Would Marxism create...?

The middle class would be eliminated and you would have equality in terms of poverty for the many. The elites would still be the elites. This has been demonstrated over and over again in the 20th and 21st century. Marxism is a dead end.

Bread lines would flourish.

Communist leadership is not poor.
Castro was not poor.
He was rich--he just sought to be the only game in town. I am not sure he was actually Cuban either.

He eliminated the ability for people to have their own business--there are a lot of doctors in Cuba--an army of them apparently. But what if you biologically or merit-wise are not inclined to be a doctor?
Then what?
It doesn't matter because the collective wants you to be a doctor.

It's not a normal way to have a society--a society where people gravitate towards their natural strengths is more holistic.
And as for poverty, if the society is small enough, you won't have poverty because everyone knows each other.

If you notice the trends in media, they really hate the idea of a natural chieftain. Trump was regarded as that type.
Bush was not-and they loved him.



Stalin was not a natural chieftain--he was installed by a committee. He wasn't Russian, he was Georgian, and he was set up as leader over people of different clans.

That just does not work.

You end up with the problems of "different strokes for different folks."

Many government problems we see today all arise from the idea that you can centralize society and have a minority controlling the majority.


But everybody is of the same tribe in that situation. They have a connection to each other.
But with all the immigration and spreading of populations, it is much more fragmented and chaotic.

Communism cannot work because it is not sincere --there is no sincere motivation by communist leadership to be kind to the population. The proof of that should be that when Communists took over Russia--they massacred all their ideological enemies. They banned marriage, they made laws that punished people for nationalistic sentiments.

You had to worship the image of Lenin.
And he is said to have referred to the communist foot solder as "useful idiots."


The earliest forms of capitalism were a form of communal living.
They were all part of the same small community and they all knew each other.

The modern corporate definition of capitalism is "money is God" and that is not the grass-roots, small business view of capitalism.
And funny enough--that big C definition of capitalism, they like communist China a lot.
So much so that they were sending alfalfa to China during a California drought-so people in California had to conserve water while it was being sent to China for its new agriculture program--cattle food. Why don't they grow their own you ask? Because China, due to its government, ruined its land and water--because communism does not use merit in decision-making very often.

Radio-friendly rock.

Exactly this. Capitalism is a global system with a handful of strongholds against it. A very small percentage of the world do very well out of this system, and a somewhat bigger percentage, mostly in North America and Western Europe, are fairly comfortable, but the vast majority of the world are highly exploited, lack basic necessities and are victims of the wars to preserve that system. For these people, socialism is the only answer.

I think what people often miss with that argument though is that, even allowing for the atrocities and major mistakes committed by the socialist regimes, the majority of the population were better off than what came before. Tsarist Russia was not known for providing for its citizens, giving them political power or caring about their human rights. Nor was Cuba under Batista, Indochina under the French, China under the emperors or the Japanese etc. In all these cases there were increases in the general welfare of the populace following their revolutions. And those that reverted to capitalism often saw a rollback in that welfare.

Another point is that many of the problems of these regimes were often more due to hostility from the capitalist world than internal issues - the Russian Civil War would have been a lot less bloody if armies of foreign countries hadn't invaded to support the much smaller White Army; Cuba and N Korea would be wealthier without the economic sanctions placed on them etc.

Finally, on an international scale, capitalist powers have been involved in mass murder, human rights abuses etc in order to protect and increase profits eg supporting Pinochet in Chile. And even at a domestic level there are obvious problems - homelessness, high crime rates, and the US prison system compares poorly to CIA reports on the Soviet gulags in the 50s.

Of course, all that doesn't mean socialism doesn't have its dangers but we should acknowledge these without simply conceding capitalism is the lesser of two evils when it is in many ways as bad or worse.

The problem with that is under capitalism, you have massive wealth differences and those with vast wealth can use that resource to sabotage any attempt to regulate capitalism.

However, even if there were some way to make capitalism fairer, it's still a system that's based on people generating more wealth than they are rewarded with. It's still a system where profits will inevitably tend to decline, leading either to collapse or pursuing more immoral forms of growth.

These leaders are often supported by the capitalist powers who profit from the exploitation. Whenever someone in the third world tries to end exploitation they are often toppled by the capitalist powers, often on a moral pretext.

I expanded my previous answer to address that.

Also if you unironicaly compare the US prison system to Soviet gulags you really should take yourself out of this debate...

This is a good place to start: www.salon.com/2014/03/08/35_countries_the_u_s_has_backed_international_crime_partner/