military.

And what if the presence of transgendered troops would hurt the morale of the troops, wouldn't we first have to determine how that harm takes place before deciding on whether we should pursue having transgendered troops in the military.

We should be able to study these issues seeing that transgendered troops have been serving in the military. In fact, there are thousands of transgendered troops serving in the military at the current time or very recently with the most famous being Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning. He turned over some  "confidential" information to Wikileaks including the cold-blooded murder of two journalists as they accompanied what seemed to be, for the most part, unarmed Iraqis. This murder, called Collateral Murder on the web, included not only one of our helicopter gunships firing at these Iraqi escorted journalists, the helicopter also fired at an Iraqi van that clearly was there to pick up the wounded. Such an attack is equivalent to terrorists attacking an ambulance.
Too many of us religiously conservative Christians (a.k.a, flaming fundamentalists) go beyond the preaching of the Scriptures about homosexuality. We go beyond that to blatantly show more than mere hostility to the LGBT community. And Trump's ban on transgendered troops, along with Carter's thoughts in the above article, are examples of that hostility despite the fact that Trump is not a religiously conservative Christian. He is, however, representing many of them with his ban.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nov 6

To Mark David Hall and his blogpost contesting the claim that many of our nation’s founding fathers were deists and thus Christianity had a very large role in our nation’s beginning. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog

Articles that try to present the founders of our nation as being overwhelmingly Christians fail in two areas. The first failure comes from the fact that more founders were deists than the person making the claim is willing to admit. Believing in providence doesn't necessarily make one a theist as opposed to a deist. Denying the supernatural, as say Jefferson did when he wrote his own version of the New Testament, doesn't point to any theism I know of unless, as in Jefferson's case, he is a believer in a completely different religion.

Second, just as there is a difference between the legal tax rate and the effective tax rate, so to there is a difference between one's confessed faith and the faith one is living out. And just as we saw with those who confessed to be Christian, their treatment of Native Americans by taking their land or by the owning slaves or embracing of white supremacy contradicted their confession of faith. Or we could look at the event that spurred the writing of The Constitution: Shays Rebellion. For that rebellion, and the accompanying dissent, was a rejection of the rule of the domestic financial elites, many of whom were well represented by our founding fathers who wrote The Constitution. What faith condones the valuing of profits over people as was supported by many of those writing the document? Or what faith makes one the object of their own worship as was done by claiming to be special or acting as if they were superior to others?

This urge to overly Christianize our founding fathers comes from the same source as what led Billy Graham to use celebrities in his crusades: it's a form of authoritarianism. It's a much lighter than other forms, but it still is a form of authoritarianism. For in authoritarianism, truth is determined by one's credentials more than the facts and logic involved in making a claim.  And that is what we have here in trying to overdo the association of the faith of our founders with the Christian faith. We are being told to either be less inclined to challenge our founders and what they wrote and said because they were Christians and/or give Christians a privileged position in society in the making of our laws and social mores because the founders were Christians.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nov 7

To Joe Carter and his blogpost lamenting the fact that millennials are adopting more favorable views of communism and socialism. This appeared in the Acton blog

I think what is more troubling than the millennial view of communism and socialism is the conservative view of either communism or socialism. Why the conservative view is so troubling is because it makes monoliths out of both communism and socialism when, in reality, they are not. In fact, even though the above article stated there was a difference between communism and socialism, when reviewing the view of millennials of leftist leaders, only communist leaders are listed. In addition, Putin is listed as a communist leader even though the nation he leads is not a communist state. Yes, he was part of the communist regime by being a member of the KGB, but he has not enforced communism on Russia. Instead, he has instituted a government that is works and plays well with oligarchs. In addition, we should note the cozy relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and Putin.

What we should be aware of are the differences between Marx and those who ruled in his name. We should investigate whether tyrants like Lenin, Mao Zedong, Stalin, and so forth really followed Marx in how they ran their nations. There are many socialists of varying types that strongly contend that those leaders were not following Marx. At this point, the conservative definition of Marxism, communism, and socialism is of no help because of its tendency to conflate and define these isms as monoliths.  And in defining these isms as monoliths, all-or-nothing judgements are made on these isms rather tying to identify the good and bad points of each ism.

And from the parable of the two men praying, the zeroing in on atrocities committed in the name of Marx while forgetting the atrocities committed by the West whether or not the West includes the United States does not bode well for the spiritual state of the West. For just in the states, millions of Native Americans were ethnically cleansed from the land so that white Christians could have places to live. In addition, we need to remember the millions of Blacks who were killed either in the transport of Africans to America for slavery or in the efforts made to keep slaves in their place and we need to remember the many killed in order subjugate Blacks in society after the Civil War . Now those millions don't include the millions of people the US has killed in its questionable wars and interventions. The number of Vietnam civilians killed by the US during the Vietnam War is in the millions. And those millions don't include the millions of people killed as Western nations built their empires. And we should also note that Nazi Germany was a politically conservative western country that promoted private property, racism, nationalism, and traditional values--restoring traditional values was part of the Nazi Party's campaign platform. And Nazi Germany was also responsible for its own millions of deaths.
Carter's article ends up providing too little information to actually prove its point. To that extent, the information it does provides seems to use a fear out of ignorance to manipulate the opinions of its readers.






 

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

Marxism Has Never Been Fully Tried, And

Contrary to popular conservative opinion, Marxism has never been fully tried. It wasn't fully tried in the USSR, it wasn't fully tried in China, and it wasn't fully tried in either Cuba or Venezuela. All conservative claims to the contrary are false. But why are they false?

The reason why those conservative claims are false can be answered in two ways. One way is to note how conservative opponents of Marxism tend to be opportunistic in trying to disprove Marxism. Thus, they conveniently latch on to what failed in the nations previously mentioned as experiments in Marxism in order to dissuade any leanings toward Marxism in people. So that is one way of looking at why those conservative claims are false.


Another way to note how conservative claims that the nations previously mentioned did not fully try Marxism is to look at the key missing ingredient of Marxism in those nations: the proletartiat dictatorship. Now, the proletariat dictatorship is kind of a misnomer. For what the proletariat dictatorship involves is a partial democracy based on class just as much as a nation like Israel runs a partial democracy based on ethnicity. Thus, the proletariat dictatorship, which allows for proletariat representatives to be elected by their peers, is really a democracy in which the proletariat clearly own the nation more than any other group. And when one looks at the structures of the government that ran the USSR and currently runs China, Cuba, and Venezuela, one sees the lack of ownership and control by the proletariat. Instead, one sees ownership and control by those who claim to speak for the proletariat but are merely ideological elites. And such can never be counted as a proletariat dictatorship.

Does that mean that we should seek to fully employ Marxism in our nation? If you are a Marxist ideologue, you would say 'yes.' But for those ideologues, how do you feel about a proletariat dictatorship where the proletariat do not follow Marxist ideology? Do you still want to fully employ Marxism? Can one fully employ Marxism under those circumstances?

I like to imitate Howard Zinn when saying I am a Marxist Socialist. That is because Zinn had said that he likes to call himself a Socialist if he can define what he means by that term. And I feel the same way about Marxist Socialism.

I very much like Marx, especially when it comes to his analysis of Capitalism. But I struggle with his overall view of reality and his solution to Capitalism. What are my struggles with Marxism? There are 4 points on which I disagree with Marx. They consist of the following:

  1. I disagree with Marx's support for revolution. In too many cases, revolutions do not result in democracies.
     
  2. I disaagree with Marx's materialism. I must disagree with him there because I am a Christian.
     
  3. I disagree with Marx's utopian expectations. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to improve things. It means that we will never achieve utopia.
     
  4. I disagree with Marx's proletariat dictatorship.

 Now concerning the 4th point, I have to make one clarification. I don't disagree with Marx's proletariat dictatorship the way that some professed followers of Marx disagreed with it. For what they wanted was  having the "right" people act as dictators instead of the proletariat dictatorship. Why I disagree with Marx's proletariat dictatorship is because I believe in a full democracy. When we have a democracy that is under control of either the bourgeoisie or the proletariat, we don't have a full democracy. That is because a democracy is not just defined by the procedures and processes made available to the people for picking their leaders or deciding on certain questions. Democracy is a certain state of being for the nation where the nation is being shared equally by all the different groups in the nation. And that can't be when we have a proletariat or bourgeoisie dictatorship. Nor could it be if we had a bourgeoisie democracy.

Now if I disagree with the proletariat dictatorship, how can it be that I am a Marxist? My claim here becomes a matter of opinion. But what I do believe in, in addition to Marx's analysis of Capitalism, is empowering the proletariat at both the workplace and the government so that they share the workplace and the state equally with the bourgeoisie. That means that they should have equal power both at the workplace and in government.

We should note that nations that come closest to following Marxism in terms of the proletariat dictatorship was neither the USSR nor China, Cuba, nor Venezuela. Rather Germany and Denmark are two nations that more closely follow Marx than any other nation. How is it that they are following Marx? They are following, or approaching to be more precise, Marx through their codetermination laws. What codetermination does is to require that any business with a certain number of employees must include workers, who are elected by their peers, to sit on the board of directors for a given company. That means that workers and owners share power in terms of controlling a company.

Now codetermination is not a proletariat dictatorship. Nor do most instances of codetermination require that the bourgeoisie and the proletariat share equal power over a given company. But codetermination approaches Marxism by empowering workers at the workplace.

What would be my ideal political-economic structure? That we have a codetermination that requires equal representation in the larger companies and approach equal representation in smaller companies on any company's board of directors. And such takes care of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie sharing power at the workplace.

But what about sharing power in government? We should note, and this comes from an observation by a friend of mine who is a religious conservative Christian but who is rather an independent political thinker but who leans toward conservatism more than any other position. What we are missing in our political structure is representation by vocation. Both the Senate and the House allows for representation by location. But because of the money involved in elections, both places of representation by location tend to create elected officials who tend to significant personal wealth and/or have the same jobs. The most common vocations held by our elected representatives are those who were in law, those who were in business, those who were elected officials in other levels of government, and those who were in education. We should note that those in law held a substantial lead in representation over those from the other vocations. This leaves housewives to go unrepresented in our government. It also leaves factory workers to go unrepresented. It also leaves people with jobs in the service sector to go unrepresented and so on and so on. In short, we need a legislative branch that allows people to be represented by vocation as well as location.


Would my dream government work? That would depend on the decisions made by those in charge. But what my dream government would do would be to employ a more equal sharing of power and thus the need for people with different interests to work for each others' interests and welfare. This could be partially accomplished by a legislative branch where people are represented by vocation.

In short, I am saying that it is good that a full Marxism has never been employed. But I don't say that for the same reasons that people like Lenin or Mao would say that. For they wanted to consolidate power under their own control. And that is the problem we have today. Instead of sharing power, we have become tribal and looked after the interests of our own group(s) believing that if we convince enough people to vote for our leaders, we have done nothing wrong. But we would be wrong if we don't share the nation as equals with others and we believed in democracy.