I've read that communist governments varied from place to place. The more advanced ones polled their public constantly and evaluated the public mood in other ways. If a candidate for elected office would not get more than 50 percent of the vote them he or she would be replaced by someone else before election time.
But it doesn't produce money, either.
And that's supposed to be relevant how? He's saying x => y. You're saying !x. No conclusions can be drawn.
Which is a completely different thing. Although note that enforced breakups tend not to go too well.
Withering away of the state was always a pipe dream. Marx even knew such a society could not produce expensive things--note that he said to wait until a country was industrialized. That means that he knew a communist state couldn't create those things. He failed to realize that it wasn't a one-time process.
WHAT doesn’t produce money?
That's not actually true -- the Marxists got power in Czechoslovakia, which had had normal Western traditions of freedom and democracy, by winning free elections. Of course they wore out their welcome in a few years because Marxism is a really bad idea. When the people tried to vote them out of power, the Marxists predictably decided they weren't up for that, and abolished democracy. Anybody who didn't see that coming was a damn fool. Turns out people can be argued into slavery.
That depends on what you mean by democracy. The "democracy" Marx was in favor of was not what Westerners typically think of as democracy, with all that bourgeois nonsense about The Rights Of Man, rule of law, and protection of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. He took his majority rule in pure form -- he called what he had in mind "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", and with good reason. When asked what that meant in practice, he said the Paris Commune. Marx was all in for street justice.
The point is the change of ownership doesn't allow you to redirect the money to consumer spending. It messes things up every time it's tried. It's a variation on the printing presses.
(bolded added)
No, but they are allied with them. In Gaza as well as in the West.Hamas members are Marxists?
Presumably some are and some aren't -- that's pretty much inevitable in a group held together by non-economic ideology. But the leadership don't run Gaza like Marxists; they run it like Mafia dons -- they're all for private enterprise as long as businessmen pay their protection-racket money and don't compete with Hamas-owned businesses.
I don't think the BOD of mega corps pay much attention to the shareholders at all.
They sure do - the MAJOR stockholders elect them.
Typically, the MAJOR stockholders are institutions, whose boards of directors have the attitude that boards of directors should be trusted to know what's best. Particularly when such boards often share memberships.
