Socialism's Pedigree

[trivas7]

Socialism began in the 1830s and expanded greatly after the 1880s. The peculiar thing about socialism was that it was a confused, hybrid movement, influenced by both the two great preexisting polar ideologies, liberalism and conservatism. From the classical liberals the socialists took a frank acceptance of industrialism and the Industrial Revolution, an early glorification of “science” and “reason,” and at least a rhetorical devotion to such classical liberal ideals as peace, individual freedom, and a rising standard of living. Indeed, the socialists, long before the much later corporatists, pioneered in a co-opting of science, reason, and industrialism. And the socialists not only adopted the classical liberal adherence to democracy, but topped it by calling for an “expanded democracy,” in which “the people” would run the economy—and each other.

On the other hand, from the conservatives the socialists took a devotion to coercion and the statist means for trying to achieve these liberal goals. Industrial harmony and growth were to be achieved by aggrandizing the State into an all-powerful institution, ruling the economy and the society in the name of “science.” A vanguard of technocrats was to assume all-powerful rule over everyone’s person and property in the name of the “people” and of “democracy.” Not content with the liberal achievement of reason and freedom for scientific research, the socialist State would install rule by the scientists of everyone else; not content with liberals setting the workers free to achieve undreamt-of prosperity, the socialist State would install rule by the workers of everyone else—or rather, rule by politicians, bureaucrats, and technocrats in their name. Not content with the liberal creed of equality of rights, of equality before the law, the socialist State would trample on such equality on behalf of the monstrous and impossible goal of equality or uniformity of results—or rather, would erect a new privileged elite, a new class, in the name of bringing about such an impossible equality.

Socialism was a confused and hybrid movement because it tried to achieve the liberal goals of freedom, peace, and industrial harmony and growth—goals which can only be achieved through liberty and the separation of government from virtually everything—by imposing the old conservative means of statism, collectivism, and hierarchical privilege. It was a movement which could only fail, which indeed did fail miserably in those numerous countries where it attained power in the twentieth century, by bringing to the masses only unprecedented despotism, starvation, and grinding impoverishment.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Trivas, that post is a direct quote from Rothbard. If you can't come up with your own ideas, at least be honest enough to give credit where credit is due.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

At first I didn't want to take the time to refute this typical piece of Rothbardian garbage, but then I changed my mind. It might be fun, after all.


From the classical liberals the socialists took a frank acceptance of industrialism and the Industrial Revolution, an early glorification of “science” and “reason,” and at least a rhetorical devotion to such classical liberal ideals as peace, individual freedom, and a rising standard of living.Eh? Peace was a classical liberal ideal? Since when? Remind me, how peaceful was the creation of the first two liberal regimes, the United States and the French Republic?


And the socialists not only adopted the classical liberal adherence to democracy...Democracy and classical liberalism in the same sentence? Rothbard begins to show his ignorance of history. Classical liberalism opposed universal suffrage, and advocated, at best, an extended plutocracy.


On the other hand, from the conservatives the socialists took a devotion to coercion and the statist means for trying to achieve these liberal goals.Rothbard's ignorance of history becomes debilitating here. It was the liberals, not the conservatives, who created the modern nation-state. It was the liberals, not the conservatives, who greatly expanded the powers of the state in the 19th century in order to create a uniform system of laws in the interest of free trade. It was the liberals, not the conservatives, who wanted the state to take over the traditional powers of the Church and crush the resistance of reactionary landowners.

In the 19th century, classical liberals were always on the side of the state.


...the socialist State would install rule by the scientists of everyone elseNot only did no socialist ever advocate this (not after Saint-Simon in the 1820s, anyway), but no self-proclaimed "socialist state" ever did this, either.


not content with liberals setting the workers free to achieve undreamt-of prosperityIf by "setting the workers free to achieve undreamt-of prosperity" you mean creating a hellish nightmare of smog-infested slums and factories oiled with the blood of workers, while unions were brutally repressed - then yeah, the liberals did that.


Not content with the liberal creed of equality of rights, of equality before the law......among property-owning white males.


Socialism was a confused and hybrid movement because it tried to achieve the liberal goals of freedom, peace, and industrial harmony and growth...
The liberal goals were plutocracy, bourgeois rule over the entire world, and markets cracked open at gunpoint.

[anticap]

I noticed that trivas7 posted (approvingly, it seemed) a link (in the stickies) to David Harvey's (most excellent) course on Marx's Capital. So what gives? Did the Austrianites manage to net another one with their specious talking points? Sad. :(

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Trivas has always been a bit odd. He has posted arguments from all sorts of sources, sometimes with mutually exclusive points of view. I don't really know what he personally thinks, but I suspect he's one of those people who like to stand on the sidelines of politics and pretend that it's possible to observe human affairs from the outside.

[anticap]

setting the workers free

Free in the double sense, as Marx put it: free to sell their labor-power, and free of the things that would make that unnecessary (e.g., land).

Capitalists, when they've exhausted their flowery allegories to the Exodus, will fall back on attempts to paint capitalism as a natural landscape, but as usual they deceive us. Nature didn't produce two different species of human, one who owns and another who labors.

[Bud Struggle]

Nature didn't produce two different species of human, one who owns and another who labors.

You know I wonder about that. Yea, I know technically all people are the same--and inherited wealth proves nothing. But given the same opportunities some people have certain drives to succeed while most rather go along with the flow. It's not a "smart" thing either. Some people are just good at taking things over and winning.

[trivas7]

Eh? Peace was a classical liberal ideal? Since when? Remind me, how peaceful was the creation of the first two liberal regimes, the United States and the French Republic?

The ideas of the classical economists which became the economic foundation for the classical-liberal revolution radically changed the course of human events. Classical economists argued that private property was not the source of conflict among men but rather the institutional prerequisite for social peace. They reasoned that men have a logical basis for peacefully associating and cooperating with each other to obtain the benefits from the greater productivity and gains from trade that develop through a system of division of labor. They explained that the benefits from a division of labor were ecumenical in their nature, that is, the benefits from specialization and trade between members of the same community or region were no less universally true for all people who might happen to live in different countries. It led one French classical liberal, Frederic Passy, to state in 1861,

"Some day all barriers will fall; some day mankind, constantly united by continuous transactions, will form just one workshop, one market, and one family.. And this is . the grandeur, the truth, the nobility, I might almost say the holiness of the free trade doctrine; by the prosaic but effective pressure of [material] interest it tends to make justice and harmony prevail in the world."


Democracy and classical liberalism in the same sentence? Rothbard begins to show his ignorance of history. Classical liberalism opposed universal suffrage, and advocated, at best, an extended plutocracy.
Classical liberalism stressed individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. You're confusing economic and political liberalism. Last time I checked all socialist governments had a poor grasp of democracy, to say the least.


Rothbard's ignorance of history becomes debilitating here. It was the liberals, not the conservatives, who created the modern nation-state.

In the 19th century, classical liberals were always on the side of the state.
This a strawman. The contention is that from conservatives socialists took a devotion to coercion and the state as the means to achieve liberal goals. The origins of the nation-state, which are disputable, are not to the point.


Not only did no socialist ever advocate this (not after Saint-Simon in the 1820s, anyway), but no self-proclaimed "socialist state" ever did this, either.
Surely you've heard that Marxists consider Marxism a science?


The liberal goals were plutocracy, bourgeois rule over the entire world, and markets cracked open at gunpoint.Only in your oppressed imagination are these liberal goals.

[RGacky3]

You know I wonder about that. Yea, I know technically all people are the same--and inherited wealth proves nothing. But given the same opportunities some people have certain drives to succeed while most rather go along with the flow. It's not a "smart" thing either. Some people are just good at taking things over and winning.

Arn't you a christian?

Also, yours, is the number one argument for slavery.

[Bud Struggle]

Arn't you a christian?

Also, yours, is the number one argument for slavery.

I'm not saying you follow up on your instincts to the fullest extent. And there's laws and customs and yes, specificly things like "religion" to protect the world from us. But as a businessman that deals with other businessmen--I see ours as a little club of people that took on the system and beat it. Maybe that's what being bourgeois (or petit-bourgeois) is all about.

I don't want to state the "us v. them" idea to emphatically--but there is an element of it out there. I think you see it on the other side with unions and collective bargining.

I have to say--people like this also are out there in the political world. And that's one good thing about the United States--the rules put in place by the Founding Fathers seriously limit the amount of authority people can have over us. If you look at places like the USSR and you could see that even with the best intentions (Communism) without safeguards you get authoritarian dictators like Lenin and Stalin and all of the rest.

[RGacky3]

But as a businessman that deals with other businessmen--I see ours as a little club of people that took on the system and beat it. Maybe that's what being bourgeois (or petit-bourgeois) is all about.

what system are you talking about?


I have to say--people like this also are out there in the political world. And that's one good thing about the United States--the rules put in place by the Founding Fathers seriously limit the amount of authority people can have over us.

Stop fetishising the US, the United States is'nt more free, and does'nt have more restrictions on power than other countries. Also the United States is probably the country that least restricts economic power.

[Bud Struggle]

what system are you talking about? Capitalism--that's all there is.




Stop fetishising the US, the United States is'nt more free, and does'nt have more restrictions on power than other countries. Also the United States is probably the country that least restricts economic power. Maybe. But all I can say is that the United States never limited me in anything I ever wanted to do. I never asked for anything from the US but to be left alone--and they did that wonderfully.

The government never stopped my business plans or told me what I could or could not do. There were some pre existing rules in place that everyone must follow--but I knew those getting into the game. The rest was just clear sailing.

[RGacky3]

Capitalism--that's all there is.

You did'nt take on capitalism and beat it. Any more so than voters take on America and beat it.


Maybe. But all I can say is that the United States never limited me in anything I ever wanted to do. I never asked for anything from the US but to be left alone--and they did that wonderfully.

Is that so? Ever try and start a union (I count the American ruling class as part of the "united states"), every want to smoke a joint, drink beer outside, go to cuba, and so on and so forth.

America is no freeer than any other industrialized coutnry, infact its less than many.


There were some pre existing rules in place that everyone must follow--but I knew those getting into the game. The rest was just clear sailing.

gettin ginto the game? You mean being born?


The government never stopped my business plans or told me what I could or could not do.

If I say the government stopped me from picking a farmers produce and eating it because its stealing from the farmer, you would say "well thats stealing so thats bad", if the government stopped a farmer from stopping people to pick produce and eat it (collective property) you would say "the government is interfering in business and getting in my face, bla blabla, glen beck is funny, bla bla bla Its stalinism."

Really there is no difference, one is the government working for the business man, the other is the governmetn working for the common good.

[anticap]

You know I wonder about that. Yea, I know technically all people are the same--and inherited wealth proves nothing. But given the same opportunities some people have certain drives to succeed while most rather go along with the flow. It's not a "smart" thing either. Some people are just good at taking things over and winning.

"Winning" is a matter of perspective. Some of us don't define it as amassing a fortune and wielding power over others. Those are the ideals under capitalism, to be sure, but they're not universal.

But this is beside the point, which was that the master/slave relationship does not arise "naturally" or inevitably, but through exploitation and expropriation. It isn't written in the human genome, but in "letters of blood and fire" (Marx again).


... as a businessman that deals with other businessmen--I see ours as a little club of people that took on the system and beat it. Maybe that's what being bourgeois (or petit-bourgeois) is all about.

No, you didn't take on the system and beat it -- you joined it.

Being bourgeois is about exploiting others.


I don't want to state the "us v. them" idea to emphatically--but there is an element of it out there. I think you see it on the other side with unions and collective bargining.

Again, the "us v. them" is not, as you've been alluding, just a natural and inevitable outcome. So no, there is no element of it in the sense you're wishing for (oppressors from time immemorial have attributed the social order to natural laws).

Collective bargaining is an attempt by unionized wage slaves to convince the capitalist masters to steal a smaller portion of the fruits of the wage slaves' labor.


... the rules put in place by the Founding Fathers seriously limit the amount of authority people can have over us.

They got to you too, eh? Don't worry, you can shake that propaganda nonsense with a little effort. The "Founding Fathers" of the U$A set up their system to protect their interests from "us." Our alleged "representatives" are, in fact, our keepers. Their role is to block us from controlling our own destinies, while maintaining the illusion of legitimacy by allowing us to select which of them will represent our employers at their various global summits. It is all about power over us. Our employers are, of course, very well represented on Capitalist Hill.


If you look at places like the USSR and you could see that even with the best intentions (Communism) without safeguards you get authoritarian dictators like Lenin and Stalin and all of the rest.

There are no "safeguards" except "We The People" (if I may lift a disingenuous phrase). This myth about the constitution safeguarding the sheep from being devoured by wolves ought to offend your intelligence (you didn't mention it, but I'm assuming you meant to allude to it). The sheep are not "We The People," they are the bourgeoisie! The wolves are not your neighbors stalking outside your door to devour your property -- "wolves" is what the precious "Founders" thought of you and me! We're a bunch of slavering wolves who threaten to devour the poor propertied class unless we're safely muzzled. But how to do that without waxing authoritarian? You can't just discard all the flowery talk of enlightenment ideals that preceding the bourgeois revolution, at least not yet. But you can make the wolves think that they're sheep too! You can write those ideals on a sheepskin (fittingly), and the belief that they're being protected by that rag will prevent the wolves from shredding it (and us)! Brilliant!


... all I can say is that the United States never limited me in anything I ever wanted to do. I never asked for anything from the US but to be left alone--and they did that wonderfully.

The government never stopped my business plans or told me what I could or could not do.

That's a strike against the U$, not in favor of it. It allows nearly unchecked exploitation to occur, not just as a tolerated evil, but as a codified ideal! Absolutely disgusting. Of course, if you're a "businessman," then you probably think exploitation is just swell.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

But given the same opportunities some people have certain drives to succeed while most rather go along with the flow. It's not a "smart" thing either. Some people are just good at taking things over and winning.
You may be right. But I would regard this as a bad thing, a problem to be corrected. If such people exist, then we must design a system that will stop them from continuing to take things over and win.

The drive to dominate is the greatest vice in the world.

Throughout human history, there have been numerous ideologies which proclaimed that certain people are superior to others. There have been many names and justifications for these supposedly superior people: The chosen of the gods, the aristocracy, the Elect, the intellectual elite, the great entrepreneurs, the heroic businessmen of Randian myth, the Master Race... And these were all lies, of course. Lies intended to persuade the common people to accept their downtrodden status. But if any of these myths were actually true, if a small number of people really were objectively superior to others and destined to be on top of a social hierarchy - then that would only make things worse, and it would be necessary to destroy them.

You don't want to persuade me that capitalists really are better than everyone else. I think they are average people, which is why I believe that after the revolution they should be left alone as long as they don't get violent. If I actually believed that capitalists were better than everyone else, I would say, "for the good of Mankind, kill them all."

This, by the way, is precisely the reason why I utterly oppose transhumanism with ever fiber of my being. Because it has the potential to create a Master Race. And then we would have to kill them before they enslave us.

[trivas7]

This, by the way, is precisely the reason why I utterly oppose transhumanism with ever fiber of my being. Because it has the potential to create a Master Race. And then we would have to kill them before they enslave us.
Then you utterly oppose the strains of the communist project whose goals are the creation of a new kind of human being capable of being the molded by social engineers. Historically the far left have been the greatest promoters of eugenics.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Then you utterly oppose the strains of the communist project whose goals are the creation of a new kind of human being capable of being molded by social engineers.
Eh? The "new kind of human being" was always meant to refer to a moral improvement, not a physical one. And more importantly, the improvement was meant to apply to all human beings at the same time.

But yes, if any communist wanted to physically improve a select few human beings, I would utterly oppose him on that issue. There are people right here on Revleft who are perfectly good leftists, but advocate the physical improvement of a select few human beings out of a naive belief that the "improved" will not seek to dominate or enslave the "unimproved." I utterly oppose their proposals in this area, and would try to stop them by any means necessary if they actually tried to implement them after the revolution. However, I may still agree with them on most other things, and I may still consider them friends and comrades. Their transhumanist intentions are not malicious, but merely misguided.


Historically the far left have been the greatest promoters of eugenics.
Seriously, where do you learn your history? Socialist and communist political parties and groups have never promoted eugenics. In fact, they sometimes went to the opposite extreme. For a couple of decades, the Soviet Union considered the whole field of genetics to be "bourgeois pseudoscience" and crypto-fascist.

Historically, the greatest promoters of eugenics have been certain sections of the far-right (but not all of them; the more traditionalist or Catholic far-right parties opposed eugenics).

[Robert]

Their role is to block us from controlling our own destinies, while maintaining the illusion of legitimacy by allowing us to select which of them will represent our employers at their various global summits.

You should write more extensively on this subject. When published, your work could discredit the capitalists as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion discredited the Jews.

[trivas7]

Historically, the greatest promoters of eugenics have been certain sections of the far-right (but not all of them; the more traditionalist or Catholic far-right parties opposed eugenics).
OTC, for much of the twentieth century eugenics was championed by many progressives, liberals, and socialists, including Theodore Roosevelt, H.G. Wells, Emma Goldman, G. B. Shaw, Harold Laski, John Maynard Keynes, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Margaret Sanger, and the Marxist biologists J.B.S. Haldane and Herman Mueller. Progressives loved eugenics b/c it was on the side of reform rather than the status quo, activism rather than laissez-faire, and social responsibility rather than selfishness. They were perfectly comfortable expanding state intervention in order to bring about a social goal.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

OTC, for much of the twentieth century eugenics was championed by many progressives, liberals, and socialists, including Theodore Roosevelt, H.G. Wells, Emma Goldman, G. B. Shaw, Harold Laski, John Maynard Keynes, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Margaret Sanger, and the Marxist biologists J.B.S. Haldane and Herman Mueller.
Championed? Granted, many public figures in the first half of the 20th century voiced support for eugenics, including such noted conservatives as Winston Churchill for example, but I'm not aware of any significant pro-eugenics activities on the part of most of the people you mentioned (Margaret Sanger being a notable exception, but I don't think just being a birth control activist is enough to qualify you as a progressive, liberal, socialist, or anything else for that matter). Speaking favourably about eugenics without doing anything about it is not exactly "championing."


Progressives loved eugenics b/c it was on the side of reform rather than the status quo, activism rather than laissez-faire, and social responsibility rather than selfishness.
So is buying organic food, but that doesn't make it an inherently progressive political statement.


They were perfectly comfortable expanding state intervention in order to bring about a social goal.
Sure, except that eugenics is incompatible with the fundamental leftist principle of human equality.

[Pogue]

One word - anarchism.

[Dimentio]

Socialism began in the 1830s and expanded greatly after the 1880s. The peculiar thing about socialism was that it was a confused, hybrid movement, influenced by both the two great preexisting polar ideologies, liberalism and conservatism. From the classical liberals the socialists took a frank acceptance of industrialism and the Industrial Revolution, an early glorification of “science” and “reason,” and at least a rhetorical devotion to such classical liberal ideals as peace, individual freedom, and a rising standard of living. Indeed, the socialists, long before the much later corporatists, pioneered in a co-opting of science, reason, and industrialism. And the socialists not only adopted the classical liberal adherence to democracy, but topped it by calling for an “expanded democracy,” in which “the people” would run the economy—and each other.

On the other hand, from the conservatives the socialists took a devotion to coercion and the statist means for trying to achieve these liberal goals. Industrial harmony and growth were to be achieved by aggrandizing the State into an all-powerful institution, ruling the economy and the society in the name of “science.” A vanguard of technocrats was to assume all-powerful rule over everyone’s person and property in the name of the “people” and of “democracy.” Not content with the liberal achievement of reason and freedom for scientific research, the socialist State would install rule by the scientists of everyone else; not content with liberals setting the workers free to achieve undreamt-of prosperity, the socialist State would install rule by the workers of everyone else—or rather, rule by politicians, bureaucrats, and technocrats in their name. Not content with the liberal creed of equality of rights, of equality before the law, the socialist State would trample on such equality on behalf of the monstrous and impossible goal of equality or uniformity of results—or rather, would erect a new privileged elite, a new class, in the name of bringing about such an impossible equality.

Socialism was a confused and hybrid movement because it tried to achieve the liberal goals of freedom, peace, and industrial harmony and growth—goals which can only be achieved through liberty and the separation of government from virtually everything—by imposing the old conservative means of statism, collectivism, and hierarchical privilege. It was a movement which could only fail, which indeed did fail miserably in those numerous countries where it attained power in the twentieth century, by bringing to the masses only unprecedented despotism, starvation, and grinding impoverishment.

I think it is dishonest to quote without stating the source. You are a creepy plagiarist.

[Bud Struggle]

You may be right. But I would regard this as a bad thing, a problem to be corrected. If such people exist, then we must design a system that will stop them from continuing to take things over and win. I see that, and I can't really argue that it hasn't always been good. But it's pretty obvious those people are with us--in the USSR it's the people that rose to be commissars and Communist Party officials that in a heartbeat became Capitalists and capitains of industry when Communism fell. The exact same people that rose to authority under socialism became the same that pose to authority under Capitalism. I don't think it's in the genes or the race--it's just some people are built that way.


The drive to dominate is the greatest vice in the world. Yea. It's really not about money or economics--in the end it's about power.


Throughout human history, there have been numerous ideologies which proclaimed that certain people are superior to others. There have been many names and justifications for these supposedly superior people: The chosen of the gods, the aristocracy, the Elect, the intellectual elite, the great entrepreneurs, the heroic businessmen of Randian myth, the Master Race... And these were all lies, of course. Lies intended to persuade the common people to accept their downtrodden status. But if any of these myths were actually true, if a small number of people really were objectively superior to others and destined to be on top of a social hierarchy - then that would only make things worse, and it would be necessary to destroy them. Again, I don't think it's in the genes or the race, but some people like power like some people like sex or like food. Who these people are and where they come from I don't know. I know personally in my business world I have a very little corner of my world that I control--and I really like that. It's more than just the money, it's about power. Now mangify that a million times and you have Stalin or Napoleon.




You don't want to persuade me that capitalists really are better than everyone else. I think they are average people, which is why I believe that after the revolution they should be left alone as long as they don't get violent. If I actually believed that capitalists were better than everyone else, I would say, "for the good of Mankind, kill them all." I certainly don't think capitalists are better in general than everyone else. But I do believe they have a talent that most other people lack. Much like playing the piano--some people just have that talent. And Capitalists like pianists hone their talent and work on it and become good at it--while most people get jobs working for a living or listen to the radio.

The problem is that piano players don't exploit people--Capitalists sometimes do.


This, by the way, is precisely the reason why I utterly oppose transhumanism with ever fiber of my being. Because it has the potential to create a Master Race. And then we would have to kill them before they enslave us. I agree. We have too many masters the way we are now.

[Green Dragon]

Throughout human history, there have been numerous ideologies which proclaimed that certain people are superior to others. There have been many names and justifications for these supposedly superior people: The chosen of the gods, the aristocracy, the Elect, the intellectual elite, the great entrepreneurs, the heroic businessmen of Randian myth, the Master Race... And these were all lies, of course. Lies intended to persuade the common people to accept their downtrodden status. But if any of these myths were actually true, if a small number of people really were objectively superior to others and destined to be on top of a social hierarchy - then that would only make things worse, and it would be necessary to destroy them.

You have left out the ideological "lie" which is a main justification for socialism- that the majority of the population is superior to the minority of the population.

[Robert]

Yea. It's really not about money or economics--in the end it's about power.

Yes. I am probably alone in finding it hilarious that Hitler claimed royalties on postage stamps that bore his likeness. What in the world did he need money for? Playing the slots in Monte Carlo?

[Kronos]

if a small number of people really were objectively superior to others and destined to be on top of a social hierarchy - then that would only make things worse, and it would be necessary to destroy them.

There you have it folks. Spoken like a true Christian. The epitome of ressentiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment

[RGacky3]

There you have it folks. Spoken like a true Christian. The epitome of ressentiment:

No sounds to me like a good Nitzcheien, someones better than you, a threat to you, so you get rid of him.


You have left out the ideological "lie" which is a main justification for socialism- that the majority of the population is superior to the minority of the population.

Thats not the main, or even A justification for socialism.

Not only that but that argument is a strawman, because superior for what?


Yea. It's really not about money or economics--in the end it's about power.

Of which money is the number 1 source of.


in the USSR it's the people that rose to be commissars and Communist Party officials that in a heartbeat became Capitalists and capitains of industry when Communism fell. The exact same people that rose to authority under socialism became the same that pose to authority under Capitalism. I don't think it's in the genes or the race--it's just some people are built that way.


Really? They were just built that way?

I don't know but I happen to think that the leaders who had the power in Communims were a bit it a better position to take power in Capitalism than your average factory worker. They had a little head start.


But I do believe they have a talent that most other people lack. Much like playing the piano--some people just have that talent. And Capitalists like pianists hone their talent and work on it and become good at it--while most people get jobs working for a living or listen to the radio.

The problem is that piano players don't exploit people--Capitalists sometimes do.

Capitalists by definition do.

Also about that "talent" theres no way of knowing that. Just like I said before, some people have head starts, some don't have the opportunity, some have the talent but don't want it as bad, and so on and so forth.