Views and Questions...

[homer]

Hi all revolutionaries:

I found myself trying to find the answers to many questions. I found that most (if not all) American media hides true answers to these questions, and instead throws anti-leftist propaganda in your face.

My views on capitalism are this. I think that people that work hard should be rewarded more. However, this leads to companies wanting funds at all costs (through facists such as hitler).

I do believe that marxism IS a great ideal to strive for. I just don't think it (in true Communist Manifesto form) is plausible. The leaders of these revolutions might originally have good intents on achieving true marxism. However they become corrupted with so many followers, that they take complete control, and make marxist ideals look bad in the eyes of the general public. (i.e stalin)

I have a question for all of you. Do you think that true marxism would work, because as of now (at least as far as I know) it has never worked. Socialism has worked, but not true Marxism. Another question I have to ask is: Where has there been revolutions brewing lately.

Another question I have (seems pointless): Why is capitalism so bad? To the point many call it facism? I understand leninist concepts of the bourgious (sp?) and proletreat. But everyone has an oppurtunity to get a share of the pie. What if I am a harder worker than the other factory worker, but he gets the same amount. Is that truly fair?

Thanks everyone.

[Drace]

Do you think that true marxism would work, because as of now (at least as far as I know) it has never worked. Socialism has worked, but not true Marxism. Well that's why were Marxists!
Marxism is a ideology which strives for a communist society.
I think your trying to use Marxism as a synonym of communism.

To say Marxism has never been tried is a bit misleading. The USSR indeed followed Marxist ideals, for its early periods of time. Trotskists blame Stalin for shifting away from the original ideals of the revolution.

There are many schools of thought on communism though. Marxism isn't the only one.


Another question I have to ask is: Where has there been revolutions brewing latelyWere waiting for it :)


Why is capitalism so bad? To the point many call it facism? I understand leninist concepts of the bourgious (sp?) and proletreat. But everyone has an oppurtunity to get a share of the pie. What if I am a harder worker than the other factory worker, but he gets the same amount. Is that truly fair?
Capitalism is a system of exploitation and has created massive inequality. 1% of the population owns over 50% of the wealth. Half the world is living under $3 a day. There are 25,000 children dying every day because of a stupid cause like hunger. The problem is that there isn't enough food, we actually have enough to feed the whole population, but that the capitalist economics do not allow for the poor to have access to the food.

25,000 deaths a day is about 10 million in a year and 100 million a decade! This one bad attribute of capitalism itself kills more people in 10 years than the bourgeois claim of 100 million dead under communist regimes in a century!

And the concept of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (don't worry I'm still having a trouble spelling it myself) comes from Karl Marx not Lenin.


But everyone has an oppurtunity to get a share of the pie. As already mentioned, this is not the case. Perhaps in the first world countries this may be somewhat plausible,
On a world scale, but the rich are only getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

Though the rich always leave their fortune to their children so its not fair.
As of opportunity, sure you do have the chance, but some people just have more opportunity then others :)




Btw to clarify on capitalism being exploitative...
By this we mean they underpay the workers. The only way for the bourgeoisie to make profit, is for them to pay their workers only for an unfair share of they produced. If you truly got back all the work you did, how can profit be made?

Instead of capitalists paying what you worked for, they instead pay you an hourly wage.

For example.
As a widget producer, I am payer $10 an hour.
I produce 5 widgets an hour that are worth $10 each.

In an hour, I make $50 worth of products, but I receive back only $10.

There is of course the material costs to be covered, but in the end the capitalist who has done no work himself receives a profit.

[homer]

To say Marxism has never been tried is a bit misleading. The USSR indeed followed Marxist ideals, for its early periods of time. Trotskists blame Stalin for shifting away from the original ideals of the revolution.


Thanks for that, that really cleared some stuff up. However, I never said that marxism has never been tried, I said that it never was truly achieved. Perhaps it did in the USSR, but of course there will always be someone to exploit that political situation.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

As of opportunity, sure you do have the chance, but some people just have more opportunity then others :)

This is so true.

It is not bad if you have truly worked harder than someone else to earn higher wages, but under a capitalist system this just doesn't happen. Do football players work harder than ballet dancers? Their wages are very differerent. Do professors and lecturers work harder than nurses? Capitalism has nothing to do with how hard you work, it's all about luck and exploitation.

People don't really have equal opportunities in a capitalist society because everyone starts off on a different level. For example, if someone is born into a house where they are comfortable and attend a top school and their parents can afford tutors etc, they are more likely to go on to earn a higher wage and have a better standard of living. Those people who are born into poverty rarely get those kind of opportunities, they were disadvantaged from the moment they were born.

Lastly, capitalism's focus on profit means that people don't say, ''what can we do to make the system more efficient and beneficial for everyone''. Instead they say, ''how can we work this so that we benefit and earn more''.

[Drace]

Capitalism has nothing to do with how hard you work, it's all about luck and exploitation. Right.
When we analyze how the capitalists make money which involves corrupt practices such as exploitation as already mentioned, then the point of being "successful" in a capitalist society becomes useless.

To join the evil class of bourgeoisie themselves doesn't solve the problem.
And only a certain number of people can benefit from the others right?
Saying that you have the chance to climb up the ladder isn't a very good argument.

To make your whole life's aim to climb the social ladder and thus continuously struggle to "succeed" destroys the sense of humanity. Instead of being able to pursue our love of art, science, philosophy, etc, we have to struggle financially to make a living instead.

As Marx himself said it


In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.


I said that it never was truly achieved. Perhaps it did in the USSR, but of course there will always be someone to exploit that political situation.

The point I tried to make is that Marxism isn't really something to achieve. Marxism is an ideology that criticizes capitalism and consists of political ideas on how to reach communism.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Another question I have to ask is: Where has there been revolutions brewing lately.
South Asia, Nepal and India. We cannot expect to liberate ourselves before those in the third world do.

[homer]

Right.
When we analyze how the capitalists make money which involves corrupt practices such as exploitation as already mentioned, then the point of being "successful" in a capitalist society becomes useless.

To join the evil class of bourgeoisie themselves doesn't solve the problem.
And only a certain number of people can benefit from the others right?
Saying that you have the chance to climb up the ladder isn't a very good argument.

To make your whole life's aim to climb the social ladder and thus continuously struggle to "succeed" destroys the sense of humanity. Instead of being able to pursue our love of art, science, philosophy, etc, we have to struggle financially to make a living instead.

As Marx himself said it




The point I tried to make is that Marxism isn't really something to achieve. Marxism is an ideology that criticizes capitalism and consists of political ideas on how to reach communism.

I understand the differences, but I really meant the state (described by Karl Marx) of Communism.


South Asia, Nepal and India. We cannot expect to liberate ourselves before those in the third world do.

Good point.

However I have one more question.

I was watching fox news (I know... evil me... i like to watch both sides) and they were talking about how self-proclaimed socialists want to control the media.

Is this something that all revolutionary leftists stand for?

[Drace]

I was watching fox news (I know... evil me... i like to watch both sides) and they were talking about how self-proclaimed socialists want to control the media.Fox news definition of socialism is anything they disagree with.
Since they called Obama a socialist, a fascist, and a Muslim, you know there not very good with words

And that's very hypocritical statement anyways.
The news media is currently owned by a few companies.

[homer]

Fox news definition of socialism is anything they disagree with.
So true...


Since they called Obama a socialist, a fascist, and a Muslim, you know there not very good with words
Someone I know that watches fox news called Obama a socialist, marxist, and a communist. Extremely sad.


And that's very hypocritical statement anyways.
The news media is currently owned by a few companies.
True, but why have more needless regulation?

[Drace]

True, but why have more needless regulation? Controlling the news media isn't part of the ideology nor is it even relevant to own the current media since were calling for a revolution.
Although it would be a tactical movement that would allow us to spread our views if we were able to get hold of the media.

But Fox news doesn't mean socialists when it says socialists.
The American definition of socialism is "distributing the wealth", "taking from the rich and giving it to the poor", etc.

So Obama is a socialist in their view since he wanted higher taxes on rich, health care reform etc.

But really any genuine socialist would not agree with this. Socialism is about the workers owning the means of production, not reforming the capitalist system by taxing the rich. Its rather funny because a lot of us here hate Obama.

[gorillafuck]

Another question I have (seems pointless): Why is capitalism so bad? To the point many call it facism? I understand leninist concepts of the bourgious (sp?) and proletreat. But everyone has an oppurtunity to get a share of the pie. What if I am a harder worker than the other factory worker, but he gets the same amount. Is that truly fair?
You seem to be thinking along the lines of capitalism = people are rewarded for hard work and non-capitalism = people are all payed the same. That's not true, in a publicly controlled economy people could/would still be rewarded for hard work, the economy would just be under public ownership and there would not be a free flow of capital as there is today in a capitalist economy. That doesn't necessarily mean equal remuneration for everyone regardless of effort.

And as for why capitalism is bad, ignoring economic theories and etc. that someone else can explain, just look around. 1 in 5 children will go hungry this year in the world, 30,000 people starve every day, first world countries maintain their wealth (and many, many people in the 1st world are still in dire poverty) through complete domination over the third world and try to destroy any attempt by those countries to use their land and resources for themselves in the name of profit, 1 in 4 children in the United States at some point were in families having trouble getting food on the table and have families living from paycheck to paycheck, people are losing jobs and homes in the recession we're in, wars are started as business ventures. These problems are from capitalism and the world can be better than that.

Btw, welcome:)

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

My views on capitalism are this. I think that people that work hard should be rewarded more. However, this leads to companies wanting funds at all costs (through facists such as hitler).Me too, but under capitalism the people who do all the hard work receive a fraction of the wealth they create, while the people who own the means of production receive the majority of that wealth whether they contribute anything to production or not because they have a monopoly on the things society needs to function.


The leaders of these revolutions might originally have good intents on achieving true marxism. However they become corrupted with so many followers, that they take complete control, and make marxist ideals look bad in the eyes of the general public. (i.e stalin)As pointed out, Marxism is not a type of society, it's a way of analyzing society. I don't see how what you're saying would happen at all unless the party leading the revolution was not democratic in the first place, since if it was, I don't see how someone could "take complete control" except for under extreme conditions. Most Marxists would argue that the USSR degenerated due to things like civil war, invasion by multiple imperialist powers, destruction of most of it's economy which was extremely backward already, slaughter of the working class, failure of the revolution to spread etc, and I don't see how anyone could expect democracy to thrive in those conditions.


I have a question for all of you. Do you think that true marxism would work, because as of now (at least as far as I know) it has never worked.That's pretty vague. Where? Under what conditions?


Why is capitalism so bad?Because it's exploitative(based on "transferring to [a minority] the fruits of labor of the many"), undemocratic, and the relentless drive for profit is responsible for most of the worlds problem.


But everyone has an oppurtunity to get a share of the pie.Yeah, everyone has an opportunity to get a share of the pie. You get 95% of it, and the rest of us fight over what's left.


What if I am a harder worker than the other factory worker, but he gets the same amount. That's the wages system. Your pay is not tied to how much your produce but to the value of your labor power. I think pay under communism should be aimed more at what people contribute.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I was watching fox news (I know... evil me... i like to watch both sides) and they were talking about how self-proclaimed socialists want to control the media.

Is this something that all revolutionary leftists stand for?

It's OK, I sometimes watch Fox News when there are no other comedies on TV. :p

''Controlling the media'' is a clever phrase because it makes people think that socialists want to censor everything they disagree with and it gives people a mental image of them brainwashing everyone using propaganda, subliminal messages featuring hammers and sickles and images of Stalin. I'll have to check with comrades, but as far as I know that won't be happening anytime soon so there's no need to panic. ;)