the revolution has started

2. Can you name which country comunism has been tried in. I think you will find no country has yet applied comunism. Just because they say they are comunist does not mean they are. You say you produce content and websites people want to join, but your the only one who does think that.

3. Yes, its not free in the sense its not paid for. But its free in that it does not matter if your rich or poor, you still access it equally.

4. You say 80% will get well paid jobs. Where is your evidence? Many will be lucky to work in the local bugar bar with the economy as it is. Also why have you turned education into a product? A degree was never a product, it was a means to improve the mind.

By the way Paul, have you not heard of the great people in the UK. Did you know that the chololatear rowntrees macintosh built ho,mes for his staff, and even a pub (he himself did not belive in the drink).

Do you not understand Paul that not everyone belives in greed likew you clearly do.

Do you realy belive that greed is good, only the rich can offord things, let the poor suffer, pollute the planet, rob earth of its resorses. You probably think its ok for animals to die out. Just as long as your ok.

By the way Paul did I get it wrong, but I thought you boasted that you had your cancer treatment on the nhs or its equilivant. And you boasted that you got a disability allowance? So why is it ok for you to take but not others?

I would have loved to have done somthing far more challanging.

Under Socialism all the means of production are the property of the community. The community alone disposes of them and decides how to use them in production. The community produces, the products accrue to the community, and the community decides how those products are to be used.

Modern socialists, espcially those of the Marxian persuasion, lay great emphasis on designating the socialist community as Society, and therefore on describing the transfer of the means of production to the control of the community as the "Socialization of the means of production." In itself the expression is unobjectionable but in the connection in which it is used it is particularly designed to obscure one of the most important problems of Socialism.

The word "society," with its corresponding adjective "social," has three separate meanings. It implies, first, the abstract idea of social interrelationships, and secondly, the concrete conception of a union of the individuals themselves. Between these two sharply different meanings, a third has been interposed in ordinary speech: the abstract society is conceived as personified in such expressions as "human society," "civil society."

Now Marx uses the term with all these meanings. This would not matter as long as he made the distinction quite clear. But he does just the opposite. He interchanges them with a conjurer's skill whenever it appears to suit him. When he talks of the social character of capitalistic production he is using social in its abstract sense. When he speaks of the society which suffers during crises he means the personified society of mankind. But when he speaks of the society which is to expropriate the expropriators and socialize the means of production he means an actual social union. And all the meanings are interchanged in the links of his argument whenever he has to prove the unprovable. The reason for all this is in order to avoid using the term State or its equivalent, since this word has an unpleasant sound to all those lovers of freedom and democracy, whose support the Marxian does not wish to alienate at the outset. A programme which would give the State the general responsibility and direction of all production has no prospect of acceptance in these circles. It follows that the Marxist must continually find a phraseology which disguises the essence of the programme, which succeeds in concealing the unbridgeable abyss dividing democracy and Socialism. It does not say much for the perception of men who lived in the decades immediately preceding the World War that they did not see through this sophistry.

The modern doctrine of the state understands by the word "State" an authoritative unit, an apparatus of compulsion characterized not by its aims but by its form. But Marxism has arbitrarily limited the meaning of the word State, so that it does not include the Socialistic State. Only those states and forms of state organization are called the State which arouse the dislike of the socialist writers. For the future organization to which they aspire the term is rejected indignantly as dishonourable and degrading. It is called "Society." In this way the Marxian social democracy could at one and the same time contemplate the destruction of the existing State machine, fiercely combat all anarchistic movements, and pursue a policy which led directly to an all powerful state.

Now it does not matter in the least what particular name is given to the coercive apparatus of the socialistic community. If we use the word "State" we have a term in common use, except in the quite uncritical Marxian literature, an expression which is generally understood and which evokes the idea it is intended to evoke. But there is no disadvantage in avoiding this term if we wish, since it arouses mixed feelings in many people, and in substituting the expression "community." The choice of terminology is purely a matter of style, and has no practical importance.

I presume you refer to school education (ie up to say 16 year old) rather than university.