Here's some quote from Marx and Engels which could be A PART of an explanation for what happened in the "communists" countries. I couldn't find the most interesting quote on these topic, and cant really go in an extended explanation in my foreign english, but I urge people to read Marx and Engels instead of knowing them through intermediary.

"The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms [...] Like the rest of public servants, magistrates and judges were to be elective, responsible, and revocable.[...] Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in Parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people, constituted in Communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for the workmen and managers in his business. And it is well-known that companies, like individuals, in matters of real business generally know how to put the right man in the right place, and, if they for once make a mistake, to redress it promptly. On the other hand, nothing could be more foreign to the spirit of the Commune than to supercede universal suffrage by hierarchical investiture [...] The Commune made that catchword of bourgeois revolutions - cheap government - a reality by destroying the two greatest sources of expenditure: the standing army and state functionarism. [...] It supplied the republic with the basis of really democratic institutions. [...] It wanted to make individual property a truth by transforming the means of production, land, and capital, now chiefly the means of enslaving and exploiting labor, into mere instruments of free and associated labor[...] What else, gentlemen, would [this] be but communism, "possible" communism?"
The Civil War in France, Karl Marx

"Question:Then you do not believe that community of property has been possible at any time?
Answer: No. Communism has only arisen since machinery and other inventions made it possible to hold out the prospect of an all-sided development, a happy existence, for all members of society. Communism is the theory of a liberation which was not possible for the slaves, the serfs, or the handicraftsmen, but only for the proletarians and hence it belongs of necessity to the 19th century and was not possible in any earlier period."
Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith, Friedrich Engels
(note that ALL "communist" revolutions happen in country in which most of the population where peasant)

"Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?
No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others."
Principles of communism, Friedrich Engels

>> ^soulmonarch:
Upvote Paulitics.
He may possibly be the only non-socialist representative currently in the United States government.

I think Karl Marx just rolled over in his grave again for the hundredth million time (he's been watching Faux news). You may have won a prize, but then you'd have to give half of it to your fellow human beings. Guess you'll just have to make do without it, huh? I mean, more stupidity isn't exactly what you need most right now anyway.

I like the ending on the record better. After being told who won the English Football Cup in 1949, Karl Marx responds with, "Ahh, shit."

Since when was a command from Jesus voluntary?

>> ^BansheeX:
>> ^thinker247:
Of course! Jesus was a socialist, as we all know. Sell everything you own and give it to the poor? That is the KARL MARX type of communism! The neocons would tear his throat out.

First of all, neo-cons are bigtime socialists, that was sort of the problem. Second of all, voluntarily donating your own things to someone else is charity. Volunteering someone else's by force is socialism. And when 50% of a country's capital is distributed in that way, it's a huge problem. Learn the difference.

>> ^thinker247:
Of course! Jesus was a socialist, as we all know. Sell everything you own and give it to the poor? That is the KARL MARX type of communism! The neocons would tear his throat out.


First of all, neo-cons are bigtime socialists, that was sort of the problem. Second of all, voluntarily donating your own things to someone else is charity. Volunteering someone else's by force is socialism. And when 50% of a country's capital is distributed in that way, it's a huge problem. Learn the difference.

Of course! Jesus was a socialist, as we all know. Sell everything you own and give it to the poor? That is the KARL MARX type of communism! The neocons would tear his throat out.

>> ^punisher:
>> ^thinker247:
The man's not even president yet, and already some here are saying, "He's evil and it doesn't matter that his family is handing food to homeless people! He's EVIL!"
Fucking get over yourselves.

I think that if Jesus Christ (or insert savior/God of your choice) came back for the 2nd coming and became President, there would be people here complaining about it....

^socialism wasn't invented by karl marx. it was explicitly coined before he was even born. moreso, collectivist ideals (which form the basis of socialism) are thousands of years old.

OK QM i call bullshit on your constant invocation of Karl Marx in comparison to Obama.

Bullshit!

Sorry QM... maybe you'll get candidates who aren't a politics-as-usual assholes and a clownishly simple-minded rabble-rouser next time 'round.

I'll gladly accept politics-as-usual over a Karl Marx retread. As for clownish rabble-rousers, leave Biden alone, he's confused enough as it is.

>> ^brycewi19:
Are my ears deceiving me, or is this dude's name Karl Marx?

Hehe, his name is Karl Merk

Are my ears deceiving me, or is this dude's name Karl Marx?

That distraction aside, congratulations Karl. Hope it works for you!

Karl Marx got it right for once: "Crack-brained meddling by the authorities can aggravate an existing crisis."

I don't blame the free market, that's the Marxists' game, even though there exists 80+ years of soviet evidence that centralized government planning of whole economies remains the biggest failure ever tried.

I don't blame the free market for this, because fear and greed self-regulate it to an astonishing degree. It's naturally inept and corrupt government that created conditions for the free market to react in certain ways, typically for whatever cause du jour was in vogue at the time to buy votes.

Now these government buzzards claim only more government will supposedly solve the problems created by government in the first place. They are all like firefighters using napalm to put out flames.

I'm against Obama AND McCain and all these other bailout fks on this issue. At the time of this writing, no one is even sure the bailout would work.

Let the fking markets collapse and recover, or people will never learn.


As for being McCain's sole supporter (in order to defeat the Obamessiah) that's true, but only here on "liberalsift". Thanks for the ups.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
You complain about Washington bureaucrats, but seem to see no potential problems with business bureaucrats. The Washington bureaucrats answer to us, business bureaucrats do not. It seems like you are saying the best way to make education more democratic is by making education less democratic.


What in my comments makes you think I don't scrutinize corporatism? Business bureaucrats can and should be held accountable if they break the law, but when you have a strong, large federal government then you are opening the door to corporatism influencing that government and the people's rights become incidental. A smaller limited federal government means the business interests (as with bank interests, military industrial interests, prison industrial interests etc.) would have influence on our legislation.

That has always been my stance, though you and NR seem to want to paint me as pro-corporate, which is ridiculous. Being pro-free market and anti-large government does not make me Newt Gingrich any more than your welfare state ideas makes you Karl Marx.

Have you ever considered that plutocratic, kleptocratic, oligarchic, oiligarchic, fascist, technocratic "money" is a social construction to restrict the people's inherent right to 21st century medicine, information techology, and other fruits of...our natural socialist utopia?

Short answer: no.

Expanded answer: People in free societies nor anyone else have a natural "right" to take goods and services created by others without fair, agreed-upon terms of compensation. Karl Marx thought that profits were invented by greedy capitalists and therefore unnecessary to run a viable economic system. He was wrong.

Succinctly: There is no free lunch.

Fast forward 100 years. Nanotech and robotics will likely make virtually every product, good and service affordable worldwide...free peoples working in free markets will be the fastest path to that goal, not nanny-state governments, theocracies or monarchies.

I still don't understand how republicans are taking my money and giving it to corporations.

Communism is great on paper. It makes you feel all warm inside, doesn't it? If we want a smaller gap between the rich and the poor, we need not change our economy and government. We could move to Cuba or North Korea; I hear they're great places to live. None of those evil corporations.

The rich already pay a larger tax than the poor. They are already punished for their success. The poor already have numerous social programs available to them in this country. There are also thousands of private and religious, non-profit organizations. The problem with governmentally run social problems (taxing the rich to support the poor): when the government is left in charge of an organization, they don't work as well as they should.

Have you ever been to a DMV? Why isn't the USPS as fast as FedEx? Is Public Education getting better or worse? If money and/or time was no option, would you send your children to public, private, or home school to get them the best education available? Most Americans would say private, and yet they vote to give the government more money for social programs. Why? Because they spend our money so well?

The wealthiest 1% of the country donate millions to charities so that they can get tax breaks. I'm not saying they're saints, I'm well aware that they are just working the system. BUT - I'd rather have their money going into the private sector where those charities can fund research, give scholarships, and provide assistance to the poor and unfortunate more effectively and efficiently than the government does.

Nobody in this country should go hungry. Nobody should ever have to sleep with no roof over their head, or not have access to a college education. Thanks to the many federally and privately funded social programs they don't have to. ...unless they're lazy. In that case, what do we do? Support them for life on food stamps?

The gap between the rich and the poor in this country isn't the cause. It's the result. The result of poor education, low expectations, over-medication, and constant distractions. We could talk about taxes.... but they're fine where they are. When somebody promises to lower taxes here, and raise taxes there simply to get elected, I just shake my head.

Why don't we debate more substantial and longer term solutions? "Not being wealthy" isn't a disease. All people need is food, shelter, and opportunities.

Don't Americans already have these things?


In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Yeah, straw men are everywhere already.

Mostly I'm referring to McCain's plan to keep tax breaks for oil companies, and other corporate subsidies in place, while promising a shallower tax cut for the middle class than Obama, but a huge one for the top 1%, while Obama raises taxes in that range.

As for taking from the rich to give to the poor...not directly. I think the rich should be responsible for subsidizing better public education, universal healthcare, and unemployment protections, among other things.

What was it Karl Marx said, "from each according to ability, to each according to need"? I think a little of that is a good idea for everyone, rich included (not that they need help).

I think government programs should most benefit those who have the least, and find the revenue primarily from those who're producing the most.

I'm not in favor of some absolute socialist setup, but I think there needs to be a "compressing" pressure on income disparity, and in the last 8 years the Bush policies have been aimed at removing that pressure, and it's driven income disparity to near record highs in less than a decade.

I think there should be a bottom limit to how low we allow people to sink in terms of poverty. I think children born into poverty should have the opportunity to reach their full potential, despite whatever failings their parents had.

I think there's more than enough money in the country, and more than enough money passing through government to do all that, likely without even raising taxes a dime, just by shifting what we use government for.

I think tax cuts aimed at the rich are redistributionary -- in the wrong direction, and that supply-side economics in a nutshell is to say "in order to best help the poor, give more money to the rich" which is on its face insane, and only gets worse as the explanation goes on. It's a policy invented by the rich for the rich, of the rich. The "take more of my money, and give it to big corporations, because they'll spend it better than me!" is what I think 90% of the people voting for Republicans are unknowingly saying with their vote.

That's more than you asked for, and more than I originally intended to write, but I go on a tear sometimes.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Which corporations does McCain propose to give your money to after he takes it away?

Do you believe that the government should increase taxes on the wealthy and redistribute wealth to the poor?

P.S. Just so we're clear, I dislike McCain. I just like to focus on the facts instead of propagating straw man arguements.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
^ It's a metaphor for the other problems with John McCain, such as thinking the economy is just fine, that tax cuts should be largely skewed to the highest income individuals, and that generally speaking we're better off than we were 8 years ago.

If we must boil everything down to money, shouldn't everyone vote for who will give them the biggest tax cut?

For 90% of the country, that's Obama.

A vote for McCain is to say "take more of my money, and give it to big corporations, because they'll spend it better than me!"