No, no, no, you completely misunderstand. You have personal obligations, but you have social obligations, too. Go ahead and do whatever the hell you want to do. "The State" doesn't tell you what to be. That's the freedom bit we all like. Be a marine geologist if you like. We, as a society, will even pay for your education towards that. But let's say "the market" says we need more doorknobs. Then there will be be more opportunities (and pay) for those people who are okay with making them. Like it's supposed to work now, ideally, in a capitalist society. Only in a socialist society there would be less worry about retirement, unemployment, health care, job security, etc. It doesn't mean the end of history. But it should mean the end of exploitation and class struggle. A solid floor beneath everyone, for that pursuit of happiness. Not a guarantee of happiness, but a equally fair shot at it.

You have to contrast this with the situation obtaining now. There is massive inequality now, because those who get are mostly those who already have. Capital is rewarded far, far more than labor, in whatever proportion you choose to measure it in. The gap between rich and...not just poor, but the middle class, is growing, not shrinking. This is a concern for social stability in the USA. Socialism means not just shared sacrifices, but shared prosperity. Prosperity not shared is simply theft.

I agree: Communism is having to share the same stupid bowling ball with everybody at Johnson's 16th St. Mega Lanes even the sweaty guy with the fat fingers who smells like fish tacos and italian sausage all day. 

I think that phrase contradicts itself.  Who gets to decide who lives where and who does what ?  No room for individualism, darn that ism thing again.  I prefer the beach, yet the government decides that I should live in North Dakota.  I want to be a marine geologist, but the government says we don't need any and I must make doorknobs for public housing, because we need more doorknobs.  Equal opportunity for what ?  To do what I really want to do ?  Or equal opportunity to do for the government ?  

It's more than a critique; it's a program!!! It does not have to be revolutionary violence that accomplishes that program; in fact I'd prefer it it if it weren't. But it is more than just sniping at capitalist excesses and injustices, and more than mere reformist amelioration of the same. It is a fundamental overhaul that privileges people over markets, and erases real class distinctions and barriers. Modern Marxism must be peaceful, nonviolent, democratic, and determined. Hardnose, commonsense agitation, education and organization are the only tools towards accomplishing this, not elitist "vanguard" ideologies and unfocused anarchism. You can have capitalism, too, but only within a socialist framework, if you want social justice and equality linked to freedom of action and productivity. There's our Hegelian synthesis.

And you said to Kurt—

It does not mean public ownership of everything!!! My toothbrush is mine, and yours is yours. However, the open land, water, air, uranium and opera is for everyone to share, equally. The largest possible public domain, in all senses. The commons, rather than fenced-off private lots of different sizes.

It means public provision of the necessary things of life, however that society chooses to define it. Be it education, food, housing, employment, heath care, etc. A classless society, with true equality of opportunity, and not one way, one track, one enclave for rich people and others for everyone else. Merit and work rewarded, not greed and placement and networking. A solid floor beneath everyone, with room for personal improvement above that. A real synthesis of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. A market that serves us, and not us the market.

Not utopia. But a better place than now.

It does not mean public ownership of everything!!! My toothbrush is mine, and yours is yours. However, the open land, water, air, uranium and opera is for everyone to share, equally. The largest possible public domain, in all senses. The commons, rather than fenced-off private lots of different sizes.

It means public provision of the necessary things of life, however that society chooses to define it. Be it education, food, housing, employment, heath care, etc. A classless society, with true equality of opportunity, and not one way, one track, one enclave for rich people and others for everyone else. Merit and work rewarded, not greed and placement and networking. A solid floor beneath everyone, with room for personal improvement above that. A real synthesis of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. A market that serves us, and not us the market.

Not utopia. But a better place than now.

But what about the part of a Socialistic society where the government owns everything, there is no private property ?  Am I missing something or are we ignoring a crucial part of what Socialism really is ?  How do you reconcile privacy and private property with the program ?  How does one have motivation without ownership or the possibilty of ownership of personal property for example ?  We rent everything from the government and have no form of private transportation ?

It's more than a critique; it's a program!!! It does not have to be revolutionary violence that accomplishes that program; in fact I'd prefer it it if it weren't. But it is more than just sniping at capitalist excesses and injustices, and more than mere reformist amelioration of the same. It is a fundamental overhaul that privileges people over markets, and erases real class distinctions and barriers. Modern Marxism must be peaceful, nonviolent, democratic, and determined. Hardnose, commonsense agitation, education and organization are the only tools towards accomplishing this, not elitist "vanguard" ideologies and unfocused anarchism. You can have capitalism, too, but only within a socialist framework, if you want social justice and equality linked to freedom of action and productivity. There's our Hegelian synthesis.

:sigh: The name "communist" and some Marxist trappings and rhetoric were hijacked by repressive Russian nationalists, and this somehow becomes everyone's historical misunderstanding of Marxism. That's why I won't use the term, though I prefer it to "socialist" for a number of etymological reasons. People are right to equate Hitler and Stalin—not much to choose between them, really. We need to look to ourselves and our motivations, always. Chauvinistic nationalism of any stripe is bad news, and that includes American nationalism.

Well, they call themselves Communists, but, really they are Totalitarians.

I am only speaking in terms of a sovereign State government, not about a kibbutz or farming commune in Montana, for example.  And the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics only disolved some 15 years ago, not 100 years ago, and China is still around last I looked along with Cuba and North Korea.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.  Meet the new boss same as the old boss ...

So what is the new paradigm I'm missing here anyway ?

And the only thing synthethic going on around here is how we make money.

May all your traffic lights be forever green, my brother.  

Yea, really it all comes down to eatin and poopin.

I am only speaking in terms of a sovereign State government, not about a kibbutz or farming commune in Montana, for example.  And the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics only disolved some 15 years ago, not 100 years ago, and China is still around last I looked along with Cuba and North Korea.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.  Meet the new boss same as the old boss ...

So what is the new paradigm I'm missing here anyway ?

And the only thing synthethic going on around here is how we make money.

In theory, communism is not a bad thing. If a group of people is agreeable to living communally, then it works.

However, Stalinism, Trotskyism, etc. isn't true communism. It's the ruling class having everything they want, while the rest suffer. If it was true communism, The government would be out working with the people.Besides, you are talking about -isms that existed 100 yrs ago. Things have changed. The terms used in the 20th Century are no longer applicable. Start trying to think out of the box, Kurt.

Are you familiar with thesis, antithesis, synthesis?

I have a long held belief that it is not unreasonable to equate Communism to an organized religfion, where the State is the Religion.  Its all about what is best for the State before everything else.  An evil religion.  That's my over simplified take.  I have heard some of my own friends defend the actions of the government recently by stating that the government's needs should come before the people's.  I am left speechless in response to that.  If that's how most American's feel about things, then it is truly over in my opinion and this is just the endgame.

Kurtster, this your statement. It clearly makes the very point I have been trying to say regarding the socialism. It isn't a question, it is a statement. And I won't NEGLECT to mention the hundreds of millions of people who were murdered if they failed to toe the communist/socialist line. The communist/socialist states make Hitler PALE IN COMPARISON. More people have been killed by communism/socialism than the ENTIRE COMBINED HISTORY of this earth. Capitalism is a progressive, simply because it is not feasible for it not to be. The very survival of corporations who do not move forward would be in doubt, whereas in communist/socialist states, such SURVIVAL IS IRRELEVANT, hence the stagnation that is rampant in communism/socialism.

Doesn't it concern you that so many elected officials, people who should be reasonable, believe this ridiculous lie?