Socialists/communists what do you have to debunk this?

[TheFalseprophet]

http:/ /miburl.com/ VxBzLj

[#FF0000]

http:/ /miburl.com/ VxBzLj

It's extremely simplistic and totally ignores the fact that these practices weren't just stopped because of "capitalism". They stopped because workers organized an fought against these conditions. Plus, you're in two minds entirely if you say "capitalism is to thank for ending child labor" but then object to saying "capitalism is to blame for poverty and war".

And keep in mind that communists recognize that capitalism is an improvement over the Feudal order we had before. Capitalism put an end to aristocracy, enforced, landed serfdom, and set the stage for the development of industry and technology necessary for us to move beyond capitalism.

[Dagoth Ur]

In fact communists aim to use capitalism in the smartest way, ie centralize everything so it can be neatly granted to the proletariat. It's capitalists who're too stupid to understand they're just cogs in the drive of capitalism to become socialism.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Absolute nonsense. If capitalism has been so wonderful at getting rid of child labour, why are children still working in Bangladesh, in the Congo, in mines in Ecuador and all over the developing world? If you want to understand how 'benevolent' capitalists have treated child labour you should read some of your own country's history such as the Newsboys strike of 1899 where the 'benevolent' capitalist Pulitzer hired thugs to attack the striking child labourers and try to force them back to work or how mine owners held stock in newspapers so prevented any articles written by Mother Jones about the injuries suffered by child labourers working in mines from reaching the wider public. It's only ever been organised labour that has prevented children from being exploited, never capitalists.

[The Jay]

In fact communists aim to use capitalism in the smartest way, ie centralize everything so it can be neatly granted to the proletariat. It's capitalists who're too stupid to understand they're just cogs in the drive of capitalism to become socialism.

No. I for one do not want there to be an absolute corporatism just because you for some reason think that it would be easier to take over. You're half-way advocating for Fascism as a revolutionary tactic for Socialism.

[Brotto Rühle]

No. I for one do not want there to be an absolute corporatism just because you for some reason think that it would be easier to take over. You're half-way advocating for Fascism as a revolutionary tactic for Socialism.

Notice how the poster uses "granted to" the prole by communists...very telling.

[Oenomaus]

No. I for one do not want there to be an absolute corporatism just because you for some reason think that it would be easier to take over. You're half-way advocating for Fascism as a revolutionary tactic for Socialism.

Fascism is a particular form of bourgeois dictatorship, not a specific economic model. I think DU might have bent the stick a bit - but the point, as I see it, is that communists should not fight but welcome the natural tendency of capitalism toward centralisation. Sadly, many "leftists" do not see this and imagine that being an enemy of the banks, cartels and trusts and a supporter of small business is "progressive".

[Czy]

What the fuck is the point of that article? It's as if anyone who is anti-capitalist is suddenly pro-feudalism?

No one denies that capitalism benefited the world. But its progressive force has long died out, and it's a system that is now at the whim of its own inherent contradictions.


If capitalism is what caused the West to grow rich, then it was capitalism, not government intervention, that eliminated child labor in the developed world.

What a fucking joke. It was a thundering labour movement that won every single inch of privilege that workers have today. The 8 hour day, leave, etc were not given out by capitalist's with a big smile and kiss. Capitalists and workers have diametrically opposed interests, hence the conflict over wages and the resulting cyclical fluctuations that are not someone's opinion but an observable fact.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Erm . . . not to rush to the defense of feudalism, but child labour in pre-industiral agriculture, handicrafts, and other "peasant" production is a good deal less brutal than the de facto slavery in sweatshops and mines that capitalism has produced. Insofar as the "birth" of capitalism was characterized by the enclosure of the commons and consequent economic dispossession of women and children, it's arguably not progressive at all.
Regardless, what capitalism has primarily accomplished, in terms of child labour, over the course of its development is simply moving it to the periphery. There it need not trouble the delicate sensibilities of white people in the metropole. Hooray. :mad:

[Dagoth Ur]

No. I for one do not want there to be an absolute corporatism just because you for some reason think that it would be easier to take over. You're half-way advocating for Fascism as a revolutionary tactic for Socialism.
lol centralization is not corporatism (and fascism isn't corporatism by definition either). And way to not read at all. I said COMMUNISTS are better at running capitalism than CAPITALISTS. Not that capitalism would be easier to seize if they knew how to run it. In fact the bourgeoisie are the main obstacle to full centralization (anti-monopoly legislation is a purely bourgeoisie concept) directly because they would lose power as a class if they were truly reduced to four or five guys who could be expropriated for all the capital.

But no write me off as a half-way fascist without even understanding my post. Really intelligent.

[helot]

Erm . . . not to rush to the defense of feudalism, but child labour in pre-industiral agriculture, handicrafts, and other "peasant" production is a good deal less brutal than the de facto slavery in sweatshops and mines that capitalism has produced. Insofar as the "birth" of capitalism was characterized by the enclosure of the commons and consequent economic dispossession of women and children, it's arguably not progressive at all.
Regardless, what capitalism has primarily accomplished, in terms of child labour, over the course of its development is simply moving it to the periphery. There it need not trouble the delicate sensibilities of white people in the metropole. Hooray. :mad:


Yup, couldn't agree more. There's a fundamental difference between a family including the children having to work the land and children sent into mines and factories. A child spending his/her day herding goats has far more autonomy than the child trying to grab debris from machinery that could rip the kid's arm off.

[Dagoth Ur]

Yeah it was that the factory kid (if he grew up) got to live in a better time with better things. Feudalism wasn't as brutal because it was painful inefficient. That's why modern wars make the old ones look like friendly rivalries.

Even the greatest cruelties of progress are preferable to the peace of the past.

[helot]

Yeah it was that the factory kid (if he grew up) got to live in a better time with better things. Feudalism wasn't as brutal because it was painful inefficient. That's why modern wars make the old ones look like friendly rivalries.

Even the greatest cruelties of progress are preferable to the peace of the past.


Don't you see though? With the exception of various necessities (food, shelter etc) having "better things" is irrelevant instead we should be looking at conditions.

[Dagoth Ur]

His conditions were objectively better. The industrial child was less of a slave of his family than the feudal child. By the industrial child's time it was a crime to kill your child (not that it was particularly enforced), there were schools he could attend, and orphanages if his parents died (orphans just became outright slaves in feudal times). Brutality is an illusion engendered by that basic human emotion: fear of change.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Yeah it was that the factory kid (if he grew up) got to live in a better time with better things. Feudalism wasn't as brutal because it was painful inefficient. That's why modern wars make the old ones look like friendly rivalries.

Even the greatest cruelties of progress are preferable to the peace of the past.

Marx's liberal and Hegelian baggage is the worst.
Can we, like, not pander to unabashed capitalist ideologues in this way?

"Empathy with the victors thus comes to benefit the current rulers every time. This says quite enough to the historical materialist. Whoever until this day emerges victorious, marches in the triumphal procession in which today’s rulers tread over those who are sprawled underfoot."
-On The Concept of History,Walter Benjamin

[Alexios]

That's why modern wars make the old ones look like friendly rivalries.

...what? Launching corpses into cities on trébuchets, dismembering anyone in sight, and occupying enemy holdings by starving the population are just friendly rivalries? Also it's hard to say how 'inefficient' pre-capitalist societies actually were, considering they were able to mobilize armies greater than most contemporary efforts, maintain stability, and have productive labor go on all at the same time.

[Czy]

Can we, like, not pander to unabashed capitalist ideologues in this way?

I don't see your point. No one is pandering to anything. An acknowledgement that capitalism was a superior point in historical progression than feudalism isn't pandering or supporting capitalism. Feudalism's collapse signified the bourgeoisie seizing power, and now it is the proletariat's turn. I doubt any 'unabashed capitalist ideologies' espouse that.

[Dagoth Ur]

lol liberal. Liberals the very people who ***** about the past without context. That said I'm talking about progressive things. Britain in India = not progressive, Cromwell = progressive. Etc.

Also that quote is meaningless. We're all just a stack of past events, us peons and bourgeoisie alike.

[Dagoth Ur]

...what? Launching corpses into cities on trébuchets, dismembering anyone in sight, and occupying enemy holdings by starving the population are just friendly rivalries? Also it's hard to say how 'inefficient' pre-capitalist societies actually were, considering they were able to mobilize armies greater than most contemporary efforts, maintain stability, and have productive labor go on all at the same time.
Yeah Chemical Weapons are stronger than they've ever been, death squads cover the whole fucking planet, and "humanitarian sanctions" all beat the shit out of old warfare. They might as well have been playing a rowdy game of cards by comparison to what we do.

Also massive lols at the idea that a massive army is more efficient than a much deadlier smaller army and the notion that feudal labor was more productive. Like that second one completely disregards the entire notion of productive forces.

[#FF0000]

lol centralization is not corporatism

It ain't necessarily "socialism" either.


And way to not read at all. I said COMMUNISTS are better at running capitalism than CAPITALISTS. Not that capitalism would be easier to seize if they knew how to run it. In fact the bourgeoisie are the main obstacle to full centralization (anti-monopoly legislation is a purely bourgeoisie concept) directly because they would lose power as a class if they were truly reduced to four or five guys who could be expropriated for all the capital.

Capitalism isn't a problem because "capitalists don't know how to run it", though. We oppose capitalism because it's basic function requires class stratification, exploitation of labor, etc. etc. etc.

And our goal isn't to "centralize everything and then hand it to the working class". The point is for the class to organize and take the means of production. What you said sounds like some old, dumb Bonapartism.

Plus, the overall trend has been towards an even more extreme centralization of wealth and capital, and, uh, we're certainly no closer to toppling capitalism now than we were before.


(and fascism isn't corporatism by definition either).

Er, "Corporatism" was was of the central parts of Fascism, by the way.


His conditions were objectively better

Haha, I dunno about that. On one hand the feudal kid was gonna be a serf all his life no matter what and would probably die of this or that disease. On the other, the industrial kid was taking work sticking his hands in machines and crawling naked through coal chutes.

I think the feudal kid has a little bit of an edge here. Just a little.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

lol liberal. Liberals the very people who ***** about the past without context. That said I'm talking about progressive things. Britain in India = not progressive, Cromwell = progressive. Etc.

Also that quote is meaningless. We're all just a stack of past events, us peons and bourgeoisie alike.

See, it's the framing of things as "progressive" that is precisely the problem, because the notion that history is a linear march toward "realms of freedom" (with the occasional "detour") is a moral judgement for which materialism can be only a veneer.

In any case, the eurocentric character of your examples speaks volumes.

[Dagoth Ur]

lol how ridiculous. Progressive is an objective conception. But no the difference reaction and progress is just Eurocentric moralism. Thanks bro.

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the Netherlands child labour did not when it was declared illegal. It ended when public education became obligatory. Evidently, this requires some advanced productive forces to compensate for the fall in the volume of labour-power. The advancement of the productive forces could be said to be capitalistic, but is not capitalist in itself.

[Alexios]

Yeah Chemical Weapons are stronger than they've ever been, death squads cover the whole fucking planet, and "humanitarian sanctions" all beat the shit out of old warfare. They might as well have been playing a rowdy game of cards by comparison to what we do.

Weapons of mass destruction have only been used in some instances and are by no means commonly used in modern warfare, but that's besides the point. Again, your accusation that pre-modern warfare is childsplay is what is being argued against here, not the notion that modern war machines are much more capable of destruction than those of previous ages (which is undeniable).


Also massive lols at the idea that a massive army is more efficient than a much deadlier smaller army and the notion that feudal labor was more productive. Like that second one completely disregards the entire notion of productive forces.Stop being a dumbass. No one said that serfdom was more efficient than capitalism, just that it wasn't as "hopelessly inefficient" as you made it out to be.

[Dagoth Ur]

It ain't necessarily "socialism" either.
Duh. Socialism is post-centralization as that is a purely capitalist drive.


Capitalism isn't a problem because "capitalists don't know how to run it", though. We oppose capitalism because it's basic function requires class stratification, exploitation of labor, etc. etc. etc.
Yeah all of which they make worse and perpetuate by disallowing capitalism from becoming socialism. It's not their fault, per se, as the bourgeoisie lack the interest in ending the function of their class. But failures they are and communists are better by the very definition that we have proletarian motivations (assuming genuine commitment) and we do not hide the truth of capitalism from ourselves. That is to say if you know what a hammer is you know how to use it better.


And our goal isn't to "centralize everything and then hand it to the working class". The point is for the class to organize and take the means of production. What you said sounds like some old, dumb Bonapartism.
Okay what about what I said has anything to do with playing bourgeoisie and proletariat against eac other? Because that is what Bonapartism is. If we're running capitalism there isn't a bourgeoisie left because they won't even let us do that much. State Capitalism isn't a wrong course if it's all you can do. For me this is all academic as I'm from America, where SIOC is possible and where we could have socialism by the end of the decade if we were really dedicated.


Plus, the overall trend has been towards an even more extreme centralization of wealth and capital, and, uh, we're certainly no closer to toppling capitalism now than we were before.
Actually if you remeber right a drive towards centralization preceeded the October Revolution, and many more of the revolutions of the early 20th.

And besides Centralization has to occur before socialism can exist as all property must first be brought under the command of the state so we can have time to build up structural proletarian power. The bourgeoisie cannot be allowed to keep even the tiniest of parcels.


Er, "Corporatism" was was of the central parts of Fascism, by the way.
You really shouldn't listen to what fascists say, especially about themselves as they're completely unaware of their own self. Fascism is a survival tactic of the bourgeoisie and because of this it is completely conditioned by the time/place it arises in. For example FRG fascism was clearly distinct from the Nazi fascism of just a decade earlier. Apply some materialism bro, ignore the facade of ideology.


Haha, I dunno about that. On one hand the feudal kid was gonna be a serf all his life no matter what and would probably die of this or that disease. On the other, the industrial kid was taking work sticking his hands in machines and crawling naked through coal chutes.

I think the feudal kid has a little bit of an edge here. Just a little.
Yeah but way more of those coal chute boys and seamstress girls grew up. Most serf children died before their 18th birthday. It's the same kind of nonsense as saying primitive communism is a preferable place to live versus our modern age. When the real brutality of that time was immeasurable and something none of us is actually capable of dealing with.

[Dagoth Ur]

Weapons of mass destruction have only been used in some instances and are by no means commonly used in modern warfare, but that's besides the point. Again, your accusation that pre-modern warfare is childsplay is what is being argued against here, not the notion that modern war machines are much more capable of destruction than those of previous ages (which is undeniable).
Yeah and that has shit all to do with anything. Vacuum bombs, White Phosphoros, cluster bombs, napalm, air raids, attack helicopter, drones, targeted missle strikes, automatic guns that carry literally thousands of bullets, yeah these are all the same as a rusty sword and an archer. In older times they killed your women and children because they were really pissed. Now we call them collateral damage. There is no question we are far more brutal in war than ever before.


Stop being a dumbass. No one said that serfdom was more efficient than capitalism, just that it wasn't as "hopelessly inefficient" as you made it out to be.
Compared to capitalism, feudalism is irresponsibly inefficient. But nice ad-hom you got there. You realize using insults during a real conversation is the realm of knuckle-draggers right?