It was Marx who developed the concept of 'the dictatorship of the proletariat'
but it was supposed to be temporary. The third stage of marxian socialism ( after violent overthrow of the bourgoisie and dictatorship of the proletariat by the proletariat) is the state fades away.

__________________
It is more patriotic when you don't ask questions

I would argue that the state has a significant interest in making education at all levels accessible to all citizens. The leaps and bounds the Irish economy has gone through in the last 30 years are largely due to new policies promoting free education, as well as significant encouragement of foriegn investment.

__________________
"Speak your mind even if your voice shakes" -- Maggie Kuhn

You really think it's not broke? Try driving through a "blighted" neighborhood some day, or better yet, stop and talk with the people. Try talking with the millions of Americans who are reduced to part time or rely on inadequate work because they are unable to get adequate health care and therefore can't work full time to get health insurance that costs more than their rent and daycare combined. Try finding a liveable apartment affordable to a person working at a Walmart or Kmart in a medium sized American city. Try being a teenager unable to find a job because jobs traditionally reserved for teens have been swamped by adults unable to find anything better. Our system is broke, and only the illusion of class mobility keeps uprisings from happening.

__________________
"Speak your mind even if your voice shakes" -- Maggie Kuhn

people imagined that robots would one day do much of the work allowing people to decrease the number of hours per week ea individual would have to work. Instead, people are working more hours per week because our system of privatized health care and benefits make it much cheaper for an employer to work one person 60 hours a week than 2 people at 30 hours. If we calculated unemployment the way europeans do, we might find they compare favorably.

As the Fascists knew and communists did not appreciate, people love their myths. The myth of the lone gun toting American, surviving on his wits and ingenuity, ever ready to do battle is an essential part of the American psyche. Combine that with the belief among some evangelical Christians that the poor are poor for a reason and that wealth is a sign of God's approval and what you have is a deep suspicion of social spending .

I find the bit about how much Americans love to be free just a little, funny. Most people are slaves to their credit cards and their employers, terrified to leave their jobs for fear of losing health care, afraid to be self -employed with all of the uncertainty that entails. And Americans seem to be quite content to give up civil liberties in exchange for security or the perception of security.

Alright, I'll go with the Social Democrats for now. An enemy of the right wing is my friend but if I see any move against socialism or communism then I'm gone.

__________________
“Capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to self-destruction. No universal selfishness can bring social good to all.” —Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois

This was a private message, bund I want to reply publicly. My respond comes a little late for I had hurries.

From my point of view, the difference is quite clear. Communism is more like a religion, while Social Democratism has a more senseful and pragmatical approach. In my world view, this is the source for all the differences and contradictions between these two branches of socialism.

The socialistic movement grew of the economic and social injustice of the 19th century. It appealed to the masses and compassionate and idealistic middle and intellectual. It gathered its strength from the emotions of social justice and solidarity. It's goal was to create a utopia, where the men would be equal and where the plagues of the industrial age would be removed.

Marx and Engels created the socialistic ideology and movement. Its purpose was to aid the masses and through revolution create the dreamed utopia.

But the ideological model was not viable. Marx never defined, how the society would work in practice, or which would be the fundamental laws, which would keep the society functioning. It was a speculative model, never tested in the real life. I would say that the tragedy of the socialistic movement was that its ideological framework, created to support the goal, was fundamentally broken and vague. The other tragedy was the personality cult and the religous surrender to the ideology, which was impractical or impossible to realize.

Communists were the fanatics of the ideology, where the social democrats did hold more realistic view. When the communistic wing of socialism developed more radical, and the flaws in the Marxist ideology became more obvious, the split of the movement became inevitable. Social democrats did not want to implement a system, which did not serve the people's benefit.

The radicalization of the communistic wing and its ideology foreshadowed the totalitarism and Stalinism of the Soviet Union. Perhaps the biggest problem in the movement was its religious and fanatistic nature and its love of power and its symbols. In many ways it lost its original goal in helping people and adopted a new ideology of power. In this selfish ideology the only regogniced good was the power of the communistic movement. Differing opinions were no more tolerated and people had to submit under the official ideology and the party authorities, even when the ideology or authorities no more served the original purpose.

Under this fanatical belief system, Lenin started to build his utopia. When the democratic parliament opposed him, he dissolved the parliament. When the opposition opposed him, he created the brutal war communism and crushed the opposition. When the peasants opposed him, he destroyed the peasants. When his own party member opposed him, he eliminated these people. Millions of people died for this cause. Did he ever consider its worth?

The problem was indeed the fanatism. Because the fundamentalistic mind set, the communists never questioned these terrible sacrifices or regoniced them any value. Because the fundamentalistic mind set, communists never questioned if their social model would ever work in reality. Because their fundamentalistic mind set, they never even questioned, if they social model - working in reality - would ever benefit the people.

Instead, the religious fanatism was the failure of the communistic movement. People had no value in front of the ideology and could be freely sacrificed. Huge mistakes and sacrifices could be made without any objections. The ideology could freely corrupt to totalitarism and to support only the good and absolute power of the tyrannical leadership. It made possible the dissolve of the parliament. It made possible war communism. It made possible the raise of Stalin. It made possible Stalinism. It made possible the totalitarism and the olicarchial tyranny. It lead directly to all what was wrong and evil in the communistic movement.

If you want still to know the difference between the social democratism and communism, read 1984. It underlines all the failures, the corruption and the fall of communism as ideology (and other fanatical ideologis like Nazis) in common.

And BTW, it was written by Orwell, who was a social democrat to his last breath.

- BtD

__________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
[George Orwell, 1984]

And BTW, I consider the fanatism - in common - as the pestilence of the human kind. That is why I don't like nationalism, strong ideologism or strong religious believes.

This is also the reason why I have not been happy about the polarization of the U.S. politics. Especially I don't like the way, how the conservatives seem to maintain their power and play the media game. I would consider JP5 and Barneyas warning examples, where it might lead. Sorry to say this, but I am serious. There has also been - of course - warning liberal examples

I'm - of course - not living in the U.S, but somehow these things tend to concern the whole world.

- BtD

__________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
[George Orwell, 1984]

I must admit what BtD said is true about how communism in Russia/China turned from its true purpose. Check the CPUSA. Their for real.

__________________
“Capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to self-destruction. No universal selfishness can bring social good to all.” —Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois

Ok.. This was like a 'brain typo'.. I was wrong, and I kind of knew it before..

To be honest, I haven't read so much communistic literature. I have read some pieces from Lenin and Marx a long time ago. I have some historical interest for these works. I have also read a book from a soviet academician(or engineer?, I don't remember), who analyzed very directly the problems in the soviet economic system. It was most interesting book and an eye-opener.

Especially the problems in the technology transfer were quite interesting. In many case, the universities had lot of advanced technology to share, but the actual production used easily the anciest technology from the world wars. If the USSR had utilized the techonology they actually had, they would had been a much more stronger and viable nation.

But - hey - 'why to fix if the old is working'? This was likely the reasoning that killed the communism.

- BtD

__________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
[George Orwell, 1984]

What is "all levels" though? Is the state obligated to educate you indefinitely?

It just seems ironic to me that the nation that is most criticized for it's lack of education is also the dominant economic power on Earth, and produces the most advanced technology. This would seem to run contrary to your theory that the state has an interest in educating everyone, all the time.

I cant think of any major city that does not have programs in place to educate people who want it. No, it isnt always free, and it is not as good as what you can pay for. But it's a way out. Which is all the state is obligated to provide IMO.

Yeah, people keep pointing to the growth of other nations as evidence that their systems are better. They are basically assuming that moving up from step 3 of the ladder to step 6, is the same as moving from step 9 to step 10. It's not the same thing.

America's economic growth during comperable periods in our history was the same. It is easier at that level...especially now, because it's alll already been done. They dont have to pioneer anything.

I will if I can find one...they have been steadily decreasing in numbers over the years.

I cant speak for other areas of the nation, but Denver is most certainly much better now than it was 20 years ago.

But they have the option of doing so.

Geez...I would like to be a millionaire. Because I cant, does that mean I am oppressed? Gimme a break. You dont want the option of using a credit card if you want to? No one is forcing you to use it.

You want to take away all the incentives and then still expect that people will put forth the same effort. Thats not going to happen.

Thats called "compromise". It is not a compromise anyone is forcing them to make. It's a choice. Choice = freedom. More choice = more freedom.

You have more choices here than you do in Europe.