Any Socialists/Anarcho-Communists in the House?

[aperson444]

I haven't really seen a lot of Communists amongst the kids my age. I personally can identify with a libertarian model of Marxism. I like the ideas of some anarchist writers like Bakunin and Kropotkin, but in the end I believe that capitalism leads to a tyrannical superstructure that is no better than fascism. However, I also find Stalin to be really annoying to our cause. His "socialism in one nation" theory and application of a classical revolutionary vanguard (a major Communist Party) made it hard for a true, smooth flowing Marxist state to occur. Rather, I can identify with Trotsky, as he seems to be more flexible. I admire his ideas on global revolution and a continuous revolution.

I believe that the hole that much of the world is in is due to the overextension of capitalism. Especially banks and their loan business. I also believe that we have overextended government power, which needs to be reinstated to the TRUE definition of "dictatorship of the proletariat". Rule of the people, all as working class. Small councils should be created to a very very small county-like seat, elected by small community votes. Industry should be focused on creation of comunally owned productive forces versus a large collectivist force (i.e the people own the factory, there is no ruling body in the factory, only workers processing x amount of raw material) I'm not an economical genius, and I'm still reading up on the stuff, but I think it's time for an armed struggle globally. Sort of like what the PFLP did for Palestinian Liberation, but on a larger scale. I feel that the Leftist cause has slowly burnt out, and it needs to be re-ignited.

[Sage]

I'm a socialist in the sense that I believe resources should be distributed more by need rather than means. I'm not entirely against capitalism, but I do think political power needs to be taken out of money and that anyone who uses vast sums of money to influence society needs to be held more accountable.

[aperson444]

Ah, good to hear. I was beginning to think I was alone. That's exactly the point of most so-called "Revolutionary Leftist" wings. Are you anti-Globalization as well?

[Sage]

Ah, good to hear. I was beginning to think I was alone. That's exactly the point of most so-called "Revolutionary Leftist" wings. Are you anti-Globalization as well?

How would you define globalization?

[aperson444]

Multinational corporations and economic organizations; especially things like NAFTA and the IMF as well as multinational corporations, especially in the areas of exploiting the poor in third world countries.

[Sage]

Then I would have to be against that as well, yes. It ties back in to money being used by private entities to exploit and influence others.

[aperson444]

Ah, that's good. What we really need is more solidarity I guess. People are loosing grasp of what Socialism really means, and the remaining Socialist parties are busy bickering about ideologies rather than attempting to show socialism in the correct light.

Good to see another Socialist lurking in the shadows :D

[Sage]

Ah, that's good. What we really need is more solidarity I guess. People are loosing grasp of what Socialism really means, and the remaining Socialist parties are busy bickering about ideologies rather than attempting to show socialism in the correct light.

Good to see another Socialist lurking in the shadows :D

Knowing how people view me on this forum, I'd hardly say I'm in the shadows.

In my opinion there are two sorts of socialism- one being the transition stage between capitalism and communism (Think USSR, China under Mao, etc) and the other being a form of capitalism with strong social security institutions- That is, everyone paying into a program through taxation for the benefit of everyone else. By this second definition, things like firefighters, public roads, police, the military, and public schools are all socialist in nature.

I resent the idea that anything operated by the government is inherently incompetent and doomed to failure: The success of your government's institutions is simply a reflection of how well-informed, educated, and involved the people are in the running of their nation. Of course, I can't blame conservatives and libertarians for having such a negative view of government- just look at the people they vote for. (ba-dum-tiss)

[aperson444]

Ah, well I dislike government. I believe in a peoples' democracy versus a structured democracy. That is, the government is divided into infinitely smaller subunits that report to each other. Thus, I am a supporter of the Marxist-Leninist idea that there should be a vanguard FRONT, however I do not think there should be a vanguard "party".

I feel that government in the Western sense is always flawed, and the best choice is a more Libertarian Marxist-Leninist society where the focus is on forces of production. Thus, I am a fan of many Anarchist thinkers. The ultimate goal of Communism is in fact, a stateless, classless egalitarian society. I believe very strongly in that, but I believe that government should only exist at regional levels as a loose federation without a real federal control system. Only a set of rules that moderate how each region works and interacts. The federal government should only have control over military reserves, import/export deals and diplomacy.

[Sage]

Then I'd have to say we aren't in agreement on a lot of things, since I think libertarianism is a steaming load.

[aperson444]

Ah well how so? Do you mean Libertarianism as in just a small government and nothing else, or do you mean libertarianism as in very few laws restricting what you as a person can do in society?

I'm more for the latter. I don't think the government has any business in your issues, so long as you are giving everyone else a fair economic chance. By eliminating economic disparity, the economic barrier is removed, and everyone can pursue their needs, as they are provided. You are paid x amount like everyone else, but you decide how you spend that sum x. This need not be money. It can be in the form of coupons/rations etc.

Libertarianism in the US means a lot of things. Some people associate it with the Tea Party and pro-small government, anti-immigration groups while some say that it's just limited federal government influence on laws and state economic matters. I simply do not believe the large scale government has any right to create laws that control individuals. They can control things that are national and governmental matters. It is up to the so-called "workers councils" (the origin of the word Soviet is the soviet, or workers' council) of the individual county and its communally owned production areas that controls the laws of the region. This chain of command extends up to regional and national levels to decide more pressing matters, like the presence of the leader of the nation, the members of the committee that reviews the rules of conduct for "soviets", any sort of national trade laws and the responsibility of keeping economic equality. I feel that THIS should constitute the single party rule of the state, as said by the Marxist-Leninist mode of thought. A loose collection of Communist or Socialist councils. The regional and national government funds these councils equally, the councils decide where the resources go (i.e factory x needs 4 tons of iron that can be bought from region A, the council will decide if this order is justified based on the collective need of the people. Said councils are democratically elected very frequently).


I think the USSR had the right idea in mind when it came to passports for inter-SSR travel, because that way you are not subject to the laws created by an entirely different group of people (so long as you do not commit serious crimes).

I take you are more of a reformist Socialist rather than a Revolutionary Socialist? Or am I wrong?

[Sage]

Ah well how so? Do you mean Libertarianism as in just a small government and nothing else, or do you mean libertarianism as in very few laws restricting what you as a person can do in society?

I don't think the size of government matters. Government is like a gun- it doesn't matter what caliber it's packing, it matters how you use it. The size of government has nothing to do with how oppressive or lenient it is. Just because governments at present are not used for good does not mean they can't be used for good. If the people are educated, well-informed, and take an active interest in working to improve their country, then a large government can be a powerful force for good.

I just find 'libertarianism' is such a loaded name and especially disagree that corporate bodies and businesses should enjoy the same liberties and freedoms that individuals deserve. Power and societal influence should be held by those elected to positions of authority, not by those who are particularly good at making a buck through other people.

Regardless, I don't like identifying myself with too many -isms. Everything can be twisted and misunderstood (don't get me started on the word 'feminism') and I'd rather just explain my personal beliefs and ideas rather than working at finding the perfect -ist and -ism for me.

[aperson444]

Ah then I agree with you. That sort of Libertarianism is often associated with Anarcho-Capitalism, which is one of THE most stupid theories I've ever heard. It takes small scale human behavior and totally ignores the fact that a monopoly is inevitable when you have a free-market lasseiz-faire system. I just like the idea of individual rights involving gun ownership, drug use and same sex marriage. I don't think it's the government's job to judge what we are capable of nor is it the government's job to say what we will or won't do.

I'm just pro-freedom. I find it sort of irritating when people think of Communism/Socialism and freedom as polar opposites.

[huginnmuninn]

i think that people should be paid by how hard they work and if someone makes a million more dollars than me then its their money and they should be able to use it how they want. I would also perfer if government werent influinced by money but i dont think thats gonna happen.

[Iris]

I'm just pro-freedom. I find it sort of irritating when people think of Communism/Socialism and freedom as polar opposites.

People think this because history has shown it to be true. I hated Socialism before I even knew what it really was because my mother lived through the oppression of Communist Russia, and truly suffered. Now I'm a little curious about it, to be honest, but most people just think of the Soviet Union and North Korea when they think of Socialism or Communism.

[aperson444]

i think that people should be paid by how hard they work and if someone makes a million more dollars than me then its their money and they should be able to use it how they want. I would also perfer if government werent influinced by money but i dont think thats gonna happen.

Ah, but the factory laborer only deserves minimum wage for 16 hours work? We cannot quantify work, only the product of work. That millionaire is making life harder for the rest of the population. That millionaire has an unfair advantage in influenced the government, healthcare and a multitude of things. The establishment of a centralized monetary system has made money one of the most powerful things existing on the planet.

People think this because history has shown it to be true. I hated Socialism before I even knew what it really was because my mother lived through the oppression of Communist Russia, and truly suffered. Now I'm a little curious about it, to be honest, but most people just think of the Soviet Union and North Korea when they think of Socialism or Communism.

I do agree that the USSR was truly not a free country after Stalin. I cannot say that I agree with Stalin, but Lenin did what he had to. Revolutionary times call for many things. I do feel that the fall of the USSR has led to some pretty rough times for Russia. There are many rich millionaires, but at the same time there is a vastly large lower class now. I have talked to people and read articles about everyone preferring the USSR or Communist Romania to the modern day situation. However, I agree that the USSR was not truly free, nor Commiunist. Many Marxists call the USSR "State Capitalist" from Stalin onwards. There is however, a particularly annoying group of Communists who call themselves "Anti-Revisionists". The follow the ideology of Stalin and believe in complete control of the People and forceful collectivization. It's sad because they are the most vocal of us, a lot of us are scared to be vocal with our opinion. Most people just get pissed at us or laugh at us when we mention that Communism is the right idea for the globe.

In my home country (India), there is a massive rich-poor disparity. Schools are in morbid condition, and it is very unlikely that you will move up in economic class. The cost of living is going up and up and the rich just keep getting richer. Thus, there are many Communists where I am from. I suppose that influenced my decision to study Marxism.

[Angel Androgynous]

I agree with a lot of what you said.
I would post more, but I don't want to sound stupid... :P

[aperson444]

Hahaha well it's good to hear that perhaps I'm not just crazy. Feel free to message me, I can explain stuff more if you have questions.

[Angel Androgynous]

Oh that would be cool. :) Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. ^_^

[Iris]

I do agree that the USSR was truly not a free country after Stalin. I cannot say that I agree with Stalin, but Lenin did what he had to. Revolutionary times call for many things. I do feel that the fall of the USSR has led to some pretty rough times for Russia. There are many rich millionaires, but at the same time there is a vastly large lower class now. I have talked to people and read articles about everyone preferring the USSR or Communist Romania to the modern day situation. However, I agree that the USSR was not truly free, nor Commiunist. Many Marxists call the USSR "State Capitalist" from Stalin onwards.

In my opinion it is better to be dirt poor but have the freedoms found in democracy than have a comfortable life but with no real freedom. You should hear my mother talk about how people in her school never made any real friends just in case they'd say something wrong one day and get reported to the KGB, and have their parents sent to Siberia for 15 years...If people want that kind of Communism, it's because they've forgotten what that would mean. Or they're stupid.

There is however, a particularly annoying group of Communists who call themselves "Anti-Revisionists". The follow the ideology of Stalin and believe in complete control of the People and forceful collectivization. It's sad because they are the most vocal of us, a lot of us are scared to be vocal with our opinion. Most people just get pissed at us or laugh at us when we mention that Communism is the right idea for the globe.

It might help if the Socialism you endorse would be renamed, to be honest. People hear Socialism/Communism and shudder. And I don't blame them. That's excluding the fact that Socialist parties are given no attention. They don't try to educate people about their vision and their beliefs. If anyone wants to know more about Socialism they have to do some searching to find out about it, and the different forms of it. And since the immediate thought of the average person in response to Socialism is terror, why would anyone take the time to do this?

I'm not a Socialist, but I'm open to hearing socialist ideas. Most people aren't.

In my home country (India), there is a massive rich-poor disparity. Schools are in morbid condition, and it is very unlikely that you will move up in economic class. The cost of living is going up and up and the rich just keep getting richer. Thus, there are many Communists where I am from. I suppose that influenced my decision to study Marxism.

History has shown that struggling countries with higher numbers of poor are generally the ones who desire Communism, so it makes sense. People are desperate for a change. I think that's detrimental, though. To prevent corruption/the Socialist state becoming a regime like the USSR, there needs to be a strong emphasis on freedom, and rights, already laid down. I think there's a high chance India would suffer from become Communist, at this point in its development. The best country to adopt Socialist ideals would be a strong Democratic country.

[aperson444]

In my opinion it is better to be dirt poor but have the freedoms found in democracy than have a comfortable life but with no real freedom. You should hear my mother talk about how people in her school never made any real friends just in case they'd say something wrong one day and get reported to the KGB, and have their parents sent to Siberia for 15 years...If people want that kind of Communism, it's because they've forgotten what that would mean. Or they're stupid.

The USSR isn't the golden gem of Communism. Lenin had the right idea and Stalin ruined it, causing all of those injustices that happened. Even after Kruschev's "Destalinization", there was much lack of freedom.

History has shown that struggling countries with higher numbers of poor are generally the ones who desire Communism, so it makes sense. People are desperate for a change. I think that's detrimental, though. To prevent corruption/the Socialist state becoming a regime like the USSR, there needs to be a strong emphasis on freedom, and rights, already laid down. I think there's a high chance India would suffer from become Communist, at this point in its development. The best country to adopt Socialist ideals would be a strong Democratic country.

India is already suffering. Corruption is at an all-time high, people are very poor, the rich are starting to leak into the government. In my home region, the Communist Party is the leading one. It is the 2nd largest in India. Yet, we cannot implement our policies in the current global state, even if we did manage to get the power to do so.

[Iris]

India is already suffering. Corruption is at an all-time high, people are very poor, the rich are starting to leak into the government. In my home region, the Communist Party is the leading one. It is the 2nd largest in India. Yet, we cannot implement our policies in the current global state, even if we did manage to get the power to do so.

Why not? And you don't need to implement all your policies to have an effect. If people are opposed to some of the more radical policies of the Communist Party, why not just do a little at a time?

[aperson444]

No, no, they are present in only a few regions (2-4). Thus their effect on national law is minimum.

[Iris]

No, no, they are present in only a few regions (2-4). Thus their effect on national law is minimum.

Oh well...

[Sporadica]

I'd call myself a Socialist

I like the socialist ideas of a social safety net but I disagree with certain policies of socialist parties enough that I wouldn't vote for them (even though I'm not old enough) like their view on drugs, prostitution, guns, and their weak business crime punishment ideas.

[Donkey]

To be honest, I can create my own Utopian political ideologies for as long as I please and make them as detailed and as organised as I like... but that's not going to change anything. All I really want is to live my own life ignoring dogmatic rules and boundaries, while being considerate and mindful of other human beings in an incredibly liberal way. I think people should live as they like, and the system we have in place in the UK just about allows for this, as long as you know how to evade the law in some cases (specifically drug laws for me)

I used to say I was an anarchist: essentially, I still am - just in my own mind. I don't have any particular system I wish to impose on a particular state or any structured change that I'd particularly like to see: instead I just disagree with corruption and how money, economics and greed are taking over humanity. Politics has become largely a game of money: that's what drug laws are there for, rather than something to protect people and make quality of life better for all. All humans are selfish, that's why we can't trust a small group of people to dictate the livelihood of millions

[aperson444]

Indeed, but Communism isn't always a utopian idea. Marx never said that all our problems would go away with the fall of Capitalism, rather he simply attributed many of the problems we see today as linked with economic class struggle due to Capitalism. Most Communist/Socialist parties are complete suckups to the Capitalist system. Rather than taking on a revolutionary realist approach, they would rather take an idealist reformist approach. I also believe in things like personal rights concerning drugs, prostitution, same-sex marriage, so I think that those should receive more emphasis as well.

[backtobackawesome]

communism is bad dude because we went at war with them before if communism comes into power in USA then there would be total breakdown and we'll be at war with ourselves people on fire it just wont be for the benifit and wellbeing of the place. capitalism takes care of what people want and not just need because its a proper system..... i dont want a war in my own country and communism is sure to bring it

[Genghis Khan]

communism is bad dude because we went at war with them before if communism comes into power in USA then there would be total breakdown and we'll be at war with ourselves people on fire it just wont be for the benifit and wellbeing of the place. capitalism takes care of what people want and not just need because its a proper system..... i dont want a war in my own country and communism is sure to bring it

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/149/0/1/What_is_this_I_don__t_even____by_Whatthecell.jpg

[backtobackawesome]

image (http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/149/0/1/What_is_this_I_don__t_even____by_Whatthecell.jpg)

you do know it is undeniably true.....

[Genghis Khan]

you do know it is undeniably true.....

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/149/0/1/What_is_this_I_don__t_even____by_Whatthecell.jpg

[Angel Androgynous]

communism is bad dude because we went at war with them before if communism comes into power in USA then there would be total breakdown and we'll be at war with ourselves people on fire it just wont be for the benifit and wellbeing of the place. capitalism takes care of what people want and not just need because its a proper system..... i dont want a war in my own country and communism is sure to bring it

All the facepalm pictures in the world cannot express what I'm feeling right now...
Did you read at least HALF of the posts in this thread? Do you comprehend them at all?

[aperson444]

Well that's the sort of response I usually get. The truth is that Communism carries a really bad connotation with it. When someone learns that I am a Marxist/Communist, at the very least I get a funny smile and a "Haha why?".

[backtobackawesome]

marxism is false.... if you implament it on soceity then you wont get anything beneficial because people need motivation to work... socialism denies that.... no country can run under those rules its impossible

[Genghis Khan]

marxism is false.... if you implament it on soceity then you wont get anything beneficial because people need motivation to work... socialism denies that.... no country can run under those rules its impossible

It is ideal as a theory, and ideally you'd like to have a society that functions in that manner, but for the first time... I'd actually have to agree with you on the fact that pure Socialism in itself is really difficult to implement. Plus, the point you made about the basic economic issue of needs and wants, our human nature to satisfy them will not be fulfilled by this system at all, naturally there'll be no motivation or incentive to work harder either

...yeah.

[Sage]

people need motivation to work...

Improving your country and providing goods and services that improve other peoples' lives is a legitimate motivation. Your argument is invalid.

[aperson444]

Money isn't everything. It is a common misconception that you can be lazy in Socialist society. If you don't work or work towards looking for a job, then you get no pay, nothing from society. If you don't work hard, someone else will. For what? The nation improves when you work harder. This is also why I think an Anarchist-small regional governments model would work. The motivation is very clear and present. It's very hard to implement true Capitalism at the same time. Because economic freedom is not guaranteed. Monopolies and corporations still form.

[Syntax]

A short question here and I've been wondering about it. Does communism (the Maoist kind) really encourages a protracted people's war against a certain country's government?

[aperson444]

I'm not 100% familiar with Maoism, but I believe that it follows the "one-nation" model of Communism. However, Maoism is not like Trotskyism (whom I support) who supports an ETERNAL revolution (it need not be armed all the time). Maoism supports an armed, Agrarian (peasant) uprising of the proletariat against the ruling class (i.e the government). Thus it does advocate a peoples' struggle against the oppressive government. However many Maoist rebels today have lost sight of their goal. In my home country, the Maoists are slowly becoming no more than rebellious bandits in most regions. This of course is mostly due to low funding, lack of political support and untrained young rebels.

[Syntax]

Same with my country too. Though the CPP-NDF-NPA has existed ever since the early 70's until now, in which it waged a proper protracted people's war against the past Marcos administration, I would have to agree with you that most Maoist rebels such as our very own NPA or the New People's Army are simply becoming more bandit like. I do believe that a dash of communism and socialism could help a country, especially one that is still developing.

[embers]

Improving your country and providing goods and services that improve other peoples' lives is a legitimate motivation. Your argument is invalid.

Not for people who've been living with capitalism / 'greater' motivation (rewards and such) for generations. I think improving the country nowadays would only be legitimate motivation if the population had no notion of greater rewards.

[aperson444]

What better reward than helping your nation? That means your salary will go up by a few cents, the supply situation will be good and you will have something to be proud about. There are plenty of people who want to be doctors and enjoy or at least have an interest in biology/medicine. Why not let those people make a living off of that and let the people with less interest work as canners and miners? We also do not eliminate academic merit. Socialism allows for the removal of the economic barrier to education. So if you genuinely are intelligent, getting into college is only as hard as demonstrating ability. Make this system decentralized and you make it extremely hard for corruption or bribery to happen.

[The Crusader]

I think Communism is a scourge that must be eradicated like any disease. And for all you commies living here in America, move to Cuba or China or North Korea and stop trying to corrupt our nation. And if you want an armed uprising, get ready for a fight because I'll fight to the death before I submit to your degeneracy, and there are many like me. ie, the attempted communist revolution in Spain was crushed by the people.

[Sage]

I think Communism is a scourge that must be eradicated like any disease. And for all you commies living here in America, move to Cuba or China or North Korea and stop trying to corrupt our nation.

If you think Cuba, China, and North Korea are accurate representations of communism, you have no idea what you're talking about. China, after the reforms brought about by Deng Xiaoping, are arguably more capitalistic than the United States.

And if you want an armed uprising, get ready for a fight because I'll fight to the death before I submit to your degeneracy, and there are many like me. ie, the attempted communist revolution in Spain was crushed by the people.

I'm completely unsurprised that the first person to strongly advocate the use of violence in this thread is a capitalist.

[The Crusader]

If you think Cuba, China, and North Korea are accurate representations of communism, you have no idea what you're talking about. China, after the reforms brought about by Deng Xiaoping, are arguably more capitalistic than the United States.

It's a good example of why it's a failed system. Mao's rule of China was disastrous, resulting in tens of millions of deaths. Only after he died did China begin to prosper economically.



I'm completely unsurprised that the first person to strongly advocate the use of violence in this thread is a capitalist.

The OP was the one who called for a worldwide armed uprising. I'm telling you that we're not all sheep like the lower class bums that you command, and if you want your revolution, you'll have to fight for it.

[aperson444]

The OP was the one who called for a worldwide armed uprising. I'm telling you that we're not all sheep like the lower class bums that you command, and if you want your revolution, you'll have to fight for it.

You'll be surprised to hear that the Communist party is the 2nd biggest in Russia and India. The Communists are nowhere near dead. In reality, the Capitalists are often the so-called sheep. We've given Capitalism a chance, and we still have a massive disparity with poor and rich that grows larger by the day. This makes it nearly impossible for poor people to cross the divide. The middle class is stuck in between this struggle in a stagnant state. Capitalism kills itself. Without federal government intervention (something I despise), it cannot sustain itself without harming millions.

The OP was the one who called for a worldwide armed uprising.

Sure I was, but I'm calling for revolution peaceful or armed because we have no voice.

Mao's rule of China was disastrous, resulting in tens of millions of deaths. Only after he died did China begin to prosper economically.

Yea right. Before Mao, China was an agrarian dunghole. Before 1917, Russia was a feudal peasant state. Before 1959, Cuba had sub-par healthcare and rampant poverty. Look at the three now. They may not be rich like the USA, but did the USA have to put up with 80 years of being shunned by 75% of the world? I wrote an essay on this, if you so wish to see it.

[Grimm]

I haven't really seen a lot of Communists amongst the kids my age. I personally can identify with a libertarian model of Marxism. I like the ideas of some anarchist writers like Bakunin and Kropotkin, but in the end I believe that capitalism leads to a tyrannical superstructure that is no better than fascism. However, I also find Stalin to be really annoying to our cause. His "socialism in one nation" theory and application of a classical revolutionary vanguard (a major Communist Party) made it hard for a true, smooth flowing Marxist state to occur. Rather, I can identify with Trotsky, as he seems to be more flexible. I admire his ideas on global revolution and a continuous revolution.

I believe that the hole that much of the world is in is due to the overextension of capitalism. Especially banks and their loan business. I also believe that we have overextended government power, which needs to be reinstated to the TRUE definition of "dictatorship of the proletariat". Rule of the people, all as working class. Small councils should be created to a very very small county-like seat, elected by small community votes. Industry should be focused on creation of comunally owned productive forces versus a large collectivist force (i.e the people own the factory, there is no ruling body in the factory, only workers processing x amount of raw material) I'm not an economical genius, and I'm still reading up on the stuff, but I think it's time for an armed struggle globally. Sort of like what the PFLP did for Palestinian Liberation, but on a larger scale. I feel that the Leftist cause has slowly burnt out, and it needs to be re-ignited.

I'm a Trotskyist.

[antiabort]

Protip: communism doesn't work.

[aperson444]

Protip: communism doesn't work.

Protip: Neither is Capitalism.

But it's OK, class hierarchy is natural right? Y'know, because it's just nature that millions are starving and many more workers are left unemployed while more economically advanced individuals seem to have an amazing ability to survive economic holocaust like cockroaches.

For fuck's sake, I don't even think you can start a small business anymore and make a really modest profit! The so called free market has been crowded out, and every time we fall, the government has to step in (bailouts, subsidies, etc etc). Just as Marx predicted, Capitalism is a boom and bust cycle... When will the government band-aid stop working? When will the blood gush out like a river drowning both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie? So-called "Capitalism", like pure "Communism" is a utopian fallacy.