The (new) Official Political Compass Thread - All Users of VGC join in!

[sapphi_snake]

mrstickball said:

zuvuyeay said:


interesting,pure socialism would have no government either just one mans ideal through force

Force is the key word. In order to have socialism - where the economy is redistributed - you require force. Not force of one man's ideal, but an ideal that is propigated by the government. That is why you have a direct correlation between the size of government, its responsibilities, its goals, and the size of socialist redistribution. It requires such to redistribute - through laws, through regulations, ect. Its not quite the will of the people as Marx would like (which is a fine goal, really. I mean, that is what every Christian wants - a world where 100% of the population are giving, self-sacrificial people that help everyone out and are fully willing to sell what they have to help those with less which happened throughout the book of Acts). Of course, in praxis, we find the realities to be different when initiated at a larger scale level. Thus the atrocities of communist states.

You could have a 'pure socialistic state' without requiring government, but it would likely come from the lower-right quadrant - the capitalist/libertarian, whereby the people voluntarily redistribute income based on the needs of society, while the government plays no part in coercion. Of course, that may be as crazy an ideal as Marx :-p

Didn't Marx say that religion was the opiate of the masses?

And capitalism is against the "pure socialistic state", as capitalism doresn't imply redistributing income based on "the needs of society". In pure comminism people work together for the betterment of society/the communty etc., sort of like a bee hive, or an ant farm, while capitalists/libertarians from the bottom right would advocate for a 'every man for himself" or "dog eat dog" type of attitude, similar to the selfish philosophy of Ayn Rand (something that's quite far from what Marx wanted).