Cons...gimmie some feedback

[Sihvyl]

Alright, lets just start this out by saying that this post is not intended to piss anyone off, but is to discuss things honestly.

What do you see as being a downside of communism? We all think about the things involved in our lives, and undoubtably we all mentally list things that are good and bad about them. Try to keep answers civilized, and yes "nothing" is an acceptable answer, but I'll ask of you just to be a little more creative if you can.

Cappies, feel free to join in on this, but use your creativeness too, I'm sure everyone here could name what the usuall arguments are.

K....Go! :)

[Commie-Pinko]

Well, most Communes, even on a small level do not work. HOwever, the only real success stories of communism are typically in primitive cultures, small towns/villages etc. There's no reason to assume it would work on a national scale if it has a hard time working at a mid-level scale, and only really works on a small scale (moreso when you have ties to neighbors and family).


EDIT: I added the following

1. Religious ties actually tend to improve communalism or communism. Those are, but not exclusively, the most successful communist endeavours. (IE. Monastaries)

So, looking at that, the best type of communistic entites are families and religious brotherhoods (oddly, this is exactly what Marx was against). I think that if you want a feasable commune, you should try to base it on these.

[Sihvyl]

That was very straight forward; the kind of answer I was looking for, thanks. That brings up another thought of I was pondering and considered posting: Is tribal (kind of like the indian ideals of community) rule, comparable to communism?

Please don't answer that one here, maybe I'll post that later, or one of you can! :P

[Colombia]

It cannot be compared because in the end their is still a leader who makes all major decisions. It is similiar in that the work is distributed equally, but tribal rule still beleives in the idea of a class.

[LamarLatrell]

The main weakness of the communist idea is that the dialectic dies.

[LamarLatrell]

The main weakness of the communist idea is that the dialectic dies.

[Publius]

What do you see as being a downside of communism?

Quite simply, everything.

The economy would not work. It's as simple as that.

I'll grant you the fact that your utopian communism has not existed yet, but every single move towards it has ended in diaster. Every attempt at setting up a commune has ended in diaster. I cannot logically discern how the economy will function.

There is no logical or empirical evidence that leads me to believe that it would or could work.

The biggest sign that something is wrong is just how ignorantly utopian everything sounds.

I've yet to hear a proposal for resource allocation that I thought would be possible.

Central planning is an abject failure, but even it is preferable to democratic planning.

I can only imagine the horrors that would produce.

Another factor is that I'm somewhat of a misanthropist. I don't like or trust the demos.

[LamarLatrell]

Publius is spot on.

One only needs to refer to the disastrous economic plans of the Soviet/Eastern bloc areas.

One 5 year plan would fail only to be replaced by another disastrous 7 year plan which would be replaced by yet another doomed plan.

These plans made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Publius-
I'll grant you the fact that your utopian communism has not existed yet, but every single move towards it has ended in diaster. Every attempt at setting up a commune has ended in diaster. I cannot logically discern how the economy will function

Just wanted to point out Marx's views on Socialism/Communism are in no way Utopian. He actually oposes Utopian Socialism. Marxism is a science. Where as the works of Lenin, Mao and other lesser thinkers, are far more Utopian and less scientific. Which as Publius pointed out are flawed. You can't run anything on hope.

[Publius]

Just wanted to point out Marx's views on Socialism/Communism are in no way Utopian. He actually oposes Utopian Socialism. Marxism is a science. Where as the works of Lenin, Mao and other lesser thinkers, are far more Utopian and less scientific. Which as Publius pointed out are flawed. You can't run anything on hope.

It wasn't scientific in the least.

It was utopian socialism with dialectics tacked on to make it sound 'scientific'.

According to his 'scientific' analysis, the world revolution would happen before 1900.

We see how accurate that was.

Marxian socialism is utopian in the sense that it will only work if it works; it can only function if everything goes as planned and everything works perfectly.

It's circular logic.

If everyone behaved in THIS manner, socialism would work so all we have to do is get everyone to behave in this manner.

Now tell me how we go about that?

We COULD say that people will naturally become 'educated' to the socialist paradigm through dialectics.

It's clear this is not the case though.

We COULD have a massive authoritarian state apperatus forcefully attempt to 'fix' the populous at large.

We've seen how that turned out.

Or socialism/anarchism/communism COULD, as a result of it's own intellectual merits win out the marketplace of ideas.

This didn't happen.

Anarchism/socialism/communism had it's hayday with Proudhon, Marx, Kropotkin, et al, but lost soon lost relevance as capitalism advanced. Anarchism COULD have sprung up and fixed the worlds ills, but it didn't.

[Amusing Scrotum]

It wasn't scientific in the least.

It was utopian socialism with dialectics tacked on to make it sound 'scientific'.


So why is it considered by most intellectuals as a political science. Are they all wrong and only you know the truth?


According to his 'scientific' analysis, the world revolution would happen before 1900.

We see how accurate that was.

Even "Saint Karl" couldn't tell the future accurately. Though in this statement you are disregarding the Russian Revolution among others. Also you seem to discount the mass support many Communist/Socialist parties gained for Socialist/Communist policies throughout the last century. Marx was right, the revolution did come, its just Leninism spoiled it.


Marxian socialism is utopian in the sense that it will only work if it works; it can only function if everything goes as planned and everything works perfectly.

It's circular logic.

In various writings Marx set out a blueprint on which Communism would be formed. This blueprint, like everything else is not perfect. However it is no more Utopian than Free Market Economics.


If everyone behaved in THIS manner, socialism would work so all we have to do is get everyone to behave in this manner.

Now tell me how we go about that?

Through the awakening of the class conciousness of the workers, thus leading to revolution.


We COULD say that people will naturally become 'educated' to the socialist paradigm through dialectics.

It's clear this is not the case though.

Under certain situations, depression, war etc. People look for positive solutions and tend to find these in Socialism and its many siblings.


We COULD have a massive authoritarian state apperatus forcefully attempt to 'fix' the populous at large.

We've seen how that turned out.

I assume your referring to Russia and the "Vanguard". If so then Leninism is a failed form of Communism, much as Facism is a failed form of Capitalism.


Or socialism/anarchism/communism COULD, as a result of it's own intellectual merits win out the marketplace of ideas.

This didn't happen.

Didn't happen. Theres the future to look forward to. Twenty years ago people would have thought religious fundamentalism had seen its day, but look at it now. Its the new "cool".


Anarchism/socialism/communism had it's hayday with Proudhon, Marx, Kropotkin, et al, but lost soon lost relevance as capitalism advanced. Anarchism COULD have sprung up and fixed the worlds ills, but it didn't.

Most things had their heyday during "the age of enlightenment", but what are we just to say "This worlds unjust, unfair and horribly corrupt, but hey, you know its the best we're going to get."

Just to say Publius, I noticed in another post you mentioned you're arguments were rarely countered. I hope I've put forward a decent argument to counter yours. If not, maybe you'd be better finding another forum with more intelligent members. ;)

[themanwhodoesnotexist]

PEACE
true communism is NATURE.....
there is a force which has created the fruit of earth.....
so no human should be able to decide who gets more fruit.......
it isn't humans who caused that fruit to manifest.....
so divide it equally.....
it was put on earth to feed us....all of us

im not a big fan of Russia...the lessor of two evils(the USA) is still evil
i know Tibetian Buddists who told me Mao was a good man however they said Mao didn't know what was happening in his own kingdom...
Ho Chi Mihn Che and Fidel....i support them 100 percent.....

it all depends on who is running the communist government

[Zingu]

To me, at a raw level, I see no difference in class relations between capitalism of western Europe and the former Soviet Bloc, just different names were tacked on the ruling classes, 'Communist' or Capitalist. There is a difference between nationalization and socialization of the means of production.

[Freedom Works]

A supposed class is not ruling simply because it has wealth. It has to have a state with which to use to its advantage.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 29 2005, 08:24 AM
A supposed class is not ruling simply because it has wealth. It has to have a state with which to use to its advantage.
Which the American ruling class does all the time, of course, they do a pretty damn fine job of propaganda with private media companies all the time. :lol:

Marx said all sections of society will come under burgeoisie exploitation, know what coporate lobbyism is? Politicans are no better than capitalists.

By the way, the owning class is ALWAYS the ruling class.

[Publius]

So why is it considered by most intellectuals as a political science. Are they all wrong and only you know the truth?

Most intellectuals don't consider it at all.

:P

Communism is a part of the broader term political science, yes, but saying it's scientific is like saying monarchy is scientific; it's a misnomer.


Even "Saint Karl" couldn't tell the future accurately. Though in this statement you are disregarding the Russian Revolution among others. Also you seem to discount the mass support many Communist/Socialist parties gained for Socialist/Communist policies throughout the last century. Marx was right, the revolution did come, its just Leninism spoiled it.

Came and went.

And Marx was talking a dialectical revolution, not a few vangaurd parties around the world.



In various writings Marx set out a blueprint on which Communism would be formed. This blueprint, like everything else is not perfect. However it is no more Utopian than Free Market Economics.

It depends on which economist you talk to.

I'm much more realistic than most.



Through the awakening of the class conciousness of the workers, thus leading to revolution.

Pipe-dream at best, hopeless fantasy in reality.

There is no 'class conciousness'.

There will be no revolution.

You can more predict the future of humanity through dialectics than you can predict what I'm going to eat tonite through dialectics.



Under certain situations, depression, war etc. People look for positive solutions and tend to find these in Socialism and its many siblings.

Some people do.

Most don't.

There have been countless depressions and wars since the advent of anarchism. They've amounted to nothing but improvements and refinements (And mistakes) in the capitalist system and a few abject failures.



I assume your referring to Russia and the "Vanguard". If so then Leninism is a failed form of Communism, much as Facism is a failed form of Capitalism.

Certainly.

But there is far more to it than that.




Didn't happen. Theres the future to look forward to. Twenty years ago people would have thought religious fundamentalism had seen its day, but look at it now. Its the new "cool".

One step forward, two steps back.



Most things had their heyday during "the age of enlightenment", but what are we just to say "This worlds unjust, unfair and horribly corrupt, but hey, you know its the best we're going to get."

Capitalism has certainly advanced since then.

Hell, the term 'capitalism' didn't even exist until Marx!

Marxism/anarchism has not advanced to any great degree since those days.

Chomsky? Zinn?

Not worth the comparision to the others.



Just to say Publius, I noticed in another post you mentioned you're arguments were rarely countered. I hope I've put forward a decent argument to counter yours. If not, maybe you'd be better finding another forum with more intelligent members. ;)

Novel Gentry and Redstar often give me a run for my money, but a lot of my posts do seem to get ignored.

Perhaps none reads them or none feels like responding, but I'm vainglorious so I assume my towering intellect scares them off.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Most intellectuals don't consider it at all.

Communism is a part of the broader term political science, yes, but saying it's scientific is like saying monarchy is scientific; it's a misnomer.


Depends on the individuals view of science. Theres no right or wrong, just opinions.


Came and went.

And Marx was talking a dialectical revolution, not a few vangaurd parties around the world.

Like I said, the support was there for Marxism and revolution. Its just Leninism got in the way.



It depends on which economist you talk to.

I'm much more realistic than most.

Well all the Economists I speak to, come from Mars and live in my elbow. :P


Pipe-dream at best, hopeless fantasy in reality.

There is no 'class conciousness'.

There will be no revolution.

You can more predict the future of humanity through dialectics than you can predict what I'm going to eat tonite through dialectics.


If there is no class conciousness, then how do you account for every uprising, protest or rebellion by the oppressed against their oppressors.
Been as my understanding of dialectics, is at best, poor, you'll have to discuss this with someone else.


Some people do.

Most don't.

There have been countless depressions and wars since the advent of anarchism. They've amounted to nothing but improvements and refinements (And mistakes) in the capitalist system and a few abject failures

Every time Capitalism fails people, it opens up the possibility of a social revolution. It depends on the people whether it happens or not. But with every reform, the working class grows stronger, and the ruling class weaker.
As Hitler said "True Democracy, inevitabely leads to Marxism."



Certainly.

But there is far more to it than that

Yes there is, but we are having a casual debate, not writing a theses.



One step forward, two steps back.


Don't be such a pessimist. Extreme religous law seems quite appealing to me. :D


Capitalism has certainly advanced since then.

Hell, the term 'capitalism' didn't even exist until Marx!

Marxism/anarchism has not advanced to any great degree since those days.

Chomsky? Zinn?

Not worth the comparision to the others

Again, a matter more of opinion than fact.


Novel Gentry and Redstar often give me a run for my money, but a lot of my posts do seem to get ignored.

Perhaps none reads them or none feels like responding, but I'm vainglorious so I assume my towering intellect scares them off.


Little victories are always good for ones self image. :rolleyes:

[quincunx5]

So why is it considered by most intellectuals as a political science. Are they all wrong and only you know the truth?


Political scientists make promises that sound great, but do not stand up to scrutiny. The politician will only you show you that which can be seen, but will never face up to that which can not. It's popularity arises the from a myth that we can achieve greatness beyond our indivual contributions. It also arises from a myth that wealth is fixed. So those that have more of it, must have stolen from those that do not. Politicians are doing it out of their own best interests. That is the truth.




If there is no class conciousness, then how do you account for every uprising, protest or rebellion by the oppressed against their oppressors.


Because it's fun to rebel. But mainly because they are oppressed by the state.



Every time Capitalism fails people, it opens up the possibility of a social revolution. It depends on the people whether it happens or not. But with every reform, the working class grows stronger, and the ruling class weaker.


Every time Socialism fails people, it opens up the possibility of a social revolution. It depends on the people whether it happens or not. But with every reform, the capitalists grows stronger, and the ruling class weaker.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 07:33 PM





Depends on the individuals view of science. Theres no right or wrong, just opinions.

No, science is quite absolute.



Like I said, the support was there for Marxism and revolution. Its just Leninism got in the way.

Well then why didn't 'Marxism' win out?

Is there some flaw in it PREVENTING doctrinare Marxism from working as intended?


If there is no class conciousness, then how do you account for every uprising, protest or rebellion by the oppressed against their oppressors.

I meant in the metaphysical, dialectical sense.

Certainly a class can conspire to achieve something, but say resolutely that a class WILL conspire to achieve YOUR pet goal is tantamount to idiocy.


Every time Capitalism fails people, it opens up the possibility of a social revolution. It depends on the people whether it happens or not. But with every reform, the working class grows stronger, and the ruling class weaker.

I'm inclined to disagree.

Most of these reforms just transfar power from capitalists to governors.


As Hitler said "True Democracy, inevitabely leads to Marxism."

I dislike both.


Don't be such a pessimist. Extreme religous law seems quite appealing to me. :D

I'm seriously considering leaving Amerca do to the presence of these crazies.

[Amusing Scrotum]

quincunx5-
Political scientists make promises that sound great, but do not stand up to scrutiny. The politician will only you show you that which can be seen, but will never face up to that which can not. It's popularity arises the from a myth that we can achieve greatness beyond our indivual contributions. It also arises from a myth that wealth is fixed. So those that have more of it, must have stolen from those that do not. Politicians are doing it out of their own best interests. That is the truth.

A political scientist is not a politician. For a start, political scientists tend to have firm, fixed beliefs, politicians don't.

No one can achieve greatness beyond their individual contributions. All anyone can do is aspire to make their individual contributions as "great" as they can be.

Does not a company like Nike steal the wealth of a sweatshop worker, forced to work for tiny amounts in order to survive, whilst Company Directors get huge payouts for failing. Maybe its not direct theft, but it is a crime against humanity.

I never said politicians were not self serving.



Because it's fun to rebel. But mainly because they are oppressed by the state

Who runs the state?


Every time Socialism fails people, it opens up the possibility of a social revolution. It depends on the people whether it happens or not. But with every reform, the capitalists grows stronger, and the ruling class weaker.

Capitalists are the ruling class.


Publius-
No, science is quite absolute.

Exactly everything and anything can be and is a science.


Well then why didn't 'Marxism' win out?

Is there some flaw in it PREVENTING doctrinare Marxism from working as intended?


I wish it did win out, but nothings thats easy. Lack of education, silencing of political dissidents and outside pressures were all factors in the failure of the Russian Revolution.
And no, theres no flaw stopping Marxism being applied practically and effectively.


I meant in the metaphysical, dialectical sense.

Certainly a class can conspire to achieve something, but say resolutely that a class WILL conspire to achieve YOUR pet goal is tantamount to idiocy.


If I don't believe it will happen, then I wouldn't be an idealist. Maybe I'm deluding myself, maybe not. But in the end, if no one dreamt, nothing would ever change.


I'm inclined to disagree.

Most of these reforms just transfar power from capitalists to governors.


Capitalists and Governers are one and the same. Proper reforms lead to more power being given back to the people. Voting rights, Universal Healthcare, improved Education. Power to the many, not the few.


I dislike both

;)


I'm seriously considering leaving Amerca do to the presence of these crazies.


I really don't blame you there. I'd do the same.

[black magick hustla]

Man Publius I really like your posts. Most cappies here are huge morons, but you really know of what you are talking about!


Well then why didn't 'Marxism' win out?

Is there some flaw in it PREVENTING doctrinare Marxism from working as intended?

Dialectics is a crock of shit.

However,

From the libertarian socialism stance, there have been genuinely libertarian socialist societies. I suggest you to read a bit about spanish anarcho-syndicalism. Basically, spanish anarchists where the ones that actually slowed fascism from taking Spain- They collectivezed so many things through decentralized federations and direct democracy.

Yes, they where backstabbed by the stalinists and the republic, and then, completely obliterated by fascists.

However, proletarian dictatorship did happen for 2 years, so it proves to a degree that "communism" is achievable.



Pipe-dream at best, hopeless fantasy in reality.

There is no 'class conciousness'.

There will be no revolution.

You can more predict the future of humanity through dialectics than you can predict what I'm going to eat tonite through dialectics.[/Quote]

While I agree with you that dialectics is metaphysical bullshit, what you said about "class consciusness" is highly debatable.

I, as a citizen of Mexico, have actually witnessed the high apathy for capitalism and the "government".

Latin America is a fucking powder keg. I can really visualize communism working in South America and Mexico. Latin America isn't A WASTELAND, Its actually a very resourceful place.


Well then why didn't 'Marxism' win out?

Is there some flaw in it PREVENTING doctrinare Marxism from working as intended?

Well, capitalism has 300 years working, and I still see sweatshops around here!

In fact, industralized capitalism has 100 years in here. If you had the minimum salary of an american, you could live like a king here.

There is EVERYTHING, however, half of the people can't afford any comfort!

Where is "economy trickling down"? I mean, the mexican minimum wage is 4 dollars PER DAY. That means, working 8 hours per day!

Heck, even when Mexico's industry was completely nationalized by Lazaro Cardenas, we actually had a better style of living.


Pinochet's regime of chile, hailed by fuckos like friedman was also one of those "neoliberal experiment".

You know what happened?

Wages lowered, and unemployment rised.

Yes, there was a higher GNP per capita, but anyone with basic knowledge of economics knows this is a crock of shit.

If you lived here, you would realize that most mexicans pee on your neoliberal system.

Also, apparently you are the only atheist cappie here!

Wow, amazing!

[quincunx5]

A political scientist is not a politician. For a start, political scientists tend to have firm, fixed beliefs, politicians don't.


A politician, by definition is one who engages in setting policies. A politician merely has options of which policies to set. The politician is nothing more than a political scientist engaged in his practice.



Does not a company like Nike steal the wealth of a sweatshop worker, forced to work for tiny amounts in order to survive, whilst Company Directors get huge payouts for failing. Maybe its not direct theft, but it is a crime against humanity.


If they engaged in insider trading then it's a crime. Now let me ask you: what were these sweatshop workers doing before working in sweatshops? Why do they continue to work there?



Who runs the state?


Today? Socialists.



Capitalists are the ruling class.


No, capitalists make their wealth in the free market. Anyone engaged in setting policies is not a true capitalist.



If I don't believe it will happen, then I wouldn't be an idealist. Maybe I'm deluding myself, maybe not. But in the end, if no one dreamt, nothing would ever change.


Nothing changes today? Science and technology is not progressive?

[Amusing Scrotum]

A politician, by definition is one who engages in setting policies. A politician merely has options of which policies to set. The politician is nothing more than a political scientist engaged in his practice.


Politicians are very reactionary in their views and ideas, in order to gain public support. Political Scientists in general have a better understanding of policy and well thought opinions.


If they engaged in insider trading then it's a crime. Now let me ask you: what were these sweatshop workers doing before working in sweatshops? Why do they continue to work there?

They'd starve. There is no welfare system in most of these countries, there are no workers rights. This all means labour is kept cheap and workers exploited.
I know quite alot of people in favour of the free-market, but you are the first that I've heard who tries to justify sweatshops. You should be disgusted with yourself.


Today? Socialists.

What state are you refering to? Because I can't think of many that are run by "true" Socialists.


No, capitalists make their wealth in the free market. Anyone engaged in setting policies is not a true capitalist.

Dick Cheney, Bush snr. etc. all made money in the "Free Market". So their not true Capitalists, they just play at it, do they?


Nothing changes today? Science and technology is not progressive?

Exactly my point. If no one dreamt of the impossible nothing would progress.

[Zingu]

Dialetics are a "crock of shit"? Did you quote redstar2000 on that?

[Publius]

Exactly everything and anything can be and is a science.

What?

'EVERYTHING'?! As in any and all things?

Is the the letter 'F' a science?

Obviously some things aren't sciences.

To say science is everything makes the term useless. If something means everything, it also means nothing.


I wish it did win out, but nothings thats easy. Lack of education, silencing of political dissidents and outside pressures were all factors in the failure of the Russian Revolution.
And no, theres no flaw stopping Marxism being applied practically and effectively.

Except for the afformentioned ones and many others.

What makes you think a state will allow itself to be dissolved?

If you resort to violence, so will the state.

Revolution seems to me to be pure folly. Times have changed and the killing power of the state in comparision to it's subjects has as well.

Any revolution would a slaughter. The only revolution that could succeed would be precipitated by such an enormous percentage of the population so as to make a revolution unecessary.


If I don't believe it will happen, then I wouldn't be an idealist.

Well then what seperates your 'ideal' from my 'idea', say, that when I close my eyes and say "Capitalism is perfect" 3 times and click my heels together, it becomes so?

Are we on equally valid standing, logic wise?

What proof is there that Marxism will work, or that my ritual will make the world perfect?



Maybe I'm deluding myself, maybe not. But in the end, if no one dreamt, nothing would ever change.

Dream all you want, it likely won't change anything.

Dreams are meaningless, you need action and quite frankly, I don't think communists are capable of acting, at least any time soon.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 02:16 AM












Man Publius I really like your posts. Most cappies here are huge morons, but you really know of what you are talking about!

As I'm rather fond of saying, I put the glorious in vainglorious.


Dialectics is a crock of shit.

However,

From the libertarian socialism stance, there have been genuinely libertarian socialist societies. I suggest you to read a bit about spanish anarcho-syndicalism. Basically, spanish anarchists where the ones that actually slowed fascism from taking Spain- They collectivezed so many things through decentralized federations and direct democracy.

Yes, they where backstabbed by the stalinists and the republic, and then, completely obliterated by fascists.

However, proletarian dictatorship did happen for 2 years, so it proves to a degree that "communism" is achievable.

I'm rather interested in it, though truthfully, I find it a tenous thing to argue from.

Saying it worked for 2 years, at one specific place and time is not good enough for me.

For example, central planning works rather well in wars, but the same central planning is diastrous in peace time.

I believe (Without having read much on it, admittedly) that this is the same sort of thing.

People were willed together by the war, and this allowed them to overcome the fundamental flaws of the system.


While I agree with you that dialectics is metaphysical bullshit, what you said about "class consciusness" is highly debatable.

I, as a citizen of Mexico, have actually witnessed the high apathy for capitalism and the "government".

Latin America is a fucking powder keg. I can really visualize communism working in South America and Mexico. Latin America isn't A WASTELAND, Its actually a very resourceful place.

Actually, now that that Latin America is out from under the shadow of 'socialist' and 'communist' cuadillo thugs (Excepting Cuba and Venezuala) you're likely to see some real growth and betterment, brought about by capitalism.



Well, capitalism has 300 years working, and I still see sweatshops around here!

What was there before those sweatshops?


In fact, industralized capitalism has 100 years in here. If you had the minimum salary of an american, you could live like a king here.

Why don't you have such a salary?



There is EVERYTHING, however, half of the people can't afford any comfort!

Was there a time, earlier, when people could?



Where is "economy trickling down"? I mean, the mexican minimum wage is 4 dollars PER DAY. That means, working 8 hours per day!

Has this risen or lowered recently?



Heck, even when Mexico's industry was completely nationalized by Lazaro Cardenas, we actually had a better style of living.

I rather doubt it.


Pinochet's regime of chile, hailed by fuckos like friedman was also one of those "neoliberal experiment".

There were some promising aspects and some horrific ones.


You know what happened?

Wages lowered, and unemployment rised.

Yes, there was a higher GNP per capita, but anyone with basic knowledge of economics knows this is a crock of shit.

And Chile is now the wealthiest country in Latin America.

What's this attributed to?

(Mostly) free-market economics.




If you lived here, you would realize that most mexicans pee on your neoliberal system.

Mexians haven't EXPERIENCED neo-liberalism.

What they've gotten (When they got anything) were corrupt governments, corruption, failing laws and trade PROTECTION.

Neoliberalism will be the saviour of the world come 20 years. I can see it now.


Also, apparently you are the only atheist cappie here!

What can I say, I'm the ne plus ultra of logic.

[quincunx5]

Politicians are very reactionary in their views and ideas, in order to gain public support. Political Scientists in general have a better understanding of policy and well thought opinions.


So then you agree with me. Political Scientists understand policies and hold 'well thought' opinions.
Politicians are the ones who enforce those policies. They are the acting bodies.



They'd starve. There is no welfare system in most of these countries, there are no workers rights. This all means labour is kept cheap and workers exploited.


You failed to tell me what they were doing before working in the sweatshops. Publius mentioned the same thing.



I know quite alot of people in favour of the free-market, but you are the first that I've heard who tries to justify sweatshops. You should be disgusted with yourself.


Fluffy emotional argument.



Dick Cheney, Bush snr. etc. all made money in the "Free Market". So their not true Capitalists, they just play at it, do they?


They were capitalists before entering in to politics. Now they are just self-serving policy makers.

You can actually be both, just like a worker is also a capitalist.



Exactly my point. If no one dreamt of the impossible nothing would progress.


Dreaming alone does not lead to progress.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 07:37 PM

What can I say, I'm the ne plus ultra of logic.
Well, that is a really brave assumption!

Central planning has never been "more efficient" in war. Sure. central planning creates a powerful army, but appart of that, it doesn't does much.

There are no fundamental flaws in self management.



Actually, now that that Latin America is out from under the shadow of 'socialist' and 'communist' cuadillo thugs (Excepting Cuba and Venezuala) you're likely to see some real growth and betterment, brought about by capitalism.

Not really. Haven't you read recently about bolivia? The PRD is hitting pretty hard here too, which is a relatively new democratic socialist party.


What was there before those sweatshops?

Well, they have been here for around 100 years!


Why don't you have such a salary?

Because I come from a privilieged petit bourgeoise family?



Was there a time, earlier, when people could?


Actually, neoliberalism has brought many COMFORTS.

Overall, however, mexicans where better when the industry was nationalized.





Has this risen or lowered recently?


It dropped pretty hard and recently, it has started to rise very slowly.



There were some promising aspects and some horrific ones.

Sure, wages overall lowered, unemployment rised, and human rights where violated.

What where the promising aspects again?


]

And Chile is now the wealthiest country in Latin America.

What's this attributed to?

(Mostly) free-market economics.

Wrong, Mexico is the wealthiest country in Latin America.


Mexians haven't EXPERIENCED neo-liberalism.

What they've gotten (When they got anything) were corrupt governments, corruption, failing laws and trade PROTECTION.

Neoliberalism will be the saviour of the world come 20 years. I can see it now.

Mexico is the most neoliberalist country in Latin America.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 09:10 PM



Well, that is a really brave assumption!

I'm being fecetious.


Central planning has never been "more efficient" in war. Sure. central planning creates a powerful army, but appart of that, it doesn't does much.

There are no fundamental flaws in self management.

In a time of war, preparation for war is paramount.

Without having that powerful army, your economy will be non-existent or your country invaded.



Not really. Haven't you read recently about bolivia? The PRD is hitting pretty hard here too, which is a relatively new democratic socialist party.

I must admit, I'm not severely knowledgable on Latin America.


Well, they have been here for around 100 years!

Certainly things have changed over the last 100 years though.


Because I come from a privilieged petit bourgeoise family?

Fair enough.



Actually, neoliberalism has brought many COMFORTS.

Overall, however, mexicans where better when the industry was nationalized.

I'll have to take your word for it.




It dropped pretty hard and recently, it has started to rise very slowly.


Didn't Mexico go through some severe economic problems in the 90s though?

The revaluing of the peso, inflation etc.



Sure, wages overall lowered, unemployment rised, and human rights where violated.

What where the promising aspects again?

It's growth over the last 20 years.

It's been amazing, outclassing the rest of Latin America.

It still is advancing at a faster rate than most of Latin America. It's actually growing over twice as fast as Mexico currently.

Venezuala's beating it, but that's all oil.


Wrong, Mexico is the wealthiest country in Latin America.

Not according to the CIA World Factbook, using GDP per capita.

Yes, in total Mexico is wealthier, but it's also larger.

And Chile has grown faster more recently.

It's a perfect example of the beneficial effects of trade liberalization.



Mexico is the most neoliberalist country in Latin America.

Except for Chile.

And they happen to be the wealtheist in Latin America.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 10:00 PM
i am being fecetious
I don't have time right now, but, when I said "that is a brave assumption" was when you said "SPANISH ANARCHISTS UNITED BECAUSE OF WAR"

Sorry :)

[Amusing Scrotum]

To Publius -


What?

'EVERYTHING'?! As in any and all things?

Is the the letter 'F' a science?

Obviously some things aren't sciences.

To say science is everything makes the term useless. If something means everything, it also means nothing

Technically, the argument could be made that everything is a science.


Except for the afformentioned ones and many others.

What makes you think a state will allow itself to be dissolved?

The state dissolving itself, is in my opinion a hard thing to achieve. Though not impossible. It is my opinion that it should be dissolved as quickly as possible. Democratic Workers Councils need to be set up immeadiately after the revolution and as much power as possible devolved to them as possible. The states functions would be very little. Distribution of money and assets equally among the country and overall law making powers would be all it needs to do.


If you resort to violence, so will the state.

Revolution seems to me to be pure folly. Times have changed and the killing power of the state in comparision to it's subjects has as well.

Any revolution would a slaughter. The only revolution that could succeed would be precipitated by such an enormous percentage of the population so as to make a revolution unecessary.

I personally am in favour of only mass revolution and as peaceful a revolution as possible. Allowing a relatively easy shift of power. It is after all the peoples choice whether they want revolution or not. Not a select group of people acting on their behalf.


Well then what seperates your 'ideal' from my 'idea', say, that when I close my eyes and say "Capitalism is perfect" 3 times and click my heels together, it becomes so?

Are we on equally valid standing, logic wise?

What proof is there that Marxism will work, or that my ritual will make the world perfect?

There is no absolute proof, otherwise everyone would follow the same ideal and there would be no debates like this one.


Dream all you want, it likely won't change anything.

Dreams are meaningless, you need action and quite frankly, I don't think communists are capable of acting, at least any time soon.

Hey I'm a Leftie, a lack of, pratical action, orginisation and any sense of reality, are conditions for joining the club. :P

To quincunx5 -


So then you agree with me. Political Scientists understand policies and hold 'well thought' opinions.
Politicians are the ones who enforce those policies. They are the acting bodies.

Yeah I suppose I agree with you.


You failed to tell me what they were doing before working in the sweatshops. Publius mentioned the same thing.

Africa, Latin America etc. were all far richer before Capitalism came under the guise of Colonialisation. 30,000 children didn't die every day of starvation before Capitalism reared its ugly head.


Fluffy emotional argument.

Thanks.


They were capitalists before entering in to politics. Now they are just self-serving policy makers.

You can actually be both, just like a worker is also a capitalist.

You said they couldn't be both.

Me - "Capitalists are the ruling class."
You- "No, capitalists make their wealth in the free market. Anyone engaged in setting policies is not a true capitalist."

Make up your mind.


Dreaming alone does not lead to progress.

Well Duh! :D

[saint max]

Most things had their heyday during "the age of enlightenment", but what are we just to say "This worlds unjust, unfair and horribly corrupt, but hey, you know its the best we're going to get."

Capitalism has certainly advanced since then.

Hell, the term 'capitalism' didn't even exist until Marx!

Marxism/anarchism has not advanced to any great degree since those days.

Chomsky? Zinn?

Not worth the comparision to the others.

First of all the ideas and ideologies that came from the enlightenment are probably some of the biggest problemactics to my and your freedom. "Progress" for instance.

Anarchy's anti-politics have probably the most interesting they have been since the turn of the century. Perhaps, not for those stuck only in academia and mainstreme politics, but even there it seems. Alfredo Bonanno, John Zerzan, Chellis Glendening, Derrick Jesen, The Crimethic collective, Green Anarchy, John Moore, Wolfi Landstricher, postanarchisms, all seem to be quite relevant, and everywhere. If you go to any city in the States or most parts of europe, you will find at least a few anarchist collective houses, an infoshop or social centre, a bookstore, a bike collective, and food not bombs. For the states this is a phenomona of the last 10 years and more recently the explosion in radicalism after 99' and for europe this a huge radical tradition that is continuing being elaborated on. Chomsky and Zinn are fucking liberals and pale in comparison the actual anarchy multitudes.

cheers,
-max

ps: the problem with communism is its utopian vision but mostly it's incorrect analysis of power, the state, and technology, but you can thank Marx for that. The black sheep, Debord, the Aut-Ops and anti-state commies, seem to be trying to reconcile.

[quincunx5]

Africa, Latin America etc. were all far richer before Capitalism came under the guise of Colonialisation. 30,000 children didn't die every day of starvation before Capitalism reared its ugly head.


What the fuck does this have to do with sweatshops? You are severely lacking facts.

You don't know how many children were dying of starvation before colonization!

You also do not ackowledge the total population growth of these regions. Africa itself had 200 million people in 1950, today it has about 800 Million. What happend? Capitalism.



You said they couldn't be both.

Me - "Capitalists are the ruling class."
You- "No, capitalists make their wealth in the free market. Anyone engaged in setting policies is not a true capitalist."

Make up your mind.


Let me clarify: A businessman is not necessarily a true capitalist.

[Amusing Scrotum]

What the fuck does this have to do with sweatshops? You are severely lacking facts.

You asked what happened before sweatshops.


You don't know how many children were dying of starvation before colonization!

You also do not ackowledge the total population growth of these regions. Africa itself had 200 million people in 1950, today it has about 800 Million. What happend? Capitalism.

Other countries had population growth but didn't suffer like this. Slavery and the theft of valuable materials, from many of the colonised countries. Now mainly third world countries. Has led to the terrible situations in these countries now.
Also your beloved "Free Market" is so free, that it subsidises Western companys at the expense of third world countries. Keeping thirld world countries poor, to allow for cheap labour, is the desired policy of rich western companies. Hurting not only third world workforces, but also western workers.


Let me clarify: A businessman is not necessarily a true capitalist.

By definition, a businessman is a capitalist.

[quincunx5]

You asked what happened before sweatshops.


Yes I did, and you still have not answered it.
All you said was:


Africa, Latin America etc. were all far richer before Capitalism came under the guise of Colonialisation. 30,000 children didn't die every day of starvation before Capitalism reared its ugly head.


You just ascerted that they were 'richer', then told me what it's like now.



Other countries had population growth but didn't suffer like this. Slavery and the theft of valuable materials, from many of the colonised countries. Now mainly third world countries. Has led to the terrible situations in these countries now.


Those were the countries that embraced capitalism with less government interference (like Ivory Coast, Ghana, Kenya) - compared to others in Africa.

The ones that didn't experience the most population growth.

Again...you have not told me what they had before.



Also your beloved "Free Market" is so free, that it subsidises Western companys at the expense of third world countries. Keeping thirld world countries poor, to allow for cheap labour, is the desired policy of rich western companies. Hurting not only third world workforces, but also western workers.


This would only hold true if you subscribe to the myth that wealth is fixed. Which it is not.



By definition, a businessman is a capitalist.


By definition? What the fuck are you smoking?

Every businessman is a monopoly seeker. capitalism thrives on competition.
Businessman can't obtain a monopoly for any reasonable amount of time in the free market.

[synthesis]

Businessman can't obtain a monopoly for any reasonable amount of time in the free market.

Yeah, that has certainly been the case, historically.

Why are we even bothering when the capitalists come up with such devastating arguments?

[Freedom Works]

Yeah, that has certainly been the case, historically.
He said 'free market' not mercantilism (extreme government interference).

[quincunx5]

Yeah, that has certainly been the case, historically.

Why are we even bothering when the capitalists come up with such devastating arguments?


All business monoplies were backed by the government. They are not created by the natural forces of a free market.

Why don't you prove this, historically!

[Publius]

Yeah, that has certainly been the case, historically.

Why are we even bothering when the capitalists come up with such devastating arguments?

Name some market monopolies and how long they lasted.

[black magick hustla]

In a time of war, preparation for war is paramount.

Without having that powerful army, your economy will be non-existent or your country invaded.

Apparently, the CNT militia, even if poorly trained, did pretty well! They actually prevented the fascists from taking over in a few weeks"



Didn't Mexico go through some severe economic problems in the 90s though?

The revaluing of the peso, inflation etc.

Yes.

And strangely, that stated to happen when neoliberalism was hitting hard. :o



It's growth over the last 20 years.

It's been amazing, outclassing the rest of Latin America.

It still is advancing at a faster rate than most of Latin America. It's actually growing over twice as fast as Mexico currently.

Not according to the CIA World Factbook, using GDP per capita.

Yes, in total Mexico is wealthier, but it's also larger.

And Chile has grown faster more recently.

It's a perfect example of the beneficial effects of trade liberalization.

Venezuala's beating it, but that's all oil.

I believe you. However, everyone who knows a bit of economics understands that the GDP per capita is bullshit, and that it doesn't reflects quaility of life.

What reflect them are wages and employment.

Besides, in Pinochet's regime the gdp rised alot, but wages lowerered and unemployment rised!


Strange though, I saw a 2003 gdp per capita country list and mexico was above :(

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 10:19 PM




Apparently, the CNT militia, even if poorly trained, did pretty well! They actually prevented the fascists from taking over in a few weeks"

Ultimately futile.




Yes.

And strangely, that stated to happen when neoliberalism was hitting hard. :o

Neoliberalism had nothing to do with rapid inflation and subsequent economic downturn, but it did have something to do with the revaluation.



I believe you. However, everyone who knows a bit of economics understands that the GDP per capita is bullshit, and that it doesn't reflects quaility of life.

But that's the thing.

Chile is also one of the best countries in which to live.

It may not tell the whole story, but what does?



What reflect them are wages and employment.

Besides, in Pinochet's regime the gdp rised alot, but wages lowerered and unemployment rised!

To start off with.

After a while though, wages went up, unemployment went down and the country became richer BECAUSE of his economic reforms.



Strange though, I saw a 2003 gdp per capita country list and mexico was above :(

I don't know, I've found the CIA Factbook's numbers to be sketchy before, I'll consult the Economist:

Mexico:

2000 2001 2002 2003
GDP per head ($ at PPP) 8,939 9,005 9,080 9,200

Chile:

2000 2001 2002 2003
GDP per head ($ at PPP) 9,730 10,150 10,373 10,730


but I may be mistaken is saying the economy in general is better than Mexico's. Chile has higher unemployment and far less foreign investment.

All in all they're quite similar, and the reason they are richer than their brethren is globalization.

If you purchase only one book on capitalism, make it In Defense of Globalization by Jagdish Bhagwati.

You should find it fascinating.

[Sihvyl]

Well well. I haven't got on rev lft for a little bit, and today I decided to see what everyone was chatting about; and how about this? 40 replies! Thanks for replying everyone. I haven't got to read through all the replies yet, but it is nic to see that there are so many.

:D