Utopia Nonfiction or Fiction

[The Real McCoy]

Maybe this might jog both your memories on definition of capitalism and classes-

"Capitalism

The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour.

Wage labour is the labour process in capitalist society: the owners of the means of production (the bourgeoisie) buy the labour power of those who do not own the means of production (the proletariat), and use it to increase the value of their property (capital). In pre-capitalist societies, the labour of the producers was rendered to the ruling class by traditional obligations or sheer force, rather than as a “free” act of purchase and sale as in capitalist society.

Value is increased through the appropriation of surplus value from wage labour. In societies which produce beyond the necessary level of subsistence, there is a social surplus, i.e. people produce more than they need for immediate reproduction. In capitalism, surplus value is appropriated by the capitalist class by extending the working day beyond necessary labour time. That extra labour is used by the capitalist for profit; used in whatever ways they choose.

The main classes under capitalism are the proletariat (the sellers of labour power) and the bourgeoisie (the buyers of labour power). The value of every product is divided between wages and profit, and there is an irreconcilable class struggle over the division of this product.

Capitalism is one of a series of socio-economics systems, each of which are characterised by quite different class relations: tribal society, also referred to as “primitive communism” and feudalism. It is the breakdown of all traditional relationships, and the subordination of relations to the “cash nexus” which characterises capitalism. The transcendence of the class antgonisms of capitalism, replacing the domination of the market by planned, cooperative labour, leads to socialism and communism. "

Classes-

"Class

A group of people sharing common relations to labor and the means of production.

"In the process of production, human beings work not only upon nature, but also upon one another. They produce only by working together in a specified manner and reciprocally exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations to one another, and only within these social connections and relations does their influence upon nature operate – i.e., does production take place.

"These social relations between the producers, and the conditions under which they exchange their activities and share in the total act of production, will naturally vary according to the character of the means of production.

Karl Marx
Wage Labour and Capital
Chpt. 5: The Nature and Growth of Capital

The notion of class, as it is used by Marxists, differs radically from the notion of class as used in bourgeois social theory. According to modern capitalist thinking, class is an abstract universal defined by the common attributes of its members (i.e., all who make less than $20,000 a year constitute a "lower" class); categories and conceptions that have an existence prior to and independent of the people who make up the class.

For dialectical materialism however, the notion of class includes the development of collective consciousness in a class – arising from the material basis of having in common relations to the labour process and the means of production."

- www.marxists.org

Thank you for your Marxist deffinition of capitalism, it means zilch to me.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

A

Maybe this might jog both your memories on definition of capitalism and classes-

"Capitalism

The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour.

Wage labour is the labour process in capitalist society: the owners of the means of production (the bourgeoisie) buy the labour power of those who do not own the means of production (the proletariat), and use it to increase the value of their property (capital). In pre-capitalist societies, the labour of the producers was rendered to the ruling class by traditional obligations or sheer force, rather than as a “free” act of purchase and sale as in capitalist society.

Value is increased through the appropriation of surplus value from wage labour. In societies which produce beyond the necessary level of subsistence, there is a social surplus, i.e. people produce more than they need for immediate reproduction. In capitalism, surplus value is appropriated by the capitalist class by extending the working day beyond necessary labour time. That extra labour is used by the capitalist for profit; used in whatever ways they choose.

The main classes under capitalism are the proletariat (the sellers of labour power) and the bourgeoisie (the buyers of labour power). The value of every product is divided between wages and profit, and there is an irreconcilable class struggle over the division of this product.

Capitalism is one of a series of socio-economics systems, each of which are characterised by quite different class relations: tribal society, also referred to as “primitive communism” and feudalism. It is the breakdown of all traditional relationships, and the subordination of relations to the “cash nexus” which characterises capitalism. The transcendence of the class antgonisms of capitalism, replacing the domination of the market by planned, cooperative labour, leads to socialism and communism. "

Classes-

"Class

A group of people sharing common relations to labor and the means of production.

"In the process of production, human beings work not only upon nature, but also upon one another. They produce only by working together in a specified manner and reciprocally exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations to one another, and only within these social connections and relations does their influence upon nature operate – i.e., does production take place.

"These social relations between the producers, and the conditions under which they exchange their activities and share in the total act of production, will naturally vary according to the character of the means of production.

Karl Marx
Wage Labour and Capital
Chpt. 5: The Nature and Growth of Capital

The notion of class, as it is used by Marxists, differs radically from the notion of class as used in bourgeois social theory. According to modern capitalist thinking, class is an abstract universal defined by the common attributes of its members (i.e., all who make less than $20,000 a year constitute a "lower" class); categories and conceptions that have an existence prior to and independent of the people who make up the class.

For dialectical materialism however, the notion of class includes the development of collective consciousness in a class – arising from the material basis of having in common relations to the labour process and the means of production."

- www.marxists.org

Not only is your definition of Capitalism inherently flawed it leaves out two very important parts a) classes are a social construct and exist only in ones mind and b) your definition implies that one would not be able to move from the worker to owner class, in the United States one is not predestined for any class and is free to do anything they want, they can open their own bussiness, they can work in the service industry, they can choose to not work, they can perform labor, etc etc etc in a communist society your career is chosen for you by the government therby in effect creating a truly class based society made up of those in the upper echelons of power at the top and those with no political power at the top resulting in a clientelist society in which those in power reward those who support them and punish those who don't. Furthermore; those not in power become dependent upon the government for their daily needs this dependency therfor becomes the very catalyst for the perpetual cycle where by those in power stay in power and those not in power are never given the opportunity to rise out of their current state because individualism and self determination have in effect been eliminated in that they are the very principles communisms is devoutly against. As for the sheer bankruptcy of communist economic theory it has been proven through history that competition is the engine that makes the economy run and when the economy is public rather than private that competition is impossible this lack of competition in the economic system serves to create, stagnation, this stagnation in turns prompts the government to simply print more money to keep the economy going this in turn creates inflation and sometimes hyper-inflation, when hyper-inflation occurs the total deflation of the economy occurs as was seen in the Soviet Union in the late 80's before deregulation and a switch over to capitalism. Simply put stagnation + inflation + deflation = communism doesn't work.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Not only is your definition of Capitalism inherently flawed it leaves out two very important parts a) classes are a social construct and exist only in ones mind

So its flawed because your opinion on another matter?

your definition implies that one would not be able to move from the worker to owner class

Its possible, but doesn't happen often.

in the United States one is not predestined for any class and is free to do anything they want

The class your born into is probably the one for life.

they can open their own bussiness

If they have capital to start, and chances are that sometime they'll be crushed by another.

they can work in the service industry

Indeed.

they can choose to not work

And most likely be poor, little or no income, unless they own.

in a communist society your career is chosen for you by the government

Communism is stateless, and we emphasize freedom.

therby in effect creating a truly class based society made up of those in the upper echelons of power at the top and those with no political power at the top resulting in a clientelist society in which those in power reward those who support them and punish those who don't

Reminds me of USSR, which economy was Stalinist(state-owned).

Furthermore; those not in power become dependent upon the government for their daily needs this dependency therfor becomes the very catalyst for the perpetual cycle where by those in power stay in power and those not in power are never given the opportunity to rise out

Again Communism is not the authoritian society like Stalinism.

individualism and self determination have in effect been eliminated in that they are the very principles communisms is devoutly against

No, Individualism and Self-Goals need not be erased, one might say they lose themselves, but they don't need to be expressed in the kind of greed and hoarding of wealth and such in capitalism.

As for the sheer bankruptcy of communist economic theory it has been proven through history that competition is the engine that makes the economy run and when the economy is public rather than private that competition is impossible this lack of competition in the economic system serves to create, stagnation, this stagnation in turns prompts the government to simply print more money to keep the economy going this in turn creates inflation and sometimes hyper-inflation, when hyper-inflation occurs the total deflation of the economy occurs as was seen in the Soviet Union in the late 80's before deregulation and a switch over to capitalism. Simply put stagnation + inflation + deflation = communism doesn't work.

Communism is moneyless, because money would be deemed useless. So the base of your equation is entirly wrong. Also the USSR failed for many factors, they were in a prolonged recession(reminds me of capitalism's business cycles), and govt. was repressive one-party state, and was extremely bureaucratic, and other reasons,. Money isn't needed because the main foundation of communism is:" From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Money doesn't serve any purpose in communist economy because no trade unit is required, such as selling goods gets you money, selling money gets you goods, money otherwise serves no purpose, strictly selling and buying, and neither happens in communism, so its unneeded, thereby a waste of resources.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Thank you for your Marxist deffinition of capitalism, it means zilch to me.

You're welcome!

I hope you know Einstein was a socialist.

 

[The Real McCoy]

You're welcome!

I hope you know Einstein was a socialist.

His words would say otherwise. Do you have evidence of this?

 

[Comrade Brian]

His words would say otherwise. Do you have evidence of this?

"Einstein considered himself a pacifist [13] and humanitarian [14], and in later years, a committed democratic socialist. He once said, "I believe Gandhi's views were the most enlightened of all the political men of our time. We should strive to do things in his spirit: not to use violence for fighting for our cause, but by non-participation of anything you believe is evil." Einstein's views on other issues, including socialism, McCarthyism and racism, were controversial (see Einstein on socialism). In a 1949 article, Albert Einstein described the "predatory phase of human development", exemplified by a chaotic capitalist society, as a source of evil to be overcome. He disapproved of the totalitarian regimes in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, and argued in favor of a democratic socialist system which would combine a planned economy with a deep respect for human rights. Einstein was a co-founder of the liberal German Democratic Party.

Einstein was very much involved in the Civil Rights movement. He was a close friend of Paul Robeson for over 20 years. Einstein was a member of several civil rights groups (including the Princeton chapter of the NAACP) many of which were headed by Paul Robeson. He served as co-chair with Paul Robeson of the American Crusade to End Lynching. W.E.B. DuBois was frivolously charged with being a communist spy during the McCarthy era while he was in his 80s, and Einstein volunteered as a character witness in the case. The case was dismissed shortly after it was annouced he was to appear in that capacity. Einstein was quoted as saying that "racism is America's greatest disease".

The U.S. FBI kept a 1,427 page file on his activities and recommended that he be barred from immigrating to the United States under the Alien Exclusion Act, alleging that Einstein "believes in, advises, advocates, or teaches a doctrine which, in a legal sense, as held by the courts in other cases, 'would allow anarchy to stalk in unmolested' and result in 'government in name only'", among other charges. They also alleged that Einstein "was a member, sponsor, or affiliated with thirty-four communist fronts between 1937-1954" and "also served as honorary chairman for three communist organizations."[15] It should be noted that many of the documents in the file were submitted to the FBI, mainly by civilian political groups, and not actually written by FBI officials.

Einstein opposed tyrannical forms of government, and for this reason (and his Jewish background), opposed the Nazi regime and fled Germany shortly after it came to power. At the same time, Einstein's anarchist nephew Carl Einstein, who shared many of his views was fighting the fascists in the Spanish Civil War. Einstein initially favored construction of the atomic bomb, in order to ensure that Hitler did not do so first, and even sent a letter [16] to President Roosevelt (dated August 2, 1939, before World War II broke out, and probably written by Leó Szilárd) encouraging him to initiate a program to create a nuclear weapon. Roosevelt responded to this by setting up a committee for the investigation of using uranium as a weapon, which in a few years was superseded by the Manhattan Project.

After the war, though, Einstein lobbied for nuclear disarmament and a world government: "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Einstein was a supporter of Zionism. He supported Jewish settlement of the ancient seat of Judaism and was active in the establishment of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, which published (1930) a volume titled About Zionism: Speeches and Lectures by Professor Albert Einstein, and to which Einstein bequeathed his papers. However, he opposed nationalism and expressed skepticism about whether a Jewish nation-state was the best solution. He may have imagined Jews and Arabs living peacefully in the same land. In later life, in 1952, he was offered the post of second president of the newly created state of Israel, but declined the offer, claiming that he lacked the necessary people skills. Einstein was disturbed by the violence taking place in the Palestine after the Second World War and expressed that he was disappointed with the Jewish Ultra-Nationalist Organization (Irgun and Stern Gang). Nonetheless, Einstein remained deeply committed to the welfare of Israel and the Jewish people for the rest of his life.

Einstein, along with Albert Schweitzer and Bertrand Russell, fought against nuclear tests and bombs. As his last public act, and just days before his death, he signed the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, which led to the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. His letter to Russell read:

Dear Bertrand Russell,
Thank you for your letter of April 5. I am gladly willing to sign your excellent statement. I also agree with your choice of the prospective signers.
With kind regards, A. Einstein "

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein

"Why Socialism? (1949)
Monthly Review New York (May 1949)

Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. In so far as the labor contract is free what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.
I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?
Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.
This statement refers to the Monthly Review (New York) in which this essay was published.
I live in that solitude which is painful in youth, but delicious in the years of maturity. Out of My Later Years (collection of Einstein’s essays which cover a period of 1934 to 1950) (1950) p. 13. "

-http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

 

[The Real McCoy]

"Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?"

 

[Comrade Brian]

He was a Democratic Socialist, a very moderate-type socialist. And that quote was probably in reaction to a statist-type socialism, e.g. Stalinism, National Socialism.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

He was a Democratic Socialist, a very moderate-type socialist. And that quote was probably in reaction to a statist-type socialism, e.g. Stalinism, National Socialism.

There's hope for you because you are not only misinformed but you are overinformed with propaganda:

David Horowitz is a conservative author and political commentator. In the 1960s he was a Marxist in the American New Left movement, but today holds conservative views. Because of this evolution, he is often dubbed a neoconservative.

Horowitz is the founder of Center for the Study of Popular Culture, a conservative think tank and adovacy group. He also writes for the conservative magazine NewsMax and is the editor of FrontPageMag.com. He is affiliated with Students for Academic Freedom and Campus-Watch.

He was born in 1939 to a Jewish family in Forest Hills, New York. His parents Phil and Blanche Horowitz were school-teachers in Sunnyside Gardens, Queens, New York City, and raised their son in a strict 'Stalinist' environment. Horowitz went to Columbia University as an undergraduate, later taking a Master's degree in English literature at the University of California, Berkeley. Horowitz became a prominent member of the New Left movement in the United States—a break with the earlier Communist Party USA. After moving to California, Horowitz became a well-known Marxist supporter of the various leftist causes of the 1960's and 1970's. He worked for the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation, and authored several books on Marxian interpretations of history, as well as serving as an editor of the radical magazine Ramparts. He also provided legal help to the Black Panthers, and became a confidant of its leader Huey Newton.

As the years went on, however, Horowitz became very disillusioned with some of the tactics of the American Left, especially after one of his close friends, Betty Van Patter, was murdered in 1974. Horowitz attributes her murder to the Panthers; no one was charged or arrested; and the case remains unsolved. Horowitz's thinking gradually became more conservative; and today he is regarded as a leading conservative advocate. Among the key events he credits with his 'intellectual transformation' were the aftermath of the Vietnam War, and the AIDS crisis. He has written about his transformation in an autobiography, Radical Son, and Left Illusions. Horowitz has since expressed regret for his slanderous racial, political and socio-economic characterizations of middle-class white people.

Horowitz's transition from a left-wing to a right-wing position is not atypical for those labeled neoconservatives, but Horowitz strongly rejects the label.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz


Join the real revolution the one that's for true liberation and freedom.

 

[Comrade Brian]

I was talking of Albert Einstein, not David Horowitz.

May you be kind enough to respond to post #53, and share your holy knowledge.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I was talking of Albert Einstein, not David Horowitz.

May you be kind enough to respond to post #53, and share your holy knowledge.

No because history has proven communist econmic theory wrong.

 

[Comrade Brian]

How does it? I need convincing.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

How does it? I need convincing.

Socialist economic states in Latin America under authoritarian regimes with a state planned economy during the 70's their state planned economies led to inflation, hyper inflation, and the eventual destruction of their entire society during the 80's until they deregulated industry and opened up to foreign markets and are now competive on a global scale from the 90's till now.

 

[Comrade Brian]

As you said before, communist, and the examples you provide aren't communist, they're state-owned, state-planned economies.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

As you said before, communist, and the examples you provide aren't communist, they're state-owned, state-planned economies.

Hay guess what that's what communism is sorry for the update on the 20th century but umm well there you have it . . . .

 

[Comrade Brian]

Communism is stateless, as in the state in its current form "whithers away", classless, all own equally no division, moneyless, deemed useless, private propertyless, what makes capitalism go and inequalities exist on a large scale, just to give you a general definition.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Communism is stateless, as in the state in its current form "whithers away", classless, all own equally no division, moneyless, deemed useless, private propertyless, what makes capitalism go and inequalities exist on a large scale, just to give you a general definition.

Communism is the state incarnate, it is the state given its most insidious form, and given complete control over the people, it is the state run amok, it is the state with nothing else except the state. It is the state institutionalized on every aspect of society. That my friend is communism in a nutshell.

 

[Comrade Brian]

You aren't helping yourself by writing foolish posts, I'm sorry but that just doesn't change my views in any way. Because very few things can be further from the truth.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You aren't helping yourself by writing foolish posts, I'm sorry but that just doesn't change my views in any way. Because very few things can be further from the truth.

It's not a ridiculous post it's the lessons of history and of the present communism can only lead to nothing but tyranny but perhaps that's what you want?

 

[Comrade Brian]

Communism is a specific society, it can not change its parameters. Now the communism I'm talking about is the one described by Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
You apparantly equate it to stalinism, which is state-ownership in an authoritian and bureaucratic way, not unlike fascism.
Communism is pretty much just the opposite. Also one thing I forgot to mention another parameter of communism, is the disappearance of the division of labor, because it has a tendency to cause alienation.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Communism is a specific society, it can not change its parameters. Now the communism I'm talking about is the one described by Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
You apparantly equate it to stalinism, which is state-ownership in an authoritian and bureaucratic way, not unlike fascism.
Communism is pretty much just the opposite. Also one thing I forgot to mention another parameter of communism, is the disappearance of the division of labor, because it has a tendency to cause alienation.

No, the policy of Marx and Lenin was to start out with revolution to bring down all existing power structures because they felt socialism is the natural progression in which a capitalist society should go and could only be obtained through the destruction of the existing systems because they felt that the old systems would corrupt the new, then they wanted to give more power to the revolutionary state to ensure that the principles of the revolution would stay on course and then eventually the state would cease to be necessary because under the guidance of the state the people would become self sufficient and self sustaining so that the need for the state woud cease to exist, what Marx failed to realize is mankinds inherent lust for power and his unwillingness to relinquish that power once he's obtained it. In real world practice the application of Marxism opens the gateway for tyranny ie Stalin. Even Lennin himself realized this towards the end of his life and warned against giving the state to much power, however, his calls went unanswered.

Besides the short comings of Marxist political theory the economic principles of Marx are just plain wrong it was a failed experiment it didn't work, it didn't work in Latin America, it didn't work in China or Vietnam, and it didn't work in Eastern Europe and Russia, this is because the lack of competition in the socialist economic systems is the death noll for any form of sustanable economy, all of these aforementioned countries have converted to capitalism Vietnam and China, however, have kept their tyranical systems of government because like I said mankind is inherently lustful of power. You're preaching to the quire man why do you think that many of the founders of the neo-conservative movement and framers of neo-liberalist economic theory are former Trotskyists?

"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." - Ronald Reagan

 

[Comrade Brian]

Sorry if its rather exhaustive.

the policy of Marx and Lenin was to start out with revolution to bring down all existing power structures

Just take those out in power, and transfer it.

they felt socialism is the natural progression in which a capitalist society should go

I know for a fact capitalism won't survive, for other reasons than the Marxist critique too. The progression would go along the lines of:

Fuedalism<Capitalism<Socialism<Communism

could only be obtained through the destruction of the existing systems because they felt that the old systems would corrupt the new

It is natural for the old to give way to the new, But as you mention later, they wanted to give the state more power, the state is of the old societies.

then they wanted to give more power to the revolutionary state to ensure that the principles of the revolution would stay on course

Actually less power to the central state. Would will generally happen is localities will start adopting local planned economies, which were formed and ratified by the local populace, and put into practice for a while for its term. The state will have little interference with this. Also all that was private proprety shall start becoming abolished and transformed into public a.k.a. communal property, which are owned by all, and all free to use, also this will help with the abolishment of classes, as since the thing that makes the difference in classes is who owns what. Also the division of labor should start going away because it often alienates the worker. And this is not even communism.

then eventually the state would cease to be necessary because under the guidance of the state the people would become self sufficient and self sustaining so that the need for the state woud cease to exist

Communism will not be a more self-sufficient, but more communally sufficient.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Most things produced will be collected locally and distributed according to need among the local populace. Now what I think by need is not just the minimal amount to survive, but the needed amount to have a decent and happy life.
But as the current state is here to protect private property, the state in its current forms will "whither away", as there is no private property to protect, because what makes an owner an owner is his private property, he actually has it. And since he is wealthier, he has power, and therefore is of the ruling class, and effectivly and virtually controls the state currently.

what Marx failed to realize is mankinds inherent lust for power and his unwillingness to relinquish that power once he's obtained it

And thats why the state's ruling power should be in council form only. But as Marx noted, conscience is formed because of the person’s social condition.

In real world practice the application of Marxism opens the gateway for tyranny ie Stalin

Actually, Lenin ordered Stalin's removal, but he was very ill and didn't get carried out, he did this because he considered Stalin, too rude and selfish, and had abused Lenin's wife. Stalin and Stalinists I consider a cancer, a plague of the communist movement. But why it was often practiced was because it allowed/encouraged authorianitiam, and noted successes in industrialization and production.

Even Lennin himself realized this towards the end of his life and warned against giving the state to much power, however, his calls went unanswered.

Yes, he regarded the USSR a "monstrosity" and later wanted more democritization, but when he realized it, it was too late, politics forced things he didn't want to happen, but he realised he made some mistakes in creating the USSR, it was too bureaucratic when Leninism calls for the opposite.

Besides the short comings of Marxist political theory the economic principles of Marx are just plain wrong it was a failed experiment it didn't work, it didn't work in Latin America

People fail to recognise how many contributions he made to economics, sociology, etc. Very few people nowadays haven't used anything that originally came from the Marxist critiques and philosophies. It is now necessary to use them. Marx was no doubt wrong on some things, but he has to be viewed from a certain perspective.

this is because the lack of competition in the socialist economic systems is the death noll for any form of sustanable economy

Fuedalism had very little economic competion and survived for quite a while, before being chewed up by private property. But with competition will come wealth being more and more concentrated, one could say survival of the fittest business/businessman". And when this comes more apparant, most will be disgusted and call for change.

all of these aforementioned countries have converted to capitalism Vietnam and China, however, have kept their tyranical systems of government because like I said mankind is inherently lustful of power

I'll have to agree with it, but some have called Stalinist state-ownership, state capitalism, because of its many likenesses to capitalism, business cycles, private property, concentration of wealth, division of labor, high production and industrialisation, etc.

You're preaching to the quire man why do you think that many of the founders of the neo-conservative movement and framers of neo-liberalist economic theory are former Trotskyists?

Don't know, don't really care either.

"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

I would say:"How do you tell a Communist? Well, its someone who reads and understands Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who misunderstands Marx and Lenin, or are Bourgeousie." - Comrade Brian.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Sorry if its rather exhaustive.


Just take those out in power, and transfer it.

Why then did the Bolsheviks murder the czar and his entire family, they seek to destroy the old system not simply to change it.

I know for a fact capitalism won't survive, for other reasons than the Marxist critique too. The progression would go along the lines of:

Fuedalism<Capitalism<Socialism<Communism

You're wrong history has proven that the exact opposite has happened that is why Red China has adopted capitalism because communism is simply a failed experiment.

It is natural for the old to give way to the new, But as you mention later, they wanted to give the state more power, the state is of the old societies.

Not the revolutionary state that is a new state and a new societel system.

Actually less power to the central state. Would will generally happen is localities will start adopting local planned economies, which were formed and ratified by the local populace, and put into practice for a while for its term. The state will have little interference with this. Also all that was private proprety shall start becoming abolished and transformed into public a.k.a. communal property, which are owned by all, and all free to use, also this will help with the abolishment of classes, as since the thing that makes the difference in classes is who owns what. Also the division of labor should start going away because it often alienates the worker. And this is not even communism.

And that's why it can't work, in public ownership of industry there is no competition, and it is this competition that creates sustainable economies.

Communism will not be a more self-sufficient, but more communally sufficient.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Most things produced will be collected locally and distributed according to need among the local populace. Now what I think by need is not just the minimal amount to survive, but the needed amount to have a decent and happy life.
But as the current state is here to protect private property, the state in its current forms will "whither away", as there is no private property to protect, because what makes an owner an owner is his private property, he actually has it. And since he is wealthier, he has power, and therefore is of the ruling class, and effectivly and virtually controls the state currently.

Good catch phrase but in reality it simply doesn't work that way.

And thats why the state's ruling power should be in council form only. But as Marx noted, conscience is formed because of the person’s social condition.

And then the council is in power so what changes? Nothing.[/QUOTE]

Actually, Lenin ordered Stalin's removal, but he was very ill and didn't get carried out, he did this because he considered Stalin, too rude and selfish, and had abused Lenin's wife. Stalin and Stalinists I consider a cancer, a plague of the communist movement. But why it was often practiced was because it allowed/encouraged authorianitiam, and noted successes in industrialization and production.

Yes, he regarded the USSR a "monstrosity" and later wanted more democritization, but when he realized it, it was too late, politics forced things he didn't want to happen, but he realised he made some mistakes in creating the USSR, it was too bureaucratic when Leninism calls for the opposite.

People fail to recognise how many contributions he made to economics, sociology, etc. Very few people nowadays haven't used anything that originally came from the Marxist critiques and philosophies. It is now necessary to use them. Marx was no doubt wrong on some things, but he has to be viewed from a certain perspective.

There's nothing wrong with adapting certain aspects from certain ideologies that is what is so great about the U.S.'s system of goverment, however, when you try to fully implement a social system based on Marxism you will fail as has been proven many many times.

Fuedalism had very little economic competion and survived for quite a while, before being chewed up by private property. But with competition will come wealth being more and more concentrated, one could say survival of the fittest business/businessman". And when this comes more apparant, most will be disgusted and call for change.[/QUOTE]

Wrong that is how it is supposed to be because the accumulation of wealth is an incentive for people to hone their skills, abilities, and for the people to meet the needs of one another.

Robert Nozick has argued that no condition of perfect equality could be maintained for very long. If all agents possess the same amount of wealth, they will immediately begin investing it in different ventures which will pay off to varying degrees. But if voluntary economic exchange is seen as leaving both parties (since both would not be trading unless the outcome of the trade was mutually beneficial), even if the resulting distribution is not even, it is better than if there were no trading.
Lack of established property rights force the poor to operate in extralegal markets, keeping them from unlocking the capital in their assets. When only the politically privileged can leverage capital, the division between formally and informally owned property is an unbalancing barrier to the benefits of a modern market economy.
Wealth tends to be directed toward individuals in proportion to how productive they are in terms of creating and providing goods and services that others value, therefore the possibility of becoming wealthier than others can be seen as an incentive to benefit society. A limit on freedom of individuals to reap a disproportionate amount of wealth would dampen incentive. Technological progress would stagnate, and, as a result, the standard of living would suffer.
The inequality of consumption is far less than the inequality in wealth, since there is no way most of the wealthy could consume all their wealth. To the extent that they consume their wealth, they are redistributing it to others. To the extent that they are not consuming it, they are generally either managing it to create more wealth or giving it away.
Many rich give significantly to charity. Some argue that charity is more efficient than state welfare.
The economist Thomas Sowell has attributed factors such as geography, climate, culture, and natural resources as contributing factors to inequality inside of and between nations.
The income share of the poorest 10% do not decrease with higher economic freedom but the absolute income of the 10% poorest, prosperity, economic growth, democracy, and freedom from corruption increase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

I'll have to agree with it, but some have called Stalinist state-ownership, state capitalism, because of its many likenesses to capitalism, business cycles, private property, concentration of wealth, division of labor, high production and industrialisation, etc.

I'm not talking about Stalinism I'm talking about any communist nation in the history of the world from Cuba to Vietnam communism has been proven as the failure that it is.

Don't know, don't really care either.

It's because they have realized the inherent flaws in public ownership of industry.

I would say:"How do you tell a Communist? Well, its someone who reads and understands Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who misunderstands Marx and Lenin, or are Bourgeousie." - Comrade Brian.

Well no offense but you understand only the propaganda side of communism and not the inherent flaws found in society's based on Marxist principles.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Why then did the Bolsheviks murder the czar and his entire family, they seek to destroy the old system not simply to change it.

This was probably done in rage, and to decrease the support for the Tsar by the Cossacks. And the Bolsheviks overthrew Kerensky's provisional govt. which was ineffectual.

You're wrong history has proven that the exact opposite has happened that is why Red China has adopted capitalism because communism is simply a failed experiment.

You're quite arrogant when you say that, capitalism is the best system to industrialize the world. But its served its purpose, it has, and the 1st world should help out the 3rd world. Communism doesn't place high regard towards production, because much of it is unneeded. Competition creates more production, but is terrible to the worker.

Not the revolutionary state that is a new state and a new societel system.

What?

And that's why it can't work, in public ownership of industry there is no competition, and it is this competition that creates sustainable economies.

Then we are disagreed there, still can't see why impossible.

Good catch phrase but in reality it simply doesn't work that way.

Whats a good catch phrase? What doesn't work?

And then the council is in power so what changes? Nothing

What do you mean by that?

Wrong that is how it is supposed to be because the accumulation of wealth is an incentive for people to hone their skills, abilities, and for the people to meet the needs of one another.

And then the probability of becoming rich is low.

I'm not talking about Stalinism I'm talking about any communist nation in the history of the world from Cuba to Vietnam communism has been proven as the failure that it is.

And most of those economies are Stalinist.

It's because they have realized the inherent flaws in public ownership of industry.

There were probably other reasons.

Well no offense but you understand only the propaganda side of communism and not the inherent flaws found in society's based on Marxist principles.

Well, it was only a joke. But apparantly you don't have much of a sense of humor. But you often quote that too much.