On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > I admit it's been thirty years since I read it but I remember it differently. > The workers would take over everything and share evenly. > Redistribution. If you couldn't work or chose not to you would still > be treated and compensated as an equal.
I was saying that your characterization of socialism as "one guy gets everyones stuff and gets to dole it out as he sees fit" isn't correct, that is feudalism/fascism. Marx was writing in reaction to that system, not in support of it. I agree that marxism wouldn't work, it is too idealistic. Everyone pooling their efforts together into a cooperative and distributing amongst the members is an idea that just doesn't scale and is ignorant of human behavior. You are still mischaracterizing it though. >> And Socialism at 21st century bares little relation to the words of >> Das Kapital, just like 21st century Capitalism bears little >> resemblance to The Wealth of Nations. And yes, I've read both. > > The players are different but the results are the same France in 2010 doesn't look like France in 1910. Though, I admit, with the growing wealth gap here, the US in 2010 is looking more like 1910 than I'd really like. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:311742 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
