With all of the smilies after every post? Don't know about them but it did seem pretty obvious to me. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Anti-Bomb+Oct 26 2003, 12:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Anti-Bomb @ Oct 26 2003, 12:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Jammer obviously fails to realise that not everyone one of the people are rich bourgeiouse who have 3 different summer houses and ****.
There absolutely no difference between middle and lower class any more, you can't tell the difference there is a huge gap between the rich and poor. In communism those planners do what the people tell them to do, different worker councils in a certain region decide on what to do, the planners are just there to enforce the decisions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, because as Middle Class suburbanite, I have that. Nice assumption. Care to have some facts in your next post?
Why should people without economic power have any power in the decesion making? In capitalism, EVERYONE has power in proportion to their contribution to the economy. Isn't that the fairest way to do things. If the big guy screws the little guy, the little guy can get support, become a big guy, and take him down.
Its impossible for workers to be exploited, except in communism, when they are forced to do things.
No one forces you to work or take jobs. "But poor families are forced to work in sweatshops!" Who forced them there? Not the companies. Their government. By refusing to modernize the economy, they've created a shortage of jobs that force them to take crappy jobs.
If a janitor tries to join a union and gets fired, he's free to seek other employment if he thinks he deserves more. Just because wants something doesn't mean they should get it.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Oct 26 2003, 08:02 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Oct 26 2003, 08:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Where did this magical idea come from the Buisness was a greater danger than government? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Because (according to american) government, govt is created to safeguard the rights of life, liberty, and property. Business is not created to safegaurd those 3 rights. It is created to make money. While businesses are not necessarily evil, their priorities are skewed towards moneymaking and not protecting the rights of people. case in point: environmentalism. The government is (arguably) run by the people, and the people do not benefit from destruction of the environment; thus the government will oppose its destruction. However companies DO benefit from destruction of the environment, and money is their first priority.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Capitalism is more democratic than communism. The economy is controlled by 'enlightened' planners in communism.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You seem to be implying that Communism is the same as Feudalism. Unilke Feudalism, a Communist society would have no one exercising power that they hadn't been elected to use by those affected by their actions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No one forces you to work or take jobs. "But poor families are forced to work in sweatshops!" Who forced them there? Not the companies. Their government. By refusing to modernize the economy, they've created a shortage of jobs that force them to take crappy jobs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They are forced by the economy to take up work in sweatshops and starve. Their governments are run by Quislings that pander to the West and let our companies come in search of cheap labor. If by modernize the economy you mean institute capitalism and free trade with other countries, for poorer countries this means getting raped by the rich ones. Countries that have tried to take a stand against imperialism--like Chile nationalising the copper mines, or Grenada kicking out United Fruit--have all been militarily disposed of by the international bourgeoisie. Their economies can not modernize beyond capitalism without taking anti-imperialist measures and getting invaded (or coup'd) for it.
Do you think that the European countries, America, and Japan, when capitalism dawned in them, became so wealthy simply because of capitalism? It is a lot more complicated: Their new power gave them new power to invade and exploit Africa, India, China, the Middle East, Latin America, the entire non-Capitalist world. Nations in which capitalism is developing today do not have a world to exploit, so they are going to be poorer, and still preyed on by multinational corporations.
You say that poor people are not forced to work in sweatshops... but it is either that or starve. I don't know many people who'd choose to starve, so I'd have to say that you were sort of forcing them!
Furthermore, the bourgeoisie is not a blind force in history. It recognizes its place and tries to keep it. If a corporation has no competitors, it will just jack up prices, and use sabotage to take out its enemies while trying to keep a monopoly. We saw how brutal the bourgeoisie was here in America where they engaged in open gun battle with striking workers, and framed and executed labor leaders like Joe Hill. This is going to happen again if we have another depression.
Do you remember the emperors of the old days? Whenever a peasant revolt came to their doors, they would grant the peasants some measly reform to appease them, coupled with a speech about how they needed a King to enforce order, and everyone would go home in agreement about their great and merciful King.
As we have seen, the nobility was NOT a necessary class, despite the fact that it painted itself as one. Similarly, the bourgeoisie tries to pass off its parasitic relationship with the workers as a symbiotic one. You say that the more that businessmen get is entitled to them by their work in propping it up. I say it is unfair because they didn't work, they got rich exploiting other peoples work and paying them for 1/10th their labor.
People can organize their own means of production, and it doesn't have to be one little person turning into a big one, a turncoat to oppress his or her people. It can be everyone working together. It's worked before, it works every day around the world, and there's no reason why it can't work for everyone and end the split in society between those who have and those who work. And if the capitalists hadn't proved themselves so ruthless and dead-set on stopping opposition, there might be a peaceful route to a better society. Of course I don't mean in any way that I endorse violence. The workers movement does not have violence as one of its aims, but given the treacherous history of the bourgeoisie, we must be ready to defend ourselves.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Oct 26 2003, 01:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Oct 26 2003, 01:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Anti-Bomb+Oct 26 2003, 12:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Anti-Bomb @ Oct 26 2003, 12:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Jammer obviously fails to realise that not everyone one of the people are rich bourgeiouse who have 3 different summer houses and ****.
There absolutely no difference between middle and lower class any more, you can't tell the difference there is a huge gap between the rich and poor. In communism those planners do what the people tell them to do, different worker councils in a certain region decide on what to do, the planners are just there to enforce the decisions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, because as Middle Class suburbanite, I have that. Nice assumption. Care to have some facts in your next post?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The fact is pretty obvious, you want me to go around taking pictures of people in the street? You want to see the fact, then walk down the street and you will see.
To hell with "perfect societys" People should have motivation to work, socialistic approaches will NOT work due to the fact that who the hell would want to do ten times as hard a job with just the same pay.
Everyone should have to make it on their own, with maybe just a little help from here to there if absolutely NEEDED.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Oct 24 2003, 10:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 24 2003, 10:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Good lord, why would you <i>want</i> communism to work??? Can you imagine anything more boring? Nothing to strive for, no reason to try hard, no reason to excel. Everyone gets the same amount of compensation whether or not they work 10 times harder than someone, or are 10 times more lazy. The myth that corruption brought down the Soviet Union and other commie countries continues to be purveyed here - it was no such thing; it was <b>apathy and hubris</b>. Many human beings naturally desire to compete and excel; communism crushes the spirit and makes everyone into just another drone with no opportunity and no incentives. Its constant failure should make you think about its design flaws, and not just say 'oh, the Russians screwed that up, the stupid peasants. If only we Finns/Germans/Aussies/<your superior country here> had gone that way in 1917, we would have gotten it right.'
Communism destroys humanity in a way no other government system ever has, except for possibly dictatorships. That's why it's on the way out, after its short-lived and disasterous term in a handful of countries. It's also the reason that only the lowest and simplest organisms follow a similar pattern and survive natural selection... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ooops
Looks like you had pretty much the same idea. Go MonsE =)
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Oct 24 2003, 10:52 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 24 2003, 10:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <i>Slight</i> boredom? Does anyone here follow history at all, and see what happened in these communist countries? Rampant alcoholism and other self-annihilation, horrendous quality of life and low-workmanship, a massive black market supplying all the interesting individualistic things in life that a communist system does not tolerate?
Having a horrible dead-end go nowhere job is hell on earth, and if you'd ever had one, and no prospects of release, you'd understand why. You can have a job and health insurance in a democratic and capitalist system just as well, and most people do. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, yes. Communism is for those who don't wish to be indivdiuals but instead would rather just be mindless drones.
<!--QuoteBegin--Anti-Bomb+Oct 26 2003, 06:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Anti-Bomb @ Oct 26 2003, 06:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Oct 26 2003, 01:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Oct 26 2003, 01:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Anti-Bomb+Oct 26 2003, 12:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Anti-Bomb @ Oct 26 2003, 12:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Jammer obviously fails to realise that not everyone one of the people are rich bourgeiouse who have 3 different summer houses and ****.
There absolutely no difference between middle and lower class any more, you can't tell the difference there is a huge gap between the rich and poor. In communism those planners do what the people tell them to do, different worker councils in a certain region decide on what to do, the planners are just there to enforce the decisions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, because as Middle Class suburbanite, I have that. Nice assumption. Care to have some facts in your next post?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The fact is pretty obvious, you want me to go around taking pictures of people in the street? You want to see the fact, then walk down the street and you will see. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I live pretty well and I'm middle class.
Heck, I deserve what I work for. I dun wanna work 10 hours a day and get as much as some1 who only works 1 hour a day. While the idea of Communism seems attractive, it is unrealistic. Look at Singapore, we have a good leader and a good Prime Minister. Thus, you do not see Singaporeans having riots , Singaporeans having strikes, Singaporeans complaining for GOOD REASON. Indeed, riots or strikes are banned in Singapore, but thinking again, if we had a terrible leader, Singaporeans can still riot in large numbers and no a damn thing can stop 'em.
Example, look at North Korea, a Communism country. Look at South Korea, a Democracy country, which is doing better? Given a chance, would u rather live in North Korea or South Korea?
BTW, can someone post the facts list of Communism and Democracy so everyone else can just decide which is better.
Well just look at the world, America=Democracy=worlds only super power. Russia=Communism=poor and no longer a Communism. NK=Communism=poor and soon to be invaded(we all know it's gonna happen) SK=Democracy=thriveing. Its natural selection, now for the love of god no more communism related topics for awhile, its dead, finito, finished. Let Stalin rest in peace.
About the middle class. In America at least, the middle class runs the economy. You can go on and on about how the upper class people run the business and have bribing powers blah blah blah. It's all just talk.
The average middle class citizen is one of the most wasteful people on the Earth. Therefore we spend the most money buying stuff, then throwing it our, then buying it again. Do you honestly think that the rich run the economy? If you do you are sadly mistaken.
The middle class, and specifically the UMC (upper middle class, which includes me w00t) spends the most money. The businesses cater to us and try to please us so we spend our money on them.
We have no power? Bullsh*t. We have the biggest consumer power. WE run the economy in most cases. Now there are certain exceptions like Microsoft and the oil companies but this is mainly because it's so expensive to start a business in either one of those fields. Let's face it, I think we can all agree that Windows XP is a damn fine running system for a PC and that Microsoft has greatly help computers grow.
In fact, I don't really know where you got the idea that Capitalism is run by the rich...
Classes exist if they have a different mode of production. Not necessarily if they have more money.
In the old days, the middle class was the bankers, the merchants, etc., those wealthy ones who sold their own goods that they personally made, or who did not work at all but paid others small amounts to do so. Businessmen back then were the "middle class." The upper class was the clergy and nobles. The middle class or bourgeoisie made and makes its living by getting other people to work for them by renting the means of production (originally factories) to workers (the proletariat). Now that the upper class are gone, you are using middle class to imply the petty bourgeoisie within American society.
This is causing great confusion. Let me settle it once and for all. When I use the term "bourgeoisie" I do not mean the middle class in America like you might say computer programmers, who are technically not even middle class but just highly paid workers. When I say bourgeoisie I mean the morass of businessmen and bosses that run things, and while money just shows their wealth, they are the owners, the sole proprietors, of the means of production, which they rent out to workers, who they pay a measly sum for what they made, which is worth much much more, and they get rich off the surplus. Basically the bourgeoisie is a parasitic class.
So if you are talking about 19th century Europe, then yes, bourgeoisie=middle class. But modern america, no no no.
Yes! Rich people are evil! After all, they only got rich by STEALING it from poor people. They don't do anything!
Thats an incredibly naive viewpoint ripped straight out of the manifesto. Its almost a joke people.
WHAT RICH PEOPLE DO Invest. They keep the economy rolling by investing in new companies. Buy. Rich people buy things. They create markets that other companies need to satisfy. Employ. Rich people have companies, companies that employ people.
If people feel they're being 'exploited' by the rich, they're free to seek employment elsewhere. The market (also known as the people) sets the value of labor. Value is rarity based, not need based. That it why the unneccesary athelete makes millions and the neccesary janitor makes so little. Everyone can be a janitor. Not everyone can be a pro baseball player. Everyone can be a janitor.
If Mr. Janitor thinks he should get more, he can ask for a raise, or find a job that recognizes his skills more. Also, nothing is stopping Mr. Janitor from thinking of his own buisness, soliciting investors, and taking down the evil rich guy except his talent. Talent to organize, innovate, hype, convince, and sell. "No! The EEEEVVILLLL Rich will keep him down!" Not possible, assuming the rich are operating within the law. The people control the market. If the little guy gives them a better value, it won't be long before the little guy gets big.
Well, that's the theory of it, which is naive to believe 100% in anyway. Little companies have a very hard time fighting big companies because big companies have their wealth at their disposal. You know, price fixing and underselling (lowering prices so low that little guy can't compete)
If no one wants to support the smaller business by buying from them instead of the large company then the smaller buisiness deserves to fail. Free markets do not reward those who are inferior, and for good reason.
All the big companies were small at one time, only the ones with good leadership make it to the top. If their there they deserve it. People won't buy what they don't want or don't need, and won't pay to much for what the do want or need, a good company knows this and works with it. Or you could just be Wal-Mart and sell everything ever made, and always have it in stock, this requires magic powers which I won't get into <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Then I could continue to work as an Engineer, doing the same hard work, for the same pay as a street sweeper? WOW. Where can I sign up.
Sorry, I say no to communism for the same reason I left the Military. I like getting paid for working harder.
edit: Hell, I like my individuality. I like being able to choose from 300 different brands of car tires. I don't want my government cheese. I want a voice! When I get tired of it, I'll let you know and join the state welfare system.
Here is a question: If the entire world were a perfect communist society, what is my motivation to work?
You would be tortured and killed if you didn't. Who-hoo! What a fabulous life that would be. Face it, perfect Communism is not possible with Humans and anything less would turn out like Russia.
Not to mention, with Communism, we would still be living in a dark age of no technology and nothing to live for. You want to know the reason for the sudden explosion in technology over the past 300 years? The increase in Democracy and Free Market is one very big reason for that. Think about it, from about the time America was started to where we are now has been the biggest technological advancement in <i>history</i>. You want to know one of the other main periods of advancement? Greece, it's a perfect example. It's just a pity it was so short lived.
The reason for the Free Market economy helping tech? More competition is the only answer. More companies competing means more companies striving for advancement in technology to gain the upper hand. Which means that not only are the companies gaining more and more tech, but also companies can now start to specialize in science itself. You should see what I'm getting at now. Free Market = more competing companies = more tech.
<!--QuoteBegin--DarkDude+Oct 27 2003, 06:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkDude @ Oct 27 2003, 06:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not to mention, with Communism, we would still be living in a dark age of no technology and nothing to live for. You want to know the reason for the sudden explosion in technology over the past 300 years? The increase in Democracy and Free Market is one very big reason for that. Think about it, from about the time America was started to where we are now has been the biggest technological advancement in <i>history</i>. You want to know one of the other main periods of advancement? Greece, it's a perfect example. It's just a pity it was so short lived.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Very nice with the Greece comparison, I was reading that and thinking the exact same thing. You know the Greeks had plans for a steam engine. If there empire hadn't fallen because of civil wars and invasions we would be alot farther in tech then we are now. He just about summed up why Democracy is, was, and always well be better then Communism, in the real world anyway.
You could say "Capitalism = more competing companies = more tech." But not democracy. Democracy is competing ideas. Not companies!
Don't take this as a personal flame. It's just a HUGE mistake, and it matters a lot, when people confuse an economic and a political system. (The title of this thread makes the same mistake :x)
Ah, yea I did make that mistake. I stated at the begining of my post that I was talking about Free Market but I had a brain fart and put Democracy. I'll edit a few things and fix it up. Thanks for pointing it out.
Where was the motivation for the cavemen to work together and share what they got? Where was the motivation of peasants for thousands of years to work for their lords?
For the latter, I suppose the counter argument might be: There was no motivation, and that's why the peasants rose up in the French, American, and other revolutions.
In response to this I must argue that the French and American revolutions were begun and led by the bourgeoisie. It is true that the peasants and workers of the 1700-1800's were benefitted by the Age of Revolution, by the removal of the nobility and the clergy from the top of the society; but they were not behind the revolution, nor did they benefit nearly as much as the bourgeoisie, who have ruled society since then.
It never had anything to do with human nature. The workers should not fall prey to this capitalist argument. It is the Hobbes argument for a new age: That you--the wicked scum, the poor, the working class--are too dumb and evil to rule yourselves, and thus we--the bosses--must run things, to ensure order. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Face it, perfect Communism is not possible with Humans and anything less would turn out like Russia. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To say that the Soviet Union was corrupted because of human nature is to ignore history. It was one of the first nations to grant women the right to vote (before the United States), so the democratic argument fails here. It was also the first time that socialist planning and workers' and farmers' democracy had been attempted on a national scale. But to stop an example of workers organizing themselves, and to prevent the creation of a revolutionary nation, the bourgeoisie of the world convened: <i>the USSR was invaded by 16 nations</i>: the USA, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Serbia, etc. Both sides of the fight between businessmen, WWI, put aside their differences to attack the common enemy: the workers. 7.5 million people died in the ensuing Russian Civil War.
Faced with having to fight the entire world, the USSR was coming apart at the seams; to keep things together, bureaucracy grew and democracy shrank. Stalin built alliances with the bureaucracy and slowly gained political power. After Lenin's death, the Party became increasingly divided. As the country rebuilt, Trotsky and the Left Opposition argued that the troubles were not so bad and the bureaucracy needed to go, and democracy needed to be fully reinstated. In 1928 they were kicked out of the Party. The ones that Stalin killed in the great purges were often Trotskyists, and almost all of the political opponents that he killed were members or former members of the Communist Party (they were NOT pro-capitalists who wanted to "be free"). By 1940, only a few of the original Bolsheviks hadn't been murdered by Stalin: he commandeered the revolution, and replaced working-class rule with bureaucratic rule. The bureaucracy gradually grew in power until it was able, in 1991, to dissolve the Soviet Union, and the old bureaucrats bought up all the industry--they became the capitalist bosses of Russia.
The poverty level among Russians has increased, from 1989 to 1998, from 1 to 24 million people: even Stalinism was better than the **** they have now.
So don't say human nature killed the Soviet Union: the bourgeoisie of the world, and their armies, did it.
Now here is something I don't like about what you said, Jammer: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If people feel they're being 'exploited' by the rich, they're free to seek employment elsewhere.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, they get other employment.. but at the hands of other rich people! This is not a matter of individual situations, this is the entire class system. There is no Communist nation that they can just go to, and work there instead: they tried to make one in 1917 but you guys destroyed it, like I said above. Now if Communism was, as you say, a harmless flawed idea that would have collapsed upon itself without intervention, <i>why did you have to go to war and get millions of people killed</i>?
Cause it ain't that simple! The people of Russia were going to prove once and for all that workers didn't need bosses, poor people didn't need to be pushed around, and the rest of the bourgeois world couldn't handle that because of the threat it posed: so they turned to all they had: guns. That's how it always is, every day, when they can't flood our neighborhoods with drugs to keep us down like the British with opium in China or the CIA with coke turned crack in LA, they start shootin' at us. The only way a worker can make his/her lot better is not to choose a different boss--a different slave master--it's to take things into his/her own hands. Cause another world IS possible, it's just so sad we gonna have to fight for it..
To say that the Soviet Union was corrupted because of human nature is to ignore history. It was one of the first nations to grant women the right to vote (before the United States), so the democratic argument fails here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It is easy to grant everyone the right to vote when there is only one party/canddate to vote for.
That's very funny, but the one-party system only came into existence after the USSR was invaded: Tough times call for tough measures. Marx never advocated it: it was one of those things, like bureaucracy, nationalism, etc. that Stalin kept around to strengthen his dictatorship.
'exploited' is used by revolutionary, I'm guessing, as a way of expressing the idea of getting more labor than what you paid for. Exploited has a lot of terms, yes in russia people were "exploited" but not in a capitalist sense.
Comments
I am a marxist communist, so to throw a wrench in everyones discussion I said what I did, sorry to mislead you all..
There absolutely no difference between middle and lower class any more, you can't tell the difference there is a huge gap between the rich and poor. In communism those planners do what the people tell them to do, different worker councils in a certain region decide on what to do, the planners are just there to enforce the decisions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, because as Middle Class suburbanite, I have that. Nice assumption. Care to have some facts in your next post?
Why should people without economic power have any power in the decesion making? In capitalism, EVERYONE has power in proportion to their contribution to the economy. Isn't that the fairest way to do things. If the big guy screws the little guy, the little guy can get support, become a big guy, and take him down.
Its impossible for workers to be exploited, except in communism, when they are forced to do things.
No one forces you to work or take jobs. "But poor families are forced to work in sweatshops!" Who forced them there? Not the companies. Their government. By refusing to modernize the economy, they've created a shortage of jobs that force them to take crappy jobs.
If a janitor tries to join a union and gets fired, he's free to seek other employment if he thinks he deserves more. Just because wants something doesn't mean they should get it.
Because (according to american) government, govt is created to safeguard the rights of life, liberty, and property. Business is not created to safegaurd those 3 rights. It is created to make money. While businesses are not necessarily evil, their priorities are skewed towards moneymaking and not protecting the rights of people. case in point: environmentalism. The government is (arguably) run by the people, and the people do not benefit from destruction of the environment; thus the government will oppose its destruction. However companies DO benefit from destruction of the environment, and money is their first priority.
You seem to be implying that Communism is the same as Feudalism. Unilke Feudalism, a Communist society would have no one exercising power that they hadn't been elected to use by those affected by their actions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No one forces you to work or take jobs. "But poor families are forced to work in sweatshops!" Who forced them there? Not the companies. Their government. By refusing to modernize the economy, they've created a shortage of jobs that force them to take crappy jobs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They are forced by the economy to take up work in sweatshops and starve. Their governments are run by Quislings that pander to the West and let our companies come in search of cheap labor. If by modernize the economy you mean institute capitalism and free trade with other countries, for poorer countries this means getting raped by the rich ones. Countries that have tried to take a stand against imperialism--like Chile nationalising the copper mines, or Grenada kicking out United Fruit--have all been militarily disposed of by the international bourgeoisie. Their economies can not modernize beyond capitalism without taking anti-imperialist measures and getting invaded (or coup'd) for it.
Do you think that the European countries, America, and Japan, when capitalism dawned in them, became so wealthy simply because of capitalism? It is a lot more complicated: Their new power gave them new power to invade and exploit Africa, India, China, the Middle East, Latin America, the entire non-Capitalist world. Nations in which capitalism is developing today do not have a world to exploit, so they are going to be poorer, and still preyed on by multinational corporations.
You say that poor people are not forced to work in sweatshops... but it is either that or starve. I don't know many people who'd choose to starve, so I'd have to say that you were sort of forcing them!
Furthermore, the bourgeoisie is not a blind force in history. It recognizes its place and tries to keep it. If a corporation has no competitors, it will just jack up prices, and use sabotage to take out its enemies while trying to keep a monopoly. We saw how brutal the bourgeoisie was here in America where they engaged in open gun battle with striking workers, and framed and executed labor leaders like Joe Hill. This is going to happen again if we have another depression.
Do you remember the emperors of the old days? Whenever a peasant revolt came to their doors, they would grant the peasants some measly reform to appease them, coupled with a speech about how they needed a King to enforce order, and everyone would go home in agreement about their great and merciful King.
As we have seen, the nobility was NOT a necessary class, despite the fact that it painted itself as one. Similarly, the bourgeoisie tries to pass off its parasitic relationship with the workers as a symbiotic one. You say that the more that businessmen get is entitled to them by their work in propping it up. I say it is unfair because they didn't work, they got rich exploiting other peoples work and paying them for 1/10th their labor.
People can organize their own means of production, and it doesn't have to be one little person turning into a big one, a turncoat to oppress his or her people. It can be everyone working together. It's worked before, it works every day around the world, and there's no reason why it can't work for everyone and end the split in society between those who have and those who work. And if the capitalists hadn't proved themselves so ruthless and dead-set on stopping opposition, there might be a peaceful route to a better society. Of course I don't mean in any way that I endorse violence. The workers movement does not have violence as one of its aims, but given the treacherous history of the bourgeoisie, we must be ready to defend ourselves.
There absolutely no difference between middle and lower class any more, you can't tell the difference there is a huge gap between the rich and poor. In communism those planners do what the people tell them to do, different worker councils in a certain region decide on what to do, the planners are just there to enforce the decisions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, because as Middle Class suburbanite, I have that. Nice assumption. Care to have some facts in your next post?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fact is pretty obvious, you want me to go around taking pictures of people in the street? You want to see the fact, then walk down the street and you will see.
To hell with "perfect societys" People should have motivation to work, socialistic approaches will NOT work due to the fact that who the hell would want to do ten times as hard a job with just the same pay.
Everyone should have to make it on their own, with maybe just a little help from here to there if absolutely NEEDED.
Communism destroys humanity in a way no other government system ever has, except for possibly dictatorships. That's why it's on the way out, after its short-lived and disasterous term in a handful of countries. It's also the reason that only the lowest and simplest organisms follow a similar pattern and survive natural selection... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ooops
Looks like you had pretty much the same idea. Go MonsE =)
Having a horrible dead-end go nowhere job is hell on earth, and if you'd ever had one, and no prospects of release, you'd understand why. You can have a job and health insurance in a democratic and capitalist system just as well, and most people do. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, yes. Communism is for those who don't wish to be indivdiuals but instead would rather just be mindless drones.
There absolutely no difference between middle and lower class any more, you can't tell the difference there is a huge gap between the rich and poor. In communism those planners do what the people tell them to do, different worker councils in a certain region decide on what to do, the planners are just there to enforce the decisions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, because as Middle Class suburbanite, I have that. Nice assumption. Care to have some facts in your next post?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fact is pretty obvious, you want me to go around taking pictures of people in the street? You want to see the fact, then walk down the street and you will see. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I live pretty well and I'm middle class.
There is something called edit.
Heck, I deserve what I work for.
I dun wanna work 10 hours a day and get as much as some1 who only works 1 hour a day.
While the idea of Communism seems attractive, it is unrealistic.
Look at Singapore, we have a good leader and a good Prime Minister. Thus, you do not see Singaporeans having riots , Singaporeans having strikes, Singaporeans complaining for GOOD REASON.
Indeed, riots or strikes are banned in Singapore, but thinking again, if we had a terrible leader, Singaporeans can still riot in large numbers and no a damn thing can stop 'em.
Example, look at North Korea, a Communism country. Look at South Korea, a Democracy country, which is doing better? Given a chance, would u rather live in North Korea or South Korea?
BTW, can someone post the facts list of Communism and Democracy so everyone else can just decide which is better.
About the middle class. In America at least, the middle class runs the economy. You can go on and on about how the upper class people run the business and have bribing powers blah blah blah. It's all just talk.
The average middle class citizen is one of the most wasteful people on the Earth. Therefore we spend the most money buying stuff, then throwing it our, then buying it again. Do you honestly think that the rich run the economy? If you do you are sadly mistaken.
The middle class, and specifically the UMC (upper middle class, which includes me w00t) spends the most money. The businesses cater to us and try to please us so we spend our money on them.
We have no power? Bullsh*t. We have the biggest consumer power. WE run the economy in most cases. Now there are certain exceptions like Microsoft and the oil companies but this is mainly because it's so expensive to start a business in either one of those fields. Let's face it, I think we can all agree that Windows XP is a damn fine running system for a PC and that Microsoft has greatly help computers grow.
In fact, I don't really know where you got the idea that Capitalism is run by the rich...
In the old days, the middle class was the bankers, the merchants, etc., those wealthy ones who sold their own goods that they personally made, or who did not work at all but paid others small amounts to do so. Businessmen back then were the "middle class." The upper class was the clergy and nobles. The middle class or bourgeoisie made and makes its living by getting other people to work for them by renting the means of production (originally factories) to workers (the proletariat). Now that the upper class are gone, you are using middle class to imply the petty bourgeoisie within American society.
This is causing great confusion. Let me settle it once and for all. When I use the term "bourgeoisie" I do not mean the middle class in America like you might say computer programmers, who are technically not even middle class but just highly paid workers. When I say bourgeoisie I mean the morass of businessmen and bosses that run things, and while money just shows their wealth, they are the owners, the sole proprietors, of the means of production, which they rent out to workers, who they pay a measly sum for what they made, which is worth much much more, and they get rich off the surplus. Basically the bourgeoisie is a parasitic class.
So if you are talking about 19th century Europe, then yes, bourgeoisie=middle class. But modern america, no no no.
Thats an incredibly naive viewpoint ripped straight out of the manifesto. Its almost a joke people.
WHAT RICH PEOPLE DO
Invest. They keep the economy rolling by investing in new companies.
Buy. Rich people buy things. They create markets that other companies need to satisfy.
Employ. Rich people have companies, companies that employ people.
If people feel they're being 'exploited' by the rich, they're free to seek employment elsewhere. The market (also known as the people) sets the value of labor. Value is rarity based, not need based. That it why the unneccesary athelete makes millions and the neccesary janitor makes so little. Everyone can be a janitor. Not everyone can be a pro baseball player. Everyone can be a janitor.
If Mr. Janitor thinks he should get more, he can ask for a raise, or find a job that recognizes his skills more. Also, nothing is stopping Mr. Janitor from thinking of his own buisness, soliciting investors, and taking down the evil rich guy except his talent.
Talent to organize, innovate, hype, convince, and sell.
"No! The EEEEVVILLLL Rich will keep him down!"
Not possible, assuming the rich are operating within the law. The people control the market. If the little guy gives them a better value, it won't be long before the little guy gets big.
Then I could continue to work as an Engineer, doing the same hard work, for the same pay as a street sweeper? WOW. Where can I sign up.
Sorry, I say no to communism for the same reason I left the Military. I like getting paid for working harder.
edit: Hell, I like my individuality. I like being able to choose from 300 different brands of car tires. I don't want my government cheese. I want a voice! When I get tired of it, I'll let you know and join the state welfare system.
Here is a question: If the entire world were a perfect communist society, what is my motivation to work?
Not to mention, with Communism, we would still be living in a dark age of no technology and nothing to live for. You want to know the reason for the sudden explosion in technology over the past 300 years? The increase in Democracy and Free Market is one very big reason for that. Think about it, from about the time America was started to where we are now has been the biggest technological advancement in <i>history</i>. You want to know one of the other main periods of advancement? Greece, it's a perfect example. It's just a pity it was so short lived.
The reason for the Free Market economy helping tech? More competition is the only answer. More companies competing means more companies striving for advancement in technology to gain the upper hand. Which means that not only are the companies gaining more and more tech, but also companies can now start to specialize in science itself. You should see what I'm getting at now. Free Market = more competing companies = more tech.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very nice with the Greece comparison, I was reading that and thinking the exact same thing. You know the Greeks had plans for a steam engine. If there empire hadn't fallen because of civil wars and invasions we would be alot farther in tech then we are now. He just about summed up why Democracy is, was, and always well be better then Communism, in the real world anyway.
<b>DEMOCRACY != CAPITALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</b>
You could say "Capitalism = more competing companies = more tech." But not democracy. Democracy is competing ideas. Not companies!
Don't take this as a personal flame. It's just a HUGE mistake, and it matters a lot, when people confuse an economic and a political system. (The title of this thread makes the same mistake :x)
For the latter, I suppose the counter argument might be: There was no motivation, and that's why the peasants rose up in the French, American, and other revolutions.
In response to this I must argue that the French and American revolutions were begun and led by the bourgeoisie. It is true that the peasants and workers of the 1700-1800's were benefitted by the Age of Revolution, by the removal of the nobility and the clergy from the top of the society; but they were not behind the revolution, nor did they benefit nearly as much as the bourgeoisie, who have ruled society since then.
It never had anything to do with human nature. The workers should not fall prey to this capitalist argument. It is the Hobbes argument for a new age: That you--the wicked scum, the poor, the working class--are too dumb and evil to rule yourselves, and thus we--the bosses--must run things, to ensure order. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Face it, perfect Communism is not possible with Humans and anything less would turn out like Russia.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To say that the Soviet Union was corrupted because of human nature is to ignore history. It was one of the first nations to grant women the right to vote (before the United States), so the democratic argument fails here. It was also the first time that socialist planning and workers' and farmers' democracy had been attempted on a national scale. But to stop an example of workers organizing themselves, and to prevent the creation of a revolutionary nation, the bourgeoisie of the world convened: <i>the USSR was invaded by 16 nations</i>: the USA, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Serbia, etc. Both sides of the fight between businessmen, WWI, put aside their differences to attack the common enemy: the workers. 7.5 million people died in the ensuing Russian Civil War.
Faced with having to fight the entire world, the USSR was coming apart at the seams; to keep things together, bureaucracy grew and democracy shrank. Stalin built alliances with the bureaucracy and slowly gained political power. After Lenin's death, the Party became increasingly divided. As the country rebuilt, Trotsky and the Left Opposition argued that the troubles were not so bad and the bureaucracy needed to go, and democracy needed to be fully reinstated. In 1928 they were kicked out of the Party. The ones that Stalin killed in the great purges were often Trotskyists, and almost all of the political opponents that he killed were members or former members of the Communist Party (they were NOT pro-capitalists who wanted to "be free"). By 1940, only a few of the original Bolsheviks hadn't been murdered by Stalin: he commandeered the revolution, and replaced working-class rule with bureaucratic rule. The bureaucracy gradually grew in power until it was able, in 1991, to dissolve the Soviet Union, and the old bureaucrats bought up all the industry--they became the capitalist bosses of Russia.
The poverty level among Russians has increased, from 1989 to 1998, from 1 to 24 million people: even Stalinism was better than the **** they have now.
So don't say human nature killed the Soviet Union: the bourgeoisie of the world, and their armies, did it.
Now here is something I don't like about what you said, Jammer:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If people feel they're being 'exploited' by the rich, they're free to seek employment elsewhere.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, they get other employment.. but at the hands of other rich people! This is not a matter of individual situations, this is the entire class system. There is no Communist nation that they can just go to, and work there instead: they tried to make one in 1917 but you guys destroyed it, like I said above. Now if Communism was, as you say, a harmless flawed idea that would have collapsed upon itself without intervention, <i>why did you have to go to war and get millions of people killed</i>?
Cause it ain't that simple! The people of Russia were going to prove once and for all that workers didn't need bosses, poor people didn't need to be pushed around, and the rest of the bourgeois world couldn't handle that because of the threat it posed: so they turned to all they had: guns. That's how it always is, every day, when they can't flood our neighborhoods with drugs to keep us down like the British with opium in China or the CIA with coke turned crack in LA, they start shootin' at us. The only way a worker can make his/her lot better is not to choose a different boss--a different slave master--it's to take things into his/her own hands. Cause another world IS possible, it's just so sad we gonna have to fight for it..
To say that the Soviet Union was corrupted because of human nature is to ignore history. It was one of the first nations to grant women the right to vote (before the United States), so the democratic argument fails here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is easy to grant everyone the right to vote when there is only one party/canddate to vote for.