Who thinks this "Revolution" is far-fetched?

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

I've noticed a fair number of the RevLeft posters talk about a revolution (as in a literal, Bolshevik-style revolution), which they seem to think will occur in the not-too-distant future. Does anyone else think this is pretty ludicrous?

Here are my problems with the concept.

1. Communism is a dwindling ideology in the US. The US has never come close to open revolt by the workers, and I think that's even less likely today than it was in the 1930s (when the Communist Party in the US actually had a decent number of members). After all, who's going to revolt when the current system is so comfortable for the vast majority of the population?

2. Unlike in most countries where revolutions have occurred, the US actually does have a substantial number of gun owners. Unfortunately for our revolutionaries, the average gun owner in the US is on the conservative side (just look at any demographics map). Furthermore, the army is majority Republican (i.e. right-wing), certainly among the officer corps, but even among the troops (though, granted, the latter varies depending on the year and survey). However, since the army specifically screens out proponents of radical ideologies, there probably won't be much communist support there. Likewise, private military contractors are overwhelmingly conservative. So who exactly could marshal the necessary forces?

3. Turn on commercial TV. Just watch it for a little while. Then ask yourself: how many Americans could look all that material wealth in the eye and say "No?" The free market exists to give people what they want (at a price). Revolutions really can't compete with that offer.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 04, 2007 02:48 am
I've noticed a fair number of the RevLeft posters talk about a revolution (as in a literal, Bolshevik-style revolution), which they seem to think will occur in the not-too-distant future. Does anyone else think this is pretty ludicrous?

Here are my problems with the concept.

1. Communism is a dwindling ideology in the US. The US has never come close to open revolt by the workers, and I think that's even less likely today than it was in the 1930s (when the Communist Party in the US actually had a decent number of members). After all, who's going to revolt when the current system is so comfortable for the vast majority of the population?

2. Unlike in most countries where revolutions have occurred, the US actually does have a substantial number of gun owners. Unfortunately for our revolutionaries, the average gun owner in the US is on the conservative side (just look at any demographics map). Furthermore, the army is majority Republican (i.e. right-wing), certainly among the officer corps, but even among the troops (though, granted, the latter varies depending on the year and survey). However, since the army specifically screens out proponents of radical ideologies, there probably won't be much communist support there. Likewise, private military contractors are overwhelmingly conservative. So who exactly could marshal the necessary forces?

3. Turn on commercial TV. Just watch it for a little while. Then ask yourself: how many Americans could look all that material wealth in the eye and say "No?" The free market exists to give people what they want (at a price). Revolutions really can't compete with that offer.
Most such predictions are predicated on some kind of economic catastrophe causing sufficient destabilization to make revolt an attractive option.

While I can't say it's impossible, I do think the odds are incredibly low. Certainly much lower than "inevitable." Change will occur, but it will be gradual, as humans do what they do best: adapt, improvise, and overcome.

[JazzRemington]

Do you really think this hasn't been argued over before? Do you really think these arguments are new? Do you even realize that the first and third point have to do with the Marxist theory of ideology (you have read primary sources on what Marx wrote, correct? You're not the kind of person who reads a summary or critique of Marx and thinks he knows everything about what Marx wrote and the more recent developments within Marxism, are you?)? And guess what? A minority started the American Revolution, when most of the colonies didn't want to revolt. Read your history, you ignorant fuck.

Why should we waste our time arguing over points that have been argued to death before on this board and everywhere else? Even if you are proven wrong, I bet you still won't change your mind about anything because you are so full of yourself that you think you're right when it's obvious you are not.

[manic expression]

Well, most of us realize that a mountain of work remains to be done. More importantly, most of us realize that the conditions necessary for a revolution, especially in the US, have not yet materialized. These are important parts of our mindset, and whether or not you disagree with them and the underlying premise is secondary.

As a matter of fact, quite a portion of our discussions in revleft consist of HOW revolution will be made, by WHOM, and WHAT it will establish. I think it's a terrible misunderstanding of our discourse to say that we believe there will be a revolution in America in the "not-too-distant future". Actually, I'd submit that the majority of us are not too optimistic, if not pessimistic, on the prospects of an American socialist revolution.

If we ignore these issues for a second, let me address your listed concerns.

1.) Like I said, material conditions are essential to revolutionary movements. This is relevant because workers come to revolutionary socialism through class conflict. If there is little class conflict, then revolutionary socialism will not be too popular. However, as the working class is faced with more and more losses, they will organize to fight back. The first part of this equation is happening today, and has been gradually developing for some time.

2.) This is irrelevant. The Russian state, the Chinese nationalists, the Batista government, American forces in Vietnam and Bay of Pigs and other forces which opposed revolutions were very staunch gun-owners. A large number of trained, gun-owning counterrevolutionaries is par for the course, and it has been overcome in the past.

3.) This is true, capitalism tries to lure people through portrayal of the "good life". However, this is a double-edged sword, and is one of the many swords that the capitalists will eventually be forced to fall on. One of the things that fuels revolutionary energy is the disillusionment with a system that promises much and delivers nothing but exploitation. As the workers of all countries see their conditions reduced in the coming decades, those commercials will fall on deaf or hostile ears. Capitalists put the world on exhibit. Revolutions let people take it.

[raspute]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 03:11 am
Do you really think this hasn't been argued over before? Do you really think these arguments are new? Do you even realize that the first and third point have to do with the Marxist theory of ideology (you have read primary sources on what Marx wrote, correct? You're not the kind of person who reads a summary or critique of Marx and thinks he knows everything about what Marx wrote and the more recent developments within Marxism, are you?)? And guess what? A minority started the American Revolution, when most of the colonies didn't want to revolt. Read your history, you ignorant fuck.

It's a bit hypocritical of you to jump to the conclusion that another person jumps to conclusions(about Marx), and then to proceed to insult them for it.

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by raspute+December 03, 2007 10:26 pm--> (raspute @ December 03, 2007 10:26 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 03:11 am
Do you really think this hasn't been argued over before? Do you really think these arguments are new? Do you even realize that the first and third point have to do with the Marxist theory of ideology (you have read primary sources on what Marx wrote, correct? You're not the kind of person who reads a summary or critique of Marx and thinks he knows everything about what Marx wrote and the more recent developments within Marxism, are you?)? And guess what? A minority started the American Revolution, when most of the colonies didn't want to revolt. Read your history, you ignorant fuck.

It's a bit hypocritical of you to jump to the conclusion that another person jumps to conclusions(about Marx), and then to proceed to insult them for it. [/b]
You've been on this board for about what, 10 minutes?

[raspute]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 03:30 am
You've been on this board for about what, 10 minutes?
Eh, a few days. Yet we digress already!(I see no relevance)

[La Comédie Noire]

1. Communism is a dwindling ideology in the US. The US has never come close to open revolt by the workers, and I think that's even less likely today than it was in the 1930s (when the Communist Party in the US actually had a decent number of members). After all, who's going to revolt when the current system is so comfortable for the vast majority of the population?

Well republicanism, parlimentarism, what have you, was a dwindling ideology after the dissolving of the roman senate and then the decay of the empire into feudalist states, but some 1000 years later it made a come back.

Not to mention the fact during the 20th century european republics decayed into facism, but they also made a come back.

The first Bourgeoise revolutions where in the 1200's but they didn't gain any sucess until about the 1700's.

Can you really look at a movement that is only 160 something years old and say it is extinct for sure?

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 03:11 am
Do you really think this hasn't been argued over before? Do you really think these arguments are new? Do you even realize that the first and third point have to do with the Marxist theory of ideology (you have read primary sources on what Marx wrote, correct? You're not the kind of person who reads a summary or critique of Marx and thinks he knows everything about what Marx wrote and the more recent developments within Marxism, are you?)? And guess what? A minority started the American Revolution, when most of the colonies didn't want to revolt. Read your history, you ignorant fuck.

Why should we waste our time arguing over points that have been argued to death before on this board and everywhere else? Even if you are proven wrong, I bet you still won't change your mind about anything because you are so full of yourself that you think you're right when it's obvious you are not.
There is hardly a point left in politics that has not already been discussed. That doesn't mean it's not worth raising again.

I have read Marx's actual work, and, yes, I'm aware Marx addresses several of the points I made (in fact, he addresses all three). However, Marx is the be-all and end-all of human thought; I happen to enjoy getting new opinions.

Finally, I'm not forcing you to waste time on this. If you don't want to talk about it, just leave. But if you come by your own free choice then, please, a little courtesy.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 04, 2007 03:13 am
Well, most of us realize that a mountain of work remains to be done. More importantly, most of us realize that the conditions necessary for a revolution, especially in the US, have not yet materialized. These are important parts of our mindset, and whether or not you disagree with them and the underlying premise is secondary.

As a matter of fact, quite a portion of our discussions in revleft consist of HOW revolution will be made, by WHOM, and WHAT it will establish. I think it's a terrible misunderstanding of our discourse to say that we believe there will be a revolution in America in the "not-too-distant future". Actually, I'd submit that the majority of us are not too optimistic, if not pessimistic, on the prospects of an American socialist revolution.

If we ignore these issues for a second, let me address your listed concerns.

1.) Like I said, material conditions are essential to revolutionary movements. This is relevant because workers come to revolutionary socialism through class conflict. If there is little class conflict, then revolutionary socialism will not be too popular. However, as the working class is faced with more and more losses, they will organize to fight back. The first part of this equation is happening today, and has been gradually developing for some time.

2.) This is irrelevant. The Russian state, the Chinese nationalists, the Batista government, American forces in Vietnam and Bay of Pigs and other forces which opposed revolutions were very staunch gun-owners. A large number of trained, gun-owning counterrevolutionaries is par for the course, and it has been overcome in the past.

3.) This is true, capitalism tries to lure people through portrayal of the "good life". However, this is a double-edged sword, and is one of the many swords that the capitalists will eventually be forced to fall on. One of the things that fuels revolutionary energy is the disillusionment with a system that promises much and delivers nothing but exploitation. As the workers of all countries see their conditions reduced in the coming decades, those commercials will fall on deaf or hostile ears. Capitalists put the world on exhibit. Revolutions let people take it.
OK; I'm new to the site, and my apologies if I misinterpreted some quickly inspected dialogue. My mistake.

That said:

1) I contend that class conflict is, in fact, deliberately avoided in the capitalist system. The entire point of the system is that the classes cooperate for mutual gain; some may gain more than others, but everyone comes away better off at the end of the day (yes, I'm aware that you probably disagree with everything I just said, but bear with me). One way or another, however, it's difficult to deny that the standard of living is rising. You can argue that it would rise even without a capitalist system (technology accumulation), but I don't think that holds much water (standards of living due, historically speaking, drop frequently, and sustained increase points to a working system). Therefore, the current system appears to be benefiting all parties (albeit not in equal proportions).

2) This is, actually, quite relevant. A revolution cannot succeed when the reigning ideology has a monopoly on force. Given the primary groups capable of exerting force in the US (gun-owners, military, police, PMCs) and the lack of any major shifts in the ideologies of these groups over the last few decades, it seems unlikely to me that the balance of power will shift in the foreseeable future.

3) As I stated in #1, I don't think workers are having their conditions reduced. Furthermore, the system does deliver. It delivered the computer I'm typing on, the electricity that keeps it running, the Internet that's letting us have this chat, etc.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 04, 2007 02:48 am
I've noticed a fair number of the RevLeft posters talk about a revolution (as in a literal, Bolshevik-style revolution), which they seem to think will occur in the not-too-distant future. Does anyone else think this is pretty ludicrous?

Here are my problems with the concept.

1. Communism is a dwindling ideology in the US. The US has never come close to open revolt by the workers, and I think that's even less likely today than it was in the 1930s (when the Communist Party in the US actually had a decent number of members). After all, who's going to revolt when the current system is so comfortable for the vast majority of the population?

2. Unlike in most countries where revolutions have occurred, the US actually does have a substantial number of gun owners. Unfortunately for our revolutionaries, the average gun owner in the US is on the conservative side (just look at any demographics map). Furthermore, the army is majority Republican (i.e. right-wing), certainly among the officer corps, but even among the troops (though, granted, the latter varies depending on the year and survey). However, since the army specifically screens out proponents of radical ideologies, there probably won't be much communist support there. Likewise, private military contractors are overwhelmingly conservative. So who exactly could marshal the necessary forces?

3. Turn on commercial TV. Just watch it for a little while. Then ask yourself: how many Americans could look all that material wealth in the eye and say "No?" The free market exists to give people what they want (at a price). Revolutions really can't compete with that offer.
Welcome to Restricted Member Town! Population: You.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 04, 2007 03:37 am
Well republicanism, parlimentarism, what have you, was a dwindling ideology after the dissolving of the roman senate and then the decay of the empire into feudalist states, but some 1000 years later it made a come back.

Not to mention the fact during the 20th century european republics decayed into facism, but they also made a come back.

The first Bourgeoise revolutions where in the 1200's but they didn't gain any sucess until about the 1700's.

Can you really look at a movement that is only 160 something years old and say it is extinct for sure?
That's a very good point. However, when you start arguing that ideologies can (over centuries) experience resurgences, I think the debate has become purely academic. Over the course of a century or two, almost anything could happen, but it becomes impossible to speculate effectively.

What I'm arguing is not that it's permanently extinct, but that a revival is so remote that its outside of the foreseeable future.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 03:52 am
Welcome to Restricted Member Town! Population: You.
Oh, joy. I think my name probably condemned me from the start.

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist
There is hardly a point left in politics that has not already been discussed. That doesn't mean it's not worth raising again.

What's the point about talking about this that have been discussed to death? Why waste time repeating the same things back and forth when nothing changes?


I have read Marx's actual work, and, yes, I'm aware Marx addresses several of the points I made (in fact, he addresses all three). However, Marx is the be-all and end-all of human thought; I happen to enjoy getting new opinions.

If the points have already been addressed, why are you wasting everyone's time bringing them up when nothing new will be added?


Finally, I'm not forcing you to waste time on this. If you don't want to talk about it, just leave. But if you come by your own free choice then, please, a little courtesy.

Oh fuck off with your patronizing bullshit. There's nothing in the guidelines that says we have to be nice to jackasses like you and if you don't like it, you leave.

And for those of you not in the know, he was in chat earlier spreading his half-ass nonsense.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 04, 2007 03:52 am
OK; I'm new to the site, and my apologies if I misinterpreted some quickly inspected dialogue. My mistake.

That said:

1) I contend that class conflict is, in fact, deliberately avoided in the capitalist system. The entire point of the system is that the classes cooperate for mutual gain; some may gain more than others, but everyone comes away better off at the end of the day (yes, I'm aware that you probably disagree with everything I just said, but bear with me). One way or another, however, it's difficult to deny that the standard of living is rising. You can argue that it would rise even without a capitalist system (technology accumulation), but I don't think that holds much water (standards of living due, historically speaking, drop frequently, and sustained increase points to a working system). Therefore, the current system appears to be benefiting all parties (albeit not in equal proportions).

2) This is, actually, quite relevant. A revolution cannot succeed when the reigning ideology has a monopoly on force. Given the primary groups capable of exerting force in the US (gun-owners, military, police, PMCs) and the lack of any major shifts in the ideologies of these groups over the last few decades, it seems unlikely to me that the balance of power will shift in the foreseeable future.

3) As I stated in #1, I don't think workers are having their conditions reduced. Furthermore, the system does deliver. It delivered the computer I'm typing on, the electricity that keeps it running, the Internet that's letting us have this chat, etc.
No problem on this, I was just pointing out what we actually argue about on this forum.

1.) You should have said so in the beginning, because this is the point of contention. However, this isn't precisely related to the original point, because you were asking how WE see the revolution.

That being said, class conflict is not avoided in a capitalist system, and is present in virtually every aspect of society. Every strike, every factory closing, every attempt to organize a workplace and every attempt to stop that same organization is another facet of this fight. The interests of the workers are in direct opposition to the interests of their bosses and visa versa. The concept of "mutual gain" is expressed, in capitalism, only through the tongue of class interest. In other words, when a capitalist economist pours praise upon "mutually beneficial exchanges", he neglects the effects upon the majority of the population: the workers.

So you're saying that living standards continually rise? Let's look at current events. What about house foreclosures? People are going to lose their homes (whether or not you think this is merely a function of the market, it's going to happen). Does this increase their living standards? Hardly. Furthermore, the cost of living and real wages have gone DOWN over the past few decades, and that pattern is only going to continue. The working classes in the US have been on the ugly side of class conflict for some time now, and as imperialist competition ramps up, it will only get worse.

2.) Yes, I know that's what you were saying. However, successful revolution overcame entire armies of trained, disciplined and ruthless soldiers. Jimmy America and his hunting rifle do not introduce anything new. Therefore, I don't see this as an obstacle UNIQUE to the prospect of American revolution.

The real obstacle to revolution is not John Republican and his shotgun but the capitalist state. The police force, the army, the navy, the prison system and other institutions constitute a repressive organization; its sole purpose is the protection of one class and the oppression of the other. This is our obstacle, and it is a central part of our programs and mindsets. However, the workers can, have and will overthrow the capitalist state when they become organized and have recognized their common interests.

I do not truly disagree with you. I do not expect a revolution in America in my lifetime. However, this changes nothing in the larger picture.

3.) Ask yourself: what is the state of the unions in this country? "Pretty crappy" should be your answer. This is very significant because unionized jobs that paid very well and sustained quite a relative standard of living for workers are largely a thing of the past. The autoworker deal that just went through is but one example of this: the union made concessions and gave up benefits, and the union officialdom had the guile to call it a success. American workers are not doing very well right now; not at the banks, not at the workplace, not at the gas pump, not anywhere. They are on the losing end of class conflict; this will reverse once the working classes join the fight against their opponents.

As a side-note, it's a funny thing you mention computers: Marx specifically said that improved means of communication IMPROVE the capacity for revolution. As workers can communicate and as people from all parts of the world are brought closer together, the common interests of the proletariat become more and more obvious. Capitalism produced this computer, but this computer will ultimately help to produce capitalism's downfall.

[Easterbrook]

I don't mean to quibble, but folks in this thread seem to indicate that the "workers" are in the majority in the US.

If that is so, instead of using some some coup d'état or massive revolt, couldn't we simply use the ballot box to effectuate change?

You can tell me that some poling places are corrupt, and that may be. But if we had enough of a majority, even a few hanging chads in Florida or an entire town of dead voters in Cook County will not be enough to silence the votes of the people.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 07:23 am
I don't mean to quibble, but folks in this thread seem to indicate that the "workers" are in the majority in the US.

If that is so, instead of using some some coup d'état or massive revolt, couldn't we simply use the ballot box to effectuate change?

You can tell me that some poling places are corrupt, and that may be. But if we had enough of a majority, even a few hanging chads in Florida or an entire town of dead voters in Cook County will not be enough to silence the votes of the people.
You point out one of the inherent contradictions of the revolutionary leftist: his is an ideology that obtains its justification and its mandate from the proletariat, and proposes that the proletariat rule absolutely. Yet he does not trust the proletariat to act in its own self-interest, necessitating the need for antidemocratic tactics to seize power.

[R_P_A_S]

you are so right. i totally forgot that life is static :rolleyes:

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 07:23 am
I don't mean to quibble, but folks in this thread seem to indicate that the "workers" are in the majority in the US.

If that is so, instead of using some some coup d'état or massive revolt, couldn't we simply use the ballot box to effectuate change?

You can tell me that some poling places are corrupt, and that may be. But if we had enough of a majority, even a few hanging chads in Florida or an entire town of dead voters in Cook County will not be enough to silence the votes of the people.
Maybe. But that pre-supposes the elections are fair. But they aren't. Of course they vary to what degree they are unfair. It might be just about feasible to imagine a Communist party coming to power in some countries (indeed they very occasionally do, but there are other things stacked against them then), but if we are talking about the US then there is no hope because its elections are simply incredibly unfair. Not just to leftists mind you, they also shut out various other groups such as Libertarians and even people from the Democratic or Republican parties depending on which state you care to visit.

First and foremost America for whatever reason lacked any incentive to move towards greater democracy in the twentieth century along with the European countries. It made some movement mind you, women got the vote and Senators had to run for election, but there was not the same pressure that there was in Europe and the voting system was never reformed to proportional representation. There was some movement in that direction granted, some states and cities (New York for example) did make the change, but they went back in the McCarthy era when Communists and Blacks (just as bad) started winning seats that way. So point one; the American voting system is deeply unfair.

The next point is related to that in that the unfair voting system allowed two parties to dominate to the extent they shut everyone else out. These two parties have such control over the system and the media that no one else can fairly compete and the beauty is that the two parties represent the same interests and the same constituency so there is not much to choose from. The two parties are able to take in people from other positions and tame them mind you, the Republican party has members from the extreme right, but they are kept safely on the fringes. Similarly there are some genuinely left wing people in the Democratic party, but they are kept safe and out of the way by party leadership as well.

In that context, first of all it is no wonder so many people don't bother voting, but it also means that in America at elast it is impossible to envisage change at the ballot box.

[Easterbrook]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+December 04, 2007 08:17 am--> (Demogorgon @ December 04, 2007 08:17 am)
[email protected] 04, 2007 07:23 am
I don't mean to quibble, but folks in this thread seem to indicate that the "workers" are in the majority in the US.

If that is so, instead of using some some coup d'état or massive revolt, couldn't we simply use the ballot box to effectuate change?

You can tell me that some poling places are corrupt, and that may be. But if we had enough of a majority, even a few hanging chads in Florida or an entire town of dead voters in Cook County will not be enough to silence the votes of the people.
Maybe. But that pre-supposes the elections are fair. But they aren't. Of course they vary to what degree they are unfair. It might be just about feasible to imagine a Communist party coming to power in some countries (indeed they very occasionally do, but there are other things stacked against them then), but if we are talking about the US then there is no hope because its elections are simply incredibly unfair. Not just to leftists mind you, they also shut out various other groups such as Libertarians and even people from the Democratic or Republican parties depending on which state you care to visit.

First and foremost America for whatever reason lacked any incentive to move towards greater democracy in the twentieth century along with the European countries. It made some movement mind you, women got the vote and Senators had to run for election, but there was not the same pressure that there was in Europe and the voting system was never reformed to proportional representation. There was some movement in that direction granted, some states and cities (New York for example) did make the change, but they went back in the McCarthy era when Communists and Blacks (just as bad) started winning seats that way. So point one; the American voting system is deeply unfair.

The next point is related to that in that the unfair voting system allowed two parties to dominate to the extent they shut everyone else out. These two parties have such control over the system and the media that no one else can fairly compete and the beauty is that the two parties represent the same interests and the same constituency so there is not much to choose from. The two parties are able to take in people from other positions and tame them mind you, the Republican party has members from the extreme right, but they are kept safely on the fringes. Similarly there are some genuinely left wing people in the Democratic party, but they are kept safe and out of the way by party leadership as well.

In that context, first of all it is no wonder so many people don't bother voting, but it also means that in America at elast it is impossible to envisage change at the ballot box. [/b]
I guess I don't understand you. Are you telling me that these workers will be motivated enough to risk their lives storming capital hill, but they won't be motivated enough to cast a ballot?

You indicate that Socialism/Communism will never pass by election because two parties dominate the playing field and the media supports these two parties.

However, it is not difficult to cast a ballot for a third party candidate. If these workers can organize themselves to revolt against the system, I'm guessing they are also capable of voting for a third party candidate.

Moreover, what does the media matter? You are telling me that the media has so brainwashed the workers that they are incapable casting a ballot for a socialist candidate, yet they are capable of violently taking up arms in a collective action against the forces of Capitalism? That doesn't make sense.

If the workers are motivated enough to organize a revolt and risk their lives taking down the icons of capitalism, they are motivated enough to vote.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:02 am

I guess I don't understand you. Are you telling me that these workers will be motivated enough to risk their lives storming capital hill, but they won't be motivated enough to cast a ballot?

You indicate that Socialism/Communism will never pass by election because two parties dominate the playing field and the media supports these two parties.

However, it is not difficult to cast a ballot for a third party candidate. If these workers can organize themselves to revolt against the system, I'm guessing they are also capable of voting for a third party candidate.

Moreover, what does the media matter? You are telling me that the media has so brainwashed the workers that they are incapable casting a ballot for a socialist candidate, yet they are capable of violently taking up arms in a collective action against the forces of Capitalism? That doesn't make sense.

If the workers are motivated enough to organize a revolt and risk their lives taking down the icons of capitalism, they are motivated enough to vote.
I am telling you that the electoral system in the United States is not fair enough to allow any party pitside the main two to have any success in elections because the voting is not proportional. In most countries you can vote for whoever ou want and they have a good chance of gaining representation because seats in parliament or congress are awarded according to how many votes they gain, but it doesn't work that way in America so it is just about impossible to envisage another party gaining representation, never mind winning control. That's not to say that proportional representation would suddenly solve the matter, I am just indicating how the American electoral system is unusually restricted even by western capitalist standards. I don't see change as being posisble through voting in America.

That's not to sya I see change neccessarily coming about through "storming capitol hill" either. The world is a tad more subtle fortunately

[mikelepore]

Why is "in the not-too-distant future" part of the question? It took centuries to get rid of most of the monarchies and theocracies, but the delay didn't make it any less of a good idea. Itis now taking centuries to get rid of capitalism, but the delay doesn't make it any less of a good idea.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 04, 2007 02:48 am
Then ask yourself: how many Americans could look all that material wealth in the eye and say "No?"
Eventually people will probably notice that their "wealth" is the gimmick of giving them little things in place of the big things. You can afford a DVD player, but you can't afford medical care. You can afford an MP3 player, but you can't afford your children's education. Enjoy your cable TV, because it's taking the place of having your mortgage paid off anytime before you're ninety years old.

[RGacky3]

Very few in the left actually believe a revolutoin in the united states is imminant, what many do believe though, is that small but significant socialistic victories can be won in the United States, Immigration rights, Workers struggles, fighting racial predjudice, organizing and so forth, as well as supporting revolutions in other countries, that are happening now, and will continue to happen.

[Ultra-Violence]

I dont think it far fetched at all


1.If look at the History of the United sates I mean really Look Youll see that it has a history of rebelion its just not taught in schools

2. true the majority of gun owners are conservative BUT! gangs have guns too and IMO they can be swayed into our revolutionary camp very easily. and wat stping us from arming ourselves

3.Fuck the polls and all that shit you see on t.v thats owned and run by the ruling class so throw that sit out the window first of all second of all Actualy talk to people and youll see that thier getting sick of the Dems. and Repub. A good number who i have talked to who know nothing about politics are getting sick of the whole system they want an alternative that when we come in

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 04, 2007 02:48 am
1. Communism is a dwindling ideology in the US.
Assertions need proof. Please show where you have the data on the number of communists in America and then we talk.


The US has never come close to open revolt by the workers, and I think that's even less likely today than it was in the 1930s (when the Communist Party in the US actually had a decent number of members).

1) Communist revolution doesn't erupt overnight. When you guys declared independence it wasn't just a colony one day and then "We the people..." the next now was it?

2) The Communist Party (which one? The CPUSA?) does not represent the entirety of communism so its membership numbers do not say anything about the number of communists in America.


After all, who's going to revolt when the current system is so comfortable for the vast majority of the population?

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.


2. Unlike in most countries where revolutions have occurred, the US actually does have a substantial number of gun owners. Unfortunately for our revolutionaries, the average gun owner in the US is on the conservative side (just look at any demographics map).

So? Your country also allows about anyone to own and carry a firearm. Do you think revolutionaries are just going to use sticks?


Furthermore, the army is majority Republican (i.e. right-wing), certainly among the officer corps, but even among the troops (though, granted, the latter varies depending on the year and survey). However, since the army specifically screens out proponents of radical ideologies, there probably won't be much communist support there. Likewise, private military contractors are overwhelmingly conservative. So who exactly could marshal the necessary forces?

This word pasta assumes that we're saying we've got a revolutionary army ready and waiting right this fucking second. We don't say that, prick.


3. Turn on commercial TV. Just watch it for a little while. Then ask yourself: how many Americans could look all that material wealth in the eye and say "No?"

You misunderstand communism. It's not about giving up everything and living in some poverty stricken hell hole. It's about distributing an abundance of "material wealth" amongst the working classes. A worker in capitalism doesn't stand a chance of getting most of the status symbols they see on TV, so deciding to remain capitalist is saying "NO!"


The free market exists to give people what they want (at a price).

The free market exists to give some people what they want (at the expense of the majority)


Revolutions really can't compete with that offer.

You've failed, try again.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There's growing anti state sentiment in the United States. It's not anywhere near "revolutionary", but its definitely there, and on the rise. It's simmering, under the surface for now; the way I see it, it will either continue to grow, or whoever gets elected next will manage to subdue it with some feel good populism of no real value.

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 07:23 am
I don't mean to quibble, but folks in this thread seem to indicate that the "workers" are in the majority in the US.

If that is so, instead of using some some coup d'état or massive revolt, couldn't we simply use the ballot box to effectuate change?

You can tell me that some poling places are corrupt, and that may be. But if we had enough of a majority, even a few hanging chads in Florida or an entire town of dead voters in Cook County will not be enough to silence the votes of the people.
do you really think the capitalist gvernment would agree to hold such a referendum. US politics is no democracy. You cannot establish socialism from the top. Must be done from the bottom and a workers revolution is the only way. People think that people are comfrtable but thwy are not. It will boil down to thAT SMALL qualitative change whichmobilizes the population.

[Zurdito]

it's far fetched to believe that the citizens of the US will rise up in a revolution under current conditions.

however if the American Empire is crushed by the rising of the masses in the countries they exploit, then we might see serious clashes between the American proletariate and bourgeoisie.

in most third world countries the conditions for a revolution are either round the corner, or existing.

this is why communists in the west should employ a dual strategy: support industrial disputes at home to emphasize class contradictions as much as possible and hold back the imperialist bourgeoisie

AND

in the third world aim towards the all out decimation of puppet regimes like the scum ruling Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Egypt/Brazil/India etc. as well as promoting independent working class organisation in countries ruled by anti-imperialist regimes like Venezuela, Iran, China etc., to build on the economic nationalism of them, to pressure them into ever harsher sanctions against the imperialists, and to eventually overthrow those regimes when the global crisis has reached a serious enough point for them to seek an arrangement with the Empire.

Now US society in THOSE conditions would certainly explode. And yes your typical small town gun owner might be right-wing, but not many inner city kids are. That is the youth which has the potential to rise up as the leadership of a revolution in the US, the ever growing impoverished masses, largely but not exclusively balck and latino, who already KNOW they are being shat on, but do not have the extra spark to force them into action, that attack on their living standards combined with a show of severe vulnerability by the bourgeoisie.

What would an economic crisis in the US look like? Try Katrina. That shit is going down. The apologists for the "market" will look pretty stupid then. And if you look at the US dependence on the rest of the world and the potential for a.) revolution or b.) attack on US interests by the bourgeoisie in those countries, then you will see that such a scenario is not beyond us (it won't just happen, revolutionaries wordlwide will have to actively fight for it, and if you look at recent trends, we're succeeding in making the world more anti-american).

In Europe, I think the organised working class has more history, more consciousness, more organisation, and will be able to lead struggles with a more trade union based character. It's possible that s US revolution may be one which would need the most outside guidance.

[Dr Mindbender]

america wont turn communist via elections or peaceful means, because the state are prepared to use undemocratic violent means to suppress it. You only need to look to the washington student anti-vietnam rallies when the police turned their tear gas and batons on a peaceful crowd for speaking their minds. The US army will turn its guns on the people before they let them have power.

Anyway, the whole apparatus of congress was designed for the preservation and defence of the beourgioise class, in much the same way that the house of commons and the house of lords was set up to defend the british monarchy and beourgioise. The symbols of capitalist electioneering cannot be patched up and used by the workers, as centre left reformists want us to believe.

[synthesis]

Even if a movement does not have widespread support, that does not mean that its participants will (or should) abandon that which they perceive to be self-evident truths.

To draw a comparison, abolitionism with regards to chattel slavery had very little support in the white world in the 17th century, but by the end of the 19th century it was par for the course and widely recognized as representing a basic truth - that humans should not have their lives stolen from them before they are born.

And though we may be a minority, it does not mean that we will abandon our analysis of modern capitalist society as one that is still fundamentally oriented around de facto wage slavery and requires wage slavery to survive.

In other words, humanity does not need wage slavery; capitalism does.

The conditions are not yet ripe for the vast changes necessary to eliminate wage slavery - our job is to provide the people with an alternative for the time when the conditions render wage slavery obsolete.



You point out one of the inherent contradictions of the revolutionary leftist: his is an ideology that obtains its justification and its mandate from the proletariat, and proposes that the proletariat rule absolutely. Yet he does not trust the proletariat to act in its own self-interest, necessitating the need for antidemocratic tactics to seize power.

You are still talking about Leninism when I would assume you would know the difference by now.

I don't know if this is true, but one of my history teachers told me that Marx predicted that if a communist revolution were to take hold in Russia, it would ultimately fail. He thought it would happen in places like England and Belgium; clearly he was wrong.

Instead, Leninist-Maoist movements took hold primarily in societies that were not industrialized and did not have any kind of democratic traditions to begin with - both vital components of genuine Marxism.

See, Russia and China were already acclimated to the idea of a strong government with its own set of interests; we must remember that what would work in the West would not necessarily work in these environments.

Pusher Robot, I would really like for you to read this article and tell me what you think with regards to your comment above.

http://thefifthway.net/mu/redrealism/2007/...fresh-approach/ (http://thefifthway.net/mu/redrealism/2007/07/22/in-defence-of-marxism-a-fresh-approach/)




If that is so, instead of using some some coup d'état or massive revolt, couldn't we simply use the ballot box to effectuate change?


I rarely say this, but you must abandon your Western prejudices and recognize that electoral "democracy" is inherently undemocratic.

The problem with electoral democracy is that it requires a distinct class of people - politicians - who must necessarily be full-time career politicians with their own set of interests, thus distancing themselves from the people.

What are the alternatives? I argue that we do not "vote" on jurors in a trial; they are presumed to be equally capable of appraising the truth of any situation.

I propose that in an equally educated society, sortition would be by far the most democratic option; but in a capitalist society, people will not be equally educated, as capitalism, by its nature, requires a distinct class of people who cannot question their lack of opportunity in life.

What do you think?

[Easterbrook]

Originally posted by Ender+December 04, 2007 05:49 pm--> (Ender @ December 04, 2007 05:49 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 07:23 am
I don't mean to quibble, but folks in this thread seem to indicate that the "workers" are in the majority in the US.

If that is so, instead of using some some coup d'état or massive revolt, couldn't we simply use the ballot box to effectuate change?

You can tell me that some poling places are corrupt, and that may be. But if we had enough of a majority, even a few hanging chads in Florida or an entire town of dead voters in Cook County will not be enough to silence the votes of the people.
do you really think the capitalist gvernment would agree to hold such a referendum. US politics is no democracy. You cannot establish socialism from the top. Must be done from the bottom and a workers revolution is the only way. People think that people are comfrtable but thwy are not. It will boil down to thAT SMALL qualitative change whichmobilizes the population. [/b]
I fail to see why we can't use the ballot box to establish socialism/communism/whateverutipiaism.

The US capitalist government broke up Ma-Bell, Microsoft, and passed sarbanes oxley. The capitalist government also passed social security, implemented public schools, and passed welfare legislation. Thus, the government, through the power of the people, is capable in acting in ways inconsistent with the capitalists.

How do you have so much confidence in the workers and their ability to revolt, but you have 0 confidence in their ability to vote?

[Easterbrook]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 05, 2007 12:32 am
I rarely say this, but you must abandon your Western prejudices and recognize that electoral "democracy" is inherently undemocratic.

The problem with electoral democracy is that it requires a distinct class of people - politicians - who must necessarily be full-time career politicians with their own set of interests, thus distancing themselves from the people.



Why can't we vote in a socialist? Just because there are career politicians does not preclude us from voting vote in some socialist leader of the workers.

[synthesis]

The US capitalist government broke up Ma-Bell, Microsoft, and passed sarbanes oxley. The capitalist government also passed social security, implemented public schools, and passed welfare legislation. Thus, the government, through the power of the people, is capable in acting in ways inconsistent with the capitalists.


Yes, the government can sometimes be a tool for mediating the worst ramifications of the capitalist system.

But as for abolishing capitalism itself? That's about as likely as one of Stalin's advisers telling him that he smelled like shit and needed to brush his teeth.

Abandon your idealism for a second and recognize who really has power in this system. The electoral democratic system is a convenient way of keeping the population complacent and feeling "in control" when in fact they are not. Money is power, my friend, and a wise woman once said that it is not necessarily power but the fear of losing power that truly corrupts a person.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:42 am
I fail to see why we can't establish socialism from the top.

The US capitalist government broke up Ma-Bell, Microsoft, and passed sarbanes oxley. The capitalist government also passed social security, implemented public schools, and passed welfare legislation. Thus, the government, through the power of the people, is capable in acting in ways inconsistent with the capitalists.

How do you have so much confidence in the workers and their ability to revolt, but you have 0 confidence in their ability to vote?
It's illogical to think that the capitalist state can be used to abolish capitalism, especially in the age of imperialism.

Do you really think "the people" decide elections? Are you that divorced from reality? Take a look at the political process and tell me "the people" have the final say. It's about money, any fool can tell you that.

The bourgeoisie will not just leave office when their term expires and say, "Well, our entire present existence and livlihood is about to be abolished...let's forget about it and go to Chile's for dinner!" Please, they will fight TOOTH AND NAIL to preserve the present order. Trying to change things through THEIR ballot box is just fallacious.

Don't give me that hogwash about the New Deal and tell me it shows how "the people" can change things through the capitalist government. The New Deal was made to appease people, to stave off a general revolt. Once the bourgeoisie was in a stronger position, those concessions were thrown out the window. Public schools? One can hardly call them "schools" if you're not in a rich area. Welfare? Abolished over a decade ago, and it wasn't effective before that point anyway (welfare doesn't solve poverty, it only keeps people from starving). Social security? Will either collapse or get gutted within a generation. Monopoly busting? Don't make me laugh; that is done for the general benefit of the capitalist class and no one else, and the "competitive" companies that replace them are no different for the working classes.

It's time you face the music: reforming the capitalist system is a futile effort. As long as there is a bourgeoisie, they will rip through your "reforms" like a grenade in a doll house.

No one here doubts the ability of the workers to vote. Most everyone here doubts that it ultimately matters if they do.

[synthesis]

Why can't we vote in a socialist? Just because there are career politicians does not preclude us from voting vote in some socialist leader of the workers.

Yes, but as soon as he is in power, he is no longer a worker. His "work" is politics, which means that he will have his own interests distinct from the workers; this in turn separates him from the people.

I believe that if a government must exist, it should directly take its participants from the people, and when the government is to be replaced, its participants should have to count on returning to the people.

[Easterbrook]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 05, 2007 12:54 am
Yes, the government can sometimes be a tool for mediating the worst ramifications of the capitalist system.

But as for abolishing capitalism itself? That's about as likely as one of Stalin's advisers telling him that he smelled like shit and needed to brush his teeth.

Abandon your idealism for a second and recognize who really has power in this system. The electoral democratic system is a convenient way of keeping the population complacent and feeling "in control" when in fact they are not. Money is power, my friend, and a wise woman once said that it is not necessarily power but the fear of losing power that truly corrupts a person.
I recognize who currently has power in the system: the capitalists. I have no doubt they pass corrupt laws, take bribes, and the like. However, the reason they have power is because they were voted in by the people. But just as they were voted in by the people, they can be voted out by the people.

If we can organize people to revolt, we can organize people to vote the current capitalists out.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Easterbrook+December 05, 2007 01:21 am--> (Easterbrook @ December 05, 2007 01:21 am)
Kun Fanâ@December 05, 2007 12:54 am
Yes, the government can sometimes be a tool for mediating the worst ramifications of the capitalist system.

But as for abolishing capitalism itself? That's about as likely as one of Stalin's advisers telling him that he smelled like shit and needed to brush his teeth.

Abandon your idealism for a second and recognize who really has power in this system. The electoral democratic system is a convenient way of keeping the population complacent and feeling "in control" when in fact they are not. Money is power, my friend, and a wise woman once said that it is not necessarily power but the fear of losing power that truly corrupts a person.
I recognize who currently has power in the system: the capitalists. I have no doubt they pass corrupt laws, take bribes, and the like. However, the reason they have power is because they were voted in by the people. But just as they were voted in by the people, they can be voted out by the people.

If we can organize people to revolt, we can organize people to vote the current capitalists out. [/b]
well, the bourgeois media, laws and economic power (ie socialism will get workers punished by witholding of goods) means we'll probably be a minority until the outbreak of a civil war.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Easterbrook+December 04, 2007 06:21 pm--> (Easterbrook @ December 04, 2007 06:21 pm)
Kun Fanâ@December 05, 2007 12:54 am
Yes, the government can sometimes be a tool for mediating the worst ramifications of the capitalist system.

But as for abolishing capitalism itself? That's about as likely as one of Stalin's advisers telling him that he smelled like shit and needed to brush his teeth.

Abandon your idealism for a second and recognize who really has power in this system. The electoral democratic system is a convenient way of keeping the population complacent and feeling "in control" when in fact they are not. Money is power, my friend, and a wise woman once said that it is not necessarily power but the fear of losing power that truly corrupts a person.
I recognize who currently has power in the system: the capitalists. I have no doubt they pass corrupt laws, take bribes, and the like. However, the reason they have power is because they were voted in by the people. But just as they were voted in by the people, they can be voted out by the people.

If we can organize people to revolt, we can organize people to vote the current capitalists out.[/b]
I do not mean to insult your intelligence, but I cannot stop myself from saying that this has to be one of the most hilariously ill-informed statements I have ever read on this board.

You use the word "capitalist" when you mean to say "politician" and then proceed to carelessly conflate the two. Capitalists cannot be "voted out" except by their shareholders - which could never threaten the capitalist system as a whole - and with cases like Rupert Murdoch, who owns the controlling share of News Corporation, even that little crumb of economic democracy is swept under the carpet.

To be consistent and actually make any degree of sense, your post would either have to read like so:


I recognize who currently has power in the system: the politicians. I have no doubt they pass corrupt laws, take bribes, and the like. However, the reason they have power is because they were voted in by the people. But just as they were voted in by the people, they can be voted out by the people.

If we can organize people to revolt, we can organize people to vote the current politicians out.

or:


I recognize who currently has power in the system: the capitalists. [The rest has to be discarded because capitalists do not directly pass laws, issue rather than receive bribes, and were not voted into their position by the people.]

If we can organize people to revolt, we can organize people to vote the current capitalists out. [Fallacious for reasons described at the beginning of this post]

See what I mean? The first statement denies bourgeois supremacy and places the blame on its figureheads, while the second statement is fallacious as it assumes that CEOs can be voted out of their position through the electoral process. Again, I am not personally attacking you, but your post completely contradicts itself.

[Lynx]

If Venezuela can elect Hugo Chavez, why couldn't Americans elect their own version?

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:44 am
If Venezuela can elect Hugo Chavez, why couldn't Americans elect their own version?
Nice try. No. Not in a million years. In this country, their is a well developed Bourgoisie who totally control A.) the media who basically determine who becomes a candidate B.) the cash necessary to run a real campaign and C.) the GOVERNMENT!

There is a myth in the United States. This myth is called democracy. We live in a Dictatorship (in the Marxist sense) of the Bourgoisie. Elections are not an option.

[Easterbrook]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ+December 05, 2007 02:12 am--> (Kun Fanâ @ December 05, 2007 02:12 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 06:21 pm

Kun Fanâ@December 05, 2007 12:54 am
Yes, the government can sometimes be a tool for mediating the worst ramifications of the capitalist system.

But as for abolishing capitalism itself? That's about as likely as one of Stalin's advisers telling him that he smelled like shit and needed to brush his teeth.

Abandon your idealism for a second and recognize who really has power in this system. The electoral democratic system is a convenient way of keeping the population complacent and feeling "in control" when in fact they are not. Money is power, my friend, and a wise woman once said that it is not necessarily power but the fear of losing power that truly corrupts a person.
I recognize who currently has power in the system: the capitalists. I have no doubt they pass corrupt laws, take bribes, and the like. However, the reason they have power is because they were voted in by the people. But just as they were voted in by the people, they can be voted out by the people.

If we can organize people to revolt, we can organize people to vote the current capitalists out.
I do not mean to insult your intelligence, but I cannot stop myself from saying that this has to be one of the most hilariously ill-informed statements I have ever read on this board.

You use the word "capitalist" when you mean to say "politician" and then proceed to carelessly conflate the two. Capitalists cannot be "voted out" except by their shareholders - which could never threaten the capitalist system as a whole - and with cases like Rupert Murdoch, who owns the controlling share of News Corporation, even that little crumb of economic democracy is swept under the carpet.

To be consistent and actually make any degree of sense, your post would either have to read like so:


I recognize who currently has power in the system: the politicians. I have no doubt they pass corrupt laws, take bribes, and the like. However, the reason they have power is because they were voted in by the people. But just as they were voted in by the people, they can be voted out by the people.

If we can organize people to revolt, we can organize people to vote the current politicians out.

or:


I recognize who currently has power in the system: the capitalists. [The rest has to be discarded because capitalists do not directly pass laws, issue rather than receive bribes, and were not voted into their position by the people.]

If we can organize people to revolt, we can organize people to vote the current capitalists out. [Fallacious for reasons described at the beginning of this post]

See what I mean? The first statement denies bourgeois supremacy and places the blame on its figureheads, while the second statement is fallacious as it assumes that CEOs can be voted out of their position through the electoral process. Again, I am not personally attacking you, but your post completely contradicts itself. [/b]

The term "capitalist" is often used on this board to refer to those with a capitalist world view or those who accept or prefer a system of capitalism. Thus, by saying that current politicians are capitalists, I am simply asserting that they have a capitalist world view. You know this, stop side stepping my questions.

I am well aware of the differences between share-holders and politicians. I think you are just using this to sidestep my question. Do you really think if we found some Socialist leader and voted him/her the senator of our state, the he/she would suddenly forget all about socialism?

[Easterbrook]

Originally posted by drosera99+December 05, 2007 02:48 am--> (drosera99 @ December 05, 2007 02:48 am)
[email protected] 05, 2007 02:44 am
If Venezuela can elect Hugo Chavez, why couldn't Americans elect their own version?
Nice try. No. Not in a million years. In this country, their is a well developed Bourgoisie who totally control A.) the media who basically determine who becomes a candidate B.) the cash necessary to run a real campaign and C.) the GOVERNMENT!

There is a myth in the United States. This myth is called democracy. We live in a Dictatorship (in the Marxist sense) of the Bourgoisie. Elections are not an option. [/b]
But why is the ballot box not an option. Are you telling me that we can expect the working class to revolt and over power the capitalists, but we can't get them to simply cast a vote for a socialist candidate? I find that hard to believe.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Easterbrook+December 05, 2007 02:59 am--> (Easterbrook @ December 05, 2007 02:59 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:48 am

[email protected] 05, 2007 02:44 am
If Venezuela can elect Hugo Chavez, why couldn't Americans elect their own version?
Nice try. No. Not in a million years. In this country, their is a well developed Bourgoisie who totally control A.) the media who basically determine who becomes a candidate B.) the cash necessary to run a real campaign and C.) the GOVERNMENT!

There is a myth in the United States. This myth is called democracy. We live in a Dictatorship (in the Marxist sense) of the Bourgoisie. Elections are not an option.
But why is the ballot box not an option. Are you telling me that we can expect the working class to revolt and over power the capitalists, but we can't get them to simply cast a vote for a socialist candidate? I find that hard to believe. [/b]
See previous answer.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:44 am
If Venezuela can elect Hugo Chavez, why couldn't Americans elect their own version?
That's a pretty questionable statement. He came to power in a coup, and all subsequent elections have been marred by massive fraud (see studies by MIT and Jonathan Taylor).

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 05, 2007 04:08 am--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 05, 2007 04:08 am)
[email protected] 05, 2007 02:44 am
If Venezuela can elect Hugo Chavez, why couldn't Americans elect their own version?
That's a pretty questionable statement. He came to power in a coup, and all subsequent elections have been marred by massive fraud (see studies by MIT and Jonathan Taylor). [/b]
That statement is unquestionably wrong.

Hugo Chavez' elections have been fair. Most international observers have said as much (Jimmy Carter's center passed his elections as fair). Moreover, it is a pretty ridiculous to make such a claim DAYS after Chavez lost a close referendum. Where was the "massive fraud" there? Your argument is completely illogical and defies common sense.

[synthesis]

The term "capitalist" is often used on this board to refer to those with a capitalist world view or those who accept or prefer a system of capitalism. Thus, by saying that current politicians are capitalists, I am simply asserting that they have a capitalist world view. You know this, stop side stepping my questions.

My friend, you must understand that a tiny fraction of people who subscribe to the capitalist worldview actually have true power in our society through controlling the means of production, finance, information and so forth.

These are the people who have power, my friend, and if the means of producing wealth were to be democratic in nature, then we would call that socialism.

But the means of production are not democratic. They cannot be decentralized democratically, except by shareholders - who are unlikely to be able to eliminate the institution of wage slavery by themselves.

Additionally, a government acting to prevent a corporation from having a monopoly over the market is not the same as a government seeking to dissolve the hierarchy of corporations in general.

And to suggest that the powerful people of society would simply abandon their positions of power when a government orders them to do so, would be one of the most naive, ahistorical sentiments expressed on this board.

In short: It is conceivable that a candidate who wishes to eliminate the capitalists could be elected; but Rupert Murdoch is not going to take it sitting down. If we have learned anything from history, we know that once the media fails to successfully demonize the movement, there will be assassinations, atrocities, and repression, and only a successful revolution will actually remove the bourgeoisie from power.

So, yes, there could conceivably be an elected candidate who challenges capitalist power; but she must then face the insurmountable task of attacking the bourgeoisie using bourgeois institutions as a weapon. Does that answer your question?

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 04, 2007 06:45 pm
america wont turn communist via elections or peaceful means, because the state are prepared to use undemocratic violent means to suppress it. You only need to look to the washington student anti-vietnam rallies when the police turned their tear gas and batons on a peaceful crowd for speaking their minds. The US army will turn its guns on the people before they let them have power.

Anyway, the whole apparatus of congress was designed for the preservation and defence of the beourgioise class, in much the same way that the house of commons and the house of lords was set up to defend the british monarchy and beourgioise. The symbols of capitalist electioneering cannot be patched up and used by the workers, as centre left reformists want us to believe.
Those student rallies weren't precisely peaceful. They weren't armed, but they were disruptive and did cause property damage (not really very different from riots, just more constrained).

I don't think its fair to say that a communist couldn't (hypothetically) come to power in the US through the democractic process. However, the problem is that communists aren't (and never have been and prsumably won't be, for the foreseeable future) in a position to rally sufficient numbers to win an election. Now, you can blame that on the media, the bourgeoisie or whoever you wish, but the fundamental fact remains: communists couldn't win a national election any more than fascists.

P.S. Since the formation of Congress effectively predated the Industrial Revolution, it would also have predated the bourgeoisie (at least, as Marx used that term).

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 05, 2007 04:13 am
That statement is unquestionably wrong.

Hugo Chavez' elections have been fair. Most international observers have said as much (Jimmy Carter's center passed his elections as fair). Moreover, it is a pretty ridiculous to make such a claim DAYS after Chavez lost a close referendum. Where was the "massive fraud" there? Your argument is completely illogical and defies common sense.
You have no idea how little respect I accord Jimmy Carter's center. I'd much rather go with trained statisticians. Furthermore, the ability to rig some elections does not equate to the ability to completely ignore electoral results. Chávez is not strong enough to completely ignore his own people (especially when he's alienating the military by sacking high ranking officials who disagree with him).

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 05, 2007 04:15 am
My friend, you must understand that a tiny fraction of people who subscribe to the capitalist worldview actually have true power in our society through controlling the means of production, finance, information and so forth.
So, when do I (as one of the "tiny fraction of people who subscribe to the capitalist worldview") get my share of the power? There are large masses of people who genuinely subscribe to the capitalist system without wielding massive influence; it's not just the ideology of the rulers.

P.S. Please don't use the terms "self-alienation," "deluded" or "lackey" in your reply. Those particular horses have been long since beaten to death.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 04:15 am
Those student rallies weren't precisely peaceful. They weren't armed, but they were disruptive and did cause property damage (not really very different from riots, just more constrained).

I don't think its fair to say that a communist couldn't (hypothetically) come to power in the US through the democractic process. However, the problem is that communists aren't (and never have been and prsumably won't be, for the foreseeable future) in a position to rally sufficient numbers to win an election. Now, you can blame that on the media, the bourgeoisie or whoever you wish, but the fundamental fact remains: communists couldn't win a national election any more than fascists.

P.S. Since the formation of Congress effectively predated the Industrial Revolution, it would also have predated the bourgeoisie (at least, as Marx used that term).
The student rallies were confrontational, but one side CLEARLY used FAR more force than the other. It doesn't take a sociologist to figure out that the side with the tear gas, batons and real live bullets ISN'T the more peaceful one.

On elections, see previous answer.

So was the French Revolution NOT bourgeois? According to your logic, this would be the case. In actuality, the French Revolution, which occurred mere years after the Constitution was ratified, was bourgeois. The American Revolution partially put the American bourgeoisie to power, although southern agrarian slaveholders also had power within the federal system (the latter were not bourgeois).

You see, you mistakenly think that the bourgeoisie came to being during the Industrial Revolution, but Marx never said this. If you doubt what I say, read on:

"From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.

The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development."

From The Communist Manifesto (it's right there in the beginning)

See? The bourgeoisie predated the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution DID give the bourgeoisie a great amount of power and clout and societal muscle and more, but it was certainly not their locus.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 05, 2007 04:17 am--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 05, 2007 04:17 am)
manic [email protected] 05, 2007 04:13 am
That statement is unquestionably wrong.

Hugo Chavez' elections have been fair. Most international observers have said as much (Jimmy Carter's center passed his elections as fair). Moreover, it is a pretty ridiculous to make such a claim DAYS after Chavez lost a close referendum. Where was the "massive fraud" there? Your argument is completely illogical and defies common sense.
You have no idea how little respect I accord Jimmy Carter's center. I'd much rather go with trained statisticians. Furthermore, the ability to rig some elections does not equate to the ability to completely ignore electoral results. Chávez is not strong enough to completely ignore his own people (especially when he's alienating the military by sacking high ranking officials who disagree with him). [/b]
And you expect me to believe you? Your arguments amount to conspiracy theories.

Yeah, Chavez lost the most important referendum in his career because he was afraid about what the people thought. This, in spite of the fact that according to you, he never cared about what the people thought and cheated them out of many elections with "massive fraud". So why did he "completely ignore his own people" at one stage, only to bow to their will at another?

:blink:

Again, you are actively defying common sense. Stop.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 05, 2007 04:27 am
Yeah, Chavez lost the most important referendum in his career because he was afraid about what the people thought. This, in spite of the fact that according to you, he never cared about what the people thought and cheated them out of many elections with "massive fraud". So why did he "completely ignore his own people" at one stage, only to bow to their will at another?

:blink:

Again, you are actively defying common sense. Stop.
Even dictators need to back down on occassion.

It's not a conspiracy theory, however: I did sight published, widely accreditted sources (while a conspiracy theory, generally speaking, must hinge upon largely non-accreditted sources). You can say their invalid, but that's just an assumption on your fact, not a logical fallacy on mine.

[Lynx]

So Venezuela is more democratic than the United States?
I won't deny there are obstacles to getting elected in the US, but in the face of overwhelming popular support, political representation would be inevitable. If the pseudo democratic tools are there, the process of change will be: politics before revolution.

I do not wish to underestimate the power of an informed, engaged electorate. Wake up, America!

[synthesis]

I don't think its fair to say that a communist couldn't (hypothetically) come to power in the US through the democractic process. However, the problem is that communists aren't (and never have been and prsumably won't be, for the foreseeable future) in a position to rally sufficient numbers to win an election. Now, you can blame that on the media, the bourgeoisie or whoever you wish, but the fundamental fact remains: communists couldn't win a national election any more than fascists.

Sure, not now, because we are not living in revolutionary conditions.

Things were very different in the 1930's, for example.

Communism and Fascism (nativism, whatever) were quite popular in those days, and if it were not for the government's success in mitigating those revolutionary conditions through the New Deal, things would be very different today.

Who can say what would have happened?

All I know is that if it's happened before, it can happen again, and there's a very good chance that it will.

Understand that as Fascism historically revolves around harnessing revolutionary conditions for reactionary purposes, it is the role of Communists to ensure that the revolution is headed in a progressive direction.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

As for the possibility of bourgeoisie prior to the Revolution: yes, Marx acknowledges they existed. However, their power (as even your quotes acknowledge) was tied to the cities. Since the American Revolution was carried out mostly by agrarian, landed gentry, and since many of the Tories were city-dwelling merchants, I still don't think you can call the American Revolution bourgeoisie in nature (French Revolution, perhaps).

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 05, 2007 04:34 am
All I know is that if it's happened before, it can happen again, and there's a very good chance that it will.
Granted, but I think conditions have changed pretty radically, and it will be a long time in coming before they shift back to a point where communism (or fascism or a host of other non-mainstream ideologies) can come back to the fore.

Given current trends, however, I don't think a resurgence can be seen in the foreseeable future.

P.S. I know some people have objected my harping on the "foreseeable future." However, anything can potential happen in the "unforeseeable future," so I don't view it as particularly worthy of discussion.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 05, 2007 04:32 am--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 05, 2007 04:32 am)
manic [email protected] 05, 2007 04:27 am
Yeah, Chavez lost the most important referendum in his career because he was afraid about what the people thought. This, in spite of the fact that according to you, he never cared about what the people thought and cheated them out of many elections with "massive fraud". So why did he "completely ignore his own people" at one stage, only to bow to their will at another?

:blink:

Again, you are actively defying common sense. Stop.
Even dictators need to back down on occassion.

It's not a conspiracy theory, however: I did sight published, widely accreditted sources (while a conspiracy theory, generally speaking, must hinge upon largely non-accreditted sources). You can say their invalid, but that's just an assumption on your fact, not a logical fallacy on mine. [/b]
Dictators don't hold referendums. Sorry. And even if they did, they wouldn't lose them. Sorry again.

You've cited precisely nothing, which isn't surprising at all. Your claim that I'm calling them "invalid" when you never provided them in the first place makes your argument even more whimsical.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by manic expression+December 05, 2007 04:39 am--> (manic expression @ December 05, 2007 04:39 am)
Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 04:32 am

manic [email protected] 05, 2007 04:27 am
Yeah, Chavez lost the most important referendum in his career because he was afraid about what the people thought. This, in spite of the fact that according to you, he never cared about what the people thought and cheated them out of many elections with "massive fraud". So why did he "completely ignore his own people" at one stage, only to bow to their will at another?

:blink:

Again, you are actively defying common sense. Stop.
Even dictators need to back down on occassion.

It's not a conspiracy theory, however: I did sight published, widely accreditted sources (while a conspiracy theory, generally speaking, must hinge upon largely non-accreditted sources). You can say their invalid, but that's just an assumption on your fact, not a logical fallacy on mine.
Dictators don't hold referendums. Sorry. And even if they did, they wouldn't lose them. Sorry again.

You've cited precisely nothing, which isn't surprising at all. Your claim that I'm calling them "invalid" when you never provided them in the first place makes your argument even more whimsical. [/b]
I sited Jonathan Taylor. Look him up (no, am I not going to give a bibliographic citation in an informal debate).

Also, dictators do hold elections: they pacify the populace. When the populace is overwhelmingly against some unnecessary measure (like a constitutional amendment), it just makes smart political sense to concede defeat. It's rather like how Pinochet stepped down following a referendum against him.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 04:35 am
As for the possibility of bourgeoisie prior to the Revolution: yes, Marx acknowledges they existed. However, their power (as even your quotes acknowledge) was tied to the cities. Since the American Revolution was carried out mostly by agrarian, landed gentry, and since many of the Tories were city-dwelling merchants, I still don't think you can call the American Revolution bourgeoisie in nature (French Revolution, perhaps).
Where did revolts first break out in the colonies?

Boston, Charleston, Philadelphia. The first resistance to the British was done by merchants in New England. Small towns were also involved heavily. Are these not the centers Marx talked of? More importantly, however, a big part of the ascendency of the bourgeoisie is that they enlist the support of other classes and other sections of society. So, they made common cause with agrarian slaveholders (although there was less revolutionary energy in the South than North).

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 04, 2007 09:22 pm--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 04, 2007 09:22 pm)
Kun Fanâ@December 05, 2007 04:15 am
My friend, you must understand that a tiny fraction of people who subscribe to the capitalist worldview actually have true power in our society through controlling the means of production, finance, information and so forth.
So, when do I (as one of the "tiny fraction of people who subscribe to the capitalist worldview") get my share of the power? There are large masses of people who genuinely subscribe to the capitalist system without wielding massive influence; it's not just the ideology of the rulers.

P.S. Please don't use the terms "self-alienation," "deluded" or "lackey" in your reply. Those particular horses have been long since beaten to death. [/b]
No, you misunderstood me.

My point was that there are plenty of people who think capitalism is the shit, because at the moment it allows them to feed their family and engage in conspicuous consumption; it is a tiny fraction of those people who possess real power in our society.

So no, you have no real power as you do not control the means of production.

So here's the thing; statistically, there is an infinitesimal chance that you could infiltrate the ruling class and "get your share of power".

That's how capitalism survives, by at least maintaining the illusion of class mobility.

But not everyone can be a CEO in a capitalist society; eventually someone has to take your place or production will crawl to a snail's pace and society will crumble.

That's why capitalism necessitates wage slavery. And when capitalism reaches its natural nadir, like in the Great Depression, so that people are no longer able to feed their family, there will be revolutionary conditions.

Our job as Communists is to tell people that their woes are not the fault of the Jews or the illegal immigrants, as will inevitably be proposed by the fascists; it is the fault of the system, and therefore the system must be replaced. That's revolution. Does it seem so strange to you now?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 04:43 am
I sited Jonathan Taylor. Look him up (no, am I not going to give a bibliographic citation in an informal debate).

Also, dictators do hold elections: they pacify the populace. When the populace is overwhelmingly against some unnecessary measure (like a constitutional amendment), it just makes smart political sense to concede defeat. It's rather like how Pinochet stepped down following a referendum against him.
You look him up and post something. I had the courtesy to find a quote by Marx and post it, and I do not think it unreasonable to ask for this to be reciprocated.

Dictators do not hold referendums on changing the constitution, that makes no sense. If Chavez was a dictator, he would have dictatorial powers, making referendums unnecessary and contradictory. The fact that he held a referendum and didn't change the constitution on his own PROVES that he isn't a dictator. The lunacy of your argument grows by the post.

Pinochet was forced to hold a free election after a decade of dictatorial rule. Chavez has held elections the entire way. That comparison is downright slanderous and insulting. And we're still waiting for your phantom "studies" on "massive fraud", even when every relevant observer states the exact opposite. Pathetic.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 05, 2007 04:46 am
Where did revolts first break out in the colonies?

Boston, Charleston, Philadelphia. The first resistance to the British was done by merchants in New England. Small towns were also involved heavily. Are these not the centers Marx talked of? More importantly, however, a big part of the ascendency of the bourgeoisie is that they enlist the support of other classes and other sections of society. So, they made common cause with agrarian slaveholders (although there was less revolutionary energy in the South than North).
The cities were also the place where the British had the most interaction with the colonists. If revolution was to break out, it would inevitably happen someplace where the British were a frequent sight.

Notice, however, that it was agrarian products the British were affecting (tea, sugar, etc.), not manufactures (i.e. industrial products). Also, notice that Britain was vastly ahead of the US/colonies in terms of industrialization (and head, to a limited extent, already begun by the revolution), and so it's illogical to presume that the relatively primitive US would be controlled by the primarily bourgeoisie while the relatively advanced Britain would be controlled by primarily feudalists.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 05, 2007 04:50 am
No, you misunderstood me.
Yes, that post was made largely in jest (I understand your basic point).

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 05, 2007 04:50 am
You look him up and post something. I had the courtesy to find a quote by Marx and post it, and I do not think it unreasonable to ask for this to be reciprocated.

Dictators do not hold referendums on changing the constitution, that makes no sense. If Chavez was a dictator, he would have dictatorial powers, making referendums unnecessary and contradictory. The fact that he held a referendum and didn't change the constitution on his own PROVES that he isn't a dictator. The lunacy of your argument grows by the post.

Pinochet was forced to hold a free election after a decade of dictatorial rule. Chavez has held elections the entire way. That comparison is downright slanderous and insulting. And we're still waiting for your phantom "studies" on "massive fraud", even when every relevant observer states the exact opposite. Pathetic.
Try this: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110005586 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005586)

No, it's not Taylor (more concise, same basic points).

Saddam Hussein help referendums frequently. They just happened to be fraudulent (like Chávez's). Almost every dictatorial regime will hold fixed elections. And, when it's in their interests, they'll back down to preserve power. Dictators aren't invulnerable (as this site never tires of pointing out, revolutions do occur).

P.S. Define "relevent observer." The two international organizations Chávez invited in agreed it was fair... big surprise. Outside of them, there are quite a few notable people who dissent (see the link for a few).

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 04:51 am
The cities were also the place where the British had the most interaction with the colonists. If revolution was to break out, it would inevitably happen someplace where the British were a frequent sight.

Notice, however, that it was agrarian products the British were affecting (tea, sugar, etc.), not manufactures (i.e. industrial products). Also, notice that Britain was vastly ahead of the US/colonies in terms of industrialization (and head, to a limited extent, already begun by the revolution), and so it's illogical to presume that the relatively primitive US would be controlled by the primarily bourgeoisie while the relatively advanced Britain would be controlled by primarily feudalists.
So you're arguing that the colonists got tired of seeing British people? The problem was not that they saw British people too much and disliked their accent. The colonists were British for all intensive purposes. The problem was that they resented taxes and oppressive measures put against them. It came down to economics.

The fact that you admit the revolution broke out first in the cities basically proves my point.

We've already established that industry doesn't need to be a factor. If it did, then the French Revolution couldn't have happened. American merchants were selling those very agrarian products to the British, which is why they went bezerk when taxes were put on them. The slaveholders didn't go as crazy, which is why the British did a lot better when they concentrated their forces in the South (after capturing the revolutionary stronghold of Charleston, coincidentally).

Britain was already controlled partially by capitalists. At that point, the bourgeoisie had been in power for quite some time. However, America had enough of a bourgeoisie and enough people willing to fight with them to make a revolution.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 04, 2007 09:39 pm--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 04, 2007 09:39 pm)
Kun Fanâ@December 05, 2007 04:34 am
All I know is that if it's happened before, it can happen again, and there's a very good chance that it will.
Granted, but I think conditions have changed pretty radically, and it will be a long time in coming before they shift back to a point where communism (or fascism or a host of other non-mainstream ideologies) can come back to the fore.

Given current trends, however, I don't think a resurgence can be seen in the foreseeable future.

P.S. I know some people have objected my harping on the "foreseeable future." However, anything can potential happen in the "unforeseeable future," so I don't view it as particularly worthy of discussion. [/b]
This is a possibility. We might not see revolutionary conditions for decades. Or it could be very soon. Imagine what would happen to the American economy if gasoline rose to $25/gallon (very possible) or if Los Angeles, Miami and New York were underwater (also very possible). It is speculative indeed.

You must remember that things can change very quickly. On September 3, 1929, the Dow Jones Industrial Average prices reached a record high of 381, after soaring for more than five years; less than two months later, the market lost $30 billion in a single week, which was ten times the budget of the federal government. Less than three years after that, the DJIA was at 41.22.

In other words, it took less than three years for the stock market to lose 89% of its value, 13% in a single day.

And I'll bet you anything that someone, somewhere, in August 1929, was talking about how it will be a "long time in coming" before society "shifted back to the point" where "communism can come back to the fore" and that "given current trends, a resurgence cannot be seen in the foreseeable future."

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 05, 2007 04:58 am--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 05, 2007 04:58 am)
manic [email protected] 05, 2007 04:50 am
You look him up and post something. I had the courtesy to find a quote by Marx and post it, and I do not think it unreasonable to ask for this to be reciprocated.

Dictators do not hold referendums on changing the constitution, that makes no sense. If Chavez was a dictator, he would have dictatorial powers, making referendums unnecessary and contradictory. The fact that he held a referendum and didn't change the constitution on his own PROVES that he isn't a dictator. The lunacy of your argument grows by the post.

Pinochet was forced to hold a free election after a decade of dictatorial rule. Chavez has held elections the entire way. That comparison is downright slanderous and insulting. And we're still waiting for your phantom "studies" on "massive fraud", even when every relevant observer states the exact opposite. Pathetic.
Try this: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110005586 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005586)

No, it's not Taylor (more concise, same basic points).

Saddam Hussein help referendums frequently. They just happened to be fraudulent (like Chávez's). Almost every dictatorial regime will hold fixed elections. And, when it's in their interests, they'll back down to preserve power. Dictators aren't invulnerable (as this site never tires of pointing out, revolutions do occur).

P.S. Define "relevent observer." The two international organizations Chávez invited in agreed it was fair... big surprise. Outside of them, there are quite a few notable people who dissent (see the link for a few). [/b]
Oh, the WSJ. Color me surprised. So, apparently, the observers couldn't access the central computer hub, and so Chavez cheated. Bull. The Carter Center did not reverse its findings, as it had no reason to.

This wouldn't be so ridiculous if it weren't for the so-called "researchers":

http://ksgfaculty.harvard.edu/Ricardo_Hausmann

Are you crazy? You expect me to trust the former Venezuelan Minister of Planning of Venezuela and former member of the Board of the Central Bank of Venezuela? Please, this man has a vested interest in slandering Chavez, which he is doing as best he can.

http://mitsloan.mit.edu/faculty/detail.php...o=262&co_list=F (http://mitsloan.mit.edu/faculty/detail.php?in_spseqno=262&co_list=F)

And what's this? They both specialize in something other than politics. Two economists trying to tell me what's fraud and what's fair, including someone who has intimate ties to the opposition? Please, I couldn't come up with a more pathetic piece of "support" if I tried.

-------------------------------------------------

So, surely, Saddam Hussein allowed the same sort of demonstrations opposing his plans as Chavez did? Tens of thousands marched through Baghdad before Hussein was narrowly defeated in a tightly contested referendum? If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Whether the organization was invited or not, they called it fair. Period. Did they say, "We weren't able to figure out what was going on because Chavez' cronies kept us away from the polls"? Did they say, "Well, Chavez invited us and gave us free lunches, so we think it was fair"? No. They said it was fair. Plain and simple.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 04, 2007 09:58 pm--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 04, 2007 09:58 pm)
manic [email protected] 05, 2007 04:50 am
You look him up and post something. I had the courtesy to find a quote by Marx and post it, and I do not think it unreasonable to ask for this to be reciprocated.

Dictators do not hold referendums on changing the constitution, that makes no sense. If Chavez was a dictator, he would have dictatorial powers, making referendums unnecessary and contradictory. The fact that he held a referendum and didn't change the constitution on his own PROVES that he isn't a dictator. The lunacy of your argument grows by the post.

Pinochet was forced to hold a free election after a decade of dictatorial rule. Chavez has held elections the entire way. That comparison is downright slanderous and insulting. And we're still waiting for your phantom "studies" on "massive fraud", even when every relevant observer states the exact opposite. Pathetic.
Try this: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110005586 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005586)

No, it's not Taylor (more concise, same basic points).

Saddam Hussein help referendums frequently. They just happened to be fraudulent (like Chávez's). Almost every dictatorial regime will hold fixed elections. And, when it's in their interests, they'll back down to preserve power. Dictators aren't invulnerable (as this site never tires of pointing out, revolutions do occur).

P.S. Define "relevent observer." The two international organizations Chávez invited in agreed it was fair... big surprise. Outside of them, there are quite a few notable people who dissent (see the link for a few). [/b]
By quite a few, you actually mean two.

The article refers to two economists, Ricardo Hausmann and Roberto Rigobon.

Ricardo Hausmann was the Venezuelan Minister of Planning and also a member of the Board of the Central Bank from 1992-1993, under the presidency of Carlos Perez, who is widely recognized as a corrupt, repressive leader who was imprisoned for stealing 250 million bolivars of government money.

Chavez made a name for himself by attempting to lead a coup against Perez; although it failed, it is unlikely he would have won the 1998 election without the subsequent publicity, so it is perfectly understandable that Hausmann would seek to discredit Chavez as a democratic leader. Additionally, Hausmann is also the chair of the neo-liberal IMF-World Bank Development Committee, which would naturally see a domino-style threat emerging in the form of Chavez.

Rigobon, on the other hand, seems to be somewhat of a nobody. From researching him, one can see that he obviously toes the line of the World Bank - "laissez-faire capitalism cures hunger." After he got a PhD in economics from MIT, he got an MBA and a degree in electrical engineering in Venezuela while Perez was president, witnessing Chavez attempt a coup from a privileged position, so it's easy to see where he's coming from.

So the biases are completely evident. Unlike the Carter Center, these are not disinterested, unbiased observers; they clearly have a specific agenda, and therefore their information has to be assumed guilty until proven innocent.

Additionally, they are not "qualified statisticians." Rigobon has degrees in economics, business, and engineering; Hausmann has degrees in economics, engineering and physics. They have no qualifications in the sort of statistics that would enable you to judge whether an election is fair or not - they know statistics as economists, not as political scientists.

Again, it is perfectly understandable that their agenda requires constructing "evidence" that proves Chavez stole the election, despite the fact that their evidence merely suggests that the system allows fraud to occur - nowhere near as convincing as the evidence of fraud in, say, the 2000 presidential election in America.

But for this debate to continue constructively, it must be understood that Chavez was, in fact, democratically elected.

[synthesis]

Damn, manic beat me to it.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 05, 2007 04:08 am--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 05, 2007 04:08 am)
[email protected] 05, 2007 02:44 am
If Venezuela can elect Hugo Chavez, why couldn't Americans elect their own version?
That's a pretty questionable statement. He came to power in a coup, and all subsequent elections have been marred by massive fraud (see studies by MIT and Jonathan Taylor). [/b]
He did not come to power in a coup. Simply making things up does not make for a good argument.

He came to power by winning the 1998 Presidential election.

[synthesis]

By the way, to UC, with regards to the 1992 coup, it must be understood in the context of the suppressed revolution in Caracas in 1989, which was the primary catalyst for the coup, and allowed Chavez to gain support as a replacement for Perez - who was noted for his free-market reforms and widely perceived as responsible for the economic shortages of 1989.

When revolution is suppressed by the military, it is logical that the revolution would be continued through military means, which was the nature of the 1992 coup. But when Chavez's predecessor pardoned him several years before he was elected, Chavez began to work through the system. As usual, "the oppressor defines the nature of the struggle."

Anyone who wants to gain a genuine understanding of the context of the coup should read this excerpt from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights regarding the case.




___________________



In Section III of its application, the Commission presented the facts that originated this case, and said that:



a. on February 16, 1989, the then President of Venezuela, Carlos Andrés Pérez, announced a series of structural adjustment measures to refinance the external debt through the International Monetary Fund that were implemented on February 27 that year;



b. on February 27, 1989, an undetermined number of persons from the poorer sectors of the population began a series of disturbances in Garenas, State of Miranda, owing to the increase in urban transport rates and the failure of the Executive to grant a preferential rate to students. These disturbances then extended “to other parts of the metropolitan area of Caracas, and Caricuao, La Guaira, Maracay, Valencia, Barquisimeto, Guayana, Mérida, Maracaibo, and zones adjacent to the transportation terminal”;



c. the disturbances consisted mainly in burning urban transportation vehicles and looting and destroying commercial properties; these events caused extensive damage to public and private property;



d. on February 27, 1989, a sector of the Metropolitan Police was on strike, and consequently did not intervene promptly to control the disturbances. According to declarations of the then President of the Republic, published in the newspaper El Nacional of June 10, 1990, “at the beginning, there was no organized body to prevent or deal with what was happening”; in the same declaration he also said that “upon returning from Barquisimeto, when passing through the area of Caracas near the Presidential Palace called El Silencio, [he saw] the shattered shop windows; arriving at Miraflores, he called the Minister of Defense and ordered him to mobilize the troops”;



e. the armed forces were entrusted with controlling the situation, and, to this end, about nine thousand soldiers were brought in from the interior of the country; these were young men of 17 and 18 years of age, recruited in February 1989. From statements made by senior Army officers, former Ministers of State and the former President of the Republic, it is clear that the armed forces were not prepared to assume control of public order and the young men who were sent were a danger to the life and physical integrity of the population, owing to their youth and inexperience. Similarly, it is evident that these young soldiers were equipped with assault weapons (7.62-mm light automatic rifles) to control the civilian population, and AMX-13 armored vehicles. The officers used 9-mm heavy-duty guns.



f. on February 28, 1989, the Executive issued Decree No. 49, ordering the suspension of the following guarantees established in the Venezuelan Constitution: individual freedom (Article 60.1, 2, 6 and 10); right to immunity of domicile (Article 62); freedom of movement (Article 64); freedom of expression (Article 66); right of assembly (Article 71) and right to take part in peaceful manifestations (Article 115). According to the Commission, the constitutional guarantees were reestablished on March 22, 1989;



g. during the 23 days that the suspension of guarantees lasted and, in particular, as of March 1, 1989, the Venezuelan armed forces were in control of the territory and the population; moreover, at first they imposed a curfew that obliged people to remain in their homes between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.



h. during the state of emergency, the State security bodies, together with the Metropolitan Police, the National Guard and the Army, carried out a series of operations to repress acts of violence;



i. according to official figures, the events of February and March 1989 left a balance of 276 dead, numerous injured, several disappeared and heavy material losses. However, this list was invalidated by the subsequent appearance of mass graves;



j. as of February 28, 1989, a secret military plan entitled “Avila” was imposed on the civilian population. This plan was conceived during the 1960s when, according to the former Minister of Defense, Ítalo del Valle Alliegro, there were illegal armed groups in Venezuela. In his words, this plan “was executed, despite the length of time [that had elapsed] without implementing it”; however, “it had to be revised and updated in view of the new circumstances”;



k. two non-governmental organizations that carried out investigations in situ, as well as international experts, agreed that most of the deaths were due to indiscriminate firing by agents of the Venezuelan State, while others resulted from extrajudicial executions. They also agreed that the members of the armed forces opened fire against crowds and against homes, which caused the death of many children and innocent people who were not taking part in criminal acts;



l. the victims included seven children and five women. Of the 44 cases, 18 occurred on March 1, 1989, or later although the events had ceased as of February 28 that year when, according to Venezuelan Government reports, the situation was completely controlled; 11 victims were killed in their homes, five of these during curfew hours, and the other seven cases were typical of extrajudicial executions. Regarding the circumstances of death, 14 of the victims died as a result of head injuries caused by firearms, three of them received bullets in the neck, 14 in the thorax or abdomen, and five were shot in the back. Another four victims disappeared in the area controlled by the Army and the Metropolitan Police and, to date, there has been no information on their whereabouts. Furthermore, 32 of these cases were pending before military tribunals or were heard by military tribunals (although some of them also being processed under civil jurisdiction) and in none of the cases has there been a judgement that identifies those responsible and establishes the corresponding penalties.



m. in the cases that are the subject of this application, there was a common pattern of behavior characterized by the disproportionate use of the armed forces in the poorer residential districts. This behavior included hiding and destroying evidence as well as the use of institutional mechanisms that have ensured the impunity of the acts;



n. in the days following the events, the State, through the Executive, ordered that an undetermined number of corpses should be buried in mass graves in the sector known as “La Peste I and II of the Southern General Cemetery of Caracas in order to ‘comply with specific health-related instructions’”;



o. at the time the application was presented - nine years after the exhumations were carried out - investigations remain at the summary proceedings stage which was secret; “this means that, ten years after the events occurred, the victims’ next of kin have not been able to gain access to the file papers or ascertain whether the tribunal hearing the case has issued an interlocutory order”. When the victims’ next of kin were informed of the burial, they immediately approached the competent national authorities in order to seek and claim the corpses. At first, state officials publicly denied the existence of mass graves, but the victims’ next of kin presented a series of proofs to the Venezuelan domestic jurisdictional bodies that established the existence of mass graves in the Southern General Cemetery.



p. on November 5, 1990, the Tenth Criminal Court of First Instance of the Judicial District of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas conducted a judicial inspection in the Southern Cemetery to determine alleged irregularities in how the corpses buried in mass graves had been registered and, in the corresponding official record, it “certified that the victims of the events of 27/2/89, buried in the North 6 sector (“la Peste”), are not recorded in the registers…”; and



q. on November 28, 1990, the public was informed that the first remains had appeared in plot number 6 North of the Southern Cemetery General in Caracas. 130 corpses were exhumed; of these only 68 corresponded to persons whose date of death was February and March 1989. On May 30, 1991, the Committee of the next of kin of the victims of the events of February and March 1989 (hereinafter “COFAVIC”), filed a claim before the Tenth Criminal Court of First Instance, owing to a fire in the area of the mass graves.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by manic expression+December 05, 2007 04:39 am--> (manic expression @ December 05, 2007 04:39 am)
Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 04:32 am

manic [email protected] 05, 2007 04:27 am
Yeah, Chavez lost the most important referendum in his career because he was afraid about what the people thought. This, in spite of the fact that according to you, he never cared about what the people thought and cheated them out of many elections with "massive fraud". So why did he "completely ignore his own people" at one stage, only to bow to their will at another?

:blink:

Again, you are actively defying common sense. Stop.
Even dictators need to back down on occassion.

It's not a conspiracy theory, however: I did sight published, widely accreditted sources (while a conspiracy theory, generally speaking, must hinge upon largely non-accreditted sources). You can say their invalid, but that's just an assumption on your fact, not a logical fallacy on mine.
Dictators don't hold referendums. Sorry. And even if they did, they wouldn't lose them. Sorry again.

You've cited precisely nothing, which isn't surprising at all. Your claim that I'm calling them "invalid" when you never provided them in the first place makes your argument even more whimsical. [/b]
Dictatorships most certainly do. There were repeated national elections theroughout the history of the USSR and eastern bloc countries. There are elections in North Korea, Cuba, China (even Maoist China) Vietnam, hell even in nazi Germany.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 03, 2007 08:48 pm--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 03, 2007 08:48 pm) I've noticed a fair number of the RevLeft posters talk about a revolution (as in a literal, Bolshevik-style revolution), which they seem to think will occur in the not-too-distant future. Does anyone else think this is pretty ludicrous? [/b]
NO. Stop trolling.


Originally posted by Troll+--> (Troll)
Here are my problems with the concept.

1. Communism is a dwindling ideology in the US. The US has never come close to open revolt by the workers, and I think that's even less likely today than it was in the 1930s (when the Communist Party in the US actually had a decent number of members). After all, who's going to revolt when the current system is so comfortable for the vast majority of the population?
[/b]
The economy is beginning to sink, the war is going to 'come home', the environment is going to shit....
In other words, US capitalism is facing serious challenges. THIS IS THE TIME to force a revolutionary situation.


[email protected]

2. Unlike in most countries where revolutions have occurred, the US actually does have a substantial number of gun owners. Unfortunately for our revolutionaries, the average gun owner in the US is on the conservative side (just look at any demographics map). Furthermore, the army is majority Republican (i.e. right-wing), certainly among the officer corps, but even among the troops (though, granted, the latter varies depending on the year and survey). However, since the army specifically screens out proponents of radical ideologies, there probably won't be much communist support there. Likewise, private military contractors are overwhelmingly conservative. So who exactly could marshal the necessary forces?

You rally the citizens, prick. Whilst a lot of gun owners are right-wingers (probably not most), even the hick stereotype you are dredging up doesn't support this brand of conservatism.
The army you can take care of with propaganda. A lot of them will not shoot their own citizens.

And BTW, the military in pretty much every country has been conservative. That's nothing new.


Troll
3. Turn on commercial TV. Just watch it for a little while. Then ask yourself: how many Americans could look all that material wealth in the eye and say "No?" The free market exists to give people what they want (at a price). Revolutions really can't compete with that offer.
Lies. Same old misconceptions about Marxism.

The truth is: the only people who will wind up with less, under our proposal, are the rich.

[MT5678]

Hey, UC. Go troll somewhere else, perhaps on capitalism.org

The only fault of Chavez is that he is too nice to la burgues. A real Marxist-Leninist would have dissolved the bourgeois electoral system (and set up a Marxist-style one)and purged all the news stations that backed (or played a direct role in) the coup.

Chavez won his election 62% to 38%, with a turnout slightly over 70%. Compare this to the U.S, with its bipartisan consensus andslightly lower than 50% turnout.

Venezuelans get to vote on referendums, which is far more than we get to do in the U.S (which has quite a bipartisan consensus).

Unlike all the dictators that give referendums that you posted, Chavez was elected.
Compare this to Pedro Carmona, who temporarily replaced him in a coup in 2002, a man with ties to big business, the NSA and foreign multinationals.

Chavez may be a bit of a softy. But parroting the media's description of him as a dictator is uncomprehending nonsense. The real dictators are people like Pinochet, Suharto, Perez Jimenez, Batista, and many more.

[luxemburg89]

A real Marxist-Leninist would have dissolved the bourgeois electoral system (and set up a Marxist-style one)and purged all the news stations that backed (or played a direct role in) the coup.


HAHA - And isn't it so right to 'purge'? Is that quintessential Marxism-Leninism? If so I want no part in it - let's look at the purgers in Communist history shall we? Stalin...cult of personality, murder of leading Bolsheviks, VERY LITTLE democracy, oppression of all other communistic thought and other left-wing nations, repression of anarchists; Pol Pot - really the less said the better; Mao - Millions dead, how can anyone justify the murder of millions? And look at Mao's legacy, look at China now - that is no ideal society, it is a totalitarian nightmare.

I don't mean to offend any leftists reading this, but surely we can avoid disgusting words like 'purge' - and I make no apologies to Stalinists - Stalinism needs to be buried in one of the mass graves it created if Socialism is to stand any chance.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:02 am
I don't mean to offend any leftists reading this, but surely we can avoid disgusting words like 'purge' - and I make no apologies to Stalinists - Stalinism needs to be buried in one of the mass graves it created if Socialism is to stand any chance.
I concur. :wub:


A real Marxist-Leninist would have dissolved the bourgeois electoral system (and set up a Marxist-style one)and purged all the news stations that backed (or played a direct role in) the coup.

Yet unfortunately, that would make him fall into the following category:


Chavez may be a bit of a softy. But parroting the media's description of him as a dictator is uncomprehending nonsense. The real dictators are people like Pinochet, Suharto, Perez Jimenez, Batista, and many more.

Unless you think good communist intentions prevent someone from being a dictator.

Ultimately, it would get us no closer to a proletarian revolution.

[Dros]

I don't mean to offend any leftists reading this, but surely we can avoid disgusting words like 'purge' - and I make no apologies to Stalinists - Stalinism needs to be buried in one of the mass graves it created if Socialism is to stand any chance.

I don't see anything wrong with legitimate purges. I see the whole socialist revolution as a "purging" of the Bourgoisie. "Purge" does not mean mass murder nor does it mean gulags although that is the conotation.

I think the comrade has a good point. If Chavez imbraced revolutionary Marxism-Leninism and radicly altered the economy, eliminating the Bourgoisie's and the bourgois press' control of power, he might be able to accomplish a far more cohesive good for the people of Venezuela.

[Robert]

Do we capitalists have a right to purge, too? Or just you commies? Seems a little one-sided, like this board, as in, we cant play in your yard, but you can play in ours.

Two-faced con man.

[Dros]

It's not a question of right but ability.

You DO purge. It's called the FUCKING PRISON SYSTEM, THE ARMY, THE POLICE, THE COURTS, AND ALL THAT OTHER BULLSHIT.

[Robert]

the FUCKING PRISON SYSTEM

Which is full of fucking what? I know that you know this.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 13, 2007 05:47 pm
Do we capitalists have a right to purge, too? Or just you commies? Seems a little one-sided, like this board, as in, we cant play in your yard, but you can play in ours.

Two-faced con man.
As drosera aptly noted, the question of "rights" doesn't really mean anything.

Before you ask "should I?" you must ask "can I?" And I would argue that the ability of the government to purge dissenters has been mitigated by various other factors.

I've seen right-wingers argue that universities should be purged of leftist professors, but it doesn't mean anything until one side or the other has the ability to do so.

[Robert]

Well, Kun, if you won't stand up and argue for freedom of expression, I will. How you can argue that only one side of a case should be presented is beyond me, especially when you spend so much time on the opposing ideologies forum.

What's the problem? Do your fellow commies bore you? I know what you mean. They bore me, too.

[synthesis]

You can argue for freedom of expression all you want. It doesn't really mean anything if someone has the ability to infringe upon it.


Do your fellow commies bore you?

Sometimes. You bore me more, though. ;)

[Dros]

Bourgois freedom of expression is a joke. Don't even try that bullshit here.

WHY DON'T YOU TELL MUMIA, MALCOLM X, MLK, BOBBY HUTTON, FRED HAMPTON, AND DAMIAN GARCIA ABOUT YOUR PRECIOUS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION?

I'm not saying that there won't be freedom of expression in a Socialist society. I'm saying that there will be a radically more free freedom of expression. I'll I propose is that we take the Bourgoisie (read you) off your speaking platform and give the other 99% of the world some time to speak.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 12:52 am
Bourgois freedom of expression is a joke. Don't even try that bullshit here.

WHY DON'T YOU TELL MUMIA, MALCOLM X, MLK, BOBBY HUTTON, FRED HAMPTON, AND DAMIAN GARCIA ABOUT YOUR PRECIOUS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION?


...or this guy <_<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE76LQwT6qA&feature=related

[Robert]

Sometimes. You bore me more, though. wink.gif

No, I don&#39;t. I intrigue and haunt you, because your politics are half baked and you&#39;re bright enough to know deep down that socialism may be, as we keep telling you, utopian bullshit. That&#39;s why you are always on the OI forum instead of over there with the rest of the "in crowd" (you know all those special places for the enlightened that me and Pusher and Green Dragon are excluded from). That&#39;s also why you read all of my posts, dissect them carefully, and try to refute them.



I&#39;m not saying that there won&#39;t be freedom of expression in a Socialist society. I&#39;m saying that there will be a radically more free freedom of expression. I&#39;ll I propose is that we take the Bourgoisie (read you) off your speaking platform and give the other 99% of the world some time to speak.


Drosera, you support "more freedom of expression "but would "take me off of my platform"? You&#39;re either drunk or stupid. Either way, you strike me as angry and dangerous. Please go join your comrades in the elite rooms. There&#39;s nothing for you here in the OI anyway.

[RevSkeptic]

No, I don&#39;t. I intrigue and haunt you, because your politics are half baked and you&#39;re bright enough to know deep down that socialism may be, as we keep telling you, utopian bullshit.

Sure, but one type of utopian bullshit (Orthodox Marxism) isn&#39;t any better than the other kind of utopian bullshit of the status quo (Capitalism) which promotes uninterrupted "growth" based on monetary idealism.

Do you seriously believe that the free market monetary system isn&#39;t based on unproven and unprovable assumptions?

fundamental errors of neoclassical theory (http://www.dieoff.org/page240.htm)

Regarding freedom of expression, there&#39;s plenty of that, but as long as you don&#39;t put up a challenge to the existing system then the powerful will let you blather all you want.

Further, there are biases and different levels of toleration for alternative social systems even if you do try to set them up apart from mainstream society.

A religious polygamist community runned by pedophile patriarchs that is isolated from the outside world is all find and dandy because it doesn&#39;t challenge the status quo of the existing monetary system. An anarchist commune though is a different matter because it does pose a radical challenge and sets a bad example if enough people see it as an alternative, so police provocations would start right away.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 02:50 am
Do you seriously believe that the free market monetary system isn&#39;t based on unproven and unprovable assumptions?

fundamental errors of neoclassical theory (http://www.dieoff.org/page240.htm)
Ultimately it&#39;s Austrian economics, not neoclassical economics, which is truely based on free market assumptions (or praxeology).

[Dros]

Drosera, you support "more freedom of expression "but would "take me off of my platform"? You&#39;re either drunk or stupid. Either way, you strike me as angry and dangerous. Please go join your comrades in the elite rooms. There&#39;s nothing for you here in the OI anyway.

No it is really simple. The capitalist monopoly on the media (and therefore mainstream discourse) will be abolished and the masses of people will get to engage in actual dialogue independent of well funded reactionary bullshit intended to maximize productivity.

I&#39;m very glad I strike you as dangerous. I am.

"Let the Bourgoisie tremble at the thought of a Communistic revolution."

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Purges/Eliminations are needed in many circumstances. What is the purpose of DotP if there are to be bourgeois fucks running around everywhere killing comrades? It provides no transition. No progression towards communism.

Provided that purging is done for legitimate reasons and not out of "personal" conflicts (i.e. purging of comrades, party members, for one&#39;s own personal ends cannot be tolerated either, but at the same time there aren&#39;t to be reactionaries shooting comrades and weakening the infrastructure of the proletarian state).

If this is "repressive" and "illegitimate" than it is so on the basis of a certain set of bourgeois beliefs.

This "purging" happens, too, in bourgeois society.

drosera99 says this quite well.

The police, prisons, military, death penalty- under the bourgeois state- are instruments of the ruling class- for one purpose: to eliminate threats to their "state". The bourgeoisie hasn&#39;t "done away" with this system.

This may be too "authoritarian" for someone of the perspective that the "democracy" determined by bourgeois values is legitimate "democracy"- and if that is the perspective, why post here?

[Robert]

if that is the perspective, why post here?

Same reason you post here: to show everyone how smart you/we are.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 04, 2007 02:48 am
I&#39;ve noticed a fair number of the RevLeft posters talk about a revolution (as in a literal, Bolshevik-style revolution), which they seem to think will occur in the not-too-distant future. Does anyone else think this is pretty ludicrous?

Here are my problems with the concept.

1. Communism is a dwindling ideology in the US. The US has never come close to open revolt by the workers, and I think that&#39;s even less likely today than it was in the 1930s (when the Communist Party in the US actually had a decent number of members). After all, who&#39;s going to revolt when the current system is so comfortable for the vast majority of the population?

2. Unlike in most countries where revolutions have occurred, the US actually does have a substantial number of gun owners. Unfortunately for our revolutionaries, the average gun owner in the US is on the conservative side (just look at any demographics map). Furthermore, the army is majority Republican (i.e. right-wing), certainly among the officer corps, but even among the troops (though, granted, the latter varies depending on the year and survey). However, since the army specifically screens out proponents of radical ideologies, there probably won&#39;t be much communist support there. Likewise, private military contractors are overwhelmingly conservative. So who exactly could marshal the necessary forces?

3. Turn on commercial TV. Just watch it for a little while. Then ask yourself: how many Americans could look all that material wealth in the eye and say "No?" The free market exists to give people what they want (at a price). Revolutions really can&#39;t compete with that offer.


Hi my friend, great article and u are right, USA is a complex country. But i can answer why USA capitalism is so hard to overthrow. Because first: USA is a real big country, with too many lands, bases spread all over the world, it is impossible to topple the USA monster.

Another thing is that USA is not a country, but a corporation founded and controlled by a mafia-cartel.


And third: USA is totally privatized. even the justice, police and every thing is controlled by corporations, it is hard to overthrow such a monster like this, and a lot of factors too like TV

"Did you know that we are controlled by TV." -The Doors

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+December 04, 2007 09:17 am--> (Demogorgon @ December 04, 2007 09:17 am)
[email protected] 04, 2007 09:02 am

I guess I don&#39;t understand you. Are you telling me that these workers will be motivated enough to risk their lives storming capital hill, but they won&#39;t be motivated enough to cast a ballot?

You indicate that Socialism/Communism will never pass by election because two parties dominate the playing field and the media supports these two parties.

However, it is not difficult to cast a ballot for a third party candidate. If these workers can organize themselves to revolt against the system, I&#39;m guessing they are also capable of voting for a third party candidate.

Moreover, what does the media matter? You are telling me that the media has so brainwashed the workers that they are incapable casting a ballot for a socialist candidate, yet they are capable of violently taking up arms in a collective action against the forces of Capitalism? That doesn&#39;t make sense.

If the workers are motivated enough to organize a revolt and risk their lives taking down the icons of capitalism, they are motivated enough to vote.
I am telling you that the electoral system in the United States is not fair enough to allow any party pitside the main two to have any success in elections because the voting is not proportional. In most countries you can vote for whoever ou want and they have a good chance of gaining representation because seats in parliament or congress are awarded according to how many votes they gain, but it doesn&#39;t work that way in America so it is just about impossible to envisage another party gaining representation, never mind winning control. That&#39;s not to say that proportional representation would suddenly solve the matter, I am just indicating how the American electoral system is unusually restricted even by western capitalist standards. I don&#39;t see change as being posisble through voting in America.

That&#39;s not to sya I see change neccessarily coming about through "storming capitol hill" either. The world is a tad more subtle fortunately [/b]


There are no elections in USA, because USA is not a democracy, but a sort of monarchy disguised as a "democracy". So lets get real: Pick your poison: Rudy or Hillary?

marxist_god

[luxemburg89]

Originally posted by marxist_god+December 19, 2007 04:25 am--> (marxist_god @ December 19, 2007 04:25 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:17 am

[email protected] 04, 2007 09:02 am

I guess I don&#39;t understand you. Are you telling me that these workers will be motivated enough to risk their lives storming capital hill, but they won&#39;t be motivated enough to cast a ballot?

You indicate that Socialism/Communism will never pass by election because two parties dominate the playing field and the media supports these two parties.

However, it is not difficult to cast a ballot for a third party candidate. If these workers can organize themselves to revolt against the system, I&#39;m guessing they are also capable of voting for a third party candidate.

Moreover, what does the media matter? You are telling me that the media has so brainwashed the workers that they are incapable casting a ballot for a socialist candidate, yet they are capable of violently taking up arms in a collective action against the forces of Capitalism? That doesn&#39;t make sense.

If the workers are motivated enough to organize a revolt and risk their lives taking down the icons of capitalism, they are motivated enough to vote.
I am telling you that the electoral system in the United States is not fair enough to allow any party pitside the main two to have any success in elections because the voting is not proportional. In most countries you can vote for whoever ou want and they have a good chance of gaining representation because seats in parliament or congress are awarded according to how many votes they gain, but it doesn&#39;t work that way in America so it is just about impossible to envisage another party gaining representation, never mind winning control. That&#39;s not to say that proportional representation would suddenly solve the matter, I am just indicating how the American electoral system is unusually restricted even by western capitalist standards. I don&#39;t see change as being posisble through voting in America.

That&#39;s not to sya I see change neccessarily coming about through "storming capitol hill" either. The world is a tad more subtle fortunately


There are no elections in USA, because USA is not a democracy, but a sort of monarchy disguised as a "democracy". So lets get real: Pick your poison: Rudy or Hillary?

marxist_god [/b]
That doesn&#39;t stop there being any elections. Something can be mildly democratic and not be a democracy. For example the head of the Republican party is elected by the Republicans, and likewise with the Democrats - yat, as you say, America is hardly a democracy. Whether or not there are elections does not qualify a state as a true democracy, it is who gets to participate in them. No Capitalist state, and arguably no &#39;state&#39; at all can ever claim to have true democracy.

[chameleoncomplex]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 04, 2007 03:52 am
One way or another, however, it&#39;s difficult to deny that the standard of living is rising. You can argue that it would rise even without a capitalist system (technology accumulation), but I don&#39;t think that holds much water (standards of living due, historically speaking, drop frequently, and sustained increase points to a working system). Therefore, the current system appears to be benefiting all parties (albeit not in equal proportions)..
Isn&#39;t it the case that Living standards have improved for the average person inspite of capitalism & not because of it?

In fact they have improved - in part - because of the Labour (& class) Struggle.

Here in the UK we have the NHS. Not because the Capitalists felt benevolent enough to care for our health, but because the people demanded it.

[luxemburg89]

Originally posted by chameleoncomplex+December 19, 2007 09:02 pm--> (chameleoncomplex @ December 19, 2007 09:02 pm)
Unapologetic [email protected] 04, 2007 03:52 am
One way or another, however, it&#39;s difficult to deny that the standard of living is rising. You can argue that it would rise even without a capitalist system (technology accumulation), but I don&#39;t think that holds much water (standards of living due, historically speaking, drop frequently, and sustained increase points to a working system). Therefore, the current system appears to be benefiting all parties (albeit not in equal proportions)..
Isn&#39;t it the case that Living standards have improved for the average person inspite of capitalism & not because of it?

In fact they have improved - in part - because of the Labour (& class) Struggle.

Here in the UK we have the NHS. Not because the Capitalists felt benevolent enough to care for our health, but because the people demanded it. [/b]
Very good point. Also the standard of living of one group of people cannot be applied to the whole world. Has the standard of living for the majority of the third world improved to standards of which we can be proud?

[Robert]

Not because the Capitalists felt benevolent enough to care for our health

How much to you care about the health of a capitalist?

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 09:02 pm
Isn&#39;t it the case that Living standards have improved for the average person inspite of capitalism & not because of it?

In fact they have improved - in part - because of the Labour (& class) Struggle.

Here in the UK we have the NHS. Not because the Capitalists felt benevolent enough to care for our health, but because the people demanded it.
Whose living standards?

Maybe in the first world living standards have improved. Why don&#39;t you look at the third world where people live in giant, garbage ridden slums in "houses" made of cardboard, scrap wood, and abandonned sheet metal. Places where children die of diseases that could be easily prevented if they could afford a pair of sandals to cover their bare feet as they walk to the sweatshops where they work sixteen hours a day everday for a nickel an hour. Three billion of the worlds population lives on less than two dollars a day.

Go into your closet. Look at the tags on all of your clothes and shoes. Look and see where your produce is grown. Ask yourself where all this wealth is really being produced. You will find that the quality of life has increased here on the backs of billions of people living in abject poverty because of us.

[Rasmus]

And the third world being poor, is in my opinion an effect of imperialism, that relocated resources from the third world (that was before relatively well-off) to the first world, where the capitalists could then improve profits, while keeping the workers from revolution. Therefore, your "good" life is based on the work of several billion of people, that starve. That wont stop the drive for profit though, as the capitalist class will continually strive for greater profit, until they have to suppres the working class to achieve it.

Also, my opinion as to why the revolution is needed, and can&#39;t be gained through election, is that the people will not vote for the socialist candidate, before the conditions that create revolution have been fulfilled. Before that point, their bellies will be full, and they&#39;ll have TV&#39;s and cars and be content (Read docile). Once the living standard drops, dissent rises, and election ceases to be an option, as the people turns to revolution to wrestle power from the upper class.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 04, 2007 02:48 am
I&#39;ve noticed a fair number of the RevLeft posters talk about a revolution (as in a literal, Bolshevik-style revolution), which they seem to think will occur in the not-too-distant future. Does anyone else think this is pretty ludicrous?

Here are my problems with the concept.

1. Communism is a dwindling ideology in the US. The US has never come close to open revolt by the workers, and I think that&#39;s even less likely today than it was in the 1930s (when the Communist Party in the US actually had a decent number of members). After all, who&#39;s going to revolt when the current system is so comfortable for the vast majority of the population?

2. Unlike in most countries where revolutions have occurred, the US actually does have a substantial number of gun owners. Unfortunately for our revolutionaries, the average gun owner in the US is on the conservative side (just look at any demographics map). Furthermore, the army is majority Republican (i.e. right-wing), certainly among the officer corps, but even among the troops (though, granted, the latter varies depending on the year and survey). However, since the army specifically screens out proponents of radical ideologies, there probably won&#39;t be much communist support there. Likewise, private military contractors are overwhelmingly conservative. So who exactly could marshal the necessary forces?

3. Turn on commercial TV. Just watch it for a little while. Then ask yourself: how many Americans could look all that material wealth in the eye and say "No?" The free market exists to give people what they want (at a price). Revolutions really can&#39;t compete with that offer.
remove yourself from US

[Juche96]

I've noticed a fair number of the RevLeft posters talk about a revolution (as in a literal, Bolshevik-style revolution), which they seem to think will occur in the not-too-distant future. Does anyone else think this is pretty ludicrous?

Here are my problems with the concept.

1. Communism is a dwindling ideology in the US. The US has never come close to open revolt by the workers, and I think that's even less likely today than it was in the 1930s (when the Communist Party in the US actually had a decent number of members). After all, who's going to revolt when the current system is so comfortable for the vast majority of the population?

2. Unlike in most countries where revolutions have occurred, the US actually does have a substantial number of gun owners. Unfortunately for our revolutionaries, the average gun owner in the US is on the conservative side (just look at any demographics map). Furthermore, the army is majority Republican (i.e. right-wing), certainly among the officer corps, but even among the troops (though, granted, the latter varies depending on the year and survey). However, since the army specifically screens out proponents of radical ideologies, there probably won't be much communist support there. Likewise, private military contractors are overwhelmingly conservative. So who exactly could marshal the necessary forces?

3. Turn on commercial TV. Just watch it for a little while. Then ask yourself: how many Americans could look all that material wealth in the eye and say "No?" The free market exists to give people what they want (at a price). Revolutions really can't compete with that offer.

I have to say that you are correct in your assessment regarding the class structure of the United States and the prospects for a revolution. I'll address your points as follows:

1. True. More specifically, the 'workers' in the united states are not exploited, and instead are bought off by profits that come from exploited third world workers. Even somebody who flips burgers at MacDonald's full time (which is usually only a job a high school kid would get) would still be situated somewhere near the 90th percentile in world income. The few migrant workers from the third world might constitute a small class of exploited individuals. However, these people do not even come near 10 percent of the US population, and are generally better off than workers in Mexico, Guatemala, and Sierra Leone.

2. Nobody (I don't really have to address this...I basically did in 1.)
3. Yes, Americans are very very comfortable living off the exploitation of the third world. And true, not everyone can afford a 50 thousand dollar SUV, but the vast majority can at least finance SUVs and other expensive items with plenty of money to spend on useless crap.

No workers and no exploited class = no revolution or potential for one. Revolutionary potential exist only in the exploited classes, which today are in the third world.

[Robert]

Revolutionary potential exist only in the exploited classes, which today are in the third world.

Well, few of the marxists here would agree with your second clause, but I do. As for the "potential" for revolution mentioned in the first clause, no one can argue with any hypothesis.

But it seems to me the exploited in China, for example, were exploited and broke before entrepreneurship was allowed in recent years. Now they're still exploited but less broke. And many are millionaires. Many many more are simply rich. More than that are very comfortable, even more are just plain comfortable, and the numbers are growing. They hear stories about the opportunities to become affluent and the stories are true.

Maybe you can convince the Vietnamese to throw out the Americans again and reject capitalism in all its manifestations, but you're wasting your time in China. Not that you said anything about China. Exactly where do you see a revolution brewing?

[Enragé]

we will prove our revolution isnt far-fetched by putting it into practice, by realising it, we will prove it is not ludicrous. It's a shitload of work, but there&#180;s not one reason why its impossible, in fact, society is based on contradictions, which invariably lead to conflict (both economically as well as politically, some have more power, thus more wealth, or more wealth, thus more power, than others [the process is dialectical, it influences eachother, more power leads to more wealth whereas more wealth leads to more power]. What we are trying to do is to mobilise the disenfranchised, the oppressed, to bring an end to all oppression, which is possible since the material conditions for society without oppression are there (there is enough for all, there is no more scarcity, we can feed the world 3 times over, yet people still die of hunger, we strive to change that by radically altering the system).

We create power-relations, a boss is only a boss because people listen to him/her, same goes for a president, for a bureaucratic dictator etc. We also create what's in existence in the form of commodities, yet we have no power over them since those commodities are produced for the capitalists, they are controlled by the capitalists, all for the goal of accumulating more wealth, in order to accumulate even more (thus, progress in capitalist society is merely quantitative, not qualitative), ends become means and means become ends. How can we ever find "happiness" through the accumulation of things, when every sane human being knows that what makes you happy (above a certain economic subsistence level), is the social, social relations with friends, family, loved ones. The revolutionary project is the project for the destruction of the rule of the economy, and mixed with that hierarchical relations (politics), over our lives, it is the project which seeks to make important that what is important, individual self-realisation in a social world ("Vive la sociale!"). The revolutionary project entails the change of history through conscious interference with the historical process, the destruction of power relations is possible because we create those relations (fuck the boss, fuck the president, fuck all authority), and those relations only create misery for us (not just in the form of poverty, but also as alienation, i.e alienation from what you have created, your fellow man, from reality since you no longer have the power to influence it thus it confronts you as an external, objective force).

There's no way to prove by reason that our revolution isnt far-fetched, you cannot seperate theory from practice. We will prove our revolutionary theory by simply putting it into practice. We are conscious beings rejecting unconsciousness, conscious only because we impact the reality around us, because we continuously try to accomplish what is in our minds (creation of situations, situationism), because we continuously try to accomplish what seems to us a better world, a better world because everyone can influence reality, through democracy, freedom, and equal opportunities to develope one's potential in whatever area one desires. I cannot argue you into accepting this position, I can only pose to you the question, would you want that world? That in the end is subjective. Our radicalism is subjective, it is subjective radicalism. But do not think your opinions are in any way objective either, they are subjective as well. The only thing that will make our subjectivism objective, is to put it into practice, as we will (join us will ya ;))

I'll end as I began this post, we will prove our revolution isnt far fetched by putting it into practice, by realising it, we will prove it is not ludicrous.

[Robert]

Maybe you will.

Maybe also you will make things worse than they already are. This "fuck the boss" business, for example, is a juvenile call to disruption of a civic order that you don't like or respect, but that billions of others do like. Most people recognize that their boss is the boss because he either created the business or worked in the business long enough to become very good at production, management, distribution, fabrication, communications, shipping, finance or some other facet of the enterprise.

When an individual distinguishes himself this way, it is natural that others will want him to lead. You will have leaders for the same reason after any revolution you may envisage.

[Dr Mindbender]

Maybe you will.

Maybe also you will make things worse than they already are. This "fuck the boss" business, for example, is a juvenile call to disruption of a civic order that you don't like or respect, but that billions of others do like.
Its probably not so much that these billions of people like this 'civic order', its more a case they havent awoken from their slumber. You have to remember that people arent born revolutionary, its a complex series of life experiences and attitude changing events. For the better part, ordinary people are told from the cradle to the grave by their school and the media that they are scum and that any challenge to the status quo is either unnacceptable or frowned upon. Its little wonder then that so many disattach themselves from the mechanisms of democratic change and simply accept the way things are.

Let me put it another way, you know all those demonstations outside the G8 that happen every 4 years or so (which are usually at least half a million strong), when was the last time you saw such large group counter-protesting against them or ardently supporting capitalism? Consider those apples before you discredit the size of the revolutionary movement.


Most people recognize that their boss is the boss because he either created the business or worked in the business long enough to become very good at production, management, distribution, fabrication, communications, shipping, finance or some other facet of the enterprise.
See above. Also bear in mind that the above qualities you listed are by in large valued only by the establishment class, not by the workers themselves. The only reason people succeed under the current system because they excel at serving the interests of the established ideaology, not of the majority of people. You only have to listen to the tuts and sighs in my workplace as the management sit around on their fat lazy asses all day helping themselves to a big slice of the pie.


When an individual distinguishes himself this way, it is natural that others will want him to lead. You will have leaders for the same reason after any revolution you may envisage.
no, we will have unions or soviet councils after any revolution we envisage.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=Ulster Socialist;1053293]
Let me put it another way, you know all those demonstations outside the G8 that happen every 4 years or so (which are usually at least half a million strong), when was the last time you saw such large group counter-protesting against them or ardently supporting capitalism? Consider those apples before you discredit the size of the revolutionary movement.


Probably because the supporters of capitalism are producing for the community, thus have no time.

See above.
Also bear in mind that the above qualities you listed are by in large valued only by the establishment class, not by the workers themselves.

It is difficult to imagine why the workers would not value knowledge, experience, education ect. and not understand why such systems fail.

[Dr Mindbender]

Probably because the supporters of capitalism are producing for the community, thus have no time.


....Despite the fact that by in large, worker's unions take a very central role in anti-capitalist demonstrations.

My spidey senses are detecting bullshit!

Also if you freely admit that capitalism prevents the workers from voicing their political opinion, it kinda takes the wind out of your sails about capitalism being more 'democratic'.


See above.


It is difficult to imagine why the workers would not value knowledge, experience, education ect. and not understand why such systems fail.

I was referring specifically to the qualities listed which are integral to the production of profit, but not necessarilly required for scientific knowledge, social justice or collective happiness.
Also the key point that the quoted poster failed to address was, that without the efforts of the concerned workers, the production ,logistics etc would not be possible. The capitalist is concerned only with the transition of capital. He does not provide any of the scientific or technical knowledge.

[Green Dragon]

....Despite the fact that by in large, worker's unions take a very central role in anti-capitalist demonstrations.


Perhaps. It should be pointed out that labor unions often have many workers who work for IT, in doing its job of representing whomever chooses to be so represented.




Also if you freely admit that capitalism prevents the workers from voicing their political opinion, it kinda takes the wind out of your sails about capitalism being more 'democratic'.

Nobody is preventing anyone from protesting. I am quite skeptical that a socialist community will simply permit its workers to stop working for whatever reason that worker judges to be important.




[QUOTE]
I was referring specifically to the qualities listed which are integral to the production of profit, but not necessarilly required for scientific knowledge, social justice or collective happiness.


Considering that profit cannot be accrued UNLESS somebody's needs and wants are met, it would seem by extention production for profit is required for collective happiness.



Also the key point that the quoted poster failed to address was, that without the efforts of the concerned workers, the production ,logistics etc would not be possible. The capitalist is concerned only with the transition of capital. He does not provide any of the scientific or technical knowledge.


No, he simply organises it in a manner so as to distribute it to the community. And gain, the socialist community will need such a role filled as well.

[Dr Mindbender]

Perhaps. It should be pointed out that labor unions often have many workers who work for IT, in doing its job of representing whomever chooses to be so represented.

Of course, but thats because a union has to use capitalist means in order to exist under the capitalist system, in much the same way i have to purchase food from a capitalist in order to survive.
Attending a demonstration in order to protest is a matter of political free will. No union (to my knowledge at least) forces a worker to attend a demo under the guise of a protestor on a demonstration they dont agree with.
I believe most countries have laws against that sort of thing.



No, he simply organises it in a manner so as to distribute it to the community. And gain, the socialist community will need such a role filled as well.
that 'distribution' is always missappropriated, they will always bias it in order to ensure he/she is the main benefactor.

[Green Dragon]

Of course, but thats because a union has to use capitalist means in order to exist under the capitalist system, in much the same way i have to purchase food from a capitalist in order to survive.
Attending a demonstration in order to protest is a matter of political free will. No union (to my knowledge at least) forces a worker to attend a demo under the guise of a protestor on a demonstration they dont agree with.
I believe most countries have laws against that sort of thing.


My comment was simply that the structure of labor unionms require employees to work for it. They are not workers who come in for a few hours a day from their main job. That is who we have to consider who is marching, as opposed to the union memebers themselves.



that 'distribution' is always missappropriated, they will always bias it in order to ensure he/she is the main benefactor.


Actually, the main benefactor in capitalism is the consumer of that item. He gets what he wants. Capitalist production is not geared for the benefit of the capitalist. It is geared for the benefit of the consumer. A capitalist can make no profits if a consumer does not purchase the product.

[Dr Mindbender]

no no, the capitalist is always the biggest benefactor, he recieves a huge profit margin with only his 'business savvy' as his justification.

Anyway, as a rule of thumb, the consumers you speak of are generally low to mediocre income people who have already been deprived of their labour value only to have to pay more to obtain a product which in all likliehood was rightfully theirs in the first place (if you subscribe to the Marxist theory of labour).

[Robert]

only his 'business savvy' as his justification.

Only?? Ulster, why do you put it in those cute quotes as though it's merely a chimera? "Business savvy" is real, as is business folly. What if I were to say the "workers" want their "unions" to strike for "higher" wages for their "labor"?

As for the demonstrations, I have actually attended a couple, and my experience is that many are students who do not work, other than studying. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I kind of see most of the posters here as being like that -- mad at the world and happy to throw a few rocks at the "pigs" trying to keep order during those demonstrations.

Look at this picture of a German anti-G8 demo and tell me whom -- not what, but whom -- you see.


http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2007/05/hamburg.jpg

[Dean]

only his 'business savvy' as his justification.

Only?? Ulster, why do you put it in those cute quotes as though it's merely a chimera? "Business savvy" is real, as is business folly. What if I were to say the "workers" want their "unions" to strike for "higher" wages for their "labor"?

Business savvy measures nothing more than a person's capability to manipulate numbers and people so that the businessman can benefit economically.


As for the demonstrations, I have actually attended a couple, and my experience is that many are students who do not work, other than studying. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I kind of see most of the posters here as being like that -- mad at the world and happy to throw a few rocks at the "pigs" trying to keep order during those demonstrations.
Why is "mad at the world and happy to throw a few rocks at the "pigs" trying to keep order during those demonstrations"
'like'
"students who do not work, other than studying"?
Just so you know, I have been a communist since I was 14 or so, and a leftist unionist long before that. I have been working in construction since I graduated from high school (4 years). And you're damn right I'm pissed at society, for various reasons involving oppression of myself, my friends, and many other people. Being a student, or even not lifting a finger your whole life, is not the least bit bad in the context of this bullshit society. If someone can fuck the system and live on welfare, more power to them. If someone wants to throw rocks at assholes who are the hands of a violent, oppressive state then I support that.


Look at this picture of a German anti-G8 demo and tell me whom -- not what, but whom -- you see.


http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2007/05/hamburg.jpg
Wow, you've convinced me. A certain strata of people are more likely to go out and walk the streets in protest? Healthy, young and middle aged people protest - so they must be wrong. They don't have the life experience that the senile old bureaucrat that fathered me has, so they must be wrong.

I saw a bunch of interviews with the people that were in the Weather Underground. Now they are in their forties and fifties, and some of them still support their actions, others don't, but they all agree that their impression of the U.S. as a violent, imperialist state is accurate. S, no, age doesn't mean shit, nor does vocation, gender, or whatever when it comes to ideology.

[Robert]

Well, Dean, if you want to go through life pissed off all the time, that's your business. I genuinely feel badly for you, believe it or not.

I can and do congratulate you for being restricted. You do realize, do you not, that the lunatics who restricted you here (what the fuck are they afraid of?) are cut from the same cloth as those who will worm (and murder) their way to the top after this revolution you seek becomes a reality?

Come over to the dark side. You'll be happier and you will enjoy free speech.
Get you some chewin' terbacky and a new red Ford Pickup. Me and you and Ulster shootin' pool at Billy Bob's in Fort Worth, singing along with the band: "And I'm Proud to be an American, cause at least I know I'm free!!!!!!"

Gives me goose bumps, it does.

[Dean]

Well, Dean, if you want to go through life pissed off all the time, that's your business. I genuinely feel badly for you, believe it or not.
You shouldn't feel badly for my anger, but for my reasons for that anger.


I can and do congratulate you for being restricted. You do realize, do you not, that the lunatics who restricted you here (what the fuck are they afraid of?) are cut from the same cloth as those who will worm (and murder) their way to the top after this revolution you seek becomes a reality?
The people that run this forum won't lead any revolution. Maybe they'll be a part of one, but if they led any real miliatant group they would be too easy for the gov't to take out.


Come over to the dark side. You'll be happier and you will enjoy free speech.
Get you some chewin' terbacky and a new red Ford Pickup. Me and you and Ulster shootin' pool at Billy Bob's in Fort Worth, singing along with the band: "And I'm Proud to be an American, cause at least I know I'm free!!!!!!"

Gives me goose bumps, it does.
The stereotype of the redneck is not synonymous with patriotism. That's really a media portrayel; in fact, us hillbillies are a very diverse group with many different cultural tendancies.

[Robert]

If it's not too personal, why are you restricted? And are you not disgusted by the elitism that your own restriction exemplifies? Note that the capitalists here aren't trying to silence you.

[Dr Mindbender]

he hasnt been silenced per se, has he? Most capitalist or reactionary forums i've visited ban you outright if you dont 'tow the line'.

The reason for the OI board, in case you havent understood is so that pro-lifers, pro-marketeers and convinced capitalists cannot interfere with the progressive nature of the discussion, otherwise we would get flooded by trolls and typical anti-communist billy bob types who are just here to create contention. If that happened, the forum wouldnt work. This obviously differs from the real world, and this forum should not be assumed to be a microcosm for how a post revolutionary situation would look like.

That said, personally I think the OI policy on this board is over-policed at times and I'm not sure why Dean in particular was restricted as he seems to sing from the same hymn book as the rest of us.

[Dr Mindbender]

only his 'business savvy' as his justification.


Look at this picture of a German anti-G8 demo and tell me whom -- not what, but whom -- you see.


http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2007/05/hamburg.jpg
hmm, well my best guess is that this is a rather large demonstration, i was on a very similar one that numbered 300 000 back in 2001 so to take this comparitively small sliver of demonstrators is hardly a fair representation. These guys are clearly anarchists so they tend to keep to themselves, away from the socialists and union banners.

In fact if i look closely, I believe I can see one in the background. That big red banner?

[Green Dragon]

no no, the capitalist is always the biggest benefactor, he recieves a huge profit margin with only his 'business savvy' as his justification.

Anyway, as a rule of thumb, the consumers you speak of are generally low to mediocre income people who have already been deprived of their labour value only to have to pay more to obtain a product which in all likliehood was rightfully theirs in the first place (if you subscribe to the Marxist theory of labour).

Anyone who wants a product is a consumer.

As a capitalist who is able to provide a needed or wanted good to a consumer, he or she gets what he or she wants, the capitalist gets what he or she wants.

[Dr Mindbender]

Anyone who wants a product is a consumer.

As a capitalist who is able to provide a needed or wanted good to a consumer, he or she gets what he or she wants, the capitalist gets what he or she wants.
more often that not, for your 'consumer' its a matter of need, not necessarilly want.

I need a place to live, therefore i have to pay rent to a landlord who doesnt need it, per se. Clearly the landlord in this case is the chief benefactor since on his side of the deal its more a bonus to satisfy his want than an essential need.

Stop trying to insinuate that its always mutually beneficial, since it clearly isnt.

I can see this debate going round in circles for some time to come...

[Green Dragon]

I need a place to live, therefore i have to pay rent to a landlord who doesnt need it,

I am unaware why you believe a landlord does not need a place to live. The man provides a shelter of which you have no real responsibility for upkeep (beyond basic cleaning). You can focus on other tasks. Its a win-win for both.

[Dr Mindbender]

I am unaware why you believe a landlord does not need a place to live.
Jees (FFS:rolleyes:) My landlord already HAS 2 HOUSES, 1 for him to live in, the other in which to rent to me, the rent he collects is not an essential for him to survive. The same cannot be said however, for the house that i rent from him.



The man provides a shelter of which you have no real responsibility for upkeep (beyond basic cleaning).
Thats not actually true, i have to mantain the garden, ensure security precautions and all other homekeeping duties that must be performed in his absence.


You can focus on other tasks. Its a win-win for both.
Hardly, he gets more 'win' than i do.
:mad:

[question_d_authority]

~~~~~~~Hardly, he gets more 'win' than i do. ~~~~~~~~~

There lies the problem. Can you remember the ammount that's there in some XYZ bank in your name? However small, that brings some interest at the end of the year for you. And here is the begining of a capitalistic 'YOU', inspite of your membership of the working class. The thing that we forget is that, every one of us today has a dual existence. I work in a factory instead of my wages and again I have some investments in the mutual funds which is invested in the capitalistic market economy, bringing a tiny fraction of profit share for me. The Capitalistic market economy doesn't mind to incorporate me in the vicious circle of profit making and exploiting the mass, where myself is exploited by the same system in my working place. the individual coming from any particular socio economic srtatum/ class is trying to make a balance in between these two. When your gain form the existing system is more than you loose, you fill like a petty bourgeoisy and like a fucked up have not if the reverse is true. you know in the first world , the working class is in a far better situation than that of the third world, as because, it's getting a share of the loot, the capitalist system is making in the third world. Better to tell , it's the third world market and the consumers and the workers that is utilised by the firstworld ecnomy to keep the revolution at bay in it's own soil. But it is a limited solution, for this has it's own limit. With increasing exploitation in the third world, the purchasing power and the rate of increment of growth rate (it's the double derivative, mind that) in the third world is decresing. There would be a time there would be the backlash and that moment the capital would find it tough to arrange for things to distract it's own working mass. I think that would be point of ever increasing organised class conflicts on the soil of the first world, viz. USA.

Now if the question is whether it's in near or far future, solely depends on the market economic force and it's fast and absolute expansion. I think in that way, a total globalization of the market economy and the absolute victory of a few numbers of multinational houses is a must before the world can really head towards a total rejection of the capitalist economy, private and/or state owned.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=Ulster Socialist;1054153]Jees (FFS:rolleyes:) My landlord already HAS 2 HOUSES, 1 for him to live in, the other in which to rent to me, the rent he collects is not an essential for him to survive. The same cannot be said however, for the house that i rent from him.


My guess is that you have no idea whether he needs that second house to "survive." and gee whiz, is the socialist community simply going to be about mere survival? How about prospering?



Thats not actually true, i have to mantain the garden, ensure security precautions and all other homekeeping duties that must be performed in his absence.


Okay, you rent a house and you have to keep up the garden. Okay. Don't rent a house. Rent an apartment without a garden. Problem solved.
As far as "homekeeping duties in his absence" I do not know what that means beyond keeping things clean. Which implies the landlord has some sort of responsibility to clean the toilet and such on a regular basis. Maybe that is how things are expected over there.




Hardly, he gets more 'win' than i do.
:mad:


Maybe he does, from your view. But it sounds like you rent a house with a nice little garden in the back. Is it worth it to you? If so, then its a fair deal. If not, at the end of the lease, go somewhere else more amenable to your needs and desires.

[Robert]

Which implies the landlord has some sort of responsibility to clean the toilet and such on a regular basis.

In Cloud Cuckoo Commie Land, the landlord's only responsibility is to commit suicide so that we will be rid of him. Don't ask who, after the landlords are liquidated, will maintain the properties -- state owned or not -- during times when tenants vacate in search of better digs or better jobs.

[Comrade Rage]

Which implies the landlord has some sort of responsibility to clean the toilet and such on a regular basis.

In Cloud Cuckoo Commie Land, the landlord's only responsibility is to commit suicide so that we will be rid of him. Don't ask who, after the landlords are liquidated, will maintain the properties -- state owned or not -- during times when tenants vacate in search of better digs or better jobs.Why couldn't we have building councils comprised of actual residents rather than leeches.

I don't know where you're from, but in my neighborhood I'm lucky to have a good landlord. Most of the other houses in my area are in various states of extreme disrepair, or are abandoned. When you walk down a street and the houses you see have sagging porches, boarded windows, and holes in the outside walls you realize that the capitalist way of maintaining properties has failed in epic proportions for many reasons, because these greedy absentee landlords usually don't even live in the same neighborhood.

We could have building councils (in multi-resident buildings) and the state could distribute materials to repair buildings and kill vermin. Why would that fail?

[Robert]

Why couldn't we have building councils comprised of actual residents rather than leeches.

That kind of thing doesn't just happen, someone has to start it. A leader. Why not you?

But it's probably because "actual residents" who don't own the building want the freedom to leave if and when they're ready. Do you want to serve on this council you describe? Plus, running an apartment building properly involves a lot of knowhow and capital or credit, yes, and headache. Some landlords do go broke.

If your complaint is that slumlords have a monopoly on the buildings in your area and they aren't keeping the buildings in livable condition, they should be sued of course. Call the press if it's that bad and the city government won't respond. They love exposing that kind of abuse. Then you'll see the bureaucrats hop to.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

My guess is that you have no idea whether he needs that second house to "survive." and gee whiz, is the socialist community simply going to be about mere survival? How about prospering?get your facts straight dipshit, i would have assumed that if you are intent on posting on a socialist message board you would have a minimal understanding of socialist principles ... even one as basic as this ...

look, communists and socialists are not about denying you prosperity ... only denying you the ability to prosper at the expense of someone else ... prosperity is not intrinsically tied to stepping on people to get what you want ... capitalism does that and has left you poor brainwashed fools without the ability to identify prosperity as anything other then grossly inflated profits obtained through the exploitation of labor ....


In Cloud Cuckoo Commie Land, the landlord's only responsibility is to commit suicide so that we will be rid of him.well i hate to break it to you but in "cloud cukoo commie land" there are no landlords and consequently there are far less suicides because of free comprehensive universal health coverage which includes mental health reviews ... so fuck off


Don't ask who, after the landlords are liquidated, will maintain the properties -- state owned or not -- during times when tenants vacate in search of better digs or better jobs.well the state already has similar programs such as low income section 8 housing, my father works to renovate and repair units when tenants move away ... besides the government already has plenty of public "socialized" services that work to varying degrees ... schools, fire departments, police, libraries, highways ...

maybe if shits like you would pay higher taxes instead of buying multi-million dollar homes these programs would be working better and we could implement a few new ones


If your complaint is that slumlords have a monopoly on the buildings in your area and they aren't keeping the buildings in livable condition, they should be sued of course.and yet we still have slumlords in every city in the USA.. thats because the legal system favors those with capital and people living in slums are often ill-equipped financially or educationally to deal with millionaire slumlords ... without socialism these conditions will not change ...

why do you think that slumlords still exist in the USA despite the legal system you so lovingly espouse?


The man provides a shelter of which you have no real responsibility for upkeep (beyond basic cleaning). You can focus on other tasks. Its a win-win for both.wrong the landlord gains unearned income and capital while you lose out financially, he does no work but instead leeches off the work that you do ... sure he might have to pay for a broken toilet or a stain on the carpet but most often it comes off your security deposit, something any slumlord will always attempt to keep anyway ...

[Comrade Rage]

Why couldn't we have building councils comprised of actual residents rather than leeches.

That kind of thing doesn't just happen, someone has to start it. A leader. Why not you?
The building would have to be expropriated from the slumlord, first. We are not going to do work on his property so he can sell it for profit.


But it's probably because "actual residents" who don't own the building want the freedom to leave if and when they're ready. Do you want to serve on this council you describe? Plus, running an apartment building properly involves a lot of knowhow and capital or credit, yes, and headache. Some landlords do go broke.

People would still be able to leave. People ALSO want to live in a nice building that is in good repair, which is a rarity in a lot of areas of cities in America.
I'd serve on such a council.
We'd share the burdens equally, based on skill.
If your complaint is that slumlords have a monopoly on the buildings in your area and they aren't keeping the buildings in livable condition, they should be sued of course. Call the press if it's that bad and the city government won't respond. They love exposing that kind of abuse. Then you'll see the bureaucrats hop to.
Slumlords rarely have any shame about the conditions of their properties. In 2004 the Department of Neighborhood Services started putting out huge signs in front of abandoned buildings (I don't think that they did so for occupied buildings). The result? NOTHING. As a matter of fact, the first building they did this to is only a few blocks away from my house.

The press? The press has gotten involved several times in cases like this. The slumlords DON'T CARE. In one case where the media got involved, the slum building was owned by the Chairman of the County Board! Result: Nada.

Here's a case where a slumlord (who owns a couple of bldgs on my street, among other things) was picked up. He STILL hasn't paid any fines, or fixed up any properties.

Link (http://www.riverwestcurrents.org/2005/June/002416.html)

[Guest1]

1929: Can it happen again? (http://www.socialist.net/1929-can-it-happen-again.htm)
By Mick Brooks
Thursday, 17 January 2008

This article was originally written on the occasion of the seventieth anniversary of the 1929 Wall Street Crash. It was not intended purely as a commemorative or historical piece. It was written because, to Marxists, all the signs were then apparent that another stock price ‘correction’ was in preparation. In 1998 Long Term Capital Management had collapsed, losing $4.6 billion in four months. LTCM was a hedge fund. The details of their activities were arcane, but what they were engaged in was essentially the same practice as was called ‘buying on the margin’ in 1929. In other words they were betting with other people’s money. They had been much admired in high finance. Two of their operators, Myron Scholes and Robert C. Merton, had won the Nobel prize in economics in 1997. Their economic writings were mind-numbingly mathematical. However the fate of LTCM shows they made scant addition to the sum of human happiness. But after all that had never been their intention.

In the late 1990s the world and his wife were setting up new technology schemes, the direct equivalent of the Florida land boom of the 1920s. Many of these dot.com firms never made a penny. Commentators began speaking of a ‘new paradigm’ – exactly as in the 1920s speculators said of the stock market boom, ‘This time it’s different. This time it will go on for ever.’ To be fair, some veteran economists like Samuel Brittan demurred. He had been there before. But the Marxists were largely alone in insisting that nothing fundamental had changed. Under capitalism boom gives way to slump.

So we were isolated from the herd instinct of the columnists and enthusiasts who hastened to join the new gold rush. They will not want their outpourings to be republished. We have nothing to hide. We are proud of our analysis.

In 2000 the dot.com boom duly collapsed. The ‘new paradigm’ was completely forgotten in the panic. IT shares were only 6% of total share value even before the bubble burst. But when it tanked it dragged down share prices across the board. Stock prices continued to sink right through to 2003. It is also a moot point whether the new economy collapse was the trigger for the recession in the real world economy in 2001.

Republication of the article is timely. In 2007 the sub-prime mortgage bubble finally burst. The financial crisis has already had a knock-on effect on the banks through the credit crunch. The capitalist world stands on the threshold of recession. Marxist analysis of capitalism has been vindicated. Now the working class needs to apply the programme of Marxism and abolish the capitalist system once and for all.

On the eve of the great 1929 stock exchange collapse, a journalist asked a speculator how so much money was being made on the market. This was the reply:
"One investor buys General Motors at $100"(he meant a GM share) "sells to another at $150, who sells it to a third at $200. Everyone makes money".

This seems pure magic, but for a while it can work. In a 'bull market' as in 1925-29 nearly all share prices go up and up. Over those years US industrial shares trebled in price!
It's happened again. In 1982 the Dow Jones index of American share prices hit 1,000. Now shares are yoyo-ing around at just under 11,000. For most of that period 'investors' could just sit back and watch their money grow by more than 15% a year.

At the end of 1928 outgoing President Coolidge surveyed the American economy with undisguised complacency. "No Congress of the US ever assembled" he intoned, "on surveying the state of the Union, has met with a more pleasing prospect than that which appears at the present time. In the domestic field there is tranquillity and contentment......and the highest record of years of prosperity".

Today, as in 1929, experts are wheeled out to assure us that 'the market is fundamentally sound'. But Marxists believe that what goes up must come down.

To understand the apparently mysterious movements of the stock exchange, we must go back to basics. The foundation of the capitalist system is the pumping of surplus value (unpaid labour) from the working class in the production process. The capitalists own the means of production mainly in the form of shares. A share in a company is simply a piece of paper entitling its owner to a regular dividend. A share dividend is simply that part of the firm's profits that is paid out to the shareholders. That dividend in its turn can only be a part of the unpaid labour of the working class.

Once a company has been floated on the stock exchange, its shares pass from hand to hand. The company in question gets no part of the share's selling price. If I buy a second hand Ford share, Ford no more benefits than if I buy a second hand Ford car. Of course new shares can be issued to finance new investment. But since the Second World War this has been an insignificant source of investment finance, specially in the Anglo-Saxon countries. The main funds either come from funds ploughed back, or from bank loans. In fact in some years in this country share capital has been a negative source of company finance - firms have actually gone out spending money to buy back their own shares.
So shares are just pieces of coloured paper traded on the exchanges. How do speculators assess their value? One point of holding a share is to collect the dividend. So a share price reflects expected future profitability. But if profits are expected to rise, then the price of the piece of paper will rise as speculators pile into shares. So as the bubble blows itself up, speculators gain both ways - from dividends and the rising price of their paper asset. We get the interesting situation where shares are going up because people are buying them - and people are buying them because the share prices are going up.

The herd instinct of the traders can produce rushes and panics for all manner of reasons. At root though the health of the stock exchange is a reflection of the profitability of the real economy - even though there can be time lags and overshooting before trends in the real economy eventually make themselves felt on the floors of the exchanges.

Once a bull market has begun, the 'animal spirits' (as Keynes called them) of the entrepreneurs take over. Everyone wants to be in on the getting while the getting is good. An orgy of swindling is the natural result. This signals that the boom is peaking, and was regarded as a natural stage in the cycle in Kindelberger's classic book 'Manias, panics and crashes'. In the 1920s the Florida land boom pushed up the price of a plot of land from $1,500 in 1914 to $1.5 million in 1926 - even though the land in question was a patch of swamp! (That particular plot, following the inevitable and spectacular collapse in land prices, has still to this day not recovered its 1926 price.)


Collapsed

There have been speculative booms before and since. The capitalists who take part are not stupid. Their system is stupid. As the Chicago Tribune pointed out in 1890, "In the ruin of all collapsed booms is to be found the work of men who bought property at prices they knew perfectly well were fictitious, but who were willing to pay such prices simply because they knew that some greater fool could be depended on to take the property off their hands and leave them with a profit". Regular readers will recall that we have already got beyond that stage in the present cycle, as evidenced by the bailout of the crooks at Long-Term Capital Management, the mysterious but powerful hedge fund.

Just like the 1920s, the present period has produced in the likes of Calvin Coolidge the illusion that the good times will go on for ever. They are talking about a 'new paradigm' - a whole era of capitalist upswing in the offing. Older hands know that when that sort of talk starts it's time to sell. In September 1929 the Times (which was once a perceptive paper) commented, "It is a well-known characteristic of boom times that the idea of their old unpleasant way is rarely recognised as such". Samuel Brittan has written a couple of articles recently attacking the notion of a new paradigm in the Financial Times - 'Nonsense on stilts' and 'Bubbles do burst'. The economic analysis unit of the HSBC, formerly the Midland Bank, says "Virtually all the indicators checklist are flashing red for the US" and "When such bubbles burst soft landings never seem to be within reach". And what is the FT hinting at when in August they publish as part of their series on business classics Charles Mackay's 'Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds'?
Share manipulations and the urge to buy shoot way beyond the ability of the real economy to deliver more and more prosperity to the upper classes. As the share boom peaks the speculators look like a load of Hanna and Barbera lemmings who have just run over a cliff and are only held aloft by their own obliviousness to their real situation. But the laws of gravity will assert themselves. What goes up must come down. The crash brings them back to earth.


Going down


A secondary failure or hiccup can turn boom into bust when the time is right, as we shall see. Then we have another interesting situation where speculators sell shares because they are going down - and shares are going down because people are selling them. The whole film of the boom is played back in reverse.

Serious analysts have tried to explain the Wall Street crash as being caused by Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities forbidding Boston Edison which generated its electricity from 'watering' its shares by splitting them 4-1.Others have derived the Crash from the failure of the Clarence Hatry group, which made slot-machine vending devices, in Britain in September. If such an issue is capable of producing a devastating depression throughout the world, leading in time to the rise of Hitler and the Second World War, then there could be no greater indictment of the irrationality of capitalism. But of course this was a superficial glitch that could be shrugged off if the economy was in boom. Arguments between capitalists over the spoils are after all a permanent feature of capitalism. Rummaging through these explanations, Galbraith muses as to the crisis of confidence, "What first stirred these doubts we do not know, but neither is it very important that we know." The fact is that such incidents are at best triggers of crisis, but not its ultimate cause.

Then there is the theory that the crash was a manifestation of panic. Well, it was. Galbraith's book 'The great crash 1929' is mainly about Wall Street, not the real economy. He describes the mood on the exchanges on Thursday October 24th."That day 12,894,650 shares changed hands, many of them at prices which shattered the dreams and the hopes of those who had owned them....The panic did not last all day. It was a phenomenon of the morning hours....the uncertainty led more and more people to try to sell. Others, no longer able to respond to margin calls, were sold out. By eleven-thirty the market had surrendered to blind, relentless fear. This indeed was panic." But the panic, as we show, was rooted in the collapsing profits of the firms whose shares were being traded relentlessly down. Mass psychology is often used by people who can't explain events in any other way. But by explaining everything, they explain nothing. The events described by Galbraith are from the first nasty hiccup, before the meltdown of Black Tuesday October 29th. The exchanges had already been drifting down throughout September, and there had been a couple of panic attacks the previous year. Animal spirits and the herd instinct can explain why share prices soar above the objective possibilities of making money out of the working class. October 1929 showed they could also crash below. But these attitudes merely amplify the swings in an economy based on profit-making.

Another explanation offered for the crash was the phenomenon known as margin trading. In the 1920s it was common for speculators to buy by putting a small fraction of the face value down in hard cash , with the rest to follow. In a rising market, what was the harm? In three months time the share was bound to be worth more than what it was now. This sounds very arcane, but it's not much different from buying from the grocer on tick. It's credit - borrowing. To be more exact it's gambling with other people's money. It's the equivalent of borrowing from the bank to put money on a dog. So long as the dog wins there's no problem paying the bank back. But if it doesn't...

The difference with Wall Street in 1925-29 was that all the dogs were coming in. That's how it is on the stock exchange in a bull market. But just to make it interesting, all of a sudden all the dogs start to lose for no obvious reason. All shares go down in what is called a bear market. That is what happened in October 1929.


Catastrophic


The 'explanation' of margin trading doesn't explain the sudden reversal of trend. It helps to explain why the reversal was so catastrophic and became so general. It explains why brokers were found washed up in the Hudson river with a pocket of nothing but margin calls.

Margin trading was gambling with other people's money. What it did was drag wider layers of people into the rout. It spread the collapse on the stock exchange to the rest of the economy by making a lot of people a lot poorer very suddenly. But gambling with other people's money is a general feature of capitalist finance. It's called leverage in the trade. Long-term, the hedge fund that was bailed out after near collapse last year was doing just that. That is precisely how hedge funds make their money, and why it matters to the rest of us when they don't.

It would be a mistake to get dragged too deep into the 'explanations' offered by the wizards of high finance. "The difficulty with all these lines of reasoning, however, is the speed with which the collapse of production took place, and the fact that it began well before the stock market crash. Industrial production fell from 127 in June to 122 in September, 117 in October, 106 in November, and 99 in December. Specifically, automobile production declined from 660,000 units in March 1929 to 440,000 in August, 416,000 in September, 319,000 in October, 169,500 in November, and 92,500 in December.


Credit System


No quantity theory of money or autonomous shift in spending, with or without a decline in the stock market, can account for these precipitous movements. They require an old-fashioned theory of the instability of the credit system." This quote comes from Kindelberger's classic 'Manias, panics and crashes'. He is polemicising against the conventional monetarist and Keynesian explanations of the slump. One correction needs to be made to his last sentence. What we need is an old-fashioned theory of the instability of the capitalist system. And that starts with its profit-making potential. Looking at fundamentals, we see that industrial profits were up 156% between 1924 and 1929. But industrial shares trebled in value over the same period. By 1929 the system had exhausted its ability to keep pushing profits up, and the stock exchange was walking on air.

Kindelberger is right to raise the role of credit, but he doesn't see its wider social context. What newcomer to marxism has not sighed in irritation as they open Capital and find an apparently pointless discussion as to how in a commodity private labour presents itself as its opposite - social labour. But the point Marx is making is that there is a division of labour, but in a commodity, capitalist economy our mutual dependence goes unrecognised. In the 1920s there was a well-established worldwide division of labour, in which the USA produced most of the world's cars while Malaysia specialised in the export of tin and rubber. We need tin to make solder joints and for various other uses in car production. Any engineer can work out how much tin we need to make a car, and how much to make 660,000 cars (US production in March 1929). It's even easier to work out how much rubber goes in a tyre. But under capitalism nobody makes those calculations - that would be the way in a planned economy. Nobody knows how much tin or rubber or how many cars the world needs. In a global economy dominated by commodity production individual capitalists plough their lonely furrow, concerned only with the making of money.

But when the car factories started laying workers off, and by December 1929 were only churning out 92,000 cars, that was bad news for tin and rubber workers in Malaysia. The little local difficulty in Detroit became a global crash. That is what credit does - it generalises local problems as well as it generalises local prosperity. It drops us all in the same thing together, whether we know it or not. Credit is one of the ways we are all drawn into the world economy as cogs. It is one way a global division of labour is established behind the backs of the participants.

We have seen that the economist Thomas Wilson was right when he noted that the market slump "reflected in the main the change which was already apparent in the industrial situation". But the financial collapse in turn reacted back on the fundamentals. By 1929 one and a half million people had been drawn in to playing the stock market. It was these little people who were most likely to be suckered in the wake of Black Tuesday. Of course as the ordinary folk who had lost everything pulled their belts in so tight it almost cut them in half, then they certainly were going to have to stop running out every year and buying a new car. Very likely they might sell their existing model to get themselves out of a financial hole. This nice supply of cheap nearly-new cars, of course, was further cutting into the market for new cars, and the jobs of car workers. This further piece of bad news would be heard soon enough in Malaysia. The lesson of 1929 was - we're all in this together. The crisis began in the real economy, not on Wall Street. The crash made things worse back there in industrial USA, and all over the world where commodities are produced and exchanged.

The slump spiralled down, in production, trade and money. In 1932 there were 15 million jobless in the States, out of a labour force of 45 million. By the beginning of 1933 American national income had fallen by a third. World trade in this year was less than a third of its 1929 level. Germany was particularly hard hit by the Stock Exchange crash and the subsequent depression. If industrial production in 1929 is taken as 100, by 1932 it was only 53. That statistic, and the failure of the workers' leaders to respond, led straight to the rise of Hitler.


Banks go bust


Most people keep their money in banks. If too many lose their money, the banks go bust. Over this period about 9,000 banks closed their doors in the States. The banks tried to hang on by ruthlessly foreclosing on mortgages, bankrupting swathes of American farmers, especially in the south-western states. As the banks went bust, most people who kept their money in them lost everything. And so on.

In Austria in 1931 the Kredit Anstallt bank, laden with debt, bowed out. The ensuing wave of bankruptcies deepened the crisis throughout Europe.

In Britain the collapse of Kredit Anstallt brought a speculative attack on the pound. The Treasury demanded the minority Labour government of Ramsay MacDonald show its responsibility to the international financiers by cuts in public spending - cuts in benefit, teachers' wages and servicemen's pay. Today this would be called a Structural Adjustment Programme. The Labour government split, was ousted and replaced by a National Government, including Labour renegades, who came to power with a brief to put the boot in to working people. The political repercussions of the Crash, and the slump that followed it were huge. It changed the face of the planet.

To the question - 'will it happen again?' - the answer must be not whether, but when. The bad news from 1929 about bull markets is - the bigger they come, the harder they fall.

Mick Brooks
October 1st, 1999

[Dr Mindbender]

[quote]


My guess is that you have no idea whether he needs that second house to "survive." and gee whiz, is the socialist community simply going to be about mere survival? How about prospering?
Of course its going to be about prospering, but that 'prospering' will be distributed across the board, not to just a few greedy corporocrats and profiteers while the rest of us are left with the crumbs off the table.
Also i severely doubt my landlord requires my rent money to survive, he has other means of income, drives a very nice car, and owns 2 houses including the one i live in which means he has serious equity.



Okay, you rent a house and you have to keep up the garden. Okay. Don't rent a house. Rent an apartment without a garden. Problem solved.
As far as "homekeeping duties in his absence" I do not know what that means beyond keeping things clean. Which implies the landlord has some sort of responsibility to clean the toilet and such on a regular basis. Maybe that is how things are expected over there.
The house i'm in a the moment we grabbed rather opportunisticly. In this town vacant affordable houses are in rather short supply so I didnt have much choice (again thanks to capitalism).
I can tell by your posts youre not that domesticated. Maybe your significant other does all the household chores?
:D




Maybe he does, from your view. But it sounds like you rent a house with a nice little garden in the back. Is it worth it to you? If so, then its a fair deal. If not, at the end of the lease, go somewhere else more amenable to your needs and desires.
Going back to my previous paragraph, I dont have a lot of choice, all things considered.

[Green Dragon]

look, communists and socialists are not about denying you prosperity ... only denying you the ability to prosper at the expense of someone else

It has not even been remotely established that US landlord is prospering at the expense of US. It has not even been established that the landlors IS prospering

...
prosperity is not intrinsically tied to stepping on people to get what you want ...

Nobody has ever said it was.






wrong the landlord gains unearned income and capital while you lose out financially, he does no work but instead leeches off the work that you do ... sure he might have to pay for a broken toilet or a stain on the carpet but most often it comes off your security deposit, something any slumlord will always attempt to keep anyway ...[/

Yep, owning property is always preferable to renting. At least you get the money back at some point (and more so). Of course, such comments on my end imply a capitalist economic system.

[Green Dragon]

Also i severely doubt my landlord requires my rent money to survive, he has other means of income, drives a very nice car, and owns 2 houses including the one i live in which means he has serious equity.


Is there "the ability to build equity" in a house in a socialist system?



The house i'm in a the moment we grabbed rather opportunisticly. In this town vacant affordable houses are in rather short supply so I didnt have much choice (again thanks to capitalism).


Perhaps because it is not profitable for people to rent out housing.



I can tell by your posts youre not that domesticated. Maybe your significant other does all the household chores?
:D


It was more a post along the lines of:
1. Recognising that English english is different from American English.
2. Wondering whether landlords in the UK have some sort of responsibility for daily cleaning in a house they are renting out.

[Dr Mindbender]

It has not even been remotely established that US landlord is prospering at the expense of US. It has not even been established that the landlors IS prospering

If owning 2 houses and a car isnt your idea of propering, (in the capitalist sense) i'd love to know what is.

[Dr Mindbender]

Is there "the ability to build equity" in a house in a socialist system?

'Equity' is a capitalist buzzword, and will have little meaning in a society whose culture is based on co-operation and collective interest.

A person's merits will be based on their character, desire to learn, work ethic and contribution, not on their accumulated material ownership.

[Dean]

If it's not too personal, why are you restricted? And are you not disgusted by the elitism that your own restriction exemplifies? Note that the capitalists here aren't trying to silence you.

The capitalists don't have the power to silence me. Much like when I used to post in the (capitalist) libertarian forum at livejournal, I didn't try to silence the libertarians there - I knew it was futile.

Why am I restricted? Initially it was because I said women had morebiological imperative to be nurturing. That was misconstrued as saying that women were "emotional" and further as a negative, both of which were contrary to my beliefs. Then, when I was honest about my stance on abortion - I think it is a moral issue where the fetus may have sentient existance, but I still think the women has an inalienable right to control her own bodily functions - I didn't appear leftist enough.

Basically, the root of all the problems with this site are out in the open as a witch hunt. Many people here are just obsessed with liberal causes, so abortion and equality for the sexes becomes a way in which to "one - up" others. Interestingly, "liberal" is used to insult those who don't tow the typical U.S. liberal line militantly enough. Instead of a new ideology and worldview, which is what communism is and should be, some here simply equate a very staunch liberal mindset with it.

I don't agree with that, and I think many of the concerns I raise which are edgy for a group like this are much more common than people will admit. Kind've like how it's hard to tell your friends / coworkers on a jobsite that "the titty bar" is a wack, sexist institution and maybe you don't even like women sexually.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

It has not even been remotely established that US landlord is prospering at the expense of US.are you blind or just immensely stupid?

let me tell you since you are obviously seeing the world through gold rimmed puffy daddy shades ...

ok ... try to keep up ...

a landlord is a property owner, therefore he owns property such as houses or apartment buildings. His income is derived from ownership of these properties that he rents to other persons and charges them a rental fee. He does not create wealth he merely leeches it from laborers who supply thirty to fifty percent of their income to the landlord in exchange for residence.

Now because US landlords are often absentee slumlords who own multiple buildings and often do very little in upkeep and renovation (often only that is required to meet lax habitability standards) they are able to draw in persons who are unable to afford higher rental prices ... these landlords often have a high eviction rate ...

this often creates entire neighborhoods of crumbling buildings and in turn lowers property values, thus causing businesses which provide jobs to the persons of these neighborhoods to move away ... in the absence of legal work residents of these neighborhoods often turn to black markets such as drugs and prostitution thus increasing crime rates.

this then creates a situation where certain landlords have devalued the inner city property enough that it become attractive for developers. The city itself will recognize the blight this slumlord has created and raise property taxes thus causing the The landlord to suddenly raise rental prices and evict tenants to sell off their properties at a larger profit then they acquire from renting.

this is called gentrification and it results in large demographic shifts where the poor are pushed out from the former ghetto (and now condopolis) and then into yet another slum owned by yet another set (or perhaps the same set) of landlords which created the problem in the first place ...

thus the slum/landlord profits greatly by keeping his tenants in squalor

got it?


It has not even been established that the landlors IS prosperingsee above ...


Nobody has ever said it was.ok dipshit, since you didn't exactly spell it out ... lets all hear your definition of prosperity ...

oh by the way you two shits (Green Dragon or Robert the Douchebag) missed answering this question i had:


why do you think that slumlords still exist in the USA despite the legal system you so lovingly espouse? and actually upon further review you didn't address many of the points which i made in the previous posting, i suppose you are ignoring them because you arguments are already bankrupt ... true?

well just for kicks how about addressing the points i made concerning programs like section 8 housing and the various other "socialized" services like fire dept, libraries, police etc. (Green Dragon or Robert the Douchebag, you are both pretty much the same chuck of flab anyway)

squeal little piggies !

[Green Dragon]

a landlord is a property owner, therefore he owns property such as houses or apartment buildings. His income is derived from ownership of these properties that he rents to other persons and charges them a rental fee. He does not create wealth he merely leeches it from laborers who supply thirty to fifty percent of their income to the landlord in exchange for residence.


In most cases, it is the bank which owns the property. The landlord is paying off a loan with much what he receives in rent.

BTW, the term "US" in that context, meant Ulster Socialist" not United States.


Now because US landlords are often absentee slumlords who own multiple buildings and often do very little in upkeep and renovation (often only that is required to meet lax habitability standards)

Why would a socialist community exceed its own habitability standards?


they are able to draw in persons who are unable to afford higher rental prices ... these landlords often have a high eviction rate ...

"Eviction!!" Surely you jest! Its almost impossible to evict a person from an aprtment. A person in that situation has had more than ample opportunity to pay what he owes.


this often creates entire neighborhoods of crumbling buildings and in turn lowers property values,

When the local inhabitants decide to live for free, or think they can live for free, such things tend to happen. its a cautionary tale for socialism.






this is called gentrification and it results in large demographic shifts where the poor are pushed out from the former ghetto (and now condopolis) and then into yet another slum owned by yet another set (or perhaps the same set) of landlords which created the problem in the first place ...


Nice theory. I can only look at NYC and see where blighted neighborhoods are coming back. Only the inhabitants are not going and blighting other neighborhoods.
Fail.









well just for kicks how about addressing the points i made concerning programs like section 8 housing and the various other "socialized" services like fire dept, libraries, police etc. (Green Dragon or Robert the Douchebag, you are both pretty much the same chuck of flab anyway)


Fire dept. libraries, police have nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism vs. socialism. Its a straw argument.

As far as Sec 8 housing, yeah the housing is for poor people. Someone thinks they can make money providing someone else with housing, and thus provide a source of prosperity for himself and a place to live for someone else. And as you say, those standards of eligibility are higher for the landlord renting than if he simply lived there himself.

[Robert]

chuck of flab

You probably mean "chunk," my bitter, unlettered titmouse. But you're wrong on the merits. As usual.

As for your question about why slumlords "still exist," that's a really stupid question. In the first place, you would call anyone who owns any apartment house with any defect a "slumlord," a hopelessly subjective term, or, if it has no defects at all, something equally derogatory and boring -- "elitist roader," or somesuch -- as you are against private property in the first place.

In the second place, you might as well ask why there is still murder, bank fraud, piracy, or workplace discrimination since all are already against the law. You must either demand law enforcement from your elected officials or wallow in defeatist apathy. The third "choice" of revolution will get you to ... Pyongyang, perhaps.

But since I am fairer-minded than you, I'll admit that there are unscrupulous landlords, just as there are unscrupulous tenants. Some are born venal, others become that way after their tenants destroy too much of the property. Both should be penalized as has already been admitted. You can kill them all in the name of revolution if you want, but you'd better be ready then to assume responsibility for the building. And you aren't close to ready. Nor do you have the time: you're too busy whining.

[Robert]

Comrade Crum, you are really something. First you give me a link to a story about the apprehension of a slum lord and then complain that: "Here's a case where a slumlord (who owns a couple of bldgs on my street, among other things) was picked up. He STILL hasn't paid any fines, or fixed up any properties."

Then I do you the courtesy of opening and reading your link, and I read this:

"Mr. Brophy was released later on May 19, after paying approximately $42,000 in fines."

I'll concede your reasonable points when you make them, but dialog is pointless when you pull shit like this.

on edit: you owe your excellent city council an apology.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

In most cases, it is the bank which owns the property.ummm yeah ... i shouldn't have to explain this to you but its a capitalist economy ... very few people actually own any property ... so who are these property rights protecting? ..

anyway you just simplified my argument .. capitalism puts people in poverty conditions and profits off them ...


Why would a socialist community exceed its own habitability standards?are you just playing dumb?

the point is that the minimum standards for housing under capitalism result in squalor socialist standards would be higher to ensure that people are treated with dignity ...


Its almost impossible to evict a person from an aprtment. perhaps if you a member of a tenants union or you have a landlord that observes the law ... more then often slumlords who own properties such as the ones described above create labyrinthine lease agreements that allow legal evictions for things such as late rent or exceeding the number of tenants in a unit even if it means a child or elderly relative ... this is possible because often these slumlords are dealing with uneducated and poverty striken people that do not have the education required to digest a lease agreement or the funds to seek legal counsel ...


When the local inhabitants decide to live for free, or think they can live for free, such things tend to happen.that is not part of what i was reffering to ... where are people living for free? you seem to have lost your train of thought ... think it over and let me know what the fuck you are talking about ...


its a cautionary tale for socialism.how so dipshit?


Only the inhabitants are not going and blighting other neighborhoods.look it up shitheel ...

http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/142/gentrification.html



Much of Harlem’s outstanding brownstone stock has been transformed during this period from low-cost renter housing to homeownership and high-cost apartments. The average apartment in these buildings now rents for more than $1,700. People from across the city described almost unprecedented pressure from landlords who push tenants out in order to capture higher rents, including tenants who should have some protections under rent regulation.so where do these people go if not to other neighborhoods?


Fire dept. libraries, police have nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism vs. socialism. these are socialized programs paid for by tax dollars ... if these programs can be socialized and be effective what is your big complaint concerning socialized housing ?

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE]anyway you just simplified my argument .. capitalism puts people in poverty conditions and profits off them ...

Capitalism actually eliminates poverty.




the point is that the minimum standards for housing under capitalism result in squalor socialist standards would be higher to ensure that people are treated with dignity ...

Wealth, not socialism, increases housing standards.



this is possible because often these slumlords are dealing with uneducated and poverty striken people that do not have the education required to digest a lease agreement or the funds to seek legal counsel ...


Why do socialists always assume that poor folks are basically stupid? But then insist they are smart enough to run the system?

[NorthStarRepublicML]

you're not even trying anymore ....what a terribly inept debater you are ...

let me explain a few things to you.... when answering your opponents points through use of counterpoints it is expected that you present factual arguments or at least marshal some evidence to support your statements .... the following is an example:



Capitalism actually eliminates poverty.
ok you got the first part down .. you have made a statement ....but you fail in every other regard, this does not address the point i had made in the previous post by stating that in capitalism very few people own property and most of the properties are owned by banks (through aggressive lending practices) meaning that capitalism concentrates the means to acquire wealth (through property ownership and finance) into the hands of a few persons .... these persons use their control over property to gain wealth by sucking funds from their tenants...

you instead answer with bullshit rhetoric....

capitalism eliminates poverty?

fuckin prove it then .... how does concentrating wealth into the hands of a few individuals help the people living in Oakland housing projects or the native americans on Red Lake?


Wealth, not socialism, increases housing standards.oh it does, does it?

again fuckin prove it ....

you are not even being consistent with this one .... here is what i mean ... first you use the word "wealth" instead of capitalism which i take to mean you didn't really consider what you were saying before you typed it ...

anyway since capitalism concentrates the wealth into the hands of a few and many of those few are desire to attain greater wealth housing standards under capitalism are unlikely to change in a way that is going to bring about equality in housing .... since you claim to be a capitalist you should know already that wealth is created from profit .... and some of the various ways to increase profit is to fire workers, deny them benefits, or find other ways to bring down overhead costs ....

in the case of the landlord he will generate greater wealth the less he is forced to make costly improvements (such as re shingling, installing a new hot water heater, or removing harmful mold and asbestos), thus because in capitalism markets favor growth it is in the best interests of the land lord to do as little of these tasks as possible, even going so far as to hire lobbyists and make campaign contributions to prevent any changes to lax housing standards

so i genuinely fail to see how capitalism can deliver somehow make "wealth" increase housing standards ...

or are you talking about bringing wealth to the community that suffers from low housing standards? well again i fail to see how capitalism could deliver that ... but perhaps you would like to explain it to me ...?

socialism however would accomplish your "wealth increases housing standards" theory....because socialism distributes wealth in a more even manner instead of concentrating it this would ensure that lobbyists are not more influential then the residents of the community, that they would be able to afford higher education, that they would be able to seek and afford legal recourse should the land lords attempt to take advantage of them .....

however i don't imagine that land lords would even be an issue in socialism as housing as a basic need would be nationalized ...


Why do socialists always assume that poor folks are basically stupid? But then insist they are smart enough to run the system?look there is a difference between stupidity and uneducated ... take you for example ... you are likely going to a good school, you might live in the suburbs, and your parents supply you with the newest software and computers .... you have an education .... but your still stupid ...

no one is assuming that the poor are stupid only uneducated .... the majority of the poor are like the opposite of you .... uneducated but not stupid (once again .... you = educated but stupid)

now in closing i would also like to say that i don't at all mind having an argument with Pusher Robot or Capitalist Lawyer because although they may be capitalists they are not idiots and most of the time their arguments are put together .... but you two (green dragon and robert the shithead) are just a couple of dumb shits ... all i have seen from you two are the same tired old rhetoric and prepackaged .... it is my understanding that capitalists are allowed in these forums but they are not to turn every thread they post in into "arrrgh capitalism good! socialism is for the lazy!" rants and other bullshit non-arguments that are disruptive to more productive conversations ....

do yourselves a favor ...read up on what capitalism actually is before you declare yourself a capitalist and read up on socialism before you try to debate socialists ...

please consider yourselves spanked....

[Dr Mindbender]

^^^^

what this guy says... :)

[Green Dragon]

in capitalism very few people own property and most of the properties are owned by banks (through aggressive lending practices) meaning that capitalism concentrates the means to acquire wealth (through property ownership and finance) into the hands of a few persons .... these persons use their control over property to gain wealth by sucking funds from their tenants...

False. Property is valuable for the owner. Buy a house, and the house will be more valuable 10 years down the line. Buy property for business, and your making money above and beyond whatever the loan is.




capitalism eliminates poverty?

fuckin prove it then .... how does concentrating wealth into the hands of a few individuals help the people living in Oakland housing projects or the native americans on Red Lake?

Capitalism does not concentrate wealth in the hands of a few.




[QUOTE]
you are not even being consistent with this one .... here is what i mean ... first you use the word "wealth" instead of capitalism which i take to mean you didn't really consider what you were saying before you typed it ...

A wealthier community can afford to allocate more resources for better housing standards. I did not mistype (though I will concede to the charge I got lazy on that note).



[QUOTE]anyway since capitalism concentrates the wealth into the hands of a few and many of those few are desire to attain greater wealth housing standards under capitalism are unlikely to change in a way that is going to bring about equality in housing

What are you talking about? You go and on later about hot water heaters... You think maybe a poor community cannot afford to allocate resources in such a way? Do you think maybe such devices are a sign of INCREASING wealth, thus demonstrating the truth of what I wrote? Or does the socialist community pretend each year is really Year 0, and nothing before matters (unless it can be used to prove socialism?)



.... since you claim to be a capitalist you should know already that wealth is created from profit

Its probably more accurate to say that profit is a maesurement of wealth being created.



.... and some of the various ways to increase profit is to fire workers, deny them benefits, or find other ways to bring down overhead costs ....


True. Of course the socialist community has to solve the same problems as well.


in the case of the landlord he will generate greater wealth the less he is forced to make costly improvements (such as re shingling, installing a new hot water heater, or removing harmful mold and asbestos),

We can then assume the wealthiest landlords would be those who pitched a tent and maybe offerred to dig a latrine.


thus because in capitalism markets favor growth it is in the best interests of the land lord to do as little of these tasks as possible,

If the objective is for the building to fall apart, I suppose. But then the people who live aren't paying much in rent, and the capitalist is not making a profit.





or are you talking about bringing wealth to the community that suffers from low housing standards? well again i fail to see how capitalism could deliver that ... but perhaps you would like to explain it to me ...?


A community cannot allocate all its resources to housing. As it grows wealthier, through capitalism of course, it then has that greater ability to allocate more and perhaps even better resources to housing and other areas of the community.


socialism however would accomplish your "wealth increases housing standards" theory....because socialism distributes wealth in a more even manner

Well, prove it.



however i don't imagine that land lords would even be an issue in socialism as housing as a basic need would be nationalized ...

Even in a socialist community, you will need someone to do the job previously known as "landlord."




.... but you two (green dragon and robert the shithead) are just a couple of dumb shits ... all i have seen from you two are the same tired old rhetoric and prepackaged .... it is my understanding that capitalists are allowed in these forums but they are not to turn every thread they post in into "arrrgh capitalism good! socialism is for the lazy!" rants and other bullshit non-arguments that are disruptive to more productive conversations ....


I have never said "socialism is for the lazy." What I have asked is for socialists to actually defend socialism. Unless you are some sort of utopian and assume there are no problems ina socialist community, the socialist communuity will have to deal with issues like production, consumer demands, technological progress,ect. ect. ect. And a critique of capitalist methods of dealing with these issues is not a defense of socialism.

[Green Dragon]

in capitalism very few people own property and most of the properties are owned by banks (through aggressive lending practices) meaning that capitalism concentrates the means to acquire wealth (through property ownership and finance) into the hands of a few persons .... these persons use their control over property to gain wealth by sucking funds from their tenants...

False. Property is valuable for the owner. Buy a house, and the house will be more valuable 10 years down the line. Buy property for business, and your making money above and beyond whatever the loan is.




capitalism eliminates poverty?

fuckin prove it then .... how does concentrating wealth into the hands of a few individuals help the people living in Oakland housing projects or the native americans on Red Lake?

Capitalism does not concentrate wealth in the hands of a few.




[quote]
you are not even being consistent with this one .... here is what i mean ... first you use the word "wealth" instead of capitalism which i take to mean you didn't really consider what you were saying before you typed it ...

A wealthier community can afford to allocate more resources for better housing standards. I did not mistype (though I will concede to the charge I got lazy on that note).



[quote]anyway since capitalism concentrates the wealth into the hands of a few and many of those few are desire to attain greater wealth housing standards under capitalism are unlikely to change in a way that is going to bring about equality in housing

What are you talking about? You go and on later about hot water heaters... You think maybe a poor community cannot afford to allocate resources in such a way? Do you think maybe such devices are a sign of INCREASING wealth, thus demonstrating the truth of what I wrote? Or does the socialist community pretend each year is really Year 0, and nothing before matters (unless it can be used to prove socialism?)



.... since you claim to be a capitalist you should know already that wealth is created from profit

Its probably more accurate to say that profit is a maesurement of wealth being created.



.... and some of the various ways to increase profit is to fire workers, deny them benefits, or find other ways to bring down overhead costs ....


True. Of course the socialist community has to solve the same problems as well.


in the case of the landlord he will generate greater wealth the less he is forced to make costly improvements (such as re shingling, installing a new hot water heater, or removing harmful mold and asbestos),

We can then assume the wealthiest landlords would be those who pitched a tent and maybe offerred to dig a latrine.


thus because in capitalism markets favor growth it is in the best interests of the land lord to do as little of these tasks as possible,

If the objective is for the building to fall apart, I suppose. But then the people who live aren't paying much in rent, and the capitalist is not making a profit.





or are you talking about bringing wealth to the community that suffers from low housing standards? well again i fail to see how capitalism could deliver that ... but perhaps you would like to explain it to me ...?


A community cannot allocate all its resources to housing. As it grows wealthier, through capitalism of course, it then has that greater ability to allocate more and perhaps even better resources to housing and other areas of the community.


socialism however would accomplish your "wealth increases housing standards" theory....because socialism distributes wealth in a more even manner

Well, prove it.



however i don't imagine that land lords would even be an issue in socialism as housing as a basic need would be nationalized ...

Even in a socialist community, you will need someone to do the job previously known as "landlord."




.... but you two (green dragon and robert the shithead) are just a couple of dumb shits ... all i have seen from you two are the same tired old rhetoric and prepackaged .... it is my understanding that capitalists are allowed in these forums but they are not to turn every thread they post in into "arrrgh capitalism good! socialism is for the lazy!" rants and other bullshit non-arguments that are disruptive to more productive conversations ....


I have never said "socialism is for the lazy." What I have asked is for socialists to actually defend socialism. Unless you are some sort of utopian and assume there are no problems ina socialist community, the socialist communuity will have to deal with issues like production, consumer demands, technological progress,ect. ect. ect. And a critique of capitalist methods of dealing with these issues is not a defense of socialism.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

False. Property is valuable for the owner. Buy a house, and the house will be more valuable 10 years down the line. Buy property for business, and your making money above and beyond whatever the loan is.


[quote]
capitalism eliminates poverty?

fuckin prove it then .... how does concentrating wealth into the hands of a few individuals help the people living in Oakland housing projects or the native americans on Red Lake?

Capitalism does not concentrate wealth in the hands of a few.




[quote]
you are not even being consistent with this one .... here is what i mean ... first you use the word "wealth" instead of capitalism which i take to mean you didn't really consider what you were saying before you typed it ...

A wealthier community can afford to allocate more resources for better housing standards. I did not mistype (though I will concede to the charge I got lazy on that note).





What are you talking about? You go and on later about hot water heaters... You think maybe a poor community cannot afford to allocate resources in such a way? Do you think maybe such devices are a sign of INCREASING wealth, thus demonstrating the truth of what I wrote? Or does the socialist community pretend each year is really Year 0, and nothing before matters (unless it can be used to prove socialism?)




Its probably more accurate to say that profit is a maesurement of wealth being created.



True. Of course the socialist community has to solve the same problems as well.



We can then assume the wealthiest landlords would be those who pitched a tent and maybe offerred to dig a latrine.



If the objective is for the building to fall apart, I suppose. But then the people who live aren't paying much in rent, and the capitalist is not making a profit.





A community cannot allocate all its resources to housing. As it grows wealthier, through capitalism of course, it then has that greater ability to allocate more and perhaps even better resources to housing and other areas of the community.



Well, prove it.




Even in a socialist community, you will need someone to do the job previously known as "landlord."




I have never said "socialism is for the lazy." What I have asked is for socialists to actually defend socialism. Unless you are some sort of utopian and assume there are no problems ina socialist community, the socialist communuity will have to deal with issues like production, consumer demands, technological progress,ect. ect. ect. And a critique of capitalist methods of dealing with these issues is not a defense of socialism.wow i can just see you angerly smashing the keys typing your message, so entralled with your own bullshit you couldn't bother with the pesky message uploading .... your impatient has resulted in a double post .... good job jerkoff...

look i should keep having to keep going over the same shit with you time and time again .... i should just say go fuck yourself ....

but because you merely spit out more dribble it shouldn't take long ....

ok first off ...


Capitalism does not concentrate wealth in the hands of a few.bullshit it doesn't ... but don't take my word for it ... just ask the majority of the people in the world: http://www.csrwire.com/PressRelease.php?id=1970

or your friends at the NY Times who reported:


The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office shows.and



The total income of the top 1.1 million households was $1.8 trillion, or 18.1 percent of the total income of all Americans, up from 14.3 percent of all income in 2003. The total 2005 income of the three million individual Americans at the top was roughly equal to that of the bottom 166 million Americans, analysis of the report showed.still not convinced you can read the report yourself http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-HistoricalTaxRates.pdf

ok ...now this


What are you talking about? You go and on later about hot water heaters... You think maybe a poor community cannot afford to allocate resources in such a way? Do you think maybe such devices are a sign of INCREASING wealth, thus demonstrating the truth of what i wrote?ok ... i understand you are not just playing dumb ... you actually are a dumbshit ...

i'll explain and i'll use small and simple words ....

i was talking about housing standards and i was saying that because lower standards mean less investment on the part of the landlord it will always be in there best interests to oppose higher standards for rental housing ....

remember capitalists didn't voluntarily put airbags in the cars their companies sold until the state passed a law requiring it ... they fought it tooth and claw the whole way .... there is a term you use for low or no standards and regulation of the economy ... its called "liberalism" and it was coined by noted capitalist Adam Smith ...

everything we know from history and from modern economics supports the argument that capitalists favor absolutely no regulation...



Well, prove it.well i guess this is a good as time as any to remind you that you did not provide any sources or evidence of any of your claims ... but anyway ... just to illustrate the point concerning how socialism would deal with housing i thought it best to look at how a country such as Cuba (a place that you would consider third world or undeveloped) can have 85% of the population owning their own homes ....

here is a report concerning how housing works in Cuba post revolution: http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/education/oustanding_student_papers/kapur_smith_cuba_02.pdf



the socialist communuity will have to deal with issues like production, consumer demands, technological progress,ect. ect. ect.don't dig yourself a deeper home shithead ... just stick to the question of housing for now ...

[Green Dragon]

bullshit it doesn't ... but don't take my word for it ... just ask the majority of the people in the world: http://www.csrwire.com/PressRelease.php?id=1970


Their opinion. They are wrong.



or your friends at the NY Times who reported:
and
still not convinced you can read the report yourself http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-HistoricalTaxRates.pdf


Income is not the only source or measurement of wealth. Its also a poor source because its fluid; people have different incomes year to year because of decsions they make with other aspects of their overall wealth.






i was talking about housing standards and i was saying that because lower standards mean less investment on the part of the landlord it will always be in there best interests to oppose higher standards for rental housing ....


yeah, I understood what you were talking about. But guess what? You remain wrong across the board. Less standards mean less investment? Perhaps (it could also indicate a squandered investment. Throwing money at something doesn't always solve the problem). But it also means Less income to the landlors, since a tenant can always go and find another apartment.
As I said, tents are a hell of a lot less of an investment than a building. Think of all that money landlords could have been making all these years...



remember capitalists didn't voluntarily put airbags in the cars their companies sold until the state passed a law requiring it ... they fought it tooth and claw the whole way ..

Yep. Because airbags are expensive and the car companies were concerned that people would not wish to purchase the more expensive cars, but continue to drive their older cars longer. Its not just capitalists who like to keep expenses low as possible in their endeavors... most people do in their own endeavors.




everything we know from history and from modern economics supports the argument that capitalists favor absolutely no regulation...

That is not true. Most ESTABLISHED capitalists favor regulations on their industries under the theory that such regulation makes it more difficult for their competitors from being suuccessful.
Capitalists are the worse defenders of capitalism.




well i guess this is a good as time as any to remind you that you did not provide any sources or evidence of any of your claims ... but anyway ... just to illustrate the point concerning how socialism would deal with housing i thought it best to look at how a country such as Cuba (a place that you would consider third world or undeveloped) can have 85% of the population owning their own homes ....


I guess those 15% are the ones who flee Cuba. In any event the "owners" can't dispose of their property as they wish. That is not ownership. Its a farce.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Their opinion. They are wrong.then provide some evidence to the contrary .... excuse me if i don't just take your word for it


Income is not the only source or measurement of wealth. Its also a poor source because its fluid; people have different incomes year to year because of decsions they make with other aspects of their overall wealth.as i explained to you previously no one is going to take your arguments seriously unless you provide some evidence to refute these claims ...


But it also means Less income to the landlors, since a tenant can always go and find another apartment.obviously you have never rented before .... landlords have these things called Lease agreements ... they are like contracts that state if a tenant just decides to go and find another apartment when the lease is still in effect the landlord gets to keep your security deposit, pet deposit, or any other money you have given him ...

so no a tenant can not always go and find another apartment ... even if they could based on the low income of some tenants they would be unable to provide yet another security deposit and the move in costs ... this often forces low income people to remain in squalor ...


Think of all that money landlords could have been making all these years...they specialize in quantity not quality ...


Yep. Because airbags are expensive and the car companies were concerned that people would not wish to purchase the more expensive cars, but continue to drive their older cars longer.yeah exactly the companies pass off their responsibility to sell a safe product onto the people by charging them more for safer products ... what scum ...


That is not true.what kind of lollypop dream cake world are you swimming in snow white?

it is absolutely true and let me prove it to you ...

... now i understand that you never took a class or read a book on international relations or political science and frankly you don't know what the fuck you are talking about ... but see here kid ... the defining economic and political order of the world for at least the last hundred and fifty years has been liberalism ...

from wiki:
The liberal theory of economics is the theory of economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics) developed in the Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment), and believed to be first fully formulated by Adam Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith) which advocates minimal interference by government in the economy. The case for economic liberalism which began to be argued in the eighteenth century was the then-startling claim that if everyone is left to their own economic devices instead of being controlled by the state, then the result would be a harmonious and more equal society of ever-increasing prosperity[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism#_note-0) (see spontaneous order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order) and invisible hand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand)). It is the economic component of the political ideology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology) of classical liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism). The concept of economic liberalism or market liberalism underpinned the move towards a free market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market) capitalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) economic system in the late 18th century, and the subsequent demise of the mercantilist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism) system. Today, the liberal theory of economics is strongly associated with libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism), neoliberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberal) economics and some schools of conservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism), particularly liberal conservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_conservatism).


Most ESTABLISHED capitalists favor regulations on their industries

then name one ...


the theory that such regulation makes it more difficult for their competitors from being suuccessful.

are you taking crazy pills?


Capitalists are the worse defenders of capitalism.

case in point: YOU


I guess those 15% are the ones who flee Cuba.

i guess that means you didn't read the article?


In any event the "owners" can't dispose of their property as they wish.

exactly speculation is non-socialist ....


That is not ownership. Its a farce.

like when the bank owns the mortgage on your house?

look you need to just fuck off, you bore me with your ill informed opposition ... go read a book and then try posting ... until then you can just lick my balls sucka

[Nusocialist]

I've noticed a fair number of the RevLeft posters talk about a revolution (as in a literal, Bolshevik-style revolution), which they seem to think will occur in the not-too-distant future. Does anyone else think this is pretty ludicrous?

Here are my problems with the concept.

1. Communism is a dwindling ideology in the US. The US has never come close to open revolt by the workers, and I think that's even less likely today than it was in the 1930s (when the Communist Party in the US actually had a decent number of members). After all, who's going to revolt when the current system is so comfortable for the vast majority of the population?

2. Unlike in most countries where revolutions have occurred, the US actually does have a substantial number of gun owners. Unfortunately for our revolutionaries, the average gun owner in the US is on the conservative side (just look at any demographics map). Furthermore, the army is majority Republican (i.e. right-wing), certainly among the officer corps, but even among the troops (though, granted, the latter varies depending on the year and survey). However, since the army specifically screens out proponents of radical ideologies, there probably won't be much communist support there. Likewise, private military contractors are overwhelmingly conservative. So who exactly could marshal the necessary forces?Since when does it matter if what one supports is likely to come about soon? What is right is more important to me.

All the same can be said abotu rightwing libertarians as about socialists.


3. Turn on commercial TV. Just watch it for a little while. Then ask yourself: how many Americans could look all that material wealth in the eye and say "No?" The free market exists to give people what they want (at a price). Revolutions really can't compete with that offer.
"Free" market capitalism is an ill-defined concept that has never really existed and is unlikely too.

[Juche96]

Well, few of the marxists here would agree with your second clause, but I do. As for the "potential" for revolution mentioned in the first clause, no one can argue with any hypothesis. I don't care what they think. The important thing is what the data show. "Exploitation," as defined by Marx in Capital Vol 1, occurs when workers are paid less for their labor power than the value of what they produce. One example of this is sweatshop labor: A US, British, Belgian CO. pays a worker in Bangladesh 25 cents an hour (or, say 10 cents per shirt), and sells it for $15 in the US...A lot of profit was made. If the same shirt was made in the US, the worker would have a legal entitlement to minimum wage (i.e. AT LEAST $6 an hour + thousands in benefits), and therefore, there would not be a profit under these conditions. Thats why factories are over seas...this does not apply to textiles, but applies to any goods and resources produced.

There might be homeless people in the united states and Britain (who are a small minority), and others who are down on their luck, but they do not constitute an "exploited class" because they aren't producing surplus value as I described above.


But it seems to me the exploited in China, for example, were exploited and broke before entrepreneurship was allowed in recent years. Now they're still exploited but less broke. And many are millionaires. Many many more are simply rich. More than that are very comfortable, even more are just plain comfortable, and the numbers are growing. They hear stories about the opportunities to become affluent and the stories are true.You are conflating "broke" and "exploited." When the Communist party took over, the landlord class was abolished, the Japanese invaders were expelled, the country was unified, and laws were passed preventing foreigners from controlling their land, as they had done over the past couple of centuries. Furthermore, the country began a long and difficult path toward industrialization and sustainable development. By the late 1960's the Chinese were self-sufficient in agriculture and saw what was probably the most dramatic increases in life expectancy in world history (from about 35 in 1960 to about 70 in the middle 1970's). They also witnessed a dramatic decrease in infant mortality which was apparently due to universally available health care.

Compare this to India which started at the same level of development as China post WW2, and there is an entirely different story. India's food situation was precarious until recently and the percentage of the population that is undernourished is still much higher than China's was over 20 years ago. And even to this day, India has not caught up to where China was in terms of life expectancy and infant mortality 30 years ago.

You might also want to look at China's economic growth rate during the 1960's. You can look at google gap minder, or world bank data, or whatever, and you will notice that they have one of the fastest growing GDPs in the entire world. True, China was very poor back then due to centuries of exploitation and war. They might have been "broke", but they certainly weren't exploited.

For reasons I'm not completely clear about, China introduced "capitalist" reforms during the late 70's and early 80's (in the same way that the US had some "socialist" style reforms in the 1930's). They might have thought that this might make their country more competitive in the world market and given them access to more foreign capital. By the way, their government still credits Mao with laying the foundation for these reforms. It is difficult to see what effects these reforms will have in the long run, but I would predict that unless China starts investing in health and education more, there might be increasing crime, instability, and social unrest. There is some evidence that this is happening already in parts of the country side.


Maybe you can convince the Vietnamese to throw out the Americans again and reject capitalism in all its manifestations, but you're wasting your time in China. Not that you said anything about China.

Again, Vietnam instituted similar reforms as China and their economy seems to be growing fine. Though I admit that I haven't studied their economy too much. China, as I alluded to before, still has laws preventing foreign corporations from owing land and this goes for individual peasants as well--although leases are allowed. Much of the production is still in the state sector (2/3), and according to an article I read in the BBC, state owned mines and textile companies tend to have better safety standards and a far lower rate of accidents. Still, even though China and Vietnam have a communist party in power and Marxist ideology in place, they will have to invest more in the social services or I predict that there might be social unrest in th future.


Exactly where do you see a revolution brewing?Experience shows and Marxist ideology predicts that revolution (antithesis) will be the inevitable result of oppression and exploitation (capitalism or the thesis). Today, there is a communist revolution brewing in Nepal and parts of India. Most revolutionary energy however, seems to be in the form of the Islamic upsurge we see in Pakistan, Palestine, parts of Africa, and South East Asia. The ideology of these people is not Leninism, but their actions would be predicted from the theory. Unfortunately, the problem is that these Islamist groups tend to lack a cohesive organizational structure that revolutionary parties have. This seems to by why they haven't implemented many successful governments like communist parties have, and that many of their actions have degenerated into barbarism. This may change in the near future if they get better leadership.

[crimsonzephyr]

I've noticed a fair number of the RevLeft posters talk about a revolution (as in a literal, Bolshevik-style revolution), which they seem to think will occur in the not-too-distant future. Does anyone else think this is pretty ludicrous?

Here are my problems with the concept.

1. Communism is a dwindling ideology in the US. The US has never come close to open revolt by the workers, and I think that's even less likely today than it was in the 1930s (when the Communist Party in the US actually had a decent number of members). After all, who's going to revolt when the current system is so comfortable for the vast majority of the population?

2. Unlike in most countries where revolutions have occurred, the US actually does have a substantial number of gun owners. Unfortunately for our revolutionaries, the average gun owner in the US is on the conservative side (just look at any demographics map). Furthermore, the army is majority Republican (i.e. right-wing), certainly among the officer corps, but even among the troops (though, granted, the latter varies depending on the year and survey). However, since the army specifically screens out proponents of radical ideologies, there probably won't be much communist support there. Likewise, private military contractors are overwhelmingly conservative. So who exactly could marshal the necessary forces?

3. Turn on commercial TV. Just watch it for a little while. Then ask yourself: how many Americans could look all that material wealth in the eye and say "No?" The free market exists to give people what they want (at a price). Revolutions really can't compete with that offer.

referring to "1.", the vast majority of the US right now is contend. There are plenty of signs of new laws and restrictions the government will play on us. I, and i'm sure many others, agree that the people will not always be content. It's just a matter of time before the majority open their eyes and see what is wrong. Once the majority open their eyes, we will see revolution.

[Comrade Rage]

Comrade Crum, you are really something. First you give me a link to a story about the apprehension of a slum lord and then complain that: "Here's a case where a slumlord (who owns a couple of bldgs on my street, among other things) was picked up. He STILL hasn't paid any fines, or fixed up any properties."

Then I do you the courtesy of opening and reading your link, and I read this:

"Mr. Brophy was released later on May 19, after paying approximately $42,000 in fines."

I'll concede your reasonable points when you make them, but dialog is pointless when you pull shit like this.

on edit: you owe your excellent city council an apology.
You know what, you're right. I forgot about Brophy paying the 42 Grand.

I still don't get why I owe the Common Council an apology though. Maybe if you knew a little more about them...

[Green Dragon]

[quote=NorthStarRepublicML;1060494]then provide some evidence to the contrary .... excuse me if i don't just take your word for it


To the contrary of what? That they belive it? Or that they are wrong?



as i explained to you previously no one is going to take your arguments seriously unless you provide some evidence to refute these claims ...


Probably any economic textbook will explain it...



obviously you have never rented before .... landlords have these things called Lease agreements ... they are like contracts that state if a tenant just decides to go and find another apartment when the lease is still in effect the landlord gets to keep your security deposit, pet deposit, or any other money you have given him ...


Leave after the lease expires.





yeah exactly the companies pass off their responsibility to sell a safe product onto the people by charging them more for safer products ... what scum ...


They have been building SUV's for a while. Of course, why sneer at the car companies? Should not the airbag manufacturers have producedn for free? How about the metalworkers who produced the metals in an airbag? How about the miners who mined the metals? All scum, or are you just taking a simpleton's view of the issue?




... now i understand that you never took a class or read a book on international relations or political science and frankly you don't know what the fuck you are talking about ... but see here kid ... the defining economic and political order of the world for at least the last hundred and fifty years has been liberalism ...


Lord have mercy.





then name one ...

Buffet comes to mind, Bill gates, the americn automobile indusstry.




are you taking crazy pills?


Regulations increase costs to the business. the wealthier industries can more absorb them.






exactly speculation is non-socialist ....


Except that Castro is now forced to do exactly that to save socialism. Maybe that demonstrates that socialism has some flaws...

[NorthStarRepublicML]

cite some sources ....

here is a recent one from my local weekly ....

http://articles.citypages.com/2008-01-30/feature/the-slumlord-of-south-minneapolis/

it does a good job of showing how slumlords skirt the laws and remain rich on the labor of their tenants ...