Todays Communists should support liberal capitalism

[Trigonometry]

Todays Communists should in fact be staunch 'capitalists' and oppose social welfare/local industry protection against free trade/the aid of the developing world from exploitation

Because capitalism hasn't matured yet, we are still seeing competing bourgeois classes and that the ruling classes have not become above national borders e.g. the Chinese capitalist class today vs American capitalist class.
The inevitable rise of capitalism is being bogged down by reactionary reformist movements such as environmentalism, humanitarianism etc

There should be an environment of economic liberalisation like the 1980s all over the world to create an environment in which a particular bourgeois class may thrive and outcompete all others and then become 'supra national'
Otherwise any revolution would be prematurely conceived

I know this sounds non sensical but think of it as a 1 step back 2 steps forwards type thing

[Agent Equality]

you're going to find yourself restricted in no time if you keep posting threads like this my friend :D

[Caj]

Is this a joke?

[gendoikari]

you're going to find yourself restricted in no time if you keep posting threads like this my friend :D

If I understand him correctly he means oppose liberal agendas to let capitalism run it's course, which fully unrestricted it will eventually collapse in upon itself and give the working class reason to rise up? And in that he is correct but it is kinda like shooting yourself in the foot to heal a broken leg. okay not the best analogy but i'm busy at the moment.

[La Peur Rouge]

Yeah, no thanks. I'll stick to not supporting shit conditions for my class, and how is humanitarianism reactionary?

[Trigonometry]

If I understand him correctly he means oppose liberal agendas to let capitalism run it's course, which fully unrestricted it will eventually collapse in upon itself and give the working class reason to rise up? And in that he is correct but it is kinda like shooting yourself in the foot to heal a broken leg. okay not the best analogy but i'm busy at the moment.

Yeah that's what I'm saying
Say today in the USA we somehow introduce a heavy heavy tax somehow on the capitalist class, it doesn't kill the capitalist class but only the capitalist class of the USA where as if one capitalist class had managed to over come others, it would be more of a two way struggle ie. bourgeoisie vs proletariat

rather than Russian bourgeoisie vs US bourgeoisie vs Chinese bourgeoisie vs proletariat


Yeah, no thanks. I'll stick to not supporting shit conditions for my class, and how is humanitarianism reactionary?
well in this context i meant it more specifically for stuff like helping the 3rd world places like Africa. All it really does it attempt to revive an already conquered capitalist class rather than truly help the exploited and therefore prolong the phase of capitalism

[gendoikari]

Yeah that's what I'm saying
Say today in the USA we somehow introduce a heavy heavy tax somehow on the capitalist class, it doesn't kill the capitalist class but only the capitalist class of the USA where as if one capitalist class had managed to over come others, it would be more of a two way struggle ie. bourgeoisie vs proletariat

rather than Russian bourgeoisie vs US bourgeoisie vs Chinese bourgeoisie vs proletariat

Heavy taxes wouldn't even do that. If you want this to work, you have to get away from supporting liberal capitalism, to basically fully supporting the right wing and everything that they do. And opposing the right wing when their corporate masters try and pull them back from .... well instigating a revolt. Basically Welfare GONE, Medicare, GONE. ANY form of regulation and governmental restrictions on what companies can do, GONE.

It's a nice theory but .... I don't think I could ever clean my soul afterward even if it was successful at sparking revolution.

[electro_fan]

no.
just, no

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Gtfo.

[Trigonometry]

Heavy taxes wouldn't even do that. If you want this to work, you have to get away from supporting liberal capitalism, to basically fully supporting the right wing and everything that they do. And opposing the right wing when their corporate masters try and pull them back from .... well instigating a revolt.

It's a nice theory but .... I don't think I could ever clean my soul afterward even if it was successful at sparking revolution.

I probably shouldn't have said heavy taxes, but instead say somehow true socialism is established. It would simply kill the local capitalist class rather than the class altogether. But I didn't want to use this analogy as it brings in other implications but I'm sure you guys understand what I meant with it.

That's sort of what I'm getting at, that is in a sense to be progress today we have to advance capitalism to mature rather than prematurely push for socialism. So in that manner the capitalists are more revolutionary/progressive in action than we are!

I know it may sound morally ambiguous but history is amoral, so is progress so morality. I'm advocating capitalism rallies or anything but just staying away from stuff that kills capitalism and let history run its course.

[gendoikari]

I'd also like to make a side note, that shit would hit the fan quick, but you better like rebuilding from rubble because the corporate masters have the bigger guns. and would probably OWN the military.

[gendoikari]

I probably shouldn't have said heavy taxes, but instead say somehow true socialism is established. It would simply kill the local capitalist class rather than the class altogether. But I didn't want to use this analogy as it brings in other implications but I'm sure you guys understand what I meant with it.

That's sort of what I'm getting at, that is in a sense to be progress today we have to advance capitalism to mature rather than prematurely push for socialism. So in that manner the capitalists are more revolutionary/progressive in action than we are!

I know it may sound morally ambiguous but history is amoral, so is progress so morality. I'm advocating capitalism rallies or anything but just staying away from stuff that kills capitalism and let history run its course.

You realize this would truely be a Rising from the ashes sort of deal Right, AND there is no guarantee that if the corporate master have the military, that the revolution would be successful right? and if it's not ..... welcome to the new aristocracy. It would start with the dehumanization of the working class and end in either it's emancipation or COMPLETE enslavement.

[Blackburn]

Wow, another American that wants to strip all welfare to have a Libetarian wonderland of the Free market! Yay! How original!

[NoOneIsIllegal]

How are we "prematurely" advancing socialism, and how can capitalism mature much more? it's had over 2 centuries to develop, and has reached every country and continent. We're in such a shithole right now, and things are only getting worse, for both the western industrialized countries and the third world. I don't think we're advocating socialism "prematurely" at all, the time is ripe. Do you seriously want to wait until things are even worse? I'm scared as it is.

[Trigonometry]

You realize this would truely be a Rising from the ashes sort of deal Right, AND there is no guarantee that if the corporate master have the military, that the revolution would be successful right? and if it's not ..... welcome to the new aristocracy. It would start with the dehumanization of the working class and end in either it's emancipation or COMPLETE enslavement.

The corporate masters don't already have the military in their respective countries?
The capitalist class will never be large enough in numbers to form the military themselves, but rather the military will inevitably be comprised of members of the proletariat.

We're not even changing anything here, just letting one capitalist class trump all others like originally hypothesised by Marx.


How are we "prematurely" advancing socialism, and how can capitalism mature much more? it's had over 2 centuries to develop, and has reached every country and continent. We're in such a shithole right now, and things are only getting worse, for both the western industrialized countries and the third world. I don't think we're advocating socialism "prematurely" at all, the time is ripe. Do you seriously want to wait until things are even worse? I'm scared as it is.

it is premature as there are still multiple vying capitalist classes with conflicting interests e.g. Chinese capitalist class vs American, in a sense the class conflict is 3 dimensional with multiple bourgeoisies and the proletariat

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Is this a joke?

I'm going to take a stab at this and say no. I think the main message of the OP was that we should endorse and fuel capitalism to mature in order to make the material conditions necessary for revolution happen. It may seem self-defeating or stupid but I get what s/he is saying and have thought something similar myself. I am not endorsing the proposal but I get the general message. If you read Marx then you know there has to and will be specific material conditions that will lead to a revolution organically (that is, if you're reading his work strictly). Perhaps I am wrong, if so, I'm sure someone can point this out. I would say, I much rather fight now, say bollox to theory and initiate a revolution in the present but I get the OP.


How are we "prematurely" advancing socialism, and how can capitalism mature much more?

How long did feudalism last? How long did it take for it to fully develop until historically the bourgeois revolutions came?


Wow, another American that wants to strip all welfare to have a Libetarian wonderland of the Free market! Yay! How original!

Am I the only one genuinely interested in exploring the merits of the OP? Surely, we're not the only two to have this idea go through their head?

I think the main message is, we know capitalism is shit, fuel it in the most extreme opposite direction instead of reforming it into something somewhat tolerable to the workers and thus fuel the revolution. I can understand the knee-jerk reactions here but I think we can set that aside and discuss it.

[electro_fan]

I think there will always be that though, that's one of the contradictions of capitalism lol, have you any idea what Feudalism was like before the capitalist revolution, there were competing elites all over the place, with monarchs going to war with their own families in order to get more land and because they couldn't agree who had the best "title" in terms of the throne, it was completely ridiculous! :D

[Weezer]

Just who the fuck do you think you are?

[xub3rn00dlex]

If you ask me this relies on WAY to many variables in order to ripen successfully. It is already variable enough dealing with raising any sort of class consciousness, but to let shit get worse? I get what the OP is saying, but I don't agree with it. The only quote that comes to mind is Steinbeck's "Temporarily embarrassed millionaire" statement.

[gendoikari]

Am I the only one genuinely interested in exploring the merits of the OP? Surely, we're not the only two to have this idea go through their head?

In moderation yes it's a good idea, but education of the proletariat is MUCH more effective at pissing them off. But just letting the captialists go wild I think would do more harm than good and could put them in a position that we couldn't topple, which would be a very bad thing, Imagine capitalism.... where the capitalists don't need the puppets in government ... because they ARE the government, and have little to fear from the proletariat.

Look bottom line is the OP has merit, BUT it could backfire BADLY.

[xub3rn00dlex]

In moderation yes it's a good idea, but education of the proletariat is MUCH more effective at pissing them off. But just letting the captialists go wild I think would do more harm than good and could put them in a position that we couldn't topple, which would be a very bad thing, Imagine capitalism.... where the capitalists don't need the puppets in government ... because they ARE the government, and have little to fear from the proletariat.

Pretty much. They would ultimately become what today's cartels are - ruthless. I'd rather deal with a of shit-fest piggies than go up against private militaries with blank checks.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Imagine capitalism.... where the capitalists don't need the puppets in government ... because they ARE the government, and have little to fear from the proletariat.

Can this not already be said? I mean, really?

[gendoikari]

Can this not already be said? I mean, really?

well I mean our president isn't Walmart.... and my senator isn't the Michelin man. And I'd like to certainly THINK they fear the revolt of the proletariat...

[NoOneIsIllegal]

How long did feudalism last? How long did it take for it to fully develop until historically the bourgeois revolutions came?
I see your point, but comparisons can fail. Why? The last 30-40 years of neoliberal capitalism has undoubtedly advanced faster than 100-150 years of Feudalism.
Advancements in our modern age, especially the last century, are more rapid, so we shouldn't be surprised if capitalism doesn't last as long as feudalism.
The rise of the proletariat has come faster than the rise of the bourgeoisie, so our revolution(s) should be sooner as well.

[Trigonometry]

I think there will always be that though, that's one of the contradictions of capitalism lol, have you any idea what Feudalism was like before the capitalist revolution, there were competing elites all over the place, with monarchs going to war with their own families in order to get more land and because they couldn't agree who had the best "title" in terms of the throne, it was completely ridiculous! :D
Well the basis of what I'm saying stands from Marx's idea that one bourgeoisie will trump all others.


Can this not already be said? I mean, really?

well I mean our president isn't Walmart.... and my senator isn't the Michelin man. And I'd like to certainly THINK they fear the revolt of the proletariat...

Even when capitalists ARE the government, to suppress the proletariat they would require the recruitment of the proletariat themself and if there are only a single capitalist class then it would simply be a all the worlds proletariat vs all the worlds capitalist and it would be quite clear who would win such a battle. For one thing, one of the biggest divisions of the proletariat is nationalism, a divide of whose capitalist class you belong to.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

I see your point, but comparisons can fail. Why? The last 30-40 years of neoliberal capitalism has undoubtedly advanced faster than 100-150 years of Feudalism.
Advancements in our modern age, especially the last century, are more rapid, so we shouldn't be surprised if capitalism doesn't last as long as feudalism.
The rise of the proletariat has come faster than the rise of the bourgeoisie, so our revolution(s) should be sooner as well.

Good point, agreed.

[L.A.P.]

The idea isn't actually completely ridiculous and would make sense if we weren't living in 2011. We're having an environmental crisis because of capitalism, I think it's time for it to go.

[CHE with an AK]

Looks at original post :confused:

Looks again to be sure :blink:



Ok, how do I get a mod boom stick already?


pFriRcIwqNU

:ninja: :hammersickle:

[Zav]

Todays Communists should in fact be staunch 'capitalists' and oppose social welfare/local industry protection against free trade/the aid of the developing world from exploitation

Because capitalism hasn't matured yet, we are still seeing competing bourgeois classes and that the ruling classes have not become above national borders e.g. the Chinese capitalist class today vs American capitalist class.
The inevitable rise of capitalism is being bogged down by reactionary reformist movements such as environmentalism, humanitarianism etc

There should be an environment of economic liberalisation like the 1980s all over the world to create an environment in which a particular bourgeois class may thrive and outcompete all others and then become 'supra national'
Otherwise any revolution would be prematurely conceived

I know this sounds non sensical but think of it as a 1 step back 2 steps forwards type thing
While this makes sense, we don't have the time nor the resources for another few centuries like the 1900s from an environmentalist's perspective. How the Green Movement and Humanitarianism are supposed to be reactionary I do not know. Besides, could you REALLY subject the world to even two hundred years of the worst of Capitalism just to wait for the 'right moment'?

[CHE with an AK]

Never put off killing capitalism till tomorrow ...
when you can start killing it today.

[ZeroNowhere]

The logical conclusion of such a view would be to oppose the struggle of the working class. For some reason, that doesn't sound like a communist position, generally speaking. While it's true that left-reformisms, etc., can be reactionary in themselves, precisely because qua ideologies they are simply abstract system-building and hence abstract from class struggle to place down arbitrary utopias, we do nonetheless support the development of the working class movement, which has for its ultimate end not any kind of capitalist utopia, but the dictatorship of the working class and ultimately socialism.

In any case, social welfare, higher wages and such don't particularly hold back capitalism, they just make it more prone to crisis, which in the present time is not particularly to be rejected. Crisis itself serves just as much as a stimulus towards the further centralization of industry and development of the productive forces as do booms, so opposing higher wages, in other words calling for a higher rate of profit, seems essentially the opposite of what would make sense in a time when capitalism has been struggling to get out of crisis for decades, and has been doing this to a large part through attacks on the working class. Far from being a good time for the working class to surrender and do nothing, now would be the time where the opposite would take on a character in opposition to the capitalist system itself, which is desperately struggling for a higher rate of profit.

[Le Socialiste]

Todays Communists should in fact be staunch 'capitalists' and oppose social welfare/local industry protection against free trade/the aid of the developing world from exploitation

Because capitalism hasn't matured yet, we are still seeing competing bourgeois classes and that the ruling classes have not become above national borders e.g. the Chinese capitalist class today vs American capitalist class.
The inevitable rise of capitalism is being bogged down by reactionary reformist movements such as environmentalism, humanitarianism etc

There should be an environment of economic liberalisation like the 1980s all over the world to create an environment in which a particular bourgeois class may thrive and outcompete all others and then become 'supra national'
Otherwise any revolution would be prematurely conceived

I know this sounds non sensical but think of it as a 1 step back 2 steps forwards type thing

No.

[La Comédie Noire]

Some people do hold this view, or at least admit that it is one conclusion that can be drawn from Historical Materialism, but that's a very deterministic interpretation.

[Blake's Baby]

I think the question of the period we're living in is the important thing. While this was an argument that could, reasonably, have been advanced in let's say 1820, when there was only a small proletariat, capitalism was still expanding into new territories around the world and industrialisation was continuing apace, in short the conditions for a socialist revolution hadn't matured, I think that most Marxists would concede that this is no longer the situation. Whether one is a 3rd-Internationalist or a Marxian Socialist, the objective conditions for the overthrow of capitalism have been in place for 100 years or more. Bersteinian Revisionism is not a tendency that has a lot of airplay on RevLeft, the 'Rev' being the clue as to why (hint, it doesn't stand for Revisionism).

[The Idler]

Capitalism matured around a century ago. Production ever since has been hampered not boosted by capitalism.

[Dogs On Acid]

So what your saying is:

"Let's just sit back and watch Capitalism evolve into Fascism, in the meanwhile we'll help. Then, when we're all fucked, we should make a move."

[Communist]

OP restricted, thread moved to OI.

[gendoikari]

So what your saying is:

"Let's just sit back and watch Capitalism evolve into Fascism, in the meanwhile we'll help. Then, when we're all fucked, we should make a move."

well yes but I think his reasoning is if you make things bad enough the proletariat will wake up and revolt, but the same can be done with education.

[xub3rn00dlex]

well yes but I think his reasoning is if you make things bad enough the proletariat will wake up and revolt, but the same can be done with education.

While I understand that viewpoint, what's stopping the proletariat from going "Well there's nothing we can do, fuck it?"

[ColonelCossack]

I don't know if this is total shit, would work but would destroy our souls in doing it, or makes perfect sense.

Does the end justify the means? :confused:

[Kamos]

I don't know if this is total shit, would work but would destroy our souls in doing it, or makes perfect sense.

Does the end justify the means? :confused:

It's total shit of course. We already know that capitalism is terrible and should be overthrown ASAP. I don't think we need to ruin it further to prove the point to the rest of the working class, especially since we'd potentially be screwing up the lives of generations for a dubious advantage that may not kick in at all.

[o well this is ok I guess]

yes we cannot truly be made to fight until we are naked and chain to a wall.

[gendoikari]

yes we cannot truly be made to fight until we are naked and chain to a wall.

How do you fight if your naked and chained to a wall.... I mean not everyone has a third arm....

[o well this is ok I guess]

How do you fight if your naked and chained to a wall.... I mean not everyone has a third arm.... I dunno, ask OP

[RadioRaheem84]

I was under the assumption that we've had more liberalization since the 80s not less, so the OP's premise is flawed to begin with.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Does the end justify the means? :confused:

This is the exact quote that came to mind when I first read the OP and while writing my previous posts. I agree with others that we shouldn't wait and given current situations both in Europe, the Americas and the Middle East, I would say world revolution isn't to far off even if it's naive to say so at this present time.

[gendoikari]

This is the exact quote that came to mind when I first read the OP and while writing my previous posts. I agree with others that we shouldn't wait and given current situations both in Europe, the Americas and the Middle East, I would say world revolution isn't to far off even if it's naive to say so at this present time.

Every morning I wake up and say "today will be the day" Just so I can get out of bed.

[Commissar Rykov]

While I understand that viewpoint, what's stopping the proletariat from going "Well there's nothing we can do, fuck it?"
Nothing that is the entire problem with the reasoning it is utter defeatism.

[Obs]

Funny thing with accelerationists - they're never workers.

[NGNM85]

Funny thing with accelerationists - they're never workers.

Holy crap. You and I actually agree on something. That's fairly unprecedented. However, somehow, I doubt you'll be repeatedly and viciously attacked for saying so.

[Obs]

Holy crap. You and I actually agree on something. That's fairly unprecedented. However, somehow, I doubt you'll be repeatedly and viciously attacked for saying so.

You have a weird perception of real leftists, then - no one on the main boards is an accelerationist like the OP. If they were, they'd be restricted, like the OP.

[Baseball]

This non-socialist seems to think the OP presents a wonderful argument.
I mean, one of the faiths of socialism is that socialism is inevitable; its going to happen. Indeed, there have been no shortage of posts explaining the failures of say, the USSR, on the fact that Russia was not an industrial country, had to build from scratch ect ect ect. All the OP proposes is that rather than waste time on pressure campaigns to advance socialism (and remember Revlefters, no "social democracy" here), use that effort to build up capitalism and the exploitation of the proleteriat so the material conditions come about for the great socialist revolt.
So raise a glass to the OP-- who has the guts to suggest that socialists ought to practice what they preach.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Todays Communists should in fact be staunch 'capitalists' and oppose social welfare/local industry protection against free trade/the aid of the developing world from exploitation

Because capitalism hasn't matured yet, we are still seeing competing bourgeois classes and that the ruling classes have not become above national borders e.g. the Chinese capitalist class today vs American capitalist class.
The inevitable rise of capitalism is being bogged down by reactionary reformist movements such as environmentalism, humanitarianism etc

There should be an environment of economic liberalisation like the 1980s all over the world to create an environment in which a particular bourgeois class may thrive and outcompete all others and then become 'supra national'
Otherwise any revolution would be prematurely conceived

I know this sounds non sensical but think of it as a 1 step back 2 steps forwards type thing

Umm...

Okay, first

1.) The "environment of economic liberalisation" is far more extreme than it was in the 80s. Read "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein.

2.) The problem isn't the full development of capitalism and the bourgeois. This isn't the 1840s.The problem is the exact opposite, capitalism has long since passed its progressive stage and is now a hindrance on the further development of humanity.

3.) "to create an environment in which a particular bourgeois class may thrive and outcompete all others and then become 'supra national'"

This has long since happened. Capitalism is both intra and inter national. Lenin and other discussed this.

4.) Economic "liberalization" hurts a lot of people and is a weapon against the ruling class. There are reasons why this has been occurring, mostly connected to an over accumulation of capital. David Harvey identifies 7 nexus points.

Overall you are about 160 years out of date. Keep reading.

[La Peur Rouge]

So raise a glass to the OP-- who has the guts to suggest that socialists ought to practice what they preach.

The funny thing is, what we "preach" is not the advancement of capitalism.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The OP's argument is similar to the "legal Marxists" in early 1900s Russia. Many liberals latched on to Marxism not as a method of revolutionary emancipation but rather an instruction manual explaining capitalist development.

[Blackburn]

Capitalism matured around a century ago. Production ever since has been hampered not boosted by capitalism.

I agree with this.

70% of the GDP of most first world countries is "services".

The only thing I've witnessed in my lifetime are Capitalists trying to sack staff (To the trim the fat as they say).

I previously had a boss who employed 13 people in an Insurance Brokerage, and his accountant said one day he should fire all the staff and just send out insurance renewals by himself and he would make more profits or whatever. The idea was so absurd that all the workers laughed (because the boss had no idea how much 'work' was required). Of course the boss was greedy enough to contemplate it for a little while.

Meh, that was the job where Bosses wife said to me at the Christmas party that she hopes we are all working hard so that boss can buy her a new diamond necklace.

My point is...this is where Capitalism is at now. It matured a long time ago.

[Obs]

This non-socialist seems to think the OP presents a wonderful argument.
I mean, one of the faiths of socialism is that socialism is inevitable; its going to happen. Indeed, there have been no shortage of posts explaining the failures of say, the USSR, on the fact that Russia was not an industrial country, had to build from scratch ect ect ect. All the OP proposes is that rather than waste time on pressure campaigns to advance socialism (and remember Revlefters, no "social democracy" here), use that effort to build up capitalism and the exploitation of the proleteriat so the material conditions come about for the great socialist revolt.
So raise a glass to the OP-- who has the guts to suggest that socialists ought to practice what they preach.

Let's assume you have understood historical materialism correctly (you haven't). There's still one thing wrong with your argument: you can't seperate "socialists" from the working class, since socialist and anti-capitalist movements are based on working class ideologies. Except the ones that aren't, in which case they don't matter (academics are not a revolutionary class).

[Baseball]

1.) The "environment of economic liberalisation" is far more extreme than it was in the 80s. Read "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein.

Then should not socialists' prospects be brighter, thus lessening the need for the campaigns?


2.) The problem isn't the full development of capitalism and the bourgeois. This isn't the 1840s.The problem is the exact opposite, capitalism has long since passed its progressive stage and is now a hindrance on the further development of humanity.

OK. So socialism is NOT inevitable.


3.) "to create an environment in which a particular bourgeois class may thrive and outcompete all others and then become 'supra national'"

This has long since happened. Capitalism is both intra and inter national. Lenin and other discussed this.

Now LENIN is being cited as a justification for action. Should Revlefters be concerned?

[NGNM85]

You have a weird perception of real leftists, then - no one on the main boards is an accelerationist like the OP. If they were, they'd be restricted, like the OP.

Well, mostly the people I tended to argue with argued against doing anything to prevent the assault on the working class, destruction of the welfare state, etc., which is about the same thing. You don't have to take my word for it, either.

I also didn't make any assertions about what does or does not constitute a 'real' Leftist, although, I doubt we have a consensus on the matter.

[Baseball]

[
[QUOTE]QUOTE=Obs;2205815]Let's assume you have understood historical materialism correctly (you haven't). There's still one thing wrong with your argument: you can't seperate "socialists" from the working class,

Oh-- I wouldn't dream of it! Inevitability and all that


since socialist and anti-capitalist movements are based on working class ideologies.

Not sure what this means. I surmise it means socialism percolates up. This is a nice theory, but the facts of course (starting with St. Karl himself) have not really supported it.

[Rafiq]

The demise of capitalism is inevitable. Neo Liberalism was simply a response to the growing rise of Labor power.

We shouldn't simply push for worse conditions under capitalism so people will like us better, we simply should avoid political action within the constraint of bourgeois democracy.

We are not reformists. We don't sit at congress and squabble over how hard we should fuck the workers over.

We oppose all existing forms of capitalism, whether it be 1940's Keynesianism or the bullshit we have now. Because in reality, all forms of capitalism will eventually lead to just that: A big fat lard of shit.

[Obs]

Well, mostly the people I tended to argue with argued against doing anything to prevent the assault on the working class, destruction of the welfare state, etc., which is about the same thing. You don't have to take my word for it, either.
I wouldn't take your word for a thing, dear, but I can say that in the time I've been here, I haven't seen anyone make any assertion of that kind, and I expect they'd get a hearty beating for cheering on attacks on the working class.


I also didn't make any assertions about what does or does not constitute a 'real' Leftist, although, I doubt we have a consensus on the matter.
Oh, I think we could make an exception in your case.

[NGNM85]

I wouldn't take your word for a thing, dear, but I can say that in the time I've been here, I haven't seen anyone make any assertion of that kind, and I expect they'd get a hearty beating for cheering on attacks on the working class.

Then you haven't been paying very close attention. If anything, I've found the opposite to be true. I've made this point time and time again. As I phrased it;
'This...display(s) an attitude of contempt or indifference towards the working class. What does it mean to say we care about someone? If you care about someone, first, you don’t deliberately hurt them, as a general rule. You also don’t stand idly by, indifferent, and allow them to come to harm. You do everything you can, even if, sometimes, all you can do is lessen the pain. That’s consistent. If you care about the working class you don’t tell the welfare mothers that they’ve just got to deal right now, because their problems aren’t important enough. That isn’t what ‘caring’ means.'



Oh, I think we could make an exception in your case.

There is absolutely no hope, whatsoever, of getting all of the forum members to completely agree on any one thing. Second, I meant a consensus between you and I, as to the sufficient conditions of Leftism.

[PhoenixAsh]

There are no competing burgeoisie classes. There is one burgeoisie class with competing members. Not because capitalism has not matured yet but because competition is the nature of capitalism.

[Trigonometry]

There are no competing burgeoisie classes. There is one burgeoisie class with competing members. Not because capitalism has not matured yet but because competition is the nature of capitalism.

that's an interesting thing to say, could you elaborate? Because the entire basis of what I had suggested is that there are still real national division in terms of interests, though a reduction of so e.g. American business interest reign supreme over much of the American continent - this is thus why I considered capitalism to yet to fully mature - no single countries ruling class dominates without challenge the world economy

Though you suggest that there would never be a monoply of economic power, then perhaps national struggle is as valid as class struggle rather than a temporary phenomena.

Off topic: though I never expected anyone to agree with my OP, I'm certainly surprised at the amount of people who are having a little cry about it.

[#FF0000]

this is kinda funny because with the rise of globalism things have become sorta-kinda more regional, rather than less.

The Curious Capitalist had something about this...

Anyway, yeah Trig the lack of cohesion amongst the global ruling class doesn't mean capitalism isn't developed. Have you heard of decadence theory?

[Trigonometry]

this is kinda funny because with the rise of globalism things have become sorta-kinda more regional, rather than less.

The Curious Capitalist had something about this...

Anyway, yeah Trig the lack of cohesion amongst the global ruling class doesn't mean capitalism isn't developed. Have you heard of decadence theory?

I can't really say I agree it has become more regional, though its definitely shifting all the time but I see the general direction as one group slowly reigning hegemony in the future. I mean think about it, the collapse of the Eastern bloc for example, the formation of the EU, most smaller states todays are just economic puppets of a larger power (e.g. New Zealand to Australia)

Sorry I've not heard of the decadence theory, would you link me

[RGacky3]

Capitalism's development has to do with growth, once you start getting bubles (getting bigger and bigger) and economic crashes (getting bigger and bigger), Capitalism cannot function any more, its overlived its usefullness.

even in the begining you could have had socialism and still had growth, but as it stands now, Capitalism's positive aspects have even outgrown themselves.

[Kosakk]

…Because capitalism hasn't matured yet, …

We've had capitalism for a few centuries now, isn't that mature enough?

[PhoenixAsh]

that's an interesting thing to say, could you elaborate? Because the entire basis of what I had suggested is that there are still real national division in terms of interests, though a reduction of so e.g. American business interest reign supreme over much of the American continent - this is thus why I considered capitalism to yet to fully mature - no single countries ruling class dominates without challenge the world economy

Its a question of terminology.

The term class is the umbrella term. As such there is one ruling class....the burgeoisie. This class as a whole has clear common interests towards the other classes.

But inside the class there are competing factions based on all kinds of divisions and even competing induvidual interests which are competing for dominance.

The American ruling class and the Dutch ruling class both belong to the class of the Burgeoisie...but they have interests which sometimes run parallel and sometimes are counter opposed.

Within the American ruling class the interests of Industry and Banks for example sometimes run parallel and sometimes counter opposed. And this can be basically drawn down to induvidual companies...such as Coca Cola and Pepsi. Induvidual families such as the Kennedies and the Rockefellers...and eventually induviduals such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.


Though you suggest that there would never be a monoply of economic power, then perhaps national struggle is as valid as class struggle rather than a temporary phenomena.

Yes and no.

Ultimately the higher up the burgeoisie tiers you go the more power is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people. But the higher you go the more this becomes a paris inter paribus issue. Meaning the one more equal amongst equals.

This single induvidual has a fraction more power, more influence than his peers. But is still not able to rule alone simply because he or she has not enough power to dictate everything. Capitalists compete for a spot in the tier right above them untill they get to the highest levels. So they try to garnish as much power as possible...untill the limits are reached.


National liberation therefore is valid in the short term. But in the long term it can not and will not be a solution to the problem. Especially since there are few countries which can be fully self sufficient and therefore will be dependent on other regions or areas for certain products....which will compete for dominance over liberated territory and will try to gain influence and ownership over that territory once it has been taken from the pool of potential power.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

I know this sounds non sensical but think of it as a 1 step back 2 steps forwards type thing

Dialectics!!!!!!