From today’s talk-show circuit comes this this little gem of ignorance (h/t Red Tory). Biden quite correctly laughs at the question’s ludicrous premise.
What is more irritating about the exchange than the silliness of the question, however, is that it is pretty clear our friendly interviewer simply Googled Karl Marx quotes and took one she thought would be a zinger. If she could identify where the quote came from (Critique of the Gotha Program) I’d eat my hat with ketchup. I also seriously doubt that she would know that this maxim was meant to apply to a higher phase of communism, with the lower phase governed by the contribution principle. The shift between these two stages was only to take place after a mass motivational change. In any case, though the Communist Manifesto did call for a heavy progressive income tax , I wouldn’t be worried about creeping Marxism as long as you can own private property.
My point here isn’t to try and show off that I know more about political theory than a TV news anchor. Truthfully I haven’t studied Marx in years so I remember only the rough outlines. My point is that you wouldn’t pretend to have a serious understanding of computer programming or mechanical engineering or modern art based on reading a few well-known quotes on the internet. In this context it’s frustrating to see political theory reduced to soundbites and wielded as a dull club for partisan political purposes. Such use suggests that it is fine to abandon any notion that theories or ideas should be understood in their entirely or in context. Indeed, it suggests that any attempt to reach such a level of understanding is somehow either elitist or subversive. And it indicates an environment in which the meaning of words and concepts is irrelevant – reduced to some spin-doctored newspeak – and where dialogue between competing positions is replaced by deformed caricatures of increasing simplicity and extremity.
I reiterate: I am very ready for this campaign to be over. It has gone on way too long.
6 responses so far ↓
redtory // October 26, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Nicely said.
I think we’re all suffering from an overdose of politics at the moment.
(It would have been fun to turn the tables on this witless news anchor and grilled her about the quote she obviously cherry-picked with no appreciation for context or broader philosophical understanding…)
Thanks for the link, btw.
deliberativedialogue // October 26, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Hey RT,
Sadly I think we’ve passed the point where politicians would or could engage that kind of argument. Besides being characterized as elitist for trying to improve this woman’s impoverished understanding of political theory, any mention of the word ‘Marx’ by Biden would have been viewed as a huge gaffe that would have then been distorted, removed from context, and circulated all over the place. Such is the state of political discourse.
The election has started to remind me of one of those magic eye posters I could never quite get right; it is driving me crazy but I can’t look away.
BTW, n/p about the link. Though I rarely comment I enjoy your site!
Chris // October 27, 2008 at 8:27 am
“From each according to his means…. yada yada.”
I am not a political scholar but the meaning of this line is clear. Goods, services, capitol, production, or just plain money will be taken from someone based upon their ability to produce it. I produce 40k a year at my job, my boss produces 100k ergo more would be taken from my boss than me. These goods, services, money, etc. would then go to someone based upon their need of it. The sick would receive medical services, the homeless would receive shelter.
The method of this transaction under Marxism is not though a free market where both producer and consumer willing participate but instead overseeing this transaction would be a function of the state and mandated by the state even by force if the producer is unwilling.
Again I am not a Marxist scholar. If my interpretation of this concept is wildly inaccurate please tell me.
It seems to me that a reporter usually only has a few minutes to interview politian windbags more interested in getting their talking points out than answering the question. And the questioner’s precious few seconds should be short, sweet, and direct instead of a scholarly lecture on the exact historical and political context of a perhaps often misinterpreted quote. Since frankly nobody but a political scholar cares anyway.
When I say spread the wealth I mean giving both my kids the same $100 for xmas instead of giving more to the good kid. When a politian says it I assume he means government involvement in place of normal market forces.
That being the case it was obvious the reporter was trying to score a point against team Obama since obviously Biden will never say “Yes, Barak is a Marxist” but saying the reporter is an idiot because she didn’t fully understand or explain the quote correctly is petty.
deliberativedialogue // October 27, 2008 at 8:59 am
Chris,
I would certainly agree that interviewers need to push politicians off their talking points (much of my frustration with the length of this campaign is hearing the same talking points over and over).
But this question is inexcusably sloppy. It is basically the equivalent of saying that Obama smokes and Lenin smoked (I have no idea if he actually did of course), so therefore Obama is a Leninist.
Marx was talking about an advanced state of communism as I alluded to in my post, where not only the system of allocation would be completely changed (i.e. redistribution would not augment the market because their would fundamentally be no capitalist economy) but the motivations of individuals would be quite distinct from what they are now. In this scenario people work not to fulfill needs but because it is what they primarily want to do and because it is possible to provide for the desires of everyone (there are clearly some very unrealistic things in Marxism…).
Moreover the only way the reporter’s contention could possibly work (hypothetically) is if the interviewer was arguing that all income tax is Marxist. I would still argue that she is totally incorrect, but at least it would be logically consistent. By the way she framed the question, it is inescapable to conclude that both McCain and Obama (along with every other leader of every other Western country for a very long time) are Marxists because they support a progressive income tax system.
The fact is it is probably possible to cherry-pick a quote on anything to make almost anybody look like an extremist if you take it completely out of context. On this quote in particular, one could point to a similar formulation in the Acts of the Apostles and ask the reverse question of those opposed to this plan: are you not being anti-Christian by opposing some redistribution.
But that would commit the same error in reverse.
In any case, my feeling is that attempting to label someone a Marxist because they have a different income tax plan is pretty petty and silly.
Tia // October 28, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I don’t agree with the way Ms. West framed her questions and I think we should all be respectful in our quest to get a clear understanding of both candidates positions. The standard for journalists in throwing certain terms around is certainly higher than for the average person, I suppose.
At the same time, I think debating what constitutes Marxism is somewhat irrelevant to the average person and misses the point that what was most alarming wasn’t the “spreading the wealth” phrase as much as the context in which Obama used it. The truth is most people have some vague recollection from high school that Communism was pretty much boiled down to “redistribution of wealth.” For the boomers who I think occupy maybe the the largest population of likely voters, it was the big Bogeyman of their generation. So the phrase “spreading the wealth” is like dropping the “F” bomb on grandma.
With that as the backdrop, it’s exacerbated by the context in which Obama used it with “Joe the Plumber”— which I’ll paraphase as “taking it from one person who worked very hard to make it in the first place and giving it to someone else so they have the same chance at success”.
I’d venture to say that most of this boomer middle class came from modest means and achieved success through nothing more than bone hard work…(as well as much of the middle class even today)…whether it was working tirelessly to own their own business (and never stop working tirelessly to keep it going)…or working full time while going to school at night or taking out loans they finally paid off ten years later….To be told that you are going to take their hard earned money and give it to someone else so they don’t have to work as hard as you did making it is like putting a match to gasoline.
We all understand that we have a progressive tax system and accept that with success there will be proportionally more taxes…but considering that our economy is in a shambles, the infrastructure is falling apart, that we are still at war, that our national debt is beyond the beyond, including trillions of dollars of entitlement liabilities…the last thing they want to hear is that Obama wants to use it to fund another entitlement program (i.e., so people don’t have to work as hard as they did…)
Subsequent discussions by the Obama campaign have dismissed the “spread the wealth” comment as no different than any tax revenue used by the government for the benefit of the masses.
Unfortunately, the context and the specificity to which the phrase was applied didn’t sound so innocuous…..
and then when they put it together with that peripheral radical association stuff that had been buzzing around, I think it pushed some folks beyond their comfort zone with the whole concept.
Three cheers for Ms. West for daring to challenge the campaign on the topic (unlike the majority of the media) and shame on Biden for appearing insulted and arrogant at being challenged (and for the campaign in chastising the station). They forget that journalists are the people’s only vehicle for getting to our truth. The candidates should not be getting indignant with the outlets that give them that opportunity every day to demonstrate with candor, grace and intelligence who is the better candidate. Who is the boss and who is the hired help? Obama/Biden got it very backwards. Shame on them!
deliberativedialogue // October 29, 2008 at 7:13 am
Tia,
My understanding of the Obama tax plan is that the ‘boomer middle class’ will be getting a tax cut. I wouldn’t classify someone making 250,000 + as middle class, nor would I find it particularly objectionable to ask them to forgo some of the tax breaks they have received in recent years in difficult economic times.
I would also suggest that government spending isn’t any different whether you decide to increase some taxes or borrow huge amounts of money as is currently the case – someone still has to pay for it.
But this is really beside the point. My post wasn’t about debating the merits of Obama’s tax plan. Crucially, I think understanding what Marxism is is fundamental to answering the question “is your candidate a Marxist.” If people think understanding what the term means isn’t important, maybe they shouldn’t be throwing it around.