Top 3 problems with Marxism/Communism

[superman]

Both in practice and in theory:

1. The professional revolutionaries who consider themselves the vanguard of the working class almost never willingly give up their power. If they do give up their power, another group of revolutionaries immediately takes their place. Thus, the transition to classless society never happens.

2. The dictatorship of the proletariat continues indefinitely (see #1), and paradoxically the working class becomes exploited by the very group of revolutionaries who were supposed to be ushering in the Communist utopia. Conditions, both economic and political, become much worse for the proletariat compared to the good old days when all they had to worry about was having a portion of their labor stolen by the bourgeoisie.

3. As human society advances, and capitalism inevitably marches forward, the lines between proletariat and bourgeoisie are increasingly blurred or rendered meaningless. As the working class earns enough to become themselves part-owners of the land and the means of production, the struggle between the classes ceases to exist. It is capitalism that eventually eliminates all forms of inequality between humankind.

[Ele'ill]

Both in practice and in theory:

1. The professional revolutionaries who consider themselves the vanguard of the working class almost never willingly give up their power. If they do give up their power, another group of revolutionaries immediately takes their place. Thus, the transition to classless society never happens.

I know a lot of anarchists that are unsure if an anarchist 'state' would operate affectively and are pushing for other forms of living and even government on large and small levels. The idea is to make things better than they are now and thus a transition to classless society doesn't neccessarily need to happen first in order for it to become a possibility.


2. The dictatorship of the proletariat continues indefinitely (see #1), and paradoxically the working class becomes exploited by the very group of revolutionaries who were supposed to be ushering in the Communist utopia. Conditions, both economic and political, become much worse for the proletariat compared to the good old days when all they had to worry about was having a portion of their labor stolen by the bourgeoisie.

What if it's a genuine people's movement where the proletariat are the revolutionaries?


3. As human society advances, and capitalism inevitably marches forward, the lines between proletariat and bourgeoisie are increasingly blurred or rendered meaningless. As the working class earns enough to become themselves part-owners of the land and the means of production, the struggle between the classes ceases to exist. It is capitalism that eventually eliminates all forms of inequality between humankind.

Can you tell me where this world is? I'd like to get off food stamps sometime soon.

[La Comédie Noire]

I have a question for you why does super man save people? He doesn't get paid, in fact he's a reporter for the Daily Planet, in fact that's horrible in terms of comparative advantage. Why spend 100+ hours a week, most of them unpaid, to make $30,000 a year when he could work 40 of those hours using his skills to make five times the amount of money he is making now?

[superman]

got a few more points on why communism/Marxism hasn't and can not work.

All classes come to HATE the idiocracy of the "revolutionary intellectuals." In Russia, the "workers" didn't like having their savings and property "liberated," and the grand "intellectuals" caused years of civil war and then executions (necessary to terrify the public into allowing them to "rule.")

Just how much they were HATED is clear from the sheer number of deaths needed to stay in power: eg, if they hadn't done in 66 MILLION people, the people might have revolted. That's a lot of fire power needed to keep your job.

They don't exactly follow the "catch-more-flies-with-honey" model.

Then, they started with Lucaks and Gramsci to work on what we have now---the CULTURE WARS. Indoctrinating people psychologically, which is very brutal. They put all middle class white girls to work in the 70s, (the internationale feminism)---and indoctrinated them against race, family, etc---

Now (secretly) many in that group likes them less than the labor-workers did in Russia.

In other words: whoever they think they're the vanguard OF just comes to dislike them. After a while, each group catches on, then they have to try control schemes with a new group.

This causes degeneracy in society (b/c they keep importing less and less sophisticated groups, hoping they won't catch on to what they're doing. Also, the "intellectuals" willing to do something like this become more corrupt (due to sex reasons, or money, power, whatever, since more moral people exit the system on principle).

In "Capitalism" underwritten by genuine religious systems, money and power are not "everything," as in communism. So--- you are always "equal in the eyes of God."

Having a more multi-dimensional life, with real spirituality, makes money and power truly not matter in the same way. The internal quality of life and meaning of emotions, perceptions can be what one most wants even---but communism does not offer that.

And whatever the case, dictatorship prevails (soft or hard) and everyone really lives a life of lies, saying what they have to. So, that depresses people, sadly.

[superman]

I have a question for you why does super man save people? He doesn't get paid, in fact he's a reporter for the Daily Planet, in fact that's horrible in terms of comparative advantage. Why spend 100+ hours a week, most of them unpaid, to make $30,000 a year when he could work 40 of those hours using his skills to make five times the amount of money he is making now?

Sorry to burst your bubble but superman is not real, and if he was its called be a good humanitarian, and i don't see the relevance this question has.

[Nolan]

Both in practice and in theory:

1. The professional revolutionaries who consider themselves the vanguard of the working class almost never willingly give up their power. If they do give up their power, another group of revolutionaries immediately takes their place. Thus, the transition to classless society never happens.

We've never even gotten to the point where the vanguard would be unnecessary and especially to the point where the state will be vestigial. Who says another group of revolutionaries will take their place?


2. The dictatorship of the proletariat continues indefinitely (see #1), and paradoxically the working class becomes exploited by the very group of revolutionaries who were supposed to be ushering in the Communist utopia. First, communism is not supposed to be a utopia. Utopia is not to be reached, it is there to keep us working to solve problems, which will always be present.

The working class becomes exploited by the vanguard when it loses touch with the workers and starts to abandon its ideals, and every time this has been caused by material conditions.


Conditions, both economic and political, become much worse for the proletariat compared to the good old days when all they had to worry about was having a portion of their labor stolen by the bourgeoisie. Yeah, tell that to the Soviets, the Chinese, the Cubans, etc. whose standards of living shot up after their revolutions.


3. As human society advances, and capitalism inevitably marches forward, the lines between proletariat and bourgeoisie are increasingly blurred or rendered meaningless. As the working class earns enough to become themselves part-owners of the land and the means of production, the struggle between the classes ceases to exist. It is capitalism that eventually eliminates all forms of inequality between humankind.Gee, why don't you demonstrate. I don't see this happening in real life, I see the exact opposite. But hey, you can't expect any less from a system that values market conquest and pooling of wealth in the hands of one class.

[#FF0000]

words

Welp, you have trouble with this, because you don't understand the marxist view of the state and also seem to think that we believe autocratic rule is just baller and we believe in such a thing as a benevolent dictator.

The purpose of the state is to defend the interests of whatever class has power. In Feudalism, the state is to defend the interests and power of the aristocracy and royalty, and in capitalism, it's there to defend the interests of the bourgeoisie.

But yeah so long as the government isn't dumb and autocratic, it'll pretty much only exist for logistical reasons once the bourgeoisie is soundly defeated.


3. As human society advances, and capitalism inevitably marches forward, the lines between proletariat and bourgeoisie are increasingly blurred or rendered meaningless. As the working class earns enough to become themselves part-owners of the land and the means of production, the struggle between the classes ceases to exist. It is capitalism that eventually eliminates all forms of inequality between humankind.

lol except this is demonstrably false and wealth is even more concentrated into fewer hands than it ever has been. This is such a ridiculous statement and you are wildly detached from reality if you honestly believe this is true.

[superman]

Welp, you have trouble with this, because you don't understand the marxist view of the state

I admit i don't understand it that why i joined, to ask questions, but anyways im just stating why i believe that Communism has not worked and will not work, socialism on the other hand has potential, I myself am Serbian and what Tito did for Yugoslavia economically speaking was quite the feat, but on the other hand he is the reason for all the Albanians coming into Serb land and having the nerve to declare it an independent country. But on the other hand National socialism, I am not a Nazi and i really don't like them in any way shape or form, but what Hitler did for Germany was the greatest economical transformation in the history of the world (correct me if I'm wrong)and did it without the cheap immigrant work which is something that America right now should be using as an example. So what i am trying to get at is leave behind failed and outdated political parties (communism) and try to develop a new and improved form of socialism with some extracts of national socialism(not the racist ones) and capitalism.

[Left-Reasoning]

Marxists.

I'm so clever.

[Nolan]

I admit i don't understand it that why i joined, to ask questions, but anyways im just stating why i believe that Communism has not worked and will not work, socialism on the other hand has potential, I myself am Serbian and what Tito did for Yugoslavia economically speaking was quite the feat, but on the other hand he is the reason for all the Albanians coming into Serb land and having the nerve to declare it an independent country. But on the other hand National socialism, I am not a Nazi and i really don't like them in any way shape or form, but what Hitler did for Germany was the greatest economical transformation in the history of the world (correct me if I'm wrong)and did it without the cheap immigrant work which is something that America right now should be using as an example. So what i am trying to get at is leave behind failed and outdated political parties (communism) and try to develop a new and improved form of socialism with some extracts of national socialism(not the racist ones) and capitalism.

Define communism and socialism. And what about the Albanians?

[superman]

Define communism and socialism. And what about the Albanians?



In a Socialist economy, the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. On the other hand, in a communist society, there is no centralized government - there is a collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
For a Capitalist society to transition, the first step is Socialism. From a capitalist system, it is easier to achieve the Socialist ideal where production is distributed according to people's deeds (quantity and quality of work done). For Communism (to distribute production according to needs, it is necessary to first have production so high that there is enough for everyone's needs. In an ideal Communist society, people work not because they have to but because they want to and out of a sense of responsibility.



Socialism rejects a class-based society. But socialists believe that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without a basic change in the character of the state. They hold this view because they do not think of the capitalist state as essentially an institution for the dictatorship of the capitalist class, but rather as a perfectly good piece of machinery which can be used in the interest of whichever class gets command of it. No need, then, for the working class in power to smash the old capitalist state apparatus and set up its own—the march to socialism can be made step by step within the framework of the democratic forms of the capitalist state. On the other hand, Communists believe that as soon as the working class and its allies are in a position to do so they must make a basic change in the character of the state; they must replace capitalist dictatorship over the working class with workers’ dictatorship over the capitalist class as the first step in the process by which the existence of capitalists as a class (but not as individuals) is ended and a classless society is eventually ushered in.


I think that this article does a pretty good job of describing the difference. Tito let in hordes of Albanians for cheap labor in the province of Kosovo and eventually the Albanians ended up over populating the Serbs.

[#FF0000]

I admit i don't understand it that why i joined, to ask questions

That's cool. I would suggest reading around a bit, too, since a lot of the questions that get asked have been answered many times, arleady.


but anyways im just stating why i believe that Communism has not worked and will not work, socialism on the other hand has potential

Well, if you want to learn about leftism, it is kind of necessary to forget everything you think you already know, because chances are it's totally wrong. For example, the distinction between communism and socialism, here.

In Marxism, socialism is the state of society after the workers revolt and take control of the means of production. Under socialism, the state still exists, the means of production are geared towards and improved towards the aim of producing for need, rather than for profit, and the working class are using the state to keep the former bourgeoisie down.

Communism is the state of society that comes after socialism, when the bourgeoisie are soundly defeated and the means of production have developed to the point where people's needs can be met almost entirely. This is where the state "withers away" to just existing for logistical reasons.

The "socialism" you're talking about has absolutely nothing to do with the revolutionary left, Marxism, or any of that. The "socialism" you're talking about is more accurately called "social democracy", which is most definitely a "capitalist" ideology.


I myself am Serbian and what Tito did for Yugoslavia economically speaking was quite the feat, but on the other hand he is the reason for all the Albanians coming into Serb land and having the nerve to declare it an independent country.

Uh-huh. Listen, you sound an awful like a dumb nationalist here, which, from what I hear, means bad things in Serbia.


But on the other hand National socialism, I am not a Nazi and i really don't like them in any way shape or form, but what Hitler did for Germany was the greatest economical transformation in the history of the world (correct me if I'm wrong)and did it without the cheap immigrant work which is something that America right now should be using as an example. So what i am trying to get at is leave behind failed and outdated political parties (communism) and try to develop a new and improved form of socialism with some extracts of national socialism(not the racist ones) and capitalism.

Economically, Nazi Germany wasn't much different from the U.S. at the time, or Europe today. The "improved form" of socialism you're trying to come up with here is called "social democracy" or "corporatism", and it's been used by bourgeois liberals and fascists alike for most of the 20th century. And yes, it is a form of capitalism.

Also, what's the issue you have with immigrants?

[Dean]

Both in practice and in theory:

1. The professional revolutionaries who consider themselves the vanguard of the working class almost never willingly give up their power. If they do give up their power, another group of revolutionaries immediately takes their place. Thus, the transition to classless society never happens.
Yeah, most of us aren't vanguardists.


2. The dictatorship of the proletariat continues indefinitely (see #1), and paradoxically the working class becomes exploited by the very group of revolutionaries who were supposed to be ushering in the Communist utopia. Conditions, both economic and political, become much worse for the proletariat compared to the good old days when all they had to worry about was having a portion of their labor stolen by the bourgeoisie.
What makes you think this? i've never seen a dictatorship of the proletariat.


3. As human society advances, and capitalism inevitably marches forward, the lines between proletariat and bourgeoisie are increasingly blurred or rendered meaningless. As the working class earns enough to become themselves part-owners of the land and the means of production, the struggle between the classes ceases to exist. It is capitalism that eventually eliminates all forms of inequality between humankind.

Hah, bullshit! wealth has been more centralized every year, and as capitalism marches on, it becomes primarily derivative, speculative and ultimately confidence-based. Capitalism, and the free market in general, works primarily towards the interests of an increasingly narrow population.

In short, you're full of shit and you know nothing about communism - its history, theory or presence in the world.

[Die Rote Fahne]

1. The professional revolutionaries who consider themselves the vanguard of the working class almost never willingly give up their power. If they do give up their power, another group of revolutionaries immediately takes their place. Thus, the transition to classless society never happens.

There are those of us who do not believe in a vanguard.


2. The dictatorship of the proletariat continues indefinitely (see #1), and paradoxically the working class becomes exploited by the very group of revolutionaries who were supposed to be ushering in the Communist utopia. Conditions, both economic and political, become much worse for the proletariat compared to the good old days when all they had to worry about was having a portion of their labor stolen by the bourgeoisie.

The dictatorship of the proletariat has never occurred.


3. As human society advances, and capitalism inevitably marches forward, the lines between proletariat and bourgeoisie are increasingly blurred or rendered meaningless. As the working class earns enough to become themselves part-owners of the land and the means of production, the struggle between the classes ceases to exist. It is capitalism that eventually eliminates all forms of inequality between humankind.

The working class will always struggle against the oppression of the bourgeoisie. The line is being talked about and through that blurred by the ruling classes who want nothing but the status quo. It is nothing but propaganda which should be fought by our own propaganda.

Capitalism, always, requires a lower class which needs. And an upper class which has.

[mikelepore]

Both in practice and in theory:

1. The professional revolutionaries who consider themselves the vanguard of the working class almost never willingly give up their power. If they do give up their power, another group of revolutionaries immediately takes their place. Thus, the transition to classless society never happens.

To say that's a problem with Marxism or communism you must have assumed that giving that power to a special group of people in the first place is a part of the definition of Marxism or communism. But if you say that, then you could say the same thing about anything. You could say that here is a problem with whole idea of exploring the bottom of the ocean: if we give absolute power to a few people and let them operate an ocean exploration program, then they won't want to give up their power. Well, who told you to include the additional step of giving a lot of power to someone, and then judge the whole idea according to that assumption?


2. The dictatorship of the proletariat continues indefinitely (see #1), and paradoxically the working class becomes exploited by the very group of revolutionaries who were supposed to be ushering in the Communist utopia. Conditions, both economic and political, become much worse for the proletariat compared to the good old days when all they had to worry about was having a portion of their labor stolen by the bourgeoisie.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" only means that the political mandate to have a new system becomes the law and is enforcable. It means that those who were against the idea but were outvoted are required to go along with the majority decision. If they resist the new mandate by committing acts of violence or vandalism, they will be prosecuted for those violations.

There is no necessary connection between that and some distorted outcome, such as the rise of a new form of exploitation. The genuineless of the outcome could be lost by some means, but that's hardly a case against the proposal, it's only a case for it being important to find ways to assure the outcome. It's as if you're saying: don't ever eat anything, because you might choke.


3. As human society advances, and capitalism inevitably marches forward, the lines between proletariat and bourgeoisie are increasingly blurred or rendered meaningless. As the working class earns enough to become themselves part-owners of the land and the means of production, the struggle between the classes ceases to exist. It is capitalism that eventually eliminates all forms of inequality between humankind.

After all this time, 150 years after Marx published, we still find about 99 percent of the working people get about 99 percent of income from their paychecks, and 1 percent of their from the dividends on their savings. I don't see any blurring of the fact that there are two categories of sources of income, that is, two social classes: wages and profits.

As for the struggle between the classes supposedly disappearing, when workers walk into the boss's office and ask for a raise, it's still true that the boss would prefer to say no, and usually does say no, and the name given to that conversation is "the class struggle." It's an interaction between two parties who have opposite interests, one wants x to increase, and the other wants x to decrease.

As for your last sentence, about capitalism eliminating inequality -- if you have missed hearing about this word, there exists a word in the English language that is spelled and pronounced like "billionaire."

[Foldered]

All classes come to HATE the idiocracy of the "revolutionary intellectuals."
"Sorry to burst your bubble," but that statement means nothing; it's a prophetic claim without any grounding (neither practically, nor intellectually, etc). Even your example proves nothing, except the fact that you think you have skills to fundamentally interpret history.

EDIT: I'd like to make it clear that I could have chosen next to anything that you've used as a "point" thus far, and my statement would still be valid.

[BeerShaman]

The matter is, are you feeling free now in capitalism or not? Why?

[Invincible Summer]

Just how much they were HATED is clear from the sheer number of deaths needed to stay in power: eg, if they hadn't done in 66 MILLION people, the people might have revolted. That's a lot of fire power needed to keep your job.

They don't exactly follow the "catch-more-flies-with-honey" model.

It's interesting that you say the above, then say:


Then, they started with Lucaks and Gramsci to work on what we have now---the CULTURE WARS. Indoctrinating people psychologically, which is very brutal.
Since when is sociology "psychological indoctrination?" Anyways, the point I want to make here is that capitalism kills many people through poverty, war, bigotry, etc and indoctrinates people into believing it is the best system. People will slave their entire lives thinking "I'm going to do really well for myself and my family!" while most of the times it's not true. Isn't it more brutal to basically sell a humongous fucking lie and basically trigger all sorts of widespread psychological disorders that harm people over years (in addition to starving people and forcing people to pay for their health, etc) than to shoot an enemy?




They put all middle class white girls to work in the 70s, (the internationale feminism)---and indoctrinated them against race, family, etc---

Oh shit! Women working! People not caring about race! People thinking for themselves and not acting for their family! Progress!!! AHHHHHHHHHH



This causes degeneracy in society (b/c they keep importing less and less sophisticated groups, hoping they won't catch on to what they're doing. Also, the "intellectuals" willing to do something like this become more corrupt (due to sex reasons, or money, power, whatever, since more moral people exit the system on principle).


Degeneracy? Are you PhasedOut's friend or something, stuck in the 19th century with negative eugenics and phrenology?

Are you some sort of seer that can see into the minds of all people past and present? You think that fascists -who would obviously leave a socialist system - are moral people?



In "Capitalism" underwritten by genuine religious systems, money and power are not "everything," as in communism. So--- you are always "equal in the eyes of God."

1) How is capitalism "underwritten by genuine religious systems?" What the fuck is a "genuine" religious system?
2) Where are you getting the idea that money and power are "everything" in communism? You are clearly misinformed, since communists propose a moneyless society run horizontally, rather than vertically - a lack of money and concentrated power.
3) You're only "equal in the eyes of God" (which god? The Islamic one, Christian one, Jewish one... etc etc) if you are a believer. The concept of heaven and hell is already unequal.



Having a more multi-dimensional life, with real spirituality, makes money and power truly not matter in the same way. The internal quality of life and meaning of emotions, perceptions can be what one most wants even---but communism does not offer that.
Seeing as how communism has never existed, I don't see how you can assert this



And whatever the case, dictatorship prevails (soft or hard) and everyone really lives a life of lies, saying what they have to. So, that depresses people, sadly.
Ironically, capitalism and the "American Dream" are the biggest lies of all.

[AK]

Both in practice and in theory:

1. The professional revolutionaries who consider themselves the vanguard of the working class almost never willingly give up their power. If they do give up their power, another group of revolutionaries immediately takes their place. Thus, the transition to classless society never happens.
OR, you could never allow the party to administrate society. Even better, there might not be a need for a party at all. Direct democracy prevail :thumbup1:


2. The dictatorship of the proletariat continues indefinitely (see #1), and paradoxically the working class becomes exploited by the very group of revolutionaries who were supposed to be ushering in the Communist utopia. Conditions, both economic and political, become much worse for the proletariat compared to the good old days when all they had to worry about was having a portion of their labor stolen by the bourgeoisie.
A large portion at that. The rest of this statement is rendered even more irrelevant if the party never acheives power - as would happen in a system I advocate.


3. As human society advances, and capitalism inevitably marches forward, the lines between proletariat and bourgeoisie are increasingly blurred or rendered meaningless. As the working class earns enough to become themselves part-owners of the land and the means of production, the struggle between the classes ceases to exist. It is capitalism that eventually eliminates all forms of inequality between humankind.
When exactly can we expect the sweatshop workers to become as one with the Bourgeoisie? Since when did anyone say that earning enough made you part-own land? Even if your hypothetical situation happened, classes and exploitation would still exist as the Bourgeoisie do not put in any productive labour. What was once the working class would become the Petit-Bourgeoisie as they still would work on the means of production they (part-)own. The Bourgeoisie do not put in any productive labour and therefore exploit this new Petit-Bourgeoisie.

[cska]

1. The professional revolutionaries who consider themselves the vanguard of the working class almost never willingly give up their power. If they do give up their power, another group of revolutionaries immediately takes their place. Thus, the transition to classless society never happens.

Yes. That is why any revolution has to be based on active work by the entire working class. It should be first and foremost about empowering the working class to fight for their rights, and should have active participation from the working class. This will keep the reformist leaders under control, and ensure that it remains communist.


2. The dictatorship of the proletariat continues indefinitely (see #1), and paradoxically the working class becomes exploited by the very group of revolutionaries who were supposed to be ushering in the Communist utopia. Conditions, both economic and political, become much worse for the proletariat compared to the good old days when all they had to worry about was having a portion of their labor stolen by the bourgeoisie.

This doesn't happen. The only reason economic conditions don't improve as much as they could is because of economic isolation. *cough* Cuba *cough*.

As for the political conditions, most communist revolutions are democratic. The problem is that imperialist countries have an easier time overthrowing democratic countries and propping up puppet dictators. So, the only surviving socialist countries left have close authoritarian control.

For these two reasons, it is imperative that countries, both socialist and capitalist, band together in fighting Western imperialism. Only then can a socialist country be left in peace and develop its society.


3. As human society advances, and capitalism inevitably marches forward, the lines between proletariat and bourgeoisie are increasingly blurred or rendered meaningless. As the working class earns enough to become themselves part-owners of the land and the means of production, the struggle between the classes ceases to exist. It is capitalism that eventually eliminates all forms of inequality between humankind.

:laugh: What world are you from? Look around you. In America, for example, the working class has been ceding more and more control of the means of production. In countries like India, the rich continue to get richer, while the poor continues to starve. We have blatant sexism, racism, and homophobia widespread throughout the world. Is this the elimination of all forms of inequality between humankind that you are talking about?

[Conquer or Die]

Constitutional or Representative rule has drawbacks and advantages. The drawback is that injustices are meted out slowly, if at all, and this causes rupture within society. At certain times, revolutionary action is needed to cease archaic systems of injustice. This is what happened under Cromwell in England, America during the revolution and Civil war, and in Russia with Bolshevism. All of these periods had drawbacks or errors but they resulted in much better societies for the people most directly involved. You can generalize or psychologize the individuals (irony) of people in Russia, but objective measurements have proven the advancement of that society and the much more stable state the world was in after their rule.

The drawback specifically with the vanguard is the degeneration and favoritism it created within liberated countries. The vanguard was the most democratic attempt at governance seen in the world at the time, but it proved to be unable to restrain its power. Constitutional and representative rule would be superior to vanguard rule in this instance but those systems of governance had to be undermined at times in order to insure a more just society.

I think that Nepal's experience is interesting. The maoist rebels were successful in installing communes and liberating monarchial property as well as forming an army. However, they agreed to a power sharing deal in a representative government so long as the monarchy is permanently banned and certain democratic and economic rights were extended to the denizens of the country. When the government reneged on their agreed deals they reinstated struggle but they do so only as a means to an end. To me, this is the most progressive course I've seen and takes into account not just partisan maoist viewpoints, but also viewpoints of the west into its account. The unacceptability of monarchy and murderous economic laws or rule by aristocracy require focused violence, but assuming total responsibility as a party is an outdated concept that history hasn't rewarded.

[AK]

As for the political conditions, most communist revolutions are democratic. The problem is that imperialist countries have an easier time overthrowing democratic countries and propping up puppet dictators. So, the only surviving socialist countries left have close authoritarian control.
Then I wouldn't call them entirely socialist.


For these two reasons, it is imperative that countries, both socialist and capitalist, band together in fighting Western imperialism. Only then can a socialist country be left in peace and develop its society.
Capitalist vs. Imperialist? You're suggesting the capitalist states declare war on themselves?

Between capitalism, with it's undying pursuit of capital, and imperialism, there is no contrast.

[RGacky3]

3. As human society advances, and capitalism inevitably marches forward, the lines between proletariat and bourgeoisie are increasingly blurred or rendered meaningless. As the working class earns enough to become themselves part-owners of the land and the means of production, the struggle between the classes ceases to exist. It is capitalism that eventually eliminates all forms of inequality between humankind.

What planet are you living on? look at the wealth statistics, the gap between the rich and the poor is becoming bigger and bigger and the middle class is dissapearing. Thats not nearly accurate.

As far as your first 2 critiques, I agree, but they are more against Leninism.

[Chambered Word]

Both in practice and in theory:

1. The professional revolutionaries who consider themselves the vanguard of the working class almost never willingly give up their power. If they do give up their power, another group of revolutionaries immediately takes their place. Thus, the transition to classless society never happens.

2. The dictatorship of the proletariat continues indefinitely (see #1), and paradoxically the working class becomes exploited by the very group of revolutionaries who were supposed to be ushering in the Communist utopia. Conditions, both economic and political, become much worse for the proletariat compared to the good old days when all they had to worry about was having a portion of their labor stolen by the bourgeoisie.

Sounds like some shallow analysis you're parrotting from your liberal history teacher.


3. As human society advances, and capitalism inevitably marches forward, the lines between proletariat and bourgeoisie are increasingly blurred or rendered meaningless. As the working class earns enough to become themselves part-owners of the land and the means of production, the struggle between the classes ceases to exist. It is capitalism that eventually eliminates all forms of inequality between humankind.

Greek, Indonesian and Chinese workers would like a word with you.

[Comrade B]

The idea of culture wars is the modern form of phrenology. It is only applied to justify blowing up the 3rd world and depriving immigrants of their rights. It is not too off to believe that different cultures can create a lack of understanding between groups, but it is not so severe that we can do nothing but fight each other. When people believe in this kind of crap we get things like the wall in Palestine

[syndicat]

1. The professional revolutionaries who consider themselves the vanguard of the working class almost never willingly give up their power. If they do give up their power, another group of revolutionaries immediately takes their place. Thus, the transition to classless society never happens.
Yes, but this is really a critique of Leninism, not of revolutionary socialism in general. If power in the transition lies with the mass organizations, this changes the picture.



2. The dictatorship of the proletariat continues indefinitely (see #1), and paradoxically the working class becomes exploited by the very group of revolutionaries who were supposed to be ushering in the Communist utopia. Conditions, both economic and political, become much worse for the proletariat compared to the good old days when all they had to worry about was having a portion of their labor stolen by the bourgeoisie.

This would be true only if there is still a state power with a bureaucratic class congealing through it. The alternative is a form of popular power based on direct workers democracy.



3. As human society advances, and capitalism inevitably marches forward, the lines between proletariat and bourgeoisie are increasingly blurred or rendered meaningless. As the working class earns enough to become themselves part-owners of the land and the means of production, the struggle between the classes ceases to exist. It is capitalism that eventually eliminates all forms of inequality between humankind.

what planet do you live on? Since the '70s there has occurred the greatest decline in wages and standard of living of the working class in the history of the USA while the profits and power of the plutocratic elite have soared. In short, inequality has grown worse.

[NecroCommie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Cz4vcQKWfA
Yeah...

As to why Nazi Germany was well off in economy, it is common knowledge that countries preparing for war usually do well in economy. You want the US to prepare for war?

[Conquer or Die]

Nazi Germany was not "well off" during the war. Recent scholarship by labor historian Timothy Mason and most recently "Wages of Destruction" By Adam Tooze conclude that Hitler's actions were not pre-determined but rather immediate solutions for economic problems.

[Raúl Duke]

In a sense, I agree with the points about a vanguard you made earlier...although even Marxism explains that such thing will happen (even if those revolutionaries were part of the working class, by putting themselves in a position of power apart of the rest of the working class they soon develop a different "collective conscious" (if you will) with different priorities and interests than the working class.)


3. As human society advances, and capitalism inevitably marches forward, the lines between proletariat and bourgeoisie are increasingly blurred or rendered meaningless. As the working class earns enough to become themselves part-owners of the land and the means of production, the struggle between the classes ceases to exist. It is capitalism that eventually eliminates all forms of inequality between humankind. I don't see this, at least not in recent times.
While in the first world, after WWII, something like that (although not exactly, the issue all boils down to who has control of the factors of production and while some workers may have a few shares of a company they do not have enough to be calling in any shots nor enough to get those special returns, not sure what the proper term for them are, that certain people with a certain large amount of shares can get) could be seen with the increasing standard of living and increasing social mobility that trend has slowly come to a steady halt starting from the late 70s to the present time. For this new century, in the first world, the prediction is worsening standard of living for the working class and a certain segment of the working class (i.e. young workers, student-workers, and young recent graduates) have only faced very hard times and a seeming lack of future prospects. These lines seem to only grow sharper in these new times.

[NecroCommie]

Nazi Germany was not "well off" during the war. Recent scholarship by labor historian Timothy Mason and most recently "Wages of Destruction" By Adam Tooze conclude that Hitler's actions were not pre-determined but rather immediate solutions for economic problems.
No one talked about anything that happened during the war.

[Nuvem]

Moderators, please...restrict this jackass.

[Skooma Addict]

Socialism suffers from the same problems that plague every other ideology which supports revolutions as opposed to gradual reform. You cannot rationally construct a rational economic order via revolution since knowledge is dispersed in such a fashion that it is impossible for the required knowledge to be obtained and put to use by the revolutionaries. People already have short and long term plans constructed based on the laws and institutions of today's governments, and there is no way to know a priori what will happen if we simply eliminate these institutions and laws. There is absolutely no reason to assume that destroying the state for example will result in anything besides gang warfare.

The problems Hayek refers to in The Use of Knowledge in Society apply to all forms of revolutionary communism, regardless of whether they are anarchist in nature or not.

I can only speak for myself, but I care about my historically high standard of living and preserving the historically free society in which I live in far too much to gamble it all for socialists very strange and vague concepts of freedom and justice.

[Bud Struggle]

^^^^ That's an excellent post and sums up my feeling about "Revolution." I have no real problem with living in a fair egalitarian society, few people would, but it's the MEANS to that society that pose an issue.

Revolution takes more faith than I can muster in both the Marxian dialectic and in humanity itself. I want to believe, but I just don't see how it would work out.

[RGacky3]

How else do you change it? You say gradual change, but who changes it gradually? Politicians? What exactly is your road map?

[blackwave]

You seem to have been taken in by 'social mobility' propaganda: that, if we only work hard, we can become rich like the bourgeoisie. This is bullshit, it implies that people who are poor all their lives just don't work hard, which is utterly false. The gap between the richest and poorest is clearly growing year on year, and capitalism is responsible for this.

[Bud Struggle]

You seem to have been taken in by 'social mobility' propaganda: that, if we only work hard, we can become rich like the bourgeoisie. This is bullshit, it implies that people who are poor all their lives just don't work hard, which is utterly false.

It's NOT ABOUT WORKING HARD. That's about as correct as saying that every Communist is a Stalinist.

Nobody ever said the poor don't work hard. They do--maybe a lot more than a lot of self made man out there. It's about working hard with a purpose and a plan and making that plan work. And if it doesn't, getting another plan and then working that one.

Read the link and get the idea of how it works:

http://artofmanliness.com/2010/02/18/how-to-start-a-business-with-limited-funds/


You can start a very successful business without having a lot of startup money. You can start a very successful business without being a super hard worker. You can be successful without having one of those things but not both. With the exception of the ultra-skillful, natural born geniuses, if you want your business to be a success and you don’t have a lot of start up cash, then it is absolutely essential that you have a very strong work ethic (Free Hint of the Day: if you have to ask yourself right now if you deserve to fall into the genius category then the answer is that you don’t ).

It won’t always be easy to lift yourself up by your own bootstraps and soldier on even when you feel as if you are not seeing results as quickly as you would like, but power through “The Dip” (http://sethgodin.typepad.com/the_dip/)and you might just be surprised at how rich the vein of gold is that you strike.

Namby pamby’s who whine because they just got home from working a 10 hour day at the office for their “day job” and would rather watch American Idol than work on their startup business will likely fail. Don’t be that namby pamby.


Read the comments, too--very useful.

Nothing more fun than being a self made man.

[Skooma Addict]

How else do you change it? You say gradual change, but who changes it gradually? Politicians? What exactly is your road map?

There are plenty of examples where reform has led to societal change. Revolutions are either a hit or a miss, and they are almost always a tragic miss. Now if your goal is to achieve a true socialist society without a government (I believe your an AnCom?), you may just have to accept that it may be currently impossible for such a society to become a realization on any kind of large scale.


You seem to have been taken in by 'social mobility' propaganda: that, if we only work hard, we can become rich like the bourgeoisie. This is bullshit, it implies that people who are poor all their lives just don't work hard, which is utterly false. The gap between the richest and poorest is clearly growing year on year, and capitalism is responsible for this.

As Bud said, working hard is not a sufficient or even a necessary condition for becoming wealthy. However, the idea that there is absolutely nothing a poor person can to to better their condition in any meaningful way is equally false.

[mikelepore]

You cannot rationally construct a rational economic order via revolution since knowledge is dispersed in such a fashion that it is impossible for the required knowledge to be obtained and put to use by the revolutionaries.

That's not a case against revolutionary change itself. What you said is one of several reasons why revolutionaries who are a minority will have to wait for an indeterminate amount of time until they can find some new way to persuade the majority to agree with them. After that, the supporters of revolutionary change will be the majority to whom that knowledge is dispersed.

[blackwave]

"It's about working hard with a purpose and a plan and making that plan work. And if it doesn't, getting another plan and then working that one."

So you favour a society in which everyone has to spend their time struggling to escape from poverty. Why not just favour an egalitarian society in which everyone has satisfactory wealth and/or means? This idealisation of a life of struggle is not something I understand, whether it be proposed by capitalist or communist.

[Bud Struggle]

So you favour a society in which everyone has to spend their time struggling to escape from poverty. Why not just favour an egalitarian society in which everyone has satisfactory wealth and/or means? This idealisation of a life of struggle is not something I understand, whether it be proposed by capitalist or communist.

Good question. Struggle is what life is all about. It's the thing that makes life worth living. Yea life sould be more fair--I agree. No one should starve and it should be a flat playing field. But there's something to taking on challenges and overcomming them.

[mikelepore]

Good question. Struggle is what life is all about. It's the thing that makes life worth living. Yea life sould be more fair--I agree. No one should starve and it should be a flat playing field. But there's something to taking on challenges and overcomming them.

Even if someone accepts what you said, the changes in technology must affect the meaning of those reference to challenge and struggle. Surely automation and robotics could eventually bring people to the point of saying: "Woe is me, merely to live like a millionaire I shall to work an unbearable duration of ten hours per week. Life is such a hard struggle." Isn't that so? But the point is: the technology is already there now. Now, on top of that minimal degree of struggle, instead of receiving that affluence that we work for, we are working long hours only to see to it that some billionaires who want more can have more.

[The Red Next Door]

what Tito did for Yugoslavia economically speaking was quite the feat, but on the other hand he is the reason for all the Albanians coming into Serb land and having the nerve to declare it an independent country. But on the other hand National socialism, I am not a Nazi and i really don't like them in any way shape or form, but what Hitler did for Germany was the greatest economical transformation in the history of the world (correct me if I'm wrong)and did it without the cheap immigrant work which is something that America right now should be using as an example. So what i am trying to get at is leave behind failed and outdated political parties (communism) and try to develop a new and improved form of socialism with some extracts of national socialism(not the racist ones) and capitalism.


Buddy, I hate to tell ya man but you are coming off a national socialist

[Bud Struggle]

Even if someone accepts what you said, the changes in technology must affect the meaning of those reference to challenge and struggle. A point I've been making around here for a long time. Challenge and struggle have changed markedly over time.


Surely automation and robotics could eventually bring people to the point of saying: "Woe is me, merely to live like a millionaire I shall to work an unbearable duration of ten hours per week. Life is such a hard struggle." Isn't that so? But the point is: the technology is already there now. Now, on top of that minimal degree of struggle, instead of receiving that affluence that we work for, we are working long hours only to see to it that some billionaires who want more can have more.

I'n not so sure. I think the billionaire thing is a chimera. Loose the billionaires and we'll lose 5 mins off our daily work schedule.

[mikelepore]

I'n not so sure. I think the billionaire thing is a chimera. Loose the billionaires and we'll lose 5 mins off our daily work schedule.

On this subject of wealth distribution, the following is a passage that I copied a long time ago out of the New York Times of April 21, 1992. I don't have the original anymore so I can't tell you the page number:

"By 1989, the top 1 percent (834,000 households, with about $5.7
trillion of net worth) was worth more than the bottom 90 percent
of Americans (84 million households, with about $4.8 trillion in
net worth). (Source: U.S. Federal Reserve, 'Survey of Consumer
Finances')"

[Bud Struggle]

On this subject of wealth distribution, the following is a passage that I copied a long time ago out of the New York Times of April 21, 1992. I don't have the original anymore so I can't tell you the page number:

"By 1989, the top 1 percent (834,000 households, with about $5.7
trillion of net worth) was worth more than the bottom 90 percent
of Americans (84 million households, with about $4.8 trillion in
net worth). (Source: U.S. Federal Reserve, 'Survey of Consumer
Finances')"

I'll agree with the stats--but it's still chimera. Real wealth is what you have to spend. The rich could give all that away it it would put nothing in the economy.

[Scary Monster]

I'll agree with the stats--but it's still chimera. Real wealth is what you have to spend. The rich could give all that away it it would put nothing in the economy.

Uuuuhhh.... if the top 1% didnt horde up all that money and was spread rightfully among the working class (who have created that value and earned it), then most people here in 'Murica wouldnt have to go with little food for a week while waiting for their next paycheck ;) I cant help but see that all your posts on this site contain some kind of pessimistic view of "well things certainly cant get better than how capitalism is right now. Its the best weve got and probably the best we can get". i dont get it.

[Bud Struggle]

I cant help but see that all your posts on this site contain some kind of pessimistic view of "well things certainly cant get better than how capitalism is right now. Its the best weve got and probably the best we can get". i dont get it.

That's not my point at all. Things certainly can get better, a lot better. What some people have in Capitalism needs to be what all people have. And I think it's realistic and desirable for everyone to work towards those ends.

But any efforts to make things better should be realistic--and as I said before I don't see Revolution as something that's going to happen and even if it does I don't see how its aftermath could bring about the changes you, we all desire.

I think working with the system--changing it from the inside--is the most logical way to proceed.

[AnCapJack]

You seem to be able to see the future. Thats cool! What happens to imperialism, prophet?:D

the same thing that has happened to imperialists for the past few millenia - collapse.

[Cal Engime]

Uuuuhhh.... if the top 1% didnt horde up all that money and was spread rightfully among the working class (who have created that value and earned it), then most people here in 'Murica wouldnt have to go with little food for a week while waiting for their next paycheck ;) I cant help but see that all your posts on this site contain some kind of pessimistic view of "well things certainly cant get better than how capitalism is right now. Its the best weve got and probably the best we can get". i dont get it.No, the working class benefits from the rich saving and investing their wealth rather than consuming it all at once. Investment in capital goods raises productivity, and this is the only way that wages and standards of living can rise. It would be extremely short-sighted to spread that money among the wage-earners just so they can consume more today.

[RGacky3]

Good question. Struggle is what life is all about. It's the thing that makes life worth living. Yea life sould be more fair--I agree. No one should starve and it should be a flat playing field. But there's something to taking on challenges and overcomming them.

Struggle for what though? Right now its a power struggle, you struggle as a Capitalist to keep your class and get higher, which means more control and making sure other people have less control. What we propose is collective struggle and individual struggle, not how it is now, where its a power struggle.

Most peple have to fight uphill against everything, while a few are at the top beating them down and enriching themselves, its easy for you to glorify struggle when your not at the bottom of it.


I think working with the system--changing it from the inside--is the most logical way to proceed.

Who changes it? And how?

[trivas7]

[...]What some people have in Capitalism needs to be what all people have. And I think it's realistic and desirable for everyone to work towards those ends.

If this is what you believe you don't understand capitalism or how it is the dictatorship of some over others.

[Bud Struggle]

If this is what you believe you don't understand capitalism or how it is the dictatorship of some over others.

That's why I'm a Christian Socialist whose day job is as a Capitlaist.

[Ele'ill]

That's why I'm a Christian Socialist whose day job is as a Capitlaist.

You are what you practice, not what you believe.

[Bud Struggle]

You are what you practice, not what you believe.

The we are all Capitalists here. :) You have a job? Then you are a Capitalist.

[Robert]

it is the dictatorship of some over others.

BP is not feeling very "dictatorial" right now, notwithstanding its economic might. (note to self: buying opportunity)

Same for GM, same for American Motors, Bear Stearns, Enron, AIG and Lehman Brothers. Same for any one of hundreds of banks and S&L's that failed in the 80's and the many that are on the edge now.

Aren't you folks a little loose with the term "dictator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator)"? What corporation has "sole and absolute" power over anyone?

[blackwave]

Good question. Struggle is what life is all about. It's the thing that makes life worth living. Yea life sould be more fair--I agree. No one should starve and it should be a flat playing field. But there's something to taking on challenges and overcomming them.

Nixon, is that you?

"What makes life mean something is purpose. The goal, the battle, the struggle. Even if you don't win.” - Richard Nixon

What you appear to be doing here is taking there to be some sort of objective meaning to life, when in fact this is merely your opinion, and I disagree (though, as a Christian, you perhaps believe in objective meaning. Where in the New Testament did you read this idea about struggle being valuable in itself, as opposed to as a means to an end?).

Personally I feel that if the species life is going to consist of endless struggle we should just get it over with and annihilate the species. As a Christian you might perhaps believe in a heaven where you get to rest in pure harmony. Most of us here do not, and thus we intend to make earth more heavenly, because we don't consider this life a 'stage' in our existence, but our total existence. To be a revolutionary does not make me happy. The more I think about all the things standing in the way of our goal, the more I want to kill myself. So please do not impose your capitalist 'struggler' ideology on me and those like me, for you are causing us great suffering.

Oh, and working in a capitalist system does not make you a capitalist. People are forced to play along in order to feed themselves.

[Bud Struggle]

Nixon, is that you?

"What makes life mean something is purpose. The goal, the battle, the struggle. Even if you don't win.” - Richard Nixon

What you appear to be doing here is taking there to be some sort of objective meaning to life, when in fact this is merely your opinion, and I disagree (though, as a Christian, you perhaps believe in objective meaning. Where in the New Testament did you read this idea about struggle being valuable in itself, as opposed to as a means to an end?). I was unaware of the Nixon quote--but like him or hate him, he was a successful man. Interesting to say the least. And yes as a Christian I believe there is an objective meaning--no point in getting into it here. But what I was expressing above was my opinion nothing more. Just as a Communist might opine that private property is a theft or that a worker is "alienated" from his work if he doesn't control the means of production. All opinion. But some opinion are more popular than others and my opinion of "struggle" is a fairly common one among the American Middle Class.


Personally I feel that if the species life is going to consist of endless struggle we should just get it over with and annihilate the species. You're opinion and you are welcome to it. I rather enjoy the struggle.


As a Christian you might perhaps believe in a heaven where you get to rest in pure harmony. Indeed I do.


Most of us here do not, and thus we intend to make earth more heavenly, because we don't consider this life a 'stage' in our existence, but our total existence. I can understand that.


To be a revolutionary does not make me happy. The more I think about all the things standing in the way of our goal, the more I want to kill myself. So please do not impose your capitalist 'struggler' ideology on me and those like me, for you are causing us great suffering. My apologies! I certainly did mean you any discomfort. I don't look up the world as a means (that might be a Protestant view, but not a Catholic one) I see the world as an end in itself, but I see life as a constant striving against odds and against situations and I see that in a very good way. I'll sleep when I'm dead.


Oh, and working in a capitalist system does not make you a capitalist. People are forced to play along in order to feed themselves. You know--I do tend to agree with that point of view. As for myself being a Capitalist, I'm just in it for the money. :)

[Invincible Summer]

The we are all Capitalists here. :) You have a job? Then you are a Capitalist.

I don't have any underlings to do my work for me while I earn most of the money

[Robert]

It's hard to put a dollar amount on the value of "goodwill", organization, asset or supply chain management. But they and many other intangibles exist in the real world, they provide value to a company, they help create jobs, they provide opportunity for advancement up to and over twice the minimum wage that companies are required to pay.

Why would any master pay a penny more than the legal minimum to a "slave"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

All this said, I agree with those who think a failing company should not reward its CEO with severance pay, much less bonuses, while labor gets pink slips. I think the President of GM forfeited his salary as the company lurched toward bankruptcy last year. Good for him.

[Ele'ill]

The we are all Capitalists here. :) You have a job? Then you are a Capitalist.


I work for a non-profit preventing corporate intervention in protected wildlife areas and I write fiction among other things.

[Ele'ill]

My point is that you can do a lot more to avoid capitalism and you can do a lot more to not create or be a part of its greatest downfalls.


The people not taking advantage of capitalism's top down structure or whatever you'd like to call it are workers and a lot of them are struggling and unsatisfied with it. I don't consider them to be capitalists- I think they're trapped and doing everything they can, or wishing very hard, that things will change.

The victims here are not part of the problem.

[Bud Struggle]

I work for a non-profit preventing corporate intervention in protected wildlife areas and I write fiction among other things.

Excellent.:thumbup:

I teach coping skills to inmates for when they are released in a state prison and I've built houses and constructed drinking water and dranage systems in the Dominican Republic.

[Ele'ill]

Excellent.:thumbup:

I teach coping skills to inmates for when they are released in a state prison and I've built houses and constructed drinking water and dranage systems in the Dominican Republic.

I do it full time- what's your excuse? :)


Helping people that have been harmed by the system you advocate is a social construct based on guilt and public relations with the intent to move capital. I don't know you but I think this isn't quite the case with you and I'm not aiming that directly at you, only as a response to 'charity' and corporations that tout 'public outreach' because if they didn't it would become blatantly obvious that they're complete monsters.

BP will fund a 'save a couple sea turtles' event and everyone will get gushy and weak in the knees when they should be taking those responsible to trial and out to the gallows.

I'm in a good mood tonight. :lol:

[Ele'ill]

Again, the more brutal portion of that above post isn't directed at YOU as I don't know you. I am glad to hear you're participating in the prison industrial complex and helping prisoners cope with all the mental problems and lack of rehabilitation they've received through out their years of dehumanizing treatment.

Seriously though, you should put your 'make it move' attitude towards changing the world. I've done many things through out my years and move around a lot- we need competent organizers. So why don't you come over here with us, young Jedi, and start fresh.

[Robert]

error

[trivas7]

Aren't you folks a little loose with the term "dictator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator)"? What corporation has "sole and absolute" power over anyone?
It's not corporations that are the dictator, but rather capital, congealed labor, in all its varied forms (rent, etc.). Capital is a social force that dominates all who live under it, even corporations.

[RGacky3]

It's not corporations that are the dictator, but rather capital, congealed labor, in all its varied forms (rent, etc.). Capital is a social force that dominates all who live under it, even corporations.

Its not Guns that kill people its people. Its not Capital that domates, its people controlling it.

[Robert]

Capital is a social force? Maybe. I don't know ....

"There is a pain between my ears (http://www.wavsource.com/snds_2010-05-26_1051647648358087/movies/little_big_man/understand_not.wav)."

[Skooma Addict]

It's not corporations that are the dictator, but rather capital, congealed labor, in all its varied forms (rent, etc.). Capital is a social force that dominates all who live under it, even corporations.

So the concept of rent is a dictator? I guess you could say we are "dominated" by capital to an extent since it is required for our survival. Other than that though I don't see what you are saying.


Aren't you folks a little loose with the term "dictator (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator)"? What corporation has "sole and absolute" power over anyone?

They are loose with a lot of words. Exploitation, reactionary, and rightist for example.

[Scary Monster]

That's not my point at all. Things certainly can get better, a lot better. What some people have in Capitalism needs to be what all people have. And I think it's realistic and desirable for everyone to work towards those ends.

But any efforts to make things better should be realistic--and as I said before I don't see Revolution as something that's going to happen and even if it does I don't see how its aftermath could bring about the changes you, we all desire.

I think working with the system--changing it from the inside--is the most logical way to proceed.

Working within the system to make capitalism benefit everyone? Impossible. We went over this exact topic before in a previous thread but i havent gotten a reply. Anyhoo, heres an excerpt of my post :P :


Goods and services all gravitate toward the highest concentration of capital (the 1st world), no matter where these are produced (mostly in the third world, who dont see the fruits of their labor in the least). This wouldnt happen unless they were poor.

Capitalists do not want people to be rich, otherwise theyd lose their reserve labor force, which is needed to bring average wages down. If everyone were well off, production would go down, while real wages would soar, since it all comes down to capitalists being able to say "Oh you dont like your job? Someone else wants your job, so youre fired.", due to the fact that there is always a large population of the unemployed- even more so now, since most jobs have been shipped overseas.

Capitalism does not work. The only reason it has survived this long is because the 1st world has forced it on the the rest of the world. This is why central asia and south america are in turmoil. The US, France and Britain mostly, have been installing fascist, theocratic or authoritarian dictatorships for the past centuries, in order to have unbridled access to resources to keep capitalism afloat. Look at the histories of Ecuador, Iran, Nicaragua Afghanistan, countless more. Afghanistan for example- Their people overthrew their theocracy and put a progressive, communist government into power until the 90s. The Taliban came into power only because of the backing of the US, China, and UK. Its the same story with most 3rd world countries for the past hundreds of years.

Socialism only collapsed because of imperialist economic attack or war- this is the case with Yugoslavia, almost with Cuba, etc. Cuba is the most prosperous latin country thanks to the Cuban revolution. Capitalism only exists in the US by first exterminating its opposition- native americans, Black Panthers, Malcolm X, etc.

In short, billions have to suffer, starve, wars have to be fought, all because of capitalism's existence as a system that depends upon artificial scarcity to survive. Its a totally bullshit system



No, the working class benefits from the rich saving and investing their wealth rather than consuming it all at once. Investment in capital goods raises productivity, and this is the only way that wages and standards of living can rise. It would be extremely short-sighted to spread that money among the wage-earners just so they can consume more today.

So you really think the capitalists stealing wealth from their workers, investing that wealth among other capitalists, and throwing out crumbs to their workers benefits the workers more than just cutting the capitalists out of the equation all-together (thus no more socially-useless entities sucking up all the wealth)?

[Bud Struggle]

Working within the system to make capitalism benefit everyone? Impossible. We went over this exact topic before in a previous thread but i havent gotten a reply. Anyhoo, heres an excerpt of my post :P :

Ok. Here goes.


Goods and services all gravitate toward the highest concentration of capital (the 1st world), no matter where these are produced (mostly in the third world, who dont see the fruits of their labor in the least). This wouldnt happen unless they were poor. What we need to do is make every world the First World. China and India are leading the way--and doing it quite well.


Capitalists do not want people to be rich, otherwise theyd lose their reserve labor force, which is needed to bring average wages down. If everyone were well off, production would go down, while real wages would soar, since it all comes down to capitalists being able to say "Oh you dont like your job? Someone else wants your job, so youre fired.", due to the fact that there is always a large population of the unemployed- even more so now, since most jobs have been shipped overseas. It's a time of transition. But cheep labor is quickly becomming a thing of the past; automation and the need for highly skilled labor force are taking over as the producers of value.


Capitalism does not work. The only reason it has survived this long is because the 1st world has forced it on the the rest of the world. This is why central asia and south america are in turmoil. The US, France and Britain mostly, have been installing fascist, theocratic or authoritarian dictatorships for the past centuries, in order to have unbridled access to resources to keep capitalism afloat. Look at the histories of Ecuador, Iran, Nicaragua Afghanistan, countless more. Afghanistan for example- Their people overthrew their theocracy and put a progressive, communist government into power until the 90s. The Taliban came into power only because of the backing of the US, China, and UK. Its the same story with most 3rd world countries for the past hundreds of years. Look no country's political moves are perfect. Everybody makes mistakes. The Red Chinese have been imposing their Imperalism on Formosa and Tibet for 50 years. I agree it's best to let countries develop on their own.



Socialism only collapsed because of imperialist economic attack or war- this is the case with Yugoslavia, almost with Cuba, etc. Cuba is the most prosperous latin country thanks to the Cuban revolution. Capitalism only exists in the US by first exterminating its opposition- native americans, Black Panthers, Malcolm X, etc. Excuses, excuses, excuses. There are only winners and loosers in this world--and Communism, or at least the kind that was practiced after WWII just didn't have the mojo to make it. It was seriously flawed anyway. Best to try agin from a fresh start.


In short, billions have to suffer, starve, wars have to be fought, all because of capitalism's existence as a system that depends upon artificial scarcity to survive. Its a totally bullshit system True, but same for Feudalism and Communism.

[Ele'ill]

Ok. Here goes.

What we need to do is make every world the First World. China and India are leading the way--and doing it quite well.

Industrial Capitalism without environmental checks are ravaging the natural planet because country's governments feel the need to participate in the global circus. Never mind child trafficking and industrial disasters. No human life is worth that- Ever.


It's a time of transition. But cheep labor is quickly becomming a thing of the past; automation and the need for highly skilled labor force are taking over as the producers of value.Simply incorrect, 'cheap labor' still exists in the form of exploitation. That skilled labor force is people being poorly trained and paid the same wages as before. The corporate world has embraced a 'more with less' motto and it's not a going green thing. They want more skill with less pay and less globalized labor standards in place.


Look no country's political moves are perfect. Everybody makes mistakes. The Red Chinese have been imposing their Imperalism on Formosa and Tibet for 50 years. I agree it's best to let countries develop on their own.Saying that no country's political moves are perfect' makes it sound as if they accidentally utilized neo-liberalism's free market trade to decimate the lower class majority of the third world.





Excuses, excuses, excuses. There are only winners and loosers in this world--and Communism, or at least the kind that was practiced after WWII just didn't have the mojo to make it. It was seriously flawed anyway. Best to try agin from a fresh start.Post-Civ

[ComradeRed22'91]

Both in practice and in theory:

1. The professional revolutionaries who consider themselves the vanguard of the working class almost never willingly give up their power. If they do give up their power, another group of revolutionaries immediately takes their place. Thus, the transition to classless society never happens.


I suppose your having brought up this question goes to show how under capitalism, whatever it's equivalent of the 'vanguard party' is totally gives up their power.

The absence of material accumulation and wealth for the vanguard party plays into this a lot. That stirs up another factor - the reasons why Lenin and whatnot took to vanguardism; it's the practical application of Marxism and Marxist revolution for the material conditions of Imperial Russia (and many other places and times throughout the world) at that time.


It's been said a million times, but the truth is the same, Lenin wasn't an 'elitist' for taking up vanguardism, just trying to make Marxism work.

(...a thousand screams follow)

[Bud Struggle]

I do it full time- what's your excuse? :) I have a family to feed. To be honest I wouldn't do what I am doing if it wasn't for them.


Helping people that have been harmed by the system you advocate is a social construct based on guilt and public relations with the intent to move capital. I don't know you but I think this isn't quite the case with you and I'm not aiming that directly at you, only as a response to 'charity' and corporations that tout 'public outreach' because if they didn't it would become blatantly obvious that they're complete monsters. Sure. But at the time there isn't any other option. Not in the real world at least. Wishing the world was Communist or not wishing it doesn't change a thing.


BP will fund a 'save a couple sea turtles' event and everyone will get gushy and weak in the knees when they should be taking those responsible to trial and out to the gallows. Every corporation isn't BP. Every rich guy doesn't have as much money as Bill Gates. There are a mill shades of gray in Captalism just like there is in Communism. In Nepal one of the first things the Communists did when they took over was to outlaw the workers from striking. The old king let them strike--but not the Communists. Then when the Communists were out of power--they tried to get the workers to strike by making roving bands of Communist Youth (thugs) beat the workers if they didn't strike.

It's all relative. And it's all shades of gray.


I'm in a good mood tonight. :lol:

You are a sweetheart. :)

[graffic]

People who are bold enough to say that non-Marxists are in a state of "false" consciousness and that they themselves alternatively are in a state of correct consciousness are too ideological. Saying that being enlightened by class consciousness like the intellectuals who start revolutions, who want to change the world, makes you fundamentally "right" and everyone else "wrong" is an absolutist attitude. Look how much war there was in the 20th century fighting over ideological differences. People believe they are absolutely "right" and others are absolutely "wrong".

Although Marxists have achieved a lot in history and being rational and on the side of logic and reason is a positive way forward, i think a problem with Communism is that it was just another way to organise society and, like the OP says, a select group of people still predictably hoarded power. Some Marxists seem to think that everything will be solved in a classless society: that Communism is the answer to the problems of the human species. I wouldn't argue that communism does not fit in with human nature, but that perhaps people need to learn more about themselves before assuming "Communism" is absolute social justice and Capitalism is absolute injustice.

A remarkable thing about Capitalism is the work ethic that it encourages. Huge numbers of people don't give a shit about ideology. They are happy to work for a decent enough wage, enjoy themselves and then die. Most people just don't care and will get pissed off when people start lecturing them about what is best for them, and start messing with their money and the routine of their lives.

[RGacky3]

Every corporation isn't BP. Every rich guy doesn't have as much money as Bill Gates. There are a mill shades of gray in Captalism just like there is in Communism. In Nepal one of the first things the Communists did when they took over was to outlaw the workers from striking. The old king let them strike--but not the Communists. Then when the Communists were out of power--they tried to get the workers to strike by making roving bands of Communist Youth (thugs) beat the workers if they didn't strike.

It's all relative. And it's all shades of gray.


The Nepalese communists are maoists, very few here have any support for maoists.

Every corporation is'nt BP but they function along the same principles, maxemise profits primarily for the shirt term.


Sure. But at the time there isn't any other option. Not in the real world at least. Wishing the world was Communist or not wishing it doesn't change a thing.

Yes there is, its called activism, revolutionary activism (working outside and against the system), people struggle to make things better all the time and many times they succede.


What we need to do is make every world the First World. China and India are leading the way--and doing it quite well.


How are China and India doing it? Oh yeah, extreme wage-slave labor, and extreme exploitation.


It's a time of transition. But cheep labor is quickly becomming a thing of the past; automation and the need for highly skilled labor force are taking over as the producers of value.

Where are you getting this? High unemployment is taking over, as well as stagnating wages, cheep labor is still alive and well, and the skilled labor force is seeing high unemployment as well as stagnating or even lowered wages.


Look no country's political moves are perfect. Everybody makes mistakes. The Red Chinese have been imposing their Imperalism on Formosa and Tibet for 50 years. I agree it's best to let countries develop on their own.


But you support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Ele'ill]

I have a family to feed. To be honest I wouldn't do what I am doing if it wasn't for them.

I suppose it's just as easy to become entrenched in the American dream as it is to become entrenched in homelessness and drug addiction.

I have a family to feed as well.


Sure. But at the time there isn't any other option. Not in the real world at least. Wishing the world was Communist or not wishing it doesn't change a thing.

We don't wish and ponder we make it happen. Make it a reality. If you think a day as a capitalist manager is rough try being an activist and community organizer. Same satisfying feeling of exhaustion and accomplishment at the end of the day, minus the guilt and you'll actually have something to show for your concerns.


Every corporation isn't BP. Every rich guy doesn't have as much money as Bill Gates. There are a mill shades of gray in Captalism just like there is in Communism. In Nepal one of the first things the Communists did when they took over was to outlaw the workers from striking. The old king let them strike--but not the Communists. Then when the Communists were out of power--they tried to get the workers to strike by making roving bands of Communist Youth (thugs) beat the workers if they didn't strike.

They operate under the same systems of exploitation.

There's always a Lord of the Flies scenario for every organization, government system or religious sect on the planet. Yes, it can get bad, that's why we're here in the first place as activists because it already HAS reached that point with capitalism. I don't think anyone would mind deviating from strict communist theory if it meant millions of people weren't going to die. As an anarchist I'm not looking for a cookie cut ideology that we can slap down into place. I want to see people in my neighborhood work through it and figure things out on their own. That's the ultimate goal- to no longer have to be the organizer.

[Bud Struggle]

The Nepalese communists are maoists, very few here have any support for maoists.

Every corporation is'nt BP but they function along the same principles, maxemise profits primarily for the shirt term. Brother Gacky, Nepal is what all Communist societies end up looking like. Nepal is no different from what any other Communist society looks like in the real world the same way that BP is no different than any other major business. We're stuck between a rock and a hard place--the only difference is that corporations can be reformed--Communism NEVER CHANGES.


Yes there is, its called activism, revolutionary activism (working outside and against the system), people struggle to make things better all the time and many times they succede. I think change can only come fom the inside--and the people you are talking about ARE on the inside. They just don't know it.


How are China and India doing it? Oh yeah, extreme wage-slave labor, and extreme exploitation. They always had that--not there are pople becomming middle class--and isn't that what everyone is lookin g for?


Where are you getting this? High unemployment is taking over, as well as stagnating wages, cheep labor is still alive and well, and the skilled labor force is seeing high unemployment as well as stagnating or even lowered wages. Employment is around 10% high now--but such thing fluxuate. As far as wage sagnation--there's that, but there's almost no inflation either.


But you support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't support Iraq.

[Bud Struggle]

I suppose it's just as easy to become entrenched in the American dream as it is to become entrenched in homelessness and drug addiction. Exactly. everyone has choices on how to live their life. What you become is the sum total of all the choices you've made in life.


I have a family to feed as well. Cheers!


We don't wish and ponder we make it happen. Make it a reality. That's that attitude that makes entepreneurs!


If you think a day as a capitalist manager is rough try being an activist and community organizer. Same satisfying feeling of exhaustion and accomplishment at the end of the day, minus the guilt and you'll actually have something to show for your concerns. Everyone has their own guilt. I'm actually quite proud of being a self made man. I'm glad my father was a union guy and a factory worker and I'm glad I grew up poor--but that was the life for him, it never was the life for me. I never cared about making money for myself--not a real interest of mine, I drive and old Jeep and have holes in my clothes. But I remember how humilating it was for my father when he went on strike and my mom paid the bill for the family (a bit chavenistic of him, but those were those days) and I never wanted that to happen to me and my family--so I got myself comfy economically.


There's always a Lord of the Flies scenario for every organization, government system or religious sect on the planet. Yes, it can get bad, that's why we're here in the first place as activists because it already HAS reached that point with capitalism. I don't think anyone would mind deviating from strict communist theory if it meant millions of people weren't going to die. As an anarchist I'm not looking for a cookie cut ideology that we can slap down into place. I want to see people in my neighborhood work through it and figure things out on their own. That's the ultimate goal- to no longer have to be the organizer.

I wish you peace and happiness!

[RGacky3]

Brother Gacky, Nepal is what all Communist societies end up looking like. Nepal is no different from what any other Communist society looks like in the real world the same way that BP is no different than any other major business. We're stuck between a rock and a hard place--the only difference is that corporations can be reformed--Communism NEVER CHANGES.

No, dumbass, this is getting frusturating, I've been having to re-tell this shit to you over and over again, first of all, Maoism is not genuine socialism, without a strong democracy its impossible.

Second Communism in the real world, the closest we have looks like CNTs spain, Zapatista Chiapas, Anarchist Ukraine, and so on and so forth.

NORWAY (yes norway) is more socialistic than Nepal you moron, because its an actual democracy and large parts of the economy are democratic.

Also Corporations can only change in a way that makes them more profits, they have no other function then that.

I'm sorry I'm calling you a moron but after months and months of re-explaining it to you it gets frusturating, I think I have to conclude that you are simply an ideologue that does'nt actually care about facts or consistancy.


I think change can only come fom the inside--and the people you are talking about ARE on the inside. They just don't know it.

Inside of what? They arn't doing it by voting and hoping politicians will change, or by asking capitalists to be nice.

If you think that voting for nice guys is giong to change things and asking capitalists to work better, then your a moron, because that has never worked.


They always had that--not there are pople becomming middle class--and isn't that what everyone is lookin g for?


So as long as 20% of the population is middle class 5% is upper class and the rest is lower we are fine. What we are looking for is to raise the lower classes, if 20 people are starving and 2 of them make it rich and can get buffets, thats not what I want, I'd rather all of them have enough. Also working conditions have been getting worse in both of those countries, also before capitalization, its not like they had democratic economies.


Employment is around 10% high now--but such thing fluxuate. As far as wage sagnation--there's that, but there's almost no inflation either.

Cost of living has gone up significantly, but wage stagnation, when the wealth of the country is going up is a major issue.


I don't support Iraq.

Ok Afghanistan, I guess you also supported Vietnam as well.


Exactly. everyone has choices on how to live their life. What you become is the sum total of all the choices you've made in life.

most people have much much less choices.


That's that attitude that makes entepreneurs!

As does lots of money and funding.


I never cared about making money for myself--not a real interest of mine, I drive and old Jeep and have holes in my clothes.

There is nothing more pretencious than a upper middle class man that pretends to be working class.

BTW, your not a social-democrat, based on your opinions on things.

[trivas7]

Its not Guns that kill people its people. Its not Capital that domates, its people controlling it.
OTC, Capitalism functions such that everyone living under it is controlled by the social force called capital. We are dominated by our own creation.

[RGacky3]

Capitalism functions such that everyone living under it is controlled by the social force called capital. We are dominated by our own creation.

No, we are controlled by people controlling the capital, what your saing is like saying we are controlled by food.

[trivas7]

No, we are controlled by people controlling the capital, what your saing is like saying we are controlled by food.
No; food is not of our creation. You don't understand capitalism if you believe that someone or some class controls capital. Capitalism is a relationship between people, not a thing any individual or group of individuals controls.

[RGacky3]

No; food is not of our creation. You don't understand capitalism if you believe that someone or some class controls capital.

THey are called capitalists and they do it through property laws.

[Bud Struggle]

No, dumbass, this is getting frusturating, I've been having to re-tell this shit to you over and over again, first of all, Maoism is not genuine socialism, without a strong democracy its impossible.

Second Communism in the real world, the closest we have looks like CNTs spain, Zapatista Chiapas, Anarchist Ukraine, and so on and so forth.

NORWAY (yes norway) is more socialistic than Nepal you moron, because its an actual democracy and large parts of the economy are democratic. I quite agree with most of what you say--but RevLeft itself is quite the fan of Nepal--not so much of the EZLN.


Also Corporations can only change in a way that makes them more profits, they have no other function then that. To an extent--but they have other motivations.


I'm sorry I'm calling you a moron but after months and months of re-explaining it to you it gets frusturating, I think I have to conclude that you are simply an ideologue that does'nt actually care about facts or consistancy. call me anything you like--you always hurt the ones you love the most. :) I just don't agree with the things you call facts.


Inside of what? They arn't doing it by voting and hoping politicians will change, or by asking capitalists to be nice. You keep forgetting that America is a democracy and the system is runby the people not the corporations. True the people are sometimes slow to act--but they do in the end.


If you think that voting for nice guys is giong to change things and asking capitalists to work better, then your a moron, because that has never worked. Listen, it's true that labor unions did a lot for the worker 100 years ago--but now all of the help comes from the government.




So as long as 20% of the population is middle class 5% is upper class and the rest is lower we are fine. What we are looking for is to raise the lower classes, if 20 people are starving and 2 of them make it rich and can get buffets, thats not what I want, I'd rather all of them have enough. Also working conditions have been getting worse in both of those countries, also before capitalization, its not like they had democratic economies. Here in America at least 50% of the people consider themselves as Middle Class of one sort of another. Only 25-30 % consider themselves lower class.


BTW, your not a social-democrat, based on your opinions on things. It's part of the entrepreneaural spirit--I'm not easily classified. :)

[Scary Monster]

You keep forgetting that America is a democracy and the system is runby the people not the corporations. True the people are sometimes slow to act--but they do in the end.

lol..I cant tell if youre being sarcastic or not. People need to hold mass demonstrations to get what they want, yet most of the time that is not enough. Hell, thats even what revs up the retarded Tea Party fuckos so much. They think 'Murica is being run by a dictatorship. You really think people voting every four years for another bourgeois tool is called democracy? We dont even have a say in legislation! The Lobbyists are the ones who decide what laws get passed. The sad thing is, people accept that as the norm. Politicians whoring with special interests is completely expected and is mentioned all the time in the media. This is all while the majority of the population have to hold mass demonstrations to let their political positions be known.


Listen, it's true that labor unions did a lot for the worker 100 years ago--but now all of the help comes from the government.

Well if you consider stagnating Real wages and Reaganism's cutting back of social services "help", then yeah. Unions are extremely weak now, thanks to Reaganism/Thatcherism.

[Bud Struggle]

lol..I cant tell if youre being sarcastic or not. People need to hold mass demonstrations to get what they want, yet most of the time that is not enough. Hell, thats even what revs up the retarded Tea Party fuckos so much. They think 'Murica is being run by a dictatorship. You really think people voting every four years for another bourgeois tool is called democracy? We dont even have a say in legislation! The Lobbyists are the ones who decide what laws get passed. The sad thing is, people accept that as the norm. Politicians whoring with special interests is completely expected and is mentioned all the time in the media. This is all while the majority of the population have to hold mass demonstrations to let their political positions be known. Unfortunately, for the most part what you say here is true. But that's nobody's fault but the American peoples. They can throw people out of office that aren't doing what they should--that is the whole point of the Tea Partiers (unfortunately their agenda is directly opposed to yours.) But they are people out there trying to change the system--good for them. They system can be changed, the people just have to want it to happen. But so far they aren't pissed off enough for anything to happen. If this last bail out of the "to big to fail" corporations doesn't get everyone up in arms--I don't know what will.


Well if you consider stagnating Real wages and Reaganism's cutting back of social services "help", then yeah. Unions are extremely weak now, thanks to Reaganism/Thatcherism. To be honest--I don't see the connection between social services and unions. (For that matter it was Clinton that reformed the welfare system.)

[lombas]

It is capitalism that eventually eliminates all forms of inequality between humankind.

This remains one of the most perverted arguments. Whatever you can say about Soviet Russia, how many artists were banned in Red China, how many rum cokes the Cubans sip, you have to say their societies are/were impressively more egalitarian than capitalist regions.

[NecroCommie]

THey are called capitalists and they do it through property laws.
No they don't. Capitalists cannot choose to manipulate capital in an equal manner. They are as much "victims" of the systems as we are. Their only choices are to own the capital or not, or to use the capital according to their interests or not. Choices not shared by the lower classes.

Capitalism is not a tool of even capitalists. It is a system in which people function, which is exactly why it cannot be reformed. You can only work within the confines of this system, or overthrow it completely.

[Zanthorus]

This remains one of the most perverted arguments. Whatever you can say about Soviet Russia, how many artists were banned in Red China, how many rum cokes the Cubans sip, you have to say their societies are/were impressively more egalitarian than capitalist regions.

I'm not too sure about that. Pretty sure I read somewhere about the GINI coefficient of the USSR being the same as the UK.

[trivas7]

No they don't. Capitalists cannot choose to manipulate capital in an equal manner. They are as much "victims" of the systems as we are. Their only choices are to own the capital or not, or to use the capital according to their interests or not. Choices not shared by the lower classes.

Capitalism is not a tool of even capitalists. It is a system in which people function, which is exactly why it cannot be reformed. You can only work within the confines of this system, or overthrow it completely.
Nice.

[Bud Struggle]

As much as I prefer to disagree with you Necro--you are correct for the most part that Capitalists are "inside" the system. :thumbup1:

But there's no reason it can't be reformed. Anything can change.

[trivas7]

But there's no reason it can't be reformed. Anything can change.
I grant change happens, but nope: leopards don't change their spots.

What does it mean for an inherently exploitative system to be reformed? In fact, more efficient exploitation.

[Bud Struggle]

I grant change happens, but nope: leopards don't change their spots.

What does it mean for an inherently exploitative system to be reformed? In fact, more efficient exploitation.

Was there a Bourgeois Revolution that transformed Feudalism to Capitlaism? You could make a case for the American Revolution--but the French Revolution produced Napoleon.

All in all that transition was smooth.

[NecroCommie]

One might argue that the transition from feudalism to capitalism was indeed one of even greater exploitation. The only direction capitalism can change in. Capitalist countries and corporations can choose to be more exploitative, or to lose the competition in markets to rivaling factions. This is why revolution is absolutely necessary.

[RGacky3]

I quite agree with most of what you say--but RevLeft itself is quite the fan of Nepal--not so much of the EZLN.

So what? Your not talknig to revleft your talking to me.


To an extent--but they have other motivations.

Not really, and nothing that outdoes profit and competition, thats the whole point of the market system, if so what are they?


I just don't agree with the things you call facts.


Well you have to show how they are not facts, otherwise your just being a moron.


You keep forgetting that America is a democracy and the system is runby the people not the corporations. True the people are sometimes slow to act--but they do in the end.


America has democratic aspects, but its not a democracy. Look at the way politicians act and you realize its run by corporations, thats why, with 70% wanting a public option, it was still politically hard to do it, because corporations control the money, thus they control the power.


Listen, it's true that labor unions did a lot for the worker 100 years ago--but now all of the help comes from the government.


The government is not altruistic, it responds to pressure, also what help? I listed actual things labor did, what help does the government give (out of the goodness of its heart)???
The help from the government is a responce to years and years of organization and pressure from groups like labor unions.

But tell me, what has the government does lately to help the working class?


Here in America at least 50% of the people consider themselves as Middle Class of one sort of another. Only 25-30 % consider themselves lower class.

where is that statistic? Also the question should be working class or capitalist class, or buisinessman or worker, because lower and middle class are undefined terms and more have to do with percevied lifestyle.


It's part of the entrepreneaural spirit--I'm not easily classified.

Yes you are, your a pro-capitalist liberal(ish), but not a social-democrat.


To be honest--I don't see the connection between social services and unions. (For that matter it was Clinton that reformed the welfare system.)

FDRs reforms were heavily influenced by the unions and wanting to appease them.


But there's no reason it can't be reformed. Anything can change.

Nothing will change without direct pressure, and a lot of it.

[trivas7]

Was there a Bourgeois Revolution that transformed Feudalism to Capitlaism? You could make a case for the American Revolution--but the French Revolution produced Napoleon.

All in all that transition was smooth.
OTC, the transition from feudalism to capitalism was marked by a history of violence and the expropriation of peasants from the soil.

http://libcom.org/history/karl-marx-transition-feudalism-capitalism-claudiojkatz

[JTB]

Both in practice and in theory:

1. The professional revolutionaries who consider themselves the vanguard of the working class almost never willingly give up their power. If they do give up their power, another group of revolutionaries immediately takes their place. Thus, the transition to classless society never happens.


The solutions:

1) Recall that revolution is a tool, not an objective, and should only be applied when absolutely necessary

2) Recall that the movement is to be one of the People, not of personalities or a Party

3) Learn from the past. Instead of trying to force a mass system upon the entire nation, we are to focus on establishing a number of small, independent communist societies, bound only by loose confederation and working together for mutual benefit (eg: helping eachother for large construction projects, fair trade between the communes, and sharing skilled and specialized labour). Recall that the goal is the dissolution of the State; that can never be achieved by the creation of a strong central authority with the power to oppress the People.


2. The dictatorship of the proletariat continues indefinitely (see #1), and paradoxically the working class becomes exploited by the very group of revolutionaries who were supposed to be ushering in the Communist utopia. Conditions, both economic and political, become much worse for the proletariat compared to the good old days when all they had to worry about was having a portion of their labor stolen by the bourgeoisie.
TDOTP is not to be construed as a true dictatorship of some person or party claiming to represent the proletariat. It is to be a true rule by the masses- a democratic system by which local decisions are made by popular vote in the soviets/councils/committees, with each commune sending representatives to periodic councils to make non-binding decisions on what courses of action are to be undertaken on a larger scale.

3. As human society advances, and capitalism inevitably marches forward, the lines between proletariat and bourgeoisie are increasingly blurred or rendered meaningless.

The difference between Bill Gates and the chinese child who builds his computers is neither blurry nor meaningless. Just because the exploited are now further away (hence the capitalist push for 'free trade', which allows them to exploit those not protected by socialist reforms that protect the labourer and provide safer workplaces and better pay) does not men they aren't there. It's simply that you've your eyes closed.



As the working class earns enough to become themselves part-owners of the land and the means of production, the struggle between the classes ceases to exist.

Really?

http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_40/b3701119.htm


It is capitalism that eventually eliminates all forms of inequality between humankind.

Read The Conditions of the Working Class in England and then start looking into where all the products are made that the average American (members of the petty bourgeoisie and the Protected Proletariat) are made and the condition of the Unprotected Proletariat (two classes formed in the last ~75 years with the rise of Progressiveness and the rebranding of colonialism as 'outsourcing')

http://www.nlcnet.org/reports

[JTB]

I have a question for you why does super man save people? He doesn't get paid, in fact he's a reporter for the Daily Planet, in fact that's horrible in terms of comparative advantage. Why spend 100+ hours a week, most of them unpaid, to make $30,000 a year when he could work 40 of those hours using his skills to make five times the amount of money he is making now?
Do you have any idea how much he gets in sponsorship deals?

[JTB]

got a few more points on why communism/Marxism hasn't and can not work.

All classes come to HATE the idiocracy of the "revolutionary intellectuals." In Russia, the "workers" didn't like having their savings and property "liberated," and the grand "intellectuals" caused years of civil war and then executions (necessary to terrify the public into allowing them to "rule.")

Don't confuse oligarchy with communism (which is a democratic-type). True communists denounced Stalin from the start and he proved them right, taking advantage of the turmoil to become a dictator


Just how much they were HATED is clear from the sheer number of deaths needed to stay in power: eg, if they hadn't done in 66 MILLION people, the people might have revolted. That's a lot of fire power needed to keep your job.


Kings/tyrants tend to do things like that. Again, don't confuse tyrannical oligarchy with a (very) strong central State with communism, which seeks to dissolve the state.


They don't exactly follow the "catch-more-flies-with-honey" model.

Nor the communist one


In other words: whoever they think they're the vanguard OF just comes to dislike them.


Because the masses realized they didn't stand for that they claimed to- they were politicians


In "Capitalism" underwritten by genuine religious systems, money and power are not "everything," as in communism.

seeing as the entire point of capitalism is money and the accumulation of capital...:rolleyes:


So--- you are always "equal in the eyes of God."

6000 years of genocides, murder, rapes, burnings at the stake, crushing by stone, and war make that a bit hard to believe

[JTB]

those who live at Twin Oaks seem to be quite happy, if things haven't changed since last I heard

[JTB]

Then I wouldn't call them entirely socialist.


Capitalist vs. Imperialist? You're suggesting the capitalist states declare war on themselves?

Between capitalism, with it's undying pursuit of capital, and imperialism, there is no contrast.
They call it 'outsourcing' now

[JTB]

I can only speak for myself, but I care about my historically high standard of living and preserving the historically free society in which I live in far too much to gamble it all for socialists very strange and vague concepts of freedom and justice.

And how do you feel about the conditions of those in vietnam, china, and elsewhere who labour in sweatshops for pennies a day- in one instance that was reported, the women had been locked in a little room with a single toilet at night for several years before they were found out about. They were making clothes for Layne Bryant. Are you nice clothes and the prosperity of your capitalist nation worth their suffering?

You know, outright slavery did wonders for the standard of living in Rome and America- just so long as you were on the right side of the equation. The current system is no different.

[JTB]

How else do you change it? You say gradual change, but who changes it gradually? Politicians? What exactly is your road map?
The establishment of independent communities which function outside of the States authority, governing themselves in accordance with communist principles. As these are shown to thrive, they inspire the creation of more such communities, which can then form into a loose confederation for mutual benefit. This is to be done in conjunction with the use of the machnation of the State to achieve more large-scale changes, such as passing legislation banning imports from any nation that does not meet the same workplace safety, conditions, and pay that apply in our own borders (this would make it so that it is no longer profitable to exploit the poor around the world and ship the goods back, helping to end the modern-day colonialism and the exploitation of the world proletariat by Western capitalist enterprise) and the weakening of the bourgeoisie. With time, this leads to significant social change so as to allow massive cuts in the central government and its gradual dissolution, as it becomes nothing more than an auxillary serving to aid in communication and the transport of materials between the cities, towns, and communes in accordance with what terms they might reach with eachother (labour trade, etc)

[JTB]

"It's about working hard with a purpose and a plan and making that plan work. And if it doesn't, getting another plan and then working that one."

So you favour a society in which everyone has to spend their time struggling to escape from poverty. Why not just favour an egalitarian society in which everyone has satisfactory wealth and/or means? This idealisation of a life of struggle is not something I understand, whether it be proposed by capitalist or communist.
The question becomes this: is the goal total economic equality or ensuring everyone has 'satisfactory wealth and/or means', with tolerance for what small inequalities will exist out of personal preference and specific accumulation of goods?

[JTB]

Good question. Struggle is what life is all about. It's the thing that makes life worth living. Yea life sould be more fair--I agree. No one should starve and it should be a flat playing field. But there's something to taking on challenges and overcomming them.
But those challenges should not be survival- they should be pursuance of the arts, the science, one's spirituality, and one's social and personal life.


Life is about the pursuit of what makes life good, not about a desperate bid to survive.

[JTB]

The we are all Capitalists here. :) You have a job? Then you are a Capitalist.


And if we work at a job then return home to a small commune where all who are willing to work share their earnings collectively?

Or what if we don't work for money, but are petitioning to join the FEC (http://thefec.org/)?

[GPDP]

But those challenges should not be survival- they should be pursuance of the arts, the science, one's spirituality, and one's social and personal life.


Life is about the pursuit of what makes life good, not about a desperate bid to survive.

What Bud said and what you responded to here reminds me a lot of this clip from Star Trek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzqW0YaN2ho

Go to 1:16. The exchange between Picard and the man from the 21st century is eerily similar to yours.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Here's the problem: even if every single worker participates in the revolution, only a few are going to participate in governance. Not every worker can be part of the government! Hence, the few continue to oppress the many even after the revolution succeeds.

[#FF0000]

Here's the problem: even if every single worker participates in the revolution, only a few are going to participate in governance. Not every worker can be part of the government! Hence, the few continue to oppress the many even after the revolution succeeds.

Wrong.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Wrong.

How so? Will every single worker hold power? Will every single worker make decisions? If so, no decision will ever be made.

[#FF0000]

How so? Will every single worker hold power? Will every single worker make decisions? If so, no decision will ever be made.

You're bad at thinking.

Every worker will be able to participate in government, sure. Will they hold power? Depends on what you mean I guess because "power" is a vague word, like "freedom". Individually I think that there'll only be a handful of people who have "power", but at the same time, the working class, collectively, can recall those individuals.

Organizing government is way more complicated than that of course, but generally these are things that most socialists agree will be one of the basic parts of a socialist government: a radical democratic approach to federalism (someone can correct me if I'm wrong though. That's just what it always looked like to me), with elected delegates that are instantly recallable.

It's definitely not perfect, but why does that matter as long as it's better than what we have? Why in the world would you point out the fact that it is literally impossible for every individual in the world to have unlimited power (which is a vague word as it is)?

I just don't get your point to be honest. Is something not worth going for unless it meets some dumb ideal standard that is disconnected from reality?

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Individually I think that there'll only be a handful of people who have "power"

And those people will become the new 'bourgeois' and rule over the workers. History will tell you that.

[#FF0000]

And those people will become the new 'bourgeois' and rule over the workers. History will tell you that.

except these people are to be held accountable, and are instantly recallable. Like I said, I gave you a really really basic system there. Government is a complicated thing and one needs a lot of checks to make sure people who are trusted with power are accountable to the working class and are acting in its interests.

I also like how you completely ignore the rest of my post, where I already said this

So, either way, what is your point? Are we supposed to never do anything because it isn't going to be perfect or...?

[Mahatma Gandhi]

except these people are to be held accountable, and are instantly recallable. Like I said, I gave you a really really basic system there. Government is a complicated thing and one needs a lot of checks to make sure people who are trusted with power are accountable to the working class and are acting in its interests.

I also like how you completely ignore the rest of my post, where I already said this

So, either way, what is your point? Are we supposed to never do anything because it isn't going to be perfect or...?

I am not saying that at all. I am only wondering how leaders could be held accountable even if the revolution were to succeed. If voting or referendum is the method by which this is accomplished, then why isn't that method working now?

[JTB]

What Bud said and what you responded to here reminds me a lot of this clip from Star Trek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzqW0YaN2ho

Go to 1:16. The exchange between Picard and the man from the 21st century is eerily similar to yours.

Are you accusing me of stealing Picard's speech? I assure you, I would have if I had known of it ;)

[#FF0000]

I am not saying that at all. I am only wondering how leaders could be held accountable even if the revolution were to succeed. If voting or referendum is the method by which this is accomplished, then why isn't that method working now?

well gee i don't know maybe capitalism hmmmmmmmmmmmm

[JTB]

Here's the problem: even if every single worker participates in the revolution, only a few are going to participate in governance. Not every worker can be part of the government! Hence, the few continue to oppress the many even after the revolution succeeds.
You assume that there is an oligarchy in which only s few are a part of the governing class.


You don't seem to grasp the concept of (direct or mixed) democracy and self-governance

[RGacky3]

And those people will become the new 'bourgeois' and rule over the workers. History will tell you that.

Tell me that history, (BTW the USSR does'nt count because it was'nt democratically controlled). The fact is history shows us the more democracy (meaning the more public control) the more equal and humane the society is.

BTW, do you believe democracy means "Every single person is king of the country"? Because thats kind of the argument your making, and its silly.

[nip]

i have noticed there are problems with every form of government. just some have more problems than others

[GPDP]

Are you accusing me of stealing Picard's speech? I assure you, I would have if I had known of it ;)

lol no, I'm not. Just making an observation. Bud really reminds me of the guy from our time period, especially with the whole "then what's the challenge?" bit, which I thought Picard answered brilliantly.

I enjoy a good challenge from time to time. I see no reason why survival itself should be part of that, however.

[JTB]

I find great pleasure in taking on the challenge of mastering an instrument, perfecting a sport, or indulging in science and philosophy. I've never met a man who took any pleasure in it being a challenge to feed himself and his family- especially when that struggle robbed from him the time to engage in such challenges as might enrich his life rather than merely enable to sustain it in vicious 'game' of survival in a system built upon competition rather than cooperation.

[automattick]

I haven't read through the other posts, so my apologies for anything that may have already been said:


1. The professional revolutionaries who consider themselves the vanguard of the working class almost never willingly give up their power. If they do give up their power, another group of revolutionaries immediately takes their place. Thus, the transition to classless society never happens.

Yes, and as a communist I agree that vanguardism never did and never will work, unless you're a Leninist. Read up on Luxemburg, Mattick, Gorter and other members of the left communist tendency. Workers councils, whether or not they were well-read in Marx or barely heard of his name, know the conditions of exploitation because they live through every minute of it. There have been many points throughout history where they have effectively established what are known as "councils." These are usually small-scale and often are met with extreme violence from the ruling class in any country. Yet they are effective, and they rise in proportion to periods of capital crisis.


2. The dictatorship of the proletariat continues indefinitely (see #1), and paradoxically the working class becomes exploited by the very group of revolutionaries who were supposed to be ushering in the Communist utopia. Conditions, both economic and political, become much worse for the proletariat compared to the good old days when all they had to worry about was having a portion of their labor stolen by the bourgeoisie.

See my answer to your No. 1. Not all communists are monolithic. Also, communists do not dwell on the past as a means of departure, their departure is today, their goal is changing what they have today.


3. As human society advances, and capitalism inevitably marches forward, the lines between proletariat and bourgeoisie are increasingly blurred or rendered meaningless. As the working class earns enough to become themselves part-owners of the land and the means of production, the struggle between the classes ceases to exist. It is capitalism that eventually eliminates all forms of inequality between humankind.

When has that ever happened? If anything, especially in the recession of today, there is now a wider gulf than ever before. Start reading Marx.

[Queercommie Girl]

I admit i don't understand it that why i joined, to ask questions, but anyways im just stating why i believe that Communism has not worked and will not work, socialism on the other hand has potential, I myself am Serbian and what Tito did for Yugoslavia economically speaking was quite the feat, but on the other hand he is the reason for all the Albanians coming into Serb land and having the nerve to declare it an independent country. But on the other hand National socialism, I am not a Nazi and i really don't like them in any way shape or form, but what Hitler did for Germany was the greatest economical transformation in the history of the world (correct me if I'm wrong)and did it without the cheap immigrant work which is something that America right now should be using as an example. So what i am trying to get at is leave behind failed and outdated political parties (communism) and try to develop a new and improved form of socialism with some extracts of national socialism(not the racist ones) and capitalism.

It isn't just about increases in productivity. It's also about actual improvements in people's qualities of life. What's the point of increasing productivity if it means mass slave labour, and then use such increases in productivity for destructive purposes like war, such as in Nazi Germany?

But I think objectively you are still within the socialist/leftist camp.

[AerodynamicOwl]

All classes come to HATE the idiocracy of the "revolutionary intellectuals." In Russia, the "workers" didn't like having their savings and property "liberated," and the grand "intellectuals" caused years of civil war and then executions (necessary to terrify the public into allowing them to "rule.")




Someone reads their history! the russian revolution of '17 had about fifteen casualties. However, the COUNTER revolution, caused a million plus deaths.

[AerodynamicOwl]

It isn't just about increases in productivity. It's also about actual improvements in people's qualities of life. What's the point of increasing productivity if it means mass slave labour, and then use such increases in productivity for destructive purposes like war, such as in Nazi Germany?

But I think objectively you are still within the socialist/leftist camp.

What does increased productivity provide? Time. to improve other things.

[Proletarian Ultra]

You have a job? Then you are a Capitalist.

If you have a job and don't have enough savings to live on if you had to retire right now, then you're just another prole.

[Bud Struggle]

If you have a job and don't have enough savings to live on if you had to retire right now, then you're just another prole.

My point was that you can't "choose" what economic or political or economic system you are in. Indeed, you are a proletarian if you are a worker.