Under Marx's theory of Communism, the individual cannot "own" anything, since by definition, theState owns everything.
I find that assertion to be of a particular "modus operendi" to justify universal stealing of private property by the state, for the benefit of the state and not necessarily for the benefit of the people who are under the rule of that state.
That sort of legalized banditry is abhorant to those persons who strive to elevate themselves above the "common herd" and assert their superior intelligence and ambition.
In other words, Communism is a "cop-out" for that portion of the human race that doesn't possess the ability, either physically or mentaly to compete effectively in the socio/economic arena. By the same analysis, Communism is based on the "fallacious reasoning" of a sociopathic malcontent who was searching for a system under which he could exist.
The net result is one where the population become totally dependent upon a governments largess and in the destruction of individual achievements and advancements. Communisn, therefore, is a mechanism whereby an entire population is reduced to sheep-like activities which only benefit the few at the helm of government and no others.
The term "dictatorship of the proliteriat" is, at best, merely a play on words with which to mollify the masses and insinuate that it is they, and not the leaders in government, who are in charge of their lives. Quite the opposite is true. Look at the history of the now defunct USSR and it's surragates which had to use brute force and fear with which to enforce their rule over the population.

TB

Under Marx's theory of Communism, the individual cannot "own" anything, since by definition, theState owns everything.
I find that assertion to be of a particular "modus operendi" to justify universal stealing of private property by the state, for the benefit of the state and not necessarily for the benefit of the people who are under the rule of that state.
That sort of legalized banditry is abhorant to those persons who strive to elevate themselves above the "common herd" and assert their superior intelligence and ambition.
In other words, Communism is a "cop-out" for that portion of the human race that doesn't possess the ability, either physically or mentaly to compete effectively in the socio/economic arena. By the same analysis, Communism is based on the "fallacious reasoning" of a sociopathic malcontent who was searching for a system under which he could exist.
The net result is one where the population become totally dependent upon a governments largess and in the destruction of individual achievements and advancements. Communisn, therefore, is a mechanism whereby an entire population is reduced to sheep-like activities which only benefit the few at the helm of government and no others.
The term "dictatorship of the proliteriat" is, at best, merely a play on words with which to mollify the masses and insinuate that it is they, and not the leaders in government, who are in charge of their lives. Quite the opposite is true. Look at the history of the now defunct USSR and it's surragates which had to use brute force and fear with which to enforce their rule over the population.

TB

Texas Bill, i beg to differ with you regarding that assertion that under capitalism, a man ,or woman, is rewarded according to his efforts and contribution to society. the problem is that contribution to society means different things to different people. in my way of thinking, a fireman or policeman, who puts his life on the line for the common good every day of his working life, and sometimes beyond, receives far less remuneration than some drug infested, crime ridden rap star, or Brittney Spears. a teacher, who is entrusted with the responsibility of raising the next generation, gets a pittance compared to some wall street speculators, who, in the true spirit of selfishness and greed, tend to aggrandise themselves at the expense of the larger society. the apologists for such an imbalance attribute this condition to the market...it is all part of the wonderful world of microeconomics...supply and demand. you see, there are far more people capable of running into burning buidings and rescuing old people than there are talented people like Paris Hylton. all these talk show hosts, who make millions of dollars per year by simply spouting ideas they barely understand, what is their contribution, relative to a nurse, for example? in the Dominican Republic, since we are in the dominicantoday forum, do the haitians that do the backbreaking construction work contribute less than the guy who is building a row of apartments with money from his grandmothers estate?

"sociopathic malcontents" you got that right

, it is producer surplus that accounts for much of the world's inequities; specifically, the vast gulf between the rich and poor, and the confluence of corporate and Republican interests in undermining the honest yet simple working people.

How does this happen? Very simple. Let's say that your job is cleaning tables at a restaurant, and your pay is sub-minimum. You work very hard to clean those tables so that you can barely make ends meet. You can only own one car, your children do without pay-per-view, and you smell bad because your health insurance will not pay for deodorant. Meanwhile, the restaurant manager is rolling in money. He sits in the back, belly full of food, and smokes rolled up thousand-dollar bills. Perhaps he even abuses you and spits on you. And no doubt, he ridicules your ethnicity and insults your people. If you are a female, he demands sex and then beats you.

But he only has this wealth and power because you are cleaning tables. You have created value, and yet...the manager gets the reward! This is unbounded producer surplus because he is not returning the wealth that you created. It is not his – it is yours. Progressive economists call this "exploitation". And a decent government would call this "illegal".

Huh? That is news to me as I recall that men of this political persuasion have run large swaths of the planet for quite some time. In fact we had a so-called Cold War with such men for many decades. Are you saying the US spent decades at war with incompetent buffoons? Such blsatant triumphalism is pretty childish.

Any talk of politics in such IDEOLOGICAL extremes is childish, vulgar and unsophisticated. The truth is that the more extremely one adheres to either of these ideas, the more they resemble each other. Here is a correct pragmatic capitalist truth (among many correct ones) that any capitalist should recognize: might makes right! As such, any society which completely ignores communal concerns and communal rights will eventually find itself literally burnt to the ground by the masses. As Dominicans we have to look no further than the revolution of our neighbor Haiti to confirm this historically. Sure you can go ahead and "exploit" the table-cleaner but bear this in mind; there are more table-cleaners than there will ever be restaurant owners...if you do not heed their political demands to some extent , they will eventually get the pitchforks and end you and everything around them. Likewise, if the table-cleaners ever come to believe they should run society they will quickly find society is not so simple to run as cleaning tables. Any "pure" IDEOLOGY is bullshit, while mixed pragmatic political systems that admit there is horse-trading between different interests will always be the reality.

Well said Manhattanite...

As usual, those who are anti-Capitalists forget the simple fact that the "fat buffoon" restraunt owner, sitting at his desk , "smoking his rolled up one thousand dollar bills" has not provided thejob to that individual who is cleaning the tables andbeing underpaid while doing so.
These same people always paint the"poor, downtrodden, pathetic underdog" with emotional sympathy in their descriptions of the employers who furnish them with thejobs they take.
As to "contribution to society", the distributive share of labor is wages andtheshare of management is profit. That is a given and recognized by theorists and operatives of the two systems alike.
While we deplore the role played by the construction laborer versus the engineer, we must distinguish the differences bewteen the two contributors in society. We sometimes fail to acknowledge the many hours employed by the student of engineering in learning his trade and concentrate on the hours employed by the laborer in the construction of the engineers dream. The very fact that the engineer put forth the effort to acquire the knowledge required to calculate all the physical forces involved puts him head and shoulders above the laborer in the overall scheme of things.Also, one must remember that not everyone is "born with a silver spoon in one's mouth" in the pursuit of an education through which they can advance and contribute in the world society.
Also, what you must acknowledge is that Capitalism today is not the same hybred philosophy which evolved out of the "Merchantilism" of the 16th thru the 18th centuries.
That was the philosophy which both Marx and Smith were against and propounded philosophies to replace it.
FYI, I will be the first to acknowledge that, like the"Robber Barons" of the12th thru the 15th centuries are again amoung us in the form of "wall street" manipulators. And,fyi, Capitalism does not support individuals and organizations which function to the detriment of the economic well-being of society. That is the role of government and therein is where the confusion lies. Laissez-faire economy is something which nations are begining to deplore and guard against, though not too forcefully.
I would like to see stronger and more in-depth preventive measures taken by governments in combatting the unbridled robbery being comitted by some organizations under the guise of a "free economy" since most of the time such is detrimental to all economies.
That's enough for now, I think.

TB

As long as you recognize this we are on the same page Bill. My only probelm is with a certain kind of often LUCKY, mediocre businessperson who spouts about free markets and deregulation, and his rights to property, and how much talent he has shown to get where he arrived, and even worse believes that his infinitesimally small piece of the pie amounts to something. I'm no anti-capitalist...I work in finance...but I have no illusions about where I am on the totem pole or about how many people clean up after me, drive me home, serve my food, etc. My main point above is that ppl who argue in terms of pure ideology are either deranged or stupid. In real life, we all compromise; I cannot fight the fact that Uncle Sam will rob my property, the question is what will I see in return? And is there at least some nominal justice to Uncle Sam's redistribution? Also tat we must always remember someone wiped all our asses when we were infants (and maybe will again when we are elderly), and in the meantime in a metaphorical sense some poor schmuck continues to wipe our asses on a daily basis. Even he deserves his due.

Good point Manhattanite...all extreme ideologies are short-sighted and not sustainable.

...in my opinion, extreme idealogies are always confined by a very narrow scope, leaving little flexibility for deviation from the mean and thus resulting in the development of highly restrictive systems...be it capitalism socialism.

In fact, where most ideologies start to break is in their inability to adjust to different possibilities. In other words, the stronger the ideology the more rules and regulations that need to be imposed in order to control its focus...finally culminating in a highly restrictive system....where the instinctive expression of the human mind has little room to move in...and therefore, needs to be suppressed. A highly sophisticated ideology, by nature, requires highly restrictive rules and regulations to control the "human greed". This concept has a profound effect on society as a whole. In its pure translation, what this means is that we (humans) are BAD by nature...and therefore need to be constrained...

Both capitalism and socialism suffer from the extreme ideology phenomenon.