@AaronMk
I fail how to see that saying that socialism/communism leads to the eventual boot on the head is a strawman.
Because you’re working off of a very weak premise. There is no individual freedom-collective authortarianism dichotomy. Let me explain before I have to go to bed:
At the very basic premise socialism and Communism under Marx moves to critique liberal capitalist policies by pointing out the immense power privately holding the economic means of production is to society.
you know, all the criticism of capitalism is fine and it definitely has to be improved, but reading this makes me wonder, just how much of Marxist economic theory is Bullshit? when this part of the premise here is so deeply flawed. It sounds good, because it’s made to sound good and soothing to the ears, until you stop to really think about it and start criticizing it.
Businesses as rotten as they can get and we know this, we’ve had this drilled into our heads if you recall, they are still needed and they made themselves A Business in the first place. The people outside of that business, who were not involved with any of it, haven’t worked under it, they had nothing to do with its success in any direct shape or form that would warrant the state seizing all its production assets. The reason this is important is because for that business to succeed, a fine business without any murky past, or illegal activities, or immoral actions, that business is responsible for its own success and the jobs it created. So, why should the state be seizing that kind of power, just outright, as the default and by that kind of power, I mean, ALL OF IT? Just because it says that it’s for the people, you mean like any other company says the same thing and is lying through their teeth, just like any dictator to be would, which has already happened, under socialism?
Also, if any of those other factors are involved to have a corrupt / immoral business, then we’re having a completely different conversation then and one even this magical socialism won’t solve all by itself either.
That is being morally bankrupt imo as far as I’m used to the state being in power and deciding for its people what is right and what is wrong and honestly, the more that I think about it, it sounds an awful lot like vying for a modern-day form of feudalism and if it’s not exactly one because the intent is different for why these very similar actions are taken, the problem with how easily corruptible socialism is makes it still feudalism, with nice intentions attached to it and with the PS attached to it, “pls no dictator”, or Lord/s in this case for my example.
The only problem I see going on here and what needs sorting, is one of power that people need to be in better positions to negotiate better incomes, because the problem under capitalism today of the USA isn’t one of, ‘The state doesn’t Get All the means of production’, it’s more that, ‘a vast discrepancy of between incomes’, which hasn’t stopped living/spending prices from going up higher and that is a problem of the baby boombers’ generation, as I’ve come to understand these economic issues.