Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

"Neither have been tried. Stalinism was dictatorial. In Stalin's Russia, value was not redefined as Marx wrote that it would need to be. In Stalin's Russia, the commoner did not direct through democratic process the product, amenities and infrastructure of the nation. Communism has not existed on Earth. There have been only dictatorships, which have hijacked the label of communism in pursuit of feudalistic agendas. Feudalism -- if you had read any Marx, you would know -- is the very first crux of oppression that Marx and Engels tackle in their Manifesto."So none of the communistic or socialistic societies that existed (and there have been many) were sufficiently exemplary of your ideal conception of communism or socialism? That's interesting because I'd say the same about capitalistic societies, yet they seem to have gone significantly less wrong than the attempts at communism and socialism."Socialism and communism (as Marx writes) are about self determination. Whereas oligarchy, feudalism, presidency and monarchy offer centralized power to a select individual or several individuals, Marxism offers a society that is bottom-up, not top-down."Unless you want to own property or innovate a new industry, in which case it takes your self-determination in these regards. As for a society that is bottom-up, how, practically speaking, would this be implemented?"Empowering the individual. This is a soundbite for capitalism. All it really means is, empowering those with might -- monetary, familial or otherwise -- against the majority."You're talking exclusively about the financial aspect of empowering the individual. I can agree that there are advantages conferred by money and connections (which were worked for by the individuals' ancestors by the way). The fact of the matter is that if you study and get a good career you will earn more money than you could ever need. "Marxism doesn't demand that people give up property. Only that excessive proprietary holdings that by virtue of their private ownership diminish the utility of the working class, be surrendered to the public body: this is your railways, your oil wells, your mines, your power stations, your roads: anything by which individuals oppress upon the self-evident interest of the many to support the needs of the many, for their own personal advantage."So you're saying that in general the means of production and distribution would be privately owned and controlled? This seems to be in contrast with Marx's views. Though you also seem to be saying that everything would be publicly owned and controlled: "anything by which individuals oppress upon the self-evident interest of the many to support the needs of the many, for their own personal advantage."As for power stations and railways, these were created by private individuals and groups using their time and resources. You will need to rob these people of their possessions with the threat of force."In capitalist society, dissent is only as effective as far as it aligns with the individualist paradigm. In Marx's writings, he explicitly goes against any form of censorship of dissent, because censorship is a tool that has always been used to oppress the lowest rungs of society. A society that gives a voice to the many, benefits the many. A society in which what can be said and not said is dictated by the few, is not a free society."Yet such centralized control always seems to lead to abuses of power, for instance in the violent suppression of dissent in communist and socialist societies. Also, there seems to be a theme of needing to violently force people to work, since there is no other incentive to do so."When that group is the majority, then the majority are the powerful: that's what democracy was SUPPOSED to be."So you want a communism that is organized by direct democracy? That sounds grossly inefficient, imagine having to vote on every single aspect of society and industry on a regular basis. After all, that is the only manner in which "the majority are the powerful".