What is the most apt punishment for being a commie

Important Links

NationStates Region
Regional Channel
Law Library
Founderless Regions Alliance
GRA Shop
Active Topics

Regional Summary

Founded - 30 April 2005
Population - 165 Nations
World Ranking - 61
Regional Power - High

Government of the Global Right Alliance

Speaker of the People's Assembly and World Assembly Delegate
Pidgeon Island

Members of the Committee
TBA

World Assembly Delegate
Angusp (aka Bodegraven)

High General of the GRADF
Joe Bobs

Welcome to the Global Right Alliance's forums!

Firstly, you can only see a very limited amount of the forums at the moment. You will be able to see the full forums and properly participate in our region and its community when you register.

Join our Community

Now, on to the region itself. Don't let the name, specifically the "Right", fool you. We've got members from across the political spectrum, and our political parties have always reflected this. The Global Right Alliance (GRA), as primarily a gameplay region, has been everything from an anarchy to a monarchy to a homegrown rotatorship. The region has had such governments because of its culture, which adores political intrigue and thrives on confrontation. With the increase of the region's population, many veterans have returned. It is the beginning of a new Global Right Alliance and a new government system.

I know the forums can be quite intimidating; there's people who have been here for nearly a decade and have over 10,000 posts. However, we welcome new members and encourage them to get involved. If you want help finding your way around, we have resources to help you to get on your way.

Getting Started

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features.

Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
…
9

What is the most apt punishment for being a commie
Topic Started: Mar 11 2006, 03:08 PM (1,120 Views)
U-ropa	Mar 11 2006, 03:08 PM Post #1
Unregistered	Well. Communists are quite clearly deviants that must be punished in a fitting and particularly medieval way. For being degenerates that are a sore on humanity it is only reasonable to ask: How should we torture the little commie shits? Poll to come!
Unregistered

Replies:
Arov	Jun 19 2006, 11:53 AM Post #61
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law Posts: 2,351 Group: Resident Member #156 Joined: November 22, 2005	Comrade Martin,Jun 18 2006 11:31 PM Arov, Comrade Martin No, that's bullshit. Socialism sets out to make everyone an owner, and make no one owned. Socialism's goal is the elevation of the working class from a position of subservience to that of the leading class. Past examples have led to problems, due to faulty design. Those models, while having initial economic success and great democratic achievements, become prone to authoritarianism and lean back towards Capitalistic policies, resulting in stagnation, depression, and complete crashes. But like any scientific experiment, we do not stop when one attempt fails, we seek to rectify the mistakes of that experiment and work off of those results in order to persue a better model. What sort of model do you advocate? Comrade Martin People "defect" from nations all the time. Now granted, the Soviet Union was no paradise. Under no circumstances am I arrogantly and belligerently pushing such an obviously wrong premise, but 300 million or so people stayed in the Soviet Union despite whatever problems you say they encountered, and the number of "defectors" is surely outweighed by the number of people who didn't go anywhere. If it was such a terrible place, one is led to question why 70% of the people of the U.S.S.R. voted in the 1991 referendum regarding the status of the Union to keep it. They couldn't leave, Martin. They were basically being held at gunpoint. There was no food to eat, the Cheka watched one's every move, and if you were caught dissenting, you were carted off to a slave labor camp. I know somebody who visited the USSR in the 1980's. Her jeep was surrounded by people armed with machine guns and they led her to Lenin's tomb at gunpoint. As for Russia's weather problems, I do not know the climatology of Russia well enough to draw conclusions on this matter, but I know that under capitalism, food from better areas would reach the entire population rather than forcing the population to grow their food in arid, local areas. I realize that Lenin's successor Stalin, was almost booted out of the Communist party (Lenin died right before it was finalized), but clearly his model placed no constraints on Stalin's brutality, despite Stalin's being a follower of the "worker's ideology" in theory, according to how Lenin had established the methods of how the workers should take control. Yet, the "workers regime" was already in place, and at that time, the USSR was actually admired among the ranks of the USCP since it was seen as a totally viable socialist model, and Stalin was portrayed in Hollywood as the grandfatherly "Uncle Joe" around the same time. If history is that of class-struggle, with the workers pitted against the capitalists, it didn't apply to Stalin since, in theory, a worker who follows the "worker's ideology" should benefit the workers because of class-kinship, not enslave them. Comrade Martin The GULAG facilities actually often weren't in Siberia. Even Alexander Solzhenitsyn depicted them as largely being in Central Asia, which they were, and non-arctic Eastern Russia. The purpose of their locale was underdevelopment in these areas. Obviously, if you're going to build a system of labor camps you don't put them in an already industrialized area when there is much more work to be done elseware. They were not created for the "express purpose of death" but the express purpose of construction using free prison labor, which is the best usage of such resources which otherwise are wasted. Although granted, many problems arose given to lack of proper funding for maintenance and shortages due to WWII and post-war reconstruction led to many problems for GULAG prisoners. I still think they were created for the express purpose of death, only just to make prisoners useful while dying. Also, Siberia to this day is mostly freezing cold wasteland, and the first gulags were in Siberia. Comrade Martin Nikita Khrushchev's policies were of actually of a more Marxist-Leninist character than those (the majority of those anyway) of Joseph Stalin. Khrushchev's social policies were definently characteristic of true Marxism-Leninism (as we saw similar policies [but much more enhanced and in-depth] while Lenin was still alive) but his economic policies left much to be desired, and, due to their Capitalistic nature, are what led to the economic stagnation that, a few decades later, would spell collapse. Yes, that's right. When capitalistic policies are put in place in a socialist country, it spells collapse. His successors reinstituted socialism, I thought, and there should not have been any economic stagnation or poverty under socialism. Yet, there was. Either way, capitalism would have no need to be reinstituted in a socialist country by somebody who is already living under Communism. Yet, it was to an itty-bitty extent. I never really thought Khrushchev was a capitalist. All he did was let local areas supervise the production of goods while the Kremlin watched. And he still wouldn't let people criticise Lenin, and his social policies were mostly aimed at punishing/ostracising/degrading freethinkers. Comrade Martin Nonsense. Socialism's success depends upon as free a democracy as possible. It doesn't take away individual responsibilities, it empowers them. It gives all people a democratic say in the function of the economy, which Capitalism does not allow. Noam Chomsky had a good quote about this, let me fetch it for you... "Personally, I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions of society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism, we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control." You speak at length about individual responsibility, but what about the rights of the individual? Those are incredibly encroached upon in order for Capitalism to function and any such things that come about only do so as a means of assuaging the working class. They're all temporary concessions. Thus we see attacks on the right to abortion, affirmative action, and any attempts at raising the minimum wage or promoting workers' unions. Statistics show that a majority of workers want to form unions, but they don't because they fear punishment from their bosses. Workers did not fear that before, yet they do now. This is clear evidence that every facet of Bourgeois society is operating at its most efficient level to demonize and to repress working class initiatives, and to curtail its established gains towards the expression of "democracy." Another good Chomsky quote I stumbled upon, "Predatory capitalism created a complex industrial system and an advanced technology; it permitted a considerable extension of democratic practice and fostered certain liberal values, but within limits that are now being pressed and must be overcome. It is not a fit system for the mid-twentieth century." When I said the state needs to step into place, it could be a democracy or a dictatorship. Either way, when a government becomes that powerful, repression happens, rights are lost. The things you say capitalism does to abortion, affirmative action, etc. don't have to do with the free-market system. If you wanted people to make more money, you would legalize abortion. Restricting thati right actually diminishes the market, the medical industry, to a small extent. Restricting affirmative action has nothing to do with the government or the free-market. Ithas to do with institutionalized racism that could happen in any socialist country (remember the USSR's persecution of Poles and Jews?) As for unions, unions were once strong I agree, and I realize that there are corporate lobbies within the government that keep the government from promoting worker's rights the way it used to, but doing away with the free-market system itself would hurt workers a thousand times more. As for the last Chomsky quote, under capitalism you can associate with and pool your money with anyone you choose to and not destroy the entire society. As for the first, corporate "autocracy" is the only thing keeping the government from impeding on everyone's right to "earn the fruits of their labor". Comrade Martin You misunderstand. You act as if every stage of social development reached some sort of empass where it stopped and could go no further. No, slavery and Feudalism were both still very much productive, and things were constantly moving forward. However, it was the antagonism between classes that led to their demise. That or some sort of intervention from a nation that had already moved ahead forced the less developed state to have its economic and social revolution. Capitalists have done a great deal utilizing their tool of the state to keep the workers contented, but we're seeing a movement away from that due to the lack of the U.S.S.R. offering the workers an alternative, albeit a poor alternative. Capitalists were constantly fearful of the potential of a Communist (workers') uprising and thus did what they could to ensure that workers would not do so. Given to the lack of a solid and powerful Socialist alternative anywhere, Capitalists feel at ease, and are persuing a policy of disintegrating the concessions they've had to make as a class. We will see Socialism arise out of Capitalism as Capitalism stops seeking to appeal to the working class. No, we'll see a pro-union movement, which is socialistic but it won't do away with the free-market system itself, as Marx would say all workers have an inherent desire to do. And there are still socialist alternatives elsewhere in the world, such as Cuba, Vietnam, and soon most of Latin America and Nepal as they undergo their own revolutions (in the ballot-box or in war). They are at least more viable than the USSR in that they are still around. Nothing is happening in America in response to this, like it should according to Marx's theory. There is something Marx's theory couldn't predict since it was formed during a time when Europe was just breaking out of Feudalism and capitalistic enterprises were still run like fiefs (which they basically were in the beginning), the middle-class worker who has enough money to have an adequate standard of living and avoid exploitation, yet has not enough money so there is an inentive to move up the social ladder. Marx had assumed that all workers would altruistically provide for each other just as much as they provided for themselves because work was the essential component of human nature according to Marx. Yet, how would his theory explain selfish, "class-traitor" workers with wealth? Capitalism has evolved. The concessions capitalists have made to workers are such that many are now able to be greedy and form enterprises of their own, while in Marx's time workers could only ask for food, clothing, and adequate shelter. In Marx's time, there was no stock market open to the average investor, there was no wage-competition, or any competition at all. It was autocratic. Nowadays, in countries where the laws of supply and demand have been implemented, capitalism is a representative democracy, since enterprises are at the mercy of their customers, most of whom happen to be workers. The existence of these selfish workers who lack the desire to overthrow the system in their interests would only find it in their interests to unionize. Comrade Martin Now we can use the term "overstatement." Even if a tiny percentage (and it almost always certainly is a tiny, insignificant percentage) of the wealth of the rich was used to assist the working people, it still cannot alleviate the problems occuring (and furthermore is an insult to the working people as a class, who become more resolved in such a problematic system despite their poverty and humuliation of requiring the charity of their exploiters to survive) nor can it prevent them. Why must we be contented with survive at the good will of Capitalists, whose interests are diametrically opposed to such a concept, when we can get off our knees and take control of the world for ourselves? The irony of that question is that the answer lies in itself. That goodwill of Capitalists only goes so far, and we're coming upon a time where that will no longer be normal to Capitalism, as it ahs always been an exception which it does not truly seek to bear.[\QUOTE] They are forced by competition, not altruism, which shouldn't be forced by society or else it isn't genuine and helps nobody. Under socialism, you are forced by the collective to do things that would probably be only a fraction of your true skills. Some people like to work hard, and harder than anybody else. Not only this, but Communism cannot explain the many working-class people who became businessmen and investors. Capitalism is fairer now than it was during Marx's time and yes, it matters. The whole world has changed considerably since Marx made his observations. Comrade Martin Socialism sets out to make everyone an owner, and make no one owned. Socialism's goal is the elevation of the working class from a position of subservience to that of the leading class. Past examples have led to problems, due to faulty design. Those models, while having initial economic success and great democratic achievements, become prone to authoritarianism and lean back towards Capitalistic policies, resulting in stagnation, depression, and complete crashes. But like any scientific experiment, we do not stop when one attempt fails, we seek to rectify the mistakes of that experiment and work off of those results in order to persue a better model. They had economic success relative to the previous serfdom. People in East Germany had much better living conditions than the time of the Kaiser, but they compared their living standards to West Germany, whose living standard to this day is far better than in former East Germany. True, under capitalism there are still these relative inequalities regarding individuals, but socialism is no alternative to these inequalities. Corporations have done grossly irresponsible things, (heard of Firestone and its wage-slave camp in Liberia?), but socialism only works among small groups of individuals, which is becoming less of an option as the world population grows. Maybe we'll move beyond capitalism one day as history takes its course, but it won't be towards socialism. edit by L&H:- fixed quote code error



Love and Honour	Jun 19 2006, 01:24 PM Post #62
Yes Sir; No Sir: 3 Bags Full Sir Posts: 12,768 Group: Resident Member #52 Joined: June 29, 2005	Well I buggered that Arov. I saw a wrong bracket ie { not [ so fixed it and voila :rolleyes: . Sorry mate Help NC :wacko:



Northern Chittowa	Jun 19 2006, 06:59 PM Post #63
The Grand Old Duke Posts: 10,315 Group: Admin Member #1 Joined: May 30, 2005	I havent a clue whats gone on there...all the codes seem to be fine...



Love and Honour	Jun 19 2006, 07:04 PM Post #64
Yes Sir; No Sir: 3 Bags Full Sir Posts: 12,768 Group: Resident Member #52 Joined: June 29, 2005	Weird? Sorry Arov



Calculators	Jun 19 2006, 07:29 PM Post #65
How very dare you Posts: 5,815 Group: Resident Member #257 Joined: March 9, 2006	Can those quotes get any longer? :wacko:



U-ropa	Jun 19 2006, 07:39 PM Post #66
Unregistered	Calculators Jun 19 2006, 06:29 PM Can those quotes get any longer? :wacko: can you interject with any more platitudes?
Unregistered


Calculators	Jun 19 2006, 07:41 PM Post #67
How very dare you Posts: 5,815 Group: Resident Member #257 Joined: March 9, 2006	Everyone is entitled to their opinion so i do not think commies should be punished the just shouldn't be allowed to run a government. That enough for you?



U-ropa	Jun 19 2006, 07:42 PM Post #68
Unregistered	Calculators Jun 19 2006, 06:41 PM Everyone is entitled to their opinion so i do not think commies should be punished the just shouldn't be allowed to run a government. That enough for you? riiight... definately a tin foil hat job there Calcs.
Unregistered


Calculators	Jun 19 2006, 07:44 PM Post #69
How very dare you Posts: 5,815 Group: Resident Member #257 Joined: March 9, 2006	guessing that is a no



zepo	Jun 21 2006, 04:51 PM Post #70
Raw Posts: 7 Group: Resident Member #386 Joined: June 21, 2006	I chose the last option, but I'm more of a moderate than a communist.



Comrade Martin	Jun 24 2006, 06:38 AM Post #71
Make-Believe Man Posts: 401 Group: Resident Member #367 Joined: June 5, 2006	Sincere apologies for not responding yet. I was actually 3/4 done when my computer froze (never to work again thus far) so its being repaired now. I'm at a friend's house and I probably don't want to respond now. When my computer is back up, or I find time later tonight, you'll get your reply.



Comrade Martin	Jul 4 2006, 09:31 PM Post #72
Make-Believe Man Posts: 401 Group: Resident Member #367 Joined: June 5, 2006	You know, I had the same problem with tags before as well. Wonder what causes that? Arov, Quote: What sort of model do you advocate? One based on real participation by the working class in the political framework. I had some general description of it in the NSCP's regional messageboard today, but I'm afraid I don't have time for intricacies here. Suffice it to say that my ideal model had a great deal to do with representation of workers based on local representation building up in levels to national representation through their places of work. Quote: They couldn't leave, Martin. They were basically being held at gunpoint. There were plenty of people that left. Granted, it was difficult, and that is certainly reprehensible (thankfully more contemporary Socialist nations [Cuba, for example] don't offer the same kinds of restrictions as the Soviet model did, also potentially accreditable to their severe cutailing of Vanguardist norms they acquired from the Soviet example.) But to pretend no one ever left the Soviet Union and subsidiary states or to claim they would be killed for doing so is nonsense (although people were shot trying to cross the Berlin Wall by both East and West German soldiers, although I've never actually seen proof of that occuring). All illegitamite emigres simply lost all claim to their property in the country they were departing from, or were arrested attempting to leave. This nonsensical Anti-Communist attitude where you claim "dey all gotz shooted cuz kommunizm iz evilzorz" is a waste of everybody's time. Quote: There was no food to eat, the Cheka watched one's every move, and if you were caught dissenting, you were carted off to a slave labor camp. Food was actually in good supply throughout the Soviet Union's history, barring a few occasions of low supply and a severe weather fluctuation in the Ukraine under Stalin. I don't think they'd have a growth rate similar to the U.S. if food was in such short supply as you claim (people need food to live, btw). Food is ridiculously expensive there now, and starvation is much more common in all the former Soviet republics than it was in the Soviet Union. I'd say they had it better before. As for the Cheka, do you realize how incredibly expensive it would be to watch every single citizens' movements and activities at any given moment? How do you think they became the second biggest economy in the world? By wasting billions on surveilance? Stop stretching the truth or inventing facts for your ends. Even the famed Alexander Solzhenitsyn only got arrested in the MILITARY (letters from the front lines were always monitored so that secret information was not given out by or to spies and such - of course you might pretend that if it happened with military letters, it happened with ALL letters) after writing several letters to his friend about overthrowing Stalin. It's been illegal off and on throughout U.S. history to say such things, and had a soldier done it in WWII he'd have been arrested all the same. Saying I want to kill Bush is illegal in the United States. But when I get sent off to prison, you'll totally deny any similarity to the U.S.S.R.'s laws and regulations. Next, to call them slave labor camps is nonsense. Every nation in the world had GULAGs, they just didn't use that name. Forced labor for prisoners was very common throughout the world. Keep in mind that after 1953 the GULAGs were all shut down, while the U.S. continued to use forced labor. It's been proven that there were very few political prisoners in the Soviet prison system at the time anyway. Why you still imnply insistingly that they were all or mostly political I don't know. I guess facts don't matter as long as FOX or the History channel said its true, eh? Crime was a problem after two revolutions, a civil war, a massive economic overhaul, and two world wars, and thus many prisoners had accumulated in the GULAG system. Quote: I know somebody who visited the USSR in the 1980's. Her jeep was surrounded by people armed with machine guns and they led her to Lenin's tomb at gunpoint. Oh, of course. That makes complete sense. SO, there's no more insight than that, huh? No details at all? Maybe WHY, for example? I know lots of people who went to the U.S.S.R., Cuba, the D.P.R.K., the G.D.R., and so on and none of them ever had anything like that happen to them. But since it happened once, and for reasons you don't (or can't) explain, it must happen ALL the time, right? Quote: As for Russia's weather problems, I do not know the climatology of Russia well enough to draw conclusions on this matter, but I know that under capitalism, food from better areas would reach the entire population rather than forcing the population to grow their food in arid, local areas. That's never happened in those nations and isn't happening now. What Capitalism are you talking about? Starvation is more common there now than it used to be as previously mentioned. Food's being grown where it can (very few areas because its land not very accomodating to agriculture) and its still not adequately supplied. Quote: I realize that Lenin's successor Stalin, was almost booted out of the Communist party (Lenin died right before it was finalized), but clearly his model placed no constraints on Stalin's brutality, despite Stalin's being a follower of the "worker's ideology" in theory, according to how Lenin had established the methods of how the workers should take control. Yet, the "workers regime" was already in place, and at that time, the USSR was actually admired among the ranks of the USCP since it was seen as a totally viable socialist model, and Stalin was portrayed in Hollywood as the grandfatherly "Uncle Joe" around the same time. If history is that of class-struggle, with the workers pitted against the capitalists, it didn't apply to Stalin since, in theory, a worker who follows the "worker's ideology" should benefit the workers because of class-kinship, not enslave them. Lenin's model was indeed faultily designed. Even Stalin himself made some good reflections early on in his career and made many good decisions (mentioned previously in this thread which you neglected to review) but as time continued, the model Lenin had established became clearly less tenable as Stalin and co. moved away from the Proletariat and towards their own semi-class interests. I wrote a paper in the RLA (located here), you could go there and read it, regarding the problems of the U.S.S.R. and how, using class analysis, this became so. I'd rather not repeat myself again, so please examine those references. Summarily, however, that model failed because it did not bring workers to represent themselvs, but instead made workers "represented" by the Party which became "revisionist" or "deformed" as a result of their pseudo-Bourgeois class character, leading them to destroy the U.S.S.R. backwards in to Capitalism to maintain classes (and thus their individual hegemony [with Party members and bureacrats taking state industry in to their own grubby hands]) rather than advanced to real Socialism or Communism, where their class' role as such would be ever-more diminished if not destroyed. Quote: I still think they were created for the express purpose of death, only just to make prisoners useful while dying. Either they're slave labor camps for the state's profit or they're supposed to die while there. Make up your mind! It would be a HUGE waste of time, money, and people to kill them. That just doesn't make sense. And they weren't very profitable at all, so I think the most reasonable conclusion is that they were prison labor camps like any other, period. Quote: Also, Siberia to this day is mostly freezing cold wasteland, and the first gulags were in Siberia. Most were in Central Asia, but whatever. Why would you put them too far in to the arctic? That would be ridiculous as you could never send supplies nor retrieve their produce without a great deal of effort (and money, as it would be expensive). They wanted the GULAGs away from civilain populations (like all nations do with any prisons) but they were not in the wasteland. Solzhenitsyn did a lot of moving around, himself, and a good reading the The Gulag Archipelago will show you that he never hung out in the wastes. Quote: Yes, that's right. When capitalistic policies are put in place in a socialist country, it spells collapse. His successors reinstituted socialism, I thought, and there should not have been any economic stagnation or poverty under socialism. Yet, there was. Khrushchev's successors did not change anything economically. The economic growth rate became very small (although it was still higher than the U.S. at the time) as a result of the Capitalistic policies, and they were expanded under Gorbachev which caused economic disaster which has set conditions that have not changed much, as Capitalism is not capable of producing as much. Quote: Either way, capitalism would have no need to be reinstituted in a socialist country by somebody who is already living under Communism. Yet, it was to an itty-bitty extent. It wasn't Communism, different thing altogether. Capitalism wouldn't need reinstitution in Socialism unless the leadership was working against the working class' interests, which it was, as I explained lightly above and referred you also to that article of mine in the RLA as linked previously in this post. Quote: I never really thought Khrushchev was a capitalist. All he did was let local areas supervise the production of goods while the Kremlin watched. He actually reoriented the economic pricing system from the people's needs to profit, and from the production of use-values to surplus values. Two key economic factors inherent in Capitalism; putting people before profit and exploitation before usefulness. Here's a good book explaining Khrushchev's policies in economics, Quote: And he still wouldn't let people criticise Lenin, and his social policies were mostly aimed at punishing/ostracising/degrading freethinkers. Progress was still needed to be made, but he did a lot of positive things. Although how the policies were aimed at punishing freethinkers in such a crude was as you put it is beyond me. Artists and such had a bit more flexibility under Khrushchev, actually. But the very fact that he was still QUITE socially reactionary to a noteworthy degree lends more proof to his revisionistic/semi-Capitalistic tendencies. Quote: When I said the state needs to step into place, it could be a democracy or a dictatorship. Either way, when a government becomes that powerful, repression happens, rights are lost. Governments do not control themselves, they are controlled by people. The class orientation of those people is the question, and in Capitalism it is the Capitalist class, while in Socialism it must be the Proletariat, not some Party Vanguard elitists. Quote: The things you say capitalism does to abortion, affirmative action, etc. don't have to do with the free-market system. If you wanted people to make more money, you would legalize abortion. Restricting thati right actually diminishes the market, the medical industry, to a small extent. Restricting affirmative action has nothing to do with the government or the free-market. Ithas to do with institutionalized racism that could happen in any socialist country (remember the USSR's persecution of Poles and Jews?) Abortion is part of the reactionary Capitalists' use of religion as a means of keeping people under control. Other Capitalists serve to benefit from utilizing religion that way, and thus the medical sector Capitalists and their disagreements are the minority party and their opinions potentially made irrelevant. Racism likewise is a powerful tool of Capitalist control, keeping workers divided and fighting eachother instead of uniting against Capitalists. It has EVERYTHING to do with the Free Market system. The NSCP's Secretariat of Propaganda and Ideology published the following very simplified explanation regarding how racism occurs naturally BECUASE of the Free Market's nature (not to say that it didn't exist prior to Capitalism, but history proves well enough that its been exploited by Capitalists given to the Free Market's tendency to promote it as a natural development, rather than needing to create it with less ready-made machinery as ruling classes of yesteryear had to do.) ----- Racism and Capitalism Created and approved of by the NSCP Secretariat of Propaganda and Ideology. A great question in the social realm is, what is racism, and what causes it to be? Most agree that racism is prejudice of a person of one race against the person of another. But there are divergent opinions on what causes racism. This document will explore other concepts, as well as a Marxist concept. Bourgeois Theories Theories that are put forth by Bourgeois-influenced thinkers are generally termed "Bourgeois theories" and reflect Capitalistic or Anti-Communistic trends. A theory which ignores the problems of Capitalism or the problems it creates, whether the author consciously sought to portray such or not, make a theory a Bourgeois theory. People are just different. Bourgeois thinkers try to assert that racism occurs because people have natural differences that make them incompatible. This would make sense if it weren't for the fact that people of only one background have successfully integrated in to other race-based cultures many many times throughout history, or have learned to live side by side with other cultural identities. Fear of the unknown. Another theory is that racism occurs because people are instinctually afraid of/hostile to differences between eachother. This would make sense if it weren't for the fact that there are people genuinely able to integrate races without fear or hostility. If it is some inborn instinct to dislike others based on racial differences, how have we successfully overriden these instincts in many instances as a people? Marxist Theory According to Marxists, racism comes in to being for two reasons: 1.) Promotion of the individual. By making one feel all-important and superior to others, being that competition is something Capitalism promotes as an economic and social force, it makes an individual focus on his or her own personal qualities, making them feel that these qualities are also superior to the qualities of others. E.G. A white man feels he is superior to a black man, while the black man feels superior to the white, with hostilities between the two based on their mutual feelings of superiority (particularly if one actually does seemingly have more power as a dominant race in that given society [such is the case with blacks in American society.]) 2.) Alienation of the individual. Capitalism causes the conditions of the workers to be poorer than the Capitalists themselves. When conditions worsen, workers attempt to place blame where they see it most easily. When they lose a job due to a factory closing, they may blame their company's Jewish owner (Or if they have been influenced to think all business owners have ties to Jews, they might not care that the business owner was actually Jewish or not and still make the assertion). If they lose their job to an immigrant or to a black (or just think they have), they may blame either as per the situation or influence of what to believe. When the object of their troubles, the Capitalists, is not so easy to discern, they will blame other races or minorities that are more easily observable without much investigation. Conclusions While Bourgeois theories sound good, they ultimately have holes. Is the Marxist analysis correct? Is there a better theory out there? If you have one, feel free to submit it. Otherwise, you be the judge. ----- As for the U.S.S.R., it was a deformed workers' state, and I've given far too much information here for that to be refuted or for me to need to discuss it further here... Quote: As for unions, unions were once strong I agree, and I realize that there are corporate lobbies within the government that keep the government from promoting worker's rights the way it used to, but doing away with the free-market system itself would hurt workers a thousand times more. Actually, a Capitalist government has never actually supporters workers in a struggle against Capitalists once in history, but has called for "dialogue" and "peace" in the arguement. Unions have lost strength as workers got more concessions, but now they are losing those, and unions are gaining support yet again. Doing away with the free market is the only way to help workers given that it is replaced with a Socialist economy. The free market is immoral and destructive, and the world is doomed (if you consider the environment) unless we can replace it. "The common ruin of the contending classes" as Marx put it. Quote: As for the last Chomsky quote, under capitalism you can associate with and pool your money with anyone you choose to and not destroy the entire society. As for the first, corporate "autocracy" is the only thing keeping the government from impeding on everyone's right to "earn the fruits of their labor". What are you talking about? Under Capitalism, only if you are an exploiting Capitalist can you do what you want with your money, especially influencing politicians. An interesting book recently came out by a man who quit his high position job in Washington in disgust after discovering the depths of corporate corruption in D.C.! Energy companies bribed politicians (legally!) to let them write governmental energy policies! Sure, you can spend money any way you want in Capitalism (as if you can't in Socialism, lol @ u) but only if you are one who lives off of the work of others (I.E. a Capitalist) do you have the necessary surplusses to do things to suit your class interests. And that corporate autocracy is continuing to assault and curtail the right to "earn the fruits of labor" and indeed is the only thing standing between the workers and their rightful property that they have created. Quote: No, we'll see a pro-union movement, which is socialistic but it won't do away with the free-market system itself, as Marx would say all workers have an inherent desire to do. Marx never said they would know to or even desire to; just that they HAD to, which is the objective, absolute truth. No matter how you look at it. Quote: And there are still socialist alternatives elsewhere in the world, such as Cuba, Vietnam, and soon most of Latin America and Nepal as they undergo their own revolutions (in the ballot-box or in war). They are at least more viable than the USSR in that they are still around. Nothing is happening in America in response to this, like it should according to Marx's theory. First off, Vietnam (and the DPRK, which you didn't mention) is iffy. Latin America seems definently to be going in the right direction as does Nepal. Cuba is a definent good in the world right now and can only get better. Secondly, What do you mean? The Communist movement is growing in every Imperialist country to my understanding, especially in Italy, Canada, and the United States (Japan and India are growing as well, but its a bit of a stretch to call them Imperialists). I don't know so much about the U.K., Spain, France, or Germany, though. Our numbers are steadily increasing and our ideas growing ever more receptable. My town's never had a Communist before me, and thanks to me, dozens of people now know about it approvingly and several people call themselves Communists. And things will only get worse as reactionaries are only getting stronger. On one point, though, you're right that Marx incorrectly presumed that the Socialist revolution would occur where Capitalism was strongest and most advanced. However, this is where the Leninism in Marxism-Leninism comes in to play. Lenin believed that the revolution would come where the Imperialist (advanced) Capitalists were wakest in the Imperialist chain. Russia WAS an Imperialist Capitalist nation when their revolution occured, but it was the weakest of the chain. Today, the situation is not so black and white, but only time and changing conditions will tell where the revolution will occur. As Lenin said, "We have made a start. When, at what date and time, and the Proletarians of which nation will complete this process is not important. The important thing is that the ice has been broken; the road is open, the way has been shown." Quote: There is something Marx's theory couldn't predict since it was formed during a time when Europe was just breaking out of Feudalism and capitalistic enterprises were still run like fiefs (which they basically were in the beginning), the middle-class worker who has enough money to have an adequate standard of living and avoid exploitation, yet has not enough money so there is an inentive to move up the social ladder. Marx had assumed that all workers would altruistically provide for each other just as much as they provided for themselves because work was the essential component of human nature according to Marx. Yet, how would his theory explain selfish, "class-traitor" workers with wealth? Capitalism has evolved. The concessions capitalists have made to workers are such that many are now able to be greedy and form enterprises of their own, while in Marx's time workers could only ask for food, clothing, and adequate shelter. In Marx's time, there was no stock market open to the average investor, there was no wage-competition, or any competition at all. It was autocratic. Nowadays, in countries where the laws of supply and demand have been implemented, capitalism is a representative democracy, since enterprises are at the mercy of their customers, most of whom happen to be workers. You pretend Capitalism has changed greatly in about 100 years - it really hasn't. These concessions are just that. And all concessions are temporary. You're wrong that Marx failed to predict it, as Marx even spoke on globalization and the labor aristocracy (workers being paid well to the point where their revolutionary potential is in a lull) which was itself already developing in his time and was expanded on by Lenin, who got to see that tendency more strongly than Marx did. Workers can move up the social ladder now, yes, but that turns them against their former brethren and makes them greedy and powerful - essentially corrupting their very souls. It helps no one but them to go from slave to master, as now they simply have slaves of their own. Quote: The existence of these selfish workers who lack the desire to overthrow the system in their interests would only find it in their interests to unionize. But if they are already contented, what impetus is there for them to form a union? When nearly 50% of the workforce was unionized about 50-60 years ago, Anti-Capitalist tendencies were strong. Nowadays, 56% or so WANTS to unionize, but more than 3/4 fear being fired for trying to do so. The anti-union campaign ahs taken its toll on the working men and women, but the mere fact that half of them are upset at their working conditions evidences that workers are regaining that potential that they lost. I might say its a good idea to vote Republican to rienforce reactionary ideals, as that only makes revolution all the more likely! lol. Quote: They are forced by competition, not altruism, which shouldn't be forced by society or else it isn't genuine and helps nobody. Under socialism, you are forced by the collective to do things that would probably be only a fraction of your true skills. Some people like to work hard, and harder than anybody else. This is a serious debate. Don't just make up bullshit and pretend its true! You're insulting everyone on this forum with this crap. How does Socialism force you to do anything you don't want to do? How does it fail to reward those who work harder? Haven't I clearly said that workers are paid more for harder work in Socialism, or have you suddenly become illiterate and/or forgetful? Quote: Not only this, but Communism cannot explain the many working-class people who became businessmen and investors. Yes, it can! I already did above. Quote: Capitalism is fairer now than it was during Marx's time and yes, it matters. The whole world has changed considerably since Marx made his observations. Read Capital; nothing's changed. The framework is the same, the system works the same, no question about it! Have workers been treated well in Imperialist Capitalist nations? Definently. At the expnese of the workers of the underdeveloped Capitalist nations, the subservient, super-exploited Capitalist nations? Mostr definently. Do Capitalists want to make America one such country? Most definently. Thus, what is the logical course? You tell me. Workers are being attacked and will continue to be, unless the Free Market is done away with. Quote: They had economic success relative to the previous serfdom. Most of the nations that became Socialist actually had quite a bit of Capitalism developed before their revolutions. Only a minority were otherwise, such as the Soviet Union and China. Quote: People in East Germany had much better living conditions than the time of the Kaiser, but they compared their living standards to West Germany, whose livig standard to this day is far better than in former East Germany. Easy Germany's living conditions were actually not far from West Germany's for a long time under Erich Honecker. The economy did really well. Many people committed suicide soon after reunification, and Capitalism has only caused conditions in East Germany to worsen with a nearly 30% unemployment rate and the aforementioned problem of frequent suicides. Capitalism's done wonders for them, no doubt. Quote: True, under capitalism there are still these relative inequalities regarding individuals, but socialism is no alternative to these inequalities. There you go understating problems of Capitalism again! There are MASSIVE inequalities in Capitalism, and minor ones in Socialism. And really, we're speaking in terms of Soviet Socialism, which was itself not truly Socialism! Real Socialism will only be even better, no doubt. Quote: Corporations have done grossly irresponsible things, (heard of Firestone and its wage-slave camp in Liberia?), That's not even one half of one percent of all of the terrible things Capitalism has done during itx existance thus far in the world. Quote: but socialism only works among small groups of individuals, which is becoming less of an option as the world population grows. Socialism, as far as economics is concerned, did WONDERS in the U.S.S.R. for a long time. I don't think your statement holds water, my friend. It did amazing things for the DPRK and is doing great things in Cuba today. Quote: Maybe we'll move beyond capitalism one day as history takes its course, but it won't be towards socialism. If there were another possible course, I'd agree. Unfortunately, history has only proven the necessity of the abolition of Capitalism, wage-slavery, and the exploitation of man by man. The working class must take up the reigns, and truly take power for themselves. Power MUST be in the hands of the people, not the hands of Capitalists whose goals are diametrically opposed to the working class, and infinitely hostile to them. No man with any morals about him can truly support Capitalism or truly oppose Marxism. That's the core of my beliefs, because its only proven true again and again. On a somewhat related note, I have some excellent biblical references to share with you, in case anyone out there is interested in religion, relating to Capitalism. Props to my man, Comrade Steele. ----- In the Gospel of Luke (1:49-53) Matthew 19:16-24 (the same event is also described in Mark 10:17-25 and Luke 18:18-25 Matthew 21:12-14, Mark 11:15, and John 2:14-16 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and in fellowship ... 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. 32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation, ) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. 53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me 12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. 14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them. -----



Love and Honour	Jul 4 2006, 10:15 PM Post #73
Yes Sir; No Sir: 3 Bags Full Sir Posts: 12,768 Group: Resident Member #52 Joined: June 29, 2005	That is the longest post I have ever seen here B) Will take some time to take in but thanks for putting the arguments forward.



Comrade Martin	Jul 5 2006, 01:40 AM Post #74
Make-Believe Man Posts: 401 Group: Resident Member #367 Joined: June 5, 2006	Took me a while to find time to get around to do this, especially after my AOL crashed the first time I tried (ugh, that really bothers me when that happens.) Sorry if I got a little too insulting at some points, but some statements were of such a starkly incorrect caliber that I couldn't help but get agitated. It's clear that Arov has not been following the debate, or else the very rudimentary issues which I got particularly upset about would already have been understood by him. Don't enter the debate midway on a topic you don't know a good deal about; it just upsets whoever you're disagreeing with. I also updated the first half or so just a little.



Arov	Jul 9 2006, 06:04 AM Post #75
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law Posts: 2,351 Group: Resident Member #156 Joined: November 22, 2005	Martin, I don't watch FOX news or the History Channel. Nor did I say that workers are totally contented under capitalism, nor did I say that most of the GULAGs were in Siberia. And read "Lies My Teacher Told Me" (forgot the author), about the Marxist interpretation of racism (and bad history textbooks). Also, provide proof, from an unbiased source, that Communist movements are increasing in the US. ----------------- I don't believe in pure capitalism. It is possible to be capitalist yet still keep class interests in mind. I am perfectly aware of corporate involvement in government. I blame it on the fact that there is not enough competition, and not enough people are self employed. If more competition and self-employment were the case, these corporations would have less of an influence and would have to answer to smaller suppliers, corporate interests would represent a larger majority, wages would increase because of competition, and through this competition, it would be easier for workers to unionize, since the risk of getting fired and replaced would be lower as corporations would have to depend on their workers more to survive, would not have as much capital to be able to replace their workers, and would have to depend on them more. A pro-union movement would affect the way the "bourgeois" deal with their workers, and would enhance competition because it would decrease available capital through higher wages if the union is comprised of privately-hired workers. Not only this, but workers would have more investable capital and would have an increased opportunity to move away from exploitation and into more independent investment. Socialism ensures that workers, meanwhile, are perpetually employed by another (the commune), perpetually at the mercy of wages, perpetually having the fruits of their individual labor redistributed among everybody rather than among the other workers in the corporation, and if one should get a wage rise because of hard work as you say, it would be at the slight expense of everyone else. Yet, if alot of people work harder and recieve a wage rise, it would be at the great expense of everyone else. Under a well-developed capitalist system, workers are not always at the mercy of wages, gains translate into consumption and a higher standard of living relative to what he/she had before, and monetary wealth, rather than being redistributed to people in a way that ensures subsistence, but is redistributed to suppliers and translated into commodities and the marketing of these commodities to as many people as possible. This has been proven by empirical evidence. Therefore, we shouldn't do away entirely with capitalism. We should manage it in a way that benefits all economic interests and positions. Advocate worker's rights within capitalism rather than ask them to do away with it. ------------- As for the developing world, human suffering at the hands of monopolist/militairist dictators and illegal corporations and enterprises eating away at their countries' resources and wealth is costly to Third World inhabitants and their economy. They need to seize their resources for themselves and use a free market to distribute wealth from these resources, not base their societies on the opposite, and legitimize these illegal enterprises by nationalizing them as well as all industry. Why should workers in the developing world seize the means of production when their own natural resources are available to hardly anybody???



Comrade Martin	Jul 10 2006, 04:58 AM Post #76
Make-Believe Man Posts: 401 Group: Resident Member #367 Joined: June 5, 2006	Quote: Martin, I don't watch FOX news or the History Channel. The titles are irrelevent, the point remains the same. Your primary sources will undoubtedly be either Capitalist sources of information or sources that are inclined towards Capitalism thanks to the broad social promotion of Capitalism through the aforementioned Capitalist informational sources. Are such sources always wrong or inherently distruthful? No, and oftentimes what they say has a fair amount of truth, while simultaneously what they say can be largely trumped up and fanfared in such a way as to either exaggerate the "truth" or, indeed, to stretch it to unreasonable proportions. The goal of the media, keep in mind, in a Capitalist situation is not to provide information or educate you, but to make a profit. And what sort of news makes a profit? Sensational news, all the better if that sensation serves as a deterrent from Socialism for the working masses. Quote: Nor did I say that workers are totally contented under capitalism, You understate their discontent and raw exploitation severely. Quote: nor did I say that most of the GULAGs were in Siberia. You pretty clearly implied it. Do I need to retrieve your own wording? Quote: And read "Lies My Teacher Told Me" (forgot the author), about the Marxist interpretation of racism (and bad history textbooks). Don't just refer me to another book unless you plan to copy it here or give me a copy. That's a very cheap way to escape engaging the topic. If you've read it, you could at least recount the story here. Quote: Also, provide proof, from an unbiased source, that Communist movements are increasing in the US. There's no such thing as a truly unbiased source; its all about which class the bias favors, or which sector of that class, more particularly. But on the subject, I remember personally around election time that Docia Buffington, who is the Midwest Regional Coordinator for Membership of the Young Communist League (or at least she was, I'm not sure if she was replaced in the last Convention - I was not in attendence for personal reasons) that we had gained around 500 members in just a short span of time. I know that the CPUSA's subscription statuses have been increasing for their monthly magazine Political Affairs and their weekly newspaper, the People's Weekly World, and that their websites for both publications are seeing increasing traffic. I know the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA has been bragging a growth in membership and I've heard reports of comrades of mine in Philadelphia saying that they've been seeing copies of the Maoist International Movement's MIM Notes in their city, which have been relatively unheard of until recently. Hell, my own political affiliations are evidence of this trend (my town has never had a Communist before in its history) and already I have educated several people, many of whom now also call themselves Communist. I wouldn't invent the facts here, as that doesn't serve my purpose. Quote: I don't believe in pure capitalism. What you believe is irrelevent, as the entire situation is a slippery slope. If you believe in regulated Capitalism, you're simply opening the door for reactionary ideals. Capitalists do not want regulated Capitalism, they want it pure. They want to maximize profit and the only reason they catered to regulation for so long was to assuage workers and keep them satisfied in the face of Socialism rising in the world. The collapse of the Soviet Union and other states, however misguided from the true Socialist project, was a relief to Capitalists everywhere, and this is why your regulated Capitalist idea is failing so miserably, as Capitalists are pushing, in a very docile manner at this stage, to move back the clock on workers' gains. Quote: It is possible to be capitalist yet still keep class interests in mind. Of course; your OWN class. Anyone who is a Capitalist is capable of coming to the Proletarian point of view, but it is immensely difficult while currently tied to the exploiting end of the deal. Quote: I am perfectly aware of corporate involvement in government. I blame it on the fact that there is not enough competition, and not enough people are self employed. Do you know why "self-employment" is such a rarity? Because Imperialism - the highest stage of Capitalism - has as its last word a very finite term: monopoly. Competition and development led to more concentration, and great solidification of the means of production in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and small business accordingly died out. It was through FDR and other "progressive Capitalists" that Capitalism broke down a little and allowed for more competition. Only through regulation of the market is small business still alive, and the greater deregulation exists, the more monopolized the means of production are. Look at Japan. A very unregulated market has created massive cartels that stranglehold the nation's markets in near and shared monopolies. It has also given birth to massive poverty, unemployment, and the second largest non-ruling Communist Party in the world. Let me link you to Lenin's Imperialism pamphlet for you in full for your benefit. While applying to conditions in his time, his hypothesis will be much more realistic as time goes on for us all to refer to, methinks (unlike you, I actually provide my books): Vladimir Lenin's "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism" Quote: If more competition and self-employment were the case, these corporations would have less of an influence and would have to answer to smaller suppliers, corporate interests would represent a larger majority, wages would increase because of competition, and through this competition, it would be easier for workers to unionize, since the risk of getting fired and replaced would be lower as corporations would have to depend on their workers more to survive, would not have as much capital to be able to replace their workers, and would have to depend on them more. Actually, what you say here makes no sense. How could wages possibly increase given to increased competition? Wouldn't the provision of cheaper and cheaper products force corporations to cut their losses as quickly as possible, and are not wages part of that? The only logical conclusion is to assume wages will HAVE to fall, in order to maximize the rate of profit or, more appropriately, the rate of exploitation. Workers can only stand to lose from your super-regulation model. Quote: A pro-union movement would affect the way the "bourgeois" deal with their workers, and would enhance competition because it would decrease available capital through higher wages if the union is comprised of privately-hired workers. Not only this, but workers would have more investable capital and would have an increased opportunity to move away from exploitation and into more independent investment. You mean it would help exploited become exploiters, right? Unfortunately, that wouldn't really be the case. Your corporation busting antics would only cause more unemployment and this increased competition you assume would happen would simply drive workers further in to the ground. Unions demanding higher wages coupled with a state thuggery program to keep corporations small would spell economic disaster. Quote: Socialism ensures that workers, meanwhile, are perpetually employed by another (the commune), perpetually at the mercy of wages, perpetually having the fruits of their individual labor redistributed among everybody rather than among the other workers in the corporation, and if one should get a wage rise because of hard work as you say, it would be at the slight expense of everyone else. Yet, if alot of people work harder and recieve a wage rise, it would be at the great expense of everyone else. First of all, Socialism ensures that workers are employed by themselves. They have a democratic say in their business, because they have a democratic say in the state's functions, and the state is the owner of all business. Vicariously, the workers have control over all means of production. If they get a wage increase, it is because they worked harder and deserve it, and for no other reason. You don't seem to understand the corresponding increase in production and wages. Higher production equates to higher wages because higher production will equate to a greater profit for the state, and the state being an organ of workers' power is much like an organized pool of money for the needs of the workers, being allocated as necessary. Like a giant communal fund. The progress from Socialism towards Communism is marked by the gradual provision of products for free with a corresponding decline in wages in connection with a decline of costs of living. Logically, the influence of money-capital in society at all is gradually diminished until the point where it is no longer existant, and the state itself becomes increasingly immaterial as it no longer directs the flow of money on behalf of the Proletariat - although it would still retain the basic administrative tasks of guiding produce between cities and whatnot. It is at that stage that Communism, the evolution beyond money-capital and state power, is achieved. Quote: Under a well-developed capitalist system, workers are not always at the mercy of wages, gains translate into consumption and a higher standard of living relative to what he/she had before, and monetary wealth, rather than being redistributed to people in a way that ensures subsistence, but is redistributed to suppliers and translated into commodities and the marketing of these commodities to as many people as possible. This has been proven by empirical evidence. Which part has been proven? In a well-developed Capitalist system, whatever that is, workers are still constantly at the mercy of wages. They are enslaved to them for continued survival. Our living conditions here are not accreditable to American Capitalism, but rather Capitalism everywhere else, which is thanks to American Imperialists utilizing their massive reserves of finance capital as a means of investing in the construction of industries abroad and the facilitation of production of commodities which return here at severely reduced prices. The goals of the big American Capitalists that control these transnational corporations are not to increase our standard of living - that was a convenient fact for them that occured in spite of their desires - but to increase their profits. They seek to reintroduce exploitation here as it exists in Guatemala for example. How is this accomplished? By moving more and more out of the country while promoting social change back at home. These corporations' interests are best represented by the Republican Party at the moment, which has the abolition of minimum wage laws contained therein for a reason. In order to be able to exploit their homeland again, their homeland's Proletariat must abandon what it has gained. Many workers have even been fooled by this program, abstaining to form unions and voting Republican, with some going to far as to SUPPORT the illegalization of unions and even accepting wage decreases in order to "compete with India" or whichever country they blame. The irony is, of course, that the Indian Proletariat wants none of it! It is our own American Capitalists, shipping abroad and waiting it out so that they can get to work back at home as well. Quote: Therefore, we shouldn't do away entirely with capitalism. We should manage it in a way that benefits all economic interests and positions. Advocate worker's rights within capitalism rather than ask them to do away with it. If that made any sense, if that were possible in some crazy stretch of the imagination, without the idea failing completely, I'd agree. History, however, is not on your side when it comes to the analysis of Capitalism. Its tendency is neither for increased competition or more freedom or any of that! Quite the contrary! As Lenin himself said, the last word in this stage is monopoly! Quote: As for the developing world, human suffering at the hands of monopolist/militairist dictators and illegal corporations and enterprises eating away at their countries' resources and wealth is costly to Third World inhabitants and their economy. They need to seize their resources for themselves and use a free market to distribute wealth from these resources, not base their societies on the opposite, and legitimize these illegal enterprises by nationalizing them as well as all industry. Why should workers in the developing world seize the means of production when their own natural resources are available to hardly anybody??? I think the people of Mexico would have a lot to say about THAT idea. Neoliberalism (their term for it - de-nationalizing and reopening markets as a means of solving problems) has failed the people absolutely. Jobs have been created, oh yes - but a job paying you ten cents a day is hardly what I would call equitable. Nationalization helped Cuba free itself from Imperialism - and it exists as a bastion of freedom in the world today. Venezuela and Bolivia have helped their people massively - both with Cuba's support as well I might add. And Argentina has some 500 factories that workers seized during a depression there and have been using brilliantly as a guiding light in the world against the Capitalist mode of production and towards self-management and workers' control. The enterprises you speak so bitterly of, my friend, are not products of Capitalism gone awry. No, no, they are products of Capitalism doing exactly what it will always do, and observing their actions now would be beneficial to you, as they are certainly signs of things to come here in America.



Darkreigner	Jul 11 2006, 12:46 AM Post #77
Raw Posts: 7 Group: Resident Member #89 Joined: August 23, 2005	You guys are all not thinking. Something particularly nasty with wooden spoons is the answer! I mean the wooden spoon is a perfect shape for whacking, the material is very nasty. So its good. I can't believe you would choose otherwise.



mesatecala1	Jul 14 2006, 08:53 AM Post #78
Green Posts: 79 Group: Resident Member #400 Joined: July 13, 2006	Comrade Martin makes me laugh... he launches this whole assault on capitalism, and I cannot name one communist state that has succeeded. Capitalism has helped a lot of people. It has created a lot of wealth and prosperity. He tries to speak for capitalists, but he doesn't even understand what capitalism is. Socialism is not democratic. Only capitalism is. Any other suggestion is just ridiculous. I mean come on... socialism guarantees misery for all. It is a very poor economic system. Central planning in an economy is just an ineffective ideal. Those large businesses are very beneficial for all of us, and bring technological advancement for society. "They have a democratic say in their business, because they have a democratic say in the state's functions, and the state is the owner of all business. Vicariously, the workers have control over all means of production. If they get a wage increase, it is because they worked harder and deserve it, and for no other reason." Wrong. You want to know why? Money doesn't grow off trees. You can't just go increasing wages, because you'll have to print more money. Printing more money means more inflation. That's a simple fact. By increasing wages as you so dearly want you'll led to major currency depreciation, but as far as I know communists are detached from economic realities. You also do not take into account supply and demand issues, as well as economic efficency. I'm very economically astute, as I study quite a bit of it. It is your set of beliefs that led to a "lost decade" in Latin America. It is your set of beliefs that led to the collapse of countries, and economic turmoil. You speak of Latin America and you're wrong there too. Import Substitution Industrialization, which you may be familiar, with does not work! You cannot close the economy, and nationalize it. It will collapse the country. This is demonstrated by the economic downfall in Venezuela. Workers also don't know how to manage businesses. You leave to people with technical and adminstrative skills. This is why communism is and always will be a failure. This is why people like Martin will just keep believeing in fantasy. I believe in the reality., Also a few things about Argentina. I used to live there. They recovered economically from their 2001 crisis because of capitalist minded reforms. They wanted foreign direct investment. For me, it is either my way or the highway here. "Venezuela and Bolivia have helped their people massively - both with Cuba's support as well I might add." No they haven't. In fact in Venezuela the poverty rate has increased massively, and unemployment has shot up. Wages have declined and the middle class has been destroyed. In Bolivia, the economy is grinding to a standstill, and capital flight is occuring. This guy, Martin, has so many holes in his beliefs. He has been proven wrong time and time again historically. I'm shocked people with his views are still around. I thought those people realized the errors of their ways.



Comrade Martin	Jul 14 2006, 11:16 AM Post #79
Make-Believe Man Posts: 401 Group: Resident Member #367 Joined: June 5, 2006	mesatecala1, before I begin, I have to take note of your amazing tendency to discard something somebody says and not explain things very well. You mock them, to be sure, and then you also say "they are wrong" or "they have holes in their beliefs" but you have an uncanny inability to do much more than that. Try asking a small child about whether Santa Claus exists, and if they say yes, tell them they are wrong. I can almost garuntee you that the little kid will have similar manners of discarding what you have to say as you, mesatecala1, have towards my statements. Quote: Comrade Martin makes me laugh... he launches this whole assault on capitalism, and I cannot name one communist state that has succeeded. Succeeded at what? Achieving Communism? If you actually know what that means, you'd know Communism can't possibly be achieved while the forces of Capitalism remain in other parts of the world, as its nature would be given to militarization and attempted invasion of the Communist territory of the world which, without a state and thus a military of its own, would be defenseless. Quote: Capitalism has helped a lot of people. Of course it has. It was an evolution out of Feudalism; it was progressive. Now it is regressive, and we can do much better and help much more people by advancing forward to Socialism. Quote: It has created a lot of wealth and prosperity. But for whom, and allocated to whom? Who actually created that wealth? Capitalists, or workers? "It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities here in Spain and in America and everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place. And better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins. We are going to inherit the earth; there is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie might blast and ruin its own world before it leaves the stage of history. We carry a new world here, in our hearts. That world is growing this minute." -Buenaventura Durruti Quote: He tries to speak for capitalists, but he doesn't even understand what capitalism is. So what is it? Oh, that's right, you never explain in your entire post. Quote: Socialism is not democratic. Impossible. Socialism needs democracy like humans need oxygen! Quote: Only capitalism is. Capitalism can't possibly be democratic. A dictatorship in economics will transfer over to a dictatorship in politics, where politicians become commodified for the highest bidders. Quote: Any other suggestion is just ridiculous. Why? Oh, that's right; your arguements are so advanced, they are BEYOND logic! Quote: I mean come on... socialism guarantees misery for all. It is a very poor economic system. It is bad, it sucks, it don't wurk. Your arguements are so full of proof and validity, I... I can't possibnly win against them! Quote: Central planning in an economy is just an ineffective ideal. But... that's never happened in history. They've ALWAYS caused massive growth and expansion. Quote: Those large businesses are very beneficial for all of us, and bring technological advancement for society. Actually, Socialism will allow for everything to essentially be like one of those very useful and productive large businesses you speak. The big difference will be that those profits will go to the people, and the workers of those business will have a democratic say in the management of them and the allocation of resources. Quote: Wrong. You want to know why? Money doesn't grow off trees. You can't just go increasing wages, because you'll have to print more money. Printing more money means more inflation. That's a simple fact. By increasing wages as you so dearly want you'll led to major currency depreciation, but as far as I know communists are detached from economic realities. You also do not take into account supply and demand issues, as well as economic efficency. I'm very economically astute, as I study quite a bit of it. It is your set of beliefs that led to a "lost decade" in Latin America. It is your set of beliefs that led to the collapse of countries, and economic turmoil. lol, I like how you proudly proclaim your "astuteness" in economics, and then show, in that same paragraph, your absolute lack of understanding of anything I've said. 1.) No one said raising wages to ridiculous proportions was a good idea or the goal of Socialism. If one looks to the successful workers-owned businesses in Argentina, you'd see that actually, workers reach a logical consensus on their wages yet the businesses are all STILL PROFITABLE! My goodness, its possible for workers to comprehend that wages vs. business profits must be equitably balanced. 2.) Inflation is bad, everybody knows that. Where did I say otherwise? Oh, right, you pretended I did. 3.) How are supply and demand issues not accounted for? Or economic efficiency? PLEASE EXPLAIN YOURSELF! 4.) Actually, a series of U.S>-backed dictatorships imposing ultra-free market ideals is what ruined most Latin American countries. Thanks to leaders like Chavez, Morales, and Castro amazing democratic and just things are finally occuring, and their influence spreads with each passing day among the people of Latin America tired of Capitalist lies and nonsense. Quote: You speak of Latin America and you're wrong there too. Import Substitution Industrialization, which you may be familiar, with does not work! You cannot close the economy, and nationalize it. It will collapse the country. This is demonstrated by the economic downfall in Venezuela. You do know that the Venezuelan economy has been growing quickly since Chavez took office, right? Nationalization does not automaically equal bad. In fact, it usually works VERY well. Note how Sweden and Norway have more than half of their economy state-run and have the highest living conditions in the world. Quote: Workers also don't know how to manage businesses. You leave to people with technical and adminstrative skills. Who says people with such skills can be equally employed with other workers? Why must they constitute part of a hierarchy or aristocracy of the business, recieving gross wages or perhaps collecting profits if they own it? Workers'-owned factories in Latin America (some 500 in argentina, with a few hundred opening up in Mexico and Venezuela) are doing FANTASTICALLY without Capitalists, and the workers seem to be doing things VERY right. Your theory is wrong. Quote: This is why communism is and always will be a failure. This is why people like Martin will just keep believeing in fantasy. I believe in the reality., Uh-huh. If that is really the best you can do. Quote: Also a few things about Argentina. I used to live there. They recovered economically from their 2001 crisis because of capitalist minded reforms. They wanted foreign direct investment. For me, it is either my way or the highway here. If you know about Argentina, you must know about the Brukman Factory, or the Hotel Bauen, or maybe FaSinPat? Quote: No they haven't. In fact in Venezuela the poverty rate has increased massively, and unemployment has shot up. Wages have declined and the middle class has been destroyed. In Bolivia, the economy is grinding to a standstill, and capital flight is occuring. Since when?! Do you have any proof of this drivel? Quote: This guy, Martin, has so many holes in his beliefs. He has been proven wrong time and time again historically. I'm shocked people with his views are still around. I thought those people realized the errors of their ways. You know, I can say similar junk. This guy, mesatecala1, has so many holes in his beliefs. Even when all of the facts are presented to him he denies reality and substitutes his own. I wonder if he gathers his economic data from coloring books or perhaps speaks to toilet paper for advice on his ideas. His ideas are so ridiculous, and his ideology so old that is amazing anything so clearly failing could really be supported. What's worse is that he might be a member of the working class. In which case, he's like a black slave in America in 1800 saying how great his massa has improved the countryside by forwarding the capital to buy a farm and slaves, and that he plans to defend the massa to the death over his rightful property which he has used to save the world! Just as slavery has passed, and so has Feudalism, Capitalism will find its place in the annals of time, for no system based on exploitation can ever bring fairness to all, and always in the absence of fairness, resistance grows.



mesatecala1	Jul 14 2006, 07:18 PM Post #80
Green Posts: 79 Group: Resident Member #400 Joined: July 13, 2006	Quote: mesatecala1, before I begin, I have to take note of your amazing tendency to discard something somebody says and not explain things very well. Well, I take your beliefs and I examine them and look at the problems with your beliefs. You sir, have a big credibility gap. Quote: Succeeded at what? Achieving Communism? If you actually know what that means, you'd know Communism can't possibly be achieved while the forces of Capitalism remain in other parts of the world, as its nature would be given to militarization and attempted invasion of the Communist territory of the world which, without a state and thus a military of its own, would be defenseless. Communism cannot be achieved at all because it is impossible. It is a pipe-dream. You cannot achieve it, because it would lead to economic inefficency. Quote: Of course it has. It was an evolution out of Feudalism; it was progressive. Now it is regressive, and we can do much better and help much more people by advancing forward to Socialism. Socialism is a bad idea. It will only hurt millions of hard working middle class people, and will do nothing to help the working classes. It is a repulsive idea, that really does not help those it seeks to help. Quote: But for whom, and allocated to whom? Who actually created that wealth? Capitalists, or workers? "It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities here in Spain and in America and everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place. And better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins. We are going to inherit the earth; there is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie might blast and ruin its own world before it leaves the stage of history. We carry a new world here, in our hearts. That world is growing this minute." -Buenaventura Durruti Wow. What biased dribble. The wealth has benefited the people and the nation, as a whole. The workers cannot control the methods of production because they do not have the technical skill to do so. That quote is bogus. I'm originally from Spain myself and I'm happy we did not take the way of the communists in 1936. Quote: So what is it? Oh, that's right, you never explain in your entire post. Capitalism is where the people are benefited by an open market that allows for advancement and invention. The freer the market, the freer the people. Quote: Impossible. Socialism needs democracy like humans need oxygen! Nope. Socialism contradicts democracy! Quote: Capitalism can't possibly be democratic. A dictatorship in economics will transfer over to a dictatorship in politics, where politicians become commodified for the highest bidders. Nope. Capitalism is mainly democratic. There have been regimes that are capitalist and weren't democratic, but most democratic nations in the world are capitalist. I'm sorry but I want to live in a country where the free market exists, and I can work without being taxed to death. Quote: But... that's never happened in history. They've ALWAYS caused massive growth and expansion. They always caused massive growth and expansion initially. Learn your history! Stop revising history for your own intentions! They always cause growth initially, but they are not an effective long term plan. The Soviet Union had great amounts of growth during the Stalin regime, but this eventually crumbled in the 1980s, and ultimately collapsed in 1991. Oh wait I see... I understand now... you're a short-term thinker! Quote: Actually, Socialism will allow for everything to essentially be like one of those very useful and productive large businesses you speak. The big difference will be that those profits will go to the people, and the workers of those business will have a democratic say in the management of them and the allocation of resources. No. Socialism will hurt productive businesses and crack down on them. The profits cannot go to the "people". They have to go towards research and development, and the salaries of those employees working in the company. Research and development iis important. The workers of businesses do have democratic says, as they are often unionized. But many of us should choose to opt out of unions. I would not want to be part of a union. Quote: lol, I like how you proudly proclaim your "astuteness" in economics, and then show, in that same paragraph, your absolute lack of understanding of anything I've said. I have a complete understanding of what you said, and it is all left wing dribble with very little evidence backing it, and absolutely no historical evidence. Quote: 1.) No one said raising wages to ridiculous proportions was a good idea or the goal of Socialism. If one looks to the successful workers-owned businesses in Argentina, you'd see that actually, workers reach a logical consensus on their wages yet the businesses are all STILL PROFITABLE! My goodness, its possible for workers to comprehend that wages vs. business profits must be equitably balanced. You cannot have a "workers-owned" business because they do not have the technical or adminstrative skills. You need businesses owned by those with adminstrative skills to achieve maximum efficency. Argentina is a capitalist country by the way allowing huge amounts of FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT into the country. You need to take economics 101. It is either the free market or the high way. Quote: 4.) Actually, a series of U.S>-backed dictatorships imposing ultra-free market ideals is what ruined most Latin American countries. Thanks to leaders like Chavez, Morales, and Castro amazing democratic and just things are finally occuring, and their influence spreads with each passing day among the people of Latin America tired of Capitalist lies and nonsense. No, no, no. Chavez is not democratic. Fidel Castro is certainly not democratic. And many of those backed dictatorships did do things wrong. But that was mismanagement, and not capitalism. You cannot take say, the Somoza adminstration and say that is an example of capitalism. It simply isn't. You are the one lying. Their influence is spreading? Explains the re-election of the right-wing radical Colombian president Alvaro Uribe, and the election of the Peruvian centerist Garcia. Also explains the defeat of the leftist Orbador in Mexico! The left has been getting defeated all over Latin America. In Argentina, the adminstration there has been deeply angered by the idiocy of Morales in Bolivia. The Brazilians too are angry. Argentina and Brazil are considered center-left, and oppose Chavez and Morales now. Quote: You do know that the Venezuelan economy has been growing quickly since Chavez took office, right? Nationalization does not automaically equal bad. In fact, it usually works VERY well. Note how Sweden and Norway have more than half of their economy state-run and have the highest living conditions in the world. No it hasn't. It has declined, approximately by 1/3rd since he took office. Nationalization is a very bad thing and it hardly works well. In fact it usually ends up in failure. Sweden and Norway aren't the fastest growing economies, and they are still more privately owned then state run. Nice try! Quote: Who says people with such skills can be equally employed with other workers? Why must they constitute part of a hierarchy or aristocracy of the business, recieving gross wages or perhaps collecting profits if they own it? Workers'-owned factories in Latin America (some 500 in argentina, with a few hundred opening up in Mexico and Venezuela) are doing FANTASTICALLY without Capitalists, and the workers seem to be doing things VERY right. Your theory is wrong. Only those with technical skills can be operating businesses. Workers cannot control a business because they would not know how to operate it. Like it or not, there needs to be a hierarchy in hiring, and wages. And no those in Argentina are not doing fantastically. No they don't. Nice try. Your theory is the one that is wrong and everything you say is wrong. It is morally wrong. Quote: If you know about Argentina, you must know about the Brukman Factory, or the Hotel Bauen, or maybe FaSinPat? All failures in the long term. Quote: Since when?! Do you have any proof of this drivel? I'm speaking drivel? Really? Look at what you been posting. You cannot even back yourself up. Quote: Even when all of the facts are presented to him he denies reality and substitutes his own. I wonder if he gathers his economic data from coloring books or perhaps speaks to toilet paper for advice on his ideas. You're so totally ridiculous in every regard. You are the one who gathers your economic data from coloring bockets. You totally reject the facts and the reality. LIVE IN THE DAMN REALITY, not some dream world. Thank goodness your ideas will never be put to practice in the United States or the developed world for that matter. Quote: What's worse is that he might be a member of the working class. In which case, he's like a black slave in America in 1800 saying how great his massa has improved the countryside by forwarding the capital to buy a farm and slaves, and that he plans to defend the massa to the death over his rightful property which he has used to save the world! Just as slavery has passed, and so has Feudalism, Capitalism will find its place in the annals of time, for no system based on exploitation can ever bring fairness to all, and always in the absence of fairness, resistance grows. You're so wrong and inflammatory. It is not my fault you have your head screwed on wrong. I never did defend slavery. Capitalism is not slavery, it is freedom. You can either accept that or just lie to yourself. Capitalism will live forever. It does not exploit. It only provides jobs and help to the people. Socialism kills and will be forgotten. It must be fought against because it is incorrect and immoral! It seeks to control the minds of the people, and the people demand the open market to live. You're the one who wants to live under the slavery of socialism. A system that ensures misery for all. I will never live under such a system. And no, I'm not a member of the working class. So please don't try to speak for me or try to use me for your own little rant.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · OMAHD Archives · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
…
9