Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Just because the fascists/socialists running the gubmint and banking rackets have engaged in bailing out malinvestment, does not, by any stretch, mean that they have to do it....There's an immense difference.Capitalism so far, hasn't worked without socialism. Every few years due to the boom and bust cycle, a.k.a. "the business cycle", capitalism has to be bailed out with public funds. That's essentially socialism saving capitalism every few years.
No doubt there's a 5-year plan for that!Funny thing about Marx is that he never made an effort to explain to everyone how the State would ''wither away'' after the ''dictatorship of the proletariat'' commenced.
Relevant reading...
Marx's Theory of Stages: The Withering Away of the State Under Socialism | Mises Institute
Ralph Raico looks at Karl Marx's stages of socialism and finds them wanting.mises.org
Funny thing about Marx is that he never made an effort to explain to everyone how the State would ''wither away'' after the ''dictatorship of the proletariat'' commenced.
Relevant reading...
Marx's Theory of Stages: The Withering Away of the State Under Socialism | Mises Institute
Ralph Raico looks at Karl Marx's stages of socialism and finds them wanting.
And we all saw how brilliantly that worked out in Berlin!Now, what is true, is that for a state to become oppressive, will be much more unlikely due to the fact that advanced technology will allow you with your family and friends, to simply pack up and leave. If the government gets too overbearing and intrusive, you just say "bye", and go somewhere, carrying all of that production technology with you.
Not sure if I disagree, laugh or Fake News it, maybe all 3.
You believe that Amazon tribes are made up of a political Elite and slaves just like every Marxist, Socialist or Communist Utopia? It just goes downhill from there
Nope.That was pretty clear when Red Front couldn't explain why Marxism was going to work this time and not just kill a hundred million people like before
That was pretty clear when Red Front couldn't explain why Marxism was going to work this time and not just kill a hundred million people like before
I did, you're just ignoring the answer. That's fine because once I identify a person like you who is being disingenuous with me, I only respond to them for the sake of others. I don't really care if you ignore all of the points I make, because the people who matter to me, won't.
China is more of a mixed economy. I would identify Western Europe as being more socialist or "communist" than China. In China there are people who are going bankrupt with medical bills, just like here. You really don't have a right to healthcare and education in China as you do in Western Europe. I'd say the United States provides better access to healthcare and education to its citizens than China offers its citizens.
China tried communism and failed, due to a lack of adequate emphasis on industrialization, engineering, science, and technology, not to speak of its dicey relationship with the USSR. China did improve a few things under strict communism between the 1950s and 80s, but it was a shadow of communism, compared to the Soviet Union.
Chinese workers today, are essentially un-unionized and have fewer rights than American workers, especially workers in Europe. I don't see China as a truly socialist or communist country, it's more of a mixed economy, with some state control over some major industries. It has some central planning and government partnerships in some important, "heavy" sectors of the economy, allowing it to accomplish a lot more than we who are under the strong spell and grip of neoliberal economics. Here in America, we're into privatizing practically every segment of our economy, leading to high prices and chaos. However, as I mentioned earlier America does have its advantages and virtues, which China lacks. Watch this:
China is a mixed economy and "communist" in name only.
Your heritage and traditions are the native american reservations which are true socialist nations here in the US. As a result of socialism they are cess pools os poverty , drugs, rape , violence and destitution,I didn't suggest otherwise. China is far from a Jeffersonian democracy. We American socialists come from a different tradition and our heritage and values are different than theirs.
The only "free market" elements available are there to service the CCP...All else is commie shit.That is not why communism failed in China. Communism failed there because it is doomed to failure no matter wheere it is tried or how much technology changes .
China is semi communist and not just in name only. Yes they have some free market elements but in the end they are still an iron fisted tyranny which IS communism
Marxism is NOT democratic. Nor is US socialismAmerican socialism is truly Marxist, which is democratic.
No we do notWell we have to, due to advanced technology.
It is not working.Socialism is working now. You're contradicting yourself, saying that the democrats are "socialists" or commies, for supporting government policies that are common in Western Europe. Communism is the objective of socialism, and it is defined as a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. There has never been a truly communist state, but rather a socialist one. The USSR for example was the Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics. Do you see the word "communist" there?
Socialism is what allows capitalism to continue functioning without collapsing on itself. Every few years, the government has to step in and bail out the capitalist with public funds. Without that government intervention, the economy would crumble, causing an immense amount of harm.
Not so...It's giving the commies an unprecedented leg up on the proles.No we do not
Advanced technology works against communism
No it only gives them echo chambers to live in with the benefits of capitalism while believing some wierd delusion that capitalism sucks.Not so...It's giving the commies an unprecedented leg up on the proles.
Communism is essentially a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. The institution of the state was needed to protect private property, created by agrarian society. Nomads attacked farmers and their crops, along with the need to protect the haves from the have-nots. The need for the state apparatus wasn't and isn't today present in hunter-gatherer societies. Production is organized without competition or with the intent to generate profits or amass private capital. We started out as "primitive communists" and Marx believed that we will come "full circle" and end with another form of communism, which is based on advanced technology.
As far as utopianism, that was before Marx and Engels, developed the materialist dialectic. Socialists tended to be "utopians". Engels wrote about this in his book:
Socialism: Utopian and ScientificWe subscribe to and advance scient...Marxists were never utopians but scientific.
