Am I Capitalist?

[Gradualist Fool]

According to your guidelines, not only right-wingers' posts are restricted, but "convinced capitalists" are as well, even if they're Liberals. I think that the term 'capitalist' is misconstrued and Classical Liberals are misrepresented. Capitalism is not necessarily "laissez-faire capitalism," just as Socialism isn't necessarily Statism.

I believe some amount of capitalism is necessary for efficiency. Capitalism is more efficient, provided there's anti-trust laws. But we can still be socialistic, steering capitalism with the state, to reach moderate moral goals such as decreasing or even ending poverty. I support a negative income tax instead of direct payment for welfare, but I support universal healthcare. On the other hand, I also oppose the FDA, the ATF, the DEA, and the FCC as being grossly inefficient and outright unnecessary. The state can sometimes increase the aggregate demand through investment in infrastructure, though, and there are countless examples (American and British railways, the Chunnel, Japan's Bullet Train, the Autobahn, even Stalin's collectivization is an example, though it was brutal). And most of all, I believe in Ordoliberalism, that competition isn't natural, but must be enforced.

Finally, I define property rights literally as Proudhon did, for the most part, with an economic outlook such as that of Rousseau -- emphasizing our natural, human differences, rather than our arbitrary civil differences, in other words, letting a man succeed because he worked, not because he inherited it or because of any other circumstance, such as discrimination.

[Wanted Man]

You're a capitalist? Umm, I don't know, do you control the means of production?

You certainly are a bourgeois liberal though. And liberals cannot be "socialistic". The "socialism" of liberals is a perversion of the word, an attempt to steal the word and twist it to constantly further the idea that politics within capitalism are the only politics. :angry:

By the way, liberalism is right-wing.

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 07:38 PM
You're a capitalist? Umm, I don't know, do you control the means of production?

You certainly are a bourgeois liberal though. And liberals cannot be "socialistic". The "socialism" of liberals is a perversion of the word, an attempt to steal the word and twist it to constantly further the idea that politics within capitalism are the only politics. :angry:

By the way, liberalism is right-wing.
Capitalists don't "control the means of the production." Socialist extremists and Communists do. Laissez-faire Capitalists create an environment in which an elite few you call "bourgoisie" take control of the means of the production, but one does not have to be part of that elite to advocate such a system (mostly, out of ignorance). But moderate Capitalism does not advocate any kind of omnipotent "bourgoisie," but incorporates Socialist values and goals, ensuring that it is not tyrannical. Or you could view it differently, and call it a Socialist state which implements capitalistic goals of efficiency.

There is certainly more to politics than economic policy, but economics are certain one large pillar of political policy.

And HOW is Liberalism "right-wing"? :blink:

[Cult of Reason]

Capitalism is more efficient,


capitalistic goals of efficiency.

Evidence?

[LoneRed]

Capitalists don't "control the means of the production." Socialist extremists and Communists do


This is just pricelesse :P

[Dyst]

Capitalists don't "control the means of the production." Socialist extremists and Communists do. Laissez-faire Capitalists create an environment in which an elite few you could bourgoisie take control of the means of the production, but one does not have to be part of that elite to advocate such a system (mostly, out of ignorance). But moderate Capitalism does not advocate any kind of omnipotent "bourgoisie," but incorporates Socialist values and goals, ensuring that it is not tyrannical. Or you could view it differently, and call it a Socialist state which implements capitalistic goals of efficiency.

There is certainly more to politics than economic policy, but economics are certain one large pillar of political policy.

And HOW is Liberalism "right-wing"?

Ouch! It hurts my head, you speak like one who lacks information badly.

Per definition, being a capitalist = owning the means for production, and using labour (workers) as a commodity.

It is rediculous to claim that "socialist extremists" and communists owns the means of production as it is our number one goal to abolish the ability to own it in the first place!

"Moderate capitalism" does not in any way "incorporate" socialist values and goals. Simply because socialist goals are communism, and socialist values are to tax the wealthy down to the level of normal people.

Socialism is the process in which capitalism is flushed down the drain for good.


There is certainly more to politics than economic policy, but economics are certain one large pillar of political policy.

Less than you seem to think.

[Edelweiss]

By the way, liberalism is right-wing.

Very questionable. Both historically, and politically totally wrong actually. I'm not tryimg to protect liberalism here, but just stop misinforming our members like that here please.

While I agree that ecomomic liberalism, and advocating a total free market can considered to be right-wing, I don't think that social liberalism, the bourgeois struggle for individual and societal freedom can be considered to be right-wing at all.

[STI]

"Right-wing" and "Left-wing" are a matter of comparison. Compared to neo-conservatism, liberalism is "left-wing"... but there's more to life than neo-conservatism. If one were to take a look at the whole scope of political philosophies, liberalism would be on the right... it seeks to preserve capitalism and thus, the control of wealth, government, and society by the bourgeoisie.

That's very far to the right of what socialists, communists, and anarchists want - the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement by a socialist or communist society (depending on who you're talking to).

[Edelweiss]

Well, communists and anarchists surely can be considered to be on the far left. So bourgeois liberals are of cours pretty much right-wing from them, especially when it's about questions of class. But within the whole political spectrum I would consider many bourgeois liberal organisations to still be on the "left side".

[Xanthus]

Originally posted by Blue Dog [email protected] 8 2006, 11:43 AM
Capitalists don't "control the means of the production." Socialist extremists and Communists do. Laissez-faire Capitalists create an environment in which an elite few you call "bourgoisie" take control of the means of the production, but one does not have to be part of that elite to advocate such a system (mostly, out of ignorance). But moderate Capitalism does not advocate any kind of omnipotent "bourgoisie," but incorporates Socialist values and goals, ensuring that it is not tyrannical. Or you could view it differently, and call it a Socialist state which implements capitalistic goals of efficiency.

There is certainly more to politics than economic policy, but economics are certain one large pillar of political policy.

And HOW is Liberalism "right-wing"? :blink:
Ok... how to put this simply, without writing for an hour....

1. You can't go backwards through time, abolishing large corperations won't work because the power brokers in society will never allow it. It would be equally hard to establish a small-buisness oriented economy as socialism, but without the class base to do it. Also, small buisness is inherently LESS efficient then large buisness, which is why they were outcompeted in the first place.

2. Nobody ever said Liberalism was an extreme bourgeois philosophy, it's generally considered to be a "moderate" bourgeois philosophy, and acutally played a progressive reformist role early in the life of capitalism, though that time is LONG over. It is however, strictly in the interests of the posessing class, and that class very much likes to posess more and more, therefore it is reactionary and right-wing. Any philosophy which attempts to even out the situation economically is a polar opposite of Liberalism for that reason.

3. The elite does not advocate that system "out of ignorance" but because it's in their interests!

4. I'm sorry, but the anarchy of the capitalist market is not in any way, shape, or form, more efficient then a planned economy. That statement is absolutely rediculous. If you are attepting to take the example of USSR in it's waning years, that was an absurd characature of socialism. It's beurocracy was completely unable to manage the economy, as was predicted by Trotsky and countless other Marxists who know that (as Trotsky put it best) "democracy is the lifeblood of socialism".

5. Capitalism was never as moderate as you say, even before laissez-faire came into vogue. Or do you think the factories of the industrial revolution era were significantly better then those of international corporations today?

6. Capitalism RELIES on unemployed and impoverished people. You cannot eliminate them without crippling the entire economic system.

7. Not allowing large corperations in no way, shape, or form eliminates the bourgoisie. A capitalist (or member of the bourgoisie) is simply someone who doesn't have to work (outside managing his investments... unless he pays people to do that for him) because he owns the means of production and can employ other people to make money for him. And yes, ownership implies control, and no, you cannot have a capitalist buisness without someone owning it.

I could go on for hours on these subjects, but I'll stop here.

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by Haraldur+Mar 8 2006, 07:53 PM--> (Haraldur @ Mar 8 2006, 07:53 PM)
Capitalism is more efficient,


capitalistic goals of efficiency.

Evidence?[/b]
Well, there are Conservatives that would claim I'm a Socialist for my "socialistic goals," my support for social welfare and universal healthcare, and my belief that while capitalism is more efficient, Socialism is more moral.


Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 07:56 PM

Capitalists don't "control the means of the production." Socialist extremists and Communists do


This is just pricelesse :P
Right-wing Fascists such as Hitler, Mussolini, and Pinochet too.


[email protected] 8 2006, 08:03 PM

Capitalists don't "control the means of the production." Socialist extremists and Communists do. Laissez-faire Capitalists create an environment in which an elite few you could bourgoisie take control of the means of the production, but one does not have to be part of that elite to advocate such a system (mostly, out of ignorance). But moderate Capitalism does not advocate any kind of omnipotent "bourgoisie," but incorporates Socialist values and goals, ensuring that it is not tyrannical. Or you could view it differently, and call it a Socialist state which implements capitalistic goals of efficiency.

There is certainly more to politics than economic policy, but economics are certain one large pillar of political policy.

And HOW is Liberalism "right-wing"?

Ouch! It hurts my head, you speak like one who lacks information badly.

Per definition, being a capitalist = owning the means for production, and using labour (workers) as a commodity.

It is rediculous to claim that "socialist extremists" and communists owns the means of production as it is our number one goal to abolish the ability to own it in the first place!

"Moderate capitalism" does not in any way "incorporate" socialist values and goals. Simply because socialist goals are communism, and socialist values are to tax the wealthy down to the level of normal people.

Socialism is the process in which capitalism is flushed down the drain for good.


There is certainly more to politics than economic policy, but economics are certain one large pillar of political policy.

Less than you seem to think.
Well, if that's how you define capitalism, then no, I do not own a business and I do not treat workers like a commodity, so I am not a Socialist.

And if that's how you define Socialism, then yes, this idea of getting rid of monopolies and treating workers like a commodity is good.

However, if "getting rid of capitalism for good," means total wealth redistribution and implementing, "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability," then no, that's just as extremist and evil is laissez-faire capitalism. In Laissez-faire Capitalism, big business exploits and alienates the people, as Marx rightfully said. But in Communism, the STATE exploits and alienates the people just as much.

Neoconservatism is nothing but a synthesis of Trotskyism and Capitalism. This is why I'll often refer to Neoconservatism as "Neotrotskyism," because that's exactly what it is. They are certainly authoritarian imperialists, but they derive their beliefs from Trotsky'S own authoritarian imperialism. They see themselves as the "vanguard" of America, that the state will inherently grow to a point of revolution, and when that point comes, America must be the most powerful nation in the world or risk facing tyranny. And to furthermore establish America's strength, they are imperialists, invading countries such as Iraq for their own domestic benefit, exploiting Africa, South America, and Asia too.

But there is little difference between such a policy and Trotskyism, except capitalism. Whereas Neocons moderately accept Capitalism and establish imperialism for American values, Trotsky rejected Capitalism and supported establishing imperialism (aka the "permanent revolution") in order to spread Communist values. A large number of these Neoconservatives used to be Socialists, especially Trotskyists, and the ideological link is there.

Furthermore, Liberals are not merely to the "left" of Neoconservatism, but to the left of just plain Conservatism. In America, there are two dominant ideologies: Liberalism and Conservatism. Liberalism is thought to be "left" and Conservative is thought to be "right," because they are large and in opposition to eachother. Communism and Marxism, however, is all but dead in America, in fact, all but dead in the majority of the civilized world, adhered to only by terrorist groups and fanatics such as yourselves. So, it is outright ridiculous to assert that everything that is to the right of Marx is right-wing. To use your own way of putting it, just as there's more than Neoconservatism, there's more than Marxism.

And finally, for a large number of various reasons, the left\right spectrum is fundamentally flawed.

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by Xanthus+Mar 8 2006, 08:45 PM--> (Xanthus @ Mar 8 2006, 08:45 PM)
Blue Dog [email protected] 8 2006, 11:43 AM
Capitalists don't "control the means of the production." Socialist extremists and Communists do. Laissez-faire Capitalists create an environment in which an elite few you call "bourgoisie" take control of the means of the production, but one does not have to be part of that elite to advocate such a system (mostly, out of ignorance). But moderate Capitalism does not advocate any kind of omnipotent "bourgoisie," but incorporates Socialist values and goals, ensuring that it is not tyrannical. Or you could view it differently, and call it a Socialist state which implements capitalistic goals of efficiency.

There is certainly more to politics than economic policy, but economics are certain one large pillar of political policy.

And HOW is Liberalism "right-wing"? :blink:
Ok... how to put this simply, without writing for an hour....

1. You can't go backwards through time, abolishing large corperations won't work because the power brokers in society will never allow it. It would be equally hard to establish a small-buisness oriented economy as socialism, but without the class base to do it. Also, small buisness is inherently LESS efficient then large buisness, which is why they were outcompeted in the first place.

2. Nobody ever said Liberalism was an extreme bourgeois philosophy, it's generally considered to be a "moderate" bourgeois philosophy, and acutally played a progressive reformist role early in the life of capitalism, though that time is LONG over. It is however, strictly in the interests of the posessing class, and that class very much likes to posess more and more, therefore it is reactionary and right-wing. Any philosophy which attempts to even out the situation economically is a polar opposite of Liberalism for that reason.

3. The elite does not advocate that system "out of ignorance" but because it's in their interests!

4. I'm sorry, but the anarchy of the capitalist market is not in any way, shape, or form, more efficient then a planned economy. That statement is absolutely rediculous. If you are attepting to take the example of USSR in it's waning years, that was an absurd characature of socialism. It's beurocracy was completely unable to manage the economy, as was predicted by Trotsky and countless other Marxists who know that (as Trotsky put it best) "democracy is the lifeblood of socialism".

5. Capitalism was never as moderate as you say, even before laissez-faire came into vogue. Or do you think the factories of the industrial revolution era were significantly better then those of international corporations today?

6. Capitalism RELIES on unemployed and impoverished people. You cannot eliminate them without crippling the entire economic system.

7. Not allowing large corperations in no way, shape, or form eliminates the bourgoisie. A capitalist (or member of the bourgoisie) is simply someone who doesn't have to work (outside managing his investments... unless he pays people to do that for him) because he owns the means of production and can employ other people to make money for him. And yes, ownership implies control, and no, you cannot have a capitalist buisness without someone owning it.

I could go on for hours on these subjects, but I'll stop here.[/b]
So, everything that isn't derived from Marxism is reactionary and right-wing?

[Xanthus]

Originally posted by Blue Dog [email protected] 8 2006, 12:48 PM
So, everything that isn't derived from Marxism is reactionary and right-wing?
No, everything which furthers the interests of the exploiting class against the interests of the controlled classes is right-wing.

Did you even read my post? I was talking mostly about the complete impossibility of the solution you offered, and very little about how 'reactionary' or not it was. You don't seem to be a person completely opposed to logical thought, so please do me a favor and give it another read, with some thought attached.

Cheers.

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by Xanthus+Mar 8 2006, 08:52 PM--> (Xanthus @ Mar 8 2006, 08:52 PM)
Blue Dog [email protected] 8 2006, 12:48 PM
So, everything that isn't derived from Marxism is reactionary and right-wing?
No, everything which furthers the interests of the exploiting class against the interests of the controlled classes is right-wing.

Did you even read my post? I was talking mostly about the complete impossibility of the solution you offered, and very little about how 'reactionary' or not it was. You don't seem to be a person completely opposed to logical thought, so please do me a favor and give it another read, with some thought attached.

Cheers. [/b]
But that's just another way of saying "anything that isn't Communist."

Not every ideology agrees with this concept of bourgoisie and proletariat, but sees varying degrees of oppression and control, neither side always being totally correct...

To respond to the above post, point-by-point:

1. The political system that is established can create a system of incentive whereby the people have more power than corporations. For instance, if direct democracy or at least some form of participatory democracy is established, the power is in the hands of the people and the corporations cannot afford to bribe all or even a majority of the people. Therefore, there cannot be any "corporatism." Hence, Communism is not necessary to destroy the power of business interests. All that is necessary is democracy.

2. (As I said in the previous post) It seems like you're saying that everything that isn't derived from Marxism is reactionary and right-wing.

3. Not all of the elite advocates it out of ignorance, but some do. And still, more, my point was that there are people that aren't a part of the elite that support capitalism. Believe it or not, there ARE poor and middle-class workers that support laissez-faire capitalism!

4. It is not anarchy, but travels along a SOMEWHAT predictable path economically. Now, I won't defend economics as a science, because it's largely flawed, but the general principles behind it are correct. And planned economies don't work because they go against one of the most important principles of all: incentive. One only needs to accept "supply and demand" and "incentive" to understand why capitalism is more efficient.

5. Capitalism in Europe today is moderate.

6. Laissez-faire capitalism, yes. A mixed-market or "social market" economy, no.

7. Why does owning a business suddenly make you a "capitalist," and how does simply owning a business and having property make you a threat? With Marx, it wasn't small businesses that were a threat. It was large businesses and robber barons. Had anti-trust laws, labor laws, and a minimum wage existed back then, they would've faced little problems.

[Xanthus]

Originally posted by Blue Dog [email protected] 8 2006, 12:47 PM
Neoconservatism is nothing but a synthesis of Trotskyism and Capitalism. This is why I'll often refer to Neoconservatism as "Neotrotskyism," because that's exactly what it is. They are certainly authoritarian imperialists, but they derive their beliefs from Trotsky'S own authoritarian imperialism. They see themselves as the "vanguard" of America, that the state will inherently grow to a point of revolution, and when that point comes, America must be the most powerful nation in the world or risk facing tyranny. And to furthermore establish America's strength, they are imperialists, invading countries such as Iraq for their own domestic benefit, exploiting Africa, South America, and Asia too.

But there is little difference between such a policy and Trotskyism, except capitalism. Whereas Neocons moderately accept Capitalism and establish imperialism for American values, Trotsky rejected Capitalism and supported establishing imperialism (aka the "permanent revolution") in order to spread Communist values. A large number of these Neoconservatives used to be Socialists, especially Trotskyists, and the ideological link is there.
Are you kidding???

This must be a joke, or otherwise I completely withdraw my previous statement about you seeming like a person not opposed to thought.

Trotsky, above all considerations, was a crusader for democracy. He fought the beurocratisation of the Soviet Union until his death and wrote text after text about the need for democracy. Did you read the quote in my previous post: "democracy is the lifeblood of socialism".

There are two types of misinformed people. Those who don't know, and those who think they know but have such a distorted view of reality that they're unable to make any sense at all. The post I'm quoting from very clearly represents the latter, though your first post seemed to represent the former.

Please, do me another favor. Before spouting any more nonsense about "neo-trotskyism", and making yourself look like a fool, READ TROTSKY! I recommend starting with Revolution Betrayed, a scathing critisism of Stalin's dictatorship. Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/)

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by Xanthus+Mar 8 2006, 09:00 PM--> (Xanthus @ Mar 8 2006, 09:00 PM)
Blue Dog [email protected] 8 2006, 12:47 PM
Neoconservatism is nothing but a synthesis of Trotskyism and Capitalism. This is why I'll often refer to Neoconservatism as "Neotrotskyism," because that's exactly what it is. They are certainly authoritarian imperialists, but they derive their beliefs from Trotsky'S own authoritarian imperialism. They see themselves as the "vanguard" of America, that the state will inherently grow to a point of revolution, and when that point comes, America must be the most powerful nation in the world or risk facing tyranny. And to furthermore establish America's strength, they are imperialists, invading countries such as Iraq for their own domestic benefit, exploiting Africa, South America, and Asia too.

But there is little difference between such a policy and Trotskyism, except capitalism. Whereas Neocons moderately accept Capitalism and establish imperialism for American values, Trotsky rejected Capitalism and supported establishing imperialism (aka the "permanent revolution") in order to spread Communist values. A large number of these Neoconservatives used to be Socialists, especially Trotskyists, and the ideological link is there.
Are you kidding???

This must be a joke, or otherwise I completely withdraw my previous statement about you seeming like a person not opposed to thought.

Trotsky, above all considerations, was a crusader for democracy. He fought the beurocratisation of the Soviet Union until his death and wrote text after text about the need for democracy. Did you read the quote in my previous post: "democracy is the lifeblood of socialism".

There are two types of misinformed people. Those who don't know, and those who think they know but have such a distorted view of reality that they're unable to make any sense at all. The post I'm quoting from very clearly represents the latter, though your first post seemed to represent the former.

Please, do me another favor. Before spouting any more nonsense about "neo-trotskyism", and making yourself look like a fool, READ TROTSKY! I recommend starting with Revolution Betrayed, a scathing critisism of Stalin's dictatorship. Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/) [/b]
Trotsky was a crusader for democracy after Stalin took over, yes. :P But if he was such a support of democracy, then explain his theory on the "vanguard of the proletarian." It is nothing more than authoritarianism. And while I haven't read any of Trotsky's work, I have taken Political Science 101, which included quite a bit of information on Communism and Karl Marx.

It's also interesting how you characterize him as a "crusader for democracy," when that's precisely how Neocons characterize soldiers in Iraq.

Furthermore, Democracy is not the "lifeblood of Socialism," but of the mixed market. In a democracy, each person's incentive is towards their own individual survival and the group's survival. Which means that the most efficient system will be that which benefits us the most -- the inefficiency of socialism will lead to more capitalist reforms and the immorality and desparity of capitalism will lead to more socialist reforms. And so, true democracy will establish a "golden mean", "a divine middle-ground" between capitalism and socialism, so that society benefits from the merits of both.

[Xanthus]

Ok, I'll make this my last post on this subject for the same reason that I didn't want my first post to take an hour (which *checks watch* it now officially has).


Originally posted by Blue Dog Liberal+Mar 8 2006, 12:48 PM--> (Blue Dog Liberal @ Mar 8 2006, 12:48 PM)
[/b]


Originally posted by Blue Dog [email protected] 8 2006, 12:48 PM

1. The political system that is established can create a system of incentive whereby the people have more power than corporations. For instance, if direct democracy or at least some form of participatory democracy is established, the power is in the hands of the people and the corporations cannot afford to bribe all or even a majority of the people. Therefore, there cannot be any "corporatism." Hence, Communism is not necessary to destroy the power of business interests. All that is necessary is democracy.

Yes, it in theory CAN be created. However, the problem is that when the power to make such a change is in the hands of the ones who own the corporations, this will never happen without a revolution. A leader will lead in his interests, and his class' interests, not in someone else's. So that goes back to my original point. Who's your revolutionary class? Can you see an army of small-buisness owners storming Washington to bring the capitalist fat-cats down out of their government positions? Both political parties are controlled by capitalism, and therefore won't do anything to hurt capitalism. This should be obvious.


Originally posted by Blue Dog [email protected] 8 2006, 12:48 PM

2. (As I said in the previous post) It seems like you're saying that everything that isn't derived from Marxism is reactionary and right-wing.

I am not saying that whatsoever. I am saying that there are two opposing forces quite regardless of what you choose to call them, those exploited by wage labour and those who live off the exploitation. You can either help one side or the other through policy, but not both because there interests are in direct opposition. That is the very nature of "right" and "left" wing. Also note that I did say the Liberals had played a progressive role. I am not pigeonholeing them. There were many reforms made in the industrial-revolution era as a result of Liberal (moderate) policy, which helped the workers as an alternative to the workers being worked to death or rebelling, which was certainly not in the interests of capitalism. Since the advent of labour parties, unions, and other forms of working class organisation, the Liberals have never again played that role, though at times they have relented to the pressure of the working class organisations.


Originally posted by Blue Dog [email protected] 8 2006, 12:48 PM

3. Not all of the elite advocates it out of ignorance, but some do. And still, more, my point was that there are people that aren't a part of the elite that support capitalism. Believe it or not, there ARE poor and middle-class workers that support laissez-faire capitalism!

Yes, there are, and that is ignorance. Actually, I misread your quote on this one, I thought you were refering to the elite when you mentioned ignorance.


Originally posted by Blue Dog [email protected] 8 2006, 12:48 PM

4. It is not anarchy, but travels along a SOMEWHAT predictable path economically. Now, I won't defend economics as a science, because it's largely flawed, but the general principles behind it are correct. And planned economies don't work because they go against one of the most important principles of all: incentive. One only needs to accept "supply and demand" and "incentive" to understand why capitalism is more efficient.

I'd agree that it operates along a somewhat predictable path. Infact, Marx really hit the nail on the head with his predictions made 150 years ago. He invisioned such concepts as globalisation very close to the way they turned out. This is because those in power will ultimately use that power to leverage society more and more to their advantage. This has been proven true by every epoc in history, and capitalism has been no different.

Also, I can predict with reasonable certainty at this point that there will be a major resession in the not too distant future (though economics being very inexact, I cannot specify when), simply becasue of the current economic balence sheet. The world economy right now is growing only on the basis of credit spending in the west (which I'd describe like an elastic band, you can stretch debt only so far before you must release and it'll snap back on you), property prices rising way beyond historical president (and bubbles must burst), and growing overproduction in China (currently being sustained by the first two points). The current situation is actually not unlike the period directly preceeding the depression, except far more extreme.

Within a democratically planned economy, insentive is not sacrificed as it is in a beurocratically controlled economy.

As for supply and demand, this only follows to a certain extent. Many markets are price-fixed (such as gas at the pumps, or the way much of our food production is dumped into the ocean to "lower supply") and also many are based on speculative investment, which is not strictly supply/demand driven in a classical sense.


Originally posted by Blue Dog [email protected] 8 2006, 12:48 PM

5. Capitalism in Europe today is moderate.

Relative to the USA, yes. However, let's take a look at Europe to see what's really going on, very briefly anyway. Look at any European country and we see building labour movements against the attacks of the ruling class in the recent period. There has been a general strike wave criss-crossing the continent.

Even if we disregard the labour movement (as many capitalist have a tendancy to), how do you explain the riots in France except a system WAY out of balence?

Also, there's the simple point that Europe (like North America) is propped up by it's economic imperialism. The starving workers of Asia, Eastern Europe, Aftrica, and Latin America do a great deal to ease the burden capitalism places on the masses of the "west".


Originally posted by Blue Dog [email protected] 8 2006, 12:48 PM

6. Laissez-faire capitalism, yes. A mixed-market or "social market" economy, no.


To be honest, I'm not entirely familiar with the concept of a "social market", and have only a surface level knowledge of it, so I can't accurately debate it's peculiarities. However, to maintain competition which you've already refered to as being capitalism's advantage, price-point competition on manufactured goods must exist, no?

Capitalism relies on the gap between the amount a worker is paid and the amount of profit worker can produce for the company. This is known to marxism as "excess value" and no matter what a person calls it, it is the entire basis of profit.

So, after adding price-point competition to the mix, the amount a worker is paid must be lowered to the lowest possible amount, so that profit can still be made while lowering prices to be competitive.


Blue Dog [email protected] 8 2006, 12:48 PM

7. Why does owning a business suddenly make you a "capitalist," and how does simply owning a business and having property make you a threat? With Marx, it wasn't small businesses that were a threat. It was large businesses and robber barons. Had anti-trust laws, labor laws, and a minimum wage existed back then, they would've faced little problems.

Owning a buisness does not make you a "capitalist". For example, a person who owns a small corner shop and works all day at it, is very definitely in the catagory of lower levels of the petty-bourgeois, and infact, tends to usually side with the masses in a revolutionary situation. However, when we look at something like a factory, how many factory owners do you know that work on the shop floor?

A capitalist is someone who rather then working himself (and this does not include management, since a worker's council is fully capable of doing that, as countless historical and modern examples proove), pays others to work for him, and collects profits (the gap between what an employee's labour generates and the amount the employee is paid). This is by definition a parasitic role, as the income of a capitalist comes from the excess value of the emplyees.

[Xanthus]

Originally posted by Blue Dog Liberal+Mar 8 2006, 01:09 PM--> (Blue Dog Liberal @ Mar 8 2006, 01:09 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 09:00 PM

Blue Dog [email protected] 8 2006, 12:47 PM
Neoconservatism is nothing but a synthesis of Trotskyism and Capitalism. This is why I'll often refer to Neoconservatism as "Neotrotskyism," because that's exactly what it is. They are certainly authoritarian imperialists, but they derive their beliefs from Trotsky'S own authoritarian imperialism. They see themselves as the "vanguard" of America, that the state will inherently grow to a point of revolution, and when that point comes, America must be the most powerful nation in the world or risk facing tyranny. And to furthermore establish America's strength, they are imperialists, invading countries such as Iraq for their own domestic benefit, exploiting Africa, South America, and Asia too.

But there is little difference between such a policy and Trotskyism, except capitalism. Whereas Neocons moderately accept Capitalism and establish imperialism for American values, Trotsky rejected Capitalism and supported establishing imperialism (aka the "permanent revolution") in order to spread Communist values. A large number of these Neoconservatives used to be Socialists, especially Trotskyists, and the ideological link is there.
Are you kidding???

This must be a joke, or otherwise I completely withdraw my previous statement about you seeming like a person not opposed to thought.

Trotsky, above all considerations, was a crusader for democracy. He fought the beurocratisation of the Soviet Union until his death and wrote text after text about the need for democracy. Did you read the quote in my previous post: "democracy is the lifeblood of socialism".

There are two types of misinformed people. Those who don't know, and those who think they know but have such a distorted view of reality that they're unable to make any sense at all. The post I'm quoting from very clearly represents the latter, though your first post seemed to represent the former.

Please, do me another favor. Before spouting any more nonsense about "neo-trotskyism", and making yourself look like a fool, READ TROTSKY! I recommend starting with Revolution Betrayed, a scathing critisism of Stalin's dictatorship. Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/)
Trotsky was a crusader for democracy after Stalin took over, yes. :P But if he was such a support of democracy, then explain his theory on the "vanguard of the proletarian." It is nothing more than authoritarianism. And while I haven't read any of Trotsky's work, I have taken Political Science 101, which included quite a bit of information on Communism and Karl Marx.

It's also interesting how you characterize him as a "crusader for democracy," when that's precisely how Neocons characterize soldiers in Iraq.

Furthermore, Democracy is not the "lifeblood of Socialism," but of the mixed market. In a democracy, each person's incentive is towards their own individual survival and the group's survival. Which means that the most efficient system will be that which benefits us the most -- the inefficiency of socialism will lead to more capitalist reforms and the immorality and desparity of capitalism will lead to more socialist reforms. And so, true democracy will establish a "golden mean", "a divine middle-ground" between capitalism and socialism, so that society benefits from the merits of both. [/b]
Lol, I can't help but make one more ever-so-brief post, then I'll close this topic to avoid further temptation to not get work done, which needs doing.

Yes, "crusader" was a very inappropriate word, it has implications I didn't intend. But such is the nature of a quick messageboard post without adequate proof-reading.

Second, don't believe what you hear in "Political Science 101", courses like that contain more misconceptions then truths. They, like everything else in the world, come from a very definite perspective, and are influenced by that perspective. In the case of marxism, very few understand it's methods, and even fewer teach the true methods. You certainly won't hear them in 99% of universities. If you did, we'd see a whole lot more revolutionarys, and that really wouldn't suit those in charge of universities. Besides, who says professors are immune to 90 years of propaganda?


And so, true democracy will establish a "golden mean", "a divine middle-ground" between capitalism and socialism, so that society benefits from the merits of both.

Wow, I wish I had your idealism. The nature of class society and the current development of capitalism precludes that possibility, but in a utopian world, it would be nice... not as nice as communism (which is possible, though not easy), but none the less, quite a nice dream...

I think I've done a fairly decent job considering my lack of days to write detailed proofs at prooving (if one follows up on the points with more reading, which I certainly don't have time to present here) exactly why that dream is and will remain just that, a utopian dream.

[Dyst]

But in Communism, the STATE exploits and alienates the people just as much.

Sigh.

In communism, the state does not exist.

You are talking about Soviet. 100 years ago. It was state-capitalist, we all know that.

Let it go. Forget it, please.

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by Xanthus+Mar 8 2006, 09:31 PM--> (Xanthus @ Mar 8 2006, 09:31 PM)Ok, I'll make this my last post on this subject for the same reason that I didn't want my first post to take an hour (which *checks watch* it now officially has).


Originally posted by Blue Dog [email protected] 8 2006, 12:48 PM




Originally posted by Blue Dog [email protected] 8 2006, 12:48 PM

1. The political system that is established can create a system of incentive whereby the people have more power than corporations. For instance, if direct democracy or at least some form of participatory democracy is established, the power is in the hands of the people and the corporations cannot afford to bribe all or even a majority of the people. Therefore, there cannot be any "corporatism." Hence, Communism is not necessary to destroy the power of business interests. All that is necessary is democracy.

Yes, it in theory CAN be created. However, the problem is that when the power to make such a change is in the hands of the ones who own the corporations, this will never happen without a revolution. A leader will lead in his interests, and his class' interests, not in someone else's. So that goes back to my original point. Who's your revolutionary class? Can you see an army of small-buisness owners storming Washington to bring the capitalist fat-cats down out of their government positions? Both political parties are controlled by capitalism, and therefore won't do anything to hurt capitalism. This should be obvious.[/b]
In which case I'd agree, except:

1. It is a DEMOCRATIC revolution, not a COMMUNIST revolution. The goal should not be to establish any particular policy, but merely a system fo governing policy -- that is, letting people decide how it is that they should be governed.

2. Unprovoked violence is no justification for revolution. Only when and if we do reach the kind of critical point described by Marx, where we are oppressed to an unimaginable extent, would revolution be justified.


Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by Blue Dog [email protected] 8 2006, 12:48 PM

2. (As I said in the previous post) It seems like you're saying that everything that isn't derived from Marxism is reactionary and right-wing.
I am not saying that whatsoever. I am saying that there are two opposing forces quite regardless of what you choose to call them, those exploited by wage labour and those who live off the exploitation. You can either help one side or the other through policy, but not both because there interests are in direct opposition. That is the very nature of "right" and "left" wing. Also note that I did say the Liberals had played a progressive role. I am not pigeonholeing them. There were many reforms made in the industrial-revolution era as a result of Liberal (moderate) policy, which helped the workers as an alternative to the workers being worked to death or rebelling, which was certainly not in the interests of capitalism. Since the advent of labour parties, unions, and other forms of working class organisation, the Liberals have never again played that role, though at times they have relented to the pressure of the working class organisations.
According to you, their interests are in direct opposition. I certainly agree that the poor are almost always oppressed more than the wealthy and you really can't exactly "oppress" the wealthy. It is more of a crime for a child to starve than for a wealthy person to pay a higher tax. But nevertheless, that's not to say I should immediately disregard the wealthy man's rights and his well-being. All people are of equal value, whether wealthy or poor. If I refuse to side with one or the other, then which am I?

I must remind you of a quote I'm fond of:
"Extreme opposites resemble the other. Each believes that we have only two choices: appeasement or war, suicide or surrender, humiliation or holocaust, to be either Red or dead."
-President John F. Kennedy

A person does not need to serve the bourgoisie or the proletarian. You're creating what logic calls a false dichotomy and what psychology calls an "us and them" mentality. In Sociology, viewing society as class struggle in only one of three outlooks. In political ideologies, only Marxist ideologies think in terms of class, between proletarian and bourgoisie. So, when you assert that we must all be defenders of the proletarian to be "leftist," then as I said, the only ones who can be leftists are Marxists. And that's a completely convoluted distortion of the term "leftist." Not all Leftists are Socialists.


Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by Blue Dog [email protected] 8 2006, 12:48 PM

4. It is not anarchy, but travels along a SOMEWHAT predictable path economically. Now, I won't defend economics as a science, because it's largely flawed, but the general principles behind it are correct. And planned economies don't work because they go against one of the most important principles of all: incentive. One only needs to accept "supply and demand" and "incentive" to understand why capitalism is more efficient.
I'd agree that it operates along a somewhat predictable path. Infact, Marx really hit the nail on the head with his predictions made 150 years ago. He invisioned such concepts as globalisation very close to the way they turned out. This is because those in power will ultimately use that power to leverage society more and more to their advantage. This has been proven true by every epoc in history, and capitalism has been no different.

Also, I can predict with reasonable certainty at this point that there will be a major resession in the not too distant future (though economics being very inexact, I cannot specify when), simply becasue of the current economic balence sheet. The world economy right now is growing only on the basis of credit spending in the west (which I'd describe like an elastic band, you can stretch debt only so far before you must release and it'll snap back on you), property prices rising way beyond historical president (and bubbles must burst), and growing overproduction in China (currently being sustained by the first two points). The current situation is actually not unlike the period directly preceeding the depression, except far more extreme.

Within a democratically planned economy, insentive is not sacrificed as it is in a beurocratically controlled economy.

As for supply and demand, this only follows to a certain extent. Many markets are price-fixed (such as gas at the pumps, or the way much of our food production is dumped into the ocean to "lower supply") and also many are based on speculative investment, which is not strictly supply/demand driven in a classical sense.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Political Ideologies class, I learned that Marx predicted that capitalism would be overthrown within 50 years. But it never happened, so people abandoned Marxism, forming two camps: the Anarchists and the Fabian Socialists (as well as other moderate, Democratic Socialists). In addition, economics as a science is so flawed that NO ONE, especially Marx, could make predictions 150 years into the future. And I'd say his suggestions for policy were brilliant, but he was an arrogant, lazy extremist.

And there's two major differences between the time before the Great Depression and now:
1) We have a fiat standard instead of a gold standard.
2) We have more socialist reforms, all over the world.

Secondly, an economy doesn't necessarily need to be "planned." It should be democratic, yes, but not necessarily planned. Adam Smith's "invisible hand," is taken to a ridiculous extreme. Markets are not flawless. They need regulation, but not total control with an iron fist. People must have a REASON to buy and sell goods in order for such exchanges to occur. When you take control of an economy, people have no reason to work other than to please the state. In response, planned economies must be oppressive, with the threat of death for not producing goods. This is how extreme capitalism oppresses the people and this is also how Communism has oppressed the people.


Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by Blue Dog [email protected] 8 2006, 12:48 PM

5. Capitalism in Europe today is moderate.Relative to the USA, yes. However, let's take a look at Europe to see what's really going on, very briefly anyway. Look at any European country and we see building labour movements against the attacks of the ruling class in the recent period. There has been a general strike wave criss-crossing the continent.

Even if we disregard the labour movement (as many capitalist have a tendancy to), how do you explain the riots in France except a system WAY out of balence?

Also, there's the simple point that Europe (like North America) is propped up by it's economic imperialism. The starving workers of Asia, Eastern Europe, Aftrica, and Latin America do a great deal to ease the burden capitalism places on the masses of the "west".
There were riots in France, first of all, because France is a politically extremist country. It always has been. They've been through, what, five republics now? Five revolutions? Secondly, it was largely in response to the French government's oppression of Muslims and mishandling of the economy, not for being too capitalist. France, by comparison, is one of the most Socialist states in the world.


Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by Blue Dog [email protected] 8 2006, 12:48 PM

6. Laissez-faire capitalism, yes. A mixed-market or "social market" economy, no.
To be honest, I'm not entirely familiar with the concept of a "social market", and have only a surface level knowledge of it, so I can't accurately debate it's peculiarities. However, to maintain competition which you've already refered to as being capitalism's advantage, price-point competition on manufactured goods must exist, no?

Capitalism relies on the gap between the amount a worker is paid and the amount of profit worker can produce for the company. This is known to marxism as "excess value" and no matter what a person calls it, it is the entire basis of profit.

So, after adding price-point competition to the mix, the amount a worker is paid must be lowered to the lowest possible amount, so that profit can still be made while lowering prices to be competitive.
Price point competition would exist in most cases, yes, but I don't see how that's a problem. Price points aren't necessarily decided by cartels, if that's what you're suggesting. With adequate anti-trust laws to break apart monopolies and oligopolies, price point competition would exist, but it wouldn't be a problem because it's simply human nature because they are easier numbers for producers and consumers to work with. Economic efficiency, period, requires giving people as a whole a reason to work. Communism provides no such incentive. After being established, its only remedy is to create an incentive: violence and the threat of violence.

I don't really see how price points would necessarily lower a workers' wages, but merely that the companies' expenses must be organized around such points. And finally, yes, companies by nature, in order to generate the maximum amount of profit will lower workers' wages as much as possible. This is why it's necessary for there to be a "living wage."

However, a minimum wage puts undue strain on the economy; it is a greater opportunity cost for small-businesses than large corporations, so a minimum wage benefits corporations more than small-businesses. And with the current system of welfare by direct payment, it creates a "welfare trap," which is nothing more than a demonstration of why Communism doesn't work. Giving wealth directly to the unemployed encourages them to stay unemployed. If they are being paid, they have no incentive to work. Why should they? They are receiving money as it is.

But that's not to say that welfare is possible. Another brilliant idea is to provide what's called a "negative income tax." Instead of providing direct payment, you tax every person's income and provide a large, lump sum for a return. So, say you tax every person a 15% income tax, whether they're wealthy or poor. The wealthy person could handle such a tax, but the poor person could not. But there's a large return: Although there's a 15% tax rate for all, there is a $15,000 return for all. So, at the end of the year, the poor person receives $15,000 all at once, it is just like a minimum wage, except the burden is on the state, not small-businesses. Under such a system, poverty could be totally ended without sacrificing economic growth. In addition, it would be cheaper and more efficient than direct payment, as in the current welfare system or in any form of Communist wealth distribution.


Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by Blue Dog [email protected] 8 2006, 12:48 PM

7. Why does owning a business suddenly make you a "capitalist," and how does simply owning a business and having property make you a threat? With Marx, it wasn't small businesses that were a threat. It was large businesses and robber barons. Had anti-trust laws, labor laws, and a minimum wage existed back then, they would've faced little problems.
Owning a buisness does not make you a "capitalist". For example, a person who owns a small corner shop and works all day at it, is very definitely in the catagory of lower levels of the petty-bourgeois, and infact, tends to usually side with the masses in a revolutionary situation. However, when we look at something like a factory, how many factory owners do you know that work on the shop floor?

A capitalist is someone who rather then working himself (and this does not include management, since a worker's council is fully capable of doing that, as countless historical and modern examples proove), pays others to work for him, and collects profits (the gap between what an employee's labour generates and the amount the employee is paid). This is by definition a parasitic role, as the income of a capitalist comes from the excess value of the emplyees.
But assuming that a person has rights to personal property, that logically leads to the idea that a person's business is also their property, to an extent. All natural resources belong to everyone, because no one worked for them. Yet we have stewardship of them in a way that is, "First come, first serve," unless a certain group of people is unduly exploited, in which case we all have an obligation to sacrifice for them. But what a person works for IS theirs, even that is a factory. What a person doesn't own is what they invest with. Because investment is nothing more than growing one's own wealth -- it's not labor, but as you said, in a way it's almost parasitic.

I'm not idealistic at all, but know that simply when Rousseau said that the best society is one which is governed by the "general will," he was right. You cannot create an elite without having tyranny. It does not matter who that elite few is. It does matter if that elite few are businessmen who have power over us because they are wealthy, clergymen who have power over us because they are supposedly "closer to God," generals who have power over us because they have control of the military, or Communists or anyone else who have power over us because they control the government. In each case, it leads to tyranny. Whatever one's goal is, it must begin with democracy first and move from there. When you establish Communism, you establish a NEW form of class warfare -- instead of Man Vs. Business, it is Man Vs. State. You have a NEW bourgoisie -- the servants of the government, the corrupt politicians who betray the very Communist values they claim to support by taking bribes and privately indulging in greed. No, Marx said "workers" of the world unite, not aristocratic tyrants.


[email protected] 8 2006, 10:00 PM

But in Communism, the STATE exploits and alienates the people just as much.

Sigh.

In communism, the state does not exist.

You are talking about Soviet. 100 years ago. It was state-capitalist, we all know that.

Let it go. Forget it, please.
But a state must exist in every society. People are not rational enough to self-govern. If a society did not need a state, then you may as well advocate Anarchism. The idea that "The government is necessary," is not an idea that a person can just drop. Because Anarchism is senseless.

[KC]

Capitalists don't "control the means of the production." Socialist extremists and Communists do.

Capitalists are the bourgeoisie. The bourgeois class is the class of people that own the means of production in capitalist society.


Laissez-faire Capitalists create an environment in which an elite few you call "bourgoisie" take control of the means of the production, but one does not have to be part of that elite to advocate such a system (mostly, out of ignorance).

The bourgeoisie still exists in non-laissez-faire markets. The bourgeoisie exists under capitalism. Capitalism is defined as the socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange. In this system the bourgeoisie exists, regardless of whether or not the market is laissez-faire.


But moderate Capitalism does not advocate any kind of omnipotent "bourgoisie," but incorporates Socialist values and goals, ensuring that it is not tyrannical.

There is no such thing as "moderate capitalism". You are misinformed on your definitions. There is only one definition of capitalism, and that is the socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange. If we have this, then we have capitalism. And in this system, there are those that own the means of production and those that don't (and are forced to sell their labour-power to survive). Those that own the means of production are called the bourgeoisie and those that don't and must sell their labour-power to survive are the proletariat.


Or you could view it differently, and call it a Socialist state which implements capitalistic goals of efficiency.

I'm curious as to what your definition of socialism is. Welfare-state? What you fail to realize is that as one country lives in extreme luxury, others must live in extreme poverty to maintain that luxury.



And HOW is Liberalism "right-wing"? :blink:

It's bourgeois. It works within the capitalist system of politics. It's pointless.



Well, there are Conservatives that would claim I'm a Socialist for my "socialistic goals," my support for social welfare and universal healthcare, and my belief that while capitalism is more efficient, Socialism is more moral.


You are a utopian socialist. You are a fool. You don't even understand the implications of what you wish to implement.



Right-wing Fascists such as Hitler, Mussolini, and Pinochet too.


You obviously don't see that the people that control the means of production are those who own it. And you obviously don't know what the means of production are. The means of production are the raw material and tools used to make a commodity. These are owned by business owners. In other words, it is owned by the bourgeoisie.



Well, if that's how you define capitalism, then no, I do not own a business and I do not treat workers like a commodity, so I am not a Socialist.

This doesn't even make sense. Do you mean "so I am not a capitalist."?



And if that's how you define Socialism, then yes, this idea of getting rid of monopolies and treating workers like a commodity is good.

Treating workers like a commodity is good?



However, if "getting rid of capitalism for good," means total wealth redistribution and implementing, "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability," then no, that's just as extremist and evil is laissez-faire capitalism.

Evil? What the fuck?


In Laissez-faire Capitalism, big business exploits and alienates the people, as Marx rightfully said.

In capitalism in general that happens.


But in Communism, the STATE exploits and alienates the people just as much.

Communism is a classless, stateless society. Many people mistake the so-called "socialis" states that have existed in the past for being communist, but they weren't in any way communist. Hell, they weren't even socialist. They were deformed workers states that failed in creating socialism through Marxism-Leninism. They were in no way socialism or communism.


Communism and Marxism, however, is all but dead in America, in fact, all but dead in the majority of the civilized world, adhered to only by terrorist groups and fanatics such as yourselves.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. First, it is nowhere near dead in America or other "civilized" countries. Second, it doesn't need to be a driving force until the material conditions arise in the first world for it to become one. Then it will be one. Third, most of the groups you speak of aren't "terrorist", nor do they claim to adhere to Marxism at all.


So, it is outright ridiculous to assert that everything that is to the right of Marx is right-wing.

Everything capitalist is "right-wing".

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by Xanthus+Mar 8 2006, 09:03 PM--> (Xanthus @ Mar 8 2006, 09:03 PM)
Blue Dog [email protected] 8 2006, 12:47 PM
Neoconservatism is nothing but a synthesis of Trotskyism and Capitalism. This is why I'll often refer to Neoconservatism as "Neotrotskyism," because that's exactly what it is. They are certainly authoritarian imperialists, but they derive their beliefs from Trotsky'S own authoritarian imperialism. They see themselves as the "vanguard" of America, that the state will inherently grow to a point of revolution, and when that point comes, America must be the most powerful nation in the world or risk facing tyranny. And to furthermore establish America's strength, they are imperialists, invading countries such as Iraq for their own domestic benefit, exploiting Africa, South America, and Asia too.

But there is little difference between such a policy and Trotskyism, except capitalism. Whereas Neocons moderately accept Capitalism and establish imperialism for American values, Trotsky rejected Capitalism and supported establishing imperialism (aka the "permanent revolution") in order to spread Communist values. A large number of these Neoconservatives used to be Socialists, especially Trotskyists, and the ideological link is there.
Are you kidding???

This must be a joke, or otherwise I completely withdraw my previous statement about you seeming like a person not opposed to thought.

Trotsky, above all considerations, was a crusader for democracy. He fought the beurocratisation of the Soviet Union until his death and wrote text after text about the need for democracy. Did you read the quote in my previous post: "democracy is the lifeblood of socialism".

There are two types of misinformed people. Those who don't know, and those who think they know but have such a distorted view of reality that they're unable to make any sense at all. The post I'm quoting from very clearly represents the latter, though your first post seemed to represent the former.

Please, do me another favor. Before spouting any more nonsense about "neo-trotskyism", and making yourself look like a fool, READ TROTSKY! I recommend starting with Revolution Betrayed, a scathing critisism of Stalin's dictatorship. Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/) [/b]
Sorry, but Blue Dog is right and I suspect you are the one here who is opposed to thought. As anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of how to use Google or of the neo-cons in general knows, the neocons are ex-trotskyites. Both are part of Strauss's cult and devoted to the "benevolent" dictatorship of an elite. In both groups, the masses must be led by the wise and benevolent (them, supposedly). Go read Jeet Heer's piece detailing the Trotskyist roots of leading neocons here: http://www.nationalpost.com/search/site/st...37-A99B2DFF9F85 (http://www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=EC4AD553-8A1D-4324-8D37-A99B2DFF9F85)

[YSR]

Originally posted by "blue dog liberal"
Because Anarchism is senseless.

Fuck you, pal. Anarchism is the opposite of senseless. It is full of sense. The common sense that tells us people do better working without a boss in charge of their actions. The common sense that tells us we don't need a heirarchy-based State colluding with capitalist forces to keep working people down. The common sense that tells us people do better working together, without someone telling them what to do.

Dude, read my name. I'm not smart, okay? But at least before I dispense my opinions, I learn a little bit about what I'm talking about. And if you know anything about anarchism and you choose to call it "senseless" then I guess I don't know what to say to you. Even if you disagree with anarchism I would at least imagine you have the wisdom to respect as possessing some form of "sense". More at least than your beloved liberalist capitalism, smiling at workers with one hand and stabbing them with the other.

And I'm not a "terrorist or fanatic". I'm just a regular guy.

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by Lazar+Mar 8 2006, 10:27 PM--> (Lazar @ Mar 8 2006, 10:27 PM)

Capitalists don't "control the means of the production." Socialist extremists and Communists do.

Capitalists are the bourgeoisie. The bourgeois class is the class of people that own the means of production in capitalist society.[/b]
A Capitalist is a person who advocates Capitalism. You can be a wealthy Socialist, like Noam Chomsky, or you can be a poor Capitalist like many people in America that vote Republican. Whether you're wealthy or own a business has nothing to do with whether you're a capitalist or a socialist.


Originally posted by Lazar+Mar 8 2006, 10:27 PM--> (Lazar @ Mar 8 2006, 10:27 PM)
Laissez-faire Capitalists create an environment in which an elite few you call "bourgoisie" take control of the means of the production, but one does not have to be part of that elite to advocate such a system (mostly, out of ignorance).The bourgeoisie still exists in non-laissez-faire markets. The bourgeoisie exists under capitalism. Capitalism is defined as the socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange. In this system the bourgeoisie exists, regardless of whether or not the market is laissez-faire.[/b]
Your definition of capitalism is finally reasonable, unlike others'. But I must say: the bourgoisie are not exploitative or alienating or oppressive in some non-laissez faire capitalist economies. Or at least, they would not be if governments maintained democracy and upheld the right amount of socialist ideals. Having wealthy people exist isn't bad. Having people EXPLOIT and HARM others, whether they are wealthy businessmen or elites of the politburo, is bad.


Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 10:27 PM

But moderate Capitalism does not advocate any kind of omnipotent "bourgoisie," but incorporates Socialist values and goals, ensuring that it is not tyrannical.There is no such thing as "moderate capitalism". You are misinformed on your definitions. There is only one definition of capitalism, and that is the socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange. If we have this, then we have capitalism. And in this system, there are those that own the means of production and those that don't (and are forced to sell their labour-power to survive). Those that own the means of production are called the bourgeoisie and those that don't and must sell their labour-power to survive are the proletariat.
Except, of course, when a "living wage" is provided, there is no subsistence of the poor, when there is campaign finance law and democracy, there is no corporate bribery of the government, and when there is anti-trust law and labor law, there no omnipotent bourgoisie. These are things that did not exist much, if at all, during Marx's time. So, of course, they were inconceivable to him.


Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 10:27 PM

Or you could view it differently, and call it a Socialist state which implements capitalistic goals of efficiency.
I'm curious as to what your definition of socialism is. Welfare-state? What you fail to realize is that as one country lives in extreme luxury, others must live in extreme poverty to maintain that luxury.
No, it doesn't. Free trade between two countries increases the wealth of both, provided that both countries have stable governments that don't rob the people. Free trade exploits foreign countries, not because all capitalism is inherently exploitative, but because the foreign GOVERNMENTS are exploitative and western businessmen make deals with them. In Africa, there are conflict diamonds -- diamonds which are sold under the authority of militant, oppressive despots. Even when the importation of these diamonds are banned, they are still smuggled in. However, if WE or the African people themselves were to incite their own political revolution to establish democracy, free trade and moderate capitalism between both countries would be a great benefit. Because each country can provide what the other does not have, increase the wealth of both. One cannot deny the economic truth and efficiency of capitalism, but only its unethical consequence. Mainstream Economists value "economic productivity," as their highest goal in any economic model, but that cannot be the highest goal. It is an important goal, but poverty is equally important. Laissez-faire capitalism is an evil, but efficient system, while Communism is an unstable, but compassionate system.


Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 10:27 PM


And HOW is Liberalism "right-wing"? :blink: It's bourgeois. It works within the capitalist system of politics. It's pointless.
Hah!


Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 10:27 PM

Well, there are Conservatives that would claim I'm a Socialist for my "socialistic goals," my support for social welfare and universal healthcare, and my belief that while capitalism is more efficient, Socialism is more moral.You are a utopian socialist. You are a fool. You don't even understand the implications of what you wish to implement.
I think history shows us the implications of both. Laissez-faire capitalism led to the Industrial Revolution and the Great Depression. Communism led to the Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam, China, and countless other tyrannies. While, today, every western country prospers under a mixed-market economy, partially capitalist, partially socialist.


Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 10:27 PM


Right-wing Fascists such as Hitler, Mussolini, and Pinochet too.You obviously don't see that the people that control the means of production are those who own it. And you obviously don't know what the means of production are. The means of production are the raw material and tools used to make a commodity. These are owned by business owners. In other words, it is owned by the bourgeoisie.
Why must you lump such a group of people into one category, as if they all actually work along with eachother for a common goal?


Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 10:27 PM


Well, if that's how you define capitalism, then no, I do not own a business and I do not treat workers like a commodity, so I am not a Socialist.
This doesn't even make sense. Do you mean "so I am not a capitalist."?
Yes. Typo, sorry.


Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 10:27 PM


And if that's how you define Socialism, then yes, this idea of getting rid of monopolies and treating workers like a commodity is good.

Treating workers like a commodity is good?
No, getting rid of monopolies AND getting rid of treating workers like a commodity is good.


Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 10:27 PM


However, if "getting rid of capitalism for good," means total wealth redistribution and implementing, "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability," then no, that's just as extremist and evil is laissez-faire capitalism.
Evil? What the fuck?
Yes, because it denies the right to property and inevitably requires oppression to implement, unless of course, the majority of people support it, which is never the case. That's exactly WHY you need to establish "revolutions" in the first place. Most other people don't agree with you.


Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 10:27 PM

In Laissez-faire Capitalism, big business exploits and alienates the people, as Marx rightfully said.
In capitalism in general that happens.
Nope.


Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 10:27 PM

But in Communism, the STATE exploits and alienates the people just as much.
Communism is a classless, stateless society. Many people mistake the so-called "socialis" states that have existed in the past for being communist, but they weren't in any way communist. Hell, they weren't even socialist. They were deformed workers states that failed in creating socialism through Marxism-Leninism. They were in no way socialism or communism.
But EVERY SINGLE ONE failed! LOL! Not ONE, NOT ONE succeeded!!


Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 10:27 PM

So, it is outright ridiculous to assert that everything that is to the right of Marx is right-wing.

Everything capitalist is "right-wing".
That's not the traditional way of categorizing it. Why should it be redefined to fit the Communist view of class warfare? Furthermore, within Marxism itself, wacko nutjob revolutionaries such as yourself (and the Bolsheviks) are considered right-wing Marxists while the rational, sane, and moderate Democratic Socialists (such as the Mensheviks) are considered left-wing Marxists.

I am not any Utopian Socialist. You are the one that believes in utopian ideals. I adhere greatly to the principle behind Fabian Socialism. The Fabian Society was named that after the Roman General, Fabius the Delayer. Fabius was at war and said that the only way to win a particular battle was to delay it (thus, "Fabius the Delayer"). The Fabian Marxists took the name, "Fabius," because they, like many late 19th century Marxists who became disillusioned with Marx's idealistic, considered capitalism to be strong to attack dead on. So, instead, many became moderate Democratic Socialists, who supported attacking capitalism here and there, in battles that they could fight, rather than launching some idealistic revolution, expecting some utopian dream of statelessness and classlessness. One cannot even claim to BELIEVE in statelessness and classlessness without being a "Utopian Socialist." I am pragmatic and realistic. It isn't utopian to consider setting cars on fire an uncivilized and barbaric way of expressing yourself politically.


Young Stupid [email protected] 8 2006, 10:55 PM

"blue dog liberal"
Because Anarchism is senseless.

Fuck you, pal. Anarchism is the opposite of senseless. It is full of sense. The common sense that tells us people do better working without a boss in charge of their actions. The common sense that tells us we don't need a heirarchy-based State colluding with capitalist forces to keep working people down. The common sense that tells us people do better working together, without someone telling them what to do.

Dude, read my name. I'm not smart, okay? But at least before I dispense my opinions, I learn a little bit about what I'm talking about. And if you know anything about anarchism and you choose to call it "senseless" then I guess I don't know what to say to you. Even if you disagree with anarchism I would at least imagine you have the wisdom to respect as possessing some form of "sense". More at least than your beloved liberalist capitalism, smiling at workers with one hand and stabbing them with the other.

And I'm not a "terrorist or fanatic". I'm just a regular guy.

Anarchism's moral arguments are flawed and it is impossible to implement.

OK, so Proudhon and other Anarchists greatly valued liberty. The problem, however, is that they make no distinction between "immediate liberty" and "sustained liberty." Sure, liberty is great and abolishing the government would give us the most liberty and freedom from authority -- for a few weeks, that is, until militias and roving gangs of marauders started forming and it became essentially a mirror image of Somalia.

The difference between liberty in Anarchism and liberty in Government is like the difference between fucking a whore and fucking your wife. Sure, having a wife keeps you tied down and gives you an authority to listen to. But it provides SUSTAINED sex whereas a prostitute only provides one pleasurable moment of sex, with the risk of harm too, of being caught by the police or getting a disease.

[YSR]

Anarchism's moral arguments are flawed and it is impossible to implement.

Defend. Or more likely, ignore and continue to make vague pronouncements that function as rules for life. Wasn't it you who said, earlier in this discussion that "economics as a science is so flawed that NO ONE, especially Marx, could make predictions 150 years into the future." (hint: it was). If economics is so imprecise, is the science of
"close-minded historical analysis without considering the creativity of the human brain or the examples of successful experiments in anarchism"ology any more precise?

And then there's this little nugget of insanity:


The difference between liberty in Anarchism and liberty in Government is like the difference between fucking a whore and fucking your wife. Sure, having a wife keeps you tied down and gives you an authority to listen to. But it provides SUSTAINED sex whereas a prostitute only provides one pleasurable moment of sex, with the risk of harm too, of being caught by the police or getting a disease.

I'm sorry, can someone explain what the fuck this means to me? Liberty IS anarchism, whereas liberty with a state is the illusion of liberty. It is how much liberty the State gives you, doles out to you, decides that you worthy to have. Liberty in anarchism is liberty because you give it to yourself. Liberty is fucking when you want to, not when someone tells you to.

Unrelated: "whores," as you so affectionately term them, are ironically the creation of a capitalist society which places a monetary value on sex. Defend that.

[YSR]

As a side note: I apologize to my Marxist comrades for drawing this person into a debate about Anarchism. He/she was mostly conversing with you all about Marx. I will withdraw now.

[Ol' Dirty]

Blue Dog Liberal, please define Communism, Anarchism and Socialism. I doubt you really know what we're about, if you think we're statist.

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 11:44 PM
Blue Dog Liberal, please define Communism, Anarchism and Socialism. I doubt you really know what we're about, if you think we're statist.
Anarchism: No government, because law and authority inherently violate liberty and no one should ever violate another's liberty. There's various different kinds of Anarchism, though, and some advocate a "state" of sorts, but it's always a weak and unorthodox state, such as in Anarcho-Syndicalism.

Communism = Establishing the principles of equality outlined in the Communist Manifesto. Originally, that meant having a "revolution" to establish a Communist state. Now, you all consider it in an abstract way, that you want to sort of establish a stateless commune. So, essentially, now it isn't much different from Anarchism, except for your greater emphasis on equality and some of you concede that a state is necessary.

Socialism: The term for supporting Marxist (as well as non-Marxist) ideals of equality without explicitly advocating Socialism. All Communists are Socialists, but some Socialists are not Communists. Socialist used to be a term that was tied more to Sociology and "Socialist" was also a name used by Communists. After the Fabian Socialists and Democratic Socialists split away from the revolutionaries, the term, Socialism, changed into what it is today. Socialism can also mean the process of exerting political control over an industry (I.E. "socialized" medicine).

Socialism isn't necessarily statist, but Communism is. It's either Statist or Anarchist. In both cases, it's oppressive and does not accomplish its goals.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

well a pure capitalist society has never existed, the United States is not pure capitalist, its a mixed economy, in which both private and public, as well as state owned enterprises are runned. In the USA there is private ownership of the means of production, infrastructure, and institutions but may also contain state-ownership of some of these things. It allows for private financial decisions by businesses and individuals, but not absolute nor near absolute autonomy, as many of these decisions are otherwise overridden by government. That is why our economy is the best, we take ideals from capitalism and various command economies and mix them. In conclusion, we take the best from each idea, and blend them together.

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 9 2006, 12:13 AM
well a pure capitalist society has never existed, the United States is not pure capitalist, its a mixed economy, in which both private and public, as well as state owned enterprises are runned. In the USA there is private ownership of the means of production, infrastructure, and institutions but may also contain state-ownership of some of these things. It allows for private financial decisions by businesses and individuals, but not absolute nor near absolute autonomy, as many of these decisions are otherwise overridden by government. That is why our economy is the best, we take ideals from capitalism and various command economies and mix them. In conclusion, we take the best from each idea, and blend them together.
There are some economies that are fairly close to pure capitalism. The two I know offhand are Hong Kong and Switzerland.

[C_Rasmussen]

What exactly is "pure capitalism"? I dont quite understand it.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

There are some economies that are fairly close to pure capitalism. The two I know offhand are Hong Kong and Switzerland.


there has never been a fully free economy, a true liassez-faire economy has never existed.

and yes Hong Kong isike you said it "close" because it is basically duty-free and the trade that goes on in Hong Kong wouldn't allow it for any other economic system. As for Switzerland they belong to the EU, which has even made the Swiss not that great as they were before, but yet again "close" is not close enough.

[Xanthus]

I can't believe I'm still on this topic, but for some reason I can't resist debates like this. So, anyway:


In which case I'd agree, except:

1. It is a DEMOCRATIC revolution, not a COMMUNIST revolution. The goal should not be to establish any particular policy, but merely a system fo governing policy -- that is, letting people decide how it is that they should be governed.

Revolution is by nature a mass activity, unless you mean an "insurrection" which is a different concept, and because an insurrection is pulled off by a small group, that small group tends to like to hold onto power.

So, if it is revolution you mean, the question remains, which mass of people are you relying on for this revolution to occur?


2. Unprovoked violence is no justification for revolution. Only when and if we do reach the kind of critical point described by Marx, where we are oppressed to an unimaginable extent, would revolution be justified.

I don't know about you, but to me the many people who are forced to work two menial jobs just to feed their family, working in some cases 80 hours a week and having no time to relax does fit that bill. And to think, that's in an imperialist country, and FAR better off then most of the world's masses.


According to you, their interests are in direct opposition. I certainly agree that the poor are almost always oppressed more than the wealthy and you really can't exactly "oppress" the wealthy. It is more of a crime for a child to starve than for a wealthy person to pay a higher tax. But nevertheless, that's not to say I should immediately disregard the wealthy man's rights and his well-being. All people are of equal value, whether wealthy or poor. If I refuse to side with one or the other, then which am I?

It's a very simple equasion. Less money paid to employees (the single biggest expense of doing buisness) = more profit for the buisness-owner. On the other hand, more money paid to employees = less profit, in many cases losses and bankrupcy.

Also, it is important to note that certain wealthy individuals (I'm talking about ONE person) posess enough wealth to feed the entire third world for years.

And yes, people are of equal value, and that's the point. I never said we should shoot all the rich or something rediculous like that. However, when we see one person living a high life and 50 living in poverty, when all could be in the middle, and all are of equal value, should not those 51 each be somewhere in the middle? Personally, I will side every time with the 50 equal people over the 1 equal person because, said simply, 50 > 1.


I must remind you of a quote I'm fond of:
"Extreme opposites resemble the other. Each believes that we have only two choices: appeasement or war, suicide or surrender, humiliation or holocaust, to be either Red or dead."
-President John F. Kennedy

Absolutely right. The difference is that one of these opposites wants to live a rediculously wealthy life at the expense of the human population at large (which is the side imposing it's will currently), and the other side wants to live a decent life and let everyone else also live a decent life.

There are people in the middle, as you seem to be, however, that doesn't change the fact that we live in a world dominated by the first group, nor does it change the fact that once given power (even moderate power), any group will leverage it more and more to their advantage, as have the capitalists since the beginning of capitalism.


A person does not need to serve the bourgoisie or the proletarian. You're creating what logic calls a false dichotomy and what psychology calls an "us and them" mentality. In Sociology, viewing society as class struggle in only one of three outlooks. In political ideologies, only Marxist ideologies think in terms of class, between proletarian and bourgoisie. So, when you assert that we must all be defenders of the proletarian to be "leftist," then as I said, the only ones who can be leftists are Marxists. And that's a completely convoluted distortion of the term "leftist." Not all Leftists are Socialists.

It is not a false dichotomy. It is the true dichotomy between level of profit and level of wages. I don't need to think in any given term in order to see that, it is common sense for anyone who looks at the situation from a balenced perspective.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Political Ideologies class, I learned that Marx predicted that capitalism would be overthrown within 50 years. But it never happened, so people abandoned Marxism, forming two camps: the Anarchists and the Fabian Socialists (as well as other moderate, Democratic Socialists). In addition, economics as a science is so flawed that NO ONE, especially Marx, could make predictions 150 years into the future. And I'd say his suggestions for policy were brilliant, but he was an arrogant, lazy extremist.

You are correct in that. I never would have claimed Marx to be a superman, incapable of being wrong in his predictions.

And you're right, nobody can make accurate predictions that far into the future. However, from analysing the processes involved (and materialist dialectics is the science of process), you can determine the general trend with a fair bit (not absolute) of accuracy. That is why Marx was so shockingly correct about so many things, even now, 150 years later. The general trends remain the same. Things like time-frame are impossible to predict accurately, and of course, there is always room for surprise in ANY prediction.


And there's two major differences between the time before the Great Depression and now:
1) We have a fiat standard instead of a gold standard.
2) We have more socialist reforms, all over the world.

1. Do you think that helps the situation??? Right now there is way more money printed then the economy can sustain in the long run, thanks exactly to the lack of a fixed standard.

2. Granted, there is more room for counter-reform to stabilise the system. This is exactly what capitalists have taken advantage of for the last period. However, if you mean that these reforms will save people who end up on the wrong end of the recession, that is not accurate, especially in the US. There's a reason things like pensions are being attacked right now, and that's because all these social reforms will buckle and collapse if leaned upon too heavily.


Secondly, an economy doesn't necessarily need to be "planned." It should be democratic, yes, but not necessarily planned. Adam Smith's "invisible hand," is taken to a ridiculous extreme. Markets are not flawless. They need regulation, but not total control with an iron fist. People must have a REASON to buy and sell goods in order for such exchanges to occur. When you take control of an economy, people have no reason to work other than to please the state. In response, planned economies must be oppressive, with the threat of death for not producing goods. This is how extreme capitalism oppresses the people and this is also how Communism has oppressed the people.

The point is that no matter how regulated, markets capitalism will have the same effect on those at the bottom of the food-chain, as I have already explained and will try to explain again a little bit below.

There are a huge number of additional advantages to industrial planning, including but not limited to the ability to fix underproduction in a sector very rapidly, or to prevent over-production (which happens constantly under Capitalism).

And you're right about the need for oppression, except for one point you miss. If it's the workers themselves who do the planning, who run the economy, and who run the workplace, you have in essence dozens or hundreds of "bosses" in every workplace, and peer-pressure is a very powerful thing, especially if those peers have the ability to decide upon the direction of the company. The same is true for the economy at large, as it's run from representatives of each company who EXPECT each other to hold up their parts. Really, the problem that causes inefficiency is not bosses lacking reason to produce, but workers lacking reason to work. Worker's control provides a stronger reason then capitalistic control any day. I could point to numerous examples, for instance in Venezuela and Argentina in the last several years, where workers' control has signifcantly increased the efficiency of production, rather then decreasing it.

This is also the primary reason why "democracy is the lifeblood of socialism".


There were riots in France, first of all, because France is a politically extremist country. It always has been. They've been through, what, five republics now? Five revolutions? Secondly, it was largely in response to the French government's oppression of Muslims and mishandling of the economy, not for being too capitalist. France, by comparison, is one of the most Socialist states in the world.

Excuse me? That makes no sense. The primary nature of the oppression of not just Muslims but all immigrants is economic. You say that France is one of the most socialist states in the world, so therefore the poor are oppressed enough to riot?

In fact, France is not at all "Socialist" nor are any of the western republics, because "Socialist" implies the "Socialist mode of production" which doesn't exist in any.

In reference to your example of five revolutions, we must maintain a sharp contrast between a "political" revolution (which merely changes the ruling group of a country, and the way they conduct buisness), to a "social" revolution (which changes the way EVERYBODY lives by altering the method of production, for example from a feudalist system to a capitalist one, or from a capitalist system to a socialist one). In the question of France, there was one successful (capitalist) and one failed (Paris commune) social revolution.

As for the question of number of political revolutions, again I don't have the knowledge to pin down how many of that number were revolutions and how many were insurrections. There is (as stated above) also a sharp contrast between a revolution and an insurrection. I'm quite sure for example that Neopolean's seasure of power was an insurrection (though I'm no expert), whereas the establishment of the French Republic was a political revolution.

Five political revolutions is nothing spectacular. Bolivia for example has had more insurrections & revolutions (taken together) then the number of years it's been a country. In just the last two years they have had two political revolutions with mass action forcing a regime change.

I must also hammer home a bit the role of the state. The state represents the dominent class and carries through the dominent class' policies, to an ever-more-extreme nature, except when forced to concede reforms (magna-carta conceded to merchant class, or welfare conceded to working class to give two examples from different epocs).

The idea of a state representing something other then an existing dominent class (like what you seem to refer to, which would imply a petty-bourgeois social revolution, which is impossible for a massive list of reasons), a social revolution changing the dynamics of society is needed. This involves dispossessing a class (in your example the higher levels of the bourgeoisie), which necessarally involves them fighting back.


Price point competition would exist in most cases, yes, but I don't see how that's a problem. Price points aren't necessarily decided by cartels, if that's what you're suggesting. With adequate anti-trust laws to break apart monopolies and oligopolies, price point competition would exist, but it wouldn't be a problem because it's simply human nature because they are easier numbers for producers and consumers to work with. Economic efficiency, period, requires giving people as a whole a reason to work. Communism provides no such incentive. After being established, its only remedy is to create an incentive: violence and the threat of violence.

I don't really see how price points would necessarily lower a workers' wages, but merely that the companies' expenses must be organized around such points. And finally, yes, companies by nature, in order to generate the maximum amount of profit will lower workers' wages as much as possible. This is why it's necessary for there to be a "living wage."

This is so simple, I'm shocked you don't grasp it. I'll give a VERY simple example, so maybe you can wrap your mind around it.

Company A makes widgets.
Company A pays it's employees very decently, they make $x per hour, and makes very nice widgets which it sells for $y each.

Then a new company starts to make widgets also, we'll call them company B.
Company B wants to establish it's self in the market, so they sell their widgets for $y-1 each.
Because of that, Company B doesn't have enough revenue coming from each widget to pay their employees $x, so their employees make $x-1.

Now Company A is in trouble, they are being outcompeted. So they don't make any standard-of-living wage increases and cut back on benefits a bit so their employees make $x-1 too after a couple of years.
Now Company A and Company B are competing nicely in this system, but the workers now make $x-1.

We'll repeat the process with Companies C, D, and E. Now the workers in the widget industry make $x-5, and widgets cost $x-5.
Fortunitely, the workers in the widget industry band together, and demand that they make $x, like the workers in Company A originally did. They form a union called "The United Widget Workers" and strike demanding better pay and benefits.
A compromise solution is made and all the widget workers now make $x-3. This is still quite a bit lower then the original $x, but it seems like a nice victory.
Widgets now cost $x-3.

Now Company F comes along, and wants to find a way around the UWW's wage restrictions. They realise that by locating their widget factory in Mexico, they can pay their employees $x-12 and get away with it. They quickly do that, and sell their widgets for $x-8, making a very nice profit indeed.
Companies A-E are in trouble now, as Company F not only sells their widgets for very little money, but also has tons of profit to spare for an expensive add campaign. Company F is managing to corner the market.

It's not hard to figure out what Companies A-E do now.

Now, this is a bloody simple explaination. I could give secondary ones getting deeper into the Labour Theory of Value, but I've spent WAY too much time on this already. Again, it makes no difference whatsoever if these widget makers have a single owner (sole proprietor) or if they're a corperation (with investment).

With your example of a "living wage", again, it's nice in concept. But the same thing happens to that living wage as happened to our union imposed wage settlement. Also, who is to decree what a "living wage" is?

As for how a democraticly controlled planned economy works and it's advantages, that's a VERY long post in it's self, and I've touched on it very briefly already. Maybe I'll answer your question later, but for now I'll leave it at what I already said (which granted, isn't much).


However, a minimum wage puts undue strain on the economy; it is a greater opportunity cost for small-businesses than large corporations, so a minimum wage benefits corporations more than small-businesses. And with the current system of welfare by direct payment, it creates a "welfare trap," which is nothing more than a demonstration of why Communism doesn't work. Giving wealth directly to the unemployed encourages them to stay unemployed. If they are being paid, they have no incentive to work. Why should they? They are receiving money as it is.

Absolutely, minimum wage puts a strain on things! If those widget makers could pay their employees x-12 in your country, they wouldn't be in such bad shape. They'd just need to crush the union, or tempt it's beurocracy with kickbacks. However, I'd hate to be a worker making x-12, wouldn't you?

Also, unemployment is absolutely necessary for capitalism. If it didn't exist, wages would coninuously increase (because workers would know another job was out there for them) until bankrupcies started, and then, oops, we have unemployment again.

Oh, and didn't you mention a "living wage"? Isn't that the whole point of minimum wage???
Granted, it isn't currently close to a living wage, but at the same time, that is the idea, and what you proposed last paragraph would seem to imply a higher minimum wage.


But that's not to say that welfare is possible. Another brilliant idea is to provide what's called a "negative income tax." Instead of providing direct payment, you tax every person's income and provide a large, lump sum for a return. So, say you tax every person a 15% income tax, whether they're wealthy or poor. The wealthy person could handle such a tax, but the poor person could not. But there's a large return: Although there's a 15% tax rate for all, there is a $15,000 return for all. So, at the end of the year, the poor person receives $15,000 all at once, it is just like a minimum wage, except the burden is on the state, not small-businesses. Under such a system, poverty could be totally ended without sacrificing economic growth. In addition, it would be cheaper and more efficient than direct payment, as in the current welfare system or in any form of Communist wealth distribution.

This is a somewhat reasonable solution, and not unlike what exists in sliding scale tax systems. For example here in Canada, that person who makes $15,000 would not have to pay any tax, and would get a sizable (though by no means in the thousands) return... however there is a certain principle that makes it unachievable.

THOSE IN POWER DO NOT WANT IT!

Also, even if we disregard this, and have your phantom social revolution without a mass base, putting the petty-bourgeois (that is, small shop-keepers) in power, that would be a very difficult thing to balence. What happens if there's a recession (and surely you can't be nieve enough to believe the hype that we've defeated recessions), and suddenly there are more $15,000 sums to pay out then the income the government has to work with? So what do they do, print more money? Take out more loans? This seems VERY unstable.


But assuming that a person has rights to personal property, that logically leads to the idea that a person's business is also their property, to an extent. All natural resources belong to everyone, because no one worked for them. Yet we have stewardship of them in a way that is, "First come, first serve," unless a certain group of people is unduly exploited, in which case we all have an obligation to sacrifice for them. But what a person works for IS theirs, even that is a factory. What a person doesn't own is what they invest with. Because investment is nothing more than growing one's own wealth -- it's not labor, but as you said, in a way it's almost parasitic.

There is no difference for the worker between one man owning a factory outright and employing workers compared to 100 men each owning parts of 100 factories.

I agree that you'd find more rich people with less money each in a world without the corporate model. However, for one thing, I could go back to the impossibility of this happening without a phantom social revolution, but I won't go there this time, I'll go another way.

The idea that we "assum[e] that a person has rights to personal property, [which] logically leads to the idea that a person's buisness is also their property" is not at all written in stone. It is a very large ideological part of capitalism, but not absolute by any means.

A very large part of socialism or communism is that while a person really should own his toothbrush, bed, article of clothing, or another personal item, and that a person certainly has a right to choose where he should live and be able to stay there and not be force-relocated, a person absolutely DOES NOT have the right to own the means of exploiting another person. This idea about right to property also only includes those with wealth enough for property.

For example, a wealthy man would turn his nose up at the idea that he should be kicked out of his owned house and be relocated, but wouldn't think twice at doing the same to a tenant of his who isn't fortunate enough to own his apartment. I don't think the wealthy man should have the right to extract money from that poor tenant, or to kick him out of his apartment.

Here's another question, and it really goes back to the same old points. Who determines when this "undue" exploitation exists, and who enforces that we "all make sacrifices"? Looking at the history of capitalism, selfless sacrifice is not one of it's strong points.

"...Unless a certain group of people is unduly exploited..." is an interesting phrase in general. I feel that undue exploitation is ANY EXPLOITATION. That includes the exploitation of working people for their production (by not paying them the full value of their work and pocketing profit), or exploiting those without a house for rent.


I'm not idealistic at all, but know that simply when Rousseau said that the best society is one which is governed by the "general will," he was right. You cannot create an elite without having tyranny. It does not matter who that elite few is. It does matter if that elite few are businessmen who have power over us because they are wealthy, clergymen who have power over us because they are supposedly "closer to God," generals who have power over us because they have control of the military, or Communists or anyone else who have power over us because they control the government. In each case, it leads to tyranny. Whatever one's goal is, it must begin with democracy first and move from there. When you establish Communism, you establish a NEW form of class warfare -- instead of Man Vs. Business, it is Man Vs. State. You have a NEW bourgoisie -- the servants of the government, the corrupt politicians who betray the very Communist values they claim to support by taking bribes and privately indulging in greed. No, Marx said "workers" of the world unite, not aristocratic tyrants.

Absolutely. Tyranny is bad. But where do we draw the line of where tyranny is? Is tyranny something along the lines of Hitler, killing people left right and center (first the trade unionists, I might add), and generally dominating society with an iron fist? Is tyranny Stalin, taking control of what should be a people's government and twisting it so that an elite beuraucracy takes control? Is tyranny a man who invests in nike? Is tryanny a man who starts his own sneaker factory and exploits his workers for profit? Is tyranny a man who buys 5 apartments and rents them all out at a profit?

I'd say it's all of the above.

However, there is another way, and as SO many posters have already said, it has nothing to do with the Stalinist/USSR model. Again, outlining the principles of participatory democracy and TRUE socialism/communism would take another post far longer then this, so I'll leave that for now. Maybe I'll make another post soon with some links or something.

As for idealism, your answer doesn't address what I intended to say. Idealism is the negation of materialism. It is the concept of starting with an idea of how something (ie: society) should be run (ie: third-way style capitalism), and then from that starting idea, trying to work out a way to do it. Materialism, which is idealism's polar-opposite, takes the current nature of the world, with it's inherent contradictions and power structures, and starts with the idea of "what's possible?", then begins to work from there.


But a state must exist in every society. People are not rational enough to self-govern. If a society did not need a state, then you may as well advocate Anarchism. The idea that "The government is necessary," is not an idea that a person can just drop. Because Anarchism is senseless.

Well, I guess I'll get into this a little bit, becasue I already made this point in another topic here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47119), so I'll just quote it:


The basic and primary theoretical difference [between marxism and anarchism] is in the conception of what the state is.

To an anarchist, the state is what creates and maintains a class society. Therefore, by abolishing the state, you can eliminate the class society.

To a marxist, the state is merely the tool used by the ruling class to maintain their control. If you abolish the state without abolishing the ruling class, then that ruling class (or another) will merely sieze power again and setup a new state, which in all likelyhood would end up more oppressive then the last one. Many would argue that is exactly what happened during the Spanish Civil war, where the stateless anarchism setup in much of the country was quickly replaced by the previous ruling class siezing power along fascist lines with the Franco dictatorship.

The marxist solution to this is to first setup a state with the workers and peasents as the ruling class instead of the capitalists. This new state's purpose (what Lenin defined as "socialism") would be to bring the workers' and peasents' living standards up, and expropriate the capitalists, therefore bringing everybody to an equal economic footing. Then, over the course of several decades, as class identities fade away, the state withers away and a classless, stateless society emerges (what Lenin and others have called "communism"). The transitional state's proper and full name is "the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasentry", though because of their abillity to organise, it would be led by the working class. It should be emphasised that the term "dictatorship" is not used in the more modern way meaning a dictatorship of a person or small group, but instead is a dictatorship of an entire class, as soon as possible to be elected through workers' and peasents' councils ('soviet' is the Russian word for council), restricting capitalists from the electoral process not unlike the way workers are restricted from running for government within bourgeois "democracy".

And control, after the disolving of the state, which I should mention has the pre-requisite of a world-revolution, is made up of a series of councils in each workplace and each neighbourhood, who then elect representatives to higher councils where needed (for marco-economic planning and city planning for two examples). Everything in such a society is controlled from the bottom up, everything which can be is decided upon at the lowest layer possible, and every person does his part at the lowest layer.

This is a poor-man's explaination, as I already said, a proper explaination would take still MORE hours then I've already dedicated to this frustratingly tempting topic.

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 12:18 AM
What exactly is "pure capitalism"? I dont quite understand it.
Total laissez-faire capitalism. In other words, absolutely no arbitrary interference in the economy aside from enforcing business contracts.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by Blue Dog Liberal+Mar 8 2006, 11:54 PM--> (Blue Dog Liberal @ Mar 8 2006, 11:54 PM)
[email protected] 8 2006, 11:44 PM
Blue Dog Liberal, please define Communism, Anarchism and Socialism. I doubt you really know what we're about, if you think we're statist.


[/b]

Anarchism: No government, because law and authority inherently violate liberty and no one should ever violate another's liberty.

You should have stopped here.


There's various different kinds of Anarchism, though, and some advocate a "state" of sorts,

Hypocrite.


but it's always a weak and unorthodox state ( :rolleyes: ), such as in Anarcho-Syndicalism.

I suppose hypocracy is bliss for you Capitalists.


Communism = Establishing the principles of equality outlined in the Communist Manifesto. Originally, that meant having a "revolution" to establish a Communist state. Now, you all consider it in an abstract way, that you want to sort of establish a stateless commune. So, essentially, now it isn't much different from Anarchism, except for your greater emphasis on equality and some of you concede that a state is necessary.

What is the name of this intermediary state?


Socialism: The term for supporting Marxist (as well as non-Marxist) ideals of equality without explicitly advocating Socialism. All Communists are Socialists, but some Socialists are not Communists. Socialist used to be a term that was tied more to Sociology and "Socialist" was also a name used by Communists. After the Fabian Socialists and Democratic Socialists split away from the revolutionaries, the term, Socialism, changed into what it is today. Socialism can also mean the process of exerting political control over an industry (I.E. "socialized" medicine).


These are thesis's, not deffinitions, and opinionated ones at that.
It's either Statist or Anarchist. In both cases, it's oppressive and does not accomplish its goals. Socialism isn't necessarily statist, but Communism is.

Socialism is the theory of the creation of a egalitarian state, while Communism is the theory of the creation of a stateless egalitarian society.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

the most obvious would be that there are no restrictions of any kind by the state or government, and that they wouldn't own anything as an entity i guess.

[Gradualist Fool]

Xanthus, I'll reply to the rest of your post later.

[redstar2000]

Fun stuff.


Originally posted by Blue Dog Liberal
However, if "getting rid of capitalism for good," means total wealth redistribution and implementing, "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability," then no, that's just as extremist and evil as laissez-faire capitalism.

"Extremist"? Certainly.

"Evil"? On what grounds?


Communism and Marxism, however, is all but dead in America, in fact, all but dead in the majority of the civilized world, adhered to only by terrorist groups and fanatics such as yourselves.

"Terrorist groups"? Who in the world are you talking about? :o

"Fanatics"? Well, I suppose...but since our numbers are starting to "pick up" again, you may want to file away that "obituary" a while longer. :lol:


So, everything that isn't derived from Marxism is reactionary and right-wing?

Pretty close. :)

There may be occasional exceptions now and then...but that seems to be the way things "work out" almost always.


I have taken Political Science 101...

We can tell. :lol:


Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Political Ideologies class, I learned that Marx predicted that capitalism would be overthrown within 50 years.

No, they didn't offer any predictions as to "exact dates". They were not fortune-tellers.

One can read into some of the things they wrote that they clearly expected things to happen faster than they actually did.

In the late 1870s, they both predicted a major revolution in Russia "soon"...so they "missed" by nearly 40 years.

That's an "occupational hazard" for revolutionaries...the assumption that something will happen "soon" because we expect it to.

I also like this example: Marx thought that the way capitalism worked would make the immiseration of the proletariat inevitable. But in fact, working class standards-of-living improved over most of the 20th century.

"Ah ha!", crowed all the bourgeois ideologues, "That proves that Marx was wrong!"

And then, back in the 60s and 70s, a funny thing happened. The growth in working class real wages in the advanced (or "old") capitalist countries began to stumble and even stagnate. Productivity kept increasing (though more slowly). The standard working day started getting longer. Profits were up and "executive compensation" increased enormously.

And the actual number of real jobs -- the ones with a living wage, health benefits, a pension plan, job security, stuff like that -- started to decline.

That famous "middle-class lifestyle" of western workers that we've heard so much about now requires two full-time jobs (plus overtime) and a mountain of credit-card and mortgage debt to be sustained...and for how much longer? :o

It's beginning to look as if Marx's prediction might be right...but a century "off" in actually showing up.


There were riots in France, first of all, because France is a politically extremist country. It always has been.

Something in the water, you think? :lol:


But a state must exist in every society. People are not rational enough to self-govern.

The ultimate refuge of every reactionary. :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Oh-Dae-Su]

There were riots in France, first of all, because France is a politically extremist country. It always has been.

wow, hahahha that really is funny :lol:

[KC]

A Capitalist is a person who advocates Capitalism.

If you want to argue semantics, then do so with someone else. But what you need to understand is that the definition I've given you is what people here are going to use. So you saying that it isn't true is going to make it very confusing for you to debate here.


You can be a wealthy Socialist, like Noam Chomsky, or you can be a poor Capitalist like many people in America that vote Republican. Whether you're wealthy or own a business has nothing to do with whether you're a capitalist or a socialist.

Just because you have bourgeois sentiments doesn't mean that you're a capitalist in any way.


But I must say: the bourgoisie are not exploitative or alienating or oppressive in some non-laissez faire capitalist economies. Or at least, they would not be if governments maintained democracy and upheld the right amount of socialist ideals.

The worker gets paid 5 dollars for every table he makes. The company sells the tables for 10 each, yet the worker made the table. The worker made a 10 dollar table yet he only gets paid 5 dollars. The rest goes into the bourgeoisie's pocket. How is that not exploitative?


Having wealthy people exist isn't bad.

Nobody said it's bad. What we're fighting for is for everyone to be wealthy.


Having people EXPLOIT and HARM others, whether they are wealthy businessmen or elites of the politburo, is bad.

So why do you support a system that is inherently exploitative?



Except, of course, when a "living wage" is provided, there is no subsistence of the poor, when there is campaign finance law and democracy, there is no corporate bribery of the government, and when there is anti-trust law and labor law, there no omnipotent bourgoisie.

Wages go up only when workers organize and the bourgeoisie can afford to increase their wages. There is no corporate bribery of the government? Are you nuts? So you don't think that people "vote with their money"? You do realize that a politicial would listen to a lobbyist much before listening to you.

Of course, we are living in a time of decline of the capitalist system, when workers' rights are beginning to be stripped down so that the capitalists can continue to make a profit. High worker pay, limited work days, and workers' safety laws stand in direct opposition to capitalists profit. As time goes on, it becomes harder and harder for a capitalist to make a profit. So what do you think they will start doing to make a profit? To what extent will these people go to make a profit? I'll tell you how far. They will go so far as to return working conditions to that of the 1850's in a heartbeat just to maintain their profit margins.


These are things that did not exist much, if at all, during Marx's time. So, of course, they were inconceivable to him.

These things don't matter. Marx analyzed the capitalist system. All of what he has said has still remained true about it. All of the fundamental aspects that Marx laid out are still true, regardless of this temporary increase in living conditions in various countries.


Free trade between two countries increases the wealth of both, provided that both countries have stable governments that don't rob the people.

Well there's your problem!


Free trade exploits foreign countries, not because all capitalism is inherently exploitative, but because the foreign GOVERNMENTS are exploitative and western businessmen make deals with them.

I've already talked about how capitalism is inherently exploitative, but you are somewhat right about this one. These governments in third world countries are corrupt, and this is a huge advantage to businessmen. All businesses have to do is bribe them and they don't have to worry about workers' rights at all! It's a capitalists's dreamland.

What happens, though, when these workers strike and eventually revolt against their government? It is quite obvious what happens then. The imperialist government(s) that have businesses in that country are going to put down that revolution, and attempt to install a puppet regime (or something of the sort).


Free trade exploits foreign countries, not because all capitalism is inherently exploitative, but because the foreign GOVERNMENTS are exploitative and western businessmen make deals with them.

But this obviously won't happen for the very reason that the businesses that have a stake in these countries will counter this development through reasons stated above.


Free trade exploits foreign countries, not because all capitalism is inherently exploitative, but because the foreign GOVERNMENTS are exploitative and western businessmen make deals with them.

Truth?


It is an important goal, but poverty is equally important.

Well, you need poverty in a capitalist system, and since you're supporting capitalism, I'm going to take this that you support poverty, because there's nothing else that this could mean as fighting poverty without fighting the cause of poverty is pointless.


Laissez-faire capitalism is an evil, but efficient system, while Communism is an unstable, but compassionate system.

Communism isn't unstable in any way.


Communism led to the Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam, China, and countless other tyrannies.

Marxism-Leninism led to these. Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism. Do I need to say it again?


While, today, every western country prospers under a mixed-market economy, partially capitalist, partially socialist.


Every Western country prospers, but at what cost? At the cost of the exploitation of other less developed countries. And I again suggest that you define socialism because you're using it in a very vague sense.



Why must you lump such a group of people into one category, as if they all actually work along with eachother for a common goal?

Because they do.



Yes. Typo, sorry.

Okay. I really wasn't sure.



No, getting rid of monopolies AND getting rid of treating workers like a commodity is good.


So how can you support capitalism, when in this system workers are treated like a commodity?



Yes, because it denies the right to property and inevitably requires oppression to implement, unless of course, the majority of people support it, which is never the case. That's exactly WHY you need to establish "revolutions" in the first place. Most other people don't agree with you.

It isn't moralistic in any way, and bringing in words such as "evil" attempts to make it so. You can believe that it's "wrong" or that it "won't work" but that doesn't make it evil. Gravity works, it isn't righteous.



Nope.

Yes, as described above.



But EVERY SINGLE ONE failed! LOL! Not ONE, NOT ONE succeeded!!

So you are against Marxism-Leninism then! Great! I'm not a Marxist-Leninist, so I'm not supporting those countries!!! Marxism-Leninism isn't the only type of communism; generalizing that all branches of communism are "bad" or "won't work" because of how Marxism-Leninism failed is simply unscientific, wrong, and completely idiotic. If you want to be against Marxism-Leninism, then say so, but this isn't an argument at all against other branches of communism.



That's not the traditional way of categorizing it. Why should it be redefined to fit the Communist view of class warfare?

As you've stated, the left-right spectrum is flawed for various reasons.


Furthermore, within Marxism itself, wacko nutjob revolutionaries such as yourself (and the Bolsheviks) are considered right-wing Marxists while the rational, sane, and moderate Democratic Socialists (such as the Mensheviks) are considered left-wing Marxists.

I'm not a Bolshevist. Why would you consider me to be one? I'm actually a Left-Leaning Marxist. Democratic socialists aren't marxists at all. Reform goes against all of Marx's teachings.



I am not any Utopian Socialist. You are the one that believes in utopian ideals.

I suggest you read some Marx.


adhere greatly to the principle behind Fabian Socialism. The Fabian Society was named that after the Roman General, Fabius the Delayer. Fabius was at war and said that the only way to win a particular battle was to delay it (thus, "Fabius the Delayer").

Reformism is utopian.


It isn't utopian to consider setting cars on fire an uncivilized and barbaric way of expressing yourself politically.

Who's setting cars on fire? What the fuck? You have a lot of misconceptions about marxism, and you have proven your complete lack of knowledge on the subject.



Communism = Establishing the principles of equality outlined in the Communist Manifesto. Originally, that meant having a "revolution" to establish a Communist state. Now, you all consider it in an abstract way, that you want to sort of establish a stateless commune. So, essentially, now it isn't much different from Anarchism, except for your greater emphasis on equality and some of you concede that a state is necessary.

That never meant establishing a Communist state. Also, a stateless society is what Marx envisioned. We didn't develop the idea ourselves; Marx was the first to say it. Nobody concedes that a state is necessary.



Socialism isn't necessarily statist, but Communism is.

Communism is about abolishing the state.


In both cases, it's oppressive and does not accomplish its goals.

No it's not.


well a pure capitalist society has never existed, the United States is not pure capitalist, its a mixed economy, in which both private and public, as well as state owned enterprises are runned. In the USA there is private ownership of the means of production, infrastructure, and institutions but may also contain state-ownership of some of these things.

Capitalism is the socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange. This is the definition of capitalism that we are using. So yes, capitalism has existed for the past 300-400 years.

I suggest you go over to the Theory subforum, and read "Marx's Kapital for Beginners" stickied in that subforum.

[cyu]

Capitalists are the bourgeoisie. The bourgeois class is the class of people that own the means of production in capitalist society.

A Capitalist is a person who advocates Capitalism. You can be a wealthy Socialist, like Noam Chomsky, or you can be a poor Capitalist like many people in America that vote Republican. Whether you're wealthy or own a business has nothing to do with whether you're a capitalist or a socialist.

Actually, both definitions exist. If you go to onelook.com, you'll see this:

noun: a person who invests capital in a business (especially a large business)
noun: a conservative advocate of capitalism


Having wealthy people exist isn't bad. Having people EXPLOIT and HARM others, whether they are wealthy businessmen or elites of the politburo, is bad.

Actually, having wealthy people is bad, assuming they are wealthier than everyone else and also spend money in the market economy. Each dollar spent in a market economy is like a vote for what resources should be allocated and what workers should be doing with their jobs. If everyone had relatively equal amounts of spending money in a market economy, the result would be a form of economic democracy. However, if a very few people can spend much more than everyone else, the result is lots of "votes" for allocating resources and labor to serve only the wealthy, leaving less resources to serve everyone else. Thus the average person suffers when the wealthy exist.

[red team]

Value is relative.

Matter isn't.

Money circulates.

Energy is spent.

[JudeObscure84]

Liberalism and Socialism are actually age of enlightment cousins and were both members of the left during the French Revolution against the right wing monarch.

In the classical sense, Liberalism is against the right wing and its idea of the Divine Right of Kings, authoritarian rule and militaristic juntas. It favors Republicanism and lassiez faire capitalism and its doctrine is strictly individualistic.

Many enlightment thinkers were either Socialist or Liberal. Granted dont you people know that Marx called the American Revolution and all the revolutions in the Americas Liberal Revolutions and brushed them off as bourgeoise?

Doesnt it want to make you laugh at all of these young wet behind the ears college punks that vote Democrat and claim to be "liberal" but dont even know the meaning of the word?
They think that they're anarchists going against the Czar, hiding behind the cool label of liberal, when in fact most of the "right wing conservatives" (excluding the religous right) they attack adhere more to the tenets of liberalism then they do.

Theirs is just a mixed bag of socialist new left counter-culture guilt and capitalism. Trying desperatley to make capitalism compassionate and "fair" so they dont have to give up thier lattes and I-Pods.

How do you real leftist marxists feel about that?

[KC]

Many enlightment thinkers were either Socialist or Liberal. Granted dont you people know that Marx called the American Revolution and all the revolutions in the Americas Liberal Revolutions and brushed them off as bourgeoise?

Yes, you are correct. I'm not sure if you have read any John Stuart Mill, but if you have, it is very fascinating to compare his writings with that of Marx's. They both wrote at around the same time, just from different class views - Mill of the bourgeoisie, Marx of the proletariat. It is interesting to see how different their theories are, yet they are from the same time period. There is actually a quote from On Liberty, I believe, where Mill lists past classes. Marx, in a quote in the first chapter of the Manifesto, basically extends it to include the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Very fascinating stuff.



How do you real leftist marxists feel about that?

:lol: That's what I think! :lol:

[JudeObscure84]

Yes, you are correct. I'm not sure if you have read any John Stuart Mill, but if you have, it is very fascinating to compare his writings with that of Marx's. They both wrote at around the same time, just from different class views - Mill of the bourgeoisie, Marx of the proletariat. It is interesting to see how different their theories are, yet they are from the same time period. There is actually a quote from On Liberty, I believe, where Mill lists past classes. Marx, in a quote in the first chapter of the Manifesto, basically extends it to include the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Very fascinating stuff.

Excellent stuff man. I totally agree. :lol: You see the enlightment branched off into two strains, yet liberalism gained momentum first because it had a system of thought that could be carried out and applied. My take is that Socialism at the time was more rhetorical and was considered too utopian. It wasnt until Marx, who sat down and actually turned socialism into a dialectical science did the second strain of the enlightment take into full swing.

And C'mon you guys we may be political and economical enemies but I am sure that you find debating Libertarian/Conservatives far more appealing than faux-liberals like Blue Dog trying to convince the many of you that the Founding Fathers were Ralph Naders and fair traders. :lol: :lol:

[KC]

You see the enlightment branched off into two strains, yet liberalism gained momentum first because it had a system of thought that could be carried out and applied.

And because it had the power of the ruling class behind it fully.


My take is that Socialism at the time was more rhetorical and was considered too utopian.

It was utopian. I read some Fourier recently and it's just outrageous that people actually bought into that shit.



And C'mon you guys we may be political and economical enemies but I am sure that you find debating Libertarian/Conservatives far more appealing than faux-liberals like Blue Dog trying to convince the many of you that the Founding Fathers were Ralph Naders and fair traders. :lol: :lol:

We like debating with people who know what they're talking about and aren't ignorant pricks that don't know how to debate. Anyone that fits into that category's fine by us.

[Atlas Swallowed]

You serve the same elite that all the others do. You are for a kinder and gentler slave labor state. Fuck your laws and fuck your government. I have no use for liberals. Liberals serve the middle and elite classes while blowing smoke up the poor and workers asses. Capitalism is obsoulete and should be abolished.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Capitalism is the socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange. This is the definition of capitalism that we are using. So yes, capitalism has existed for the past 300-400 years.

I suggest you go over to the Theory subforum, and read "Marx's Kapital for Beginners" stickied in that subforum.

you are using a very strict defenition of capitalism, if i use the same way you use your defenition i can also say that communism has existed. Even though i will argue with you all day and you still won't believe that the USSR etc. were communist because you say they were Marxist-Leninists societies. Don't you think Marxists-Leninists label themselves as communists too? why do you think everyone calls them COMMUNISTS!! you say that a communist a pure communist society has never existed, and i tell you that a pure capitalists never has existed as well, so stop telling me it has, America is not pure capitlaist, like i said it is a mixed economy, ever heard of liassez-faire? do you think that a pure one has existed?. Go ahead don't take my word for it, look it up wherever you desire, and tell me if im wrong or not. Anyways , like i said, its funny how you don't classify Marxists-Leninists as communists, yet they are a school of communism. The only difference is you are left, and you have certain beliefs different from those of Marxists-Leninists, its just like christianity would be the same as communism, and Left and Marxists-Leninists would be Calvinists and Catholics.

[KC]

you are using a very strict defenition of capitalism, if i use the same way you use your defenition i can also say that communism has existed.

That doesn't even make sense. I've presented the marxist definition of capitalism. Now, you could claim that communism has existed, if you used a wrong definition. So your analogy would hold true if my definition of capitalism was wrong. But it's not.


Even though i will argue with you all day and you still won't believe that the USSR etc. were communist because you say they were Marxist-Leninists societies.

They were deformed workers' states; failed attempts at "building socialism" through Marxism-Leninism.


Don't you think Marxists-Leninists label themselves as communists too? why do you think everyone calls them COMMUNISTS!!

I never said Marxist-Leninists weren't communists. But you really need to comprehend the fact that there are different kinds of communists. I am a marxist. I disagree with Marxism-Leninism on many things, one of them being that you can "build socialism" in a third-world country. Therefore, you can't discredit my theory based on the failure of the USSR, or Cuba, or China, etc...


you say that a communist a pure communist society has never existed, and i tell you that a pure capitalists never has existed as well, so stop telling me it has

Capitalism is a socio-economic system. There is no such thing as "pure capitalism" in the sense that you are using it. Either capitalism exists as a socio-economic system or it doesn't. What you are speaking of is capitalist economy. The two are completely different.


America is not pure capitlaist, like i said it is a mixed economy, ever heard of liassez-faire?

I probably know more about laissez-faire than you. Do you know that laissez-faire is an economic theory? Did you know that it's not a socio-economic system? Obviously you don't, as you keep calling it "pure capitalism". Mixed economy, laissez-faire, these are specific economic models that can be implemented in a capitalist society.


Anyways , like i said, its funny how you don't classify Marxists-Leninists as communists, yet they are a school of communism.

I do classify them as communists. It's funny how you continually fail to realize that not all communists are Marxist-Leninist and therefore saying "the USSR failed" doesn't even bring into question other communist theories.


The only difference is you are left, and you have certain beliefs different from those of Marxists-Leninists, its just like christianity would be the same as communism, and Left and Marxists-Leninists would be Calvinists and Catholics.

Except that we are talking about scientific analyses here. We aren't talking about gods in the sky or any such nonsense. We are talking about the analysis of both past and present society. This is in no way comparable to religion. I suggest you learn how these theories differ before you start criticizing them.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

They were deformed workers' states; failed attempts at "building socialism" through Marxism-Leninism.

do we need to keep testing with any other form even similar? :lol:




I never said Marxist-Leninists weren't communists. But you really need to comprehend the fact that there are different kinds of communists. I am a marxist. I disagree with Marxism-Leninism on many things, one of them being that you can "build socialism" in a third-world country. Therefore, you can't discredit my theory based on the failure of the USSR, or Cuba, or China, etc...

i get you, but every time iv read a post from you you have def. implied that Marxist-Leninists are not communist, as if they differ in a 360 type of scale from your beliefs.


Capitalism is a socio-economic system. There is no such thing as "pure capitalism" in the sense that you are using it. Either capitalism exists as a socio-economic system or it doesn't. What you are speaking of is capitalist economy. The two are completely different.


I probably know more about laissez-faire than you. Do you know that laissez-faire is an economic theory? Did you know that it's not a socio-economic system? Obviously you don't, as you keep calling it "pure capitalism". Mixed economy, laissez-faire, these are specific economic models that can be implemented in a capitalist society.


thanks for telling me how much you know, Socio-Economic system? listen its called a Market Economy , without a centralized coordination, thats capitalism , and that has never happened, till this day, there is no country with such a system. America in the other hand has a Mixed Economic System which i have been fucking saying for like the last week, its a centrist economic system. It has both private and public, and state owned enterprises. The centralized economic planning of our economy allows for intervention of enviromental and social injustice issues as well as the state ownership of means of production.

You in the other hand , and all your leftist buddies are under what's called the Planned economy. Of course the pure communism you support has never been tested, and just like pure capitalism will never work. So the planned economic systems that have been tried out in the countries that you call Marxist-Leninists haven't worked either.

[KC]

do we need to keep testing with any other form even similar? :lol:

Well, they're not similar. Marxists believe the revolution will happen in the first world as a result of material conditions spontaneously arising and that the proletariat will act when it is ready to act. That is very different from Marxism-Leninism.



i get you, but every time iv read a post from you you have def. implied that Marxist-Leninists are not communist, as if they differ in a 360 type of scale from your beliefs.

They kind of are. Third world communist revolution is completely different than first world revolution.


thanks for telling me how much you know, Socio-Economic system? listen its called a Market Economy , without a centralized coordination, thats capitalism , and that has never happened, till this day, there is no country with such a system. America in the other hand has a Mixed Economic System

You're still failing to realize that capitalism isn't just an economic system (it might be with other definitions, but if you are going to debate our theory you are going to use our definitions).


America in the other hand has a Mixed Economic System which i have been fucking saying for like the last week, its a centrist economic system.

That's great. I don't care.


The centralized economic planning of our economy allows for intervention of enviromental and social injustice issues as well as the state ownership of means of production.

Intervention of environmental and social injustice issues? To what extent?! Certainly not to any significant extent. That's just as true as saying "everyone has equal chance in the US!!!!!" :lol:




You in the other hand , and all your leftist buddies are under what's called the Planned economy.

We are? That doesn't make sense. How are we under a planned economy, especially if most of us live in the US?


Of course the pure communism you support has never been tested

Communism has never been tested. There is either communism or there isn't communism. There aren't different varying degrees of it. Just like there aren't varying degrees of capitalism (it either exists or it doesn't).


and just like pure capitalism will never work.

Again, if you are going to debate our theories you have to use our definitions.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

You're still failing to realize that capitalism isn't just an economic system (it might be with other definitions, but if you are going to debate our theory you are going to use our definitions).

listen i told you what capitalism is, if you dont get it, it's obviously because you dont know what it is, it def. implies that you are ignorant and that would be something you either accept if you are a true to yourself, and if not than keep defining capitalism by "YOUR" defenitions.



Intervention of environmental and social injustice issues? To what extent?! Certainly not to any significant extent. That's just as true as saying "everyone has equal chance in the US!!!!!"

i hope you do know that first of all workers have rights, ever heard of worker's comp.? etc. there is an actual workers "bill of rights" if you want to call it here in America, but i can't remember what it was called or the things it said etc. This goes hand in hand with the environmental, there are laws which limit the workers environment conditions here in America. Also there are many environment laws here in America as well, things that deal with aerosol cans or something i dont remember, littering, gas emitions etc.



That's great. I don't care.

thanks for accepting what i said, even though your response was uneducated, at least your making your taking your first steps out of ignorance.



We are? That doesn't make sense. How are we under a planned economy, especially if most of us live in the US?

either your a real knucklehead, or your just playing dumb as means to make an argument with me. You know that i meant the system you guys support you moron.



Communism has never been tested. There is either communism or there isn't communism. There aren't different varying degrees of it. Just like there aren't varying degrees of capitalism (it either exists or it doesn't).

in a sense that is true, but NO, there are different varying degrees, specially with communism. This is not true, tell me in the soooooo many different ways that the different school's of communism differ? I can tell you that pure capitalism differs only from our current economic system in that like i said we have a centrist economic system, and in capitalism there is no central control at all. Thats it

[KC]

listen i told you what capitalism is, if you dont get it, it's obviously because you dont know what it is, it def. implies that you are ignorant and that would be something you either accept if you are a true to yourself, and if not than keep defining capitalism by "YOUR" defenitions.

Well, you can't talk about marxist theory without using marxist definitions, otherwise you aren't talking about marxism! How hard is this to understand? You can't say that capitalism means something different than what marxist theory states, and then use that non-marxist definition to talk about marxism. It doesn't work like that. Because you're not talking about marxism then.

It's like saying x + 2 = z. If I define x=3, then z=5. But you define x=2, and so z=4. So it's like you saying "x + 2 doesn't equal 5, it equals 4!!!" which I respond to by saying "x equals 3" and you say "No it doesn't it equals 2!!!". It doesn't work like that. You have to be a fucking idiot to not understand this.



i hope you do know that first of all workers have rights, ever heard of worker's comp.? etc. there is an actual workers "bill of rights" if you want to call it here in America, but i can't remember what it was called or the things it said etc.

That won't last much longer. I'd give it around 25-30 years.


This goes hand in hand with the environmental, there are laws which limit the workers environment conditions here in America.

Also there are many environment laws here in America as well, things that deal with aerosol cans or something i dont remember, littering, gas emitions etc.

If you want to make the claim that environmental laws are actually working, go ahead, but nobody's gonna listen to you.



thanks for accepting what i said, even though your response was uneducated, at least your making your taking your first steps out of ignorance.

If you didn't fail to realize, I never disagreed with you.


either your a real knucklehead, or your just playing dumb as means to make an argument with me. You know that i meant the system you guys support you moron.

Well, in that case then yes, we do support a planned, moneyless economy.



in a sense that is true, but NO, there are different varying degrees, specially with communism. This is not true, tell me in the soooooo many different ways that the different school's of communism differ?

They offer different means of achieving communism. Communism in any of the theories is no different; only the means of achieving it are.


I can tell you that pure capitalism differs only from our current economic system in that like i said we have a centrist economic system, and in capitalism there is no central control at all. Thats it

Again, if you are going to talk about marxism you have to use marxist definitions, as described in common sense above.

[RebelDog]

The idea that capitalism is efficient is a commonly held ridiculosity. It is ultra-wasteful. Production is driven by the market and undertaken by rival capitalists. This enevitably leads to duplicate production, the abandonment of resources such as factories in order to up-sticks to cheaper climbs and an insane movement of goods in which counties export and import the same products. Imagine what localised, planned production would save in fuel alone. How much would that cut carbon emmisions?

scenario-
(which happens all the time)
A company builds a factory in the UK. The factory never produces to capacity and re-tools constantly due to changes in the market. The company decides to leave for China (to make more profit from labour) and leaves behind a skilled, trained workforce who now have no output for their talents even though they are needed. The company builds another factory in China leaving behind a perfectly good one in the UK. The company then exports from China to the UK moving goods over thousands of miles until some other country pops up who offers low wages, low taxes, weak environmental controls and anti trade-union laws and thus abandons another factory. Capitalism is efficient in its exploitation of the workers, destruction of the planet and its opposition to common sense.

Socialism is the ultra-efficient economy, only producing what is needed, locally, with the minimum of environmental damage and most importantly socialy and collectively.

I fail to see how anything could possibly be as wasteful as capitalism, but that is the price that is payed in the great race to see who can be the best at exploitation and destruction.

The world that says 'what do we need' will always thrash the one thats says 'what is profitable' in the efficiency play-off.

[Xanthus]

Umm, Lazar, I'm seeing some serious misconceptions here from you, and it's really hard to understand because I agree with the vast majority of what you're saying.

The big problem seems to be your understanding of Lenin. He DID NOT believe that socialism could be built in the third world, that is a rediculous and unmarxist perspective. Only Stalin, and others following his tendancy have ever said that.

Lenin believed that through revolution in an undeveloped country, two things could be accomplished.

1. Since the bourgeoisie in an undeveloped country plays the role of servents of imperialist masters, they are incapable of playing the same progressive role in a bourgeois revolution as they previously had in England, France and the USA. The only class capable of developing the productive forces in that situation is the working class, and therefore, paradoxically, in order to carry out the demands of the bourgeois revolution (such as land reform & industrialisation), a socialist growing over of the revolutionary process is needed. This is not so much an end in it's self, but I'm sure you can agree with me that the Bolshevik government played a more progressive role in these areas then the Kerensky government.

2. The most important point... a revolution in an undeveloped country can effect the revolutionary struggles in more developed countries. This result could be very obviously seen in Germany, Italy, Spain, and elsewhere. The goal of the Russian revolution from the first place was NOT to build socialism in Russia, which all marxists (including Lenin) agreed was impossible alone, but to help along the revolutions in more developed countries. Of course, once the revolution took on an international character and spread to the more advanced countries, they would provide a stabilising presence, and Russia would have a chance to unite with them and draw from their strength.

What you define as Marxism-Leninism is the same thing that Stalinists (CPers and others) define as Marxism-Leninism, but not nearly the same as how Lenin, or any other true Marxists would define it.