13 words is not a lesson, it's a slogan. Cute, maybe. Glib, probably. Useful? A contribution to society? Definitely not. I'm serious. I really think that, in order to find the best solution for our society (and trust me, we haven't yet) we need to look deeper into this, and look at causes and underlying forces.

If you think you can answer a question about conflicting ideologies involving billions of people and 150 years of history with a single sentence, then you are part of the problem.

There are a number of counter-intuitive attitudes produced by communism that bear further investigation. For instance, under communism charity and philanthropy are virtual non existent. This is of course b...

13 words is not a lesson, it's a slogan. Cute, maybe. Glib, probably. Useful? A contribution to society? Definitely not. I'm serious. I really think that, in order to find the best solution for our society (and trust me, we haven't yet) we need to look deeper into this, and look at causes and underlying forces.

If you think you can answer a question about conflicting ideologies involving billions of people and 150 years of history with a single sentence, then you are part of the problem.

There are a number of counter-intuitive attitudes produced by communism that bear further investigation. For instance, under communism charity and philanthropy are virtual non existent. This is of course because the degree of state paternalism leads people to presume that all problems will be solved by the state and they need not contribute. However, this ultimately builds a shockingly selfish world view in people who live in the communist system.

I believe that Americans don't sufficiently understand communism. We dismissed it first as "the enemy" then as history, without ever bothering to find out what it actually was, and what it meant to the people who lived with it. (By the way, we're doing the same thing to Islam and terrorism now.)

We should be asking a lot more questions about the people who we disagree with, and the most important one is "Why?"

There's absolutely no good reason to ask "why", because it's pretty self-evident, you of all people should know living in the environment.

"why" in communism is very simple - it's because it "sounds" good. If you want to be a decent person and look at communism - it makes a lot of sense. Everyone's equal, everyone gets what they need, nobody's more affluent than the next person, nobody worries about money, everyone works. I mean talk about something to strive for. Can't knock it from any perspective... unless you're an islamist, but we're talking about normal, civilized people here, so we'll stick to those.

So even though there's no problem with communism, when you introduce our societ...

There's absolutely no good reason to ask "why", because it's pretty self-evident, you of all people should know living in the environment.

"why" in communism is very simple - it's because it "sounds" good. If you want to be a decent person and look at communism - it makes a lot of sense. Everyone's equal, everyone gets what they need, nobody's more affluent than the next person, nobody worries about money, everyone works. I mean talk about something to strive for. Can't knock it from any perspective... unless you're an islamist, but we're talking about normal, civilized people here, so we'll stick to those.

So even though there's no problem with communism, when you introduce our society and people that live around the world to it - it collapses faster than a steel building melted by exploding jet fuel. The human nature (in some, not all, but DEFINITELY some) says that they want to be better than others, whether it's politically, financially or any other way. That's just the way it is and that's why it falls apart. There will always be losers that don't want to work, there will always be morons that want to rob banks, and kill people and rape women etc. etc. etc. When you have all those 'human' traits mixed with communism - the ideal scenario doesn't work. What you wind up with is special stores for party members, special perks for party members, secret police, despotic rulers - is that enough of a description? How about millions dead in the process? So, with consequences being such and certainly playing out the same way in every country it was attempted - my question is why ask "why"? Isn't it evident?

It's not that we clash with those who preach it because we don't understand. In fact here in the USA, I'd argue the other way - it's THEY who don't understand. They preach something they've never seen or lived and go strictly by their self-serving ideals of rebellion and being anti-establishment (and it sounds "good" mixed in there somewhere as well).

For humans on this planet, in terms of qualify of life, if we can just generalize it, capitalism, at least the American version of it, is far superior. It's not even in the same ball park for comparison. China has always been in the dumps economically & otherwise... until recently... until it's been injected with capitalism and suddenly things are looking up over there, perhaps not for all, but certainly for many, and for the country itself. They tried the communist route for decades with no success, yet in a handful of years they've been able to seriously lift the country due to nothing more than simple, good old American capitalism.

As for your remark about islam, that's a whole differ...

For humans on this planet, in terms of qualify of life, if we can just generalize it, capitalism, at least the American version of it, is far superior. It's not even in the same ball park for comparison. China has always been in the dumps economically & otherwise... until recently... until it's been injected with capitalism and suddenly things are looking up over there, perhaps not for all, but certainly for many, and for the country itself. They tried the communist route for decades with no success, yet in a handful of years they've been able to seriously lift the country due to nothing more than simple, good old American capitalism.

As for your remark about islam, that's a whole different topic. Although personally I have the answer I've always had - I have NO interest (i.e. ZERO) learning about anyone who can conceive and execute a 9/11-type event. Nobody can convince me that killing thousands of people as they were on 9/11 can be justified. This is a different topic, so enough said.

You have to have a perfect society to enact communism. We don't have such society anywhere on this planet. Capitalism says - go do something useful for others and you just may get ahead. Communism says - don't have to do a bloody thing... you still get the same as someone breaking their back trying. I think there's a huge difference between the two, not sure what you mean by them 'not necessarily conflicting'.

And actually, to be totally factual - what I described above was the movement TOWARDS communism, not real communism, which none of these countries could ever achieve... the only thing they were able to implement was socialism, so that's what doesn't work at all... communism was only implemented in certain parts of Israel and for the most part even those have been horrible failures, requiring government subsidies and people from the 'outside' involved to keep them going.

To clarify to those who are surprised or concerned on both sides:

For those of you surprised that I am not a communist, this isn't the first time I've clipped from the Mises Institute. In fact, I read their daily newsletter.

For those of you who have mistaken me the other way for an ardent capitalist, consider the above-mentioned surprise that I'm not a die-hard on the Trotsky express.

Rasmus: I'm a relentless critic of capitalism, as it is practiced, and couldn't agree more with many of your points. However, the idea of capitalism, as I have argued in other clips, is not the problem. I believe that the idea of a free market is in fact good. However, that means preventing powerful busines...

To clarify to those who are surprised or concerned on both sides:

For those of you surprised that I am not a communist, this isn't the first time I've clipped from the Mises Institute. In fact, I read their daily newsletter.

For those of you who have mistaken me the other way for an ardent capitalist, consider the above-mentioned surprise that I'm not a die-hard on the Trotsky express.

Rasmus: I'm a relentless critic of capitalism, as it is practiced, and couldn't agree more with many of your points. However, the idea of capitalism, as I have argued in other clips, is not the problem. I believe that the idea of a free market is in fact good. However, that means preventing powerful business elites from controlling the market as well. Thus the greed and power that we see in multi-national corporations (Walmart, Enron, Halliburton, etc.) are not caused by the free market, they are caused by the government turning a blind eye to what are in truth anti-competitive practices.

To Wilhelm: You take the more traditional argument about what Mises calls the mistake of calculation. I agree with this, and think that a government taking an active role in shaping the economy is a serious problem which has universally failed in economies large enough to fully manifest the flaws of their systems.

That is why I advocate so called "socialism" only as a restrictive measure to safeguard the free market from controlling interests that would corrupt the integrity of it through de facto extortion.

The medical insurance business now is a great example of this, where in collusion between competitors and separate industries has produced a system where in market forces have been circumvented on the basis that consumers do not have a realistic ability to not consume.

This is not so new of an idea. I think that it was explored particularly well in the late works of Hayek.

But to help you guys understand a little bit better my complex and flexible political views, think of it this way:

I extend Mises' concept of the Mistake of Calculation in a heretical new direction: I don't believe that any one system is capable of fully accounting for the complexity of our world, and to think something as complex as economics or politics will universally conform to a single model is a Mistake of Calculation on a staggering scale.

In the end, what I am searching for is a Hegelian synthesis between antithetical social and economic models. I believe that there must be some underlying truth to each of them that should not be discounted simply because there is also some underl...

But to help you guys understand a little bit better my complex and flexible political views, think of it this way:

I extend Mises' concept of the Mistake of Calculation in a heretical new direction: I don't believe that any one system is capable of fully accounting for the complexity of our world, and to think something as complex as economics or politics will universally conform to a single model is a Mistake of Calculation on a staggering scale.

In the end, what I am searching for is a Hegelian synthesis between antithetical social and economic models. I believe that there must be some underlying truth to each of them that should not be discounted simply because there is also some underlying flaws.

Essentially, Record Sage, I am interested in isolating those parts of Communism that make it sound good, and extracting them. As I see it, understanding the good in the system is key to neutralizing the bad. Understanding the bad in a system is key to preventing ourselves from slipping into the mindless fervor of zealotry.

This is why, Real Napster, I actually agree with your summary, but I don't find it useful, because it lacks depth. I'm sorry if you find my protracted investigations lacking in substance, but that is your prerogative. I still welcome your input, I simply wish it were accompanied by some investigative analysis.

That's just it, it only 'sounds good', totally impractical in real world, so I don't really see how you can isolate the good parts, there's really nothing to isolate... they're good and they're there. The problem, at least to me, with the whole concept isn't the concept, it's the people trying to practice it. They're the ones that fail. If you can manage to get those people out of the way or change their ways - then perhaps you'd have something. But until that time, if it ever comes, I don't see what you can do on the practical end.

As for the greed element - I'm not sure it's relevant here at all. In other words, I think the greed element is a reflection (or failure would probably be ...

That's just it, it only 'sounds good', totally impractical in real world, so I don't really see how you can isolate the good parts, there's really nothing to isolate... they're good and they're there. The problem, at least to me, with the whole concept isn't the concept, it's the people trying to practice it. They're the ones that fail. If you can manage to get those people out of the way or change their ways - then perhaps you'd have something. But until that time, if it ever comes, I don't see what you can do on the practical end.

As for the greed element - I'm not sure it's relevant here at all. In other words, I think the greed element is a reflection (or failure would probably be a more accurate word) of the current man, not his ideology. I don't see anything inherent in either ideology that specifically promotes or demotes greed. Sure the communists always say that they want to take from the rich and give to the poor to make everyone equal, but in reality it's just talk. WIIFM is loud & clear among vast majority of people of this world, partially because of their desire for something better, partially due to their lack of strong enough will. There are plenty examples of achieved astronomical success (including financial) without resorting to greedy tactics. USSR fails in that instance miserably and greed certainly was a large sin for most there, but I give them some credit due to the fact that there was practically nothing there.

You can always find all kinds of people on both end of the spectrum... but with all of that being equal to a degree - look at the quality of life, achievements, opportunities etc. - no comparison.

Chinese example is unique where they're trying to implement, and relatively successfully, a capitalistic approach, yet still trying to keep tight reigns on population and continue with their quest for communism somewhere on the horizon. I think it's going to fail... either the masses will move from rural...

Very interesting perspective, Record Sage, and if I recall correctly, you also have some first hand experience of countries who have been touched by communism, don't you?

I agree with you that the failure of the system is a reflection of the failings of the people who create the system, but that to me makes greed all the more relevant. It is a common misnomer that communists are generous and capitalists are greedy, and that is a myth I wish to dispell.

I would also suggest that the overall failure of communism is also tied to the specific failings of its founders, Marx, Engels, Lennon, Stalin, Mao and their ilk. None of them sought to truly rectify inequalities between classes. Marx writes...

Very interesting perspective, Record Sage, and if I recall correctly, you also have some first hand experience of countries who have been touched by communism, don't you?

I agree with you that the failure of the system is a reflection of the failings of the people who create the system, but that to me makes greed all the more relevant. It is a common misnomer that communists are generous and capitalists are greedy, and that is a myth I wish to dispell.

I would also suggest that the overall failure of communism is also tied to the specific failings of its founders, Marx, Engels, Lennon, Stalin, Mao and their ilk. None of them sought to truly rectify inequalities between classes. Marx writes about the "humiliation of the bourgeoisie" which vendictively foreshadows the labor camps and injustices that in the USSR and China simply created a new, equally unjust social orders.

For all these people, but especially those who implemented it the most: Stalin and Mao, Communism was not a solution to genuine problems, but instead it was a means by which members of the proletariat could become the ruling class and force the former ruling class into de facto, and actually, de jure slavery.

I am interested in making sure that Communism does NOT sound good anymore to anyone, and to do that we must identify what makes it sound good and refute that. When I talk about extracting those good points, I mean finding ways to redirect the good will which may lead someone to communism so that it can be implemented to actually do good, rather than waste good intentions on a corrupt system.

Also, make no mistake, China is not practicing capitalism. Profit is being maximized, and people are pursuing wealth for their own sake, but that is not the same thing. China is a corrupt oligarchy, ruled by the elite, with no opportunities for rise and fall of fortunes among the ordinary people.

Ouyangwulong, You might be surprised to learn I am not opposed to the idea of socialism. Socialism is not evil, people are evil and evil people have more power where the power of the many is diminished. I am opposed to the anti-libertarian and authoritarian means by which socialism has always been achieved and the natural progression of socialism as a "stepping-stone" to communism. I believe the evolution of society will naturally proceed to an amiable and productive form of socialist society and world. But it can NOT be by force or against the will of the people. It also must exist in a framework of checked capitalism and democracy. But that is a long, long way down the dialectic road. Peo...

Ouyangwulong, You might be surprised to learn I am not opposed to the idea of socialism. Socialism is not evil, people are evil and evil people have more power where the power of the many is diminished. I am opposed to the anti-libertarian and authoritarian means by which socialism has always been achieved and the natural progression of socialism as a "stepping-stone" to communism. I believe the evolution of society will naturally proceed to an amiable and productive form of socialist society and world. But it can NOT be by force or against the will of the people. It also must exist in a framework of checked capitalism and democracy. But that is a long, long way down the dialectic road. People are just simply too materialistic and selfish for any form of Socialism to exist in the Western world as it exists today. Materialists that push for some sort of utopia are living a pipe-dream, where the only result of their wishes will be disaster, just like every example of these experiments in the 20th century. Authoritarian socialism only makes people equal by making everyone miserable. Under capitalism, most that are miserable are so because of their own doing. Socialism is dependency, Capitalism is synergy.
Also, lastly and most important, the outright rejection of capitalism is itself based in the materialist attributes of greed and envy. Capitalism is wholly anti-materialism and supports those "passe" notions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You're right Ouyangwulong, I'm from the former USSR and although I've had enough time to really see capitalism in action here in the USA, I certainly remember the old days.

I agree with most everything you stated in the last comment, except for the getting the good parts out. There are none. It's just like religion. Some people take religion as a positive influence, that makes SOME people be moral and just BECAUSE of religion, which others misuse it and kill anything positive coming from it, simply adding fuel to the fire of non-believers. It's not much different here. The concept sound good enough to pursue and there's nothing you can do, in my estimation, to change those unfortuna...

You're right Ouyangwulong, I'm from the former USSR and although I've had enough time to really see capitalism in action here in the USA, I certainly remember the old days.

I agree with most everything you stated in the last comment, except for the getting the good parts out. There are none. It's just like religion. Some people take religion as a positive influence, that makes SOME people be moral and just BECAUSE of religion, which others misuse it and kill anything positive coming from it, simply adding fuel to the fire of non-believers. It's not much different here. The concept sound good enough to pursue and there's nothing you can do, in my estimation, to change those unfortunate few who feel compelled to pick up a red flag and carry it on the streets of America on May 1. It was that way when I came here some 30 years ago and it's still that way now.

I disagree with willhelm on the opposition to socialism. It doesn't work, as exemplified in ALL of the countries attempted... again, even though we're talking communism, nobody actually had communism implemented everywhere, it was just socialism... supposedly striving to become communism (although never actually achieving such status).

I'm certainly much more knowledgeable on USSR than China and am sorry to hear your comments about them... sounds like it's the same old crap, just as it was in USSR. I've come to know a number of Chinese here and certainly admire them for their excellence in education, family relations, attitude towards other people and seemingly being calm and decent people. And it's certainly unfortunate that they have to live under such terrible conditions.

Record Sage, perhaps you're right about these smug suburban communists. I must confess that I talk to a lot of people with a lot of extreme political views, including conservatives, liberals, fundamentalists, survivalists, and even terrorists, but the most absolutely frustrating discussion I've ever had was with an American Maoist, who was of course privileged, affluent, suburban and bored. But, foolhardy or not, I can't bring myself to give up on these people, although I certainly can't say I expect any results!

Your observations about the Chinese are absolutely right. That is one of the reasons I love teaching over here. The Chinese have a seriousness about education and learning that is ...

Record Sage, perhaps you're right about these smug suburban communists. I must confess that I talk to a lot of people with a lot of extreme political views, including conservatives, liberals, fundamentalists, survivalists, and even terrorists, but the most absolutely frustrating discussion I've ever had was with an American Maoist, who was of course privileged, affluent, suburban and bored. But, foolhardy or not, I can't bring myself to give up on these people, although I certainly can't say I expect any results!

Your observations about the Chinese are absolutely right. That is one of the reasons I love teaching over here. The Chinese have a seriousness about education and learning that is on a level far above most other societies. They also have truly admirable family ties, something that I feel is lacking in America. These are both elements of Chinese culture that are ancient and can never be changed, fortunately.

However these days I feel that the majority of Chinese are frantic and anything but calm. Many suffer from high blood pressure, diabetes and other ailments that stem from an unhealthy lifestyle. I feel like much of this comes from the dissolute greed and shallow materialism that foments in the struggle for survival under communism, now unleashed in a acquisitive stampede for wealth in an opened market.

This shocked me when I first came here, since I presumed that China was in the midst of a crafty transition to free markets and competition; that the government made carefully considered moves to control and encourage the new capitalist economy. This is not the case. The Chinese government controls nothing, thanks to pervasive corruption, and they plan nothing, with typical Communist short-sightedness.

Americans know traditional Chinese culture from immigrants, but we don't understand how Communism has changed a culture. The reality of China is probably impossible for someone to imagine unless the understand what it is to live under Communism.

Recordsage, I know it does not work. Support for socialism is really not what I was arguing for. I was saying that in the world, as it exists today, with the mindsets people have on both sides of the Materialist/Naturalist paradigm, it IS certainly impossible. But the fact that it is impossible does not make it evil. It is impossible because the individualist nature of humans to achieve through liberty and freedom.
My point is when society evolves through decades or centuries of trial, error, and fleshing throught the dioalectic of materialist/naturalist, capitalist/socialist dialectic we will naturally accept more socialist values, while at the same time not abandoning the nature of indivi...

Recordsage, I know it does not work. Support for socialism is really not what I was arguing for. I was saying that in the world, as it exists today, with the mindsets people have on both sides of the Materialist/Naturalist paradigm, it IS certainly impossible. But the fact that it is impossible does not make it evil. It is impossible because the individualist nature of humans to achieve through liberty and freedom.
My point is when society evolves through decades or centuries of trial, error, and fleshing throught the dioalectic of materialist/naturalist, capitalist/socialist dialectic we will naturally accept more socialist values, while at the same time not abandoning the nature of individualism.
I agree with you that it has not worked and can not work in todays world. It certainly cannot work the way it has been attempted throughout the past 100 years of authoritarian brutality.
Believe me, RS, I am no Socialist. I just believe as time progresses society may evolve to accept the best parts of all economic models, while not being enslaved by a rigid orthodoxy of just one ideology.
But, like I said, that's a long way down the road and for now I am an unabashed capitalist.

As to Willhelm's comments, this is actually much the synthesis I was looking for. It is useful to make distinctions, to understand which lines must not be crossed. I believe most ideologies can be useful if given carefully prescribed boundaries. Your analysis may be as close as I find to an answer to this question.

And I would never be surprised to find your views are more complex than meets the eye, given you're level of thoughtfulness and education, I would say it is inevitable.

I think you also come very close to some of my own ideas about socialism when you talk about natural socialism and the evolution of society. My fundamental belief that powerful economic interests should not be al...

As to Willhelm's comments, this is actually much the synthesis I was looking for. It is useful to make distinctions, to understand which lines must not be crossed. I believe most ideologies can be useful if given carefully prescribed boundaries. Your analysis may be as close as I find to an answer to this question.

And I would never be surprised to find your views are more complex than meets the eye, given you're level of thoughtfulness and education, I would say it is inevitable.

I think you also come very close to some of my own ideas about socialism when you talk about natural socialism and the evolution of society. My fundamental belief that powerful economic interests should not be allowed to dominate our society doesn't compromise my belief that powerful political interests shouldn't either. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism no matter who is doing it, and no matter what their intentions.

The classic mistake of idealists, and the tragedy of communism, is that on the principle that intrinsic humanity makes all people equal, they take radical and oppressive actions, and without freedom, material equality is meaningless, because we have already robbed people of the humanity that warranted the actions in the first place.

I am impressed by the depth of thoughts uttered here. But I am not quite sure whether they have been written down at a school desk or at a round table in cloud-cuckoo-land.
May I call your attention to reality?

Financial globalization increases economic insecurity and social inequalities. It [...] substitutes a purely speculative logic that expresses nothing more than the interests of multinational corporations and financial markets.
[...]
The total freedom of capital circulation, the existence of tax havens, and the explosion of the volume of speculative transactions have forced governments into a frantic race to win the favor of big investors. Every day, one hundred bi...

I am impressed by the depth of thoughts uttered here. But I am not quite sure whether they have been written down at a school desk or at a round table in cloud-cuckoo-land.
May I call your attention to reality?

Financial globalization increases economic insecurity and social inequalities. It [...] substitutes a purely speculative logic that expresses nothing more than the interests of multinational corporations and financial markets.
[...]
The total freedom of capital circulation, the existence of tax havens, and the explosion of the volume of speculative transactions have forced governments into a frantic race to win the favor of big investors. Every day, one hundred billion dollars pass through the currency markets in search of instant profits, with no relation to the state of production or to trade in goods and services. The consequences of this state of affairs are the permanent increase of income on capital at the expense of labor, a pervasive economic insecurity, and the growth of poverty.

The social conseqences of these developments are even more severe for dependent countries that are directly affected by the financial crisis and are subjected to the dictates of the IMF’s adjustment plans. Debt service requires governments to lower social service budgets to a minimum and condemn societies to underdevelopment. [...]

Everywhere social rights are called into question. Where there are public retirement systems, workers are asked to replace them by a pension fund mechanism that subjects their own employers to the sole imperatives of immediate profitability, extends the sphere of influence of finance, and persuades citizens of the obsolescence of institutions of solidarity between nations, peoples, and generations.

[Source: attac.org; emphases by me, R.]

(Continuation)

There is still time to put the brakes on most of these machines for creating inequalities between North and South as well as in the heart of the developed countries themselves. Too often, the argument of inevitability is reinforced by censorship of information about alternatives. Thus international financial institutions and the major media (whose owners are often beneficiaries of globalization) have been silent about the proposal of the American economist and Nobel Laureate James Tobin, to tax speculative transactions on currency markets. [...] [T]his money could be used to help struggle against inequalities, to promote education and public health in poor countries, and...

(Continuation)

There is still time to put the brakes on most of these machines for creating inequalities between North and South as well as in the heart of the developed countries themselves. Too often, the argument of inevitability is reinforced by censorship of information about alternatives. Thus international financial institutions and the major media (whose owners are often beneficiaries of globalization) have been silent about the proposal of the American economist and Nobel Laureate James Tobin, to tax speculative transactions on currency markets. [...] [T]his money could be used to help struggle against inequalities, to promote education and public health in poor countries, and for food security and sustainable development. Such a measure [...] would sustain a logic of resistance, restore maneuvering room to citizens and national governments, and, most of all, would mean that political, rather than financial considerations are returning to the fore.
[...]
[G]oals:
- to hamper international speculation;
- to tax income on capital;
- to penalize tax havens;
- to prevent the generalization of pension funds;
- to promote transparency in investments in dependant countries;
- to establish a legal framework for banking and financial operations, in order not to penalize further consumers and citizens; the employees of banking institutions can play an important role in overseeing these operations;
- to support the demand for the general annulment of the public debt of dependent countries, and the use of the resources thus freed in behalf of populations and sustainable development, which many call paying off the social and ecological debt.
[...]
- to reconquer space lost by democracy to the sphere of finance,
- to oppose any new abandonment of national sovereignty on the pretext of the "rights" of investors and merchants,
- to create a democratic space at the global level.

[Same source]

1. I don't think capitalism or communism or asian maoism or calls for the uprising of the working class change the nature of man. Some men/woman are greedy. Some are criminals. Some are kind and considerate. Most of us are a mixture of it all.

Stressful conditions bring out the worse in us; more comfortable conditions allow a better part of ourselves to survive and flourish.

Marx wanted to stop the 'exploitation of the working class.' -- Workers of the world unite and cast off your chains.

But perhaps such an ideal is impossible. There will always be attempts at exploitation.

I often wonder, though, if many people applied too much consideration to what Marx and many other social thinker...

1. I don't think capitalism or communism or asian maoism or calls for the uprising of the working class change the nature of man. Some men/woman are greedy. Some are criminals. Some are kind and considerate. Most of us are a mixture of it all.

Stressful conditions bring out the worse in us; more comfortable conditions allow a better part of ourselves to survive and flourish.

Marx wanted to stop the 'exploitation of the working class.' -- Workers of the world unite and cast off your chains.

But perhaps such an ideal is impossible. There will always be attempts at exploitation.

I often wonder, though, if many people applied too much consideration to what Marx and many other social thinkers say: I think he was primarily advocating better working conditions and higher wages and many have turned that into a castle of ideas when it is very simple and a very common and worldwide desire by workers, under any system.

I, for examle, would like higher wages and better working conditions. Who wouldn't? In fact, I'd like a better job and once I find one I'm going to quit and move on.

I also would like free medical care and guaranteed retirement benefits.

The only "evils," I see in my capitalistic system are the facts that the boss always wants to pay less wages or hire someone new at a cheaper price; and that there is such a gap, growing everyday, between the super rich and the average person.

It would be nice to see a law that said no one could earn a hundred times more than the lowest paid worker. So if the lowest paid worker was getting $5.00/hr than the limit of wages would be $500.00/hr.

But some folks think they are worth $1,000.00 an hour and it seems that some efforts to control the acquisition of wealth hinders the progress and profits of society for all!?

I don't want a 'new system.' I want to eat, drink, have a computer, watch a video, pay the rent, and afford a date (or family). & I got those things.

Change one steip at a time makes sense to me.

@citizenbfk

1)
When the Rich Make Too Much: Is it Time for a Maximum Wage?

By letting markets control our destinies, we’ve lost sight of what it means to be “rich enough".

Howard Gardner, An Embarrassment of Riches, commented by Sam Pizzigati, Too Much: A Commentary on Excess and Inequality.

The United States needs an income cap, Gardner posits in the new Foreign Policy, that limits the amount of money a single individual can annually take home to no more than "100 times as much money as the average worker in a society earns in a ye...

read more»

@citizenbfk

1)
When the Rich Make Too Much: Is it Time for a Maximum Wage?

By letting markets control our destinies, we’ve lost sight of what it means to be “rich enough".

Howard Gardner, An Embarrassment of Riches, commented by Sam Pizzigati, Too Much: A Commentary on Excess and Inequality.

The United States needs an income cap, Gardner posits in the new Foreign Policy, that limits the amount of money a single individual can annually take home to no more than "100 times as much money as the average worker in a society earns in a year."

2)

citizenbfk said:

I don't want a 'new system.' I want to eat, drink, have a computer, watch a video, pay the rent, and afford a date (or family). & I got those things.

The patricians-ruled system meets the desiderata of the plebeians to pacify the citizenry: panem et circenses. That's why this system keeps on working fine: corrupting, as simple as on a grand scale.

Gaudeamus igitur! (Let us amuse ourselves to death!)