The wealthiest 1% will own more wealth than the rest of the 99%, soon. - Polidicks

The wealthiest 1% will own more wealth than the rest of the 99%, soon.

143 replies, posted
In This Thread

[QUOTE=catbarf;46977800]This is the kind of vacuously edgy nonsense I used to think in high school. The fact that you'll be punished for harming other people doesn't make you legal property, and [B]the fact that you'll starve if you refuse to work isn't the state's fault, it's yours.[/B][/QUOTE] Well, you say that, but really it kind of is the state's fault. 200 years ago, you could just pack your shit, and go settle a farm by yourself out in the West and that would be that. This isn't an option anymore because our society has grown and claimed all the land. So if you're born into a society where your only choices are play by their rules or starve, it is kind of the state's fault for killing you if you don't play by their rules. (Obviously I'm talking about non violent means) Now I'm not saying that I feel a ton of sympathy towards those people, but I recognize that ideally people who are born into our society should have a choice of whether they want to be a part of it. It just seems like the right thing to do.

[QUOTE=Octavius;46977630]I am sure we can find a number of situations in which a government did collapse under the pressure of the people, violent or not, and in each of those situations I assure you that the new government utilized force as a tool to ensure that the old regime did not again rise to contest their newly found power.[/quote] The bigger problem I have is that they use this power not just to crush the old regime, but other contenders for power. Anarchists, liberals, socialist moderates, etc are all on the chopping block for being "counter-revolutionaries". Sometimes even humble smallholders, cafe owners, priests, scientists, and journalists are deemed as being a threat. [quote]A system in power will obviously attempt to solidify its position and to pretend it won't or that this should not happen is simply crazy. Look at any revolution or counter-revolution and you will see this.[/quote] And why should the cycle end with a dictatorship of the proletariat? Should the state and government not be dismantled immediately instead to prevent the dictatorship perpetuating itself? [quote]Just because the Soviet Union ended up as a degenerated workers' state does not 'prove' communism as impossible, wrong, or unachievable. And just to add to it, I'd say that experiment died in 1924 with the death of Lenin and eventual fall of the Left Opposition and Stalin's rise to create a purely state capitalist and very authoritarian society. No matter what you may personally think of the ideas of Socialism I don't think you can state something as a historical relic since a certain implementation of it had failed to succeed while also providing no further arguments to support this idea. And please do not point to the deformed workers' states that existed based on the Soviet Union's own degenerated system to score points against an ideology which they only wished to represent.[/quote] The fact that multiple communist revolutions have failed in the past century and that the ideology is on the whole in terminal decline points to a failure. The future cannot be predicted, and Marx was making predictions of future society based on limited information. His predictions did not come into fruition. The Soviet Union was communist. That is a fact. Just about everybody involved in its creation genuinely thought they were building a communist society and were applying the rules as stringently as they could. I have read a great deal of books on Russia during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The repressive authoritarian system was in place long before the rise of Stalin. By the time Lenin had died, he had already established the basic institutions and practices of the Soviet State. This became most abundantly clear when after the sailors at Kronstadt rebelled and Lenin had them all killed. [quote]So long as massive inequality and exploitation of the working class continues to exist I would wager that communism is a very relevant ideology, just as any other which seeks to answer these problems. I'd love to see you or somebody else combats the ideology itself rather than simply coming up with idealistic methods of change in society with no basis in the material world and which can be applied to anything.[/QUOTE] The communist ideology itself is heavily flawed and I see its continued existence as despicable. The fact that communism ultimately derived in origin from the enlightenment and the ideals of that era matters little when, this pseudoscience was put into practice, caused great human suffering. The only way to see if this revolution will work is to try it out and see if hundreds of thousands of people die. Let us imagine Marxist theory was tested under proper experimental settings. What would it take to falsify it? [editline]21st January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;46977800]Read much about the English Civil War? It was a defining event for your nation and all.[/QUOTE] It ended with the 17th century version of Khomeini taking control and creating a dictatorship of religious lunatics. Nobody was happy with the results, which is why they re-established the monarch in its entirety shortly after Cromwell died.

[QUOTE=Deng;46980161] The bigger problem I have is that they use this power not just to crush the old regime, but other contenders for power. Anarchists, liberals, socialist moderates, etc are all on the chopping block for being "counter-revolutionaries". Sometimes even humble smallholders, cafe owners, priests, scientists, and journalists are deemed as being a threat. [/QUOTE] This is not a requirement for the ideology but simply a possibility with a revolution in general as a system for change. Nowhere is the suppression of all these groups required in the event of a society emerging from a revolution. [QUOTE=Deng;46980161] And why should the cycle end with a dictatorship of the proletariat? Should the state and government not be dismantled immediately instead to prevent the dictatorship perpetuating itself?[/QUOTE] I’m not arguing for a dictatorship of the proletariat there. I’m simply saying that this is what happens, through whatever means, for ANY factions in any revolution be it fascists, communists, anarchists, or whatever other ideology you feel like tossing in there. To answer you though, why oppose the dictatorship of the proletariat? [QUOTE=Rosa Luxemburg] Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Deng;46980161] The fact that multiple communist revolutions have failed in the past century and that the ideology is on the whole in terminal decline points to a failure. The future cannot be predicted, and Marx was making predictions of future society based on limited information. His predictions did not come into fruition. [/QUOTE] I don’t know why you would go and appeal to the attempts to create communist societies based on an already degenerated state when I explicitly refuted this notion. [QUOTE=Deng;46980161] The Soviet Union was communist. That is a fact. Just about everybody involved in its creation genuinely thought they were building a communist society and were applying the rules as stringently as they could. [/QUOTE] The idea that everybody involved genuinely believed they were creating a communist society is a baseless assertion. The Soviets sought to create the potential for a communist society though were not looking to immediately implement one nor did they succeed in reaching that stage, which is why they may be called deformed workers’ state. [QUOTE=Deng;46980161] I have read a great deal of books on Russia during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The repressive authoritarian system was in place long before the rise of Stalin. By the time Lenin had died, he had already established the basic institutions and practices of the Soviet State. This became most abundantly clear when after the sailors at Kronstadt rebelled and Lenin had them all killed. [/QUOTE] The authoritarian power system of Stalin is more focused on the solidifying of the power into one position while simultaneously getting rid of all opposition. This was not something under Lenin and this collapse of the party and internal conflict is something that Lenin sought to prevent. And on the subject of Kronstadt, though I may not support their exact actions do you really find it crazy that in a civil war people would fight each other? I don’t think you can necessarily point at their actions in fighting a war for their future as a criticism of their state they seek to establish after the war. [QUOTE=Deng;46980161] The communist ideology itself is heavily flawed and I see its continued existence as despicable. The fact that communism ultimately derived in origin from the enlightenment and the ideals of that era matters little when, this pseudoscience was put into practice, caused great human suffering. The only way to see if this revolution will work is to try it out and see if hundreds of thousands of people die. Let us imagine Marxist theory was tested under proper experimental settings. What would it take to falsify it? [/QUOTE] I would prefer it if you actually made a criticism of the ideology itself rather than simply asserting it is wrong and leaving it at that. What is so heavily flawed in the ideas of socialism or communism? I also don’t understand why you start going on about the enlightenment here, I can only assume you misunderstood my calling of your thoughts on societal change idealistic. But either way, Marxian socialism attempts to be exactly the opposite of a pseudoscience, which is why it distinguishes itself as ‘Scientific Socialism’ as opposed to ‘Utopian Socialism’. Either way, I would still love to see you provide something in support of your assertion of the ideology being fundamentally flawed as I had asked for in my last post. Simply because some attempts have been made to implement the ideology in the past does not mean it cannot work. And simply because some people may die due to a change in society is no reason to fear the whole ideology. How do you think capitalism and liberal democracy came into being within society? How do you think we have reached this current position we occupy within modern society because I assure you it was not all sunshine, roses, and happiness. There was bloodshed, there was imperialism and colonialism, and it still has not ended. Surely you do not oppose all of modern society due to the fact these means were used to achieve it?

[QUOTE=ThePanther;46968921]It'd be nice to have a healthy working class again. :/[/QUOTE] It would be nice to have a middle class [editline]21st January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Deaglez7;46968958]But they said it's gonna trickle down cmon[/QUOTE] Its gonna trickle down from a rich mans dick while he tries to piss with kidney stones made out of gold. AKA never.

[QUOTE=Octavius;46981485]Nowhere is the suppression of all these groups required in the event of a society emerging from a revolution.[/quote] Not required, but is it justifiable? After many violent revolutions, the new regime often explicitly suppresses groups that may not even have supported the old regime. [quote]I’m not arguing for a dictatorship of the proletariat there. I’m simply saying that this is what happens, through whatever means, for ANY factions in any revolution be it fascists, communists, anarchists, or whatever other ideology you feel like tossing in there. To answer you though, why oppose the dictatorship of the proletariat?[/quote] Well I oppose it because it argues that the new society will be somehow built by people using the exact same methods of all other oppressive regimes in the past. Why should the cycle be broken when some factory workers come into control? Was Marx confident enough to assume that it would end with the factory workers? [quote]This was not something under Lenin and this collapse of the party and internal conflict is something that Lenin sought to prevent. And on the subject of Kronstadt, though I may not support their exact actions do you really find it crazy that in a civil war people would fight each other? I don’t think you can necessarily point at their actions in fighting a war for their future as a criticism of their state they seek to establish after the war.[/quote] The Kronstadt rebellion was led by sailors who had fought in support of the Soviets in earlier years. They, along with other leftist groups were becoming increasingly appalled at the new governments actions and immediately demanded an end to its authoritarian practices. Not only did the Bolsheviks refuse, but after crushing the rebellion they violently suppressed almost all leftist groups. By 1924 when Lenin died, the regime was effectively without opposition, mainly because they killed, arrested, or exiled them all. The Bolsheviks lacked popular support too. In democratic elections they lost ground to peasant representatives, hence the reason they abolished the constituent assembly. Stalins collectivisation in later years constituted a continuation of the Bolshevik war on the rural peasantry and countryside begun in 1917. [quote]What is so heavily flawed in the ideas of socialism or communism? I also don’t understand why you start going on about the enlightenment here, I can only assume you misunderstood my calling of your thoughts on societal change idealistic. But either way, Marxian socialism attempts to be exactly the opposite of a pseudoscience, which is why it distinguishes itself as ‘Scientific Socialism’ as opposed to ‘Utopian Socialism’. Either way, I would still love to see you provide something in support of your assertion of the ideology being fundamentally flawed as I had asked for in my last post. [/quote] It does not resemble a science because it fails to adhere to the scientific method. It is a theory that used a limited set of data to create statements about human society and history. It is impossible to predict the future because future economic, social, and political developments all rely on the creation of new information. This new information cannot be predicted in advance (or else you would already have it). Of course, this would not be a problem if Marxism could be proven wrong. However, any attempts at putting it into practice (Paris Commune, Soviet Union, Maoist China) ends in failure. However, they are seen as "not true communist states". What would be a fair test that we could use to generate experimental data about Communism? What would it take to falsify it? [quote]Simply because some attempts have been made to implement the ideology in the past does not mean it cannot work. And simply because some people may die due to a change in society is no reason to fear the whole ideology. How do you think capitalism and liberal democracy came into being within society? How do you think we have reached this current position we occupy within modern society because I assure you it was not all sunshine, roses, and happiness. There was bloodshed, there was imperialism and colonialism, and it still has not ended. Surely you do not oppose all of modern society due to the fact these means were used to achieve it?[/QUOTE] Capitalism rose through the unconscious actions of many individuals. Most of the time it wasn't welcomed by both rulers and the ruled in Medieval Europe and China, but the advantages of the money economy, markets, specialization, mass production, division of labour, etc eventually caused the cumbersome old systems to decay from within. Capitalism is more the cause than the consequence of a revolution.

[QUOTE=Octavius;46976088]No state does not mean a lack of any governance. Most supporters of any ideology even broadly related to Marxism generally all recognize that a true democracy is a necessity to the functioning of a communist society in the end. Not only that, but dictatorship of the proletariat is not a literal dictatorship and violent revolution still does not mean a dictatorship. And to make it better, Marx seems to have been opposed to an authoritarian implementation of communism if his critique of barracks communism is considered applicable and very obviously was not against non-bourgeois democracy.[/QUOTE] Uh, no. I mean, it's not like it's an opinion or anything, you're just factually wrong. I don't know on what kind of books you studied, but communism is an ideology that despises democracy. And yes, dictatorship of the proletariat means exactly that, forcibly taking power from the bourgeois and destroy the old capitalist establishment. After that, the proletariat would need to rule with an iron fist for a while, to ensure that the socialist revolution would not be stopped. After the socialist revolution reached its goal, people would find that there is no need for a strong, centralized state or capitalism, and would naturally embrace the new socialist order. You're not really thinking in marxist terms. To you, me and everyone else here, democracy is the by far the best form of governance. But for Marx, it was the natural consequence of capitalism, and as such, an inherently corrupted political ideal. And supporters of ideologies related to Marxism are not marxists, so I have no idea why you thought that they would have anything to say on what marxists actually believe. There's dime a dozen of important and famous marxist intellectuals: Engels, Lenin, Althusser, Marcuse, Weber, Lukacs, Gramsci and they were all against democracies. Social-democrats like Bernstein who actually believed in the idea of a socialist democracy never wanted to associate themselves with communists.

[QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;46982090']Uh, no. I mean, it's not like it's an opinion or anything, you're just factually wrong. I don't know on what kind of books you studied, but communism is an ideology that despises democracy. And yes, dictatorship of the proletariat means exactly that, forcibly taking power from the bourgeois and destroy the old capitalist establishment. After that, the proletariat would need to rule with an iron fist for a while, to ensure that the socialist revolution would not be stopped. After the socialist revolution reached its goal, people would find that there is no need for a strong, centralized state or capitalism, and would naturally embrace the new socialist order. You're not really thinking in marxist terms. To you, me and everyone else here, democracy is the by far the best form of governance. But for Marx, it was the natural consequence of capitalism, and as such, an inherently corrupted political ideal. And supporters of ideologies related to Marxism are not marxists, so I have no idea why you thought that they would have anything to say on what marxists actually believe. There's dime a dozen of important and famous marxist intellectuals: Engels, Lenin, Althusser, Marcuse, Weber, Lukacs, Gramsci and they were all against democracies. Social-democrats like Bernstein who actually believed in the idea of a socialist democracy never wanted to associate themselves with communists.[/QUOTE] To say that communism is opposed to democracy seems to simply ignore all parts of the ideology. And nowhere do I deny the rule of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' or their role as you portray it, but the person you responded to was refuting the idea that communism means some sort of single leader dictatorship such as under Stalin, which is very obviously incorrect and I thought you were saying that communism did mean that. Either way though, it is still not necessarily a dictatorship so much as simply the rule of the proletariat class. I think the quote by Rosa Luxemburg is also pretty neat so go check that out above. And to state again, Marx and other Marxists were opposed to bourgeois democracy. Democracy itself as a system of governance was not something unilaterally opposed, in fact I can't think of even one Marxist who opposed democracy. Key thing here is not to confuse bourgeois democracy with the idea of democracy as a whole, since I can assure you there were not opposed to democracy and to say so is just ignoring what was envisioned by them. I'm certainly not familiar with the works of everyone you posted, but I still would wager they all supported democracy. Marx, Lenin, Engels, and Gramsci I know for a fact supported democracy, just not the bourgeois democracy they so often criticized. [QUOTE='Deng;46982027'] Well I oppose it because it argues that the new society will be somehow built by people using the exact same methods of all other oppressive regimes in the past. Why should the cycle be broken when some factory workers come into control? Was Marx confident enough to assume that it would end with the factory workers? [/QUOTE] What cycle is there to even be broken? How can a transfer of power form the minority to the majority of society somehow be the method on which all other oppressive regimes were created? The idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat is to allow that majority of society to be in control of society so I just don't seem to understand your point here. [QUOTE]The Kronstadt rebellion was led by sailors who had fought in support of the Soviets in earlier years. They, along with other leftist groups were becoming increasingly appalled at the new governments actions and immediately demanded an end to its authoritarian practices. Not only did the Bolsheviks refuse, but after crushing the rebellion they violently suppressed almost all leftist groups. By 1924 when Lenin died, the regime was effectively without opposition, mainly because they killed, arrested, or exiled them all. The Bolsheviks lacked popular support too. In democratic elections they lost ground to peasant representatives, hence the reason they abolished the constituent assembly. Stalins collectivisation in later years constituted a continuation of the Bolshevik war on the rural peasantry and countryside begun in 1917.[/QUOTE] I'm not here to defend every action of the Bolsheviks. I'm not advocating for the oppression of large groups of society and I can recognize that the Bolsheviks did that. But important to that is the context in which it occurred. To the Bolsheviks during that time of war those particular means to coming to their end goal of power were justified. The war they were fighting had been long, hard, and overall devastating. What they did is not ideal but it at least has to be understood in context. And on the subject of a Bolshevik war on the peasantry, it was not necessarily Bolshevik policy to continue that exact method into peacetime, which I think is made clear by their attempts with the NEP, but again, I'm not here to speak about Stalin's actions of reverting back to a crude and authoritarian method of collectivization, which I'd have hoped I made clear by now. Considering that by the time of Lenin's death Stalin was not exactly viewed as the man for the job I'd say he is not really someone to point to as proof of Bolshevik policy considering how much hew went back and forth on what he supported during his political maneuvering and the tough opposition he encountered in general. I suppose also important to state is that I don't find it logical to point to their means to and end and act as if those means are themselves the ends. [QUOTE] Capitalism rose through the unconscious actions of many individuals. Most of the time it wasn't welcomed by both rulers and the ruled in Medieval Europe and China, but the advantages of the money economy, markets, specialization, mass production, division of labour, etc eventually caused the cumbersome old systems to decay from within. Capitalism is more the cause than the consequence of a revolution. [/QUOTE] To act like Capitalism simply popped up out of nowhere all over the world and that people of all classes welcomed it is extremely misrepresenting its rise. It may not be the result of some single revolution and I never stated it was, but its not as if everyone just went on over to capitalism and gave up all previous power. Then with early industrial capitalism terrible wages and conditions led to death for many. Along with this, to fuel itself capitalism has continuously expanded and exploited, sometimes with violence being utilized when opposition is met to achieve its goals. The point was not whether or not it arose due to a revolution or consequences but that, like in a revolution working towards any other ideology, there was pain and suffering. Either way, I'd still maintain that Socialism or Communism are key to understanding and correcting this situation and can't simply be tossed out cause certain implementations previously failed.

[QUOTE=Octavius;46982802]What cycle is there to even be broken? How can a transfer of power form the minority to the majority of society somehow be the method on which all other oppressive regimes were created? The idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat is to allow that majority of society to be in control of society so I just don't seem to understand your point here.[/quote] In Marxist theory history is driven forward by one society being replaced in a revolution by the next one. All of them were oppressive, so why is it that it suddenly stops with the Communists? [quote]But important to that is the context in which it occurred. To the Bolsheviks during that time of war those particular means to coming to their end goal of power were justified. The war they were fighting had been long, hard, and overall devastating. What they did is not ideal but it at least has to be understood in context.[/quote] The concerns of those in rebellion seemed very reasonable. Violent suppression was used, to the point that by the time Lenin died, the opposition in the Soviet Union had been wholly eradicated. What kind of shit freedom is it that you have to shoot innocent people? [quote]To act like Capitalism simply popped up out of nowhere all over the world and that people of all classes welcomed it is extremely misrepresenting its rise.[/quote] It develops naturally in an economy after it develops a degree of complexity. What marks out the development of a market economy is the rise of urban centres, the increasing monetization of an economy, the move from subsistence to producing goods for profit, investment, a financial sector, and the integration of local economies into national or international markets. This has happened many times in history independently. It began (but wasn't concluded) in Song China in the 11th century, Medieval Europe in the 14th, Tokugawa Japan in the 17th, etc. What marks them out is the fact they all arose largely through the efforts of tenanted farmers, artisans, merchants, etc who developed these markets and drove the adoption of money as a medium of exchange. In addition, can you explain why "Scientific" socialism constitutes a science? [editline]21st January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Atlascore;46982812]Uhm you do realize that we could have all of that stuff without the majority living in poverty.. right?[/QUOTE] Yes. And? The point is that the world isn't going to shit.

[QUOTE=Deng;46982944]In Marxist theory history is driven forward by one society being replaced in a revolution by the next one. All of them were oppressive, so why is it that it suddenly stops with the Communists?[/QUOTE] The idea is to bring the majority proletariat into power. By bringing society into control of the society as a whole exploitation will be stopped. Now, when you say all of 'them' were oppressive do you mean the Soviet based regimes which entered into power in the 1900's? Cause I think I can only call them deformed workers' states so many times. They are not all necessarily unrepresentative of state socialist ideas in some aspects of them, but I wouldn't say one is truly representative of socialism as they were based on an already flawed system which stopped then from reaching past the model of the state capitalist Soviet Union. [QUOTE]The concerns of those in rebellion seemed very reasonable. Violent suppression was used, to the point that by the time Lenin died, the opposition in the Soviet Union had been wholly eradicated. What kind of shit freedom is it that you have to shoot innocent people?[/QUOTE] I didn't say it was freedom and I also did not say I supported it so I don't know why you expect me to come in here and defend it. But just to state, by the time Lenin died opposition still existed. I'll agree that it surely was not a very diverse opposition but it still was there in the forms of the Left Opposition and Right Opposition within the party itself. Stalin would eventually go on to throw both of them out also. Either way, I'm not trying to defend the actions of the barely even State Capitalist society that was the early Soviet Union and I'm certainly not saying they were non-authoritarian. [QUOTE]It develops naturally in an economy after it develops a degree of complexity. What marks out the development of a market economy is the rise of urban centres, the increasing monetization of an economy, the move from subsistence to producing goods for profit, investment, a financial sector, and the integration of local economies into national or international markets. This has happened many times in history independently. It began (but wasn't concluded) in Song China in the 11th century, Medieval Europe in the 14th, Tokugawa Japan in the 17th, etc. What marks them out is the fact they all arose largely through the efforts of tenanted farmers, artisans, merchants, etc who developed these markets and drove the adoption of money as a medium of exchange.[/QUOTE] The development of markets is key to the development of the capitalist system, but are certain not the same. To clarify what I mean though is not that they just come out of nowhere. I understand that the system certainly developed naturally in many places but to act as if it was only a natural process that just happens is what I wanted to point out as wrong. The development of Capitalism required violence and oppression by the capitalists to implement it and solidify its position globally, which is similar to how a system implemented by revolution would require oppression and violence of some sort. [QUOTE]In addition, can you explain why "Scientific" socialism constitutes a science?[/QUOTE] I suppose the justification for this would be that unlike utopian socialism, so called scientific socialism is based upon materialism rather than idealism. Engels wrote on this in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, though other people also wrote on the idea of scientific socialism. I suppose if that doesn't do it for you it may be relatable to the idea of being a 'science' in the same way that economics is a 'science', that is as a social science.

This proves my theory that optimists are retards.

[QUOTE=Deng;46982027] Capitalism rose through the unconscious actions of many individuals. Most of the time it wasn't welcomed by both rulers and the ruled in Medieval Europe and China, but the advantages of the money economy, markets, specialization, mass production, division of labour, etc eventually caused the cumbersome old systems to decay from within. Capitalism is more the cause than the consequence of a revolution.[/QUOTE] Money economy was around long before medieval times. As far back as Mesopotamia there were silver coins being used. Division of labour and specialisation also arose just after humans settled down and became sedentary, arguably before that. Mass production also is possible without capitalism. You wrong attribute these things to capitalism, assumedly to make it seem more natural and acceptable.

[QUOTE=Octavius;46983326]Now, when you say all of 'them' were oppressive do you mean the Soviet based regimes which entered into power in the 1900's? Cause I think I can only call them deformed workers' states so many times. They are not all necessarily unrepresentative of state socialist ideas in some aspects of them, but I wouldn't say one is truly representative of socialism as they were based on an already flawed system which stopped then from reaching past the model of the state capitalist Soviet Union.[/quote] There are many instances where when political theory is put into practice, the result is wildly different. I don't see why we shouldn't scrutinize Communism the same way we do with everything else. [quote]But just to state, by the time Lenin died opposition still existed. I'll agree that it surely was not a very diverse opposition but it still was there in the forms of the Left Opposition and Right Opposition within the party itself.[/quote] How does opposition existing within the party itself constitute as that? It was one group of communists with a few different ideas. The opposition which matters (Ranging from liberals to conservatives, anarchists, moderate socialists, monarchists, etc) had been entirely eradicated. This is more telling when the Soviet Union was really just islands of red inside a sea of green. [quote]The development of markets is key to the development of the capitalist system, but are certain not the same. To clarify what I mean though is not that they just come out of nowhere. I understand that the system certainly developed naturally in many places but to act as if it was only a natural process that just happens is what I wanted to point out as wrong. The development of Capitalism required violence and oppression by the capitalists to implement it and solidify its position globally, which is similar to how a system implemented by revolution would require oppression and violence of some sort.[/quote] Well no. The new economy slowly supplanted the old one without any need for violence. By the 18th century in Europe, it was fully entrenched. The aristocracy took longer to decline, as late as the 20th century in some instances, but they were effectively operating within economies nearly identical to modern ones. They had private banks, investment, stock exchanges, factories, enterprises operating to generate profit, etc. [quote]I suppose the justification for this would be that unlike utopian socialism, so called scientific socialism is based upon materialism rather than idealism. Engels wrote on this in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, though other people also wrote on the idea of scientific socialism. I suppose if that doesn't do it for you it may be relatable to the idea of being a 'science' in the same way that economics is a 'science', that is as a social science.[/QUOTE] So what actually makes it a "science" ? If I wanted to prove a medicine worked, I would draw up some experiments and test it out on some people, with a control group for comparison. Importantly, the hypothesis initially made should be subject to falsification. How do I apply this to "Scientific socialism"? What would constitute a fair experiment? Is it possible to have a control group? Can I falsify Marxs statements? It's all well and dandy having XYZ political theories about the world, but its quite another to assert them as a science. [editline]22nd January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46986080]Money economy was around long before medieval times. As far back as Mesopotamia there were silver coins being used.[/quote] While money existed, most people never really saw any money. The vast majority of people made their own tools and clothes, worked the land, lived in villages, and dealt with goods through bartering or services rather than a medium of exchange such as money. Gold coinage (excluding Rome) didn't even exist in many European countries until the 1200s. [quote]Division of labour and specialisation also arose just after humans settled down and became sedentary, arguably before that. Mass production also is possible without capitalism. You wrong attribute these things to capitalism, assumedly to make it seem more natural and acceptable.[/QUOTE] To a degree this is true. What is important is the degree to which it is done. While most societies had the capacity to mass produce things, have a division of labour, etc - most people never did it. As late as the year 1750 for instance, most people in Europe and China still grew their own food and worked in agriculture. The revolution behind the factory system was that both the demand existed and the ability to rapidly improve on production methods in response to changing markets existed. Also to argue about how it being natural is good or not is just a fallacy. The fact is that several societies independently developed the modern economy and in doing so brought about a radical transformation to their respective societies (for better or worse).

[QUOTE=Deng;46986492]There are many instances where when political theory is put into practice, the result is wildly different. I don't see why we shouldn't scrutinize Communism the same way we do with everything else.[/QUOTE] So republics and democracies are not capable of functioning because the French failed to implement it properly in a few instances long ago, we should discredit any theory even broadly related to it? [QUOTE]How does opposition existing within the party itself constitute as that? It was one group of communists with a few different ideas. The opposition which matters (Ranging from liberals to conservatives, anarchists, moderate socialists, monarchists, etc) had been entirely eradicated. This is more telling when the Soviet Union was really just islands of red inside a sea of green.[/QUOTE] I just said there was opposition in existence. Either way, who are you to select which opposition matters and which does not? What makes the opposition of the moderate socialist more important than the radical socialist? [QUOTE]Well no. The new economy slowly supplanted the old one without any need for violence. By the 18th century in Europe, it was fully entrenched. The aristocracy took longer to decline, as late as the 20th century in some instances, but they were effectively operating within economies nearly identical to modern ones. They had private banks, investment, stock exchanges, factories, enterprises operating to generate profit, etc.[/QUOTE] Well no. I really don't see why you keep acting like capitalism is some natural progression that took no force to implement because everyone was fine with it. I'd like you to just simply tell me if you really deny that there was violence used in order to implement the capitalist system of relations. This would range from imperialism to colonialism to opposition within the hubs of capitalism coming from groups like the Diggers or other groups resisting the exploitation of the Capitalists. All I'm trying to point out here is that violence was used for implementing capitalism as it is today and to achieve society as it exists today, why do you not denounce it all seeing as you positioned yourself as opposed to violence as a tool of change. [QUOTE]So what actually makes it a "science" ? If I wanted to prove a medicine worked, I would draw up some experiments and test it out on some people, with a control group for comparison. Importantly, the hypothesis initially made should be subject to falsification. How do I apply this to "Scientific socialism"? What would constitute a fair experiment? Is it possible to have a control group? Can I falsify Marxs statements? It's all well and dandy having XYZ political theories about the world, but its quite another to assert them as a science.[/QUOTE] I mean sure dude just go ahead and ignore everything I said in response to you. Again though I will say it likes to call itself that due to it being based on evidence and facts, and I'd relate it more to social sciences.

[QUOTE=Kybalt;46979692]Well, you say that, but really it kind of is the state's fault. 200 years ago, you could just pack your shit, and go settle a farm by yourself out in the West and that would be that. This isn't an option anymore because our society has grown and claimed all the land. So if you're born into a society where your only choices are play by their rules or starve, it is kind of the state's fault for killing you if you don't play by their rules. (Obviously I'm talking about non violent means) Now I'm not saying that I feel a ton of sympathy towards those people, but I recognize that ideally people who are born into our society should have a choice of whether they want to be a part of it. It just seems like the right thing to do.[/QUOTE] Two hundred years ago to go settle a farm by yourself you'd have to make a perilous journey across the entire country, hoping you don't die along the way of disease, starvation, or hostile natives, or that other people beat you to the territory and stake a claim before you can. For the most part, if you wanted land to build a farm you bought it from someone else and still paid the tax man every year. Things haven't changed, you've always had to play nice with others to get along in society. If anything, people are far more free today than in, say, medieval Europe where people actually were effectively slaves to their landowners, and that was long before the rise of the egalitarian society SirDavid seems to think is cruelly oppressive. Today, the option is still there to get a plane ticket to someplace scenic and remote like Zimbabwe and live outside society- it's certainly no more dangerous or expensive than heading West circa 1800, and it'll take a fraction of the time. Anyone who says that modern society makes you a slave in any meaningful sense is seriously lacking perspective.

[QUOTE=Octavius;46986775]So republics and democracies are not capable of functioning because the French failed to implement it properly in a few instances long ago, we should discredit any theory even broadly related to it?[/QUOTE] We have functioning democracies and republics today (and had them before the French revolution). Where are the functioning Communist societies? [quote]I just said there was opposition in existence. Either way, who are you to select which opposition matters and which does not? What makes the opposition of the moderate socialist more important than the radical socialist?[/quote] Well they kind of matter, considering that you've eliminated almost the entirety of the political spectrum if you only have the Bolshevik party. Why should Liberals or Moderate socialists or anarchists or conservatives not be allowed to hold an opinion, why can't they exist? The Bolsheviks eradicated nearly every political group that wasn't their brand of communism. [quote]Well no. I really don't see why you keep acting like capitalism is some natural progression that took no force to implement because everyone was fine with it. I'd like you to just simply tell me if you really deny that there was violence used in order to implement the capitalist system of relations. This would range from imperialism to colonialism to opposition within the hubs of capitalism coming from groups like the Diggers or other groups resisting the exploitation of the Capitalists. All I'm trying to point out here is that violence was used for implementing capitalism as it is today and to achieve society as it exists today, why do you not denounce it all seeing as you positioned yourself as opposed to violence as a tool of change.[/quote] I don't denounce it because violence was not used to create it. The historical evidence is simply lacking. While capitalist nations have gone about colonizing others, the original development of it was a process of economic and social change largely carried out by millions of economic actors ranging from farmers to merchants and craftsmen. Plus groups like luddites who went around smashing machinery weren't opposed to capitalism themselves. Most of them were artisans who made a living by producing goods for sale with the intent to make profit. Capitalists had been operating with artisan weavers since the 17th century. The real reason is that they saw machinery as a kind of unfair competition. Indeed, most of them were looking to bargain with factory owners, and the harsh economic climate after the napoleonic wars contributed to this. [quote]I mean sure dude just go ahead and ignore everything I said in response to you. Again though I will say it likes to call itself that due to it being based on evidence and facts, and I'd relate it more to social sciences.[/quote] Except Marxism as a scientific theory is not really based on new evidence and facts. While it was a good theory for the mid 19th century, it was ultimately superseded by newer economic and social theories that took account of new information. Marxism hasn't really been relevant in economics (except in a historical context) since the 19th century. We have better theories to explain the natural world.

If you are working 40 hours a week in the US and you still live with your parents. You're a wage slave. And your parents subsidize you.

[QUOTE=kevin32891;46987264]If you are working 40 hours a week in the US and you still live with your parents. You're a wage slave. And your parents subsidize you.[/QUOTE] Wage "slavery" is incomparable to actual slavery lol. If you live in the west and have a job and aren't in immediate threat of starving or being thrown out of your home then you probably don't have very much perspective on how bad some people in the world really have it.

[QUOTE=Deng;46995367]Wage "slavery" is incomparable to actual slavery lol. If you live in the west and have a job and aren't in immediate threat of starving or being thrown out of your home then you probably don't have very much perspective on how bad some people in the world really have it.[/QUOTE] That IS the thing- MOST people in the world have it really bad. what kevin32891 wrote was idiotic, but substitute US with Kosovo and 40 with 60, Voila, you have it. Wage slavery. The thing we mean about slavery is, person isn't given another chance, an oppurtunity. People are given a choice to live or die only, if that is what you call living. They aren't really living, they are surviving. The point is, current direction doesn't help these people. And it is not the fault of Putin, Kony 2012, King Abdullah and ISIS alone, sadly.

Well, there are two things in life you have to do as specie - survive and multiply :).

[QUOTE=Fourier;46996649]Well, there are two things in life you have to do as specie - survive and multiply :).[/QUOTE] Why? I wasn't aware there was any need for multiplying.

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.