Marxism, what you got?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Most people in jail/prison, deserve to be there, for being criminally minded.

No one is criminally minded

If that were the case, homeless people would commit more crime than anyone else, and that's not true at all.

Poverty and crime are directly linked. This can't be disputed.

[The Grand Nudger]

Being homeless literally is a crime in many places - they are committing more "crime". Every second the clock ticks is just another moment in their ongoing infraction of a life.

Getting rid of those laws would get rid of that crime, too, wouldn't it?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Marx and Engels were referring to the demise of ‘the State’ as a concept, not to any particular state. The signs you mention would seem to be indicative of either a change in the way a State is managed, or increasing the power of that State. If the US were to become a theocratic dictatorship, for example, or a corporate fascism, it would still be a State.

I'm saying those are the demise of the state as people have less confidence in it as a whole. I don't really see this as merely changing states

Worldwide, the concept of a State seems stronger than ever. Marx’s notion that society would evolve to the point where laws could be done away with (because people would naturally want to behave themselves without coercion) seems as far-fetched as ever.

I must disagree I think people are becoming less about state coercion and more about pro civic behavior 

And social programmes are socialist in essence, if not in name. This can’t be sensibly denied.

Boru

Social programs neither started with socialism nor are they their essence so it can be sensibly denied. Unless you're going to tell me the Fascist states were socialists because they had social programs or The Romans were Socialists because they gave out free bread.

National Socialist German Workers Party.

Mussolini (ostensibly, at least) wanted to do away with social classes.

While the Romans may not have been socialist per se, giving food to people who needed it is certainly an idea of which Marx would have approved.

But - essentially - I agree that social programmes do not Socialism make. As I said earlier, all modern economies are, to some extent, blended. 

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

National Socialist German Workers Party.

The Nazi called themselves Socialists as a branding scheme to win over members of the left to gain more power. The same people they would eventually betray and murder. The Nazis were political opportunists who latch themselves onto anything that would grow their power then they toss aside their new allies when they were no longer useful.

To say that Hitler understood the value of language would be an enormous understatement. Propaganda played a significant role in his rise to power. To that end, he paid lip service to the tenets suggested by a name like National Socialist German Workers’ Party, but his primary—indeed, sole—focus was on achieving power whatever the cost and advancing his racist, anti-Semitic agenda. After the failure of the Beer Hall Putsch, in November 1923, Hitler became convinced that he needed to utilize the teetering democratic structures of the Weimar government to attain his goals.

Over the following years the brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser did much to grow the party by tying Hitler’s racist nationalism to socialist rhetoric that appealed to the suffering lower middle classes. In doing so, the Strassers also succeeded in expanding the Nazi reach beyond its traditional Bavarian base. By the late 1920s, however, with the German economy in free fall, Hitler had enlisted support from wealthy industrialists who sought to pursue avowedly anti-socialist policies. Otto Strasser soon recognized that the Nazis were neither a party of socialists nor a party of workers, and in 1930 he broke away to form the anti-capitalist Schwarze Front (Black Front). Gregor remained the head of the left wing of the Nazi Party, but the lot for the ideological soul of the party had been cast.

Hitler allied himself with leaders of German conservative and nationalist movements, and in January 1933 German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed him chancellor. Hitler’s Third Reich had been born, and it was entirely fascist in character. Within two months Hitler achieved full dictatorial power through the Enabling Act. In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. That July Hitler banned all political parties other than his own, and prominent members of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps. Lest there be any remaining questions about the political character of the Nazi revolution, Hitler ordered the murder of Gregor Strasser, an act that was carried out on June 30, 1934, during the Night of the Long Knives. Any remaining traces of socialist thought in the Nazi Party had been extinguished

https://www.britannica.com/story/were-th...socialists

Mussolini (ostensibly, at least) wanted to do away with social classes.

Yeah but not for the same reason Socialists did. He wanted a society built on a notion of Nationalism, not Class.

While the Romans may not have been socialist per se, giving food to people who needed it is certainly an idea of which Marx would have approved.

Hitler would have approved some stuff Rome did too. That wouldn't make Rome Fascist.

But - essentially - I agree that social programs do not Socialism make. As I said earlier, all modern economies are, to some extent, blended. 

Boru

I'm glad we agree on that much

[vulcanlogician]

If that were the case, homeless people would commit more crime than anyone else, and that's not true at all.

Yes. It is true. And the homeless wouldn't need to commit more crimes than anyone else. They'd just need to commit more crimes than non-homeless people on average to show a causal relation. And they do.

The overall rate of criminal offenses was 35 times higher in the homeless mentally ill population than in the domiciled mentally ill population. The rate of violent crimes was 40 times higher and the rate of nonviolent crimes 27 times higher in the homeless population.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7641002/...population.

[Ahriman]

The Nazi called themselves Socialists as a branding scheme to win over members of the left to gain more power

No.......the Nazis really were Socialists. In fact, they were more aggressively Socialist than any other political entity in the world.

[vulcanlogician]

The Nazi called themselves Socialists as a branding scheme to win over members of the left to gain more power

No.......the Nazis really were Socialists. In fact, they were more aggressively Socialist than any other political entity in the world.

Can you back that statement up? Why do you think that?

[The Architect Of Fate]

No.......the Nazis really were Socialists. In fact, they were more aggressively Socialist than any other political entity in the world.

No, they most certainly were not

[Spongebob]

Of the number of people currently imprisoned in the us, what percentage do they account for, if you had to guess? On a fundamental level, having the laws doesn't stop them - and getting rid of the laws wouldn't make anyone who wasn't already one of them do whatever shitty thing they do. The rule of law, and notions of some people™ just being bad, are more often tools for class oppression than objective assessments of human nature or necessity.

Nearly all of them.

Either you're being facetious or your ignorance is astounding.

---

The Nazi called themselves Socialists as a branding scheme to win over members of the left to gain more power

No.......the Nazis really were Socialists. In fact, they were more aggressively Socialist than any other political entity in the world.

Well, there we have it, astounding level of ignorance.  Either you have no clue what the word means or, you have no idea what the word means.  Have you ever read anything about Nazi's, socialism or government in general?  You should have at least learned the difference between these in high school.  Did you skip out on every history class you had?

---

@Ahriman In case you don't believe me:

From Wikipedia:
The Great Depression had spurred increased state ownership in most Western capitalist countries. This also took place in Germany during the last years of the Weimar Republic.[40] However, after the Nazis took power, industries were privatized en masse. Several banks, shipyards, railway lines, shipping lines, welfare organizations, and more were privatized.[41] The Nazi government took the stance that enterprises should be in private hands wherever possible.[42] State ownership was to be avoided unless it was absolutely necessary for rearmament or the war effort, and even in those cases “the Reich often insisted on the inclusion in the contract of an option clause according to which the private firm operating the plant was entitled to purchase it."

[vulcanlogician]

The Nazis did have some socialist projects too. I remember reading an article about it some time back. Some socialist policies. Some capitalist policies.

But I really don't see how it's relevant to a discussion about Marxism. Naziism was antipodal to Marxism generally. The conservatives like to say "Nazis were bad because they were socialist." That's bullshit. The only thing more bullshit is Ahri's claim that they were the more aggressively socialist than any political entity in the world.