Posted on 11/22/2007 4:12:01 AM PST by Man50D
“Marx claimed he was in favor of free trade because it would antagonize the working classes into overthrowing the bourgeoise. How do you reconcile the above with a comment such as claiming free trade is destroying the middle class, or other such garbage?”
**********
Marx was in favor of free-trade because he was personally profiting from free-trade.
So all his class-warfare rhetoric was a sham? What about yours?
“Are you a politician? Why do you respond to statements of the obvious with personal attacks?”
****************
Because 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War for nothing.
“So all his class-warfare rhetoric was a sham? What about yours?”
*************
Nationalism rhetoric.
The only truly free-trade zone is between the 50 states. International trade is an entirely different animal.
Seriously, I've never heard that angle before . . . and I thought I've heard them all.
I will return, after many drinks over the course of the day, to decipher that statement.
That Marx, et all, are/were hypocrites is well known. He didn’t enjoy spending time with the “masses” or the “proletariat”. They were a means to an end: Political, social and economic power for he and his kind. Much like the modern “Progressives” and “Liberals” of today.
Marx To Engels
In Manchester
[London,] 7 June 1864
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/letters/64_06_07.htm
“The American news looks very good to me; I was particularly delighted by today’s leader in The Times, in which it is proved that Grant has been continually beaten and may perhaps be punished for his defeats — with the capture of Richmond!
Salut.”
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/letters/date/1860s.htm
Looking for specific letter I remember reading.....
So many letters from Marx to Engles, and Engles to Marx.
Anyways, in one of the letters, Marx was complaining to Engles about Sherman’s march to the sea and how he is losing money from his cotton speculation.
Both Marx and Engles were cheerleading the South, because they were personally involved in the entire Cotton manufacturing process.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/letters/65_03_03.htm
FOUND IT!
Engels To Marx
In London
Manchester, 3 March 1865
“””Dear Moor,
You must excuse me for neglecting my correspondence this week. Borkheim was here and took up a lot of my time; he left this evening; then there is cotton-panic following Sherman’s advance with endless letter-writing and vain attempts to dispose of our stock. I think Richmond will be abandoned within a fortnight, and, unless by some miracle Lee manages to get a fresh respite of 2-3 months, the final, decisive battle will be fought within 4 weeks?
I must go home now and write to Meissner and Siebel, who is putting himself to a lot of trouble — he says he has sent you the statement. I am glad the thing is finally published; still nothing in the damned Social-Demokrat of 1 March — presumably, they tried to go back on it? It’s a load off my mind that we have at last made the break with that gang. So, now we have the grand concluding article on Bismarck which was supposed to patch everything up. O, jerum, jerum, jerum!
Your
F. E.
I have in my hurry not managed to find any decent port, but sent claret yesterday. Will keep looking for some port.”””
The original Republicans indirectly ‘stuck it’ to the original Marxists, doesn’t that make you proud?
Limousine liberals of the 19th century. They love free-trade.
LOL, she's not. I've got Laird.
Need I characterize?
As to Keeley, right now I've got other fish I'm frying. The County of Santa Cruz has proposed a new ordinance:
Santa Cruz, CA The County Planning Director is trying to get an ordinance passed regarding habitable and non-habitable accessory structures. The ordinance requires a property owner to have deed restrictions recorded against his or her property and periodic inspections to make sure the property owner is "in compliance." This allows a County employee to enter land or a dwelling without reasonable cause to proactively inspect to see if a provision of the local code has been violated. It is in direct conflict with the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution (against warrantless searches) and the California Code of Civil Procedure 1822.50 which allows a search warrant to be issued after permission to inspect has been sought and refused.
In the Planning Commission agenda Item #9 for October 24, 2007, the word "enforcement" appears 32 times. The Planning Commission unanimously voted for this proposed ordinance calling it "Permit Reform." This will be coming before the County Board of Supervisors for a vote on Dec. 4, 2007.
And the traitorous CEO's of these companies have even written to Congress asking our politicians to do the same.
From the American Economic Alert Article:
Will Congress Sell Out the American People at "U.S." multinational CEOs' Request?
William R. Hawkins Tuesday, November 20, 2007
On November 14, the CEOs of 105 major transnational corporations sent a letter organized by the U.S.-China Business Council to the Democratic and Republican leaders of both houses of Congress. The letter argued against enacting any legislation “targeting the U.S.-China trading relationship.” These corporations are heavily involved financially in this ‘relationship,” helping China rise to become the next great rival to the United States. They provide Beijing with capital and technology, and place the orders that keep Chinese factories open while American factories close – or move their own factories from here to China. They bear much of the responsibility for last year’s lopsided $235 billion U.S. trade deficit with China.
When their letter cites the “enormous benefits to our economy in terms of job creation and economic growth,” they should really be talking about China. U.S. exports to Beijing have grown over the past five years, but from a much lower base – from $18 billion to $52 billion. Meanwhile U.S. imports from China have jumped from $102 billion to $287 billion. Although the percentage increase in U.S. export growth is greater, percentages don’t buy anything; cash does. And this is where China makes out like the bandit that it is – with a tripling of the American trade deficit with Beijing over those five years.
The problems posed by China’s rise cannot be ignored. Even the CEOs had to pay lip service to issues of “currency valuation, product safety, and intellectual property protection” – areas where China is ignoring its international obligations. But the CEOs just don’t want anything done about them. They did not even mention going to the World Trade Organization as an alternative to “unilateral trade penalties.” All they want is for U.S. leaders to “engage directly with the Chinese Government on issues of mutual concern.” In other words, the U.S. government should continue to engage in chit-chat while letting Beijing call the all the real shots.
Our problems with China are not just commercial. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently visited Beijing to “engage” its leaders on the many strategic concerns arising as U.S.-Chinese national interests continue to come into greater conflict. One issue Mr. Gates raised was outright Chinese support for Iran – not just Beijing’s opposition to sanctions against Tehran’s nuclear program. China is arming Iran with conventional weapons, some of which end up in the hands of insurgents and militias in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. But his hosts were silent except to urge that only “peaceful means” be used to counter Iran’s ambitions – and Beijing defines sanctions as non-peaceful. Mr. Gates got even less of an answer about Beijing’s anti-satellite program. Meanwhile, during his visit, a Chinese spacecraft was headed to the Moon, Chinese factories were turning out new warplanes and nuclear missiles (including ICBMs that can strike America), and Chinese shipyards were building submarines and destroyers in larger numbers than American yards.
It is often said that Beijing’s aims are not ‘transparent” because Chinese officials give up nothing in the endless rounds of talks that are constantly being conducted under the “engagement” approach. But for those who can see (and count), the Chinese strategic objective is quite obvious: to overthrow American “hegemony” around the world. And this gaggle of CEOs has decided that they can profit by helping Beijing achieve its goals against the security and prosperity of the United States.
William Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council (notorious for its defense of doing business with rogue regimes), was quoted by the Washington Post on Nov. 16 as saying, "As weaponry gets more and more sophisticated . . . I think we’ll find ourselves more vulnerable for parts that are being manufactured by an adversary," meaning China. This is not idle speculation. One of the CEOs who signed the letter was W. James McNerney, Jr. of the Boeing Company, one of America’s leading defense contractors. Boeing is already outsourcing production of components for its commercial aircraft to China. So it is not that these business executives do not know what is happening, or what the dangers are. They just don’t care. Indeed, Beijing pays them not to care.
The letter by the CEOs should persuade Congress only of their untrustworthiness. Those who throw in their lot with a rival power merely out of personal greed or corporate gain should have no standing in the corridors of Congress, or anywhere else where American policy is supposed to be determined by public servants. But unfortunately, in many circles, money has become the basis of politics, not patriotism.
The main reason these rogue CEOs and the mercenary hacks they employ as lobbyists get in the offices of Members of Congress is not because they have anything intelligent to say about U.S.-China policy, but because they wave corporate and personal checkbooks in support of the Members re-election campaigns. Indeed, the reason the text of the letter was so short on substance was that the argument was not the message – the list of major campaign contributors among the signers was the real point being made to Congress..
So is Congress for sale to the China lobby? Do Beijing’s “gains from trade” include the power to decide what legislation the U.S. Congress will pass? Eventually, the record will speak for itself – and in fact, it already does. Floor action on all of the pending China bills has already slipped into next year – this despite the loud public outcry over the many examples of scandals and reckless behavior by Beijing and Chinese corporations this year.
Concerned readers should request a copy of the CEO letter from their Members of Congress, and ask the politicians whose interests they plan to represent – America’s or China’s – between now and the next election.
RTFA
What I wonder is if in the case of a trojan (somewhere in the boot sector I assume), is a regular formatting of the drive before use adequate - or is more aggressive “wiping” required...
Could you spell out the words, please?
Read The Fine Article.
:-)
Never heard that before. So he may be like Freepers who whine about trade with China and still buy Chinese goods? LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.