Marxism And Socialism

[tinyj316]

I don't understand why people, especially those on the right, always talk down about Marxism and Socialism. Granted, there have been many Marxist/Socialist governments that have failed in the past, but look at those governments that have adopted parts of those manifestos (UK, France, Italy, Germany, Canada, etc.). Those countries have been thriving for years, yet the majority of Americans view Socialism and Marxism as evil, slanted, doomed to fail, etc..

How many of you here have read Marx? Can you honestly say that because as a whole the system wouldn't work here in the US, that parts of it are just as bad as the whole?

How many people have read Mein Kampf? I would venture a guess that many people haven't just because Hitler wrote it...

What about the Constitution? Declaration of Independence? Probably more people have read these, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were people who actually have not read them (this applies to the Americans)

Darwin? Malthus? Huxley? Kropotkin?

I'm not saying that I'm a Socialist/Marxist/Nazi, but what I'm saying is, how can people condemn something they haven't read? The same goes for the Torah, Qur'an, Bible, Book of Mormon, or any book for that matter.

I've personally read all of the above examples... I've learned that no political system or theory is perfect, each of the spiritual books have their good points and their questionable parts, and most people have no clue about the historical context of any of these books.

A lot could be done in this world if people read with an open mind, and put their own personal feelings aside long enough to understand where these people are coming from.

Thoughts?

[Dr. B]

The best industries in the United States are somewhat socialist, in the literal sense of the word. Before I continue, keep in mind a system of government with the power to influence undemocratically (ie: coerce not compromise) with a social agenda is communist, not socialist. That being said, take a look at the many top-performing service jobs in our economies: Lawyers, Accountants, Financiers, Teachers, Doctors. What do all have in common? A government per se which regulates the freedoms exercised by participating members by their own consent. This representation of labor (l) and the intrinsic value of the human mind is most readily observable in the service industries, where investment in capital (k) is minimal. All policies drafted by the AICPA, the AMA, the bar association, etc are created to preserve the integrity of the profession and therefore protect the value of the human capital at work (l).

When physical captial (k) comes into the picture, the socialist does not abandon the belief in the value of labor above all else - in fact he more vehemently defends it. The notion that the workers ought to own the means of production (k) actually enforces capitalist ideology, such that instead of a corporation or single proprietor retaining the excess of rent paid to capital (k), the workers (l) ought to share equally in the proceeds - for it (k) would be useless without them. The capitalist promotes the notion of maximizing welfare as does the socialist. The socialist merely recognizes the instrumental value of machinery and business identities (corporation xyz) and believes that past the point of sustainability (the steady-state level of capital (k) investment), unless in pursuit of expansion, a firm ought to remit any excess economic profit back to the labor.

The association of socialism with any form of government is merely a consequence of labor interests united to define societal norms to enforce the recognition of their merit and respective input cost through binding legislation. I anticipate that we'll take this thread in that direction, so I'll leave y'all hanging at that.

[Tyler]

Socialism is one of those things that look good on paper if you're below the mendoza line, but if you've worked hard for what you have then it's kind of shitty.

[jayson]

I don't understand why people, especially those on the right, always talk down about Marxism and Socialism.

People fear what they don't understand: that's the base reason for the kneejerk reaction from right wingers regarding socialism. The same could be said for left wingers who fear systems which find a basis in corporatism.

Personally, I despise Marxism and Socialism for the very reason that I do understand them.

Granted, there have been many Marxist/Socialist governments that have failed in the past, but look at those governments that have adopted parts of those manifestos (UK, France, Italy, Germany, Canada, etc.). Those countries have been thriving for years, yet the majority of Americans view Socialism and Marxism as evil, slanted, doomed to fail, etc..

I wouldn't say that they have been "thriving for years". In fact, ask most any Englishman about the state of his or her country, and they will be frank. It's not pretty. France has its share of problems as do all of the countries you listed. Not one of them could be considered economic power houses, however, and that's really where the rift lies between the United States and the rest of the world (excepting the Asian bloc of nations, including China and Japan).

How many of you here have read Marx? Can you honestly say that because as a whole the system wouldn't work here in the US, that parts of it are just as bad as the whole?

Marx was a philosopher. Rarely can one find pragmatism and philosophy mingling- the two are practically exclusive with regards to the other. I have read Marx and I disagreed with most of his opinions. Marx formulated many theories on "what if" thinking. I'm not against the thought of a situation where every person works for the betterment of all. The reality, however, is that elites will always rise to the top and control the masses. That's universal- and government is similar to the adage: "pick your poison". I'd rather live in a society where there are many elites spread over many sectors of society and the economy (the system we have now), versus elites concentrated in very specific clusters, i.e., the Politburo and "local leaders" like the Soviet model of government.

How many people have read Mein Kampf? I would venture a guess that many people haven't just because Hitler wrote it...

That's one thing I never understood. People avoid certain books like the plague, as if they would somehow be distorted by the book's contents. Perhaps they aren't far off- perhaps they fear that they will agree with what these "monsters" say. Mein Kampf was, to me, as disturbing as it was intriguing. Like Marx, he, too, thought with "what if" thinking. Clearly it didn't work for him, either. And that's a good thing.

What about the Constitution? Declaration of Independence? Probably more people have read these, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were people who actually have not read them (this applies to the Americans)

Are you noticing a pattern? It's "what if" thinking, once more. In our case, however, because of the legal system identifying that the US Constitution is the highest law of the land of which no one is above the law, this certainly has helped us navigate the waters of treachery over the last two centuries. Edited November 11, 2009 by jayson

[Dr. B]

... if you've worked hard for what you have then it's kind of shitty.

That's exactly the reasoning behind socialism: it is at odds with our current entitlement system because the people in charge, not those necessarily responsible for the actual production of goods and services, are the ones in charge of distributing the gains from the productivity of capital to whoever they deem appropriate, which is typically themselves and not their workers. True, some labor is required to engineer and direct a profitable enterprise, but beyond reasonable compensation, which is measurable, especially in the face of under compensated workers, why is it that the cornerstone of productivity, labor, is not entitled to bigger gains?

The whole philosophy stems from the belief that laborers are entitled to a fair cut of the productivity of capital: So much so that they ought to be legally entitled to ownership of the capital just as the proprietor and purchaser is, so long as they are the means by which it becomes productive - for it is useless without them. This would work in our legal environment if, for instance, ownership interests were vested equally in all constituents of a corporation through a separate, voting class of stock dedicated to employees rather than financiers.

Ask me how

[Dr. B]

How many of you here have read Marx? Can you honestly say that because as a whole the system wouldn't work here in the US, that parts of it are just as bad as the whole?

Marx was a philosopher. Rarely can one find pragmatism and philosophy mingling- the two are practically exclusive with regards to the other. I have read Marx and I disagreed with most of his opinions. Marx formulated many theories on "what if" thinking. I'm not against the thought of a situation where every person works for the betterment of all. The reality, however, is that elites will always rise to the top and control the masses. That's universal- and government is similar to the adage: "pick your poison". I'd rather live in a society where there are many elites spread over many sectors of society and the economy (the system we have now), versus elites concentrated in very specific clusters, i.e., the Politburo and "local leaders" like the Soviet model of government.

Please read Das Kapital and not The Communist Manifesto. Marx was also an economist as was his cohort Engel, which is an absurdly practical realm of academics. Yes, speculation occurred to some degree. Evaluation and criticism of currently-instituted practices occurred as well, quite a bit I might add.

I don't understand your contention about the two types of societies. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but without my speculation I fail to see how that contention is relevant. Edited November 11, 2009 by Dr. B

[tinyj316]

How many of you here have read Marx? Can you honestly say that because as a whole the system wouldn't work here in the US, that parts of it are just as bad as the whole?

Marx was a philosopher. Rarely can one find pragmatism and philosophy mingling- the two are practically exclusive with regards to the other. I have read Marx and I disagreed with most of his opinions. Marx formulated many theories on "what if" thinking. I'm not against the thought of a situation where every person works for the betterment of all. The reality, however, is that elites will always rise to the top and control the masses. That's universal- and government is similar to the adage: "pick your poison". I'd rather live in a society where there are many elites spread over many sectors of society and the economy (the system we have now), versus elites concentrated in very specific clusters, i.e., the Politburo and "local leaders" like the Soviet model of government.

Please read Das Kapital and not The Communist Manifesto. Marx was also an economist as was his cohort Engel, which is an absurdly practical realm of academics. Yes, speculation occurred to some degree. Evaluation and criticism of currently-instituted practices occurred as well, quite a bit I might add.

I don't understand your contention about the two types of societies. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but without my speculation I fail to see how that contention is relevant.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Das Kapital is far more economically based than The Communist Manifesto.

[jayson]

I don't understand your contention about the two types of societies. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but without my speculation I fail to see how that contention is relevant.

The elite theory of governance is what I was alluding to. No matter the system, elites will rise to the top and lead those who do not, who are considered the masses. It happens in a democracy just as soon as a totalitarian dictatorship... it's just a question of to what degree. The former sees a wide variety of elites in every facet of the government, the economy and society, whereas the latter is concentrated often to a single, tight knit and detached group of highly tyrannical individuals. Both are extreme but equally valid examples.

Personally, I'd rather find myself in a society with many elites- this allows for a fairly perpetual assimilation of elites. In other words, should I choose to dedicate the time and effort, I could become an "elite", as could you or anyone else. In other systems, this is much less likely.

Marx's contempt for elites is well documented- and it is this point that I must argue with. His pie-in-the-sky assertions that people would someday be altruistic enough to truly work for the betterment of all is nonsensical. It's contrapositive to human nature. Elites - those who "own" us - do and will continue to exist no matter the time or place, it's just a fact we must deal with. That being said, how can we, the masses, cope with such a system? A government takeover from those who produce is not the answer.

[Dr. B]

I see what you're getting it...

Let me make something clear: I'm not here to defend the theory of integrated economics and politics that is Marxism. I am here to defend the merits of socialism as a facet of capitalism, largely based within our current institutions of government and law.

Your discussion of Marxism is perfectly relevant, but I don't think I'll be participating. Refer to my reply to FSU for a less abrupt distinction.


edit: post #5:

The whole philosophy stems from the belief that laborers are entitled to a fair cut of the productivity of capital: So much so that they ought to be legally entitled to ownership of the capital to protect their ability to distribute profit just as the proprietor and purchaser do, so long as they are the means by which it becomes productive - for it is useless without them.

[newjacksm]

Marxisim never worked because no one ever used his theories correctly. which is why everyone fears communism and socialism.

[TheScotsman]

4 reasons

1) Marxist/socialist/communist systems can not function in reality, as they appear on paper as long as people at any level have any form of self-interest or greed.

2) All of the above are inherently unfair systems

3) No real innovations (well, excluding gulags) ever came from the aforementioned systems. They stifle innovation, and invention.

4) I work for what I have, the deadbeats that think these systems are so good, should learn to do the same. There are no short-cuts in life, especially on the backs of other people. If you want something, get off your ass, and earn it.

[Dr. B]

4 reasons

1) Marxist/socialist/communist systems can not function in reality, as they appear on paper as long as people at any level have any form of self-interest or greed.

2) All of the above are inherently unfair systems

3) No real innovations (well, excluding gulags) ever came from the aforementioned systems. They stifle innovation, and invention.

4) I work for what I have, the deadbeats that think these systems are so good, should learn to do the same. There are no short-cuts in life, especially on the backs of other people. If you want something, get off your ass, and earn it.

you chimed in! it's like my prayers were answered.

in defense of socialism (not marxism or communism)
1) yes it can function in reality - and it does
2) capitalism is inherently unfair per se. what makes it great is the entitlement ideals surrounding it. socialism is an instrument within capitalism fyi
3) how does socialism specifically stifle innovation and invention?
4) not relevant to socialism

[tinyj316]

4 reasons

1) Marxist/socialist/communist systems can not function in reality, as they appear on paper as long as people at any level have any form of self-interest or greed.

2) All of the above are inherently unfair systems

3) No real innovations (well, excluding gulags) ever came from the aforementioned systems. They stifle innovation, and invention.

4) I work for what I have, the deadbeats that think these systems are so good, should learn to do the same. There are no short-cuts in life, especially on the backs of other people. If you want something, get off your ass, and earn it.

Thank you for validating my theory that you do not understand socialism (and to a lesser degree marxism and communism)!

In rebuttal:

1) Marxism and Communism may be dead and "useless" by today's standards; however, there are still ideals of each of them in today's society. Socialism is not dead, and in fact it does function on a daily basis in many places around the world. Have you ever heard of companies that the employees are the stockholders/owners of the company? I'm sure you have... That's one of the major tenants of economic socialism! Sounds an awful like that whole capitalism thing we've got rocking for us right now.

2) Speaking of capitalism, how is that any more fair than socialism/marxism/communism? The whole "free market" system that we have has become bastardized over time to now, where corporate elites are gleaning huge profits, while the peasant class is stuck trying to make ends meet. Today's version of capitalism and free markets are akin to how it was back in the old feudal system. Its worth noting that the "free market" system was created as a way to put an end to feudalism.

3) LOL WUT? You best be trolling. There have been plenty of innovations and inventions that have been born under the socialist regime...

4) This point has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with socialism, Marxism, or communism. This is a popular misconception that was spawned out of the age of McCarthyism that was used as a means to scare people into buying what was being forced on them. You pretty much summed up your flaw in this with your statement in point 1. Many people who are "deadbeats" are only that way because the corporate elite has stifled production as a way to pad profits. This stifled production leads to job loss. Job loss leads to... you get where this is going. Sure, there is a select population that does not wish to work, but there are many of those same people who would work in a heartbeat if given the means to. Your air of entitlement is very clear in your statement. Entitlement is the root of all the evils that are present in the current capitalist way of business.

We’ve had capitalism, and it has failed to this point. If it had succeeded then there would be no poor with nothing and no rich with everything. Greed and human nature have been allowed to win out.

[judgeposer]

I don't understand why people, especially those on the right, always talk down about Marxism and Socialism. Granted, there have been many Marxist/Socialist governments that have failed in the past, but look at those governments that have adopted parts of those manifestos (UK, France, Italy, Germany, Canada, etc.). Those countries have been thriving for years, yet the majority of Americans view Socialism and Marxism as evil, slanted, doomed to fail, etc..

I think it's a matter of first principles; there's often no synthesis or agreement to be had when two (or more) camps disagree on fundamentals. The "right," at least of the stripe I identify with, believes in the principle of subsidiarity. In this context, it means that state functions should be carried out at the lowest level practical. Collectivist ideologies like communism and extreme expressions of socialism seek to position decision-making power in the hands of a self-selected few. While this might seem contradictory to the ethic of those systems as preached by their best defenders, like Marx, critics are reasonable to conclude this is the case because of what history has shown of countries that espouse to be 'communist,' or some other similar ideology. Countries that have blended the collectivist with egalitarian may have succeeded, true - but that doesn't speak to the potential success of the individual ideologies.

How many of you here have read Marx? Can you honestly say that because as a whole the system wouldn't work here in the US, that parts of it are just as bad as the whole?

It sounds like here that you're railing against simple, willful ignorance. Though, accomplishing a reading list of great thinkers hardly produces great thinkers.

What about the Constitution? Declaration of Independence? Probably more people have read these, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were people who actually have not read them (this applies to the Americans)

True. Even reading these essential American documents doesn't necessarily prepare anyone to debate the merits of the American project, especially seeing that the Supreme Court says what the Constitution says - that's another debate of course.

I'm not saying that I'm a Socialist/Marxist/Nazi, but what I'm saying is, how can people condemn something they haven't read? The same goes for the Torah, Qur'an, Bible, Book of Mormon, or any book for that matter.

Again, you have a bone to pick with the ignorant, and reasonably so. But, the number of serious intellectuals who have studied these systems, both the underpinning theories and what has happened when these theories have been practiced, and have still found these systems "wanting" is legion! Don't strawman their arguments because some on their 'side' have not read the required literature.

I've personally read all of the above examples... I've learned that no political system or theory is perfect, each of the spiritual books have their good points and their questionable parts, and most people have no clue about the historical context of any of these books.

The best arguments critiquing communism, etc., haven't, generally, said that American democracy is thus necessarily perfect. I think we can critique communism, etc., while also acknowledging the shortcomings of our own system of government and economy. As I have said numerous times on this forum, which I read perhaps even from someone here, that blowing out someone else's candle doesn't make yours burn any brighter. I believe that conservatives, or the "Right," can offer credible, persuasive arguments against communism and the like, but remain sober about the shortcomings of our own system. After all, refuting your opposition doesn't prove your argument, it should just make it, as an alternative, more appealing. One great example of this is the late Pope John Paul II, who Margaret Thatcher considered supportive of capitalism, but also who Gorbachev considered one of the left's great defenders. Without dealving into the particulars of JPII's teachings on the matter, suffice it to say that such thinkers can often evade ideological categories because their critique spans the entire spectrum of the political/economic spectrum.

Thank you for validating my theory that you do not understand socialism (and to a lesser degree marxism and communism)!

In rebuttal:

1) Marxism and Communism may be dead and "useless" by today's standards; however, there are still ideals of each of them in today's society. Socialism is not dead, and in fact it does function on a daily basis in many places around the world. Have you ever heard of companies that the employees are the stockholders/owners of the company? I'm sure you have... That's one of the major tenants of economic socialism! Sounds an awful like that whole capitalism thing we've got rocking for us right now.

I don't think your analogy satisfies your point because the shareholders don't manage the corporations they have a stake in - well, at least not the bulk of any one company's shareholders does. They simply own an equity share in the company that leverages (correct word here?) their investment. Common ownership in this system doesn't equate to the sort of common ownership or public ownership socialism encourages.

2) Speaking of capitalism, how is that any more fair than socialism/marxism/communism? The whole "free market" system that we have has become bastardized over time to now, where corporate elites are gleaning huge profits, while the peasant class is stuck trying to make ends meet. Today's version of capitalism and free markets are akin to how it was back in the old feudal system. Its worth noting that the "free market" system was created as a way to put an end to feudalism.

I would say that it is a fairer system because it localizes decision-making to an extent greater, though perhaps not by much, than socialism/Marxism/communism. I would definitely agree that the capitalist system we now have has become bastardized by a constellation of factors including greed and corruption at the highest levels.

3) LOL WUT? You best be trolling. There have been plenty of innovations and inventions that have been born under the socialist regime...

Right, well, I disagree that collectivist systems did not produce any real innovation. After all, the Cold War was the greatest example of a form of communism going toe-to-toe with our capitalist democracy for a long while. I believe it is widely acknowledged that the Soviets, by the end of the Cold War, possessed a greater stash of nuclear armaments, the lot of which were more powerful than ours. I would say, however, that these sorts of collectivist governments/economies can, and more easily, stifle innovation because of an inbuilt lack of reward/incentive for going above-and-beyond. I address this to the worker, on the ground. Certainly, for many, the knowledge that they will not be able to capitalize (because of a lack of laws protecting "intellectual property") on their ideas will produce a disincentive for some.

[Dr. B]

We've had capitalism, and it has failed to this point. If it had succeeded then there would be no poor with nothing and no rich with everything. Greed and human nature have been allowed to win out.

hold on now, capitalism hasn't failed - merely the free-market approach has caused some shocks from which we are recovering.

I'll defend to the death that socialism is a facet of capitalism, defined in a broad, though accurate, sense. The misinterpretation of price signals in a free-market environment is bound to happen, regardless of the persons or institutions responsible for deciphering them. What we're talking about when we refer to market failure is an apparent undervaluation or overvaluation of price signals, typically regarding new goods - derivative and diluted securities for instance. My beef with the laissez fair market ideal is the tendency to ignore externalities and the poor economic analysis executed by consumers. Socialism's beef with laissez fair capitalism is the explicit undervaluation of labor. Let it be noted that trade theory, an underlieing principle of capitalism, does not specify who the recipients of increased welfare will be: only that aggregate welfare will increase. Within a capitalist system there are bound to be winners and losers: socialism merely champions the efforts of laborers so that they are more accurately compensated for the services they provide.

Judge, why don't you address me? Edited November 13, 2009 by Dr. B

[judgeposer]

We've had capitalism, and it has failed to this point. If it had succeeded then there would be no poor with nothing and no rich with everything. Greed and human nature have been allowed to win out.

hold on now, capitalism hasn't failed - merely the free-market approach has caused some shocks from which we are recovering.

I'll defend to the death that socialism is a facet of capitalism, defined in a broad, though accurate, sense. The misinterpretation of price signals in a free-market environment is bound to happen, regardless of the persons or institutions responsible for deciphering them. What we're talking about when we refer to market failure is an apparent undervaluation or overvaluation of price signals, typically regarding new goods - derivative and diluted securities for instance. My beef with the laissez fair market ideal is the tendency to ignore externalities and the poor economic analysis executed by consumers. Socialism's beef with laissez fair capitalism is the explicit undervaluation of labor. Let it be noted that trade theory, an underlieing principle of capitalism, does not specify who the recipients of increased welfare will be: only that aggregate welfare will increase. Within a capitalist system there are bound to be winners and losers: socialism merely champions the efforts of laborers so that they are more accurately compensated for the services they provide.

Judge, why don't you address me?

Opps! Good posts Dr. B!

Really though, you did convince me that socialism is/can be part of a capitalist economy. I hadn't given much thought to that before.

Not related to your points really, but generally, to the extent any system centralizes decision-making, resources, and profits, we should be weary. It seems that ALL of the systems discussed in this thread do that to some extent. Is it worth measuring how much for each system? - is that what makes any system good/bad? As with many things, I don't think most of these economic/political systems have an intrinsic value (of good or bad), but they do have an instrumental value (good or bad once we practice them). Compulsory or legally enforced communism I do believe is intrinsically bad because we (I believe) have a natural right to own property. We can in small instances waive that right to join voluntarily communities that profess this ethic, but I don't see how state-run communism doesn't run the risk of forcing compliance over some, perhaps many, who would rather elect not to participate in some sort of 'common ownership.'

[Chreees]

Marxisim never worked because no one ever used his theories correctly. which is why everyone fears communism and socialism.

Exactly. Everyone's too greedy that his theories simply CAN'T work. Take a basic sociology class and you'll learn a lot about Marx and Socialism...

[KyleTheJustin]

In terms of Communism truly working, I find much fault in the human race to fully believe it could ever work without the people fully controlling the government.

Socialism, however, does work and will continue to as long as people look out for one another and not just themselves. People fear both of these forms of governing due to poor representation and misinformation. It's quite easy to see this within our current society.

[KyleTheJustin]

4 reasons

1) Marxist/socialist/communist systems can not function in reality, as they appear on paper as long as people at any level have any form of self-interest or greed.

2) All of the above are inherently unfair systems

3) No real innovations (well, excluding gulags) ever came from the aforementioned systems. They stifle innovation, and invention.

4) I work for what I have, the deadbeats that think these systems are so good, should learn to do the same. There are no short-cuts in life, especially on the backs of other people. If you want something, get off your ass, and earn it.

It's comments like these that place socialism in such a bad light. Sure, you worked hard, dude, but how many others worked equally hard or harder to provide services that you use to "work hard"? More likely than not, someone out there is working harder than you and getting paid less. Find an excuse for how that's fair. Before you respond that everyone has an opportunity to succeed, punch yourself in the face, because that's bullshit. What of those who enjoy doing manual labor but get paid significantly less than those who educate themselves to not do those jobs?

It sounds like you not only took a piece of the pie, but bullied others into believing that the entire thing was yours. Get a fucking clue.

[Firestorm]

Have you seen a photograph of Karl Marx? He is simply a scary guy that comes for people in the night with his various forms of government.

[inino]

Whether it works or not, we always be taught in America that it is a failing evil system where the gvmnt takes your money and gives it to people who dont deserve it. We faught wars in the defense of capitalism and the prevention of socialism. Korea, vietnam, Cuba, WW 2, probably more but I cant think of them off the top of my head.

Capitalism and Socialism are both viable political, economical, and social ideologies if they are operated the way the theories are stated. No one ever follows the theories exactly for some reason or other.

In a way its all propeganda. We think its bad because we are ignorant.

Im an economics major, so obviously I have read Marx. Learning all economic theories is very important in my field of study. But for example I have not read very many religious texts, so I would never try to enforce my religious opinion onto others or claim myself "right".

Socialism cannot actually work unless people are dedicated to the cause. Also other countries cannot invest resources to prevent socialism from working.

[nars2k]

Ill admit that I myself am a Marxist. Reading works of people like Karl Marx and David Hume opens your eyes to a new horizon. But I do agree with some people here. There have been many failed attempts at Communism and Socialism. But there has never been the pure form of either. The problem resides with the fact that people tend to get greedy. We need an Internationalist, a philosopher, to be leading a new revolution. America and the Elites who control this country have done everything they could to depict Communism as Evil. The reason why people fear them is because of what has been implanted in their head for a long time and due to their ignorance they fail to find out more and try to get the truth. Obama might be a change in what were use to, but he works for the elite few who control this country through their lobbying.They have the money to control anything and anyone they want. Just look at some facts, Obama promised to withdraw troops, yet we have more troops in Afghanistan and Iraq than we did during the Bush regime, and now hes going to send 30,000 more. People think that this will end the war earlier, guess again. Hes just a guy with a whole lot of charisma that says what people want to hear, but does what he wants. Edited December 2, 2009 by nars2k

[Hippo_Master]

Ill admit that I myself am a Marxist. Reading works of people like Karl Marx and David Hume opens your eyes to a new horizon. But I do agree with some people here. There have been many failed attempts at Communism and Socialism. But there has never been the pure form of either. The problem resides with the fact that people tend to get greedy. We need an Internationalist, a philosopher, to be leading a new revolution. America and the Elites who control this country have done everything they could to depict Communism as Evil. The reason why people fear them is because of what has been implanted in their head for a long time and due to their ignorance they fail to find out more and try to get the truth. Obama might be a change in what were use to, but he works for the elite few who control this country through their lobbying.They have the money to control anything and anyone they want. Just look at some facts, Obama promised to withdraw troops, yet we have more troops in Afghanistan and Iraq than we did during the Bush regime, and now hes going to send 30,000 more. People think that this will end the war earlier, guess again. Hes just a guy with a whole lot of charisma that says what people want to hear, but does what he wants.

Waaaa, Obama is a Republican???? Someone better tell John McCain, cause he must be a democrat.

Marxism is like what the LDS Church wants to turn the world into, only without "god". I think I'll steer clear of that one for now, so let me know when religion and the party system goes away and I'll come out to play.... I'm bringing my hookah because it may take a while.

[antouwan]

i formally align myself with the Phalangists. staunchly anti-communist and marxist. there are a few reasons people 'fear' the marxist/socialist thought. i'm not particularly sure if this thread is america-specific, but i know that abroad, most people who despise the marxists are usually pro-establishment and staunchly pro-Catholic, as is the case of the Falange Española de los JONS (in Spain), and the Phalangists in Lebanon. that's really my main beef with the whole marxist agenda.

another would be economic, which is much broader than the theological debate. communists/socialists are big proponents of big-government. yes, a lot of the current policies here in the states are becoming progressively socialist etc and people on the right, myself included, would say that is where most of our problems are coming from. don't get me wrong, i'm not exactly a proponent of complete laissez-faire economic policy, but on that same note, bigger government = bigger bureaucracy ≠ greater efficiency. i'm all about efficiency and socialism doesn't seem to get along with that too well. i wouldn't exactly call myself 'afraid' of communism, but by no means would i be favorable to anything which can directly call itself socialist per se.

[Vladimir]

You are confusing fear with educated and historical hatred.