[quote]new2training wrote:
Most of the people who are still destitute probably do not live any worse than their forefathers did in the preceding centuries. Hopefully their lot will change in the future. [/quote]
I beg to differ. Did you ask old folks in Africa or Latin America?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
…
in communism the people are the government(do not confuse communism with russia or china)
…
What people? Do you have any examples on a scale larger than a hippie commune or a kibbutz?
The only way collectivism can be enforced on any group larger than a small amount of volunteers is at the point of a gun. Mot people don’t want to live your way.
Yup. One has to wonder if Marx, being as brilliant as he was, didn’t see the consequences of someone actually trying to put his theory into practice.
If Marx was saying that human society may eventually EVOLVE to the point where no division of labor is necessary and that meeting basic human needs is as easy as pushing a button, then he may have something. However, I’ve read all four parts of Das Kapital, the Manifesto, and sundry other of his works, and I didn’t see that. Of course, I could be wrong.
[/quote]
The argument was that communism MUST deafeat capitalism because it is the superior economic system.
By eliminating the capitalist`s profit communism is able to outproduce capitalism which follows from the labour theory of value.
This was allread known to be wrong when it was written though, or at least it could have been had socialists cared to study economics.
Unfortunately they never do.
[quote]lixy wrote:
new2training wrote:
Most of the people who are still destitute probably do not live any worse than their forefathers did in the preceding centuries. Hopefully their lot will change in the future.
I beg to differ. Did you ask old folks in Africa or Latin America?[/quote]
No, did you?
How were their stories of malaria, beri-beri tribal warfare and death by gangrene?
[quote]lixy wrote:
new2training wrote:
Most of the people who are still destitute probably do not live any worse than their forefathers did in the preceding centuries. Hopefully their lot will change in the future.
I beg to differ. Did you ask old folks in Africa or Latin America?[/quote]
I’m not talking about on a scale of decades.
Are their lives worse now than they were in preceding centuries, before the advent of capitalism on a large scale?
Surely you do not believe that they all lived in a romanticized Agrarian Utopia.
They died at very young ages of disease, famine, and war just as many of them do now. It has been the unfortunate lot of nearly every society in human history.
My point was not that poverty has been eliminated but that the overall standard of living on a global scale is better now than it was in the past.
I believe that can be traced directly to the productivity and ingenuity spurred on by capitalism.
The beauty and weakness of capitalism is that it works on the principles of self-interest. Self-interest is the best motivator in human nature.
When coupled with just laws and a sense og moral justice, it is the best system available. It is not always couple thus unfortunately.
kroby, regarding your comment that dictators do not allow for communism, i think you fail to see the bigger picture and it is not that complicated. dictators are used by the U.S. power structure in order to suppress popular uprisings. these popular uprisings are a result of the poverty caused by the exploitation of U.S. corporations. the dictators were the ones that allowed U.S. corporations to exploit their countries natural wealth and labor power. of course the dictators got their piece of the pie.
i think that the people that favor capitalism here only favor completely free market capitalism which does not exist and could never exist. capitalism itself impedes free market capitalism. if society were transformed to a free market capitalist society it would only be a matter of time before a corporation would gain enough power to use the government to start to implement rules and regulations for its benefit.
if we look at history this is almost exactly what happened. corporations saw that they could gain an extraordinary amount of wealth and power if they manipulated the government.
the people that support capitalism in this thread remind me of the people that defended the monarchy. i just dont see how you can say that history ends here and that capitalism is the best socio-economic system and that no other socio-economic system will follow it.
actually, capitalism might the last socio-economic system as it could likely lead to the desetruction of this planet.
there are too many conflicts in this world to name that are a cause of the struggle for power and money and all of you choose to ignore them. i do not deny that capitalism has led to some advances but i also realize that is had led to grave problems.
you cannot think of communism, or any other socio-economic theory that has not come into existence, as a strict set of guidelines which must be imposed on everyone.
the bottom line here is to develop a popular organic movement, a society where all people of the world have more control of their lives and take responsabilty for the well being of each other and the well being of the earth instead of leaving that responsabilty in the hands of an elite whose primary concern is profit.
the U.S. did a very good of brainwashing its population to think of evil any time they hear the words communism, socialism, anarchism. the cold war ended but we can still see its effects as people have not learned to think for themselves. it doesnt matter how many times you read marx since marx is not the inventor nor the foremost authority on communism.
communism is an idea. an idea which has been set forth in order to liberate the working class so that man will have the freedom that he naturally seeks.
[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
list of problems that have arisen out of capitalism:
1)constant overthrow of governments followed by economic exploitation. example: indonesia, U.S. backed dictator takes power. immediately after he takes power he meets with people representing U.S. economic interests (rockafeller, lehman bros., etc.) and they decided how they were going to split up the spoils. there are countless instances just like this
[/quote]
Question: You said not to base Communism on what was and is in Russia and China. Why base Capitalism on what is in the US. During the cold war, the US was competing for world domination against a totalitarian form of government which was the most brutal the world has ever seen.
This would explain the reasoning behind your paragraph above. You can not tell me that the Soviet Union and China were not involved in backing dictators across the globe, starting violent revolutions, gaining control of countries and then deciding how to split the spoils…
Possibly, if there were no brutal enemy to combat, things would have been different.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Yup. One has to wonder if Marx, being as brilliant as he was, didn’t see the consequences of someone actually trying to put his theory into practice.
[/quote]
Ever read any of his books, he made it sound real good. Like you could do anything you like, work anywhere you want, be your own boss kind of things and everyone pitches in and does their share and live happily ever after.
Except that when they tried it, they had to force people to give up their farms, their factories, kill a lot of people and basically tear down society as we know it and create something else that did not work.
The only way the Soviets could begin their “Worker’s Paradise” was through force. Other wise no one would go along with it.
Edit: I re-read your post and see that you have read Marx.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
list of problems that have arisen out of capitalism:
1)constant overthrow of governments followed by economic exploitation. example: indonesia, U.S. backed dictator takes power. immediately after he takes power he meets with people representing U.S. economic interests (rockafeller, lehman bros., etc.) and they decided how they were going to split up the spoils. there are countless instances just like this
Question: You said not to base Communism on what was and is in Russia and China. Why base Capitalism on what is in the US. During the cold war, the US was competing for world domination against a totalitarian form of government which was the most brutal the world has ever seen.
This would explain the reasoning behind your paragraph above. You can not tell me that the Soviet Union and China were not involved in backing dictators across the globe, starting violent revolutions, gaining control of countries and then deciding how to split the spoils…
Possibly, if there were no brutal enemy to combat, things would have been different. [/quote]
you cant call russia and china communist because in communism government institutions are directly controlled by the people and the means of production are controlled by the people. this was not the case in russia or china.
you can call the u.s. capitalist because there is private ownership of the means of production and private ownership of the government(although at the local level people do have some power).
capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. communism is the communal ownership of the means of production.
i have stated again and again that i do not support the chinese and russian regimes. citing those countries as evidence is not a good argument against changing the current capitalist system.
the way i see it, is that the minority of people in the world like us here in the U.S. who benefit from capitalism can be equated to the house slave during the times of U.S. slavery. we think we are free and we consider ourselves fortunate because the master gives us his left over food, his old clothes, and he lets us sleep in the basement. and when the masters house is on fire we will be more concerned with saving the house than the master himself is cconcerned.
the majority of the people in the world who are oppressed can be equated to the field slave. the field slave comes into direct contact with exploitation, rape, and murder. when the field slave goes to the house slave and says that they have to free themselves the house slave says “why should we do that, what could be better than this?”. the fact remains that we are all slaves to a handfull of masters.
we are forced to dedicated our lives to work, work that in most instances is meaningless to us. we are told what to believe. we are not free.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Yup. One has to wonder if Marx, being as brilliant as he was, didn’t see the consequences of someone actually trying to put his theory into practice.
Ever read any of his books, he made it sound real good. Like you could do anything you like, work anywhere you want, be your own boss kind of things and everyone pitches in and does their share and live happily ever after.
Except that when they tried it, they had to force people to give up their farms, their factories, kill a lot of people and basically tear down society as we know it and create something else that did not work.
The only way the Soviets could begin their “Worker’s Paradise” was through force. Other wise no one would go along with it.[/quote]
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” sounds all fine and good but its unrealistic because people are not logic-machines. What if someone doesn’t WANT to work up to his ability? Gotta force 'em. I grew up in very poor circumstances and most people in the slums would just drink and fuck all the time.
Then, who decides what someone’s needs are? A committee? The local soviet?
Funny man. I trust you have a deeper understanding of the meaning of communism then Marx, who is “clearly” not the inventor.
The only thing you might have had what Marx did not is actually contact with the working class, but then again, you’re probably well fed middle class, with soft, pink hands.
bullshit of the highest caliber. Where are you from, exactly? Liberating the working class? You say Marx is not the authority yet you always mumble about the working class. Men naturally seeking freedom? People instinctively seek shelter, food, a mate and various ways to acquire power.
Now will you finally tell us why every communist revolution ended in a bloodbath and how your theory is gonna give us more happiness and riches then then a capitalist society? Do you have a clue how economic freedom is tied to personal property?
How come that, contrary to your stance, every socialistic “worker” paradise did create less free and self-determinind citizens who had no sense for the environment and apparently little time for culture and music (I’m just debunking your theory that capitalism is bad for culture) or tell me: how many songs from beyond the iron curtain do you know? And how come THEY always listened to western radio if they could?
And how does this work? Through the internets?
Through goodwill and camaraderie? Have you actually worked with “labour class” guys?
At the base, your hands are the means of production. Will your communist assembly determine how I have to work and with whom my girlfriend sleeps with? No? Then I can decide that I’m gonna be some sort of leader, why not, I think I’m qualified.
Your problem is, you don’t have a clue that all your theories did not stand the test of time.
All these nice ideas have already been field-tetsted. As it is with humans, there is a limited amount of how much discussing and friendly delegating can be made before the most charismatic or strongest but certainly the most ruthless will seize power. This is known since the ancient times.
I’m with Headhunter. Surreal.
Good night T-Nation. I’m gonna have nightmares.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I’m with Headhunter. Surreal.
Good night T-Nation. I’m gonna have nightmares.[/quote]
It is quite bizarre.
[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
we are forced to dedicated our lives to work, work that in most instances is meaningless to us. we are told what to believe. we are not free.[/quote]
I still do not understand. How would being part of a commune make work meaningful? Who would be in charge? Someone would end up being the boss, so you would still be working for someone. And someone like you would be telling us what to believe as you are doing now so we would still not be free.
Ok, so let’s break this down.
Since the Communist models we’ve seen thus far are not considered true communism, I would assume everyone would be living in a huge commune.
No one would own anything? So if you needed to go somewhere, what? You could just take any car?
Marx said you could be a painter one day and a poet the next or something similar, so what if you took a job that you really sucked at?
How would education play into this? If I went to college for 12 years to be a doctor, might I be pissed because a janitor was getting paid the same wage, or would I think I deserved better than someone who never attended school?
What if you thought the other members in the commune were getting more pay than you?
What would happen if someone got greedy, or powermad? History has shown us a lot of people like that. Would these people be simply eliminated? Anyone with any drive or modivation to better himself done away with?
What if mistrust broke out between members? Society itself, in this world, would fall appart, wouldn’t it?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Why not let the Venezuelan people deal with their own problems?
They’re not threatening a US mainland invasion, are they?
[/quote]
Agreed. Who the hell cares. Chavez is a dick, we knew it was coming, I still don’t care.
[quote]lixy wrote:
new2training wrote:
Most of the people who are still destitute probably do not live any worse than their forefathers did in the preceding centuries. Hopefully their lot will change in the future.
I beg to differ. Did you ask old folks in Africa or Latin America?[/quote]
A lot of the places in Africa were better off under colonialism. Of course, there was a lot of bad shit but if you look at Zimbabwe, Tanzania, whatever the Congo is today, the people were slowly getting better off.
The evil part of colonialism was ending and the whites began to actually improve the countries — railways, roads, telephones, and such. A road that used to cross the Congo, for ex, took a day. Now it takes a month and bandits patrol what’s left of the road. Countries that used to export food now are starving and have to beg the UN Relief Agency for food.
[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
the U.S. did a very good of brainwashing its population to think of evil any time they hear the words communism, socialism, anarchism. [/quote]
Mmm. Anarchism. Now you’re talking my language.
[quote]kroby wrote:
Mmm. Anarchism. Now you’re talking my language.[/quote]
During the recent summit in Montebello, they had footage of some of the protesters, and some of them had signs/t-shirts with the anarchy symbol on it.
What I find weird is that those signs are always held by skinny-ass long-haired little student types who look like they’d last about 10 minutes in a true anarchy before a large Hell’s Angels would stomp their asses and make an ashtray out of their skulls.
Somehow, I don’t think they’ve given their opinions much thought. If you want a lawless Mad Max type world, you better be very good at self reliance, or accept to be someone’s bitch in exchange for protection.
A true anarchy is a pipe dream. Remove all our law and order structures and you’ll see them reappear within days (in their more primitive, tribal form, but you’ll get power structures again, no matter what you do.)