How will Socialism be implemented?

[Nyder]

First of all, a dictionary definition of socialism:

so·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a socialist economy would forbid private ownership of capital and resources and instead they would be owned exclusively by the 'collective'. That's all well and good but how will the Government seize all private property? How do you think people will react when their homes, businesses and properties are taken off them?

Also, a Socialist society would have no government I am lead to believe. So how do we get people to comply with collective ownership? If there is no government, what is to stop me from starting a successful business and keeping the profits for myself? If a police force is necessary to implement collective law - who is to administer and control it?

If businesses and individuals are forced to sacrifice their profits and property to the collective, won't a VERY LARGE black market spring up for those who don't want to be controlled by the state? I said 'very large' as all profits would have to be declared and then distributed 'fairly' amongst the workers, so you will have a lot of people trading illigitemately and not recording their proper earnings to escape the auspices of the collective.

That's just my theory I am interested to see how these questions may be answered if any of you have the time. :)

[Red Louisiana]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a socialist economy would forbid private ownership of capital and resources and instead they would be owned exclusively by the 'collective'. That's all well and good but how will the Government seize all private property? How do you think people will react when their homes, businesses and properties are taken off them?

First off, private property still exists in SOCIALISM, take a look at NEP Bolshevik Russia...


Also, a Socialist society would have no government I am lead to believe. So how do we get people to comply with collective ownership? If there is no government, what is to stop me from starting a successful business and keeping the profits for myself? If a police force is necessary to implement collective law - who is to administer and control it?

You're thinking of Communism,. where the state is no more - socialism is the transition state GOING TO COMMUNISM :)


If businesses and individuals are forced to sacrifice their profits and property to the collective, won't a VERY LARGE black market spring up for those who don't want to be controlled by the state? I said 'very large' as all profits would have to be declared and then distributed 'fairly' amongst the workers, so you will have a lot of people trading illigitemately and not recording their proper earnings to escape the auspices of the collective.

The workers seize the means of production, meaning seizing those factories from the capitalist.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 29 2003, 02:15 AM




First off, private property still exists in SOCIALISM, take a look at NEP Bolshevik Russia...

So people will still be able to own their own houses, factories, stores and land? What if people use their privately owned factories to make profits? What if someone runs a home based business from their house and retails and distributes goods? How will the collective intervene and control these financial transactions?


You're thinking of Communism,. where the state is no more - socialism is the transition state GOING TO COMMUNISM :)

Please tell me more about this 'transition state'? Would it require extreme regulations in order for businesses and individuals to comply with collective demands? Why do you think that a Government who will establish such power will one day secede all authority and hand over the state to the 'people'?


The workers seize the means of production, meaning seizing those factories from the capitalist.

But if the capitalists owned the factories, wouldn't this be theft? And I thought you said that communism would enable private ownership? :huh:

And how exactly are the workers going to seize the means of production? Through violence? Won't someone else just take control?

[Misodoctakleidist]

First off, private property still exists in SOCIALISM, take a look at NEP Bolshevik Russia...

So people will still be able to own their own houses, factories, stores and land? What if people use their privately owned factories to make profits? What if someone runs a home based business from their house and retails and distributes goods? How will the collective intervene and control these financial transactions?


Is this really so hard to understand? Capitalism permits private property, communism doesn't. Socialism imposes more regulations on the economy and on accumulation wealth and narrows the gap between rich and poor.



You're thinking of Communism,. where the state is no more - socialism is the transition state GOING TO COMMUNISM :)

Please tell me more about this 'transition state'? Would it require extreme regulations in order for businesses and individuals to comply with collective demands? Why do you think that a Government who will establish such power will one day secede all authority and hand over the state to the 'people'?

"such power"??!!! what the fuck are you talking about? they would have no more power than any other government just by being socialist.



The workers seize the means of production, meaning seizing those factories from the capitalist.

But if the capitalists owned the factories, wouldn't this be theft? And I thought you said that communism would enable private ownership? :huh:

oooooooooh no, not theft!!! god forbid those poor capitalits wont be able to exploit their workers anymore. As for your next sentence; (sorry to repeat myself) what the fuck are you talking about, NO! communism forbids private ownership, thats the whole point!


And how exactly are the workers going to seize the means of production? Through violence? Won't someone else just take control?

dont take that statement too literally, they wont walk into the factories and carry off the machinery. The government would outlaw private ownership and nationalise the economy, the governemt in communist society being representative of the workers. Such a government could be achieved in several ways, violence is one of them but not the only one (although some communists may disagree with that).

As for your absurd comment about taking away peoples houses; they would be allowed to live in their houses, they just wouldn't be able to sell them or pass them on as inheritence, its not like the state takes all their possesions.

[Pete]

But if the capitalists owned the factories, wouldn't this be theft? And I thought you said that communism would enable private ownership?

And how exactly are the workers going to seize the means of production? Through violence? Won't someone else just take control?

There is no theft when the workers take control of their work place. It is theft to have someone who does no work who leaches off the work of others. The capitalist may hire and fire and seek contracts, but that can all be done the workers themselves, and will probaly done more effectively, as profit means less to a collective then it does to a single power authority.

Private ownership is not necassary when society runs on respect and making sure noone is left behind, remember what they taught you in kingergarten?

There are many ways to sieze the means of production. Strikes, ignoring the chain of command and occupying the factory, buying out the company by the workers (o.O not what I'd prefer), and of course having a benevolent capitalist who gives the riegns to the workers and then fucks off, or joins them as a normal worker.

[Hoppe]

oooooooooh no, not theft!!! god forbid those poor capitalits wont be able to exploit their workers anymore. As for your next sentence; (sorry to repeat myself) what the fuck are you talking about, NO! communism forbids private ownership, thats the whole point!

I have a question regarding this. If employees decided that instead of receiving a part of the (not so sure) future profit, choose to receive a steady income now, is this still exploitation?

[Rasta Sapian]

I like Mao's method of killing all the impirialist pigs, re-educating the new classless society to become equal and self sufficiant. Bush would be hung on CNN (communist news network) We could all be united, working and learning together evolving into a more efficient holistic and positivley motivated people. :)

where people will focus on each other and the world as a whole entity, instead of worrying about profit and ownership, the new rigeime in power would provide trade relations, if you are interested in this, do it for the people, the profit will be shared.

peace yall

[Nyder]

Is this really so hard to understand? Capitalism permits private property, communism doesn't. Socialism imposes more regulations on the economy and on accumulation wealth and narrows the gap between rich and poor.

Socialism does NOT narrow the gap between rich and poor. At worst it creates enormous inequality and at best it makes everyone poor. The more welfare is given out the greater the dis-incentive to work and succeed. Many minority groups have suffered this fate because of overly generous handouts from the Government. When given everything all of your life, it severely diminishes your work ethic. High tax rates for the rich would also stop people from working harder and succeeding because why bother if marginal tax rates are so high that you are better off working menial jobs or living on welfare? And regulations usually favour one industry over another (ie. tariffs, subsidies), plus regulations on businesses just add more costs and make them less able to perform and hire more workers. In other words socialism completely rips off everybody, except for the bureau-rats.

"
such power"??!!! what the fuck are you talking about? they would have no more power than any other government just by being socialist.

The size of Government depends on their total amount of spending as proportional to GDP. A socialist government would be high spending, and highly controlling through laws and regulations - thus giving them more power.


oooooooooh no, not theft!!! god forbid those poor capitalits wont be able to exploit their workers anymore. As for your next sentence; (sorry to repeat myself) what the fuck are you talking about, NO! communism forbids private ownership, thats the whole point!

How can it be theft if the worker has agreed to work for that wage. If he/she doesn't like the wage then they can either re-negotiate or try and get another job.

As for value inputs by the worker - many other variables also go into the product to produce value (like capital and technology, plus other producers in the value chain). It is not so clearcut as the worker produces all of the profit for the capitalist. BUT.......

THE KEY THING IS (now pay attention), is how that capital is used in the first place to make a profit. Profits don't magically appear as soon as you manufacture something. You need marketing, competitive pricing, quality product, salesmanship, new innovations, expansions - all which need to be decided by the company managers. Therefore they are the ones who are responsible for the profit (and the owner provided the original impetus to put up the credit to create the business anyway). If you start a business and need to hire a worker - you don't have them dictate terms to you, as you are the genesis and brainchild/director of the business. Furthermore, if workers are to take their share of business profits why wouldn't they also take share of the losses (even though they are not responsible for the losses - how could they?) Why don't lefties understand this?


dont take that statement too literally, they wont walk into the factories and carry off the machinery. The government would outlaw private ownership and nationalise the economy, the governemt in communist society being representative of the workers. Such a government could be achieved in several ways, violence is one of them but not the only one (although some communists may disagree with that).

It would be thuggery, violence and mob rule - you know it.


As for your absurd comment about taking away peoples houses; they would be allowed to live in their houses, they just wouldn't be able to sell them or pass them on as inheritence, its not like the state takes all their possesions.

Bullshit - if you can't sell your house then you hardly own it. It is owned by the state. That is fucked.

In communism everyone is equal - equally poor!

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Rasta [email protected] 30 2003, 11:57 PM
I like Mao's method of killing all the impirialist pigs, re-educating the new classless society to become equal and self sufficiant. Bush would be hung on CNN (communist news network) We could all be united, working and learning together evolving into a more efficient holistic and positivley motivated people. :)

where people will focus on each other and the world as a whole entity, instead of worrying about profit and ownership, the new rigeime in power would provide trade relations, if you are interested in this, do it for the people, the profit will be shared.

peace yall
You're not going to have a self sufficient society if everyone is made to be dependant on the state for the livelihood.

And I guess anyone who disagrees with communist ideology will be jailed or killed, like the political prisoner's under Stalin's regime.

Wonderful. Sign me up, comrade. :rolleyes:

[Pete]

YOu make many assumptions. Tote the party line. Perhaps you'd like to step away from your socialization for a moment?

Capitalism, where the rich are lazy and the poor are serfs in all but name

'Tis a taste of your own medicine no? Highly inefficetive no?


And I guess anyone who disagrees with communist ideology will be jailed or killed, like the political prisoner's under Stalin's regime.

I believe that you, sir, are an idiot. Party line. Unable to see past socialization. Stalin does not equal communism.


~this is pete after a weekend of essay writing...~

[Nyder]

CrazyPete,

I was not socialised to believe in libertarianism, capitalism, individualism and laissez faire free markets - I investigated them for myself. I have also read up on socialism and communism (although I still get confused between the two).

I was brought up in a state school as are the majority of others in so callled 'capitalist' countries. Since schools are essentially socialist - how could I have been indoctrinated into capitalism via the school system?

In fact libertarianism is a very rarely practised ideal in Australia. Most people believe in a mixed economy (a combination of capitalist markets and government intervention to varying degrees).

[Misodoctakleidist]

I was not socialised to believe in libertarianism, capitalism, individualism and laissez faire free markets - I investigated them for myself. I have also read up on socialism and communism (although I still get confused between the two).

You may not have been socialised into these particular ideas but you were socialised into a state of capitalist hegemony which made you more receptive to capitalist view points and reluctant to critisice capitalism and very quick to critisice communism, as most of us were, surely you aren't saying to you were commpletely objective and open minded.


schools are essentially socialist

where did you get this impression? schools are renouned for rienforcing capitalism and indoctinating young people with capitalist properganda. Have you studies modern history? no doubt if u have you will believe that america was the most important factor in winning WW2 when in fact the USSR destoryed 90% of the nazi units and the USA only joined the war when Russian troops were already merching on belin. School enforce a hierachical structure on children and teaches them to blindly obey the authority of higher members of the heirachy, schools often impose unfair and pointless rules without explaining to pupils why, this teaches them not to question the rules or the authority of their 'superiors'. Along with Religion and the Media, Education in concidered among sociologist to be one of the main methods of socialisation (not just marxist sociologists, functionalists agree but believe that it is a good thing).

[Hoppe]

The only thing they teach you at school is that all good things come from the state, I don't see what that has to to with capitalism.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 09:07 PM
The only thing they teach you at school is that all good things come from the state, I don't see what that has to to with capitalism.
Then you're blind.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 06:41 PM

I was not socialised to believe in libertarianism, capitalism, individualism and laissez faire free markets - I investigated them for myself. I have also read up on socialism and communism (although I still get confused between the two).

You may not have been socialised into these particular ideas but you were socialised into a state of capitalist hegemony which made you more receptive to capitalist view points and reluctant to critisice capitalism and very quick to critisice communism, as most of us were, surely you aren't saying to you were commpletely objective and open minded.


schools are essentially socialist

where did you get this impression? schools are renouned for rienforcing capitalism and indoctinating young people with capitalist properganda. Have you studies modern history? no doubt if u have you will believe that america was the most important factor in winning WW2 when in fact the USSR destoryed 90% of the nazi units and the USA only joined the war when Russian troops were already merching on belin. School enforce a hierachical structure on children and teaches them to blindly obey the authority of higher members of the heirachy, schools often impose unfair and pointless rules without explaining to pupils why, this teaches them not to question the rules or the authority of their 'superiors'. Along with Religion and the Media, Education in concidered among sociologist to be one of the main methods of socialisation (not just marxist sociologists, functionalists agree but believe that it is a good thing).
This is absolute rubbish. At school we were never taught about finance or running our own businesses. We were never instructed about alternatives to the democratic system or the faults in the current political system.

Economics is offered but is only a very basic outline of the field and doesn't discuss the intrinsic philosophy of it.

For one thing all of the Government propaganda is essentially socialist - election promises always aim towards more government spending and even more government control (always backed up by emotional rhetoric). From very early on we are taught that the state police are the good guys and not to question the government and its laws as they are all for the good of society. We are led to believe that we must pay taxes and participate in democratic elections (where, in Australia, you are fined if you don't vote).

Think about it; why would Government bureaucrats want to give up their power to tax and control you. It is their livelihood at stake not the people who engage in free market activities (who must shoulder the tax and regulatory burdens placed on them by Government).

As for schools and their education methods - these are decided by bureaucrats not capitalists. Their alleged slanted teaching of the outcome of the war does not favour capitalism it favours certain governments who participated in the war. War and state schools are socialist in nature because they are funded collectively therefore they are as alien to capitalism as the communist manifesto.

[Misodoctakleidist]

At school we were never taught about finance or running our own businesses.

Do you really think they want to train people to compete with them? your point would seem to support my argument.


We were never instructed about alternatives to the democratic system or the faults in the current political system.

Errrm...thats because they dont you to know these things so you wont question capitalism. Again your point supports my argument.


Economics is offered but is only a very basic outline of the field and doesn't discuss the intrinsic philosophy of it.

Why would it, they don't want you to rival them nor do they want to demystify economics because then you'd realise that they dont deserve their wealth. Are actually argueing with me or did you have a change of heart?


For one thing all of the Government propaganda is essentially socialist - election promises always aim towards more government spending and even more government control (always backed up by emotional rhetoric).

What does this have to do with the education system, or you're assertion that my post was "rubbish" ?


From very early on we are taught that the state police are the good guys and not to question the government and its laws as they are all for the good of society.

Have you figured out yet that the state you are told not to question is capitalist? are you trying to prove my point or something cos i could swear you were suposed to be criticising it.


We are led to believe that we must pay taxes and participate in democratic elections (where, in Australia, you are fined if you don't vote).

"led to believe"? You do, it's the law. This is not even propaganda let alone socialist properganda as you claim.


Think about it; why would Government bureaucrats want to give up their power to tax and control you.

because they are bougois and as such gets lots and lots and lots of money from capitalism and if there was no capitalism they would have less money and their main supporters (the business owners) couldn't use the media to put them in power.


As for schools and their education methods - these are decided by bureaucrats not capitalists.

They are decided by bureaucrats apointed by capitalists. You see Nyder, the media can make people vote for whoever they want, the media is owned by very very rich people so they get people to vote for right wing parties, these parties are made up of the bougoirsie who suck up to the other bougois to maintain their power.


War and state schools are socialist in nature because they are funded collectively therefore they are as alien to capitalism as the communist manifesto.

ARE YOU SAYING WAR IS SOCIALIST IN NATURE? If you mean that schools are funded by taxes this maked no differnce, McDonalds fund themselves by taking money from people does this make McDonalds 'as alien to capitalism as the communist manifesto' becuase it is funded 'collectively'?

I have to say you did a good job of proving yourself wrong.

[FuckWar]

I think that you need to decide whose side you are on. From what I have read, you either: believe we are living in a socialist state, think that we need more laissez-faire- style regulation of business (or lack thereof), are are a fascist. I'm going to lean a little towards the latter. Your nearly automatic disdain for anything leftist makes me think of all of the little drones at the local high school. Communism and socialism do not make people poor and do not widen the gap between classes. It eliminates class distinction by eliminating exploitation. Houses will not be forcibly seized, and if you only want your house to sell it, then you have bigger problems than not being able to argue politics. The point is that everyone should have what they need to live, and trust me, there is enough to go around- for instance, did you know that there is enough food grown worldwide to give everyone in the world 3500 calories a day to eat. Why are people starving then? Well, in order to pay for other necessities (land, housing, etc.), poor farmers sell their food to far away places for money to pay for these things. That is capitalism. that is what happens. Promoting capitalism is promoting amorality, apathy towards others' suffering and exploitation, and a cynical attitude towards the working class.

[Nyder]

Misodoctakleidist, I'll put this in caps so you pay attention:

THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT CAPITALIST!

Government and capitalism are two seperate things. Government is funded by taxes which need to be taken by force and/or the threat of force.

Free enterprise trades goods and services to make money.

You cannot blame free enterprise for what the Government does. What the Government does has nothing to do with free enterprise.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 11:23 PM
I think that you need to decide whose side you are on. From what I have read, you either: believe we are living in a socialist state, think that we need more laissez-faire- style regulation of business (or lack thereof), are are a fascist. I'm going to lean a little towards the latter. Your nearly automatic disdain for anything leftist makes me think of all of the little drones at the local high school. Communism and socialism do not make people poor and do not widen the gap between classes. It eliminates class distinction by eliminating exploitation. Houses will not be forcibly seized, and if you only want your house to sell it, then you have bigger problems than not being able to argue politics. The point is that everyone should have what they need to live, and trust me, there is enough to go around- for instance, did you know that there is enough food grown worldwide to give everyone in the world 3500 calories a day to eat. Why are people starving then? Well, in order to pay for other necessities (land, housing, etc.), poor farmers sell their food to far away places for money to pay for these things. That is capitalism. that is what happens. Promoting capitalism is promoting amorality, apathy towards others' suffering and exploitation, and a cynical attitude towards the working class.
Fuckwar, you appear to dislike war. ;)

Did you know that every war in history has been started by a collective? Capitalism has nothing to do with war as it does not involve free enterprise. It is always Government that is responsible for war (it doesn't matter who influences the Government - it is Government at fault).

Now, to your post:

If I can't sell something I own or do what I want with it, then I don't own it, do I? Selling something means trasferring the ownership rights to another party. When trying to sell communism to the public, you had better not mention that their ownership over their own property will be taken away (if they do sell, what then? - you will send state police to take their money off them?)

The reason why so many people are starving in the third world is because of the regimes in those countries.

Promoting communism is promoting immorality. It surmises that the individual is just a tool to be used and abused for the collective.

The working class are exploited by the Government and taxation. For example, in Australia the average income earner works a third of the year for the taxman. All of this money does not go into essential services that could not be provided by the free market. When Governments or collectives let people keep their money then you will end exploitation.

[synthesis]

Apparently you have a deeply ingrained lack of knowledge about Marxism. You seem to think that a Marxist revolution entails a small party overtaking the state.

Here's a little primer on Marxism. Marx postulated that as capitalist-industrial technology grew (i.e., that technology which smooths the process of production and makes things more efficient) then the bourgeoisie would have less and less need for workers and therefore would downsize as necessary. Unemployment then creates a labor surplus which the bourgeoisie uses as a justification for reducing wages and worsening conditions.

Eventually, as the technology has grown so efficient, then the wages are so low, the conditions are so bad, and the unemployment is so high that the proletariat has no other option for survival but to revolt. The government following the revolution is called Socialism - the dictatorship of the proletariat, just as Capitalism is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and Feudalism is the dictatorship of the aristocracy. It is a class dictatorship necessary to eliminate traces of bourgeois resistance.

Using the dialectical method of analysis, Marx looked beyond the form of the state (purporting to repress natural human instincts, that old capitalist scapegoat) and found its function - not human repression, necessarily, but that of class suppression. The proletariat utilizes the state to suppress the bourgeoisie. Once there is only the proletariat, the working class, there is no need for the state and it will vanish. Communism takes advantage of the extremely efficient (almost entirely automated) technology and puts it to public use rather than private use.

With all basic needs provided for, humanity is free to pursue anything they want. The pressure of a life as an artist disappears; an artist can now create truly excellent art as opposed to creating that art which enables him to survive off his earnings. Same with scientists and inventors; since the material incentive (i.e. the material necessity) is gone, the scientist is free to develop medicines that benefit the community rather than produce capital for the scientist, as the inventor is free to develop technology that benefits the community rather than produce capital for the inventor. Medicines and technology are inherently beneficial except when restricted to a private sector.

There are problems with the Marxist prediction, of course. In addition to more efficient technology, the bourgeoisie moves jobs overseas to turn a greater profit. The job flight creates nationalistic rather than socialistic tendencies among the workers, and nationalism is inherently opposed to socialism in that socialism is international.

But all in all, it makes sense to me. More so than a dictum which paradoxically champions both the free market and government deregulation. As if a free market could exist in a society where a monopoly is not prohibited. :rolleyes:

[Hoppe]

Here's a little primer on Marxism. Marx postulated that as capitalist-industrial technology grew (i.e., that technology which smooths the process of production and makes things more efficient) then the bourgeoisie would have less and less need for workers and therefore would downsize as necessary. Unemployment then creates a labor surplus which the bourgeoisie uses as a justification for reducing wages and worsening conditions.

Then how come wages have increased only and children of 8 needn't work in coalmines anymore?

[Maynard]

How will socialism be installed ? Because the people want it to be installed. If the people want socialism then it makes sense they would agree with it's philosophies which include the outlaw of private property. If someone wants to go against this, they will be in violation of the majority wishes and will be dealt with in a appropriate matter to be decided at the time.


Then how come wages have increased only and children of 8 needn't work in coalmines anymore?


There are problems with the Marxist prediction, of course

That explains it pretty well and wages may have risen but the gap between rich and poor has also risen in the "developed economies" and in the third world country wages are hardly rising , nor will they if it‘s left to “free enterprise“. Child labour/slavery is also still common in most of the world, a trait of Capitalism/ free enterprise. If the profit motive is the only thing driving a company/economy then how will this exploitation be stopped ? It would be entirely justified because they are "agreeing" to work and it will deliver more profit because costs will be lessened.. Unless, you somehow see it as a good thing.

[Hoppe]

If you're in a room and two other people decide democratically to eat you, you just have to respect the majority's wishes?

How do you define poor? 72% of poor families in the US have one or more cars, 50% has airconditioning, 72% a washingmachine, 60% a microwave, and 41% have their own house. (source : Cox & Alm 1999). Also the group of poor and rich people doesn;t consists always of the same people, there is a lot of social mobility.

The problem with third-world countries is different. There's no "free market" blaming there.

Slavery is still common yes. Especially in African countries and muslim countries where members of one tribe are enslaved by another tribe, women are forced to marry at young ages, etc etc. Very sad, but not the fault of "bourgeois oppression of western imperialist companies".

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 12:51 AM
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT CAPITALIST!
Nyder, you are from australia (unless i am mistaken) australia IS CAPITALIST, the autralian government IS CAPITALIST. I knew you were ignorant but you seem to have reached new heights of ignorance when you don't even know the political orientation of your own government.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 12:38 PM
The problem with third-world countries is different. There's no "free market" blaming there.

Really? Cos i always thought that capitalist companies from western countries took advantage of african workers by paying them extremely low wages to produce something which is taken out of their county and sold for several, if not hundreds of, times the value it cost to make.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Really? Cos i always thought that capitalist companies from western countries took advantage of african workers by paying them extremely low wages to produce something which is taken out of their county and sold for several, if not hundreds of, times the value it cost to make.


THIS IS PRECISELY CORRECT.

And is one of the reasons why we no longer have eight year olds working in mines.
And why even the "poor" in the West can afford a car, eat reasonably well, and live in relative comfort.
The Bourgeoisie has not triumphed in the West; it has shifted the problem elsewhere.

The Western Proletariat no longer enjoys "majority" status in the West. This means (unfortunately) that a popular Revolution will not occur. And that the State can continue to exploit the proletariat which remains. Most of the "Workers" are now abroad. The Bourgeoisie is almost exclusively Western.

This state of affairs is exactly what Capitalism wants. Exploitation has been moved abroad to lessen opposition to Capitalism at home. Extra protection has been afforded (in the UK) by the creation of a Welfare state - which claims to offer care for all. It succeeds, to a certain extent. But the rich are merely securing their position, not implementing Socialism. The conditions of the poor have been raised by one level - such a level we consider to be adequate - but the rich are getting FAR FAR richer.

For any change to come about in the West, Revolution must occur abroad. Then the West will have to start oppressing its own workers again; oppression which will not be tolerated after years of living at others expense.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+Dec 3 2003, 09:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Misodoctakleidist @ Dec 3 2003, 09:29 PM)
[email protected] 3 2003, 12:51 AM
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT CAPITALIST&#33;
Nyder, you are from australia (unless i am mistaken) australia IS CAPITALIST, the autralian government IS CAPITALIST. I knew you were ignorant but you seem to have reached new heights of ignorance when you don&#39;t even know the political orientation of your own government. [/b]
How many times do I have to tell you. It doesn&#39;t matter what the members of the Government believe. The way a Government operates has nothing to do with capitalism. Do Governments obtain funding through voluntary trade as their sole means?

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+Dec 3 2003, 10:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Misodoctakleidist @ Dec 3 2003, 10:07 PM)
[email protected] 3 2003, 12:38 PM
The problem with third-world countries is different. There&#39;s no "free market" blaming there.

Really? Cos i always thought that capitalist companies from western countries took advantage of african workers by paying them extremely low wages to produce something which is taken out of their county and sold for several, if not hundreds of, times the value it cost to make. [/b]
The reason they are paid extremely low wages is because of the monopoly which operates there. It is even worse if they are gaining favours to stop competition by the regime which is installed in that country.

Like I said, Regimes in third world nations are unfriendly to to laissez faire markets. They care more about their own funds then the welfare of their people.

If you want to learn more on why the third world is kept poor then read this article: http://www.reason.com/rb/rb091802.shtml

Here is an excerpt:

Here, then, is a short guide for kleptocrats and egalitarians who want to keep their countries poor. All of these policies have stood the test of time as techniques for creating and maintaining poverty. The list is by no means exhaustive, but it will give would-be political leaders a good idea of how to start their countries on the road to ruin.

First, make sure that your country&#39;s money is no good. Print money like there&#39;s no tomorrow. Hyperinflation is one of the easiest and most popular ways to dismantle an economy. Another popular monetary gambit is to make sure your currency is not convertible. This guarantees that no one will ever want to invest in your country.

To further discourage investment, be sure to nationalize all major Industries. Nationalization has additional poverty-enhancing benefits. For example, it will ensure that the nationalized industries never improve technologically or become more efficient, and it makes workers pathetically dependent on their political masters, namely you.

Of course, you may find it too tiresome to nationalize everything, in which case it is very important that you establish high tariffs that insulate your country&#39;s remaining private industries (usually owned by your cronies anyway) from competition.

In addition, your legal system should make it nearly impossible for anyone to license a new business, however small. This will offer opportunities for your bureaucrats to make a living through corruption and will protect your cronies from domestic competition. An added advantage is that most commerce will be made illegal and subject to arbitrary enforcement.

This leads to the point that property is critical. Once people start to own something, they invest in it and improve it, leading inexorably to the creation of wealth. Again, the legal system can help to make it impossible to issue clear titles so that your citizens can&#39;t buy, sell, or borrow against their "property." Also, force your farmers to sell their crops to government commodity boards at below-market rates. This will discourage them from investing in anything more advanced than subsistence agriculture, and you will be able to sell whatever crops you do seize at low prices to keep the urban populations quiet.

[synthesis]

If you&#39;re in a room and two other people decide democratically to eat you, you just have to respect the majority&#39;s wishes?

You don&#39;t have a lot of choice in the matter.


The problem with third-world countries is different. There&#39;s no "free market" blaming there.

This is a misconception I&#39;ve been dwelling on quite a bit recently. The degree of the "free market" matters little to Marxists, as much as it does to capitalist economists. The meaning of capitalism to a Marxist is and always has been the existence of private property. Individuals and corporations control the means of production in the conquered world.


Very sad, but not the fault of "bourgeois oppression of western imperialist companies".

Western oppression has often been very successful in quelling barbaric native traditions. I&#39;ll give it that, although it has also been successful in imposing other, often even more barbaric laws of its own. Some Leftists think that the people to support in situations like that are reactionary elements such as the Mau Maus in Kenya. Mau Maus didn&#39;t want to institute anything but a society more barbaric than that civilization the British imposed. That stands in the way of the dialectical-materialist process as much as restricting the efficiency of capitalist technology.

_____

Nyder, that article is utter fucking bullshit. It still blows my mind that you buy into that absurdity.


To further discourage investment, be sure to nationalize all major Industries. Nationalization has additional poverty-enhancing benefits. For example, it will ensure that the nationalized industries never improve technologically or become more efficient, and it makes workers pathetically dependent on their political masters, namely you.

This statement is by far the most ridiculous. LOL, as if Batista&#39;s Cuba, Idi Amin&#39;s Uganda, Allende&#39;s Chile, Somoza&#39;s Nicaragua, early Ba&#39;athist Iraq, Noriega&#39;s Panama, Sukarno&#39;s Indonesia, or Sese Soko&#39;s Congo were remotely better off for their fanatically pro-foreign investment policies&#33; Capitalist revolutions are almost universally more barbaric and more conducive to extreme poverty and oppression than those of the Leninist or economic nationalist varieties.

Haha, so Coca-Cola death squads don&#39;t make workers "dependant"?

[Nyder]

Dyermaker,

Your argument falls flat in the real world. Every communist/socialist nation has been living in extreme poverty while every capitalist nation has enjoyed great wealth and higher standards of living for all who care to take advantage of it.

That article is correct, it takes a lot of hard work by governments to keep their countries poor but the effort is worth it to profit them and their mates. If people were free to produce their own wealth you wouldn&#39;t have these problems.

[Maynard]

If you&#39;re in a room and two other people decide democratically to eat you, you just have to respect the majority&#39;s wishes?

I didn&#39;t say anyone had to "accept" it as such but in a democratic society, what the majority wants, the majority shall get. Is that a principle of democracy , which most governments are meant to be delivering now ? The guy won&#39;t have to accept it but he&#39;ll have trouble opposing it, if the majority wished it, most likely he would get eaten. No matter what he thought.



How do you define poor? 72% of poor families in the US have one or more cars, 50% has airconditioning, 72% a washingmachine, 60% a microwave, and 41% have their own house. (source : Cox & Alm 1999). Also the group of poor and rich people doesn;t consists always of the same people, there is a lot of social mobility.


That may be true but what about the over 2 million people without a home, in the richest country in the world having that many people homeless, doesn&#39;t speak well for the system in place. I wouldn&#39;t say there is a lot of social mobility , the chances of you being poor than making it into the upper classes is very,very slim. Most people believe it can happen but it never does. Those who do are glorified to make it seem as if it can happen to anyone , when all evidence points this as being wrong.


Slavery is still common yes. Especially in African countries and muslim countries where members of one tribe are enslaved by another tribe, women are forced to marry at young ages, etc etc. Very sad, but not the fault of "bourgeois oppression of western imperialist companies".



Have you not heard of sweatshop workers ? Which is precisely oppression by the bourgeois. Kids as young as 10 working up to 18 hours a day , with production targets who may get payed less than 1 dollar a day. How do you justify this ?


The way a Government operates has nothing to do with capitalism
Yes it does, if they are promoting a system which encourages that the means are production are owned privately or corporately in the majority of cases, they are promoting capitalism. Even if it&#39;s in a mixed economy.


Your argument falls flat in the real world. Every communist/socialist nation has been living in extreme poverty while every capitalist nation has enjoyed great wealth and higher standards of living for all who care to take advantage of it.



Could that be, because they were living in poverty beforehand as well ? There was more poverty when they were ruled by feudalism or capitalism. In nearly all cases a "socialist" government has reduced poverty compared to what there was before. Every capitalist nation has enjoyed great wealth ?? Really just like Russia now then ? Or Brazil ? Or Argentina ? Or Haiti ? Or Mexico ? Or India ?

Russian GDP has contracted an estimated 45% since 1991, despite the country&#39;s wealth of natural resources, its well-educated population, and its diverse - although increasingly dilapidated - industrial base. What was that about no incentive to produce ?



That article is correct, it takes a lot of hard work by governments to keep their countries poor but the effort is worth it to profit them and their mates

You don&#39;t also put some of the blame on the companies who come in and pay low wages ? Wouldn&#39;t higher wages increase the urge to spend, which in turn would create more jobs ? Perhaps it&#39;s "free enterprises" that is holding these people back , as well as governments.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 07:48 AM
Your argument falls flat in the real world. Every communist/socialist nation has been living in extreme poverty while every capitalist nation has enjoyed great wealth and higher standards of living for all who care to take advantage of it.

Nyder for what seems like the hundredth time, there had never been a communist nation, the USSR, china, n korea ect are not communist and never have been. The reason there was poverty in these counties is because there was poverty before &#39;communism&#39; and during &#39;communism&#39; the situation improved dramatically. "every capitaist nation"? what about latvia, that is a capitalist nation and so are many others the only people who become rich under capitalism are the exploiters this is also true on an international level, the us, uk, australia, france, germany ect get richer by exploiting the poorer capitalist nations. The bigger coutries have all the big companies who, due to &#39;free trade&#39; can exploit the workers of poor capitalist nations squeezing every last drop of wealth from the third world, surely you aren&#39;t going to deny the flow of wealth out of the third world and into the major capitalist nations. What higher standards of living are there in russia since the collapse of the soviet union? You dont seem to understand that for one person to get richer other people have to get poorer, money doesn&#39;t just appear, for capitalist to enjoy are higher standard of living MANY others have to endure a lower one.

[eyedrop]

Your argument falls flat in the real world. Every communist/socialist nation has been living in extreme poverty while every capitalist nation has enjoyed great wealth and higher standards of living for all who care to take advantage of it.




How do you then explain that the biggest capitalist countries of them all, India, has one of the poorest population in the world.
They even have a higher death rate than the Chinasian "communists". The people that have died because of the suffering(from 1964-2000) in India even outweighs the ones that died in the famine in china(30mill).
You must agree that India is Capitalistic since it has given the companies(Microsoft to example;looking at a made in Indonesia(woops&#33;)marking) that produce there to have tax free zones, inside the country. It has given the big companies free trading with no taxes, often subsidising to keep them from moving to an ever cheaper land.

China is also a Capitalistic country since it also has enabled the compaines to rape them.


Did you know that every war in history has been started by a collective? Capitalism has nothing to do with war as it does not involve free enterprise. It is always Government that is responsible for war (it doesn&#39;t matter who influences the Government - it is Government at fault).

Remember things like Guatamala, the demacratically president removed the ownerships, the enterprices had bought from the earlier dictator. Guess what happened&#33; The enterprices which was founding the presidents champaign complained to the government, the government sent out its CIA to assasin the DEMOCRaTICALLY elected president. I have seen the CIA top chiefs defend the act, and not rejecting it.


PS&#33; You probably don&#39;t mean Capitalistic in the same way we mean it; I would quess that you are an anarcho-capitalist that belive in the
capitalistic competition without a goverment, as you don&#39;t seem to incorporate the government as a part of Capitalism.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 07:48 AM
Your argument falls flat in the real world.
Thank you, it is quite beautiful out.


Every communist/socialist nation has been living in extreme poverty while every capitalist nation has enjoyed great wealth and higher standards of living for all who care to take advantage of it.

What a bullshit statement. Every capitalist nation? How about India, Chile, Uganda, Russia, post-Kassem Iraq, Haiti, pre-Castro Cuba, Guatemala, Indonesia, Nicaragua... fuck, I don&#39;t want to go on.

The fact of the matter is that Cuba alone destroys your statement. It&#39;s true, I&#39;m crying a river for all the capitalists who lost all their mansions, but unfortunately it was necessary to get Cuba to a higher literacy rate, life expectancy, and health care system than even America.


That article is correct, it takes a lot of hard work by governments to keep their countries poor but the effort is worth it to profit them and their mates.

I am awed by your intellectual declarations.


If people were free to produce their own wealth you wouldn&#39;t have these problems.

LOL, you don&#39;t know how much I agree with that statement.