Roll Over, Karl Marx

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Roll Over, Karl Marx

In 1883, Karl Marx died as an obscure philosopher, but since then he's become notorious. A 1999 BBC poll judged Marx "the thinker of the millennium" but for the last 60 years he's been infamous in America, where being called a Marxist is equivalent to being labeled a terrorist or pedophile. Despite the controversy, Marx's analysis was correct on many issues and his insights help explain America's growing economic and political divide.

Marx examined the human condition from the perspective of economics. An idealist, he emphasized "universal" principles of group dynamics. He was fascinated by class struggle and capitalism. Influenced by Hegel, Marx subscribed to the concept of inevitability and predicted that capitalism would produce class conflict causing a socialist revolution.

...

Marx was half right. Unfettered capitalism has promoted class polarization in the US. But it's far from inevitable that this will produce class conflict, revolution, and a new social order. American workers are too weak and disorganized.

Karl Marx is rolling over in his grave.

It makes you wonder if prominent Capitalists, despite being opposed to Marxism, saw some inherent truth in it. I must wonder- do powerful Capitalist elites believe in Marxism, not in support, but in opposition to it? Perhaps they saw that their ways WOULD inevitably produce class conflicts as predicted by Marx, and so they set about to purposely neutralize key pillars of workers' strength/solidarity. Unions have had a campaign of destruction/demonization inflicted upon them, workers have lost many rights, benefits, and pay rates have stagnated. Taxes on the rich/corporations are at some of the lowest points in history and are lower than most other developed countries. Corporations now enjoy nearly complete corporate personhood (the rights of the individual) with virtually none of the responsibilities/punishments of an individual.

Via a deceptively convincing political/religious/socio-economic game, Capitalist elites and idealogues have convinced the common man that workers' rights, benefits, living wages, unions, worker solidarity, regulations of big business, equality, etc. are just a bunch of commie, hippie, liberal, activist, (insert hollow epithet here) crap... and that by simply working hard, believing in the system, not asking for anything, obeying the markets/bosses/money/Capitalism, and selling each other out to climb the ladder... that they'll succeed. Truth is, this Capitalist line of thought was complete BS; It's funny how much of our attitude in hardline Capitalist society resembles the kind of unquestioning/groveling mindsets of Communist dictatorships. Same sh** different authoritarian team.

What people don't realize (especially if they have a weak understanding of the political spectrum) is that much of left-wing belief/politics is actually quite Libertarian, and that the lower-class masses have much more in common than dividing us. Once again, the cliche of dividing a populace against each other based on false/knee-jerk emotional issues (race, abortion, religion, homosexuality, lifestyle choices, age, etc.) is key to maintaining this hateful ignorance amongst the populace.

It's kind of sad how many of YOU have a bad taste in your mouth regarding unions, workers' rights, high taxation of corporations/the wealthy, and universal social benefits. I suppose it's why people choose Republicans over Democrats... Republicans are obviously worse for you, but their schtick is more convincing and the grand prize of their gamble clouds peoples' reason. Democrats aren't much better, but they're the obvious choice in a quasi-Fascist 2-party system. This, in my mind, has many parallels to many peoples' choice in being right-wing/Capitalist and anti-Socialist- they'd rather embrace the Capitalist propaganda because it's familiar and deliberately appeals to whatever mindset/lifestyle they've chosen, yet at the end of the day it gives them the WORST deal.

People KNOW they will be taxed so long as there is government, but in a terribly perverted/deceived sense of "fairness" they've been convined to fight for the wealthy/big business and AGAINST their own interests as lower-class workers or even small business owners. Even as an Anarchist, I'd rather have a government work for ME as much as possible SO LONG AS IT EXISTS. It's just plain common-sense/reason to choose the better deals in life... even if it's the lesser evil. One of the biggest cons of the American century has been convincing people to gamble on the worse deal but with the most fakely folky appeal; our government/markets have been turned into a Capitalist casino to endlessly sucker in the populace...

I'm sorry, this sounds interesting, but is difficult to read on my monitor. Could you please indent your thread more? A couple more paragraphs.

Thanks.

When I look around the world at the countries that have gone very far to the left, U.S.S.R, Cuba, North Korea, etc., I ask myself, do I want to live like those people?
Not on your life.

Originally posted by ThinkingCap
I'm sorry, this sounds interesting, but is difficult to read on my monitor. Could you please indent your thread more? A couple more paragraphs.

Thanks.

Better?

Marx was a paid tool of the elite.

Marxism/Socialism/Communism: Our masters created this to more easily enslave us, with the added bonus that "useful idiots" would help propel it along the way, willingly.

The last century suggests that it may not have worked quite as desired, but it sure was a great test run.

Manufactured opposition always has played it's part in our master's plans, and if I was to guess, it will continue to do so.

JR

Originally posted by Kaiju
When I look around the world at the countries that have gone very far to the left, U.S.S.R, Cuba, North Korea, etc., I ask myself, do I want to live like those people?
Not on your life.

That's a false view of those countries. They haven't gone "too far to the left" they've gone too far AUTHORITARIAN instead of Libertarian. Like I said, many left-wing/liberal views are Libertarian (i.e. the opposite of places like the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, etc.), thus the root word of 'liberal' being 'liberty' or 'libertarian'.

Please see the Political Compass for a more proper analysis (and a free test) of the political spectrum of Left vs. Right, Libertarian vs. Authoritarian:
www.politicalcompass.org...

Good post I agree with most of your thoughts. I would argue though that Marx didn't really predict social unrest, it was already happening. In the time of the industrial revolution workers were far more politically aware than now. Politics were less complicated, and they didn't have the years of capitalist indoctrination in state ran schools yet.
Workers would discuss politics daily like people now discus episodes of the Simpsons. There were many uprising, the big one being in Spain 1936, where workers collectivized industry and farms.

The left was of the workers, the right of the bosses. Socialism, communism, anarchism were system created by and for the working class. They were around before Marx took those systems and created his own ideal system from them. The left was split between those who supported the state, Marxists, and those who apposed the state whom started calling themselves anarchists to differentiate themselves from the state supporters.

Marx is the state form of socialism, anarchism is the anti-state form of socialism. Russia etc., were never communist by practice, only in name.

The reason Americans are so scared of socialism is state controlled conditioning through schools and media. You are not told the truth about what it really is. You're not told the truth about so called 'communist' countries.
You're not told the truth about what capitalism really is, it's the private ownership of the means of production, not free-markets. It's no different than the lies told to other populations through history. Fill people with national pride by using pomp and circumstance and you can convince them of anything. People like to follow the crowd in order to fit in, no one likes being 'different'. We as a society oppress ourselves with this nonsense because we fear change, whatever that change is. We are kept in a constant state of fear (fight or flight) by an never ending bombardment from the MSM. This makes us easy to manipulate and control.

Socialism is not a bad word people, this is the greatest deception ever played on the people.

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
Marx was a paid tool of the elite.

Marxism/Socialism/Communism: Our masters created this to more easily enslave us, with the added bonus that "useful idiots" would help propel it along the way, willingly.

The last century suggests that it may not have worked quite as desired, but it sure was a great test run.

Manufactured opposition always has played it's part in our master's plans, and if I was to guess, it will continue to do so.

JR

If you actually read the writings of Marx or revolutionary Socialists, you'll find that they're quite opposed to tyrannies both of the STATE and of MARKETS. Now... of course despots like Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. have seized upon mass appeal for Socialism to gain dictatorial power for themselves (which they then used to destroy workers/peoples rights and freedoms) but their actions have NOTHING to do with the actual tenets of Socialism, its proper practice, nor of the desires/struggles/successes of real activists. Hell... even Hitler (a right-wing dictator) seized upon the popular appeal for Socialism and unions... but right after he gained power he DESTROYED unions, hunted Socialists/Communists, and assimilated puppet unions who walked in lock-step with his Reich instead of functioning as unions had/should. Socialism is actually a great idea that has many successes. And the only thing that dictatorial regimes attest to is NOT the corruptibility of Socialism, but rather the corruptibility of government/hierarchy in general. That's why I'm ultimately an Anarchist... not necessarily an absolute Anarcho-Socialist, but I definitely adopt parts of it in my belief system.

Please read:
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Kaiju
When I look around the world at the countries that have gone very far to the left, U.S.S.R, Cuba, North Korea, etc., I ask myself, do I want to live like those people?
Not on your life.

But those countries are not communists, and it isn't communism that made them the way they are.

Capitalism is why they are the way they are. Capitalism is not a guarantee of wealth. Russia simply could not compete with it's small production, against the large producing power of the US and western Europe. The whole MSM propaganda really had nothing to do with communism, but simply putting down the competition in a world wide capitalist economy.

It's all a misconception.

reply to post by NoHierarchy

Socialism is actually a great idea that has many successes.

Socialism/Communism probably looks OK from the perspective of the idealist, but for those who have had to suffer through it's ultimate conclusions, it's not such a great idea.

Why is it that so many of the last century's "socialist experiments" went so terribly wrong?

I see that you are making a concerted effort to distance "socialism" from the various totalitarian regimes that most are familiar with, but could it be that there is something in communism that "tends" to eventually lead to what history repeatedly showed us? What if people actually took socialism / communism "seriously"? That would lead to something like "permanent revolution" (anarchy?)

You mention that socialism is a "great idea", but an idea isn't enough, apparently. We might wake up one morning and decide that enough is enough, and that we are simply not going to have "homeless" people around anymore. "Great idea", but if it means the homeless are rounded up and exterminated, well, I'm not going to be with you on that one. If on the other hand it means we're going to begin the (long) process of trying to understand homelessness, in an attempt to really find the cause, then I would say we might have a better chance at a reasonable solution.

Socialism is too simplistic, IMO. Idealistic, yes. Realistic, no. For this reason alone, it should be suspect.

I suppose if you are primarily an "anarchist", then socialism would indeed have an appeal. Socialism, the more it is adopted, the less just the society, and eventually, the inevitable injustice, will explode, leading to chaos that might give you what you want, in due time.

Along the way, a whole lot of misery.

Perhaps the bigger issue here is still ignored: What happens to a people conditioned by inhuman socialist ideology?

But perhaps that's what our masters were after the whole time.

Dangerous, at best.

JR

reply to post by JR MacBeth


They did not go wrong because of socialists. They went wrong because they were not really socialist to start with. They are nothing but liberal attempts at state capitalism.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, and the world economy is based on this.

Socialism is an economic system whereby the workers own the means of production. That means worker cooperatives where profit made goes to the workers, as apposed to a private owner (considered exploitation).
It doesn't have to be political at all. So don't blame socialism, blame the people who misappropriate the term and politicize it for an agenda that doesn't include the workers.

Anarchists do not want chaos, stupid misconception. Anarchy means chaos, Anarchism is a political system that is against hierarchy, and came from the left who were apposed to state socialism. Anarchists, in most part, believe we can have an organized society based on a socialist economy, where all decisions are democratic and voluntary.

reply to post by ANOK

Socialism is an economic system whereby the workers own the means of production.

"The workers"...Do you know how naive that sounds?

What exactly is a "worker"?

OK, I sort of know what you mean, but let's step away from fantasy, at least for laughs.

Lets say, we have an enterprise that manufactures automobiles. Maybe a large factory, perhaps in a place like Detroit (just for a more concrete example). The "factory" is only one building (to simplify things), and it has a few conveyor belts, and a warehouse for parts, and lots of machinery, etc.

Just to put it into some kind of perspective, let us "value" the factory. No, not easy in a true Socialist economy, where valuations are literally "made up", by a few bosses, but anyway, indulge me for a moment.

Lets imagine that the factory in this example has a "capitalization" (bad word!) of $20 million "dollars / pounds, etc. ". Lets also imagine that it takes 100 workers to "maximize" the usefulness of this facility. No, let's go with 200 workers, since they might work in shifts, etc.

Let's now divide the $20 million, by the 200 workers, for a grand total of $100,000 per worker. (200 x $100K = $20 million). "If" the workers were to "own" the means of production, in this case, each and every one of them seemingly should be able to ante-up $100K.

Can they? IF THEY COULD, they wouldn't be "workers"!! Is this rocket science?

Puh-LEEZE, get with the program. Idealism is fine, but absurdity is not quite the same thing.

Finally, saying that socialism has something to do with "democracy" is just as silly. No such thing! Not even in "America" is there such a thing.

"Socialism" (Communism) is a ludicrous joke on the simple (and jealous) masses. It simply does not stand up under any kind of scrutiny.

Sorry ANOK, I realize you're one of the more dedicated ones, but no, still doesn't work. Not in real life anyway.

JR

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
reply to post by ANOK

 

Socialism is an economic system whereby the workers own the means of production.

"The workers"...Do you know how naive that sounds?

What exactly is a "worker"?

OK, I sort of know what you mean, but let's step away from fantasy, at least for laughs.

Lets say, we have an enterprise that manufactures automobiles. Maybe a large factory, perhaps in a place like Detroit (just for a more concrete example). The "factory" is only one building (to simplify things), and it has a few conveyor belts, and a warehouse for parts, and lots of machinery, etc.

Just to put it into some kind of perspective, let us "value" the factory. No, not easy in a true Socialist economy, where valuations are literally "made up", by a few bosses, but anyway, indulge me for a moment.

Lets imagine that the factory in this example has a "capitalization" (bad word!) of $20 million "dollars / pounds, etc. ". Lets also imagine that it takes 100 workers to "maximize" the usefulness of this facility. No, let's go with 200 workers, since they might work in shifts, etc.

Let's now divide the $20 million, by the 200 workers, for a grand total of $100,000 per worker. (200 x $100K = $20 million). "If" the workers were to "own" the means of production, in this case, each and every one of them seemingly should be able to ante-up $100K.

Can they? IF THEY COULD, they wouldn't be "workers"!! Is this rocket science?

Puh-LEEZE, get with the program. Idealism is fine, but absurdity is not quite the same thing.

Finally, saying that socialism has something to do with "democracy" is just as silly. No such thing! Not even in "America" is there such a thing.

"Socialism" (Communism) is a ludicrous joke on the simple (and jealous) masses. It simply does not stand up under any kind of scrutiny.

Sorry ANOK, I realize you're one of the more dedicated ones, but no, still doesn't work. Not in real life anyway.

JR

Don't be foolish/uneducated... this already exists, JR:

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
"The workers"...Do you know how naive that sounds?

What exactly is a "worker"?

OK, I sort of know what you mean, but let's step away from fantasy, at least for laughs.

The working class, the class of people who have only their labour to sell, and thus have been exploited by those who own the means of production since the industrial revolution. This is pretty standard socialist terminology.

Originally posted by JR MacBeth

Lets say, we have an enterprise that manufactures automobiles. Maybe a large factory, perhaps in a place like Detroit (just for a more concrete example). The "factory" is only one building (to simplify things), and it has a few conveyor belts, and a warehouse for parts, and lots of machinery, etc.

Just to put it into some kind of perspective, let us "value" the factory. No, not easy in a true Socialist economy, where valuations are literally "made up", by a few bosses, but anyway, indulge me for a moment.

Wait, no you are already injecting your own false assumptions. A few bosses? That is not socialism.

Worker control means workers control, not a few bosses. That is what we have now, unless you haven't ever noticed?

Originally posted by JR MacBeth

Lets imagine that the factory in this example has a "capitalization" (bad word!) of $20 million "dollars / pounds, etc. ". Lets also imagine that it takes 100 workers to "maximize" the usefulness of this facility. No, let's go with 200 workers, since they might work in shifts, etc.

Let's now divide the $20 million, by the 200 workers, for a grand total of $100,000 per worker. (200 x $100K = $20 million). "If" the workers were to "own" the means of production, in this case, each and every one of them seemingly should be able to ante-up $100K.

Can they? IF THEY COULD, they wouldn't be "workers"!! Is this rocket science?

Well your profit figure, which I'm guessing is what your meant by capitalization, is really inflated, but all you've pointed out in the absurdity of it all. Why should they work if they've got a $100,000? You didn't mention if that is yearly or monthly profit. If it's yearly then 100,000 isn't that much lol.

Why should people work to make other people profit anyway? Capitalism has taken away the peoples power to be autonomous and fend for themselves. You don't even really own the 'property' you think is yours.

But yes the profits, that are actually created by the 'workers', should go to the 'workers' to create a more fair economic spread. It would end the rich poor divide, which is getting wider and wider, and all the social upheavals that stem from it.

Originally posted by JR MacBeth

Puh-LEEZE, get with the program. Idealism is fine, but absurdity is not quite the same thing.

Oh quit with the patronizing nonsense, and go educate yourself a little outside of your self imposed box. Get a sense of history other than Kings and Queens. There is a history of the working class that is more interesting and relevant to us, if your ego doesn't get away with you.

Originally posted by JR MacBeth

Finally, saying that socialism has something to do with "democracy" is just as silly. No such thing! Not even in "America" is there such a thing.

Well you can think that if you wish, no amount of arguing is going to convince you otherwise. You're still stuck in this thinking that Russia etc., are examples of socialism, or communism. You still insist the socialism is some kind of completely controlled state system. It isn't, socialism is an economic system, not a political system.
Anarchism is a political system that supports the economic system of socialism. So how can socialism be a political dictatorship? It can't. If a country is a dictatorship it is not socialist, no matter what its dictator tries to tell its people. Why do we mistrust tyrants, but believe it when they call themselves socialists? It's just another lie to appease the people.

As Socialism in general, Anarchism was born among the people; and it will continue to be full of life and creative power only as long as it remains a thing of the people.

From the book 'Modern Science and Anarchism' p.5, Peter Kropotkin, 1908

Is it necessary to repeat here the irrefutable arguments of Socialism which no bourgeois
economist has yet succeeded in disproving? What is property, what is capital in their present form?
For the capitalist and the property owner they mean the power and the right, guaranteed by the
State, to live without working. And since neither property nor capital produces anything when not
fertilized by labor - that means the power and the right to live by exploiting the work of someone
else, the right to exploit the work of those who possess neither property nor capital and who thus are
forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both.

From 'The Capitalist System' p.1, Michael Bakunin 1814-1876, Anarcho-Collectivist.

Convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and that Socialism without
freedom is slavery and brutality.
The League [for Peace and Freedom] loudly proclaims the necessity of a radical social and
economic reconstruction, having for its aim the emancipation of people's labor from the yoke of
capital and property owners, a reconstruction based upon strict justice - neither juridical nor
theological nor metaphysical justice, but simply human justice - upon positive science and upon the
widest freedom.

From 'Stateless Socialism: Anarchism', Mikhail Bakunin 1814-1876, Anarcho-Collectivist.

Originally posted by JR MacBeth

"Socialism" (Communism) is a ludicrous joke on the simple (and jealous) masses. It simply does not stand up under any kind of scrutiny.

Socialism is not communism. Socialism as an economic system uses markets money and trade, communism uses free shared communal goods. What scrutiny? Yours lol?

Originally posted by JR MacBeth

Sorry ANOK, I realize you're one of the more dedicated ones, but no, still doesn't work. Not in real life anyway.

Well actually it can work, and has been proven to work.

libcom.org...

wiki.infoshop.org...

I look around and see much of Marx's criticism of capitalist society, from exploitation and the alienation of the work force, the class unconsciousness the increasing monopolization of the worlds resources. The most exploited now are the ones who work in the 3rd world sweatshops creating goods for westerners. Goods the worker would need to work a whole year just to purchase themselves.

The problem is, in every society, whether capitalist, socialist, democratic and undemocratic is the emergence of elites. There will always be those individuals who are more cunning and more determined who will group together to form an elite who will eventually push society in the direction that best suits the elite. I would say its human nature

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
There will always be those individuals who are more cunning and more determined who will group together to form an elite who will eventually push society in the direction that best suits the elite. I would say its human nature

That is something that society needs to be aware of guard against. If society was aware of the dangers of allowing power monopolies then capitalism would be history.

In a truly free society that wisdom would be taught in schools, instead of creating overly competitive ignorant consumers.

Originally posted by Kaiju
When I look around the world at the countries that have gone very far to the left, U.S.S.R, Cuba, North Korea, etc., I ask myself, do I want to live like those people?
Not on your life.

Actually Cuba wouldn't be too bad if it weren't for an economic superpower trying to destroy it year after year for the terrible slight of overthrowing a US-backed rapist-dictator.

North Korea is about as "communist" as the Democratic People's republic of the Congo is actually a democratic republic of the people who live in the Congo.

And the USSR was probably better off than the current state Russia's in - again, the constant efforts of the other world superpower to destroy it probably didn't help things (but really, if you can be ranked as a superpower, you can't be too far off the mark)

However, with the possible exception of Cuba, these countries didn't lean to the left. Both North Korea and the USSR became effective monarchies; Hell, North Korea is almost a theocracy, with Kim Il Sung as god and Kim Jong Il his heir.

Sweden is hard left. Canada's pretty leftward. Japan kinda falls outside our usual political scope, but by American standards, it's kinda in the left.

Most of the world looks at us, with our largely ignorant population of self-hobbling peasants beholden to corporate barons, living under lock and key by the hands of a militarized police state, and reach the same conclusions you have; Not on your life.

Marx's strongest point was his understanding of "alienation" in an economic sense. The way that work in a sophisticated, specialized economy "alienates" people from the fruit of their labor.

It's a complex idea, but to get a sense of it, think of this: When you make a fishing rod, net, and bucket for yourself and catch dinner, there is something more valuable there than the actual literal value of the fish and the items you made yourself. It's because you put your own time and energy into doing it; also, the satisfaction of self-worth, ownership of your own destiny, etc. But if you work on an assembly line all day doing some horrific, repetitive hellwork, all that is stripped from you. It is how capital is produced in a capitalist society, in essense...by "harvesting" this creamy excess value from the workers without them realizing, peeling it from them like blubber from a whale.Not only does it produce psychological and social alienation, but also a more fundamental, ontological alienation, where the essential integrity that should exist between a man's labor and the fruits of his labor is disrupted.

Even the most far-right person who rejects everything else of Marx should be able to find something of value in his theories of Alienation. It was a stunningly penetrating insight into the mechanics of advanced economies, and it ususally gets lost in the shuffle.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Great article on Co-ops.

No one is going to argue with you there. Great idea.

Of course, Socialism is still a bad idea. Actually, you could introduce 10 more great ideas, and they still wouldn't be able to help the antiquated socialist paradigm.

But, I can see how some confuse the issues. A lot of it might be terminology too. But more on that in my response to ANOK.

JR

reply to post by ANOK

Why should people work to make other people profit anyway?

Maybe you can answer your own question. Why do YOU work to make other people profit?

But yes the profits, that are actually created by the 'workers', should go to the 'workers' to create a more fair economic spread. It would end the rich poor divide, which is getting wider and wider, and all the social upheavals that stem from it.

A "more fair" economic "spread"? Poppycock. And the absurd concept of "fair" would be decided by whom exactly?

By the way, the "rich poor divide" isn't a product of workers being exploited, it's simply a reflection of nature. As Jesus once famously said, "The poor you will always have..." I'm not a religionist, but there are a few words of wisdom in the old books. This is just the way it is. Like homeless people. We've got them all around, in developed countries, where such creatures should be scarce, you would think. But, upon closer inspection, we discover that "homelessness" isn't always something done "to" a person, it's more about what's between their ears.

As far as social upheavals stemming from inequity, well, some of it might well stem from injustice, but how much of the upheaval is something being stoked by an elite, that has found hollow ideology a very useful tool in their efforts to conquer the world? And how many are playing into their plans, through ignorance, willful or otherwise?

There is a history of the working class that is more interesting and relevant to us, if your ego doesn't get away with you.

Marxist ideology does indeed attempt to rewrite history from a more economic perspective. A workers struggle, against a Capitalist oppressor. But, it's just a way of looking at things through a faulty ideology. May not really help us understand things better, although it might further the Communist "cause" of course.

You're still stuck in this thinking that Russia etc., are examples of socialism, or communism. You still insist the socialism is some kind of completely controlled state system. It isn't, socialism is an economic system, not a political system.

You go on after that, to speak of that which is dearest to your heart, "anarchism". I'll have to leave that, but regarding your comment above, I think you do yourself a disservice by rejecting actual real-world examples of where Marxist ideology leads. Certainly, you can continue to indulge in idealism, but really, I don't think you should get your nose too out-of-joint if people continue to remind you of real-world Marxist failures.

Socialism is not communism. Socialism as an economic system uses markets money and trade, communism uses free shared communal goods.

ANOK, from a previous thread, if I'm not misstaken, haven't we been through this one before? Historically, "communism" and "socialism" were considered the SAME thing, and were spoken of, as such, in the voluminous correspondence between Marx and Engels.

Later, after the manifest failures of nations that had used the label "communist" too freely, Marxist thinkers sought a divorce. They decided to make a distinction, in their attempt to distance themselves from failure, and prefer now to speak of "Socialism" apart from the ugly "C" word.

I suppose this is fine, we can use "your" revised lexicon, but I'm not sure the truth is served much when nonsense like this is pulled. History, is history. We may not like that our team lost the game, but when it did, we need to move on, maybe go back and figure out why we lost, not just try and forget the whole thing, later telling ourselves that we actually won. If you lost, you lost.

JR