quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

I don't hate either socialism or communism. I just regard socialism, and its mirror image libertarianism, as being artificial constructs based on an absurdly hypothetical premise.

What do you find particularly absurd about socialism?

The OP is correct, in that pure socialism (and libertarianism) has never been tried; which for me is one clue why it is so weak. The socialist/ libertarian utopias exist only in the fevered imaginations of people unwilling to recognize the diversity and complexity of the world.


One of the primary reasons it has not worked in many places it has been tried (chili,columbia,nicaragua) is that the cia murdered the leaders or sponsored counter revolutions. It seems to be working in cuba, viet nam and venezuela inspite of the cia trying to murder those leaders.

Both are based on faith and dogma instead of reason and evidence.

Just as are capitalism and facism

quote:

ORIGINAL: E3

To be fair.. arent Columbia and Nicaragua both drug states?  Not sure about Nicaragua, but I am almost certain Columbia is (the Columbian drug cartels after all).  I BELIEVE Chili is far enough south to be able to escape that. BUT something to note about Chili is the "smallness" of it.  Not its area, but rather its population, what it provides the world etc.  This really does re-emphasis a common theme I'm noticing. Communism works small scale.  Nations the size of the USA, Canada, or even Russia are just too colossal for the organization required in Communism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: E3

To be fair.. arent Columbia and Nicaragua both drug states?  Not sure about Nicaragua, but I am almost certain Columbia is (the Columbian drug cartels after all).  I BELIEVE Chili is far enough south to be able to escape that.

What do drugs have to do with this conversation?

BUT something to note about Chili is the "smallness" of it.  Not its area, but rather its population, what it provides the world etc.

Chile has about half as many people as canada. Canada has fewer people than california. What is your point?



  This really does re-emphasis a common theme I'm noticing. Communism works small scale.  Nations the size of the USA, Canada, or even Russia are just too colossal for the organization required in Communism.

Viet nam is almost three times the population of canada

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

vincent

I'm not trying to make myself an expert on urban blight. For all her inability to choose distinct names, maria, maria from Brooklyn taught me an important lesson - namely what one can do with what one has if one chooses to do so and steps out of the stereotypes. It never ceases to amaze me how many people in this county cannot do simple things like fix a broken outlet, repair a broken pipe, put a fan belt on a car for heaven's sake. One doesn't need to be an expert to see what's wrong with one's existence.

What I do know is that every form of government and every type of economy has and will produce the types of areas and problems we are discussing. You can treat it as a constant in the equation. Some types will do more, some less but all have periods wherein they simply let the situation lie and fester. What is lost in all of the debate is the person, the independence, ability and capability of that person. What I'm saying has no effect on systems of government. It's tied more to the individual and to the lesson that maria, maria taught me and that is, you can simply exist within the framework you've been given or work with what you have. There are always choices. Whether or not your existence improves or degrades is tied to many variables, some outside your control, but some within it.

Enough. This is too much discussion on a rainy Saturday morning. I have stories to write and wind chimes to build.

Later.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
What do you find particularly absurd about socialism?

The OP is correct, in that pure socialism (and libertarianism) has never been tried; which for me is one clue why it is so weak. The socialist/ libertarian utopias exist only in the fevered imaginations of people unwilling to recognize the diversity and complexity of the world.

quote:

It has been nearly a century since the October Revolution;

quote:

Karl Marx was actually a sharp and perceptive critic of Victorian England, and the ravages of a class based Darwinian capitalist society; I think he and Dickens actually make interesting reading side by side; had Marx confined himself to social criticism, and not tried to make a grand sweeping AnswerTo Everything, he would probably be held in higher regard today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
What do you find particularly absurd about socialism?

The OP is correct, in that pure socialism (and libertarianism) has never been tried; which for me is one clue why it is so weak. The socialist/ libertarian utopias exist only in the fevered imaginations of people unwilling to recognize the diversity and complexity of the world.

Fair question- just to be clear, when I mention socialism, I am talking about the classic Bolshevik construct based on the premise that society would evolve to a utopian state based on a complete radical transformation of society.

All too often, anything that involves progressive taxation and government regulation of business gets hysterically painted as "socialism".

It has been nearly a century since the October Revolution; There has never been any sort of outcome as Marx and Engles envisioned; Even the most successful "socialist" nations have only succeeded in making slight progress in basic living standards,


Don't you think that by any measure that the people in russia are better off today both economically and socially than they were under the czar? Cuba since the overthrow of batista? Viet nam since the end of the french and bo dai and all of the pretenders who followed him ?

and most have accepted at least some limited property rights and private enterprise.

Although one can try to claim this is due to American hostility, China and the USSR failed entirely on their own,


Are you truely suggesting that the emense economic pressure of the u.s. had no meaningful effects?

as have most revolutionary states;

The murder of alliende in chile,numerous attempts on castro's life, ollie north and the contras in nicragua, cia coup attempt in venezuela....I could go on for pages but you see where I am going.


the central weakness of Marxism is that it only works if there is universal compliance;

Same with capitalism or facism


if even a small minority want to hold private property and practice free enterprise, the system unravels. In my opinion, thats why almost all revolutionary socialist states either evolve to something else (China/ Vietnam) or collapse into totalitarian rigormortis Soviet Union). For what it is worth, the same can be said of libertarianism.

Karl Marx was actually a sharp and perceptive critic of Victorian England, and the ravages of a class based Darwinian capitalist society; I think he and Dickens actually make interesting reading side by side;

I agree that they consider similar problems.

had Marx confined himself to social criticism, and not tried to make a grand sweeping AnswerTo Everything, he would probably be held in higher regard today.


In many places outside the u.s. he is

quote:

ORIGINAL: E3

To be fair.. arent Columbia and Nicaragua both drug states?  Not sure about Nicaragua, but I am almost certain Columbia is (the Columbian drug cartels after all).  I BELIEVE Chili is far enough south to be able to escape that. BUT something to note about Chili is the "smallness" of it.  Not its area, but rather its population, what it provides the world etc.  This really does re-emphasis a common theme I'm noticing. Communism works small scale.  Nations the size of the USA, Canada, or even Russia are just too colossal for the organization required in Communism.