re: #649 Obdicut

Do you understand that it is not always necessary to point out an error? If the goal is clarity of argument, focusing on what is perceived as an error will not lead to a greater clarity of that argument or point, but instead a digression.

Do you understand you could have ignored my point if you found it to be unneccessary to persue?

Seriously. Do you feel this was a useful or necessary or in some way good conversation to have? The retreading that yes, Marx is dialectic (but imagined a final state, so not truly dialectical) in his view of history?

Do you understand that people reading the conversation could have gotten wrong ideas about Marx from your wording and got clarification from me?

I also said that he’d condemn it, which I can now alter to that he’d condemn it (to the extent that his views on capitalism can be called condemnatory) except for certain circumstances where he’d be highly in favor of a heavy or “Starke” progressive taxation scheme, but only as a temporary measure before the abolition of private property as a whole.

You’re welcome.

Do you get the larger point that I was making, that progressive taxation being described as ‘marxist’ is ludicrous?

Do you get that I always had gotten that?