Marxisim fails yet again
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

I am so glad I wasn't born in that bassackwards place. :-? Did they run out of grass to boil?

Good news.

But . . .
Socialism is next in line for failure.
That does include us, and US.

See Lenin and NEP:D

...and on a side note, I'm waiting for our comrade in chief to announce his 5 year plans:haha::o

Just a backward country NK is. :arrgh!:

I wish for something to be answered by my American colleagues here. What, if any, education in the field of political ideology did you get? Because the more you rant about Obama being a socialist and NK being a Marxist country, the more I realise that McCarthy has done a damn good job over the Atlantic. If any totalitarian regime in Europe had managed to do the same, I'm doubtful we would have any "free" countries left in the world.

LOL

Chances are if markets are seen to flourish there'll be another re-evaluation of the currency to reign them in again.

I disagree with that. I hope you do know Obama is not nearly a socialist?

But yeah, Marxism fails:)

That depends upon the level of education attained. For high school graduates, I suspect the answer would be "not much", or "what's idealolog-og-whatever?" It's no secret that our public schools are not up to par. For high school graduates in this particular community, I'd expect a rational discourse on the nature of the political spectrum and an ability to identify the major beliefs of all the -isms. Students with higher education are anyone's guess, based upon what they studied, but they'd at least have a serviceable high school education on the subject. Why, what were you taught?

Socialism, Marxism, and Communism are all used pretty interchangeably in the US, and they should be since they all lead to the same things to some degree or another, even though Marxism and Communism have never really existed.

Now here's a question for you: What kind of education did you recieve in economics?

North Korea is authoritarian dictatorship. You can't mix that up with communism. Communism is an abolishment of the social class structure with property belonging to everyone. It's a social system and not a political model.

The moment you have a dictator such as Kim Jong Il, you cease to be a communist state. There's a class distinction there. He's enacting his will on the people - the very opposite of what communism is. Calling NK a "communist" state is about as much of a misnomer as calling it the "Democratic Republic of North Korea."

oh, marxisim will not fail, be afraid !! http://www.homefront-game.com/#/home




...what a crappy scenario. :nope::nope::nope:

Well you can't have one without the other Mookie.

After all how does one "abolish" a social class structure? How does one prevent people from withholding the property in their possession from others?

Both of these actions require enforcement to achieve and maintain.

Enforcement means a political model.

The more extensive the abolishment, the more wide ranging definition of "public" property, the more authoritarian the government required.

My comment wasn't targetted at Obama, or any other individual.
It was simply a reminder that our socialist states are also on the road to economic collapse, and USA has become just as much a socialist state, as the european states.

Socialism is self-destructive, and it's our generations that are going to pick up the bill when it finaly implodes. IMO, socialism sucks.

I wouldn't call it a misnomer, since they never make it out of the "transitional" socialist phase. Socialism is as communist as communism ever gets, hence why many use the terms interchangeably. Both communism and all types of socialism are based at least in some way on Marxism, so again the terms are used interchangeably. Communists themselves refer to themselves as socialists half the time. I fail to see the significance of the semantics in anything other than an academic context.

It is my earnest hope that someday I'll be able to use all forms of the idea of socialism interchangeably with the word "fail", though I don't see that ever happening. The idea is as powerful as what it is based upon - the promise of free stuff.

Communism does indeed require a political model to institute the power. But it doesn't necessarily have to be a dictatorship. You can indeed have a democratic communist state. Where the property is owned by and controlled by the will of the people.

I see a conflict of interests in the tyranny of the majority and communism. I think the two are quite incompatible. Even if you had a true democracy with a communist agenda, it would still be subject to the same laws of politics that every other system is subject to. Certain parties would eventually take control, even if they had to do it through popular vote. Hell, they already do that in this system and we don't even have an obligation to Communist ideals.

The only Communist system I can ever see working even for a little while is one where some omniscient and objective supercomputer or something with enough resources to allocate to each according to his needs controlled everything, and even that wouldn't last long, since when people's needs are filled they always start looking for other stuff. It would only be a short matter of time before they began trading again, and a short time after that before the whole system flopped.

True success and happiness are earned, not given, not entitled, not guaranteed. There's nothing wrong with giving others a hand from time to time if they are struggling, but you cannot build a system based upon entitlement. Or at least, not yet.

That's why real communism will never work:yep:

I'd go for a system in which all basic needs are taken care off. Free health insurance, free education, some basic food if you can't afford any better, etc.
All luxury goods like cars, tv's etc. would still have to be paid for.

That would be nice, and I used to think the same thing, but it just doesn't work as well as a free market. There's a "line loss", so to speak, when the state gets involved. State involvement also creates a lot of economic drag. There's also the inevitable outcome of the state stratifying the structure or allowing it to be taken over by special interests.

Competition is key to any effective industry. I can see education, food, and healthcare being taken care of by a voucher system, maybe (that's what's left of the socialist in me) but such things must be handled very carefully. Governemnt is very slow and cumbersome, but markets are very quick and agile. If the system doesn't reward doctors or educators or producers or consumers or whatever, you will quickly find yourself with a shortage of these things.

The hardest thing to explain to a socialist is that there is no "quick fix" to anything. If the market is in control you will see an increase in the general standard of living over time, but it takes years or decades of continuous free-market operation to improve the quality of life in a nation, so it isn't quick. Conversely, a lot of socialist policies will result in an immediate improvement, but then an increasing decline into poverty an unproductivity over time, so it isn't a fix. Some believe that there can be a benign mix of socialism and capitalism, but the truth is that if you give an entrenched interest a hammer to fix your house, they will eventually nail you to a cross.

I won't elaborate further due to my tendency to write ridiculously long posts on this subject, but I will suggest that you read Milton Friedman's book Free to Choose. Perhaps you will agree with the tenets presented therein, and perhaps not, but it will at least give you a good perspective on why some of us are so certain that free basic services will not work. And to clarify, I'm not totally against state help for people who really can't take care of themselves. I just don't think that the state should be the first recourse. State help tends to get abused, both by the state and the helped, so again, you have to be careful with it.

Perhaps my view on the subject is best summed up by Geroge Washington: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.":yep:

I think Communism could work if the society is small enough, and by small I mean everyone knows everyone else. Anything larger is going to quickly turn authoritarian.