Nonsqtr, that's not really how I think of socialism. I don't think it makes any sense at all to say that everyone should have the same amount of stuff and live the same lifestyle. People are different. They all have different wants and needs, which is the way it should be. Diversity rules. Me, I'm kind of a monk/hermit, I don't need or want a lot of stuff and my lifestyle is pretty inexpensive by American standards. Other people want huge houses and lots of cars. They feel that they aren't good people without several large televisions. Forcing us both to live the same lifestyle with the same amount of money would really just irritate us both. They'd get sick of eating rice and I'd get sick of watching TV.

Ideally, I think it would be great if everyone could have the stuff and lifestyle they want, but I can't figure out how that would work with the laws of physics as I currently understand them. So that can go on the back-burner with other utopian notions.

But instead, I think it would be great if everybody could just have the stuff they need. That's all the socialism I'm after. I think that if you're an American citizen, you should be guaranteed a peanutbutter & jelly sandwich and a shower and some paper clothes and so on. If you're sick, we take care of you. If you're homeless, we've got somewhere for you to get out of the cold. That's it.

To me, that's sort of a necessary justice. It justifies the way the government forces everyone to obey laws. If they're going to do that, there has to be some balance. Otherwise, you're restricting freedom without any sort of compensation. If you're going to require people to be good citizens and back that up with threats of violence, I think it makes sense to provide incentives for citizenship other than geography.

I realize that's a weird notion. But it's mine and I like it.

Not so much into the taking of stuff or money or whatever away from people. I do think that taxes, including progressive taxes, are a good idea since anybody who makes wealth in this society is doing it in part because of the mechanisms of society that allow for and encourage the prosperity of its people. We all need the roads to be good for our businesses to thrive, y'know? So we all chip in, and the progressive tax allows us to chip in at a logical rate compared to the amount that we benefit as individuals. But I don't think that number should be any bigger than it needs to be in order to keep those social mechanisms well-lubricated. Schools need money. Sick people need money. Dick Cheney doesn't need money, though, let's stop giving him so much.

Perhaps one of you economic types could tell me, in something resembling real numbers, what it would cost to guarantee everyone a peanutbutter & jelly sandwich?

Maybe if you're an ant or a bee. For people socialism is a failed experiment. And we should do whatever it takes to keep it out of this country. And if that means slandering politicians who support it then sounds good to me. I support the "by any means" theory when it comes to keeping the failure of socialism out of this country.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

Socialism isn't a failed experiment. In fact social-democracies are light years ahead of the united states in health-care, education and public transportation. There is no way around it. And if you really hate socialism you should petition for your local library to be shut down since it is a socialist institution.

__________________
"In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule." - Nietzsche

I hear you DB. You're kinda talkin' "something broader than socialism" though, yes? I mean, you're talking about "the needs of society", which concept is kinda the "starting point" for socialism.

I mean, I kinda look at socialism as an "implementation", a "mechanism".

You know, if you asked yourself the question, "how would I address the needs of society", then socialism is certainly one of the possible mechanisms, right?

So, I mean, there are other "models", right? Like, the "capitalist" model is kinda like the "chaotic" thing I was alluding to, but what that means for individuals, is that the peanut-butter-n-jelly sandwich is kinda a "hit or miss", right? There's no "guarantees" in that regard - so it kinda puts the onus back on the individual, to go "find" a PB&J... and so, the argument I keep hearing is that, "well, lots of people can't find 'em, for whatever reason"....

And I mean, you know, you're right. That's reality. And at the end of the day, I got no problem with that. I mean, like for instance, if you consider healthcare to be a fundamental human right.... you know, I could see that, right? I mean, yeah... that would be just peach with me. All I ask, is that you kinda "do it the right way", 'cause it's one of those things, like there's no action you can take on this planet, that doesn't have consequences, right? Anytime you touch something, it's gonna change - I mean, this is like a "fundamental truth of the universe", right? Even at the quantum level, right?

So, you know, the way I look at this "in the larger sense", is this: at the end of the day, we're dealing with people. People. It's like, a "biological" thing. You inow, human nature is what it is, and there's not a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing we can do to change it, until we figure out genetic engineering or whatever -

So, it seems to me, that the "best" we can do, in terms of a political system, is to make it dovetail with human nature. So, one of the things I look at, is what kind of "consequences" a political system has, on people. You know, if it makes me motivated, that's one thing - if it makes me lazy and co-dependent, then it's another. So, you know, if we can find a way to provide "services" without creating "dependency", that's a good thing....

I mean, you see how I'm looking at this? It's like, I got no problem at all with a "pseudo-socialist" model that provides services and so on, as long as there isn't very much coercion involved. That latter part, is the part I'm going to fight against.

I mean, I consider it my duty as US Citizen, to do that. To me, that's part of what Patriotism is all about. You gotta defend the Constitution from internal threats, as well as from external threats.

So, yeah... univeral healthcare.... "services without coercion" - I mean, if they wanna do "coercion, that's fine too, all that really "requires" is a little thing called a Constitutional Amendment. And if the People want to let dummy polticians make medical decisions on their behalves, well then... you know, I can always move to Lower Slobovia, right?

Make sense?

Yeah, because Stalin and Chairman Mao were prime examples of Communism. I ask you, have you ever once even tried to read some Marx? Or, if you have, maybe some real Communists like Luxemburg or Trotsky, even some early Lenin like writings such as The State and Revolution explain and debunk quite a few stereotypical Cold War views on Communism.

Next up, I'll address your points that don't have to do with Marxism's basis. What is the incentive to work? To do what you enjoy and contribute to society and be rewarded fairly and being sure you can survive and prosper in return. The basic economic theory in play upon a post-revolutionary Marxist society is based on the pretty famous statement made by Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Programme: "In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" It's last bit being the subject of my post. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Education, since theorized by the Communists as not a commodity to be bought and sold but a right for the willing and interested, would be provided free of charge to assure they can contribute to society however they please and enjoy, genuinely. As they contribute to society, there will most likely be a surplus of goods and in turn a commons' in which people can freely satisfy their needs. From here I shall stress that there is no government in a complete Communism (which comes into being in stages), thus debunking the stereotype that Communism is a brutal totalitarian Statism and that Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, Kim Jong-Il and various others were, in fact, not Communists.

Why would people innovate and reach goals? They would innovate and reach goals because they are free to, allowed to, provided the tools to, and people like to innovate, people like to contribute and truly be somebody in the eyes of their society. Human Nature, the main theory against Communism, is defined by socio-economic environments and if even existent is a good Nature.

Now, either way, does Capitalism provide an economic equality or even happiness and prosperity anyway? Well, it seems to me like the basic economic theory is that if you try to accumulate as much wealth as possible, your needs will be served. All this creates is a Nature of (oh my, is this a socio-economic structure defining human nature?!) greed and exploitation, jealousy from the lower-class to the higher-class.

Because Capitalism has created this nature, people believe it is the nature of humans in general. The transition to Communism is not overnight, as I stated it happens in stages. This redefines human nature by socio-economic progress and Marx's historic theories will tell you this. In short, read some Marx or something before you make silly statements.

OMG, I didn't know the instant a country says what they are it's automatically true! No analysis needed! What a relief, for a second I thought some reading or common sense would be in order here! Whew.

I agree, a Communist State doesn't work. BECAUSE IT'S AN OXYMORON AND DOESN'T EXIST!

Utopianism? Yeah, uh, bad analysis there, bro. First of all, one look at Marx's thought and we may conclude that he rejected the Utopian Socialists such as Owen and Fourier and called it "unrealistic idealism" and based his thought (known as "Scientific Socialism" oooh, I see some contrast up in here) on rational thought and an observation of history. I have already stated and kinda proven that socio-economics define human economic action, nature, and reaction (which kinda fits since people react to stuff sometimes, ya know, every once in a while, it might be an okay hypothesis to say when things happen people react to it accordingly and how it would best serve them). Thus, Capitalism's creation of a socio-economic greed and exploitive nature in humans has lead us to believe it is the real nature of humans. If Marx and various other after him did not write their ideas and think outside the box with an analytical attitude, there would be no Communism and the fact that Marxists that think the way I do still exist everywhere proves that his ideology was a bit logical, maybe.

Just because some bonkers fool named Stalin came around and created his bureaucratic nightmare doesn't mean it'll never happen. Marx has said that history has a process, and that Capitalism's progress is necessary and a part of history, a historical necessity, but so too the rise of the socialist proletariat against the machine of exploitation developed. It will soon reach a boiling point.

Omg, "in some cases thrive" does that possibly prove that a Commune is sustainable? The fact that not everyone is a Communist doesn't mean they won't be. A Communist is one who believes in this process, not someone who advocates it. Marx did not theorize what the workers ought to do, but what they would be forced to do, but not by actual force but they will finally become not the proletariat but the revolutionary communist proletariat and will wage class warfare needed, because the boiling point had come.

No longer will I reply because I find your post the stereotypical attack on the theory and I have outlined in small detail its basis. Thanks for skimming through my post, which is my first one by the way.

The Borg is the collective, right? The "hive" - where they don't even know the word "I"... they have to be taught, that they even have identities.

Well... um.... I kinda view things a little differently. I kinda see people as "coming out of the womb" with identities.

It's like, you try to hook someone into the Borg, and they're gonna fight like hell, right?

You know, so, the "to each according to his needs" part, strikes me as kinda fundamentally "against human nature".

I dont want to meet other peoples' needs - I want to meet my own. I mean, that's, like, "hard enough", right? And if I had to give a nickel to every (*)(*)(*)(*) beggar I saw on the street, I'd be broke, and then I wouldn't even be able to help myself. And that's exactly what you saw in Russia - no food anywere, people standing in line for an entire day just to get a loaf of bread and a couple o' beets or something -

You know, so the system you're talking about, inevitably involves coercion. That's the only way it can work. Otherwise, it ain't gonna work, 'cause people just ain't gonna do what you want them to do. And the harder you try to clobber them over the head in that regard, the more they're gonna rebel. That's just "human nature", right?

So, I mean, I think you're dreamin' big-time if you think you can convince "everyone" to lie down and be a good little sheeple for that concept, 'cause there are always going to be some people who are gonna say, "no, why should I", and then right then and there, you're into coercion. So.....

Nah, I think it's a bad idea. Services without coercion, is okay.

That's kinda the "socialist" model, as distinct from the "communist" model, right?

How is that? Their identity is defined by upbringing, which happens after one is born. The main component of upbringing is society, ethics, and economics. Thus, socio-economics, meaning the study of sociological economics and how economics play into society and its function, and thus human nature and one's identity would be defined by the human's upbringing, based on that society, ethics, and economics.

It's not some sort of coercive "you have to be a communist" rather, history is a history of class struggles which must come to its end and abolish class antagonism, and the State, the organ of that antagonism. The people will soon be revolutionary, it's not what they ought to do, it's what they will forced to do, for if they do not absolute turmoil for the proletariat, worse than Capitalism's class antagonism itself, is in play and the society is doomed to fail.

Well, I hear you, but.. um... how can I say this - you know, if you're talking about "communist" like a commune, like a small voluntary collective, that's something entirely different from a political model called "communism".

I mean, the one involves voluntary participation, while the other involves coercion.

See, that's kinda the deal, the whole concept of Communism is predicated on the assumption that people somehow "voluntarily buy into it", and as long as that's the case, everything works fine.

It's when that's not the case, that the problems arise.

'Cause I mean, that would be the exact same thing, as We the People, here in the US, getting pissed off one day and saying, "screw the Constitution, we're not going to abide by it anymore[/u]" - and I mean, some of these politician clowns are so confused that they actually believe their job is to keep the government together under those conditions.... know what I mean?

So yeah, I mean, you know, human beings kinda behave like, "as long as it's in their own self-interest to be doing something, they're gonna be doing it", right? So, if they "perceive" that they're gettin' their money's worth out of the system, they're not gonna be unhappy enough to try to bring it down. Right?

But I mean, what you're gonna get with Communism, is one of two things: either a) someone's gonna try to stick to the Communist model in the face of overwhelming detriment to the People (through either coercion or through lack of services - like the Soviets, in both cases), or b) someone gonna be smart enough to move "away" from the Communist model when it's prudent to do so (like the Chinese) - 'cause I mean, that'll never work on a large scale, that would be, like impossible. You know, the optimal size for city services is around 100,000 people, so like, if you're talking a Communist system involving several hundred million people, I just think that would be "fatal" for any such endeavor....

You know, so the Chinese, are smart in that regard, 'cause they're recognizing they have to give their people "enough" buy-in to the luxuries and such, that they're gonna look the other way when they ban Bibles and start shooting students in the public square and all that - and I mean, so far, it's working, right?

Fail. A Communist believes in a Commune that practices Communism as the political/societal system and a Socialist Egalitarian Gift Economy to create the socio-economics created by Karl Marx. The political model of Communism would be practiced in a Commune. Kinda indicates as such in the name, "Communism" . The coercive States that have claimed to be Communists throughout the 20th century were truly State Socialist or "Workers' Statists" such as Stalin or Mao's bureaucratic nightmares that smeared the hammer and sickle's increasingly good name throughout the 19th and 20th century, and creating the Red Scare and various other campaigns that gave real Marxists bad names. Revolution itself is an authoritarian action, but only within revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat (the period of time after Capitalism and before Communism) express authority to gear society into the non-authoritarian communist model. Engels, Marx's companion, theorizes the dictatorship of the proletariat pretty well here, stating how the State fades away and authority is from then abolished, but the actual act of the communist proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie is quite authoritarian. Engels says:

“The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, operating amid class antagonisms, needed the state, that is, an organization of the particular exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited class in the conditions of oppression determined by the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom or bondage, wage-labor). The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its concentration in a visible corporation. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for its own time, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our own time, of the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase 'a free people's state', both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists' demand that the state be abolished overnight." (Herr Eugen Duhring's Revolution in Science [Anti-Duhring], pp.301-03, third German edition.)

So yes, in essentials, authority is used to overtake authority, but nothing more. As such, Communism cannot be authoritarian due to its abolition of the State, an organ of class rule and antagonism.

If I may make a suggestion:

Simplify.

You got all kinds o' stuff floatin' around in there - economics, politics, a whole model of how a revolution should work, I mean....

"Too complex". Right?

So, the first thing, is to individuate the concepts.

So, like, at the core of this thing, is an "economic model". It's what you said, "from each" and "to each" and all that.

Then, separate from that, is a "political model", that has to do with the concept that the workers have power. And, everyone works, so.... right?

And then, separate from all that are the "social dynamics", like the model of the revolution and so on.

I mean, you're kinda making this thing sound a lot more complicated than it really is.

So, what I'm kinda hearing you say, is that part (2) can't exist without part (1), and I'd probably beg to differ on that one.

I mean, the "collectivist" model is the foundation for all governments, in one way or another. Unless they're outright "dictatorships", and even some of those, are "benevolent", right?

And in the economic sphere, you've got a human behavior called "hoarding", that's gonna get in the way of the "from-to" political model. See?

So I mean, it seems to me, we need to consider those two things separately.

And then, the "social dynamics", well.... there's all kinds of models for that, yes? All you gotta do, is look through history, and you can justify almost "anything" that way, right?

So yeah. But look - let's talk about the "base model" - the "fundamental assumptions". That's the part I was tryiing to address in the first place. The "base model" is the economic piece, and the key there, is that participation is voluntary.

If it isn't, then it involves coercion.

So, it's like, you know, governments do things "in the interest of the state", and similarly, collectives do things "in the interest of the collective", because it's in everyone's best interests if the collective prospers, right?

So I mean, even in a commune, you'll find "rules". Most of 'em are usually pretty simple: "no peeing in the vegetable patch", that kinda thing. But they're still there - rules. So, those are kinda like "boundaries". Coercion is something different though, that's kinda what happens when the collective decides that they don't want you leaving 'cause your skills are too valuable. Right?