Communism. Good or bad. What do you really know about Communism?

[Brecht]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Looks like this guy had it right.

Ol' Ronnie was not a very bright person. A B movie actor, he spent most of his career making money as a poster boy for corporations, appearing in their commercials. That hasn't really changed when he was your president. I can't, with the best will in the world, imagine him reading anything written by Marx, let alone understanding it. But I'm sure he read the ABC Bunny.

Another Ronnie, apparently brighter than the former POTUS, wrote something interesting once:

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

The man who wrote that is Ronald Wright, Canadian historian and writer.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Brecht

Ol' Ronnie was not a very bright person. A B movie actor, he spent most of his career making money as a poster boy for corporations, appearing in their commercials. That hasn't really changed when he was your president. I can't, with the best will in the world, imagine him reading anything written by Marx, let alone understanding it. But I'm sure he read the ABC Bunny.

I knew people, years ago, who knew him in Hollywood. Reagan wasn't smart in an intellectual sense, but he was smart in a kind of dramaturgical and political sense. He knew how Americans wanted to see themselves, and he delivered that story. He also knew how to navigate extremely challenging political waters.

With respect to Marxism, his frame of reference was personal -- the Hollywood blacklist. Reagan wasn't a McCarthy type, but he understood the box office appeal of anti communism.

These threads came together in a particularly skillful (and generally unappreciated) bit of political maneuvering. That is, Reagan was a union leader (the Screen Actors' Guild)-- at a time when labor was under attack by business for ties to communism. He managed a really neat trick, of effectively effectively running a union and representing its members, while staking out a position that couldn't be attacked from the Right.

This is a much more complex backstory than is generally appreciated, and to this day a Hollywood production remains one of the most fully "union shops" of any American enterprise.

[Nobody1]

Originally Posted by Brecht

Ol' Ronnie was not a very bright person.

I think, at this point, he was already more concerned about not constantly shitting his diapers.

[Nobody1]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

Well, at least you admit there were mistakes , I admit it it for the capitalists, never denied it.

I think I asked you this before, I dare you to get everything in your house, apartment or whatever, anything you own that is s direct result of capitalism, throw it out if your that against the system, in fact I'll go so far as to even disconnect your power, I mean the electricity your using is probably generated by a Siemens generator, how much of your communications are satellite based with you even knowing ??? Stove or microwave in your house ??? Fridge ??? ISP ??? Hell, even the books you read might have ink made by a profit making company And the paper in the books, came from some tree might be recycled but sill it came from one once I dare you to completely ditch any and al things in your life that are a result of capitalism

Live without it all for a month and see what you miss and don't miss

Electricity was already discovered in ancient times. That did not stop us from abolishing the slave-holding society.

[Nobody1]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

For the record also, greed is bad, but greed also built a lot,...

See, there it is. The general misconception.

Greed does not build houses, streets nor bridges. Engineers, architects and workers do that. Not because they are greedy, but to earn a living.

I do not say that a Donald Trump can not try and build a skyscraper. It would be quite interesting to see how far he gets on his very own.

The simple truth is that a Donald Trump needs workers, but they certainly do not need a Donald Trump. Engineers, architects and workers need expertise, not lazy parasites whose 'knowledge' is limited to the useless skill of how to rip off their fellow men.

[crinolynne]

Originally Posted by Nobody1

Electricity was already discovered in ancient times. That did not stop us from abolishing the slave-holding society.

Indeed. The notion that capitalism had anything to do with inventions is simply naive. The fact is that capitalism is inherently conservative - the driving force is to create monopolies and stifle by fair means or foul competition.

As someone on this forum so eruditely put it, it is the mixed politico-economic system delivers progress across the gamut of what euphemistically called human development.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by crinolynne

As someone on this forum so eruditely put it, it is the mixed politico-economic system delivers progress across the gamut of what euphemistically called human development.

The "mixed economy" is not Marxist or Communist. The essential feature of Marxist/Communist economic thought is the _monopoly_ of the State over capital allocation -- and the "leading role" of the Communist Party.

Marx allowed for the notion of only the most limited private property-- so Communists sometimes are willing to permit, say, small farmers to sell what they grow (though they argue bitterly over that, and frequently reverse direction, torn between purity and hunger-- see Mao and Fidel for examples of Marxist who loathe the idea of even the smallest of private transactions).

But what they _never_ permit is what mixed economies _always_ permit: the allocation of capital to private enterprise by individuals and corporations, for profit.

So if you look at, say, Sweden -- a very pleasant and efficient social democracy-- its not remotely "Marxist". They've got a stock exchange, private banks, speculators, privately financed startups. And that's a big part of why Sweden is innovative. Spotify wasn't the result of some Swedish planning ministry, its entrepreneurial and privately financed.

To argue for markets is not to argue against a role for the State; but a "role for the State" isn't Marxism or Communism.

[haroldeye]

The fact is that Marxism is inherently conservative - the driving force is to create monopolies and stifle by fair means or foul competition.

There I've corrected it for you.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Nobody1

That did not stop us from abolishing the slave-holding society.

I'm not so sure. We only develop another form of slave-holding society.
Because capitalist people can declare what they want, but capitalism is a society based on slavery.
The slave driver is money. All the capitalist governments use this tool to push the common people to be enslaved to the society in which they live.
They only ones who don't want to play this game are the brigands, the counterfeiters (these last ones look cool they are peaceful parasites of capitalism ), but even if they don't use violence, they risk jail.
Today it's "almost" impossible to decently live without money in a capitalist nation.

Today governments subsidize couples to make slaves in tomorrow's society.
This is pretty terrible, because these governments even go to take in the pockets of realistic or fair people to finance the delirium of reproduction.
In fact, governments should fine people who impose life to their genes.

[Wendigo]

Marxists quite like slavery too, they just prefer to call it labour camps, the Gulags were a prime example

http://gulaghistory.org/nps/onlineexhibit/stalin/