First (dumb?) question

[Krogher]

Ok, I'm fairly confident that you have answered these questions before, but I shall ask anyway because, honestly, I don't have the time to search the archives and make sure that they have been answered. My first question, why communism? America is the largest, most successful country in the world, and it is capitalist. Other capitalist nations, such as Britain, France, Sweden, Japan, are among the top 10. In education, wealth, food, everything, Capitalist nations rule. So, why communism? China is a powerful nation, but many people live in constant oppression there, and even their communism has hints of capitalism. Cuba is not an affluent nation. North Korea is not an affluent nation. The USSR fell. Now, you may say that these are (or, in the case of the USSR were) not pure communisms, but isn't that indicative of the system as well? If all the communism which have started don't stay pure, why would anyone think that his/her communism would be pure? Also, why is there an apparent dislike for Christianity? I am a Christian, and I love my God, I love my savior, but I do not hate you. I go to a Christian school, and I have met two people who are Christian Communists. While we have nothing politically in common, our mutual faith has brought us together. Anyway, these are all of the questions I could think of now. I don't want to start a heated argument or debate here, but, rather, a dialogue or a friendly discourse. Anyway, I think that's it. Thanks.
~Michael

[bdw]

Krogher, there are two types of communists: those who know the truth but hide it, and those who are morons and follow along.

I suspect that your Christian communist friends believe in the socialist economic doctrine, but not the communist social doctrine. Communists make no distinction: they talk as if capitalism is a social doctrine. :rolleyes: Ask your two friends if they oppose the "super structure." That is a key tenet of communism. They believe there is a capitalist conspiracy to blind the people with morals, religion, money and so forth, in order to give them what Marx described as a "false conciousness." That is a blatant lie.



Mod Edit:

Christian Garbage edited out. Stick to the topic son.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Ask your two friends if they oppose the "super structure." That is a key tenet of communism

Lie.

There is no such thing as the "Communist Super Structure".


They believe there is a capitalist conspiracy to blind the people with morals, religion, money and so forth, in order to give them what Marx described as a "false conciousness." That is a blatant lie.


There is no conspiracy my boy! Capitalists are more then forthcoming about their use of religion, religious morality and money to keep the workers from extracting the surplus value from the goods and services they produce and instead give that surplus value to a small percentage of the wealthy elite.

Do you even know what surplus value is? Probably not cosidering your lack of knowledge in economic practise and policy, both capitalist and socialist.

It's only the "bottom rung" of peons like yourself that are not aware of this; that is done purposely of course. The more "braun" the ruling elite has to blindly do their dirty work for them without actually having to lay down any bread for them, the more time they haved for sipping martinis and jet setting to Aspen.

Can you dig it dip shit? You've been had! :lol:

[bdw]

RAF, I said communists oppose the "super structure." But since there isn't a "super structure" nor a united conspiracy, there is nothing to oppose. Communism is essentialy a boogie-man ideology. :D

By the way, thanks for the great laughs you've given me over the past couple days. I am fully aware of my situation; I am not oppressed, not exploited, and yet I am middle-class! Imagine that.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 02:10 AM
By the way, thanks for the great laughs you've given me over the past couple days. I am fully aware of my situation; I am not oppressed, not exploited, and yet I am middle-class! Imagine that.
There is no middle class, boy. <_<

As for Krogher, we&#39;ll start with the standard welcome:

As you have admitted being a supporter of Capitalism, I will make you acquainted with the Che-Lives guidelines:


What is restriction, and what is the Opposing Ideologies forum?

Restriction is a measure the membership uses to focus the debate on this site. We are a group of progressive Leftists, after all. That is about as much as many of us have in common however. We disagree on how the society we envision will work, how best to emancipate the workers and many other issues. We need to debate these things respectfully, amongst ourselves. So we restrict debate about whether we should emancipate the workers at all to the Opposing Ideologies forum.

This is where all right-wingers are sent. This is where anyone who is too disruptive to proper debate is sent. There are other reasons for being restricted to OI of course, but generally, it requires behavior that is deemed in conflict with the membership&#39;s vision for this site.
Thus, you are now restricted.

Enjoy.

Next, to answer your question. This comic strip should make it simple.

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/uploads/post-32-1084481139.jpg

[bdw]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 05:47 AM
Mod Edit:

Christian Garbage edited out. Stick to the topic son.
Just as communism seems to define who you are, Christianity defines who I am. By editing that post, you are supressing ideas. Oh wait&#33; That&#39;s what communism is all about. Supress ideas, control the masses. Thankfully, I was blessed with a good mind so I can recognize a lie for what it is. A shame that you were born a fool.

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 04:45 PM
Just as communism seems to define who you are, Christianity defines who I am. By editing that post, you are supressing ideas. Oh wait&#33; That&#39;s what communism is all about. Supress ideas, control the masses. Thankfully, I was blessed with a good mind so I can recognize a lie for what it is. A shame that you were born a fool.
Please leave the stupid neocon clichés at home.

And RAF was right to cut it out, it was irrelevent.

[revolutionindia]

Chey marijuana

Your cartoon leaves out one very important point?

Who bears the risk?Definately not the worker.

Studies reveal that 9 out of every 10 startup&#39;s fail and the loss
is usually borne by the entrepreneur who bears most of the losses

The worker usually leaves the failed company to join another depending on how the good the employment market is he might get a job or join the ranks of unemployed

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 04:54 AM
depending on how the good the employment market is he might get a job or join the ranks of unemployed
Sounds like risk to me :huh:

Oh well, I guess it&#39;s only risk if you&#39;re rich enough to be able to survive it.

[revolutionindia]

Being unemployed is not such a big risk when compared to starting a new business

There is also the possibility of the state taking care of you
through social benefits if you are unemployed.

Also the unemployed person does not neccassarily have to look for a job
he can start his own startup if he has the risk bearing appetite and also th necassary skills.
This will be possible only in capitalist system.

[Guest1]

Or, if everyone ran the workplace together, there&#39;d be no risk and everyone would get the fair share from their work.

How&#39;s that sound?

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 07:42 PM
This will be possible only in capitalist system.
Or we could cut all the crap and just help people, as would be done in a socialist society.

[revolutionindia]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 9 2004, 03:13 PM
Or, if everyone ran the workplace together, there&#39;d be no risk and everyone would get the fair share from their work.

How&#39;s that sound?
Running an organisation together is tough.Such an organisation would
definately lack direction.
Also to assume that all the workers posses equal managerial capabilities
would be very naive.

Great organisations are made by the hard work of the workers but this hard work
needs to be channeled into definate shape and results.

This is usually done by the owner or the state.

What is debatable is the renumeration that the worker deserves and the money the owner deserves to get for bearing the risk and managing the industry.

Also what share of profits the worker at the bottom of the organisation deserves to
get definately needs some rethinking.

The problem with the state interfering in business is that everthing starts out fine
but after a period of time lethargy and corruption set in.
As a result you end up with these huge dinosaur organisations that refuse to change and offer sub standard services because they are usually a monopoly.
This is a drain on the public exchequer and waste of people&#39;s money.

Now,what motivates a person to start a business?
His thirst for money,recognition and his desire to shape and make his own destiny which a rigid communist system denies to everyone under it.

[revolutionindia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 03:54 PM
Or we could cut all the crap and just help people, as would be done in a socialist society.
That OK with me :cool:

but how exactly would this be done?

[YKTMX]

China is a powerful nation, but many people live in constant oppression there, and even their communism has hints of capitalism. Cuba is not an affluent nation. North Korea is not an affluent nation. The USSR fell. Now, you may say that these are (or, in the case of the USSR were) not pure communisms, but isn&#39;t that indicative of the system as well? If all the communism which have started don&#39;t stay pure, why would anyone think that his/her communism would be pure?

Those countries are/were not Communist, they aren&#39;t even Socialist.

The USSR was state capitalist, so is Cuba.

God knows what China is? They have developed something called "market socialism" which seems like the most oxymoronic phrase ever. The DPRK is a basketcase dictatorship with one of the most elaborate perosnality cults in history.

[New Tolerance]

Ok, I&#39;m fairly confident that you have answered these questions before, but I shall ask anyway because, honestly, I don&#39;t have the time to search the archives and make sure that they have been answered. My first question, why communism? America is the largest, most successful country in the world, and it is capitalist. Other capitalist nations, such as Britain, France, Sweden, Japan, are among the top 10. In education, wealth, food, everything, Capitalist nations rule

The same arguement could be made for slavery. Nations that practice slave labour were also once very powerful, Greece, Rome etc. Does that mean slavery shouldn&#39;t be abolished?


China is a powerful nation, but many people live in constant oppression there, and even their communism has hints of capitalism. Cuba is not an affluent nation. North Korea is not an affluent nation. The USSR fell. Now, you may say that these are (or, in the case of the USSR were) not pure communisms, but isn&#39;t that indicative of the system as well? If all the communism which have started don&#39;t stay pure, why would anyone think that his/her communism would be pure

China is more capitalist than the United States (just read business news).

Cuba is not socialist. It&#39;s undergoing capitalist reforms, that&#39;s why it&#39;s not capitalist, it&#39;s not socialist and it&#39;s not working.

North Korea was too dependent on the USSR. IF the US collasped today, do you have any idea, how many economies of rich capitalist nations would go to the dust with it?

When people say that those countries are not communist, it simply means that they do not support the policies of those countries. Purity is something that&#39;s on paper, it means nothing when put into practical sense. It is just a way of telling people who they support.


Also, why is there an apparent dislike for Christianity? I am a Christian, and I love my God, I love my savior, but I do not hate you. I go to a Christian school, and I have met two people who are Christian Communists. While we have nothing politically in common, our mutual faith has brought us together. Anyway, these are all of the questions I could think of now. I don&#39;t want to start a heated argument or debate here, but, rather, a dialogue or a friendly discourse. Anyway, I think that&#39;s it. Thanks.
~Michael

Christianity today is better, but remember how Christianity was more extremist back in the days when all this stuff first came up. The dislike is just an afterglow, I don&#39;t see anything wrong with Christianity as it is now.


Just as communism seems to define who you are, Christianity defines who I am. By editing that post, you are supressing ideas. Oh wait&#33; That&#39;s what communism is all about. Supress ideas, control the masses. Thankfully, I was blessed with a good mind so I can recognize a lie for what it is. A shame that you were born a fool.


Just as a note, if we post on capitalist forums, they don&#39;t hestiate to delete our posts. Do they have a better excuse than we do?

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 9 2004, 06:33 AM
Next, to answer your question. This comic strip should make it simple.

Basic economic fallacy. Production requires investment. (and of course, investment requires the accumulation of capital. Since wages under capitalism rise above the level of sustenance, check Marx if you like, everyone worker can save and invest).

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 9 2004, 06:33 AM
Next, to answer your question. This comic strip should make it simple.

Will you stop posting that dumb cartoon. It&#39;s question begging.

[V.I.Lenin]

&#39; First (dumb?) question, Why Communism?&#39;.


First (intelligent) question, Why not?

[Krogher]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 9 2004, 12:19 PM

The same arguement could be made for slavery. Nations that practice slave labour were also once very powerful, Greece, Rome etc. Does that mean slavery shouldn&#39;t be abolished?


Slave labor, however, did not make them powerful. Capitalism did.


China is more capitalist than the United States (just read business news).


Ok, so has there ever been a true communism?

Cuba is not socialist. It&#39;s undergoing capitalist reforms, that&#39;s why it&#39;s not capitalist, it&#39;s not socialist and it&#39;s not working.



Doesn&#39;t that mean something? Someone who talked up revolution is now turning into his enemy? I would say that&#39;s indicative of the ideology and it&#39;s failure to work.

North Korea was too dependent on the USSR. IF the US collasped today, do you have any idea, how many economies of rich capitalist nations would go to the dust with it?


This may be true, we&#39;ll have to see. Let&#39;s hope that the USA doesn&#39;t collapse, or, if it does, another nation is waiting to take its place.

When people say that those countries are not communist, it simply means that they do not support the policies of those countries. Purity is something that&#39;s on paper, it means nothing when put into practical sense. It is just a way of telling people who they support.


I doubt that. America would have serious issue with Sweden. That country is very socialist. However, they have a democracy. I think that the problem that most people have with communism is its lack of choice for the people. While communism isn&#39;t embedded into the American Psyche, we don&#39;t hate it. (Well, we hated the Red version of it). But, it&#39;s the lack of choice, and the blatant hate for our system. These are what make us nervous.


Christianity today is better, but remember how Christianity was more extremist back in the days when all this stuff first came up. The dislike is just an afterglow, I don&#39;t see anything wrong with Christianity as it is now.


Glad to hear it&#33;&#33;

Just as a note, if we post on capitalist forums, they don&#39;t hestiate to delete our posts. Do they have a better excuse than we do?


I don&#39;t post on capitalist forums? They exist? Man, I&#39;d love to see the extremist who actually created a board which supports the status quo&#33;&#33; I mean, what do they talk about? "Man, I love life right now, but if it changed....:::::angry white man ensuses::::::

The same arguement could be made for slavery. Nations that practice slave labour were also once very powerful, Greece, Rome etc. Does that mean slavery shouldn&#39;t be abolished?


Slave labor, however, did not make them powerful. Capitalism did.


China is more capitalist than the United States (just read business news).


Ok, so has there ever been a true communism?

Cuba is not socialist. It&#39;s undergoing capitalist reforms, that&#39;s why it&#39;s not capitalist, it&#39;s not socialist and it&#39;s not working.



Doesn&#39;t that mean something? Someone who talked up revolution is now turning into his enemy? I would say that&#39;s indicative of the ideology and it&#39;s failure to work.

North Korea was too dependent on the USSR. IF the US collasped today, do you have any idea, how many economies of rich capitalist nations would go to the dust with it?


This may be true, we&#39;ll have to see. Let&#39;s hope that the USA doesn&#39;t collapse, or, if it does, another nation is waiting to take its place.

When people say that those countries are not communist, it simply means that they do not support the policies of those countries. Purity is something that&#39;s on paper, it means nothing when put into practical sense. It is just a way of telling people who they support.


I doubt that. America would have serious issue with Sweden. That country is very socialist. However, they have a democracy. I think that the problem that most people have with communism is its lack of choice for the people. While communism isn&#39;t embedded into the American Psyche, we don&#39;t hate it. (Well, we hated the Red version of it). But, it&#39;s the lack of choice, and the blatant hate for our system. These are what make us nervous.


Christianity today is better, but remember how Christianity was more extremist back in the days when all this stuff first came up. The dislike is just an afterglow, I don&#39;t see anything wrong with Christianity as it is now.


Glad to hear it&#33;&#33;

Just as a note, if we post on capitalist forums, they don&#39;t hestiate to delete our posts. Do they have a better excuse than we do?


I don&#39;t post on capitalist forums? They exist? Man, I&#39;d love to see the extremist who actually created a board which supports the status quo&#33;&#33; I mean, what do they talk about? "Man, I love life right now, but if it changed....:::::angry white man ensuses:::::: :lol:

[Krogher]

Oops, I think I screwed up that last one. My bad&#33;&#33;
~Michael

[Krogher]

Wow, another mistake. I realize that Greece and Rome didn&#39;t have capitalist systems like Britain or America, and I realize that their economies heavily relied upon slave labor (I&#39;m a Classical Studies Major); however, comparing capitalism and slavery are two different things. Slaves never got paid for their work. Americans get paid for their work. And, while many of those wages aren&#39;t good enough to become rich and buy a Lexus, I&#39;ve never met any hard working person on the streets. My parents lived paycheck to paycheck for most of my childhood. My father has started two unsuccessful businesses and we had to declare bankruptcy. However, he has since started a new business which is very successful. Well, the business he was working for went bankrupt due to embezzelment, so he just took his old businesses clients and started a new one. Also, he was able to do this because of Bush&#39;s tax cut. My father got &#036;3000 back because of the tax cut, was able to move to Tennessee and start this business. Without that tax cut, he never would have been able to do this. From what I can gather, Communists lessen business to only the fat cats. However, America is driven by small business, many with only a few workers. My father is a great example. If this continues to thrive as it has for the last few months, I know I&#39;m getting ahead of myself, then he may be able to help me pay for my college education, something that I haven been doing for the last three years. That, my friends, would be capitalism at it&#39;s best, and a long withstanding dream of mine&#33;
~Michael

[Subversive Pessimist]

Slaves never got paid for their work. Americans [edit: why do Americans always talk of themselves? - Strawberry] get paid for their work.

You are right.

The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly.

The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master&#39;s interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole.

The slave is outside competition; the proletarian is in it and experiences all its vagaries.

The slave counts as a thing, not as a member of society. Thus, the slave can have a better existence than the proletarian, while the proletarian belongs to a higher stage of social development and, himself, stands on a higher social level than the slave.

The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.

The Principles of Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)



America is driven by small business

That is not true. Do I need to list &#39;em up? Mc Donalds, Burger King, Nike etc. etc.

Also, small corporations are being controlled by bigger corporations, and even those who seem independent in theory, are in reality, not.


It&#39;s complex, but if you are willing to read and learn:


IMPERIALISM: THE HIGHEST STAGE OF CAPITALISM (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/)

[Krogher]

The proliterian must sell himself daily and hourly? In a commuist society, would the proliterian still work? If so, he would still be selling himself daily and hourly. It&#39;s called making a living, and no matter what society we use, he will still be doing the same thing. However, at least he has a choice. He can continue working at his job (be it a factory worker, a farmer, a lawyer, a doctor, a teacher, or just a father); he can get a higher education, if he hasn&#39;t already exhausted that with a Ph.D or an equivalent degree; he can look for a better job, once again, if that hasn&#39;t already been exhauseted. The slave has no choice. He must live a sub-human existence. I know many lower class people. I grew up in South Georgia, and all of my mother&#39;s family still lives there. For goodness sakes, my uncle works as a gas station attendant, and he has a son. However, he just got his GED, and is applying for a technical school this fall. He has never hated his life. Sure, he&#39;s dreamed of something better, and at times he didn&#39;t have it, but now, by his own choice, he is persuing that dream. Capitalism without ethics or safety nets is a very scary thing. However, most capitalisms have ethics and safety nets. Welfare is one of these. No one will ever get rich off welfare, but one can sustain life off of it. And, from there, one can grow. The proliterian can abolish private property, but then he has no hope for a better life. He can never hope to beat the Jones&#39;; his only hope is that he can be like the Jones&#39;. Also, there is a different between small business and small corporation. Small business is the business which is not publically owned, but privately owned. My father&#39;s business is one such business. He is not a cad to Nike, McDonalds, or anyone else. He answers only to himself, and to the laws set up by the government. I don&#39;t hate rich people, or their businesses. They have always employed me, and, if I don&#39;t become a teacher, which I hope to do, they will always employ me.
~Michael

[New Tolerance]

Slave labor, however, did not make them powerful. Capitalism did.

Rome and Greece practiced Capitalism? What&#39;s your definition of Capitalism? Most Ayn Rand capitalists I&#39;ve met has told me that there has never been a real capitalist country.


Ok, so has there ever been a true communism?

Most here would agree that there has never been one, just like there has never been a real capitalist country either. (by the LF capitalist&#39;s own arguements)


Doesn&#39;t that mean something? Someone who talked up revolution is now turning into his enemy? I would say that&#39;s indicative of the ideology and it&#39;s failure to work.

That means Castro&#39;s way of organizing things is not working out too well. We don&#39;t all support Castro&#39;s policies, and not all former Eastern Bloc countries had the same policies.


I doubt that. America would have serious issue with Sweden. That country is very socialist. However, they have a democracy. I think that the problem that most people have with communism is its lack of choice for the people. While communism isn&#39;t embedded into the American Psyche, we don&#39;t hate it. (Well, we hated the Red version of it). But, it&#39;s the lack of choice, and the blatant hate for our system. These are what make us nervous.

Most people here do not support this kind of Leninist "communism" you are talking about.


The proliterian must sell himself daily and hourly? In a commuist society, would the proliterian still work? If so, he would still be selling himself daily and hourly. It&#39;s called making a living, and no matter what society we use, he will still be doing the same thing. However, at least he has a choice. He can continue working at his job (be it a factory worker, a farmer, a lawyer, a doctor, a teacher, or just a father); he can get a higher education, if he hasn&#39;t already exhausted that with a Ph.D or an equivalent degree; he can look for a better job, once again, if that hasn&#39;t already been exhauseted. The slave has no choice. He must live a sub-human existence. I know many lower class people. I grew up in South Georgia, and all of my mother&#39;s family still lives there. For goodness sakes, my uncle works as a gas station attendant, and he has a son. However, he just got his GED, and is applying for a technical school this fall. He has never hated his life. Sure, he&#39;s dreamed of something better, and at times he didn&#39;t have it, but now, by his own choice, he is persuing that dream. Capitalism without ethics or safety nets is a very scary thing. However, most capitalisms have ethics and safety nets. Welfare is one of these. No one will ever get rich off welfare, but one can sustain life off of it. And, from there, one can grow. The proliterian can abolish private property, but then he has no hope for a better life. He can never hope to beat the Jones&#39;; his only hope is that he can be like the Jones&#39;. Also, there is a different between small business and small corporation. Small business is the business which is not publically owned, but privately owned. My father&#39;s business is one such business. He is not a cad to Nike, McDonalds, or anyone else. He answers only to himself, and to the laws set up by the government. I don&#39;t hate rich people, or their businesses. They have always employed me, and, if I don&#39;t become a teacher, which I hope to do, they will always employ me.
~Michael

Your form of Capitalism is not the one that we are primarily combating, we are more concerned about the kind of LF Capitalism where there is no welfare, no state sponsored education, and no social safety net. (Which some people are trying to bring about)

[Vinny Rafarino]

The USSR was state capitalist, so is Cuba.


There is no such thing as "state capitalism".


God knows what China is? They have developed something called "market socialism" which seems like the most oxymoronic phrase ever. The DPRK is a basketcase dictatorship with one of the most elaborate perosnality cults in history.


You are very confused about what "market socialism" is.

Market socialism ( originated by J. Stalin) simply uses the current international market to assess value to the goods and services it produces. Without doing this, the value of the goods and commodities to be exported to other nations would have such random prices either they would only serve to crush the nation&#39;s GDP.

As was seen in the USSR prior to its entry back into capitalism.

It does not have anything to do with anything else.

The economic reforms you are speaking about in Cuba have nothing to do with market socialism, Cuba has been unfortunately been forced to make small concessions to foreign private business to increase its GDP and keep its people from starving due to 40 years of economic sanctions.

These reforms are the first step in the reintroduction of capitalism in Cuba and there is nothing comrade Castro or anyone can do about it.

Perhaps you should do some research before you blindly babble on about things you don&#39;t understand. I know it&#39;s tough for you to talk about anything but Stalin and Trotsky but eventually you will have to enter the modern era.

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 10 2004, 09:32 AM
( originated by J. Stalin)
Just a minor quibble, but wasn&#39;t market socialism one of Tito&#39;s ideas?

[Nyder]

For the last f***ing time, value is subjective (ie: made up). A capitalist can&#39;t take &#39;surplus value&#39; because that value is totally fictional&#33; Although there does seem to be a basis for value - humans decide what is valuable to them through demand, quantity, willingness to pay, etc.

Saying a capitalist takes &#39;surplus value&#39; is just like saying that every time a capitalist sneezes a fairy dies. Marx even elaborated on this with the &#39;transformation problem&#39;.

The ltv is bunk&#33; That refutes every single argument made in this thread&#33;&#33;

[insurgency03]

the question is why not communism muthuhfukuh&#33;&#33;

the basis of capatialism is that some men are created more equally than others, which is probly why bigotry had fit in so well within the confines of capatilist nations, and why so many wars are fought, probly form the belief that if some people are greater than others,then its probley true with countries as well, thus the better off nations think that they have entitlement over more land simply because they think they can maintian it, meanwhile on the other spectrum of the scale the worse off nation seek despretly to take the wealth from their neighboors out of envy and desperation. which is in my opinion, the reasonm that capatialism sucks ass.

[Professor Moneybags]

Your form of Capitalism is not the one that we are primarily combating, we are more concerned about the kind of LF Capitalism where there is no welfare, no state sponsored education, and no social safety net. (Which some people are trying to bring about)

In other words, no means to live at other people&#39;s expense without their consent. Your ideology involves taking the unearned (by force) without permission of it&#39;s owner.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 03:08 AM
the basis of capatialism is that some men are created more equally than others, which is probly why bigotry had fit in so well within the confines of capatilist nations, and why so many wars are fought, probly form the belief that if some people are greater than others,then its probley true with countries as well, thus the better off nations think that they have entitlement over more land simply because they think they can maintian it, meanwhile on the other spectrum of the scale the worse off nation seek despretly to take the wealth from their neighboors out of envy and desperation. which is in my opinion, the reasonm that capatialism sucks ass.
And how does free trade and individual rights fit into that ?

Where exactly did you get this stuff from ?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 10:48 AM
For the last f***ing time, value is subjective (ie: made up). A capitalist can&#39;t take &#39;surplus value&#39; because that value is totally fictional&#33; Although there does seem to be a basis for value - humans decide what is valuable to them through demand, quantity, willingness to pay, etc.

Saying a capitalist takes &#39;surplus value&#39; is just like saying that every time a capitalist sneezes a fairy dies. Marx even elaborated on this with the &#39;transformation problem&#39;.

The ltv is bunk&#33; That refutes every single argument made in this thread&#33;&#33;



You are confuese as to the meaning of "surplus value".

[YKTMX]

There is no such thing as "state capitalism".

Yes there is.


Market socialism ( originated by J. Stalin) simply uses the current international market to assess value to the goods and services it produces. Without doing this, the value of the goods and commodities to be exported to other nations would have such random prices either they would only serve to crush the nation&#39;s GDP.

That&#39;s very interesting. The problem is that the particular country I was referring to was China, who have used the "international market" to assess the value of their workers labour power. They have since found that Chinese people are a good and plentiful source of cheap labour and invited Nike in to use them to make shoes.


Perhaps you should do some research before you blindly babble on about things you don&#39;t understand. I know it&#39;s tough for you to talk about anything but Stalin and Trotsky but eventually you will have to enter the modern era.

A lesson in "moving on" from a Stalinist, a dogma formed as a reaction to material conditions in 20&#39;s Russia. Interesting.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 06:47 AM
Just a minor quibble, but wasn&#39;t market socialism one of Tito&#39;s ideas?


He was first to use the phrase "market socialism" however his policies were pretty unique. I myself would not have called Tito&#39;s 1963 Yugoslavia as "market Socialists".

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 12:09 AM
The problem is that the particular country I was referring to was China, who have used the "international market" to assess the value of their workers labour power.
And they&#39;d be at a total loss without to assess the value of labour power wthout the international market.

Those who want global communism, take note.

[Vinny Rafarino]

And they&#39;d be at a total loss without to assess the value of labour power wthout the international market

This is a true statement under conditions where a Socialist country must trade with nations that use the market to determine value.


Those who want global communism, take note.

Wrong.

In the event of global communism, value as you see it is no longer applicable as there is no longer currency.

If even the most mundane forms of value are to be kept by using the LTV as a production model, it still would be nothing like what "value" means in a free market environment.

I personally do not think the LTV will even be needed in a communist society, there are other ways to determine production that will require public cooperation, such as territorial census, but are perfenctly cappable of guaging production on a macro scale.