Grey Fil wrote:Sorry to rock your boat OTB but its the other way around. Comunism (the dictatorship of the proletariat) is the way to socialism an ideal sociaty whitout social or economic classes. It´s not supposed to be anarchy.
And comunist doctrine doesnt even require abolition of private property or the comunalization of farms or factories.
[quote="D. W. Hamlyn" in The Penguin History of Western Philosophy"]The final phase must be on e in which there is identity betwee between the species-life of man, considered as a social being, and nature. In that case, man's natural existence becomes a human existence, and nature becomes human. It is not easy to understand that, although it is easier to understand, even if no to accept as realistic, Marx's belief that in this state of affairs there will be a geniune community w/o expoitation of any form. In this caaaase, property will be abolished, and so will the state. Marx came to believe that this was inevitable, because capitalism has an incoherence and so bears the seeds of its own destruction. It will not come about, however, without violent revolution.
First there must be the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', but subsequently the state will wither away and true communism will ensue.[/quote]
Emphasis mine.
Marx said nothing about "requiring" that property be held in common. What he did was to predict that "in the most advanced nations" this would come to pass. It's in
The Communist Manifesto.
Grey Fil wrote:These are tricks developed by later dictators, I mean humble secretaries of the party to control people.
That Marxism was reinterpreted or even vastly reworked in many cases I will heartily agree with. Marx was aghast at some of the interpretations of his work even during his lifetime. I'd be very curious what his reaction would be to what went on allegedly in his name after his death.
Grey Fil wrote:In fact THE BIG FLAW of communism IMO is rarely referred, it presumes that everybody wants the same things in life and therefore everybody such make the same efforts and gain the same rewards. But whe all know that isnt true right? While some people want money others want power and manny only want to get laid.
One of Marxism's flaws is that it's theory of value is problematic. In trying to reduce everything to a materialistic cause Marx overlooked the fact that things have value only idealistically, that is to say that value is not external to the mind.
One thing that I will point out in your counterargument is that Marxism's point isn't to give everyone the "same rewards", but rather that people receive according to their needs. There's another flaw, in that "needs" are largely subjective.
Somehow I don't think you rocked my boat too much. I had to scurry off to check some things, but my wake is looking pretty smooth right about now, I'd say.
OTB
) weaker and taking their hard earned bread/meat whatever.
angsty nihilists (neon).
