Be sure not to confuse capitalism with corporatism. They are as different as night and day.

Edit: Also TL;DR -- I skimmed it, but in order to prevent a misunderstanding I won't comment much further.

Ok, busier than a one armed paper hanger at the moment, but I'm up for a d&m

My major problem with Communism (as delineated by Marx, Engels, Weber and the like) is the lack of understanding of knowledge that existed prior to their radical theories, or more to the point, their unwillingness to accept that the pre-existing body of knowledge with regard to human nature, would affect the reality of implementing their radical theories.

Communism - in its original THEORETICAL form - is nothing more or less than a sociological theory, a design of a better world which is fairer for the masses. However, given the design is for UTOPIA (NB also read Utopia by Sir Thomas More, who coined the word - no private property, etc.), attempting to criticize it for being UTOPIAN is somewhat disingenuous. The flaws come not from the larger purpose it is aimed at achieving, but from the fundamental misconceptions of human nature that are accepted as existing preconditions or prerequisites.

This might even be excusable IF they had no reasonable grounds upon which to base their theories, but Marx and Weber (and Mr Ulyanov) were both educated in Law. Thus they were taught the basic underpinnings of sociological thought (social contract theory), that individuals entered into a society (or a Commonwealth) in order to protect their property, their safety and for the common good. Their reason for doing so, is that without the same, every individual exists in a state of Nature, which Hobbes described as:

"during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man" (Leviathan, ch. XIII)."

In that time, which is effectively anarchy, any (every) person has a natural right to the liberty to do anything he wills to preserve his own life (or as Locke stated also property) and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short (Leviathan, ch.XIII)".  Locke (as a supporter of Parliament) wrote to the effect that the ends of civil society come when, essentially, the social contract is breached by the ruler(s). When the ordinary individual, or a substantial number thereof, can no longer trust the civil government to act in their best interest, to act in accordance with law, to act in the best interests of their property or in short, to act properly (failure to do so being termed tyranny).

One could excuse them, perhaps, if there had been no documented, historical attempts to utilize this dissatisfaction to implement a different order, because then and only then could one see the difficulties inherent upon so doing. But there are several well known, very prominent attempts to do just that known to history, including:

The Wars of the Roses

The Wars of the Roses were fought for a number of reasons, the primary cause was the dispute between the two rival claims of the Yorkist and Lancastrian branches of the Plantagenet family to the English Crown. But the underlying social upheaval that allowed them to recruit armies and prosecute a civil war to this end came from the rampant corruption, nepotism, unlawfulness and all pervading poverty that existed in England at that time. One could well argue that ordinary members of the middle classes, who were necessary to both sides, felt that the social contract was most likely to be upheld by one claimant or the other, because it was not being upheld at all otherwise (see Cade's Revolt). This particular war, coupled with the Black Death, had the salutary effect of reducing population pressures, and in killing off most of the people involved in fighting the same - as such it improved the law & order situation and drastically improved the food situation in the cities where most deaths from Black Death occurred. It also had the rather interesting effect of removing standing Baronial Armies (which Henry Tudor had every right to distrust), thereby nullifying the overt, military power of the aristocracy and irrevocably altering the balance of power in favour of the middle classes and Parliament.

The Protestant Reformation

Multifaceted, one part - led by Martin Luther - was intended to bring about reform of the Roman Catholic Church and to redistribute wealth held by the same, while limiting the power thereof. The tyranny exerted by the Church, which effectively held full power over the masses in both life and nominally in the afterlife, and which had become increasingly corrupt and demanding, was modified. Lasted well over a century, apart from introducing a raft of new, protestant religions, some improvements such as masses said in the local language and a minor (short-lived) reduction in taxation were a bloody high price to pay for business-as-usual. What replaced the Catholic Church were the equally greedy and almost as corrupt Protestant churches, so progress was limited to say the bloody least.

The English Civil War & The Glorious Revolution

The Glorious Revolution (aka how the King of England came to be a dutchman's uncle) came about due to the bloody (literally) excesses of several rulers of England and the confused (in some cases very) nature of the succession leading from Tudor, through Henry VIII (which was always going to be confused face it) to Mary I (aka Bloody Mary) and Elizabeth I. Queen Mary I had an alarming tendency to kill off anyone protestants who had supported her father Henry VIII and Elizabeth I had an equally alarming tendency to bump off catholics who had supported Mary I. Mary I's husband, Philip II of Spain launched an attempted invasion of England (Spanish Armada). Another parallel is that Mary I imprisoned her sister Elizabeth I, who later imprisoned Mary Queen of Scots, whose son, James VI of Scotland later became James I of England & Scotland (Just fucking imagine George W Bush trying to keep up with that lot - that's one thing to be said in favor of keeping things interesting - semiliterate fuckwits rarely rise to the top).

As a result of these machinations, England was now ruled by a Scottish King - a suspected Catholic one at that (he converted to Protestantism), moreover one who valued the support of the French and who believed he was only answerable to god (thus negating Parliament to the also rans). Several hundred years of warfare and the middle classes in England were being ruled by a person who embodied all 4 of their greatest fears - the Scots, the French, the Catholics and having no respect for Parliament. That shit just had to go wrong and it did, more than one attempt to bump him off was made (one famous one was the Gunpowder Plot) and he managed to piss off the Irish (by exporting lowland scots to take their land & jobs in the province of Ulster - the Plantation of Ulster), to piss off the Scots and to rouse Parliament to fury.

As a result of this, Charles I of England inherited a shitload of debt, a bizarre load of European treaties (including one with France to persecute Protestant Hugenots) and what was effectively war with the then huge Spanish Empire. He raised taxes to prosecute the war and attempted to lift religious persecution of catholics in his Kingdom. The average individual distrusted his stand on religious persecution (which to be fair, had become a national pasttime) and the burgeoning middle-class resented taxation. So Parliament tried to restrain him, he resisted stating that he ruled by divine right, causing a long, drawn out stalemate. In the end he attempted to arrest Parliament, entering the House by force at which point the civil war started. When he lost the civil war (quite arguably due to the abolition of standing baronial armies, which meant the commoners could raise a force equal to his from scratch) he was tried and executed. His son Charles II was exiled and Cromwell & the Puritans (an early version of the Taliban) replaced the corrupt, despotic monarchy AND Parliament. However, on the death of Cromwell, Charles II was invited to return, Cromwell was disinterred & beheaded and everything was back to normal. Then Charles II converted to catholicism on his deathbed and it was on again, his brother James II & VII was catholic when he took the throne and was subsequently deposed by his son in law, William II of Orange (His son was the late & unlamented Bonny Prince Charlie). As a result of the accession of William of Orange (Holland) the crown was passed to George of Hanover - the Hanoverian line remains (with a different surname - they changed it during WWI when engaged in a fight to the death with Wilhelm, also of Hanover).

The French Revolution

Same story, basically, different cast - pretty much the same outcome

The American Revolution

As above

Cui Bono?

The overall benefit to the proletariat of this series of conflicts was, in the 1890's, great but fairly insubstantial compared to what had been promised and arguably especially when compared to the incremental change that would have come during that period anyway. Much of the change came from improvements voted for by Parliament, which only existed in such a form as a result of these wars (an incidental and tenuously connected benefit at best) and as an indirect result of spending on the sciences & arts during the various conflicts (it is a truism - there is plenty of money for research ONLY when there is an urgent need for innovation). The greatest benefits accrued to the middle-class, many of whom had been elevated to the upper classes by the turmoil of the period and by the increased need for intelligent people from amongst the working classes to be raised to the middle classes to fill voids, to manage estates, businesses, to conduct research, etc.

Marx & Engels Themselves

In fact it could be argued that the only REAL benefit of promoting warfare on this scale over time is the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois intelligentsia. Mr Ulyanov (ie. Lenin) famously never denied membership of this class, nor did he quibble about stating that "By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. ("What's to be done?", Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)). They were both petite bourgeoisie by breeding and were well educated, they were also presumptively well aware of the lessons of history. Thus they may be taken to have understood that the only real winners from taking out tyranny are those who incite violence undertaken by others. In fact, tyranny provides an excellent opportunity to incite violence, generally undertaken by, and at the expense of, the proletariat for the benefit of the burgeoisie - the artists, the lawyers, the doctors and the generals. The best the rest can hope for is a marked grave or to make it till peacetime and a marked grave.

The evidence they ignored is just too compelling, in times of strife ANYONE who can make it to even the most measly position of power uses/misuses it to provide as much benefit and/or protection as possible to themselves and their family. The ill educated individuals who may end up in this post as a result of strife tend to perpetrate incredible excesses, making hay while the sun shines. If they stay in power long enough, they will almost inevitably fall into nepotism and favouritism (corruption breeds corruption). History tells us this, it is a fact (seen today in places like East Timor, Afghanistan, South America, Eastern Europe, etc.). Those that replace the corrupt regime invariably end up as corrupt (if not more so) as those they replace, that is human nature.

Conclusion

To ignore the overwhelming evidence of history, while ostensibly writing a blueprint for utopia is not a mistake (or even a series of mistakes), nor with their education & background could it possibly be oversight. I would suggest it is deliberate misrepresentation, the presentation of a utopia that is unattainable, in the knowledge it will incite the proletariat to revolt, thereby benefiting the bourgeois intelligentsia (such as themselves). It is highly fanciful, misleading and has the capacity to do just that (when put in the hands of others of that ilk - such as Mr Ulyanov). Accidents of that nature and scale don't happen, this is the best work of political propaganda prior to that put out by Mr Goebbels a short time later, and even more effective by its "apparent" guilelessness. Marx & Engels have successfully perpetrated the largest and most costly fraud on mankind ever known - that is ALL they should be known for

---

Communism & Corporatism aren't as different as you may imagine

This Hobbes guy sounds pretty interesting. I'm gonna find a copy of Leviathan.

Lol @ matter and motion

I just got Leviathan, I'll look into The Law as well.


*Edit*
Leviathan is pretty hard to read. If you are meant to sum up a book in the first pages, I think I see the premise from which Hobbes derives his ideas. I wanna know more about how he saw all the different parts of society. I love analogy, it's the way I prefer to explain things and definitely the way I prefer having things explained.

So, I like his style of writing, but the language is so outdated it's a tough read, especially for me, a lay everything     I will dabble at it and read more about his ideas. I like the way he tries to find the similarities between the physical and abstract portions of the human experience. Or, use the physical world to shine light on the world that exists only in the realm of energy (I'm paraphrasing again and I haven't read much, so take my summaries with a grain of salt). Terence McKenna talks about the macro and micro cosmos, how the universe and the whole of reality is fractal in nature. It's an idea I believe in. I think Hobbes had the same idea. My original impression as interesting fellow still stands 

I also looked up The Law. Much easier to read, but clearly influenced by the same ideas. I say clearly with little more than the cover cracked on either book, so maybe I'm wrong. Either way it's all good food for thought IMO. One of the things that I'm still chewing on from one of the books (cant exactly remember which) was how the author says that people must read themselves rather than other people to discern truth etc. I may not be explaining that right, but that's what I got from it. The idea is that, somewhere under all the cultural conditioning and egocentric noise, we all share similar needs and desires. By reflecting on yourself it lets you discern the right way, for lack of a better term. This is grossly simplified and probably even inaccurate, but my point in bringing it up is this; I may, at some point, be able to get my head around some perfect system that works with human nature rather than ignore it. Some plan that mankind can follow to simply exist in the ridiculous bounty that earth has to offer, and in complete harmony with each other. We all want that, I'm sure of it. Why the fuck cant we get on the same page and make it happen?

Our leaders are corrupt, no news flash there, but even the ones who are not pretty much have two choices; keep on keepin' on or cut your own throat. I just serves to remind me that 99% of all the human beings on the earth are ignoring what they know is right. How in the fuck does something like that even happen? I have no idea, but for now, it fascinates me. Maybe it's just morbid curiosity. I did the same thing with economics several years back when I discovered the truth about money and I'm well known for this tendency among my niggahs    Chemistry doesn't count as I have always been a student and lover of science in all it's forms. But what can a person really do with these insights?

I don't think we can go on much further. Change is inevitable because the balances are tipped way to far in one direction. What will break first, the financial machine that has brought about it's own end (and nearly the earth's end as well) or the people who have been stripped of nearly everything that was once considered god given? More important than that is, will it be any different when we rebuild it? Or will it be it's father's son, meaning will it just grow up into the same thing it has historically always been? Of course, that question can't be answered. I have to wonder if it's just man's lot to repeat this cycle until it's extinction or do we evolve. What do y'all think? Can it change?

Though I've been reading a lot on this subject as of late, I always skip the part on how to fix it. A big part of me believes that all you can do to fix it is live your life by reclaiming your 'certain inalienable rights' and perhaps more will folow suit. Fuck it, let em kill me if they have to. I'm not one who believes that violence is an inexorable part or revolution and I will not engage in it. The assault on police charges I had against me resulted from defending myself while being beat by three of them, I'm not a violent person. I am, however, sick of living in a society where the people meant to represent my interests and facilitate my safety call me a criminal because I experiment with my consciousness or because I wish to enter into an intimate relationship with plants they deem inappropriate. Death sounds better than living that way. I've been called a criminal for so fucking long by this government I even catch myself believing it sometimes. But no more. You know how gay people snap and decide to come out, consequences be damned? That's me, but I'm not gay (sorry fresh1  ) I can't live this lie anymore. That's why I'm going to live with hippies and eat twigs n shit. Because no matter how physically hard my life ends up being, at least I will be happy.

Reading these books and talking about this stuff with people who have actually given it some thought does help me, though. I'm not sure why it helps, but it does. So, keep suggesting books and turning me on to new ways of seeing shit, I'm game.

Just a joke, as if to say you may ask me out or something.

There I was thinking someone wanted to talk about communism after all this time

Edit: Figured I'd swing by the nest here and see how everybody was doin. Me and the ol' lady are living like hobos, here and there, and loving it. Still alive, still healthy, still retarded.