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.
Democratic socialism. Celery literally just said it 5 posts ago.
although I guess market socialism would be more specific
I MEAN MIXED ECONOMY I'M SORRY
Did you finish it, Kirbx?
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.
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!
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.
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 itI 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'll go," said Chagataev. "But what will I do there? Build socialism?"
"What else?" said the secretary.
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.
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
Buckweat with that COLD HARD TRUTH