Welcome to Gaia! ::

Yes, they are both very dry, but so are most political-economic books.
The only thing I do not like about Marx is how he believes that the working class will rise up on their own, I do not think they will, I believe (as lenin said) that they will push for things like better wages, shorter workdays, better working conditions, etc. and then they will get them ,and they will be satisfied for awhile, until such a time that technology can improve something else for them. As Lenin put it, that is trade union mentality, the workers will never rise without a group of revolutionaries helping them rise above, so to speak.

Well, Lenin said revolution through actual warfare, whereas Marx isn't really clear on what the proletariet revolution will involve, it may be strictly through the ballot box (votes) or through actual warfare.

i recommend "The Politics of Jesus" by John Howard Yoder.

I'm a liberal, but I refuse to call myself a Democrat.

I've only voted once, and it was admittedly Democrat, but I still disagree with their methods. Can't we have any honorable or at least honest politicians?

So, who wants to hear something ironic?

Well, there was a time when I was a Marxist Socialist, then I moved over to Leninism, now I have completely reverted and gone from far Left to mid-range Right. Now, I am for a Constitutional Monarchy, with a Parliament, and preferably with a Mercantilist/Neo-Mercantilist/Capitalist Economy.

So, not only have my politics changed, my economics did a complete 180. Went from State-planned economy to a free market economy.

i dont keep up on politics, but then, ive got an odd definition of it.

Well, in case you didn't know, Communism proposes that eventually there will be anarchy; however anarchy is impossible to attain. Anarchy is the complete absence of a government body. However, within communism, there will still be a social contract. That social contract will become a government body. Since there is a government body, there will be no anarchy.

Also, not to forget, other than the eventaul lead to anarchism, Communsim proposes no politics, it is strictly economics. It is an economics based off of a closening of the gap between the wealthy and the poor; in other words, most possible careers will pay the same as any other career (or at least a similar enough price). I used to think that was good, then I took a Politics and Macroeconomics course. In a nutshell, both these courses stated something of the nature "Communism is stupid, this is why..." (though they didn't use those exact words.)

During my Politics course, I switched over to Leninism, because Marx didn't account for the trade union mentality. That is, Marx didn't account for the fact that the trade unions will never go farther than trying to attain the immediate wants of the members of the trade union. For example, the workers will be satisfied with better wages, less hours, and a safer workplace. When they get those, they will stop protesting. Lenin said that the workers needed a strong push from outside the trade unions.

I switched economic theories because of the simple question "Why should a physician make just as much as a garbage collector?" A physician is a specialized job, which requires years of training, a garbage collector is a position that can be attianed without a highschool diploma. It doesn't seem fair to pay the person who contributes more to society the same as a person who contributes less to society.

As for my politics, I consider myself conservative, not because I am now a republican, I consider myself a conservative because I want a Constitutional Monarchy. In other words, the type of government I find preferable is a little farther to the right on the political spectrum than what we currently have. As to why they changed from far left to mid-right, that was mostly because of the economic reasons stated above.