Because the class war has yet to see its conclusion.
Results 1 to 20 of 28
Where's the beef?
Why do you think the world is not currently a global socialist system?
Eppur si muove -- Galileo Galilei
[FONT=Tahoma]
[/FONT]
Because the class war has yet to see its conclusion.
Why do you think the world in the 1200s wasn't a global capitalist society?
"If slavery is going to end then why do all the Southern states still practice it?" - Some guy, 1830
Because the capitalist system hasn't been gotten rid of and replaced.
Nobody knows.
Because capitalism had yet to go global and workers in advanced capitalist nations have been pacified via concessions. The USA military and intelligence services have something to do with it as well (as far as socialism being squashed in up and coming industrial nations). Plenty of reasons but the short version is- it's going to take a shock to radicalize the working class. Perhaps an economic crisis like one we've never seen or maybe an ecological disaster. So long as things (materially) keep going the way they are now (even during this current crisis) capitalism will be around a while. A mass movement in advanced capitalist nations won't form via ideology alone. I'm afraid it's going to take worsening material conditions for us to form a mass movement here in the west.
Well the Daily Worker in its hayday used to proudly proclaim the world as being 1/6th Communist. That number may be (and I'm guessing) roughly as high as you could get any group of people to do anything. Right now the Catholic Church is roughly 1/6 the world's poulation. Same with Islam.
I wonder if anyone could go higher.
A combination of foreign imperialist pressure and Red Scare propaganda still prevalent throughout the world.
The good guys haven't won yet.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
True. But honestly Best Mod while I disagree with you on method--I personally want best guys to win. I'm a Capitalist and all of that. But I certainly want the BEST for the world.
I'm at a loss to know who the good guys are. Personally, I think it's a "better" Capitalism. I understand you think different. And FWIW I would be a Communist in a heartbeat if that was the better way.
If you thought that was the better way. Seriously Bud, you don't think different than many of us here on many things. You've just still got this cold war red scare definition of socialism.
And it a FAIR definition of Communism. It really is the only Communism that has ever existed on the face of this earth. Yea Communism is great IN THEORY I am not denying that. But that theory has been around a long time and all it ever produced is Red Armies and Cold war rhetoric. And FWIW like America or not it is and was a milion times better than the Soviet Union or any Iron Curtain country. I was there in the 80s and while it wasn't hell on earth--it was a pretty basic way of living.
You can name all sorts of ways America is bad--but over all it gives the best way of life ever produced on planet earth.
YOu certainly won't see me saying "the USSR wasn't socialism" (there may be a per se in there, but I won't say that outright). But you also won't see me saying slavery wasn't capitalism, or the holocaust of native americans and other indigenous people.
I just don't buy into the red scare rhetoric where America was all roses and daisies since its founding and Russia was absolutely terrible. America, for blacks and natives was a fucking nightmare, at least equal to any of the worst things seen in the Soviet Union.
I respect both for their contributions to progress (and yes they both had many). I just think we can do better. And if we were to have real socialism now... I'd probably think we could do better.
Utopia is a journey, not a destination.
Using the extremely broad definition of socialist I'd be willing to bet that over half the world is socialist.
The theory of communism did'nt produce the leninist states. You know that.
Either way I don't even use the term communist anymore because of that connotation, I'm stick of having pointless semantics arguments.
hmmmm, not really, not in the ghettos, not for women and minorities, not for the ultra poor. I'm not saying the USSR was the best, but the US was not MUCH better, and it was'nt even much more democratic.
Not at all, there are dozens of countries that have produced a better way of life.
What do you mean by "the broad definition of socialism?" Where in the world does the working class own and control the means of production?
Eppur si muove -- Galileo Galilei
[FONT=Tahoma]
[/FONT]
Not that. That's why he said "broad definition." If you mean strict definition, than no.
But I would be more interested in you responding to my post
Based on my post, why isn't this thread a straw man?
You mean your rhetorical question, i.e. "Why do you think the world in the 1200s wasn't a global capitalist society?"? That's a non-response. Nothing to response to. I thought I posted in the OI Learning section.Not that. That's why he said "broad definition." If you mean strict definition, than no.
But I would be more interested in you responding to my post
Based on my post, why isn't this thread a straw man?
Alternately, can you point to a Marxian analysis of my question?
Eppur si muove -- Galileo Galilei
[FONT=Tahoma]
[/FONT]
Because workers in the industrialised nations know that they are not slaves in any sense of the word.
the definition of a slave is something that is constantly updated trought history.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
Do you think it helps a worker's self image to tell him he is a slave? Suppose he likes his job and makes a decent wage?
