Wesley Clark's statement, like any time one gets in front of a mike by being only ONE statement is being overplayed against him -- that I would agree. That the statement on its face sticks out like a sore thumb and begs such rash comment I would also agree and think you might give that aspect of it some weight.
Yapping with the media, things don't always come out the way a person means ... yet Clark is practised and trained in such interviews and may by that be measured more closely than a person less familiar with such interviews.
His statement links tightly a view of what America "is all about" with "progressive taxation".
"Progressive Taxation" is a flag term of long standing, and it's awfully hard to imagine Clark is not acquainted with its most common familiar meanings -- one meaning -- a positive one to them -- that is favored to liberals and progressives even ones unfamiliar with Marx. That is indeed a parallel -- but not exactly the same -- meaning Hamilton used in talking about having staged rates of taxes on increasing sizes and values of land property. In that common sense it means "progressive income tax rates staged by level of income". I don't think anyone knows or can easily infer what Hamilton's views on a progressive income tax would be.
The second, very well-known meaning of the term "progressive taxation" is exactly that of Marx -- a LEVELER of a tax code -- one that grabs bigger slices from the economically gifted and able, so as to knock them down to the level of the less gifted and/or able, It is known to the right-wing anti-communist as well as all socialists, communists, and folks (such as Clark) exposed to the Fabian traditions of socialism at Oxford.
That Clark so casually linked that Marxian Ideal to his American Ideal is very reasonably, yet a bit rashly (because it is only one statement and not a series of such), castigated for so being a radical mischaracterization of Founding American Ideals.
The people on this post seem pretty knowledgeable about history, the constitution, communism, and Marx. Can someone here help me answer some questions?
First off I'm curious about the relationship of communism to our constitution. The very first part of the constitution states: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Doesn’t communism have something to do with collectivism? Or is communism just an economic system like capitalism? Did Marx have any statements or declarations regarding our form of government or our constitution specifically?
The parts of the statement that I have included that seem to be collectivist in nature is “We the People” and then “promote the general Welfare”. What types of statements are these in relation to government, communism, and capitalism?
I’m also curious how taxation relates to communism. Was there taxation in the Soviet Union? I thought the government owned everything (no private property) and all the means of production so there was no need for taxation there?
I’ve also been curious about how socialism and communism are related. What are the similarities and differences?
Boortz also talked about public schools being communist in nature? Is this true? When did the government (state or federal governments) begin to pay for public schools? What percentage of the population has been trained by public schools?
I would appreciate all the help I can get as I often go head to head with some pretty tough and sharp liberal debaters. Thanks.