Marxists Thread

[KomradeKloininov]

Ahh, nice to find a true supporter. I kinda gave up and skipped some pages. I have found that a lot of this is way above CC standards in terms of coherency and complex political arguments. Still, do as much as you can to support the marxist side.

[KomradeKloininov]

By the way, capitalist control of such resouces is selling to the people, which is not equal because capitalism does not cater to the poor, people who honestly need the resources. Capitalsim has a tendency to give to the people with money because the entire society is run on monetary exchange. Communism would in theory be equal distribution, avoiding the greed that the possession of such massive resources would incure.

[Neutrino]

By the way, capitalist control of such resouces is selling to the people, which is not equal because capitalism does not cater to the poor, people who honestly need the resources. Capitalsim has a tendency to give to the people with money because the entire society is run on monetary exchange. Communism would in theory be equal distribution, avoiding the greed that the possession of such massive resources would incure.

Ahh, trying to get this argument started again.
It definatly died down a bit when those filthy capitalist pigs realised we had them beat with our superior arguments.

[flashleg8]

By the way, capitalist control of such resouces is selling to the people, which is not equal because capitalism does not cater to the poor, people who honestly need the resources. Capitalsim has a tendency to give to the people with money because the entire society is run on monetary exchange. Communism would in theory be equal distribution, avoiding the greed that the possession of such massive resources would incure.

I agree completely.

Capitalism, like feudalism and slavery before it, is an exploitative economic system.

In slavery all of the slave's production belongs to the slave-owner.
In feudalism, a fraction of the serf's production belongs to the feudal lord. It is not sold to the lord; it is taken from the serfs without payment. Thus the serf is not much better off than the slave. In effect he is bonded to the lord and for a proportion of his work he could be considered a slave.
Both the serf and the slave are openly and obviously exploited.
In capitalism, the exploitation is hidden and not even understood by most of the workers who are being exploited.
In this system the workers are actually wage-slaves and are again exploited. While they are not actually owned by one slave-owner or bonded to one feudal lord they are still enslaved to the system of capitalism. A worker could quit, and get a job from another employer but this would only be for another capitalist. A good way I've read to describe this is that workers are the collective property of the capitalist class as a whole.
Now being a worker is better than a serf which in turn is better than being a slave, but neither of these classes are truly free. The capitalists (the owners of the means of production) exist only on the backs of the workers. They are parasites who merely exploit our labour adding nothing of value to the system.

[Neutrino]

Come on Capitalists, you gave up after a mere 4 days and 28 pages. How are you supposed to exploit the weak if you cant even keep
up an argument for a week?

[chewyman]

I'd like to keep posting on this but I don't really see the point. You guys are already converted to the path of evil and there aren't any undecideds still reading. Apart from the love of a good argument there really is no benefit. I'll write a brief closure paragraph and that'll do me, I'm enjoying the anarchy thread more at the moment, at least there I can find some common ground with the other side.

Capitalism may not be perfect but it's the best system we have. If communism is so great then why doesn't it exist? Apparently that's because we aren't ready for it yet. I guess this could possibly be true, but since you'd be waiting until human nature changed you'd be waiting a very, very long time. Not everybody is equal, we are all different and some of us are better than others, we all have talents and faults. Capitalism is great because it encourages us to best express our talents. Communism does the opposite and would therefore never work outside of a theoretical sense. To take from everybody according to their ability and giving to everybody according to their needs sounds like a wonderful idea. But what encouragement is there to actually work to the best of your ability when you're going to get whatever you want anyway? It's been mentioned in this thread many times that the world does not have enough resources to maintain current consumption patterns. Basically this means that there is more demand than supply. Now if we can't supply demand when everybody is working to the best of their abilities then how exactly do you expect us to meet this demand when everybody figures that somebody else will do all the work for them.

[foolish_yeti]

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Capitalism may not be perfect but it's the best system we have.

Well it's the only system we have at the moment- so yes, in those regards it is the "best system"... for example my climbing shoes that I have now are my only, and thus by default, favorite and best pair I own.... doesn't mean there aren't better ones out there- I just haven't tried them. Humans have lived sustainably for thousands of years (hundreds of thousands) under other forms of social organisation- so it's for sure not the best we've seen.

If communism is so great then why doesn't it exist? Apparently that's because we aren't ready for it yet. I guess this could possibly be true, but since you'd be waiting until human nature changed you'd be waiting a very, very long time.

Other forms of social organisation do not exist because when people buy into it, capitalism is quite good at destruction- of the ecosystem and of other human beings. Capitalism is extremely violent, and quite good at it. There are those who would argue we will not see the fall of civilization before either a catastrophic crash or a self-imposed crash for precisely this reason.

Not everybody is equal, we are all different and some of us are better than others, we all have talents and faults. Capitalism is great because it encourages us to best express our talents. Communism does the opposite and would therefore never work outside of a theoretical sense.

In my opinion people who are the best at what they do are so because they love what they do and strive to excel at it- in fact many people I know have huge drive towards goals and are poor because of it. I would hope my doctor loves his job, and doesn't view me as a dollar sign. I fail to see how people would cease to innovate or turn into apathetic slobs without capitalism.

Now if we can't supply demand when everybody is working to the best of their abilities then how exactly do you expect us to meet this demand when everybody figures that somebody else will do all the work for them.

It's a matter of consumption. Capitalism creates a very high consumption rate. The goal of social organisation that goes against capitalism (or at least it should be- or it's no better...or a lesser degree of bad) is an attempt to bring that consumption into a sustainable realm. So you won't be meeting the same impossible demand (impossible in that there is not enough resources and that it is ever increasing). You could easily meet sustainable demand- it's sustainable

[unriggable]

Come on Capitalists, you gave up after a mere 4 days and 28 pages. How are you supposed to exploit the weak if you cant even keep
up an argument for a week?

Coming from somebody who refuses to admit their wrongs.

For the record I am pro-socialism in some ways and pro-Capitalism in others.

[beezer]

Ahh, nice to find a true supporter. I kinda gave up and skipped some pages. I have found that a lot of this is way above CC standards in terms of coherency and complex political arguments. Still, do as much as you can to support the marxist side.

Complete arrogance!

We understand the ramifications of marxism. That is why we do not support it and oppose it. You are an elitist.

[DangerBoy]

By the way, capitalist control of such resouces is selling to the people, which is not equal because capitalism does not cater to the poor, people who honestly need the resources. Capitalsim has a tendency to give to the people with money because the entire society is run on monetary exchange. Communism would in theory be equal distribution, avoiding the greed that the possession of such massive resources would incure.

Ahh, trying to get this argument started again.
It definatly died down a bit when those filthy capitalist pigs realised we had them beat with our superior arguments.

You are seriously deluded if you think you made some kind of superior argument. We asked you for a specific example of a successful implementation of communist/marxist principles from an ancient civilization and you changed the subject to global warming and the environment.

Go get out your communist talking point playbook and begin the spin cycle again.

We gave you specific examples of societies that have sucessfully used capitalism but you just don't care to hear the other side of the argument. You even got mad about being disturbed during your holiday.

Look, we understand about communism. Don't try and change the subject anymore when it doesn't fit your playbook.

[DangerBoy]

Come on Capitalists, you gave up after a mere 4 days and 28 pages. How are you supposed to exploit the weak if you cant even keep
up an argument for a week?

Once again, you were the one that changed the subject when things didn't go your way. You started getting hysterical. Beezer tried to calm you down and wish you a happy holiday. But I guess you were just using that as a ploy to get the heat off of your weak arguments.

[DangerBoy]

In capitalism, the exploitation is hidden and not even understood by most of the workers who are being exploited.

But of course they would need a hero or saviour to explain this to them. After all, they are too stupid to understand that they are being oppressed. Hmmm, who could we get to save them from themselves? Oh, someone like you! You could be their shepherd, steering them safely away from home ownership and the ability to feed their families.

That's why your line of thinking is so dangerous. You set the working class people up as a bunch of stupid idiots not even capable of rational thinking. Then you and your buddies come along and set yourselves up as the liberators. I'm so glad they still make us read Animal Farm in school.

The end result is that communists set themselves up with the power and end up exploiting the working class. But of course, it's all in the name of economic equality since they know so much better what we poor people need than we ourselves.

[qeee1]

In capitalism, the exploitation is hidden and not even understood by most of the workers who are being exploited.

But of course they would need a hero or saviour to explain this to them. After all, they are too stupid to understand that they are being oppressed. Hmmm, who could we get to save them from themselves? Oh, someone like you! You could be their shepherd, steering them safely away from home ownership and the ability to feed their families.

That's why your line of thinking is so dangerous. You set the working class people up as a bunch of stupid idiots not even capable of rational thinking. Then you and your buddies come along and set yourselves up as the liberators. I'm so glad they still make us read Animal Farm in school.

The end result is that communists set themselves up with the power and end up exploiting the working class. But of course, it's all in the name of economic equality since they know so much better what we poor people need than we ourselves.

My you do know how to put a spin on things. Yes that's right all communists are just out to exploit the stupidity of the working class. It's not about being stupid, it's a matter of perception, a perception that's been extremely coloured by the dominating powers of society.

Take for example animal farm- Did you know it was first to be published during the second world war, but British publishers and the government decided it wasn't appropriate to criticise their soviet ally. Then when the cold war was on, you suddenly have the British press extolling it highly.

My point is that books are often used for propoganda purposes, and that everyone is subject to propoganda in some form or another, but lets look at what's actually said in the book-

Orwell's point wasn't that capitalism was a fine system and didn't need change. Were the animals being exploited by the humans? YES! His point was that stalinism is not communism, but rather a corruption of Marx's (old major's) ideals. Orwell was left leaning his whole life.

As to the points you made in your other posts... read my posts and it's mostly already been refuted I think.

[luns101]

In capitalism, the exploitation is hidden and not even understood by most of the workers who are being exploited.

But of course they would need a hero or saviour to explain this to them. After all, they are too stupid to understand that they are being oppressed. Hmmm, who could we get to save them from themselves? Oh, someone like you! You could be their shepherd, steering them safely away from home ownership and the ability to feed their families.

The end result is that communists set themselves up with the power and end up exploiting the working class. But of course, it's all in the name of economic equality since they know so much better what we poor people need than we ourselves.

My you do know how to put a spin on things. Yes that's right all communists are just out to exploit the stupidity of the working class. It's not about being stupid, it's a matter of perception, a perception that's been extremely coloured by the dominating powers of society.

The point remains the same...communists set themselves up as the only ones who are enlightened enough to perceive the economic inequalities. They also claim to be the only ones with the solution - redistribution of wealth. And yes, communists do exploit the working class by exposing the very natural tendency for people to envy those who have more.

Instead of looking at the wealthy as examples to follow or a standard to strive for, they cast them as evil villains who care nothing for the poor...a group of money-horders who only care about themselves. That is pitting one group of people against another and it is wrong.

[Psilocbin]

BORK, BORK, BORK!

[Jenos Ridan]

ever since doing highschool in history i have leaned toward the left, i talk about it to people at school and when i talk about communism they instantly start the arguement "so if you where a doctor would you like to be paid as much as a street cleaner" its this ignorance which leads me to believe that nomatter how hard we try the greed and what not will always prevent the implentation of a utopian society

Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Maoism, etc. are contrary to human nature. Nobody who isn't brainwashed would want much to do with it, especially if they are intellectual in nature. The 'drones' could tricked into it, but your going to have to crush riots frequently.

An taste of what you'd get; you get a house, but it is not yours, 'Uncle Joe' owns it. It can come in any color and shape you want, so long as it is beige and has the same basic layout.

What is discusting though, is that 'cookie-cutter' mass housing is happening all over the US. And with the way a certain party wants to go, it won't be long before the hammer-and-sickle flies over the land o' the free. Welcome to the People's Republic of Soviet Amerikhastan, tovarich!

[Jenos Ridan]

Communism leads to laziness. With everyone equal, there is no need to strive to be better. Thus innovation and progress ceases to exist.

That, and everyone is equal economically and the standard of living is low.

[Jenos Ridan]

In capitalism, the exploitation is hidden and not even understood by most of the workers who are being exploited.

But of course they would need a hero or saviour to explain this to them. After all, they are too stupid to understand that they are being oppressed. Hmmm, who could we get to save them from themselves? Oh, someone like you! You could be their shepherd, steering them safely away from home ownership and the ability to feed their families.

That's why your line of thinking is so dangerous. You set the working class people up as a bunch of stupid idiots not even capable of rational thinking. Then you and your buddies come along and set yourselves up as the liberators. I'm so glad they still make us read Animal Farm in school.

The end result is that communists set themselves up with the power and end up exploiting the working class. But of course, it's all in the name of economic equality since they know so much better what we poor people need than we ourselves.

That is how is happened historically.

[Neutrino]

By the way, capitalist control of such resouces is selling to the people, which is not equal because capitalism does not cater to the poor, people who honestly need the resources. Capitalsim has a tendency to give to the people with money because the entire society is run on monetary exchange. Communism would in theory be equal distribution, avoiding the greed that the possession of such massive resources would incure.

Ahh, trying to get this argument started again.
It definatly died down a bit when those filthy capitalist pigs realised we had them beat with our superior arguments.

You are seriously deluded if you think you made some kind of superior argument. We asked you for a specific example of a successful implementation of communist/marxist principles from an ancient civilization and you changed the subject to global warming and the environment.

Go get out your communist talking point playbook and begin the spin cycle again.

We gave you specific examples of societies that have sucessfully used capitalism but you just don't care to hear the other side of the argument. You even got mad about being disturbed during your holiday.

Look, we understand about communism. Don't try and change the subject anymore when it doesn't fit your playbook.

Actually, the point wasnt the existence or absence of superior arguments, rather, I was trying to goad you into starting he discussion again.

And it worked.

And now, alas, I have to go, but in the afternoon, consider your points refuted.

[qeee1]

The point remains the same...communists set themselves up as the only ones who are enlightened enough to perceive the economic inequalities. They also claim to be the only ones with the solution - redistribution of wealth. And yes, communists do exploit the working class by exposing the very natural tendency for people to envy those who have more.

Instead of looking at the wealthy as examples to follow or a standard to strive for, they cast them as evil villains who care nothing for the poor...a group of money-horders who only care about themselves. That is pitting one group of people against another and it is wrong.

Pitting one groupm against another is wrong, if the first group has done nothing wrong certainly, but the whole point is that yes, the workers are being exploited, and yes they should be angry about it and rise up.

If it was a mere case of envy the arguments would be a lot more straight forward, but the idea is not to replace the bourgeoisie (the rich business owners to those unfamiliar with marxist terminology) with a new bourgeoisie, but to do away with class systems all together.

ever since doing highschool in history i have leaned toward the left, i talk about it to people at school and when i talk about communism they instantly start the arguement "so if you where a doctor would you like to be paid as much as a street cleaner" its this ignorance which leads me to believe that nomatter how hard we try the greed and what not will always prevent the implentation of a utopian society

Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Maoism, etc. are contrary to human nature. Nobody who isn't brainwashed would want much to do with it, especially if they are intellectual in nature. The 'drones' could tricked into it, but your going to have to crush riots frequently.

An taste of what you'd get; you get a house, but it is not yours, 'Uncle Joe' owns it. It can come in any color and shape you want, so long as it is beige and has the same basic layout.

What is discusting though, is that 'cookie-cutter' mass housing is happening all over the US. And with the way a certain party wants to go, it won't be long before the hammer-and-sickle flies over the land o' the free. Welcome to the People's Republic of Soviet Amerikhastan, tovarich!

it's funny, the posts that accuse people of being brainwashed towards communism, generally have the least coherant arguments against it, suggesting they've been brainwashed in another direction.

Firstly intellectualism has dogged marxist philosophy for some time, one of the main criticisms of people from within and without the movement is that marxists are far too intellectually orientated, and need to be active on a more practical level.

Standardised housing is a mainstay of communism alright, we definately haven't seen any capitalist based housing plans along the same lines... oh wait. Furthermore, capitalism tends to promote cultural homogenity as it's easier to market to.

[KomradeKloininov]

Plus, to add to that housing point. Would you rather live in a house that is similar to everyone else's but is adequate, or a small hovel. In all honesty, communism in terms of housing and such infrastructure is MUCH more beneficial to the poorer populace than most capitalism.

[flashleg8]

Standardised housing is a mainstay of communism alright, we definately haven't seen any capitalist based housing plans along the same lines... oh wait. Furthermore, capitalism tends to promote cultural homogenity as it's easier to market to.

A fine point.

@ Jenos Ridan: So what if the house is beige and the same layout as all the rest. The point is that all people will have adequate shelter and housing. Or would you rather have it that the elite few can design their mansions anyway they like, the bourgeois can live in their 3 bedroom semis, the working classes struggle on in substandard slums, while the underclass exists in shacks or on the street.
I for one would rather see equality rather than this outrageous disparity. I assume you were lucky enough to be born into the good side of this divide. The majority of the planet weren’t.

[everywhere116]

Standardised housing is a mainstay of communism alright, we definately haven't seen any capitalist based housing plans along the same lines... oh wait. Furthermore, capitalism tends to promote cultural homogenity as it's easier to market to.

A fine point.

@ Jenos Ridan: So what if the house is beige and the same layout as all the rest. The point is that all people will have adequate shelter and housing. Or would you rather have it that the elite few can design their mansions anyway they like, the bourgeois can live in their 3 bedroom semis, the working classes struggle on in substandard slums, while the underclass exists in shacks or on the street.
I for one would rather see equality rather than this outrageous disparity. I assume you were lucky enough to be born into the good side of this divide. The majority of the planet weren’t.

Yeah, a large majority here do not live in shacks. That Cuba's and the USSR's position.

[Jenos Ridan]

You want me to dumb it down for you, ok....

Humans compete, one needs not look far to see this evidenced in society. Competion drives production and innovation. It may not be the perfect solution, but it is the fairest.

[DangerBoy]

So what if the house is beige and the same layout as all the rest. The point is that all people will have adequate shelter and housing.

Because:

1. It would suck
2. You would be squashing individual human expression

The point is really that you & your communist friends would be setting yourselves up as the definers of what is and isn't adequate.