| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Spores for European Microscopy  Bulk Substrate  Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order  Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale |
| |||||||
 Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
The Russian really kicked ass didn't they?
Yep they sure did. Shame that your only concept of "war" is watching an F16 drop bombs on a few goatherders. Then going out and having a ticker tape parade. I'm afraid real wars involve a little more than that. Russia's economic performance was dismal under communism You must be joking. Starting from zero to becoming a superpower in 20 years? What planet are you on? -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Evolving Resident Cynic  Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 5,385 Loc: Apt #6, The Vill |
| ||||||
That explains why before communism the area of the Soviet Union was a grain exporter, after communism, they couldn't even feed their own people. It also explains that while the U.S. aircraft had integrated circuits on silicon chips, the Soviet aircraft still relied on vacuum tubes. The Soviet Union collapsed due to an unworkable economy that didn't live up to it's B.S. promises, even the leaders who lived under it acknowledged this. Here Alex, I have a song for you and Eric... Capitalism by Danny Elfman (Oingo Boingo) There's nothing wrong with Capitalism There's nothing wrong with free enterprise Don't try to make me feel guilty I'm so tired of hearing you cry There's nothing wrong with making some profit If you ask me I'll say it's just fine There's nothing wrong with wanting to live nice I'm so tired of hearing you whine About the revolution Bringin' down the rich When was the last time you dug a ditch, baby! If it ain't one thing Then it's the other Any cause that crosses your path Your heart bleeds for anyone's brother I've got to tell you you're a pain in the ass You criticize with plenty of vigor You rationalize everything that you do With catchy phrases and heavy quotations And everybody is crazy but you You're just a middle class, socialist brat From a suburban family and you never really had to work And you tell me that we've got to get back To the struggling masses (whoever they are) You talk, talk, talk about suffering and pain Your mouth is bigger than your entire brain What the hell do you know about suffering and pain . . . (Repeat first verse) (Repeat chorus) There's nothing wrong with Capitalism There's nothing wrong with Capitalism There's nothing wrong with Capitalism There's nothing wrong with Capitalism -------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings. Edited by Evolving (01/10/03 08:39 AM)
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
Your post is full of hypocrisy and lies. I don't think it was. Give me some examples. First of all, I believe that human nature is a product of existing social conditions. And I have seen this for myself (i.e a homeless person, or worker behaves differently then a rich business person). You mean to say that every person in a certain socio-economic bracket acts exactly the same way? This is not true at all. I have heard of greedy rich people, but I have also heard of charitable rich people. I have known wonderful poor people, and I have known despicable poor people. People may be in different circumstances, but all of their actions CANNOT be explained by their economic situations. The excuse that marxism will never work because of human nature is intended for slanderous purposes, and nothing else. It is not an excuse. It is an observation that people throughout history have not always acted in the interests of their fellow Man. People cannot always be trusted to act in the interests of their community, or humanity, as a whole. History explicitly shows us this. Don't you find it very telling that in EVERY society that has EVER existed, there have been people who have had ambitions for power and wealth? It was not human nature that created the stalinist beacrucrats. Yes it was. Stalin wanted power. Seeking power is a common trait of human nature. That being said, I think the lessons of the Russian Revolution prove that it is possible to set up a working democratic collectiviezed economy. What is the point of implementing something if it cannot be maintained for very long? Furthermore it has been proven that collectivzed economies are more superior then market economies. (Cuba, Russia, China, developed economically faster after their revolutions which would not have been possible under capitalism). Proven by whom?? I disagree. And, even if this were true, I still believe that having economic production and consumption so strictly monitored and controlled is a muzzling of a people's rights. I think you are the biggest hypocrite when you say you are for human rights, and "democracy" but at the same time say that the imperialists were perfectly justified in their murderous interventions. I think you are the biggest hypocrite when you condemn an American police officer for hitting someone, but you don't condemn Chinese soldiers for intentionally shooting and killing demonstrators. I never said that America is infallible. We have made mistakes. If the imperialists were all that friendly as you say they are, they would not have bombed vietnam, or attacked north korea, china, When did the "imperialists" attack China? The only nation I can think of that attacked China was Japan in World War II. All of these examples that you cite were terribly complex regional disputes that cannot be %100 "blamed" on one person or nation. Because of your extreme political beliefs, you have undoubtedly absorbed only biased information on these occurrences. nor would they have so many nukes pointed at the USSR. In case you have forgotten, the USSR had a shitload of nukes pointed at America too. Obviously the fact that most of the workers in the deformed workers state (namely China) dont want capitalist restoration despite the deformities of the stalinist beacurcacy means nothing to you..... some democratic ideas you have indeed. Where did you hear this information? Sources please. I'm sorry, but I don't really trust any information that comes out of China, given what a stranglehold the government has on everything. With that being said, I have nothing further to say about what happens after the working class takes power. we are not fortune tellers and cannot predict the future, we only know the law of class struggle, and any problems that come up in the future will have to be delt then. By trying to answer your question with things im not sure of, would sound utopian and unrealistic (the world and politics is contradictory, it is not a linear line that we can predict). But, it is of PARAMOUNT importance to consider possible problems that will arise BEFOREHAND. It is stupid to dive into something blindly. I also wanted to add since you dont seem to get this, that restoration of capitalism after permenant revolution (i.e world revolution) is impossible for the reasons ive stated before. Ok, I will throw out some hypothetical situations of problems in a stateless society, where capitalism is supposedly "impossible to reimplement": Let's say that a private individual comes up with an amazing invention that will revolutionize a certain aspect of life. According to communist theory, he is required to share this invention, and the proceeds from it, with the "community". What if he doesn't feel like doing this? What if the possible profit from the invention entices him to sell it on the black market, so he can enjoy all of the proceeds from it? He could then have the ability to motivate people to work for him by giving them money, all so he could increase production and make more money. If there is no state authority to control behavior like this, what is to stop stuff like this from happening? Let's say that the state does not adequately respond to consumer demands for a certain good. A certain private individual starts producing this good in their home. Because of their intelligence, they are able to come up with a way to make this certain product so that it is cheaper and of higher quality than the state good. They sell it to people who willingly buy it. Now, this person has a lot of money. What is to stop him from getting bodyguards, hiring people to mow his lawn for him, and bribing people into giving him support and protection? And, these are just two possible scenarios. If there is no state that will enforce things, what is to stop everything from falling apart? You have not answered Question 2a yet. You have not given me details on how your post-state communal society would work. RandalFlagg
| |||||||
 Eric journeyman Registered: 12/28/02 Posts: 61 Last seen: 22 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Luvdemshrooms
You obviously don?t understand the nature of class struggle or communism judging by your response. But, seeing as how you are an NRA member, I will provide you one of many reasons why capitalist restoration would not be possible after a permanent revolution. The workers would be armed with weapons, and therefore the representatives elected to the soviets would watch what they are doing a little bit more. Its still not possible to bring back capitalism even if the workers weren?t armed, because there aren?t the material conditions that exist for that, having weapons is something that revolutionary marxists defend, and just another safeguard. Pinksharkmark You respond to my post with lies, and just say the exact opposite of what I say regardless of whether or not it bears any truth. Taiwan?s wealth is a result of the Chinese bourgeoisie fleeing china after Chang Kai Shek?s defeat in the 1949 revolution, the Chinese bourgeoisie fled with gold, money, and whatever belongings they could take. China still would not have developed to where it is today, had it still remain sub-ordinate to imperialist exploitation. The Chinese revolution brought the peasants and workers many gains including social security as well as the abolition of footbinding on women. South Korea just until very recently was a US military police state! And it the 70-80?s North Korea surpassed its economic development, this is obviously different now, for many reasons including lost of Soviet aid, and a UN starvation blockade as well as droughts. Find your own information on Russia yourself, its well known by a lot of people who are familiar with Russian history (not just communists) that 14 imperialist armies invaded Russia after 1917 in an attempt to overthrow the Bolsheviks. You said the workers state in Russia was set up by force, that is nothing but slanderous lies. The Russian revolution was a democratic revolution in that it had the popular support of the workers + peasants plus a large portion of the military, had it not been these people that supported and fought for the revolution, it would have been impossible for the Bolsheviks to form a government. Class struggle is bogus? To say this would be to ignore reality. Just look at the PMA lockout on the US west coast ports that costed the US economy $1 billion a day, or the recent British firefighters strike, just to name a few. Global warming could be dealt with better under a collectivized economy rather then a capitalist one. A collectivized economy looks at need, rather then profit. The technology to create non-polluting vehicles (i.e fuel cells) exist, and have proven to work, but the oil companies have been preventing this from coming in to use, including buying out companies and burying the technology, simply to protect their oil profits. Chinese workers want capitalism? I don?t think so, thousands of strikes, highway blockades and other labour actions by workers doesn?t sound like the working class wants capitalism to me. Randalflagg The USSR did not ever use nuclear weapons on civilians, nor did they first develop it unlike the US imperialists. The USSR having nuclear weapons was a nessesity for self defense that prevented the imperialists from unleashing nuclear terror on this workers state. Just look at some of the videos from Ronald Reagans era, where he frequently made jokes about starting ?limited nuclear warfare? with the USSR. The only nukes the USSR had pointed at the US, were in Cuba and were subsequently removed due to threats. When did the "imperialists" attack China? The only nation I can think of that attacked China was Japan in World War II. In case you forget, Japan is a imperialist country! And China was attacked by the UN soldiers during the Korean war when UN troops crossed into China, resulting in a Chinese response that drove the imperialists to the Yalu river in Korea, where the US now have bases. I will post links for you on the bottom of this post to news articles about various labour actions that have taken place in China AGAINST reforms. Your hypothetical theory has flaws, as in a highest stage of communism, that is after there are no classes and the state withers away, there is no longer any material basis for anyone to want more money, as everything is already provided and produced, working hours reduced, and money is non-existant. This is after a high rate of development, which would take at least two or three generations living in the lower stages of communism, to reach this point. Oh yeah, I forgot..... I told you i know about the bad stalinist bearucrats, and I condemn the chinese government for what happened at tieniman square, and call for the overthrow of the stalinist bearucrats. However, at the same time I defend the gains of the chinese revolution against capitalist restoration. It might surprise you to know that the students at tieniman square were not anti-communists, they wanted an end to corruption, and wanted democracy, but they were not against the collectivized economy. I have videos of the demonstrators singing the internationale with red flags. It might also surprise you to know that the government was not able to send in troops to repress the demonstrators so easily. a group of chinese generals got together in response and signed a petition stating that the Peoples Liberation Army serves the people and does not fire on them. It was not till a few months after or so that the stalinists were able to find a unit loyal enough to enter beijing. http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/03/13/china.unrest/index.html http://www.amrc.org.hk/alu/Alu40/014002.htm Edited by Eric (01/10/03 08:41 AM)
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!?    Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
You obviously don't understand human nature. Keep dreaming though.
It's good to have a dream. Thanks for finally answering my question though.... you'll kill those who don't go along with you. Or at the very least force them. Sounds very equal and like just the type of world I'd want to live in. 
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers Edited by luvdemshrooms (01/10/03 08:46 AM)
| |||||||
|
Eric journeyman Registered: 12/28/02 Posts: 61 Last seen: 22 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Evolving,
This song is better =) Dead Prez - Police State [Sample of Chairman Omali Yeshitela:] You have the emergence in human society of this thing that's called the State. What is the State? The State is this organized bureaucracy. It is the police department. It is the Army the Navy. It is the prison system the courts and what have you. This is the State it is a repressive organization. But the state and gee well you know you've got to have the police because if there were no police, look at what you'd be doing to yourselves -- you'd be killing each other if there were no police! But the reality is the police become necessary in human society only at that junction in human society where it is split between those who have and those who ain't got. I throw a Molotov cocktail at the precinct You know how we think: Organize the hood under I Ching banners, Red, Black and Green instead of gang bandannas FBI spying on us through the radio antennas And them hidden cameras in the streetlight watching society With no respect for the people's right to privacy I'll take a slug for the cause like Huey P. while all you fake niggas try to copy Master P I want to be free to live Hey, (but?) they have what I need to live Bring the power back to the street where the people live I'm sick of working for crumbs and filling up the prisons Dying over money and relying on religion For help. We do for self like ants in a colony Organize the wealth into a socialist economy A way of life based off the common need And all my comrades are ready We just spreading the seed (Chorus:) The average Black male Live a third of his life in a jail cell Cause the world is controlled by the white male And the people don' never get justice And the womben don' never get respected And the problems don' never get solved And the jobs don' never pay enough So the rent always be late. Can you relate? We living in a police state No more bondage, no more political monsters No more secret space launchers Government departments started it in the projects Material objects, thousands up in the closets Could've been invested in a future for my comrades Battle contacts, primitive weapons out in combat Many never come back Pretty niggas be running with gats Rather get shot in they back than fire back We tired of that Corporations hiring Blacks, denying the facts Exploiting us all over the map That's why I write the shit I write in my raps It's documented, I'm in it Every day of the week I live in it, breathing it It's more than just fucking believing it I'm holding in ones, rolling up my sleeves an' shit It's (Cee-lo?) for push-ups now Many headed for one conclusion Niggas ain't ready for revolution (Chorus:) The average Black male live a third of his life in a jail cell Cause the world is controlled by the white male And the people don' never get justice And the womben don' never get respected And the problems don' never get solved And the jobs don' never pay enough So the rent always be late. Can you relate? We living in a police state. [Sample of Chairman Omali Yeshitela:] (That's right, that developed?) me: brought me here and worked me like an animal. Built the political economy off my stolen labor. Made them rich. Made me poor. (Chorus:) The average Black male Live a third of his life in a jail cell Cause the world is controlled by the white male And the people don' never get justice And the womben don' never get respected And the problems don' never get solved And the jobs don' never pay enough So the rent always be late. Can you relate? We living in a police state [Sample of Chairman Omali Yeshitela:] Why is it that Black people and everybody like us live in the kind of poverty and misery that we live in? Everywhere I look around me are nothing but poverty and misery, on the one hand. And yet, what I'm seeing is that everywhere there's wealth and riches in the world it's in the white community somewhere, whether it's in europe or whether it's right cross the street from where I was born.
| |||||||
|
Evolving Resident Cynic Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 5,385 Loc: Apt #6, The Vill |
| ||||||
|
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
-------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
| |||||||
|
Innvertigo Vote Libertarian!!   Registered: 02/08/01 Posts: 16,296 Loc: Crackerville, Mi |
| ||||||
-------------------- 
America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
The USSR did not ever use nuclear weapons on civilians, The U.S. used nuclear weapons on Japan to end the war. Given how tenacious Japanese resistance had been(even after the war was obviously lost), it is reasonable to assume that by dropping those bombs, we ended the war sooner. President Truman thought that in the long run, this would actually end up saving lives. nor did they first develop it unlike the US imperialists. All of the major powers who were capable of doing so, were trying to develop nuclear weapons. The USSR having nuclear weapons was a nessesity for self defense that prevented the imperialists from unleashing nuclear terror on this workers state. While the Soviet Union was "defending" the workers from imperialism, they engaged in some imperialism of their own. Ever hear of the Hungarian revolt in November of 1956? The Soviets sent in the Red Army because the citizens of Hungary were sick of the Soviet controlled puppet regime. The only nukes the USSR had pointed at the US, were in Cuba and were subsequently removed due to threats. ??? You don't remember the meetings between Gorbachov and Reagan where they decided to destroy THOUSANDS of nuclear weapons in a mutual pact? The USSR had a SHITLOAD of nuclear weapons, most of which *gasp* WERE pointed at the U.S. The Chinese demonstrators wanted an end to corruption, and wanted democracy They wanted democracy. Every single communist revolution has promised it, and not one has delivered and maintained it. In case you forget, Japan is a imperialist country! Yeah, anytime a country invades another country in order to try to take it over, that could qualify as being an imperialist action. Kind of like when the USSR and Germany made a secret deal to partition Poland in 1939. But all of that shit is unimportant. We really should be talking about how you intend to make communism work. I gave some hypothetical examples of problems that could arise and you wrote the following: Your hypothetical theory has flaws, as in a highest stage of communism, that is after there are no classes and the state withers away, there is no longer any material basis for anyone to want more money everything is already provided and produced, working hours reduced, and money is non-existant. You assume that when everybody's material NEEDS are provided, they will no longer WANT unnecessary things. Can you be that blind? People will always want things. And, what will happen if the state is unable to provide products of sufficient quantity and quality to appease all of the wants of all of the various people? Black markets will arise. When people have a roof over their heads and food in their stomachs, they still dream about new and better stuff. What if a person dreams of having more than the state provides? What if someone dreams of having a big house? What if that person engages in some type of black market economic work or trade in order to obtain enough resources to trade with someone else, so that they can obtain the certain something that they really want? This type of activity would bring about disparity of resources. If there is no state to stop this behavior, stuff like this could cascade and capitalism could re-establish itself. This is after a high rate of development, which would take at least two or three generations living in the lower stages of communism, to reach this point. What makes you think that every single person on Earth would willingly live under an economic dictatorship, in order to ensure a "classless" world for the future generations? Do you think that every person on Earth would willingly sacrifice themselves and their interests like that? RandalFlagg
| |||||||
|
Eric journeyman Registered: 12/28/02 Posts: 61 Last seen: 22 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
I see you ignored half of my post, including most importantly the Chinese workers opposition towards capitalism in which i provided you links to! But nonetheless I will answer the points you bring up, though it is hard since it is hypothetical, and thus either one of us can make up anything.
First things first, the Soviet Union were not imperialists, and you clearly do not know the definition of imperialism. Imperialism refers to the export of capital to other countries, and the use of that capital for exploitation of workers, natural resources...etc. Yes, the USSR invaded eastern bloc countries, but these were not acts of imperialism as the stalinists could not own anything, and hence were not imperialist actions. Consider for example the USSR buying Cuban sugar and double market prices and selling cheap goods to Cuba. That cannot be considered imperialism. "They wanted democracy. Every single communist revolution has promised it, and not one has delivered and maintained it." This statement is wrong, and ignores the conditions leading up to the deformities of the USSR, which i have explained. The other revolutions that happened in China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea...etc happened after the stalinist upsurption of power, and thus were modeled after the stalinist regime and ideology of "socialism in one country". Stalin lived in paranoia of being exposed by the real communists, and killed most of them. He was actually a professional bank robber before the 1917 revolution, and never wrote any books himself, except for one in which Lenin helped him on. Now, going to your hypothetical problem. You say I assume there isnt any want, thats not true at all, but what could you possibily want when you have everything and anything that is possible? I said its impossible because there is no material basis. Of course, a high development to the height of the highest stage of communism, is very advanced and unimaginable to us what new technology the socialist future would bring. Let us consider now that over 3 billion people live on less than $2.00 a day (figures according to the UN). Suppose a high development means that we raise the standard of living of the entire world to that of middle class america right now..... (and this is entirely possible with technology, and a large workforce which right now is mainly unemployed in places like the african desert). Assuming all this is true, there are no classes, then there is no matieral basis to re-implement capitalism. Why would anyone then want to go back to the old days of exploitation when in the socialist world they can persue their interests such as arts, sciences, entertainment, while working less and living a realitively high standard of living. Here is an excerpt from the "ABC of Communism" that describes what im talking about. "? 21 Administration in the communist system In a communist society there will be no classes. But if there will be no classes, this implies that in communist society there will likewise be no State. We have previously seen that the State is a class organization of the rulers. The State is always directed by one class against the other. A bourgeois State is directed against the proletariat, whereas a proletarian State is directed against the bourgeoisie. In the communist social order there are neither landlords, nor capitalists, nor wage workers; there are simply people - comrades. If there are no classes, then there is no class war, and there are no class organizations. Consequently the State has ceased to exist. Since there is no class war, the State has become superfluous. There is no one to be held in restraint, and there is no one to impose restraint. But how, they will ask us, can this vast organization be set in motion without any administration? Who is going to work out the plans for social production? Who will distribute labour power? Who is going to keep account of social income and expenditure? In a word, who is going to supervise the whole affair? It is not difficult to answer these questions. The main direction will be entrusted to various kinds of book-keeping offices or statistical bureaux. There, from day to day, account will be kept of production and all its needs; there also it will be decided whither workers must be sent, whence they must be taken, and how much work there is to be done. And inasmuch as, from childhood onwards, all will have been accustomed to social labour, and since all will understand that this work is necessary and that life goes easier when everything is done according to a prearranged plan and when the social order is like a well-oiled machine, all will work in accordance with the indications of these statistical bureaux. There will be no need for special ministers of State, for police and prisons, for laws and decrees - nothing of the sort. Just as in an orchestra all the performers watch the conductor's baton and act accordingly, so here all will consult the statistical reports and will direct their work accordingly. The State, therefore, has ceased to exist. There are no groups and there is no class standing above all other classes. Moreover, in these statistical bureaux one person will work today, another tomorrow. The bureaucracy, the permanent officialdom, will disappear. The State will die out. Manifestly this will only happen in the fully developed and strongly established communist system, after the complete and definitive victory of the proletariat; nor will it follow immediately upon that victory. For a long time yet, the working class will have to fight against, all its enemies, and in especial against the relics of the past, such as sloth, slackness, criminality, pride. All these will have to be stamped out. Two or three generations of persons will have to grow up under the new conditions before the need will pass for laws and punishments and for the use of repressive measures by the workers' State. Not until then will all the vestiges of the capitalist past disappear. Though in the intervening period the existence of the workers' State is indispensable, subsequently, in the fully developed communist system, when the vestiges of capitalism are extinct, the proletarian State authority will also pass away. The proletariat itself will become mingled with all the other strata of the population, for everyone will by degrees come to participate in the common labour. Within a few decades there will be quite a new world, with new people and new customs. ? 22 The development of productive forces in the communit system (the advantages of communism) As soon as victory has been achieved and as soon as all our wounds have been healed, the communist system will rapidly develop the forces of production. This more rapid development of the forces of production will be due to the following causes. In the first place, there will have ensued the liberation of the vast quantity of human energy which is now absorbed in the class struggle. Just think how great is the waste of nervous energy, strength, and labour - upon the political struggle, upon strikes, revolts and their suppression, trials in the lawcourts, police activities, the State authority, upon the daily effort of the two hostile classes. The class war now swallows up vast quantities of energy and material means. In the new system this energy will be liberated; people will no longer struggle one with another. The liberated energy will be devoted to the work of production. Secondly, the energy and the material means which now are destroyed or wasted in competition, crises, and wars, will all be saved. If we consider how much is squandered upon wars alone, we shall realize that this amounts to an enormous quantity. How much, again, is lost to society through the struggle of sellers one with another, of buyers one with another, and of sellers with buyers. How much futile destruction results from commercial crises. How much needless outlay results from the disorganization and confusion that prevail in production. All these energies, which now run to waste, will be saved in communist society. Thirdly, the organization of industry on a purposive plan will not merely save us from needless waste, in so far as largescale production is always more economical. In addition, it will be possible to improve production from the technical side, for work will be conducted in very large factories and with the aid of perfected machinery. Under capitalism, there are definite limits to the introduction of new machinery. The capitalist only introduces new machinery when he cannot procure a sufficiency of cheap labour. If he can hire an abundance of cheap labour, the capitalist will never instal new machinery, since he can secure ample profit without this trouble. The capitalist finds machinery requisite only when it reduces his expenses for highly paid labour. Under capitalism, however, labour is usually cheap. The bad conditions that prevail among the working class become a hindrance to the improvement of manufacturing technique. This causal sequence is peculiarly obvious in agriculture. Here labour power has always been cheap, and for that reason, the introduction of machinery in agricultural work has been extremely slow. In communist society, our concern will not be for profit but for the workers. There every technical advance will be immediately adopted. The chains which capitalism imposed will no longer exist. Technical advances will continue to take place under communism, for all will now enjoy a good education, and those who under capitalism perished from want - mentally gifted workers, for instance - will be able to turn their capacities to full account. In communist society parasitism will likewise disappear. There will be no place for the parasites who do nothing and who live at others' cost. That which in capitalist society is squandered by the capitalists in gluttony, drunkenness, and riotous living, will in communist society be devoted to the needs of production. The capitalists, their lackeys, and their hangers-on (priests, prostitutes, and the rest), will disappear, and all the members of society will be occupied in productive labour. The communist method of production will signify an enormous development of productive forces. As a result, no worker in communist society will have to do as much work as of old. The working day will grow continually shorter, and people will be to an increasing extent freed from the chains imposed on them by nature. As soon as man is enabled to spend less time upon feeding and clothing himself, he will be able to devote more time to the work of mental development. Human culture will climb to heights never attained before. It will no longer be a class culture, but will become a genuinely human culture. Concurrently with the disappearance of man's tyranny over man, the tyranny of nature over man will likewise vanish. Men and women will for the first time be able to lead a life worthy of thinking beings instead of a life worthy of brute beasts. The opponents of communism have always described it as a process of sharing things out equally. They declared that the communists wanted to confiscate everything and to divide everything up; to parcel out the land, to divide up the other means of production, and to share out also all the articles of consumption. Nothing could be more absurd than this notion. Above all, such a general division is impossible. We could share out land, horses and cattle, money, but could not share out railways, machinery, steamboats, and various other things of the sort. So much for that. Furthermore, such a division, as far as practicable, would not merely do no good to anyone, but would be a backward step for mankind. It would create a vast number of petty proprietors. But we have already seen that out of petty proprietorship and the competition among petty proprietors there issues large-scale proprietorship. Thus even if it were possible to realize such an equal division, the same old cycle would be reproduced. Proletarian communism (or proletarian socialism) is a huge cooperative commonwealth. It is a sequence of the whole development of capitalist society and of the condition of the proletariat in that society. It must be carefully distinguished from the four following things 1. Lumpenproletarian socialism (anarchism). The anarchists reproach the communists on the ground that communism (so they contend) will maintain the State authority in the future society. As we have seen, the assertion is false. The essential difference consists in this, that the anarchists are far more concerned with dividing up than with the organization of production; and that they conceive the organization of production as taking the form, not of a huge cooperative commonwealth, but of a great number of 'free', small, self-governing communes. It need hardly be said that such a social system would fail to liberate mankind from nature's yoke, for in it the forces of production would not be developed even to the degree to which they have been developed under capitalism. Anarchism would not increase production, but would disintegrate it. It is natural that, in practice, the anarchists should advocate the dividing up of articles of consumption and should oppose the organization of large-scale production. They do not, for the most part, represent the interests and aspirations of the working class; they represent those of what is termed the lumpenproletariat, the loaferproletariat; they represent the interests of those who live in bad conditions under capitalism, but who are quite incapable of independent creative work. 2. Petty-bourgeois socialism. This finds its main supporters, not in the proletariat, but in the decaying class of independent artisans, among the lower middle-class townsfolk, and in part among the intelligentsia (professional classes). It protests against large-scale capital, but it does so in the name of the 'freedom' of petty enterprise. For the most part the petty-bourgeois socialists advocate bourgeois democracy and oppose the social revolution; they hope to attain their ideals 'peacefully' - through the development of cooperatives, a unified organization of home workers, and so on. In Russia, most of the urban cooperatives formed by the social revolutionists exhibit this complexion. Under capitalism, cooperative enterprises are apt to degenerate into ordinary capitalistic organizations, and the cooperators can in this case hardly be distinguished from bourgeois. 3. Agrarian peasant socialism. This assumes various forms, and at times closely resembles peasant anarchism. Its most distinctive characteristic is the way in which it habitually fails to look upon socialism as a system of large-scale production, and the way in which it inclines towards dividing up and towards equalization. Its main distinction from anarchism is that it demands the creation of a strong central authority which shall protect it on the one hand from the landlords and on the other from the proletariat. In this form of socialism we have the 'socialization of the land' advocated by the social revolutionists, who desire to establish small-scale production in perpetuity, who dread the proletariat, and who oppose the formation of a great and united cooperative commonwealth. In addition, among certain strata of the peasantry, we find yet other varieties of socialism more or less akin to anarchism. Here the State authority is repudiated, but the advocates of these trends are distinguished by their pacifist views (various communistically inclined sectaries, such as the Duhobors, etc.). The agrarian types of socialism will not be eradicated until after the lapse of a good many years. They will disappear as soon as the masses of the peasantry come to realize the advantages of large-scale production. We shall return to this matter later in the book. 4. Slaveholding and large-scale capitalistic socialism (so-called). In this form we cannot discern so much as a trace of socialism. In the three varieties previously mentioned, we find at least some tincture of socialism, and we find in them a protest against oppression; but in the fourth variety, the one we are now considering, the 'socialism' is a mere word, fraudulently employed by those who want a new shuffle of the cards. This variety was introduced by bourgeois intellectuals and was taken over from them by the socialist advocates of class collaboration (and in part by Kautsky & Co.). Of such a character, for example, was the communism of Plato, the philosopher of ancient Greece. The essential characteristic of his system was that the slaveholders' organization would in 'comradely' fashion and 'jointly' exploit the mass of slaves who were to have no legal rights. As far as the slave-owners were concerned there would be perfect equality and all things would be held in common. The case of the slaves was to be very different; they were to become mere cattle. Obviously this has nothing whatever to do with socialism. A similar sort of 'socialism' has been advocated by certain bourgeois professors under the name of 'State socialism'. The only difference from Plato's variety is that contemporary proletarians have taken the place of the slaves, while the capitalist magnates sit in the seats of the mighty in place of the slaveowners. Here, likewise, there is no trace of socialism. We have State capitalism, based upon forced labour. To this matter we shall return. Petty-bourgeois, agrarian, and lumpenproletarian socialism have one characteristic common to them all. Such varieties of non-proletarian socialism are outside the general course of evolution. The course of social evolution leads to the expansion of production. But in these nonproletarian varieties the whole trend is towards small-scale production. Inevitably, therefore, socialism of this kind is nothing more than a utopian dream. There is no likelihood of its actual realization." (taken from http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/03.htm#021)
| |||||||
|
Evolving Resident Cynic Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 5,385 Loc: Apt #6, The Vill |
| ||||||
|
Jeez, that's some crazy ass dogma you've stepped in.
 Who ever wrote that is seriously out of touch with reality. These ideas and their presentation have some the hallmarks of a religious cult (with the exception of a diety, or is 'the collective' your diety?), I suggest that you expand your reading list to include things other than fantasy.
-------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
| |||||||
|
Eric journeyman Registered: 12/28/02 Posts: 61 Last seen: 22 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Actually, that was only an excerpt from the book. The rest of the book refrains from such hypothetical discussions, which sounds utopian and dogmatic if you only focus on that section. A socialist future would be highly developed beyond our current imagination, so explaining that is somewhat difficult.
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Here Alex, I have a song for you and Eric...
I knew it. A oingo boingo fan It all makes sense now.... -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
I see you ignored half of my post, including most importantly the Chinese workers opposition towards capitalism in which i provided you links to! http://www.amrc.org.hk/alu/Alu40/014002.htm -this link was broken http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/03/13/china.unrest/index.html -this CNN link was about the following: Tens of thousands of laid-off workers are protesting outside China's biggest oil field, angry at a dispute over their severance and at not being able to organize their own unions So a repressive government lied to it's workers, and won't let them unionize....that is a potent argument against the Chinese government, not capitalism. And it gets better! A few paragraphs into the article it says this: But a Chinese labor rights activist said local authorities have readied paramilitary police and an army tank regiment. The troops have not confronted the protesters, said Han Dongfang, who runs a Hong Kong-based labor rights monitoring group. So, the Chinese authorities are preparing to use deadly force against demonstrators. That wouldn't be the first time that has happened in this "worker's paradise". But, probably what you were trying to get across to me was in this paragraph of the article: The protests spotlight the potential for social unrest in China, as it trims down or closes unprofitable government-run enterprises. I thought communism was supposed to run like a super-productive "well-oiled machine". Why would the Chinese government run industries which were not profitable? By doing this, they only waste resources and hurt economic output. So, the Chinese government subsidized an unprofitable industry, and then they suddenly stopped doing it. What resulted was a bunch of people getting laid off. If the Chinese government hadn't have interfered and propped up an unprofitable industry in the first place, that would have never happened. This article does not say anything about the Chinese population's hatred of capitalism. It just illustrates the odious behavior of the Chinese government. First things first, the Soviet Union were not imperialists, and you clearly do not know the definition of imperialism. Imperialism refers to the export of capital to other countries, and the use of that capital for exploitation of workers, natural resources...etc. Webster New Collegiate Dictionary: Imperialism - the policy, practise, or advocacy of extending power and dominion of a nation esp. by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas the USSR invaded eastern bloc countries, but these were not acts of imperialism as the stalinists could not own anything, and hence were not imperialist actions. According to Webster's Dictionary, the USSR engaged in imperialism. Stalinists didn't "own" anything, but they lived lives of luxury in comparison to their "comrades". They also exercised complete and utter control over their citizen's lives. These Stalinists might not have owned factories and businesses, but they lived like kings while segments of the population starved. I find it ironic that they espoused a society of "equals", but they gladly became the new bourgeois. Perhaps human nature played a part? "They wanted democracy. Every single communist revolution has promised it, and not one has delivered and maintained it." This statement is wrong, and ignores the conditions leading up to the deformities of the USSR It most certainly is not. Give me one example of a communist revolution that resulted in a stable and maintained democratic communism. And, if communism is such a good system, why was it not able to deal with the deformities? Now, going to your hypothetical problem. You say I assume there isnt any want, thats not true at all, but what could you possibily want when you have everything and anything that is possible? The fundamental concept that communism rests its hopes on is major technological advancement. In order for communism to provide anything that anybody could ever want, there need to be massive strides in technology. Technology originates from intelligent people. Don't you think it is possible that the incentive to pursue ideas might be muted, because there would be no personal incentive to do so? In other words, your efforts would result in no reward for yourself, because all of the fruits of your efforts are taken away from you. If the pursuit of ideas and effort are muted, technological advancement will proceed at a snail's pace. And, I have said repeatedly that there are instances when the "community production resources" cannot provide everything and anything in sufficient quantity and quality, to meet the demands of the population. There is no arguing that when this happens, black markets will arise. I read through all of that Marxist stuff from the book that you posted. Needless to say, I don't agree with it. Our arguments are again bordering on redundancy. I don't really see a need to continue them. It is obvious that neither of us will probably change our perspective. RandalFlagg
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
revolution that resulted in a stable and maintained democratic
Chile? Before the americans murdered Allende and installed the butcher Pinochet? The anarchist communes in the spanish civil war? Before the Nazi's and Stalin wiped them out? -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Eric journeyman Registered: 12/28/02 Posts: 61 Last seen: 22 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
The CNN article is whitewashed obviously, since its the bourgeosie press. It boils down to the same facts either way, the chinese workers know that they will not be among the winners of the "market reforms". In the end, its impossible to simply "legislate" capitalism into action, without actually smashing the workers which would come down to an open class conflict such as a civil war or possibily another revolution.
The stalinists could not own anything, but they had privledges and luxuries that the average workers wouldnt have, but it was not as extreme as what you would have in a capitalist society. I've already explain the reasons that lead to stalinism, which was not human nature. "Democratic" capitalism is democracy for the rich minority. The rest of us dont have a choice, we are chained by the limits of nature (i.e hunger requires us to work) and exploitation of our bosses that profit by extracting surplus value from workers. We cannot choose whether or not which country goes to war with another to assert their right to dominate and exploit. Only when the working class takes power worldwide, will there exist true democracy and freedom.
| |||||||
|
silversoul7 Chill the FuckOu  Registered: 10/10/02 Posts: 27,301 Loc: mndfreeze's pupp |
| ||||||
|
I've watched you embarrass all leftist causes for long enough. You are an idiot. As a socialist, I would like to ask you to please shut up. You are doing more harm than good.
--------------------  
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire 
Edited by silversoul7 (01/11/03 10:05 AM)
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Let him keep going. He's done more in this one thread alone to show why communism will never work than any one could have hoped for.
I rarely agree with you but when you're right, you're right. He is. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers Edited by luvdemshrooms (01/11/03 12:17 PM)
| |||||||
|
silversoul7 Chill the FuckOu Registered: 10/10/02 Posts: 27,301 Loc: mndfreeze's pupp |
| ||||||
|
If that idiot was the only person who believed in communism, then I would agree that he proves that it doesn't work. However, there are many more competent people who could present a stronger case.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son  Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Silversoul7 writes:
However, there are many more competent people who could present a stronger case. Feel free to invite such a person to join the discussion. pinky -------------------- 
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Spores for European Microscopy Bulk Substrate Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Memorial Planned For Victims Of Communism (  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all ) |
 lonestar2004 |
6,228 | 132 | 11/18/05 07:09 PM by bukkake |
|
|
marxism. ( 1 2 all ) |
 Anonymous |
3,029 | 37 | 02/04/04 05:53 PM by Tao |
|
|
Communism / socialism ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 overgrower |
5,456 | 58 | 12/18/04 06:04 AM by vampirism |
|
 |
Artificial Desire ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 Sclorch |
3,622 | 48 | 01/08/04 08:56 PM by phreakyzen |
|
 |
Karl Marx was wrong ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all ) |
Sclorch |
8,528 | 122 | 08/17/03 03:43 PM by d33p |
|
|
Karl Marx's Anti-Semitism | lonestar2004 |
1,356 | 10 | 07/28/06 11:40 AM by Vvellum |
|
|
communism vs. socialism vs. the welfare state | Anonymous |
1,485 | 12 | 08/31/03 12:35 AM by Malachi |
|
|
Soviet Union/Downfall of Communism/Actions in the Middle Eas |  TrueBrode |
833 | 10 | 11/07/03 02:43 AM by zeronio |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 16,170 topic views. 6 members, 27 guests and 37 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||