Of course we believe in force. Idealism is the enemy of working people; why should we stay downtrodden for the sake of a few meaningless bourgeois principles? Once we realize the power we (workers) have over production, we realize that it is time for us to use the force. Capitalists have long been using force against us. Politics is force. We believe that the force should come from the working class: from the bottom. Hence the "dictatorship of the proletariat" Name a single revolution that ever occurred without force
Garbage. Do you have sources? Consumer goods were not on the priority list. The priority was health care, education, infrastructure, and capital expansion, which had massive growth. And I'd rather have "mediocre sneakers" and have my fellow workers get health care and education and have nobody exploiting us than have the latest Jordans.
You need to re-read my previous post. You're not giving me the opportunity to edit before you respond. Anywho...So didn't that go badly the first time? Trying to force people, never mind the whole world, into accepting a principle? What will you do with the ones who resist? Kill them? I know quite a few proletariats who've made good, they moved up the economic chain, own their own business and property at home and abroad. They're quite happy. If I were a proletariat, his model sounds a lot better than yours.
Jesus have you ever spoken to anyone who lived through Soviet Ukraine, or the Czechoslovakia or even Russia? THEY FUCKING HATED IT DUDE! Really they did? That's the problem with you people is you think that all anyone needs to survive and thrive and find fulfillment are the basics, like some bloody farm animal. They couldn't wait to buy things from the West through the black market. And I would rather have BOTH! Get it? I can go to Scandinavia or Switzerland or Indonesia or Thailand right now and have all that.
You misunderstand. This isn't about individuals using force, but an entire class (the working class) using force against the capitalist class. Try telling that to the third world peasants that were crushed by colonial powers or the millions of Americans that are starving and have no health care. People had social mobility under feudalism, too. Doesn't mean it actually worked out for most people.
Incorrect. All of my family who lived under the Soviet Union preferred it. And just to provide sources, which you aren't doing: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/13165/russians_regret_collapse_of_soviet_union/ http://21stcenturysocialism.com/art...mmunism_was_better_than_capitalism_02030.html Not to mention the fact that Communist parties across Europe (including Russia) are still pretty large. And, there were plans to expand consumer goods eventually: but we had to focus on infrastructure and capital expansion.
But that's just the thing, you think the working class want's to be working class. My point is that they work hard to make sure at least their children have more opportunity than they themselves if they feel they didn't get to where they wanted to go. You see the average working class person actually wants more. The want the basics but they also want more than just the basics, they want the freedom of mobility. And guess what? People do want beautiful things, they do want material things, they will also want things that didn't serve a necessary practical purpose. Even traditional people were like that. Ah sorry I've spoken to too many people who were escaping your "social mobility", educators who were living in cramped places, eating plain food and existing on a mediocre salary. Tell me why do you live in the US? Why haven't you moved to Cuba or perhaps a Scandinavian country where they have a comfy socialist society (the latter having a mixed economy is more comfy than the former)? I wouldn't suggest China since its very much a capitalist economy. Please don't talk to me about the third world, even that title is backward. They are called "d-e-v-e-l-o-p-i-n-g n-a-t-i-o-ns". The fact that you even refer to them as "third world" makes me wonder, but anyway I can tell you for a fact that the so called (who the hell uses the term "peasants"?) Peasants in a country like Cambodia, where I lived for many years, that they are not interested in another "people's movement" if you know what I mean. I know a Vietnamese woman who left Vietnam and went to cambodia because it offered her more freedom. She came from a very poor family in Vietnam, she didn't get any education, taught herself how to read and write and left her country for Cambodia even though they hated (and still hate) the vietnamese so much it was risky for her. She learned the language, actually she learned 2, she eventually started her own business in Phnom Penh and worked to save, worked and bought land in Vietnam or her parents and for herself. She worked until she had enough capital to return to Vietnam where she could start a business. Go to Laos and I don't think they are happy about the pittance they get to live on, go to the villages and you see poverty and then you can also see how well their middle-class lives, all that in socialist laos. In Vietnam its a whole new world of Capitalism operating within a socialist state, which is complicated for them, it will only be a matter of time before they shed that meaningless shed. These people are not sitting around thinking about "colonial powers", I mean you sound like a soviet caricature the way you speak of the "peasant", the "third world" or "colonial powers". Ask a Khmer and he'll tell you he prefers the American and European and hates the Vietnamese. You are operating within a stereotype, not reality. That's exactly what's wrong with your thinking, its based on paper and sources. Mine is based on living and experiencing. At this point I've had more experience in more Communist and socialist countries than you have and that includes China (studied there for a year as a matter of fact) If your family preferred it then why are they in the US? Why are you still in the US? Why didn't they move to Laos or some other socialist bastion like Cuba. I'm sure Cuba would have taken them. I
This will not be possible because of the anarchy of capitalist production. Agreed. And socialism is the best way. As I said, consumer goods were planned to be expanded. In fact, the only reason you have so much "consumer choice" is because you don't see all the exploitation that built your country and built your garbage consumer goods. Why would I move to a random Latin American country when I have nothing in common with those people? Scandinavia isn't actually "socialist" in the Marxian sense, and as I said, why would I move to a random country? And the people are protesting the shift to capitalism. Thank you, Deng Xiao Ping /sarcasm They were exploited by Europeans and Americans which is largely why there are so many problems in Africa and Latin America and Asia today Don't compare Laos to the developed nations. Socialism isn't magic. You have to work with what you have; socialism in England would look much different. Right, they like imperialism so much that they fought against it. By the way, the Vietnamese were the ones who stopped Pol Pot's slaughter. Russia today is not a socialist country...
1. But it is possible. It happens all the time. 2. Consumer goods should't be planned, that's the reason why no one wanted to buy soviet made goods. Consumer goods should come out of the innovation of those with the ideas. The Soviet Union couldn't create a Steve Jobs. 3. The Soviets also exploited their workers. Its not as you the Soviet Union gave everyone the best of everything, they simply were given what was mediocre without any choice. 4. Why would you live in a Capitalist country where you still obviously have nothing in common with the people? I mean you still call the working class "peasants" for fucks sake. Like you're out of some soviet B-movie. 5. You would move to these countries because they are more closely aligned with your ideal. They offer education, health care etc. Why remain in the belly of capitalism? Because I tell ya, there is more of a chance of a fascist movement succeeding in the US than a communist one. 6. The people are not protesting the shift to capitalism, they're relishing it and asking for their wages to be increased so that more and more of them can become part of the middle-class. The Chinese cannot stifle their currency forever so that americans will buy their goods. There is a rising middle class and a rising demand for personal freedoms . 7. Go and tell them that. They hate neither the Americans nor Europeans. If you want to find hatred for westerners you have to go to Pakistan or someplace like that. 8. Socialism isn't magic? Oh I know that. I wonder why you don't seem to realize the same when it comes to your "ideal". Would saying capitalism isn't magic be a defense of capitalism to you? 9. The vietnamese didn't stop pol pot. Pol Pot died a natural death within the Thai border near Pailin which continued to be a Khmer Rouge stronghold. The vietnamese came into the country and stopped the Khmer Rouge but guess what? They also occupied the country for ten years and to this day to be called "Yuon" or "vietname" is an insult. They hate them, they blame them for everything including stealing all of their resources. If you wear a t-shirt in cambodia with a vietnamese flag, it won't take too long before someone discreetly tells you to go back and change it for something else. They hate vietnam and its people. And no they don't think of them as "heros". According to you no country is a socialist country. Capitalism at least has a reality.
That rhetoric made a lot more sense 100 years ago. These days, the workers can be - and largely have been - replaced with robots. The workers really don't have that much power over production, as workers. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Seems to me that you've defined "revolution" to mean exactly forceful uprising by the proletariat here. If not, I'd suggest that things like Indian Independence, the US Civil Rights movement, and the Egyptian uprising represent successful non-violent movements that brought about revolutions in social and political relations.
Did you read what I said? I didn't disagree. There was social mobility in feudal societies, too. Doesn't mean it worked out for most people. You can have incentives for innovation without giving someone power over the means of production. Also, the Soviet Union created many brilliant minds. I'm insulted. It's unrealistic to expect the best of everything without first expanding capital resources. And I'd rather have people be able to eat and see a doctor than shiny gadgets and trinkets. Again. No, I called the peasants peasants. Many third world countries do not have a working class. There is a difference between peasant and proletariat. I agree with you there: we are seeing the decay of capitalism into fascism as we speak. No, the Chinese are not relishing it; they are protesting the growing class divide and concentration of wealth under the new capitalist reforms. Funnily enough, many of the people demanding civil rights are senior Communist Party officials. This generation might not, but again, the peoples of the world exploited by Western colonial powers did fight back, and I doubt they loved all the exploitation. I doubt the people of India loved being under the boot of the British, or the Vietnamese under the boot of the French. Stop being an imperialist apologist. Socialism is about material production designed to meet human needs and wants. Capitalism is about fulfilling profits and bottom lines. Okay. Where have you been when I was just talking about the Soviet Union?
That's only further proof that capitalism is leading to the destruction of the masses. Force was used by the establishments against the people, and in many cases in reverse (Malcolm X, e.g.). I don't believe in nonviolence when the establishment is shooting and beating you.
Your family enjoyed living in a corrupt society under a leadership who enjoyed all the luxuries of life, while the 'working class' slaved away for mere pittance and where gross human rights abuses occurred against anyone who criticised the system or the leadership? That's the thing RedStar. There can never be true communism, as it is so easy to corrupt, as we saw in the Soviet Union, we see in North Korea, China and countries like Cuba.
Was a hell of a lot better than capitalism. Also, your assessment is bullshit. Back up that statement. And you call yourself a communist? Did we see? I rather applaud Cuba, and much of the USSR. There were some good things about China, too, before Deng Xiao Ping. You're right about NK though, but you have to look at historical context.
That's not "capitalism." It's industrialism. And it's proof that your theories of how to cope with the early stages of industrialism are now hopelessly outdated. So you're denying that the non-violent movements I cited in response to your demand for examples of such were effective? Or, what?
No, because Marx concerned himself with issues of property relations. It's capitalism that is dooming the working classes especially as production becomes more automatized because capital owners will still have access to production whereas laborers will be a class of property-less people who have literally nothing to even sell, including their labor. The exclusive nature of private property ownership is exactly what would make automation damning. I'm saying they weren't completely non-violent, and, at any rate, the overthrow of capitalism is not something I can see happening peacefully. - Jay Gould The upper class will not take it sitting down.
Redstar to Bells: "And you call yourself a communist?" What? You're a communist Bells? First Geoff and now Bells. This place is way too funny.
I don't know if she is, so I mean no insult to Bells if you are not, but I think I remember her saying she is.
He didn't forsee the level of automation in question, wherein workers would cease to be an important input into industrial production. If workers aren't required, then they have no particular power. Technology is what drives that, not "capitalism." Communism offers no means to cope with automation, since it's premised on the idea that workers, collectively, have a lot of power. What you need is a new theory that is post-labor, and offers a way to distribute the fruits of automation into society in an efficient, productive way. Sure, but your theories have no means by which to keep ownership in the hands of the (non-)workers, when their work is no longer required. How are you going to fight capitalists who can run build and operate means of production without you? That's not much of an argument. Moreover, the idea that "capitalism" can even be "overthrown" is in need of support. It's not clear that what you are suggesting is even theoretically possible, and won't simply result in a more perverse form of capitalism (like it did in the USSR). The relevant thing to say here would be: "I can build an army of killer robots to kill the entire working class." Working-class solidarity is not going to be strong enough to power a revolution when production can continue without workers. What will result is that we won't even have a "working class." You should consider getting up to speed on this stuff, instead of regurgitating failed ideologies from a century ago.
