<<You should not say "almost" because every election and every revolution is going to dissapoint you .>>
Elections won't disappoint me any more because I know they're a farce. Revolutions? Castro has never disappointed me. Uncle Ho never disappointed me. The U.S.S.R. was, I admit, a disappointment. I'm still trying to figure out what happened, but it seems increasingly obvious there was a betrayal from within, a loss of Revolutionary will. I am thinking now that maybe all Revolutions will fail in the end and that perhaps even the failure is the only measure of their success, that is to say that once the basic objectives of the Revolution have been met, other needs and other desires capture the nation and the Revolution, having laid in a basic foundation of organization, education, etc. is no longer needed.
<<You think that from each according to his ability and to each according to his need is a statement of virtue , ultimately this is just as contrary to nature as perpetual motion machines .>>
Yeah it's "contrary to nature." We don't know that but even if it were, so what? Aren't incubators for premature babies "contrary to nature?" Who or what the fuck is "nature?" Fuck nature, if it was up to nature I would have died when I had my heart attack. It was not nature that saved me, I can assure you of that.
<<How do each produce according to ability? Why?>>
Because they're good socialists, that's why.
<<What is the reason (absent profit ) to produce the best you are able?>>
Love of your fellow man.
<<When each is given according to his need ,there is reason to need, no reason for anything but need.>>
If you're talking about parasitism, there's no reason to be a parasite, because they will be put to work in a labour camp. But even there they will be fed and clothed according to need.
<<Absent all of the incentives of nature there has to be a tyrant and an army present to keep turning the crank in the back of the perpetual motion machine.>>
Who knows? I sure as bitchin hell hope not.
<<The truth about Marx is that he was a genius at writeing and a dummy about economics , for all the complexity of his theroys the flaw that keeps any of it from working is simple and easy to understand.>>
Marx was not a dummy about anything, plane. I think it's far more likely that you just didn't understand him fully.
<<As if a mechanical genius designed and built a hugely complex clockwork expecting it to run forever because he knew not the simplest rules of thermodynamics .>>
Nice metaphor but it's got nothing to do with Marx.
<<What I am worried about in this vein is that as Obama tries to make us more socialist . . . >>
ROTFLMFAO
<< . . . he will eventually succeed well enough to make it needfull to have a tyrant and an enforcement to turn the crank on the complex machine.>>
You should worry about more realistic threats, like asteroids hitting the earth or alien invasions.
<<Yes Europe has several contries more socialist than we are , and they are not presently running down , This is early yet and untested by many decades, and most importantly is not purely socialist anywhere.>>
They are, however, providing universal health care to their citizens at a per capita cost much less than your current per capita health care costs, and have been doing so for decades, as has Canada.
<<Remember this truth, profitability and sustainability are synonyms.>>
Nothing remotely true about it, plane, but I'll try to remember it anyway, as an example of misconceptions of economics or something like that.