Kindly explain Communism

So then it sounds like all that's needed for socialism to work perfectly is to find some conservative liberals to participate in it..problem solved!!

 

Your idea of "forced socialism" was a product of communist parties seizing state power and imposing controls on the society. That is over. It failed as you know. Today the strategy is worker co-ops and it's entirely voluntary. SIX states have already recently passed legislation to provide a pathway for worker co-ops to form, and its growing.... MA, RI, NY, TX, NC, CA.

 

It's a joke, but I bet the REAL figure isn't that terrible far off - actually (80%+ would be my guess.) At Berkeley it's probably about 103% (but math was never my best subject, so don't quote me.)

 

We are on opposing sides. I love what the founders started. It works well with certain things involved. The last 40 or so years have whittled that away. Folks just need a bit of education and some hope and things will get better for the republic. They believe too many lies, now. Folks get too comfortable.

 

See my post #252 right above.

 

That's what I got out of the articles I read. They are not truly communist.

 

Of course they must work.

 

Hopefully these are not the same people that brought Seattle the "$15/hour minimum wage!" job-killing nonsense.

 

What's the connection with those particular states? I'd have to say immigrants, but that's simply a guess.

 

But liberals would rather have someone else work, and then take that money through taxation - that's the liberal modus operandi.

 

I honestly do shop at a co-op in my town, and I love it. Overall better attitude than at the corporate for-profit mega-stores.

 

I'm kidding!

 

You don't seem to understand that it is all swinging negative for a reason. Economies don't stand still. They evolve and change as they advance. We now have an oligopoly and that would NOT end due to our opinions or petitions or who we elect. It will continue to evolve and change and get worse and worse. Hell, we are facing a near-term crash but this time, for the first time, the middle class didn't recover during the brief "improvement" as the economy "recovered". So we don't have the cushion we're accustomed to which eases the effects of the crashes on us. I'm pretty lucky having made some very good moves in the past, so I'm better off than most middle class folks. But when it hits, it's going to be bad. And its because capitalism is in crisis. It is no longer possible for the middle class to share in the good times. So wages have been flat for 40 years and income disparity has exploded.

So keep hoping for a return to "the good old days". I hope the next crash doesn't hurt you too much.

 

Crank, how about a response to this since it's an attempt to answer you
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...lain-communism.526649/page-10#post-1068763027

 

evolving naturally? splain please. wasn't a family thing, if that's what you mean...my then girlfriend and her hippy mother lived there and I sort of melted* into the scene and became a fixture...

(* that's an LSD reference)

 

You never answered my question about those states.

Economies change with needs. They are never static. I don't wish for the old economy. I wish for the original governance. There is a difference. It can work and does, or Scandinavia wouldn't. They can't work, without capitalism. Socialism is simply moving more money to a few. It will just be a different few.

There is a need for some socialism, but it's not about controlling the masses, for me.

I really don't want the vices that come with it in exchange for liberty. We don't have to have socialism to have those vices become legal. They can now. The population isn't ready, just the young. They have been groomed by academia, all their young lives. They know nothing else.

 

Read up on what the ideal communist society looks like.

 

Is communism even relevant today?

Why are you bringing up this subject again after it has been discussed so often on this forum??

And while I have your attention on this matter again, can you tell me your opinion about the the fact it was the right wing Republicans who financed Marx, Bolsheviks, and even Hitler {see my previous posts re Professor Antony Sutton - a conservative who proved it was this treasonous party that created these menaces}?

 

an ideal communist society? no such animal. there are only plans for a communist society, fledgling communist societies, failing communist societies, and failed communist societies.

 

I mean that Marx said that after socialism had become established and the population became accustomed to how it worked and all the attempts by the leftover capitalist hopefuls were ended and they had given up (you can see this would take a number of generations) that the natural change and evolution of the system would entail a diminishing involvement by the state machine. The state, by neglect, would "wither away". All that would remain would be clerical functions of record keeping and the like. Socialism would be so stable that the state would no longer be needed because classes and class struggle were over, and that is always the main function of a state: managing the class conflicts. So this stateless, classless condition he called "communist society".

As you can see, this must naturally evolve and just "happen". it cannot be imposed because imposing it would require a state machine to enforce it and maintain it, so a "withering away" of the state couldn't happen under those conditions. So it is impossible for a state machine to impose stateless communism.

Your situation was created. It didn't evolve out of socialism. It was probably a fun experiment, but not one that is realistic, maintainable, or reproducible for long-term stability.

 

Sorry. I couldn't have stated it as well as @Kode. That's what I was thinking. It's what I read. I found it when I was looking up something about Hitler's relationship to Marx. I'm pretty sure there is a post of mine somewhere here about it. Not sure if I posted a link.

 

any worker-cooperative must have a mechanism in place to make decisions. any ideas?

 

How much did the Treaty of Versailles have to do with it?

 

I guess you need to repeat them. I couldn't find any question about states in your post to which I replied.

Since economies change and governance changes to meet the needs of the economy, a return to original governance is impossible.

But the Scandinavian system isn't a copy of our original governance, so I'm confused by this.

No no no. It's much more than that. Socialism is about a complete change in the relationship between those who run a business and those who work and produce for the business. That is all turned on its head in socialism.

Nor for me.

"Vices"? --like entitlements?

Socialism is about worker control and ultimately, working class control. That is why what we've seen is not actually socialism. That control never existed. So do you think most people would opt for a loss of liberty, of freedom? Because in socialism it would be you and me deciding how it will be.

 

First, realize that my post to which you replied was about communism, and in this post you're asking about socialism. Let's be clear and not confuse them.

The mechanism for making decisions is codified in any Articles of Incorporation. I believe you can actually access some and read what they provide for rather than relying on me and having any potential doubts. But from what I've seen, worker co-ops reserve Friday mornings or all day Friday for group discussions of what the issues are that face them "today", and I believe many of them opted to follow Robert's Rules of Order. It's completely democratic and decisions are made by workers, for workers, and for their interests in the community.