American Marxism

[Immanuel Can]

From what I've heard Soros is at least no less "excellent" than any other wealthy donor out there.

Then maybe he is your guy, and you believe he deserves to be at the top of the hierarchy. What would tell us for sure, of course, is a true history of how Soros got where he is -- not merely his various PR efforts to elevate himself at the present moment, should he make such.

If you have such a history, and you find that Soros is unimpeachable, at least as much as any human can be, then the fact that he's at the top of the hierarchy would seem to be no less than he deserves. But if it were otherwise, as we discover, then his ascendency might well be a case of exactly the kind of exploitation, corruption, power-leveraging and oppression that you are concerned about.

Either way, the historical truth tells the tale. The hierarchy itself...well, we can't say whether it's deserved or not, if all we have to go on is that it's a hierarchy.

And Soros is an ardent proponent of Socialism for the masses. And he does apparently have some charitable invovlements. However, I haven't noticed his mad rush to equalize his own wealth with that of the oppressed poor, such as he has succeeded in creating personal equality with those oppressed. He would appear to be yet another case of the extremely rich proponents of Socialism.

Not surprising, really. Socialism is a cash cow for the elites. It lets them congolomerate and "milk" the masses most effectively. And in spite of all the trumpeting of equality, the "milk" never really flows generously back to the masses, it seems -- arriving only as a trickle, if it arrives at all.

[Iwannaplato]

All true.

Great.

And?

No 'and' if you think it's true.

I mean, none this is new. Slavers (and that's what these folks are, bottomline) leashing free men (directly and thru hoodwink), this is human history in a nutshell.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Well, I don't love it when everyone has these pointless fights that those guys are laughing at. I wish they'd wake the hell up. Then later they can fight over values.

[Immanuel Can]

"When the state does everything for you, it will soon take everything from you. You will then have no basis for personal freedom, political freedom, or economic freedom."

-- Maggie T.

[Gary Childress]

Not surprising, really. Socialism is a cash cow for the elites. It lets them congolomerate and "milk" the masses most effectively. And in spite of all the trumpeting of equality, the "milk" never really flows generously back to the masses, it seems -- arriving only as a trickle, if it arrives at all.

Most renowned political theorists on 'socialism' seem to refer to the above as "state capitalism". Essentially, it's little more than capitalists playing the direct role of governors of the state their workforce resides in. Effectively turning the state into their private enterprise as well.

'Socialism' as discussed as an ideal is not supposed to be "milking the masses" any more than a theorist of 'democracy' would characterize a political process where a few elites use inordinate power to manipulate and pull strings to get their political will enacted at the expense of the masses as being "democracy". Would you suggest that (as you seem to contend with socialism) democracy is little more than the 'manufacture of consent" on the part of a few vested interests in order to deceive and fool mass voters into acting in the interests of elites at the expense of their own?

Should we, therefore, denounce 'democracy' as some sort of vehicle of oppression? It seems to me that's what you are doing with the political concept of 'socialism'.

[Immanuel Can]

Not surprising, really. Socialism is a cash cow for the elites. It lets them congolomerate and "milk" the masses most effectively. And in spite of all the trumpeting of equality, the "milk" never really flows generously back to the masses, it seems -- arriving only as a trickle, if it arrives at all.

Most renowned political theorists on 'socialism' seem to refer to the above as "state capitalism".

Socialists always try to pass off their disasters as somebody else's fault. Why else would they insist, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, that nobody has yet ever tried "real Socialism."

But here's the important thing: major milkers of the public, like the banks, the military-industrial complex, big media, political autocrats, and owners of near-monopolies like Apple or Amazon all support Socialism.

Why?

Keep asking yourself what they know.

'Socialism' as discussed as an ideal is not supposed to be "milking the masses"

"Discussed as an ideal." That's the problem.

What it says it does and will do, "in the ideal," is never what it does in reality.

Again, we must ask why.

Would you suggest that, as you seem contend with socialism, democracy is little more than the 'manufacture of consent" on the part of a few vested interests in order to deceive and fool mass voters into acting against their beter interests?

No, I'd suggest that's exactly what Socialism is; for Socialism is not democracy.

Under Socialism, "the people's interests" are dictated to them by The Party. Always, the theory The Party floats is that it is acting on behalf of "the workers," or "the people." But Socialism, when it uses the word "people," only ever means "the people who already agree with us." It's those (they say) who have been "humanized" by being "conscientized," by becoming Socialists. Nobody else counts as "the people." The rest are "reactionaries," or "counter-revolutionaries," or "enemies of the people." And you can see in a usage like that, so common to Socialist regimes, that what I'm saying is exactly the case.

So if we love democracy, we sure ought not to love Socialism. The're quite opposite, actually. Democracy is rule of all the people by all the people: Socialism is rule of the obedient and subdued masses by an elite called "The People's Party," and the elimination of everybody else.

[Gary Childress]

Not surprising, really. Socialism is a cash cow for the elites. It lets them congolomerate and "milk" the masses most effectively. And in spite of all the trumpeting of equality, the "milk" never really flows generously back to the masses, it seems -- arriving only as a trickle, if it arrives at all.

Most renowned political theorists on 'socialism' seem to refer to the above as "state capitalism".

Socialists always try to pass off their disasters as somebody else's fault. Why else would they insist, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, that nobody has yet ever tried "real Socialism."

But here's the important thing: major milkers of the public, like the banks, the military-industrial complex, big media, political autocrats, and owners of near-monopolies like Apple or Amazon all support Socialism.

Why?

Keep asking yourself what they know.

'Socialism' as discussed as an ideal is not supposed to be "milking the masses"

"Discussed as an ideal." That's the problem.

What it says it does and will do, "in the ideal," is never what it does in reality.

Again, we must ask why.

Would you suggest that, as you seem contend with socialism, democracy is little more than the 'manufacture of consent" on the part of a few vested interests in order to deceive and fool mass voters into acting against their beter interests?

No, I'd suggest that's exactly what Socialism is; for Socialism is not democracy.

Under Socialism, "the people's interests" are dictated to them by The Party. Always, the theory The Party floats is that it is acting on behalf of "the workers," or "the people." But Socialism, when it uses the word "people," only ever means "the people who already agree with us." It's those (they say) who have been "humanized" by being "conscientized," by becoming Socialists. Nobody else counts as "the people." The rest are "reactionaries," or "counter-revolutionaries," or "enemies of the people." And you can see in a usage like that, so common to Socialist regimes, that what I'm saying is exactly the case.

So if we love democracy, we sure ought not to love Socialism. The're quite opposite, actually. Democracy is rule of all the people by all the people: Socialism is rule of the obedient and subdued masses by an elite called "The People's Party," and the elimination of everybody else.

Just because 'socialism' and democracy are two different words, doesn't make them oppositional. Socialism is not the antithesis of democracy. Socialism is the antithesis of extreme individualism, where every member acts as an individual seeking to maximize their own benefit regardless of its effect on others around him or her. Socialism (as the name suggests) implies members acting as a social group (cooperatively or in mutually beneficial ways) to achieve shared or mutually beneficial goals. I think you're confusing political terminology in a way that is counterproductive for discussion. What you are averse to is 'tyranny' through oligarchy. That's what the world economic forum essentially is. It's not an instrument of socialism or of democracy. It's an instrument of oligarchy. Would you not agree?

[Immanuel Can]

Just because 'socialism' and democracy are two different words, doesn't make them oppositional.

No. The fact that they're different concepts and different practices makes them oppositional.

Socialism is not the antithesis of democracy.

Socialism's synonym is actually "dictatorship of The Party," not "democracy."

Socialism is the antithesis of extreme individualism, where every member acts as an individual seeking to maximize their own benefit regardless of its effect on others around him or her.

Well, it's different in this way: that by way of Socialism, individuals get nothing: no freedom, no rights, no property, no opportunities, no incentives. So that much is true.

But Socialism isn't just opposed to radical individualism, but to all forms of individualism, including classical liberalism and personal human rights. And it's very favourable to elitist individualism. There's only one Soros, or one Bezos, or one Fink. Only individuals live at their level. And they're ardent promoters of Socialism. So somehow, these individuals know they are winning by it, and we're going to lose.

What you are averse to is 'tyranny' through oligarchy. That's what the world economic forum essentially is. It's not an instrument of socialism or of democracy. It's an instrument of oligarchy. Would you not agree?

Do you know who else is really pushing global Socialism right now? The WEF.

[Gary Childress]

What you are averse to is 'tyranny' through oligarchy. That's what the world economic forum essentially is. It's not an instrument of socialism or of democracy. It's an instrument of oligarchy. Would you not agree?

Do you know who else is really pushing global Socialism right now? The WEF.

And many of their fellow elites openly push global capitalism! Therefore?

[Gary Childress]

Etymology
For Andrew Vincent, "[t]he word 'socialism' finds its root in the Latin sociare, which means to combine or to share. The related, more technical term in Roman and then medieval law was societas. This latter word could mean companionship and fellowship as well as the more legalistic idea of a consensual contract between freemen".[47]


Utopian socialist pamphlet of Rudolf Sutermeister
Initial use of socialism was claimed by Pierre Leroux, who alleged he first used the term in the Parisian journal Le Globe in 1832.[48][49] Leroux was a follower of Henri de Saint-Simon, one of the founders of what would later be labelled utopian socialism. Socialism contrasted with the liberal doctrine of individualism that emphasized the moral worth of the individual whilst stressing that people act or should act as if they are in isolation from one another. The original utopian socialists condemned this doctrine of individualism for failing to address social concerns during the Industrial Revolution, including poverty, oppression, and vast wealth inequality. They viewed their society as harming community life by basing society on competition. They presented socialism as an alternative to liberal individualism based on the shared ownership of resources.[50] Saint-Simon proposed economic planning, scientific administration and the application of scientific understanding to the organisation of society. By contrast, Robert Owen proposed to organise production and ownership via cooperatives.[50][51] Socialism is also attributed in France to Marie Roch Louis Reybaud while in Britain it is attributed to Owen, who became one of the fathers of the cooperative movement.[52][53]

The definition and usage of socialism settled by the 1860s, replacing associationist, co-operative, and mutualist that had been used as synonyms while communism fell out of use during this period.[54] An early distinction between communism and socialism was that the latter aimed to only socialise production while the former aimed to socialise both production and consumption (in the form of free access to final goods).[55] By 1888, Marxists employed socialism in place of communism as the latter had come to be considered an old-fashioned synonym for socialism. It was not until after the Bolshevik Revolution that socialism was appropriated by Vladimir Lenin to mean a stage between capitalism and communism. He used it to defend the Bolshevik program from Marxist criticism that Russia's productive forces were not sufficiently developed for communism.[56] The distinction between communism and socialism became salient in 1918 after the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party renamed itself to the All-Russian Communist Party, interpreting communism specifically to mean socialists who supported the politics and theories of Bolshevism, Leninism and later that of Marxism–Leninism,[57] although communist parties continued to describe themselves as socialists dedicated to socialism.[58] According to The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx, "Marx used many terms to refer to a post-capitalist society—positive humanism, socialism, Communism, realm of free individuality, free association of producers, etc. He used these terms completely interchangeably. The notion that 'socialism' and 'Communism' are distinct historical stages is alien to his work and only entered the lexicon of Marxism after his death".[59]

In Christian Europe, communists were believed to have adopted atheism. In Protestant England, communism was too close to the Roman Catholic communion rite, hence socialist was the preferred term.[60] Engels wrote that in 1848, when The Communist Manifesto was published, socialism was respectable in Europe while communism was not. The Owenites in England and the Fourierists in France were considered respectable socialists while working-class movements that "proclaimed the necessity of total social change" denoted themselves communists.[61] This branch of socialism produced the communist work of Étienne Cabet in France and Wilhelm Weitling in Germany.[62] British moral philosopher John Stuart Mill discussed a form of economic socialism within a liberal context that would later be known as liberal socialism. In later editions of his Principles of Political Economy (1848), Mill posited that "as far as economic theory was concerned, there is nothing in principle in economic theory that precludes an economic order based on socialist policies"[63][64] and promoted substituting capitalist businesses with worker cooperatives.[65] While democrats looked to the Revolutions of 1848 as a democratic revolution which in the long run ensured liberty, equality, and fraternity, Marxists denounced it as a betrayal of working-class ideals by a bourgeoisie indifferent to the proletariat.[66]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

[Immanuel Can]

What you are averse to is 'tyranny' through oligarchy. That's what the world economic forum essentially is. It's not an instrument of socialism or of democracy. It's an instrument of oligarchy. Would you not agree?

Do you know who else is really pushing global Socialism right now? The WEF.

And many of their fellow elites openly push global capitalism! Therefore?

Not the point, really. One cannot be surprised by rich, powerful, selfish men pushing a system you indict as "capitalism" and "oppression."

But the surprise comes when those same elite power brokers don't push capitalism, but all line up behind Socialism...because Socialism's supposedly for the people, not the elites. So why would the selfish elites love it so darn much? Why would they be promoting it, and denigrating capitalism, or shutting down free markets, or fighting to eradicate small business and private enterprise? If you take Socialism on its smiling face, then surely that looks counterproductive to their goals...

Except they know it's not. It gives them everything they want...only faster...and more of it.

[Gary Childress]

So why would the selfish elites love it so darn much? Why would they be promoting it, and denigrating capitalism, or shutting down free markets, or fighting to eradicate small business and private enterprise? If you take Socialism on its smiling face, then surely that looks counterproductive to their goals...

Except they know it's not. It gives them everything they want...only faster...and more of it.

That's undeniably a very astute and valid question.

So we know that some promote capitalism and some are clearly promoting 'socialism'.

Given that 'capitalism essentially means private ownership over economic entities, it seems pretty easy to understand why they would promote that, it is basically what allowed them to achieve enormous personal wealth and power to begin with and to preserve it. So that seems to be a rather obvious pick.

Socialism, on the other hand, as an ideal, implies societal or communal control over economic entities and their operations. So we have to give a little more thought to the question than with capitalism.

We might approach it cynically and ask ourselves "what will they gain from it." Perhaps we could even approach it idealistically and suppose that they have seen the error in their greed and wish to make amends for it. Who knows, but for the purpose of better safe than sorry, I'll assume worst case scenario, that they have selfish (as opposed to altruistic) motives which begs the question of what do they have to gain from it.

We could start with the assumption that they truly want societal or communal control over their economic activities instead of personal control, because that is fundamental to the definition of socialism and we'll assume they're not stupid and therefore know what 'socialism' would mean for them definitionally. From that standpoint it's a bit more puzzling. Are they really offering to surrender their personal control in favor of social participation (or maybe we should call it "meddling" from their perspective)?

Again let's take the cynical approach and assume they're not doing it for altruistic reasons. They somehow see an advantage in socialism for themselves that they do not perceive as present in capitalism.

What might that advantage be?

Looking at the history of social organization itself, we might equally ask why have liberal values won favor at all over the course of human social evolution? Why do any elites even allow it? Why not just brutally uphold a system which benefits them much more than everyone else-pay police to punish rebels and stomp out any dissent whatsoever. Wouldn't that be the most direct and straightforward approach to preserving selfish interests.

Given where civilization is at this point, my guess is that trying to quell disent is more pragmatic to rulers than trying play an endless game of whack a mole through crushing it. There are very few fully functioning monarchies today. History has made it painfully clear what monarchs want and how they have schemed and manipulated society in order to uphold their power. Basically, any amatuer historian can spot the game. And stomping out dissent violently has historically had bad results when the elites who engaged in it are caught or disempowered by the people around them. The elites who engage in violence often face violence as a result, and that's scary for anyone, even the powerful to fear the people rising up with pitch forks and torches to storm the castle or bastille.

So that eliminates brutal reppression as a relatively viable option for controlling dissent. But there's still propaganda, disinformation and deception available. Propaganda has been practiced since the invention of information. Since the very first time a valid and true idea popped into someone's mind, there was probably the simultaneous invention of deception and lying to counter it that popped into someone else's mind directly afterward.

So how might calling themselves "socialists" pose an advantage to someone who wanted exessive control os society. My first thought is to go to a common religious analogy often used in Christian theology, of the predator who disguises him or herself in the guise of a member of the "flock" in order to mislead or undermine the security of the flock. Castro, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others fit that bill as far as I'm concerned.

Kim J Un calls his country a "democratic" republic. It's pretty clear why. He's certainly not going to advertise his regime as the Authoritarian Tyranny of Korea. He's going to say he's the "people's paradise." That's public relations 101 in my reckoning. That should be obvious. I don't therefore propose that the DPRK proves that 'democracy' is evil. That's the way I read it. I think your interpretation of 'socialism' is as batshit crazy as declaring 'democracy' as the root of the greatest evil.

But that's my interpretation. I can't think for you. If you want to believe something, then you're the only one who can change your mind. Just please don't include me in any of your 'revolutionary meetings' at the Carnegie Business Center, room reserved by Donald Trump and the Koch brothers on behalf of the Revolutionary Capitalist Party. It's all you. Good luck and enjoy!

[Immanuel Can]

So why would the selfish elites love it so darn much? Why would they be promoting it, and denigrating capitalism, or shutting down free markets, or fighting to eradicate small business and private enterprise? If you take Socialism on its smiling face, then surely that looks counterproductive to their goals...

Except they know it's not. It gives them everything they want...only faster...and more of it.

That's undeniably a very astute and valid question.

So we know that some promote capitalism and some are clearly promoting 'socialism'.

Given that 'capitalism essentially means private ownership over economic entities, it seems pretty easy to understand why they would promote that, it is basically what allowed them to achieve enormous personal wealth and power to begin with and to preserve it. So that seems to be a rather obvious pick.

Socialism, on the other hand, as an ideal, implies societal or communal control over economic entities and their operations. So we have to give a little more thought to the question than with capitalism.

We might approach it cynically and ask ourselves "what will they gain from it." Perhaps we could even approach it idealistically and suppose that they have seen the error in their greed and wish to make amends for it. Who knows, but for the purpose of better safe than sorry, I'll assume worst case scenario, that they have selfish (as opposed to altruistic) motives which begs the question of what do they have to gain from it.

We could start with the assumption that they truly want societal or communal control over their economic activities instead of personal control, because that is fundamental to the definition of socialism and we'll assume they're not stupid and therefore know what 'socialism' would mean for them definitionally. From that standpoint it's a bit more puzzling. Are they really offering to surrender their personal control in favor of social participation (or maybe we should call it "meddling" from their perspective)?

Again let's take the cynical approach and assume they're not doing it for altruistic reasons. They somehow see an advantage in socialism for themselves that they do not perceive as present in capitalism.

What might that advantage be?

Looking at the history of social organization itself, we might equally ask why have liberal values won favor at all over the course of human social evolution? Why do any elites even allow it? Why not just brutally uphold a system which benefits them much more than everyone else-pay police to punish rebels and stomp out any dissent whatsoever. Wouldn't that be the most direct and straightforward approach to preserving selfish interests.

No doubt that is right. It would serve the elites to maximize their control and stomp everybody else's to death. So we might ask why they have not done so previously.

And I think there are some sensible suspicions as to why that's the case. Firstly, up to now, the means to do anything like that have been lacking. We're now in the first phase of near-global economics, near-global politics and near-global media. Before now, a despot's ambitions were always limited by the means he had to control and influence; and even handling a nation-sized chunk was often difficult. Now, with instantaneous communication, e-banking, and so on, new mechanisms of mass management are, for the first time, available.

There's still a problem, though. They're not quite consolidated. So long as they're not, no one man or one elite group can grab all the strings and pull in a direction he wants to go. The thorn in their side that remains is made of things like free enterprise, private ownership, alternative media, paper money, land ownership, individualism, critical thinking, and small business. These things are agents of fragmentation. They are not under centralized control. They serve the local or individual interest, not the interest of the megalomaniacs and ideologues.

This is an unruly situation, and they want to rule it. So what have they got to do? Denigrate indvidualism and critical thinking. Poison education. Shut down or buy out small business. End ownership of private land or capital. Centralize everything in the government, declaring it "in the public interest," and end self-reliance. In short, make all the masses Socialist, while keeping the elites free to act as they please.

Why do people like Fink, or Soros, or Bezos, or Pelosi or Biden, or Sanders or Obama, or Hollywood celebrities, or the whole WEF...why do they still have so much money? Don't they believe in equality? Why aren't they shelling that money out to the people who are starving and dying on the streets of Newsome's LA? Why aren't they funding homeless shelters in San Francisco? Why is it that they love Socialism for the people, but get so darn rich doing it? Don't they think their billions would help people? Aren't they Socialists?

Given where civilization is at this point, my guess is that trying to quell disent is more pragmatic to rulers than trying play an endless game of whack a mole through crushing it. There are very few fully functioning monarchies today. History has made it painfully clear what monarchs want and how they have schemed and manipulated society in order to uphold their power. Basically, any amatuer historian can spot the game. And stomping out dissent violently has historically had bad results when the elites who engaged in it are caught or disempowered by the people around them. The elites who engage in violence often face violence as a result, and that's scary for anyone, even the powerful to fear the people rising up with pitch forks and torches to storm the castle or bastille.

Yes. And overt violence causes revolutions. And they don't want that.

But what about undermining the economy, so people have to depend on centralized government? What about destroying education, so people can't think for themselves well anymore? What about monopolizing the media, so that people only hear what you want them to hear? These are much better tactics of control: and now, for the first time, they're really available on the needed scale.

So that eliminates brutal reppression as a relatively viable option for controlling dissent. But there's still propaganda, disinformation and deception available. Propaganda has been practiced since the invention of information. Since the very first time a valid and true idea popped into someone's mind, there was probably the simultaneous invention of deception and lying to counter it that popped into someone else's mind directly afterward.

So how might calling themselves "socialists" pose an advantage to someone who wanted exessive control os society. My first thought is to go to a common religious analogy often used in Christian theology, of the predator who disguises him or herself in the guise of a member of the "flock" in order to mislead or undermine the security of the flock. Castro, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others fit that bill as far as I'm concerned.

Bingo. Call yourself a "Socialist," and become a leader among the masses of Socialists.

But Socialism still serves your most important goal: centralization of control. It does it in the name of the people: but if you're pragmatic about it, who cares what the people think they are doing when they mass together, so long as they obediently mass together? Any ruse works. This is a good one.

Kim J Un calls his country a "democratic" republic. It's pretty clear why. He's certainly not going to advertise his regime as the Authoritarian Tyranny of Korea. He's going to say he's the "people's paradise." That's public relations 101 in my reckoning. That should be obvious. I don't therefore propose that the DPRK proves that 'democracy' is evil. That's the way I read it.

Well, Socialism has nothing to do with democracy, actually, so that's just fine. Democracy, as I said earlier, is rule by the people. Socialism is rule of the people by "The People's Party." That's just despotism in Socialist robes, as you suggest.

But it's Socialism that provides the essential robes that make the deception work. Whereas people would recognize you as a despot instantly if you rose up and said, "Everybody follow me," you can say essentially the same thing by changing it to, "Everybody has to follow the people's interests...and I'm the guy who will show you what they are."

[promethean75]

Bro the greatest decentralization of power Russia has ever seen and experienced was when Lenin and the bolsheviks won the state. That revolution gave three quarters of the russian people more power than they ever had before. Even under the order of the party and its ranks, the workers exercised more control and decision making in their political and economic activity than they ever had prior to the revolution. The soviet model was absolutely brilliant for its time and place.

But now i feel like I gotta say something becuz I said something... but I'm like damn this dude IC ain't tryna hear it cuz I've said it all before and he's still on the same nonsense.

First u know that Marx only said something about a proletarian dictatorship and that 'if by force' steps were taken to achieve this, it's all good. But he doesn't describe anywhere, anything, that resembles the leaderships that happened in russia, china, Vietnam, cuba, or any of the others. What happened in those countries were attempts to apply Marxism/Leninism principles and practices... something that ultimately failed to develop due to all manner of contingencies happening around the world.

So what you're campaigning against IC is Leninism, not marxism. But even here you're being unfair becuz Leninism couldn't become anything but a failed experiment in those circumstances (civil and world wars, bad trade relations and sanctions). Instead of withering away as was the theory, these economic and social global tensions caused a stronger and stronger centralization of power again in each state. The shit did a 180 and turned into state capitalism everywhere it was. That's what happened.

Now none of this is to say that socialism couldn't ever work becuz the failed communist states became capitalist out of economic necessity, proving that a controlled market is unworkable. U couldn't say to that today becuz, incidentally, the vast majority of reasons why the failed states failed simply do not exist anymore. Lack of tech and industry, especially, and communications, and resource scarcity, etc.

So, the reasons why most would argue socialism would fail, are no reasons. Not saying it wouldn't fail, only that if it did, it wouldn't be becuz it couldn't be physically and easily done. I mean u can almost run a country by your smart phone. How could u possibly fuck up having a competent discussion with fellow workers about what to do next? That's all socialism is.

Bro imagine if the Bolsheviks had smart phones.

Okay so recap: IC believes that leninism proves that marxism is unworkable, not that marxism proves marxism is unworkable.


And btw name one Democrat politician alive today who doesn't endorse capitalism and the free market. Find me a genuine democrat marxist. Just one. Except Bernie.

And u gotta learn to make the distinction between the ol top-down socialism promise trick and the bottom-up compulsory revolution that occurs when the working class suddenly one day says as Rosa explains 'screw this for a lark!' and engages in a giant socially disobedient quasi-violent strike spook busting rebellion that brings everything to a grinding halt and causes us to totally reboot.

Now doesn't that sound like fun? Wouldn't u wanna try it just to see what happens?

[Immanuel Can]

The soviet model was absolutely brilliant for its time and place.

Brilliant torture. Brilliant confiscations. Brilliant gulag. Brilliant repressions. Yes, all of it brilliant.

But I lived through that era. And you couldn't be more wrong.

What happened in those countries were attempts to apply Marxism/Leninism principles and practices... something that ultimately failed to develop due to all manner of contingencies happening around the world.

Explain why Marxism always fails, and fails so badly it kills a substantial portion of the population and crashes the economy. Explain why, in spite of the millions of brilliant and skilled people in China, Russia, North Korea, etc., none of them was smart enough to make it do anything else.

Then explain why we should believe you know better than all of them did.

And btw name one Democrat politician alive today who doesn't endorse capitalism and the free market. Find me a genuine democrat marxist. Just one. Except Bernie.

Bernies a fraud, as you know. So are they all. They don't want Socialism for themselves...just for us. Socialism is their way of pulling us all into one thing, where they can "milk" us to their hearts content. They get all the power, all the money, all the prestige, all the freedom...we get serfdom.

If you can't see that's their plan, ask yourself why these megalomaniacs just love Socialism right now. What stake have the Hollywood elite, the WEF ideologues, the Democrat Party, big business, the major media companies,big pharma, big tech and the big banks all have in Socialism?

Answer: it serves their turn. Not ours. Count on it. They're not people who have proved they don't know what their own interests are.

But we seem slow to figure it out. Maybe it's that "ideal Socialism" that has never existed that is putting the stars in our eyes. But we'd better wake up before they get what they're expecting to get, and we get what we're not expecting.

[promethean75]

These are some of the conditions of the Provisional Government that was formed after the tsar stepped down but before the Bolsheviks held exclusive power eight months later.

Full and immediate amnesty on all issues political and religious, including: terrorist acts, military uprisings, and agrarian crimes etc.

Freedom of word, press, unions, assemblies, and strikes with spread of political freedoms to military servicemen within the restrictions allowed by military-technical conditions.

Abolition of all hereditary, religious, and national class restrictions.

Immediate preparations for the convocation on basis of universal, equal, secret, and direct vote for the Constituent Assembly which will determine the form of government and the constitution.

Replacement of the police with a public militsiya and its elected chairmanship subordinated to the local authorities.

Elections to the authorities of local self-government on basis of universal, direct, equal, and secret vote.

...

The next dialectically logical step (I say dialectically only to sound good) would be to transfer governing power to the soviets becuz that's the Russian peasanty and growing middle class. So see the state WAS fixin to whither away dude.