But isn't it also true that their will always be rich and poor. Even in Stalin's Soviet Union, their was rich and poor. Class war will always be around because classes are simply impossible to eliminate.

No, not with the elimination of classes.

I don't see your point. The Soviet Union wasn't a true Marxist or social revolution.

I don't see how they're impossible to eliminate. Classes are actually recent in the human experience. The hunter-gatherers were a kind of a primitive communism. But in terms of today we've never tried to eliminate them before. Actually, the societies that truly did eliminate them were successful on their own right (some examples of communes in Spain for example).

The 1930' are very acceptable!


The White Rose

And this is relevant how?

Having a perfectly marxist communist state is impossible just like having a perfectly free market is impossible. Their is nothing free about the free market and their will always be rich and poor. We have to be realistic. Both the capitalists and the marxists are right about a few things. You can't have an efficient economy without providing incentives to people but you certainly cannot have an unregulated capitalist economy. The less regulated a capitalist economy is then the only people who will benefit is the rich and on the same token we see the pattern of destroying the environment through pollution and it is the poor people who pay for global warming not the rich people who are the cause of it. But to eliminate incentives from the economy will not help the workers either. It's simply a fact that no matter what is done, their will always be rich and poor. The marxists are right about advocating for the workers and doing what is best for society as a whole. But what is best for society has a whole is regulated capitalism that benefits society as a whole, while reversing global warming. The pure communist marxist state is not efficient and does not provide incentives for people to create new innovative ideas or to so that people would be willing to work. Yet, un-regulated capitalism provides no incentives to workers to work. Regulated capitalism that benefits all segments of society as a whole and protects the environment, in my view, is the solution. The classless society is like the unregulated perfectly free market. It is impossible, nor is it free or democratic. The marxists, however, are quite incorrect, that revolution cannot be made with white velvet gloves. Revolution can be made with white velvet gloves and revolution is not made on the battlefield, it is made in the minds of people. It is made in the battle of ideas which takes place in the minds of people. That is where revolutions are made. Their is no need for force or violence to achieve revolution. Revolutions can be made with white velvet gloves. They are made with the power of ideas.

I don't see where you are basing that logic. Sure, the latter isn't sustainable because we have experienced it's failure; however, the former never really came to be, and the closest thing to it was actually quite successful.

We already have a mixed economy in the United States, and it doesn't seem to be doing the trick. The near-socialist states of say, Scandinavia or perhaps France also continue to suffer many of the same problems. The very nature of a class society means the exploitation of the masses for the benefit of the few. You'll inevitably end up back where you were.

And as far as instituting a more socialist framework, I agree it can provide for many things. But it inevitably is still within the same confines of the class and exploiter societies.

Many of your arguments remind me of some of the arguments for slavery. The slavery system was working, after all. It promoted growth too. So are we to suggest then that slavery is a good system? Are we to just demand better accommodations for the slaves as opposed to emancipation? Many people from the south, for example, saw the North's bourgeois system as more harsh on the worker; they thought, and in some cases were correct, that they were treating their workers better.

No one said the classless state is perfect. I mean choose what you will, communist, anarcho-syndicalist, or anarchist; basically every classless model for society doesn't suggest that they are a perfect utopia. Each one essentially disagrees with the other on how to achieve that society, but their ends and intentions are essentially the same. We'll face a different set of problems, but at least we will face them as free and equal peoples, and on a human foundation as opposed to simply the bottom line.

And what incentives does capitalism make for the worker? The worker is forced to alienate himself for his livelihood. It is either that or for money; which money as an incentive has many bad consequences (more than good). Even the capitalist is a slave to market forces. To me the incentive to work (in a classless state) to be able to live in a society which perpetuates the social-being as the primary mode of existence as opposed to a system of self-alienation, is much more empowering.

You make a very good argument Kat. I am impressed. Yes, I do remember reading about the pro-slavery argument. The argument that slavery benefits the enslaved and thus slavery should stay in place, that capitalism benefits the worker and thus capitalism should stay in place. Yet, both were systems of tyranny and oppression. I think, you are right.