Capitalism

[The Grey Blur]

So we know what's good about Communism/ Socialism and Anarchism but what's bad about Capitalism?

What's gonna hit home with your average worker in Western Society?

In other words, what's gonna show them they're gettin' fucked?

[ComradeOm]

I assume you mean what’s so bad about capitalism in the West today. By past standards not a huge degree. Life is generally good for the majority of the population and capitalism seems to be working. All part of the upside of being born in the right nation, it’s a very different picture elsewhere.

But you can’t create wealth out of nothing. The worker in the West is being indulged, to a degree, because the capitalists can afford to pay generous wages, pensions and whatnot. The economic reason that the capitalist can afford this is due to the savings brought about by using cheap labour in underdeveloped nations. This allows the capitalists to extract a "superprofit", some of which is passed on to the Western proletariat in the form of generous wages et al. In other words, Western society as we know it is built on the backs of Chinese workers.

The shit will hit the fan, so to speak, in the West when this superprofit disappears, either through revolution or natural progression, and the capitalists can no longer afford to keep the proletariat happy without making a loss.

[The Grey Blur]

The reason I asked the question was because most workers I have talked to recently are happy with the current system; they don't feel exploited. I just wanted some sort of facts to hit home with them, not just "they exploit poor people in a country thousands of miles away from here."

Thanks ComradeOm

[People's Coalition]

In Communism, everyone had a home, everyone had a job and everyone was treated equal. In a Capitalist Society today in America, over 37 million people live in poverty, of course you don't hear that in the front page news, instead you hear about the dangers of Bird Flu or how the terrorists are going to nuke a US city.

[The Grey Blur]

I live in Ireland; I don't have the same 'material' as you guys

[ComradeOm]

If you're looking for facts and figures then google is your friend ;)

But if we're just talking about Ireland I believe we have one of the highest rich-poor gaps in the world. You can see that by simply walking through Dublin. But people are becoming aware of this, in a way. The existance of a super-rich who pay politicians and not taxes is common knowledge while we had an excellent union turnout at the Irish Ferries protest the other week.

But, as I said, things aren't going to get really bad (ie 19th century bad) for a while.

[CCCPneubauten]

That is nice and all BUT it seems to me most do NOT care about the poor, just think they do drugs all day or don't want to get a job and/or freeload off the system.

[ReD_ReBeL]

USA-40 million cannot afford Health insurance. 3million are homeless. Bully other countries into not trading with other countries. Act as the 'world police'. The government is spending billions on it's part in the occupation of Iraq,yet only 50% of the Iraqi population has clean water compared to 60% under Saddam.Despite the promise of billions of dollars of investment, there is 50% unemployment and little or no electricity in the major towns.

Great Britain-statistically has the biggest gap between rich and poor. 30 years ago 1 in 10 children where born into poverty in the UK, now that figure is 1 in 3.

In the World- The richest 7 people on the planet own more wealth than the poorest 48 countries combined (UN report, 1998). The number of billionaires has increased from 232 in 1990 to 514 today.

this speaks for itself in the problems facing capitalism

[anomaly]

If we look at the way things are going today in the USA, I'd say things are beginning to get bad. The deterioration of the middle class could turn out to be the thing that 'sets off' proletarian revolution in the USA. There is certainly an abundance of evidence of this. Thomas Frank writes of it in great detail in his books. Essentially, he points out that inequality in the USA has reached levels not seen since the 1920s, and that what bourgeois economists term 'semi-skilled labor' is largely being outsourced. Thus, well paying jobs are disappearing. It is also true that in the '90s, executive salaries increased about 75%, adjusting for inflation. By contrast, blue collar worker wages has no net movement, despite prices of basic goods (those listed in the CPI, perhaps) increasing.

But, it will take time for things to get 'very bad'. But I think we can see some foreshadowing right now.

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 11:26 PM
If we look at the way things are going today in the USA, I'd say things are beginning to get bad. The deterioration of the middle class could turn out to be the thing that 'sets off' proletarian revolution in the USA. There is certainly an abundance of evidence of this. Thomas Frank writes of it in great detail in his books. Essentially, he points out that inequality in the USA has reached levels not seen since the 1920s, and that what bourgeois economists term 'semi-skilled labor' is largely being outsourced. Thus, well paying jobs are disappearing. It is also true that in the '90s, executive salaries increased about 75%, adjusting for inflation. By contrast, blue collar worker wages has no net movement, despite prices of basic goods (those listed in the CPI, perhaps) increasing.

But, it will take time for things to get 'very bad'. But I think we can see some foreshadowing right now.
Absolutely. The middle class has been living complacently off of the idealism that has been left over from the post WW2 years, and to a lesser extent, the "prosperity" of the nineties. But, the boomers are dying. The idealism that comes from their generation will run out as our generation ages. Then?

The people will see that there is only one solution? ...
:unsure:

[Enragé]

this would show any worker they're getting fucked, even if they are doing rather well for themselves (labor aristocracy)

Think about it..what is the source of all money (all wealth)? The source of all money, all wealth is the added value to shit we find in nature (iron ore, wood etc etc etc). Who ads value to, let us use as an example, iron ore? In other words who makes iron ore into iron/steel etc etc? The iron smelter worker (or sumthin you know what i mean)
Who mines it so that it can be made into iron? The miner
Who transports it? The (cargo)busdriver, the dockworker etc
Who manages the organisation, the paper work, so that everything goes smoothly? The office clerk
Who makes the car from (among other things) iron? The carfactory worker
Who builds the factories? The construction worker
Who makes sure the workers are fed? The farmers, "agricultural workers", supermarket staff, restaurant/cantina/cafe staff etc

Now....ask yourself...who gets rich from it though adds nothing in value, produces no wealth, produces no money him or herself?
The factory owner, the shareholders etc etc etc.

Conclusion: The money which the rich have is not their own, it has been stolen in some way from those who add in value (all sorts of labourers)
-->
Its nothing more than common robbery

[Storming Heaven]

An interesting argument, NewKindOfSoldier. Indeed, the very one that led me to leftist politics. But I have tried it in many debates and found that capitalists have a very simple reply. You argue that capitalism is theft, but theft is not theft if both parties agree to it, and did you not freely sign your employment agreement?

What you have discovered, is not that capitalism is theft, but rather that it is exploitive. The capitalist class is like a cancer, it appropriates resources from it's host (the working class) but performs no necessary (and thus, no useful) function in return; and we all know how cancer ends...

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Storming [email protected] 30 2005, 04:05 AM
An interesting argument, NewKindOfSoldier. Indeed, the very one that led me to leftist politics. But I have tried it in many debates and found that capitalists have a very simple reply. You argue that capitalism is theft, but theft is not theft if both parties agree to it, and did you not freely sign your employment agreement?


you did not sign it freely because you have no choice. You cannot not-sign something like that cuz if you dont...well you're unemployed and that means your "kinda" screwed

[Enragé]

and this topic wasnt about convincing hardcore cappies, it was about convincing the average worker

[Storming Heaven]

and this topic wasnt about convincing hardcore cappies, it was about convincing the average worker

Indeed, though I find they often offer up similar arguments against leftist ideas as the cappies. After all, most of them have been brought up in a world where capitalism is trumpted as 'natural' and 'the only option', and alternatives are painted as evil, debased and undemocratic.


you did not sign it freely because you have no choice. You cannot not-sign something like that cuz if you dont...well you're unemployed and that means your "kinda" screwed

True, and a good point. Unfortunatly it is all to easy to deny. Those who argue against leftism will say that if someone is in such a position, it is their own fault. Being responsible for their own actions and their own lives, they should have tried harder at school or whatever so that they could learn their own skills and started a business or whatever. In short, it's their fault that they are not part of the capitalist class (indeed, capitalist society is run this way - Parlementary Democracy, the characteristic bourgeois system of government, attempts to make a level playing field for those trying to enter the capitalist class).

How would you counter these arguments?

[Ligeia]

I think the main arguments that are brought up when you discuss capitalism are not about whether it is bad, people know it's bad.It's always the argument that no other system works and thus they always bring up the fall of the soviet union as an argument and see the cause in the egoism and easiness of corruption through power,that is to say most people are greedy and ravenous and choose by their own will to be like that.Consequently there can be no other way since people won't change until they get convinced which at the other hand means you are manipulating them and restricting their freedom.

This is the pattern of arguments I always had to face and what arguments can you bring up now?

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Storming [email protected] 31 2005, 03:39 AM


True, and a good point. Unfortunatly it is all to easy to deny. Those who argue against leftism will say that if someone is in such a position, it is their own fault. Being responsible for their own actions and their own lives, they should have tried harder at school or whatever so that they could learn their own skills and started a business or whatever. In short, it's their fault that they are not part of the capitalist class (indeed, capitalist society is run this way - Parlementary Democracy, the characteristic bourgeois system of government, attempts to make a level playing field for those trying to enter the capitalist class).

How would you counter these arguments?
Well

then you can just give examples out of real life, for example its a fact that some people work hard all their lives and still end up with jack shit and some are born with millions. So its not about who works hardest, its about those who are the luckiest.

Also, some people simply do not have the "talent" in regard to the ability which is currently seen as most important, being intelligence (in other times and places for example strength or faith was more important), and therefore cannot make alot of money simply because of that. Now..those people arent worth less than anyone else...they are not "inferior"...yet they will never be rich (unless they were born that way)...now where's the justice in that?

[Storming Heaven]

Continuing to play the Devil's Advocate...


Also, some people simply do not have the "talent" in regard to the ability which is currently seen as most important, being intelligence (in other times and places for example strength or faith was more important), and therefore cannot make alot of money simply because of that. Now..those people arent worth less than anyone else...they are not "inferior"...yet they will never be rich (unless they were born that way)...now where's the justice in that?

You contradict yourself here. In the first sentence you claim that some people are less intelegent than others, and that we cannot change this. Such a claim clearly involves the implicit claim that they are in some way inferior (here with respect to intelligence) than some other person (who is more intelligent). Then you go on to claim that they are not inferior.

I think that such thinking is dangerous. We are all equal, not in respect to ability (as you have pointed out), but in respect to our humanity. Since we all things we possess - all our talents and our abilities - flow from our humanity, it follows that we are all potentially equal in ability. I acknowledge that some people may have a natural predisposition towards certian abilities, but this does not mean that others cannot cultivate those same abilities through hard work.

Back to the Devil's business...


you can just give examples out of real life, for example its a fact that some people work hard all their lives and still end up with jack shit and some are born with millions. So its not about who works hardest, its about those who are the luckiest.


So what? We cannot (by definition) change the 'luck of the draw'. Mr Manager was born in a wealthy country to wealthy parents an I was not. We can't change that fact. Even if the poor are not to blame for their bad luck, it remains just that - bad luck. You can't change 'luck'.

And now for something completely different:


I think the main arguments that are brought up when you discuss capitalism are not about whether it is bad, people know it's bad.It's always the argument that no other system works and thus they always bring up the fall of the soviet union as an argument and see the cause in the egoism and easiness of corruption through power,that is to say most people are greedy and ravenous and choose by their own will to be like that.Consequently there can be no other way since people won't change until they get convinced which at the other hand means you are manipulating them and restricting their freedom.

This is the pattern of arguments I always had to face and what arguments can you bring up now?

I usually argue against the point that 'capitalism is the only way'. Capitalist societies have not existed throughout history. Indeed, Homo sapiens has lived on earth for approximately 150,000 years. Capitalism goes back only 400 years (or pehaps as long as 600 years in isolated occurances). Mankind is perfectly capable of living without capitalism.

[Enragé]

You contradict yourself here. In the first sentence you claim that some people are less intelegent than others, and that we cannot change this. Such a claim clearly involves the implicit claim that they are in some way inferior (here with respect to intelligence) than some other person (who is more intelligent). Then you go on to claim that they are not inferior.

No i dont.

Just because people are less intelligent (which is undeniable, you can make even the dumbest guy smarter, but there are limits) doesnt make them inferior. 300 years ago a smart guy would've been considered of less worth than a strong guy, now its the opposite. The point is that we are all of equal worth, as you said, not in respect to ability, but our humanity.


I think that such thinking is dangerous. We are all equal, not in respect to ability (as you have pointed out), but in respect to our humanity. Since we all things we possess - all our talents and our abilities - flow from our humanity, it follows that we are all potentially equal in ability. I acknowledge that some people may have a natural predisposition towards certian abilities, but this does not mean that others cannot cultivate those same abilities through hard work.

I agree. But natural predispositions also limit what we can become. I cannot become a worldchampion in...say...ice skating, doesnt mean im inferior to someone who can, just means we're different (yet equal through our humanity).
You can cultivate abilities, but not indefinitely, and not everyone to the same degree (you can see this with the disabled, both mentally and physically).


So what? We cannot (by definition) change the 'luck of the draw'. Mr Manager was born in a wealthy country to wealthy parents an I was not. We can't change that fact. Even if the poor are not to blame for their bad luck, it remains just that - bad luck. You can't change 'luck'.

Yes, but its this system which makes it so that you have to be lucky to succeed. And your point was that people succeed by means of merit, which they now clearly do not (they do by means of luck). Therefore you cannot say if someone is poor they should "work harder" for it has nothing to do with that, its about luck not how hard you work.


I think the main arguments that are brought up when you discuss capitalism are not about whether it is bad, people know it's bad.It's always the argument that no other system works and thus they always bring up the fall of the soviet union as an argument and see the cause in the egoism and easiness of corruption through power,that is to say most people are greedy and ravenous and choose by their own will to be like that.Consequently there can be no other way since people won't change until they get convinced which at the other hand means you are manipulating them and restricting their freedom.

This is the pattern of arguments I always had to face and what arguments can you bring up now?

Our parliamentary democracies began sometime...didnt they? Before they were implemented, through the struggle of radicals, everyone believed that the only way was rule of the nobility, rule of kings, of emperors etc.

[Ligeia]

That is my argument,too,capitalism did not exist always and the developments in our history were made by radicals but nevertheless,people bring up the point that there already was a try to the development of socialism (consequently communism)but it didnt work and since socialism didnt work (the soviet union broke down)communism wont work as well.And they think that it wont work because the majority is egoistic and doesnt care about others than themselves.And what can you say about thist argument,that the majority owns this charectiristics?

[Enragé]

the attempt was flawed, just as the attempt of the french revolution to implement equality in respect to the law was flawed.

The majority does not own such characteristiscs; there is no such thing as human nature. In a society which promotes and rewards certain characteristics, said characteristics will be the dominant characteristics in that society. If for example a society promotes and rewards greed, considers money most important, these characteristics will also be found with the majority of the people. If a society promotes and rewards solidarity, considers love for your fellow (wo)man, freedom most important...then those characteristics will be found with the majority of the people.
If obedience is considered most important, if hierarchy, loyalty to the nobility is what is rewarded, then most people will be like that...as it was in the middle ages and many other more "primitive" societies.

[Social Greenman]

I believe the correct definition would be: How workers see Capitalism benefiting them. Most workers don't see the exploitive nature of capitalism whatsoever. Its not about who is or not smarter. Something has to awaken the consciousness' of workers in these advance industial nation.


Marx's Law of Value
scanned from
The Weekly People
December 11, 1971

Marx's Law of Value

A fact constantly driven home by Daniel De Leon was that it is the workers who create all social values. Known in Marxian science as the law of value, the formulation of this fact was done by Karl Marx. The great founder of scientific Socialism did not formulate the law out of nothing, nor did he invent the fact.

EARLY CAPITALIST ECONOMISTS ACCEPTED THE LAW

Long before Karl Marx pointed to the fact and developed its formulation, Sir William Petty, Benjamin Franklin, Adam Smith and David Ricardo, among other pro-Marxian classical economists, agreed that commodities have value in relation to the amount of labor that went into their production.

Marx put the finishing touch to this value concept, usually called the labor theory of value by capitalist economists, by emphasizing that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of socially necessary labor power that goes into its production. He also emphasized that the things produced must have use value, real or imagined. These distinctions, as De Leon once noted, rule out value in a ship constructed on the top of a mountain, obviously at a great waste of labor power and with no use value as a ship. The distinctions mean thot a commodity must be produced under the existing and average conditions of production and with the average degree of skill and intensity of labor, as Marx noted. If it is not so produced, it is an oddity rather than a commodity and can have value only by the accidental circumstance that a very few persons might consider it to have value for themselves.

Labor create all social wealth which the capitalist extract from workers here in the U.S. and abroad. It is from this labor that the capitalist accumulates his/her wealth. The capitalist gives back a small portion of that wealth in wages and benefits. However, we have seen in recent years the cutting of wages and benefits to increase profits. The reason for this is because labor is exploited in Third World Countries whose commodities are sold in advance capitalist countries at a huge profit. Those workers get very little in pay and no benefits. A person who loses an arm in a machine is quickly replaced by another worker. Its hard to say if that person will get proper medical treatment. This is what happens in the real world.


The points made by Karl Marx, and hammered home by Daniel De Leon, are not esoteric pieces of information to be appreciated by a select few. They were part of a fundamental analysis of the economics of capitalism and, more generally, of society in general. They hold, too, in the Socialist society in which there will be no commodities, but in which, of course, goods (in the noncommercial sense that the things produced are good and necessary) will have values in terms of the labor power required to produce them -- without the intervention of money and the profit motive.

I believe everyone need to realise this that what labor create will have values in one form or another. In a socialist society those values are without the use of money and profit. This is the reason I have been advocating labor time vouchers (LTVs). Labor vouchers will assign values to those forms that labor creates. Unlike money vouchers are not circulated. Any form of circulation would create a new form of profit motive. Therefore when TLVs are exchanged at the social store the TLVs cease to exist. In many respects TLVs act like money because those units reflect an exchange medium for labor except that workers earn the full value of the voucher.


THIS IS WHY CAPITALISM REJECTS OF VALUE

The great lesson of the Marxian law of value is that if the workers create all social values the things created should belong to their creators.

Accordingly, the Socialist Labor Party, in accepting the Marxian law of value because it is true, works for a society in which the workers -- the useful producers, or everyone in a society without parasites -- will collectively own their collective products. The products will go to the producers. Any other arrangement, such as That of the capitalist present, in which the workers receive back but a part of their product and the capitalists keep the rest, amounts to robbery. This would be true, too, in a phony Socialist society in which politicians and bureaucrats, removed from production and therefore not needed for production, received incomes in return for being parasites, and for usurping the power that belongs to the useful producers of society. The Socialist Labor Party does not compromise on this issue, for to do so would be to concede that the parasites -- capitalists or politicians and bureaucrats -- are entitled to the wealth they steal from the workers.


It must be emphesised that the capitalist class are nothing more than parasites living off of the labor of workers. What the capitalist keep from labor amounts to robbery as the article states. They use those monies created by workers by investing in enterprises that extract profit from other workers. The workers never see a dime of it. Also, those who advocate that a bureacracy of politician are needed in a socialist society are nothing more than phonies who want to sit back and direct their versions of society while living off the labor of workers.



THE LAW OF VALUE IS A BASIC INDICTMENT OF CAPITALISM

The so-called radical parties that deny the validity of the Marxian law of value do concede at least part of their stealings to the stealers. For example, the Fabian Society of Britain, made up of such intellectuals as George Bernard Shaw, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, and many other such persons, rejected Marx's law of value and adopted the marginal utility value theory of William Stanley Jevons. This latter theory of value, almost simultaneously developed on the continent of Europe as a capitalist answer to Marx's law, and thus as a defense of capitalism, was an involved supply and demand theory that bypassed the concept of value's being created by the quantity of socially necessary labor embodied in a commodity. It thus ruled out the workers as the creators of social value, and "justified" capitalism's thefts. The subject of value is discussed by Marx in "Capital" and in "Value, Price and Profit," and by De Leon and Arnold Petersen in "Marxian Science and the Colleges." The latter work deals to a great extent with the law of value in relation to the common supply and demand theory of value, and to the more complicated marginal utility theory.

Here we must limit ourselves to recalling a WEEKLY PEOPLE article (Jan. 16, 1971) that showed, on the evidence of Joseph A. Schumpeter of Harvard and Dudley Dillard of the University of Maryland that the Marxian law of value is not wrong. Anne Fremantle, in her study of the Fabian "Socialists," noted that Bernard Shaw and the other leading Fabians were finally forced to abandon the marginal utility theory. They failed, however, to accept the Marxian law of value. And, because they failed to see The logic and factual content of "the law of value, the Fabians, like other false Socialists, constantly made concessions to capitalism that weakened even their mild demand for the building of a better society. One of the Fabians, Graham Wallas, wrote that by rejecting Marxism, they were able to permeate the capitalists of the Liberal party. (Miss Fremantle noted in her history of the Fabian Society that "their economic theory -- and everybody else's -- went down like tenpins before the triumphant genius of John Maynard Keynes. Keynes, however, stated in his general theory that he sympathized "with the pre-classical doctrine that everything is produced by labor"; and based his discussions of value on the "labor theory of value.")

WHY CAPITALISM'S DEFENDERS ATTACK THE LAW

In one of his editorials in "Marxian Science and the Colleges," De Leon said:

"That much of the space in the DAILY PEOPLE is taken up with the Marxian law of value and its corollaries is true -- and wise and proper 'tis 'tis so. Even if The reason did not prompt the policy, instinct would. The blood rushes to the spot that is struck, there to coagulate and protect the heal; in battle larger forces are massed to the defense of the objective of hostile attack. It is not always the best policy to attack an enemy's weakest spot. Good strategy often directs the attack upon The strongest. The strongest spot in the fortress of Socialism is the Marxian law of value. It is at once the keystone of Socialism and the hearth from which the refutation of all bourgeois [capitalist] schemes radiates. Against that spot the bourgeois artillery is directed most numerously, and correct Js the judgment or instinct of the bourgeois in their strategy. If the Marxian law of value could only be battered down, bourgeois society is vindicated .... The long and short of the story is that, directed by both instinct and reason, the forces of bourgeois attack center upon the Marxian law of value; reason and instinct, in turn, marshal the SLP to answer with the only strategy which the circumstances dictate-to mass its forces there, where the attack is strongest -- silence by refuting the open batteries, to unmask the concealed ones."

THE LAW EXPOSES THE ECONOMIC CAUSE OF THE CLASS STRUGGLE

The charge contained in the law of value, that all capitalist property is theft, or that is the workers who have been robbed, is the proclamation of a fact that, by , its very existence, calls for the workers' act of socializing the means of wealth production and of operating them democratically so that the theft is stopped and the product becomes the property of the producers. As De Leon said in another editorial reprinted in, "Marxian Science and the Colleges," "In a word, the Marxian law of value unveils, poses, pushes to the front and keeps there the class struggle as a social fact that imperatively demands solution -- not compromise or patching up."

The parties and factions, calling themselves Socialist, that failed to base themselves on the factual correctness of the law of value have disappeared or nullified themselves by being satisfied with reforms. The Socialist Labor Party cannot be so satisfied, for its knows that the collective capitalists steal from the collective workers so that they can keep on stealing into perpetuity, and that both the present and the future welfare of the useful producers of society can be met only by stopping the thievery and assuring the product to the producers.

Another thing that pisses me off is pro-capitalist workers who cite that people sign contracts as to what they get paid including benefits. What they fail to realise is that workers have no choice because all workers are under subjection to the capitalist class. A worker has no choice to do so otherwise they would become homeless looking for shelter and a meal. Contracts just legalizes robbery of what the worker produces.

http://www.deleonism.org/cgi-bin/text.cgi?j=71121101

[Ligeia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 02:08 PM

The majority does not own such characteristiscs; there is no such thing as human nature. In a society which promotes and rewards certain characteristics, said characteristics will be the dominant characteristics in that society. If for example a society promotes and rewards greed, considers money most important, these characteristics will also be found with the majority of the people. If a society promotes and rewards solidarity, considers love for your fellow (wo)man, freedom most important...then those characteristics will be found with the majority of the people.
If obedience is considered most important, if hierarchy, loyalty to the nobility is what is rewarded, then most people will be like that...as it was in the middle ages and many other more "primitive" societies.
Well,that is not what I tried to say,I didnt say that there is something like human nature but what people mean by that is that as you said ,too , if society promotes certain characteristics people will assimilate them and in today´s society greed..etc. are the promoted characteristics and people dont see any way how it could be without them and even want to stay the same..that´s the problem with egoism,you want it if you have it.And the minority who thinks different;they arent considered and people tell you that you want to manipulate them if you persuate them to other "charectiristics",you restrict freedom in their eyes...now you can say well,but the environment is brainwashing you but then they will reply but I chose this view and not the other one (which of course is not really promoted in our societies)but that wont matter anything to egoism.How can you overcome this?

The argument you told me,I used that one,too but didnt work. <_<

[Enragé]

Tell them (the average worker) that communism benefits the worker. Tell them you dont want to manipulate you, all you are doing is putting forth your ideas, and persuading people is inherent to any progressing society, if no one would persuade anyone else...well...where would we be?

In the end however there will always be people whom you cant convince, either because they have a completely different set of basic values (you cant convince anyone that people should be treated equally if that someone does not believe people are inherently equal in regard to their humanity) or because they simply do not WANT to believe anything else because its just...easy to believe what they believe.

[Ligeia]

Well,but in the end communism only would benefit the future worker and the generation trying to establish it would not have much benefit of it...people realize this,either.

Hmm... :huh: then I think I came across many persons whom cant be convinced either because of their values or because it is simply easy as it is but most people stay in this conformism since it is easy and the life in western countries safes a little bit more than the minimum standard to live,thus they dont see why they should think different?And also telling that communism is more democratic wouldnt attract much interest since present voting systems are democratic enough to them.

So frustrating... <_<

[DeathtoPrejudice]

Originally posted by People&#39;s [email protected] 23 2005, 11:52 PM
In Communism, everyone had a home, everyone had a job and everyone was treated equal. In a Capitalist Society today in America, over 37 million people live in poverty, of course you don&#39;t hear that in the front page news, instead you hear about the dangers of Bird Flu or how the terrorists are going to nuke a US city.
I wouldn&#39;t say that was the case in china, cambodia, and russia (off the top of my head) During certain periods of time. Even under communism. Of course to my knowledge, some kind of corruption was involved.

not to get off topic

[Storming Heaven]

Yes, but its this system which makes it so that you have to be lucky to succeed. And your point was that people succeed by means of merit, which they now clearly do not (they do by means of luck). Therefore you cannot say if someone is poor they should "work harder" for it has nothing to do with that, its about luck not how hard you work.


I disagree, but this is slightly beside the point anyway. You complained that the wealth of the capitalists is due to luck. Luck by definition cannot be changed - if it can, than it ceases to be &#39;luck&#39;. I contest (as do most capitalists, incidentally) that in the final assesment, luck has nothing to do with it. Rather, I would say that their wealth is the result of the system. (Incidentally I would assert with the capitalists that any one person&#39;s position in the system is most often the result of effort rather than &#39;luck&#39;). I propose that we change the system. Thus it is not only a factual mistake that attributes the wealth of capitalists, but also one which condemns us to inaction...and we want workers to take action&#33;


Hmm... then I think I came across many persons whom cant be convinced either because of their values or because it is simply easy as it is but most people stay in this conformism since it is easy and the life in western countries safes a little bit more than the minimum standard to live,thus they dont see why they should think different?And also telling that communism is more democratic wouldnt attract much interest since present voting systems are democratic enough to them.

So frustrating...

Well said&#33; This seems to be the core of our problem... Capitalism has been (relatively) kind to today&#39;s workers (at least in the West), and it appears that we have many freedoms.

I think we should develop the following points, as something of a &#39;game plan&#39;

i) A realisation that capitalism is exploitive (a cancer is an excellent anology here).
ii) A realisation that capitalism cannot, due to it&#39;s very nature, solve many of today&#39;s problems, such as unemployment, poverty and pollution.
iii) A negation of authoritarian socialism, especially historical examples such as the USSR.
iv) A negation of bourgeois freedoms, e.g. Parliamentary Democracy, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Point (i) leads on to (ii). Once these are established, we can attack more deeply entrenched societal views through points (iii) and (iv).

[Ligeia]

Originally posted by Storming [email protected] 4 2006, 08:14 AM
[QUOTE]

I think we should develop the following points, as something of a &#39;game plan&#39;

i) A realisation that capitalism is exploitive (a cancer is an excellent anology here).
ii) A realisation that capitalism cannot, due to it&#39;s very nature, solve many of today&#39;s problems, such as unemployment, poverty and pollution.
iii) A negation of authoritarian socialism, especially historical examples such as the USSR.
iv) A negation of bourgeois freedoms, e.g. Parliamentary Democracy, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Point (i) leads on to (ii). Once these are established, we can attack more deeply entrenched societal views through points (iii) and (iv).
Im not sure íf you really can apply a "game plan" on convincing people since in the majoriti&#39;s views there are still differences in their beliefs.

The point i) is not convincing for most people,they know it is exploitive but dont care a thing about it,they only want themselves to have a pretty life ,even if themselves are exploited and not in the best position they feel that they should only care about their lifes otherwise they wouldnt have any or enough luxuries which make up a pretty and decentl ife in the west.And if things get really bad in their country they can still flee to another country,place...whatever.

And point ii) is similar to point i).When poverty,pollution and unemployment dont hit them personally then it is not important.Or even if they think and feel that this is totally wrong in today´s society then they are without any perspective,cant see anything which can be done against all that and come again to the point that at least their lifes should be decent but in the end it is a thing that only interests people if they are personally hit by this fates.

And saying that the USSR is not the ehing we want,is not of any interest or better it is no good arguement,bescause most people see for themselves that the fall of the USSR was due to human failure which is cause by corruption and greed (most believe in human nature as this, and that if men is not perfect than such nice ideas wont work at all).

And to iv):They will tell you,if they want the world to be different they could all vote for another party (for example leftist ones) but they dont since it is not ´necessary,there lifes are ok( in western countries,of course).They would tell you they could change all just by voting,so why isnt this democracy?(or something like that)

All in all, in modern industrialised countries the consent of the governed is given to the state or more precisely men with means of production,power.There opinion is totally shaped by them and even if they dont stand with it they dont see any possibilities what to do for others.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Storming [email protected] 4 2006, 08:14 AM

Yes, but its this system which makes it so that you have to be lucky to succeed. And your point was that people succeed by means of merit, which they now clearly do not (they do by means of luck). Therefore you cannot say if someone is poor they should "work harder" for it has nothing to do with that, its about luck not how hard you work.


I disagree, but this is slightly beside the point anyway. You complained that the wealth of the capitalists is due to luck. Luck by definition cannot be changed - if it can, than it ceases to be &#39;luck&#39;. I contest (as do most capitalists, incidentally) that in the final assesment, luck has nothing to do with it. Rather, I would say that their wealth is the result of the system. (Incidentally I would assert with the capitalists that any one person&#39;s position in the system is most often the result of effort rather than &#39;luck&#39;). I propose that we change the system. Thus it is not only a factual mistake that attributes the wealth of capitalists, but also one which condemns us to inaction...and we want workers to take action&#33;




According to the system, merit is what produces wealth, you are rich if you work for it...period. That was what i was trying to refute. You are not rich if you work for it, you are rich if you are born into a rich family, if you happen to be in the right place at the right time, if you happen to win the lottery, if you happen to have such qualities which are deemed to be valuable in the current system

hence, you are rich if you are simply...a lucky fuck. Nothing to do with merit, you can work your ass off all your life and still you would end up with less than someone who does jack shit all his life and was simply born, coincidentally, into a rich family.

[Storming Heaven]

NewKindOfSolider, I am thinking that perhaps we differ over the role of luck in the capitalist system because we have different experiences of it. If I am right in assuming that you hail from one of the older Western nations (most likely the USA or Great Britian), than this may well be the case. I gather that in these countries, there are many people who inherit a lot of wealth, and that wealthy people are largely made through their inheritance, which they may or may not increase. New Zealand (where I live) on the other hand, is a considerably younger nation and they are fewer people with inherited wealth. Most (nearly all) wealthy New Zealanders are self-made.

I also think we may be trying to answer different questions. You seem to be asking why John is wealthier than Joe. In this case luck (being born into a wealthy family, or whatever) may well be a determining factor (though not the only one). At least in my more recent posts, I have been trying to solve the problem of why there are wealthy and poor people in the first place - and I do not find &#39;luck&#39; to be a satisfactory solution, the reasons which I gave in my last post which you quoted.


Im not sure íf you really can apply a "game plan" on convincing people since in the majoriti&#39;s views there are still differences in their beliefs ... All in all, in modern industrialised countries the consent of the governed is given to the state ... There opinion [i.e. that of the governed] is totally shaped by them and even if they dont stand with it they dont see any possibilities what to do for others.

The whole point of my &#39;game plan&#39; was to give a reasoned challenge to the societal beliefs in question. I realise that this is not going to be much effective as long as workers have no material need to question them. My point was that we should expose these &#39;benevolent&#39; material conditions for what they are. If we cannot convince people through argument, what else would you have us do?

[Ligeia]

Originally posted by Storming [email protected] 5 2006, 07:06 AM

The whole point of my &#39;game plan&#39; was to give a reasoned challenge to the societal beliefs in question. I realise that this is not going to be much effective as long as workers have no material need to question them. My point was that we should expose these &#39;benevolent&#39; material conditions for what they are. If we cannot convince people through argument, what else would you have us do?
Well,...ok,I got to fast displeased but this topic always frustrates me...anyway,that&#39;s the question I ask myself and others,as well,what else can we do if most people cant or dont want to be convinced?

Im already studying books about that problem but I still cant see a way,the only way which could be efficient is that an economic crisis rises (harder than the persistent one or something in the way) and the media doesnt try to distract the masses(which is not realisitic,they&#39;ll always do) but at least in such times the people are more likely to hear other ideas...etc.

[bky1701]

One of the major dangers of capitalism is that it creates a false sense of well-being and freedom that is easily manipulated with people noticing.

In itself, capitalism is not horribly bad, but the above is enough reason to see it is a bad thing. It&#39;s what it leads to (sometimes without people even knowing) that is the worst.

[Enragé]

storming heaven, i get your point, on top of that i dont think the issue is so very relevant. As long as we agree that the current system is exploitative, and that simply because it is (in addition to the fact we dont need bosses, managers, leaders) the current system should be smashed, in order for all to live out their lives free from exploitation, opression and inequality.

On the issue of some not being convinced, this will always be the case, some people choose to believe falsehoods because it is easier while others simply have different basic values;

An example of a basic value is "all human beings are inherently, because they are human, of equal worth (through their humanity"...you cannot argue for or against this basic value, yet this value is what is the basis of many ways of thought, including marxism.

Say i simply deny said basic value, simply say some are inherently superior to others, which cant be proven (even though some have tried) nor disproven (its hard to prove a negative, for example it would be near impossible to prove there is no god). You can only disprove this idea by proving the opposite, that all human beings are inherently equal...but as we saw earlier...this is also impossible.
So if i would say some are inherently better than others, no matter how much you argue with me about the benefits of marxism...our arguments would always boil down to me saying "Some people are superior, they therefore deserve more wealth" and you saying "All people are inherently of equal worth, therefore deserve and equal amount of wealth

[coldasdeath0]

well how about this,

worker: okay so capitolism is good, i get good wages, so wht do you hate it so much

person: because you could get exactly what you need in a communist sociaty, whilst allowing others to get exactly what they need.

worker: but what if i want more?

person: as socioty begins to improve after a revolution had (hypothetically) taken place then the economy would improve and gradualy all would recieve luxuries.

worker: ahh i see, but that could take along time

person: it may take time, but eventualy it will become better then capitolism, giving all the same ammount of goods (no money) in respect to there value in practicallity, but there would still be a variaty because of the large population of workers.

worker: but what about bosses, they would still be of higher status then me and make more money or recive more goods than me right?

person: no there status would be the same as yours, only they proform a different task, they would recieve no "fringe benifits" just because they dont do any labour as the system implies now

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 09:55 PM
well how about this,

worker: okay so capitolism is good, i get good wages, so wht do you hate it so much

person: because you could get exactly what you need in a communist sociaty, whilst allowing others to get exactly what they need.

worker: but what if i want more?

person: as socioty begins to improve after a revolution had (hypothetically) taken place then the economy would improve and gradualy all would recieve luxuries.

worker: ahh i see, but that could take along time

person: it may take time, but eventualy it will become better then capitolism, giving all the same ammount of goods (no money) in respect to there value in practicallity, but there would still be a variaty because of the large population of workers.

worker: but what about bosses, they would still be of higher status then me and make more money or recive more goods than me right?

person: no there status would be the same as yours, only they proform a different task, they would recieve no "fringe benifits" just because they dont do any labour as the system implies now
&#39;" person" dont know what he&#39;s talking about (at least partly)

change the discussion to

worker: okay so capitolism is good, i get good wages, so wht do you hate it so much

person: Because what you get is alot less than the wealth you actually produce. Where do you think the profit your boss gets comes from? It comes from the wealth which he in effect steals from you, and he keeps you quiet be giving you just a small percentage of the wealth you produce. In communism everything would belong to everyone, because everyone worked to produce everything.

worker: but what if i want more?

person: If you and your comrades work harder, so you and your comrades will recieve more, because the wealth produced truly belongs to you, and not to some boss.

[worker: ahh i see, but that could take along time

person: it may take time, but eventualy it will become better then capitolism, giving all the same ammount of goods (no money) in respect to there value in practicallity, but there would still be a variaty because of the large population of workers.] (<--- does not fit into where the conversation is leading)

worker: but what about bosses, they would still be of higher status then me and make more money or recive more goods than me right?

person: no there would be no bosses. You and your comrades in for example a factory would control that factory to an as large extent as possible, while the entire society (comprised of equal men and women) keeps control over the economy as a whole.

[1984]

I&#39;ll answer this question with a personal experience. Maybe two.

Last week I was downtown São Paulo, I saw a homeless woman on the streets. She had just changed an old piece of dirty cloth a new-born BABY used as dipers. It seemed I was still on the 19th century, maybe on the dark ages.

I felt so miserable with myself, and that anger... hatred... I wished I&#39;d kill the first suited old swine with a golden watch that I saw.

I felt even worse whan, back home, mother said to me that maybe it was a fake, since it&#39;s not unusual for people that actually have a place to live and maybe even a job pretend to be homeless to gain an extra cash. I mean, what a sick world.

And one more thing - why do rich folks think they&#39;re above the law just because they are from the upper classes? Why do they treat us like garbage? There&#39;s some Audi owner I see at College that INSISTS on driving at 80-100 km/h at roads suited for only 60 km/h? Why this bastard gets so close behind my car and starts horning and all, am I his carpet so he can walk on, just because he&#39;s got an Audi? Come on... I strongly belive that your driving reflects yourself, so basically - if you got an old bug, be prepared because NOBODY is going to respect you.

May sound a bit simplistic but... I guess this reflects a bit of what&#39;s wrong with the modern men.

[Storming Heaven]

On the issue of some not being convinced, this will always be the case, some people choose to believe falsehoods because it is easier while others simply have different basic values;

An example of a basic value is "all human beings are inherently, because they are human, of equal worth (through their humanity"...you cannot argue for or against this basic value, yet this value is what is the basis of many ways of thought, including marxism.


Why do you say that we cannot argue &#39;basic values&#39;? Are they beyond criticism? I acknowledge that there are some things we cannot prove (although the word &#39;prove&#39; raises serious questions here), but perhaps we can show some ideas to be false, or failing that, inferior to other ideas.

Your sentence &#39;choose to believe falsehoods...&#39; is also interesting. I do not think people &#39;choose to believe falsehoods&#39;. I think that people believe falsehoods because they think them true. The sentence &#39;choose to believe falsehoods&#39; implies that they have &#39;seen&#39; the truth, and assumes that truth is &#39;see-able&#39; and recognizable as truth. I do not think that truth is at all &#39;see-able&#39; or obvious in any way - on the contrary I believe it to be elusive; if it is obtainable at all.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Storming [email protected] 7 2006, 04:16 AM


.

Your sentence &#39;choose to believe falsehoods...&#39; is also interesting. I do not think people &#39;choose to believe falsehoods&#39;. I think that people believe falsehoods because they think them true. The sentence &#39;choose to believe falsehoods&#39; implies that they have &#39;seen&#39; the truth, and assumes that truth is &#39;see-able&#39; and recognizable as truth. I do not think that truth is at all &#39;see-able&#39; or obvious in any way - on the contrary I believe it to be elusive; if it is obtainable at all.

Why do you say that we cannot argue &#39;basic values&#39;? Are they beyond criticism? I acknowledge that there are some things we cannot prove (although the word &#39;prove&#39; raises serious questions here), but perhaps we can show some ideas to be false, or failing that, inferior to other ideas

You cant prove them right or wrong, and if you would try to convince someone of the fact that it is better to believe in one idea than the other, because the other is inferior to your standards, you do exactly what i meant with believing in falsehoods. You WANT to believe in them, therefore you do.

Also what i meant with choosing to believe in certain things is that people believe in certain things because it is easier, it does not require thinking, and above all, certain thoughts any sane person would like to believe in, such as the existence of a heaven, a life after death...simply cuz its a nice idea. You can argue with some of those all you want, but they will keep on believing in such things, even if they need to (subconsciously) manufacture some sort of "feeling" which tells them there is in fact a heaven.

[Storming Heaven]

Also what i meant with choosing to believe in certain things is that people believe in certain things because it is easier, it does not require thinking, and above all, certain thoughts any sane person would like to believe in, such as the existence of a heaven, a life after death...simply cuz its a nice idea. You can argue with some of those all you want, but they will keep on believing in such things, even if they need to (subconsciously) manufacture some sort of "feeling" which tells them there is in fact a heaven.

I assume that we are in the business of seeking truth, and that this is our basic goal. I admit that perhaps such goals are beyond any kind of rational discussion or criticism (at least without resorting to ciricular arguments). But if we are on the same page, that is seeking for true beliefs, (and I think that most people do desire true beliefs) then I think even the most fundamental belief can be criticised.

You give the example above as a &#39;fundamental&#39; or &#39;basic&#39; belief, which you claim we cannot destroy by criticism (nor by implication, convince people of).
But I think the above belief is criticisable. I would do so in the following way: first, simply because someone &#39;feels&#39; or believes something to be true does not make it so. Secondly (by the reasoning you pointed out above) the belief is circular - the feeling (from which it is inferred that the belief is true) is produced by the very belief it is meant to verify. Any reasonable person would either accept this criticism or offer arguments against it. On the other hand, if your opponent is not listening to you then there is very little point in arguing with them.

[Enragé]

I would do so in the following way: first, simply because someone &#39;feels&#39; or believes something to be true does not make it so

A religious guy would just say "well it does make it so, i feel it, in my heart, all throughout my body, god is watching over me"
...
so....
well...
what then?

you cant convince that guy its not true, because his belief is not based on anything we consider to be valid evidence of truth

[FidelCastro]

capitalism works in North America because the working class isn&#39;t North American they&#39;re asian or some other race where there is cheap labor.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 11:03 PM
capitalism works in North America because the working class isn&#39;t North American they&#39;re asian or some other race where there is cheap labor.
you&#39;re both right as well as wrong

the working class does exist in the US and western countries, but they&#39;re the labour aristocracy. www.wikipedia.org , look it up :)

[Tormented by Treachery]

At risk of sounding like a capitalist, I daresay that the problem lies more in the corruptible nature of the human, not in the government. That said, the capitalist society is more conducive to this corruption, but nevertheless, it is there. I would think that in a communist society, the few would [eventually] start skimming more off of the top than the workers that they were organizing an equal society for would be getting, thus leading to a form of restricted capitalism in which if you cut the right deals to get the government positions, you are engaging in capitalism. Again, capitalism provides the means for this sooner and with more ease than does a leftist view, but I think there is still an element in communism.

As much as it pains me to say it, the only gameplan for leftism in the United States is to wait it out. The Cold War has so plagued the citizens (self included) that no matter what happens, communism has been so labelled and associated with corruption and evil (now there&#39;s a hoot, right?) that it is practically suicide to associate oneself with socialism. God bless propaganda, correct? The &#39;gameplan&#39; will have to consist of the government in countries becoming more and more transparent as the educators elected and hired on the local levels start teaching a much less government-issue type of history and politics. At this point, the young workers will start to turn to leftism, and thus voters will be had. They will also, if correctly taught, seek truth that shows the disparity between those who have and those who have not, the exploitation, and such, which will create a much more transparent government. Eventually, the masses will break free, and form this government. I believe many moons will pass before we see this.

[Ligeia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 07:57 PM


the working class does exist in the US and western countries, but they&#39;re the labour aristocracy. www.wikipedia.org , look it up :)
Hmmm.....I&#39;ve got a question:in which work does Lenin say that a labor aristocracy does restrict a proletarian revolution andso a revolution is more likely to happen in developing countries?

Did he really come to such a conclusion and if so what solution did he see for the revolution or else in industrial countries?

[pharmer]

This thread has touched on the core &#39;problems&#39; with both communism and capitalism. One that may have not been mentioned is that they are both material based systems. Each society must be in a perpetual growth for the system to provide for its entire population. Capitalism does this by the trickle-down of wealth. If wealth is not being created at the top of the system then there it obviously can’t trickle down to the lower classes. It should be noted that a consequence of the trickle down is that all classes grow unequally in terms of wealth. Thus the disparity between the rich and the poor.
Communism distributes wealth, in the form of goods and services, equally among its peoples. The equal distribution, it is argued, is a more fair system for all, since the growth of the system can be attributed (equally) to all that live in it. Again, a similarity it shares with capitalism is the requirement of infinite growth.
What are some consequences over the long-term existence of these systems? One basic fact which they both ignore (perhaps because they were both created at a time when man didn&#39;t think this possible) is the fact that we live in a world with a finite amount of resource. We, as a species, are limited by what the earth can provide for us. Since both systems require constant growth and subsequently collapse when growth is no longer possible, each one is inherently unstable. The issue, at its core, truly is choosing the lesser of two poisons.

[ComradeOm]

I assume you know of a system that somehow ignores the fact that resources are finite?

[pharmer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 05:47 PM
I assume you know of a system that somehow ignores the fact that resources are finite?
I know that both systems require the input of infinite resource.
If you are asking of me a system that doesn&#39;t ignore the fact of finite resources, then I would have to say that such a system would be an off-shoot of communism.
Communism, as I understand it, would require similar input of enery (preferably cheap) to power its industry. The access to this energy will be distributed differently, but the same input is required to, more or less, maintain our way of life. The consequences of this, as I mentioned, are such that at some point there won&#39;t be enough resources to "go around", food production will fail, manufacturing of good will fail, heating our homes will become impossible, the list goes on.
There are some ideas as to how to make a more sustainable existence for ourselves, but it involves a restructuring of our infrastructure in a HUGE way. Relocalization of industry, from agriculture, to energy production, to distribution of goods and services... this could be a successful way to reduce the amount of energy usage.
A community structure this way would be as self-efficient as possible and would require each resident to contribute equally. The idea is to re-connect people to the amount they consume (energy, food, material goods) thus making them more responsible for their consumption.
This system would involve many parallels of communist theory and in a sense share a similar feeling of connectivity and co-op. It certainly shares almost no commonalities with the current capitalist system, which shouldn&#39;t be much of a surprise as localization is a contradiction to capitalist infrastructure.

[Storming Heaven]

Communism distributes wealth, in the form of goods and services, equally among its peoples. The equal distribution, it is argued, is a more fair system for all, since the growth of the system can be attributed (equally) to all that live in it.

Not necessarily. I think a communist society would (or perhaps I might say, should) be organised along the lines of &#39;from each according to is ability, to each according to his needs&#39; (needs being understood a broard sense as what one might require, rather than simple needs of survival). Will sick people receive the same amount of hospital care as healthy people?

Communistic societies are also supposed to be stateless - in such a world what authority would exist to ensure distribution is equal?

[pharmer]

Originally posted by Storming [email protected] 24 2006, 06:30 AM

Communism distributes wealth, in the form of goods and services, equally among its peoples. The equal distribution, it is argued, is a more fair system for all, since the growth of the system can be attributed (equally) to all that live in it.

Not necessarily. I think a communist society would (or perhaps I might say, should) be organised along the lines of &#39;from each according to is ability, to each according to his needs&#39; (needs being understood a broard sense as what one might require, rather than simple needs of survival). Will sick people receive the same amount of hospital care as healthy people?

Communistic societies are also supposed to be stateless - in such a world what authority would exist to ensure distribution is equal?
The means of productions and the subsequent distribution would be controlled by committees. The factory workers would sit on these committees and distribute their products according to the need of the general populous. I suppose nothing will ever be completely equal (which your "sick person" example demonstrates) but access would be equal throughout society to all goods and services.

Correct me if I&#39;m wrong.

[Storming Heaven]

The factory workers would sit on these committees and distribute their products according to the need of the general populous. ... Correct me if I&#39;m wrong.

I think it is rather pretencious to argue that there&#39;s a &#39;right&#39; or &#39;wrong&#39; manner in which a communist society would be run (aren&#39;t they supposed to be free?). This shouldn&#39;t stop us, however, from debating on how we think they should be run. :P

I think a network of factory committees or soviets that regulate production and distribution is a good idea, but that it should not be necessary for these committees to regulate people&#39;s consumption. To say &#39;you have this, you have that&#39; is Authoritarian domination, one of the things communist society attempts to remove&#33; If some goods are scarce there will obviously be a need to decide who gets them, but I imagine that it should be up to the entire population concerned (that is, the people affected) to decide how to do this, not some pernament governing committee.

[voice of the voiceless]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 11:52 PM
I assume you mean what’s so bad about capitalism in the West today. By past standards not a huge degree. Life is generally good for the majority of the population and capitalism seems to be working. All part of the upside of being born in the right nation, it’s a very different picture elsewhere.

But you can’t create wealth out of nothing. The worker in the West is being indulged, to a degree, because the capitalists can afford to pay generous wages, pensions and whatnot. The economic reason that the capitalist can afford this is due to the savings brought about by using cheap labour in underdeveloped nations. This allows the capitalists to extract a "superprofit", some of which is passed on to the Western proletariat in the form of generous wages et al. In other words, Western society as we know it is built on the backs of Chinese workers.

The shit will hit the fan, so to speak, in the West when this superprofit disappears, either through revolution or natural progression, and the capitalists can no longer afford to keep the proletariat happy without making a loss.
I disagree. I think life is worsening under capitalism in the west. Capitalist governments always try to underfund services like hospitals, for example in England there is record funding for the NHS but because private companies charge so much for medicine the NHS&#39;s funding is being syphoned off by parasties like private companies.
The 8 hour day was won in 1856 and yet 8 hours is becoming more relevant now with many workers being forced to work extremely long shifts. Because Capitalists would rather make one person work for as hard as two for the money of one, their is always problems with unemployment in capitalism. The machine should and could make the working week HUGELY shorter, all it has done is created huge profit and surplus value for bosses which could be facilitated in investing in better and better machinery to make the working week shorter, not just more profitiable.
The minimum wage for many people is the only wage&#33; It now takes two incomes to support a mortgage because there are no public house buildings projects and because private loan companies charge inflated rates in order to generate huge profitis. In the uk, we have the largest wealth gap since records began in the victorian times, with 12 million under the poverty line.
The worker in the West is being indulged, to a degree, because the capitalists can afford to pay generous wages, pensions and whatnot.Also the government is attacking pensions, with 2 million striking recently in the public sector, and yet every MP and boss has a gilt-edged pension, why should we work longer?
Capitalism in the west is also extrememly fragile. Most economies are now hinged on china and on the american consumer boom (funded by credit) when they stop spending, the implications elsewhere will be severe, this is because under capitalism there is no plan for production. If a country does badly investment is withdrawn and it collapses; investment under socialism / communism would be directed into things which NEED investment. Not things which create a profit. An example of the madness in the world in this sense is that 98% or transactions on the world market are not related to any good or service; they are just trading money. And the capitalists blame inflation on workers wage increases&#33;

[voice of the voiceless]

Originally posted by DeathtoPrejudice+Jan 3 2006, 07:42 AM--> (DeathtoPrejudice &#064; Jan 3 2006, 07:42 AM)
People&#39;s [email protected] 23 2005, 11:52 PM
In Communism, everyone had a home, everyone had a job and everyone was treated equal. In a Capitalist Society today in America, over 37 million people live in poverty, of course you don&#39;t hear that in the front page news, instead you hear about the dangers of Bird Flu or how the terrorists are going to nuke a US city.
I wouldn&#39;t say that was the case in china, cambodia, and russia (off the top of my head) During certain periods of time. Even under communism. Of course to my knowledge, some kind of corruption was involved.

not to get off topic[/b]
You are correct. Stalinist countries such as Russia were corrupt, but the economy progressed far quicker than any capitalist economy. Russia went from a feudal, backward nation into putting the first man into space, and the first satellite. This is because under captialism money is wasted on individuals (an i mean a LOT of money) but under even the stalinist countries money was put into more useful things.

However these countries were not democratic and although everyone was guaranteed the basics (more than most people have in Russia under capitalism today- the living standard has gone back ten years&#33;) there was still a privelleged elite which was parasitical in the same way capitalists are.

so we can conlclude- socialist economies are far more efficient than capitalism economies

BUT

they must be democratic. Russia wasnt.

[pharmer]

Originally posted by Storming [email protected] 25 2006, 03:30 AM

The factory workers would sit on these committees and distribute their products according to the need of the general populous. ... Correct me if I&#39;m wrong.

I think it is rather pretencious to argue that there&#39;s a &#39;right&#39; or &#39;wrong&#39; manner in which a communist society would be run (aren&#39;t they supposed to be free?). This shouldn&#39;t stop us, however, from debating on how we think they should be run. :P

I think a network of factory committees or soviets that regulate production and distribution is a good idea, but that it should not be necessary for these committees to regulate people&#39;s consumption. To say &#39;you have this, you have that&#39; is Authoritarian domination, one of the things communist society attempts to remove&#33; If some goods are scarce there will obviously be a need to decide who gets them, but I imagine that it should be up to the entire population concerned (that is, the people affected) to decide how to do this, not some pernament governing committee.
But the argument I am making is that the people themselves control the distribution. The power of distrubuting goods and serives currently is under the control of the few. These theoretical committees would be composed of ordinary people and would be responsible for the equitable distribution of their production.
Contrast this to distribution currently, the factory owner OWNS his products and therefore has no obligation to ensure fair distribution. "Need money to get money"
A factory run by a committee would distribute under the premise that each person has equal ownership of the goods produced. Afterall it was produced from the earth, to which each person on this planet has equal entitlement to it&#39;s resources. Therefore the ensurance of this equality would be overseen by the committee.

What I am suggesting is that someone has to control the means of distribution. Who better than a group of common men who believe in the principles of communism.

[pharmer]

Storming Heaven-
I think a network of factory committees or soviets that regulate production and distribution is a good idea, but that it should not be necessary for these committees to regulate people&#39;s consumption. To say &#39;you have this, you have that&#39; is Authoritarian domination, one of the things communist society attempts to remove&#33; If some goods are scarce there will obviously be a need to decide who gets them, but I imagine that it should be up to the entire population concerned (that is, the people affected) to decide how to do this, not some pernament governing committee.

The reality of our planet requires that consumption be controlled at some level.
In present economic conditions consumption of goods drives production ie. demand forces the supply to increase.
For ANY economic system to function (not just communism) over the long-term consumption must be curtailed by the limits our planet imposes on production. We cannot allow an economic theory based on infinite growth to exist since we live in a finite environment and any such system would be inherently unstable. Predisposed to collapse. This is called darwinian selection. A society (species) which is maladapted to it&#39;s environment will inevitably become extinct.
An advantage that we as humans have is the knowledge of how adaptation functions and perhaps we can develop the foresight to avoid such an end to our species.
At some level the consumption must be controlled. Economic capital doesn&#39;t not equal happiness, there are other types of capital (social, environmental) which could also be factored into the overall economic equation.