In the 1930's the wealthy class in the US of A were genuinely afraid of commies. The American communists were threatening "the 400" (400 richest families) and listed their names. Worker's rights were on the rise eventually, maybe moreso because The 400 needed to get loonies off their backs than anything else. Commies had control of Labor Unions and in turn controlled the docks. In a war they could shut down shipping. During WW2 FDR negotiated with mobsters to give them the unions, they ran out the communist controllers as a class and put the dock workers back under American control. The American worker hit his peak in the 1960's but has been on the decline ever since probably because there was/is no particular remaining threat to "the 400".
Marxism is an industrial age philosophy, based on "big" everything. In today's world, it's of no more relevance than any other philosophy which was created before Darwin. Marx wrote most of his major works before Darwin and fundamentally misunderstood Darwin, although his followers tried to co-opt Darwinism, as in Engel's speech at Marx's grave on how Darwin had found in nature the same laws that Marx had found in the economy and that Darwinian competition "only" described "bourgeois" society. Such a naive view could be excused in the 19th century, but is inexcusable today. Anyone who calls this a statement of "social Darwinism" ignores the fact that "society" is always and everywhere "Darwinist" already. You can layer on anything from the society of Ancient Greece to the society of Indians in the mountains of South America to the society of the modern West and the underlying reality is Darwinian competition. The only way to escape it is by "dropping out" and either deliberately not reproducing or taking the more drastic step of killing yourself. Darwin made Marx obsolete. The fact that a huge number of people can't understand this is simply a sad statement on their cognitive abilities. So, Marxism/Communism/whatever "ism" Marxism wants to hide under today can be put into place, but it will always collapse because the human race did not evolve in such a way that something like "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" is possible. The selection pressures that formed the human brain and mind work in a completely different direction and will for at least a period of time as long as it took us to evolve to this point. Unless you have a rock-solid plan to be a "commissar" in any putative future Marxist-inspired society, you are better off even as a homeless person in today's society. I wish that the "ghost of socialism future" could visit each and every "socialist" and show them the wasteland they will actually achieve, regardless of their "theories" and "intentions". Whatever support "socialism" has would collapse the next morning, except for those who would end up as commissars because for that sliver of society, life might actually improve, although the increase in paranoia they would have to endure (if you're a commissar, you've got a giant target on your back 24/7) might even sway some of them against it. Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled discussion of obsolete ideas.
I could support this, with the proviso that you can choose to opt out of the basic income and if you opt-in, you cannot reproduce, or, if you already have children, that child has to choose the same options at the age of 18 and cannot reproduce before making that choice. If we're going to be giving people money, we need to have some groundrules.
I never cared to fully understand all these definitions. I'm sure Stalin and Mao said stuff like, "OK give me all your commodities, property, make stuff for me. You can all die, but who care our country needs cash". And then send some troops out to randomly kill millions. and call it a commune, since maybe a few cadets and some people overlook the masses. The underlying theme is likely the same; pacify the masses and have them believe in something that might or might not exist. get an enemy, create a big problem, and then mobilize. kill information. First kill the internet, then create massive food shortages, then ideally there is a threat of foreign invasion. maybe massive unemployment and we need "socialism". maybe we band together and need "marxism" or maybe we need to eat and need "communism". but it is all meaningless to me. because it all depends where you are in the hierarchy.
The only thing I need to tell them is "What can't continue indefinitely, won't". The "free lunch" won't last forever. It is an iron-clad rule of nature.
Do you remember boot-legging in the ole Abolition days ? Of course not. Well the great beneficiaries of Abolition were the criminal gangs who made fortunes. With all that dirty money came power, so when Abolition was abolished they were rich. Jack Kennedy would never have got elected without the ole man Kennedy looking to his criminal friends in the teamsters Union. The descendents of those criminals still wield power and money. Then came drugs. The beneficiaries of the drugs' trillions are - you guessed it the criminals again. Do they want to see drugs legalized - of course not. Would kill the business. The US politicians would not dare legalize drugs without the blessings of crime. So little to no progress is made in any direction. Powerful interests bribe and kill off any radical stuff. Ron Paul with 1 or 2 ideas ! No hope !Same old rhetoric about jobs and support America. Once elected you don't see those politicos for dust. They are gone till the next election....etc.
Sure thing. But that iron-clad rule can last a few decades and kill hundreds of millions, before it collapses under it's own weight. What's old is new again.