Oh dear

[TomOfSweden]

Tom, simply put, the separation of the classes is widening. As I understand the topic (could misunderstand the whole bit) is that a s o c i a l i s t society is a separation of the classes (rich stay rich poor stay poor). Though we are not yet there, we are headed that way. There are organizations and groups that are endeavoring to fight that, but it is still happening. I think the slums in the major American cities are a good testament to it. Crime rate is high there because the people feel trapped, feel they can't get ahead. This may be the case, it may not. However it is how those people feel. There are exceptions to this, and is what feeds the American Dream.

The increased gaps between rich and poor, I don't necessarily see as a problem.

Some people are driven and some are lazy. We are differently inspired and have different hopes and dreams. Some have as their ultimate goal in life to do two chicks at one time. Another wants to own two Jaguars. If a person doesn't want to work I think he should be free to do so, but also be free from social welfare. A person who does not wish to add to the communal treasure chest shouldn't be blamed when not doing so. My issue isn't with this.

Until we've figured out "the purpose of life" I think it is wrong to tell people what they should want with their lives.

People who own their own companies generally work fucking hard. They deserve the fruits of it.

My issue is with condemning people from birth. Having them grow up with ready made labels they are expected to wear. To let people be the master of their destiny. If they want it of course.

This cannot be done without state intervention. At least not for all classes. If people will always be at the mercy of someone else's whim their minds will always be shaped by that.

The nice thing with state subsidies is that the recipients don't have to grovel in the dirt from gratitude to someone who'll expect their kindness repaid. We are all a part of an intricate financial network. We are all living off the fruits of earlier generations. There is very little in our lives we ourselves can claim is our and only our creation. This is equally true for those who are in power today. They are elevated by the rest of society a lot more than they have climbed themselves. This should be obvious to anybody, but we needed Marx to have this pointed out to us before anybody noticed.

My understanding of Marx and Mao is that their society is communist based, not s o c i a l i s t. Though I could have the differences all mixed up, and don't mind a lesson if I do.

Words change. Marx invented both the words so******m and communism and used them interchangeably. But words get connected with all kinds of connotations the original author didn't think of.

An important thing to realise with Marx is that it's the end goal which he talks about. He only proposed the communist revolution because he couldn't imagine a world where the ruling class would give up their privileges without a war. Which was exactly what happened in the west. If they'd done it without Marx first urging revolution, is another matter. It's far from inevitable.

So******m and communism are old concepts now and it would be better to modernise them. But we've yet to come up with better words for it. But Mao's China had a dictator at the top, which by definition isn't communist. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" means that the working class are in power. Once Mao seized power he stopped being working class. It was the same thing that happened in Russia and everywhere else we've seen communist revolutions. This BTW is a controversial interpretation.

I'd argue that every democratic country in the world today is communist as far as Marx is concerned. But this is controversial and far from a popular interpretation. Marx had plenty of economic theories which just where total bollocks. That's why Marx is most famous as a philosopher and not an economist. He wasn't very good at maths. So if you want to be strict about Marxist theory then none of it is possible to even potentially be carried out.

It's just that we don't really have any better words for what so******m and the spirit of so******m is. It's simply the idea that man has to step in and axle the task which was traditionally given to God. Because it seems that only man can carry it out as God intended. I think this is what put so******m on a collision course with religion. Marx didn't have anything against the philosophical religious ideas as such. It was priests, who where most often in bed with the rulers, that he had issue with.

Anyway... I'm not so******t because I am for equality for the sake of equality. I'm so******t because I think it is in the best interest for all of humanity. If we rob people of their hopes and dreams we'll get a very dangerous world. But this is equally true for the unemployed in the ghetto as the well educated and driven entrepreneur. There is no magic bullet. Balance is the key. And I also think that we'll never fully succeed. There is no perfect state or society. Somebody will always be caught in the cracks. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can.

I'm also a big fan of a pragmatic political approach rather than ideological. What I mean is that we should set a goal, throw money at it... and if it doesn't work, then do something different, no matter what the ideology says. But this is how so******m has worked in practice in western Europe toward the en of the 20'th century.

PS! A huge contribution of Marx was his way of reading history. Not based on the acts of kings and statesmen but whole societies driven by material conditions. Today this is so obvious to us that we just take it for granted. It is very easy today to ignore how steeped in Marxism every aspect of our lives and thinking are. The communist revolution has swept most of the world and was successful. We just didn't notice it because we forgot where the ideas came from.

Another long rant. he he. I need to get a hobby.