One more example of why I detest Capitalism

Page 3 of 5 [ 69 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

01 Feb 2010, 3:41 am

Orwell wrote:

mjs82 wrote:

Regarding all this communist/socialist talk - and I could be mistaken here - but has there been a single communist/socialist country in history that has shifted its power away (as promised) from the temporary controlling party to the proletariat - i.e. phased out the political party system as proposed? Most parties that have supreme uncontested power for extended time periods tend to serve their own interest instead of the people's.

If I understand socialist theory correctly, it is necessary to have a worldwide socialist state before you can make the transition to stateless communism, because the mean fascist/nationalist capitalist countries would attack any stateless society, so until the world revolution comes you must have a vanguard party and a state to protect the revolution.

If you really believe this then no, you do not understand socialist theory correctly. The idea of a cohesive world wide socialist revolution is plain stupid and a massive strawman on your part. Of course socialism can start in one country, but it cannot survive in isolation and so therefore the ideology must spread, most likely incremental, the idea that a lone state can trigger a WORLD WIDE revolution is daft, although the theory expect massive upheavals at a time when capitalism fails I doubt this will equate to World Wide. And your derisive 'mean fascist/nationalist capitalist countries wouid attack' IS historical fact.

_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 01 Feb 2010, 3:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

01 Feb 2010, 3:48 am

DentArthurDent wrote:

Worldwide revolution was the driving ideology behind Lenin's justification for the Bolshevik revolution. At the very least, he was expecting a European revolution—I know you're not a fan of Stalin's Socialism in One Country. And your claim that socialism can not survive in isolation and must spread just ends up supporting my end point: socialism can't phase out the government until it has conquered the world.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

01 Feb 2010, 3:56 am

Orwell wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

Maybe I misinterpreted your original point, I took your statement to mean that Socialism needed to conquer the world in a one off almighty conflagration.

mjs82
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,166

01 Feb 2010, 4:05 am

Orwell wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

What's the motivation for the vanguard party to hand over power? Why would they relinquish their control?

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

01 Feb 2010, 4:36 am

@Dent: Not necessarily all at one burst, but I would suspect that the longer a socialist state tries to exist in isolation the more likely it would degrade into a degenerate workers' state like the Soviet Union. If you want to keep true to the proletarian revolution, you probably have to act quickly and keep the momentum going.

mjs82 wrote:

What's the motivation for the vanguard party to hand over power? Why would they relinquish their control?

That is a problem, isn't it?

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

01 Feb 2010, 4:43 am

That is the whole point of a well disciplined, principled party dedicated to the ideology. The transition from state to administration is a slow and deliberate act. As Lenin wrote in 'what is to be done' "''Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology formulated by the working masses themselves in the process of their movement, the only choice is either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course ….. in a society torn by class antagonisms there can never be a non class or above class ideology. Hence, to belittle the socialist ideology in any way, to turn aside from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen bourgeois ideology'' Without a principled approach to the ideology it is doomed to failure.

TheDoctor82
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,400
Location: Sandusky, Ohio

01 Feb 2010, 5:23 am

DentArthurDent wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

Capitalism is doing more to help the people of Haiti than socialism ever would.

How so

Well, for one thing, Haiti is a socialist dictatorship.

It's workin' out peachy for 'em, ain't it?

They're one of the poorest nations in the world. Re-distributing wealth does not make nations richer; keeps 'em poorer.

If Haiti believed in Capitalism, they'd be able to handle these natural disasters a lot better, and wouldn't need relief from other countries.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

01 Feb 2010, 6:04 am

TheDoctor82 wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

Capitalism is doing more to help the people of Haiti than socialism ever would.

How so

See http://www.counterpunch.org/hallward01282010.html

TheDoctor82
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,400
Location: Sandusky, Ohio

01 Feb 2010, 6:25 am

Sand wrote:

TheDoctor82 wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

Capitalism is doing more to help the people of Haiti than socialism ever would.

How so

See http://www.counterpunch.org/hallward01282010.html

Yeah...this is what's normally referred to as "biased journalism".

They're using some major anti-capitalistic key phrases here, including:

"And it has proceeded in ways that reinforce the already harrowing gap between rich and poor."

If you want to rile folks up, always discuss a gap between the rich and the poor. Granted, never actually say why the poor are in the situation they're in, whereas why the rich are in the situation they're in...no, it's always because the rich are keeping the poor down.

Have you ever read the Communist Manifesto, out of curiosity? I could easily find half of it in this article...probably without even trying.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

01 Feb 2010, 6:29 am

TheDoctor82 wrote:

Sand wrote:

TheDoctor82 wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

Capitalism is doing more to help the people of Haiti than socialism ever would.

How so

See http://www.counterpunch.org/hallward01282010.html

There are facts cited. Your prejudice is hanging out obscenely.

TheDoctor82
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,400
Location: Sandusky, Ohio

01 Feb 2010, 6:34 am

Ok, reading more into it, I'm picking up that--pretty much up until last year, the country was run by a disastrous socialist government. Reading about insane riots is nothing that surprises me in these instances.

I just want to note that I really have to mentally "edit" some stuff as the guy writing this sounds extremely, extremely biased.

Anyway, it sounds like some attempts at privatization have just recently started last year. Well, I don't expect them to become some Capitalist super power in one year; to top it off, they probably have virtually no idea how to do it, as they've been so ass-backwards for so long.

But y'can't blame Capitalism for that...that's the fault of years upon decades of Socialism.

In fact I was gonna link to a piece on Capmag.com, but the site seems to be down at the moment; I'll try again later.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

01 Feb 2010, 4:37 pm

TheDoctor82 wrote:

Ok, reading more into it, I'm picking up that--pretty much up until last year, the country was run by a disastrous socialist government.

Kinda funny to think that you regard a country that has had so much military intervention by the US as Socialist, even more funny when you consider the that this 'socialist' government signed onto and carried out IMF austerity measures

That some welfare state measures were put in place by Aristide and Preval does not make them or their government socialist, all these measure did was to avert the mass population of one of the poorest countries on earth from staging a revolt. Whilst throwing out these crumbs they took far more from the poor with the IMF austerity policies

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

01 Feb 2010, 5:27 pm

TheDoctor82 wrote:

If you want to rile folks up, always discuss a gap between the rich and the poor. Granted, never actually say why the poor are in the situation they're in, whereas why the rich are in the situation they're in...no, it's always because the rich are keeping the poor down.

Social class is largely hereditary. We do not, in the US, have some sort of egalitarian system where you succeed or fail on your own merits.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Obres
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,423
Location: NYC

01 Feb 2010, 7:05 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Ok, here's the issue:
1) Under all societies, resources are going to be accounted for in various compartmentalizations. (premise)
2) If all resources are being accounted for, then any compartment that gives up resources gives up the usage of resources. (necessary conclusion from 1)
3) Giving up the usage of resources stands in the way of completing other objectives. (premise)
4) Therefore giving up resources means reducing the ability to complete other objectives. (2 & 3)
5) Officials running whatever compartments we speak of want to complete other objectives. (premise)
6) Therefore, giving up resources is something that officials find undesirable. (4 & 5)
7) If a person or entity finds something undesirable then it will seek to avoid doing it. (premise)
8 ) Officials will avoid giving resources. (from 6 & 7)
9) The funds flowing demands that officials not avoid giving up resources. (premise)
10) The funds will not flow. (8 & 9)

Premise 3 is incorrect, or at the very least, incomplete. In some cases, giving up the usage of resources will advance completing other objectives, such as getting re-elected or channeling money to individuals of your choosing (we're talking American politics right?). Of course there will always be some negative effect on the ability to complete some other objectives, but in some cases the net may be positive. Which then makes premise 4 completely false, as in some cases giving up resources may result in a net increase in the ability to complete other objectives. So in some cases, as evident by the national debt, the funds will indeed flow.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

01 Feb 2010, 7:17 pm

Obres wrote:

Premise 3 is very correct. Giving up the usage of resources can advance completing certain objectives, but then it wouldn't be giving up resources but rather advancing one of those objectives.

Premise 3 is basically a statement about the existence of opportunity costs. It is not a statement arguing that disasters cannot be beneficial for elected officials, only that giving up resources prevents other usages.

Obres
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,423
Location: NYC

01 Feb 2010, 7:46 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Obres wrote:

Now you got it, but in the context of your proof, it was incorrect. Giving up resources indeed prevents other usages, but that isn't the same as standing in the way of completing other objectives, as other objectives includes other usages, plus the net effects of giving up the resources. For example, if you take the "I scratch your back you scratch mine" approach, giving up resources may prevent other uses of those resources while at the same time advancing a cause that those resources would've been insufficient to accomplish by themselves.

Page 3 of 5 [ 69 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

One more example of why I detest Capitalism Post Reply New Topic

One more example of why I detest Capitalism