SOCIALISM: you know, a little over a hundred-fifty years ago, there was a man who noticed how workers were being exploited by capitalists and came up with a new theory... "if the...

green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20

you know, a little over a hundred-fifty years ago, there was a man who noticed how workers were being exploited by capitalists and came up with a new theory... "if the workers owned the factories, there would be no exploitation, and profits would be shared equally".

He imagined a system where there actually was no government, no ownership.. or rather everyone had equal access to the resources of the whole... It wouldn't be anarchy, it would be many individuals working towards a common goal... From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. He called this system Communism. Notice the salient fact that there is actually NO centralized government in the ideal communist society.

BUT! but how do we get to pure Communism from 18th century European feudal societies being overturned by the industrial revolution? Ok, this guy's idea was to put a temporary government in place (sounds fishy already, doesn't it?) and this temporary government would be in control of "the means of production". And this temporary government would be controlled by the people, and eventually it would "wither away". The man co-opted the term Socialism to describe this intermediary step.

Now over the next century, this theory was actually tried in several countries... in every case, it didn't work out well. The temporary government notices that it has total control, consolidates it's power and begins oppressing the people... hardly a withering away of the state.

So, to summarize, this man's theory really exists only in his head. It doesn't take into account many significant historical events that happened after his time, such as the formation of labor unions, or the development of a service-based and then information based production. He also did not take into account basic human nature, particularly the lust for power.

In truth, the only actual experiments in communism are some of the "tribal" hippie communities on the left coast. And in actuality, most of those have evolved into capitalist models after the founders have moved on or simply encountered major disagreements.

SO? SO WHAT?

Why do so many people today, in the 21st Century (with flying cars almost) take his theory as gospel and twist it to history:

SOCIALISM => COMMUNISM = USSR!! + RED CHINA!! + CUBA!!

Is it because you guys are all old farts that learned about Communism in school during the McCarthy era?

The broader meaning of socialism is tribalism... community... and family. Socialism is integrated into every major religion... those with more help those with less, not only that but contributing to something that does not necessary benefit you directly...(e.g. let's all chip in for a fire truck, even though it will be money down the drain for everyone who's house doesn't catch fire.)

Every society has some socialism. Zero socialism does equal anarchy... every man for himself. ... I forgot where I was going with this... go ahead and comment

hondo812 Loc: Massachusetts

green wrote:

you know, a little over a hundred-fifty years ago, there was a man who noticed how workers were being exploited by capitalists and came up with a new theory... "if the workers owned the factories, there would be no exploitation, and profits would be shared equally".

He imagined a system where there actually was no government, no ownership.. or rather everyone had equal access to the resources of the whole... It wouldn't be anarchy, it would be many individuals working towards a common goal... From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. He called this system Communism. Notice the salient fact that there is actually NO centralized government in the ideal communist society.

BUT! but how do we get to pure Communism from 18th century European feudal societies being overturned by the industrial revolution? Ok, this guy's idea was to put a temporary government in place (sounds fishy already, doesn't it?) and this temporary government would be in control of "the means of production". And this temporary government would be controlled by the people, and eventually it would "wither away". The man co-opted the term Socialism to describe this intermediary step.

Now over the next century, this theory was actually tried in several countries... in every case, it didn't work out well. The temporary government notices that it has total control, consolidates it's power and begins oppressing the people... hardly a withering away of the state.

So, to summarize, this man's theory really exists only in his head. It doesn't take into account many significant historical events that happened after his time, such as the formation of labor unions, or the development of a service-based and then information based production. He also did not take into account basic human nature, particularly the lust for power.

In truth, the only actual experiments in communism are some of the "tribal" hippie communities on the left coast. And in actuality, most of those have evolved into capitalist models after the founders have moved on or simply encountered major disagreements.

SO? SO WHAT?

Why do so many people today, in the 21st Century (with flying cars almost) take his theory as gospel and twist it to history:

SOCIALISM => COMMUNISM = USSR!! + RED CHINA!! + CUBA!!

Is it because you guys are all old farts that learned about Communism in school during the McCarthy era?

The broader meaning of socialism is tribalism... community... and family. Socialism is integrated into every major religion... those with more help those with less, not only that but contributing to something that does not necessary benefit you directly...(e.g. let's all chip in for a fire truck, even though it will be money down the drain for everyone who's house doesn't catch fire.)

Every society has some socialism. Zero socialism does equal anarchy... every man for himself. ... I forgot where I was going with this... go ahead and comment

you know, a little over a hundred-fifty years ago,... (show quote)

You've lost your mind again. It's ok. It happens.

I can't speak for anyone else here but I never heard of McCarthy until Peter Boyle starred in "Tailgunner Joe", a made for TV movie that came out in 1977 (yes, I looked it up).

Next I suppose you'll be claiming that the true origins of Socialism/Communism was the switch from the hunter/gatherer model to the agrarian model. There have been some articles out about Gobelki Tepe that point to a comet strike that wiped out much of the food supply and I suppose the people surviving off it. Cooperation was needed for survival, or is this a fanciful ruse? It's believable but that doesn't mean it's true.

Friggen commies, err Friggen comets!

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

I don't have any references to cite or any substantive knowledge to impart, but how would Native American trible lifestyle and governance factor in. Those peoples had no written language so the only history is that of 'mouth to ear.' Given that those peoples were as suscetible to things like Alzheimers some that oral history could just be imaginings.

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

John_F wrote:

I don't have any references to cite or any substantive knowledge to impart, but how would Native American trible lifestyle and governance factor in. Those peoples had no written language so the only history is that of 'mouth to ear.' Given that those peoples were as suscetible to things like Alzheimers some that oral history could just be imaginings.

That is pretty much the same method used in writing the Bible.