• Capatalism and Communism. (Which is best?)
    481 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Cheezy;34533429]I hate these threads. "Let's have a bunch of uninformed teenagers without unbiased sources or any real comprehension of the issues regarding both systems debate one of the most complex questions in modern history only to have the entire thread derail as a flaming pile of shit!"[/QUOTE] Why are you even posting in this if you hate it so bad? I made this thread to hear other peoples answers, since many are the "little bit of both" and someone is "Only Capitalism" and vice versa... People are different, and people have different opinions
[QUOTE=Robbobin;34524500] Well to be fair, all states [I]are[/I] totalitarian. :v: The monopoly on violence is one of the most totalitarian features you can get. The fact our government gives us a few more liberties than you'd expect from a totalitarian regime is of little consequence, when they still hold the monopoly on violence.[/QUOTE] That's too be debated in another thread. I meant Totalitarian from a statists point of view. [editline]3rd February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=RonPaul4ever;34525242]Once again I laugh at you. It's both funny and scary to see a youngster like you, so naive and certain about an ideology that has failed every time it has been adapted by a society. It's obvious that you don't know anything about free markets, corporations or the basic psychological driving forces that are the complete base for our current prosperity. Therefore I advise you to listen carefully now. The company owners and CEOs are surely earning a lot of money, but don't forget that they in return are providing people with goods and services for a reasonable price due to competition between corporations. Such competition would never possibly exist in a society where the government is in possession of all the companies. The company owners are taking a lot of risk when creating a company and placing their money in it. People don't take such risk if they don't have anything to win by doing so. Profit is an extremely strong driving force, and when a society uses it in the right way, it encourages people to work, which in return creates a more prosperous society which can afford a strong welfare. Now, you're right about the fact that I don't know much about your specific form of socialism. What I know though is that when you take away the basic driving forces for people to start businesses and thereby create jobs, compete with each other, take risks, you are on a very dangerous road. My advise to you is to accept the world as it is and apply for a job instead of keep whining about your extremely Utopian socialism that might sound relatively nice on paper, but which would result in a miserable fiscal situation in reality. I hope you are aware of that an extreme majority of all economists despite socialism and are very clear about its terrible consequences. You might throw up some stupid conspiracy theory about how these economists are "working for the establishment and all the big cooperations", but for the rest of us who believe they are professional people with a deep knowledge about economics and with an interest of helping people around them, we respect their hard work and their experience.[/QUOTE] As I believe I said earlier, I am not a communist. I agree that non-competition would be bad in many ways, and that communism is mostly utopian. I am only against corporate corruption, and abuse of workers. That's why I consider myself a mutualist. Basically, I think corporations should be replaced with cooperatives. Also, if I am correct, there are decentralized forms communism, that would avert some of the problems you list.
[QUOTE=RonPaul4ever;34525242]Once again I laugh at you. It's both funny and scary to see a youngster like you, so naive and certain about an ideology that has failed every time it has been adapted by a society. It's obvious that you don't know anything about free markets, corporations or the basic psychological driving forces that are the complete base for our current prosperity. Therefore I advise you to listen carefully now.[/quote] ironic [QUOTE=RonPaul4ever;34525242] The company owners and CEOs are surely earning a lot of money, but don't forget that they in return are providing people with goods and services for a reasonable price due to competition between corporations. Such competition would never possibly exist in a society where the government is in possession of all the companies. The company owners are taking a lot of risk when creating a company and placing their money in it. People don't take such risk if they don't have anything to win by doing so.[/quote] CEOs do not 'earn' money, they accumulate capital by employing cheap labour (necessitated by market competition) while their employees sell their labour power in order to live. they provide people with goods and services because they are the only ones with the sufficient capital to privately own the means of production; they provide the goods because the majority inherited the ability to do so; there was no element of 'earning' or 'work' involved whatsoever. naturally, competition wouldn't exist in a society involving nationalized industries; competition is, obviously, not a necessity for the production of commodities and i can't fathom how you think it is. there's very little 'risk' involved when big capitalists make use of their investment capital - observe goldmann sachs and every company involved in the banking crisis - 'risks' incurred by capitalists are bailed out by the state, and the taxpayer foots the bill. [QUOTE=RonPaul4ever;34525242] Profit is an extremely strong driving force, and when a society uses it in the right way, it encourages people to work, which in return creates a more prosperous society which can afford a strong w elfare. Now, you're right about the fact that I don't know much about your specific form of socialism. What I know though is that when you take away the basic driving forces for people to start businesses and thereby create jobs, compete with each other, take risks, you are on a very dangerous road.[/quote] the definition of socialism is a society characterized by the common ownership of the means of production; the destruction of private (not personal) property, viz. private ownership of the means of production (the tools used for the creation of commodities, the means of subsistence). people work in a capitalist society because they are forced to sell their labour power in order to live. the 'welfare state' exists because it's in capital's interests to do so; it pacifies labour (and thus revolution). the 'driving force' to work, according to you, is greed; the existence of this labour incentive is due to the division of labour and the alienation within the capitalist mode of production, reducing man and his labour effectively to being a 'cog in the machine'. the liberal incentive argument is synonymous with the liberal human nature argument, and you shouldn't really bother with this kind of naivety given the wealth of education available to you which argues to the contrary. [QUOTE=RonPaul4ever;34525242] My advise to you is to accept the world as it is and apply for a job instead of keep whining about your extremely Utopian socialism that might sound relatively nice on paper, but which would result in a miserable fiscal situation in reality.[/quote] fantastic idea. accept the world and it's inevitable cycle of crises, exploitation and mass suffering rather than attempting to change it, a large part of which is discussing with other members of the growing intelligentsia. of course we have to apply for jobs; it's a necessity to survive (and avoid mooching off your parents) in capitalist society. the only 'miserable fiscal situation' is the realities of capitalism. if you had half a brain, you'd realize the proof of this is right in front of you. unfortunately, liberalism is a mental disease, and all arguments that you digest will be promptly ignored the next day as your egotistical, ideological brain tumour redevelops. [QUOTE=RonPaul4ever;34525242] I hope you are aware of that an extreme majority of all economists despite socialism and are very clear about its terrible consequences. You might throw up some stupid conspiracy theory about how these economists are "working for the establishment and all the big cooperations", but for the rest of us who believe they are professional people with a deep knowledge about economics and with an interest of helping people around them, we respect their hard work and their experience.[/QUOTE] point me to the economists that decry socialism for it's 'terrible consequences', despite capitalism having proven to have it's own terrible consequences since it's birth.
Really, saying capitalism "works" in the current economic climate is a pretty hilarious claim.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34536313] As I believe I said earlier, I am not a communist. I agree that non-competition would be bad in many ways, and that communism is mostly utopian. I am only against corporate corruption, and abuse of workers. That's why I consider myself a mutualist. Basically, I think corporations should be replaced with cooperatives. Also, if I am correct, there are decentralized forms communism, that would avert some of the problems you list.[/QUOTE] communism is utopian because it's the ideal, the move to the 'perfect society' following the socialist transition. if you're against corporate corruption and abuse of workers, you're against capitalism. the entire concept of business revolves around exploitation and corruption because they're the realities of the capitalist system. why is it that non-competition would be bad? the only reason you'd believe this is if you accepted the liberal human nature argument. the concept of replacing the 'bad corporations ablooo blooo' with anything that remains business-related, indeed, by advocating the continued existence of private property, is tantamount to whitewashing over rotting wood rather than replacing that rotting wood. 'decentralized communism'? communism is a classless, stateless society; surely you're aware of the withering away of the state as theorized by marx? surely you don't mean to espouse anti-authoritarianism in the sense of the vanguard state's repression of counterrevolutionary elements following the revolution? it seems to me you're some kind of anarcho-syndicalist. in other words, a reformist liberal.
[QUOTE=Karlos;34543190]communism is utopian because it's the ideal, the move to the 'perfect society' following the socialist transition. if you're against corporate corruption and abuse of workers, you're against capitalism. the entire concept of business revolves around exploitation and corruption because they're the realities of the capitalist system. why is it that non-competition would be bad? the only reason you'd believe this is if you accepted the liberal human nature argument. the concept of replacing the 'bad corporations ablooo blooo' with anything that remains business-related, indeed, by advocating the continued existence of private property, is tantamount to whitewashing over rotting wood rather than replacing that rotting wood. 'decentralized communism'? communism is a classless, stateless society; surely you're aware of the withering away of the state as theorized by marx? surely you don't mean to espouse anti-authoritarianism in the sense of the vanguard state's repression of counterrevolutionary elements following the revolution? it seems to me you're some kind of anarcho-syndicalist. in other words, a reformist liberal.[/QUOTE] I say communism is utopian because with the world's current state, it would not work. If we work towards it, it may become possible in several hundred years, but not now. And competition is good, because it makes people build new, better things, so they can compete. And what's wrong with private property?
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34543334]I say communism is utopian because with the world's current state, it would not work. If we work towards it, it may become possible in several hundred years, but not now. And competition is good, because it makes people build new, better things, so they can compete. And what's wrong with private property?[/QUOTE] you're entirely disregarding the fact that in a revolution there would be a transitory socialist state. this is the definition of, in your own words, working towards communism. we've already discussed market competition; it's the reason for the necessity of employing the cheapest possible labour (exploitation of the periphery, but principally, exploitation in general), smallest possible expenditure, capital accumulation (crises) etc. do we really need to again go over private property (private ownership of the means of production)? again, don't confuse it with personal property (what YOU own; your house, your car, your property).
I'm totally against private property (as it's understood nowadays), but revolution through dictatorship of the proletariat would do the world no favours. We need a real intellectual revolution which occurs over a few generations whereby we understand the reality of society (that is, the reality that it is horizontal and we in actual fact are free to associate with any individual we want) and the state dissolves. Trying to fight the monopoly of physical violence [I]with physical violence[/I] is just fucking retarded.
A good commie is a dead commie. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Gimmick" - Orkel))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Karlos;34544347]you're entirely disregarding the fact that in a revolution there would be a transitory socialist state. this is the definition of, in your own words, working towards communism. we've already discussed market competition; it's the reason for the necessity of employing the cheapest possible labour (exploitation of the periphery, but principally, exploitation in general), smallest possible expenditure, capital accumulation (crises) etc. do we really need to again go over private property (private ownership of the means of production)? again, don't confuse it with personal property (what YOU own; your house, your car, your property).[/QUOTE] I am against revolution though. After a revolution, we would still have people very against communism, so it would fail. And if a company was a cooperative, employing the cheapest possible labor couldn't happen, since the profit is still equally split up. And if the means of production is owned by all the workers who use it, but not others, I do not have a problem.
[QUOTE=killcommies;34544802]A good commie is a dead commie.[/QUOTE] Original name I must say...
[QUOTE=Robbobin;34544509]I'm totally against private property (as it's understood nowadays), but revolution through dictatorship of the proletariat would do the world no favours. We need a real intellectual revolution which occurs over a few generations whereby we understand the reality of society (that is, the reality that it is horizontal and we in actual fact are free to associate with any individual we want) and the state dissolves. Trying to fight the monopoly of physical violence [I]with physical violence[/I] is just fucking retarded.[/QUOTE] explain to me why the dictatorship of the proletariat would do the world no favours? how does centering the power into the hands of a few elite bourgeois do the world any favours? how does an 'intellectual revolution' really bring about the overthrow of all existing social conditions (or indeed, change anything at all) and why isn't a violent revolution ultimately necessary? to be fair, i don't really follow your waffle about horizontal realities. as to private property - what're you talking about when you say 'as it's understood nowadays', do you actually understand the concept? regardless, by abolishing private property, which is the literal antithesis of the proletariat, you abolish the proletariat. [quote=The Kakistocrat]I am against revolution though. After a revolution, we would still have people very against communism, so it would fail.[/quote] hence the existence of the vanguard party and repression of the counterrevolutionary elements that would make the thesis (communist ideal) impossible. it wouldn't 'fail' because you would have dissidence, that dissidence would be phased out eventually. nobody [i]wants[/i] violent revolution, but reformism is a type of naive liberalism that's in league with the bourgeois as much as every other type. [editline]4th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=KorJax;34521970]I can't exactly take communism too seriously as an ideaology to pick up in this day and age simply because Marx's ideal soceity was simply done as a direct response to extreme capitalism, which was rampant during his time (the industrial revolution). Child labor, massive unregulated working conditions, terrible pay, etc. EVERY country basically treated industry like China. And keep in mind this was before the age of globalization, so generally the goods you produced in your country were exclusive to your country. Marx's communism was a critique of this. He predicted that and endless cycle of depressions and recessions would happen in capitalist societies, causing more supply than demand since the working class is exploited for their wages and therefore cannot buy the goods that fuel the economy (which they were at the time in some ways), which causes more depressions until the conditions are so poor that a "worker's revolution" takes place, and a capitalist society becomes a communist society. This never happened. Capitalism didn't fall at the height of the industrial revolution. Nevermind the issue that Marx's ideology focuses too much on the working class and "production of goods" versus anything else (there's not much support for creative fields, science/technology, etc in communism, since it's highest appeal is twoards labor). Capitalism has never seen communist uprisings - in fact the only areas where it happened, were in feudal countries where the governing bodies were weak. Lenin tried to explain this by stating that Imperialism caused capitalist socieites to give themselves a "barrier" between failure because they could open up new markets in colonies, have extremely cheap labor in colonies, etc. But we've since left the age of Imperialism and capitalism still hasn't failed. Instead, the next step in society was globalization, something that wasn't possible in "communism's time", and in my opinion is why Communism and Marxism as ideaologies are only relevant to gain understanding into the historical situation of the time they were concepted. I'd be willing to bet that if marx was alive during the age of globalization, there would be no communist manifesto. Ironically enough, the only countries that still operate in the conditions that Marx was trying to fight against and prevent are ones that have adopted "psudo-communism", like China. Yes, I know, China isn't real communism. But it's kind of funny how the only countries on earth anymore that have working conditions like in the industrial revolution that inspired Marx to write what he did are all countries that have adopted governments inspired by Marx's ideologies. Certainly not Marx's fault, no. But it's pretty obvious that Capitalism wasn't the direct cause and root of all that injustice that Marx critiqued.[/QUOTE] that's funny, because globalization is imperialism. marx talks about the early stages in the manifesto. "The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development." in other words, the opening of markets abroad, i.e. globalization. imperialism is the final stage of capitalism; if anything, in our late capitalist society, we're closer to it than ever before.
Oh yes, let's have a dictatorship of the proletariat, lead by a vanguard party. Because we know how well that worked out before.
[QUOTE=Karlos;34545558]explain to me why the dictatorship of the proletariat would do the world no favours? how does centering the power into the hands of a few elite bourgeois do the world any favours? how does an 'intellectual revolution' really bring about the overthrow of all existing social conditions (or indeed, change anything at all) and why isn't a violent revolution ultimately necessary? to be fair, i don't really follow your waffle about horizontal realities. as to private property - what're you talking about when you say 'as it's understood nowadays', do you actually understand the concept?[/QUOTE] It wouldn't do the world any favours because dictatorship necessarily implies physical violence which is morally wrong. First of all, if you think I'm all for the bourgeoisie you're reading my argument very, very weakly. The "waffle" about horizontal relations is integral to my argument. The state physically coerces people through cultural hegemonic means. When I refuse to pay my taxes, I'm brutalised by another human being directly, not the state. It's this cultural hegemony that propagates this idea that paying taxes = good, law = good, etc. This [I]lie[/I] which is totally inconsistent with almost everyone's moral principles forces us to collectively invest in a system that leads to our mutual detriment (paying taxes for things we ultimately don't give a shit about, for example). Intellectual revolution is required in order for us to realise the horizontal nature of society. We need to remember that it's a human being restraining me and throwing me in a cell, and that we associate freely in general. A violent revolution would serve to no end other than to allow hegemonic power to change hands for the elite to brutalise another group of people. If such an intellectual revolution were to occur, the state would dissolve because we'd realise its existence is contingent on our support entirely. Frankly I abhor any type of dictatorship and the very supposition that a communist one would be any more beneficial to me is full of hypocrisy. I wouldn't support such a revolution because it's fucking absurd to suggest we should fight statism with statism. We don't [I]have[/I] to violently revolt because to do so would just be more of the same immoral bullshit. The only way statism can be ended is through peaceful, intellectual revolution and total commitment to the non-aggression principle.
snip
[QUOTE=Robbobin;34551913]It wouldn't do the world any favours because dictatorship necessarily implies physical violence which is morally wrong. First of all, if you think I'm all for the bourgeoisie you're reading my argument very, very weakly. The "waffle" about horizontal relations is integral to my argument. The state physically coerces people through cultural hegemonic means. When I refuse to pay my taxes, I'm brutalised by another human being directly, not the state. It's this cultural hegemony that propagates this idea that paying taxes = good, law = good, etc. This [I]lie[/I] which is totally inconsistent with almost everyone's moral principles forces us to collectively invest in a system that leads to our mutual detriment (paying taxes for things we ultimately don't give a shit about, for example). Intellectual revolution is required in order for us to realise the horizontal nature of society. We need to remember that it's a human being restraining me and throwing me in a cell, and that we associate freely in general. A violent revolution would serve to no end other than to allow hegemonic power to change hands for the elite to brutalise another group of people. If such an intellectual revolution were to occur, the state would dissolve because we'd realise its existence is contingent on our support entirely. Frankly I abhor any type of dictatorship and the very supposition that a communist one would be any more beneficial to me is full of hypocrisy. I wouldn't support such a revolution because it's fucking absurd to suggest we should fight statism with statism. We don't [I]have[/I] to violently revolt because to do so would just be more of the same immoral bullshit. The only way statism can be ended is through peaceful, intellectual revolution and total commitment to the non-aggression principle.[/QUOTE] i don't think you understand the dictatorship of the proletariat. the word "dictatorship" isn't used here to denote a totalitarian system ruled by some kind of communist elite; it simply means, literally, the proletariat would dictate the affairs of the state and possess the political power. again, when private property (and thus the class hierarchy) is abolished, the proletariat is abolished; any connotations of "dictatorship" can then be disregarded. the cultural hegemony you talk about is essentially the means of imperial dominance that's existed in every previous system. to use a very liberal argument, i could say that history proves that some kind of population-wide intellectual awakening to this fact is impossible, but i think it's inconceivable in another way. the bourgeoisie constantly envisage new ways of propagating their ruling-class worldview ideology (as well as maintaining the first world labour aristocracy) and there are always a majority of people willing to eat it up; if history, being the history of class struggles, has taught us anything, it's only in crises that the proletariat massively "wakes up" to the situation and achieves class consciousness - and in those circumstances, the outcome is generally violent. in a crisis where the oppressed realize they're oppressed, what's the likelihood that rather than overthrowing their oppressors through force and taking control, the oppressed simply say "lol the capitalists can't function without our support son let's just stop working for them and make a commune." i'd supplement this argument with the fact that in these cases, the ruling class responds with direct and brutal force anyway. the machinery of the state is utilized to crush the most non-violent resistance. again, i don't advocate violent revolution because i like the idea of putting bullets in fellow human beings, but because peaceful revolution is literally an impossibility.
[QUOTE=Karlos;34557794]i don't think you understand the dictatorship of the proletariat. the word "dictatorship" isn't used here to denote a totalitarian system ruled by some kind of communist elite; it simply means, literally, the proletariat would dictate the affairs of the state and possess the political power. again, when private property (and thus the class hierarchy) is abolished, the proletariat is abolished; any connotations of "dictatorship" can then be disregarded.[/QUOTE] Frankly 'ruled by some kind of communist elite' and 'the proletariat would dictate the affairs of the state' sound basically synonymous. It sounds very much like linguistic trickery or meiosis and it's just condescending to assume I'm working off some kind of derivative, vulgar understanding of 'dictatorship'. I can assure you that's not the case. No person or faction or class or group of people should hold more political power than another person. It doesn't matter of they are benevolent, enlightened, the majority, whatever. The monopoly of physical violence is always illegitimate regardless of who has it. As for the abolishion of PP I'm all for that but I don't believe a non-peaceful revolution is the key [I]at all[/I]. [QUOTE=Karlos;34557794]the cultural hegemony you talk about is essentially the means of imperial dominance that's existed in every previous system. to use a very liberal argument, i could say that history proves that some kind of population-wide intellectual awakening to this fact is impossible, but i think it's inconceivable in another way. the bourgeoisie constantly envisage new ways of propagating their ruling-class worldview ideology (as well as maintaining the first world labour aristocracy) and there are always a majority of people willing to eat it up; if history, being the history of class struggles, has taught us anything, it's only in crises that the proletariat massively "wakes up" to the situation and achieves class consciousness - and in those circumstances, the outcome is generally violent. in a crisis where the oppressed realize they're oppressed, what's the likelihood that rather than overthrowing their oppressors through force and taking control, the oppressed simply say "lol the capitalists can't function without our support son let's just stop working for them and make a commune." i'd supplement this argument with the fact that in these cases, the ruling class responds with direct and brutal force anyway. the machinery of the state is utilized to crush the most non-violent resistance. again, i don't advocate violent revolution because i like the idea of putting bullets in fellow human beings, but because peaceful revolution is literally an impossibility.[/QUOTE] Well I'd say if peaceful revolution is an impossibility, revolution in any form is impossible. I don't see how such a revolution isn't conceivable. I've became awakened to the machinery of the state (and how it's built of our support/compliance), other people are capable of having the same awakening, therefore such a revolution is conceivable. For it to occur, it will have to span over multiple generations to happen in any meaningful way. However a violent revolution would merely pass the immoral monopoly of physical violence over to the next psuedo-moral superior and propagate class struggle of another kind. [I]Consent[/I] is the key. It doesn't matter "if the elite won't consent" because the elite's elite status is purely contingent on the proletariat. Global class consciousness is a necessity; if it is achieved we simply won't [I]need[/I] a violent revolution because we'd all agree to break out of the prisoners dilemma that the state drops us in.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;34543002]Really, saying capitalism "works" in the current economic climate is a pretty hilarious claim.[/QUOTE] capitalism barely exists in the current economic climate. the fact that people associate the economic crisis of 2008 with capitalism is hilarious.
[QUOTE=Hayburner;34560549]capitalism barely exists in the current economic climate. the fact that people associate the economic crisis of 2008 with capitalism is hilarious.[/QUOTE] Fair point, if 'capitalism' was limited to laissez-faire capitalism. I was referring more to state capitalism which identifies with what's happening in the world quite well.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;34558254]Frankly 'ruled by some kind of communist elite' and 'the proletariat would dictate the affairs of the state' sound basically synonymous. It sounds very much like linguistic trickery or meiosis and it's just condescending to assume I'm working off some kind of derivative, vulgar understanding of 'dictatorship'. I can assure you that's not the case. No person or faction or class or group of people should hold more political power than another person. It doesn't matter of they are benevolent, enlightened, the majority, whatever. The monopoly of physical violence is always illegitimate regardless of who has it. As for the abolishion of PP I'm all for that but I don't believe a non-peaceful revolution is the key [I]at all[/I].[/quote] rule by the people and communist elite sound basically synonymous? glad we're agreed. before you can have democracy, the elements which make that democracy impossible (i.e. fascists or capitalists exercising any kind of power) have to be repressed via having the "monopoly of physical violence." regardless, i suppose i'm avoiding the problem you're addressing. i don't see any kind of moral transgression with the overthrow of the state regardless of the means by which it's achieved; it's self-defence. is it morally wrong for slaves to overthrow their masters? besides morality, you seem to be continuing with the idea that you can jump immediately to direct democracy. this is anarchist naivety. [QUOTE=Robbobin;34558254] Well I'd say if peaceful revolution is an impossibility, revolution in any form is impossible. I don't see how such a revolution isn't conceivable. I've became awakened to the machinery of the state (and how it's built of our support/compliance), other people are capable of having the same awakening, therefore such a revolution is conceivable. For it to occur, it will have to span over multiple generations to happen in any meaningful way. However a violent revolution would merely pass the immoral monopoly of physical violence over to the next psuedo-moral superior and propagate class struggle of another kind. [I]Consent[/I] is the key. It doesn't matter "if the elite won't consent" because the elite's elite status is purely contingent on the proletariat. Global class consciousness is a necessity; if it is achieved we simply won't [I]need[/I] a violent revolution because we'd all agree to break out of the prisoners dilemma that the state drops us in.[/QUOTE] you are among the smallest minority of those who identify the system itself as the malignant tumour, and aren't taking into account that there are many more who understand the system for what it is but nonetheless endorse it. so long as the existing social conditions remain, there can't be any real awakening. liberalism takes many forms, one of which is knowing how things work but being indifferent regardless. "peaceful class struggle," to me, seems like a complete misnomer; how are your ideas in any way not in direct alignment with every kind of liberal reformism? in other words, every existing non-revolutionary party? they all seek to reform the system with the system's own democracy; in the words of immortal technique, the system won't change, the system will eventually change you. if peaceful revolution seems to you the only possibility (and the only possibility you'll endorse), then you're a liberal counterrevolutionary.
Well, I think you've made a total balls up in characterising my view. Reformists try to change the state through the institution of the state. You're proposing we destroy the state by replacing it with a supposedly better state. I say we spread the message that the state isn't real and that it's just us being cultured against each other. How you can even pretend to say my view is anything like a liberal reformist is bizarre. The methods of both violent proletariat revolution and liberal reformation are both fundamentally flawed even in principle. The reason violent usurpation would fail as much as the current standard of statism is because they both fail to recognise the moral importance of consent. I don't really see how peaceful revolution is any less likely than a violent one. You say we require a global class consciousness in order to usurp the ruling elite (and thus become the ruling elite and actively repress the bourgeois.). I say we require a global class consciousness in order to recognise the prisoner's dilemma we're in and thus recognise that the alleged private property of the elite isn't legitimate (and therefore isn't their private property anymore). Yours is premature and hypocritical (hence a waste of time).
[QUOTE=Karlos;34542921]point me to the economists that decry socialism for it's 'terrible consequences'.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.economist.com/[/url] For the rest of your simplified sight on the world, private enterprise and human nature, I have nothing to say, except that I advise you to read the content which you can find when clicking on the link above.
[QUOTE=RonPaul4ever;34563454][url]http://www.economist.com/[/url] For the rest of your simplified sight on the world, private enterprise and human nature, I have nothing to say, except that I advise you to read the content which you can find when clicking on the link above.[/QUOTE] that is the least helpful link ever post an actual source that states it or you're wasting your/everyone else's time.
Capitalism's mediocrity makes me want to drown in a bucket of my own diarrhoea. People don't understand the cracks in it's foundations. The GFC is just the beginning- I reckon the end of the world as we know it will be when the banks collapse, money becomes worthless and pretty much the whole world starts from scratch. Then again, communism isn't great either- Leaders end up rich and fat whilst everyone else gets scrawny and poor.
Fuck both of them, they don't work. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy]Techocracy ftw![/url]
[QUOTE=RonPaul4ever;34563454][url]http://www.economist.com/[/url] For the rest of your simplified sight on the world, private enterprise and human nature, I have nothing to say, except that I advise you to read the content which you can find when clicking on the link above.[/QUOTE] classic liberal copout, come back when you've thought of some other bogus argument to defend the propaganda that makes up your entire ideology [quote=Robbobin] Well, I think you've made a total balls up in characterising my view. Reformists try to change the state through the institution of the state. You're proposing we destroy the state by replacing it with a supposedly better state. I say we spread the message that the state isn't real and that it's just us being cultured against each other. How you can even pretend to say my view is anything like a liberal reformist is bizarre. The methods of both violent proletariat revolution and liberal reformation are both fundamentally flawed even in principle.[/quote] i'm marginalising your view not because i think you want to reform capitalism through it's plutocratic democracy, but because your ideas amount to exactly the same thing. you want, like a liberal wants, to have your cake and eat it; revolution without unpleasantry, washing away oppressive social conditions without hard work and the total restructuring of society. what i'm saying is that this is as counterrevolutionary as liberal reformism. you're against violent revolution and against a socialist state. [quote=Robbobin] The reason violent usurpation would fail as much as the current standard of statism is because they both fail to recognise the moral importance of consent. I don't really see how peaceful revolution is any less likely than a violent one. You say we require a global class consciousness in order to usurp the ruling elite (and thus become the ruling elite and actively repress the bourgeois.). I say we require a global class consciousness in order to recognise the prisoner's dilemma we're in and thus recognise that the alleged private property of the elite isn't legitimate (and therefore isn't their private property anymore). Yours is premature and hypocritical (hence a waste of time).[/quote] in what way would violent usurpation 'fail', or at least fail to replace the status quo? isn't this just another way of arguing for corruption of leadership? human nature? if global 'consent' were possible and everybody were accepting of the education you propose [i]within the capitalist system[/i], don't you think every kind of movement would have achieved much more progress by now? peaceful revolution is less likely because, like you're saying, the monopoly of physical violence exists. a global class consciousness isn't to say literally everybody; only a majority or enough in order to overthrow the state. besides that, how do the workers of the third world have a choice? isn't it literally out of their hands to make that kind of decision, let alone come to that understanding themselves? you can argue about 'recognizing the legitimacy' all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the capitalists will, no matter what, have some thugs with which to repress your hippie anarchism. your view is pure idealism, though i can't argue against the prematurity of mine; my understanding of marxism is shallow at best.
[QUOTE=Karlos;34571825]i'm marginalising your view not because i think you want to reform capitalism through it's plutocratic democracy, but because your ideas amount to exactly the same thing. you want, like a liberal wants, to have your cake and eat it; revolution without unpleasantry, washing away oppressive social conditions without hard work and the total restructuring of society. what i'm saying is that this is as counterrevolutionary as liberal reformism. you're against violent revolution and against a socialist state.[/QUOTE] Oh I think when we finally decide to break out of the prisoner's dilemma it would be a relatively quite foul transition. It would take a long time for markets (certainly a few particular markets) to develop enough for competitive prices. I think for half a generation it will be a pretty unpleasant time and they'd probably be better off living in the current system. It's the nature of violent revolution I abhor, because it betrays the intentions of anti-statism. [QUOTE=Karlos;34571825]in what way would violent usurpation 'fail', or at least fail to replace the status quo? isn't this just another way of arguing for corruption of leadership? human nature? if global 'consent' were possible and everybody were accepting of the education you propose [i]within the capitalist system[/i], don't you think every kind of movement would have achieved much more progress by now? peaceful revolution is less likely because, like you're saying, the monopoly of physical violence exists. a global class consciousness isn't to say literally everybody; only a majority or enough in order to overthrow the state. besides that, how do the workers of the third world have a choice? isn't it literally out of their hands to make that kind of decision, let alone come to that understanding themselves? you can argue about 'recognizing the legitimacy' all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the capitalists will, no matter what, have some thugs with which to repress your hippie anarchism. your view is pure idealism, though i can't argue against the prematurity of mine; my understanding of marxism is shallow at best.[/QUOTE] Oh I'm definitely not one to argue for communism corrupting, [I]certainly[/I] not one to argue from the human nature standpoint. The reason I oppose it is because it's simply not resolving the problem of state coercion. It's just replacing one state for another one. As for global consciousness, I was only referring to a majority. I'm fully aware of the idealism of changing everyone's mind, but you can work out from game theory that [I]at very most[/I] we only need 50%+ of people to recognise the illegitimacy of state coercion to break the prisoner's dilemma. I see the prisoner's dilemma that the state presents us in as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If people collectively believe in its existence, it exists. If collectively (NOTE: collectively =/= entirely) dismiss its existence it ceases to exist. I'd say my leading argument against violent usurpation is this: if there are enough people to successfully and confidently secure the property of the state violently, there are enough people to not need to secure its property violently.
Communism could work if people took they're desires away. A community would have to work together as one, each person would have to contribute to help. But human insticts get involved greed and desire that you cant really take away, its human nature. I think that would get in the way to the point it could cause conflicting situations for that community.
[QUOTE=DwarfOverlord;34570324]Capitalism's mediocrity makes me want to drown in a bucket of my own diarrhoea. People don't understand the cracks in it's foundations. The GFC is just the beginning- I reckon the end of the world as we know it will be when the banks collapse, money becomes worthless and pretty much the whole world starts from scratch. Then again, communism isn't great either- Leaders end up rich and fat whilst everyone else gets scrawny and poor.[/QUOTE] No, it's capitalism that makes leaders rich and everyone else poor. What happened in Russia was not communism; it was Fascism disguised as communism.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34600165]No, it's capitalism that makes leaders rich and everyone else poor. What happened in Russia was not communism; it was Fascism disguised as communism.[/QUOTE] Im pretty sure it was Stalinism - not fascism.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.