Black Market

[Hegemonicretribution]

In a communist state there is always a possibility of allsorts being available on the black market.Which would/could include porn, drugs and other such topics of discussion. The black market is how things not deemed fit would be obtained, and also how knockoffs would be obtained. Also it would allow people to capitalise. This I would imagine would make it quite a serious problem/crime. Keeping capitalism, even if only slightly, a threat to communism.

The question is how would you invissage it being controlled, if at all? What would punishments be and any general points I may have missed.

[Xvall]

In my ideal world, there will be no black market. There will be no white market, no brown market, no greenish-blue/fyusha market. There will only be one market for all the world.

[redstar2000]

There's no such thing as a communist "state" and no "markets" of any kind.

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...t=ST&f=6&t=6362 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=6362)

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

hello again hegemonicretrobution :) . I am curious as to what system was used in the USSR, especially when the iron curtain collapsed/was on the brink of and westeners were freely aloud into the bloc. I imagine it must be something similar to what is used in present day cuba- excessive police. My Nan went to the soviet union in the 70's though and swapped a western magazine (which wasnt confiscated at customs due to there oversight) for a hammer and sickle hat badge, so it cant have been to difficult to do.
I think things like porn (as disscussed before :P) would be the worst threat as people can basically make it therselves for little expendature, yet to some (desperate) people it would be valuable.
To see illegal drug use cut down, i would do random testing, as in you get a note through your door or handed to you by the cops that says "turn up to your local doctors at ______" for blood testing.

[Legends]

To be honest no matter what kinda of country we live in whether it be communist, capitalists etc there will always be black market, think of it you cant put a punishment on it as they price of the good will just go up due to the risk.
The only way it would be possible is to try and keep it at a all time low, there would be no point in trying to get rid of it all together as it wouldnt work, there would always be someone out there doing the deals and taking the risks.

[sglb]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 21 2003, 07:29 AM
To see illegal drug use cut down, i would do random testing, as in you get a note through your door or handed to you by the cops that says "turn up to your local doctors at ______" for blood testing.
In my opinion, all drugs should be legal. Drug legalisation would lower the crime rate and there would be one less product to be sold on the black market.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Red Star, I do believe communism as a world order, however a smaller attempt could be open to corruptio, hence the post.

Even without any cash, goods produced could easily be traded, as a commodity. Like you said in that post, and I in this one, it is keeping capitalism alive, and therefore very serious.

Drake Dracoli Every one has their ideal world, but I guess everyione has a different vision of perfection, and it might well be unlikely we will achieve a "perfect" world. Even if we do it will take time.

El Marko, even if drugs were illegal, I think random blood tests is a little authoritarian, I wouldn't want to live like that.

[anti machine]

All drugs should be decriminalized. A fascist state arises when narcotics and soft drugs are outlawed. In a communist 'state', a black market need not exist, unlike mid-century U.S.S.R. where blue jeans were a valuabe "capitalist" commodity. Black markets arise due to embargos and tension between states with clashing ideologies, and of course, ideally, a global state will arise where illegal products as we know them today will cease to be contraband.
Drugs should always be available to those individuals who have arrived at a perception of existence that renders them despairing. Such mindsets will not be abolished under a utopian state, and substances should be available for those who see life in its harsh reality.

[Valkyrie]

That's interesting Heg, as I view Capitalism as duly insistant upon the cash exchange. So, I see nothing wrong with a trade/barter black-market.

As tangible commodities depreciate they lose their exchange value over time and therefore can't be accumulated and converted to surplus capital. And trading, by my account; no matter what the previous Capitalist value of the object, would in a communist society, become an equal exchange depending on need.

So, a chair and a car is an equal exchange if the person who has the car needs the chair and the person who has the chair needs the car. Equal and fair in my book.

I do absolutely think that a communist society will have to dispense with money in order for communism to work; otherwise the symbol and means of Capitalism is still part and parcel of the system and begging to command the economy once again. I can't even think of communism any other way.

[Faceless]

To answer this question you have to ask yourself the question, "what protects organised criminals under this society?" The answer is of course the law. A citizen who lynched a Mafia boss or massacred his organization's members would find himself in prison for the next 100 years. What he would have done though would have been a morally acceptable and legitimate action despite its consequences. The only threat to a Mafia don is the law but a good lawyer and a lot of cash makes him untouchable. In the final stage of Communism where the state is gone and the New Socialist Man rules the land the criminals will become obselelte on such a large scale. As there is no money then there shall be no way of accumulating weapons through the same capitalist process through which all goods are accumulated. A gang will therefore have no law and few weapons to defend themselves. The majority population would then be able to take the law into their own hands. What punishment would they deal? almost certainly death or physical torture for lesser criminals. With no state there shall be no organised crime except upon the smallest level. And, as has already been mentioned, an undetectable minority would be tollerable, woudn't it?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Paris I view it in a very simillar light to yourself, however I see something wrong with the market when child porn or snuff movies are on offer. Or perhaps slaves, women TRADED into servitude? Serious crimes. In that case it is possesion of illegal items that is the problem.

Faceless, it is interesting you assume all capitalist goods aquired by gangsters are paid for, I am sure there is some thievery involed at times. Even if they steal the cash to purchase weapons. It would still be possible to unfairly aquire goods, and although ridding ourselves of money is a very good start it is by no means the sole answer.

[Valkyrie]

Yes, Heg, those are things that, in particular, anarchists still have to hammer out. I live that up to consensus.

[Xvall]

Nontheless; I refuse to seperate markets of the basis of gender or ethnicity. There are to be no 'white' or 'black' markets.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 22 2003, 04:38 PM
Nontheless; I refuse to seperate markets of the basis of gender or ethnicity. There are to be no 'white' or 'black' markets.
O.K. for the purposes of being politically correct (which I nearly always am, having never used some more common racial slurs) the "illegal market" A sub market, where goods either gotten illegally, produced illegally or that the ownership is illegal in itself, are traded. With me?

[Xvall]

I'm not sure. But in your ideal world, what would the legal status of exotic centipedes be? (This matters to me, so answer.)

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by Drake Dracoli @ Aug 22 [email protected] 04:38 PM
I refuse to seperate markets of the basis of gender or ethnicity. There are to be no 'white' or 'black' markets.
Is this really where the term derives from?

[Hegemonicretribution]

I have not yet completed my vision for my perfect world, it is probably one of the latter details I think. Please don't spam if that is what you are trying to do, there is a forum based around it, and other forums for more light hearted discussion, this was a question asked by me, if you really want to know people's oppinions on cenerpedes start a new thread.

On second thoughts please don't.

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 02:08 PM

In my opinion, all drugs should be legal. Drug legalisation would lower the crime rate and there would be one less product to be sold on the black market.
By this logic then, the way to prevent people from illegal activity is to get rid of laws, so u have a 0% crime rate because people can do no wrong.

[Hegemonicretribution]

That is one way of looking at it, but I do not think that is what was implied. Drugs is a case that should be dealt with seperately from other crimes. Most drugs related crimes are a result of it being illegal. Lower the price, protect people by raising quality, and regulate and restrict it in a way that is far more realistic and you save a lot of hassle. Imagine if downloading mp3s was treated the same as any other form of theft, how much work would be needed in a crackdown? That is a crime that effects others. Now drugs, apart from stated above mainly effects the taker. They are the victim, yet itis their choice, and there is help to quit. The only other victim, in many cases, is the producer. They have poor labour conditions. So to correct this, by making it legal and regulated, drug production could be a proffession. If you keep it illegal you maintain oppression of producers, the oppression of the taker, and the capitalistic tendancies of the supplier.

Therefore I suggest legalisation, regulation and self help.

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

ok, lets say hypothetically your socialist government takes control . You bring in liberal drug laws, and everythings goin fine, until you notice that the budget on your nationalised health service is through the roof, paying for people to detox or in rehab or long term effects increasing such as lung cancer by poeple mixing substances with tabbaco who previously wouldnt have touched the stuff?
Then theres the other issue, would you really want all your workers stoned? productivity would fall dramatically, meaning over all living standards for the people are lowered.
Is it really worth it just so some people can poison themselves?

[Hegemonicretribution]

National health service. Funny old thing like in the U.K. Spends so much time dealing with smokers already. Yet despite the costs, it wouldn't exist without smoking. It brings in moer in taxes than it costs. Still those that are treated are now being told to have continuous treatment they must live a healthier lifestyle and not smoke. So it funds, givespeople the choice etc

Having talked to many people in medical proffessions, they say the danger of drugs is far worse when alcohol is involved, things can be stopped quite easily except when they have been drinking. Drinking, if you look objectively is a far more dangerous drug than many others. If it was new today it would not be legalised, there are historical reasons for it's place in society but lets not get into that.

Alsopeople wouldn't mix with tobacco if it is available, I don't know of drugs that I would choose to mix with it. Oh also, there are statistics proving things the other way, many people try tobacco and it is a gateway to pot, not the other way round, and the gateway theory ends there.

If drugs are safer, and are safer still because they are regulated, and they bring in more cash than they cost, the only problem is that of people being stoned at work. Same as people being drunk at work now. Is it such a major problem? If it became so people could be placed on bans or whatever, but I am running f the rule that alcohol has the same effects now.

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

you make many good points, all of which make me think that prohibition is the way to go rather than legalising everything.
The big difference between drinking and smoking that seperates them from illegal drugs for example pot is that i can go out n drink a pint, enjoy it, and go home feelin the same, however if i go out and have a joint, the smoking isnt the most desirable part, the reason for it is the high. In other words, you do it to loose your inhibitons, where as alcohol can be done for the pleasure of the taste alone.

[sc4r]

This thread reminds very forcibly of what seem to me to be the crucial difference between the various idealists (mostly Communists and anarchists) on the site and what I see as the pragmatic members.

By definition a black market is the part of the economy you cannot control. Arguing about what you would 'like' it to be is like discussing whether water should be wet. It has no bearing on the matter at all what you want.

How hard you control it (ie whether you execute people for selling an illicit joint or whether you fine someone £50 for a truckload of heroin) depends upon how much importance you place upon enforcing rules dictated by society.

Of course the various Anarchists and what I can only call Anarcho-Communists probably reply that in some magical manner they will get everyone to follow all the rules without compulsion and at the same time claim (confusingly) that there will not be any rules.

Yep, and that was live bacon I just saw fly past the window.

At this stage any sensible discussion should be about how to progress socialism. Discussions about what 'full communism' would look like or what it 'should be' are like discussing whether to have red or white roses outside the house on alpha centauri.

It is simple - Any equitable system gives people what they want. No system which forces people to have what they dont want or to behave in ways they dont want to behave is equitable or desirable. If you want to live in a sciety which functions differently from the existing one you must persuade many others to want the same. You wont do this by asking that they go from 'I like US style capitalism' to 'A fully communist state'. It is far far too big a leap. And it always will be.

All human experience says that people will trade. They do this to gain advantage for themselves. Chances are they always will. All a system can do is to limit what can be traded and how and between whom. Even this requires that you persuade people that the likely net effect of allowing certain types of trade will on balance disadvantage them.

Which makes it practical to ban trading in 'means of production' between individuals because these are very visible assets which without legal protection from society cannot exist anyway.

The next (major) step for Socialism is towards a society which runs as close as possible to the existing one but which removes the worst excesses of owning 'means of production'. This to me means Market ocialism. Thats the thing to get behind, ignore what amounts to intellectual fairy stories about anarchism and communism; all these are distractions.

Love and kisses to all.

[redstar2000]

All human experience says that people will trade. They do this to gain advantage for themselves. Chances are they always will.

It was not that long ago that "all human experience" said that people would trade in people (chattel slavery) and "always will".

Reformists never recognize the possibility of fundamental change...until after it has already happened.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

Desperate stuff that is.

Trade in human beings is not close to being as universal an experience as trade in general. The fact that it has proved possible to limit (not eliminate completely) trade in one very visible commodity does not mean that it is feasible to eliminate all trade. In fact all it really means is that ownership rights over human beings are not supported by law and so there is nothing actually to trade. You dont seem to realise that trade in commodities and trade in rights are not exactly the same in practise. The more transient a benefit the harder it is to restrict trade in the commodity which confers those benefits.

And of course just as with 'liberal property rights' it is only if a society is prepared to legally enforce ongoing ownership rights to people that there is any point in trying to trade in people. Where such rights are not actively disallowed it still goes on of course (and it goes on to an extent even where strictly speaking such the rights are not defended).

Are you seriously suggesting a society in which no-one has personal ownership of anything at all as a remotely feasible next step!? Get real. Apart from anything else anything actually consumable does not have to have the 'ownership rights' defended for trade in them to be viable. Where simple posession is all that is required for all 'ownership benefits' to be available and especially where the benefits are realised by consuming the thing, nobody requires law to have a tradable commodity.

[mentalbunny]

I think with "problems" like the black market, high levels of drug abuse, etc, you can anticipate them but you can't really work out how to deal with them until they happen and you can see what your working with. Like sc4r said, talking about fullblown communism is pretty pointless, kinda fun and interesting but ultimately a waste of time.

[Hegemonicretribution]

El Marko I would not say the taste of alcohol is the desirable par in the main. The reason most people drink is for the effect. Which is why it is part of parties and nights out. Teenagers drink to get drunk, and have to, rather dangerously, teach themselves because of the rigid age restrictions (my views on alcohol are seperate) their limits.

If alcohol was consumed primarily for the taste, then I would like to meet those that savour spirits for as long as they can in their mouths. I understand how fine wines and some beers are seperate. However if taste was the main reason I would expect to see a larger iundustry in non-alcoholic beer.


sc4r I guess I am an idealist, but am also an activist. I am active in a number of ways, and spend the rest of my time based in theory an ideology, because you need arguments to back up a curious population. People ask questions, if you have good answers then it adds to the practice, poor answers and the cause will be lost.

Positions on drugs and sex laws would be a big topic, when such a radical change is proposed. It is what matters to people everyday. The black market is how illegal trade would take place, so that is where the remaining capitalists would be. I was just wondering how different people would deal with it, through discussion I can strengthen my own view. Ths will help when explaining my position to Mr or Mrs X.

Black market is not neccessarily a part of the market that can't be controlled, it is a part that isn't controlled.

As for steps I agree. Guns a blazing revolutionaries are unlikely to achieve much at the moment.

[sc4r]

Hegemonic : I can at times sound very dismissive of idealists. Sorry about that. I dont mean to imply that to be an idealist is not to be an activist. In point of fact of course all of us are idealists in some sense. What those ideals are may difer of course.

But what is to me really important is to distinguish between those who demand an absolute conformance to what they see as the desirable end goal before they will actively contribute and those who desire progress. I percieve that most of the first sort give their primary (sometimes only) allegiance to their personal views in detail and demand that they be acknowleged as perfectly correct rather than in supporting a general movement. To me that seems both quite incredibly egocentric and unproductive.

I dont of course know exactly how you think. And I apologise if I have been over dismissive of you personally. The truth is that I only know of one member of this site about whom I am convinced that they are so utterly arrogant as to be actually harmful to the movement.

I do not see a vague call to 'educate and recruit the workers' as productive, particularly if that 'education' is going to consist of nothing more than demanding that they all fall in line with a quite detailed and in places undesirable set of goals. That is not going to achieve anything other than to create a small sect of zealots. It always seems to be forgotten that others are trying to 'educate' people too. And those others have vastly more resources.

If we want to win people to our side we have to :

1) Let it be clear that we will fight for their cause; that we will listen to what they want; and suggest a way that what they want can at least be delivered in large measure. Our task in 'education' is not to try and impose a view, but to show how our meta ideas provide the framework within which peoples aspirations are more fully satisfied. If it so happens that what people want is full communism so be it; but if they do not (as I suspect they never will, and certainly not before experiencing socialism) then that is not a thing to desire for ourselves either.

2) Show that we have a reasonably feasible path towards achieving that framework.

3) Probably we also have to show that the sacrifice required to follow that path is not so extreme as to render it undesirable.

The people I call pragmatic are those who recognise the above threee principles. The people I tend to dismiss as 'idealistic academics' dont seem to. They may be 'activists' but they are not pragmatists. They will never win anything.

I like winning. I like progress towards winning. I have little patience with long term education coupled with vague but stirring rhetoric about how at some distant point 'all the workers will unite and overthrow 'the bosses''.

I agree you need good answers. The fact is I dont think that the answers provided by most Communists / Anarchists are any good. They are certainly long winded; cerytainly they have impressive sounding phrases; but they dont convince many people even that they contain sense. They dont even vaguely convince me, and I'd like to be convinced. Analysed they are empty. The phrases and explanations never refer to observatable realities ouside their own paradigm but instead merely cross refer inside it. This makes it a self referential explanation. Which is a poor one.

I agree that by definition the balck matkey is the part that is not controlled. The question here however is whether it is sensible to suggest that control can or should ever be so extreme as to make all trade controlled (or by some readings. of what some are saying. controlled in the sense of actually not existing). In my view this is just nonsense. Some people are always going to want things that society says they should not have. In such circumstances trade in those things is inevitable. And by definition this is a black market.

Yopu cannot 'control' a black market except by making the punishments for using it higher. In such circumstances its sorta roundabout to talk of controlling the market. What you do is talk of degrees of punishment for the specific infringement.

best wishes.

[redstar2000]

Like sc4r said, talking about fullblown communism is pretty pointless, kinda fun and interesting but ultimately a waste of time.

Ah, the seductiveness of reformism.

Well, it is a reactionary period, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

But I can be disappointed...and I am. :(

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[mentalbunny]

Well when most of my country is middle class I can't possibly expect a revolution. No one wants violence, and I can't imagine a revolution without one.

[redstar2000]

I have no idea what you mean by "middle class" in the context of your remarks, but the suggestion that most of the people in your country are small or medium-sized businessmen/women is rather...breathtaking.

Even though Colonel Blimp will remind me that I am 3,000 miles away from the UK and that therefore "you know better", it looks to me like you have bought into the myth of the "great middle class".

Certainly that myth is very wide-spread in the United States...in spite of the fact that the numbers show the working class is in a huge majority.

I think the same thing is true in the U.K. ("dogmatist fanatic" that I am).

As to violence, I think that depends on how pissed off people are. Right now, people are "against violence" (for the most part) because they are not pissed off.

When that changes, as it almost certainly will in the decades to come, people will look at violence differently...as regrettable, perhaps, but necessary to overthrow the capitalist class and smash the capitalist state apparatus.

You know, the sort of thing that gives reformists nightmares.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Valkyrie]

hmmmm. interesting.... I never fail to find this forum interesting...

I've mentioned semantics before re: anarchy and other different terms. Classes seem to be one of them too. If you work, you can technically be called the "Working Class." However, it is much sordid than the clean class disparties in Marxs' day.

I live in the US too, ... I would define the middle-working-class as the white-collar management or professional, $30+yr bracket, mortgage, one or two financed cars, possibly a boat, a pool in the backyard, a bachelor's and maybe some additional education. Pretty much not struggling unless you consider their own-inspired credit card debt. The middle-class, to me, would be the hardest to wrench out of the hands of the "American Dream"-myth, and always aligned with Capitalism whether Repubican, Democrat or other....

The working class, to me, is unpropertied, $25- yr. blue-collar or entry level white-collar, Associates or less education, a rusty second-hand car, unable to get loans or else paying huge finance charges for them, pretty much the poor sod who has little chance of moving up to any decent wage and is just working to put food in his mouth and pay his rent. These people I would see as having natural sympathies with our cause.

Just a view I've always held forth after having worked myself for 20 years.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 02:12 AM
hmmmm. interesting.... I never fail to find this forum interesting...

I've mentioned semantics before re: anarchy and other different terms. Classes seem to be one of them too. If you work, you can technically be called the "Working Class." However, it is much sordid than the clean class disparties in Marxs' day.

I live in the US too, ... I would define the middle-working-class as the white-collar management or professional, $30+yr bracket, mortgage, one or two financed cars, possibly a boat, a pool in the backyard, a bachelor's and maybe some additional education. Pretty much not struggling unless you consider their own-inspired credit card debt. The middle-class, to me, would be the hardest to wrench out of the hands of the "American Dream"-myth, and always aligned with Capitalism whether Repubican, Democrat or other....

The working class, to me, is unpropertied, $25- yr. blue-collar or entry level white-collar, Associates or less education, a rusty second-hand car, unable to get loans or else paying huge finance charges for them, pretty much the poor sod who has little chance of moving up to any decent wage and is just working to put food in his mouth and pay his rent. These people I would see as having natural sympathies with our cause.

Just a view I've always held forth after having worked myself for 20 years.
And of course you are smack on the money. The fact that in both the US and the UK (and probably Australia too) the 'working class' in Marx's sense of a bottom of the pile subsistence worker in a manual / repetitive job with no real connection to capital barely exists anymore at all; and even to the extent it does represents a minority seems to escape the likes of RS entirely.

In fact his views really apply not to the 'working class' but to 'the unemployed benefit class'.

Anyone who knows this class well (I do) will also know that as a source for socialist revolutionaries it is on the whole a dead loss. Not every unemployed person is a lazy bludger by a long chalk, but quite a few are. Quite a few of the others are extreme racists and would cut Redstars balls off for expressing some of his views.

[mentalbunny]

Well in the UK what you could call the real wroking class are too busy holding down at least 2 jobs in order to make ends meet. they don't have the time to even unionise in most places, let alone start a fucking revolution which they don't really want.

[redstar2000]

The working class, to me, is unpropertied, $25K-yr. blue-collar or entry level white-collar, Associates or less education, a rusty second-hand car, unable to get loans or else paying huge finance charges for them, pretty much the poor sod who has little chance of moving up to any decent wage and is just working to put food in his mouth and pay his rent. These people I would see as having natural sympathies with our cause.

Quite so. Far from being welfare parasites, they are busting their ass just to stay alive. How many of them are there?

Well, the largest employer in the United States today is Wal-Mart, with more than two million employees. They make about $7 to $8 per hour, are compelled to work unpaid overtime, have virtually nothing in the way of benefits, etc., etc., etc.

The second-largest employer is, I believe, Manpower, Inc. with over a million employees...an agency which subcontracts temporary office workers to large corporations. The pay is better, perhaps $10 an hour, but again there are no benefits...and you do not know from one day to the next if you'll even have a job at all.

I think drawing the line at $30K per year is probably a little low...to be comfortably "middle class" (in terms of standard of living, not actual class identity), probably $40K to $50K per year is needed in most American cities.

The "middle class" standard of living that seems so "common" in America is actually the result of (1)both members of a couple having full-time jobs, and (2)the enormous expansion of consumer credit (at interest rates up to and even exceeding 20% per year).

A really severe economic crisis, of course, would utterly destroy that illusion...it is what Marx called "fictitious capital", having no real substance behind it at all.

In fact his views really apply not to the 'working class' but to 'the unemployed benefit class'.

Anyone who knows this class well (I do) will also know that as a source for socialist revolutionaries it is on the whole a dead loss. Not every unemployed person is a lazy bludger by a long chalk, but quite a few are.

Yes, squire, the unemployed workers need a good taste of the whip, no doubt!

Quite a few of the others are extreme racists and would cut Redstar's balls off for expressing some of his views.

A bit of wishful thinking there, squire. How will they regard you should they learn what contempt you hold them in?

Well in the UK what you could call the real working class are too busy holding down at least 2 jobs in order to make ends meet, they don't have the time to even unionise in most places, let alone start a fucking revolution which they don't really want.

Yes, that's probably true at this time.

No one with any sense thinks that proletarian revolution is on the agenda for the day after tomorrow. Or even next week!

Reformists like sc4r have a strong faith in the ability of capitalism to continue "pretty much like it does now" indefinitely. If that faith were actually justified, then they'd be right: we should flop on our bellies and beg treats (reforms) from the ruling class.

Marxists understand matters differently: the "laws" of capitalism itself make economic "melt-downs" inevitable.

Again, reformists like sc4r think that the masses will choose fascism or the ruling class will impose fascism regardless of the desires of the masses and the latter will submit. That actually happened in Germany in 1930-33. Yet another "reason" to "flop on our bellies"...so the ruling class won't get pissed off and turn fascist.

But Marxists contend that one or another of those "melt-downs" will be the last one and material conditions themselves will compel a proletarian revolution to take place.

Since none of us are granted the gift of prophesy, all we can do is see which analysis makes sense of things right now and proceed accordingly. I contend that Marxism makes better sense of everything that's happened in the last two centuries than any other coherent analysis.

But I have to admit that there are many contenders for the honor; everything from neo-Hegelian "triumph of liberal democracy and the free market" to "evolutionary psychology" (the oppressed really "are" inferior).

Choose wisely.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

R:S:Yes, squire, the unemployed workers need a good taste of the whip, no doubt!

unemployed workers? whats that. Do you mean unemployed potential workers? Have you just assumed that every unemployed person belongs to the 'working class' ? why? Your 'working class' seem more and more to equate to 'anyone who does not benefit to the extent of £xxx from capitalism'. Not only is this totally abitrary but it makes Socialism not a source of human dignity but simply a negotiating card for anyone who does not hold others. Whats going to hold it together once the common interest of grabbing a bit of the pie that others currently have more of vanishes?


RS 'A bit of wishful thinking there, squire [Quite a few of the others are extreme racists and would cut Redstar's balls off for expressing some of his views]. How will they regard you should they learn what contempt you hold them in?

Have you met many ? this is exactly right. These people dont like me at all. So ? Maybe you think that like you I'm incapable of distinguishing between a generalisation made about the practicalities of organising people and individuals. I'm not. As a group (its you that created the notion of such a group) the unemployed contain bas material. As individuals some are bad , some are good. The point is that you are relying upon this group furnishing lots of good material.

RS 'Reformists like sc4r have a strong faith in the ability of capitalism to continue "pretty much like it does now" indefinitely. If that faith were actually justified, then they'd be right: we should flop on our bellies and beg treats (reforms) from the ruling class.'

No I dont. I've never said anything of the sort. In fact I've expressly said the opposite. What I have said is that when Capitalism 'melts down' what will replace it if we rely upon your self organised 'workers' is a mish mash of Fascist, oligarchic, dictatorial rule. I've also said that I dont wish to see people put through a few hundred years of injustice while we wait for your crisis.

I dont give a monkeys what Marx said. Marx saw a distinct working class because in Marx's day technology demanded that an awful lot of raw manual labour was required in industrialised processes. This did create a very clear distinction between proletariat and bourgeois(not quite as clear as he made it sound even then mind, hence his need to talk of 'petit bourgeois). Today that distinction only exists between the first and third worlds. It does not exist within the first world. Marx lived 150 years ago. Times have changed, and I refuse to treat him as an all knowing god.

In fact were it not for the fact that in Russia, China, and Cuba people refused to accept Marx's idea of where change should spring from chances are he would be an almost unknown figure of marginal interest.

A reformist is someone who wishes to retain liberal democracy, retain existing liberal property rights (capitalism if you like), but introduce more social policies like welfare, jealthcare etc. WITHIN THAT SYSTEM. Thats why they are called reformists, because they aim to reform liberal laws. I dont. I wish to eliminate liberal property rights entirely and dispense with representative democracy.

And you are not so uneducated that you do not know this. You choose to call me a 'reformist' because quite frankly you have nothing of substance to say and would rather attach perjurative labels to people in the hope that you will win a few admirers than take a hard look at how woolly your ideas are. Blackening someone's name is dishonest and a tactic used only by untrustworthy political opportunists. Like you.

[redstar2000]

A reformist is someone who wishes to retain liberal democracy, retain existing liberal property rights (capitalism if you like), but introduce more social policies like welfare, healthcare etc. WITHIN THAT SYSTEM. That's why they are called reformists, because they aim to reform liberal laws. I don't. I wish to eliminate liberal property rights entirely and dispense with representative democracy.

That's nice, squire, but you miss the point.

As I told you once before, your program is no different from classical social democracy and your methods are the same.

There is no place in your thought for proletarian revolution...or even for the proletariat itself.

That makes you a reformist!

Now go run for public office. :lol:

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas