I found this quite interesting, perhaps you will too.

 

Karl Marx, author of the communist manifesto, was a supporter of capatilism in his own way. He believed that government should be a progression, and believed capatilism should precede socialism.

 

Read more

I found this quite interesting' date=' perhaps you will too.

 

Karl Marx, author of the communist manifesto, was a supporter of capatilism in his own way. He believed that government should be a progression, and believed capatilism should precede socialism.

 

Read more

 

Hah. I had read something similiar to this awhile back.

 

Very interesting, especially for modern-day-Marxists.

 

I mean, their whole view of their "founder" (although he just brought the ideas of communism to the public's view) will change.

 

Thanks for posting this. Intriguing article!

socialism is acutally a form of capitalism

Very interesting' date=' especially for modern-day-Marxists.

 

I mean, their whole view of their "founder" (although he just brought the ideas of communism to the public's view) will change.

 

[/quote']

If you have read more than three paragraphs on Marxism you would be well aware of this fact. It isn't, therefore, going to have any impact upon modern Marxists.

socialism is acutally a form of capitalism

 

Please explain!

there is capital gained in socialism. the difference is that the capital gained is redistributed to some degree. one could make the claim that the united states has a significant number of socialistic values, such as social security, the sherman antitrust laws, etc. socialism is a limiting factor to the corporate m-c-m' system of economics and promotes c-m-c' economics to a degree, as well as more standard deviation of wealth

And of course there has never been a communist state. The states purporting to follow communist principles were/are stuck at the socialist stage. (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ring a bell.)

So can capatilism also be considered a form of socialism?

completely unrestricted free market capitalism is not at all socialistic. there is no such state in existence however, as it would be doomed to failure

But then, in unrestricted socialism, there is no capatilism. In complete, unrestricted socialism, no capatile is raised. Each person has a job to do, that contributes to a final project. Everybody needs to do there job in order to run smoothly.

 

For example, John Doe works is a farmer. He grows food that is stored in a warehouse where people are given what they need. In similiar warehouses are stored other things made by other people, that John needs. Everybody works to provide goods for everyone else. There is no monetary system needed, for everyone is interdependant on each other.

that would be called communism. it restricts capitalism. you can't have "unrestricted" socialism by definition.

Marx saw it as a transition:

Capitalism>>Socialism>Communism

Consequently it should have been the most capitalist of states that first became socialist: Germany or the UK were prime candidates in his mind.

He would have been horrified if someone had suggested primitive, feudalistic Russia. It had not progressed to the necesssary pre-condition of capitalism.

that would be called communism. it restricts capitalism. you can't have "unrestricted" socialism by definition.

 

you're right, I'm sorry. I got the two confused in my head.

Marx saw it as a transition:

Capitalism>>Socialism>Communism

Consequently it should have been the most capitalist of states that first became socialist: Germany or the UK were prime candidates in his mind.

He would have been horrified if someone had suggested primitive' date=' feudalistic Russia. It had not progressed to the necesssary pre-condition of capitalism.[/quote']

 

 

I guess that's way the venture failed miserably. People were forced to uphold comunist ideals by killing them. That doesn't sound very effective to me.

People were forced[/b'] to uphold comunist ideals by killing them.

 

Forced being a key word. Communism is based on the restriction of individual liberty, so it must be forced onto the citizen. This is why it is doomed to failure.

it is a sort of "father knows best" trust-influenced relationship between the government and its citizenry

Forced being a key word. Communism is based on the restriction of individual liberty, so it must be forced onto the citizen. This is why it is doomed to failure.

 

*except in a Utopian society. The greed of man will always get the better of him in real life.

*except in a Utopian society. The greed of man will always get the better of him in real life.

 

Not necessarily greed, although that is prevalent. Just reaping what you sow and passing it on to your kids. This is almost instinct I would think.

All societies involve the restriction of individual liberty, despite the propaganda about the 'free world'.

Indeed, all GROUPS OF HUMANS (from 2 upwards) restrict eachothers' liberties.

It's worse than that JaKiri: sometimes I wont permit myself to have that last chocolate.

That's not a reduction in rights, because it's based on the choice of the individual. The repurcussions of an individual's actions cannot, by definition, reduce the rights that he has.

 

Reduce choice, yes, but that's not the same thing.

Has your sense of humour deserted you today?

Has your sense of humour deserted you today?

 

I'm dehydrated, and when I'm dehydrated I get crotchety.

didn't marx say something about the lower class taking control and making society classless? sorry, been a while since i was in that part of history class.