Why do Marxists insist that all the world's problems are due to capitalism?

[FriendorFoe]

Like if Russia wasn't bombing the shit out of 3rd world countries to maintain regional dominance, both militarily and economically. Like if Che Guevarra wasn't a f*cking moron whose answer to everything was to establish a worldwide network of totalitarian states (and to shoot kids in the back of the head if they disobeyed). Like if China didn't bum rush Tibet and open fire on crowds of innocent people, or support murderous regimes, like the one in Myanmar.

What, capitalist countries are the only ones that drop bombs?????

Come on. Name me one form of economic system that does not lead to social stratification.

[Bankotsu]

Like if Russia wasn't bombing the shit out of 3rd world countries to maintain regional dominance, both militarily and economically.

Russia and China are not going around the world now to bomb and kill people, but other countries are doing that right now.

Berlin calls air strike in Afghanistan 'necessary
http://www.thelocal.de/national/20090914-21903.html

United States invades Somalia
http://www.examiner.com/x-22717-Charlotte-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2009m9d14-United-States-invades-Somalia (http://www.examiner.com/x-22717-Charlotte-Nonpartisan-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d14-United-States-invades-Somalia)

Report: Israel used unmanned drones to attack Sudan convoys
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1074654.html

[☭World Views]

Like if Russia wasn't bombing the shit out of 3rd world countries to maintain regional dominance, both militarily and economically. Like if Che Guevarra wasn't a f*cking moron whose answer to everything was to establish a worldwide network of totalitarian states (and to shoot kids in the back of the head if they disobeyed). Like if China didn't bum rush Tibet and open fire on crowds of innocent people, or support murderous regimes, like the one in Myanmar.

What, capitalist countries are the only ones that drop bombs?????

Come on. Name me one form of economic system that does not lead to social stratification.

Think about what you are saying. Using the framework you provided, a comparative analysis of capitalist countries would show that the capitalists have dropped more bombs, used more economic tactics to maintain hegemony over resources and cheap labor, and used more violence to kill more innocents and democratically elected leaders than any other group on earth.


One socio-economic system that does not lead to social stratification is called communism. Your use of personal attacks against Che Guevara along with your empty statements don't do much to further your argument. Btw China and Russia aren't communist.


Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder.

[FriendorFoe]

Russia (and the former USSR) and China were always capitalist in one form or the other. So their dropping bombs and supporting murderous regimes has nothing to do with Marxism or socialism, but were done because of geopolitical considerations of hegemony and power. One cannot expect imperialist states to act otherwise, even though they claimed their actions were to "protect socialism". As long as they had commodity production and wage labor (notwithstanding the juridical abolishment of private property), noone who has read any Marx or Engels can honestly claim these imperialist regimes were "socialist" or "Marxist". They were state capitalist. This being the case, Marxists analyze the current world which we say belongs to the "capitalist" epoch (that followed the feudal and earlier epochs) as being one dominated by class society. This is why there is massively unequal accumulation of wealth among the capitalist class who control the means of production. It is this class society that we see as fit to be abolished.

Do you ever think that you're too idealistic? Economic theory and thought does not always translate well into reality. There is a reason why these countries are never really "true communist" countries because human beings are not perfect orderly human beings and they will find a way to prevert or corrupt an ideology for selfish means. Hell this isn't just in relation to communism but capitalism too. True laissez faire capitalism would not permit things like a stated supposed military, fire department, police to be stated ran institutions.
Political/economic theory is good for intellectual debate however reality requires decision making to factor in imperfect human tendancies which a lot of theory does not. In short there most likely will never be a real communist society and if there is people will eventually F it up like they F everything else up.

[danyboy27]

Like if Russia wasn't bombing the shit out of 3rd world countries to maintain regional dominance, both militarily and economically. Like if Che Guevarra wasn't a f*cking moron whose answer to everything was to establish a worldwide network of totalitarian states (and to shoot kids in the back of the head if they disobeyed). Like if China didn't bum rush Tibet and open fire on crowds of innocent people, or support murderous regimes, like the one in Myanmar.

What, capitalist countries are the only ones that drop bombs?????

Come on. Name me one form of economic system that does not lead to social stratification.

you are smoking some good shit man, che never established a network of totalitarian states, stalin or lenin perhaps, but not che.
russian bombing third world countries? LAWL, i didnt know georgia was a third world country!

humm, at least you where right about china killing civilian, but that about it.

[FriendorFoe]

Here you're assuming that there is something called "perfect orderly beings". Then you're saying that human beings will "corrupt an ideology" for "selfish ends". There being no proof that human beings have some kind of a nature according to which they will act all the time, I don't see why you have to assume that there is something called human nature that is unchanging for all times. Doesn't human nature change with changing environment and social conditions? Do we all act selfishly or selflessly all the time or only sometimes depending on the situation?

I'm saying there is no such thing as perfect human beings. We agree on this. As you said human beings are variable. However my point is that there seems to be their hopeful quest on your part in seeing an ideal communist society where class boundries do not exist and the quest for personal profit is eradicated. Human beings are variable again however there are certain behavior patterns that we know that are common to human beings in general and one human being or another is going to possess these traits like selfishness and out of those people who act in selfish ways it's without a doubt that some of them might end up occupying government or having an significant role in the society of a country. These are the people who take your communist ideals and pervert them. I mean we can talk about how none of these systems were never really communist yet when revolution started in these countries they all geniunely and passionately wanted to create their own brand of communism whether it was leninism, maoism, etc. Over time these systems did not stay and changed and obviously going outside of "true communism" standards.

In short I think your too idealistic and your ideals will never become reality or fit its way perfectly into society.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Like if Russia wasn't bombing the shit out of 3rd world countries to maintain regional dominance, both militarily and economically. Like if Che Guevarra wasn't a f*cking moron whose answer to everything was to establish a worldwide network of totalitarian states (and to shoot kids in the back of the head if they disobeyed). Like if China didn't bum rush Tibet and open fire on crowds of innocent people, or support murderous regimes, like the one in Myanmar.
Oh no, you've discovered that state capitalism sucks, and state capitalist countries act pretty similar to regular capitalist ones.

What, capitalist countries are the only ones that drop bombs?????

Pretty much, yes. Capitalist countries that call themselves socialist are still capitalist. If the USA ever declared that it was actually a big huge fairy, I imagine it would still carry on behaving like an imperialist power.

Come on. Name me one form of economic system that does not lead to social stratification.
Anarchist communism. That was easy.

[Pogue]

Oh no, you've discovered that state capitalism sucks, and state capitalist countries act pretty similar to regular capitalist ones.

Pretty much, yes. Capitalist countries that call themselves socialist are still capitalist. If the USA ever declared that it was actually a big huge fairy, I imagine it would still carry on behaving like an imperialist power.

Anarchist communism. That was easy.

hello mr correct

[NecroCommie]

As you said human beings are variable. However my point is that there seems to be their hopeful quest on your part in seeing an ideal communist society where class boundries do not exist and the quest for personal profit is eradicated.
In this case your point was wasted. The idea behind stating that SU or China are not communist, is not to somehow "wash our hands" of their crimes, but to completely identify them as representatives of an entirely different movement.

Simply put: If you critisize USSR, go ahead. Quite rare people here want to "recreate" the soviet union as it was, so it is pointless to tell about it's flaws around here.


Human beings are variable again however there are certain behavior patterns that we know that are common to human beings in general and one human being or another is going to possess these traits like selfishness and out of those people who act in selfish ways it's without a doubt that some of them might end up occupying government or having an significant role in the society of a country.
Selfishness in itself is a variable. The very fact that east asian countries are very much based on conformity and society centered thinking proves that selfish behaviour is a cultural phenomenon, and not biologically universal one. "Human nature" is just a common excuse for assholes to continue being assholes.


These are the people who take your communist ideals and pervert them. I mean we can talk about how none of these systems were never really communist yet when revolution started in these countries they all geniunely and passionately wanted to create their own brand of communism whether it was leninism, maoism, etc. Over time these systems did not stay and changed and obviously going outside of "true communism" standards.
Even if this were true, it has nothing to do with communism in itself, but rather the exact circumstances in which the movements were "perverted" as you put it. The practical theories and dogmas of communism are actually quite few and vague. If some certain interpitations and compromises are made, then the fault is not that of the original dogma, but of the ones who made the interpitations and compromises. The reason I am a communist is because even when interpeted or mixed the communist movements have always improved the average living standard of their domains.


In short I think your too idealistic and your ideals will never become reality or fit its way perfectly into society.
It is strange how it is the capitalists that expect the most of communist regimes. If we were talking about capitalist countries you would have certainly ignored the misdeeds due to practical inconveniences. According to my experience, communists are the ones who have realistic expectations and capitalists have this agenda of selective idealism.

[Led Zeppelin]

Why do Marxists insist that all the world's problems are due to capitalism? Reply to Thread

I was not the one to invent lies: they were created in a society divided by class and each of us inherited lies when we were born. It is not by refusing to lie that we will abolish lies: it is by eradicating class by any means necessary. ~ Sartre

[red cat]

Anarchist communism. That was easy.

Yes. Correct. Your statement is vacuously true. Nothing led by anarchists will ever succeed. Hence no stratification.

[Dimentio]

Like if Russia wasn't bombing the shit out of 3rd world countries to maintain regional dominance, both militarily and economically. Like if Che Guevarra wasn't a f*cking moron whose answer to everything was to establish a worldwide network of totalitarian states (and to shoot kids in the back of the head if they disobeyed). Like if China didn't bum rush Tibet and open fire on crowds of innocent people, or support murderous regimes, like the one in Myanmar.

What, capitalist countries are the only ones that drop bombs?????

Come on. Name me one form of economic system that does not lead to social stratification.

It is never about the military violence. Leftists are using it as an argument to persuade people wary about or affected by such things to join the ranks. But the main goal is always, have always been and will always be to end economic exploitation.

[cb9's_unity]

Do you ever think that you're too idealistic? Economic theory and thought does not always translate well into reality. There is a reason why these countries are never really "true communist" countries because human beings are not perfect orderly human beings and they will find a way to prevert or corrupt an ideology for selfish means.

Where in the world did this come from? Are you seriously saying that China and Russia degenerated because its people were lazy? The last time I checked it was because they developed over powerful bureaucracies that were entirely alien to any of Marx's ideas. I have never once seen any historian equate the failure of those "communist" countries to the laziness of its people.

You likely only have 1 or 2 arguments against communism and thus are using them in every situation whether they apply to the specifics or not. The fall of China and Russia in authoritarianism had everything to do with the failure to organize in adequately democratic government in a peasant country (Marx originally meant for socialism to be implemented through workers democracy in a predominatly proletarian country).

[Durruti's Ghost]

Yes. Correct. Your statement is vacuously true. Nothing led by anarchists will ever succeed. Hence no stratification.

Yes. Correct. Your statement is also vacuously true. Anarchists do not seek to "lead" anything; hence, nothing we "lead" will ever succeed. ;)

[red cat]

Yes. Correct. Your statement is also vacuously true. Anarchists do not seek to "lead" anything; hence, nothing we "lead" will ever succeed. ;)

:confused:How do you propose to conduct your revolution without any leadership?

[danyboy27]

:confused:How do you propose to conduct your revolution without any leadership?

you are right, we absolutly need a bunch of self righteous zealots to tell us how to do the revolution!

[NecroCommie]

you are right, we absolutly need a bunch of self righteous zealots to tell us how to do the revolution!
No, we absolutely need a bunch of righteous zealots to tell us how to do the revolution. What did you think?! Duh!

[danyboy27]

No, we absolutely need a bunch of righteous zealots to tell us how to do the revolution. What did you think?! Duh!
you are spot on man, we absolutely need a bunch of fatcat pissant philosopher to tell us how to topple the other fatcat pissant philosopher, after all who are we, proles to know what to do?

masses need a leader!

[What Would Durruti Do?]

:confused:How do you propose to conduct your revolution without any leadership?

I can fire a gun by myself thank you very much!

[☭World Views]

The proletariat is the leadership.

[Bud Struggle]

masses need a leader!

And that's why there is a Bourgeoise.

;)

[red cat]

I can fire a gun by myself thank you very much!

But how will the proletarian army organize itself during battles?

[Radical]

Like if Russia wasn't bombing the shit out of 3rd world countries to maintain regional dominance, both militarily and economically. Like if Che Guevarra wasn't a f*cking moron whose answer to everything was to establish a worldwide network of totalitarian states (and to shoot kids in the back of the head if they disobeyed). Like if China didn't bum rush Tibet and open fire on crowds of innocent people, or support murderous regimes, like the one in Myanmar.

What, capitalist countries are the only ones that drop bombs?????

Come on. Name me one form of economic system that does not lead to social stratification.

Please show sources for these accusations. I dont ever remember reading that Che supported Totalitarianism and that he ever shot an innocent person.

- Heres something from * Jon Lee Anderson, Capitalist author of Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life - Known as the most well-regarded researched biography on Che.

"I have yet to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed "an innocent". Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder."

Obviously this wont change you're sickening views. Because you oppose anything or anybody that cares about the oppressed people.

[Havet]

Please show sources for these accusations. I dont ever remember reading that Che supported Totalitarianism and that he ever shot an innocent person.



I don't know about shooting and totalitarianism, but i do know about his hypocrisy

http://reformedcovenanter.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/che-coke.jpg

[Kronos]

But how will the proletarian army organize itself during battles?

Scattered, guerrilla formations, hopefully. That way, the superior force of the oppressing military, which will crush any revolution anyway, will need several minutes instead of seconds to do so.

If you can hold out for an hour, I'll be impressed.

Forget about the proletarian army man. The revolution will be in the form of industrial strength. Its all about production output today. Just have some patience and China and Russia will overpower the bankers that have been running the world for centuries.

[red cat]

Scattered, guerrilla formations, hopefully. That way, the superior force of the oppressing military, which will crush any revolution anyway, will need several minutes instead of seconds to do so.

If you can hold out for an hour, I'll be impressed.

:rolleyes:


Forget about the proletarian army man. The revolution will be in the form of industrial strength. Its all about production output today. Just have some patience and China and Russia will overpower the bankers that have been running the world for centuries.

Capitalists beating capitalists won't change the system qualitatively. Thank you.

[red cat]

I don't know about shooting and totalitarianism, but i do know about his hypocrisy

http://reformedcovenanter.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/che-coke.jpg

Grow up amigo. Your attack on revolutionaries should be at least meaningful.

[Kronos]

Capitalists beating capitalists won't change the system qualitatively. Thank you. It takes a while, but state capitalism will always beat free market capitalism. The fatal flaw with free market capitalism is that it is internally competitive- capitalists are not only fighting wage workers, but other capitalists as well. In the year 2053, Taco Bell will be the only thing left standing in a graveyard of dead companies, then China will make a better tasting taco. Trust me. Never underestimate a Chinaman.

[red cat]

State capitalism and free market capitalism are not qualitatively different. bourgeois intra class conflict exists in state-capitalism also, demonstrated by different inner-party regimes trying to seize power.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I know of no Marxist who thinks that all the world's problems are down to capitalism.

Which one would blame, for example, solar flares, the impact of meteorites, the incidence of earthquakes, the eruption of volcanoes and the existence of right-wing gits on captalism?

[I lied about the last one...:rolleyes:]

[danyboy27]

Forget about the proletarian army man. The revolution will be in the form of industrial strength. Its all about production output today. Just have some patience and China and Russia will overpower the bankers that have been running the world for centuries.

capitalism isnt just an american thing you know.

[NecroCommie]

The point behind leftists supporting china and russia is not because of perceived ideological similarities. The name of the game is "divide and conquer" with the russian and chinese question. When the bourgeoisie of the world is on each others throaths, the left will feast on "I told you so" popularity.

[NecroCommie]

I don't know about shooting and totalitarianism, but i do know about his hypocrisy

http://reformedcovenanter.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/che-coke.jpg
Fighting corporate control is one thing, but denial of the current world is completely another. Simply put: it is not uncommunist to consume corporate products. It is uncommunist to support corporations themselves. Clear difference.

[Bud Struggle]

It takes a while, but state capitalism will always beat free market capitalism.

I don't know about that--the Soviet Union was beaten quite well on purely ecomomic grounds. On the other hand it all depends on what you mean by State Capitalism--One could easily define Wal-Mart and Exxon and other big American companies as "State Capitalism." They successfully get enacted by government all sorts of laws rules and regulations for business that they can easily pay for but which small or start up companies find difficult to afford.

[Havet]

Fighting corporate control is one thing, but denial of the current world is completely another. Simply put: it is not uncommunist to consume corporate products. It is uncommunist to support corporations themselves. Clear difference.

Well, the problem is Che restricted other people's access to some products, like coca-cola, while enjoying them himself.

By what right does a man removes someone's freedom of choice? Why not simply convince by reasoning that that product is bad and people should not consume it? Furthermore, why restrict it and still consume it? That's typical slave master behavior to me. Restrict somethings and enjoy them while other people cannot.

[Jazzratt]

I don't know about shooting and totalitarianism, but i do know about his hypocrisy

http://reformedcovenanter.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/che-coke.jpg

Well shit, I guess I'm a hypocrite too, sitting on an IKEA chair, drinking Hoegaarden from an Efes branded glass and typing on a Compaq keyboard. (Not to mention whatever brand my jeans are and my shirt and my socks and so on and fucking so on). As is every single revolutionary leftist in the history of the movement. Lenin in exile for example, was a filthy cappie hypocrite, not only did he buy(!) clothes made under capitalism he wents as far as to buy (again!!!) food. We can't trust any of the bastards, it would seem.

Do lolbetarians who pay taxes, use public/nationalised services or do anything nice for a poor person get a special exemption from similar accusations in the world of whichever moron made that poster?

I don't even like Che, I'm am deeply and ideologically uncomfortable with a huge amount of his politics but this sort of attack is far from honest and also far from the kind of stuff I'd expect from you. I had always assumed you knew better than to take the "lol commies buy things, they must be validating free market economics!" type reasoning.

[IcarusAngel]

It's a huge circumstantial fallacy to say Che was a hypocrite merely for drinking something that's made available by the system. And of course Libertarians use resources that the state has gotten involved with - there are very few far-right Libertarians in Montana that avoid the federal government in every possible way. Too few, unfortunately, as then we wouldn't have to hear from them as much (the computing industry was, and still is, heavily government involved).

You really cannot avoid capitalism - the government says that this is the way to gather resources, so you have to participate in it.

[Havet]

Well shit, I guess I'm a hypocrite too, sitting on an IKEA chair, drinking Hoegaarden from an Efes branded glass and typing on a Compaq keyboard. (Not to mention whatever brand my jeans are and my shirt and my socks and so on and fucking so on). As is every single revolutionary leftist in the history of the movement. Lenin in exile for example, was a filthy cappie hypocrite, not only did he buy(!) clothes made under capitalism he wents as far as to buy (again!!!) food. We can't trust any of the bastards, it would seem.

There is one fundamental difference: you haven't actually forbidden anyone by force to still buy those products, have you? Well, guess what Che did.


Do lolbetarians who pay taxes, use public/nationalised services or do anything nice for a poor person get a special exemption from similar accusations in the world of whichever moron made that poster?Most right-libertarians pay taxes and use services they are theoretically against. Same for communists, same for primitivists, etc. I don't recall, however, having any right-libertarian or primitivist "come to power" and forbid people from using technology or from creating common services and collective property, etc.


"lol commies buy things, they must be validating free market economics!" type reasoning.That would be a nice description of my reasoning if you weren't strawmaning.

Where have I said drinking coke is validating "free market" economics (which we currently don't have anyway)?

Of course "commies" have to buy things. Everyone currently has to work to make money so he can buy things, that's how one survives now (with modest exceptions here and there, like communes and cooperatives), just like one has to pay taxes, etc.

I am not arguing at the fact that a communist is consuming a capitalist product. I am pointing out that he did so while preventing others to do the same. He took his role of leader and proceeded to enslave the others on that particular matter. And whether or not coke is actually a "needed" product is irrelevant. The fact that he took away people's choice on that matter, by force, makes him anti-freedom and therefore anti-communist.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

But how will the proletarian army organize itself during battles?

Through a collectivized effort like an army should be organized rather than training armies of slaves willing to die for the rich?

[Jazzratt]

There is one fundamental difference: you haven't actually forbidden anyone by force to still buy those products, have you?

I currently am not in a position to do so, but I believe as a function of scrapping capitalism and liquidating the bourgeois a number of these products will no longer exist and it could, therefore, be argued that I am a proponent of forbidding people to use those products by force.


Most right-libertarians pay taxes and use services they are theoretically against. Same for communists, same for primitivists, etc. I don't recall, however, having any right-libertarian or primitivist "come to power" and forbid people from using technology or from creating common services and collective property, etc.

That's because right-libertarians and primmies are a political irrelevance. Were they in a position to do so, they would.


Where have I said drinking coke is validating "free market" economics (which we currently don't have anyway)?

This is the reality of the freemarket, not your make-believe creation [didn't you argue that your version of the "free" market is compatible with socialism? :lol:]. Anyway, I guess I misread what you were arguing, I still think your argument is bollocks so I'll adress it.


I am not arguing at the fact that a communist is consuming a capitalist product. I am pointing out that he did so while preventing others to do the same. He took his role of leader and proceeded to enslave the others on that particular matter. And whether or not coke is actually a "needed" product is irrelevant. The fact that he took away people's choice on that matter, by force, makes him anti-freedom and therefore anti-communist.

That's the dumbest argument for him being anti-communist I have ever heard. People can't drink coca-cola therefore he was against workers control of the means of production? Surely the fact that his politics were completely inimical to the destruction of the state and class systems have far more to do with it than the, rather quite sensible, policy of banning the sale of products produced through capitalist means when he had a (nominally) socialist mode of production available.

Freedom isn't based on what trinkets you can and cannot buy. For fuck's sake.

[Havet]

I currently am not in a position to do so, but I believe as a function of scrapping capitalism and liquidating the bourgeois a number of these products will no longer exist and it could, therefore, be argued that I am a proponent of forbidding people to use those products by force.

Ok, and that's FINE. Nothing wrong with restrictive communities. The problem is when people start using that power (restricting access to certain products) in order for them to be the only ones (with the monopoly over) to take advantage of those products.

That is what Mr. Guevara did.


That's because right-libertarians and primmies are a political irrelevance. Were they in a position to do so, they would.You can't know for sure.


This is the reality of the freemarket, not your make-believe creation [didn't you argue that your version of the "free" market is compatible with socialism? :lol:].Nope, this is not the reality of a free-market, precisely because there isn't any real freedom to trade to begin with. I already adressed this several times, feel free to sniff around some of my threads:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/naomi-klein-shock-t117114/index.html?t=117114

http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-anarcho-socialist-t116765/index.html?t=116765

http://www.revleft.com/vb/individualist-and-communist-t115125/index.html?t=115125

http://www.revleft.com/vb/5-levels-economy-t115005/index.html?t=115005


That's the dumbest argument for him being anti-communist I have ever heard. People can't drink coca-cola therefore he was against workers control of the means of production? Surely the fact that his politics were completely inimical to the destruction of the state and class systems have far more to do with it than the, rather quite sensible, policy of banning the sale of products produced through capitalist means when he had a (nominally) socialist mode of production available. Oh yes, those are certainly more valid reasons. However, regardless of one's politics, regardless of what system is in place, regardless of all conditions, someone who forbids other people of trading a product (creating it and consuming it) while consuming that product himself is the perfect example of a hypocrite, or better, a person who is clearly only interested in enslaving others, even in little actions.


Freedom isn't based on what trinkets you can and cannot buy. For fuck's sake.Of course. Please do not mistake me for a vulgar "anarcho"-capitalist or even a right-libertarian. I have far different ideas of what a free market would be than they have.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

The point behind leftists supporting china and russia is not because of perceived ideological similarities. The name of the game is "divide and conquer" with the russian and chinese question. When the bourgeoisie of the world is on each others throaths, the left will feast on "I told you so" popularity.
What, like during World War One? Or any other imperialist war, for that matter?

[trivas7]

One socio-economic system that does not lead to social stratification is called communism.
Only because it is a figment of your imagination. In the real world, the OP is correct: all social system have lead to social stratification.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


In the real world, the OP is correct: all social system have lead to social stratification.

And yet this is far from showing that they all must stratify.

You have yet to demonstrate this.

[NecroCommie]

What, like during World War One? Or any other imperialist war, for that matter?
That was an answer to someone blaming leftists because of their support of capitalists russia and capitalist china.

[cb9's_unity]

Ok, and that's FINE. Nothing wrong with restrictive communities. The problem is when people start using that power (restricting access to certain products) in order for them to be the only ones (with the monopoly over) to take advantage of those products.

That is what Mr. Guevara did.

Wait, so if a Cuban man happened to have a coca-cola in front of him Che would have forbidden him from drinking it? If you could give me a source that showed Che specifically stopping people with cokes in front of them from drinking coke then I guess you would have him in checkmate.

[Bud Struggle]

Until Capitalism and countries are gone no one can be a "true" Communist. We all have to paticipate in the available system. There is no real choice. We may not have to drink Coca-cola but we have to drink something produced by some Capitalist somewhere, we have to eat things made by Capitalists.

Until the we ALL escape Capitalism together none of us can individually truly escape it. Communism is collectivist in not only its end result but also in its execution.

[NecroCommie]

It also occured to me that the picture is most likely taken during Che's trip to the US or some other non-cuban country. I doubt he would intent on starving himself to death because no "pure cuban food" is available.

[☭World Views]

Where was that picture taken and who took it?

Can we verify that it is Coca Cola?

[Rosa Provokateur]

The answer to the quetion is that Marxists are stubborn and have either never heard of or just ignore post-Modernism. The fact that there are no core ideologies or guiding principles to anything anymore is beyond them.

[Havet]

In response to pressure from some American farmers and agribusiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agribusiness), the embargo was relaxed by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trade_Sanctions_Reform_and_Export_ Enhancement_Act&action=edit&redlink=1), which was passed by the Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) in October 2000 and signed by President Bill Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton). The relaxation allowed the sale of agricultural goods and medicine to Cuba for humanitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian) reasons. Although Cuba initially declined to engage in such trade having even refused US food aid in the past,[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba#cite_note-12) seeing it as a half-measure serving U.S. interests, the Cuban government began to allow the purchase of food from the U.S. as a result of Hurricane Michelle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Michelle) in November 2001. These purchases have continued and grown since then. In 2007, the US was the largest food supplier of Cuba[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba#cite_note-13) and its fifth largest trading partner.


In some touristic spots across the island American brands such as Coca-Cola (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola) can be purchased. Ford tankers refuel planes in airports and some computers use Microsoft software[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba#cite_note-14).

Coca-Cola is now available in some parts of Cuba, but it was restricted after that legislation (one couldn't buy it in cuba).

From my personal experience in Cuba, I did not see Coca-cola, but several other cola brands (can't remmember the names now, but it was something along the lines of frutti cola, or cuba cola)

[trivas7]

Trivas:
And yet this is far from showing that they all must stratify.

You have yet to demonstrate this.
History is an empirical discipline, not a prescriptive one. Re this, theoretical knowledge is useless.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The answer to the quetion is that Marxists are stubborn and have either never heard of or just ignore post-Modernism. The fact that there are no core ideologies or guiding principles to anything anymore is beyond them.

Post-modernism is a load of wank, did someone neglect to inform you?

[Rosa Provokateur]

Post-modernism is a load of wank, did someone neglect to inform you?

Maybe but so is Marxism, atleast the post-Modernist wank has good art and isnt as dry as it's Marxian counterpart.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Maybe but so is Marxism,

LOL no. Even modern bourgeouis economists owe a debt towards Marx.


atleast the post-Modernist wank has good art

Post-Modernist art and post-Modernist discourse are not the same thing. Try again.


and isnt as dry as it's Marxian counterpart.

I blame the dialecticians and their fellow travellers for that black mark. Needless to say, the "dryness" of how something is presented has no bearing on it's validity.

[Rosa Provokateur]

LOL no. Even modern bourgeouis economists owe a debt towards Marx.



Post-Modernist art and post-Modernist discourse are not the same thing. Try again.



I blame the dialecticians and their fellow travellers for that black mark. Needless to say, the "dryness" of how something is presented has no bearing on it's validity.

I've nothing against Marx, it's Marxism that I cant stand.

Point taken.

It's only valid in that it presents an alternative way of looking at the relations between people, products, and production. Everything else like proletarian revolution being inevitable and all workers of the world uniting is simply wishful thinking.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's only valid in that it presents an alternative way of looking at the relations between people, products, and production. Everything else like proletarian revolution being inevitable and all workers of the world uniting is simply wishful thinking.

Revolution and proletarian unity are conclusions derived from Marxism, at least that is my understanding.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Revolution and proletarian unity are conclusions derived from Marxism, at least that is my understanding.

They are but they're just not really relevant in our day and age. If the working classes of the world really felt they had an interest in uniting or establishing political ties on an international scale, they would've done it by now.

The communications, technology, etc. all exist for them to coherently organize yet they dont and this leads me to believe that class-based politics is dead. A remnant of the 20th century that was studied, tried, and ultimately failed.

Meanwhile the State has had no problem adapting in order to retain power yet those who feel the need to abolish power refuse to adapt; and some people wonder why the Left fell apart:rolleyes:

[mykittyhasaboner]

The answer to the quetion is that Marxists are stubborn and have either never heard of or just ignore post-Modernism.
Oh so it's post-modernism now huh? We'll see how long you keep this shit and then change it for something even stupider.


The fact that there are no core ideologies or guiding principles to anything anymore is beyond them.What are you even talking about?


Maybe but so is Marxism, atleast the post-Modernist wank has good art and isnt as dry as it's Marxian counterpart.
Oh so Marxism isn't as good as post-modernism because they make more art? Yeah whatever. By the way Marxists make a lot of good art.


I've nothing against Marx, it's Marxism that I cant stand.
You can't stand it because you don't understand it and immaturely reject it.



It's only valid in that it presents an alternative way of looking at the relations between people, products, and production. Everything else like proletarian revolution being inevitable and all workers of the world uniting is simply wishful thinking.Oh really? So the waves of revolutions in the 20th century were all just wishful thinking eh?


They are but they're just not really relevant in our day and age. If the working classes of the world really felt they had an interest in uniting or establishing political ties on an international scale, they would've done it by now.
How pretentious. Like there's never been huge obstacles placed in front of the revolutionary working class through it's entire conquest for power. "If the worker's weren't so stupid and actually wanted to establish political power, they would have done it already!" This isn't a very optimistic, practical, let alone rational view to take. Worker's have taken power before, are happening now, and solidarity among the toiling working classes is pretty strong in some places. If you just right off class conflict and solidarity because there have been setbacks and failures then that brings into question how loyal you are to the working people of our society, as well as your character. If your a revolutionary leftist you should advocate the union of workers rather than scold them for being incompetent.


The communications, technology, etc. all exist for them to coherently organize yet they dont and this leads me to believe that class-based politics is dead. A remnant of the 20th century that was studied, tried, and ultimately failed.Yeah cause your the one to judge worker's movements as failures. :lol:


Meanwhile the State has had no problem adapting in order to retain power yet those who feel the need to abolish power refuse to adapt; and some people wonder why the Left fell apart:rolleyes:You may have a slight point that "the left" hasn't been able to adapt, which is why we should abandon self serving and pointless organizations in favor of forming living links with the workers and creating real solidarity. Maybe instead of rejecting class politics for "post modernism" or whatever fucking ideology you've chosen this season, you could try and actually struggle among your allies. That is, if your actually an ally of the working classes.

[Conquer or Die]

The world is primarily run via capitalism.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Oh so it's post-modernism now huh? We'll see how long you keep this shit and then change it for something even stupider.

What are you even talking about?


Oh so Marxism isn't as good as post-modernism because they make more art? Yeah whatever. By the way Marxists make a lot of good art.


You can't stand it because you don't understand it and immaturely reject it.


Oh really? So the waves of revolutions in the 20th century were all just wishful thinking eh?


How pretentious. Like there's never been huge obstacles placed in front of the revolutionary working class through it's entire conquest for power. "If the worker's weren't so stupid and actually wanted to establish political power, they would have done it already!" This isn't a very optimistic, practical, let alone rational view to take. Worker's have taken power before, are happening now, and solidarity among the toiling working classes is pretty strong in some places. If you just right off class conflict and solidarity because there have been setbacks and failures then that brings into question how loyal you are to the working people of our society, as well as your character. If your a revolutionary leftist you should advocate the union of workers rather than scold them for being incompetent.

Yeah cause your the one to judge worker's movements as failures. :lol:

You may have a slight point that "the left" hasn't been able to adapt, which is why we should abandon self serving and pointless organizations in favor of forming living links with the workers and creating real solidarity. Maybe instead of rejecting class politics for "post modernism" or whatever fucking ideology you've chosen this season, you could try and actually struggle among your allies. That is, if your actually an ally of the working classes.

Variety, keeps things interesting.

I'm talking about the basic premise of post-Modernism which is that in our current pluralist society things like Marxism, etc. that try to explain everything have no purpose anymore. Rather, as the cultures mix and blend constantly, everything becomes a hodge-podge free for the picking.

Socialist Realism is hardly art, I would only use it for portraits. Diego Riviera and Frida Kahlo are the exception so I'll give you that.

I understand it, I was a Marxist at one time; it's a dead philosophy with nothing left to offer. Pondered, attempted, and failed.

Pretty much because for each so-called "revolution" there was a new regime to fill the void. USSR, China, Cuba, all had these revolutions and all became totalitarian one-Party States. There is no freedom in a land where the State dominates and it's never dominated more than with the help of Marxism-Leninism.

I'm never usually optimistic about Marxism, alot of people have been throughout history and look what it got them. It's better to be realistic. I dont doubt that workers have taken power or that they can do it again but if they do it won't be because of Marxist revolt, it will be because they felt like it. Case in point, the Russian soviets were doing fine until the Bolsheviks stepped in. I'm not loyal to the working people, I'm loyal to the people I know and I dont claim to be a Leftist. Revolution is an event for the entire class of humanity, not just the working class.

Why not. If to me it looks, smells, and tastes like a failure then it can only be thus.

I'm an ally of me, my friends, family, and the people I love. I learned along time ago that it's naive to claim to fight for something you have no part in and so it is with myself and your beloved "working class".

[mikelepore]

Do you ever think that you're too idealistic? Economic theory and thought does not always translate well into reality. There is a reason why these countries are never really "true communist" countries because human beings are not perfect orderly human beings and they will find a way to prevert or corrupt an ideology for selfish means.

In my way of thinking, that issue is a whole lot more pragmatic than that. When it comes time to elect the directors of the workplaces, someone or other is allowed to vote, and each vote is counted a specific number of times. For example, under capitalism it's the stockholders who are allowed to vote, and the number of times each vote is counted is the number of shares owned by each stockholder. If the workers were the ones who were allowed to vote for the directors, and each vote was counted once, I would call that system "true communism." Since this would be an institutional structure, I don't see where it has anything to do with it whether they are "perfectly orderly" or "selfish" or something else.