5 Random questions

[happy fun time]

What's wrong with globalization?

What's wrong with the family and why did Marx and Engels want to abolish it?

Would Trotsky have industrialized the USSR into a country capable of defeating Nazi Germany or could only Stalin have done it?

What's wrong with free trade?

What was so important about Enver Hoxha?

[Black Sheep]

What's wrong with globalization?Nothing with itself.Capitapist globalization is something not that pleasant.


What's wrong with the family and why did Marx and Engels want to abolish it?Nothing with itself,and he doesnt.In fact Engels in the origin of the family,the state,and the private property describes how the modern family evolved through histoyry, always with a direct relation to the material situation.The current status of the family and of relative values etc,is a snapshot related to today's material conditions.
It is logical to assume that with a radical change at the mode and relations of production the structure of the family will change as well.


Would Trotsky have industrialized the USSR into a country capable of defeating the [3rd reich] or could only Stalin have done it?The USSR wasn't Stalin's right hand you know,it reached its level of advancement because the material conditions allowed it to do so.Stalin did play his role (negative or positive that's for you to decide).



What's wrong with free trade?It creates injustice and it is inherently exploitative so as a result rich get richer and poor get poorer.


What was so important about Enver Hoxha? I simply dunno.

Browse the FAQ at the sticky section of Learning for further answeres to your questions.

[F9]

What's wrong with globalization?

Globalization "helps" few rich people just get richer and all the others getting poorer!Workers are just oppressed for the "boss" and there whole work they do, the whole beneficials go to the "boss"!Globalization forwards poverty!!


What's wrong with the family and why did Marx and Engels want to abolish it?

I am not informed on such thing that Marx and Engels wanted to do!I would say that stupid propaganda, but i will hold back a bit because i have seen a lot things!But anyway, nothings wrong with the family, and it wont be abolished in Communism!


Would Trotsky have industrialized the USSR into a country capable of defeating Nazi Germany or could only Stalin have done it?

I think he could, but thats the only thing he could have done!:lol:


What's wrong with free trade?

Free trade again forwards poverty, its a remain of capitalism, workers are still "on the back"!Its just a system not beneficial for everyone, for some it would be more than others!!


What was so important about Enver Hoxha?

The important about him is that he isnt important!:lol:


Fuserg9:star:

[LeninBalls]

Globalization "helps" few rich people just get richer and all the others getting poorer!Workers are just oppressed for the "boss" and there whole work they do, the whole beneficials go to the "boss"!Globalization forwards poverty!!

Free trade again forwards poverty, its a remain of capitalism, workers are still "on the back"!Its just a system not beneficial for everyone, for some it would be more than others!!



Can I ask why? What are the factors behind it?

[F9]

Can I ask why? What are the factors behind it?

Of course you can ask!!
Behind what, though?

[LeninBalls]

I mean, WHY does globalization make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and WHY does free trade steer towards poverty?

[F9]

I mean, WHY does globalization make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and WHY does free trade steer towards poverty?

Both have the same "result"!Globalization makes the rich get richer etc etc because, the owner of the huge corporation expands his business on other countries(see McDonalds for ex) and as a result local small business close down due to the fact that the "big" one came over with the huge reputation and small prices due to the workers suppression and low payment, but also in cases the low quality shit they serve, that may feel, taste etc good, but only harm they do!!Some may argue that its just big capitalists "eating" small ones, which is true basically, but petty-bourgeois, still are "better" than "huge" ones!And just to make myself clear, in what i mean when i say "better", i mean that in a revolution if they do not join us, they will not fight against us either!In most of cases are "victims" of their own system!!
Free trade now, steer towards poverty and again as above make the rich richer and poor poorer, because the "ability" of trade only few will could manage to do it on full scale, because only few will have everything other people want, so they will be the rich ones, that have a lot, and gradually, with the "free trade" there "belongings" will grow, they will trade something "valuable" for others which they have many, for a lot things, which will led to injustice as bs said, and as a result again reach to poverty, and reach to a "copy" of capitalism!

Fuserg9:star:

[GeezAF]

What was so important about Enver Hoxha?

He was a murderous dictator. It's important to remember these "red fascists" in order to never let these things happen again. To never let our revolution be hijacked by leaders or central committees.

[grok]

What's wrong with globalization?


Short answer: Nothing. Per se.
Per se.



What's wrong with the family and why did Marx and Engels want to abolish it?

Short answer: Marxists do not want to "abolish" the family. That would be one of the many lies and distortions of our bourgeois enemy. And it is the bourgeois -- i.e. "nukular" -- family which is in fact the problem.



Would Trotsky have industrialized the USSR into a country capable of defeating Nazi Germany or could only Stalin have done it?

Short answer: All things being equal -- i.e. a BIG if -- absolutely, IMO.
However, all things are NOT equal in this world...



What's wrong with free trade?

Short answer: What's wrong with being a professional gambler?




What was so important about Enver Hoxha?

Short answer: Absolutely nothing.
:p

[happy fun time]

Short answer: Marxists do not want to "abolish" the family. That would be one of the many lies and distortions of our bourgeois enemy. And it is the bourgeois -- i.e. "nukular" -- family which is in fact the problem. What is the bourgeois family and why do Marxists want to abolish it?

[GeezAF]

What is the bourgeois family and why do Marxists want to abolish it?

Bourgeois family is the 'traditional' family ie. Father at the head and goes to work, wife is submissive and does housework, kids do as they are told and study hard to become workers.

Marxists want to abolish it because it is based on the material conditions of capitalism eg women do housework to free men up for longer hours at the workplace. also working men having a family dependent on them means they are less able to pursue political action and 'stir shit up'.

Although, as an anarchist, I can't speak for all Marxists but I would also argue that the repression of women that often happens in the bourgeois family often means that working men aren't at the absolute bottom of the hierarchy. Therefore they have someone to boss around for a bit and make them feel more in control than when they are being exploited and bossed about in the capitalist state.

[Die Neue Zeit]

On the question of "the family," I wonder if the phrase "abolition of the economic family as we know it" would be more appropriate.

[LOLseph Stalin]

What was so important about Enver Hoxha?

Nothing. I'm sure anybody who follows Stalin simply can't be very important. :p

[grok]

Bourgeois family is the 'traditional' family ie. Father at the head and goes to work, wife is submissive and does housework, kids do as they are told and study hard to become workers.

In fact, the bourgeois family is what in postwar parlance would be called the "nuclear ("middle-class") family": your 'typical' suburban Mom/Pop with the 2.3 kids, and requisite dog (preferably a lab-type) in the backyard of the split-level ranch-style bungalow attached to a 2-car garage -- containing 2 cars. Etc, etc.: one of which Pop drives 20 miles to work every morning on the Freeway, yadda, yadda. Mom, of course, has 'traditionally' stayed at home -- except to do the shopping at the Mall, etc. The REAL bourgeoisie, OTOH, has had a similar cosy setup too -- except involving way more money, of course: the former attempting to ape the lifestyle of the latter... (Fat chance achieving that. But they've tried DAMNED hard, haven't they..?)
:cool:

While the capitalists try to get us to believe that even cavemen lived in bourgeois nuclear family groups -- just watch The Flintstones if you don't believe that -- the fact of the matter is that, for most of human history, people have lived in large, extended-family groups, centered on the elder grandparents and uncles/aunts, and extending out into married siblings with their own children, etc. This has been the basis of the tribe and the village from time immemorable -- and is a very stable, solid, well-tested way for people to live together.



Marxists want to abolish it because it is based on the material conditions of capitalism eg women do housework to free men up for longer hours at the workplace. also working men having a family dependent on them means they are less able to pursue political action and 'stir shit up'.Not only do marxists want to sanely restore some semblance of the well-balanced extended-family life under socialism/communism: it has in fact been a major demonstrated claim of marxism that, under capitalism, the whole impetus behind the 'wunnerful' development of the bourgeois nuclear family has actually been the atomization of all social relations -- other than those most necessary for the maintenance of human life: i.e. the "nuclear" family (sic. And even then, the tendency has been for capitalist imperatives to further break up the now-threatened nuclear bourgeois family into the single-parent one: one step from complete catastrophe biologically, in fact.). However, one of the main developments of the past few decades of growing crisis has been the fact (mostly well-hidden. Till now) that much of the growth of "wealth" and 'good living' in the remaining 'nuclear families' has been the increasing necessity for the "stay-at-home" Mom to herself go out and work, in order for the family to make ends meet ('comfortably'). And even then, the children have had to more and more look to getting part-time jobs after school (or full-time jobs after graduation), in order to get the money they 'require' for all their great new electronic toys and fancy clothes and weekend nights out, etc, etc. And even then, older children have been finding it cheaper to simply stay in the family home -- putting off making families -- and continuing to contribute to the collective family income; not to mention more and more grandparents and other "extended" family members showing up to also share in the burden of maintaining the suburban family "freehold" -- which formerly could be held together with just the one income of the (former) 'man-of-the-house'...

And so simply by the continuing slow-motion failure of the capitalist mode of production (Shhh!!), pressure continues to be exerted on these 'nucleated' (i.e. 'atomized') family groupings to actually re-adhere in a more stable configuration -- if it's at all possible that is, considering the widespread alienation thruout Western consumerist (i.e. indebted) society.

No wonder soccer moms are so prone to fascism.
:p




Although, as an anarchist, I can't speak for all Marxists but I would also argue that the repression of women that often happens in the bourgeois family often means that working men aren't at the absolute bottom of the hierarchy. Therefore they have someone to boss around for a bit and make them feel more in control than when they are being exploited and bossed about in the capitalist state.That would be their "illegal-alien" part-time house-servants nowadays, AFAIC.
:crying:

This all ends BADLY, you understand.
We might end up yet living like Fred Flintstone. Or wishing we did...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

HFT:


What was so important about Enver Hoxha?

He had the decency to drop dead.

[Pogue]

We're not all opposed to families. Just the traditional concept of family, i.e. one that produces and supports patriarchy and reinforces class inequality, the idea of obedient wokers, etc.

If you view family as an instiution, we oppose it in its capitalist form because all institutions under capitalism are geared towards justifying capitalsm and keeping it in place.

The same goes for education. That doesn't mean we're opposed to education, but simply that we're opposed to capitalist education, same way we're opposed to capitalist ideas of a traditional family.

[Black Sheep]

We're not all opposed to families. Just the traditional concept of family, i.e. one that produces and supports patriarchy and reinforces class inequality, the idea of obedient wokers, etc.
If you view family as an instiution, we oppose it in its capitalist form because all institutions under capitalism are geared towards justifying capitalsm and keeping it in place.
Also the change in the structure of family (or its disssappearance) is not something that we will "do", that we will control.Systems of organization adapted to how capitalism operates would change "by themselves" once capitalism has been destroyed, and will either vanish or ,if they can, adpat to the new characteristics of society & economy.

[el_chavista]

What's wrong with globalization?
Nothing. It´s the developing of the next world socialist system basis.

What's wrong with the family and why did Marx and Engels want to abolish it?
That question is anti-communist propaganda. Now, if matrimony is a bourgeois-legal contract, at least it should be no longer the base of the family.

Would Trotsky have industrialized the USSR into a country capable of defeating Nazi Germany or could only Stalin have done it?
On the other hand, Trotsky was the organizer of the red army, a real military strategist (Stalin was not).

What's wrong with free trade?
Nothing if you are trading your labour-time-vouchers for food and personal things.

What was so important about Enver Hoxha?
He denounced Nikita Khrushchov's revisionism at the 20th congress of the CPSU.