Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
29th March 2009, 04:30
What is inherent about the capitalist system that makes a revolution necessary to accomplish political change? Here is an analogy in favor of the democratic socialist notion:
A capitalist sits on 100 gold bars. The proletariat gets restless and receives a gold bar for compensation. He now has 99 bars. The proletariat gets restless and receives another gold bar. Eventually, the capitalist is defeated.
Here is my problem with this analogy.
The capitalist gives away one gold bar, and he makes 2 more. Although the conditions for both parties improve, the disparity increases. If the democratic socialist recognizes this problem and demands not only a gold bar, but gold bars at a rate that eliminates this disparity over time, could he not succeed at overthrowing the capitalist system?
What is it inherent in the capitalist system that makes a revolution necessary for political change? I assume it is simply because I am uncertain of the practicality of democratic change, but I am starting to think democratic change may not be entirely unpractical (I'd still advocate a revolution if it gets us what we want quicker). Anyway, been questioning the basis for my views lately, and my anti-revisionist views came up as an opinion I held with little justification. I know I had a justification once, but I have long forgotten what it is.
A capitalist sits on 100 gold bars. The proletariat gets restless and receives a gold bar for compensation. He now has 99 bars. The proletariat gets restless and receives another gold bar. Eventually, the capitalist is defeated.
Here is my problem with this analogy.
The capitalist gives away one gold bar, and he makes 2 more. Although the conditions for both parties improve, the disparity increases. If the democratic socialist recognizes this problem and demands not only a gold bar, but gold bars at a rate that eliminates this disparity over time, could he not succeed at overthrowing the capitalist system?
What is it inherent in the capitalist system that makes a revolution necessary for political change? I assume it is simply because I am uncertain of the practicality of democratic change, but I am starting to think democratic change may not be entirely unpractical (I'd still advocate a revolution if it gets us what we want quicker). Anyway, been questioning the basis for my views lately, and my anti-revisionist views came up as an opinion I held with little justification. I know I had a justification once, but I have long forgotten what it is.