How Can Rank-and-File Democrats NOT See this IS Marxism?

Did you see this story?

Mikulski’s ‘Paycheck Fairness Act’ Would Allow Employees to Discuss Salaries

LANHAM, Md. (CBSDC)- A ‘Paycheck Fairness Act’ introduced in Congress last week would require employers to show pay disparity is related to job-performance and prohibit employer retaliation for sharing salary information with coworkers.

I’m not going to get into this any more than to ask you this question:

If you agree with the idea that the government can intrude on your privacy to force your employer to disclose what you make, by what reasoning can you then say the government has no right to invade the privacy of your bedroom and who/what you sleep with?


[Note: for those those who care and also understand, this is a clear violation of our natural rights.  We have a right to contract between ourselves and our employers, and it is none of the government's business.  This is Marxism -- pure and simple.  And, even if it doesn't go anywhere, it matters because it tells you what the people in D.C. think and what they intend to do to this country.  But notice, they never discuss equalizing their pay with ours -- oh, no, they won't go there.  GREEDY, POWER-MONGERING HYPOCRITES!  Them and everyone who supports them.]

About these ads

17 thoughts on “How Can Rank-and-File Democrats NOT See this IS Marxism?

  1. A fact – Thanks to Rick Scott, the state of Florida provided access to every state employees salary. Go online, look it up. If you know a state employee’s name, you can find out how much he/she makes. Want to know your state worker friend or neighbor’s income. It’s there for you.

    • Cracker, in most states you can find out every public employee’s salary–along with the cost of everything else the state pays for with your tax money. I assume that was true in Florida before Scott put them online. Many states put that information on the web so they wouldn’t have to keep responding to requests for what are, after all, legally public records.

      • James – You assume to much. Scott launched his (state’s) employee salary website on March 17, 2011. He put the state university salaries on in October, 2011. He just put the legislator’s salaries on this week. While I agree state budgets and what the money is spent on is public record and should be accessible, my personal income is of little consequence (or business) to any one person. It should be enough to know that the budget for DOC is x-amount of dollars, and x-amount of the budget is spent on labor. Was an employee’s personal income public information before this? Most likely, but it wasn’t out there for the casual nosey neighbor who wondered what his neighbor’s salary was. Maybe you don’t care that someone can look and see what you make, but I do.

        • “You assume to much”

          How so, cracker? Augger has confirmed what I said, and you agreed.

          “Maybe you don’t care that someone can look and see what you make, but I do.”

          Fine–but if I’m paying your salary (and if you’re a state employee), I have a right to know if I’m overpaying you, perhaps because–to use an example involving more than one official in more than one state–you happen to be sleeping with the boss.

      • augger – Yes, I know that state employee’s salaries are public record – have been. You had to request the info from Tallahassee which was ususally too much trouble for a nosey neighbor or the casual looker. Scott gave the public easy access to employee’s salaries as I indicated. Putting the state legislator’s salary on the site? No big deal. They are elected officials and their salaries on posted on their websites and used to taught in civics class.

        • So let me get this straight …. if I worked at the Big BM, and they wanted to post my salary, that’s a no go. But then it’s no big deal if I am an elected official?

          At the time, BMC employees were public servants. What make’s us different than a legislator other than the title?

          While I do not like the Sunshine Law, or Scott’s extension of it, I cannot help but see the double standard here.

    • Zalo,

      You’d be wrong. I know what it is as Marx described it (because I have actually read Marx), and I know what it is as it is practiced (because I fought them in the cold war and had first-hand experience with the ideology). This is why I also know that the two are different, but the same. You see, Marxism as Marx described it is impossible — unless it is imposed on people — which leads to Marxism as it is practiced. And this story is typical of how Marxism manifests itself in practice.

      The better question would be whether or not YOU understand what Marxism is. ;-)

      • Joe, if you have read Marx, it would be clear to you the systems you refer to as imposed, had little to do with Marx. And to read Marx doesn’t necessarily mean to know Marxism. This would be like someone saying ‘I know what Christianity is because I have read the words of Jesus Christ’, which would be totally absurd as many (if not most) of versions of Christianity have had little (or nothing) to do with the teachings of Jesus. Likewise, it’s true the so called Marxist systems were imposed by self-proclaimed Marxists, but this is mighty insufficient to claim that those despotic systems (Eastern Europe & China & Korea etc) were the most faithful to Marx. It doesn’t make sense to say that a theory devised for the industrialized countries of Western Europe found its purest application in the Russian steppes or by Chinese or Korean peasants. But still people say so. Well, go figure.

        • Zalo,

          No one can understand Marx — not even Marx. He was selling BS to Engles so he didn’t have to work, and — luckily for Marx — pseudo-intellectuals think big words mean you’re smart. So, rather than admit they don’t understand, as in the case with Marx, everyone nods their stupid little heads and declares you a genius. Oh, I understand Marx alright: I understand he was a snake oil salesman selling snake oil ideas: ideas that simply cannot exist in the real world because they are internally self-defeating.

          That said, what you claim is NOT Marxism most certainly is. You see, Marx said we would have to go through this step to get to his worker’s utopia, but because the man was a fool and lacked the least bit of understanding of human nature, he never understood that his ideas would never progress past this point. His grand scheme is doomed to stay forever where it has — and this IS Marxism.

        • Zalo … Perhaps you are refering to Marx’s well-known comments that Marxism / Communism would take hold first in the Capitalist Countries…esp. America and England….. And yet Marx was supposed to be a genius…he didn’t forsee the movement taking hold in Predominantly agrarian societies as you mentioned …. funny for a supposed “Economic” historian and Philosopher… but in your own words…..” Go Figure”.

          Also …. the “Theory” wasn’t devised … for anything.
          It was a supposed explanation of econoimic reality interrupted by Capitalism … a description of the ‘Inevitable outcome of Industrialization’ financed and directed by Free-market Capitalism. Marz was essentially making up his OWN Natural Law. And saying the world will eventually come to pure Communism as water flows to the lowest point……the BEST balance according to Socialism……not unlike mohamed and islam.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s