Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
Raavi

Capitalism: Past, Present, Future

Recommended Posts

Clem Fandango

hey nobody is disputing that this is the best we can do. especially because I'm white and have a penis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquilus

 

You say he's defending the indefensible. But your speaking something that can't be done. You can't end wage slavery, hunger, conflict, or state violence, It is what it is and many people have learned to accept it and get on with their lives.

People resist injustice everyday, often with success. Illegitimate systems are ephemeral and made of glass. I see no reason to 'accept it and get on with my life' because some greasy teenager from the Midwest told me to.

 

 

 

Sure you can do a lot to stop it and lower it but it'll never go away.

You'll have to try harder to quantify this statement if you want it to be taken seriously. At what point have we made as much progress as possible?

 

 

 

And the way I see it, wages are fine at what they are.

'Wages' are illegitimate anyway, but no they're not fine. Many people don't earn a living wage at all.

 

 

 

At whichever rate it'd go up to you'd might as well be killing the government/or local businesses and putting them in a bigger financial crisis then they already are in.

I'd like to kill the government and/or local businesses, though that has nothing to do with the minimum wage. There are myriad more successful economies than the US with a much higher minimum wage.

Yeah there might be economies out there with higher minimum wage, but that's because 1. their economy can support a higher minimum wage and their currency has more value than the U.S dollar, 2. The jobs is a high risk job but pays incredibly well and has an overall better wage than people in less dangerous jobs, 3. The private company you work for is incredibly built and can afford to give better wages. 4. You're in higher position of power and therefor paid better than everyone else around you. That's social and financial hierarchy and it's always been there. For the people who don't make a wage- Get a better job! Plenty of jobs out there pay better than the crapsack they could work at. Either that or go to college and get financial aid and work a job on the side to pay off what would be owed after college and go up the ladder and get a career. I don't have to try harder to qualify a statement that's clear as day because someone denies everything in front of him and wants to live off of a utopian fantasy and not acknowledge nature and death of all things and social hierarchy. People can resist injustices but what's stopping those people from becoming as corrupt and greedy as the idiots who were in charge before them? Nothing, in the end it has no meaning because history will repeat itself. No matter how safe the society is, there will always be crime and violence regardless. And death, well wars solve population issues. Might sound mean but it's true. And dude, I don't live in the Midwest. What stupid assumption led you to believe that? I live in NC and I've never been west.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

Yeah there might be economies out there with higher minimum wage, but that's because 1. their economy can support a higher minimum wage and their currency has more value than the U.S dollar,

Wait, the Aussie dollar is worth more than the US dollar? I'm rich!

 

 

 

The jobs is a high risk job but pays incredibly well and has an overall better wage than people in less dangerous jobs [...]The private company you work for is incredibly built and can afford to give better wages. 4. You're in higher position of power and therefor paid better than everyone else around you.

You don't seem to understand the concept of a 'minimum wage.' It's the minimum amount you can pay someone. The actual job is irrelevant.

 

 

 

That's social and financial hierarchy and it's always been there. For the people who don't make a wage- Get a better job!

This is a universal then? We can all 'get a better job'? Who cleans the toilet?

 

 

 

I don't have to try harder to qualify a statement that's clear as day because someone denies everything in front of him and wants to live off of a utopian fantasy and not acknowledge nature and death of all things and social hierarchy.

I said quantify. You have to quantify the statement because otherwise it's meaningless.

 

 

 

People can resist injustices but what's stopping those people from becoming as corrupt and greedy as the idiots who were in charge before them?

I don't mean people running for parliament, darl.

 

 

 

And dude, I don't live in the Midwest. What stupid assumption led you to believe that? I live in NC and I've never been west.

That was my thinly veiled attempt at calling you a redneck. I'm sorry bae.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr_Rager

I'm selfish. I care about my hypothetical wife and child. Whatever I've saved up or made, give it to my son/daughter so they can get a head start in life. If I work hard to make money to support my family, since I can't take money with me, I'll give it to the people I care about, my immediate family. Screw giving it to the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquilus

 

Yeah there might be economies out there with higher minimum wage, but that's because 1. their economy can support a higher minimum wage and their currency has more value than the U.S dollar,

Wait, the Aussie dollar is worth more than the US dollar? I'm rich!

 

 

 

The jobs is a high risk job but pays incredibly well and has an overall better wage than people in less dangerous jobs [...]The private company you work for is incredibly built and can afford to give better wages. 4. You're in higher position of power and therefor paid better than everyone else around you.

You don't seem to understand the concept of a 'minimum wage.' It's the minimum amount you can pay someone. The actual job is irrelevant.

 

 

 

That's social and financial hierarchy and it's always been there. For the people who don't make a wage- Get a better job!

This is a universal then? We can all 'get a better job'? Who cleans the toilet?

 

 

 

I don't have to try harder to qualify a statement that's clear as day because someone denies everything in front of him and wants to live off of a utopian fantasy and not acknowledge nature and death of all things and social hierarchy.

I said quantify. You have to quantify the statement because otherwise it's meaningless.

 

 

 

People can resist injustices but what's stopping those people from becoming as corrupt and greedy as the idiots who were in charge before them?

I don't mean people running for parliament, darl.

 

 

 

And dude, I don't live in the Midwest. What stupid assumption led you to believe that? I live in NC and I've never been west.

That was my thinly veiled attempt at calling you a redneck. I'm sorry bae.

 

And the minimum wage is higher depending on the job. You don't seem to get that. If youre trying to call me a redneck then why don't you just say that? I'd feel more comfortable with redneck than being called a dumb socialist from the midwest. And I can assure that there are probably not many rednecks in the Midwest. More in the Southeast. And what the hell is a bae? We're trying to say babe or call me poop in dutch? And what difference does it make between the people fighting injustices and the people in parliament? If they have a reason to fight the injustice of a system eventually there will be a revolution and someone's going to get overthrown and get replaced by next biggest asshole who claims they'll change everything when in reality they'll just progression and change as an excuse to manipulate their people, government, economy, and use it to do whatever the hell they want to whoever they want. As for quantifying, run a Federal crackdown on crime, criminal organization stings, promote a healthier mental lifestyle, crackdown on drug use sh*t man it isn't rocket science. You can run all this but it's not stopping people from murdering people, selling drugs, robbing people, or the government abusing its own citizens. The person who cleans the toilet? The janitor, there's always going to be someone to replace him and a person who actually likes being a janitor so the position is always going to be filled. If not, then someone's going to do double time until they can find a full time janitor. And yeah, the Aussie dollar is worth more but that doesn't mean you have a better lifestyle than anyone else in the U.S or England who have a currency worth less but they're living better than you and making more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

You really don't understand any of this, do you? Minimum wages don't vary depending on role. They're a statutory sum which is the lowest anyone can be paid regardless of their job.

 

After that I stopped reading, because how can anyone listen to the economic musings of someone who doesn't even know what a minimum wage is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquilus

You really don't understand any of this, do you? Minimum wages don't vary depending on role. They're a statutory sum which is the lowest anyone can be paid regardless of their job.

 

After that I stopped reading, because how can anyone listen to the economic musings of someone who doesn't even know what s minimum wage is.

You misspelled someone. Your welcome. Yeah when you put it like that I messed up and ignored that deal so yeah my f*ck up my bad. Past that issue, I feel Melchoir is living with his head in the clouds and can't really say much of defending the indefensible because wage and inheritance can easily be defended. You can't defend the utopia idea and say that we can end violence, poverty, war, drug addictions, famines, and class division. It's always going to be there, the utopian idea is one more inclined to fail. Because the state can never satisfy the needs of it's people to end such issues. They promised to end the violence but it's still there, promised to end the class division, why is there still rich people? The problems are there to stay, at least we aren't promising to end it all- just reduce it. And while we're on the subject of minimum wage. What's the minimum wage in Australia?

Edited by Aquilus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

 

You really don't understand any of this, do you? Minimum wages don't vary depending on role. They're a statutory sum which is the lowest anyone can be paid regardless of their job.

 

After that I stopped reading, because how can anyone listen to the economic musings of someone who doesn't even know what s minimum wage is.

You misspelled someone. Your welcome. Yeah when you put it like that I messed up and ignored that deal so yeah my f*ck up my bad. Past that issue, I feel Melchoir is living with his head in the clouds and can't really say much of defending the indefensible because wage and inheritance can easily be defended. You can't defend the utopia idea and say that we can end violence, poverty, war, drug addictions, famines, and class division. It's always going to be there, the utopian idea is one more inclined to fail. Because the state can never satisfy the needs of it's people to end such issues. They promised to end the violence but it's still there, promised to end the class division, why is there still rich people? The problems are there to stay, at least we aren't promising to end it all- just reduce it.

 

lkrwtf.gif

 

What are you even on about

Edited by make total destroy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz

You misspelled someone. Your welcome.

You misspelled "you're". YOU'RE welcome.

 

As for the rest of your post, calling something "utopian" when you can't even grasp the most basic principles of it (or the fact that it has already occurred in history) to affect an air of maturity or realism only makes you come across as a clueless pedant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

You misspelled someone. Your welcome.

You misspelled "you're". YOU'RE welcome.

 

You're a bastard for beating me to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi

I'm aware of the difference between goods and services. A road is neither.

 

Not quite, it of course depends on the type of road, but take for example a non-tolled road, that is a (quasi-)public good.

 

Hence, money is a form of resource control,

 

Money is a store of value, a medium for value exchange between parties. We use currency. Say I want a carton of milk or I want a haircut, I give you x of our common medium of exchange i.e our currency to get it. Without it we'd be reduced to a barter economy, which is completely infeasible in a complex society. Take the example of the haircut again, what would I give for it? A carton of eggs? Or what if I was a mechanic and needed new shoes but the cobbler rode a bicycle? I couldn't exchange my services for his. With money I just exchange my goods and/or services with a common medium of exchange.

 

My point is that infrastructure is privately controlled, like land in the feudal system.

 

So infrastructure is in private hands as a rule, interesting. I honestly don't see anything wrong with the concept of private investment in infrastructure. I've seen damaged old bridges being restored to their former glory and new bridges build through private investments. These projects wouldn't have been done without it, and if and when they were finally done they wouldn't have been done nearly as efficient and cost effective. Infrastructure is not something to long track and dilly dally on, poor infrastructure can quite severely handicap an economy, as some Asian countries can attest to.

 

What about a chain of hotels (like those owned by the Hilton family) or a chain of supermarkets (like those owned by the Walton family)?

 

Those are businesses, not infrastructure like your original 'dad leaves son airport' tale- whole different beast entirely. Apples and Oranges, really.

 

And you might not be able to own an airport outright, but you could inherit influence in a corporation by inheriting stocks.

 

It greatly depends on the size and structure of the corporation, when we're talking medium to big businesses chances are you'll have to deal with a supervisory board and once again those pesky bylaws. If all else fails one can always sue. Also, ever heard of estate planning? You can bet your ass your C-suite or supervisory board will make sure your business doesn't go down the crapper when you go six feet under.

 

That essentially makes you an unelected official.

 

What? Shareholders of corporations are officials all of a sudden?

If I inherit a bunch of diamonds they have zero utility but I can use them to start a mercenary firm.

 

That seems like something that occurs in a rational society?

 

Or a dry-cleaning business. As for the zero utility, that depends on how you define utility. Utility in the simplest form means satisfaction. If I enjoy watching movies, but hate ironing, the utility of the former will be significantly higher to me. Similarly those bunch of diamonds I inherit can satisfy me, meaning they're of utility to me. Why are diamonds so valuable? A mix of clever marketing, artificial scarcity and marginal utility. For diamonds in general, the fact that by the time the diamond reaches the bride-to-be's finger it has changed hands umpteen times, doesn't drive down costs exactly either.

 

"That seems like something that occurs in a rational society?"

 

Why not? From an economical point of view utility is wholly subjective.

 

All of that suggests that hard work is never rewarded. The fact that someone from the slums can theoretically become President means nothing at all.

 

Except for the fact that it does. You don't become president or the owner of a successful business sitting on your ass watching TV, it takes hard work and perseverance. f*ck, I can name a dozen or so billionaires and many many more millionaires who were once dirt poor. Hard work is rewarded. Try it, who knows what'll happen, maybe you'll succeed and have the ability to build your private army that'll help you bring the guillotine back! :p

 

You're a Jew in Nazi Germany? Just be of enough utility to the Nazis and it's sweet, it's theoretically possible just like getting rich under Capitalism.

 

Now that's just a crock of sh*t, and once again apples and oranges. Getting rich under capitalism is more than theoretically possible, it's practically possible. Of course it'll never happen if you spent your time just bemoaning the system not making an effort. It will take hard work and perseverance.

 

I want an end to wage slavery, regular slavery, hunger, conflict and state violence. And I want it now.

 

Throwing tantrums isn't going to get you any of the above, it's completely unrealistic to expect any of it to just disappear like frost under the morning sun. It'll take time and effort, it's not like we're sitting idle. We're making progress, even in the third world as the UN report and many other similar show. But it'll take time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

"Getting rich under capitalism is more than theoretically possible, it's practically possible. Of course it'll never happen if you spent your time just bemoaning the system not making an effort. It will take hard work and perseverance."

 

Do you honestly believe this? If that were true, we'd all be billionaires riding through space in our space yachts drinking space Don Perignon and banging out lines of space coke while eating space caviar. You don't get rich by selling your labor power, you get rich by exploiting the labor power of others. The reality is, the vast majority of people will never be 'rich' no matter how hard they work. They'll start at the bottom, they'll work at the bottom, and with perseverance and a positive attitude, they'll stay at the bottom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

The difference here is that everyone talking either considers themselves "realists" and therefore wants to concede any distant dream of lasting change as idealistic, or they're anti-reformist revolutionaries who would rather see people shoot their governors than vote for them. There's no getting around that kind of barrier in a formal debate.

yeah that's pretty much what I'm getting at.

I'm tired of watching these debates just run in circles lately.

 

trust me; I would be living out a dream if I could watch us line up our politicians and guillotine them one-by-one on the steps of the Capitol. it would be an epic fantasy come true if we could simply wash away the old system in blood then hit the reset button, and it has to be blood because there's no changing their minds through rationale. reasonable proposals don't go anywhere outside of academic theory. the corruption is so intertwined with the actual job description that I don't see how we can possibly get back to "normal" democracy. there's no real political or human capital behind the movement to reform anything that desperately needs reformation.

 

so we just keep on agreeing that the system is f/cked. great.

but as of this moment I don't see radical upheaval as a viable option and there's absolutely no guarantee that the other side of the revolution will yield an improvement to the situation.

 

lately, I'm watching these so-called 'debates' boil down into the kind of lopsided drivel we used to get in all of the religious threads. we're reaching Dogmatic levels of idealism and it's getting us nowhere. Anarchy crowd keeps telling everybody how much capitalism sucks but I don't really think anyone needed convincing on that front... we're just trying to explore ways to move the conversation forwards.

 

there are ways to improve Capitalism while moving it down along the spectrum towards a more equitable Socialist or even Communist implementation. reform doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing agenda. clearly there is something uniquely nasty and crooked about the unrestrained capitalism that causes so many social issues here in the US; but clearly there are other ways of utilizing capitalism that don't lead to such unfettered disparity. there are numerous hybrid social-capital models to be found in other countries that seem to achieve much greater levels of equality and opportunity... we just haven't been able to popularize them here in our society yet.

 

a lot of this Dogmatic Capitalism versus Dogmatic Socialism really began with the conclusion of the Cold War.

we're still reeling from the effects of that massive propaganda warfare on both sides. it basically divided the world into 2 camps; where Capitalism and Socialism were made to compete with each other at odds instead of finding ways to mold them together that might work best for everyone. these 2 camps have to start speaking again on neutral terms, they're just economic theories, not the Light and Dark sides of the force. human beings are just sh/tty animals. they will manage to corrupt and ruin even the most well-designed Socialism if you let it wallow in the wrong hands.

 

/end thought train

Edited by El Diablo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquilus

 

You misspelled someone. Your welcome.

You misspelled "you're". YOU'RE welcome.

 

As for the rest of your post, calling something "utopian" when you can't even grasp the most basic principles of it (or the fact that it has already occurred in history) to affect an air of maturity or realism only makes you come across as a clueless pedant.

 

Ahh screw you lol. Yeah I misspelled that sh*t. And since when has utopian occured in history and didn't fail? I know what its basic principles are but do you?

Edited by Aquilus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz

 

 

You misspelled someone. Your welcome.

You misspelled "you're". YOU'RE welcome.

 

As for the rest of your post, calling something "utopian" when you can't even grasp the most basic principles of it (or the fact that it has already occurred in history) to affect an air of maturity or realism only makes you come across as a clueless pedant.

 

Ahh screw you lol. Yeah I misspelled that sh*t. And since when has utopian occured in history and didn't fail? I know what its basic principles are but do you?

 

Starting with the "utopian" bit, which no one even remotely knowledgeable on socialism should say (even if just for clarity), yes, I'm pretty well acquainted with communist theory, since it's my own position.

As for when "idealistic" socialism has occurred, here are some instances:

 

 

A lot of those did fall, although their demise had nothing to do with the fact that they were anarchical or socialist, but mostly to do with outside factors (the Spanish anarchists were crushed by fascists and Stalinists; the American ones were incorporated into larger urban spaces etc.), and some others are still standing.

Edited by Black_MiD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

lol you're Japanese. You have a choice between the neo-imperialists and the Communists. Funny how 'neo-imperial' means 'being Australia's bitch' sounds like old imperialism. I can't understand your love affair with the system.

 

Wrong, I am not Japanese . I am Brazilian. I lived in a third world country for the better part of my life, under a system that is far more representative of the failings of capitalism than any of you have ever experienced. I've seen corruption first hand, I've felt the abuse first hand, all of those things you decry which I highly doubt any of you have any real experience with.

 

I've also travelled around South America and seen what the "anarchist", or a least extremely left, ideals can bring, in their current implementations, and it's garbage.

 

But that is all beside the point. It's all fine and nice to advocate a violent revolution and that the current system is broken. None of us is defending capitalism saying it's fine, because it isn't. What most of us say is that the only way to move forward is to slowly change it something better. If you ever dream of achieving your anarchist utopia, that's the only way it will happen. No amount of violence will bring about the future you all dream of. It will only bring anger and resentment from those who are being persecuted, and unfortunately they tend to be far more powerful than you could dream of being.

 

The moment you start advocating mass assassination of a group of people depending on arbitrary status, is then moment you lose any legitimacy as a movement. Oh, and where I come from, all of us in this forum would be considered the wealthy elite, so we would all have to be assassinated to achieve your revolution.

 

Go ahead, demonize me again, continue with your futile aggressiveness.

Edited by Tchuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquilus

 

 

lol you're Japanese. You have a choice between the neo-imperialists and the Communists. Funny how 'neo-imperial' means 'being Australia's bitch' sounds like old imperialism. I can't understand your love affair with the system.

 

Wrong, I am not Japanese . I am Brazilian. I lived in a third world country for the better part of my life, under a system that is far more representative of the failings of capitalism than any of you have ever experienced. I've seen corruption first hand, I've felt the abuse first hand, all of those things you decry which I highly doubt any of you have any real experience with.

 

I've also travelled around South America and seen what the "anarchist", or a least extremely left, ideals can bring, in their current implementations, and it's garbage.

 

But that is all beside the point. It's all fine and nice to advocate a violent revolution and that the current system is broken. None of us is defending capitalism saying it's fine, because it isn't. What most of us say is that the only way to move forward is to slowly change it something better. If you ever dream of achieving your anarchist utopia, that's the only way it will happen. No amount of violence will bring about the future you all dream of. It will only bring anger and resentment from those who are being persecuted, and unfortunately they tend to be far more powerful than you could dream of being.

 

The moment you start advocating mass assassination of a group of people depending on arbitrary status, is then moment you lose any legitimacy as a movement. Oh, and where I come from, all of us in this forum would be considered the wealthy elite, so we would all have to be assassinated to achieve your revolution.

 

Go ahead, demonize me again, continue with your futile aggressiveness.

 

I don't see how we'd be wealthy elite. Is it because we have access to the internet while many people don't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

 

 

lol you're Japanese. You have a choice between the neo-imperialists and the Communists. Funny how 'neo-imperial' means 'being Australia's bitch' sounds like old imperialism. I can't understand your love affair with the system.

 

Wrong, I am not Japanese . I am Brazilian. I lived in a third world country for the better part of my life, under a system that is far more representative of the failings of capitalism than any of you have ever experienced. I've seen corruption first hand, I've felt the abuse first hand, all of those things you decry which I highly doubt any of you have any real experience with.

 

I've also travelled around South America and seen what the "anarchist", or a least extremely left, ideals can bring, in their current implementations, and it's garbage.

 

But that is all beside the point. It's all fine and nice to advocate a violent revolution and that the current system is broken. None of us is defending capitalism saying it's fine, because it isn't. What most of us say is that the only way to move forward is to slowly change it something better. If you ever dream of achieving your anarchist utopia, that's the only way it will happen. No amount of violence will bring about the future you all dream of. It will only bring anger and resentment from those who are being persecuted, and unfortunately they tend to be far more powerful than you could dream of being.

 

The moment you start advocating mass assassination of a group of people depending on arbitrary status, is then moment you lose any legitimacy as a movement. Oh, and where I come from, all of us in this forum would be considered the wealthy elite, so we would all have to be assassinated to achieve your revolution.

 

Go ahead, demonize me again, continue with your futile aggressiveness.

 

I don't see how we'd be wealthy elite. Is it because we have access to the internet while many people don't?

 

 

It's because we don't live there. It's because we are 'foreigners'. It's because we live in first world countries. It's because we make a decent living. It's because we're not the same people. It's because we are different. Take your pick. Any of those could make you part of the 'wealthy elite' depending on the country and the people. Defining 'wealthy elite' is extremely arbitrary. Since according to anarchists, 80% of the world lives in extreme poverty with less than 10 dollars a month, anyone living above that standard is considered wealthy. All the talk about 'oh but we don't own the means of production' or 'we don't own land' would mean jack sh*t when the push comes to shove, and would be merely technicality. Look at the extremism of some of the members here, advocating murder and mass death for people who are different. All of that could, and would, be turned on them if it so suited the masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquilus

 

 

 

You misspelled someone. Your welcome.

You misspelled "you're". YOU'RE welcome.

 

As for the rest of your post, calling something "utopian" when you can't even grasp the most basic principles of it (or the fact that it has already occurred in history) to affect an air of maturity or realism only makes you come across as a clueless pedant.

 

Ahh screw you lol. Yeah I misspelled that sh*t. And since when has utopian occured in history and didn't fail? I know what its basic principles are but do you?

 

Starting with the "utopian" bit, which no one even remotely knowledgeable on socialism should say (even if just for clarity), yes, I'm pretty well acquainted with communist theory, since it's my own position.

As for when "idealistic" socialism has occurred, here's a some instances:

 

 

A lot of those did fall, although their demise had nothing to do with the fact that they were anarchical or socialist, but mostly to do with outside factors (the Spanish anarchists were crushed by fascists and Stalinists; the American ones were incorporated into larger urban spaces etc.), and some others are still standing.

 

And even if outside factors destroyed it, what was going to stop the inside factors from destroying it too? I think small communities like those worked for a while because they were small and the biggest factors to destroy them were really the outside factors. You try to do a utopia on a global scale and there will be inside factors destroying peaceland more than outside factors like an alien invasion, or a natural disaster, or an asteroid impact. Hell read Brave New World and 1984 to see how quick global utopias fall from the inside or the outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquilus

 

 

 

 

lol you're Japanese. You have a choice between the neo-imperialists and the Communists. Funny how 'neo-imperial' means 'being Australia's bitch' sounds like old imperialism. I can't understand your love affair with the system.

 

Wrong, I am not Japanese . I am Brazilian. I lived in a third world country for the better part of my life, under a system that is far more representative of the failings of capitalism than any of you have ever experienced. I've seen corruption first hand, I've felt the abuse first hand, all of those things you decry which I highly doubt any of you have any real experience with.

 

I've also travelled around South America and seen what the "anarchist", or a least extremely left, ideals can bring, in their current implementations, and it's garbage.

 

But that is all beside the point. It's all fine and nice to advocate a violent revolution and that the current system is broken. None of us is defending capitalism saying it's fine, because it isn't. What most of us say is that the only way to move forward is to slowly change it something better. If you ever dream of achieving your anarchist utopia, that's the only way it will happen. No amount of violence will bring about the future you all dream of. It will only bring anger and resentment from those who are being persecuted, and unfortunately they tend to be far more powerful than you could dream of being.

 

The moment you start advocating mass assassination of a group of people depending on arbitrary status, is then moment you lose any legitimacy as a movement. Oh, and where I come from, all of us in this forum would be considered the wealthy elite, so we would all have to be assassinated to achieve your revolution.

 

Go ahead, demonize me again, continue with your futile aggressiveness.

 

I don't see how we'd be wealthy elite. Is it because we have access to the internet while many people don't?

 

 

It's because we don't live there. It's because we are 'foreigners'. It's because we live in first world countries. It's because we make a decent living. It's because we're not the same people. It's because we are different. Take your pick. Any of those could make you part of the 'wealthy elite' depending on the country and the people. Defining 'wealthy elite' is extremely arbitrary. Since according to anarchists, 80% of the world lives in extreme poverty with less than 10 dollars a month, anyone living above that standard is considered wealthy. All the talk about 'oh but we don't own the means of production' or 'we don't own land' would mean jack sh*t when the push comes to shove, and would be merely technicality. Look at the extremism of some of the members here, advocating murder and mass death for people who are different. All of that could, and would, be turned on them if it so suited the masses.

 

I don't think that's fair, life ain't fair but it ain't fair to make other people live like them just because they're angry at the fact that we're wealthier than they are and they don't have access to the technology or medical facilities like we do. That's why we send aid and try to help improve their economies and overall standard of living. That's why world trade is there. The way I see it, killing the wealthy elite ain't going to make their problems go away or solve anything. It might just make everything worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz
And even if outside factors destroyed it, what was going to stop the inside factors from destroying it too?

The fact that it was all going pretty damn well, especially in Spain, for the community and that it took the participation of the Stalinists to start drilling holes in the inside of the structure. Oh, and your point is pretty much based on a negative proof fallacy ("Can you prove that it wouldn't fail?"), so it can be dismissed immediately, but my response would simply be that many of the societies you hold as successful have, and will continue, to crumble periodically, such is the nature of capitalism. It's up to you to demonstrate that they would fall, as that's the claim you seem to be making.

 

 

 

You try to do a utopia on a global scale and there will be inside factors destroying peaceland more than outside factors like an alien invasion, or a natural disaster, or an asteroid impact

Funny how your reasoning seems to be rooted on the assumption that capitalism is the natural form of government or whatever, especially when we know that marginalized or otherwise isolated humans gravitate towards socialism and that the economic grouping of humans has historically been one of communal organizing and self-regulations. Capitalism is around 200 years old; compare that with the previously recorded lifestyles and the much older existence of human life and the error should become pretty evident. And once again I ask you to substantiate your claim.

 

 

 

Hell read Brave New World and 1984 to see how quick global utopias fall from the inside or the outside.

It's always hilarious to see people cite Orwell as an attack on socialism when the man himself was a socialist. Never mind that Nineteen Eighty-Four was an attack on Stalinism (which is NOT communism) and other forms of authoritarianism, which is aligned with his earlier work, Animal Farm. Both are attacks on totalitarianism (AF is an attack on Stalin, explicitly), and Animal Farm actually takes the time clarify that it considers Stalinism a perversion of actual communism. Oh, by the way, Nineteen Eighty-Four ends with Winston being reeducated and the Party reaffirming itself. You should probably try to actually read it before throwing it in as an example.

If you understood Brave New World as a portrayal of a "utopia", then you probably don't know what a utopia is. Both books are, in fact, dystopian novels, and are understood as such by pretty much everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

 

I am Brazilian. I lived in a third world country for the better part of my life, under a system that is far more representative of the failings of capitalism than any of you have ever experienced. I've seen corruption first hand, I've felt the abuse first hand, all of those things you decry which I highly doubt any of you have any real experience with.

 

 

 

Anyone that has ever held a job has real experience with the 'failings'* of capitalism. Sure, folks in the third-world are more thoroughly exploited, are more subject to sh*tty living and working conditions, and are generally not as privileged as those living in the first world. As a white person living in America, I realize I'm afforded social privileges others are not, and that, generally speaking, my standard of living is much more comfortable than the majority of the world's population. I can't deny this, but it doesn't mean I can't criticize capitalism, or express my solidarity with working people all over the world. In fact, the conditions others are forced to live in as a result of this absurd, unethical, exploitative, wasteful, and inefficient system are a large part of my motivation to banish capitalism from the planet with fire and shrapnel.

 

*These aren't the failings of capitalism, this is capitalism functioning exactly as it's supposed to.

 

 

 

 

I've also travelled around South America and seen what the "anarchist", or a least extremely left, ideals can bring, in their current implementations, and it's garbage.

 

Okay? I mean, you could at least point to specific examples of what anarchists and leftists are doing in South America that you think is 'garbage'. In Brazil anarchists led the demonstrations against FIFA. Was this action 'garbage'?

 

Also, why do you feel the need to put anarchist in quotes?

 

 

 

But that is all beside the point. It's all fine and nice to advocate a violent revolution and that the current system is broken. None of us is defending capitalism saying it's fine, because it isn't. What most of us say is that the only way to move forward is to slowly change it something better. If you ever dream of achieving your anarchist utopia, that's the only way it will happen. No amount of violence will bring about the future you all dream of. It will only bring anger and resentment from those who are being persecuted, and unfortunately they tend to be far more powerful than you could dream of being.

I'm not sure you're getting the point here. We do not want to reform the current system. Even if we wanted to, it can not be reformed to align with our interests. Capitalism has to be overthrown, period. Capitalism itself didn't peacefully emerge from feudalism, but from violent revolution. I mean, It's very easy to dismiss revolution when you ignore that it is the driving force of history, and that is directly responsible for the world we live in today.

 

Besides, a revolution doesn't necessarily need to be a violent affair, but I sincerely doubt those in power will ever go peacefully. Violent revolution is, unfortunately, an inevitably if we ever wish to build an alternative to the existing state of things.

 

 

 

The moment you start advocating mass assassination of a group of people depending on arbitrary status, is then moment you lose any legitimacy as a movement. Oh, and where I come from, all of us in this forum would be considered the wealthy elite, so we would all have to be assassinated to achieve your revolution.

There is nothing arbitrary about class, it is based on your relationship to the means of production. Those who own the means of production and wield political power are the enemy. It is as simple as that. I don't own the means of production, I do not wield political power, so I am not part of the 'wealthy elite', I'm a f*cking low-down prole.

 

 

 

Since according to anarchists, 80% of the world lives in extreme poverty with less than 10 dollars a month, anyone living above that standard is considered wealthy.

I literally never said anyone that makes more than $10 a day is 'wealthy', but okay. Keep strawmaning our position.

Edited by make total destroy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquilus

 

And even if outside factors destroyed it, what was going to stop the inside factors from destroying it too?

The fact that it was all going pretty damn well, especially in Spain, for the community and that it took the participation of the Stalinists to start drilling holes in the inside of the structure. Oh, and your point is pretty much based on a negative proof fallacy ("Can you prove that it wouldn't fail?"), so it can be dismissed immediately, but my response would simply be that many of the societies you hold as successful have, and will continue, to crumble periodically, such is the nature of capitalism. It's up to you to demonstrate that they would fall, as that's the claim you seem to be making.

 

 

You try to do a utopia on a global scale and there will be inside factors destroying peaceland more than outside factors like an alien invasion, or a natural disaster, or an asteroid impact

Funny how your reasoning seems to be rooted on the assumption that capitalism is the natural form of government or whatever, especially when we know that marginalized or otherwise isolated humans gravitate towards socialism and that the economic grouping of humans has historically been one of communal organizing and self-regulations. Capitalism is around 200 years old; compare that with the previously recorded lifestyles and the much older existence of human life and the error should become pretty evident. And once again I ask you to substantiate your claim.

 

 

 

Hell read Brave New World and 1984 to see how quick global utopias fall from the inside or the outside.

It's always hilarious to see people cite Orwell as an attack on socialism when the man himself was a socialist. Never mind that Nineteen Eighty-Four was an attack on Stalinism (which is NOT communism) and other forms of authoritarianism, which is aligned with his earlier work, Animal Farm. Both are attacks on totalitarianism (AF is an attack on Stalin, explicitly), and Animal Farm actually takes the time clarify that it considers Stalinism a perversion of actual communism. Oh, by the way, Nineteen Eighty-Four ends with Winston being reeducated and the Party reaffirming itself. You should probably try to actually read it before throwing it in as an example.

If you understood Brave New World as a portrayal of a "utopia", then you probably don't know what a utopia is. Both books are, in fact, dystopian novels, and are understood as such by pretty much everyone.

 

I can only say Brave New World is more utopia than it is dystopia. Sure I can see the dystopia in it because of the people outside of the government who live like primitives but overall the quality of life and peace is more utopian. And the word dystopia is root from Utopia. A dysfunctional utopia. And dude. Capitalism has been around way longer than 200 years. The U.S start capitalism but damn sure made it popular. It's been around since at least the 12th or 13th century and it was called "Capitale". If you wanted to say the U.S been around for 200 years then you can say that. But Capitalism has been around longer and it' hear to stay, everyone can benefit from it and own a profit without the worry the state will take control of your assets and you won't benefit from the business or benefit very little from what's owned. And just so you know, all societies crumble eventually. Even societies that aren't free trade based will collapse, tribal communities will collapse, free trade societies will eventually collapse. There's no way collapse on either side can avoided. It's only a war of financial, social, and agricultural attrition to see who's gonna collapse first before the other does and from whatever reasons. Even so called perfect societies and Utopias will collapse. Communism eventually collapsed for Russia and it'll probably do the same for China when they realize that no one's benefiting from it anymore and it's a tired out system and it'll probably do Cuba in when western exposure makes them see a different light. But overall Cuba ain't too bad with it's communism. How can you prove Communism or Socialism (whichever you side you say you're on) will never collapse?

Edited by Aquilus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz
Capitalism has been around way longer than 200 years. The U.S start capitalism but damn sure made it popular. It's been around since at least the 12th or 13th century and it was called "Capitale"

 

Okay, are you serious right now? No, modern capitalism has not been around for "way longer". What you're talking about is known as merchant capitalism, which is an approximation drawn by scholars from the model practiced at the time as predecessor of capitalism, but it never functioned in the same way nor is it actually capitalism, mostly because modern capitalism was born in the wake of the strengthening of industrialization. There's quite a huge journey from merchant capitalism to modern capitalism. Next thing I know, you'll be denying that feudalism existed too... Jeez.

 

 

 

But Capitalism has been around longer and it' hear to stay, everyone can benefit from it and own a profit

Man, yeah, totally. You should totally tell that to all of those starving people around the world. "Hey, guys, but capitalism is good. Ever thought of that?"—be sure to also ask all of those in general, marginalized poverty how kind capitalism has been to them. Seriously, though, are you sure you know how capitalism works? No, not everyone can "own a profit", because it structurally requires class division and inequality in order to exist. That's kind of the whole point of it. You sell your labor to a capitalist and for a wage. You are alienated from the fruits of your labor and in turn allotted a much lower sum than your labor is actually worth.

 

 

 

without the worry the state will take control of your assets and you won't benefit from the business or benefit very little from what's owned.

Yeah, okay, I see the confusion here: you're misinformed on what communism is. Full communism is stateless, classless and moneyless. Profit in communism means usefully reaping the fruits of your own labor and exchanging services voluntarily (this part, moneylessness, is not so easily tenable at the moment, but socialist principles are practiced all around the world). It also requires common ownership of the means of production, collectivized wealth and direct democracy in the workplace. In socialism (a stage in the path towards communism), the state exists only to keep the proletarian conquests secure and protect the revolutionary interests of the working class, and this is only in Marxist theory, as anarchists have a different idea about this stage.

 

 

Communism eventually collapsed for Russia

Communism never existed in Russia or in the USSR. Some semblance of socialism was present in the very, very early stages of the USSR, but it was later eschewed completely.

The USSR, especially after Lenin's death, was about as far from socialism as can be, what with the insane bureaucratization undertaken by Stalin, the removal of workers from control over the means of productions, lack of democracy and the existence of classes (in the form of a political elite), which immediately preclude it from being a socialist country. Add to that, the espousing of blatantly un-Marxist notions like "Socialism in One Country" (badly argued too). The only thing socialist about the USSR was the name.

 

Socialism requires workers' democratic control over the means of production, self-management, direct democracy, in what is known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. It also requires classlessness, which clearly wasn't the case. There's also some comprehensive criticism of the USSR by other leftists, namely Trotsky, Luxembourg, Orwell, Chomsky... Rosa Luxembourg actually wrote a letter to Lenin in which she predicted that the revolution would be betrayed and a new form of totalitarian rule would arise, which is exactly what happened with Stalin.

 

it'll probably do the same for China

China is not, nor has it ever been, communist, by the very definition of communism.

 

and it'll probably do Cuba in

See above.

 

They're academically known as "state capitalist" or "degenerated workers' states" (Trotsky's phrase). It means the model practiced is not that very different from capitalism at all, except the capitalist class is now the vanguard party, the central committee of that party or the secretary-general. This is a big part of why anarchists hold a different idea of socialism, although they have ultimately the same goal—to prevent authoritarianism. Keep in mind what communism is and what it isn't. I would agree Cuba is much more benign, though.

 

 

 

How can you prove Communism or Socialism (whichever you side you say you're on) will never collapse?

Whichever side, what? Socialism is a stage in the transition towards full communism, there's no "sides" here. They're part of the same model and worldview.

Once again, your argument is based on a negative proof fallacy. The onus is on you to demonstrate why it would collapse (I'm anticipating a 'human nature' retort). Basic laws of argument here...

Edited by Black_MiD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hayduke

The U.S start capitalism

Do u even Adam Smith tho.

 

In any case, you can't tell the difference between trade republicanism and capitalism so this is pointless.

 

By the way Brave New World was written as a complete dystopia and Aldous Huxley was an ardent anti capitalist and a libertarian.

 

everyone can benefit from it

 

"They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquilus

I meant to say didn't start capitalism, typo.

 


I meant to say didn't start capitalism, typo.

 

 

Capitalism has been around way longer than 200 years. The U.S start capitalism but damn sure made it popular. It's been around since at least the 12th or 13th century and it was called "Capitale"

 

Okay, are you serious right now? No, modern capitalism has not been around for "way longer". What you're talking about is known as merchant capitalism, which is an approximation drawn by scholars from the model practiced at the time as predecessor of capitalism, but it never functioned in the same way nor is it actually capitalism, mostly because modern capitalism was born in the wake of the strengthening of industrialization. There's quite a huge journey from merchant capitalism to modern capitalism. Next thing I know, you'll be denying that feudalism existed too... Jeez.


But Capitalism has been around longer and it' hear to stay, everyone can benefit from it and own a profit

Man, yeah, totally. You should totally tell that to all of those starving people around the world. "Hey, guys, but capitalism is good. Ever thought of that?"—be sure to also ask all of those in general, marginalized poverty how kind capitalism has been to them. Seriously, though, are you sure you know how capitalism works? No, not everyone can "own a profit", because it structurally requires class division and inequality in order to exist. That's kind of the whole point of it. You sell your labor to a capitalist and for a wage. You are alienated from the fruits of your labor and in turn allotted a much lower sum than your labor is actually worth.


without the worry the state will take control of your assets and you won't benefit from the business or benefit very little from what's owned.

Yeah, okay, I see the confusion here: you're misinformed on what communism is. Full communism is stateless, classless and moneyless. Profit in communism means usefully reaping the fruits of your own labor and exchanging services voluntarily (this part, moneylessness, is not so easily tenable at the moment, but socialist principles are practiced all around the world). It also requires common ownership of the means of production, collectivized wealth and direct democracy in the workplace. In socialism (a stage in the path towards communism), the state exists only to keep the proletarian conquests secure and protect the revolutionary interests of the working class, and this is only in Marxist theory, as anarchists have a different idea about this stage.

Communism eventually collapsed for Russia

Communism never existed in Russia or in the USSR. Some semblance of socialism was present in the very, very early stages of the USSR, but it was later eschewed completely.
The USSR, especially after Lenin's death, was about as far from socialism as can be, what with the insane bureaucratization undertaken by Stalin, the removal of workers from control over the means of productions, lack of democracy and the existence of classes (in the form of a political elite), which immediately preclude it from being a socialist country. Add to that, the espousing of blatantly un-Marxist notions like "Socialism in One Country" (badly argued too). The only thing socialist about the USSR was the name.

 

Socialism requires workers' democratic control over the means of production, self-management, direct democracy, in what is known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. It also requires classlessness, which clearly wasn't the case. There's also some comprehensive criticism of the USSR by other leftists, namely Trotsky, Luxembourg, Orwell, Chomsky... Rosa Luxembourg actually wrote a letter to Lenin in which she predicted that the revolution would be betrayed and a new form of totalitarian rule would arise, which is exactly what happened with Stalin.

it'll probably do the same for China

China is not, nor has it ever been, communist, by the very definition of communism.
and it'll probably do Cuba in

See above.

They're academically known as "state capitalist" or "degenerated workers' states" (Trotsky's phrase). It means the model practiced is not that very different from capitalism at all, except the capitalist class is now the vanguard party, the central committee of that party or the secretary-general. This is a big part of why anarchists hold a different idea of socialism, although they have ultimately the same goal—to prevent authoritarianism. Keep in mind what communism is and what it isn't. I would agree Cuba is much more benign, though.


How can you prove Communism or Socialism (whichever you side you say you're on) will never collapse?

Whichever side, what? Socialism is a stage in the transition towards full communism, there's no "sides" here. They're part of the same model and worldview.
Once again, your argument is based on a negative proof fallacy. The onus is on you to demonstrate why it would collapse (I'm anticipating a 'human nature' retort). Basic laws of argument here...

Maybe so. But why would they call themselves communists after Lenin's death if Stalin changed everything? And while you say capitalism requires class division. Isn't there always going to be class division? Whether it be socialism or communism there's still class division in terms of those who aren't the political elite and those who are? You can't prevent classes from existing whether it's political or not someone always going to be a lot more better off than the other person whether that economy is communist or not. Political or Economical. For the whole issues of Capitalism being inequal. No one's alienating them from being in a better position up the line, with hard work, perseverance, overtime, and climbing the highest mountain they can be promoted and have a better wage than what they do now. And yes, it's inequal. It was never meant to be equal but the opportunity to get on everyone elses level is there and no one is stopping them from being better off than what they are now. For a lower sum, yeah I can see where some degree of socialism comes in at in forms of regulation. But isn't that where minimum wage comes in at in some countries? This is how much they can pay you at the minimum so-so number of currency? Nothing in life is equal, I highly doubt socialism or communism is as equal as some people might think. I think one person here stated that their background shouldn't dictate their future or where they will work or how successful they'll be. Capitalism ain't equal, so people get past and make their success and hopefully give back to the community they came from just so they can have food on the table. And as for merchant capitalism- Not the same thing in practice but it's still a form of capitalism hence it's been around longer than you think. Yes, modern capitalism as we know has been around since industrialization hit in the 1700's but didn't it get some of practice off it's predecessor? If it's not capitalism, then why is merchant capitalism have the word capitalism in it? If it does, than it has some form of relation to modern capitalism and may have had similar practices. If State capitalism is so good, woohoo. I can visit Cuba and set up a cab business there. Yeah I see that communism is a classless society. But every time someone tried to make it so, it failed. It just didn't work. Because no matter how much you want to put it as, there's always going to be a class division no matter, someone's richer, someone's more better off, someone has a better house, someone has running water, someone has food, and I don't have much. Classlessness will just make everyone the same and depending on how you see the state's economy; either all rich or all dirt poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquilus

 

The U.S start capitalism

Do u even Adam Smith tho.

 

In any case, you can't tell the difference between trade republicanism and capitalism so this is pointless.

 

By the way Brave New World was written as a complete dystopia and Aldous Huxley was an ardent anti capitalist and a libertarian.

 

everyone can benefit from it

 

"They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?"

 

I've read the book. It's all a matter of opinion and when you put it like that I do see it as slightly dystopia. It's overall society just depicted a bit more utopia to me. Chill out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

It kind of ceases to be a matter of opinion when the author wrote it with a particular critique in mind. If you don't understand the context it's written in and your interpretation opposes that context, it's wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tyler

There is always someone in class who espouses the opinion that Brave New World "is really a utopia, when you think about it." The thing is that the dystopia as a concept is a reaction from utopian idealism: in every iconic portrayal of dystopia there is an inversion of utopic attributes. In Brave New World, Huxley was specifically criticizing the nature of a utopia itself: his point was that no matter how much of a utopia our society can progress towards, there are still fundamentally repugnant characteristics of how our current civilization is organized. It doesn't matter if everyone can have free sex and be happy forever, because they must be re-wired and bred specifically to do so from birth. It's the turning around of those traits that a capitalist society says we should value. That's why no matter how nice it seems for people who are in the system, the system itself (and especially our understanding of it) is dystopic. But then that's not even going into account of the fact that there are clearly people who are unhappy in the system (ie all of the main characters). The problem for many of them is that by that point, the tools of dissent are removed: they have no language with which to express their opposition, and thus deal with intangible emotions that lead them through trouble and in some cases death. To say that it is not a dystopia is disingenuous and loose reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz
Maybe so. But why would they call themselves communists after Lenin's death if Stalin changed everything?

 

A couple of reasons. Firstly, it was convenient for Stalin to portray himself as the proper carrier of Lenin's torch while alienating Trotsky by publishing old letters of disagreements between the Bolsheviks, limiting exposure of Lenin's will and letters in which he ordered Stalin's removal from power. Besides that, with many countries fighting colonialism and imperialism and adhering to Marxist theory, it was important for the USSR to parade itself as an achievement in socialism in order to spread strategic influence and rallying support for the Soviet Bloc.

 

Whether it be socialism or communism there's still class division in terms of those who aren't the political elite and those who are?

No, because there's no political elite in socialism. How can there be an elite under the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is undertaken specifically to combat it? If everyone's the elite, there's no elite.

 

 

 

o one's alienating them from being in a better position up the line, with hard work, perseverance, overtime, and climbing the highest mountain they can be promoted and have a better wage than what they do now.

Yes, yes they are. Like I've explained, capitalism structurally requires class division and inequality, so there's plenty stopping everyone from climbing the ladder... like, you know, the system itself? Among other things that give people disadvantages right from the beginning. It tends to pull people back quite a lot. Not to mention the idea of social mobility in our current society is laughable and influenced by a myriad of often institutionalized factors (sexism, pay inequality, racism, homophobia etc.), preventing plenty of groups from ascending or whatever. It's quite the premium bullsh*t. But feel free to keep hammering on the "work harduuur!" crap.

 

 

 

For a lower sum, yeah I can see where some degree of socialism comes in at in forms of regulation. But isn't that where minimum wage comes in at in some countries?

No, you misunderstand. I'm talking specifically about the alienation of workers from the products of their labor. I'm all for raising the minimum wage, but I realize it's just another reform that won't change the nature of capitalism at all, but just make the chains longer, as it were. I just hope it increases class consciousness as well.

 

 

 

Nothing in life is equal, I highly doubt socialism or communism is as equal as some people might think.

Well, then that shows you haven't read about it.

 

 

 

If it's not capitalism, then why is merchant capitalism have the word capitalism in it?

It's called that to make it easier to identify among all the other theories as a vaguely similar model to modern capitalism as we understand it; just facilitates the process of locating basic principles in economic history. Like I said, there's quite a huge gap between merchant capitalism and modern capitalism, with more significant models in between, such as feudalism, for one. It's an irrelevant point.

 

 

 

If State capitalism is so good, woohoo.

Seriously? I wrote you paragraphs about the huge deviation from communism that state capitalism constitutes, rife with criticism of the USSR and similar models, and you actually understood it as praise? If that's the case, you didn't understand it at all.

 

 

 

I can visit Cuba and set up a cab business there.

Honestly, what the f*ck are you on about?

 

 

But every time someone tried to make it so, it failed

Yeah, no, they didn't:

 

 

Sure, now you'll reply with "but they failed!". However, I've made it sufficiently clear that the ones that fell did so because of external aggression or incorporation into larger urban spaces. If they didn't fall on account of their own system, your point is irrelevant as a critique of their model.

 

 

 

Because no matter how much you want to put it as, there's always going to be a class division no matter, someone's richer, someone's more better off, someone has a better house, someone has running water, someone has food, and I don't have much.

I'm sorry, but this is just you being purposely dogmatic and unwilling to actually learn about socialism. If you had common ownership of the means of production, collectivized wealth, common access to goods, services and structures, how exactly would any of what you describe exist? You've yet to substantiate the tacit claim you've been making, but please do so without resorting to false examples. Debating socialism is quite useless if you're unwilling to understand what it actually means and just cling to propagandist illustrations rather than challenging your worldview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.