Hastening the demise of Capitalism

[D_Bokk]

Outside of the realm of guerrilla attacks on imperialist headquarters (or, what you "leftists" call terrorism) I forsee only one relatively peaceful solution to quickening the suicide of the capitalist system. That method being: open borders.

Like many of my posts, I like to bring up Das Kapital because I find it to be a good guide as far as revolutionary progress is concerned. Like Marx said, capitalism will collapse when profit is sought after to the point where wages are no longer able to sustain life and the economy. Imperialism (with welfare capitalism) has greatly slowed down this process. The process is still rolling, as we've seen with 401(k) plans and outsourcing - it doesn't seem to be approaching an end, however.

In order to destroy capitalism in the West - mass immigration is the only real way to quicken the demise of capitalism. This would result in rapid wage decreases and a greatly increase the workforce. "Supply and Demand" will lead to greater competition for work and wages will gradually decrease over time as people become desperate. High unemployment and low wages will lead to genuine suffering in the West and eventually revolutionary fervor. In the end, communism will reign supreme much earlier than expected.

However, this doesn't seem plausible due to rabid racism coming from the working class in the West (and, to be honest, on this very forum.) The only way opening the borders will ever happen is if the big corporations were blind enough to want a greater workforce. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the capitalists are this ignorant.

So, how, then would one quicken the rise of communism?

[JazzRemington]

Automation. The more automation is created and the more effecient and productive it becomes, the less workers would be needed. Thus, the less WORK that would be needed. The massive waves of unemployment created by the laid off workers would set off "the big one."

Not that this does not deny the above suggestion. Automation is sought becuase it's cheaper and more effecient. Thus, the usage of automation would create higher profit and lower wages, because physical workers would not be needed anymore.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 06:17 AM
Automation. The more automation is created and the more effecient and productive it becomes, the less workers would be needed. Thus, the less WORK that would be needed. The massive waves of unemployment created by the laid off workers would set off "the big one."

Not that this does not deny the above suggestion. Automation is sought becuase it's cheaper and more effecient. Thus, the usage of automation would create higher profit and lower wages, because physical workers would not be needed anymore.
And how do you suppose those machines used in automation are produced?

We have been hearing about all these supposed crisis to capitalism for over a century now. its not come so, because the allegations are false.

gee whiz, compared to the days of Marx, the world is far more automated.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 15 2006, 12:01 PM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 15 2006, 12:01 PM)
[email protected] 15 2006, 06:17 AM
Automation. The more automation is created and the more effecient and productive it becomes, the less workers would be needed. Thus, the less WORK that would be needed. The massive waves of unemployment created by the laid off workers would set off "the big one."

Not that this does not deny the above suggestion. Automation is sought becuase it's cheaper and more effecient. Thus, the usage of automation would create higher profit and lower wages, because physical workers would not be needed anymore.
And how do you suppose those machines used in automation are produced?

We have been hearing about all these supposed crisis to capitalism for over a century now. its not come so, because the allegations are false.

gee whiz, compared to the days of Marx, the world is far more automated. [/b]
Of course, but Marx said that a succesful communist society could only be built in a modern industrialized society. Did he mean Russia 1917? Don't think so. China 1949? Neither. Therefore the material circumstances of communism are there in the present time.

However, capitalists are exploiting less to temper the uprisings and still keep the system intact.

I think continuing automatization is needed therefore. But maybe communism will only be there in hundreds years, when the whole world is industrialized. Therefore Marx's theory is not testable.

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 15 2006, 07:01 AM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 15 2006, 07:01 AM)
[email protected] 15 2006, 06:17 AM
Automation. The more automation is created and the more effecient and productive it becomes, the less workers would be needed. Thus, the less WORK that would be needed. The massive waves of unemployment created by the laid off workers would set off "the big one."

Not that this does not deny the above suggestion. Automation is sought becuase it's cheaper and more effecient. Thus, the usage of automation would create higher profit and lower wages, because physical workers would not be needed anymore.
And how do you suppose those machines used in automation are produced?

We have been hearing about all these supposed crisis to capitalism for over a century now. its not come so, because the allegations are false.

gee whiz, compared to the days of Marx, the world is far more automated. [/b]
Obviously, thru capitalism. Marx, and neither have I, said that capitalism was COMPLETELY 100% unneeded. The development of capitalism produces the necessary material conditions to bring about a communist society, slowly but surely. In fact, Marx himself praised capitalism for decentralizing the means of production, if only a little bit compared to feudalism. No Marxist has stated that capitalism is unneccessary. It's really more a matter of "it outdatting itself." If anything, such developments have slowed the process down.

Well, there are several new factors that one must taken into consideration: the State stepping in and helping the working class, which no Marxist could have predicted, and the rise of consumerism (buying on credit, shopping malls, discount stores, mass media), which works to "mystify" the working class into thinking they can be rich and powerful like the capitalists. Do you understand the concept of "ideology?" The beliefs of the ruling class that seeps into the oppressed class, which in turn starts to believe it, regardless of whether its true or not. But, historically speaking no economic system that operates and is maintained by a class structure (regardless of how strong or weak that structure is) has not lasted for very long, when compared to hwo long humans have been on the planet of course. Capitalism is no different.

The current level of automation, though much more advanced than in Marx's days, has not reached the desired level that sets off a revolution. A few months ago there was a story in the news of a machine successfuly performing open heart surgery (I believe it was) on a human patient. There are also machines that practically repair themselves and reproduce themselves. WHen such automation happens, and displaces a rather large percentage of the working class, then something big will most likely happen, if you get my drift.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 01:17 AM
Automation. The more automation is created and the more effecient and productive it becomes, the less workers would be needed. Thus, the less WORK that would be needed. The massive waves of unemployment created by the laid off workers would set off "the big one."

Not that this does not deny the above suggestion. Automation is sought becuase it's cheaper and more effecient. Thus, the usage of automation would create higher profit and lower wages, because physical workers would not be needed anymore.
if that were true, unemployment would be steadily increasing as time goes on with technological process. this of course hasn't happened as with innovation you need a whole new array of skilled workers to manage and create new technology, and other workers who know how to apply the new technology, and others who repair the technology.... automation will probably only make capitalism stronger.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by JazzRemington
Automation. The more automation is created and the more effecient and productive it becomes, the less workers would be needed. Thus, the less WORK that would be needed. The massive waves of unemployment created by the laid off workers would set off "the big one."

Not that this does not deny the above suggestion. Automation is sought becuase it's cheaper and more effecient. Thus, the usage of automation would create higher profit and lower wages, because physical workers would not be needed anymore.
This has just as likely to occur as open borders, however. The capitalists are not as stupid as they may let on, which is why they developed Imperialism and Welfare Capitalism. Actually, when I was working in a die-casting factory I watched the variety of jobs - nearly all of them could easily be replaced with machinery. But they aren't because the capitalists have to provide jobs to keep the workers from revolting.

On a side note, capitalism thwarts technological development - but that's not what this thread is about so I'm not going to get into that.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 15 2006, 12:01 PM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 15 2006, 12:01 PM)
[email protected] 15 2006, 06:17 AM
Automation. The more automation is created and the more effecient and productive it becomes, the less workers would be needed. Thus, the less WORK that would be needed. The massive waves of unemployment created by the laid off workers would set off "the big one."

Not that this does not deny the above suggestion. Automation is sought becuase it's cheaper and more effecient. Thus, the usage of automation would create higher profit and lower wages, because physical workers would not be needed anymore.
And how do you suppose those machines used in automation are produced?

We have been hearing about all these supposed crisis to capitalism for over a century now. its not come so, because the allegations are false.

gee whiz, compared to the days of Marx, the world is far more automated. [/b]
If you studied history thouroughly, you would clearly see it has been slowly arising - every 10 years capitalism goes through a enormous depression in which people file onto the streets and scream and tear while prices skyrocket. Its not that hard to research these.

The "Crisis" marx spoke of is already in its form - just everything needs a "switch" to start it, and the revolutions spark is the threat of global warming, which once the seas start to rise, even the capitalists with their best propaganda can't fool the billions who's homes are about to be sunken that it was the "Communists" who did this.

The people will go up, and shoot them right in thier faces.

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 15 2006, 03:06 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 15 2006, 03:06 PM)
[email protected] 15 2006, 01:17 AM
Automation. The more automation is created and the more effecient and productive it becomes, the less workers would be needed. Thus, the less WORK that would be needed. The massive waves of unemployment created by the laid off workers would set off "the big one."

Not that this does not deny the above suggestion. Automation is sought becuase it's cheaper and more effecient. Thus, the usage of automation would create higher profit and lower wages, because physical workers would not be needed anymore.
if that were true, unemployment would be steadily increasing as time goes on with technological process. this of course hasn't happened as with innovation you need a whole new array of skilled workers to manage and create new technology, and other workers who know how to apply the new technology, and others who repair the technology.... automation will probably only make capitalism stronger. [/b]
AH, but here's the rub: not everyone can afford education necessary to keep up with automation. Plus, even jobs that require the skills necessary will one day be proven useless. Look at the above mentioned example of a machine completeing surgery. There are also machines that monitor and repair themselves.

However, even if everyone did adapt to the new environment, that would not change the fact that less workers would be need to upkeep the machines, thus still creating massive waves of unemployment. Labor is limited, and even mroe limited is the amount of machines necesary to complete a job. Plus, if everyone did adapt, the main deathknell of capitalism woudl still stand: the push for profits drives wages down, thus decreasing demand because no one can buy the goods on account of poor wages. With automation, and with the increased production it brings, this only aggrevates the problem. Imagine, all these goods available and no one can buy them.

Now, I suppose a capitalist can stave off this effect buy building more places to employ people. But, why would that happen if there is no profit to be made?

[colonelguppy]

AH, but here's the rub: not everyone can afford education necessary to keep up with automation. Plus, even jobs that require the skills necessary will one day be proven useless.

low level jobs will stiff exist though. scarcity makes in impractical and innefecient to use automation for every task.


Look at the above mentioned example of a machine completeing surgery. There are also machines that monitor and repair themselves.

so than there will be technicians and designers and marketers and manufactures, and capitalists who provide money for the manufacturers and all the grunts who go along with those professions. than creative industries such as entertainment and art, which require a human element, will expand because of all the spare time we have thanks to automation.


Plus, if everyone did adapt, the main deathknell of capitalism woudl still stand: the push for profits drives wages down, thus decreasing demand because no one can buy the goods on account of poor wages.

marx's prophecy has shown to be wrong; as with any other market commodity, the more something is demanded the higher the price. this is especilly true in post-industrialized economies where specialization takes place, there is high demand for competent labor in various fields. automation increases specialization.


With automation, and with the increased production it brings, this only aggrevates the problem. Imagine, all these goods available and no one can buy them.

if no one can buy them then the price will fall. you know suppply and demand. plus you forgot that whole middle class that automation helped to create.


Now, I suppose a capitalist can stave off this effect buy building more places to employ people. But, why would that happen if there is no profit to be made?

why wouldn't there be a profit motive?

[JazzRemington]

quote]low level jobs will stiff exist though. scarcity makes in impractical and innefecient to use automation for every task.[\quote]

Low level jobs are often the lowest paying and highest stress available. And don't pull the scarcity game. Capitalism creates scarcity, it doesn't deal with it.


so than there will be technicians and designers and marketers and manufactures, and capitalists who provide money for the manufacturers and all the grunts who go along with those professions. than creative industries such as entertainment and art, which require a human element, will expand because of all the spare time we have thanks to automation.

But if there is unemployment and people ushered into low paying jobs because of the rise in automation, how can they afford such things? And, as you said, sicne they in demand more, wouldn't the be more expensive? You have plenty of spare time when your UNEMPLOYED!


marx's prophecy has shown to be wrong; as with any other market commodity, the more something is demanded the higher the price. this is especilly true in post-industrialized economies where specialization takes place, there is high demand for competent labor in various fields. automation increases specialization.

I'm not sure you understood what I said. I said that thanks to the push to drive wags down to increase wages, there would be less demand for things because there is less money abailable to buy them with. The only way to effectively figure demand is to figure in who can pay before the fact and who did pay after the fact. Either way, demand would still remain low because of the low wages. A worker is also a consumer, if you haven't noticed. But regardless of how high the prices rise for specialized labor, there still is a drive to obtain the LOWEST priced labor, in order to increase profits. Profits and labor are inversely related. ANY mainstream economist will tell you this.


if no one can buy them then the price will fall. you know suppply and demand. plus you forgot that whole middle class that automation helped to create.

This ignores profit motive. Why would I lower my prices to the point where i loose money? Wouldn't that create an incentive to stop producing one good and start producing another? Low prices is bad for the capitalists because it means low profit, the opposite of the profit motive. And the middle class began to develop even more automation started. Read your history.


why wouldn't there be a profit motive?

Why would I risk building another business to emply people to give them wages to buy my products if there is no profit to be made? Even in this new business, there would still be a drive to depress wages to increase profits. It would just ADD to the cycle.

[red team]

if that were true, unemployment would be steadily increasing as time goes on with technological process. this of course hasn't happened as with innovation you need a whole new array of skilled workers to manage and create new technology, and other workers who know how to apply the new technology, and others who repair the technology.... automation will probably only make capitalism stronger.

1. create new technology

And once it's created, their service is no longer needed leading to unemployment.

2. apply the new technology

With increasing levels of automation due to powerful technologies (1) that was created once and can then be duplicated from blueprints and software, far fewer workers are needed to apply the new technology when applying it means displacing 20 times as many people whose services are now redundant and are now no longer needed. This leads to unemployment.

3. repair the technology....

Due to the innovation of interchangeable parts, the vocation of repairing detailed components of any new technology are dying a quick death since labour costs outpaces the costs of simply buying a part wholesale when components malfunction. Thousands of technicians currently remain unemployed because interchangeable parts makes it far more cost-efficient for business to simply replace discretely packaged parts instead of repairing details of the part.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by RevolutionaryMarxist+Sep 15 2006, 08:49 PM--> (RevolutionaryMarxist @ Sep 15 2006, 08:49 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 12:01 PM

[email protected] 15 2006, 06:17 AM
Automation. The more automation is created and the more effecient and productive it becomes, the less workers would be needed. Thus, the less WORK that would be needed. The massive waves of unemployment created by the laid off workers would set off "the big one."

Not that this does not deny the above suggestion. Automation is sought becuase it's cheaper and more effecient. Thus, the usage of automation would create higher profit and lower wages, because physical workers would not be needed anymore.
And how do you suppose those machines used in automation are produced?

We have been hearing about all these supposed crisis to capitalism for over a century now. its not come so, because the allegations are false.

gee whiz, compared to the days of Marx, the world is far more automated.
If you studied history thouroughly, you would clearly see it has been slowly arising - every 10 years capitalism goes through a enormous depression in which people file onto the streets and scream and tear while prices skyrocket. Its not that hard to research these.

The "Crisis" marx spoke of is already in its form - just everything needs a "switch" to start it, and the revolutions spark is the threat of global warming, which once the seas start to rise, even the capitalists with their best propaganda can't fool the billions who's homes are about to be sunken that it was the "Communists" who did this.

The people will go up, and shoot them right in thier faces. [/b]
Yup, now its "global warming" which will bring about the Great Socialist Revolution. And when that does not pan out, some future Revolutionary Marxist will come up with something else.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by JazzRemington+Sep 15 2006, 08:03 PM--> (JazzRemington @ Sep 15 2006, 08:03 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 07:01 AM

[email protected] 15 2006, 06:17 AM
Automation. The more automation is created and the more effecient and productive it becomes, the less workers would be needed. Thus, the less WORK that would be needed. The massive waves of unemployment created by the laid off workers would set off "the big one."

Not that this does not deny the above suggestion. Automation is sought becuase it's cheaper and more effecient. Thus, the usage of automation would create higher profit and lower wages, because physical workers would not be needed anymore.
And how do you suppose those machines used in automation are produced?

We have been hearing about all these supposed crisis to capitalism for over a century now. its not come so, because the allegations are false.

gee whiz, compared to the days of Marx, the world is far more automated.
Obviously, thru capitalism. Marx, and neither have I, said that capitalism was COMPLETELY 100% unneeded. The development of capitalism produces the necessary material conditions to bring about a communist society, slowly but surely. In fact, Marx himself praised capitalism for decentralizing the means of production, if only a little bit compared to feudalism. No Marxist has stated that capitalism is unneccessary. It's really more a matter of "it outdatting itself." If anything, such developments have slowed the process down.

Well, there are several new factors that one must taken into consideration: the State stepping in and helping the working class, which no Marxist could have predicted, and the rise of consumerism (buying on credit, shopping malls, discount stores, mass media), which works to "mystify" the working class into thinking they can be rich and powerful like the capitalists. Do you understand the concept of "ideology?" The beliefs of the ruling class that seeps into the oppressed class, which in turn starts to believe it, regardless of whether its true or not. But, historically speaking no economic system that operates and is maintained by a class structure (regardless of how strong or weak that structure is) has not lasted for very long, when compared to hwo long humans have been on the planet of course. Capitalism is no different.

The current level of automation, though much more advanced than in Marx's days, has not reached the desired level that sets off a revolution. A few months ago there was a story in the news of a machine successfuly performing open heart surgery (I believe it was) on a human patient. There are also machines that practically repair themselves and reproduce themselves. WHen such automation happens, and displaces a rather large percentage of the working class, then something big will most likely happen, if you get my drift. [/b]
So displaced heart surgeons are going to lead the Great Socialist Revolution?

And you still haven't explained about who builds these machines.

[Tungsten]

ZX3

So displaced heart surgeons are going to lead the Great Socialist Revolution?

And you still haven't explained about who builds these machines.
He doesn't have a clue. Or how it'll work in practice. He's another one of these "robots will do everything" people stuck in a sci-fi fantasy world. He's no different from these futurists of the 50's who insisted that by the year 2000 we'd all be driving around in nuclear powered cars and taking holidays on the moon.

Communism would be virtually impossible by the time (and if) that situation comes around. The only hope he's got otherwise is establishing communism then "technocracy" and presumably, while we're waiting for these robots to arrive, we'll have to put up with the tyranny, violence and misallocations that characterise communism in practice (assuming it doesn't all collapse in the meantime).

[colonelguppy]

Low level jobs are often the lowest paying and highest stress available. And don't pull the scarcity game.

low level jobs won't be the only jobs. machines are really only practical for manual labor and computing, human relations and creativity will be hard to reproduce, thus ensuring design and management type jobs.


Capitalism creates scarcity, it doesn't deal with it.

haha.

scarcity is inherent to nature, capitalism only creates means to lessen scarcity by producing more effecient production methods.


But if there is unemployment and people ushered into low paying jobs because of the rise in automation, how can they afford such things? And, as you said, sicne they in demand more, wouldn't the be more expensive? You have plenty of spare time when your UNEMPLOYED!

well, i'm saying that their won't be alot of unemployed and the middle class will be larger. but ok, if people have less money then they demand less so obviously prices fall.



I'm not sure you understood what I said. I said that thanks to the push to drive wags down to increase wages, there would be less demand for things because there is less money abailable to buy them with. The only way to effectively figure demand is to figure in who can pay before the fact and who did pay after the fact. Either way, demand would still remain low because of the low wages. A worker is also a consumer, if you haven't noticed. But regardless of how high the prices rise for specialized labor, there still is a drive to obtain the LOWEST priced labor, in order to increase profits. Profits and labor are inversely related. ANY mainstream economist will tell you this.

i know thats what businesses do, but you don't understand the market forces involved. high demand for labor as well as competition for competent labor (from employers) drives wages up, this principle is only magnified when applied to specialized jobs which automation helps create.


This ignores profit motive. Why would I lower my prices to the point where i loose money? Wouldn't that create an incentive to stop producing one good and start producing another? Low prices is bad for the capitalists because it means low profit, the opposite of the profit motive.

no you lower your prices because no one will buy if your prices are too high, thus resulting in little net revenue. its called a demand curve, you set your prices to maximise profit at specific demand levels, if you set it too high you will actually loose money. generally lowering prices isn't an incentive to get out of the market but rather to lower produciton costs (automation helps that).


And the middle class began to develop even more automation started. Read your history.

i know, i said it helped. specializaiton created the middle class, automation creates more need for specialization, thus resulting in a larger middle class.


Why would I risk building another business to emply people to give them wages to buy my products if there is no profit to be made? Even in this new business, there would still be a drive to depress wages to increase profits. It would just ADD to the cycle.

no i know why they wouldn't, my question was "why there wouldn't be a profit motive?"

[KC]

scarcity is inherent to nature, capitalism only creates means to lessen scarcity by producing more effecient production methods.

There are two different forms of scarcity: artificial and natural. Natural scarcity is scarcity in nature, i.e. that something is scarce in nature. Artificial scarcity is the creation of scarcity by means of paying farmers not to sell milk, by destroying excess commodities, etc.. so that you can keep prices from falling.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 21 2006, 12:49 PM

scarcity is inherent to nature, capitalism only creates means to lessen scarcity by producing more effecient production methods.

There are two different forms of scarcity: artificial and natural. Natural scarcity is scarcity in nature, i.e. that something is scarce in nature. Artificial scarcity is the creation of scarcity by means of paying farmers not to sell milk, by destroying excess commodities, etc.. so that you can keep prices from falling.
artificial scarcity isn't caused by capitalism though.

[KC]

artificial scarcity isn't caused by capitalism though.

And how do you figure that?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 21 2006, 01:06 PM

artificial scarcity isn't caused by capitalism though.

And how do you figure that?
because those circumstances you described were all actions of the government not the market

[KC]

Actually they're actions by business owners used to create a profit. The profit motive is behind that: capitalism is behind it.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by colonelguppy
because those circumstances you described were all actions of the government not the market
You're wrong, especially in the case of the government offering payment so a farmer doesn't sell milk. If the farmer just sold everything grown, then the price of food would drop drastically. The price drop means the farmer will not profit off of their produce and would stop growing their crops. Then people starve; this can only happen in capitalism.

[JazzRemington]

scarcity is inherent to nature, capitalism only creates means to lessen scarcity by producing more effecient production methods.

Capitalism inforces scarcity by the market "punishing" individuals for producing more than what can be SOLD, that is beyond the amount that people can buy regardless of whether ornot there are poeple who need them but cannot buy them. In effect, markets (including capitalist markets) create scarcity. We have the technology to produce just about every material object synthetically. There is no longer need for a system designed for scarcity.


well, i'm saying that their won't be alot of unemployed and the middle class will be larger.

That depends on how you define middle class.


i know thats what businesses do, but you don't understand the market forces involved. high demand for labor as well as competition for competent labor (from employers) drives wages up, this principle is only magnified when applied to specialized jobs which automation helps create.

You are ignoring the profit motive, again. Regardless of the level of wages available, tehre will be a strong incentive to obtain the lowest price.


no you lower your prices because no one will buy if your prices are too high, thus resulting in little net revenue. its called a demand curve, you set your prices to maximise profit at specific demand levels, if you set it too high you will actually loose money. generally lowering prices isn't an incentive to get out of the market but rather to lower produciton costs (automation helps that).

Once again, you are ignoring profit motive. The only incentive to lower prices is if there is profit to be made. Sure, they can lower their prices in order t osell their goods, but how long can they do this before they go out of business?


no i know why they wouldn't, my question was "why there wouldn't be a profit motive?"

There would not be a profit motive because of the fact that there may not be profit in building another factory. What, do you think bussinesses are just all altruistic enterprises? Ask any mainstream economist and they will state that the profit motive means that if there is no profit in a good or service, then there is a strong incentive to NOT bring it to the market, regardless.

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:58 AM



So displaced heart surgeons are going to lead the Great Socialist Revolution?

If you had bothered to understand what I have said, I was merely giving an example of automation and the advances of technology.


And you still haven't explained about who builds these machines.

Now it's obvious you cannot read. In the above posts, it's stated taht every society is built upon the foundation of the previous. The communist society will be built upon the foundation laid by capitalism. In case you haven't noticed, workers built just about everything that isn't naturally available in nature. That's who will build machines in a post-capitalist society. Get your head out of the gutter and research alternative methods of production.

[Tungsten]

colonelguppy

artificial scarcity isn't caused by capitalism though.
On the contrary, capitalism allows the owner of a said resource (e.g labour) to make it scarce simply because it allows the freedom to buy and sell as you please (and the communists don't like it). One wonders how they will react to striking (making labour artificially scarce in an attempt to gain profit for the worker), other than with violence.

[red team]

On the contrary, capitalism allows the owner of a said resource (e.g labour) to make it scarce simply because it allows the freedom to buy and sell as you please (and the communists don't like it). One wonders how they will react to striking (making labour artificially scarce in an attempt to gain profit for the worker), other than with violence.

And the reason the workers would go on strike is why? Since, the workers are the same people in command of production without the need for a bureaucratic layer of specialists who are far removed from the production floor as the privileged upper management of corporations is as removed from sweatshop workers in the third world now, why would they make conditions and pay so bad for themselves as to need to take action in stopping work?

That's not even taking into account the automation of alienating, boring work from all the overqualified people who are now out of work or working in those same alienating, boring jobs because there's "not enough" positions for them to fill. Of course they didn't tell you rest of the story which is there isn't enough positions for already wealthy people to make more profit off your work and not because there's no need for technical progress.

Further, if it's real Socialism we're talking about then money would be quickly phased out of use in favour of something that more accurately reflects an objective measurement of production costs so we don't have to deal with the irrationalitiies of a debt trading system so there would be virtually no possible way for workers (for the few remaining jobs which are manually done) to be underpaid for labour as to left without adequate income to claim a share of the massive produced wealth. Everything that is produced is accounted for and paid out as consumer credits in the form of LTVs and later energy credits when production gets more automated so there is a one-to-one balance in terms of purchasing power to produced wealth. So, again how is it possible to not be compensated enough to purchase an equal cost of what was produced since production is totally balanced with consumption?

Further, with energy credits when consumer items are consumed the energy used for producing it and claiming ownership over an item is also consumed when the item is consumed which makes perfect sense as opposed to now when I pay for lunch with money which "supposedly" represents wealth and the person which traded food for money keeps the "wealth" that never degrades in value even after the lunch I have consumed have been shitted out my arse. That's some magical measurement of wealth you got there. It never degrades or is used up even when the traded for item is literally turned into shit. :lol:

[colonelguppy]

ok, i remember posting in this thread drunk a couple of nights ago, why were posts deleted?

[Janus]

ok, i remember posting in this thread drunk a couple of nights ago, why were posts deleted?
Key word: drunk.

Anyways, there is the possibility that it was deleted in the recent forum crash.

[colonelguppy]

ok if i was being belligerent i apoligize

[Stellix]

D-Bok, you sound like a crazy terrorist.

What country do you live in? If you hate the West so much, why use the internet? It was invented by the West! So was electricity and cars. You should stop using them too.

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 01:52 AM
D-Bok, you sound like a crazy terrorist.

What country do you live in? If you hate the West so much, why use the internet? It was invented by the West! So was electricity and cars. You should stop using them too.
You sound like you are 10 years old.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Stellix
D-Bok, you sound like a crazy terrorist.

What country do you live in? If you hate the West so much, why use the internet? It was invented by the West! So was electricity and cars. You should stop using them too.
Thanks, I try.

The US. The Internet isn't a "private" entity. I personally prefer the old days of the Internet when most things were open source, more communist. However douchebags like Bill Gates began to privatize everything. And that's why your OS sucks so much.

And communism doesn't reject the accomplishments of capitalism - it builds upon them.

[Stellix]

You live in the US?

Why don't you just get a job and a wife. You could buy a house in the suburbs and go to church and shop at Wal-Mart. You can scarf BBQ and beer during the summer and help your kids build a snowman in winter.

That is awsome, why don't you do it? America is the best country on Earth. Enjoy it while you are alive, screw 3rd world nations.

What have they ever given you?

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Stellix
What have they ever given you?
Everything we have comes at the expense of third world laborers.

[Stellix]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 25 2006, 02:30 AM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 25 2006, 02:30 AM)
Stellix
What have they ever given you?
Everything we have comes at the expense of third world laborers. [/b]
Yes, cheap consumer products. If it were not for the West, they would have no jobs at all. They would still be living in straw huts, throwing wooden spears at each other and eating each other.

So you have utter contempt for Greece, Rome, Germany, Britan and America.

But you worship Somollia and Myanmar at the alter? You wouldn't survive 2 hours in one of those places.

[Avtomatov]

Yes, cheap consumer products. If it were not for the West, they would have no jobs at all. They would still be living in straw huts, throwing wooden spears at each other and eating each other.

So you have utter contempt for Greece, Rome, Germany, Britan and America.

But you worship Somollia and Myanmar at the alter? You wouldn't survive 2 hours in one of those places.
A job is a feature of capitalism. Im not sure what you meen. Do you meen if the west left today they wouldnt have jobs? Or do you meen if they west never interferred at all, then they wouldnt have jobs?

If its the former, well you see if america left then the resources would go to benefit those poor countries. They would have more than jobs, they would have a good quality of life.

If its the latter, well they would be living in feudalism instead of capitalism. It would be exactly the same for the people. The only difference would be the kings would have the money instead of you.

[Avtomatov]

You live in the US?

Why don't you just get a job and a wife. You could buy a house in the suburbs and go to church and shop at Wal-Mart. You can scarf BBQ and beer during the summer and help your kids build a snowman in winter.

That is awsome, why don't you do it? America is the best country on Earth. Enjoy it while you are alive, screw 3rd world nations.

What have they ever given you?

You are an aristocrat, and an imperialist. You dont have a shred of humanity left in you. Your morals are lacking, and you are sociopathic.

Why are you bothering to try to convince us aristocracy is good?

[Avtomatov]

They would still be living in straw huts, throwing wooden spears at each other and eating each other.

I think you should be banned for racism.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Stellix+--> (Stellix)Yes, cheap consumer products. If it were not for the West, they would have no jobs at all. They would still be living in straw huts, throwing wooden spears at each other and eating each other.

So you have utter contempt for Greece, Rome, Germany, Britan and America.

But you worship Somollia and Myanmar at the alter? You wouldn't survive 2 hours in one of those places.[/b]
They were doing just fine until Europe invaded.

Avtomatov
I think you should be banned for racism.
I agree. Not only that, but this guy is beyond debatable.

[Stellix]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 03:09 AM

They would still be living in straw huts, throwing wooden spears at each other and eating each other.

I think you should be banned for racism.
How is that racist? It's true.

I am 100% anti-racist. I have several Jewish and Hispanic friends. Also, I dated an Asian girl for a few weeks.

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by Stellix+Sep 25 2006, 03:19 AM--> (Stellix @ Sep 25 2006, 03:19 AM)
[email protected] 25 2006, 03:09 AM

They would still be living in straw huts, throwing wooden spears at each other and eating each other.

I think you should be banned for racism.
How is that racist? It's true.

I am 100% anti-racist. I have several Jewish and Hispanic friends. Also, I dated an Asian girl for a few weeks. [/b]
It might not be racist, but it is very close to being racist. It is definitely very prejeduced and bigoted.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 25 2006, 02:30 AM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 25 2006, 02:30 AM)
Stellix
What have they ever given you?
Everything we have comes at the expense of third world laborers. [/b]

Everything "third world" laborers have, come because somebody in the "first world" wants it.

[KC]

They would still be living in straw huts, throwing wooden spears at each other and eating each other.

That's inherently racist. You are saying that without us, these primitive people would have never been able to have become civilized. You are justifying the entire civilizing mission, which has its foundations in racism.

You are racist.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 25 2006, 01:43 PM

They would still be living in straw huts, throwing wooden spears at each other and eating each other.

That's inherently racist. You are saying that without us, these primitive people would have never been able to have become civilized. You are justifying the entire civilizing mission, which has its foundations in racism.

You are racist.

While the comments are Strelix are at worse racist, and at best highly amusing, surely no socialist, no RevolutionaryLefter, would DEFEND a state of affairs where people lived in straw huts, and had to hunt with spears to survive? Would such a state of affairs be tolerated, or effort expended to change it? I would think the latter to be the case, so the indignation expressed seems somewhat misplaced.

[Tungsten]

red team

And the reason the workers would go on strike is why?
Because they want more or something? Money? Power? If you think it'll stop at getting rid of management, you're dreaming.

Since, the workers are the same people in command of production without the need for a bureaucratic layer of specialists who are far removed from the production floor as the privileged upper management of corporations is as removed from sweatshop workers in the third world now, why would they make conditions and pay so bad for themselves as to need to take action in stopping work?
How backwards looking. You're talking about company strikes in the context of the present. What about when a worker controlled company involved in food distribution realises it can go on strike and hold rest of society to ransom? Couldn't other industries do the same? So much for the end of 'artifical scarcity'.

Don't kid yourself that they won't do something like that to their 'proletarian brothers' if given the opportunity, because they will. They do it today. Once again, once one group of people sees itself as being able to get something at the expense of another, the myth of class solidarity will dissolve quicker than seltzer in water.

And you're not against "bureaucratic layers of specialists" either:
"It's called Technocracy by the way and it's planned to be runned by scientists and technicians who are the most level-headed and rational people in the world."

(Forget the rest of the utopian crap. I'm tired of refuting it.)

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 02:00 PM

How backwards looking. You're talking about company strikes in the context of the present. What about when a worker controlled company involved in food distribution realises it can go on strike and hold rest of society to ransom? Couldn't other industries do the same? So much for the end of 'artifical scarcity'.

[/quote]

So often socialists define socialism in terms of today, in terms of capitalism rather than in terms of socialism.

Another question to be asked is, Are strikes legal in a (rational) socialist community? The answer would seem to be "No" since it makes no sense for the workers to strike against themselves (which is why strikes were banned in the USSR et. al., those countries being the result of a rational application of socialism). A strike in a socialist community is also a blow against democracy, since presumably those who wish to strike are those workers who lost a democratic vote and are not willing to bide by the decision of the majority. Another reason why workers are treated far more harshly in a (rational) socialist economy than in a capitalist economy.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I've seen nothing but the retreat of communism in my 29 years.

The USSR went bye bye. China and Vietnam are defacto capitalist countries, abandoning all pretense at Marxism. I don't know WHAT Cuba and Venezuela are. (They probably don't know, either.) When I was a kid, Nicaragua "voted out" Marxism.

It seems to me the question should be, "How do we hasten the demise of communism?"

Answer: Don't have to do a thing. People are doing it for themselves.

[Connolly]

I've seen nothing but the retreat of communism in my 29 years.

The USSR went bye bye. China and Vietnam are defacto capitalist countries, abandoning all pretense at Marxism. I don't know WHAT Cuba and Venezuela are. (They probably don't know, either.) When I was a kid, Nicaragua "voted out" Marxism.

It seems to me the question should be, "How do we hasten the demise of communism?"

Answer: Don't have to do a thing. People are doing it for themselves.

An advanced communist society has never existed and remains a theory.

The idea of communism could vanish for all i care - what matters is that class struggle exists within class society, and based on historical analysis of all previous social structures, socialist revolution remains theoretically plausable and probable.

Although, thank fuck Communism is on its way out.

[Hool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 04:48 AM
Outside of the realm of guerrilla attacks on imperialist headquarters (or, what you "leftists" call terrorism) I forsee only one relatively peaceful solution to quickening the suicide of the capitalist system. That method being: open borders.

Like many of my posts, I like to bring up Das Kapital because I find it to be a good guide as far as revolutionary progress is concerned. Like Marx said, capitalism will collapse when profit is sought after to the point where wages are no longer able to sustain life and the economy. Imperialism (with welfare capitalism) has greatly slowed down this process. The process is still rolling, as we've seen with 401(k) plans and outsourcing - it doesn't seem to be approaching an end, however.

In order to destroy capitalism in the West - mass immigration is the only real way to quicken the demise of capitalism. This would result in rapid wage decreases and a greatly increase the workforce. "Supply and Demand" will lead to greater competition for work and wages will gradually decrease over time as people become desperate. High unemployment and low wages will lead to genuine suffering in the West and eventually revolutionary fervor. In the end, communism will reign supreme much earlier than expected.

However, this doesn't seem plausible due to rabid racism coming from the working class in the West (and, to be honest, on this very forum.) The only way opening the borders will ever happen is if the big corporations were blind enough to want a greater workforce. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the capitalists are this ignorant.

So, how, then would one quicken the rise of communism?
I'm Salvadoran and i don't think open borders is a good idea, am i racist? What business does communism have in the U.S. if that's not the will of the people? Obviously if communism has to be brought about by some great "revolution" then it probably isn't what the people want.

[Connolly]

I'm Salvadoran and i don't think open borders is a good idea, am i racist? What business does communism have in the U.S. if that's not the will of the people? Obviously if communism has to be brought about by some great "revolution" then it probably isn't what the people want.

If it were a socialist revolution then it would be what the people want.

What business does communism have?..........it has the "business" of establishing a new and better social order based on advanced production techniques capitalist society cannot facilitate.

It has the "business" of progression.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Hool
I'm Salvadoran and i don't think open borders is a good idea, am i racist? What business does communism have in the U.S. if that's not the will of the people? Obviously if communism has to be brought about by some great "revolution" then it probably isn't what the people want.
Yes.

I don't rightly care about the will of the Americans so long as it's bourgeois.

[Avtomatov]

I'm Salvadoran and i don't think open borders is a good idea, am i racist? What business does communism have in the U.S. if that's not the will of the people?

Here you are mistaking the will of the american aristocracy for the will of the people(worldwide).



Obviously if communism has to be brought about by some great "revolution" then it probably isn't what the people want.

Communism needs a revolution, just like Capitalism needed a revolution. Are you also saying capitalism was not the will of the people?

American democracy is sham democracy. Democracy is the oppression of the majority by the minority. We see with borders, the american suprastate has created a world wide apartheid democracy(like in south africa, where the blacks, the majority could not vote, therefore south africa was an aristocracy). Democracy is supposed to be the will of the people. In america what we have is the americans(the small minority, the ruling class) voting on how to exploit the majority(worldwide). It is not democracy, it is simply an aristocracy which gives the illusion of democracy.

[Hool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 10:29 PM
American democracy is sham democracy. Democracy is the oppression of the majority by the minority. We see with borders, the american suprastate has created a world wide apartheid democracy(like in south africa, where the blacks, the majority could not vote, therefore south africa was an aristocracy). Democracy is supposed to be the will of the people. In america what we have is the americans(the small minority, the ruling class) voting on how to exploit the majority(worldwide). It is not democracy, it is simply an aristocracy which gives the illusion of democracy.
What do you mean by the U.S. has set up a worldwide apartheid government, i don't understand.

And how are the people of America voting on how to exploit the world?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Hool+Sep 25 2006, 09:47 PM--> (Hool @ Sep 25 2006, 09:47 PM)
[email protected] 25 2006, 10:29 PM
American democracy is sham democracy. Democracy is the oppression of the majority by the minority. We see with borders, the american suprastate has created a world wide apartheid democracy(like in south africa, where the blacks, the majority could not vote, therefore south africa was an aristocracy). Democracy is supposed to be the will of the people. In america what we have is the americans(the small minority, the ruling class) voting on how to exploit the majority(worldwide). It is not democracy, it is simply an aristocracy which gives the illusion of democracy.
What do you mean by the U.S. has set up a worldwide apartheid government, i don't understand.

And how are the people of America voting on how to exploit the world? [/b]
he probably thinks that economic trade is a form of coercion or some bullshit.

[Avtomatov]

What do you mean by the U.S. has set up a worldwide apartheid government, i don't understand.
Borders and Countries.

Americans vote on what to do with 1/6 of the worlds wealth, this is extremely disproportionate to the amount of people that live there. Not only does america control their own money but it also controls more then half of the worlds wealth, maybe not de jure but certainly de facto.

And how are the people of America voting on how to exploit the world?

How?

They take a pencil and check their preffered candidates name.

[Alexander Hamilton]

[/QUOTE]


Sheer nonsense. One doesn't know where to begin.

The United States is the first nation in history to write about and recognize that the will of the majority must be prevented from deciding on certain areas to prevent that majority from taking certain rights from the minority.

Thus the Bill of Rights.

Any Marxist revolution advocates an end to Bill of Rights Freedoms.

Nations which have allowed polls have found that the VAST majority of people, rich and poor, when communism was removed from their society WANTED a U.S. styled Bill of Rights.

The notion the U.S. is a sham democracy is laughable.

Where do you base the notion that everyone in the world has some right to decide ALL of the resources of the world? Ironically, a one world socialist government would be more likely to take from peoples their local resources than the local government near them would. No one came from the skies and declared, "YOU MUST ALL THINK GLOBALLY!" Should people in Asia have a say in how the U.S. administers the natural resources of the Yosemite Valley in California?

EVERYONE IN THE WORLD wants some form of democracy. As "direct democracy" is a total pipe-dream of crap, representitive democracy, as much of a "sham" it may be, is the current form of governments that are democracy.

Try having some Imam (sp?) or other "holy ruler" make decisions for you.

Good Luck.

P.S. Went into a voting booth and chose the city council of St. Louis. It wasn't a sham at all. Real people arguing over real problems and how to solve them.

Yeah, I'll support a revolution that insures democracy anyday, and another that insures an end of "Marxism" anywhere.

Remember Nicaragua and the vote to end Danny Ortega's rule? That wasn't a sham to Ortega. He's genuinely out of power.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Alexander Hamilton
The United States is the first nation in history to write about and recognize that the will of the majority must be prevented from deciding on certain areas to prevent that majority from taking certain rights from the minority.

Thus the Bill of Rights.
And it's a damn good thing America has the bill of rights, otherwise some people might have been enslaved or something! :rolleyes:

Remember Nicaragua and the vote to end Danny Ortega's rule? That wasn't a sham to Ortega. He's genuinely out of power.
How many times are you going to repeat this dumb argument? If you knew anything whatsoever, you would know Ortega is a top-runner in the upcoming election.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/13178 (http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13178)