 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Tripledoc:
Don't forget one thing, the people behind the overthrowing of capitalism are very important. If there are no people willing to devote their lives to the overthrowing of capitalism, it will remain in place.
|
This is one aspect of 'traditional' Communism that has been bothering for a while.
The masses are important, yet how do you mobilize the masses without agitators stiring the pot, so to speak?
The agitators must know how to manipulate the masses to the ends defined by the avantgarde of the revolution, yet for the benefit of the masses. How then do you avoid that the avantgarde will not feel contempt for the ignorant masses?
I think it is safe to say that the people's suport of the capitalist system is not ideological in a strong sense. It is partly based on conservatism, which by default is then supportive of capitalism. Conservatism does not neccesarily have to be supportive of capitalism. In fact conservatism as an ideology can underpin any economic system. The 'support' of capitalism is then also partly based on the lack of awareness of any alternative system.
The objective realities change. However there is a delay in how that reality is registered on the subjective level. Before that change happens one can speak of the socalled 'false consciousness'.
I think then that the agitation for a change in the system must be based on factual discusions of the nature of capitalism in this day and age. This means a move away from pure ideological talk towards showing the factual nature of capitalism.
On example could be pointing to the new phenomenon call centres.
For instance this BBC news article:
UK call centres branded 'satanic'
These call centres are low income jobs which offer frankly inhumane conditions. The important part is that these Jobs are being moved to India. Thus the fact that workers in Europe are able to sell their labour for a high price actually accelerates the new imperialism. The old imperialism was about exporting capital. The new imperialism is about exporting jobs. And this export is now moving into the service sector.
And this is actually what capitalism does to survive. It can stay alive for a long time by continuing to export jobs. However I wonder how capitalism will stay alive when there are no more jobs to export?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I was speaking about the agitators. Without them, no revolution. And the outcome of the revolution, the new system, very much depends on their individuality.
If you assume there will be an "automatic" revolution at some point, with an "automatic" outcome, then you're giving far too much weight to the mechanics of dualist history. |
Yes but the agitatators are surely in most cases simply riding the wave of history. The greatest revolutions, the one in Russia, and the one in China, were made possible because of the cataclysmic events caused by the respective countries being invaded by imperialist powers. A revolution in the West cannot come from that since for the forseeable future the Western nations are the imperialists.
Will the revoltion then come from the inability of the West to continue its mode of imperialism, and the resultant crisis this must lead to? I don't think so because the pro-imperialist forces are fanatical to say the least, willing to displace everything for that single goal which is the expansion of the market.
This of course will lead to a revolution in the third World. It already has in South America, which has swung to the left in the last decade.
However I fail to see how the revolution can be brought about in the West. I see a possibility of a reactionary revolution.
However it is possible that a deep economic crisis could bring about the conditions for a revolution, or perhaps a severe ecological crisis. Even the Pentagon has now warned that climate change can have a severe impact on the stability of the West.
In my mind there are iron laws of history which the agitators will have to conform to.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
The goal of capitalism is to make everyone rich which necessarily eliminates poverty. The goal of socialism to make everyone equally poor so by definition there is no poverty. Workers, given a choice between being rich, where some are richer than others, and being poor, but equally poor, choose capitalism. |
Maybe, but then you are thinking within the confines of a single nation. Remember that imperialism is the highest form of capitalism. We are currently in that stage. Perhaps the end of that stage as a matter of fact.
It is imperialism, not capitalism itself (that is the creation of profit from selling goods) which secures the modern worker his or hers living standard.
The communist accepts the temporary objective strengths of capitalism, but sees communism as the natural extension of a historical process. Or agitates for communism to counter the worst excess of imperialism and the atrocities it inflicts on other nations.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
It is not the fact that property exists that is the problem. Communism allows for property. It is SELLING of property which is the problem. Usually children are on the recieving end. They don't sell property. And they don't have the conception of market value of goods. To them attachment to property is of a personal or sentimental nature, and not a means to earn a profit through selling it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-02-2004 05:07
e.g: the US. It is very close to being a shmooist system, right? but it does trade with other, non-shmooist economies.
|