Do you guys understand the gravity of marx?

[JudeObscure84]

Im going to try and have a serious debate with you guys and I hope that you can stay in line with what I am debating. Please dont go off into other realms and start claiming that this is capitalistic and this is oppression. To begin I believe that the principles of Libertatianism are the best, and I am going to be pragmatic about this in comparing it with the mayhem that Marx and the revisionist movements have spawned. Now what I mean is direct action taken by the governments against thier own citizens, even though I know that people are flawed and hypocritical, so lets argue doctrine then practice.

It seems that Marx had a flaw in his notion of Marxism being a science. Also the labor theory of value is flawed to being with. But look at all the revisions that happened after it.....you had Stalinism, Bolshevism, Anarchism, Syndicalism, Fascism, Maoism and Trotskyism. Probably the only one that had any merit was Democratic Socialism but even orthodox Marxists had a problem with it such as Rosa Luxembourg, the syndicalists and even the extreme Marxists heretics; the Fascists. Even almost every heresy was just as evil as the next.


http://users.ju.edu/jclarke/wizzm2.html

what is the great appeal after such failed attempts? I mean the literal meaning of the Revolution is to do away with the capitalist class. Its murder, its theft, its mayhem and mob rule. You see the capitalist class as subhuman and your right to subdue them under your claim for social justice. Why?

I am just curious. No need to get highly defensive.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Respect the forum's rules if you use the forum. This belongs in Opposing Ideologies.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Fuck! I lost my whole reply to this post!

[JudeObscure84]

Are there any Anarcho Syndicalists in this fourm?

[JudeObscure84]

Respect the forum's rules if you use the forum. This belongs in Opposing Ideologies.

shoudlnt every forum be open to discussion?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I guess you haven't read any of the stuff when you signed up. But to repeat: This forum is meant for revolutionary leftists (hence the name) and talk about revolutionary leftism. In order not to let the entire forum become a general debate of capitalism vs communism, anarchism etc we have created Opposing Ideologies. This is the place for rightwingers, capitalists.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 08:47 PM
Im going to try and have a serious debate with you guys and I hope that you can stay in line with what I am debating. Please dont go off into other realms and start claiming that this is capitalistic and this is oppression. To begin I believe that the principles of Libertatianism are the best, and I am going to be pragmatic about this in comparing it with the mayhem that Marx and the revisionist movements have spawned. Now what I mean is direct action taken by the governments against thier own citizens, even though I know that people are flawed and hypocritical, so lets argue doctrine then practice.

It seems that Marx had a flaw in his notion of Marxism being a science. Also the labor theory of value is flawed to being with. But look at all the revisions that happened after it.....you had Stalinism, Bolshevism, Anarchism, Syndicalism, Fascism, Maoism and Trotskyism. Probably the only one that had any merit was Democratic Socialism but even orthodox Marxists had a problem with it such as Rosa Luxembourg, the syndicalists and even the extreme Marxists heretics; the Fascists. Even almost every heresy was just as evil as the next.


http://users.ju.edu/jclarke/wizzm2.html

what is the great appeal after such failed attempts? I mean the literal meaning of the Revolution is to do away with the capitalist class. Its murder, its theft, its mayhem and mob rule. You see the capitalist class as subhuman and your right to subdue them under your claim for social justice. Why?

I am just curious. No need to get highly defensive.
Simple.

All those bad things associated with those political ideas such as Maoism, Stalinism, etc....., they are not communism. In other words, the comrades who did the evil things under the revolution were not really 'comrades'.

[workersunity]

I know, dude you are seriously stupid, putting fascism along in there, firstly fascism and anarchism, stalinism werent communism, so start by taking that out right away, and you havent proved that the labor theory of value is inherently flawed, the objects have inherent value, and the value comes from labor not from if the consumer wants it

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 12:52 AM
I know, dude you are seriously stupid, putting fascism along in there, firstly fascism and anarchism, stalinism werent communism, so start by taking that out right away, and you havent proved that the labor theory of value is inherently flawed, the objects have inherent value, and the value comes from labor not from if the consumer wants it


No one has also proven the labor value model to be stable and workable. It is only stable and workable on paper in the minds of intellecutals. The reality is a terrible and genocidal dictatorship following the revolution.

[Djehuti]

It seems that Marx had a flaw in his notion of Marxism being a science.

Yes? Develop your thoughs on this matter please. I would say that Marx was very scientific in his work. Marxism however...


Also the labor theory of value is flawed to being with.

Again, why? Don't present this stuff as clear facts, they are not. Support your statements please.


you had Stalinism, Bolshevism, Anarchism, Syndicalism, Fascism, Maoism and Trotskyism.

What do you mean "you (who?) had yada yada yada"? Once again, you really have to develop your strange reasoning.


but even orthodox Marxists had a problem with it such as Rosa Luxembourg, the syndicalists and even the extreme Marxists heretics; the Fascists. Even almost every heresy was just as evil as the next.

Huh? :huh:
Really, you have to read much more on the different leftist traditions.
And learn to write in a way that makes at least some sense.



what is the great appeal after such failed attempts?

What failed attempts? Btw, the appeal precedes the action. The appeal derives from our human nature and our situation as working class.



I mean the literal meaning of the Revolution is to do away with the capitalist class.

No, the literal meaning of the Revolution is to do away with the working class.



Its murder, its theft, its mayhem and mob rule.

You could see it that way.


You see the capitalist class as subhuman

Not at all. They are very much human, and I would probably have acted the same way if I were a capitalist. They are not our primary enemy, capitalism is. However the capitalists do benefit from capitalism, and will thus struggle against those who don't, and strives to abolish the capitalist relations. Sure, some capitalists might accually be nice individuals, but in the class conflict we stand on opposite sides. But still, it is good to remember that they too are slaves under the law of value, and that capitalism will last even though every single capitalist is killed. It is not the capitalists that creates capitalism. As we saw in for example the USSR, capitalism is very much possible without capitalists. The state (or workers collectives for that sake) could administrate the capital instead of private capitalists, it would still be capitalism.




and your right to subdue them under your claim for social justice. Why?

We will take that right, because we will need it. We will impose our needs on society without debate--needs that are directly contrary to the interests and wishes of rich people everywhere.

[Publius]

I know, dude you are seriously stupid, putting fascism along in there, firstly fascism and anarchism, stalinism werent communism, so start by taking that out right away, and you havent proved that the labor theory of value is inherently flawed, the objects have inherent value, and the value comes from labor not from if the consumer wants it

So holes in the ground have actual value?

Is a hole in the ground that takes 1000 hours to produce worth more than a car that takes around 30?

Tell me, what is the inherent value of a hole in the ground?

Tell me, if there are 2 identical objects, one made by a man, one made by a machine, which is worth more?

Can you differentiate them in any way?

If not, what difference can there possibly be?

Tell me, does food grown in the wild have no actual value because no labor produced it, but poisons created in labratories do, because they took labor?

Is anthrax worth more than apples?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 01:13 AM

Yes? Develop your thoughs on this matter please. I would say that Marx was very scientific in his work. Marxism however...

Science = 1) observe 2) think up a plausable model to fit #1 3) make predictions from #2 to see if they fit with #1.

Marx =

1) observe

2) model = Marxism

3) Predictions = revolution from industrial society, stateless

Do predictions fit with #1. No. Thus the model is wrong.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:00 AM
Is a hole in the ground that takes 1000 hours to produce worth more than a car that takes around 30?
Straw man. Labour n'exist pas dans un vaccum, and Marx recognises this.



Hrm . . .

I managed to read Wage Labour and Capital while at a bus stop, though, admittedly, it was on a Sunday, when the bus runs less often.

Now, instead of making posts that show a complete misunderstanding (I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're ignorant rather than malicious) of Labour Theory of Value, put aside the time to do at least the very basic readings.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 08:47 PM
Im going to try and have a serious debate with you guys and I hope that you can stay in line with what I am debating. Please dont go off into other realms and start claiming that this is capitalistic and this is oppression. To begin I believe that the principles of Libertatianism are the best, and I am going to be pragmatic about this in comparing it with the mayhem that Marx and the revisionist movements have spawned. Now what I mean is direct action taken by the governments against thier own citizens, even though I know that people are flawed and hypocritical, so lets argue doctrine then practice.

It seems that Marx had a flaw in his notion of Marxism being a science. Also the labor theory of value is flawed to being with. But look at all the revisions that happened after it.....you had Stalinism, Bolshevism, Anarchism, Syndicalism, Fascism, Maoism and Trotskyism. Probably the only one that had any merit was Democratic Socialism but even orthodox Marxists had a problem with it such as Rosa Luxembourg, the syndicalists and even the extreme Marxists heretics; the Fascists. Even almost every heresy was just as evil as the next.


http://users.ju.edu/jclarke/wizzm2.html

what is the great appeal after such failed attempts? I mean the literal meaning of the Revolution is to do away with the capitalist class. Its murder, its theft, its mayhem and mob rule. You see the capitalist class as subhuman and your right to subdue them under your claim for social justice. Why?

I am just curious. No need to get highly defensive.
I will not claim that this is capitalistic and oppressive, I will only claim that you are horribly ignorant. That seems a dominant attribute of you capitalists, from the fool to the intellectual (Ayn Rand, whom I have read, was, I have concluded, basically insane in her ideas.)

But the reason these 'failed attempts' draw such appeal is that they offer a better world, unlike the capitalist state which you no doubt approve of. Some of the 'isms' you cite are obviously nothing close to Marxism, such as Stalinism, Maoism, and Fascism, that last one being perhaps the opposite of Marxism, you ignorant fool. In fact, it can be honestly said that Stalin himself was the one who finally perverted Marxism into what it is thought of today. Who knows what would have happened with the USSR if Trotsky had, as he rightfully should have, succeeded Lenin. But every single failing of MArxism, of dictators killing their citizens in the name of Marx, can, I think, be traced to the evil that was Stalin.

BTW, doing away with the capitalist class (the people of the class I mean) is not the goal of any Marxist. We want to do away with class itself, to realize true social justice, and true freedom. To do this, we must begin the transition away from capitalism. It is economic evolution, my friend. Marx showed that capitalist evolved from feudalism, and soon capitalism will evolve into socialism which will evolve into anarcho-communism. Socialism offers the promise of a better, freer, and greater world. What does capitalism offer except the rule of the rich and pain and suffering for the rest of us? In fact, I suggest that the real question is what is the appeal of capitalism to those of us in the lower classes of society!

[Publius]

Straw man. Labour n'exist pas dans un vaccum, and Marx recognises this.



Hrm . . .

I managed to read Wage Labour and Capital while at a bus stop, though, admittedly, it was on a Sunday, when the bus runs less often.

Now, instead of making posts that show a complete misunderstanding (I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're ignorant rather than malicious) of Labour Theory of Value, put aside the time to do at least the very basic readings.

I'm merely asking a few questions.

I don't see any objective way at all to determine the Labor Theory of Value, as such, I deem it worthless.

How can you objectively tell me what some labor is worth compared to other labor?

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 05:05 AM
Science = 1) observe 2) think up a plausable model to fit #1 3) make predictions from #2 to see if they fit with #1.

Marx =

1) observe

2) model = Marxism

3) Predictions = revolution from industrial society, stateless

Do predictions fit with #1. No. Thus the model is wrong.
Science is the creation of theory. A theory begins with a (or more) hypothesis, an assumption thats is formulated just to be tested against reality. Within each sort of science, several ways of testing has been developed, that are unique for just this science. But the methodical pattern is always the same, the hypothetic-deductive. Out of the hypothesis one deduce a consequence, that must apply if the hypothesis is correct. The deduction is then controlld against factsm either such one allready know about or such you can find first after the hypothesis has pointed them out.

Many hypothesis is proved to be wrong. But a false hypotheis can still be good. If it asks the right question, then it leads forth and creates new knowledge, even if it must be discarded in its previous form. The failure is enlightening. Or with other words, ask the right question and the answers will take care of them selfs (almost).

When a hypothesis is confirmed, it is promoted to the rank of theory. This does not mean that one must unconditional believe in it. New confirmations are always welcome. Some theories are in fact more confirmed than others. It will however never be totally confirmed, in the sense that it may never be questioned. Its range is always limited: sooner or later facts will appear that don't fit. You can say that the theory gradually starts to "un-confirm". But in the same way as a theory don't become the appeared and eternal truth of God after the first confirmation, it does neither become a refuted lie and cursed fabrication after the first incompatible result of observation. One draws the conclution that the theory is insufficient, but in lack of better one keeps using it: one must always have some theory, for a science without theory is not just impossible, it would not even be a science. Science is theory.

Marx was a great scientist in every sense of the word. His skilled use of the hypothetic-deductive method is obvious, and if you study Grundrisse and Capital you will be amazed how complex yet clear his method is, how smoothly he travels between severl levels of abstraction and concretion, etc. Marx is a genious, and I do not really see how his hypothesises (which?) are wrong. Can you please elaborate and specify?

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 03:00 AM
So holes in the ground have actual value?

Is a hole in the ground that takes 1000 hours to produce worth more than a car that takes around 30?

Tell me, what is the inherent value of a hole in the ground?

Tell me, if there are 2 identical objects, one made by a man, one made by a machine, which is worth more?

Can you differentiate them in any way?

If not, what difference can there possibly be?

Tell me, does food grown in the wild have no actual value because no labor produced it, but poisons created in labratories do, because they took labor?

Is anthrax worth more than apples?
Why would any capitalist waste 1000 hours of labour to dig a hole that has no use?

Besides, you have to know the differense between (exchange) value and use value.
The use value is not determined by the socially necessary (This part is very important, and should not be forgotten) labour put in to the product, the exchange-value however are. Tell me, what is the common denominator of all commodities? Labour. How else can you compare their value?

Note that Marx does not deny supply and demand. But Marx seperates value from price. While the price omits from the value, they are not the same thing. The value is determined in the production, the price is determined in the selling.

By the way, the LTV is created to "count the value" in a specific object. It is more like a mean to reach new knowledge and deeper understanding of capitalist society.


"Is anthrax worth more than apples?"

You mix use value with (exchange value). I have no need for anthrax, it is of no use to me, and you could claim that humanity would be better of without it. But the LTV is about exchange-value not use value.


By the way, I found a few links:
http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/s23f99.htm
http://www.worldsocialism.org/wsm-pages/marxecon.html
I have not read them thoguh, and don't know how good they are.

[Publius]

Why would any capitalist waste 1000 hours of labour to dig a hole that has no use?

Besides, you have to know the differense between (exchange) value and use value.
The use value is not determined by the socially necessary (This part is very important, and should not be forgotten) labour put in to the product, the exchange-value however are. Tell me, what is the common denominator of all commodities? Labour. How else can you compare their value?

Note that Marx does not deny supply and demand. But Marx seperates value from price. While the price omits from the value, they are not the same thing. The value is determined in the production, the price is determined in the selling.

By the way, the LTV is created to "count the value" in a specific object. It is more like a mean to reach new knowledge and deeper understanding of capitalist society.


"Is anthrax worth more than apples?"

You mix use value with (exchange value). I have no need for anthrax, it is of no use to me, and you could claim that humanity would be better of without it. But the LTV is about exchange-value not use value.


By the way, I found a few links:
http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/s23f99.htm
http://www.worldsocialism.org/wsm-pages/marxecon.html
I have not read them thoguh, and don't know how good they are.

Alright.

The first link says this
the value of a commodity is the amount of homogeneous human labour or socially necessary labour embodied in the commodity.

Do you agree this is a valid definition?

[Djehuti]

Yes, I believe I do.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Djehuti+May 23 2005, 07:44 PM--> (Djehuti @ May 23 2005, 07:44 PM)
[email protected] 22 2005, 05:05 AM
Science = 1) observe 2) think up a plausable model to fit #1 3) make predictions from #2 to see if they fit with #1.

Marx =

1) observe

2) model = Marxism

3) Predictions = revolution from industrial society, stateless

Do predictions fit with #1. No. Thus the model is wrong.
Science is the creation of theory. A theory begins with a (or more) hypothesis, an assumption thats is formulated just to be tested against reality. Within each sort of science, several ways of testing has been developed, that are unique for just this science. But the methodical pattern is always the same, the hypothetic-deductive. Out of the hypothesis one deduce a consequence, that must apply if the hypothesis is correct. The deduction is then controlld against factsm either such one allready know about or such you can find first after the hypothesis has pointed them out.

Many hypothesis is proved to be wrong. But a false hypotheis can still be good. If it asks the right question, then it leads forth and creates new knowledge, even if it must be discarded in its previous form. The failure is enlightening. Or with other words, ask the right question and the answers will take care of them selfs (almost).

When a hypothesis is confirmed, it is promoted to the rank of theory. This does not mean that one must unconditional believe in it. New confirmations are always welcome. Some theories are in fact more confirmed than others. It will however never be totally confirmed, in the sense that it may never be questioned. Its range is always limited: sooner or later facts will appear that don't fit. You can say that the theory gradually starts to "un-confirm". But in the same way as a theory don't become the appeared and eternal truth of God after the first confirmation, it does neither become a refuted lie and cursed fabrication after the first incompatible result of observation. One draws the conclution that the theory is insufficient, but in lack of better one keeps using it: one must always have some theory, for a science without theory is not just impossible, it would not even be a science. Science is theory.

Marx was a great scientist in every sense of the word. His skilled use of the hypothetic-deductive method is obvious, and if you study Grundrisse and Capital you will be amazed how complex yet clear his method is, how smoothly he travels between severl levels of abstraction and concretion, etc. Marx is a genious, and I do not really see how his hypothesises (which?) are wrong. Can you please elaborate and specify? [/b]
Just one I can point to more:

"The revolution will happen in an industrial society".

It never has, it always happens in a very impoverished and agriculture based society.

That model is wrong. Everything that follows from it can not be right.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 22 2005, 02:02 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 22 2005, 02:02 AM)
[email protected] 22 2005, 12:52 AM
I know, dude you are seriously stupid, putting fascism along in there, firstly fascism and anarchism, stalinism werent communism, so start by taking that out right away, and you havent proved that the labor theory of value is inherently flawed, the objects have inherent value, and the value comes from labor not from if the consumer wants it


No one has also proven the labor value model to be stable and workable. It is only stable and workable on paper in the minds of intellecutals. The reality is a terrible and genocidal dictatorship following the revolution. [/b]
Of course libertarianism is so much better. The millions of deaths, caused by the poverty which was a direct result of unleashed libertarianism during the industrial revolution, is 100% better.

Lets remove the minimum wage, health and saftey regulations, ristrictions on child labour, etc.

Then we have libertarianism, not the idealist theories expounded by the likes of the self proclaimed 'libertarians' of this site. But of course true 'libertarianism' will never occur, it never can, people cannot and will not accept such treatment, people pressure governments into change.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Enigma+May 24 2005, 02:38 AM--> (Enigma @ May 24 2005, 02:38 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:02 AM

[email protected] 22 2005, 12:52 AM
I know, dude you are seriously stupid, putting fascism along in there, firstly fascism and anarchism, stalinism werent communism, so start by taking that out right away, and you havent proved that the labor theory of value is inherently flawed, the objects have inherent value, and the value comes from labor not from if the consumer wants it


No one has also proven the labor value model to be stable and workable. It is only stable and workable on paper in the minds of intellecutals. The reality is a terrible and genocidal dictatorship following the revolution.
Of course libertarianism is so much better. The millions of deaths, caused by the poverty which was a direct result of unleashed libertarianism during the industrial revolution, is 100% better.

Lets remove the minimum wage, health and saftey regulations, ristrictions on child labour, etc.

Then we have libertarianism, not the idealist theories expounded by the likes of the self proclaimed 'libertarians' of this site. But of course true 'libertarianism' will never occur, it never can, people cannot and will not accept such treatment, people pressure governments into change. [/b]
What ever is wrong with libertainism or free markets, does not prove that communism is right, just, stable, or workable. It has to prove itself right, just , stable, and workable on it's own merits. Yes the free market is unjust. The best you can say is we are BOTH wrong. You didn't prove your right.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:44 AM
Just one I can point to more:

"The revolution will happen in an industrial society".

It never has, it always happens in a very impoverished and agriculture based society.

That model is wrong. Everything that follows from it can not be right.
What has often be seen as a "communist revolution" has in fact been a bourgeoise revolution in absense of the weak bourgeoise. The proletarians or peasants did instead of the bourgoeisie establish primitive ackumulation and capitalist relations. This is a revolution, but not a communist revolution.

I still see it for far more likely that the communist revolution will take placed in advanced industrial capitalist countries, and I do believe that empirical data supports this. Communists tendensies are clear, they are a part of every day life. Like a mole digging through the earth. And sometimes, the mole reaches the surface and the class struggle becomes a reality for everyone. Some times the mole is under earth, and sometimes he is above, but he is always there.

We have seen proletarian revolts with communist essence in the capitalist society, and we will see more. Just because capitalism has never been overthrown does not mean that capitalism will never be. All things come to an end.

[encephalon]

Just one I can point to more:

"The revolution will happen in an industrial society".

It never has, it always happens in a very impoverished and agriculture based society.

That model is wrong. Everything that follows from it can not be right.

That's like saying physics is entirely wrong because what it was originally based upon--netwonian principles--turned out to be inneffective in describing anything but extremely large bodies in ideal circumstances. It's a flawed argument.

and by "the revolution will happen in an industrial society," one could point out that it must be a revolution in industiral society in order to be successful. One of the biggest reasons socialist revolutions have failed in such countries is because they simply didn't have the infrastructure or resources to sustain it.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 08:47 PM
But look at all the revisions that happened after it.....you had Stalinism, Bolshevism, Anarchism, Syndicalism, Fascism, Maoism and Trotskyism. Probably the only one that had any merit was Democratic Socialism but even orthodox Marxists had a problem with it such as Rosa Luxembourg, the syndicalists and even the extreme Marxists heretics; the Fascists. Even almost every heresy was just as evil as the next.

(this are some of the points I was gonna post but I lost...)

1) Anarchism is not a "Marxist revision"
2) Fascism came to fill an ideological vaccuum that existed in the "authoritarian centre" of the ideological spectrum.


what is the great appeal after such failed attempts?

Which attempts? Most of this "proletarian revolutions" happened in countries that were poorly developed economically, and they had monarchies not so long before that. If Marx was right this wasn't the situation in that such a revolution was supposed to happen - it was meant to happen on developed industralized countries, not on countries full of superstitious brainwashed poor peasants.


I mean the literal meaning of the Revolution is to do away with the capitalist class. Its murder, its theft, its mayhem and mob rule.

What are you talking about? You're referring to capitalism as that, or to "the revolution". If it's the latter option, then you're obviously biased when criticizing it.


You see the capitalist class as subhuman and your right to subdue them under your claim for social justice. Why?

No no no no no, "they" see themselves as superhuman and with a right to subdue "me" since I'm "inferior". This kind of stuff can be easily seen when reactionaries claim that poor people "is poor because they want to", "are useless", "don't work hard enough", etc. I've seen that speech many of times.

[Professor Moneybags]

Of course libertarianism is so much better. The millions of deaths, caused by the poverty which was a direct result of unleashed libertarianism during the industrial revolution, is 100% better.

"As a direct result" ? At the time, people living under "unleashed libertarianism" were far better off than everyone else who wasn't. It was "unleashed libertarianism" that resulted in the industrial revolution and mass mechanisation which allowed higher productivity and higher wages for workers.


Lets remove the minimum wage, health and saftey regulations, ristrictions on child labour, etc.

Child labor was practically non-existent by the time laws were passed against it. You can thank higher wages caused by mechanisation for stopping that.


Then we have libertarianism, not the idealist theories expounded by the likes of the self proclaimed 'libertarians' of this site.

Give me the idealism over your Dickensian fairy-tales any day.

[Invader Zim]

Child labor was practically non-existent by the time laws were passed against it.

Hmm, the first law passed against it was the 1807 factory act... Which limited it to 12 hours a day. So while it wasn't quite 'libertarianism' it was the nearest the world has ever come, it almost resulted in the over thowing of the existing system. You should loo up the Rebbecca riots, the Newport rising, etc.

I guess, you should do a little research.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Djehuti+May 24 2005, 06:05 AM--> (Djehuti @ May 24 2005, 06:05 AM)
[email protected] 24 2005, 02:44 AM
Just one I can point to more:

"The revolution will happen in an industrial society".

It never has, it always happens in a very impoverished and agriculture based society.

That model is wrong. Everything that follows from it can not be right.
What has often be seen as a "communist revolution" has in fact been a bourgeoise revolution in absense of the weak bourgeoise. The proletarians or peasants did instead of the bourgoeisie establish primitive ackumulation and capitalist relations. This is a revolution, but not a communist revolution.

I still see it for far more likely that the communist revolution will take placed in advanced industrial capitalist countries, and I do believe that empirical data supports this. Communists tendensies are clear, they are a part of every day life. Like a mole digging through the earth. And sometimes, the mole reaches the surface and the class struggle becomes a reality for everyone. Some times the mole is under earth, and sometimes he is above, but he is always there.

We have seen proletarian revolts with communist essence in the capitalist society, and we will see more. Just because capitalism has never been overthrown does not mean that capitalism will never be. All things come to an end. [/b]
But...

These revolutons have been in low tech and low industry areas, they have NOT been in industrial countries.

That should be your first clue that something is amiss with Marxism.

[Che1990]

Posts like this piss me off. It's like when people say 'Communsim has killed 100million people'. No it hasn't! Maybe people said they were communists but to be honest there hasn't realy been many 'real' communist leaders. And I'd like to see how many people capitalism has killed, because I'll bet it's a whole lot more than 100million.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 06:18 PM
Posts like this piss me off. It's like when people say 'Communsim has killed 100million people'. No it hasn't! Maybe people said they were communists but to be honest there hasn't realy been many 'real' communist leaders. And I'd like to see how many people capitalism has killed, because I'll bet it's a whole lot more than 100million.
Learn the difference between death by natural causes and murder.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 07:55 AM

Just one I can point to more:

"The revolution will happen in an industrial society".

It never has, it always happens in a very impoverished and agriculture based society.

That model is wrong. Everything that follows from it can not be right.

That's like saying physics is entirely wrong because what it was originally based upon--netwonian principles--turned out to be inneffective in describing anything but extremely large bodies in ideal circumstances. It's a flawed argument.

and by "the revolution will happen in an industrial society," one could point out that it must be a revolution in industiral society in order to be successful. One of the biggest reasons socialist revolutions have failed in such countries is because they simply didn't have the infrastructure or resources to sustain it.
Ok I think were dancing around similiar points here. Mine that I'm eventually trying to get to is that the places that can support a revolution according to theory are only getting more capitialist.

[Che1990]

QUOTE (Che1990 @ May 28 2005, 06:18 PM)
Posts like this piss me off. It's like when people say 'Communsim has killed 100million people'. No it hasn't! Maybe people said they were communists but to be honest there hasn't realy been many 'real' communist leaders. And I'd like to see how many people capitalism has killed, because I'll bet it's a whole lot more than 100million.


Learn the difference between death by natural causes and murder.



So you think killing people through exploitation and oppression is a 'natural cause' do you? You need to get checked out dude.

[encephalon]

Ok I think were dancing around similiar points here. Mine that I'm eventually trying to get to is that the places that can support a revolution according to theory are only getting more capitialist.



Of course they are. Standing on the backs of third-world countries is quite an effective way to advance a country and fool the people into thinking capitalism is great when they don't see who's getting stepped on.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 06:58 AM
So you think killing people through exploitation and oppression is a 'natural cause' do you?
Your use of the terms "exploitation" and "oppression" in this context, is meaningless.

[Che1990]

So what do you call it then?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 04:06 PM
So what do you call it then?
Buzzwords.

[Che1990]

So you're saying capitalism doesn't exploit or oppress people? Who was it who once said "Capitalism is a small island surrounded by a sea of poverty."

[Andy Bowden]

Chomsky said that one :lol:


You can buy T-shirts with that slogan on the Socialist productions website.

http://www.socialistproductions.org/radical%20season.htm

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 11:44 AM
So you're saying capitalism doesn't exploit or oppress people? Who was it who once said "Capitalism is a small island surrounded by a sea of poverty."
Wouldn't it be better to get onto the island instead of standing in the sea ?

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 2 2005, 09:10 AM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jun 2 2005, 09:10 AM)
[email protected] 30 2005, 11:44 AM
So you're saying capitalism doesn't exploit or oppress people? Who was it who once said "Capitalism is a small island surrounded by a sea of poverty."
Wouldn't it be better to get onto the island instead of standing in the sea ? [/b]
It would be better, but the people on the island wont let you get on :(

[Che1990]

Wouldn't it be better to get onto the island instead of standing in the sea ?

But what about all those people who are left standing in the sea, with no hope of getting on the island? are you just saying they should be left there to be exploited until they die as a result from it?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 07:24 AM
But what about all those people who are left standing in the sea, with no hope of getting on the island?
Nothing is stopping them.

[Che1990]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 3 2005, 01:44 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jun 3 2005, 01:44 PM)
[email protected] 3 2005, 07:24 AM
But what about all those people who are left standing in the sea, with no hope of getting on the island?
Nothing is stopping them. [/b]
Oh don't be so fucking naive and ignorant. You know capitalism is stopping them.

[Che1990]

Now I'm just going to make a guess here but are you a white hetrosexual american male?

[Che1990]

Well are you? Because you are acting like one.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Che1990+Jun 3 2005, 03:17 PM--> (Che1990 @ Jun 3 2005, 03:17 PM)
Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 3 2005, 01:44 PM

[email protected] 3 2005, 07:24 AM
But what about all those people who are left standing in the sea, with no hope of getting on the island?
Nothing is stopping them.
Oh don't be so fucking naive and ignorant. You know capitalism is stopping them. [/b]
capitalism = bad, does not automatically mean communism = good.

The best you got is capitalism = bad and communism = bad.

You have to prove communism = good based on communism and not what capitalist do.

[Che1990]

We could if there had ever been a Communist country to base that on but there hasn't. A lot of people claimed to be Communist but weren't (i.e. Stalin). I suppose Lenin and Ho Chi Minh are the closest examples we have of Communism.

[JudeObscure84]

I suppose Lenin and Ho Chi Minh are the closest examples we have of Communism.

Ho Chi Minh? Maybe I am reading from an ugly imperial capitalist history book, but if that was the closest example of a commie society, than I'll pass and show me da money!

[Professor Moneybags]

Oh don't be so fucking naive and ignorant. You know capitalism is stopping them.

Capitalism is stopping them being capitalists ?


Now I'm just going to make a guess here but are you a white hetrosexual american male?

What's that got to do with anything ? If you're going to start ranting about racism and then try to offer some spurious link between that and capitalism, then don't bother.

[Che1990]

Yes capitalism is stopping them being capitalists and the vast majority of very rich capitalists are white american hetrosexual males. Racist? Yes it is. Why? Because that's what ignorant upper class snobs are like.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 04:21 PM
Yes capitalism is stopping them being capitalists and the vast majority of very rich capitalists are white american hetrosexual males. Racist? Yes it is. Why? Because that's what ignorant upper class snobs are like.
Oh dear, such racist stereotyping. You're another one who is going to have to be re-educated/shot come the revolution.