Capitalism and Progress...

[Agent Smith]

I have always found that one of the strongest and therefore most annoying arguments against the practicability of Communism is the idea that only a Capitalist system can really encourage technological progress - or at least, that such a system is better at doing so than any other.

My question is simple. Is this the case? Or is it possible to reconcile scientific progress with Communism?

[Cult of Reason]

Any Price System, of which Capitalism is one, naturally means there is a scarcity of resources for all research, so there is very little research going on anyway compared to what would be possible in a non-P$ high energy society.

Also, non-P$ high energy socieities result in less work time, and so more freedom of thought for individuals, and more opportunity to engage in research if that is what they want to do.

Besides, I very much doubt that those who enjoy finding out new things or designing new things would cease activity merely because of the disappearance of monetary incentive.

Myself as an example: after my degree I want to do a PhD in Physics and then do research. I would not stop if there was no monetary incentive, as long as I was fed and had other resources I needed in order to carry experiments out, or just pen and paper if I become a theoretician only.

In the "West" there exists that cpability to produce pretty much anything in abundance (the reason we do not experience this is due to artificial scarcity, such as stockpiling, hoarding, war or blatant destruction of goods, such as the grain mountains of the EU, all a direct consequence of a P$ trying to cope with abundance capability), so there materials will definitely be there, and anyone who wants to research, will because there probably would not be much they would rather do.

[321zero]

Bourgeois technology will continue to perfect tools for resource extraction and warfare, but I predict only communism will reach for the stars.

Don't wait for the Aliens!

[anomaly]

I don't see any problem at all. Most communists recognize that capitalism is needed in order to advance to such a level technologically so that communism is in fact possible.

Indeed, as capitalism progresses, it should, if Marx was correct, plant the seeds of its own destruction. So there is no reason to 'oppose' technological advance.

But, the bourgeois criticism that communism 'hinders' technological progress is completely unfounded.

[Axel1917]

Capitalism was required to build up the productive forces to make socialism possible, but it has become a fetter on production. It is no longer capable of attaining the growth it acheived in its heydey. The whole system is in crisis today, and it can't even guarantee basic safety, shelter, food, and other necessities (around 35 million starve to death every year, despite the possibilitiy of being able to produce more than enough food for the planet's population, how nothing was done to prepare for Katrina and the earthquake in Pakistan, etc.).

It is natural for people to invent new things, so there is some progress in fields, but not enough for things to move forward. I am also sure that we would see more inventions if it were not for things that guarantee that only the rich will get the benefits of it, i.e. patents, buyouts, etc.

Capitalism also does not seem to progress as fast as its supporters want it to. For example, several decades ago (as late as the 1980's even), a lot of people seemed to think that we would have flying cars, supercomputers, highly advanced medical technology, etc. by the year 2000! Well, in 2006, these imagined things have not really happened. We basically have better computers, more powerful video game systems, fuel injected cars instead of carburated ones, and a few minor advances here and there, not to mention the crisis capitalism is in!

[Agent Smith]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 11:47 PM
I don't see any problem at all. Most communists recognize that capitalism is needed in order to advance to such a level technologically so that communism is in fact possible.

Indeed, as capitalism progresses, it should, if Marx was correct, plant the seeds of its own destruction. So there is no reason to 'oppose' technological advance.

But, the bourgeois criticism that communism 'hinders' technological progress is completely unfounded.
Interesting. So would you attribute the failure of Russian Communism, at least partly, to its being too early in history to survive - quite literally "ahead of its time"?

I always forget that Capitalism is not so much an enemy to be defeated as a necessary evil - a means to the end, or a part of the ongoing process at the end of which lies that Workers' Utopia that no-one can ever agree on a name for, except that it must end in "-ism". If we (somehow) kick Capitalism's ass now, the requisite technological level you refer to may never be reached. That's actually an encouraging thought, because it suggests that rather than the left simply being defeated by the right, it's more that the time is not yet ripe.

[Dyst]

Originally posted by Agent [email protected] 29 2006, 06:46 PM
Interesting. So would you attribute the failure of Russian Communism, at least partly, to its being too early in history to survive - quite literally "ahead of its time"?

I always forget that Capitalism is not so much an enemy to be defeated as a necessary evil - a means to the end, or a part of the ongoing process at the end of which lies that Workers' Utopia that no-one can ever agree on a name for, except that it must end in "-ism". If we (somehow) kick Capitalism's ass now, the requisite technological level you refer to may never be reached. That's actually an encouraging thought, because it suggests that rather than the left simply being defeated by the right, it's more that the time is not yet ripe.
You got it.

Capitalism is not going to survive, simply because the possibilities the technology (capitalism has helped produce, sure - but in the end it is humans who has created it, not capitalism) opens up, and how this affects people.

A popular example is the music industry. People are not allowed to download music, f.ex., and the music industry is calling it stealing. Meanwhile, people realize there is no real harm in illegally downloading a song, which in reality is no ones labour (except the artist, who is paid enough/too much anyway.)

So we are stuck having to buy these things, while in fact all we need to do is press a button to get it?!

I think the transition to another economical system will not be led by some small group of political activists. It will be a revolution for the people and by the people, the cause being a necessity for change.

[cyu]

Capitalism was required to build up the productive forces to make socialism possible

I'm not sure I agree with this statement - or maybe I just don't understand the reasoning behind this. Can someone summarize why capitalism is a stepping stone to socialism / communism? Why can't an agricultural nation go straight from that to an industrialized nation using non-capitalist structures of organization? Does exploitation have to happen in order to have advanced technology? I don't agree - am I missing something?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well you can have state-capitalism or some kind of dictator transform society and then capitalism isn't necissary.

But in order to have socialism, a worker's society, you must first have workers in a position where they can take control of production, and therefore the entire society, and put it to work for them.

I think technological advancements will change (for the better) under socialism and communism because people will still have the need to perfect things, but instead of progressing technology fore the need of capitalists, it will be used for what people want and need.

Instead of making 100s of variations of profitable prozac-like drugs, pharmacists and scientists could put their skills to persuits they feel are more useful.

Instead of inventing technology to make products cheeper to make, workers might want to create technology to make our daily lives easier.

How many designs do we need for toothbrushes and shaveing razors... surely all the skilled people who are hired to make fancy vibratiung toothbrshes would rather be inventing more useful things.

Just because profit wouldn't be the motive for technological progress dosn't mean we would run out of other motivations anytime soon; to make our daily lives easier or just for the hell of it.

Mavericks in the Rennassance didn't invent and discover things because they were being paid by Monsanto or Microsoft - they were doing it because they were aristocrats and they thought knowledge was a noble persuit. Just think of how many Da Vincis or Galleleos or Newtons or Shelleys or Byrons or Thomas Paynes or Karl Marxs a society could produce when everyone is freed from the daily grind and allowed to live the lifestyle of an aristocrat.

[STI]

Especially in its early stages, capitalism breeds technological advancement. Capitalists are always looking for ways to make new things that they can exploit labour to make, or better ways of making the things they already make in order to cut the amount of labour involved so that they can sell their goods at a better price and be competitive in the market.

This trend of technological development wouldn't stop in communism, though. The simple love of research would compell some to find new, better ways of "gettin' the job done". More than that, technological advancements in a communist society would serve to benefit people in general rather than just the ruling class.

For example, if I was a particularily smart individual in a communist society, and there was a certain thing that I wanted, but it took a lot of human labour to produce (a really powerful car, let's say), then I would stand to benefit from finding a way to reduce the amount of human labour involved in making that car - increasing the rate at which it is produced as well as its general availability.

So now I have fairly regular access to this awesome car, and because of my efforts in advancing that productive technology, so does everyone around me!

Boom, I've got all kinds of social cred right there. "Hey, you're the guy who made it easier to make these wicked cars! You fucking rock! Let's go for a beer." And you have a great afternoon drinking with some guy you just met (always a good time).

There's more than that, though. The way things happen now, there are often competing companies whose R&D departments are working to make the same technological advancement (this happens fairly often in the pharmasutical industry). So one department is basically dublicating the research and development done by the other... big waste of time. In a communist society, there'd be no reason for this to happen... there's nothing to be gained by not co-operating to develop that new allergy pill. So then all the time, resources, and human knowledge would be used in a concentrated effort toward achieving that common goal... faster results!

It doesn't end there. The flow of information in a communist society wouldn't be hindered by copyright laws, so any new knowledge would be easily-accessible by anybody (pretty much every household in the developed world has a computer as it is, and this would only spread further with communism, so it would probably be done over the internet). This way, that would-be-inventor would find it easier to get her hands on that one bit of information necessary to make the "Eurika" moment happen. Plus, it would allow for more people to have the smarts necessary to be able to do cutting-edge research.

So ya, technological development in a communist society isn't something to lose sleep over.

[cyu]

Well you can have state-capitalism or some kind of dictator transform society and then capitalism isn't necissary.

But in order to have socialism, a worker's society, you must first have workers in a position where they can take control of production, and therefore the entire society, and put it to work for them.


Can't workers be in a position to take control of production without first going through capitalism or state-capitalism? What would prevent them from doing it early?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Workers in an underindustrialized society are not organized as they are in modern capitalism. For one thing they are isolated from eachother - peasants who farm a small plot of land and give rent to the landlord would probably want a end of debts and landlords, but then would want to farm induvidualy and sell their food rather than engage in communal farming for the benifit of all. Modern capitalism has pushed peasants and tenant-farmers off the land and created "factory-farms" where one large farm has replaced lots of little induvidual farms and migrents farm this land for wages. If these migrents took over the land, then they would have an intrest in communally organizing the farm because they would see that larger farms can produce more and require less work and they could all produce more together than they could induvidually.

Industrial and white-collar work has already "communalized" these laborers - they work together but the boss reaps the effort of their common labor. Capitalism has created the conditions necissary for communism since workers are communalized together and have the skills and tools necissary for production... if they get rid of the bosses ownership of these "means of production", then you have the possibility for communism.

In unindustrial societies, workers were more like aprentices to craftsmen. So the consiousness to band together with other laborers did not exist because people wanted to develop a trade and then start their own shop after their apprenticeship.

[cyu]

I see what you mean now. Putting people together creates conditions that may be ripe for revolution. Still, if consciousnous could be raised without having these undesirable conditions in the first place, I'd support it. It may be more difficult to raise consciousness without so many people packed together, but I think it's still possible.

As far as individual farming or cooperative farming goes, as an anarchist, I'd have to say let the farmer decide. If cooperative farms turn out to be more productive with less effort, then he'll join up eventually. If they're about the same, then I see no problem with individual farmers, so long as they're the ones doing the farming and not employing others to do the farming for him and using his claim of ownership to take away a share of their sales.

[STI]

Still, if consciousnous could be raised without having these undesirable conditions in the first place, I'd support it.

I don't think capitalism is anywhere near as undesirable as fuedalism. Almost everybody in the advanced capiatlist world has regular, reliable access to drinking water, for example.

And, as to whether or not to "support" them, I think either way it's not much more than meaningless intellectual position-taking. Whether or not you or I "support" an attempt by peasants to establish a classless socitiety really doesn't make much of a difference either way. Instead, we should try and judge whether or not it will work, then act accordingly.


It may be more difficult to raise consciousness without so many people packed together, but I think it's still possible.

It's more than just a matter of population density and distribution. Pre-capitalist society is soaked in all kinds of reactionary ideology. Take religion as an example. Religion, an impediment to revolution, was a lot nastier in fuedal times because it had a lot more power, and believers could get away with a lot more than they can now.

The capitalist class played a large role in this weakening, though incomplete, of religious influence. In a capitalist economic system, profit is #1. The desire to make profits exceeds the desire to preserve tradition, respect the dominance of religious authorities in spheres of influence like justice and education, you get the picture.

This profit-drive led to the bourgeoisie largely secularizing whatever it reasonably could. Italy's experience is paradigmatic of this trend. In order to create and operate advanced means of production, the working class has to have an increasingly sophisticated foundation of knowledge and skill. The capitalists are (or at least were, when capitalism was new and the bourgeoisie was more rigourous than today's) willing to go to the effort of secularizing its institutions if it will help serve this end.

Of course, religion has managed to retain a reasonably high level of influence, moreso in North America than in Europe. You still have the President saying "God bless America", an ongoing battle over female control over her reproductive capacity, and all that other shit. But rest assured, it's nothing compared to what was going on in the 1500s.

[RedRevolution]

Capitalism is the only current way to progress, as Marx said, but now we can go straight to communism and the process is already happening. The countries with the most and longest history of capitalism is where an organic communism is emerging strongest. The worker on a blog is the blogger, and they are the owner. This is the first step of the communist revolution along with open source and copyleft software. We don't need violence, and we don't need to work against true capitalists. They are becoming us.

The libertarians propose ultra-capitalism and it's they who dominate blogs and the like. There is no coincidence. We are an ends based approach and capitalism is a means based approach. Yet inevitably capitalism's means are starting to produce communism's ends. How else could we explain the end of division in such a divided world? Do we naievely think that people will see the light? Do we think the other side will be slaughtered?

What they want is staying the same but the concept is changing. Inevitably we will unify and desire the same thing, forming one class in a communist society (worker controlled production and everyone a worker) but the capitalists will think the opposite and everyone will be too happy and unified to care (althoughn it'll be us who were really right, but we're generous people so we can forget that).

[Jimmie Higgins]

Frankly Red, to say that that's a bit utopian dosn't even begin to cover it. Do conditions exist where capitalism is no longer necissary and actually holds back some kinds of progress - definately yes. But just because a system is outmoded dosn't mean that thoes at the top of that outmoded system will do whatever is possible to protect a status quo where they are at the top.

Slavery in the US was abolished in northern states because it was in the class intrests of thoes who ran society. In the south, landowners controlled society and landowners owned slaves in order to make money from the land and so they had class intrests in maintaining the slavocracy.

Any peaceful transfer of power in history wasn't really a transfer of power. THe ruling class has an intrest in maintaining the exploitation of workers and "open source" or internet technologies will not change society, society will change these technologies to suit the rulers of that society. Radio waves were regulated by governments and then given away to business, we see the same things going on with digital and internet technologies today.

[RedRevolution]

Do conditions exist where capitalism is no longer necissary and actually holds back some kinds of progress

Yes, but only in the media, and a few other industries. It's in these that capitalism is naturally withering away.


But just because a system is outmoded dosn't mean that thoes at the top of that outmoded system will do whatever is possible to protect a status quo where they are at the top.


The pharmaceutical industry is an example of this. Yet hardcore capitalists attack this too. In fact it's our pro-state position that helps to maintain this.



Slavery in the US was abolished in northern states because it was in the class intrests of thoes who ran society. In the south, landowners controlled society and landowners owned slaves in order to make money from the land and so they had class intrests in maintaining the slavocracy.

Slavery was economically unfeasible, as was shown in Brazil. It would have faded away anyway - the war was fought over many issues but really it's an example of irrelevant superstructure.


THe ruling class has an intrest in maintaining the exploitation of workers and "open source" or internet technologies will not change society, society will change these technologies to suit the rulers of that society

That's very idealist of you! Society is formed by the underlying economic structure and it's this material and technological base that is slowly, very slowly, empowering the workers.


Radio waves were regulated by governments and then given away to business, we see the same things going on with digital and internet technologies today.

The range of radio waves is limited, the range of the internet isn't.


Frankly Red, to say that that's a bit utopian dosn't even begin to cover it.

This is not utopian at all. It does not require a change in huamnity but a chnage in the technology that structures humanity. It's happening without you, though your misguided (but honourable) efforts may slow it.

[piet11111]

Capitalism is the only current way to progress, as Marx said, but now we can go straight to communism and the process is already happening.
well i live in europe and things are most definitly not getting any better for the working class here.

The countries with the most and longest history of capitalism is where an organic communism is emerging strongest.
havent seen anything over here outside of some social reformers and some freak group of leninists

The worker on a blog is the blogger, and they are the owner.
there is no such thing as free bandwith and the host of the website can pull any website of the internet if they want to.

This is the first step of the communist revolution along with open source and copyleft software.
nonsense open source and copyleft have nothing to do with communism and it certainly wont revolutionise poeple.

We don't need violence
then go imitate Ghandi but wear a helmet because you will get a police batton to the head.

and we don't need to work against true capitalists. They are becoming us.
:o well i dont know where you life but i havent seen any rich poeple getting poor or any poor poeple getting richer.

The libertarians propose ultra-capitalism and it's they who dominate blogs and the like.
meaning ?

There is no coincidence. We are an ends based approach and capitalism is a means based approach.
ok let me explain its 7:44 in the fucking morning and i havent slept but i doubt you will be making any sense after i had some sleep.

Yet inevitably capitalism's means are starting to produce communism's ends. How else could we explain the end of division in such a divided world?
the gap between rich and poor is getting wider and the world is being polarised in west vs east you can see this shit on the news every day.

Do we naievely think that people will see the light?
yes poeple have that nasty tendency to want to have a good life and when life gets fucked up enough under decadent capitalism they will have to realise communism is the only real alternative.

Do we think the other side will be slaughtered?
hell yes those capitalists are definitly going to the slaughter if i have a say about it.

What they want is staying the same but the concept is changing.
ofcourse they want us to keep obedient because they get to live like kings over our backs.

Inevitably we will unify and desire the same thing, forming one class in a communist society (worker controlled production and everyone a worker)
the capitalists dont give a rats ass about what we want thinking otherwise is self dilusion.

but the capitalists will think the opposite
yeah they all of a sudden they will wake up and feel really sorry and they will give us shitloads of money and their houses right ?

and everyone will be too happy and unified to care
there is only one true way of making me happy and making them not care and that is when the capitalists are dead.
damn man i was counting on a "and they lived happily ever after" because your obviously into fairy-tales

[RedRevolution]

well i live in europe and things are most definitly not getting any better for the working class here.

That's because us misguided socialists are not allowing he historical process to take it's course and instead are instigating forms of feudalism. France, for example, is constantly pushing corporatist interests and subsidies equivalent to pushing aristocratic ones. The forefront of society is getting better for workers - we now have a serious worker owned media, for example. America is further ahead because it's allowing the historical progress to move ahead with less hindrance.


havent seen anything over here outside of some social reformers and some freak group of leninists

Communism is to be brought about by ideas, it is to be the inevitable result of technological change. The structure of production in the most capittalist countries is actually the most communist - ebay is another example.


there is no such thing as free bandwith and the host of the website can pull any website of the internet if they want to.

Yes they can; however costs are continually coming down and hosts very rarely do. Eventually people will just stop caring as the resources become more abundant and we'll have proper communism with everyone's support.


nonsense open source and copyleft have nothing to do with communism and it certainly wont revolutionise poeple.

The common use of the means of production has nothing to do with communism? (You're too concentrated on labels and not the underlying base).


then go imitate Ghandi but wear a helmet because you will get a police batton to the head.

Did Linux need violence, is emule surviving without violence, is the regrwoth of volunatryism requiring violence? No! The process will happen without as people's ideas change to reflect the underlying technological forces.


ohmy.gif well i dont know where you life but i havent seen any rich poeple getting poor or any poor poeple getting richer.

What a suprise, when I've pretty much only seen the poltiical systems become more feudal slowing our technological developement into communism. We can't stop the wheel of histroy but we are slowing it down and subverting it.


meaning

Meaning they're not really against communism since they pretty mcuh operate in a communist way. Showing that the superstructure doesn't matter but the base does.


the gap between rich and poor is getting wider and the world is being polarised in west vs east you can see this shit on the news every day.

No, the differences are coming more out into the open which is part of the process of their eradication of course with teething problems. Do you not think Chian was more different from the US 30 years ago, or that Saudi Arabia was more different? Everywhere people's ideas are coalescing but reactionaries on both sides are struggling against it - but they can not win without turning back technology (why primitivists advocate that) as technology is forcing world unity.


yes poeple have that nasty tendency to want to have a good life and when life gets fucked up enough under decadent capitalism they will have to realise communism is the only real alternative.

Capitalism doesn't produce anything as bad as it's predecessors, it's an improvement a natural part of progress. It will continue improving until it improves into communism. Do you think trade (capitalism) came before or after the revolutions (not everyhwere even needed them) - it came before! So too with communism.


hell yes those capitalists are definitly going to the slaughter if i have a say about it.

Then you're a person motivated by nothing but hate and qualify as a fascist not a socialist.


ofcourse they want us to keep obedient because they get to live like kings over our backs.

But it's US who'll ahve the last laugh (although tehy'll laugh with us) as their choices become more and more communist. Who do think blogs the most? Who do you think invovles themself in Linux and the like the most? They're leading the way into their own demise and rebirth into our common class.


yeah they all of a sudden they will wake up and feel really sorry and they will give us shitloads of money and their houses right ?

No, but slowly IT IS mattering less and less and eventually overcome by the success of the gift and common society they'll give up their last few almost valueless vestiages of clas division and join us. It's not a matter of choice but of economic determinism.

[piet11111]

yes i hate the capitalists but somehow i end up hating the pacifist left even more.
it is their lack of spine and reformist attitude that will prolong the suffering and the only reason the capitalists are laughing is not because they like you but because you are too damn ignorant to realise they where using you.
they are laughing AT you.

also what happend to the soviet union after world war 1 ?
those army's where not patting those leninists on the back for a succesfull overthrow of the tsar where they ?

why dont you go to opposing ideology's and see what the capitalists think of your ideas ?
im certain they will have a wonderfull time laughing a lot.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 05:42 AM

Do conditions exist where capitalism is no longer necissary and actually holds back some kinds of progress

Yes, but only in the media, and a few other industries. It's in these that capitalism is naturally withering away.
No, capitalism is outmoded in most industries. People still need cars and we can produce more than we currently do - why are they shutting down automotive factories when people still need cars? It's overproduction... in overproduction we see how the system which has created the possibility to make enough widgets for everyone actually tries to stop progress (if progress is seen as producing enough to meet actual demand).

Additionally, communication technologies are not production - they aid in production and distribution, but you can not feed yourself with MP3s yet.


That's very idealist of you! Society is formed by the underlying economic structure and it's this material and technological base that is slowly, very slowly, empowering the workers.I see all this wonderful technology you speak of and yet the working class is still loosing ground - at leas in my neighborhood, county, state, country, hemmisphere, planet! Wages for US workers have remained stagnet throughout the entire internet and digital "revolutions" - in fact, real wages have probably gone down, while the difference between labor wages and wages for businessmen is at Guilded-age levels of inequality.



Radio waves were regulated by governments and then given away to business, we see the same things going on with digital and internet technologies today.

The range of radio waves is limited, the range of the internet isn't.All the better for business to reach further. It will take a revolutions where workers have control over information technology - as long as capitalism dominates, then technology is used in its intrests, not the people's.


This is not utopian at all. It does not require a change in huamnity but a chnage in the technology that structures humanity. It's happening without you, though your misguided (but honourable) efforts may slow it.Socialism dosn't require humanity to change either, Socialists just think that humanity should be in charge of humanity, not profit in charge of humanity. Further, humanity structures technology - which may in turn bring about new structure in humanity

Many technologies existed before the industrial revolution, but then only became widely used after production had changed to a point where that technology had a useful application.

For example, people had explosives before industrialization, but it was used in war and in fireworks but not in construction or mining. Mineing didn't need the massive ammounts of coal or other minerals that would have made the use of explosives necissary so why use an unstable substance when tradditional methods were enough. When more coal had to be extracted from hillsides to feed the growing needs of factories and transportation, dynomite was invented... it wasn't that dynomite was invented and this caused massive mineing to happen out of the blue!

[RedRevolution]

also what happend to the soviet union after world war 1 ?
those army's where not patting those leninists on the back for a succesfull overthrow of the tsar where they ?

Look at the labour camps, look at the murders. The technological conditions were not right, and so the revolution ended up turning the historical and technological clock backwards. It was a power struggle between rival feudalist reactionaries.


why dont you go to opposing ideology's and see what the capitalists think of your ideas ?
im certain they will have a wonderfull time laughing a lot.

Hardened capitalists like F.A.Hayek predicted it, they just were deluded enough to call it capitalism because they thought the means were important. I know the ends are what's important and the means change by themselves along with the ends. People like him predicted communism but didn't realise it. He predicted the empowerment of the common man through technology as did Marx, just from different ideological perspectives. The science is the same and the science is all but inevitable.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 06:21 AM
America is further ahead because it's allowing the historical progress to move ahead with less hindrance.
"Less hindrance" meaning no labor movement?


The structure of production in the most capittalist countries is actually the most communist - ebay is another example.If you are a objectivist or whatever, it's easier if you are just up front about your politics - we might have to continue this discussion from the OI section, but at least we'd both be on the same page about what you are argueing here.


It's not a matter of choice but of economic determinism.I other words, you subscribe to an ideology which excuses you from any political activity. Why even call yourself a communist if it's just going to happen no matter what you do why even have an ideology if all we need to do is wait for the messiah of technology to deliver apon us, heaven?

Again, there has been a boom in new technology, and yet opression, imperialism, inequality, and the exploitation of labor continues... get real.

[RedRevolution]

"Less hindrance" meaning no labor movement?

I mean less political hindrance, as Marx himself said (but forgot the implications of this) capitalism isn't bad (per se) but it's will kill itself (he didn't realise how). It'll kill itself by producing a communist system or at leats one close enough for an easy and 95% popular revolution.


Again, there has been a boom in new technology, and yet opression, imperialism, inequality, and the exploitation of labor continues... get real.

No, those are dying and where they are strongest is where the socialist 'idealists' were most successful. Idealism before materalism is stupid, and will always lead to troubles.


Why even call yourself a communist if it's just going to happen no matter what you do why even have an ideology if all we need to do is wait for the messiah of technology to deliver apon us, heaven?

I'm a communist like Marx was (except I have the benefit of 150 years of evidence, a sort of neo-Marxist). I predict the end of the class struggle with true communism. If we don't wait for technology to provide to provide the circumstance then it can not work as is hasn't.

[piet11111]

Look at the labour camps, look at the murders. The technological conditions were not right, and so the revolution ended up turning the historical and technological clock backwards. It was a power struggle between rival feudalist reactionaries.

look at the "white" army's thats what i want you to realise.
the capitalists where feeling threatened by the new ussr and send their army's to crush the bolshevists (im gratefull they failed stalins USSR saved our asses in ww2 not the americans)

and talking about ww2 where do you think adolf hitler's party funds came from ?
hitler was put in power because he was the only person who could crush the communists in germany.
my personal opinion is that he unintentionally saved the american economy by destroying the european economic foundation.
america was able to "lend" us money to buy their products and they saved money during the war (nothing but the essentails was for sale)
so they all of a sudden become the only serious provider for the free european country's
and they also had huge sums of money coming to them aswell.
big F-ing miracle capitalism started working again after ww2.

[RedRevolution]

What does all this matter? It was a fight between (structurally) capitalists and feudalists,. marx amde one mistake in that he thought the industrial revolution was the communist supporting one, when actually it's the internet one (that he couldn't predict. The point is that the capitalists are supporting this communism, and us not calling it that is decreasing our movement. They think it's capitalism when actually it's the first wave of the common man's revolution.

Don't you understand...we can't lose we can only delay our victory...which is exactly what happened in Russia..whilst in America (with ebay, linux, blogs, kazaa, emule and all that) they are getting the revolution without knowing. The base is what's important the rest is just superficial.

[RedRevolution]

Being angry doesn't make you deep, nor does it make you progressive or at the forefront of socialism. COmmunism is going to make people happy, only a fascists wants to spill blood when technology will make all our interests the same as it makes our class the same.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 07:18 AM
Being angry doesn't make you deep, nor does it make you progressive or at the forefront of socialism. COmmunism is going to make people happy, only a fascists wants to spill blood when technology will make all our interests the same as it makes our class the same.
great please make sure you stay the heck away from me when the revolution comes (you will know its here when the sirens are going off and the army comes marching in shooting on sight)

you remind me of a movie character that let a nazi soldier live only to be knife fighting him later with the idiot getting knifed by the nazi.
im afraid such stupidity is not entirely fictional now that im dealing with you.
so do me a favor if you ever feel sympathetic with the enemy go and kill yourself there is no need for the rest to die for your mistakes.

[RedRevolution]

I think everyone can read what you're writing and see that truly you are a fascist in communist clothing, go do like Stalin and round up innocent woman and children then shoot them - just be warned that I am NOT a pacifist and I don't take kindly to fascists.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 07:29 AM
I think everyone can read what you're writing and see that truly you are a fascist in communist clothing, go do like Stalin and round up innocent woman and children then shoot them - just be warned that I am NOT a pacifist and I don't take kindly to fascists.
not a pacifist ?

great you are now up a small notch from totally useless now use your frustration you hold against me for something usefull.
perhaps you can read up on the "accomplishments" of leninism and reformism and understand why i have no tolerance for poeple that advocate to repeat the failures of the past.

to me capitalism is a cancer that needs to be destroyed entirely or it will grow back.
i hope you will realise this before the revolution comes otherwise you might end up on the wrong side.

you may concider me to be way too violent but you are still in the comfortable position of not knowing what we are dealing with.

and fyi im not participating in "communist" action (aka dicking around with the capitalists) because that is pointless.
my only goal is to prepare and learn before the revolution then and only then can i be usefull to our cause.

[RedRevolution]

perhaps you can read up on the "accomplishments" of leninism and reformism and understand why i have no tolerance for poeple that advocate to repeat the failures of the past.

But it's you who advocate going against the technological base and thus making the mistakes of the past - you're a reactionary with good intentions, but intentions do not a communist make.


you may concider me to be way too violent but you are still in the comfortable position of not knowing what we are dealing with.

I know exactly what we are dealing with. Some facsists and some capitalists, only facsists stand against the historical process at the moment. Capitalists will mostly turn communist as their production turns communist through technology.

[piet11111]

anti-technological ? :lol:

what do you base that on anyway ?
the fact that i dont consider linux a "giant leap forward" for communism ?
give me a clean source of nuclear energy that would be something usefull to communism not linux or web blogs.

the entire idea that capitalism will transform into communism is refuted daily by the destruction of excess produce.
like the burning of foodstuffs in the european union to make sure profit remains a reality.
or the artificial fuel shortages in the united states because the oil company's close refinary's.

[RedRevolution]

like the burning of foodstuffs in the european union to make sure profit remains a reality.

That is only there as a remnant of feudalism....the excess is directly caused by CAP, as are large scale farmer....not exactly very capitalist but very reactionary.

[Comrade_Ryan]

Will you accept my nomination of the biggest idiot in the world?