 |
| |
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Ramo, one of us is wrong. Who is going to blink first and provide a link? |
Ned is half correct. Cambodia is led by a communist party. In fact, Hun Sen (sp?) was the leader of Cambodia during the years of Vietnamese occupation. Cambodia, however, has a market economy, so it's not really a socialist/communist cuontry.
Furthermore, female slavery, as deplorable and despicable as it is, is very common throughout SouthEast Asia (and also Eastern Europe). The appetite for these slaves, however, is from the capitalist cuontries. It is men from the imperialist world who fly to these countries to rape these women for money. This doesn't prove how horrible communism is, but that in an unregualted capitalist society, everything is for sale.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That's not really correct. |
It really is.
Communist Manifesto:Chapter 1
quote:
A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past, the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that, by their periodical return, put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity - the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed. And why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand, by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented. |
quote:
The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.
But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons - the modern working class - the proletarians.
In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed - a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
The Manifesto is a political tract, Kid. It was also written early in Marx's career, and shouldn't be tacken as dogma, nor representitivate of Marx's more mature (and still revolutionary) views. Furthermore, the two sections you linked do not say that the revolution will come after a collapse of capitalism. In the first section Marx is saying that collapses are a regular feature of capitalism. In the second, he is saying that the productive forces which capitalism creates, including the very proletariet itself, will be the undoing of capitalism.
Now, historically, revolutions have only followed disasters with which the state has been unable to cope. Not every collapse nor every disaster is followed by a revolution. War, famine, earthquake have all preceeded revolution, but I don't yet know of any revolution following an economic collapse (unless you count the overthrow of Suharto in Indonesia).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The Manifesto is a political tract, Kid. It was also written early in Marx's career, and shouldn't be tacken as dogma, nor representitivate of Marx's more mature (and still revolutionary) views.
|
So show me were Marx corrects this so-called error.
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Furthermore, the two sections you linked do not say that the revolution will come after a collapse of capitalism. In the first section Marx is saying that collapses are a regular feature of capitalism. In the second, he is saying that the productive forces which capitalism creates, including the very proletariet itself, will be the undoing of capitalism.
|
He also says that the long run trend is for the protetariat to grow and the capitalists to diminish in number, which makes the revolution possible. The ratio of proletariat reach a critical mass during a period of contraction. Or are you saying that the critical mass will be reached during expansion of capital?
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Now, historically, revolutions have only followed disasters with which the state has been unable to cope. Not every collapse nor every disaster is followed by a revolution. War, famine, earthquake have all preceeded revolution, but I don't yet know of any revolution following an economic collapse (unless you count the overthrow of Suharto in Indonesia). |
The govts are still able to cope with economic crisis. At one point, as productive forces reach a critical mass, they will no longer be able too. Look at the great depression. The capitalists govts were able to get out of that crisis only through war. A repeat of the same type of war is not possible because of the nature of modern warfare and production.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
Would'nt the American Revolution, The rise of Hitler(Change from republic to dictatorship), Revolution of Russia during the WW1, and Cold War, Vietnamese revolt against France all be due to economic crisis or collapse.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pax Africanus
Would'nt the American Revolution, The rise of Hitler(Change from republic to dictatorship), Revolution of Russia during the WW1, and Cold War, Vietnamese revolt against France all be due to economic crisis or collapse. |
A revolution is an essential change, not a change of form. The aim of a revolution is to replace one class with another, thus several of your examples don't fit.
The American Revolution wasn't a true revolution, though it started as one. And you would be correct, the basis of the crisis was economic. Ultimately, however, revolution was co-opted into a war of independence.
Hitler did not stage a revolution. The capitalists were in charge before and after the rise of Hitler.
The Russian Revolution came about as the result of crisis of WWI. As the government was unable to maintain the war effort, it began to be unable to maintain anything.
The Vietnamese revolution was a war of national liberation. Quite simply, they wanted to be free of France.
Did you mean the end of the Cold War? You may be correct there. There was a severe economic crisis in the Eastern block, but in the end, the same people who were in charge before were largely in charge afterwards. Instead of heading government bureaucracies, they now head corporations. Instead of running the Communist Party, they run various ex-communist parties. In the words of the Who, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
Some people believe that the Soviet Union was not really and accurate representation of what a true communist or socialist country would like. Therefore the collapse does not prove that communism does not work.
The same is said for cuba. They also point that the embargo's placed on Cuba or the main reason that Cuba is poor today.
In fact, many countries that are Communist or Socialist in name became Socialist as a Reaction to the Imperialist Market economies that had subjugated their people and stolen their resources. Leaving them in a position of near death. As if the Western world were leeches.
Then forcing them to becoming battlegrounds were everything from depleted uranium to napalm were dropped on there land and people.
It is not surprising that the 3rd and 2nd class peoples of the world would want to try something new. Unfortunately, they only traded masters.
Lastly, Market economies don't really work because
1. they constantly must find new markets after saturating the previous markets.
2. In order to make profit they seek the cheapes labor to maximize profit. Therefore built on human misery.
3. Disregard safety as much as possible to maximize profit. Therefore increasing human misery.
4. Sell products for as high a price as possible. Denying the products sometimes to those in need. Therefore increasing human misery.
Almost all wars fought in the Western World have had some type of financial reason behind them directly related to maintaining or creating markets. What are we going to do when we run out of markets?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
PAX, you really do have an emotional attachment to victomhood. State ownership of companies vs. private ownership of companies has nothing to do with workers and working conditions. What it does is allow bureaucrats to decide what products are made vs. the people. |
What are you talking about, Ned? Whenever did the people get to decide what products were made?
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
This, of course, is inefficient, brings shortages, long lines and relative poverty of all concerned, except for the bureaucrats. |
Again, as che (or was it Kid?) pointed out, efficiency is merely a measurement, and in a particular area at that. Asserting that private enterprises are more efficient than public ones without stating which areas you are trying to measure is dishonest.
BTW, have you looked at the Gini Index of the US for the last 20 years?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
Example, for decades Detroit said that consumers wouldn't pay for cars that had airbags in them, despite survey after survey in which consumers wanted them by an overwhelming majority. It took nearly twenty years for air bags to be made standard, despite consumer demand. What people want, and what people get are two different things. Consumers do not get to decide what gets produced, except in that if they don't want somthing, it won't be produced for long.
Consumer choice is also skewed by psychologically-crafted emotional appeals, product placement, the number of products, etc. Go to the supermarket and notice that from a child's height, nearly all the eyes on ceral boxs are staring at that level. Go to the detergent aisle. There are about twelve brands, but hald are from one company, while a quarter are from another. What appears to be twelve choices is actually five.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Saras
:sigh: |
And what si the counterarguement?
how many people here decide they needed a flatscreen high definitions Tv and wrote to the TV makers askign them to make it? What about bobblehead dolls? Foam novelty hands? SUV's?
Certainly, a producer of goods can come up with an improved product, a new form of something old, and get consumers to buy it as an "imporve" version, but anythign trully novel does NOT come out due to demand-you simply can NOT demand what you have no diea exists- you can demand a better form of something old, but not something new. When something trully new comes out, it is up to the manufacturer to create demand- most beneingly simply by telling consumers his product exists, sometimes by manufacturing a reason why you need itand getting people to buy that as well.
The issue of demand and capitalism becomes this though, for some old prodcuts there is no improvement possible, so what does a company do to increase sales, or their share of business? They must manufacture some new "need" in order to get something out of the market.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-01-2004 19:44
The ZIL was an excellent car, but it was only for the bureacracy.
LOL!!!! ZIL, of all things!!! Own goal, Che 
What a blatant copy of (i'll tell you later on which exactly) american car!
|