Communism Vs Capitlasm or Socialsm vs Fascism? Discuss

[kingspud]

i was always confused in history lessons when they used to talk about the cold war, and it being a battle between capitalism and communism. don't see how you can compare the two very easily. communism and fascism are to extremes on the spectrum or political thought where as caplitalsm and socialsm are two different types of economic and socialogical thought no? i would be grateful for your views!

[KidRobot]

I guess spelling 2/4 right is a decent percentage.

[saysmydoctor]

huh

[Praetor]

No way you're 26.

[kingspud]

oh come on! are you all academics in here or something!

[kingspud]

socialism facsism! there we are!

[Praetor]

socialism facsism! there we are!
Keep trying there champ.

[saysmydoctor]

*fascism
*capitalism

[kingspud]

oh for christs sake this is getting embarrasing! you know what i mean!

[kwsqd]

They're all totalitarian.

/thread

[kingspud]

oh fuck capitalasm looks a bit like orgasm doesn't. really wish i hadn't started this thread now :(

[kingspud]

how are they all totalitarian? and even if they are wouldn't you consider them to be sort of waring factions within that?

[Praetor]

They're all totalitarian.

/thread
Uh...

[kwsqd]

Uh...
What?

[saysmydoctor]

Communism is not authoritarian.

That's 'what.'

[Praetor]

Communism is not authoritarian.

That's 'what.'
Nor is capitalism (unless you're using 'authoritarian' in a general sense and not in a political sense).

[kingspud]

bring another big word to the table why don't ya

[saysmydoctor]

Nor is capitalism (unless you're using 'authoritarian' in a general sense and not in a political sense).
I would argue that the market becomes the authority in capitalism.

[kwsqd]

Communism is not authoritarian.

That's 'what.'
in practice, it is.

[saysmydoctor]

in practice, it is.
Communism has never been practiced.

[kwsqd]

Communism has never been practiced.
Thanks for proving my point?

[saysmydoctor]

Thanks for proving my point?
You didn't make one.

[Praetor]

I would argue that the market becomes the authority in capitalism.
Yeah, I thought that might have been where you were going but I wasn't sure.

But in that case, would communism not be considered authoritarian, because democracy would be the authority? Never mind me, I'm just musing out loud.

[kwsqd]

You didn't make one.
Yes I did. Stop with this worthless banter.
You just said that communism isn't totalitarian and then I said: well when it's been practiced it has been. Then you said it's never been practiced--no shit, but when the attempt has been made to practice it, it has been totalitarian.

[kwsqd]

Yeah, I thought that might have been where you were going but I wasn't sure.

But in that case, would communism not be considered authoritarian, because democracy would be the authority? Never mind me, I'm just musing out loud.
They all can be considered authoritarian in the sense that they eventually destroy individual autonomy.

[Praetor]

Yes I did. Stop with this worthless banter.
You just said that communism isn't totalitarian and then I said: well when it's been practiced it has been. Then you said it's never been practiced--no shit, but when the attempt has been made to practice it, it has been totalitarian.
...but that makes no sense. If it's never truly been practiced on a large scale (something I would agree with as well) then you can't count the failed/misguided attempts to practice it, and whether they have been totalitarian or not. For example, it is not fair to say that Islam is a violent religion because of the existence of jihadists.

[Praetor]

They all can be considered authoritarian in the sense that they eventually destroy individual autonomy.
True, but I don't believe that the simple existence of authority on any level constitutes calling it authoritarian. Authoritarianism is a definable philosophy and isn't measured by the mere existence of authority; for example, it is entirely possible to have a libertarian government.

[kwsqd]

...but that makes no sense. If it's never truly been practiced on a large scale (something I would agree with as well) then you can't count the failed/misguided attempts to practice it, and whether they have been totalitarian or not. For example, it is not fair to say that Islam is a violent religion because of the existence of jihadists.
Allow me to reprhase: I'm saying that as far as all of the systems have been practiced, they have been totalitarian.

[kwsqd]

True, but I don't believe that the simple existence of authority on any level constitutes calling it authoritarian. Authoritarianism is a definable philosophy and isn't measured by the mere existence of authority; for example, it is entirely possible to have a libertarian government.
Well said. I'm partially playing the devil's advocate here but I think if one were to examine the US and the USSR, one could definitely argue that they are/were significantly suppressive-albeit in different ways, but there's plenty of evidence to support the claim.

[GeeBee]

Allow me to reprhase: I'm saying that as far as all of the systems have been practiced, they have been totalitarian.

That's the point. The systems that have been practiced have NOT been communistic in nature.

[Scrawns]

since there is no definition of Fascism, perhaps change that to ultra-conservative or totalitarian?

[Formatfun]

I guess spelling 2/4 right is a decent percentage.
hahah that annoyed me.

[Chrisj182]

since there is no definition of Fascism, perhaps change that to ultra-conservative or totalitarian?

That is true.

[Brand-new-123]

since there is no definition of Fascism, perhaps change that to ultra-conservative or totalitarian?
Wrong.

1. (sometimes initial capital letterhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

2. (sometimes initial capital letterhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.

3. (initial capital letterhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

[kwsqd]

That's the point. The systems that have been practiced have NOT been communistic in nature.

and they never will be.

[saysmydoctor]

Yeah, I thought that might have been where you were going but I wasn't sure.

But in that case, would communism not be considered authoritarian, because democracy would be the authority? Never mind me, I'm just musing out loud.
This is a bit more Rousseau than Marx, but I would believe the general will is a collective authority, so in a sense--everyone is responsible to everyone.
Yes I did. Stop with this worthless banter.
You just said that communism isn't totalitarian and then I said: well when it's been practiced it has been. Then you said it's never been practiced--no shit, but when the attempt has been made to practice it, it has been totalitarian.
What's been practiced hasn't been communism. You are comparing apples and oranges. You can't fault the original concept of communism because of those who have bastardized the original concept for social order.
Allow me to reprhase: I'm saying that as far as all of the systems have been practiced, they have been totalitarian.
And because of their inherent totalitarianism, there is no way it can be communistic in any shape or form.
and they never will be.
Sup Miss Cleo.

[mattmatumbo]

You didn't make one.

Hahaha

Communism, from what i understand, is the working class being the government, but then i also hear it is anarchy where everyone shares EVERYTHING: ie: no poverty, no gaps between rich and poor, no power struggles. (impossible, ehh?)

Capitalism, in the perfected sense, is an economy where only the best, cheapest products survive. So on and so forth, ultimately leading to monopolies, the government has no interaction with the market with restrictions or aiding it.

I'm sure someone else on here has a much better definition for the two of these ideas.

Communism will never succeed and capitalism will only, over time, destroy itself by creating a huge impoverished angry population who eventually use something like a guillotine to eradicate the rich.

[macabre]

I personally think the rate of industrial development has more bearing on whether a country becomes authoritarian than the ideology of its elites.

[Praetor]

Hahaha

Communism, from what i understand, is the working class being the government, but then i also hear it is anarchy where everyone shares EVERYTHING: ie: no poverty, no gaps between rich and poor, no power struggles. (impossible, ehh?)

Capitalism, in the perfected sense, is an economy where only the best, cheapest products survive. So on and so forth, ultimately leading to monopolies, the government has no interaction with the market with restrictions or aiding it.

I'm sure someone else on here has a much better definition for the two of these ideas.
Even Adam Smith believed that some regulations needed to be in place for capitalism to thrive.

[saysmydoctor]

Even Adam Smith believed that some regulations needed to be in place for capitalism to thrive.
This.

[thursday727]

I would've just deleted the thread and remade it with the title spelled correctly.

[theguy77]

hahaha this is ridiculous. i came in here expecting a good discussion and i see petty bickering over semantics.

[rawesome]

Even Adam Smith believed that some regulations needed to be in place for capitalism to thrive.

What he's talking about isn't exactly Capitalism, but more of a pure free market. Either way, the main idea between both is the same Social Darwinistic mentality.

[Sventhegreat]

Who is this guy? Why the hell does he keep making these mindless threads?

[Praetor]

hahaha this is ridiculous. i came in here expecting a good discussion and i see petty bickering over semantics.
Semantics make for good discussion.

[theguy77]

Semantics make for good discussion.

not often. they just dwindle away at the beef of the argument, typically. sometimes they can be really annoying too, a lot of times in discussion i might be completely agreeing with someone else and not even know it because we're phrasing ourselves differently and arguing about that.

[saysmydoctor]

hahaha this is ridiculous. i came in here expecting a good discussion and i see petty bickering over semantics.
Definitely not arguing over semantics, more like concrete facts that are only disputed because of the misrepresentation of communism.

[theguy77]

Definitely not arguing over semantics, more like concrete facts that are only disputed because of the misrepresentation of communism.

okay, well now that weve gotten through that distinction, let's apply it to a more substantial discussion. do you think that communism as it was idealized by marx is a pragmatic system for a country to adopt and practice successfully?

[mattmatumbo]

Even Adam Smith believed that some regulations needed to be in place for capitalism to thrive.

Neo-Conservatives sure don't haha.

[Praetor]

okay, well now that weve gotten through that distinction, let's apply it to a more substantial discussion. do you think that communism as it was idealized by marx is a pragmatic system for a country to adopt and practice successfully?
I know I wasn't who you asked, but that's a pretty broad question.
Neo-Conservatives sure don't.
Fairly true, albeit irrelevant.

[rawesome]

okay, well now that weve gotten through that distinction, let's apply it to a more substantial discussion. do you think that communism as it was idealized by marx is a pragmatic system for a country to adopt and practice successfully?
I'd say that ethically, Communism is vastly the superior system to all that have been mentioned. Obviously it's shortcomings have been brought to the forefront in essentially every situation in which is has attempted to be implemented. I don't think their is a perfect system out there at the moment, but in my opinion Democratic Socialism would be the way to go simply because it both provides for its citizens and allows them a voice. All of the positive aspects of a Capitalist society would be easily viable (have the job you like/can become most qualified for being the biggest thing. If you go to school to do something, you can do it without intervention from the government), but with government oversight to ensure that none of the bullshit takes place.

[theguy77]

I'd say that ethically, Communism is vastly the superior system to all that have been mentioned. Obviously it's shortcomings have been brought to the forefront in essentially every situation in which is has attempted to be implemented. I don't think their is a perfect system out there at the moment, but in my opinion Democratic Socialism would be the way to go simply because it both provides for its citizens and allows them a voice. All of the positive aspects of a Capitalist society would be easily viable (have the job you like/can become most qualified for being the biggest thing. If you go to school to do something, you can do it without intervention from the government), but with government oversight to ensure that none of the bullshit takes place.

sweden.

their economy still has issues that they're working out, mainly the fact that at this point the only way theyve been able to accomplish such a system is through a ridiculous income tax of like, 51%. but if you ask me, it's a non-issue; if you're not in like the filthy rich category, either you buy your own social programs and half your money belongs to consumerism, or you have the government provide them and half your money belongs to the government. obviously exaggerating, but in mentality its not something that bothers me so much.

[theguy77]

Cool story, bro!

I'm aware of which countries practice Socialism.

but they're the country that's been lauded for their unique balance and blend of civil liberties/market opportunities, but with regulation and social programs similar to what you'd find in a typical socialist framework. that seems to be what you were getting at with most of that paragraph, no?

[rawesome]

sweden.

their economy still has issues that they're working out, mainly the fact that at this point the only way theyve been able to accomplish such a system is through a ridiculous income tax of like, 51%. but if you ask me, it's a non-issue; if you're not in like the filthy rich category, either you buy your own social programs and half your money belongs to consumerism, or you have the government provide them and half your money belongs to the government. obviously exaggerating, but in mentality its not something that bothers me so much.
I agree. I mean in the end the main reason for having a job to make money is to provide for yourself. If your government is willing to do the brunt of the work for you, taking care of health care, education, protection, and other amenities, and I only have to spend half my on that, then realistically their middle class is probably making more because they are essentially pocketing half their income (after food and a few other necessities) with all of their major expenses paid for.

[rawesome]

but they're the country that's been lauded for their unique balance and blend of civil liberties/market opportunities, but with regulation and social programs similar to what you'd find in a typical socialist framework. that seems to be what you were getting at with most of that paragraph, no?
Oh, yeah I know. i admire their system. I just didn't understand (until you edited) why you just posted the name of the country...

[theguy77]

I agree. I mean in the end the main reason for having a job to make money is to provide for yourself. If your government is willing to do the brunt of the work for you, taking care of health care, education, protection, and other amenities, and I only have to spend half my on that, then realistically their middle class is probably making more because they are essentially pocketing half their income (after food and a few other necessities) with all of their major expenses paid for.

exactly, man. plus, the government actually supports and provides for their resident professional artists and musicians. sounds like a haven for people like me, heh :-)

[foisol]

since there is no definition of Fascism, perhaps change that to ultra-conservative or totalitarian?

Fascism is the movement/political party led by Benito Mussolini in Italy... one of the key figures in the 2nd World War maybe?

[theguy77]

sometimes it seems to me that the only legitimate argument that someone can make for capitalism being a more desirable system than socialism, is the fact that there's more of an opportunity to live a lavish lifestyle. in a lot of cases i dont think it should make a difference for someone who doesnt value luxury and monetary values as much as the typical proactive american businessman, and its essentially proven to be a much better system for the unfortunate.

[Love As Arson]

okay, well now that weve gotten through that distinction, let's apply it to a more substantial discussion. do you think that communism as it was idealized by marx is a pragmatic system for a country to adopt and practice successfully?
Well, communism won't be adopted like a program. It is a revolutionary break with capitalism and can only be successful if it is an international phenomenon.

[Love As Arson]

since there is no definition of Fascism, perhaps change that to ultra-conservative or totalitarian?

Fascism is right-wing, fiercely nationalist, subjectivist in philosophy, and totalitarian in practice. It is an extreme reactionary form of capitalist government. Fascism began in Italy (1922-43), Germany (1933-45), Spain (1939-75), and various other nations, starting generally in the time between the first and second world war. The origin of the term comes from the Italian word fascismo, derived from the Latin fasces (a bundle of elm or birch rods containing an ax: once a symbol of authority in ancient Rome). Benito Mussolini adopted the symbol as the emblem of the Italian Fascist movement in 1919.

The social composition of Fascist movements have historically been small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats of all stripes (see petty bourgeoeis), with great success in rural areas, especially among farmers, peasants, and in the city, slum workers. Meanwhile, fascist leadership invariably comes to power through the sponsorship and funding of massive capitalists, without needing a revolution. These capitalists along with the top-tier leaders they create become fascism's ruling aristocracy.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/a.htm#fascism

[Love As Arson]

Allow me to reprhase: I'm saying that as far as all of the systems have been practiced, they have been totalitarian.

Yeah, I thought that might have been where you were going but I wasn't sure.

But in that case, would communism not be considered authoritarian, because democracy would be the authority? Never mind me, I'm just musing out loud.
Communism is authoritarian, insofar as it represses bourgeois rights, but that is the point.

[mattmatumbo]

Fairly true, albeit irrelevant.

Talked about it in poli-sci today, made me laugh since half the people in the room asked "the recession started while Bush was in office... because of deregulation?" Too damn funny.

[DCD08]

http://rosenblumtv.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/lenin.jpg

[goodarmcindy]

I've always found democratic socialism to be an oxymoron. Socialism, in its truest form, isn't compatible with democracy in that you will always require enabling acts or some equivalent of the dictatorship of the proletariat to allow the capitalist system to transform.

What people call democratic socialism is really just a very watered down form of socialism that is compatible with capitalism in that it neither seeks to transform it nor overthrow it.

[Kurt Retenauer]

http://rosenblumtv.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/lenin.jpg

Yes. Hahahaha.

[mattmatumbo]

I've always found democratic socialism to be an oxymoron. Socialism, in its truest form, isn't compatible with democracy in that you will always require enabling acts or some equivalent of the dictatorship of the proletariat to allow the capitalist system to transform.

What people call democratic socialism is really just a very watered down form of socialism that is compatible with capitalism in that it neither seeks to transform it nor overthrow it.

I always heard that socialism only affected economies, not governing bodies...

[goodarmcindy]

I always heard that socialism only affected economies, not governing bodies...

how can a political ideology not effect governing bodies?

[saysmydoctor]

I've always found democratic socialism to be an oxymoron. Socialism, in its truest form, isn't compatible with democracy in that you will always require enabling acts or some equivalent of the dictatorship of the proletariat to allow the capitalist system to transform.

What people call democratic socialism is really just a very watered down form of socialism that is compatible with capitalism in that it neither seeks to transform it nor overthrow it.
Usually democratic socialist states usually utilize a Keynesian fiscal policy approach, which is kind of what you are describing.

Though, I still think socialism and democracy are not only compatible but go hand-in-hand.

[saysmydoctor]

Communism is authoritarian, insofar as it represses bourgeois rights, but that is the point.
I wouldn't really see it as repressive but rather a fix to a perpetuation of bourgeois rights. They've expanded their rights far beyond their natural boundaries. Maybe you'd be willing to expand.

[mattmatumbo]

how can a political ideology not effect governing bodies?

It is an economic ideology (more or less theory), why would it have to make it hard for democracy to work with it?

[goodarmcindy]

It is an economic ideology (more or less theory), why would it have to make it hard for democracy to work with it?

I think my point is more or less that socialism, in any non-watered down form, is incompatible with democracy and that what we understand as socialist democracy often contains very little actual socialism.

Usually democratic socialist states usually utilize a Keynesian fiscal policy approach, which is kind of what you are describing.

Though, I still think socialism and democracy are not only compatible but go hand-in-hand.

That's interesting. I think someone said earlier in the thread that hated it when people stated debating semantics so he's probably going to hate me, but I think that a lot of it depends on what 'socialism' is being discussed.

For example, studying the UK Labour party in the 60s and 70s they found that when they attempted to shift their stance leftwards, and embrace a limited amount of orthodox Marxism, the system they were working within made that hard. However, when they then embraced more monetarist economic policies and social policies that would be hard pressed to have many links with traditional socialism, they were much more successful. Yet in this instance, while being seen as a social democratic party, it would be hard to say they were socialist.

I don't know if that makes any sense.

[saysmydoctor]

That's because institutionalized democracy isn't really democratic.

Not to mention the state and communism aren't really compatible.

[crackedthesky]

I've always found socialism to be quite underrated.
Capitalism has some (currently) very fatal flaws, such as trickle-down theory. But I don't think I'm ready to say we should kick out capitalism and accept socialism.
What I think we should do is use certain aspects of socialism to control our capitalism... i.e. the fact that there are people on every forum of every website and on the floor of the House and the Senate who are actually arguing that it is better to let thousands of American citizens die than to try to control a corporation's outrageous sense of capitalism.

[rawesome]

I've always found democratic socialism to be an oxymoron. Socialism, in its truest form, isn't compatible with democracy in that you will always require enabling acts or some equivalent of the dictatorship of the proletariat to allow the capitalist system to transform.

What people call democratic socialism is really just a very watered down form of socialism that is compatible with capitalism in that it neither seeks to transform it nor overthrow it.

I've always found socialism to be quite underrated.
Capitalism has some (currently) very fatal flaws, such as trickle-down theory. But I don't think I'm ready to say we should kick out capitalism and accept socialism.
What I think we should do is use certain aspects of socialism to control our capitalism... i.e. the fact that there are people on every forum of every website and on the floor of the House and the Senate who are actually arguing that it is better to let thousands of American citizens die than to try to control a corporation's outrageous sense of capitalism.

In response to both of these, I feel like "Democratic Socialism" is, at least in my mind, different from "pure" Socialism, or whatever name you want to give it. I understand that most of us enjoy many aspects of living in a Capitalist society, and understandably so, and by, like the second poster said, simply adopting more aspects of Socialism we could very easily create an excellent, working society with less class line and more opportunities.

Essentially, what I mean by Democratic Socialism is to adopt "certain aspects of Socialism" into a government and economic system like ours.

[vodyanoj]

Even Adam Smith believed that some regulations needed to be in place for capitalism to thrive.

Adam Smith believed in quite a few regulations, as a matter of fact. Right after his discussion of the "invisible hand", for example, the one that right-libertarians drool all over, he proceeds to state that letting the invisible hand control the market entirely would be immoral unethical and less than, um, efficient. He also wrote a lot on general ethics; arguably even more important than his economical musings.

[vodyanoj]

I've always found democratic socialism to be an oxymoron. Socialism, in its truest form, isn't compatible with democracy in that you will always require enabling acts or some equivalent of the dictatorship of the proletariat to allow the capitalist system to transform.

What people call democratic socialism is really just a very watered down form of socialism that is compatible with capitalism in that it neither seeks to transform it nor overthrow it.

Nope, wrong on all counts. In your last paragraph, you seem to be talking about Social Democracy--an entirely different beast. Democratic socialism is not an oxymoron in any sense, since it does not deny free market of some kind, only limits it to its proper sphere.

[vodyanoj]

how can a political ideology not effect governing bodies?

Socialism is not a political ideology, but an economic theory.

[goodarmcindy]

Socialism is not a political ideology, but an economic theory.

I would argue that it may have started as an economic theory but it is definitely now an ideology. A political party can't be based on an economic theory alone and it has become imbued with social elements as well.

Nope, wrong on all counts. In your last paragraph, you seem to be talking about Social Democracy--an entirely different beast. Democratic socialism is not an oxymoron in any sense, since it does not deny free market of some kind, only limits it to its proper sphere.

Well democratic socialism is neither truly democratic nor truly socialist then.

[theguy77]

I would argue that it may have started as an economic theory but it is definitely now an ideology. A political party can't be based on an economic theory alone and it has become imbued with social elements as well.

Well democratic socialism is neither truly democratic nor truly socialist then.

dude, its pretty simple, the way they bridge the two systems together. the only thing the government does to keep a socialist economy without legally restraining the freedom of the market unreasonably is just tax everybody more.

[goodarmcindy]

dude, its pretty simple, the way they bridge the two systems together. the only thing the government does to keep a socialist economy without legally restraining the freedom of the market unreasonably is just tax everybody more.

Socialism shouldn't care about the free market though.

I will stop arguing now because I really don't care enough about this topic and I feel my arguments are jumping around too much.

To sum up:

Social democracy is rarely socialist.
Democratic socialism, while maybe not an oxymoron, is definitely an odd mix.
Socialism often has many forms that have definitely become more moderate over time.

[crackedthesky]

I would argue that it may have started as an economic theory but it is definitely now an ideology. A political party can't be based on an economic theory alone and it has become imbued with social elements as well.



Well democratic socialism is neither truly democratic nor truly socialist then.

Wrong. The Whig party was formed entirely on the basis of "do the opposite of what Andrew Jackson says."
Granted, I may be lending to your argument, because the Whigs were essentially self-defeated because of it, but it did indeed happen.

[saysmydoctor]

Socialism shouldn't care about the free market though.

I will stop arguing now because I really don't care enough about this topic and I feel my arguments are jumping around too much.

To sum up:

Social democracy is rarely socialist.
Democratic socialism, while maybe not an oxymoron, is definitely an odd mix.
Socialism often has many forms that have definitely become more moderate over time.
In a word: huh?

You've made little sense.

[kingspud]

i understand i think. i'm glad to see this thread managed to get off the ground despite my horrendous spelling haha!

[kingspud]

great avatar by the wayt gooarmcindy! mt best mate's married to jamie the singer like. chame they split up :(

[goodarmcindy]

In a word: huh?

You've made little sense.

Sorry, long day. If you want me to clear anything up I will try to.

[Love As Arson]

I would argue that it may have started as an economic theory but it is definitely now an ideology. A political party can't be based on an economic theory alone and it has become imbued with social elements as well.


My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life, the totality of which Hegel, following the example of English and French thinkers of the eighteenth century, embraces within the term "civil society"; that the autonomy of this civil society, however, has to be sought in political economy. The study of this, which I began in Paris, I continued in Brussels, where I moved owing to an expulsion order issued by M. Guizot. The general conclusion at which I arrived and which, once reached, became the guiding principle of my studies can be summarised as follows:

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure, and to which correspond definite forms of consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political, and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or — this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms — with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development, of the productive forces, these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead, sooner or later, to the transformation of the whole, immense, superstructure.

In studying such transformations, it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic, or philosophic — in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production.

I wouldn't really see it as repressive but rather a fix to a perpetuation of bourgeois rights. They've expanded their rights far beyond their natural boundaries. Maybe you'd be willing to expand.
It is repressive in the same way we repress the divine right of kings. Using that comparison, we should understand their rights as being unsustainable, because the framework from the start had only one natural boundary: what isn't profitable.

[mattmatumbo]

Socialism is not a political ideology, but an economic theory.

That's exactly what i said, there's no getting through to this kid.

[kingspud]

which kid!? you better not be reffering to me! i started this thread and i have never claimed that socialism is anything more than a politico-economic-theoretical-ideology!

[kingspud]

as for fascism... don't get me started!

[Praetor]

which kid!? you better not be reffering to me! i started this thread and i have never claimed that socialism is anything more than a politico-economic-theoretical-ideology!
Maybe the kid arguing that it is a political ideology. Just a shot in the dark.

[kingspud]

good good. hey your only 16! it's past your bedtime!

[Praetor]

Good one!

[saysmydoctor]

Who the fuck goes to bed at 5 PM?

[Praetor]

Who the fuck goes to bed at 5 PM?
Well to be fair, he didn't know I was on the east coast and he's like 5-6 hours ahead of me.