Communism is a pipe dream

[Phalanx]

I've wisened up over the last few weeks, and now I believe communism or anarchism are Utopian dreams. A worldwide revolution will never occur, it has never happened throughout the human race's two million year existence. Revolution in single regions or countries is fully possible, but spreading is impossible simply because the regions of the world have a huge disparity in terms of infrastructure and living conditions.

If the workers in a country such as Equatorial Guinea haven't rose up against their extremely corrupt leader, no workers will. The fact is, workers in the Western World have better living conditions than ever, and I highly doubt any of them are willing to risk their lives to throw away all they've gained.

Communism is inefficient, and a Utopian ideal. During the Great Depression, the average American worker had a living standard comparable to the urban Soviet. The worker in America continued to have a greater standard of living than that of the Soviet worker well into the 80's and after the Soviet Union's collapse.

Anarchism is even more unrealistic, almost a subculture of disaffected youth. As these youth get older, most realize how Utopian anarchism really is and fall out of politics. Most, not all, because some continue to bring their anti-social behavior into adulthood. They can't be further from mainstream culture, and even further from influencing it.

A huge problem in communism is also the lack of motivation, which hasn't seriously been addressed. Don't tell me that workers will approach their work as artists do, because they don't and they never will. A dishwasher will never look at his work has a form of art, and a garbage man will never either. The beauty of capitalism is that humans have something to aspire to, a slight chance of getting ahead in life. It's fully possible in America to become successful, as long as you have the will. Only the culture of poverty stands in one's way on their path to success.

The class system has been around as long has humans have existed. There have been chiefs in primitive times, who would get a greater share of the food and make the executive decisions, and now there's the CEO. I'm not saying uncontrolled capitalism is the best system, but a regulated, managed form of capitalism is best for humans at the present time. Whatever comes after capitalism will also include a class system, whether you like it or not. I'm a worker, and most of my friends are workers, and most of us just want to lead our lives. I'm guessing most kids here are just middle-class white kids from England or the United States, with little actual contact with the working class.

Call me a class traitor, but I just want to live my life.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by Phalanx+March 14, 2007 03:38 pm--> (Phalanx @ March 14, 2007 03:38 pm)I've wizened up over the last few weeks...[/b]

Doesn't sound like it.


Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 03:38 pm
and now I believe communism or anarchism are Utopian dreams.

Your only "evidence" is a proof by certainty, and a proof by volume.


Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 03:38 pm
A worldwide revolution will never occur...

Impossible to predict. The statement should read "will never likely occur."


Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 03:38 pm
it has never happened throughout the human race's two million year existence.

The human race hasn't been here for two million years -- not even close. What books did you read that "wizened" you up? They don't sound good. Also, in Europe they numerous revolutions occurring one right after another, the French revolution, the Italian revolution, and so on. Revolutions have been natural through history, but it is true they haven't happened at the same time, all over the world.


Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 03:38 pm
Revolution in single regions or countries is fully possible, but spreading is impossible simply because the regions of the world have a huge disparity in terms of infrastructure and living conditions.

Why does the disparity between first and third world countries make revolution "impossible?"


Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 03:38 pm
If the workers in a country such as Equatorial Guinea haven't rose up against their extremely corrupt leader, no workers will.

Workers in third world countries have risen up against their leaders hundreds of times, often times successfully.


Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 03:38 pm
The fact is, workers in the Western World have better living conditions than ever...

In the 1800s, slaves living under colonial slavery had the best conditions that they ever had had.


[email protected] 14, 2007 03:38 pm
and I highly doubt any of them are willing to risk their lives to throw away all they've gained.

I agree that "progress" should be based on past victories. But you don't give any real evidence at all that a world revolution could not occur, or that we have reached the "end of the line" in terms of transforming society. Capitalism hasn't even been around as long as colonial slavery was, so I fail to see how exactly it is set in stone.

[Phalanx]

The human race hasn't been here for two million years -- not even close. What books did you read that "wizened" you up? They don't sound good. Also, in Europe they numerous revolutions occurring one right after another, the French revolution, the Italian revolution, and so on. Revolutions have been natural through history, but it is true they haven't happened at the same time, all over the world.

Yes, the earliest humans were in existance two million years ago in the Great Rift Valley. I don't deny that revolutions can occur in single regions or countries, on the contrary, they have happened, but a worldwide one is quite improbable.


Why does the disparity between first and third world countries make revolution "impossible?"

Conditions in the first and third worlds are completely different, hence any revolution in the first or third world wouldn't carry over to the other.


Workers in third world countries have risen up against their leaders hundreds of times, often times successfully.

And they've been replaced by dictators who claim to fight for their people, but really only have the interest of power in mind.


In the 1800s, slaves living under colonial slavery had the best conditions that they ever had had.

There is absolutely no comparison between the first world worker and the slaves of the 1800's.


I agree that "progress" should be based on past victories. But you don't give any real evidence at all that a world revolution could not occur, or that we have reached the "end of the line" in terms of transforming society. Capitalism hasn't even been around as long as colonial slavery was, so I fail to see how exactly it is set in stone.

No, any progress will occur will largely come about by reform. That said, there will be revolutions in parts of the world, but it won't affect the majority of the world. An uprising in Oaxaca will have little impact on Chechnya.

[Tungsten]

In the 1800s, slaves living under colonial slavery had the best conditions that they ever had had.
Yeah right. They were still slaves and modern workers aren't anything like them.

[KC]

Blah blah blah. Sounds like you didn't know anything about Marxist theory to begin with, so it's really not much of a loss. Why don't you just leave the forum?

[Tungsten]

That's right. Anyone can see those grapes must be sour.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 14, 2007 04:09 pm
Blah blah blah. Sounds like you didn't know anything about Marxist theory to begin with, so it's really not much of a loss. Why don't you just leave the forum?
Enlighten me then, O mighty Zapano.

I've read quite a bit of Marxist and Anarchist theory, so your claims are unfounded.

I'll probably stay on the form just for the occasional discussion. I wouldn't call my self a hard-core capitalist, I just don't give a fuck anymore.

[IcarusAngel]

Yes, the earliest humans were in existance two million years ago in the Great Rift Valley.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Humans didn't live two million years ago or even our direct ancestors. It's said that humans were a diversion of homo erectus, who existed about 200,000 years ago. What you're talking about is a species that may have existed that homo erectus may have been a decedent of.


I don't deny that revolutions can occur in single regions or countries, on the contrary, they have happened, but a worldwide one is quite improbable.

Now you're being more reasonable. The words "improbable" and "impossible" are two different things.


Conditions in the first and third worlds are completely different, hence any revolution in the first or third world wouldn't carry over to the other.

The global economy is now heavily integrated, more so than it has ever been.. If there was a revolution in the United States and somehow it became socialist (or something else opposed to capitalism, say Utilitarian) it would have an enormous effect on Latin America and much of the rest of the world, and would probably lead to more shifts in government. One of the reasons Latin Americans are so afraid to revolt is because they're afraid the United States will sanction them or launch a coup against them or invade them, or whatever.


And they've been replaced by dictators who claim to fight for their people, but really only have the interest of power in mind.

What about in Indonesia where Suharto was overthrown by his own people, and now they are becoming a democracy?


There is absolutely no comparison between the first world worker and the slaves of the 1800's.

There is actually a lot of comparisons that can be made. Like modern times, the slaves held relatively little property, if at all. Like modern times, the slaves were only valuable so long as their work increased the capital of their slave owners. Like modern times, the laws of the system were rigged in favor of the slave owners, rather than the slaves themselves.

Furthermore, the point was just because people are living "better off" does not mean that we have reached the end of the road.

Germans were living better off under Hitler (not jews of course, but Germans were), and as a result, Hitler was extremely popular; Russians were living better off under Stalin, and so on.

That doesn't mean the system is justified -- you're appealing to majority opinion as "proof" for a belief. Another fallacy.


No, any progress will occur will largely come about by reform. That said, there will be revolutions in parts of the world, but it won't affect the majority of the world. An uprising in Oaxaca will have little impact on Chechnya.

If there was a revolution in Saudi Arabia it would have a huge impact on world affairs.

A revolution in the first world is possible, but I would actually prefer a peaceful transition.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by Phalanx+March 14, 2007 04:14 pm--> (Phalanx @ March 14, 2007 04:14 pm)
Zampanò@March 14, 2007 04:09 pm
Blah blah blah. Sounds like you didn't know anything about Marxist theory to begin with, so it's really not much of a loss. Why don't you just leave the forum?
Enlighten me then, O mighty Zapano.

I've read quite a bit of Marxist and Anarchist theory, so your claims are unfounded.

I'll probably stay on the form just for the occasional discussion. I wouldn't call my self a hard-core capitalist, I just don't give a fuck anymore. [/b]
It sounds like you have read about as much Marxist and anarchist theory as you have read modern archeology and anthropology. Claiming humans existed when they didn't, claiming that CEOs and corporations have any resemblance at all to the first human societies, and using fallacious arguments to support your beliefs just makes you look like an imbecile rather than someone who has had an enlightenment.

[KC]

Not to mention believing that communists/anarchists believe in a worldwide instantaneous revolution and that spreading revolution is impossible because of the different material conditions. You apparently never read anything on Marxist economics or how class consciousness comes about. You apparently have (or had) a mechanical view of historical materialism, believing that "capitalism must develop" to a certain extent before the proletariat of a country can become class conscious. That's quite an unmarxist viewpoint.

[Sentinel]

I wouldn't call my self a hard-core capitalist

Neither would I call you one, considering your occupation as a dish washer. Or myself, a receptionist -- regardless what my views were.. :lol:

A capitalist is an owner of the means of production -- you on the other hand are a sell out, class traitor proletarian. Generally it sounds like you should read 'quite a bit' more of theory; or maybe plugging oneself back into the matrix just instantly makes one ignorant of what one has learned. If you don't 'give a fuck' anymore, stop trolling here and learn to enjoy that dish washing. Bye! ;)

[RebelDog]

The class system has been around as long has humans have existed.
Bollocks.
Class society emerged as material conditions changed. Most of human history is that of nomadic hunter-gatherers. How could the nomadic, hunter-gatherers have class structures? Class society can disappear as material conditions change again. You base your ideas on ruling-class, anti-proletarian beliefs. They would like us to believe class is something that has always been around and will always be around. There is nothing to support this claim and much to refute it.

[RNK]

I've read quite a bit of Marxist and Anarchist theory

Reading and understanding are two very, very different things. You may have mastered reading, but you have a long way to go in understanding.

Anyway thanks for your time. Have a nice life.

[R_P_A_S]

heh. seems more real to me than going to heaven.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

The class system has been around as long has humans have existed.
As said, this is bullshit.

Generally, the state has emerged in coordination with the invention of agriculture and superlous food, where one group of society grabs the profit, often "priests" or other religious figures, in exchange for religious services.

In China we can speak of such a development around 4800 BC. In the following centuries greater social differences, less egalitarianism, and increased conflicts between areas and also inside society. The state was born and grew in order to keep class antagonism in check.

This has happened across the globe, in different settings, milleniums and centuries, but the pattern has remained the same.

[BreadBros]

A worldwide revolution will never occur, it has never happened throughout the human race's two million year existence. Revolution in single regions or countries is fully possible, but spreading is impossible simply because the regions of the world have a huge disparity in terms of infrastructure and living conditions.

Actually a "worldwide revolution" has happened (and in some parts of the world, is probably still being fought) - the bourgeois revolution to establish capitalism. Series of revolutions occurred throughout the world establishing capitalist production which have subsquently spread to other countries through invasion, subsequent revolutions or imperialism. If you want the clearest example (due to the wealth of information on it and it's accessability to Western readers) of this type of regional spread, simply read up on the French Revolution and the following Napoleonic Wars in Europe. Another subequent set of bourgeois revolutions (that also involved proletarian revolts) were those of 1848. If what you have in mind is some sort of instantaneous worldwide revolution then I don't think you understand most of the texts you've read, outside of a few Trotskyists I haven't heard of anyone espousing this. As others have pointed out, the conditions for any worldwide spread of a revolution are far more likely now than ever. The world is heavily integrated not only on a base level (transportation, communication) but also economically. It is quickly developing into a unitary structure (you can see this by the cessation of inter-imperialist hostilities and the development of a sort of "global hegemony" to cop a phrase). There have already been some "gestures" towards a spreading communist revolution. The period of 1900-1940 saw many near-revolutions across Europe. In 1968 and the late sixties in general there were many worker's revolts in places as diverse as France, Eastern Europe and Mexico. This is all within the lifetime of capitalism which so far has existed for a far shorter time period than feudalism did.


If the workers in a country such as Equatorial Guinea haven't rose up against their extremely corrupt leader, no workers will.

Equatorial Guinea is a country ruled by an extremely autocratic President who is incredibly wealthy with oil revenues. SAS-trained mercenaries (likely bankrolled by CIA and MI6) failed to topple him. What makes you think the populace which lives on mere dollars a day would have the capability of toppling him? The fact that they haven't risen up against him is likely a reflection of the fact that hes too strong at the moment to be toppled, not that discontent among the populace doesn't exist. In fact, considering the discontent among workers in another oil-rich Western African country, Nigeria, I suspect discontent is fairly widespread.


The fact is, workers in the Western World have better living conditions than ever, and I highly doubt any of them are willing to risk their lives to throw away all they've gained.

Why would they be throwing it away? Capitalism is a method of production, not a set of ideas. If a revolution was attempted and failed the bourgeoisie would likely return to the existing method of production and the profits it entails. Its not "communism or nothing". Assuming Marx was right it would be risking their life for economic advancement.


Communism is inefficient, and a Utopian ideal. During the Great Depression, the average American worker had a living standard comparable to the urban Soviet. The worker in America continued to have a greater standard of living than that of the Soviet worker well into the 80's and after the Soviet Union's collapse.

Surely after 2 years here you would have been able to see why after the 1920s the USSR was "communist" in name only. The production system of the USSR was at it's core capitalist. You can offer your own critique of why things turned out that way, but the idea that the USSR actually represents communism has long been discredited. Also, if you are actually concerned with a realist conception of why the USSR lagged behind the US you would look at some of the other important features, namely the differing effects of the Cold War and the difference in how the USSR and US "administered" their spheres of influence.


Anarchism is even more unrealistic, almost a subculture of disaffected youth. As these youth get older, most realize how Utopian anarchism really is and fall out of politics. Most, not all, because some continue to bring their anti-social behavior into adulthood. They can't be further from mainstream culture, and even further from influencing it.

Actually most fall out of it because of economic pressure to do so. It's difficult to be outside of the economic mainstream and live the "disaffected youth" lifestyle you're referring to. For most people getting a traditional job ends up being the only answer and of course that transition can not only force many lifestyle changes but also is likely to produce a certain degree of resentment. As for not influencing the mainstream, open your eyes and look at "culture" today. Proletarian individuals do tend to be very disaffected and anti-authoritarianism is very attractive, to the point where mass culture (music, movies, literature) now has even commodified it and sells it, or at least the representation of it. It not only provides profits but also innoculates culture and society from the "dangerous" ideas present in this type of culture by assimilating them.


A huge problem in communism is also the lack of motivation, which hasn't seriously been addressed. Don't tell me that workers will approach their work as artists do, because they don't and they never will.

With the exception of a few "geniuses", who are increasingly fewer and far between, most artists already approach their work as a form of commodity production.


A dishwasher will never look at his work has a form of art, and a garbage man will never either.

If what you mean is that they won't wanna do it, thats true. Thats why that type of work would have to be either mechanized or doled out in a community. If anything communism seems entirely in the benefit of a dishwasher or trashman since it means they wont be the ones at the "bottom of the heap" stuck with that.


The beauty of capitalism is that humans have something to aspire to, a slight chance of getting ahead in life.

Yes, when in dire straights humans do tend to look at any possibility as a glimmer of hope, no matter how far-fetched it is. You just have to look at Lotteries to see that However, that has far more to do with human psychology than with actual economic reality.


It's fully possible in America to become successful, as long as you have the will.

:lol: :lol: And you're calling us idealists?


Only the culture of poverty stands in one's way on their path to success.

This idealist conception of economic status was disproven even before Marx, just look at Rousseau's dismissal of slavery. The old argument in defense of slavery was that slaves deserved to be slaves, because after all, they display "slave-like" behavior, they're so stupid, impolite, brutish, etc. Of course Rousseau was right when he pointed out that this was the result of their economic status, not the cause. Similarly, any "culture of poverty" is the result of people's status under capitalism, not the cause.


The class system has been around as long has humans have existed. There have been chiefs in primitive times, who would get a greater share of the food and make the executive decisions, and now there's the CEO.

This has been disproven by archaeologists and anthropologists. Stratified societies really arise with certain economic changes, namely the rise of complex agriculture, settled cities and competition from outsider societies (necessitating development of technology and establishment of militaries). Even then, the function of these stratifications are really incomparable. Actually, chiefs in many agricultural societies didn't get a greater share of anything but rather served mere economic functions that rotated. If you want a detailed history of this a great intro book is Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" which would also some of your questions on uneven worldwide development.


I'm not saying uncontrolled capitalism is the best system, but a regulated, managed form of capitalism is best for humans at the present time.

The problem with your outlook is that it has nothing to do with what is "the best system" but what is possible. If it came down to mere "best system" we would all be utopian socialists (in the sense Marx uses the term, not your characterization). I would presume that many, if not most, capitalist would love to establish a stable, regulated form of capitalism that provided social peace and ideal development. The reality is that the economic functioning of a society is the product of millions of people, not idealistic planners. Capitalism has entered many many crisis in it's short life and the idea that it is some eternal system is very unlikely in light of the evidence. It seems clear that you're at the core a very determiend idealist.



Whatever comes after capitalism will also include a class system, whether you like it or not.

This statement is based on what, you're personal preference and some resentment? At least Marx offered economic data to base his assertions on. ;)


I'm a worker, and most of my friends are workers, and most of us just want to lead our lives.

OK, as far as I've seen no one here has stopped you from doing that. In fact most workers just "lead their lives" and a significant number of them also happen to be against the capitalist system, they aren't really mutually exclusive. If what you mean is that you wish to live a life free from troubling thoughts about the economic system we live in, well, complacency is a fairly good coping tool.


Destroy the Janjaweed

If you're still serious about politics despite your ideological shift you should read the article I link to in this thread: http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63892 . It gives a far more accurate and realistic explanation of the events in Darfur than the sophomoric moralizing you would find in the New York Times.

[Zero]

I understand getting burnt out man. Don't proclaim anything, just sit back for a while and come back at it again some other day. Put it on hold for a week, two weeks, a month, whatever. I've always found that once that candle is lit...

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 12:14 pm
I've read quite a bit of Marxist and Anarchist theory, so your claims are unfounded.
Funny how people on the internet can claim the wildest things are true, but judging from the evidence, I highly doubt this true, and just because you have read Marx, Engels, and others, doesn't mean you comphrehend and understand them, ;) .

[Tungsten]

This idealist conception of economic status was disproven even before Marx, just look at Rousseau's dismissal of slavery. The old argument in defense of slavery was that slaves deserved to be slaves, because after all, they display "slave-like" behavior, they're so stupid, impolite, brutish, etc. Of course Rousseau was right when he pointed out that this was the result of their economic status, not the cause. Similarly, any "culture of poverty" is the result of people's status under capitalism, not the cause.
Has it ever crossed your mind that blaming "the system" for people's behaviour might make you guilty of the same idealism?

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 09:46 pm

This idealist conception of economic status was disproven even before Marx, just look at Rousseau's dismissal of slavery. The old argument in defense of slavery was that slaves deserved to be slaves, because after all, they display "slave-like" behavior, they're so stupid, impolite, brutish, etc. Of course Rousseau was right when he pointed out that this was the result of their economic status, not the cause. Similarly, any "culture of poverty" is the result of people's status under capitalism, not the cause.
Has it ever crossed your mind that blaming "the system" for people's behaviour might make you guilty of the same idealism?
No because all sociological research and in fact common sense shows that an individual's economic success or lack thereof is a product of his socio-economic environment and the limitations that that creates.

Take, for example, high-school education in the US. Since the 1970s US high schools have been in decline, with massive #s of students per school, poor supplies, etc. The results were unsurprising, low college enrollment and dim economic prospects. Recently theres been a turn to reforming the educational system. Its been the experience of many school districts that if you raise the quality of texts/supplies, employ better teachers, reduce class size, etc. then college enrollment goes up, quality of schoolwork goes up, economic prospects go up, etc. Assuming that the demographics of the school remain the same, was this some collective uprising of will that happened to correlate with the structural changes that resulted in the better performances? Or were the students a product of the changes in "the system" as you put it?

We can even look at it on the nation-state scale. In the days of British imperialism the subcontinent of India could not match the productive capabilities of Britain proper. This was often explained as being the result of laziness, lack of will/motivation, etc. which were all qualities attributed to be inherent in Indian people or at least in the majority of them. Now, with the changing nature of labor markets and with certain state reforms India is hailed as one of the prime tech innovators in the world. In fact many first-world tech companies are relocating significant executives and departments to India. Did the Indian people suddenly and miraculously collectively lose their "culture of poverty" and laziness? Or was it the structural changes that presented new possibilities that resulted in the chance? And that in the end were responsible for their previous state?

Furthermore, its impossible to quantify something like a will or a "culture of poverty" since they imply internal mental states. However, I don't think its unreasonable to substitute "will" with say motivation, tenacity, perseverance, entrepeneurial-spirit, and qualities such as that. There have been sociological studies of the urban poor in places like the US and Latin America that have basically concluded that individuals among the lumpen-proletariat and "working poor" have an extremely large motivation to succeed and they exhibit it every day by creating micro-enterprises and working incredibly hard to "make something out of nothing" as they say. Think of individuals who go to great lengths to eke out a living, say by selling their labor doing odd jobs or selling contraband, etc. Are these individuals lazy? Mired in a "culture of poverty"? Lacking will and motivation? Welfare queens? In my opinion, no. But for the most part they remain in pretty dire poverty. So is that because they lack the motivation and tenacity to lift themselves up by the bootstraps? Or is it because of "the sytem" they've been born into?

[Tungsten]

No because all sociological research and in fact common sense shows that an individual's economic success or lack thereof is a product of his socio-economic environment and the limitations that that creates.
Good luck in trying to prove it: Do all people of a certain socio-economic level have the same political opinions, for instance? Why not?
Common sense shows that lazy and irresponsible people rarely get far in life. Isn't it more likely that such people are going to pass these attitudes and limitations on to their offspring?

Assuming that the demographics of the school remain the same, was this some collective uprising of will that happened to correlate with the structural changes that resulted in the better performances? Or were the students a product of the changes in "the system" as you put it?
My comment was directed against the underclass, not the general working class. Has the improvement resulted in a 100% attendence rate? Where is the source for this?

We can even look at it on the nation-state scale. In the days of British imperialism the subcontinent of India could not match the productive capabilities of Britain proper. This was often explained as being the result of laziness, lack of will/motivation, etc.
I've been to India actually and a "mañana" mentality is still quite pervasive. The system might have made a difference- the British had a better, more rational system in place. Systems are built by people, not the other way round.

In fact many first-world tech companies are relocating significant executives and departments to India. Did the Indian people suddenly and miraculously collectively lose their "culture of poverty" and laziness?
The moved because it was cheaper, not because the Indians were better workers.

Furthermore, its impossible to quantify something like a will or a "culture of poverty" since they imply internal mental states. However, I don't think its unreasonable to substitute "will" with say motivation, tenacity, perseverance, entrepeneurial-spirit, and qualities such as that. There have been sociological studies of the urban poor in places like the US and Latin America that have basically concluded that individuals among the lumpen-proletariat and "working poor" have an extremely large motivation to succeed and they exhibit it every day by creating micro-enterprises and working incredibly hard to "make something out of nothing" as they say.
Some of them do. But the ones that don't suceed can't blame the system. Do you think the government watches these workers and randomly comes up to one of them and says "Wow you worked hard, here, have a milliion dollars"? It doesn't work like that. You get rich by selling stuff people want or need. You're saying that people who don't necessarily value what you're selling should still pay out money regardless. Is this the part of the system you don't like?

Think of individuals who go to great lengths to eke out a living, say by selling their labor doing odd jobs or selling contraband, etc. Are these individuals lazy? Mired in a "culture of poverty"? Lacking will and motivation? Welfare queens? In my opinion, no. But for the most part they remain in pretty dire poverty. So is that because they lack the motivation and tenacity to lift themselves up by the bootstraps? Or is it because of "the sytem" they've been born into?
Did the "system" force 90% of homeless people to have drink/drug problems? People with drink/drug problems are often unstable, unreliable and incapable of holding down a job. You can't blame the system for that.

[Ol' Dirty]

I believe communism [and] anarchism are Utopian dreams.

Good.


A worldwide revolution will never occur[;] it has never happened throughout the human race's two million year existence.

Wow, you're such a prophet.

Who gives a runy shit about what you or I think? We're peons, remember?


Revolution in single regions or countries is fully possible,

Stop generalizing whatnot and put things into context!

Which countries are you talking about?


but spreading is impossible simply because the regions of the world have a huge disparity in terms of infrastructure and living conditions.

New revolutions will spread like your entrails on my toast, douchewhad.


The fact is, workers in the Western World have better living conditions than ever, and I highly doubt any of them are willing to risk their lives to throw away all they've gained.

Apparently, some are?


Communism is inefficient, and a Utopian ideal.

Just like people ruling themselves, independant of the crown?


During the Great Depression, the average American worker had a living standard comparable to the urban Soviet.

Not the black ones!


The worker in America continued to have a greater standard of living than that of the Soviet worker well into the 80's and after the Soviet Union's collapse.

Not the black ones&#33; <_<


Anarchism is even more unrealistic, almost a subculture of disaffected youth.

Of course. They&#39;re just angsty teens with nowhere to put their aggression. Why don&#39;t they go to church every Sunday like good little Christian soldiers?



As these youth get older, most realize how Utopian anarchism really is and fall out of politics. Most, not all, because some continue to bring their anti-social behavior into adulthood. They can&#39;t be further from mainstream culture, and even further from influencing it.

Anti-flag, dumb-ass&#33;


A huge problem in communism is also the lack of motivation, which hasn&#39;t seriously been addressed.

Here&#39;s your motivation: do it or go to jail&#33; :)


Don&#39;t tell me that workers will approach their work as artists do, because they don&#39;t and they never will.

Einstein. Hawking. DaVinci. Need I name more, croutoned-brained ninny?


A dishwasher will never look at his work has a form of art, and a garbage man will never either.

Not if he likes what he does.


The beauty of capitalism is that humans have something to aspire to, a slight chance of getting ahead in life.

Ha&#33; :lol:


It&#39;s fully possible in America to become successful, as long as you have the will.

Bullshit. My parents have been working their asses off for years and they still live in the same conditions.


The class system has been around as long has humans have existed.

The Mbuti.


I&#39;m not saying uncontrolled capitalism is the best system, but a regulated, managed form of capitalism is best for humans at the present time.

Total wash.


I&#39;m a worker, and most of my friends are workers, and most of us just want to lead our lives.

And school isn&#39;t work? :huh:


I&#39;m guessing most kids here are just middle-class white kids from England or the United States, with little actual contact with the working class.

Half-white, dumbass.


Call me a class traitor,

No. I&#39;ll call you stupid.

[BreadBros]

Good luck in trying to prove it: Do all people of a certain socio-economic level have the same political opinions, for instance?

Not exactly.


Why not?

Because political opinions are heavily related to the historical context the socio-economic status exists in. Lets take S. America as an example. Argentina and Uruguay are fairly similar in terms of economic status (Argentina has a slightly higher GDP per capita, but they are both among the 3 wealthiest countries in Latin America with similar demographics). Argentina&#39;s recent history involves economic growth followed by a massive financial crisis that resulted in extreme political instability and worker&#39;s actions (occupations, strikes, etc). Uruguay&#39;s development has been far more steady and socially peaceful. As a result, despite their relatively comparable economic statuses, politics in Argentina are more to the left (Kirchner being a friend and ally of Chavez after all) with more political direct action and more of an emphasis on class and employment issues.


Common sense shows that lazy and irresponsible people rarely get far in life.

Ever heard of Neil Bush? I wouldn&#39;t exactly call him responsible or financially astute, what with his storied business history. Yet hes very very wealthy. How far you get in life has far more to do with the circumstances of your birth and the socio-economic environment you&#39;re placed in than with your relative amount of responsibility or laziness.


Isn&#39;t it more likely that such people are going to pass these attitudes and limitations on to their offspring?

Its possible, but it seems just as possible (and just as common) for individuals to see the flaws in their parents and develop a character/personality opposite to theirs. Even when we look at very wealthy individuals who were to some degree financially astute or particularly hard-working, its very common for their children to be the complete opposite. No doubt parental character has an influence on individuals but I think its very far-fetched to think that it&#39;s the determinant of someone&#39;s financial status.


My comment was directed against the underclass, not the general working class. Has the improvement resulted in a 100% attendence rate? Where is the source for this?

I don&#39;t see why a difference would exist between the general working class and the "underclass". I can&#39;t think of many very many places in the US where an unemployed underclass constitute the majority of individuals.

100% attendance? Of course not. I highly doubt there are very many schools in the West (barring military academies and the such) that ever achieve 100% attendance. People get sick and cant go to school :P . If what you meant was "have schools managed to raise their attendance levels?" the answer is yes. I&#39;m sure you could find copious examples of that.

As for sources. Just look at the most glaring example: the NYC public school system. Look up the implementation of "specialized high schools" in New York (i.e. Brooklyn Latin, City College Math Science Engineering, Staten Island Technical, Bronx Math & Science) to see one wave of school reforms that have overall boosted academic performance. If you want something on smaller class size and their effects, heres a US government summary of research: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/ClassSize/academic.html
I don&#39;t have time to do copious research for you, sorry. There should be plenty for you to read online if you even do a minimal googling. If you find something that you think proves your point and not mine, bring it up.


I&#39;ve been to India actually and a "mañana" mentality is still quite pervasive. The system might have made a difference- the British had a better, more rational system in place.

I&#39;m not sure what a "manana mentality" is, I suppose something along the lines of "I&#39;ll do it tomorrow" (basing that on the Spanish)? To some degree thats present among people everywhere. According to some research, in the next month US businesses will see a loss of 3.8 BILLION dollars all because office employees will spend time formulating brackets, betting and watching the NCAA tournament. Have you ever worked in a low-wage retail or service sector job? In general the employees arent exactly enthused to be working or doing stuff for the wages they recieve. Im sure the UK and other soccer-crazy nations are less than productive during the later rounds of the World Cup. Yet we rarely point out those facts about our own societies because we dont have any imperialism to try and justify. As far as British imperialism being a "better, more rational system" it depends on your criteria for being better and more rational. In terms of raw productivity India has been far more productive post-independence than it ever was under British imperialism. During the initial periods of British rule the system established was nothing more than a system of order to keep the populace in check while wealth was literally looted out. From the human aspect, obviously the populace of India quite vociferously disagrees with you since many lost their lives struggling to free India, as individuals always have under imperialism no matter how "rational" it is perceived to be by the imperialist nation.


The moved because it was cheaper, not because the Indians were better workers.

I would argue that from a purely capitalist viewpoint all that makes someone a "better worker" is the cost of their labor and it&#39;s external costs (transportation costs of goods, etc). These aren&#39;t skilled artisanal handicrafts were talking about here, what does it matter how much moxy or good character the person manning an industrial machine has, as long as he gets the job done at a profitable wage?



Some of them do. But the ones that don&#39;t suceed can&#39;t blame the system. Do you think the government watches these workers and randomly comes up to one of them and says "Wow you worked hard, here, have a milliion dollars"? It doesn&#39;t work like that. You get rich by selling stuff people want or need. You&#39;re saying that people who don&#39;t necessarily value what you&#39;re selling should still pay out money regardless. Is this the part of the system you don&#39;t like?

The government has little to no part in this. Those individuals are selling something people want/need. Just like those Indian and Chinese workers are selling their labor, which employers need to produce the commodities they then sell. Thats the point, we all "sell something" that people want or need, in order to make a living, even if what we&#39;re selling is the only thing we have available: our physical labor. The amount of wealth you generate has nothing to do with whether you sell something or how hard you do it, it has to do with what level you enter that economic system of production at. Someone who is born poor and someone who is born wealthy will both inevitably enter the sytem of production but one will have the capital available to create an enterprise where he can hire other&#39;s labor to generate a profit, while the poor individual will only have his labor to sell, however the surplus produced from his labor will go into the profit accumulated by his employer. It doesn&#39;t really matter what character or attitude they approach their job with.

Also, I never said that the government should reward individuals based on their level of commitment or tenacity and reward them for that. My views on economics have already been laid out: I&#39;m a communist. What you said was that an individual&#39;s economic status depends on his character/personality/will/laziness/call it what you will. If what you proposed were true, then yes the system would probably work something along the lines of "You approached your job with more tenacity and character than you&#39;re coworkers, heres your money" or "Despite the fact that you&#39;re enterprise generated x amount of profits, you spent too many days golfing this week sir, so we&#39;ll have to expropriate x amount of profits from you". Its ridiculous, just like the idea that one&#39;s character or personality has more of a determining factor on one&#39;s economic status than the economic structure one lives in.


Did the "system" force 90% of homeless people to have drink/drug problems? People with drink/drug problems are often unstable, unreliable and incapable of holding down a job. You can&#39;t blame the system for that.

Alcoholism and drug abuse are proliferate through all classes in modern society. Ever heard of pill doctors? Rehab centers that cater to the rich? Rush Limbaugh? Winston Churchill :lol:? Wealthy individuals have access to far more resources to deal with alcholism or drug abuse than working or underclass people do. Its also a lot easier to be intoxicated if you&#39;re just sitting behind a desk making phone calls than if you&#39;re on a dangerous industrial line performing a task or engaging in some level of interaction with customers. Thats not even mentioning the fact that many homeless people turn to drugs and alcohol because of psychologic trauma, especially dealing with engaging in warfare (quite a lot of homeless people happen to be Vietnam vets) and its a fact that the majority of people who join the military happen to be working-class. It doesn&#39;t really matter who an individual decides to blame, thats far more of a psychological determination, but it seems undeniable that "environment" (in the economic/social sense) is the determining factor of economic status on a raw, economic level.

[Knight of Cydonia]

spreading is impossible
well, it&#39;s possible and now it&#39;s spread...widely to the other side of the earth, Indonesia for example.


Don&#39;t tell me that workers will approach their work as artists do, because they don&#39;t and they never will. A dishwasher will never look at his work has a form of art, and a garbage man will never either.
not if they&#39;re loved their job and try to give the best of they can for the job they already have.


The beauty of capitalism is that humans have something to aspire to, a slight chance of getting ahead in life.
hahaha...you forget about exploitating and oppressing workers.


I&#39;m a worker, and most of my friends are workers
well, i&#39;m a worker too...and may i ask you, have you ever feel discriminated or oppressed at your work place?


Call me a class traitor, but I just want to live my life
we&#39;re not going to call you anything ;) .....and hey, everyone&#39;s want to life their life, but the question is did they want to change into a better life?

[Underdog]

Yes and suppose just because it seems it cant be done we should all give up
people have never given up on the dream that we can all live in a world where therye is peace and equality why should we let the dream of Communism die? Just because a few madmen have USED it as a front for theyre dispicable regimes? It has not be given a real chance and I will admit theyre are flaws in the system like people are generally selfish and self centered but I believe that kind of thinking can be undone. And I think that if people would just listen and use theyre logic they will see that communism appears unappealing on the surface beacuse people dont want to give up personal possesions and property and on top of that people associate communism with oppresive dictators like that of Stalin or Mao but in if they could see past all that and see the goal and dream of communism they will see a bright and beutiful future where perhaps for the first time in human history we can truely create equality.