To the capitalists! [Archive]

Don't Change Your Name

2nd August 2003, 03:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 08:39 PM
Has anyone of you ever bothered to ask the people working in these sweatshops how they feel? For most of them it means that they can afford more, send their children to school etc. Now we can all stop buying these products and condemn them back to life in poverty on the sawa's, or give this people a way to improve their condition. But thanks to your moral superiority a lot of sweatshops were already closed and lots of people (and children) now have the honorable job of prostitute.

Indonesia is far from capitalist, so is the US, people don't seem to want to understand. The US has an government which intervenes in the market. So you can call it either intervenionism or corporate mercantilism but it is far away from the real thing. Please read a book on the subject, instead of trying to pretend you know a bit about economics and politics..
Do you really believe that if I buy a Nike shoe i will be helping them?
No, if I pay U$S100 for the shoes, it is likely that they will only get 0,05 from it, the rest goes for the company. Oh, by the way, Nike changes their stuff once every 3 months or something like that. Considering that they are already a huge corporation, if some products dont sell, they will change them for new ones. The have enough money to do huge multimillonary ads, attract the stupids who support this system, and they will buy it, giving the corporation a huge income and they will need someone to make the products (the slaves working in a sheatshop). They always have enough money to avoid bankrupcy and try again with the new "super-cool air chamber multi-colour U$S1000 basketball shoe just do it", and giving few money to the poor slaves. They always have buyers and poor people to exploit.

So if the US are far from capitalism it means that they are selectives in who gets more money (obviously the ones who financed Bush's campaign).

Vinny Rafarino

2nd August 2003, 04:11

Loknar,

The only post regarding what you said came after your initial comment, nothing prior exists in this topic. Perhaps you have a couple different threads mixed up...anyway this post here will do;

313C7 iVi4RX,

Please provide us some insight how you came to the conclusion that comrade Stalin was not a "real" communist. Or you can be like all the other children here and whine a bit and then post some editorials condemning comrade Stalin that were written by either members of the nazi party or by prominent western capitalist journalists.

I get the distinct impression you have both never read any of Stalin's works, have limited knowledge of Soviet history and simply want to jump on the Che-lives anti-Stalin bandwagon.

By all means son, this board can use more cattle like you. If this forum was a ranch in texas, Malte would be a fucking billionaire texas cattle tycoon. You kids make me ill.

Dr. Rosenpenis

2nd August 2003, 04:18

Perhaps you will tell us how Stalin is a Communist?

Vinny Rafarino

2nd August 2003, 04:29

I am not claiming that comrade Stalin was not a communist. The burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Dr. Rosenpenis

2nd August 2003, 04:36

The reason why we acuse him of not being a communist is because you acused him of being one first. We wouldn't say that he was one if nobody had claimed that he was.

Vinny Rafarino

2nd August 2003, 05:12

You're kidding me right? I expected a better argument from you VC.

Dr. Rosenpenis

2nd August 2003, 06:22

alright, he failed to give power to the working class and instead created an oligarchy, how is any of thsi communistic?

Vinny Rafarino

2nd August 2003, 06:42

The ideal of Socialism and communism is to evolve the society to a point where the transition into a "utopian" marxist platform is possible. Marx himself stated that there will be a class transition period required to ready the economy and make the proletariat politically mature enough to actually be responsible without an acting body of gevernment. He also stated this intermediate system would most likely be "capitalist". Stalin was doing it using value based Socialism. And doing it well.

He was able to transcend Marx's recommendation for capitalism as the catalyst.

As you can see comrades Lenin and Stalin had done absolutely nothing to stray from the theories presented by Marx and Engels. This is textbook stuff VC. I would have thought you would have been aware of it.

To be considered a "communist" one must believe that the overall goal is to eventually evolve into a classless dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin and Stalin have been history's most perfect example of pure Marxist practise.

HankMorgan

2nd August 2003, 07:29

Imagine the New Balance shoe company looking at the Nike factory and seeing all those workers
working for almost nothing. They think to themselves that labor is so cheap there, that's the place
for us. The next thing you know there's a New Balance shoe factory just across the street from the
Nike shoe factory. Now to get workers to work in the New Balance factory, the New Balance
management offers the workers a little better deal than the Nike deal. Nike counters with a little
sweeter deal of their own.

Maybe it's not New Balance but Black and Decker or ACME Plumbing Fittings that comes in. You
get the idea of two or more factories competing for workers benefits the workers.

The cure for sweatshops like Nike's is not less capitalism, it's more capitalism. As long as no
government gets in the way the problem is self curing.

F_Hayek

2nd August 2003, 08:55

Your views are a bit clouded by what you think is capitalism El Infiltrado.

It is between choosing something bad and something worse. At least my point of view will keep people from having to prostitute themselves. And as far as I know most western companies have already been urged by consumers to provide schools etc to not only "exploit" this people but also to help build up the society. Again, I also ask you, as you seem to know what is perfectly right for this people, have you ever bothered to ask one "slave" how he feels. I know I have.

And to elaborate a bit more about the US, theoretical capitalism is without a government or with a small government for specific things like police and justice. Thanks to "progressive" thinking govenments started to intervene in markets because that found that individuals should also have social rights, thereby constructing wellfare states. But as pointed out in many studies this interventions had devastating consequences but instead of stopping governments intervened more, thus evolving to a form of state socialism like in Nazi-Germany. I have to agree that the US have some slight differences as opposed to European countries but nevertheless it is far from capitalistic.

Of course this is a very, very small nutshell but I am always prepared to enlighten you about capitalism or directing you to sources so you can read up. For instance Ludwig von Mises for your basic idea and a more contemporeaneous writer Raghuram G. Rajam.

F_Hayek

2nd August 2003, 09:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 10:50 PM
So...because the US places some restrictions on corporate America, it is not capitalist? Does that change the fact that Capitalism (or ineterventionism) is expolitative?

By saying that sweatshops are suitable for the time being untill Indonesia embraces the free market, are you also not implying that the ends justifies the means? Are you suggesting that it's okay for the working class to suffer from corporate exploitation untill the working class aquires a certain level of living condition? <_<
More clouds....

Even libertarians say that there is some form of coercion in this relationship. However both of the parties mutually benefit, and therefor there is no case for strange marxist dogmas. Western companies also always pay higher wages than local comapnies do.

And even you should know about the levels through which societies evolve. Couldn't socialism occur only and only when all countries are on the same level?

Unrelenting Steve

2nd August 2003, 12:28

Originally posted by F_Hayek+Aug 1 2003, 08:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (F_Hayek @ Aug 1 2003, 08:36 PM)
[email protected] 1 2003, 09:12 PM
I'm glad F_Hayek seems to ignore the conditions of the sweatshop and you probally wouldn't be able to talk to people who work in the sweatshops seeing that they might "disappear" if they speak out and are you saying that the people who work in sweatshops aren't living in poverty?
Compare to my state they do. But fortunately, though I would never want to work in such conditions, Nike (as do other companies) pay wages that are higher than normal. And as you know had you studied basic economics, a country first needs to get to a certain "level" before people can start thinking of working conditions or childlabour. Luckily the time needed for this development had dropped dramatically. So enforcing our standards on these countries is counterproductive and not in the interest of these people.

As an example of my story you should look at North and Sound Korea. In less than 50 years the latter became a well developed country by embracing free market principles, whereas it took the UK more than 100 years. [/b]
Actualy, Nike doesnt have ne facotries in Indonesia nemore, they all moved to China. Thats y we have so many rip off's or fakes, bc they still had the factories and the skills, so they sourced materials that where the closest and continued producing (with a less quality control) and you get fake nikes sold in Indonesia, Thailand ect. That particular adbuster is a very old one, that site has been around for years, I wasnt going to mention this, bc I just wanted to provoke some one plane thought, but this seemed relevant in the counter of certain responses.

Cassius Clay

2nd August 2003, 13:24

Perhaps it would be better for them to try and defend Capitalism by pointing out that it is a system which has led to worldwar, genocide, rascism and terror. Capitalists in the U$A, in Nazi Germany, in the British Empire, in Isreal have launched campaigns which result in oppression, violence , war and even extermination against entire peoples. And why do they do this because they are motivated by profit. The blame for the Holocaust lies not with Hitler and his Nazi Ideology but with the Capitalist companys who made profit, Nazism was able to come to power and then thrive because international Capitalism embraced it, no wonder so many Nazi beuracrates found a happy home in the FGR. Then you point to World War One, while millions of working people were slaughtered to protect the interests of their respective Empires. The United $tates has launched countless wars to keep the system of explotation safe and well, whenever people have threatened to rise against the system of Capitalism, the system which condemms people to oppression to a life not worth living the United $tates has resorted to terror, to upholding fascist dicatorships.

They fool out among themselves, just to decide who is top dog. The CIA recrutied Saddam, they gave him the list of communists and trade-uion officials and he went and slaughtered them. He invaded Iran to get hold of the oil, but when he got to big for his shoes the Capitalist system in the United $tates decided that the Capitalists in Iraq were no longer useful and the system condemmed over 1 million people to death in wars and sanctions.

Thats the system they defend and that's why over a Billion people live on less than a dollar a day, that's why 800 million people cant read. It's not just in Indonesia, in the U$ workers in prison are paid less than their counterparts in Salvador.

Oh yeah and Stalin was a Communist. That's why all the Capitalists from Hitler to Churchill to Franco to Reagen hate him.

F_Hayek

2nd August 2003, 14:36

I would allmost say that you are part of this 800 million. Your lack of historical sense, economic and political knowlegde is so amazing I am completely flabbergasted.

You belong in a circus next to the woman with three breasts and the part-human part-wolf man.

Bianconero

2nd August 2003, 15:04

F Hayek, slave of the capital, instead of repeating the lies you were told at school you should really try to deal with the facts comrade Cassius Clay listed. You better.

F_Hayek

2nd August 2003, 15:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 03:04 PM
F Hayek, slave of the capital, instead of repeating the lies you were told at school you should really try to deal with the facts comrade Cassius Clay listed. You better.
These are no facts but alterations of the truth so it can fit in your anti-capitalist propaganda. No government which intervenes is capitalist, for the fourth time.

And since our schools are infested with socialists teachers, I had to find it all out myself, whereas you just believe, without questioning, all the lies that are spread.

Bianconero

2nd August 2003, 15:24

"No government which intervenes is capitalist, for the fourth time."

Western governments are representing and defending the interests of the capital. They may therefor not be capitalists as such, they are their representation and take profit of corporations as they are paid by them.

F_Hayek

2nd August 2003, 15:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 03:24 PM
"No government which intervenes is capitalist, for the fourth time."

Western governments are representing and defending the interests of the capital. They may therefor not be capitalists as such, they are their representation and take profit of corporations as they are paid by them.
See, you alter it again. If we can agree on the fact that this is not capitalism, but merely abuse of power, we can have a normal conservation. But blaming WW2, genocide etc etc on capitalism, that is just tragic stupidity.

Bianconero

2nd August 2003, 16:31

I didn't alter it, I just put it in concrete forms as I didn't know before that you would insists on this deail which is actually of no relevance at all. And, F Hayek, we can't agree that 'this is not capitalism, but merely abuse of power' as capitalism is abuse of power. And there is no way you can deny that these historical events listed by CC were a result of capitalism. Taking fascist Germany as an example, even western historians admit that Hitler was put to power by German corporations.

Dr. Rosenpenis

2nd August 2003, 16:47

RAF, yes I'm aware of the transition period between capitalism and communism. The transition period though, should work as a bridge between the old, decadent, and oppressive system of capitalism, and communism, which is radicaly different. Stalin did nothing to work toward the eventual goal of communism. The transition period, or the dictatorship of the proletariat, should consist of a democracy, I think.

Vinny Rafarino

2nd August 2003, 16:56

You must have been studying the Fox News history book on Soviet History if that's what you think.
How very amusing.

F_Hayek

2nd August 2003, 18:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 04:31 PM
I didn't alter it, I just put it in concrete forms as I didn't know before that you would insists on this deail which is actually of no relevance at all. And, F Hayek, we can't agree that 'this is not capitalism, but merely abuse of power' as capitalism is abuse of power. And there is no way you can deny that these historical events listed by CC were a result of capitalism. Taking fascist Germany as an example, even western historians admit that Hitler was put to power by German corporations.
I am sorry but you do know the difference between a political system and an economic system?

So, because Hitler was brought to power German corporations (which is of course bs since he was democratically elected) WW2 can be blaimed by capitalism? Pretty lame argument don't you agree. I can just as easily point out that in fact the German system at that time was a form of socialism, as the NSDAP defacto controlled economic life. Thus there was no free market, so consequently no capitalism.

Bianconero

2nd August 2003, 18:22

"I am sorry but you do know the difference between a political system and an economic system?"

Economics and politics are going hand in hand. An economic system can only exist if the political system ensures the preconditions for its existance.

"So, because Hitler was brought to power German corporations (which is of course bs since he was democratically elected) WW2 can be blaimed by capitalism?"

Keep in mind that he was supported financially by corporations. You win elections when you have enough money for propaganda, when you are in controll of the media etc.

And corporations (i.e. capitalists) took profit from WW2 yes.

"I can just as easily point out that in fact the German system at that time was a form of socialism, as the NSDAP defacto controlled economic life. Thus there was no free market, so consequently no capitalism."

No, collegue. Don't bring that 'you know nazism is a form of socialism' - thing in now. I guess that you should really learn what socialism is before expressing these lies of the capital.

And, Nazism was a system of free market capitalism. This is fact, as simple as that.

Don't Change Your Name

2nd August 2003, 19:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 08:55 AM
Your views are a bit clouded by what you think is capitalism El Infiltrado.

It is between choosing something bad and something worse. At least my point of view will keep people from having to prostitute themselves. And as far as I know most western companies have already been urged by consumers to provide schools etc to not only "exploit" this people but also to help build up the society. Again, I also ask you, as you seem to know what is perfectly right for this people, have you ever bothered to ask one "slave" how he feels. I know I have.

And to elaborate a bit more about the US, theoretical capitalism is without a government or with a small government for specific things like police and justice. Thanks to "progressive" thinking govenments started to intervene in markets because that found that individuals should also have social rights, thereby constructing wellfare states. But as pointed out in many studies this interventions had devastating consequences but instead of stopping governments intervened more, thus evolving to a form of state socialism like in Nazi-Germany. I have to agree that the US have some slight differences as opposed to European countries but nevertheless it is far from capitalistic.

Of course this is a very, very small nutshell but I am always prepared to enlighten you about capitalism or directing you to sources so you can read up. For instance Ludwig von Mises for your basic idea and a more contemporeaneous writer Raghuram G. Rajam.
I live in Argentina. Menem was a damn asshole who ruled 10 years and he even wanted to come back (1989-1999). During that time he promised everyone the first world. Everyone could buy TVs, computers, cars, but at the same time he, as he was a pro-yankee capitalist, let me multinational companies come and buy anything, which including privatizing everything, and he also created huge unemployment. The state also ran out of reserves to keep the 1 peso=1dollar thing and followed evertyhing the IMF said. I want to know why was there so much unemployment.

Coming back to what we were discussing, if this multinational companies start to "help build the society" as you said, it means they also take control of everything about their lives. This people wont have any freedom. It seems you system only thinks this people will have a decent life after many years. The competitive way capitalism works doesnt ensure that all countries will develop. If more multinational companies appear to give this people work, there will be many simmilar companies, prices will fall, many will fail, we will be surrounded by ads all the time (more than now). Their owners will think that it is good because prices fall so people consumes more, they get more income, and everything looks amazing, but...
...the poor sweatshop workers will keep gaining the same.
Yes, the owners of this corporations take all the benefit working less than them and with better conditions. Even if so many corporations give them work and the competitive relation between them makes them give better condition to workers to get them, they will have to buy stuff to live, they will need everytime more money, and if the corporations dont have buyers they cant expand because they wont gain money from that people from poor countries, so they must cut wages or produce less.
My point is: capitalism is a cause-effect chain where crisis are usual, and its companies do not work as a organization of people trying to get money, it works with everyone trying to gain as much as possible but the collective work profit is gained on different levels.

Oh, and to make the poor workers get the money they need to live in good conditions, they will have to prostitute with businessmen.

And what happened with Roosevelt? I "heard" he saved the US using social-democrats ideas, that you dont seem to like. Theoretical capitalism works with a small government which trains mercenaries to protect the richest people, like the US Army, protecting the "Americans" from the terrorist and other dangers.

Dr. Rosenpenis

2nd August 2003, 19:35

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 2 2003, 10:56 AM
You must have been studying the Fox News history book on Soviet History if that's what you think.
How very amusing.
What the hell are you talking about?

Saint-Just

2nd August 2003, 21:38

F_Hayek, you are repeatedly arguing that what are universally perceived as capitalist systems; Western Europe, U.S. etc. are in fact not capitalist.

I imagine that you subscribe to Hayek's philosophy and likely Friedmanite economics; a neo-classic liberal. Obviously then you would not see these nations as having ideal systems since they do not follow the neo-liberal line precisely. Your view of capitalism is the neo-liberal one, one of a completely free market. Perhaps you believe the government should only provide currency, national defence and law... and something else that he said.

Anyway, these nations do embrace free market principles and the ideas of those such as Hayek to a great extent. Particularly in the U.S.

They may not have created your model of an absolutely free maket society. But they have gone a great way towards doing so.

You have claimed you understand the basic concepts of politics and economics. I don't doubt this in the slightest. But since you do, you will know its commonly accepted that economies such as the U.S. are termed free market as over 60% of the market is privately controlled.

I accept the U.S. is not an ideal capitalist society in the views of neo-liberals. But even in their eyes it is a capitalist society.

Morpheus

2nd August 2003, 23:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 09:36 PM
you should look at North and Sound Korea. In less than 50 years the latter became a well developed country by embracing free market principles, whereas it took the UK more than 100 years.
South Korea industrialized through a series of five year plans, with joint state-corporate planning (similar to Mussolini's Italy). It didn't really embrace "free market principles" unless "free market principles" means state planning boards. So your example is pretty weak.

Vinny Rafarino

2nd August 2003, 23:24

Not only that Morpheus but he is also citing an example of one half of a nation having full economic support of the USA while the other half suffers from global sanctions on behalf of US and it's allies.

Yes, a very poor example indeed.

VC,

I should have been a bit clearer, this is the portion of your statement I was referring to;

"Stalin did nothing to work toward the eventual goal of communism. The transition period, or the dictatorship of the proletariat, should consist of a democracy, I think."

Saying Stalin did nothing to advance communism means you have no knowledge of Soviet politics and economics from 1924-1953. The transition period is not the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship of the proletariat can only happen upon the onset of stateless communism. I'm not sure what you were thinking when you hint to the Soviet Union not being a democracy. It is fully well known that comrade Stalin was elected by the proletariat into power and had no such thing as "absolute power".

Who has been feeding you these lies VC?

Dr. Rosenpenis

3rd August 2003, 00:29

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marx/Engels

This dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. This dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class — that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.

Rosa Luxemburg

I took these from marxists.org, by the way. It seems you are the one who has been fed lies, comrade RAF. Stalin acomplished nothing of what i would classify as a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Vinny Rafarino

3rd August 2003, 01:59

Not so VC. You have completely take his philosophy out of context. The dictatorship of the proletariat in the intermediate stages of the advancement to communism is indeed the "ruling party" (If there is a "ruling party" how can there then be a pure "communist dictatorship of the proletariat"?) This is where you have made your mistake. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" after the onset of communism is what I have been referring to (in other words, the "classless" dictatorship of the proletariat versus the "ruling class" dictatorship of the proletariat.)

I will now quote directly from the "manifest of the communist party";

We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.

Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

As we all know, the ruling vanguard of the Soviet Union was taken from the ranks of the proletariat. This indeed proves that Leninism and Stalin's extension of Leninism has never waivered from that of true Marxism. Stalin's eventual goal; The "classless" dictatorship of the proletariat.

This is straight from the Communist Manifesto and cannot be refuted VC. I suggest you retract your last statement.

EDIT:

In addition, Rosa Luxemburg's opinion on marxism has nothing to do with our conversation.

luckydevi

3rd August 2003, 02:21

How hard is it to understand, corporatism is not capitalism. Rather it is fascism.

Vinny Rafarino

3rd August 2003, 02:38

I think you may be mixed up on what "fascism" is my friend.

In addition,

Privitisation of the means of production with the intent to make profit from a market controlled value-based economic platform is indeed capitalism at it's very core. Without "corporatism" (not sure where this word came from) or the "privitisation of the means of production" there cannot be capitalism.

Unless of course you are an imprudent Trot; they make up all sorts of new "ideas". "State Capitalism" is one of their better illusions.

Dr. Rosenpenis

3rd August 2003, 04:47

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" after the onset of communism is what I have been referring to (in other words, the "classless" dictatorship of the proletariat versus the "ruling class" dictatorship of the proletariat.)

are you saying there are two dictatorships of the proletariat, one before the onset of communism, and one after?! This makes littles sense, please clarify. Right now i'm just trying to understand your post.

Vinny Rafarino

3rd August 2003, 04:56

In a sense yes VC. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" during the socialist period is comprised of members of the proletarian class that have been elevated to the level of ruling class (these are Marx's words not mine) Hence, even though there is still a "ruling class" this body is made up of the proletariat.

One can also interpret Marx's ideal as an ongoing dictatorship of the proletariat that evolves into a "classless" dictatorship of the proletariat during the indroduction of communism into the Socialist society.

Either way you can see that Lenin and Stalin have in no way strayed from Marxian philosophy ever during their combined leadership of the Soviet Union.

How can this not make sense to you? I have even pulled the original text straight from The Communist Manifesto! Again, these are Marx's words not mine.

Try simply reading the end portion of Marx's words;

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

I hope the picture is clear to you now my friend.

Dr. Rosenpenis

3rd August 2003, 05:17

Just because Stalin claimed to have lead in the name of the working class, does not mean he did. He created an oligarchy, like I said, consisting of beurocrats and politicians, this ruling class worked as an oppressor of the proletariat. If the working class had truly emancipated, would they have been so eager to leave behind their "communism"? What i'm saying is that if tehy truly had any power, they would have fought to maintain that power.

And he did stray away from marxism, because as you can see from the quote you posted above, the transition period must be led by the working class, not by an oligarchy.

edit: nice quote, by the way, very nice.

Vinny Rafarino

3rd August 2003, 06:08

Thank you for the compliment. I see right through that hack.

You speak like comrade Stalin held absolute power. This is what I don't understand. Any newly formed state will require government until the masses are politically and emotionally mature enough to govern themselves. Comrade Stalin never once gave off the suspicion he had wavered in his commitment to the proletariat. Never once.

F_Hayek

3rd August 2003, 10:28

Economics and politics are going hand in hand. An economic system can only exist if the political system ensures the preconditions for its existance.

Not necessarily. Why would the left as well as right talk about anarchism? Unfortunately all western policies are guided by anti-capitalistic ideas.

No, collegue. Don't bring that 'you know nazism is a form of socialism' - thing in now. I guess that you should really learn what socialism is before expressing these lies of the capital.

And, Nazism was a system of free market capitalism. This is fact, as simple as that.

I do know what socialism is and even better what capitalism is. And here a short piece of Ludwig von Mises regarding this subject

E.13
Second: There are two different patterns for the realization of socialism. The one pattern—we may call it the Marxian or Russian pattern—is purely bureaucratic. All economic enterprises are departments of the government just as the administration of the army and the navy or the postal system. Every single plant, shop or farm, stands in the same relation to the superior central organization as does a post office to the office of the Postmaster-General. The whole nation forms one single labour army with compulsory service; the commander of this army is the chief of state.

E.14
The second pattern—we may call it the German or Zwangswirtschaft system*55—differs from the first one in that it, seemingly and nominally, maintains private ownership of the means of production, entrepreneurship, and market exchange. So-called entrepreneurs do the buying and selling, pay the workers, contract debts and pay interest and amortization. But they are no longer entrepreneurs. In Nazi Germany they were called shop managers or Betriebsführer. The government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham. As all prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the authority, they are prices, wages and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the authoritarian orders determining each citizen's income, consumption and standard of living. The authority, not the consumers, directs production. The central board of production management is supreme; all citizens are nothing else but civil servants. This is socialism with the outward appearance of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify here something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.

F_Hayek

3rd August 2003, 10:34

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+Aug 2 2003, 07:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Infiltr(A)do @ Aug 2 2003, 07:12 PM)
[email protected] 2 2003, 08:55 AM
Your views are a bit clouded by what you think is capitalism El Infiltrado.

It is between choosing something bad and something worse. At least my point of view will keep people from having to prostitute themselves. And as far as I know most western companies have already been urged by consumers to provide schools etc to not only "exploit" this people but also to help build up the society. Again, I also ask you, as you seem to know what is perfectly right for this people, have you ever bothered to ask one "slave" how he feels. I know I have.

And to elaborate a bit more about the US, theoretical capitalism is without a government or with a small government for specific things like police and justice. Thanks to "progressive" thinking govenments started to intervene in markets because that found that individuals should also have social rights, thereby constructing wellfare states. But as pointed out in many studies this interventions had devastating consequences but instead of stopping governments intervened more, thus evolving to a form of state socialism like in Nazi-Germany. I have to agree that the US have some slight differences as opposed to European countries but nevertheless it is far from capitalistic.

Of course this is a very, very small nutshell but I am always prepared to enlighten you about capitalism or directing you to sources so you can read up. For instance Ludwig von Mises for your basic idea and a more contemporeaneous writer Raghuram G. Rajam.
I live in Argentina. Menem was a damn asshole who ruled 10 years and he even wanted to come back (1989-1999). During that time he promised everyone the first world. Everyone could buy TVs, computers, cars, but at the same time he, as he was a pro-yankee capitalist, let me multinational companies come and buy anything, which including privatizing everything, and he also created huge unemployment. The state also ran out of reserves to keep the 1 peso=1dollar thing and followed evertyhing the IMF said. I want to know why was there so much unemployment.

Coming back to what we were discussing, if this multinational companies start to "help build the society" as you said, it means they also take control of everything about their lives. This people wont have any freedom. It seems you system only thinks this people will have a decent life after many years. The competitive way capitalism works doesnt ensure that all countries will develop. If more multinational companies appear to give this people work, there will be many simmilar companies, prices will fall, many will fail, we will be surrounded by ads all the time (more than now). Their owners will think that it is good because prices fall so people consumes more, they get more income, and everything looks amazing, but...
...the poor sweatshop workers will keep gaining the same.
Yes, the owners of this corporations take all the benefit working less than them and with better conditions. Even if so many corporations give them work and the competitive relation between them makes them give better condition to workers to get them, they will have to buy stuff to live, they will need everytime more money, and if the corporations dont have buyers they cant expand because they wont gain money from that people from poor countries, so they must cut wages or produce less.
My point is: capitalism is a cause-effect chain where crisis are usual, and its companies do not work as a organization of people trying to get money, it works with everyone trying to gain as much as possible but the collective work profit is gained on different levels.

Oh, and to make the poor workers get the money they need to live in good conditions, they will have to prostitute with businessmen.

And what happened with Roosevelt? I "heard" he saved the US using social-democrats ideas, that you dont seem to like. Theoretical capitalism works with a small government which trains mercenaries to protect the richest people, like the US Army, protecting the "Americans" from the terrorist and other dangers. [/b]
Unfortunately you're wrong el infiltrado, the statistics clearly show that countries that embrace free market develop quicker and aer catching up on western countries.

But they can of course take the Mugabe-way, embrace socialism with a corrupt government and create another Russia.

New deal politics were very counterproductive on the longer term, and anywhy, the great depression was caused by government interference in the economy.

Cassius Clay

3rd August 2003, 11:10

Well thats the first time I've heard that the great depression was caused by government interference. The complete opposite is the generally accept3ed view, Hoover and the Republicans refused to get involved even after 1929.

Now Hitler rather than 'winning' a election was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg, Papen and co, ie the government of the Weimar Republic. He then banned any socialist opposition (KPD) and held a election. Nazi Germany was Capitalist, and therefor the blame for the holocaust goes with Capitalist Germany and the Capitalist companys (note no government interference there) who profited from the slave labour and death camps. Even Adam Smith admitted that some government involvement in affairs was neccessary for Capitalism to thrive.

Goldfinger

3rd August 2003, 11:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 11:34 AM
But they can of course take the Mugabe-way, embrace socialism with a corrupt government and create another Russia.
How is Mugabe embracing socialism? By calling himself a socialist, just like the North Korean government call them self democratic? I think your judgement is questionable.

F_Hayek

3rd August 2003, 11:28

Originally posted by Cassius [email protected] 3 2003, 11:10 AM
Well thats the first time I've heard that the great depression was caused by government interference. The complete opposite is the generally accept3ed view, Hoover and the Republicans refused to get involved even after 1929.

Now Hitler rather than 'winning' a election was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg, Papen and co, ie the government of the Weimar Republic. He then banned any socialist opposition (KPD) and held a election. Nazi Germany was Capitalist, and therefor the blame for the holocaust goes with Capitalist Germany and the Capitalist companys (note no government interference there) who profited from the slave labour and death camps. Even Adam Smith admitted that some government involvement in affairs was neccessary for Capitalism to thrive.
It depends on whether you see central banks also as capitalistic or not.

Hmmm, all directors belonged to the Nazi-party so again no argument. Hitler also indicted capitalism also for its "bourgeois" pacifism which goes against human nature. Nazi-Germany may indeed have things on which you could put the label "capitalism", in practice it was however the total opposite.

But the extent of involvement is very important when deciding whether it was socialist or capitalist.

Saint-Just

3rd August 2003, 15:46

Are you going to reply to my post on the previous page F_Hayek?

F_Hayek

3rd August 2003, 16:33

Of course Chairman Mao.

I am indeed a follower of those mentioned, but I don't agree with you. Percentages don't count, you either choose capitalism or socialism. Western governments however created a third form, which combines worst of both worlds. If you base your definition solemly on "private ownership" vs. "public ownership" then we can agree but adding free markets in it we cannot. There is no such thing as free markets. Don't let Bush decieve you.

With respect to where we are now, I believe we are further from capitalism than we were. You see some hopeful things looking at trade liberalization but also more government interventions especially in Europe (minimum wage, tariffs etc). So it levels a bit, and then I am not even talking about personal freedom.

Dr. Rosenpenis

3rd August 2003, 16:35

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 3 2003, 12:08 AM
Thank you for the compliment. I see right through that hack.

You speak like comrade Stalin held absolute power. This is what I don't understand. Any newly formed state will require government until the masses are politically and emotionally mature enough to govern themselves. Comrade Stalin never once gave off the suspicion he had wavered in his commitment to the proletariat. Never once.
If a political party is given power to govern over the people, then they have just have formed a class of their own, that is why the dictatorship of the proletariat must be democratic. Notice how it's called the dictatorship of the proletariat, this means that the proletariat must have power, as they are the ones who will suppress the bourgeoisie. It is never in the class interest of the ruling class, no matter who it consist of, to bring the workers to power.

Caldric

3rd August 2003, 18:21

Wrong thread, my reply was for this thread (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=16114&st=20). My mistake.

Rastafari

3rd August 2003, 18:29

my favorite Russian Scientist of all time was AI Oparin, buds with Stalin who gave us much of what we think on how life started. Him...and the American Stanley Miller

Rastafari

3rd August 2003, 18:33

Their were no Russian scientists enlisted in the United States Jet Program or Space Program after WWII.

maybe not, but NASA relied pretty heavily on Wehrner von Braun and the physics world took a lot from Heissenburg as well, both Nazi scientists (Heissenburg tried to build Hitler the bomb).

But better to be helped by our old enemies than by the people who won the war, right?

Saint-Just

3rd August 2003, 20:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 04:33 PM
Of course Chairman Mao.

I am indeed a follower of those mentioned, but I don't agree with you. Percentages don't count, you either choose capitalism or socialism. Western governments however created a third form, which combines worst of both worlds. If you base your definition solemly on "private ownership" vs. "public ownership" then we can agree but adding free markets in it we cannot. There is no such thing as free markets. Don't let Bush decieve you.

With respect to where we are now, I believe we are further from capitalism than we were. You see some hopeful things looking at trade liberalization but also more government interventions especially in Europe (minimum wage, tariffs etc). So it levels a bit, and then I am not even talking about personal freedom.
Ok, thank you. I am not particularly familiar with neo-liberals, so I don't know how representative your view is. I imagine Ghost Writer would disagree with you anyway.

I don't believe it is acceptable to say the U.S. is not capitalism. I realise that it is not neo-liberalism. It is not what Friedman described, but it is generally accepted to be capitalism.

Thatcher strongly subscribed to Friedman and Hayek, and she would call Britain and the U.S. capitalist.

I think you are very much a liberal more than anything else.

Don't Change Your Name

3rd August 2003, 20:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 10:34 AM
Unfortunately you're wrong el infiltrado, the statistics clearly show that countries that embrace free market develop quicker and aer catching up on western countries.

But they can of course take the Mugabe-way, embrace socialism with a corrupt government and create another Russia.

New deal politics were very counterproductive on the longer term, and anywhy, the great depression was caused by government interference in the economy.
Develop quicker than what? I already gave you the example of my country. It's all a brainwash, they made everyone believe we were in the 1st world, and then when that menem government left, the following government had to rise the taxes to gain reserves, and still many people was unemployed.
The consequences can be seen today, 50% of the country is poor.
So what did liberalism left us? Unemployment, general poorness (mid class got smaller), people who couldnt take out the money from the banks (banks would get broke if they did), every single thing triplicated the price, hig taxes, and many corrupt people controlling the media.

So, the depression was because of government interference in the economy? Please explain me why.

Vinny Rafarino

3rd August 2003, 21:52

Originally posted by Victorcommie+Aug 3 2003, 04:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Victorcommie @ Aug 3 2003, 04:35 PM)
COMRADE [email protected] 3 2003, 12:08 AM
Thank you for the compliment. I see right through that hack.

You speak like comrade Stalin held absolute power. This is what I don't understand. Any newly formed state will require government until the masses are politically and emotionally mature enough to govern themselves. Comrade Stalin never once gave off the suspicion he had wavered in his commitment to the proletariat. Never once.
If a political party is given power to govern over the people, then they have just have formed a class of their own, that is why the dictatorship of the proletariat must be democratic. Notice how it's called the dictatorship of the proletariat, this means that the proletariat must have power, as they are the ones who will suppress the bourgeoisie. It is never in the class interest of the ruling class, no matter who it consist of, to bring the workers to power. [/b]
I don't disagree with you VC however this is how Marx has written it. It is known that the intermediate stages of communism will have a ruling body as the masses are indeed too politically immature and irresponsible to govern themseves without bias. Honestly the proletariat at this point does not posess the knowledge noe even the desire to participate in the ruling body. Would you rather have a ruling body taken from the ranks of the proletarian or a ruling body taken from the ranks of the former bourgois elite? If the ruling bady is taken from the proletariat, as the case in the Soviet Union then the revelution has followed Marxian Philosophy to the letter. I simply do not undertstand how fellow Marxists can ignore this fact when it's written (and make no mistake, it's writted clearly) directly in the Manifesto.

I do not agree with you that it's never in the intrest of the ruling body to being the proletariat to power and here's why;

for starters the proletariat already is in power. It is up to our more dedicated comrades within the party to make sure the overall goal is not lost. The absolute goal of communism is to create a form of society where no one is brought to power. It would only be of intrest for a ruling body to remain in power if there was something this body was gaining by being in power, essentially great wealth. This never happened in the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin as their commitment to the people never waivered. It was only when Khruschev re-introduced capitalism that the ruling body no longer has a reason to release themselves from power asw they were becoming wealthy. Notice what happened, the ruling body never released themselves from power and the Union crumbled under the weight ogfthe bloated and disgusting body of capitalism. It's too bad comrade Stalin was unable to hand-pick his own successor.

This information is all there. One must simply have the eyes to see it.

Dr. Rosenpenis

4th August 2003, 03:23

I do not agree with you that it's never in the intrest of the ruling body to being the proletariat to power and here's why;

for starters the proletariat already is in power. It is up to our more dedicated comrades within the party to make sure the overall goal is not lost. The absolute goal of communism is to create a form of society where no one is brought to power. It would only be of intrest for a ruling body to remain in power if there was something this body was gaining by being in power, essentially great wealth. This never happened in the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin as their commitment to the people never waivered. It was only when Khruschev re-introduced capitalism that the ruling body no longer has a reason to release themselves from power asw they were becoming wealthy. Notice what happened, the ruling body never released themselves from power and the Union crumbled under the weight ogfthe bloated and disgusting body of capitalism. It's too bad comrade Stalin was unable to hand-pick his own successor.

wouldn't the possesion of power be enough to keep the ruling class from giving up their position?

Dr. Rosenpenis

4th August 2003, 03:29

I don't disagree with you VC however this is how Marx has written it. It is known that the intermediate stages of communism will have a ruling body as the masses are indeed too politically immature and irresponsible to govern themseves without bias. Honestly the proletariat at this point does not posess the knowledge noe even the desire to participate in the ruling body. Would you rather have a ruling body taken from the ranks of the proletarian or a ruling body taken from the ranks of the former bourgois elite? If the ruling bady is taken from the proletariat, as the case in the Soviet Union then the revelution has followed Marxian Philosophy to the letter. I simply do not undertstand how fellow Marxists can ignore this fact when it's written (and make no mistake, it's writted clearly) directly in the Manifesto.

This dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. This dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class — that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.
Rosa Luxemburg

she specificaly wrote that the masses must have active participation in the dictatorship of the proletariat, it must be under their direct influence, it must not be led by a small leading minority in the name of the class.

Vinny Rafarino

4th August 2003, 04:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 03:23 AM
I do not agree with you that it's never in the intrest of the ruling body to being the proletariat to power and here's why;

for starters the proletariat already is in power. It is up to our more dedicated comrades within the party to make sure the overall goal is not lost. The absolute goal of communism is to create a form of society where no one is brought to power. It would only be of intrest for a ruling body to remain in power if there was something this body was gaining by being in power, essentially great wealth. This never happened in the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin as their commitment to the people never waivered. It was only when Khruschev re-introduced capitalism that the ruling body no longer has a reason to release themselves from power asw they were becoming wealthy. Notice what happened, the ruling body never released themselves from power and the Union crumbled under the weight ogfthe bloated and disgusting body of capitalism. It's too bad comrade Stalin was unable to hand-pick his own successor.

wouldn't the possesion of power be enough to keep the ruling class from giving up their position?

That's a philosophy that has never been proven to be absolutely true. look at it like this;

The individuals who like to say "absolute power corrupts absolutely" are ones that have never been in a position of power since choices made within their lives keep them from ever attaining this type of sociological role. It is a form of "power envy". These individuals are usually incapable of possessing the required intellect necessary to conduct a governmental body. Is it not possible for there to be enlightened individuals thoughout the globe that care not for the "trill" that a position of power warrants? I deem there is. I also deem that comrade Stalin was one of these individuals, as is comrade Castro. Neither of these individuals ever did anything to directly counter the revolution and I believe died (and will die) with hopes that his successor will not stray from the path to communism. If this were true with either of these leaders they would have instantly turned the State into as capitalist nation where greed and the pursuit of monetary wealth are not in direct confliict with their national governmental platform. Khruschev was indeed one of these greed mongers and what did he do? Re-introduced capitalism so he cann pursue his filthy desires without being a hipocrite.

One can look at it like this, the vanguard has dedicated their lives to the advancement of communism, even serving time in prison in most cases. Why is it that they cannot be trusted to not waiver from the path that they themselves created?

This dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. This dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class — that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.
Rosa Luxemburg

she specificaly wrote that the masses must have active participation in the dictatorship of the proletariat, it must be under their direct influence, it must not be led by a small leading minority in the name of the class

Ideally this is a wonderful philosophy, but I fear in the initial stages of the State, the proletariat is not politically mature enough to govern an entire nation that is rebuilding it's own economy and politics from the decadence of it's predecessor. (again, Marx's words in a nutshell) This is not to say the proletariat has no part in the new government. As the means of production are still owned by the proletariat, their roles in the mid to lower level of governing production are invaluable.

You must also consider the fact that the majority of the masses absolutely will not want to take part in the governing body. Very few people would choose being the tender over being the tendee. This is common human psychology.

Rosa's ideals in this case are theoretically beautiful however not very practical.

F_Hayek

4th August 2003, 16:51

Ok, thank you. I am not particularly familiar with neo-liberals, so I don't know how representative your view is. I imagine Ghost Writer would disagree with you anyway.

I don't believe it is acceptable to say the U.S. is not capitalism. I realise that it is not neo-liberalism. It is not what Friedman described, but it is generally accepted to be capitalism.

Thatcher strongly subscribed to Friedman and Hayek, and she would call Britain and the U.S. capitalist.

I think you are very much a liberal more than anything else.

You have the livertarian movement in the US which I think is the third largest party now. They also strongly criticise US politics.

Thatcher did some good thinks in economic sense but she was very conservative on other things, like euthanisia, drugs, abortion, so she is not on my list of admirable politicians.

F_Hayek

4th August 2003, 16:54

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 3 2003, 08:20 PM
[QUOTE=F_Hayek,Aug 3 2003, 10:34 AM]
Develop quicker than what? I already gave you the example of my country. It's all a brainwash, they made everyone believe we were in the 1st world, and then when that menem government left, the following government had to rise the taxes to gain reserves, and still many people was unemployed.
The consequences can be seen today, 50% of the country is poor.
So what did liberalism left us? Unemployment, general poorness (mid class got smaller), people who couldnt take out the money from the banks (banks would get broke if they did), every single thing triplicated the price, hig taxes, and many corrupt people controlling the media.

So, the depression was because of government interference in the economy? Please explain me why.
Yeah so??? Blame it on the politicians, not on the system.

Vinny Rafarino

4th August 2003, 19:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 04:51 PM

Ok, thank you. I am not particularly familiar with neo-liberals, so I don't know how representative your view is. I imagine Ghost Writer would disagree with you anyway.

I don't believe it is acceptable to say the U.S. is not capitalism. I realise that it is not neo-liberalism. It is not what Friedman described, but it is generally accepted to be capitalism.

Thatcher strongly subscribed to Friedman and Hayek, and she would call Britain and the U.S. capitalist.

I think you are very much a liberal more than anything else.

You have the livertarian movement in the US which I think is the third largest party now. They also strongly criticise US politics.

Thatcher did some good thinks in economic sense but she was very conservative on other things, like euthanisia, drugs, abortion, so she is not on my list of admirable politicians.
Please show me statistically how Thatcher did some "good" things economically. Having lived under Thatcher in London i can assure you tour statement is complete bollocks.

F_Hayek

4th August 2003, 20:30

I am hardly surprised you are not content with lowering income taxes, breaking the power of the unions, or privatization of state-owned companies.

But of course you are for instance referring to the rise in unemployment during her reign? It's not that easy to transform your economy after it has been devastated by the labour governments. At least the British economy is now one of the best in Europa. I will look up all the sources for you since you only get information from people that now little of economics.

I am semi british so ha ha.

Dr. Rosenpenis

4th August 2003, 20:42

That's a philosophy that has never been proven to be absolutely true. look at it like this;

The individuals who like to say "absolute power corrupts absolutely" are ones that have never been in a position of power since choices made within their lives keep them from ever attaining this type of sociological role. It is a form of "power envy". These individuals are usually incapable of possessing the required intellect necessary to conduct a governmental body. Is it not possible for there to be enlightened individuals thoughout the globe that care not for the "trill" that a position of power warrants? I deem there is. I also deem that comrade Stalin was one of these individuals, as is comrade Castro. Neither of these individuals ever did anything to directly counter the revolution and I believe died (and will die) with hopes that his successor will not stray from the path to communism. If this were true with either of these leaders they would have instantly turned the State into as capitalist nation where greed and the pursuit of monetary wealth are not in direct confliict with their national governmental platform. Khruschev was indeed one of these greed mongers and what did he do? Re-introduced capitalism so he cann pursue his filthy desires without being a hipocrite.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely is true because anyone who is given power will try to hold on to that power for the sake of being able to have so much control. People want control, and power is the way to attain control. I suppose some people may not, but we cannot trust any single person to be selfless. Even if they are, i predict it's easy to become corrupt. An oligarchal system is an ideal setting for a leader to be overcome by greed, money is not needed for this to happen.

One can look at it like this, the vanguard has dedicated their lives to the advancement of communism, even serving time in prison in most cases. Why is it that they cannot be trusted to not waiver from the path that they themselves created?

Because they are now members of the ruling class.

Ideally this is a wonderful philosophy, but I fear in the initial stages of the State, the proletariat is not politically mature enough to govern an entire nation that is rebuilding it's own economy and politics from the decadence of it's predecessor. (again, Marx's words in a nutshell) This is not to say the proletariat has no part in the new government. As the means of production are still owned by the proletariat, their roles in the mid to lower level of governing production are invaluable.

You must also consider the fact that the majority of the masses absolutely will not want to take part in the governing body. Very few people would choose being the tender over being the tendee. This is common human psychology.

Rosa's ideals in this case are theoretically beautiful however not very practical.

the above contradicts the basic values of democracy and the peoples' rights of self-determination as a whole. Why are they not "mature" enough in the initial stage? Please explain to me how the propletariat will mature as communism develops. As soon as the revolution occurs, the people will be given independence from the shckles of capitalism, their will be no proggress if the power shifts to a new ruling class. For the working class to be truly free, they must have power. Subjection to another classes' rule is by no means freedom, this is basic communist ideolofy, RAF.

Vinny Rafarino

5th August 2003, 00:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 08:42 PM
That's a philosophy that has never been proven to be absolutely true. look at it like this;

The individuals who like to say "absolute power corrupts absolutely" are ones that have never been in a position of power since choices made within their lives keep them from ever attaining this type of sociological role. It is a form of "power envy". These individuals are usually incapable of possessing the required intellect necessary to conduct a governmental body. Is it not possible for there to be enlightened individuals thoughout the globe that care not for the "trill" that a position of power warrants? I deem there is. I also deem that comrade Stalin was one of these individuals, as is comrade Castro. Neither of these individuals ever did anything to directly counter the revolution and I believe died (and will die) with hopes that his successor will not stray from the path to communism. If this were true with either of these leaders they would have instantly turned the State into as capitalist nation where greed and the pursuit of monetary wealth are not in direct confliict with their national governmental platform. Khruschev was indeed one of these greed mongers and what did he do? Re-introduced capitalism so he cann pursue his filthy desires without being a hipocrite.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely is true because anyone who is given power will try to hold on to that power for the sake of being able to have so much control. People want control, and power is the way to attain control. I suppose some people may not, but we cannot trust any single person to be selfless. Even if they are, i predict it's easy to become corrupt. An oligarchal system is an ideal setting for a leader to be overcome by greed, money is not needed for this to happen.

One can look at it like this, the vanguard has dedicated their lives to the advancement of communism, even serving time in prison in most cases. Why is it that they cannot be trusted to not waiver from the path that they themselves created?

Because they are now members of the ruling class.

Ideally this is a wonderful philosophy, but I fear in the initial stages of the State, the proletariat is not politically mature enough to govern an entire nation that is rebuilding it's own economy and politics from the decadence of it's predecessor. (again, Marx's words in a nutshell) This is not to say the proletariat has no part in the new government. As the means of production are still owned by the proletariat, their roles in the mid to lower level of governing production are invaluable.

You must also consider the fact that the majority of the masses absolutely will not want to take part in the governing body. Very few people would choose being the tender over being the tendee. This is common human psychology.

Rosa's ideals in this case are theoretically beautiful however not very practical.

the above contradicts the basic values of democracy and the peoples' rights of self-determination as a whole. Why are they not "mature" enough in the initial stage? Please explain to me how the propletariat will mature as communism develops. As soon as the revolution occurs, the people will be given independence from the shckles of capitalism, their will be no proggress if the power shifts to a new ruling class. For the working class to be truly free, they must have power. Subjection to another classes' rule is by no means freedom, this is basic communist ideolofy, RAF.
Again, as there is no way to predict with absolute accuracy human behaviour there is no rational or logical way for your idea of "absolute power corrupring absoltely" to hold water. Simply put, the only behavioural patterns that can be accurately predicted are on a micro scale and require not only several years of psychological study but also a deep knowledge of the individual's character and their present and past environment. Even these predictions will inevitabley fail to be correct.

As you can clearly see, your opinion is in direct refute with the laws of human nature and human behaviour and therefore cannot be help as true.

The basic ideals of democracy are a goal that is to be worked for, no leapt into. It is statistically accurate to say that only 5% of the working class population would be politically aware. Of that 5% there is an even smaller portion of the proletariat that possess the required level of administrative skill and intellectual fibre to even remotely understand how a nation is to conduct itself. Politics, economics, foreign policy etc. This is not even suggestion the actual governing of the means of production as well as the distribution process. To simply gather the masses in a group and say,"well lads...let's see what you can" do would be devastating. You must understand that the eventual goal is a complete classless dictatorship of the proletariat. Socialism is the correct path to that goal. To expect utopian communism straight away after revolution is a dream that would never produce acceptable results.

Again, the new "ruling class" is comprised of the proletariat. The vanguard of the proletariat. The individuals with the insight, knowledge, wisdom, intelligence and experience that brought about the necessary praxis required to formulate the appropriate conditions for revolution.

You can't deny the simple fact that the vast majority of the of the masses have no desire to control their own government. They wish for a better society that socialism can give them. Then they simply want to reap the rewards of their labour. How they reap their rewards is not a concern of theirs, the fact that they now have these rewards is fulfillment enough. They do not want to be bothered with the beurocratic mess that is managing the society. They want to work and learn and actually enjoy what they fought for.

Eventually as the new model of man is developed from the masses, there will be no need for a ruling body but until then it's invaluable.

Don't Change Your Name

5th August 2003, 01:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 04:54 PM
Yeah so??? Blame it on the politicians, not on the system.
You liberals always say the same thing.

And the pro-liberalism government are supported by people like you.

Dr. Rosenpenis

5th August 2003, 03:09

Again, as there is no way to predict with absolute accuracy human behaviour there is no rational or logical way for your idea of "absolute power corrupring absoltely" to hold water. Simply put, the only behavioural patterns that can be accurately predicted are on a micro scale and require not only several years of psychological study but also a deep knowledge of the individual's character and their present and past environment. Even these predictions will inevitabley fail to be correct.

As you can clearly see, your opinion is in direct refute with the laws of human nature and human behaviour and therefore cannot be help as true.

Perhaps absolute power does not necessarily corrupt absolutely, there is no way of knowing, but this is hardly proof that my opinions "refute with the laws of human nature and human behaviour and therefore cannot be help as true." Where did you get that!?

The basic ideals of democracy are a goal that is to be worked for, no leapt into. It is statistically accurate to say that only 5% of the working class population would be politically aware. Of that 5% there is an even smaller portion of the proletariat that possess the required level of administrative skill and intellectual fibre to even remotely understand how a nation is to conduct itself. Politics, economics, foreign policy etc. This is not even suggestion the actual governing of the means of production as well as the distribution process. To simply gather the masses in a group and say,"well lads...let's see what you can" do would be devastating. You must understand that the eventual goal is a complete classless dictatorship of the proletariat. Socialism is the correct path to that goal. To expect utopian communism straight away after revolution is a dream that would never produce acceptable results.

They know what they want. They may not know exactly how much they are newly entitled to, and the amount of collective power that they now have. This is why I would advise the use of syndicates or unions to organize the workers and carry forth their will. these unions can be informative as well as uniting.

Again, the new "ruling class" is comprised of the proletariat. The vanguard of the proletariat. The individuals with the insight, knowledge, wisdom, intelligence and experience that brought about the necessary praxis required to formulate the appropriate conditions for revolution.

You're creating classes, and classes oppress other classes, no matter what class they originaly came from.

You can't deny the simple fact that the vast majority of the of the masses have no desire to control their own government. They wish for a better society that socialism can give them. Then they simply want to reap the rewards of their labour. How they reap their rewards is not a concern of theirs, the fact that they now have these rewards is fulfillment enough. They do not want to be bothered with the beurocratic mess that is managing the society. They want to work and learn and actually enjoy what they fought for.

Again, the unions will serve to unite and carry forth the decisions of the workers.

Eventually as the new model of man is developed from the masses, there will be no need for a ruling body but until then it's invaluable.

The ruling body must be under the direct influence of the masses. Nobody else can predict what is best for the workers and nobody can be trusted with the task of deciding in the name of the workers.

F_Hayek

5th August 2003, 17:23

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+Aug 5 2003, 01:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Infiltr(A)do @ Aug 5 2003, 01:47 AM)
[email protected] 4 2003, 04:54 PM
Yeah so??? Blame it on the politicians, not on the system.
You liberals always say the same thing.

And the pro-liberalism government are supported by people like you. [/b]
Oh yes, I always like a good dictatorship.

So who can we blaim for Russia then? The filthy capitalist pigs from the West?

Dr. Rosenpenis

6th August 2003, 02:12

i guess we've kinda reached a dead end in the discussion, eh, comrade RAF. Any more points to make?

Vinny Rafarino

6th August 2003, 03:46

Perhaps after this post comrade VC;

Perhaps absolute power does not necessarily corrupt absolutely, there is no way of knowing, but this is hardly proof that my opinions "refute with the laws of human nature and human behaviour and therefore cannot be help as true." Where did you get that!?

I used simple logic to deduce that your original remark about "absolute power corrupting absolutely" always being the case with humans was incorrect based on the laws of natural human behaviour. You have since changed your stand on the issue with the above statement. I was not attempting to make it sound "harsh" but it is what it is. I have a tendency not to sugar-coat issues.

They know what they want. They may not know exactly how much they are newly entitled to, and the amount of collective power that they now have. This is why I would advise the use of syndicates or unions to organize the workers and carry forth their will. these unions can be informative as well as uniting.

I have no problem with this. As a matter of fact I have always been an advocate of this viewpoint. However with the use of trade unions you have created a ruling body comprised of proletarians that give orders to other proletarians. (This is what I have been saying all along) Thus a ruling class of proletariat has been erected. As we all know, shit rolls downhill and with any union there must be a body advising the union on exactly how much or how little is to be produced. On a micro scale, the ruling body could stop here, however a nation would be considered on a macro scale leaving too many unions without the fundamental leadership of one group whos only joib is to economically calculate precisely how much is to be produced, how much labour is required for this purpose and how these goods will be distributed to the masses. Just imagine what would happen if each union decided this for themselves, as we are all independent thinkers, you can bet your ass there would be multiple "formulas" for this purpose causing huge descrepencies and perhaps errors in these three fundamantal processes.

When production and distribution of goods is based on need rather than profit, there is only a very specific margin of error that is acceptable. Having too many different views on how something this major is run is simply too improtant to leave up to chance as any errors directly affect the masses.

You're creating classes, and classes oppress other classes, no matter what class they originaly came from

There is no substantial proof that all classes will always oppress other classes. This is the same argument as "absolute power always corrupts absolutely". Class distinctions can be labels for something as simple as work. There can be the farming class, the fishing class, the theoretical physicist class, the medical doctor class etc etc. To say classes always oppress other classes would be attempting to assign a "nature" to an Ideal. Ideals by their very definition are incapable of possessing a specific "nature".

Again, the unions will serve to unite and carry forth the decisions of the workers.

RAF- "Eventually as the new model of man is developed from the masses, there will be no need for a ruling body but until then it's invaluable."

The ruling body must be under the direct influence of the masses. Nobody else can predict what is best for the workers and nobody can be trusted with the task of deciding in the name of the workers.

I already covered the Unions issue above. On the bottom statement, I can say that I in no way disagree with you and have never once supported a theory that the proletariat should not be involved in the selection of the ruling body. This is called democracy and is the funtamental structure on which socialism and communism is based.

elijahcraig

6th August 2003, 04:03

There is no substantial proof that all classes will always oppress other classes. This is the same argument as "absolute power always corrupts absolutely". Class distinctions can be labels for something as simple as work. There can be the farming class, the fishing class, the theoretical physicist class, the medical doctor class etc etc. To say classes always oppress other classes would be attempting to assign a "nature" to an Ideal. Ideals by their very definition are incapable of possessing a specific "nature".

RAF, I think your saying "no substantial proof that all classes will always oppress other classes" is contrary to Marxist-Leninist theory. On the other hand, when you refer to doctors or farmers as "classes", I think that means a whole different thing. They are not "classes", but "balanced job complexes". Meaning, they are not based on class. A class is based on your place in society. Being a doctor or farmer only fits into that under capitalist mode of production. Under communism, that would disappear.

Rastafari

6th August 2003, 04:43

like the fact that for 159 happy cuban citizans there is a doctor?

Don't Change Your Name

6th August 2003, 05:23

Originally posted by F_Hayek+Aug 5 2003, 05:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (F_Hayek @ Aug 5 2003, 05:23 PM)
Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 5 2003, 01:47 AM

[email protected] 4 2003, 04:54 PM
Yeah so??? Blame it on the politicians, not on the system.
You liberals always say the same thing.

And the pro-liberalism government are supported by people like you.
Oh yes, I always like a good dictatorship.

So who can we blaim for Russia then? The filthy capitalist pigs from the West? [/b]
No, the stalinist fascist from the "east" (if such thing exists, because if you keep going west you will eventually find what is called east).

About your other phrase, I guess "good dictatorships" ruin you system, still you support them. I suppose you are a very rich man, media owner, or a (corrupt) politician.

Vinny Rafarino

6th August 2003, 05:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 04:03 AM

There is no substantial proof that all classes will always oppress other classes. This is the same argument as "absolute power always corrupts absolutely". Class distinctions can be labels for something as simple as work. There can be the farming class, the fishing class, the theoretical physicist class, the medical doctor class etc etc. To say classes always oppress other classes would be attempting to assign a "nature" to an Ideal. Ideals by their very definition are incapable of possessing a specific "nature".

RAF, I think your saying "no substantial proof that all classes will always oppress other classes" is contrary to Marxist-Leninist theory. On the other hand, when you refer to doctors or farmers as "classes", I think that means a whole different thing. They are not "classes", but "balanced job complexes". Meaning, they are not based on class. A class is based on your place in society. Being a doctor or farmer only fits into that under capitalist mode of production. Under communism, that would disappear.
It is indeed not contrary to Marxist theory. Marxs himself advised the proletariat could be forced out of revolution to form a separate ruling class. He even advocated this. (please refer to the communist manifesto or previous posts in this thread for his exact words.)

You forget comrade, the overall goal of communism is to abolish social classes, this I full heartlily support. Until that day there will be classes, is it not better to have classes gathered from the ranks of the proletariat? Of course it is. I understand full well the dynamics and principles of a communist society, however we are not talking about a communist society. We are talking about a socialist society that's overall goal is to one day evolve into a communist society.

I have already shown that the statement "all classes will always oppress other classes" to be logically flawed. If it is possible to live in a world not dictated by logic and rational thought, please tell me where it is as I would like to live there.

Vinny Rafarino

6th August 2003, 08:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 08:30 PM
I am hardly surprised you are not content with lowering income taxes, breaking the power of the unions, or privatization of state-owned companies.

But of course you are for instance referring to the rise in unemployment during her reign? It's not that easy to transform your economy after it has been devastated by the labour governments. At least the British economy is now one of the best in Europa. I will look up all the sources for you since you only get information from people that now little of economics.

I am semi british so ha ha.
Is this a joke? Of course I do not condone her blunders with income tax, worker's unions and privitisation.
These mistakes almost crippled the economy in the UK. Much like you see in the USA today. You truly live in never-never land my friend. If you are a member of the middle class and under the only thing I can tell you is that you have been seriously duped.

"economy that had been devastated by labout governments"

Perhaps you should do a bit of research. Please be my guest and look up whatever sources you want. Just make sure it's fact and not rightist fiction. Remember, I lived through it.

Please show me examples of sources that I get my information from.

We have a virtual Miss Cleo on our hands here lads.

Quick predict for me how long capitalism has left!

elijahcraig

6th August 2003, 19:50

It is indeed not contrary to Marxist theory. Marxs himself advised the proletariat could be forced out of revolution to form a separate ruling class. He even advocated this. (please refer to the communist manifesto or previous posts in this thread for his exact words.)

He said that the proletariat should become the ruling class, yes, but the way he said it it meant that the proletariat would use the state to suppress the bourgeois resistance. Class antagonisms will always exist while there are more than one.

You forget comrade, the overall goal of communism is to abolish social classes, this I full heartlily support. Until that day there will be classes, is it not better to have classes gathered from the ranks of the proletariat? Of course it is. I understand full well the dynamics and principles of a communist society, however we are not talking about a communist society. We are talking about a socialist society that's overall goal is to one day evolve into a communist society.

I think we agree. I think I misunderstood what you meant on this point.

I have already shown that the statement "all classes will always oppress other classes" to be logically flawed. If it is possible to live in a world not dictated by logic and rational thought, please tell me where it is as I would like to live there.

Well, I think you are looking at class differently than I am. "Farming" and "Doctor" class? If the distribution of goods was the same...they could form one class. Under capitalism, they are different. Under communism, no they are not.

F_Hayek

6th August 2003, 20:33

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 6 2003, 05:23 AM
No, the stalinist fascist from the "east" (if such thing exists, because if you keep going west you will eventually find what is called east).

About your other phrase, I guess "good dictatorships" ruin you system, still you support them. I suppose you are a very rich man, media owner, or a (corrupt) politician.
Next I'll put a :unsure: after the sentence.

All politicians are corrupt, so we can blame all the misery on them (plus the state). And no, my parents also belong to the proletariat.

Dr. Rosenpenis

6th August 2003, 23:43

used simple logic to deduce that your original remark about "absolute power corrupting absolutely" always being the case with humans was incorrect based on the laws of natural human behaviour. You have since changed your stand on the issue with the above statement. I was not attempting to make it sound "harsh" but it is what it is. I have a tendency not to sugar-coat issues.

which laws of human behaviour are those, RAF?

lokigreeny

7th August 2003, 01:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 05:29 PM
Imagine the New Balance shoe company looking at the Nike factory and seeing all those workers
working for almost nothing. They think to themselves that labor is so cheap there, that's the place
for us. The next thing you know there's a New Balance shoe factory just across the street from the
Nike shoe factory. Now to get workers to work in the New Balance factory, the New Balance
management offers the workers a little better deal than the Nike deal. Nike counters with a little
sweeter deal of their own.

Maybe it's not New Balance but Black and Decker or ACME Plumbing Fittings that comes in. You
get the idea of two or more factories competing for workers benefits the workers.

The cure for sweatshops like Nike's is not less capitalism, it's more capitalism. As long as no
government gets in the way the problem is self curing.
unless, of course, Nike makes a hostile takeover bid on NB, either runs NB to the ground or swallows them into its commercial conglomerate, and takes over the NB market, lowering the wage-slaves' subsitence packet and nce more making their lives shit, relative to ours.

communism (for me) is a basic respect for human life.

cappies are essentialy supremacists; they automatically think that becasue they have more money, they have a right to live better. ugh.

lokigreeny

7th August 2003, 01:49

Originally posted by F_Hayek+Aug 3 2003, 01:59 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (F_Hayek @ Aug 3 2003, 01:59 AM)
[email protected] 2 2003, 03:24 PM
"No government which intervenes is capitalist, for the fourth time."

Western governments are representing and defending the interests of the capital. They may therefor not be capitalists as such, they are their representation and take profit of corporations as they are paid by them.
See, you alter it again. If we can agree on the fact that this is not capitalism, but merely abuse of power, we can have a normal conservation. But blaming WW2, genocide etc etc on capitalism, that is just tragic stupidity. [/b]
your point that there are no capitalist governments may be a valid one, but seeing as there are now trans-national corporations that play the laws to get the best deal for themselves, can you still say capitalism is not alive?

Dr. Rosenpenis

7th August 2003, 03:06

In reply to your criticism of my idea of using unions:
The power vested in the unions will be used only to regulate things on a relatively small scale, they will have little social power, aside form the ones having to do directly with the members of that union, so I hardly see how they can become a significant tool of oppression.

Vinny Rafarino

7th August 2003, 03:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 11:43 PM
used simple logic to deduce that your original remark about "absolute power corrupting absolutely" always being the case with humans was incorrect based on the laws of natural human behaviour. You have since changed your stand on the issue with the above statement. I was not attempting to make it sound "harsh" but it is what it is. I have a tendency not to sugar-coat issues.

which laws of human behaviour are those, RAF?
There are several basic insticts that are specific among man as well as basic human emotion. Such emotions such as fear, anger and anxiety produce a very specific response in the Amygdala and can be traced to specific serotonin transporter genes. Thes actions then become predictable dependent on two two things, you knowledge of genetic emotional and instictual responses and your knowledge of the character and environment of the subject. The latter being used to determine any and all genetic psychological disorders.

Thus creating order or "predictable law" among human behaviour groups. Where these is predictable law there is logic and rationality.

In reply to your criticism of my idea of using unions:
The power vested in the unions will be used only to regulate things on a relatively small scale, they will have little social power, aside form the ones having to do directly with the members of that union, so I hardly see how they can become a significant tool of oppression.

I did not critisise you idea of trade unions nor did I disagree. I think you may have misunderstood my post as what I was conveying to you was paraphrased by your own post above. So perhaps either it set in your mind subconsciously or we had already agreed on the issue.

Dr. Rosenpenis

7th August 2003, 03:38

There are several basic insticts that are specific among man as well as basic human emotion. Such emotions such as fear, anger and anxiety produce a very specific response in the Amygdala and can be traced to specific serotonin transporter genes. Thes actions then become predictable dependent on two two things, you knowledge of genetic emotional and instictual responses and your knowledge of the character and environment of the subject. The latter being used to determine any and all genetic psychological disorders.

Thus creating order or "predictable law" among human behaviour groups. Where these is predictable law there is logic and rationality.

You still have not told me how you arrived at the conclusion that absolute power corrupts absolutely "refute with the laws of human nature and human behaviour and therefore cannot be help as true."

However with the use of trade unions you have created a ruling body comprised of proletarians that give orders to other proletarians. (This is what I have been saying all along) Thus a ruling class of proletariat has been erected.

It seemed that before you said that unions would create classes, if these classes are indeed created, they will have little social power, which means that even though they do have power, they will not be oppressive, as they will deal more closely with the workers, and will not be a centralized power. This is a step in the direction of completely de-centralizing the government, which is the final goal of communism, no?

Vinny Rafarino

7th August 2003, 04:06

You still have not told me how you arrived at the conclusion that absolute power corrupts absolutely "refute with the laws of human nature and human behaviour and therefore cannot be help as true."

Sure I did. I even illustrated the logical order of steps that inevitably lead to this conclusion. It is contained in the very same post that you took this quote from. In your following post you then agreed to the logic;

Perhaps absolute power does not necessarily corrupt absolutely, there is no way of knowing, but this is hardly proof that my opinions "refute with the laws of human nature and human behaviour and therefore cannot be help as true." Where did you get that!?

It is clear that you had agreed with my original use of logic and are now changing you mind. Which is it VC? I then gave a discription in the following post explaining my use of logical determination deduce that absolute power does not corrupt absolutely.

I then in my very last post describe how logic and rationality can be used in these deductions as there are traits among the human psyche that follow the laws of order.

It seemed that before you said that unions would create classes, if these classes are indeed created, they will have little social power, which means that even though they do have power, they will not be oppressive, as they will deal more closely with the workers, and will not be a centralized power. This is a step in the direction of completely de-centralizing the government, which is the final goal of communism, no?

Unions will create classes. I however do not think these classes will necessarily be detrimental to social development as I have already shown that since absolute power does not corrupt absolutely it is not necessary to fear an evil that may or may not exist. It is then the responsibility of the proletariat and the ruling body of proletariat to keep these class distinctions from become counter revolutionary if indeed they ever would.

Don't Change Your Name

7th August 2003, 04:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 08:33 PM
Next I'll put a :unsure: after the sentence.

All politicians are corrupt, so we can blame all the misery on them (plus the state). And no, my parents also belong to the proletariat.
i guess we havent much left to discuss then.

Dr. Rosenpenis

7th August 2003, 23:04

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 6 2003, 10:06 PM

You still have not told me how you arrived at the conclusion that absolute power corrupts absolutely "refute with the laws of human nature and human behaviour and therefore cannot be help as true."

Sure I did. I even illustrated the logical order of steps that inevitably lead to this conclusion. It is contained in the very same post that you took this quote from. In your following post you then agreed to the logic;

Perhaps absolute power does not necessarily corrupt absolutely, there is no way of knowing, but this is hardly proof that my opinions "refute with the laws of human nature and human behaviour and therefore cannot be help as true." Where did you get that!?

It is clear that you had agreed with my original use of logic and are now changing you mind. Which is it VC? I then gave a discription in the following post explaining my use of logical determination deduce that absolute power does not corrupt absolutely.

I then in my very last post describe how logic and rationality can be used in these deductions as there are traits among the human psyche that follow the laws of order.

It seemed that before you said that unions would create classes, if these classes are indeed created, they will have little social power, which means that even though they do have power, they will not be oppressive, as they will deal more closely with the workers, and will not be a centralized power. This is a step in the direction of completely de-centralizing the government, which is the final goal of communism, no?

Unions will create classes. I however do not think these classes will necessarily be detrimental to social development as I have already shown that since absolute power does not corrupt absolutely it is not necessary to fear an evil that may or may not exist. It is then the responsibility of the proletariat and the ruling body of proletariat to keep these class distinctions from become counter revolutionary if indeed they ever would.
alright, comrade, it seems we have reached good terms

This, however does not mean that I agree with a powerful, centralized, oligarchal government erected by the revolutionary vanguard. This will create classes, and they will be detrimental to socialist society, as they will wield much power. This power (I assume, from history and my experiences), will corrupt Though we have established that there is no way for knowing for sure, I hope we both have learned fom history, and from common sense that is is the likely outcome. And by corruption I mean that those in power will not stay true to the workers, but instead to their own class.

Vinny Rafarino

7th August 2003, 23:23

Originally posted by Victorcommie+Aug 7 2003, 11:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Victorcommie @ Aug 7 2003, 11:04 PM)
COMRADE [email protected] 6 2003, 10:06 PM

You still have not told me how you arrived at the conclusion that absolute power corrupts absolutely "refute with the laws of human nature and human behaviour and therefore cannot be help as true."

Sure I did. I even illustrated the logical order of steps that inevitably lead to this conclusion. It is contained in the very same post that you took this quote from. In your following post you then agreed to the logic;

Perhaps absolute power does not necessarily corrupt absolutely, there is no way of knowing, but this is hardly proof that my opinions "refute with the laws of human nature and human behaviour and therefore cannot be help as true." Where did you get that!?

It is clear that you had agreed with my original use of logic and are now changing you mind. Which is it VC? I then gave a discription in the following post explaining my use of logical determination deduce that absolute power does not corrupt absolutely.

I then in my very last post describe how logic and rationality can be used in these deductions as there are traits among the human psyche that follow the laws of order.

It seemed that before you said that unions would create classes, if these classes are indeed created, they will have little social power, which means that even though they do have power, they will not be oppressive, as they will deal more closely with the workers, and will not be a centralized power. This is a step in the direction of completely de-centralizing the government, which is the final goal of communism, no?

Unions will create classes. I however do not think these classes will necessarily be detrimental to social development as I have already shown that since absolute power does not corrupt absolutely it is not necessary to fear an evil that may or may not exist. It is then the responsibility of the proletariat and the ruling body of proletariat to keep these class distinctions from become counter revolutionary if indeed they ever would.
alright, comrade, it seems we have reached good terms

This, however does not mean that I agree with a powerful, centralized, oligarchal government erected by the revolutionary vanguard. This will create classes, and they will be detrimental to socialist society, as they will wield much power. This power (I assume, from history and my experiences), will corrupt Though we have established that there is no way for knowing for sure, I hope we both have learned fom history, and from common sense that is is the likely outcome. And by corruption I mean that those in power will not stay true to the workers, but instead to their own class. [/b]
Yes indeed. It is a crap shoot. With any luck the leaders of the next post-revolution ruling body will all be as committed to the people as comrade Stalin was.