Have the Capitalists won ?

[Death to R Reagan]

Well.... have they? First, the topple of the Soviet Union, largely due to Stalin's decisions and Gorbachev's Parastroyka. Gorbachev's decision to give the people of Russia freedom was an excellent idea, but it seems that the mouths of Boris Yeltsin and President Bush Sr. must've brainwashed the Russian people into the Capitalists they are today. Of course Capitalism isn't working well, due to the older generations dependency on the Communist system. Now, we have China. It is a large stab in the back of Chairman Mao to be opening an American Disney World in the country he built. China is moving more towards the Right-Wing every day. What's next? Vietnam? Ho Chi Minh would be disgraced. The Capitalists have taken the U.S.S.R. and have China in site, what will happen to Communism? What will happen to smaller states like Cuba?

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Death to R Reagan on 5:03 am on Feb. 1, 2003
what will happen to Communism? What will happen to smaller states like Cuba?

wave bye bye. communism is going to topple over in a few years. socialism is the wave of the future. All capitalist countries are coming into realisation that laissez faire capitalism is the worst economic system on the planet. Ever since the depression, America has engaged on a mild socialistic trend which is still progressing today. It began with fdr's new deal, now we have regulated capitalism, in a couple hundred years, we may be a welfare socialist state. as technological discoveries are made, society becomes more complex. Communism is rigid, there is no flexibility. there can be depending on how you look at it but in the Marxist Leninist sense, you have to abide by certain elementary standards to transcend into a communal society. Communism is the greatest way to stimulate industrial and agricultural activity but it takes away certain freedoms or at least what westerners consider to be freedom. for this reason, people are scared of communism as they asociate it with corrupt one party bueuacratic dictators which is NOT the true aim of communsim. Therefore, communism is becoming a thing of the past imo as it has little or no flexibility and as people are too ignorant to realise its true potential or even its true aims for proletarian liberation. Socialism on the other hand, walks a fine line between communism and capitalism and has over the years, befriended capitalism in a vague sense of the word. Therefore, capitalists do not view socialism as a great of a threat as communism, especially since America is slowly but surely, advancing towards the socialist path. The change is too subtle to observe in a few years, but over a lifetime, the change is obvious. Just look at how america functions today as it did 90 years ago. We went from a pro business laissez faire herbert Hovver style capitalism to a more progressive regulate capitalism as seen under fdr.

who knows, maybe communism will be a thriving world power again in 100 years, you can never be too sure about anything. But in my opinion, I think you can kiss communism goodbye and not expect to welcome it back until your next life time or so. Just my opinion. Take it or leave it.

(Edited by man in the red suit at 9:13 am on Feb. 1, 2003)

[stalinorgel]

with the sharp sword of the marxist-leninist ideology we will have one day worldwide communism!

[kylie]

capitalism may seem strong now, but it is slowly killing itself. one of the biggest business's involves oil, and other fossil fuels. in fifty or so years, when they'll run out. by that time also global warming will be in full effect. the population will be far high, as will unemployment. all these things will increase peoples dissatisfaction with government and the capitalist system, at the same time, those in charge will be finding it hard to come up with new sources of revenue.
there was an example i read about the other day, ill put it here when i remember it properly. :)

[Just Joe]

moderate socialism (or regulated capitalism) is the only economic system that has proven itself to work well for long periods of time. a complete free market leads to boom and bust and communism leads to waiting in line for toilet paper.

communism is almost certainly dead. people see what happened in the Soviet Union and in other oppressive communist states and they don't like it. and although the commies here won't agree with me, but oppression will happen wherever communism is tried because it is naturally against business owners, the middle class, religious people and people who generally want to make there own way in the world. those groups of people form a huge amount of the population and having a system that goes against what they believe, will only lead to oppression.

[redstar2000]

Yes, at least for the moment, "regulated capitalism" "works", at least after a fashion. It permits high unemployment, especially among young workers. It permits obscene inequalities of wealth...though not as obscene as the "Anglo-American" model of increasingly unregulated capitalism.

But, yes, the European Union is probably the "best" place in a capitalist world to live...at the present time. Will it peacefully "evolve" into a more "socialist" economy over the rest of this century?

Perhaps. Or perhaps not. It could turn out that the EU becomes a rival superpower (imperialist) to the United States...and this competition will involve becoming more like the U.S., more cut-throat and dog-eat-dog capitalism, more state repression of workers, etc.

If Marx was right, the class struggle will continue...the capitalist class cannot rest until the working class is reduced to beggery and the working class cannot rest until the capitalist class is abolished.

So, we shall see. :cool:

[Larissa]

Definetly Capitalism has never won, and never will. It's sole objective is to exploit people and starve third world countries in order to achieve their sole goal: make more money and gather absolute control.

Lots of people worldwide will keep fighting against Capitalism for ever.

[Just Joe]

redstar2000, the theory of class struggle is all well and good, but my problem is not with Marxs' analysis of capitalism, it is with his failed economic system that he advocates after the 'revolution'. the USSR and other Eastern states proved that Communism simply does not work economically. the state owned almost everything in these countries and they were nothing but shit holes to live in. all that happens in a communist revolution, is that one ruling class is replaced by another ruling class. there is no way to involve the entire population in the day to day running of the country so classes re-appear.

youre beating a dead horse with Communsim mate. noone in there right mind will listen to any political or public figure once they have identifed themselves as Communist. in fact, how many times do you even here Fidel or the Chinese refer to themselves as Communists?

[mentalbunny]

capitialism hasn't won the war, merely many battles. in the end i reckon the human race will either destroy itself with capitalism or get destroyed by the sun dying.

we have not lost, we just haven't won yet. anyway it's not really a winning/losing situation, it's about providing the people of the world with the best lives possible, winning implies competetion which is a characteristic of capitalism and in my opinion is unhealthy. (sorry, typing is a bit eratic at the moment).

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Larissa on 2:35 pm on Feb. 1, 2003
It's sole objective is to exploit people and starve third world countries in order to achieve their sole goal: make more money and gather absolute control.


I don't think that that is quite their sole objective.

Making money, yes. starving third world countries and expoliting workers just helps them get there.

I think I agree with Just Joe for the most part, however I disagree that oppression and failure are inevitable side products of communism.

In my opinion I think that democratic socialism is the wave of the future.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

We have lost some battles, but as long as communism hasnt been forgotten we haven't lost.

[Just Joe]

Quote: from man in the red suit on 7:02 pm on Feb. 1, 2003
In my opinion I think that democratic socialism is the wave of the future.


i agree with that.

[mentalbunny]

mitrs and JJ, I agree entirely.Maybe after democratic socialism takes hold throughout the world and everyone is living a better life then gradually the world will move even further left, but not till then.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Unfortunately, the harsh reality is that Communism exists patheticly today. Since the breakdown of The Land of Lenin and Marx, Communism is weak. Only Cuba, Vietnam and North Korea are the significant remaining Red nations. And North Korea is only because of the fanaticism of its government. China cannot be called communist any longer. America has seen this, which is why it has now turned to eliminate Islam as it is the only remaining enemy. If Islam falls, America's Capitalist Imperialist beast will rule the earth.

[kylie]

you forget south america, which seems to me to be getting more and more left.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

True. Only time will tell. I would love for true Socialism to return. But the Imperialist beast continues to cast his "Democracy" over the whole world. Can the remaining minute force of leftism compete? I hope so. But I don't think so. I don't know where you are from, but here in Britain, politics is virtually irrelevant to the public. We had only 54% of people turn out at the last election. I expect the remaining 46% are the ones who complain aboutt he governance. But the increased irrelevance of politics shows that the Imperialist has dumbed down the people so they dont see the injustices and inequalities. Truth will prevail in time, let's hope.

[hawarameen]

surprisingly there is a growing trend in large organisations to move to a more left of centre philosophy.
i have looked into this abit and am thinking of doing my masters on it, the term used is corporate socialism.
this really stems from the collapse of the big us companies such as enron and of course there are more and more companies that now recognise that sustainable development has to be the way to go.

one step at a time but hopefully we will get there

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Yeah. I have heard of that term in my Sociology course. Only touched upon tho. We can hope.

[kylie]

you get to do socialism and corporations in sociology? i have to do functionalism and interactionalism :(

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

We didnt actually go that far into it. Just touched upon it as a modern replacement of Marxism. Yeh, we started off doing all the theories. Functionalists!!? They are idiots. Especially Durkheim. Soooo simplistic

[Moncho Brujo]

They havent won yet, maybe they are winning but we never lose the spirit...

[kylie]

communism hasnt yet been fully tried out. we've had a lot of authoritarian communist states, but theres yet to be an anti-authoritarian one. this, i would have thought, would work better.

[Larissa]

Quote: from feoric on 8:07 pm on Feb. 1, 2003
you forget south america, which seems to me to be getting more and more left.
Yes, you are right. Brazil, Bolivia and Venezuela, for example.

[Iepilei]

GRAR.

Every good communist IS A socialist. What is the difficulty in deciphering this? How hard is it to see the progressive stages of feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and then communism.

The world must be socialist (to create backing) for a communist society to even be concieved. Anyone who is communist RIGHT NOW, is a socialist. Period. They HAVE to be otherwise they are contradicting themselves.

Communism has NEVER existed - as the world has NEVER been entirely socialist. It unnerves me how many people cannot grasp such a simple concept.

[Mcleay]

Capitalism can't win because there never is an end goal in that system but it can dominate as it is doing and has done throughout. There is an end goal for communism however no-one can decide or thinks enough about the post-revolution stage to achieve this goal. Lenin only really realised these flaws of the 1917 revolution on his death bed when power was already lost.
Capitalism will continue to dominate or atleast continue to have presence which is all it needs to grow. Trimming back capitalism won't work, it needs to be killed.

[Sirion]

That is right. If a beast is hurted and drvn ito its cave, it will one day come out again healed.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Not if the beast passes away while he is in the cave

[Larissa]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 12:46 pm on Feb. 2, 2003
Not if the beast passes away while he is in the caveActually, if the beast passes away, its spirit won't die, and others will keep the fire ignited.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

LET IT GO! This world will never see true Communism develop. The furthest left that any significant nation will go is centre-left, therefore keeping elements of capitalism. And, untill we accept that this is the best solution, the world will just go further right. Left-wing politics is plagued by a lack of direction and organisation, with all leftist parties concentrating on being anti-everything and forgetting to be pro-left wing.

Socialism, in terms of equality for all, can be achieved. The real problem is the way the working class are exploited from day 1 in education. Getting rid of this inequality in the education system will mean that no other inequalities based on class in later life will exist. Forget full blooded Communism. It cannot happen. What's happened to most of you is that you are not even leftist, you are just anti-right.

[Iepilei]

again you make the fatal flaw of placing the term 'communism' to 'nation'.

I'm an internationalist. I've seen what happened with national socialism and I'm not too keen on such an idea.

[MJM]

When the workers take control the world will be free. Not the intellectuals, not the petty bourgeiosie, not the clergy or any other part time proletarians.
The russian revolution followed the workers, at least for the first few years. Once the workers weren't in control shit started to fall apart.
If the aim of the revolution isn't to make the workers lot easier it isn't marxist.
The first goal should be less hours of work and free association of labour with this will be work for all, the competion for wages will disappear the working men and women will have time to spend together with thier families. With this as it's founding goal all petty differences can be left behind.

Capitalist reformers will always betray the workers, the past shows this comprehensively. The war credits of the german social democrats, for starters, helped with the creation of both world wars.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

You say the revolution followed the workers....what happened to the revolution? Socialism isn't just a revolution by workers for workers. All your suggesting we do is flip the coin and allow another group to rule. The whole idea is there are no inequalities, no injustices. And you say we cannot get behind intellectuals?? What sort of rubbish is that. If there were a group of people that I'd get behind to create a true socialist system, it would be intellectuals. Not radical workers who just want to change it to their favour. Everyone is forgetting the basis of real socialism. You're all trying to be Stalinists

[MJM]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 8:46 am on Feb. 3, 2003
If there were a group of people that I'd get behind to create a true socialist system, it would be intellectuals. Not radical workers who just want to change it to their favour.

Here you display a lack of faith in the workers more akin to Stalin than me.

(Edited by MJM at 8:53 am on Feb. 3, 2003)

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I dont have a lack of faith in workers. I have a lack of faith in any one group. It should be the whole of society behind a revolution. Not one group.

I do have a lack of faith in radicals.

[redstar2000]

"LET IT GO!" says the poorly-named (and poorly spelled) "Socialsmo o Muerte".

"The furthest left that any significant nation will go is centre-left, therefore keeping elements of capitalism," he advises us poor misguided fools.

"Forget full blooded Communism. It cannot happen," he concludes...with all the modesty of an editorial writer for The Economist.

Yes, let's trash our "utopian dreams" and cuddle up with those really "nice" centre-leftists...like the ones that murdered Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht. Or like "Socialsmo o Muerte's" hero, John F. Kennedy, who invaded Cuba and came within inches of destroying human life on Earth. How can we resist such rewarding embraces?

I find it pretty easy myself...about on the same level of difficulty as avoiding eating shit.

On the other hand, I must concede that there are others who don't share my dietary prejudices.

:cool:

[Mcleay]

MJM, You can't just throw a blanket description over them and call them all workers. The guy above you is he your boss or a worker? You have to understand it's not just about the workers. It makes it a hell of a lot difficult to contemplate, organise and imagine but society needs the intellectuals, the same as it needs the workers. They both have skills. Lack of acceptance of others is one of the key reasons why capitalism is in a dominating possision.

Also as a side point when was the russian revolution ever in the control of the workers?

[Weatherman]

Quote: from Mcleay on 7:47 pm on Feb. 2, 2003

Also as a side point when was the russian revolution ever in the control of the workers?

The fist 3 months when there was no ruling government the workers organised and controlled everything; worked out pretty well too. I would have stayed with the no government.

Capitalism wil fall!

[Larissa]

Quote: from Weatherman on 6:09 am on Feb. 3, 2003 -- Capitalism wil fall!
It failed (though not fell) in my country and it is trying to recover and stand up again.

And when it failed about a year ago, workers took over factories and formed "Cooperatives" (similar to unions) and reopened their sources of work.

So, when Capitalism fails (and hopefully falls) workers power is the natural solution.

[hawarameen]

MJM is right in some respects, revolution has to be for the good of the masses and the masses represent the working classes but intellectuals are needed, where would communism be without the intellectualls such as marx an engles?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 12:42 am on Feb. 3, 2003
"LET IT GO!" says the poorly-named (and poorly spelled) "Socialsmo o Muerte".

"The furthest left that any significant nation will go is centre-left, therefore keeping elements of capitalism," he advises us poor misguided fools.

"Forget full blooded Communism. It cannot happen," he concludes...with all the modesty of an editorial writer for The Economist.

Yes, let's trash our "utopian dreams" and cuddle up with those really "nice" centre-leftists...like the ones that murdered Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht. Or like "Socialsmo o Muerte's" hero, John F. Kennedy, who invaded Cuba and came within inches of destroying human life on Earth. How can we resist such rewarding embraces?

I find it pretty easy myself...about on the same level of difficulty as avoiding eating shit.

On the other hand, I must concede that there are others who don't share my dietary prejudices.

:cool:





Firstly, forgive my spelling error. It was a simple typo.
Secondly, my hero, however much you would like it, is not JFK, but Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
Third, did those "centre-lefitists who killed Rosa Luxembourg" kill because they were centre-leftists and because of their centre-left beliefs? I think not. That's a stupid point, straying from the objective of this thread.
Finally, your opinions largely reflect Che's. You seem to be one of those people who think it would be good and "in the spirit of El Che" to follow his beliefs. You, like many others, need to start thinking logically and for yourself.

Communism cannot succeed today. When has it ever? You want a communist revolution? So basically you want to do exactly to the higher classes what they are doing to the lower classes now? That is right? This theory is riddled with contradiction and hypocritical views. This The people who have worked hard to earn their money and have their good life should be taken from? They oay their taxes, they are doing what society asks, and they work hard to earn what they earn. So you say slackers should be given the hard earned capital of the successful?

The system now of exploitation on the workers is sickening. From birth, they do not get the same rights or oppurtunities. That does not mean that turning it completely around onto another group of people is the way forward.

[MJM]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 4:04 am on Feb. 4, 2003[br
Communism cannot succeed today. When has it ever? You want a communist revolution? So basically you want to do exactly to the higher classes what they are doing to the lower classes now? That is right? This theory is riddled with contradiction and hypocritical views. This The people who have worked hard to earn their money and have their good life should be taken from? They oay their taxes, they are doing what society asks, and they work hard to earn what they earn. So you say slackers should be given the hard earned capital of the successful?


You say I'm a lazy slacker?
Tell my old boss who I worked 10 extra hours a week for, without pay, so I could keep my job for a year and a half.
What did he say when I questioned him?
If you don't like it fuck off!
What could I do? nothing!
You're not even a socilalist, you're a capitalist reformer at best.
Who wants to turn the system around?
You seem to think the workers will think only of revenge and killing off the capitalists. Where would you get that idea from? The capitalist media I'm guessing.
I want to eliminate the class system, not the people but the classes themselves. Without this there can be no equality or justice it's impossible.

**************
I don't wish to send the intellectuals off to gulags or anything ridiculous, they should and will play a valuable part. The workers must be the primary force however.

As said by weatherman, the first few months of the revolution were led by the workers. They created these things called soviets and basically had their own government, needless to say the ruling class shit their pants when this happened.
This happened in both 1905 and 1917 and led Lenin to change his ideas on the workers being only able to reach labour union conciousness.


(Edited by MJM at 5:30 pm on Feb. 4, 2003)

[redstar2000]

"Socialsmo o Muerte", you are pro-capitalist and this thread is yet another that properly belongs in Opposing Ideologies.

:cool:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

MJM, I understand where you are coming from, but don't you think that saying we should all get behind workers is sort of contradictory? To create Socialism, we should surely each get behind everyone. Not just look to one group like the current system does. And I didn't say you were a slacker, I was just picking on people who are slackers who, in your suggested system, would get too much of what they don't deserve. I think the main thing that needs to be done to ensure that capitalists do not win is a change in education. This where everyone starts and the private system, national curriculum and the hidden school curriculum are all putting the working class at a disadvantage from day one. They do not get equal oppurtunities. It is in education where the change must take place. And I am glad you pointed out the importance of intellectuals. I thought you meant they should be discredited, which would hasve been ridiculous.

And redstar, you are just the opposite of what u say I am. Your mind has been warped by revisionist press and revisionist documentation. You should begin to think for yourself.

[Geddan]

Socialismo o Muerte, to be socialist is to stand up against exploitation. Exploitation today is mainly corporations and national states, and most of those profitting from others' work haven't earned their money honestly (from a TRUE SOCIALIST perspective). To say they work hard is hypocrisy, they buy away the worker's piece by piece.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

But you can only be sceptical to a certain extent. You must give way for those who do work hard. There are some who don't exploit. And who aren't given their status from birth, but actually achieve it.

And I disagree. The worst and most exploitation comes in the education system. And this is more important because this is from the age of 3 or 4!

[CopperGoat]

Let me tell you something. There is no such thing as winning or losing. Communism VS Capitalism will always, always, ALWAYS be the boxing match. Maybe one of it will be more powerful but will never take over the world. because if any of both take over the world, the other will break it. Therefore sit back, grab on to your K47 Soviet, and relax because there is no way fat capitalists are going to win...

[Geddan]

Socialsmo o Muerte, why should a guy who has earned 2 000 000 pounds in his days keep that if his neighbor is starving? No chance I'd let him keep it.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Why would his neighbour be starving? In your ideal Socialist world without exploitation, that neighbour would have had the same oppurtunities as his neighbour who earns $2000000. So why is he in that state? He clearly did not work hard enough. And When did I say charity was wrong? I just said those who work hard and earn their wealth should be able to enjoy it.

[Geddan]

How socialist you are, Socialsmo o Muerte. It is pretty much impossible to earn that much unless you profit from others work, and thus it is capitalism. To say it serves the starving kid right is stupor. He might have worked really hard but failed in earning money due to the hard competition the other guy made. "He clearly did not work hard enough" is a capitalist thing to say about homeless people and evicted single mothers.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I'm not against charity. Being a Muslim it is a neccessity for me to give charity. But I was just highlighting that your point was prettty crap

[Geddan]

Who the holy fuck has said anything about charity?

[redstar2000]

Hey, don't knock "charity." :cheesy:

It's one of the greatest capitalist rackets going these days...you don't pay corporate taxes and you never get sued by pissed-off shareholders. It's limos and champagne and high-quality hookers all the way.

"Socialsmo o Muerto" is looking for a career opportunity.

:cool:

[Geddan]

Socialsmo o Muerte, in a world where everyone gets equal opportunities such differences won't exist, period.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I tell you "how socialist" i am. I believe in dictionary socialism, not politically defined socialism. Every body should have the same oppurtuinities from birth. If one man works up from the bottom. Is born into a poor working class family, but has the same oppurtunity as everyone in his education and he goes to become a massive earner making £2,000,000 he cannot pay for slackers who have been born into middle classes and not bothered in education, got a crap job and shit pay. Call it capitalist. Call it laissez-faire. It is laissez-faire. But it is dictionary defined socialism. The same dictionary socialism followed by Mohandas K. Gandhi, and Jawaharlal Nehru. This is the socialism i believe in. Why should the Robin Hood theory come into play when one man has worked his way up social ranks and earnt money, whilst another was apathetic and is just a bum?