Arguments

[StockholmSyndrome]

Got in a discussion with a coworker yesterday. Here are some of the classic "arguments" he used:

1. Why should people with ability be asked to sacrifice for weaker people?/there should be incentives for talented and intelligent people to excel and not be held down by the rest/Capitalism allows the individual to reach their true potential.
2. There are countless stories of people born in poverty who pulled themselves up and became famous. People shouldn't blame everything on the "system", its about the individual/I make shit compared to most and I've learned to get by and have even started saving for a retirement.
3. There is no example of your system (socialism/communism) that's ever actually worked so....
4. Even though people's real wages are stagnating or declining they are still able to buy tons of shit.

And here's the kicker:
5. Where do you get this idea that capitalism is "unsustainable"? Boom and bust is a part of nature and we've seen it basically forever, why cant we boom and bust?

[RGacky3]

These are pretty easy arguments to shoot down, you can then tell if this person is responsive to logic based on how they respond.


1. Why should people with ability be asked to sacrifice for weaker people?/there should be incentives for talented and intelligent people to excel and not be held down by the rest/Capitalism allows the individual to reach their true potential.


That would be an argument to be had, if Capitalism rewards talent, or intelligence, which it does'nt, it rewards wealth, and exploitation, if it rewarded talent surgons and phycisists would be the wealthiest, and bankers and CEO would'nt be that wealthy.

Capitalism allows those with money to reach their potential, and profit from the potential from a bunch of other people too.


2. There are countless stories of people born in poverty who pulled themselves up and became famous. People shouldn't blame everything on the "system", its about the individual/I make shit compared to most and I've learned to get by and have even started saving for a retirement.


yes, there are many stories, but that does'nt justify the system, there are also stories of slaves buying their freedom and so on and so forth.


3. There is no example of your system (socialism/communism) that's ever actually worked so....


There are, infact everytime it was tried properly it worked, and almost all socialistic reforms worked.


4. Even though people's real wages are stagnating or declining they are still able to buy tons of shit.


Really? Who? This person is out of touch.


5. Where do you get this idea that capitalism is "unsustainable"? Boom and bust is a part of nature and we've seen it basically forever, why cant we boom and bust?

Becaues its unsustainable, the Busts get bigger and bigger, and everytime we've gotten out of them its been with huge keynsian efforts, which do nothing really but move the problem somewhere else. Most "booms" nowerdays are just bubbles. Its come to a point where Capitalism can't really function.

[Jimmie Higgins]

RGacky3 covered it expertly, so mine are just some short n' snarky add-ons.


1. Why should people with ability be asked to sacrifice for weaker people?/there should be incentives for talented and intelligent people to excel and not be held down by the rest/Capitalism allows the individual to reach their true potential.Yeah, in reality this argument is more like "Why should people with the means (i.e. control of capital) be asked to sacrifice.

I think this is an easy one to throw back at them since right now all of us in the US are sacrificing our health (and quite a bit of money individually and on a social level) just so that healthcare and insurance profits can continue. Why should workers (people with productive ability) sacrifice their wages and pensions for a weak capitalist economy?

We always sacrifice while our bosses share (amongst themselves) the loot created on our backs!


2. There are countless stories of people born in poverty who pulled themselves up and became famous. People shouldn't blame everything on the "system", its about the individual/I make shit compared to most and I've learned to get by and have even started saving for a retirement.In short, exceptions that prove the rule. There are billions of examples of people who played by the rules and still die poor.


3. There is no example of your system (socialism/communism) that's ever actually worked so....Paris commune worked until it was destroyed through military force.


4. Even though people's real wages are stagnating or declining they are still able to buy tons of shit.Is that why bourgeois economists are all worried about declining retail sales due to the recession?


5. Where do you get this idea that capitalism is "unsustainable"? Boom and bust is a part of nature and we've seen it basically forever, why cant we boom and bust?First, boom and bust is part of "nature"? If you mean part of capitalism, then yes. Why can't we just have booms and busts forever? A: Wiemar Germany's answer to that global economic bust.

[RGacky3]

Paris commune worked until it was destroyed through military force.

The same goes with anarchist spain, the same goes with the Russian soviets (in the begining, until they were taken basically by the state), the same goes with the Hungarian revolution, the same goes with the Prague spring, you have the Zapatistas, you have the shack dwellers movement, you have tons and tons of cooperateive models of buisiness.

Then you have Co-Determination laws in Germany, you have hte success of the South American socialist reforms, success of european social-democracy (note, not capitalist tax and welfare systems).

[StockholmSyndrome]

Referring to the one about poor people still being able to buy lots of shit you said:


Really? Who? This person is out of touch.

I think I remember a report by the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute which tried to show that poor people today actually have it pretty good. They cited the fact that most people living under the poverty line still have a microwave, running water, basic appliances, etc. It was ridiculous. I also remember Stephen Colbert making fun of it on t.v.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think I remember a report by the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute which tried to show that poor people today actually have it pretty good. They cited the fact that most people living under the poverty line still have a microwave, running water, basic appliances, etc. It was ridiculous. I also remember Stephen Colbert making fun of it on t.v.

I think the title of that was "iPod, X-box, and Air Conditioner: what poverty in the US looks like today"

The sick irony being that it was published during a heat-wave which was killing elderly poor people who didn't have air-conditioners and there were many reports of people stealing air-conditioners.

The problem is that capitalist apologists always conflate absolute wealth with relative wealth (i.e. inequality). Sure you can say, well poor people in the 1930s didn't have cell-phones so how great is it to be poor today - of course the rich didn't have cell-phones then ... nor did they have private jets or make 400 times what their average employee made.


According to the AFL-CIO, in 1980, CEOs at the largest companies received 42 times the pay of the average worker. In 2000 the gap hit a high, with CEOs making 525 times the average worker.

So if you boil it down, that argument about iPods and cell phones is like a Lord taking grain tributes from his pesants and then throwing a party once a year with free mead and saying, "Look at all I hath given you!"

[Judicator]

The problem is that capitalist apologists always conflate absolute wealth with relative wealth (i.e. inequality). Sure you can say, well poor people in the 1930s didn't have cell-phones so how great is it to be poor today - of course the rich didn't have cell-phones then ... nor did they have private jets or make 400 times what their average employee made.

I think they disagree about the correct way to define/think about poverty (relative or absolute).

Many of the problems that are associated with poverty (lack of education, food, etc) are problems of absolute poverty, not relative poverty. If you compare the education of the US poor to the education of the US rich, you might spuriously conclude that the US poor have bad education because they are relatively poor, when really it's absolute income that explains the difference. You can see this easily by comparing countries which are rich in absolute terms, like the US with ~40% college graduates, to those that are poor, like India which doesn't even have capacity for 10% college graduates.

Given the above, we can conclude that the problems associated with poverty are best solved when the absolute income of those in poverty rises, independent of what happens to income levels generally.

[RGacky3]

I think they disagree about the correct way to define/think about poverty (relative or absolute).

Many of the problems that are associated with poverty (lack of education, food, etc) are problems of absolute poverty, not relative poverty. If you compare the education of the US poor to the education of the US rich, you might spuriously conclude that the US poor have bad education because they are relatively poor, when really it's absolute income that explains the difference. You can see this easily by comparing countries which are rich in absolute terms, like the US with ~40% college graduates, to those that are poor, like India which doesn't even have capacity for 10% college graduates.

Given the above, we can conclude that the problems associated with poverty are best solved when the absolute income of those in poverty rises, independent of what happens to income levels generally.

Yeah, but if you have a system that fixes both relative poverty and absolute poverty, you'll take that.

Plus, there are many many studies that show the negative economic and social consequences that come with relative poverty.

BTW, nowerdays a college education does'nt guarnatee anything.

[CommunityBeliever]

1. Why should people with ability be asked to sacrifice for weaker people?/there should be incentives for talented and intelligent people to excel and not be held down by the rest/Capitalism allows the individual to reach their true potential.I completely agree with that. Everyone should be allowed to reach their full potential and intelligent and talented people should be allowed to succeed.

I think the Cuban model demonstrates a pretty example of how to achieve this. Cuba has made things such as housing, health care, and college free of charge, this allows intelligent and talented people to succeed without having to be held down by the capitalist price system.

In Cuba 0.6% of the population is doctors, which is higher then any other country in the world. As such, in Cuba intelligent and talented people (e.g doctors and scientists) are allowed to excel.


2. There are countless stories of people born in poverty who pulled themselves up and became famous.Did you say countless? I actually think I can count them. I think you can count all of the winners of the casino that is capitalism.


People shouldn't blame everything on the "system", its about the individual/I make shit compared to most and I've learned to get by and have even started saving for a retirement.Marxists take a birds eye view of society. We don't look at "individuals" we look at the "system" that is bringing about these individuals. After all, it is the social organisation of the means of production that determines the behaviour of individuals.


3. There is no example of your system (socialism/communism) that's ever actually worked so....The best example of socialism that worked is the USSR which experienced incredible economic progress.

Eventually the Brezhnevian "Nomenlatura" restored a system of inherited privilege to the country (state capitalism). But even then, the country was still far more successful then its post-collapse successor (the Russian Federation) which basically opened up the country to criminals and mobsters.

Other good examples are Cuba, China, Laos, and the Paris Commune.


4. Even though people's real wages are stagnating or declining they are still able to buy tons of shit.Most people don't buy shit because they can already produce it with their asshole.


5. Where do you get this idea that capitalism is "unsustainable"? Boom and bust is a part of nature and we've seen it basically forever, why cant we boom and bust?As the existing forces of production, most notably technology, improve then existing social forms of organisation become inefficient and stifle further progress.

A good example of this artificial scarcity. We have the means of production to produce and abundance of the item, but the scarcity-based economic system creates scarcity to maintain itself.

Every computer user is intimately familiar with this due to intellectual property. The closed source software development model, which is itself based upon intellectual property, is inefficient because it only allows for a small group to contribute to further development and it stifles further progress.

An example more close to home for computer users is the keyboards. Did you know that the QWERTY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QWERTY) keyboard which you are probably using was actually slow people down to prevent type writers from being broken? Unfortunately, the social system has prevented us from progressing to better keyboard layouts like dvorak.

ECPVJvb0qVo
This applies not just to software but also to food, the amount of food that is thrown away in Europe and North America is enough to feed the world's hungry three times over.

I can go on and on about these sort of things. The fact is that capitalism is inefficient and stifles progress. Without considerable technological progress there is no way this system will survive all the "busts and booms" as well as the environmental destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill_-_May_24,_2010_-_with_locator.jpg) and crises like peak oil.


Many of the problems that are associated with poverty (lack of education, food, etc) are problems of absolute poverty, not relative poverty. If you compare the education of the US poor to the education of the US rich, you might spuriously conclude that the US poor have bad education because they are relatively poor, when really it's absolute income that explains the difference. You can see this easily by comparing countries which are rich in absolute terms, like the US with ~40% college graduates, to those that are poor, like India which doesn't even have capacity for 10% college graduates.The problem is exploitation. The "rich countries" exploit the "poor countries" through imperialism and the "rich people" exploit the "poor people" through capitalism. The entirety of capitalist society is based upon exploitative social relations.


I think I remember a report by the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute which tried to show that poor people today actually have it pretty good. They cited the fact that most people living under the poverty line still have a microwave, running water, basic appliances, etc.This is why we distinguish between personal property (microwave, running water, basic appliances, etc) and private property (the means of production). Some workers have been provided with more personal property, but they haven't been provided with private property.

[RGacky3]

Eventually the Brezhnevian "Nomenlatura" restored a system of inherited privilege to the country (state capitalism). But even then, the country was still far more successful then its post-collapse successor (the Russian Federation) which basically opened up the country to criminals and mobsters.

Other good examples are Cuba, China, Laos, and the Paris Commune.


I would'nt really hold any of those up (excpet for hte Paris commune) as sterling examples of socialism, the USSR kept the capitalist mode of productoin (wage labor, employer and employee), and did not democratize the economy.

China is basically state Capitalist, Laos is still somewhat behind economically and does not have a socialist economy (like the USSR its state capitalist and non democratic), Cuba you have somewhat more democracy and one could argue is somewhat socialistic, but I would argue that Germany with Co-determination is more socialistic.

I think we can do WAaaayyy better than that, functioning democracies and real socialism.


In Cuba 0.6% of the population is doctors, which is higher then any other country in the world. As such, in Cuba intelligent and talented people (e.g doctors and scientists) are allowed to excel.


Great point.

[CommunityBeliever]

I would'nt really hold any of those upOf course, you wouldn't since you are an anarchist (anarcho-syndicalist). I disagree with you and that tendency for a variety of reasons.

[RGacky3]

Yeah, but I'm not stringant to where I'd reject every example with a state, there are even situations where I use Cuba as an example, I use Norway's nationalizations, Bolivia's nationalizations, Venezuelas cooperatives, I use Germanies Co-Determanation all the time.

Its not a tendancy thing, I just don't think those examples would work very well in convincing people that live in democratic countries.

[CommunityBeliever]

Yeah, but I'm not stringant to where I'd reject every example with a state, there are even situations where I use Cuba as an example, I use Norway's nationalizations, Bolivia's nationalizations, Venezuelas cooperatives, I use Germanies Co-Determanation all the time.

Norway and Germany are imperialist countries and a part of NATO. They are hardly something you should "hold up" especially when you apparently don't "hold up" actual revolutionary countries like China and the Soviet Union.


Its not a tendancy thing, I just don't think those examples would work very well in convincing people that live in democratic countries.

I am not very good at adjusting my arguments to fit a target audience, I just try to convey what is true.

Also I am not sure what you mean by "democratic countries." I assume you are talking about the phony bourgious-democracy of the imperialist countries. I don't see how that would be a factor.

[RGacky3]

Norway and Germany are imperialist countries and a part of NATO. They are hardly something you should "hold up" especially when you apparently don't "hold up" actual revolutionary countries like China and the Soviet Union.


Yes, but I'm not holding up the countries, nor do I hold up ANY countries, I am holding up policies, socialist policies that WORK, as opposed to policies and systems that do not work, and are not democratic.


Also I am not sure what you mean by "democratic countries." I assume you are talking about the phony bourgious-democracy of the imperialist countries. I don't see how that would be a factor.

If your gonna use a country with no democratic institution or tradition, even if hte US is a phony democracy, there is that tradition, and free speach tradition. You can mention For example the USSR industrialized quickly, and they will agree, but then point out the terrible terrible human rights violation, lack of democracy, and your basically.

Socialism is not central planning, its not total state control, its workers empowerment and economic democracy.

We can argue allday whether or not you had those things in the USSR (I believe they did not), but the fact is most in the west agree with me.

[CommunityBeliever]

I am holding up policies, socialist policies that WORKHow do those things (Germany's co-determination, Norway's nationalisations) qualify as "socialist policies"? They are at best temporary concessions from the imperialist ruling classes.

If you want to use policies as an example, use the policies of actual socialist countries like the Soviet Union and China rather NATO countries like Norway and Germany.

Even after the reforms of Deng Xiaoping, China is a million times more progressive then imperialist NATO member states because of the four superiorities of China's path (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90780/7577764.html):


the use of market socialism and the scientific development concept
green modernisation and incorporating sustainable development
peaceful development and non-participation in imperialism
the path of justice followed by China

The only countries which are remotely progressive today are Cuba, China, Laos, and Vietnam (and maybe Venezuela and the DPRK). These are the only countries which can be said to have socialist policies not imperialist countries like Germany.


most in the west agree with me. I agree with you on that.

[RGacky3]

How do those things (Germany's co-determination, Norway's nationalisations) qualify as "socialist policies"?

Co-determination means a significant amount of workers control over the means of production, Norways nationalizatoins means public control over certain productive industries.

They were not concessions, they were fought for pretty damn hard. BTW, those countries joined Nato mainly to buffer against hte USSR, you can hardly call Norway imperialist.


use the policies of actual socialist countries like the Soviet Union and China rather NATO countries like Norway and Germany.


I don't consider those countries socialist, (no worker control over hte means of production, other than nominally, and no economic democracy, again, only nominally.)




the use of market socialism and the scientific development concept
green modernisation and incorporating sustainable development
peaceful development and non-participation in imperialism
the path of justice followed by China
The only countries which are remotely progressive today are Cuba, China, Laos, and Vietnam (and maybe Venezuela and the DPRK). These are the only countries which can be said to have socialist policies not imperialist countries like Germany.


1. Where is the socialist part of "market socialist"? Other than central planning, which is'nt a socialist tennant, workers in China cannot organize, and are basically slaver laber.

2. Very fine, but thats also in tons of social-democratic and even capitalist nations.

3. Really? Ask an African.

4. Really? Ask the millions of political prisoners.

I'm sorry, when it comes to eocnomic policies and political structures, I'd take democracy, freedom (not abstract, I mean the ability to voice opinoins without state punishment), co-determination, and socialization over the top down State Capitalism and dictatorships of China and the USSR any day.

[CommunityBeliever]

Co-determination means a significant amount of workers control over the means of production, Norways nationalizatoins means public control over certain productive industries.I think you are deluded about that. Co-determination reforms just mean the ruling class made the concession of allowing workers some temporary managerial power. They don't own or control the means of production, the only way for that to happen is through a revolution like the one in Russia, China, or Cuba.


They were not concessions, they were fought for pretty damn hard.They absolutely are concessions from the ruling class, the only way to have true worker's control is through a revolution. Remember that this is the revolutionary left not the nationalisation and co-determination left (you may not support actual revolutions though because you are restricted).


you can hardly call Norway imperialistI absolutely can. Norway is a part of NATO and it benefits off of the exploitation of the third world.


I don't consider those countries socialist, (no worker control over hte means of production, other than nominally, and no economic democracy, again, only nominally.)The Soviet Union absolutely was socialist, under Lenin and until the brehznevian "Nomenclatura" created state capitalism. China also was socialist under the leadership of Mao Zedong and it still has market socialist policies, these countries certainly had a far more significant level of the worker's control of the means of production then reformist countries like Norway and Germany, and they were far more progressive then NATO.


Where is the socialist part of "market socialist"? Other than central planning, which is'nt a socialist tennant, workers in China cannot organize, and are basically slaver laber.First of all the public control of the sectors of power generation and distribution, oil, coal, petrochemicals, and natural gas, telecommunications, armaments, Aviation and shipping,machinery and automobile production, information technologies; construction,and the production of iron, steel, and nonferrous metals, the railroads, grain distribution, insurance, etc.

Capitalist countries like Norway have some things nationalised, but nothing comparable to China. There is also public control of the banks and the financial system. There is greater democracy then countries like the United States, because there is eighty million people in the communist party of China. How many people are in a U.S political party?

Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries should recognise the progressive advancements made by the last remaining socialist states in the 21th century: Vietnam, Laos, China, and Cuba. Even if capitalist roaders such as Deng Xiaoping have reversed much of the progress.


Really? Ask an African.China's economic investment in Africa is hardly comparable to NATO which is bombing Libya and has troops all across Africa.


I'm sorry, when it comes to eocnomic policies and political structures, I'd take democracy, freedom (not abstract, I mean the ability to voice opinoins without state punishment), co-determination, and socialization over the top down State Capitalism and dictatorships of China and the USSR any day. Like I said before, of course you will since you are a Western anarchist. You would take the phony bourgeoisie-democracy, the freedom to not be heard, some temporary co-determination reforms, and the fruits of third world exploitation, over actual revolutionary socialist countries like China and the USSR.

[RGacky3]

I think you are deluded about that. Co-determination reforms just mean the ruling class made the concession of allowing workers some temporary managerial power. They don't own or control the means of production, the only way for that to happen is through a revolution like the one in Russia, China, or Cuba.


First of all, its not temporary, its been around for decades, second, the manegerial power in German industries is mountains more than in Russia or China or Cuba where independant non-state-controlled unoins were not even allowed. Yes you need a revolutoin, but not for what the USSR or China gave us.


They absolutely are concessions from the ruling class, the only way to have true worker's control is through a revolution. Remember that this is the revolutionary left not the nationalisation and co-determination left (you may not support actual revolutions though because you are restricted).


Yes, I believe in revolution, I htink capitalism needs to be overthrown, but it does'nt need to be replaced with state capitalism.

I was giving examples of when socialist policies (whether brought out by revolutoin, or intense working class pressure).


I absolutely can. Norway is a part of NATO and it benefits off of the exploitation of the third world.


How does it benefit off exploitation of hte third world? Any more than China or the USSR did. It being part of Nato is a whole different issue.


The Soviet Union absolutely was socialist, under Lenin and until the brehznevian "Nomenclatura" created state capitalism. China also was socialist under the leadership of Mao Zedong and it still has market socialist policies, these countries certainly had a far more significant level of the worker's control of the means of production then reformist countries like Norway and Germany, and they were far more progressive then NATO.


The USSR was state capitalist basically when it became a state, same with mao.

Tell me how they had workers control? Commissars were the new managers and the Party was the new board of directors.

Nato, was a military alliance btw, and does'nt have much to do with economic and internal political structure.


First of all the public control of the sectors of power generation and distribution, oil, coal, petrochemicals, and natural gas, telecommunications, armaments, Aviation and shipping,machinery and automobile production, information technologies; construction,and the production of iron, steel, and nonferrous metals, the railroads, grain distribution, insurance, etc.


PUBLIC control? You mean state control, and by state you mean single party non-democratic state, which can hardly be called public. If you have a country that is basically run like a corporation, like China is, nationalization does not mean public control, not when the state is'nt a functioning democracy.


Capitalist countries like Norway have some things nationalised, but nothing comparable to China. There is also public control of the banks and the financial system. There is greater democracy then countries like the United States, because there is eighty million people in the communist party of China. How many people are in a U.S political party?


Norway also has public control over some major banks, infact the largest bank, and since Norway has a functioning democracy, unlike china, it is actually PUBLIC control and not communist party politburo control.

The amount of people in the communist party has nothing to do with how democratic a country is, communist party membership in China is just a way to get certain benefits, its not participating in democracy.


Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries should recognise the progressive advancements made by the last remaining socialist states in the 21th century: Vietnam, Laos, China, and Cuba. Even if capitalist roaders such as Deng Xiaoping have reversed much of the progress.


Again, not socialist.


China's economic investment in Africa is hardly comparable to NATO which is bombing Libya and has troops all across Africa.


Economic imperialism IS imperialism, its the same thing the US does in third world countries.

Except the US uses more violence, but both are imperialism.

I like how you call it "economic investment" thats the same excuse neo-liberals use.


Like I said before, of course you will since you are a Western anarchist. You would take the phony bourgeoisie-democracy, the freedom to not be heard, some temporary co-determination reforms, and the fruits of third world exploitation, over actual revolutionary socialist countries like China and the USSR.

Fruits of third world exploitatoin is exactly why China has such a booming economy, cheap resources, same goes with Russia.

In the western phony democracies, at least I have the right to be a syndicalist, or a communist, or join a labor union, infact I can protest and strike if I want, not so in the phony-socialist states.

[RGacky3]

Maybe take this discussion somewhere else? Start a new thread?

[CommunityBeliever]

Maybe take this discussion somewhere else? Start a new thread? If you want to, but like I said before I know that you are an anarchist and that you don't support (or believe in) socialist countries like the USSR, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, etc.

You also seem to have a preference for bourgeoisie-democracy, as you called Norway a "functioning democracy" even though the only people that have a voice in Norway are a few bourgeoisie rulers as opposed to eighty million party members.

Anyways, that is just your reactionary tendency, I don't see what good any kind of debate/discussion will do.

[RGacky3]

You also seem to have a preference for bourgeoisie-democracy, as you called Norway a "functioning democracy" even though the only people that have a voice in Norway are a few bourgeoisie rulers as opposed to eighty million party members.


Join the communist party of China, and then go out and protest ssomething, or join a union, see what happens. Norwegian democracy is much more functioning as democracy than in China. Reactionary means wanting to go back, considering you want to go back to a totalitarian leninist model ...

[CommunityBeliever]

Join the communist party of China, and then go out and protest ssomething, or join a union, see what happens. You think you can start a protest in capitalist countries (about anything important) without it also being totally shut down? That is the nature of every state - it shuts down opposition.


Norwegian democracy is much more functioning as democracy than in China. This idea of "democracy" is such a bourgieosie concept. All you have is bourgeoisie-democracy.

China has public ownership of many of the important industries and a far more democratic system then imperialist countries like Germany.


Reactionary means wanting to go back, considering you want to go back to a totalitarian leninist model ... And what you apparently want is to go back to the imperialist model of NATO member states like Germany, and prevent third world countries like China and Cuba from socialist development.

Since you don't support their socialist revolutions even in Maoist China, I would definitely say that you are a reactionary.

[RGacky3]

You think you can start a protest in capitalist countries (about anything important) without it also being totally shut down? That is the nature of every state - it shuts down opposition.


Like Wisconsin? BTW, depends on the Capitalist country, in Capitalist China, or Capitalist saudi arabia, not so easy, in France for example, there are more protections.


This idea of "democracy" is such a bourgieosie concept. All you have is bourgeoisie-democracy.


No its not, it goes way way way back before bourgeiosie, infact the enlightenment ideas were the basis on which marxism was built.


China has public ownership of many of the important industries and a far more democratic system then imperialist countries like Germany.


As was said before, its not public, its state, the state is not democratic, How? its a 1 party state, where elections are nothing more than rubberstamping, its a top down system, much more than Germany for example. You have to make an argument that china is more democratic, because all the evidence points to the contrary.


And what you apparently want is to go back to the imperialist model of NATO member states like Germany, and prevent third world countries like China and Cuba from socialist development.And what you apparently want is to go back to the imperialist model of NATO member states like Germany, and prevent third world countries like China and Cuba from socialist development.

Umm, I'm against Nato ... Also what socialist development? How well off are workers in china? And as I said before, nato is a military alliance, which has nothing to do with internal economics and politics.


Since you don't support their socialist revolutions even in Maoist China, I would definitely say that you are a reactionary.

Maoist China did'nt no hand over workplaces to the workers, nor the economy to the people, it handed over power to Mao. It created a state where non-loyaly to Mao was punishable by death, thats definately not democratic.

[CommunityBeliever]

First of all, its not temporary, its been around for decades

Every progressive policy in a capitalist country is a temporary concesssion.


second, the manegerial power in German industries is mountains more than in Russia or China or Cuba where independant non-state-controlled unoins were not even allowed.

This is pure nonsense. Germany is a capitalist country, its level of workers control is not at all comparable to socialist states like Cuba, China, and the USSR.


Yes you need a revolutoin, but not for what the USSR or China gave us.

They could have been better, but you are throwing the baby out with the bath water so to speak.


I was giving examples of when socialist policies (whether brought out by revolutoin, or intense working class pressure).

They weren't socialist policies though because most of those were in countries that didn't have a revolution to overthrow capitalism and establish worker's control.


How does it benefit off exploitation of hte third world?

Norway definitely benefits off of the exploitation of the third world, their products, and their natural resources, and it is an imperialist NATO state.


The USSR was state capitalist basically when it became a state, same with mao.

No. The term "state capitalist" doesn't apply.

The USSR did not have any capitalist system of inherited privelge until Brehznev's reforms, and China may not even be "state-capitalist" now with Socialism with Chinese characteristics as I refered to before and the public ownership of the financial system, and it certainly wasn't state capitalist under Mao.


PUBLIC control? You mean state control, and by state you mean single party non-democratic state, which can hardly be called public. If you have a country that is basically run like a corporation, like China is, nationalization does not mean public control, not when the state is'nt a functioning democracy.

It is a far more functional democracy then imperialist countries like Norway that you apparently support.


Norway also has public control over some major banks, infact the largest bank, and since Norway has a functioning democracy, unlike china, it is actually PUBLIC control and not communist party politburo control.

A functioning BOURGEOISIE democracy. That is all it is, it is to support the interests of the bourgeoisie minority. China has actually public control of many industries and it lends some support to the anti-capitalist cause.


The amount of people in the communist party has nothing to do with how democratic a country is, communist party membership in China is just a way to get certain benefits, its not participating in democracy.

Members of the CPC can contribute to management in the country.


Again, not socialist.

According to you that is. You are an anarchist.


I like how you call it "economic investment" thats the same excuse neo-liberals use.

Sure and I will call it "economic investment" as long it is done by a country ruled by a communist party (the CPC). China's interests in Africa aren't that simple either, they have lent some level of genuine support to the people.


Fruits of third world exploitatoin is exactly why China has such a booming economy, cheap resources, same goes with Russia.

China basically is a third-world country, or at least it was until very recently, its booming economy though is in large part due to the employment of over a billion people and the industrialisation policies of Mao zedong.


In the western phony democracies, at least I have the right to be a syndicalist, or a communist, or join a labor union, infact I can protest and strike if I want, not so in the phony-socialist states.

Those same Western phony democracies are imperialist and are going to war against Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Don't lend your support to these phony-democratic imperialist nations.

[CommunityBeliever]

No its not, it goes way way way back before bourgeiosie, infact the enlightenment ideas were the basis on which marxism was built.

Certainly, but it has been hijacked by the bourgeoisie to refer to their bourgeoisie democracies.


As was said before, its not public, its state, the state is not democratic, How? its a 1 party state, where elections are nothing more than rubberstamping, its a top down system, much more than Germany for example.

There is no such thing as a "multiparty state" just states with parties with multiple different names. It is part of the way phony democracies operate.


You have to make an argument that china is more democratic, because all the evidence points to the contrary.

It depends upon rather you value the bourgeoisie-democracy or actual worker's control, e.g from the public ownership of most industries in China.


Also what socialist development?

The socialist development of countries like Cuba.


Maoist China did'nt no hand over workplaces to the workers, nor the economy to the people, it handed over power to Mao. It created a state where non-loyaly to Mao was punishable by death, thats definately not democratic.

That is certainly what is suggested by Western propaganda. Like you said before most people in the west will agree with you.

[RGacky3]

Every progressive policy in a capitalist country is a temporary concesssion.


Ok .... first of all, the USsr and China were state capitalist, second of all ... juts becuase you say its true does'nt make it true.


This is pure nonsense. Germany is a capitalist country, its level of workers control is not at all comparable to socialist states like Cuba, China, and the USSR.


Yes it is, don't believe me? Start a unoin in China or the USSR.


They could have been better, but you are throwing the baby out with the bath water so to speak.


I'm throwing the shit out of the bathwater.


They weren't socialist policies though because most of those were in countries that didn't have a revolution to overthrow capitalism and establish worker's control.


Neither did the USSR or China, they had revolutions, but they did'nt establish workers control nor did the establish economic democracy.

And they ARE socialist policies, because they are things that socialists fight for.


Norway definitely benefits off of the exploitation of the third world, their products, and their natural resources

Such as? Where are Norwegian companies in the thrid world exploiting them? I know where chineese companies are.


No. The term "state capitalist" doesn't apply.

The USSR did not have any capitalist system of inherited privelge until Brehznev's reforms, and China may not even be "state-capitalist" now with Socialism with Chinese characteristics as I refered to before and the public ownership of the financial system, and it certainly wasn't state capitalist under Mao.


The USSR did have a system of inhereted privelege, it was called being high up party official, also thats not a capitalistic trait, they had a top down economy, they had wage labor without workers control, they had a undemocratic economy that was for-profit.

You might as well have had a monarch nationalizing stuff and calling it socialist.


It is a far more functional democracy then imperialist countries like Norway that you apparently support.


Interal democracy has nothing to do with foreign policy ... Also China is imperialist, not Norway, unless you have some proof, also Nato membership is'nt proof.


A functioning BOURGEOISIE democracy. That is all it is, it is to support the interests of the bourgeoisie minority. China has actually public control of many industries and it lends some support to the anti-capitalist cause.


In Norway you have a socialist party (partially) in governemnt, who is also fighting to get co-determination, and more nationalization, in Norway you can criticize the state without going to prison, you can join ayn union you'd like, you can gather people together and confront the leaders, and vote for anyone you'd like.

You may put bourgeoisie before the word democracy, its still more democratic than china.

Again, state control =/= public control, sorry, the people of China have almost no say in how the economy is run, its the communist party leadership.


Members of the CPC can contribute to management in the country.


Yes by rubber stamping already made decisions, how democratic.


According to you that is. You are an anarchist.


I'm not using anarchist standards.


Sure and I will call it "economic investment" as long it is done by a country ruled by a communist party (the CPC). China's interests in Africa aren't that simple either, they have lent some level of genuine support to the people.


Ahhhhh, so the difference between Chinese imeprialism and americna imperialism is the name of the party doing it, that makes total sense.

As for your last sentace, its the same arugment used by neo-liberals.

Your like an Obamabot, but for china, if it has communist in the name it must be right.


China basically is a third-world country, or at least it was until very recently, its booming economy though is in large part due to the employment of over a billion people and the industrialisation policies of Mao zedong.


Mostly due to the massiave influx of foreign capital, also booming due to exploitattion of cheap cheap labor, and the raping of natural resources in Africa. BTW, growing economy does not mean socialist.


Those same Western phony democracies are imperialist and are going to war against Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Don't lend your support to these phony-democratic imperialist nations.

I don't, infact I fight to get out of those wars.

Don't lend your support to phony-socialistic imperialist dictatorships.

[CommunityBeliever]

Your arguments really are straight out of Western propaganda. It is a "one party state" it doesn't allow for "bourgeoisie democracy" or the "bourgeoisie freedom."

Apparently the public ownership most industries and the support for Socialism with Chinese characteristics as alternative to capitalism means nothing to you. You apparently don't see that this system is more progressive then what is in the imperialist countries (such as Norway).

This and you apparently don't realise the level of public ownership and the worker's control that happened in various socialist states like the USSR and Cuba, but of course that is because of your anarchist tendency. I disagree with that tendency for a variety of reasons. Anyways that is about it, I have to go to sleep. If you want to move this to another thread.

[RGacky3]

Your arguments really are straight out of Western propaganda. It is a "one party state" it doesn't allow for "bourgeoisie democracy" or the "bourgeoisie freedom."


I did'nt say bourgeoisie democracy, I mean democracy democracy, nor bourgeoisie freedom, its freedom freedom.

its working people that are not allowed to join unions, nor protest, or confront their leaders, nor have choice in who their leaders are, nor have political speach.


Apparently the public ownership most industries and the support for Socialism with Chinese characteristics as alternative to capitalism means nothing to you. You apparently don't see that this system is more progressive then what is in the capitalist and imperialist countries.


It means nothing unless its ACTUAL public ownership, meaning democratically accountable, which it is not in China, Socialism with chinese Characteristics is just another name for authoritarian Capitalism. Thats why Norways nationalization is soicalistic, becuase it has a democratically accountable TO THE PEOPLE government, unlike china.

BTW, China IS CAPITALIST AND IMPERIALIST.


This and you apparently don't realise the level of public ownership and the worker's control that happened in various socialist states like the USSR and Cuba, but of course that is because of your anarchist tendency. I disagree with that tendency for a variety of reasons. Anyways that is about it, I have to go to sleep. If you want to move this to another thread.

It has nothing to do with my tendancy, it has to do with reality.

[CommunityBeliever]

It has nothing to do with my tendancy, it has to do with reality. Yet other tendencies (Marxist-Leninists) don't agree with your interpretation of reality.

Anyways, I will reply to your post in another topic tomorrow since I have to go to sleep.

[RGacky3]

Yet other tendencies don't agree with your interpretation of reality.


Historians do, anyone that is not a Maoist or Leninist does.