?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????Quote:
Originally Posted by ElijahWyatt
do you even, like, read about things. there are several democratic socialist nations, especially in eastern europe.
Printable View
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????Quote:
Originally Posted by ElijahWyatt
do you even, like, read about things. there are several democratic socialist nations, especially in eastern europe.
Then why not argue with me about the problems that they face with the system?
No, i've honestly never heard of any dual governments. Because i live in the U.S. and we don't get very much media about anything other than stuff that doesn't matter.
Please, tell me about why their system isn't better than the system the U.S. currently has. And then i'll tell you the solutions i have to most problems that could have kept it from being good enough to be an example to the rest of the world.
Otherwise you agree with me, or just disagree with me for a reason other than not understanding what i am talking about.
you have THE INTERNET. you're using it RIGHT NOW. you could read about things before you argue about them.
k whats the system called?
(i was under the impression it was an idea that noone had ever thought of(or atleast not actually implemented) in a non 3rd world country)
Democratic socialism. Celery literally just said it 5 posts ago.
although I guess market socialism would be more specific
sorry i missed that post because it was at the very end, by the time i came back i just clicked page 2.
I MEAN MIXED ECONOMY I'M SORRY
-_- none of them are DEMO. REP. ...-_- Thats so essential to a socialistic country. Without that part people would go unchecked and it would stop being a true commune because there would essentially just be dictators.
EDIT: this was @ market socialism
I'm a fan of social statism. :cool:
I think after school is over i might move to Germany...
Know German?
no man like Germany in the late 1800s
no
Did you finish it, Kirbx?
Keeping us on topic, i like it.
no only chapter one
although that reminds me, I want to read chapter 2 tonight
First off I am happy that Marx explicitly says that the communists should not differentiate themselves from the working class, meaning I don't have to join and pay to be in the communist party. :D
I find it interesting how generally the extreme viewpoint in communism is the "abolition of private property." But in reality Marx actually goes onto saying he was to abolish bourgeoisie property and that he doesn't care about the property of "the peasants" as he so eloquently put it.
I was actually more considered about him wanting to break up the family unit, he even sort of suggested that children fill off to state schools as soon as they can. Perhaps Celery can clear this up for me.
I also like the part where he says communism is not simply an ideology, but an observance of history, meaning we can use our part history and fix it up, withouth going against Marx at all! :D
I also like he step by step program for democratically made communism.
From this though, I am coming to see communism as not the opposition of our current system, but merely the evolution of it. Pretty much it only entails the elimination of the upper classes (or classes altogether), consumerism, slowly eliminating capital, and more efficiency overall.
Try convincing anyone within your lifetime to actually do this though. Its a long time off till these ideas will even be able to be considered by either major political party, and that time will only come with a reformation of our current political system, which might also not come in our lifetimes. We are at a crucial point in history where we either will step forward, stop moving, or go backwards a couple of steps, and stepping forward becomes increasingly unlikely to happen as you become aware of the motives of the rich and their influence upon the political system, and their refusal to give up that strangle hold through tactics that are extremely hard to combat.
Well, "Bourgeois property" is what Marx would call private property as a whole, since the idea of unalienable property only benefit those that control productionQuote:
Originally Posted by Kirby
Uh, which version are you reading, the Marxist archive one? I really don't recall anything of that nature, but then again, it's been months. I haven't read it yet, but Engel's "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" would probably expound entirely upon the idea of itQuote:
I was actually more considered about him wanting to break up the family unit, he even sort of suggested that children fill off to state schools as soon as they can. Perhaps Celery can clear this up for me.
marx's conclusion that a proletariat revolution was inevitable is not hard to take seriously considering the state of the economy and society at the time. russia had an actual successful revolution, germany almost did, even into the 20th century there were very violent labor strikes in the US. the powers of the 1800s did not take socialist revolutionaries lightly. working and living conditions really were pretty bad. bismark in germany decided to deal with it by starting social welfare programs, particularly social security type systems and unemployment insurance, instead of trying to crack down on the radical left, and this worked pretty well. it made many labor-based political organizations willing to work within the confines of the capitalist state to gain concessions for workers instead of overthrowing the whole system, which pretty much made marx's predictions of the future irrelevant for the developed world. but i dont think he could very well have foreseen this happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celery
I don't know, God, there's always a possibility that the libertarians will win several elections (PPFFFFFFTTTT), drastically deregulate the economy in a couple of years, bring back terrible working conditions and pay, and resurrect large labour movements to the Western world. That's right, everyone, vote Ron Paul, secret communist. :cool:
As for Communism for the future, I do agree that with state intervention, it is kind of impossible to achieve a truly socialist state via pure human ambition, but at the same time, there are other means to achieve it. What happens when technology gets so advanced that production of goods is only in the hands of a few people? I mean, I'd hate to get all SCI-FI, but with robots, or atleast, fully mechanized production facilities, there will be very few people employed. For business owners, the main use of technology was to reduce employee count, since they are expensive. What happens when that goes far enough to drastically raise unemployment? We would have to install SOME sort of resource based economy, if not plain Communist
Communism will pretty much have to happen in a hundred or so years when robots can do literally everything and the only people needed are to create and fix the robots.
this is what i think of communism
edit wah
Buckweat with that COLD HARD TRUTH