Aaron Toponce <[email protected]> writes:
> This is how I understand it to be as well. My terminology spoke strictly
> in the economic sense, and not the social sense. I guess I'll have to
> pull out my political science book again, but Karl Marx said nothing of
> social regulation: fascism versus anarchy. He only wrote strictly of
> economic power. As you even mention, Marxism was defined to be stateless
> and classless.
Stateless = no state = anarchy. I believe that falls on the fascism
vs. anarchy scale, no? Marx was very concerned about social problems,
but he felt that they derived from the economic classes that were the
result of capitalism. He believed that, absent classes and the
alienation they cause, people would not wish or need to exploit one
another. They would live together in peace and harmony without material
want, and would govern themselves in cooperation with one another.
The endgame of Marxism and anarchism are essentially the same. Marxism,
however, defines a transitional period including a powerful, though
democratic, state that is required to reach the goal. The fact that no
transitional government inspired by Marx's ideas ever actually
transitioned is a strong empircal criticism of Marxism, but that
transitional phase is not really a fair description of how Marx believed
a society should ultimately be governed.
Anyway, that's enough about Marxism.
--Levi
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
