Welcome to Gaia! ::

Define Marixsts for me please.

On the issues of our government, Im very liberal so I think that the government has WAY too much controll in our lives at this moment. And it's funny how we're in the middle of this huge war, fighting terrorism, people dying, and now with the whole Israel thing going on.. what's more important is protecting the nuclear family, and oppressing another minority along with smashing women's rights.

I hate politicians.

I dont know if I agree completely with Marxism completely. I mean, yes, corperations do tend to have power, and those people in power are, of course, connected to the government but Im for a government. The idea of our government, when first established, was a pretty awesome idea. The government was there and would not interfere so much into our lives. Of course there a many flaws in our government but I think if the awareness of these flaws where made apparent to the people of the US, and the people did something about it, I could see it working out. But who would do something about it? And how would it be done? I just really dont like the idea of no government. I just dont see it working to well. sweatdrop Plus there will always be greedy people. If not greedy and getting their way thru capitalism, they'll be getting it some other way.

I'm basically a libertarian. I believe that the government has absolutely no right to regulate what goes on in our lives beyond necessity. It is there to protect us, not to take from us.

So, suffice to say, I'm pretty ticked off with the US government in its current incarnation.

I'll reply in order, and I understand that rambling with these kinda things can be easy to do, and is really never bad thing.




Well, I can see where you're coming from, and really it is a logical arguement, but it only applies to a certain form of socialism- though this kind of socialism doesn't have an offical or widely accepted term, I'll simply call it Russian Communism. See, there is a Law of human development called The Law of Combined Development. What does this law mean? Well in a short sentence it means every backwards society has bits and pieces of advanced technology imported, and every backwards country utilizes this technology and thus abridges their origonal conditions of development. This applies to Russia in 1917, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, North Korea, Eastern Europe (to some extent- others not so much), China- and I bet you see the trend already!

Marxists see communism as the next logical stage for human development, as capitalism was born from fuedalism, so shall communism be born out of capitalism. But, viewing the nations listed (though these certainly are not all those who do adheare to the law) as being subject to the Law of Combined Development, they were not totally capitalist, and yet, not totally feudal, a very dingy and muky solution of the two. The Russian communists then said to themselves "Well, you know, we don't have enough capitalism to really breed, or cause communism, because we're too feudal- but HEY! If we don't have enough capitalism maybe we can just skip it altogether, and move right into communism directly out of capitalism!" Needless to say, with the dandy problems and rampant spasms of disease within the USSR and its various mock-states, this model of development doesn't work.

What really needs to be done at first, especially in the advanced nations, is a slow and general turn over. Market mechanisms may exist for years, even decades into "socialism". Until the social planning mechanism can develope an efficient means to provide goods and services in the proper portions to anybody who wants them. This theory of development, endorsed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, saw and is seeing huge successes in Yugoslavia, Venezuela, China (with exceptions), and Belarus.

Socialism and socialist must work within the market mechanism- until such a time as the mechanism's use becomes even more of a hinderance to production that it already is.


Socialists have very few maxims, but this is one of them "Those who do not work shall not eat."

The idea of communism is not to make everybody stringently equal (Der Staat will not say "YOU Baka get 32 shirts, 241 loafs of bread, and 2 lamp shades this year!" The idea is to simply place within the grasp of all people the same oppertunities for consumption to contentment. Socialism presupposes a lack of scarcity, thus market mechanisms will remain in every area (with price controls) where super-abundance has not yet been obtained by modern industry. Don't get me wrong though, some things will be provided to people simply because they are people, worker or not, such as healthcare.

Oddly enough another maxim applies here "From each according to ability, to each according to need." Thus, people will work to whatever degree they see fit, and will receive their fair share of society's wealth accordingly-the hardest workers will ultimately need more things to sustain them, as they need to cover the physical and mental costs of their occupation. The practice, and idea, is not to rob, sap, or exploit the hardest workers and to support the slackers, but to prod the slackers and embrace the hardest workers.



Some people really do need welfare though, I feel a lot of what we hear about "lazy" people on welfare is mostly not true- as the ultra-right has every reason to upset people about welfare and thus gut the system or abolish it entirely. It is a true fact that at any time in a market economy (except in massive wars) 4-6% of the population will simply be unable to find employment of any kind (and that's having already counted people that are grossly underemployed).



A big one is that cigs/alochol shouldn't be able to be bought with food stamps.



These are usually called pensions rather than welfare- something I adore.



I don't like this obviously because 4-6% (if not more as the Bureau of Labor Statistics stops counting you after 2 months) of the population simply cannot or will not find a job. Communism alleviates this by creating state owned employment offices and demanding superabundance (Hence why nations like Cuba and Belarus report unemployment rates that would be impossible in capitalist nations except in massive wars around the 1.5-1.8% range), thus you would receive welfare so long as you were being put into the system, but as soon as you turned down a job you'd be cut off.

Free rehab centers should be a priority.



Yeah, highly left nations are known for really sticking it to the richest tax bracket, and hardly taxing the lower brackets. Sweden (which is Scandinavian Socialist) has a highest income tax rate of 61%- the US hasn't seen this high of a rate since before the Reagan Tax cuts (and the only reason taxes where that high to begin with is because they weren't indexed for inflation).



This isn't a flaw in communism so much as a flaw in the distribution system of the USSR. Because they didn't have super-abundance they had to rely on rationing things- and the only fair way to ration things is equally- major mistake. What would happen is let's say you work as an accountant. The social planning mechanism would imply that all accountants within your particular state owned firm must work X hours in order to be eligable for your entry into the springs of socialist wealth, and for your fair share of highly scarce items (diamonds etc) provided through a marketist setup. So let us say that you and Joe do the accounting thing for 6 hours a day 5 days a week. You are clearly the better worker than Joe. In time, you will either be promoted and given more responsibility or elected to be manager of your working group. Anyways, you would, in a higher stage of development, be in need of much better things than Joe, and due to super abundance, Joe won't need as much as you do. In prior times you would simply be paid more.

The Soviet ration system didn't work, and really, after all the loops holes were applied they were really no more equitable than the US at any similar period.



This is essentially how it would work. The state no longer plays any hand into the marriage game. Anybody can give anybody else a ring and declare themselves married. They would then imform the government that they have become married. This would only do one thing for our couple.

In the case of parents, it would give either spouse a fair share of maternity/paternity leave. For instance let's say that in total, having or adopting a new born allots a person 6 months of paid leave. This will then can be split up between both partners so long as they are registured.

In case one spouse dies, the family unit will be properly compensated.

If one spouse is a stay at home parent, and forsakes the socialized day-care system, "loss of breadwinner" pensions will be applied.

This was essentially the system in the Soviet Union prior to Stalin. Let's say for example I marry a particular woman. We would do whatever we wanted for a ceremony (or not have one) then we'd simply send forms to the government that we are taking eachother as our spouses. They will keep this in mind should one of us die with children still living at home, or should we adopt of have a child. But the state will have no say in how things are done, will not observe anything other than the signing of the form, and will not grant any special benefits to married people beyond those aforementioned.

Divorces also become cleaner in socialism and communism, as property is more closely moderated and monitered, and everything would be split according to who earned it (with special exceptions made for stay at home parents).

As for the children. Day care, excersize facilities, schools, and after school activities other than excersize facilities, will be provided at the expense of the state- the home unit becomes less important than the social unit, as the state now provides the majority of the recreation for children on a community basis, and parents provide those recreation needs which arn't yet met by the state (or are too obscure to be provided en masse). Not to mention employment to properly aged kids.



Right on!... Communists generally see themselves as Amoral- with restrictions based upon humanism and human dignity.

I don't know about that (with exceptions) because of how physically harmful drugs can be, or how violent and/or paranoid they can make people. Obviously in a socialized society alcohol, tabacco, and drugs of a recreational nature would be given last priority to things like food, housing, medical care, education, etc.

Thanks for the post though it gave me a chance to go berzerk biggrin I did like your statements though, they are very classical to me, but interesting and well stated nonetheless! I'm also sorry for how long winded I am and got to be in this post, can you tell this sort of stuff excites me!?