Unemployment, and so on

[DeeBye]

I disagree. We won't change anything until we eliminate the strings entirely. As long as there are puppets, there will always be someone new willing to step in and pull the strings. We need to eliminate the ability of politicians to act as puppets, and this is something we can control.

The problem is with both the puppets and the puppeteers. There's enough blame to go around. The problem is that the government is made up of really rich people, and are being thrown sack fulls of money by really rich people to make sure that they both stay rich.

The system is broken because you can't get elected to office without being rich, and once you are rich you really can't be trusted to govern a population of non-rich people in their best interests.

I'd really like to hear how politicians can be snipped of the puppet strings. You can eliminate legal lobbying, but I fear that would just lead to shady deals made in back alleys involving cloaks and briefcases full of money, and nothing would change.

[FireIceTalon]

I disagree with him on his definition of American Exceptionalism too. "Exceptonalism" implies that something is exceptional, better than most things, or average things. I have no doubt that America views itself as being superior to the rest of the world, and it is this idea that drove Manifest Destiny, that we were meant to rule the world. We love flaunting our hegemonic wings in front of the rest of the world. But I have a bit of disheartening news: the world sux, and we are not an exception to that rule, lol.

The corporations control this country now, almost all of Congress and pretty much every president has been bought. There is no reforming this system, since both Washington and corporate scumbags they subsidize have a symbiotic relationship. Us little people don't matter anymore. Only solution, is revolution. Its been 235 years or so since the last one. We are overdue.

[eppie]

Each contribute to the whole of the problem, which is that most of us ordinary people are trapped in a economic pit where the sides are too steep for us too climb toward that dream of upward social mobility. I think this is the true American Dream, that we can use our talents and efforts to improve our lives and those of our children.

Could you elaborate? The first and second sentence seem to be contradicting eachother. Do you believe the American exists or not?

Unlike the Marxian social utopia, I want things to be based more meritocratically.

I agree but to make your society a meritocracy I think you can still move a lot to the left. Most countries that I know of (netherlands, denmark, Sweden, Germany, France) are far better in this sense than the US is.
The single best thing for a good meritocracy is getting a good, free and equal school system. In the US your daddy buys you into a top university and this enures you of getting a good job. Whereas a poor guy growing up in some getto will maximally go to some ciommunity college and when he applies for a job all those other that went to better Universities will be chosen before him. (that there are a few exceptions to this only confirms this 'rule').


I think your (and teh american) view on meritocarcy is being able to get filthy filthy rich and when your are there having to pay as little tax as possible.
My idea of a meritocracy is giving everybody a good chance of getting a good education and becomeing whatever they want (of course within his abilities....some people are smarter than others). I am OK with such a person becoming a miljonair but he needs to contribute to society to keep it this way.


The american dream is a mistake in probability calculus.
It is like letting playing blackjack with 6 decks where all the aces have been removed....yes you can still win but your chances are far lower than that of the guy next to you who is playing with a deck of only aces, kings and queens.

If you grow up under the poverty line (1 in 6 americans I read today.....49 miljon people) in a bad neighbourhood with very crappy schools your effort to work your way out of there is 100 times as big as it is for the guy that grows up in a mansion in beverly hills and who's father is paying for him to go to Yale. And once this poor guy manages to work his way out of the slums and applies for a job together with the guy from Beverly hills, the chances are 99% that the BH guy gets the job.

I am OK with people having different chances in life (we are not all the same) but there are limits.

You don't get an equal share of the pie. everyone gets an equal place at the table, everyone gets enough to eat, and after that, you get the serving you deserve based on your value to the society.

[kandrathe]

I disagree with him on his definition of American Exceptionalism too. "Exceptonalism" implies that something is exceptional, better than most things, or average things.

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary -- ex·cep·tion·al·ism noun \ik-ˈsep-shnə-ˌli-zəm, -shə-nə-\ Definition of EXCEPTIONALISM: the condition of being different from the norm; also : a theory expounding the exceptionalism especially of a nation or region.

No one said "superior". Just {waves hands by head} different.

I have no doubt that America views itself as being superior to the rest of the world, and it is this idea that drove Manifest Destiny, that we were meant to rule the world.

Huh? The first use of "American exceptionalism" was 1929, by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. Manifest Destiny was coined by democrat John O Sullivan, in 1845, regarding the annexation of Texas during the prelude to the Mexican-American war. Maybe we were meant to rule Texas... ... or maybe Texas will rule us.

We love flaunting our hegemonic wings in front of the rest of the world.

Yet another different concept... We've experienced many hegemonies, from those thrust upon us, to those we've thrust upon others. Blue jeans, Rock-n-Roll, and Coca-cola are a type of pop-culture hegemony. Wings... I never really liked them, they were too fluffy, and Linda was not all that talented if you ask me. They were more of a Beatles hegemony -- the British invasion, taking over our blues music and making it popular with white folks. But see, we went with that, turned it into Metallica, and now we rule the world... ... although, I always liked ACDC, and Iron Maiden is pretty good too.

But I have a bit of disheartening news: the world sux, and we are not an exception to that rule, lol.

Black holes suck. We don't really have it all that bad. Like I said, earlier, who here has a dirt floor, and is worried about the drought wiping out the potato crop?

There is no reforming this system, since both Washington and corporate scumbags they subsidize have a symbiotic relationship. Us little people don't matter anymore. Only solution, is revolution. Its been 235 years or so since the last one. We are overdue.

And... that is about the dumbest things you've said yet. How many millions of lives are you willing to sacrifice doing it the hard way?

Whimsy?

[kandrathe]

Each contribute to the whole of the problem, which is that most of us ordinary people are trapped in a economic pit where the sides are too steep for us too climb toward that dream of upward social mobility. I think this is the true American Dream, that we can use our talents and efforts to improve our lives and those of our children.

Could you elaborate? The first and second sentence seem to be contradicting each other. Do you believe the American {dream} exists or not?

Yes, the dream being that we can use our talents and efforts to improve our lives and those of our children. But, you are correct, it was an awkward sentence.

Unlike the Marxian social utopia, I want things to be based more meritocratically.

I agree but to make your society a meritocracy I think you can still move a lot to the left. Most countries that I know of (netherlands, denmark, Sweden, Germany, France) are far better in this sense than the US is.

I'm not sure it's a left-right thing. Either side can dominate the middle class ensuring that they are left continually struggling for a prize which is kept out of reach. Both types of domination have been demonstrated by the worlds most powerful nations. We are still struggling for the same liberté, égalité, fraternité we sought in 1790's. I want to carry my share of the societal burden (police, garbage, roads, etc.). The way it is structured now, half of us carry no load, and the other half carry double, or triple. This is currently unfair, because the ability to carry the load is based on income, and not wealth. If you are a worker (even a well paid one), you are usually not the owner. We tax workers, and not so much the owners.

The single best thing for a good meritocracy is getting a good, free and equal school system.

Nothing is free. Somebody pays.

In the US your daddy buys you into a top university and this enures you of getting a good job. Whereas a poor guy growing up in some ghetto will maximally go to some community college and when he applies for a job all those other that went to better Universities will be chosen before him. (that there are a few exceptions to this only confirms this 'rule').

Even an ivy league education is much more accessible than it was a few decades ago. Nobody pays the sticker price on college anymore, most are discounted by 30 to 50%, or more. The better your secondary school/grades and SAT/ACT scores, the better financial aid package you will be offered. If it is how you think, how did Obama get into and through Harvard?

A poor guy growing up in some ghetto with good grades may grow up to be a middle manager, and then afford to send his children to top line college. Which is again, the American dream. My kids will do better than I could, and I'll help boost them up higher than I was able to get.

I think your (and the American) view on meritocracy is being able to get filthy filthy rich and when your are there having to pay as little tax as possible.

I've been filthy rich, and I didn't like the 80 hours weeks, being on air planes 5 days out of 7, and waking up in hotels trying to remember what city I was in today. I traded that in for a stress free working class life.

My idea of a meritocracy is giving everybody a good chance of getting a good education and becoming whatever they want (of course within his abilities....some people are smarter than others). I am OK with such a person becoming a millionaire but he needs to contribute to society to keep it this way.

The tricky part there is "becoming whatever they want ", because currently we have a whole bunch of educated career seekers who are not finding that they can become whatever they want.

The American dream is a mistake in probability calculus. It is like letting playing blackjack with 6 decks where all the aces have been removed....yes you can still win but your chances are far lower than that of the guy next to you who is playing with a deck of only aces, kings and queens. If you grow up under the poverty line (1 in 6 Americans I read today.....49 million people) in a bad neighborhood with very crappy schools your effort to work your way out of there is 100 times as big as it is for the guy that grows up in a mansion in Beverly hills and who's father is paying for him to go to Yale. And once this poor guy manages to work his way out of the slums and applies for a job together with the guy from Beverly hills, the chances are 99% that the BH guy gets the job.

I think you are letting your anecdotes influence your perception of reality. Beverly Hills is an exception, and the children of the Hollywood elite have proven their penchant for getting into trouble and ending up in jails. But, let's talk about the generic rich kid, son of a banker, lawyer, doctor, etc, who also qualifies (through their high school performance, interviews, and test scores ) to get into one of the elite colleges or universities. They still need to navigate one of the hardest scholastic programs, and then use their connections to get a good job. Did they earn it, or was it handed to them. They certainly had a leg up due to their parents position, and money. But, unless you're the Winklevoss twins, you do need to work for a living.

[eppie]

[quote='kandrathe' pid='191202' dateline='1320746784']I'm not sure it's a left-right thing.
[quote]
Yes you are right. What I meant to say is you can move more towards a stronger government.



[quote='kandrathe' pid='191202' dateline='1320746784']
Nothing is free. Somebody pays.
[quote]

Yes of course. But in our society people (voters) realize it benefits all to make education as low hurdle as possible. The more people with a higher education the better.


[quote='kandrathe' pid='191202' dateline='1320746784']Even an ivy league education is much more accessible than it was a few decades ago. Nobody pays the sticker price on college anymore, most are discounted by 30 to 50%, or more. [quote]

Yes but for most people 40k dollars per year is just as out of reach as 20k dollars per year.



[quote='kandrathe' pid='191202' dateline='1320746784']
The better your secondary school/grades and SAT/ACT scores, the better financial aid package you will be offered. If it is how you think, how did Obama get into and through Harvard?

A poor guy growing up in some ghetto with good grades may grow up to be a middle manager, and then afford to send his children to top line college. Which is again, the American dream. My kids will do better than I could, and I'll help boost them up higher than I was able to get.

[quote]
These ar just examples of some individuals. They are correct but still don't prove anything. I agree it is possible for anyone to do this.....but the chances are completely different.


[quote='kandrathe' pid='191202' dateline='1320746784']
The tricky part there is "becoming whatever they want ", because currently we have a whole bunch of educated career seekers who are not finding that they can become whatever they want.
[quote]
Of course but that is not what we are discussing.



[quote='kandrathe' pid='191202' dateline='1320746784']
I think you are letting your anecdotes influence your perception of reality. Beverly Hills is an exception,
[/quote]
I didn't know the names of other rich neighboorhouds.

But yes of course I agree you need to work for your living. An that it is fair that someone who is lazy doesn't get the same wealth as someone who is working hard. I have never stated I don't.

But people should realize how they are able to make huge sums of money. Namely because society is structured the way it is.
If golf wasn't so popular Tiger Woods wouldn't be a multimiljonair. If the laws weren't the way they are someone would not be able to make 10s of millions of bonus a year just because he is very good in trading immaginary things at an investors bank. And not being affected at all when it turns out that the bank had gambled way wrong after which the government pays off all the debts ith tax payers money.


I am not against people making lots of money but they should keep seeing things in perspective.

[kandrathe]

The tricky part there is "becoming whatever they want ", because currently we have a whole bunch of educated career seekers who are not finding that they can become whatever they want.

Of course but that is not what we are discussing.

No, actually, it is exactly what we are discussing. Young people are unemployed, even the ones who borrowed money to go to Princeton. You can't just become whatever you want. The economy must also have a demand for your skills.

If golf wasn't so popular Tiger Woods wouldn't be a multimillionaire.

Whether you look at pro-sports legend, rock star, famous actor, CEO, or skilled commodities trader, they are all really really rare.

So, you take someone like Meg Whitman, who was born in 1956 and attended Cold Spring Harbor Public High School on Long Island. She was a very good student, and so she went to Princeton University, and got a BA in economics, then she went on to get an MBA at Harvard. Her dad, Hendricks Hallett Whitman, founded and was president of Clark Tyler Associates, a small company that makes commercial loans. Meg worked in management for various companies for about 20 years, moved to Disney in 89, and after 3 years she was promoted to vice president of strategic planning and development for the Walt Disney Company. Then, in the 90's, she started moving through top management positions in fortune 50 firms. My point is she is not like lady Gaga in terms of instant millionaire. She really worked and dedicated herself to a career for 35 years before she hit the upper tiers of management. Her family traces back to loyalist American colonists who fled to Nova Scotia, after the British gave up the US. She comes from a family who were comfortably well off, and so perhaps that lent to her success. But... she still had to work for most of what she has.

If the laws weren't the way they are someone would not be able to make 10s of millions of bonus a year just because he is very good in trading imaginary things at an investors bank. And not being affected at all when it turns out that the bank had gambled way wrong after which the government pays off all the debts with tax payers money.

I think it is reprehensible the way that Tim Geitner, and Hank Paulsen before him used the Federal treasury to let banks off the hook for their own bad decisions, and handed them billions of dollars that they've invested for their own profits at the expense of the economy. I think the Congress, and the President have made it possible for the same banks who otherwise would have crashed and gone out of business to have made obscene profits at tax payers expense (and at the expense of the economy).

But, still, you cannot make a silk purse from a sows ear. Bankers will act like bankers. If you give them money for sitting on excess reserves, they just might not loan out all that money you bailed them out with. The problem is the cavalier attitude our government has with our money.

If I give you $100 to go get me some groceries and you never get them. I'm not going to give you another $100. Likewise, we should have had strings attached to the handouts, such as, it's eventually getting paid back out of their profits. And, since they are bankers, they will understand the compounded interest we charge on their debt.

[FireIceTalon]

Manifest Destiny, Exceptionalism, and America's hegemony are all interrelated to one another. Not really that difficult to see. Manifest Destiny was really just an early form of Exceptionalism. American nationalism was already very strong, and our goal was not merely Texas, but expanding from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I do not doubt that the leaders already envisioned America as being a superpower one day, and in fact, it was the will of God for us to be so, so it was justified, as they understood it. We basically jacked Texas, New Mexico, and CA from Mexico, made them sign a peace treaty in bad faith, and then gave them 15 million bucks and said have a nice life, lol. Today, our concept of exceptonalism is much bigger of course, and it is combined with our hegemony as mutual causation. Our empire status justifies our exceptionalism, and our exceptionalism justifies our empire status, or so those who believe in American Exceptionalism say.

And 1790? Really? Hmmm, a time when you had to be white, male, and wealthy to even vote. Yea, no thank you.

If you don't like the idea of revolution, than what are your solutions? If you have possible solutions involving reform, I'd love to hear them. But otherwise it is naive at best. I suggested that everyone vote for someone who was outside the two party system, or we could all just refuse to pay our taxes come next April. But as you said, this isnt realistic. The government is bought, period. As long as their symbiotic relationship with the multi-nationals, the Fed, and Wall Street is in place, do not expect any kind of democratic reform to take place. Both the corporations/financial institutions and their cheer-leading squad in Washington will do everything they can to keep their power and wealth, at our expense. Look at France compared to us.....Government fears the people there, cause they dont want a repeat of 1789. Here, we fear our government, and they know so cause the most we ever do is put up a bunch of colorful signs with fancy slogans in protest, with a little civil disobedience here and there. Thus the abuse and corruption continues. The ends justifies the means, for both us and them (wonderful Pink Floyd song btw). We can continue on the same path, content to being subjects of the oligarchy, and hope one day that change will come (and come it will - for the worse). Or we can take matters into our own hands.

[Jester]

If you don't like the idea of revolution, than what are your solutions? If you have possible solutions involving reform, I'd love to hear them. But otherwise it is naive at best. I suggested that everyone vote for someone who was outside the two party system, or we could all just refuse to pay our taxes come next April. But as you said, this isnt realistic. The government is bought, period. As long as their symbiotic relationship with the multi-nationals, the Fed, and Wall Street is in place, do not expect any kind of democratic reform to take place. Both the corporations/financial institutions and their cheer-leading squad in Washington will do everything they can to keep their power and wealth, at our expense. Look at France compared to us.....Government fears the people there, cause they dont want a repeat of 1789. Here, we fear our government, and they know so cause the most we ever do is put up a bunch of colorful signs with fancy slogans in protest, with a little civil disobedience here and there. Thus the abuse and corruption continues. The ends justifies the means, for both us and them (wonderful Pink Floyd song btw). We can continue on the same path, content to being subjects of the oligarchy, and hope one day that change will come (and come it will - for the worse). Or we can take matters into our own hands.

(Because everything is just roses in France?)

"Taking matters into our own hands" sounds very good. But it is a plan for taking power, not a plan for using it. That, traditionally, has been the problematic bit for Marxist revolutionaries. What's your plan, once the levers of power are in your grasp, once the buck stops at your desk?

Same with "vote for someone else." Sounds great, until we have to turn it into a practical alternative. Who? Ross Perot? Ralph Nader? The Libertarian Party? The Worker's World party? There are all sorts of alternatives, but there is a reason they don't overturn the existing structure: even if you could get every single person to agree NOT to vote for the Democrats or Republicans, you still would have no agreement on whom to replace them with. You'd replace divide in two, with divided in twenty.

By the by, where is that Marx quote in your sig from? I can't find a source on it, and Wikiquote says "disputed." Doesn't sound like Marx.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

France isn't perfect (especially right now). But nevertheless, as Thomas Jefferson said, "When the government fears the people, there is democracy. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." --A beautiful quote, and one I happen to agree with.

I'm a strong advocate that power should rest and be shared with the common man, not a vanguard party (which would be the view of someone who subscribes to the Marxist-Leninist branch) that could lead to cure being more destructive than the disease itself. It is my opinion that anyone who is in a revolution for the chance at having a power grab to satisfy their own interests, is against the interest of the revolution itself, and therefore has no business being a part of it. Lenin was a brilliant individual. But I do not agree with his methodology or his view that self-determination belongs to the state. Plus, it allowed opportunists like Stalin to take advantage of the circumstances. So far, pretty much all of the Marxist revolutions have been from the authoritarian leftist side of things, which is unfortunate. The orthodox Marxists, anarchists, and libertarian socialist revolutionaries never really got a fair shake

I just tried searching for the source of that quote. A lot of sites have Marx as saying it but none of them say the primary source where he said it. Unless he said it in person and not in one of his works. I may have to read the Manifesto again, I can't recall if it was said there.

[kandrathe]

Manifest Destiny, Exceptionalism, and America's hegemony are ...

political terms you string together as a slur vacating the meaning of each of them.

And 1790? Really? Hmmm, a time when you had to be white, male, and wealthy to even vote. Yea, no thank you.

In the US. But, in Europe there wasn't even a vote in many countries until the late 1700's up until WWI, after the power of monarchies gave way to suffrage movements.

If you don't like the idea of revolution, than what are your solutions?

Various. But, grabbing up guns when you disagree with someone (or their actions) is the same stupid mentality that gets us into all these stupid wars.

[FireIceTalon]

Im all ears (or eyes in this case). What are your solutions?

Disagreement isn't the issue here, social justice is. My allegiance is not to any nation, government/non-government entity, or individual, but to humanity. And revolution and war are two very different things.

[Jester]

France isn't perfect (especially right now). But nevertheless, as Thomas Jefferson said, "When the government fears the people, there is democracy. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." --A beautiful quote, and one I happen to agree with.

My sense is that French political elites are extraordinarily arrogant about their position of power, and that they no more fear another 1793 than they fear the moon crashing into the earth.

I'm a strong advocate that power should rest and be shared with the common man, not a vanguard party (which would be the view of someone who subscribes to the Marxist-Leninist branch) that could lead to cure being more destructive than the disease itself. It is my opinion that anyone who is in a revolution for the chance at having a power grab to satisfy their own interests, is against the interest of the revolution itself, and therefore has no business being a part of it. Lenin was a brilliant individual. But I do not agree with his methodology or his view that self-determination belongs to the state. Plus, it allowed opportunists like Stalin to take advantage of the circumstances. So far, pretty much all of the Marxist revolutions have been from the authoritarian leftist side of things, which is unfortunate. The orthodox Marxists, anarchists, and libertarian socialist revolutionaries never really got a fair shake

This is all very nice, but once again, it's about the form of power, and not the content. What are you actually advocating doing? What policies do you recommend? Even if you have correctly diagnosed society's symptoms, that's a long way from having a cure.

I just tried searching for the source of that quote. A lot of sites have Marx as saying it but none of them say the primary source where he said it. Unless he said it in person and not in one of his works. I may have to read the Manifesto again, I can't recall if it was said there.

I suggest that Marx neither said it, nor meant what it says. He was many things, but a diehard democrat is not one of them.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

Specific policies are difficult to say, because such a society has never been done or even attempted yet. I would suggest that some things we have now be preserved obviously, rule of law protecting basic individual rights (free speech, assembly, right to privacy, due process of law in civil cases, protection against self-incrimination and so on). Government would be kept to a minimum. I'm thinking along the lines of Labor Unions and worker and civil councils, where a directly elected set of officials (who can be recalled at any time if they become treasonous to the common good or constitution) manage government and economy. All workers have equal rights to the means of production and a fair say in policy-making. Disputes would be settled before the elected officials, and would be decided based on what is best for the common good. Obviously, someone may end up not being happy in a decision. But no system is ever perfect or can be. Of course, in situations where someone is blatantly in the wrong will be decided accordingly. A constitution similar to what we have now, but perhaps a bit less rigid, and less vague (to make interpretation as minimal of an issue as possible), would be implemented.

I cannot find the primary source of Marx's quote, but I disagree about Marx not being democratic. How was he not? Democracy was the life blood for traditional/orthodox Marxism, libertarian socialists, and Anarchists. Marxism-Leninism or any of the authoritarian branches are another story of course. But if the quote really bothers you, I will put in another that I can confirm he said if you like

[LavCat]

No, actually, it is exactly what we are discussing. Young people are unemployed, even the ones who borrowed money to go to Princeton. You can't just become whatever you want. The economy must also have a demand for your skills.

Putting on my Princeton hat for the moment, Princeton has not participated in student loans for quite some years. Young people should not have to indenture themselves for an education. Thanks to a generous fellowship I paid nothing for my Princeton education.

That being said I wish the economy had a demand for my skills.

[Jester]

Specific policies are difficult to say, because such a society has never been done or even attempted yet.

Accomplished, no. Attempted, many times, in many places. Each one went through a brutal revolution, followed by an idealistic phase in which vague and overambitious schemes failed miserably, followed by the gloomy onset of realism. Anyone suggesting we can break from that pattern, must first know it.

I would suggest that some things we have now be preserved obviously, rule of law protecting basic individual rights (free speech, assembly, right to privacy, due process of law in civil cases, protection against self-incrimination and so on). Government would be kept to a minimum.

So, the preservation of rights to dissent. What, then, if popular dissenters disagree with the economic plans? If they want to unmake the revolution? Are they tolerated? Allowed to reverse the course of reforms?

I'm thinking along the lines of Labor Unions and worker and civil councils, where a directly elected set of officials (who can be recalled at any time if they become treasonous to the common good or constitution) manage government and economy.

How shall they be elected? Over what will they have jurisdiction? The US already has one set of elected officials who manage government, and could manage the economy should they take it upon themselves.

All workers have equal rights to the means of production and a fair say in policy-making.

How is this to be accomplished? The "means of production" is not a tangible entity. Can any worker use any machine, for any reason? Cut down any tree? Spend any foreign reserves? Or are they merely entitled to a vote about how that shall be done?

Disputes would be settled before the elected officials, and would be decided based on what is best for the common good. Obviously, someone may end up not being happy in a decision. But no system is ever perfect or can be. Of course, in situations where someone is blatantly in the wrong will be decided accordingly.

So, the policy makers are also the judges? No separation between branches of government? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

A constitution similar to what we have now, but perhaps a bit less rigid, and less vague (to make interpretation as minimal of an issue as possible), would be implemented.

Looser and more specific than the US Constitution? That's a tough order. Any thoughts on what needs to be spelled out more specifically, and what needs to be less rigid?

I cannot find the primary source of Marx's quote, but I disagree about Marx not being democratic. How was he not? Democracy was the life blood for traditional/orthodox Marxism, libertarian socialists, and Anarchists. Marxism-Leninism or any of the authoritarian branches are another story of course.

Marx was interested in a one-way street, revolution, never coming back, according to the immutable progression of the dialectic of class struggle. The democratic process was a path to the domination of the proletariat, and the final destruction of the bourgeois state. The overthrow itself is to be forcible, a direct struggle between bourgeois and proletarian. This is all well and good, if you assume everyone (or "the masses") are on board with this transformation, now and forever. Thus, it can recommend sweeping, one-way change, like the total nationalization of capital.

But this process is not self-correcting. No thought is given to what should happen if the majority come to disagree with these changes, except to excoriate them for ideological deviation, as Marx regularly did in his own time. He had little tolerance for pluralism - the masses were to be united, yes, but only under his banner, because only his banner represented the one true struggle. Tactical alliances were (barely) tolerable, but the inevitable supremacy of Communism had to be clear.

If this is democracy, it is democracy to bring about its own end. And in every self-declared Marxist society to date, they have faced this choice. When given the choice between admitting dissent and reversing socialist changes, or squashing dissent, they picked oppression. And why not? Marx never said anything about going backwards, about losing the support of the people. Like so much about his theories, they focus a great deal on how power is to be gained, and how wonderful things will be once capitalism is overthrown. But like Lenin found out in 1917, they're a little light on the details of how to make this all work out in an imperfect world of complicated individuals.

But if the quote really bothers you, I will put in another that I can confirm he said if you like

Please.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I'd really like to hear how politicians can be snipped of the puppet strings. You can eliminate legal lobbying, but I fear that would just lead to shady deals made in back alleys involving cloaks and briefcases full of money, and nothing would change.

• You make it a crime to bribe, or accept a bribe.
• Lobbying is no longer a profession, and you democratize access to legislators.
• Put limits on governments ability to selectively hand out money, or tax corporations or industries (e.g. tax breaks and loopholes).
• Enforce and strengthen the existing laws and make our politicians more accountable to the laws governing all citizens (e.g. insider trading).
• If you donate to a political campaign, you are ineligible to enter into government contracts.
• Find constitutional (i.e. not violating free speech) ways to make elections fair, and not require millions or billions to finance. Look hard at how to constitutionally keep big money out of financing veiled "issue ads".
• Take a hard look at fund raising and the practice of bundling (almost all bundlers represent corporate lawyers, corporate law firms, and the financial industry).

Generally, we should crush any benefit that can be found for being a politician, other than the salary and the act of service.

---

No, actually, it is exactly what we are discussing. Young people are unemployed, even the ones who borrowed money to go to Princeton. You can't just become whatever you want. The economy must also have a demand for your skills.

Putting on my Princeton hat for the moment, Princeton has not participated in student loans for quite some years. Young people should not have to indenture themselves for an education. Thanks to a generous fellowship I paid nothing for my Princeton education.

That being said I wish the economy had a demand for my skills.

c / Princeton / Harvard / *

Thanks. I know many of them have very large endowments, but I was unaware that Princeton was virtually free.

[Jester]

Thanks. I know many of them have very large endowments, but I was unaware that Princeton was virtually free.

Harvard, your new example, totally subsidizes any student from a household earning under $60,000, and offers huge sliding scale subsidies for quite a few tiers above that.

At the very highest tier of schools, they have little to no need to charge high fees. The gains they make in reputation from selecting the best of the best, regardless of ability to pay, more than outweigh the lost tuition fees. They'll let the phenomenally rich pay their way, but for students attending on merit, it's almost always free, or at least very cheap.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

All legitimate questions, for which I do not have perfect answers and be-all/end all solutions for. And that is one thing most Marxists will acknowledge, is that he didnt leave behind any sort of work which laid out how such a society would be constructed or function.

Keep in mind, all the failed attempts at communism, came through militias and vanguard parties, which inevitably lead to problems. I can't recall any of the revolutions truly coming from the bottom up, meaning from the workers themselves. They were all from parties or individuals who either subscribed to a heavy-handed state, or they were opportunists seeking a power grab (Stalin).

As far as popular dissenting goes, I'm going to suppose there should be no reason for the majority to want to, since everyone is working together on equal terms, and what you put in, is what you get in return. Those who are very productive will receive more than those who are not. A guess there would be a few people who will hate seeing others they do not like for whatever reason having equal power to them, but this is not a good enough reason to overturn the system in my opinion, especially if such views are held by a few greedy individuals. If the majority felt this way, it would be a different matter, but if everyone is doing fine, I see no reason people would want to dissent in the first place, other than a desire to overturn the system for their own personal gains at the expense of everyone else, which would be counter-productive for the common good of course. That is not to say reforms are impossible though. It would really have to be decided upon a case by case scenario based on the circumstances of the issue. A few unhappy people cannot overthrow the entire system on a frivolous premise either though. If everyone (or almost everyone) truly ends up being miserable, this is a different matter, then they have a right to abandon the system and start over. *shrugs*

I like the idea of a direct democracy in the government structure of a communist society. And yes, there would be some separation of powers in government. I agree that you cannot have policy makers also be judges. For conflicting interests, I would suggest some sort of rule of law based on compromise and pragmatism so that the rights of the minority in a particular issue have a safety net. Admittedly, I do not know exactly how this would be implemented. But something of that nature would be needed for sure, as direct democracy without such a component would lead to majority rule all the time, and thus instability and another revolution (but from the minority this time). And then everything was in vain. The idea though is that conflict of interest would be kept to the minimum possible, yet when it does arise, decision in favor of the majority or minority would be based purely on circumstances and context on a case by case basis. I guess the question is what is the purpose of government in such a society? I would say to protect the rights and liberties of all individuals, and make sure both ends of all contracts are upheld. And a judicial branch of course, to solve disputes. Anymore power than this is too much if you ask me.

As far as any user using any machine and such, not necessarily. It would be based on each persons talents and abilities. For example, I would never be able to do what a NASA engineer does, as I do not have that ability. Mobility is possible of course, as people gain training, knowledge and experience. Again, I do not have all the answers. No one does. But we have come a long way in history, and I truly believe people can and have the ability to compromise and work together in a Marxist society. It will never be completely perfect, but to say it is impossible kind of reflects a rather low opinion of people and their ability to work toward common goals, don't you think? In the 17 and 1800's a Marxist society would have been impossible, there were still too many prejudices and minorities and women had no rights yet. But these barriers, and many others have been broken down since.

[DeeBye]

• You make it a crime to bribe, or accept a bribe.
• Lobbying is no longer a profession, and you democratize access to legislators.
• Put limits on governments ability to selectively hand out money, or tax corporations or industries (e.g. tax breaks and loopholes).
• Enforce and strengthen the existing laws and make our politicians more accountable to the laws governing all citizens (e.g. insider trading).
• If you donate to a political campaign, you are ineligible to enter into government contracts.
• Find constitutional (i.e. not violating free speech) ways to make elections fair, and not require millions or billions to finance. Look hard at how to constitutionally keep big money out of financing veiled "issue ads".
• Take a hard look at fund raising and the practice of bundling (almost all bundlers represent corporate lawyers, corporate law firms, and the financial industry).

Generally, we should crush any benefit that can be found for being a politician, other than the salary and the act of service.

I completely agree with all of these