Saith "Biker Buddy":>Marxism is nanny government at its worst. < "Marxism" is not a form of government at all. It's a view (based on what Marx wrote) of how history works under capitalism, a critique of that system, and a tool for figuring out what to do about it. There are a lot of different interpretations of what these three mean, so debates among Marxists can be lively (or deadly). To the extent Marx wrote about what government should be, he was extremely critical about autocracy and favored democratic government. He discussed the possible "withering away of the state," which to me means that the government would be totally subordinated to control by the people, so that the current situation of government standing above people would be abolished. The split between the people and the government would be abolished. In his writings on the Paris Commune (more than 125 years ago), Marx gave some indication of what kind of government he favored even before the withering away happened. He developed these ideas not out of his head but from workers' actual practice. There would be a single legislature that had executive functions (a unicameral parliament), with all delegates being subject to recall by their constituents. The pay of the delegates would be limited, relative to that of the average worker. It should also be stressed that this legislature would be dealing with "econonomic" issues, not simply "political" issues. This would mean some sort of industrial democracy, as with worker-controlled firms co-operating as part of a democratically agreed-upon plan. But in the end, how the "Marxist" society would be organized would depend on the democratic decisions of the working class and other oppressed groups involved in the revolution (if and when it happens). Marxism is philosophy of the collective self-liberation of the working classes. It does not advocate the imposition of preconceived notions of what socialism would be onto people. >The individual freedoms we value so highly are not tolerated under Marxism, which is what compels so many people to want to live here rather than in Marxist (communist) countries such as Cuba, Red China and the former Soviet Union. < In the 20th century, some governments used "Marxist" language and slogans as part of their efforts to get their countries out of poverty. Though these societies were relatively egalitarian in terms of the distribution of material goods to people, democracy was never their emphasis. Marx would probably not recognize or approve of most of what has been done in his name (just as Jesus wouldn't approve of most of what's been done in the name of Christianity). These countries differed a lot from each other. China and the former USSR were more authoritarian than Cuba, which is smaller and had greater popular participation in the revolution. The small size of Cuba has also made it hard to resist the constant attacks (including biological warfare) by the US. Though many people left Cuba in the early 1960s simply because they disagreed with the goals of the revolution there, the more recent exodus has been the result of US attacks and the end of support from the USSR (which US attacks had forced Cuba to rely on). To distinguish these societies from the kind of society that Marx advocated, I would call them "bureaucratic socialist" (BS) because of the importance of government and political-party bureaucracies in those countries (and because it has a cute abbreviation). >Yet despite the obvious examples of the unworkability of socialism, there are still far too many advocates of that very system in positions of power and influence in this country today, and they are edging us ever closer to socialism with each legislative session. < As far as I know there is only one self-avowed socialist in the US congress (Bernie Sanders). Biker Buddy is confusing "socialism" with "statism." Statism is the idea that the state should play a larger role in running society. Statism can be "conservative," as with those bluenoses who want to tell us what we can and cannot do in our beds (and with whom). (That's the statism of the war against drugs, too.) It can also be "liberal," as with technocrats who are always proposing ways to promote or stabilize capitalism using government programs. It is these statists that Biker Buddy seems to be talking about. Socialism can also be statist, as with the bureaucratic socialist societies mentioned above. It can also be anti-statist and democratic, as with Marx. >California has more than its share of them, as demonstrated by its two senators, Boxer and Feinstein, and too many members of its State Legislature, who continue to advocate helmet laws and gun bans along with the rest of the socialist agenda, irrespective of the U.S. Constitution and the principles upon which this country was founded. < I read through the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO and couldn't find anything about helmet laws. But seriously, folks, socialism would restrict individual liberties. All societies do, including the "libertarian" society that Biker Buddy seems to be advocating. In a libertarian society, those with the most wealth restrict the freedom of those without wealth and the state enforces the rule by the rich. (That's not too far from the current situation, but that's another issue.) No society allows total freedom. People won't put up with child molestation, for example. And we can't allow our neighbors to accumulate biological weapons to use on us. Etc. If we did allow them to "do anything," they would violate _our_ freedom. The guy who drives his car past me on the street blasting his music into my ears isn't simply acting on the basis of his own personal freedom. He's also trespassing on my ears, violating my freedom to enjoy peace and quiet. The difference is that with socialism, the restrictions on individual liberty would be decided upon democratically. That democracy, unlike in the US, would not be distorted by the immense political power of the wealthy. >I find it ironic that so many advocates of socialism, i.e., liberals, are themselves quite well off financially, having benefitted in major ways from opportunities for advancement which would not have existed had this been a socialist country. < These "limosine liberals" are usually pro-capitalist technocrats, who, as Bill Lear notes, listen to the campaign dollars of the insurance companies. >The "social burden" argument against repealing helmet laws is pure socialism, and would not fly without so many Marxists in government. < I have no brief to make for helmet laws except that if a biker rides right in front of my car and I hit him, I hope that he or she is wearing a helmet at the time. I don't want blood on my hands, especially with so little purpose. (Maybe we could pass a law that says that no biker without a helmet could ride near my car.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
