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 |
well thats the trouble with these famous idealists,us humans :P
it is very interesting though,personally i can't stand big state snd in the modern world big industry employing whole communities for life is long gone so i don't really understand the left anymore,not in the uk anyway
but china is the new world and they are capitalists right,as far as i can see,no system will work if you can't pay for it,also i bet most people here will be moving right when they have wives,mortgages and children,its just the way it is
