Capitalism

[katsambis]

Many on this forum would agree with the Marxist system and the never ending class struggle against the capitalist pigs. However the bourgeoisie show us that maybe the left should abandon its ideas on a classless 'utopia' and adopt a market based system

This is firstly because communism is shit. But I could understand why those of this forum would want to live in a society where:

-You stand in a queue all day for your two grams of bread
-You get rewarded by sitting on your ass
-The absence of incentives to work destroy productivity and produce less food
-A person's hard labor is not rewarded
and
-People live under a tyrannical despot who abolishes their free speech and civil rights

In fact, your idol Lenin implemented capitalist policies. The New Economic Policy lowered taxes on peasant proprietors and abolished grain requisitioning. Why? Because Lenin new that the only way to feed his workers was with the market's invisible hand, and quite rightly so. War Communism caused a famine that killed 5 million people, but under the NEP the emergence of the merchant class of NEPMEN saw food production expand to pre-war levels.

Also, Mao allowed private enterprise after the revolution as he needed to consolidate his rein by stimulating heavy industry and food production. This should be contrasted with the Great Leap Forward in 1958, or The Great Step Backwards, where Marxist theory killed 30 million Chinese as inefficiencies and low productivity of labor led to starvation; not seen under capitalism. The failure of this leftist policy was so bad that The Great Helmsman was forced to step down.

In conclusion, communists have no class. You have been indoctrinated. The circumstances that caused the revolutions in Cuba, China and Russia are not present today. We of the west have strong unions, workers rights, and are not deprived of food and facing incompetent, inhumane governments. You have no need to rebel against the civil powers.

[28350]

cool story bro

[ContrarianLemming]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3217/3015062728_6b27f9a6ae.jpg

[ZeroNowhere]

It is not entirely clear why you would wish to preserve the contradiction between the social character of labour under capitalism and the private form which it takes due to prevailing relations of production, especially inasmuch as capitalism itself serves to 'abolish' private property in the means of production, albeit on a capitalist basis, and hence to heighten its own contradictions while further developing the social character of production to the point where its 'private' fetters become merely hindrances which lead to violent crises. Hopefully you can elaborate on this.

[ContrarianLemming]

We of the west have strong unions, workers rights, and are not deprived of food and facing incompetent, inhumane governments. You have no need to rebel against the civil powers.

Fuck the rest of the world ^

edit: I thought the new rule was that people with under 10 posts need post approval?
Don't tell me this trolling was approved.

[katsambis]

ZeroNowhere, I wish to show how with planned economies comes great problems because of inefficiencies. As wages are fixed by state owned enterprises, and because workers have no incentive to work harder unproductive enterprises emerge, not able to produce the goods society demands. Take Russia for example, in the 1980s inefficient government production led to mass shortages. But now people in Russia have food on their tables, something that throughout Soviet history was uncommon.

[Dean]

ZeroNowhere, I wish to show how with planned economies comes great problems because of inefficiencies.
Good luck, the early 90s in Russia were probably the worst for the country in recent years - and that was precisely the result of neoliberal reforms.


As wages are fixed by state owned enterprises, and because workers have no incentive to work harder unproductive enterprises emerge, not able to produce the goods society demands. Take Russia for example, in the 1980s inefficient government production led to mass shortages.
You think that fixed wages and "unproductive workers" are what led to inefficiency? What about lack of popular control over commodity production?



But now people in Russia have food on their tables, something that throughout Soviet history was uncommon.You believe that throughout Soviet history food was more often not on people's plates?

[Dean]

Many on this forum would agree with the Marxist system and the never ending class struggle against the capitalist pigs.

...

In fact, your idol Lenin implemented capitalist policies. The New Economic Policy lowered taxes on peasant proprietors and abolished grain requisitioning. Why? Because Lenin new that the only way to feed his workers was with the market's invisible hand, and quite rightly so.
If you knew anything about Marxism, you'd understand that capitalist development is a necessary precursor to any socialist regime. Russia was a largely undeveloped agrarian society - and it was only the Communist-led regime which electrified the nation.

I'd suggest you learn about your examples before trying to use them as examples for your childish capitalist ideology.

[#FF0000]

Take Russia for example, in the 1980s inefficient government production led to mass shortages. But now people in Russia have food on their tables, something that throughout Soviet history was uncommon.

During the early years after the revolution, Russia was basically a giant farm community that was half mud and half tundra and not much else in the way of industry. Times were going to be hella tough no matter what.

And you'd be very hard pressed to find a socialist who supported the USSR and would still consider it socialist from about 1951 onward. Nowadays it's tough to find one that thinks the USSR was socialist beyond 1917.

Also Kruschev pretty thoroughly gutted the planning bureau not long after he became Premier. I think it is safe to say that this is a bad thing to do when an economy is based on central planning, and I also think it's safe to say that production might have been a liiiittle more efficient had that not happened.

[Revolutionair]

http://truckandbarter.com/images/russia%20population-thumb.gif

[Kotze]

-You stand in a queue all day for your two grams of breadThat depends on the planning methods used and other factors (bad luck with the weather, trade blockade by regionally dominating power).
-You get rewarded by sitting on your ass
-The absence of incentives to work destroy productivity and produce less food
-A person's hard labor is not rewardedHey wait a second, that's not three arguments, that's the same claim three times. This claim belongs to the propaganda arsenal of socialists. Some people don't have to work because they inherited enough wealth to live from usury and rent. Is that fair? I agree that performing arduous tasks should be rewarded with more pay. From my own expererience in various shit jobs under capitalism I can say that as a rule of thumb the following has been true: The nicer the job is, the better it is paid.
-People live under a tyrannical despot who abolishes their free speech and civil rightsI made a thread about making societey more democratic (http://www.revleft.com/vb/getting-closer-real-t138550/index.html?t=138550) and consider myself a socialist. Lottery and seat rotation for administrative tasks are very popular here. There are a few people espousing a very authoritarian view on this forum though.
I wish to show how with planned economies comes great problems because of inefficiencies.That depends. I gave a simple example how centralizing data and using a good algorithm can yield a better result than free exchange here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/case-central-planning-t142473/index.html?t=142473).

Most disagreements about socialism stem from different definitions of what capitalism and socialism mean. Mainstream pundits nowadays use capitalism to mean markets. However, this is not the definition that was used by Marx (and many others). He distinguished between feudalism and capitalism and markets are much older than capitalism. Capitalism means there are people who own means of production who hire people who don't own means of production to work for them. Socialism means common ownership and control over land and other natural resources, infrastructure, factories.

There can be a system that is paternalistic in the distribution of consumer goods (given obesity problems you could make an argument that a food rationing system designed by nutrition experts would be better than buying food, Giffen effects would be another argument for that). There can be a system where everybody has points to buy consumer goods and the buying behaviour is used to adjust prices and planning, but there are limits to accumulation of these points and inheritance and you can't hire workers with them. Both these systems can be called socialist under above definition.

In the long run the question of yes or no to markets isn't completely orthogonal to socialism, because markets tend to undermine themselves by creating inequality. The problem is that you can use money to get more money. So when there is a market-like mechanism, there also needs to be a mechanism that constantly eats away these inequalities.

I hope you read above links and change your mind.

[Revolution starts with U]

This is firstly because communism is shit.
Excellent rebuttal. Keep up that intellectual rigor.


-You stand in a queue all day for your two grams of bread
Yes, that doesn't happen in AMerica...:rolleyes: Open your eyes friend

-You get rewarded by sitting on your ass
And what part of socialist theory says that?

-The absence of incentives to work destroy productivity and produce less food
What are these "incentives" that would not exist in socialism?

-A person's hard labor is not rewarded
You obviously know nothing about socialist theory.


and
-People live under a tyrannical despot who abolishes their free speech and civil rights

Anything less than democracy is not socialism. Once again, you have failed to do your research.


In fact, your idol Lenin implemented capitalist policies.
Lenin was a tool.

The New Economic Policy lowered taxes on peasant proprietors and abolished grain requisitioning. Why? Because Lenin new that the only way to feed his workers was with the market's invisible hand, and quite rightly so.
Yes, if you even do a cursory glance of socialist theory you would see that it was not supposed to transition out of aggrarian societies. Capitalism provides the productive process necessary for socialist development.


War Communism caused a famine that killed 5 million people, but under the NEP the emergence of the merchant class of NEPMEN saw food production expand to pre-war levels.

If socialism doesn't recognize borders, how could there be a socialist nation, and ergo, have a military?

Also, Mao allowed private enterprise after the revolution as he needed to consolidate his rein by stimulating heavy industry and food production. This should be contrasted with the Great Leap Forward in 1958, or The Great Step Backwards, where Marxist theory killed 30 million Chinese as inefficiencies and low productivity of labor led to starvation;
See above, any non-democracy w a border is not really socialism.

not seen under capitalism.
Are you fucking kidding me? Ever hear of native americans, south americans, vietnam, iraq/iran, isreal, fascism... genocide has been a natural feeder of capitalism's growth. You need to pay attention better and step out of that bubble.


In conclusion, communists have no class.
I jizz in your socks when I'm done with your mother :cool:

You have been indoctrinated.
Ya, it's called education. But ours is done critically, for the most part, which yours seems to be very ignorant of the facts.

The circumstances that caused the revolutions in Cuba, China and Russia are not present today.
You can thank labor and other populist movements for that. It most certainly didn't develop naturally out of capitalism.

We of the west have strong unions, workers rights, and are not deprived of food and facing incompetent, inhumane governments.[/
Once again, thank labor and people's movements for that. Capitalists fought against it, violently, every step of the way.

You have no need to rebel against the civil powers.
Talk about indoctrination. The drug war, capitalist exploitation across the world which is the only thing that supplies us with out standard of living, the Patriot Act, mandatory health insurance... The people's right to revolt is subjective, if they decide they don't like it, it's going down.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=The Best Mod In Revleft History;1894252]During the early years after the revolution, Russia was basically a giant farm community that was half mud and half tundra and not much else in the way of industry. Times were going to be hella tough no matter what.


Well as things were "tough" regardless as to whether Russia had a revolution, why all the hoopla about the revolt and what it replaced?



And you'd be very hard pressed to find a socialist who supported the USSR and would still consider it socialist from about 1951 onward. Nowadays it's tough to find one that thinks the USSR was socialist beyond 1917.

But this is more an indictment of socialism in general. Certainly there were critics of the USSR when the socialists were giving paens to it.



Also Kruschev pretty thoroughly gutted the planning bureau not long after he became Premier. I think it is safe to say that this is a bad thing to do when an economy is based on central planning, and I also think it's safe to say that production might have been a liiiittle more efficient had that not happened.

If you argue that central planning is more efficient.

[Bud Struggle]

If you knew anything about Marxism, you'd understand that capitalist development is a necessary precursor to any socialist regime. Russia was a largely undeveloped agrarian society - and it was only the Communist-led regime which electrified the nation.

I'd suggest you learn about your examples before trying to use them as examples for your childish capitalist ideology.

But it's been on of the hallmarks of Communist Revolution that advanced Capitalist societies never fall to Communism. It's always the Nepals of the Cambodias or the Cubas.

There is a missing link in Marx's analysis that he misunderstood or didn't quite think of.

[Ele'ill]

-You stand in a queue all day for your two grams of bread
-You get rewarded by sitting on your ass
-The absence of incentives to work destroy productivity and produce less food
-A person's hard labor is not rewarded
and
-People live under a tyrannical despot who abolishes their free speech and civil rights



I know, I'm fucking sick of capitalism too!

[Lt. Ferret]

working did wonders for me. suckerrrr.:cool:

[Revolution starts with U]

But it's been on of the hallmarks of Communist Revolution that advanced Capitalist societies never fall to Communism. It's always the Nepals of the Cambodias or the Cubas.

There is a missing link in Marx's analysis that he misunderstood or didn't quite think of.

It's that there's any difference but conditions of poverty between reformism and revolution.

[ZeroNowhere]

ZeroNowhere, I wish to show how with planned economies comes great problems because of inefficiencies. As wages are fixed by state owned enterprises, and because workers have no incentive to work harder unproductive enterprises emerge, not able to produce the goods society demands. Take Russia for example, in the 1980s inefficient government production led to mass shortages. But now people in Russia have food on their tables, something that throughout Soviet history was uncommon.
Perhaps, and yet our aim is the abolition of wage-labour, inasmuch as this forms a necessary basis for the capital-relation, although it should be noted that 'wages' are not equal to simply 'compensation' inasmuch as wages are a particular social relation under specific historical conditions; we also seek to abolish the illusory general interest which takes the form of state due to class divisions in civil society through the abolition of modern civil society, and hence the establishment of an associated mode of production in which political rule, inasmuch as it is predicated on class rule, is abolished, and replaced with simply the administration of production and distribution via democratic means. Finally, communist society would else entail the divide between productive and unproductive labour in its capitalist form, in which productive labour is identical with value-producing labour, ultimately reducing to the character of labour as both private and yet social, a contradiction resolved only through the mediation of value, and yet which perpetuates itself in the contradiction between use-value and value, and so on.

Hopefully this has made our position clear.

[Dean]

But it's been on of the hallmarks of Communist Revolution that advanced Capitalist societies never fall to Communism. It's always the Nepals of the Cambodias or the Cubas.

There is a missing link in Marx's analysis that he misunderstood or didn't quite think of.
Globalization (most often in the form of imperialism) is widely regarded by Marxists as a necessary stage before the capitalist system can really start to close.

I think what Marx was referring to in his class conscious of first world workers (where the first truly communists revolutions should take place) was the particular entitlement and sense of social responsibility that their nation has.

As bad as the rhetoric is, that's precisely what the underlying grievances of teabaggers are. There have been polls that paint the foot soldiers of the movement very differently than the rhetoric in the media portrays the movement.

I think that Russia and China were bound to have revolutions. They were exiting the Feudal relations and entering Bourgeois ones - but they had already seen the problems with capitalist society. I don't really see how the emergent regimes were markedly different from a privileged bourgeois class. In fact, the extreme centrism and repressive character of the state was very characteristic of the former Chinese and Russian regimes.

Really, any cursory look through the history of these nations might be very illuminating: where the previous regime had a tight hold on the people, the new regimes were able to harness that exact same phenomenon, it would seem.

[Nuvem]

Many on this forum would agree with the Marxist system and the never ending class struggle against the capitalist pigs. However the bourgeoisie show us that maybe the left should abandon its ideas on a classless 'utopia' and adopt a market based system

This is firstly because communism is shit. But I could understand why those of this forum would want to live in a society where:

-You stand in a queue all day for your two grams of bread
-You get rewarded by sitting on your ass
-The absence of incentives to work destroy productivity and produce less food
-A person's hard labor is not rewarded
and
-People live under a tyrannical despot who abolishes their free speech and civil rights

In fact, your idol Lenin implemented capitalist policies. The New Economic Policy lowered taxes on peasant proprietors and abolished grain requisitioning. Why? Because Lenin new that the only way to feed his workers was with the market's invisible hand, and quite rightly so. War Communism caused a famine that killed 5 million people, but under the NEP the emergence of the merchant class of NEPMEN saw food production expand to pre-war levels.

Also, Mao allowed private enterprise after the revolution as he needed to consolidate his rein by stimulating heavy industry and food production. This should be contrasted with the Great Leap Forward in 1958, or The Great Step Backwards, where Marxist theory killed 30 million Chinese as inefficiencies and low productivity of labor led to starvation; not seen under capitalism. The failure of this leftist policy was so bad that The Great Helmsman was forced to step down.

In conclusion, communists have no class. You have been indoctrinated. The circumstances that caused the revolutions in Cuba, China and Russia are not present today. We of the west have strong unions, workers rights, and are not deprived of food and facing incompetent, inhumane governments. You have no need to rebel against the civil powers.


MY GOD.:scared:

THIS DISPROVES EVERYTHING WE'VE EVER BELIEVED. HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF SOCIALIST THEORY AND IDEOLOGICAL REFINEMENT, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF SOCIALIST THEORY AND DOCTRINE AND DOZENS OF REVOLUTIONS CRUMBLE IN RELEVANCE BEFORE THIS HANDFUL OF POINTS PRESENTED WITH NO SOURCES CITED, NO MATHEMATICAL BASIS, CENSUS INFORMATION, OR REFERENCES.

THANK YOU GOOD SIR. THANK YOU FOR OPENING OUR EYES TO THE LIGHT.

I SHALL BECOME ANARCHO-CAPITALIST NOW!

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

Many on this forum would agree with the Marxist system and the never ending class struggle against the capitalist pigs. However the bourgeoisie show us that maybe the left should abandon its ideas on a classless 'utopia' and adopt a market based system

This is firstly because communism is shit. But I could understand why those of this forum would want to live in a society where:

-You stand in a queue all day for your two grams of bread
-You get rewarded by sitting on your ass
-The absence of incentives to work destroy productivity and produce less food
-A person's hard labor is not rewarded
and
-People live under a tyrannical despot who abolishes their free speech and civil rights

In fact, your idol Lenin implemented capitalist policies. The New Economic Policy lowered taxes on peasant proprietors and abolished grain requisitioning. Why? Because Lenin new that the only way to feed his workers was with the market's invisible hand, and quite rightly so. War Communism caused a famine that killed 5 million people, but under the NEP the emergence of the merchant class of NEPMEN saw food production expand to pre-war levels.

Also, Mao allowed private enterprise after the revolution as he needed to consolidate his rein by stimulating heavy industry and food production. This should be contrasted with the Great Leap Forward in 1958, or The Great Step Backwards, where Marxist theory killed 30 million Chinese as inefficiencies and low productivity of labor led to starvation; not seen under capitalism. The failure of this leftist policy was so bad that The Great Helmsman was forced to step down.

In conclusion, communists have no class. You have been indoctrinated. The circumstances that caused the revolutions in Cuba, China and Russia are not present today. We of the west have strong unions, workers rights, and are not deprived of food and facing incompetent, inhumane governments. You have no need to rebel against the civil powers.
You're funny.

But seriously, you know what might be good for you? Actually study the shit you are whining about instead of spewing the same old crap that right-wing American propagandists love to cough up out of their over-priviliged, over-weight faces. You have made it pretty obvious that you(much like those assholes in American media) haven't even read the back cover of the Communist Manifesto or Capital or even anything regarding left-wing Anarchism(do you believe Anarcho-Communists like Lenin too? Because it would just be hilarious if you did think that).

Beeteedubs, all the ''arguments'' you posted just now could be applied to Capitalism VERY easily. Especially the thing about being rewarded for sitting on your ass...because Socialism advocates a system where people can inherit enough money to never work their whole lives...oh, wait....does that make Paris Hilton a Socialist?? Or is that Capitalism I'm thinking of?

Anyways, I feel this sudden urge to go post on a right-wing forum, pouring out propaganda Socialism has taught me because I'm so brainwashed(sound like anyone you know?).

[#FF0000]

[QUOTE] Well as things were "tough" regardless as to whether Russia had a revolution, why all the hoopla about the revolt and what it replaced?

Because it was the first successful working class uprising in the West (still is), and in terms of material wealth, people were most likely way better off in a socialist 1917 Russia than a capitalist 1917 Russia.


But this is more an indictment of socialism in general. Certainly there were critics of the USSR when the socialists were giving paens to it.

Not sure what you're on about here.


If you argue that central planning is more efficient.

It can be.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Many on this forum would agree with the Marxist system and the never ending class struggle against the capitalist pigs. However the bourgeoisie show us that maybe the left should abandon its ideas on a classless 'utopia' and adopt a market based system

This is firstly because communism is shit. But I could understand why those of this forum would want to live in a society where:

-You stand in a queue all day for your two grams of bread
-You get rewarded by sitting on your ass
-The absence of incentives to work destroy productivity and produce less food
-A person's hard labor is not rewarded
and
-People live under a tyrannical despot who abolishes their free speech and civil rights

In fact, your idol Lenin implemented capitalist policies. The New Economic Policy lowered taxes on peasant proprietors and abolished grain requisitioning. Why? Because Lenin new that the only way to feed his workers was with the market's invisible hand, and quite rightly so. War Communism caused a famine that killed 5 million people, but under the NEP the emergence of the merchant class of NEPMEN saw food production expand to pre-war levels.

Also, Mao allowed private enterprise after the revolution as he needed to consolidate his rein by stimulating heavy industry and food production. This should be contrasted with the Great Leap Forward in 1958, or The Great Step Backwards, where Marxist theory killed 30 million Chinese as inefficiencies and low productivity of labor led to starvation; not seen under capitalism. The failure of this leftist policy was so bad that The Great Helmsman was forced to step down.

In conclusion, communists have no class. You have been indoctrinated. The circumstances that caused the revolutions in Cuba, China and Russia are not present today. We of the west have strong unions, workers rights, and are not deprived of food and facing incompetent, inhumane governments. You have no need to rebel against the civil powers.

http://knowyourmeme.com/i/19376/original/cool_story_troll.png?1253179269

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

Take Russia for example, in the 1980s inefficient government production led to mass shortages. But now people in Russia have food on their tables, something that throughout Soviet history was uncommon.
You're point being that Russia in the 1980s was not so good, right? It might surprise you to hear this, but even the most diehard ''Stalinist'' would agree with you there. I don't think there is a person here that would say they agreed with the USSR after 1951, and I'm pretty sure most people here(I am not one of them) despised the USSR under Stalin.

You seem to have an incredibly slim and shallow view of the entire revolutionary Leftist movements. To you(by what I gather from your few posts) every kind of Communist is one who looks to the former Soviet Union as a kind of infallible entity. As if we all worship Lenin and yet Gorbachov also(again, I have yet to come across a Leninist who believed ALL leaders of the Soviet Union were the lead torch-carriers of the revolution).

My point being, even though not everyone in these forums get along because of the differences in tendency, you can't come in here and attempt to change anyone's minds with such childish and over-used arguments. I might not share the same views as a lot of people here, but I don't consider them complete morons. I know, despite me not being a long time user(a lurker for about 2 years, however), that none of them are going to fall for this shit. It's pathetic attempt at trolling, really.

But none of this really matters since you probably still won't believe that not all us commies adhere to Soviet fetishism, so back to the whole ''well, the Eastern Bloc was a horrible place to live in the 80s so THERE!'' thing...
To this, I will reply first with a question: In recent years(within the past 2 decades) have you been to anywhere in the former Eastern Bloc? If so, how gorgeous has Romania gotten since the collapse of the USSR? Is Albania a freeman's paradise? How about anywhere else?

It's been twenty fucking years. What has the return to the market economy done for those areas? I mean other than higher suicide rates, more use of hard drugs, growing alcoholism etc. etc.... Is all of this Communism's fault, twenty years after the collapse and 59 years since Kruschev's reforms? Or is that what ''freedom from oppression'' looks like.

The dominance of warped Soviet leaders(Communists only in name) was replaced by the dominance of the free market(the dictatorship of money), but the former is the only thing right-wingers admit is oppressive.

[Revolution starts with U]

It's been twenty fucking years. What has the return to the market economy done for those areas? I mean other than higher suicide rates, more use of hard drugs, growing alcoholism etc. etc....

Of course they reverted back to signs of social unease (drugs, suicide, and over-indulgence of entertainment). That's how capitalism maintains its control.
(Just to be clear, I am very anti any kind of drug war, but that does not mean I think all drugs are good. Only weed and psychedellics are ;) :laugh:)

[Die Rote Fahne]

It's been twenty fucking years. What has the return to the market economy done for those areas? I mean other than higher suicide rates, more use of hard drugs, growing alcoholism etc. etc....

Of course they reverted back to signs of social unease (drugs, suicide, and over-indulgence of entertainment). That's how capitalism maintains its control.
(Just to be clear, I am very anti any kind of drug war, but that does not mean I think all drugs are good. Only weed and psychedellics are ;) :laugh:)

Weed is a psychadellic.

Que star* "The more you know"

[Revolution starts with U]

hmmm... interesting :thumbup1:

[Ele'ill]

You might want to retract that statement until you've seen our 'chit-chat' section.

[Ele'ill]

what's that like?


Well, it's not as bad as the IRC server and it's sometimes more amusing than 'theory'....

[Barry Lyndon]

a)Many on this forum would agree with the Marxist system and the never ending class struggle against the capitalist pigs. However the bourgeoisie show us that maybe the left should abandon its ideas on a classless 'utopia' and adopt a market based system

This is firstly because communism is shit. But I could understand why those of this forum would want to live in a society where:

b) -You stand in a queue all day for your two grams of bread
c) -You get rewarded by sitting on your ass
d) -The absence of incentives to work destroy productivity and produce less food
e) -A person's hard labor is not rewarded
and
f) -People live under a tyrannical despot who abolishes their free speech and civil rights

g) In fact, your idol Lenin implemented capitalist policies. The New Economic Policy lowered taxes on peasant proprietors and abolished grain requisitioning. Why? Because Lenin new that the only way to feed his workers was with the market's invisible hand, and quite rightly so. War Communism caused a famine that killed 5 million people, but under the NEP the emergence of the merchant class of NEPMEN saw food production expand to pre-war levels.

h) Also, Mao allowed private enterprise after the revolution as he needed to consolidate his rein by stimulating heavy industry and food production. This should be contrasted with the Great Leap Forward in 1958, or The Great Step Backwards, where Marxist theory killed 30 million Chinese as inefficiencies and low productivity of labor led to starvation; not seen under capitalism. The failure of this leftist policy was so bad that The Great Helmsman was forced to step down.

i) In conclusion, communists have no class. You have been indoctrinated. The circumstances that caused the revolutions in Cuba, China and Russia are not present today. We of the west have strong unions, workers rights, and are not deprived of food and facing incompetent, inhumane governments. You have no need to rebel against the civil powers.

a) They 'show' us that because it is in their interest to remain in power and continue exploiting the working class. Why would the bourgeoisie advocate anything else?

b) Yeah, everyone has enough to eat under capitalism, don't they? Never seen a homeless person on the street, no siree......

c) Unlike say, a CEO who makes more sitting 'on his ass' in an office in one day then their employee makes in a whole month.

d) I don't think massive financial bailouts to the 5 corporations that made the most layoffs this past year(2009), like the Obama administration has, is creating 'incentives', or helping 'productivity' for the American economy right now.

e) Because Goldman Sachs or Bill Gates works hundreds of times harder then their blue-collar workers, they deserve to be paid hundreds of times more. It's not humanly possible to work that hard, but I guess in your mind it is.

f) Capitalists are fine with supporting dictators- you can have pesky trade unionists and socialists jailed or murdered if you want, no need for that irritating thing called 'democracy'. Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, Suharto, Mobutu, Chiang Kai Shek, the Somozas, the Duvaliers, and many other tyrants all presided over free market economies.

g) The famine was because Russia was under a American, British, and French naval blockade that cut off all food and medical supplies from abroad, and because counter-revolutionary White Armies had burned and looted the countryside for the past two years.
Lenin created small-scale capitalism, to be sure, but it was still a step forward because the peasants were given their own land when before they had to pay rent to big landlords who owned them and everything they had.
It was a temporary measure to save Russia from total collapse, due to circumstances imposed on it by imperialist pressure.
To call it a failure of socialism is to condemn a man with a boot on his neck for not being able to walk.

h) The Great Leap Forward hunger was because of both the fact that the Soviet Union withdrew its economic advisors and engineering support at a crucial time, and there were a series of droughts, floods, and other natural disasters.
Also the figure of 30 million is a gross exaggeration. It was reached by comparing projected birth rates with real brith rates. This means that people who were not even born were added to the death toll.
Before the Communists came to power, China had waves of famine every five to ten years which carried off tens of millions of lives(several waves of famine between 1800 and 1870 may have led to the deaths of 85 million Chinese). After 1960, China never had a famine ever again, largely thanks to the Communists success in feeding China's huge population.

By contrast, under capitalism, 10 million children under the age of 5 die every year from starvation and other preventable diseases in Third World capitalist countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, and Nigeria.

i)"We of the west have strong unions, workers rights"
Because of little things like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_Lawrence_Textile_Strike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_Sit-Down_Strike

The working class in 'The West' fought tooth and nail for every concession it got from the capitalists. And the capitalist class is currently been rolling back those rights in the United States and even in Western Europe, with increasing ferocity in the last 30 years.

And in many parts of the world, workers don't have those basic rights. Police states supported by 'Western' capitalists murder and torture trade unionists all over the world.
The US government has overthrown or attacked revolutionary and progressive governments that have threatened American business interests in Haiti, Guatemala, Iran, Indonesia, the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Pakistan, East Timor, Angola, Mozambique, Afghanistan, the Congo, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq, Honduras, Venezuela, and Ecuador.
Do all these people who have been killed, tortured, and exploited by US imperialism not matter, because 'we' in the 'west' supposedly have it so good?

"The circumstances that caused the revolutions in Cuba, China and Russia are not present today."
Really? Theres no poverty? No class exploitation? No rich and powerful countries bullying, attacking, invading, occupying, and/or blockading and starving weaker countries?
Must have missed that memo.

Marxism is the ideology of the emancipation of the working class. It will remain relevant as long as that class exists and it is exploited by the capitalists.

[RGacky3]

I feel like half of the OI, is very well thought out intelligent responses to moronic knee jerk posts of people that have no intention of learning anything or having an honest discussion, its sad really.

[Bud Struggle]

I feel like half of the OI, is very well thought out intelligent responses to moronic knee jerk posts of people that have no intention of learning anything or having an honest discussion, its sad really.

Well it's more like really well thought out excuses why Communism has never worked in all the times it has been tried in the past and a lot of unsubstantiated plans about how it could work in the future.

I never said Communism wasn't a good idea---it is just getting it to work that is the problem.

[RGacky3]

Well it's more like really well thought out excuses why Communism has never worked in all the times it has been tried in the past and a lot of unsubstantiated plans about how it could work in the future.


Not really excuses, not even explinations, just explaining that the examples given are NOT communism.

What we do have is how its worked everytime its actually been tried, an very sustantiated evidence and reasoning about why it will work.

Its the Leninists that have the excuses


I never said Communism wasn't a good idea---it is just getting it to work that is the problem.

Its not that hard, just let it work, it works the same way democracy works.

[Bud Struggle]

Not really excuses, not even explinations, just explaining that the examples given are NOT communism.

What we do have is how its worked everytime its actually been tried, an very sustantiated evidence and reasoning about why it will work.

Its the Leninists that have the excuses. Yea, but it has been tried a LOT of times and it never ends up being actual Communism. I understand your point, but it seems to me that what these contries end up as is as close as you can come to the real thing in the real world.


Its not that hard, just let it work, it works the same way democracy works. I don't believe that at all. I think the Leninists are right in the idea of needing a Vanguard. If one could be put into place--AND NOT BE CORRUPTED--over time you might have a good chance at achieving Communism. What is needed is to really change the consciousness of the entire world, and I don't think that's all that easy to do. Christianity tried it, so did Islam and both at least partially failed. Communism had a good shot there with the SU and China and the Iron Curtain countries, but that fell awaty pretty quickly (I'm not saying those place were actually Communist--but they had a real opportunity to be.)

I'm watchingNepal to see if they could pull something off there--but it looks like the same old same old. We'll see.

[RGacky3]

Yea, but it has been tried a LOT of times and it never ends up being actual Communism.

Leninism has been tried many times, everytime actual democratizing of the economy has happened, it has done what it set out to do, i.e. democratize the economy.


I understand your point, but it seems to me that what these contries end up as is as close as you can come to the real thing in the real world.


But they arn't anything close to what we are fighting for. I'm not being a stickler, like I said, I support everything form Socialist party style Social-Democracy to CNT style anarcho syndicalism to Zapatista style autonomous socialism to Argentina style factory takeovers, because they are all, democratizing the economy, Leninism was not that.


I think the Leninists are right in the idea of needing a Vanguard.

What do you mean by that? Leninists will always say "oh no worries, it just means leadership in the abstract" but in practice its always a strict hiarchy.


If one could be put into place--AND NOT BE CORRUPTED--over time you might have a good chance at achieving Communism.

The only way anything is not corrupted is by full accountability.


What is needed is to really change the consciousness of the entire world

Why??? Why does the consciousness of the entire world need to be changed to have a democratic economy????


I'm watchingNepal to see if they could pull something off there--but it looks like the same old same old. We'll see.

Don't hold your breath.

[Jimmie Higgins]

But it's been on of the hallmarks of Communist Revolution that advanced Capitalist societies never fall to Communism. It's always the Nepals of the Cambodias or the Cubas.

There is a missing link in Marx's analysis that he misunderstood or didn't quite think of.This is a valid point. Capitalism has developed a lot since Marx was around and the class struggle has changed too. Marx couldn't predict new developments like modern credit, the modern welfare state, stalinism, etc. Marx recognized that capitalism was very flexible and dynamic, but he could not have predicted all future developments, he could identify the major forces involved and trends. You can understand evolution and predict that some forces or conditions might cause animals to adapt, but you can't know what kind of adaptations will ultimately result. Or, maybe more relevant, you can study the markets and predict that the emergence of some speculative bubble will cause instability in some way, but you can not predict how it will effect things and on top of that how attempts to mediate any negative effects will then change the dynamics of the problem.

However, it is false that revolutions do not happen in advanced countries as Germany had several in a few short years and was the biggest industrial power. France had several major working class uprisings in the 20th century from the fight against french fascists before WWII to 1968. England had a general strike and a major syndicalist movement. The US saw 3 general strikes (which the bourgeois press dennounced as "revolutions") within a few months in the 1930s as well as sit-down strikes during the depression.

The reason that there were a string of 3rd world revolutions in the middle of the century has less to do with people in these areas being inherently "more revolutionary" and more to do with a general upsurge in national liberation struggles after WWII. Many of these struggles and Revolutions ended up identifying as "nationalist" revolutions like in Iran or Algeria while others identified with Stalinism/Maoism like in Vietnam or Cuba and others were somewhere inbetween or a variation like "African socialism".

[ComradeMan]

The reason that there were a string of 3rd world revolutions in the middle of the century has less to do with people in these areas being inherently "more revolutionary" and more to do with a general upsurge in national liberation struggles after WWII. Many of these struggles and Revolutions ended up identifying as "nationalist" revolutions like in Iran or Algeria while others identified with Stalinism/Maoism like in Vietnam or Cuba and others were somewhere inbetween or a variation like "African socialism".

Even the Russian revolution did contain an element of Russian nationalism to it, the Tsar's wife was a hated German and the Russian aristocracy spoke French for the most part.

I see there has been no discussion of Makhno yet. There are some who would say the Russian Revolution was not a success and led to the red-tsardom of Stalin.

[Revolution starts with U]

YOu miss the point tho Bud (in fact even many socialists do).
The welfare state, sociail security, labor protections, etc only exist because of the threat of revolutionary socialism; it's revolution insurance. Revolution in one country leads to reformism in another. Continuing current trends, the developed world will be full-on transitionary socialism (think like market socialism, or democratic capitalism) within the next decade or two.
Do you really think Social Security would have developed in a capitalist society were it not for the threat of rich people getting decaitated?

[RGacky3]

The welfare state, sociail security, labor protections, etc only exist because of the threat of revolutionary socialism;

And as soon as the ruling class feels safe, or feels like it can profit without it, ALL OF THOSE THINGS will be stripped away.

[Revolution starts with U]

I agree

[Jimmie Higgins]

Or this...

ALL OF THOSE THINGS are being stripped away.:crying: