Take up the White Man's burden — Rudyard Kipling

Damn right!

More:

And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch Sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought. — Rudyard Kipling

Exactly! Those miserable lazy heathens are always screwing up progress. Where's the whip?

One might think that Kipling was talking about the British Empire, but Kipling was actually encouraging The United States to conquer the Philippines. The full title of the poem is ""The White Man's Burden: The United States and the Philippine Islands". Well he should have, of course -- the Philippines still has a lot of heathens who was never uplifted into the sweet knowledge of Jesus and the blessings of The American Way. Pity, that. Not too late, of course, just messier now,

The poem was written in 1899 -- the white men of the British Empire had already shouldered their burden pretty well by that time. And a burden it is, having to keep up one's property, keep the natives in line, extract wealth from the barely willing, and then cart it back home. It's soooo tiresome!

One of the reasons Prince Leopold of Belgium did so well in the Congo is that he didn't suffer from a sickly unwillingness to use force. He mowed 'em down if they didn't work fast enough, hauling in wild latex, ivory, and so on. Good Old Imperialists, laying the foundations of 21st Century First World wealth for us all.

Is 'thinking' necessarily 'conscious'? I am not conscious of all that goes on in my brain to produce this sentence. I am aware of the result as it flows out of my fingers, through the keyboard, and onto the screen. I am not -- I can not be, as far as I know -- conscious of how the neural networks located between my ears arrived at the result. A lot of thinking goes on unconsciously.

A large degree of self-awareness is a feature of human beings. I do not know how self-awareness is generated. I don't know whether and/or to what extent other animals (primates, canines, elephants, etc.) have self-awareness. My assumption (based on reports and some observation, is that other animals 'think' to some extent.

Do computers 'think'? No, not yet -- and maybe not for quite some time, or maybe ever. Computers, for all their electronic complexity, are really simple compared to animal brains. Even insects outperform computers. What makes computers do interesting things are tons of human input (programming). Nobody programs a bee; it operates independently.

Racial justice has suddenly (like a bolt of lighting) become a hot issue for all sorts of people who are not generally subject to discrimination, and officials in all sorts of institutions. At the beginning of the Memorial Day weekend, it wasn't hot in most quarters.

Will this new concern of the masses last? Will the officials accomplish everything they intend (like defund, dismantle, or abolish the police department)?

My guess is that it will last for a while, and will then gradually fade. The iron is hot right now, but iron cools off. Achieving liberty and justice for all is a very complicated project, and remediating wrongs which have been perpetrated and maintained for many decades is going to be very tough.

Eliminating racism will be about as difficult as eliminating capitalism. Not saying they are the same thing, but they are both deeply, deeply entrenched.

At any rate, it's a job for young people. They have to carry out their projects and live with them. Us old folks will be exiting the stage before long. And as one old leftist said, "Revolution is a young person's game."

The brain does a lot; not all of it is thinking. Regulating breathing, heart, balance -- all those basal activities -- is not part of thinking. Emotions in their 'raw' form (like fear, lust, hunger) aren't thinking. So, if you see a snake and jump back, that's not thinking. These non-thinking functions are important, but... not thinking.

Whether conscious or not, thinking is grappling, wrestling with reality. Trying (and maybe succeeding) to make sense of the 'buzzing, blooming, confusion' that presents itself to us.

Some animals think, to a limited extent. They too grapple a bit with the reality presented to them. Granted, it's not high level, but it's an activity that developed before we became sentient.

The Minneapolis City Council claims it has a veto-proof majority to pursue a plan to dismantle the MPD over time (not in one fell swoop). We will see what happens over time. My guess is that the process will stretch over 2 or 3 city council terms, during which the council may change significantly, as might the mayor,

The MPD, like other PDs, has friends and they are themselves a capable political operation. Dismantling or pruning the police is by no means a done deal--even a started and then stalled out deal.

Some programatic changes a city council can and should be instituted right away.

Social workers and mental health intervenors should attend to most domestic disputes -- along with a police officer (in support, not in charge). Restorative justice programs should be established in neighborhoods where there are numerous misdemeanor property crimes (shoplifting, petty theft, etc.). Homelessness must be addressed with Housing First, then social services. Drug/alcohol addiction needs to be addressed with treatment, not jail time.

There are plenty of activities which the police can and should attend to: speeding, running red lights, murders, robbery, fighting, and so forth.

Part of the problem is that the police are only one, but maybe the most visible, of the problems many (not all) black people have to deal with: substandard housing, high unemployment rates, lower wages, less educational attainment, poor health, etc. A police action can be captured on camera and it is shocking; ratty housing, unemployment, low wages, poorer educational performance, worse health outcomes, etc, just don't yield high impact video.

Whether they deserve it or not, police become the cause celebre, and bear the weight of all injustices.

The number of black on black murders should be a stumbling block to the anti-police demonstrators, but it doesn't seem to be. In 2018 about 2600 black people killed by other black people. White people killed about 3300 other whites, but they make up a much larger share o the population 72% vs. 13%. In 2018 the total of persons shot by police was less than 1000. "Sadly, the trend of fatal police shootings in the United States seems to only be increasing, with a total 429 civilians having been shot, 88 of whom were Black, as of June 4, 2020."

The amount of distress caused by a drive-by shooting is probably not significantly less than a police killing. Of course, your run-of-the-mill drive-by-shooter isn't representing civil society. There's a difference there, but when you're dead you're dead regardless of who brought about your death.



https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls

Meanwhile... From 7 p.m. Friday, May 29, through 11 p.m. Sunday, May 31, 25 people were killed in the city, with another 85 wounded by gunfire, according to data maintained by the Chicago Sun-Times.

"Does systemic racism exist in the US?" I'm not sure how many kinds of racism there are, but does racism exist in the US? Is the Pope Catholic?

Of course racism exists in the US, and lots elsewhere. In affirming that, though, I would like to take most individuals off the hook. Most people are not individually responsible for the various 'isms' they display -- racism, classism, bodyism, ageism, ableism, sexism, etcism. The 'isms' in our baggage were/are constructed over time and place, solidified, and widely distributed. We take on the 'isms' through our participation in the culture. We take on many positive and negative values, some serving us well, some not.

Individuals are back on the hook when they practice 'isms' against others, are conscious of doing so, and continue doing so. (Example: being aware of how much they dislike fat people as a category and the refusal to consider a fat woman or fat man for a job they are qualified to perform.) The book WHITE TRASH The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America by Nancy Isenberg traces the disgust the ruling classes in England felt for the poor and menials, and how they installed their values in the colonies, and continued on into the present.

Racism in America has a history too -- well enough known, I think; we don't have to rehearse it here.

Officer Chauvin's hard core race hatred isn't unique. I don't know how many people in Minneapolis share it: 1%? 5%? 10%? Ballpark guess: Probably somewhere in-between 5% to 10%. There are about 250,000 white people in Minneapolis (63% of the population); 12,000 to 25,000 citizens sharing officer Chauvin's view are a lot, even if 225,000 don't.

I have no idea how many people dismiss out of hand people who are obese, disabled, poor, sexist, old, and so on. It's probably a large number, sweeping every prejudice up together.

Our dog was informed early on that if she engaged in coprophagy she would be express-deported to the pound. She never touched the stuff.

Brutal and visible repression is no longer exercised — David Mo

Be patient. When the State and it's corporate stockholders feel sufficiently threatened, brutal and visible repression will be very hard to escape.

Professional journalists share common training. Networks and stations offer economical programming formats which the public is familiar with. The public consumes programming because it is moderately interesting and not very demanding. All media have at least one common agenda: making money by selling advertising displayed during shows. The more audience, the more one can charge for the ads.

Do media have other agendas? Fox News apparently does, (I haven't watched a network news broadcast for several years.). By and large, though, I think they are mostly about earning revenue, and that agenda drives what they do.

MPR might have had a significant effect on the narrative followed by the US pubic radio audience, since the event was here, and they covered it thoroughly. So might stations like WAMU (Washington, D.C.), and stations in New York, Boston, LA, and so on. WAMU's "1A" program is carried by a lot of stations.

It would be interesting to compare media hours of coverage, how long Ferguson, MO occupied the Number One topic list, how much coverage was live reporting, and so forth. It was fairly heavy, as I remember. I don't have any of those stats.

IF a particular newspaper, website, or radio station originated a unique and particularly inflammatory story, one might be able to follow how the story spread and influenced audiences. But the cable and broadcast networks--even a few overseas news teams--and major newspapers were all covering the same story in a generally similar way--video of people demonstrating, close-ups of signs, footage of fires, tear gas--all that.

One group that could have had a more significant impact on an internet audience was "Unicorn Riot" -- a small operation. Their coverage tends to be "man in the street" interviews in the middle of uproar. For instance, they were live-streaming at the Wednesday night arson and looting scene in the Longfellow neighborhood where I live. The reporter/anchor was in the middle of the crowd with a mic and a camera offering anyone who wanted the opportunity to speak.

It was thanks to their coverage that I decided to go over to Lake and 27th (near where I live) at 2:00 a.m. to see how bad it was -- it was very bad and also a three-ring circus. Unicorn Riot isn't a slick operation, but I give them credit for going to events like the anti-oil pipeline demonstrations at the Standing Rock Reservation, and giving an up-close-and-persona on-the-ground picture of what is happening.

Indeed, the media was swift. Likely, it is possible to represent what happened using the following scheme, dividing it into steps:
1) Selection 2) Prioritizing 3) The way of covering/reporting (labelling) 4) Maintaining the created momentum
5) Back-Referencing, so that all previous steps, all that was constructed looks as a set of real facts.
Probably, the selection was made on the base of the corporate policy, as well as aspiration to advance and to shape particular political agenda. The policy is debated and renovated by the small group of big bosses, and it is entirely out of public awareness. — Number2018

Indeed.

I get most of my news from Minnesota Public Radio, here in Minneapolis. MPR was very much social-justice-forward in their treatment of Floyd's death. Several call-in shows were reserved for black callers; white listeners were invited to not call -- just listen. Their reporters accepted the narrative that police regularly murdered black people -- citing some cases in the Twin Cities and cases in other cities over a few years time.

Does the Minnesota black community have reason to complain? Certainly. Disparities in wealth, housing, opportunities, environment, education, and so on are readily visible. They report a history of negative interactions with the police.

FBI statistics show that the incidences of police killing citizens is correlated with violence in the communities being policed. Minority police are as likely to be involved in deaths of citizens as majority police. Whatever the racial make up, very peaceable communities sustain fewer police-citizen deaths than violent communities. This does not excuse suffocating George Floyd, of course.

Poor people all have good reason to resist the powers-that-be -- usually personified in the police force. Unfortunately, the powers-that-be operate at great distance from the victims of their economic predations, and aren't easily targeted.

I think that the media is partly to blame for the current state of affairs by labeling the murder an act of racism, with no evidence (at least that I’m aware of) other than the fact that the race of the murderer and victim were different. — Pinprick

I blame the media for a lot, but a little bit of recent history first:

The critical event on May 25 was captured on video by bystanders and was posted on social media. The community in which the event occurred reacted swiftly with an impromptu march and demonstration, labeling the death of George Floyd as a racist murder by the police. The media I follow picked up on the demonstrations and the rhetoric used.

News media, social media, interpersonal networks and demonstrations produced a feedback loop. Within 48 hours (on May 27) looting and arson were in progress.

You do not sound at all like a misanthrope. 10% - 20% of people annoy you. Only 20%?

We are an inherently annoying species. Being annoyed by other people is not misanthropia; it is a sign of complete normality.

We the people are naturally, and of necessity, mostly wrapped up in our own busy internal worlds. Our brains are in a box and it often gets more sensory input than it can manage. It takes considerable patience, skill, effort and attention to look out into the world and track what other members of our species are doing, what they need (like adequate braking space between cars), what their limitations are (and how that relates to our own limitations--which are also difficult to keep track of), and so on and so forth.

In addition to all that, the world was surprisingly not created for our convenience. We are repeatedly appalled by how inconvenient life can be, and that's before other people get in our way.

And all this is on a good day.

It helps to remember CLASS when analyzing race relations. Here's a quote from an article on "the paradox of Minneapolis"

"White, non-Hispanic residents in the Twin Cities have median household incomes that are almost double that of black households. Here’s a look at the disparities between both groups."

That's not a paradox; that's the preferred, if not the planned outcome. What 20th century history shows is that blacks have been consistently barred from the avenues of economic advancement which have benefited many whites.

The major actions that keep and kept many blacks relatively or absolutely poor were not passed by a plebiscite or a ballot initiative. They actions were hatched and executed by the white wealthy Washington, D.C. elite, for their own interests. The post WWII boom was carefully tailored to build up a stable middle class and along the way, generate a landslide of wealth from the various consumption industries (real estate, construction, furnishings, autos, etc.).

Are white people, in general, to blame?

Some people -- white and not white -- would affirm white people's general guilt. I don't, even if white (middle class) people were the beneficiaries of the government policy.

The conditions of housing, employment, health, and education are bound together. Poor housing, unemployment, and low-performing schools go together. Poverty, poor housing, mediocre education, unemployment, and poor health outcomes are arranged in a circle, one factor aggravating the next. The same is true for affluence, good housing, excellent education, steady and upward mobile employment, and good health. One factor strengths the next.

Many working class white people, like working class black people, were left out of the good deals of the post WWII boom. They may not have been subjected to the same discrimination that blacks were, but in time their marginally superior economic position eroded down to about nothing.

Is there a SOLUTION? Next week? Next year? By 2030? No, The intervention required is multigenerational. We can certainly spend money on interventions, restitution, and uplift but carrying out an intervention over 40 or 50 years that yields excellent results is, literally, difficult to conceive.

Certainly the white power structure (the one that is IN CHARGE, IN CONTROL, AND IN PLACE) is pretty unlikely to come up with anything effective. That leaves the victims of the much longer multigenerational program of degradation to come up with a plan.

One piece of the problem that may or may not have been mentioned here is the role of police unions. In some places, Minneapolis among them, the police unions have protected bad behavior. This morning the head of the MPD union claimed that officers are being scapegoated. This from The Guardian:

The president of the Minneapolis police union has written to its members calling George Floyd a “violent criminal”, describing those protesting over his death as terrorists and criticizing the city’s political leadership for not authorizing greater use of force to stop the rioting.

The letter drew a swift rebuke from a former Minneapolis police chief who called it a disgrace.

Lt Bob Kroll, president of the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis, defended the four officers involved in Floyd’s death... “What is not being told is the violent criminal history of George Floyd. The media will not air this. I’ve worked with the four defense attorneys that are representing each of our four terminated individuals under criminal investigation, in addition with our labor attorneys to fight for their jobs. They were terminated without due process,” wrote Kroll, according to a copy of the letter obtained by the Star Tribune.

Floyd had served time in prison for aggravated robbery but Chauvin could not have known that when he detained him. Video footage shows that Floyd was not behaving in a violent manner during his arrest, was not armed, and was not suspected of a violent crime.

Here's a picture of Kroll, speaking at a Trump rally in Minneapolis, 2019.

if you were president, with unilateral authority — Outlander

Fortunately Trump doesn't have all the unilateral authority he thinks he has. He has too much as it is. Donald: Please S T F U !!!!!

Tea Party was part of that. — frank

It's helpful to remember that the crates of tea thrown into Boston Harbor were a large, valuable shipment -- about a year's worth of tea drinking for Boston and surrounding area -- and worth million$ (a rough calculation into today's money).

Another thing:

I would discourage anyone from thinking that the riots will lead to a new day of good feeling. Probably not. It's also unlikely that the least well-heeled of riot victims (the small shop and restaurant owners) will just pick up where they were on May 24th. Many commercial strips damaged in past riots required a decade to be restored, and in some cases (like Lawndale in Chicago damaged in 1968 riots) have never recovered.

There's no guarantee that branches of large companies (Target, food chains, Walgreens...) will be promptly reopened. Most probably will be, if they have a good probability of being profitable.

Is inaction morally wrong?

Real world example (no trolleys involved):

One of four police officers on the scene of a nonviolent crime kneels, knee on the neck of an arrested man (who is handcuffed and laying on the ground). The officer keeps his knee on the side of the man's neck for between 5 to 7 minutes. The arrested man says he can't breathe, and finally stops speaking. He arrives at a hospital DOA.

Three of four officers on the scene (standing near the officer and the arrested man) did nothing to help the man, and did not remonstrate with the officer whose knee is on the man's neck. They say nothing. (All this is captured on a phone cam.)

Are the 3 do-nothing officers who did nothing guilty of, or accomplices to, a murder?

Good observation.

It has been recorded (though rarely) of a species going extinct and then a relative species occupying the vacant niche where they then begin to selectively evolve back into the exact same species with the same qualities behaviours and anatomy. — Benj96

What species would that be?

Butterflies moving their wings as a root cause of hurricanes are a figure of speech. If someone hadn't uttered that phrase, once upon a time, we'd all be infinitesimally better off.

Buddhist joke: Don't just do something, stand there. (Don't just do, just be)

TO BE is an immensely complicated verb compared to TO DO. Doing things is delimited; being is unbounded.

A book could be written on being.

IMHO, it's a metaphor; it's good, and very convenient because our understanding of how the brain actually works has been (and still is) limited.

Take a look at the Latin root pro / cras / crastinus / procrastinare / procrastinat and in the late 1500s, voila, English procrastinate. It means "deferred until the morning, or deferred until tomorrow".

Why do we defer tasks until tomorrow, and tomorrow, and...? Is it not usually avoidance behavior? I procrastinate cleaning up the basement because it is boring, tedious, carries few intrinsic rewards (few? More like zero.). Tomorrow, maybe. It's not "inertia", it's strategy--avoiding or delaying unpleasantness.

We use computer metaphors for the functioning of the brain. It's a computer. There are circuits. There is programming, deprograming, and reprogramming. There are viral thoughts. There are inputs, and so on. We use mechanical metaphors too: power, drive, bandwidth, overload, etc.

Think of the long period of time that people have lived--let's say 500,000 years (not an exaggeration). During those 500 millennia, people lived as hunter/gatherers. The shift to settled, urban living is very recent -- 10,000 years ago, give or take 15 minutes. During all those years, people were not perfecting methods to "live a luxurious and ostentatious lifestyle".

Once we settled down, started living together in cities, began accumulating surpluses, and so on -- then luxury and ostentation became a thing. It takes a system of competition, and we have to be trained into that system.

A potential fallacy I see from your last two posts is equating a high school dropout and their potential careers and resulting salaries with that of a PhD's. — Outlander

I wasn't comparing PhDs with high school dropouts--I was just citing a range, FROM high school dropout TO PhD.

The break-point of difference is really between having a BA degree and not having one. Of course, a person with a PhD in engineering is going to make more than a BA in engineering, but if you compare the performance of 1 million people, those without a BA have quite a bit worse outcomes than people who have a BA (or better).

The reason for that is probably because the BA has become a marker for "capable person". Even if your BA is in Medieval French Poetry (and not mechanical engineering) you have still demonstrated the capacity to perform on a collegiate level for 4 years, meet many deadlines, remain at a task for extended periods of times, work with abstract material, and so on.

Persons who have not completed more than high school are usually (not always) at a major disadvantage for life. Yes, there are outstanding exceptions, but there are more outstanding confirmations of the principle.

100 years ago, having a high school degree was quite exceptional in the US, and back then it was a marker for success. It was, like the BA, an entry ticket into some more demanding jobs. 100 years ago, however, not completing high school wasn't a major problem, because there were many jobs that required mechanical skill (or brawn, or ability to tolerate boredom) which one could develop on-the-job. That's not the case anymore.

Perhaps it should be tried somewhere. — Outlander

Good idea! Let's try it in the United States!

The idea of at least there being the possibility to live a luxurious and ostentatious lifestyle through your efforts in life is the proven best motivator. — Outlander

Best motivator for what? Rapacious life styles?

And will you live as an ordinary citizen with others who you do not know and know nothing about you — Outlander

Well, that's pretty much the way it is now in large stretches of the world. I grew up in a very small town--2000 people. Everyone did not know everything about everybody there. Still, I was extremely happy to leave for cities like Boston or Minneapolis, where ordinary citizens mostly don't know anything about each other. After 50 years, I still prefer a certain degree of anonymity.

isn't "economic liberalism" a political and economic philosophy based on strong support for a market economy and private property in the means of production. I'm not hot on defending that system even though it is the system I have always lived in, and haven't suffered too greatly from it.

In the context of this discussion there are two kinds of property: personal property (your house, your car, your bed, your computer...) and business property (rental property, stores, railroads, factories, airlines, etc.). Marxists have no objection to people owning a house, a car, a toaster. We plan on abolishing business property. If you have some business property, like a foundry, a fleet of trucks, a for-profit nursing home, we plan on taking it away from you, and no, you won't be getting a big settlement.

I lived without owning any substantial personal property until I was 50. After I left for college, I rented rooms and apartments for the next 32 years. I never objected to renting -- I liked not being tied down to a particular address, and since I don't drive, moving to be closer to work or social life was facilitated by not owning a house.

I didn't live in deluxe rental housing by any stretch of the imagination, but they were always clean, decent, reasonably safe (minimum fire hazards, sound structure, etc.). I want people to be able to afford clean, decent, sufficiently large (not crowded) housing. People don't have to own it, but it needs to be available.

From whom would people rent if business property were eliminated? They would receive housing from a much expanded public housing department. That 20 story luxury apartment building you own? You'll lose it under the "from each according to his means" proviso, but since you know the building well, presumably, you might be hired in the maintenance department. The building will be added to the pool of housing. Public housing has a bad reputation because quite a few cities allowed what started out to be quality buildings to turn into dumps through minimal maintenance. In cities where the buildings have been maintained, 50 years later they are still in good shape, providing good quality housing.

To each according to their needs... Do you need the 15 room house you occupy by yourself and your mistress? No. You and your mistress should be comfortable in a 1000 square foot house or apartment. Do the two of you need 2 sedans, one SUV, and one convertible? No. You should be able to get alone where you will be living by taking public transit or bicycle. Your vehicles will be recycled. There are 1 billion cars on the world's roads. Obviously unsustainable.

No external stimulus, no language, nothing. What do you think life would be like? — JoeyB

Brain activity would be severely limited because the brain requires input from the getgo to function--not just normally, but to function at all. Well, the brainstem features would maintain your respiration and heartbeat, stuff like that, but otherwise, you'd be a non-entity.

What would life be like without a body i.e. you are just a brain/mind/consciousness. — JoeyB

This is the "brains in a vat" deal. Much discussed. It gets at various topics, like solipsism -- I am the only being, others exist in my imagination, etc.

Showing me that the Milwaukee housing market is designed to exploit people who have no other choice than to live in a pile of Wisconsin snow doesn't explain much about the ideals of liberalism. It just indicates that people are fat bastards. — frank

Well, it shows what we liberals are willing to allow to stand right next to our liberal ideals. We live with major contradictions.

I just meant that observing the millions upon millions who died as a direct result of Communism doesn't tell you much about Marxism, much less american marxism. — frank

Oh, that's what you meant. Well, I totally agree.

Build a society that works, and then we can discuss the facts on the ground. Until then, the discussion can only be about ideas, right? — frank

We need to identify and understand the facts on the ground right now -- the ones that we keep tripping over. We won't get anywhere without doing that. It's dirty work, dealing with the brute facts of bourgeois ways and means, but somebody has to do it.

One of the reasons why the average American worker (blue collar, white collar, high school drop out or Phd) hasn't made more progress towards their own liberation is that they have persisted in thinking we are all free and equal, and that the only reason the poor stay poor is that they are too god damned lazy to make it, and the reason people got ahead was because they were smart and very hard working, and they did it all by themselves.

Do they believe people are born equal and free? — frank

If Marxism is a method of analyzing the nature of society, the answer would have to be a resounding "NO". Clearly we are born into established conditions that curtail both our equality and freedom. The son or daughter of an office cleaner does not have the same opportunity as the son or daughter of the billionaire that owns the office. The idea that technically everyone is equal and free to pursue whatever dreams they wish to pursue runs into the implacable brick wall of reality. A few people might get over the brick wall, but most (the vast majority) do not.

How do marxists imagine laws are justified? — frank

In the existing system (and previously existing conditions) laws are justified on the basis of their serving the needs of the ruling class. Take the law the establishes a meagre minimum wage (or a more generous one). The law wouldn't be there if it didn't serve the needs of the ruling -- employing -- class. The meagre minimum wage is too low to keep a family alive, so it clearly isn't in the interests of the working class.

Sometimes the state is sort of generous because the pressure boiling up from below is dangerous. One aim of the various social welfare programs put in place in the US (and elsewhere) is to pacify the working class--the better to prevent them from revolting. Even so, very conservative parties in the US (southern Democrats, conservative Republicans) opposed social welfare programs in court -- Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Disability insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, etc. have all been opposed in court and legislatures by politicians who would rather not spend a dime on those in need.

It is a bitter realization to come to understand that our system operates pretty much for the benefit of the rich, and the poor are free and equal insofar as they obey.

What are the differences between Marxism and Communism? — Outlander

Marx said, "A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre." in 1844, in the Communist Manifesto. The "communism" that we think of was in the future. There was social and labor unrest at the time, and various polemics were being batted around. The Communist Manifesto introduction exhorts Communists to openly publish their views and aims, to "meet this nursery tale of the spectre of communism with a manifesto of the party itself".

But when Marx wrote the Manifesto, 1844, there was no more than a handful of communists in the world.

Sometime in the 1880s, Engles was asked to define Marxism. He said, "In four words, 'Marxism is a method'". It's a method of analyzing developments in political economy. It isn't a movement. "Socialism" or "communism" came later on - both for Karl Marx, and for the world. His thinking on instituting changes in the world ("Philosophers have striven to understand the world; the point is to change it.") developed over time.

"Communism" came into being in Russia in 1917. Socialism, and social democracy, were advocated prior to 1917, and sometimes put into practice. Over time, other people in various places, like Antonio Gramsci in Italy during (and against Mussolini) the 1930s contributed importantly to the understanding and practice of socialism/communism.

As I said above, Marx is probably spinning in his grave over what has been done in his name.

An american marxist would agree that all people are born equal and free, and that the state infringes on our freedom because we accept that control as part of our citizenship. — frank

They would? News to me.

Any social contract is a tradeoff of benefits and sacrificed self-interests.

The orthodox marxists I know dismiss reform out of hand. As humane people, they of course want the state to protect working people from the vagaries of the market. They go further to say that there is nothing vague about the market: It is inherently exploitative, and screwing the people is just what it does. (It's the continual transfer of wealth from workers to the bourgeoisie.).

Here: Take the recent book "Evicted". It's a documentary volume on the way the market in housing for the poor works in Milwaukee. Landlords accumulate considerable wealth from the many poor people to whom they rent lousy, substandard housing. Crappy neighborhoods are full of crappy housing that goes onto the market through tax auctions and other means. You buy a piece of junk for $12,000, maybe. You fix anything that absolutely has to be fixed -- like not having a furnace of some sort, not having water service. You charge rent at the highest level the market for poor housing will bear, maybe $500 a month. In two years you have paid for the shit pile and for the next few years you earn more profit. During your ownership tenure you tend to fix nothing. Toilet breaks? Blame the tenants and charge them extra to fix it. They don't pay? Evict them, get some other desperate broke family in there. Maybe the toilet got fixed, maybe not.

That's how the bottom of the housing market works. Reform it? No. Do away with it altogether.

Isn't it true that marxists start by rejecting the world as it is? — frank

No. They might not like the world as it is (who does?) but existing methods of production (a vast topic encapsulated in a brief phrase), the existing class and power structures, the culture as it exists -- all that and more -- have to be taken into consideration as "from this point forward".

Marxists look forward to a revolutionary overthrow of the existing capitalist system (a rejection of the world as it is) but they don't engage in a future-other-worldly rejection of the world as it is.

Is this a problem? For marxists, yes. We live in a tension between the world as it is and the way we would like the world to be. The same problem is shared by all world reformers. Religionists and political-economic revolutionaries share this form of suffering.