Why are you against Socialism?

[ИATAS]

No... the point is that violent dictators will always be able to take power from the people because an unorganized group cannot resist violent opposition. Look at what the Taliban has done to the civilians of Pakistan.

Unorganized group?? The point is to have an organized society. How else could there be control of the means of production? Decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are to be made democratically. Not some chaotic, "unorganized group."

[ILLuminato]

Unorganized group?? The point is to have an organized society. How else could there be control of the means of production? Decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are to be made democratically. Not some chaotic, "unorganized group."

LOL you've spent this whole thread arguing for Marxist communism

[Jim Jeffries]

The transition period from capitalism to communism is refered to as socialism. The dictatorship of the proletariat, do you know what that means? A workers state, i.e. the workers would have complete control democratically.

I sure as hell hope not, because after Bush and now Obama, we'd be headed for communism. But countries like Sweden have been socialist for over 60 years, so I think we're safe.

[ИATAS]

LOL you've spent this whole thread arguing for Marxist communism

I've spent this whole thread dealing with people like you who have hardly any knowledge on the most basic of definitions and lack any understanding about the topic at hand.

[ИATAS]

I sure as hell hope not, because after Bush and now Obama, we'd be headed for communism. But countries like Sweden have been socialist for over 60 years, so I think we're safe.

In Marxist terminology that (what I wrote) is what it means. Or Engels also referred to the transitional period as the "lower phase of communism."

Socialism, as you know, can mean various different things. Sweden isn't really a socialist country under Marxist definitions, it's a "Welfare State" as some call it, amongst other things.

[Leakbeak]

Which is the crux of the argument.

People argue, true Marxism has never been implemented. The reason is just as you said, true Marxism is impossible. When you eliminate the powerful, all you accomplish is the creation of a void which is swiftly filled via violent power struggle.

george Orwell calls this the takeover by the fat pigs in his book Animal Farm. That is not the only reason why people say true Marxism has never happened. It is mainly because the communist countries never went through the 3 epoch's as they went from feudalism to communism without capitalism in the middle to creat the wealth in first place. Karl marx saw the 3 epochs and the transfer of power from the aristocracy to the proletariat via the bourgeosie as inevitable and natural as well as essential. Right now, the bourgeosie are in control but the proletariat might even take control via liberal democracy, it is possible. The Communist Manifesto is an interesting little read, even though I do not agree with it.

Read Avram Noam Chomsky too. That is another type of socialism which very well might work. people can't say these systems can't work or exist better than capitalism when they have never been tried out! IMO a mixed economy is better for prosperity (than extremely controlled of extremely free market economies) and socialised healthcare should be as standard as free education, fire services and police if nothing else. If nothing else is socialised, then at least healthcare should be a free for all. it is a basic human right, not a welfare state benefit!

[ILLuminato]

I've spent this whole thread dealing with people like you who have hardly any knowledge on the most basic of definitions and lack any understanding about the topic at hand.

LOL let he without sin cast the first stone, eh?

[!! Shawn]

Unorganized group?? The point is to have an organized society. How else could there be control of the means of production? Decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are to be made democratically. Not some chaotic, "unorganized group."

Which is why you make no sense. Who is to organize the democratic elections?

[Jim Jeffries]

In Marxist terminology that (what I wrote) is what it means. Or Engels also referred to the transitional period as the "lower phase of communism."

Socialism, as you know, can mean various different things. Sweden isn't really a socialist country under Marxist definitions, it's a "Welfare State" as some call it, amongst other things.

Well Hugo Chavez is calling Venezuela a Socialist country. If that's Socialism, I don't want any part of it. I'm not really sure why people still care about "Marxist" definitions. The guy let his family starve to death and is currently worm food. He proposed a system that has failed horribly ever single time it's been tried.

[ИATAS]

george Orwell calls this the takeover by the fat pigs in his book Animal Farm. That is not the only reason why people say true Marxism has never happened. It is mainly because the communist countries never went through the 3 epoch's as they went from feudalism to communism without capitalism in the middle to creat the wealth in first place. Karl marx saw the 3 epochs and the transfer of power from the aristocracy to the proletariat via the bourgeosie as inevitable and natural as well as essential. Right now, the bourgeosie are in control but the proletariat might even take control via liberal democracy, it is possible. The Communist Manifesto is an interesting little read, even though I do not agree with it.

Good point. Thats what I mentioned earlier as well, just not worded as well:

Karl Marx said communism would first come out of an advanced Capitalist country, such as the US, after capitalism uses up it's useful purpose. There is an arguement Communism was doomed to fail because it was implemented first in a backwards country.