I Have a Question... [Archive]

Capitalist Lawyer

20th March 2006, 23:12

Is is possible to be a Marxist and support capitalism or atleast some type of welfare-state capitalism?

What if you go along the lines of:

"I support what we have now in the states and in Western Europe, I voted for John Kerry in 04' and I'll vote for Hillary or Rice in 08' but I do ultimately believe that communism is inevitable."

"I don't really support a communist revolution or I'll ever will but I believe it will happen in the distant future."

Would this make someone a communist or a Marxist? Just curious...that's all.

rouchambeau

20th March 2006, 23:24

Not really. Marxism is about creating a classless society. Capitalism requires a society with classes.

Capitalist Lawyer

21st March 2006, 00:05

But doesn't a human society require the capitalist stage of development in order achieve communism? Isn't capitalism a necessary pre-requisite for communism?

They are not mutually exclusive to one another. So shouldn't you communists be in support of capitalism and the "way things are now"? Or possibly lend your support to socities that are in the primative capital accumulation development phase?

loveme4whoiam

21st March 2006, 00:15

Hmm. You are right about the capitalism being required (from a Marxist point of view, I'm sure some people would object) but we should not support "the way things are now", because the way things are now is bad. The capitalist stage has gone on long enough in terms of technical and industrial development (or almost anyway), all that remains is for society to wake up to the notion that it is no longer required.

As for supporting capitalist growth in countries that have not yet developed to the stage that Western powers have, I would say that a socialist society would be capable of advancing to the same stage without capitalist market competition driving it.

DisIllusion

21st March 2006, 00:16

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 20 2006, 04:08 PM
But doesn't a human society require the capitalist stage of development in order achieve communism? Isn't capitalism a necessary pre-requisite for communism?

They are not mutually exclusive to one another. So shouldn't you communists be in support of capitalism and the "way things are now"? Or possibly lend your support to socities that are in the primative capital accumulation development phase?
You mean like having the current system rile up the people and to show them that the system is truly wrong? That sounds pretty manipulative. I'm not sure what you're asking here.

Capitalist Lawyer

21st March 2006, 00:21

Hmm. You are right about the capitalism being required

So, is it possible to support capitalism and be a communist?

but we should not support "the way things are now", because the way things are now is bad.

Sure about that? How exactly so? What is "it" that is "bad" right now? If things are bad, why not support a welfare state to remedy whatever is bad right now?

The capitalist stage has gone on long enough in terms of technical and industrial development (or almost anyway), all that remains is for society to wake up to the notion that it is no longer required.

I'm sure the communists of the 1930s and 1960s said the same thing, and they were wrong as you are too.

I would say that a socialist society would be capable of advancing to the same stage without capitalist market competition driving it.

What do you mean by "socialism"? Leninism? What?

Is your brand of socialism really just capitalism without capitalists? Or really just capitalism without markets, money or is it capitalism but you're really just calling it "socialism"?

Zingu

21st March 2006, 01:46

No.

We are, and always will be the element in society that wants radical change whatever the situation.

What makes us different from the rest is that we desire a different society more signifigantly due to idealistic reasons, sure, alot of people here are workers in not so good conditions...but we're not exactly basing our political posistion in terms of our material posistion alone, we've read theory or think radically differently from the norm that has caused us to advocate revolutionary change.

While the rest of society, when revolution comes, will turn to us when the material conditions prompt them to do so. To them, they'll go with whatever "floats their boat" the best right now, which might be what you are suggesting, the welfare state (Take example the worker's strikes for better conditions through reform in the early 1900s, while commited anarchists who were not really in the mainstream were throwing bombs whatever the situation may be). When the conditions become so intolerable, they would most likely turn to revolutionary change.

In this sense, we should not marginalize ourselves by "joining the bandwagon". At the moment, we're the core of the revolutionary movement. It may seem silly and irrational to accept such a platform as ours, but things change. And then maybe our message won't sound that silly after-all.

I don't know if that explains it well or not. :)

anomaly

21st March 2006, 01:58

Capitalist Lawyer said:

So shouldn't you communists be in support of capitalism and the "way things are now"?
In developed capitalist nations, we certainly should not support 'the way things are now'. If we did support modern capitalism, we would call ourselves capitalists.

In the 'third world', I suppose we probably would support capitalism, if it were so simple a choice as capitalism or primitivism. However, things, as you probably know, are not so simple. Rather, the developed nations of the world have the nasty habit known as imperialism, in which 3rd world resources (including the mass exploitation of labor) are used for 1st world capitalist profit. It will be noted by someone as wise as yourself that imperialism makes it far more difficult for a nation to modernize than does even Leninism. China, for example, was a colonized land for some 150-200 years before the revolution in 1949. But now it is a leading competitor in the 'global market'. Leninism has certainly a good record of quickly modernizing once fedual nations. Imperialism has not.

So, logically, being the progressive communists we are, we support anti-imperialist movements everywhere, because that is the best and fastest way forward.

redstar2000

21st March 2006, 01:59

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
Is is possible to be a Marxist and support capitalism or at least some type of welfare-state capitalism?

No.

Communists support communism, period.

But doesn't a human society require the capitalist stage of development in order achieve communism? Isn't capitalism a necessary pre-requisite for communism?

Yes.

But in the "west" we have long passed the era when capitalism was "progressive"...even in a limited sense.

It's not the task of communists to "support capitalism" in some other country as "progressive"...except in those circumstances in which such support might undermine one's own ruling class and thus advance one's own country towards communism.

Thus I support the "left" bourgeoisie around Chavez in Venezuela because it will help undermine American imperialism. As it happens, the victory of the Chavez circle will also bring closer the day when Venezuela will be ready for communism...but that's still very far in the future.

Chavez is not the "Lenin" or "Trotsky" or even "Castro" of Venezuela; he's the "Franklin D. Roosevelt" -- or, perhaps, "Huey P. Long" of Venezuela.

Pay no attention to the "socialist rhetoric"...it's just window-dressing to mobilize popular support, that's all.

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

Capitalist Lawyer

21st March 2006, 02:41

Communists support communism, period.

Ok, but if one states that they "think communism is inevitable" and "bound to happen" would that make one a communist or atleast a Marxist? I heard a liberal friend of mine state that they're "a Marxist at heart but not a full-fledged Marxist yet".

But in the "west" we have long passed the era when capitalism was "progressive"...even in a limited sense.

You know that's not true as net worth has increased, our living standards have increased, women, poor people and minorities can vote (even though they don't), the United States might actually have a national health plan someday, technology is making life easier and creating more wealth for more people. I mean, we are all richer thanks to a lucky few getting wealthy and even wealthier.

I question the assumption made by my kind if any market can truly be totally free. There are many things that can muck up the works, (such as monopolies and corruption) including and other than government. That said, the market is the best tool available to point to what should be produced, what should be cut etc.

Strong government institutions are needed to create an atmosphere conducive to capitalism.

Read the book, The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else, , by Hernando de Soto. He explains how ineffectual governments keep capital from being raised in many less-developed countries.

Thus I support the "left" bourgeoisie around Chavez in Venezuela because it will help undermine American imperialism.

Only capitalism (or welfare-statism), and only IF, they are anti-American imperialist?

Chavez is not the "Lenin" or "Trotsky" or even "Castro" of Venezuela; he's the "Franklin D. Roosevelt" -- or, perhaps, "Huey P. Long" of Venezuela.

That sounds accurate.

bezdomni

21st March 2006, 03:03

Ok, but if one states that they "think communism is inevitable" and "bound to happen" would that make one a communist or atleast a Marxist? I heard a liberal friend of mine state that they're "a Marxist at heart but not a full-fledged Marxist yet".

If they think communism is inevitable, then they are a historical materialist. So yes, they are essentially a Marxist. Your friend just needs to "come out of the closet" with their Marxism.

redstar2000

21st March 2006, 05:27

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
You know that's not true as net worth has increased, our living standards have increased, women, poor people and minorities can vote (even though they don't), the United States might actually have a national health plan someday, technology is making life easier and creating more wealth for more people. I mean, we are all richer thanks to a lucky few getting wealthy and even wealthier.

Highly disputable, as you must know.

This is probably not the thread to argue the details...as long as you personally "feel" like things "are getting better", fine.

I think the common observation among lefties here is that "things are getting worse"...and have been since the mid-1970s or so.

Optimism about the future in the "old" capitalist countries appears to be a shrinking resource...and not just among lefties.

As you know, the "net worth" figures are enormously inflated by the "real estate bubble". If you'll recall, Japan had such a "bubble" in the late 80s...when it was seriously remarked that a square mile of downtown Tokyo was "worth more" than the entire state of California. :lol:

Nobody says that anymore. :)

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

BattleOfTheCowshed

21st March 2006, 05:51

I think what Capitalist Lawyer is talking about is people who view themselves as being "Marxian"? That is, people who believe that Marx had an accurate understanding of economy and capitalism, and may possibly be correct in his view that Communism was "next" for human society but who do not necessarily support Communism (possibly "neutral" on the development of society) nor advocate a communist revolution. I think that (in the US at least) there are quite a few academics, professors etc. who subscribe to such a view.

Anyway, Capitalism IS necessary to achieve Communism. However, there is no reason to necessarily "support" it. Capitalism is by it's nature expanding. I personally can't think of any nation on earth that isn't either already developing capitalism or is on the brink of doing so. Supporting capitalism would be equivalent to supporting the bourgeoisie of those respective nations. Instead we support the proletariat and workers of those countries. As Redstar stated, lefties do in a certain sense support capitalism when we support anti-imperialist bourgeoisie leaders/govts.

As far as the fact that the standard of living has bettered over time, that is more or less true. Communism isn't just about helping the poor because they're poor or anything of that nature. It's about building a new society with a just economic system that harnesses the world's resources more efficiently and allows for human liberty. So whether or not the average worker now has a computer compared to ten years ago or whatever isn't as important. To quote the May '68 French protestors:
"Since 1936 I have fought for wage increases. My father before me fought for wage increases. Now I have a TV, a fridge, a Volkswagen. Yet my whole life I've been a chump. Don't negotiate with the bosses. Abolish them."

Propagandabuster

21st March 2006, 07:23

Leninism has certainly a good record of quickly modernizing once fedual nations. Imperialism has not.

And who came up with the technology they modernized their nations with?

God you people are stupid.

red team

21st March 2006, 09:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 07:26 AM

Leninism has certainly a good record of quickly modernizing once fedual nations. Imperialism has not.

And who came up with the technology they modernized their nations with?

God you people are stupid.
Amateur. :lol:

What political or economic benefit would it give the U.S. to simply give Cuba those technologies. The politics of a nation state operates on the principle of self-interest for the ruling class of that state. You think Cuba will be as wealthy as Japan if Fidel would just leave it alone? :lol: Japan and Korea got rich because the U.S. couldn't politically afford them being poor. They were frontline countries in the Cold War. It pays not to have a rebellious working population in countries where you have your forward military bases. Cuba is no where near any competing Socialist powers which makes it perfect for being a colony which it was for the majority of the Cold War. If you want to know what Cuba would've ended up like without the revolution you should look more at "countries" like Haiti and the Dominican Republic than Japan.

Propagandabuster

21st March 2006, 09:07

And you call me an amateur?

Your post makes no sense whatsoever in light of the point I was making.

I'll simplify it for you.

Name one useful invention that ever came out of a communist nation.

Name one thing communism ever accomplished besides genocide of 100 million people.

red team

21st March 2006, 09:39

Communism by definition is a classless society of freely associating individuals so it doesn't need a nation in the modern meaning of the word because it will be global as there will be no need for competing nation-states.

But, since you asked, I'm assuming you meant Socialist nations. Well then, I'll give two examples of tech. developments made first in the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union was first to put a satelite in orbit, sputnik and also a human being in orbit, Yuri Gagarin

The Soviet Union was first to develop the reactor design that everybody is using to research fusion power, the tokamak

Quite surprising because Russia was a backward peasant country on the level of India (where many people today still die of "natural causes") when the Bolsheviks first took power.

Now I'll ask you a similar question. If Russia was at the level of India is today, what did India come up with after half a century of independence other than simply a poor peasant country with a religious caste system?

Propagandabuster

21st March 2006, 10:42

I said useful inventions, meaning useful enough to raise the standard of living of the average man, but lets assume space travel and nuclear reactors are useful to the average proletariat loser you claim to be so concerned about.

Please show me a shred of evidence that Gagarin dude was ever in space.

Sounds like some commie propaganda bullshit hoax to me. From what I understand, they had already shot several dudes to their deaths in space and made up this Gagarin crap to cover it up. Even if he was in space, they had to have him eject before landing and tried to cover that up because they shot people out into space before they figured out how to land it without killing the astronaut.

Commies are too lazy to ever pull that off properly, plus, they would never be able to come up with the gas money. Gagarin's death was awfully suspicious too - wonder if he was going to nark that he was never in space or bailed form the flight?

The design of the Tokamak fusion reactor is of a western birthright, originating at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.

Anyone can spy on people and steal nuclear or space program secrets, legacy of the Russian commies, your comrades in the KGB - I'm talking about inventions useful to the proletariat. Shit you use every day.

And I guess the pinnacle of the Soviet nuclear success was around the time of Chernobyl.

P.S. The proletariat people you claim to embrace were standing in line for hours for a crust of bread in the Soviet Union while the Communists spent buttloads of money killing astronauts by flinging them into space, never to return.

Social Greenman

21st March 2006, 11:22

Propagandabuster wrote:

Name one useful invention that ever came out of a communist nation.

Name one thing communism ever accomplished besides genocide of 100 million people.

Communist and Marxist in name only being state capitalist under the control of the Leninist. Nor would I call them socialist IMHO. Many times it has been written here on this board that communism has never existed therefore nothing has been invented. However Nazi Germany killed many people over their political beliefs and ethnic background including the those who were mentally challenged or with mental health issues. I believe that was called the T-4 program. People being killed in war time is one thing but the blatant murder of people because they were not so-called Aryan is just plain murder period. I am not justify what was done in the Old Soviet Union because that was wrong as well. I am not a communist but a DeLeonist and IWW member and I prefer to work with the Anarchist because workers already do everything when it comes to production and distribution. The capitalist is absent but only holds the deed. Because of surplus labor, exploitation, etc., the worker is entitled to take hold of bourgeiosie property. The worker has paid for it many times over.

I have the stinking feeling that you are one of those WNs due to the way you word your posts. I wrote this post to point that out to everyone. In other words, this is my only post because I am not going to waste my time with you or anyone else here in OIF. It's pointless. So fuck off! :angry:

Propagandabuster

21st March 2006, 11:38

What is WN?

Gaius

21st March 2006, 11:51

I believe communism is inevitable, I just disagree with most communists about how it will be reached.

Loknar

21st March 2006, 17:44

Of course Communism is inevitable but it will be gradual as Marx predicted.

The standard of living has increased, but the expense is ridiculous. 1000 years ago even as a poor peasant you could have many children. Today however its hard enough to support just one.

I actually am not offended by a class system so long as it is economic (not social rank). I also advocate categorizing people into a Standard class and a upper-class. Of course, standard means middle class and I do advocate upgrading the population so all of us are middle class and have a good chance to get rich.

Also the best thing we as a society can do is lower the cost of living. The standard is good but really the expense is what is killing us. In fact, eliminate all mortgage payments and we’re set.

Tungsten

21st March 2006, 17:55

red team

The Soviet Union was first to put a satelite in orbit, sputnik and also a human being in orbit, Yuri Gagarin
Meanwhile, back on earth, everyone else was in red square, quequing for bread.

Dyst

21st March 2006, 18:08

First off, Soviet was not communist.

If you think otherwise, please try and argument for it. You will fail.

It was clearly a state controlled capitalistic society.

Second, Soviet was a poor country. Not as a result of the pseudo-ideology, but because of resources and material conditions. It wasn't exactly a wealthy nation under the Tsar, either. And conditions did improve under their new leaders, again not because of the pseudo-ideology but mostly because the material conditions had generally improved through time.

Any criticism made of Soviet, or similar pseudo-communist states (even the word "communist state" is contradicting itself) is a criticism of the conditions in those countries, nothing more. Historically, the countries who was declared communist was all poor. They were poor before "communism", and has been poor afterwards as well. They were in reality usually authoritarian capitalistic societies all the time.

Social Greenman

21st March 2006, 23:00

Propagandabuster wrote:

What is WN?

Does bone head ring a bell?

Okay, not my only post here but here is something Mike Lepore wrote:

Also, most of the betterment in our standard of living was accomplished by science, not by capitalism. Although conservatives want to give capitalism credit for the invention of the self-defrosting refrigerator or the microwave oven, we know that workers, not capitalaists, developed that technology, and they did it with science, not with capitalism. Capitalism happened to be the environment in which they did it. Workers did this in spite of capitalism, not because of it.

Pretty much what I wrote in my previous post. It's all about the workers who do everything these days. The capitalist just exploit for profit. That's it. I am done. :P

Capitalist Lawyer

22nd March 2006, 04:38

I think the common observation among lefties here is that "things are getting worse"...and have been since the mid-1970s or so.

Key term and limitation there being, "lefties." Of course you guys are not optimistic in a free market system. Freedom bothers you to no end, therefore you and them have nothing to be optimistic about.

As you know, the "net worth" figures are enormously inflated by the "real estate bubble"

The real estate bubble is enormously overinflated/reported. It only exists in certain high demand/low supply markets. The rest of the nation is quite steady. THEREFORE, your conclusions about it affecting net worth are equally erroneous.