Originally posted by StyleTime
No, not at the state level. That is why many argue a communist state has never been achieved, as there would be no state. Communism isn't like socialism, capitalism, fascism, etc. Those systems still allow for goverment. Under communism, we'd just share everything without a central authority telling us what to do.
Oh yeah, I've posted about this, before, and used Marx' own words to make this point:
There's two major "groupings" of socialism and the one people confuse for everything is the Marxist Socialism.https://www.marxists.org/archive/fr...61/man/ch06.htm
[quote]
Socialism, for Marx, is a society which serves the needs of man. But, many will ask, is not that exactly what modern capitalism does? Are not our big corporations most eager to serve the needs of man? And are the big advertising companies not reconnaissance parties which, by means of great efforts, from surveys to "motivation analysis," try to find out what the needs of man are? Indeed, one can understand the concept of socialism only if one understands Marx's distinction between the true needs of man, and the synthetic, artificially produced needs of man.
...
Socialism is the abolition of human self-alienation, the return of man as a real human being. "It is the definitive resolution of the antagonism between man and nature, and between man and man. It is the true solution of the conflict between existence and essence, be tween objectification and self-affirmation, between freedom and necessity, between individual and species. It is a solution of the riddle of history and knows itself to be this solution". [98], [99] For Marx, socialism meant the social order which permits the return of man to himself, the identity between existence and essence, the overcoming of the separateness and antagonism between subject and object, the humanization of nature; it meant a world in which man is no longer a stranger among strangers, but is in his world, where he is at home.
I am for sure not talking about Marxist Socialism, but talking about the more common "Socialism." Idiots in the US combine the two definitions into one label and think all of it is "socialism." It's not.
But more about Marxist Socialism, Marx dressed up his words with pretty ideas and structures but at the essence of it, it was anti-theistic, antagonistic towards the reformation movement and the enlightenment period (where the idea of extreme individualistic liberty and freedom were seen as paramount to happiness) but not necessarily diametrically opposed to those concepts. He saw his brand of Communism in phases with the eventual outcome of man weaning themselves off the teet of religion and forming a happy utopia of communal industry (he believed it was the inevitable outcome of a society that grew through his idea of communistic maturity: religion was no longer necessary as an emotional crutch).[/quote]
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=16405754#post16405754
Also, I've posted about Christ and his clearly communist ideas (pure communism, as you allude to). I even include biblical citations, from Christ's wording, to support my position. lol
It rustles jimmies when you tell many conservative Christians that Christ was definitely a communist. But the KMC search engine isn't working too well for me so I can't find the post. Oh well, no one would read it anyway. WEEEEE!