In a perfect world, with a competent government dedicated to the welfare of its citizens capitalism might be OK. You know...a socialist government which taxes and regulates industry so that none must starve, lose their homes, or lack medical care when they need it. Because Capitalism cannot, by its very nature, support "a competent government dedicated to the welfare of all its citizens".
Capitalism is dedicated to the success of business and the hoarding of wealth. It cannot, by its very nature, be socially responsible.

I'm pretty sure I've said it before...a socialist government does not need to own the means of production.

It needs only to tax and regulate them.

I really don't intend to be argumentative, chunk. I enjoy the discussion. I do, however, get frustrated with your idiosyncratic definition of "the left", and any insistence on purity in that regard. It is very much akin to the ideological purity tests administered by the radical right. Over time the conservative voices on ReaderRant have left or fell silent, with the exception of Ma Rep. I miss the discussions and contrarians.

I think the vast majority of posters here identify as "left", but probably don't conform to the rigid definition you prefer. Occasionally I like to hold up the mirror, is all. The majority of "the left" writ large would also fail. I'm not sure Marx himself would pass muster. Do you think he would? After all, his work is premised on the existence of capitalism and his seminal volume entitled "Capital".

D#MN! Someone had to frame it. I gotta steal that one!

I'd only add, as I have previously stated, that it's capitalism itself that must be democratized. If you leave the very structure intact it will accumulate political power and bend politics to it's favor. A collective of socialist boardrooms that don't mind sharing of the wealth among themselves and fellow shareholders. Not so much anywhere else.
I can take a push NWP. It's called a rant after all. I wasn't trying to be idiosyncratic (whew! made it thru spell check..) and have stated my belief. It's in the thread and I'm lazy to retype it all. It's easier to read than re-typing.

What Gregor says about the government owning the means of production is correct, to my knowledge, and it isn't hard to watch a video, but I'd rather get it from those academics who have devoted a lifetime to understand it and teach it. Do you think Marxism is about the government owning the means of production?...

I think Marxism is about controlling wealth.

Socializing it so to speak. Democratizing it works too if you want to avoid that word.

But I'm just an armchair Marxist

Marxism isn't about controlling wealth. Marx had a plan. Put all the super rich on a boat and send them to an island, and keep them there. Oh, I guess that's one way to do it.

Here's the thing, Marx was perceptive about economics, not politics. That's why he got it so wrong about the politics. Then he tried to make it work, but all that really happened, ever, is that totalitarians used his words to fool people into letting them take control. There have never been nations that have been truly either socialist or communist, they just called themselves that. Compare/contrast Hitler and Stalin...

Is China communist? Not if you follow the conceptions of Marx and Engel. The "sin" that Marx preached against was a minority with control of the means of production suppressing the masses. Every so-called "communist" nation in the world has exceeded the depredations of every capitalist nation on that score, they merely substituted one group of oppressors with themselves. I'm happy to consider any counter examples anyone might suggest. I'll wait...

Then again, show me a "conservative" who is truly conservative.

Rubbish.
The Stalin Hilter comparison (groan) reminds me of every family get together I've had over the last 30 years.
The millions of Indians that starved to death under British rule.
Ditto to the millions of chinese.
Enslavement of Africans and Indochinese.the hundreds of thousands of colonial subjects that fought and died in imperial capitalist wars of Europe.
That's just an opener. Haven't made it to north, south and Central Americas yet.
Those are some examples of depredations off the top of my head but those are some starters. What you got NWP?

The Communist Manifesto is a warning about the failure of capitalism and a rough draft of a form of government which might evolve when capitalism failed. Lenin tried to implement textbook Marxist Socialism and failed. It turned into a nightmare totalitarian regime that cost millions of lives. Nobody is looking to go down that path again.

Our Constitution prohibits that sort of government overreach anyway. We are ruled essentially by the Lockean Theory which overrules(wisely) some of the tenets of Marxist Socialism. It does not, however, overrule Social Democracy. In fact I think John Locke would heartily approve of it. So would Marx and Engels.

Boy, you completely missed the point, but here's a list: 10 biggest massacres in history. Four of the top ten, and both of the top two. (Maybe your family has a point?)

But you ignored the larger point: were any of these butchers really "socialist"? (Short answer: no.) What I was saying is they used socialist propaganda and communist trappings, but were really neither. If you're suggesting otherwise, I haven't seen it. Those "communists" sure were efficient killers, though, huh?

And you're lumping an awful lot of activity into the "capitalist" bucket without much merit. Maybe it's because your definition of "capitalists" is too broad? Nazism wasn't "capitalist", nor was the Spanish inquisition, Japanese imperialism, the Norman conquest or Roman rule. At least not according to academia, or modern understanding.

A suggestion: try focusing on the argument actually made, rather than a preconceived notion of what you'd like it to be.