We of course can travel down the ever-winding road of definitions. We can say that Marxism is the theory and that Socialism is the system in action. This wouldn't be exactly correct though since the theory predates Marx. We can say that Socialism is a process through which we arrive at Marxism. We can say many things. But it remains that Socialism as it is practiced is a byproduct of the ideas of Marx and Engels. Thus, Socialism is a subset of Marxism.

I'll remove a little more confusion for you.

Cultures are persistent. Granting that, by my analysis, Socialism seeks to destroy all culture and project itself eminent, it remains that any culture that has Socialism forced or coerced upon it will still retain the original culture. Thus, the appearance of Socialism as distilled through the weltanschauung of that culture will be different than Socialism in different cultures.

Keep in mind, I'm marking Socialism as a distinct belief system that draws upon, as origin, the Communist Manifesto. I'm not discussing the mechanical aspects of Socialism necessary for the basic functions of society.

Thus, when Russians are Socialists, they are evil. When Chinese are Socialists, they are very evil. When Germans are Socialists they are, well, boring.

We must keep in mind the relatively brief period of time and the framework in which Socialist societies have existed. I'm convinced that all Socialist societies will digress into despotisms. I find Socialism to be nothing more than intellectualized Feudalism. But, I'm drawing from a much broader range of disciplines than simply Civics 101. You see, I can find no difference between the prince and the state. Great shades of Machiavelli!!!

Anyway, next economics lesson...(for Humble C.)

There is no such a thing as 'the economy'. Yes, there is economics, and yes, there is an economic system. Yes, there is the general economic health of a society and there are words to describe it. But, there is, as people tend to view it, no such a think as 'the economy'. This is a Socialist/Marxist/Stalinist/Leninist, statement (they are after all, essentially the same thing).

The use of the term, 'the economy', suggests that there is a bundle of cash that represents the nations bank account. This does not exist, I repeat, this does not exist. The government cannot withdraw from it, and you cannot count on it, it is a myth.

The statement, "A nation so rich as ours should be able to afford to_____," is a very dangerous statement. It presumes a condition that is at best relative (rich as in infinite access to power/lucre) or (rich as in less poor than Ethiopia). And worse, implicit in it's use is the suggestion that we must for some reason become less rich. I realize that the previous sentence is a little difficult to understand (basically because I suck at explaining myself). But bear with me.

You see, if we have so much money that we can afford a massively expensive thing, then, upon purchasing this thing, we obviously will no longer be rich. Around here we call this type of thinking, 'idiot rich', as in, "He was idiot rich last payday and bought that widget and now he can't afford to make his rent payment."

But, most importantly, we, as a nation, have no money. The best we can do to make this claim is to assert that we will steal the money and make it ours. In America, people have money, not the government. If I have 5 billion dollars and you have 5,000 dollars, none of my money is yours, period. The only way to make it yours is for you to rob me. I guarantee you that a nation of robbers cannot operate a robust society.

The only reason the pathetic Europeans enjoy an economy above that of your average Bedouin is because the USA props them up. They exist as a function of the power of the USA, not as a function of the power of their enterprise. Believe me, there are several nations around the world, including Russia, that can gobble Europe up easily. They have no will, they have no integrity, they have no sense of responsibility to their own people let alone the neighbors with whom they've bound themselves, and thus, they haven't the ability to defend themselves. One by one, lacking any military expression, each nation would fall.

More later,

[oh yea] http://seekingalpha.com/a...-2007-tax-bill-30-billion

Joel.


image