 |
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
What we need is a system where the workers become the owners of production and that is already starting to happen. |
I agree we need a system where workers CAN own the means of production. However, that should not be mandated from heaven.
People need to be free to persue the path that suits them. That is where communism fails. It assumes the straight jacket of a single ideology will work for everyone. It doesn't.
Last edited by notyoueither on 15-05-2004 at 06:37
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:36
|
|
NYE:
First, I'd like to make sure we agree on definitions. To me, "Socialism" means an economy devoid of private property of the means of production. It is the classical marxist definition, and is generall seen as a transition toward "Communism", i.e. a classless society, which is also Stateless. The USSR saw itself as "Socialist", and claimed to aim at "Communism".
What you are talking about seems to be "Social Democracy", i.e the idea of accepting the fundamental mechanisms of capitalism, but while regulating and humanizing the consequences of capitalism.
I personally define myself as a "Socialist" in that meaning (i.e. I advocate getting stuck in the transitory system, although my model is very different from the USSR's and China's model). So I could hardly argue that we need to go all the way with Marx.
However, it is true the Social Democrats had great success into making capitalism palatable. And Social Democracy is the main reason why commies and all look-alikes are so few now.
But the fundamental flaw in social democracy is that the capitalists aren't stripped from their power. The capitalists have agreed with socialdemocratic reforms in the past decades, and the fear of the Reds was a very important reason for them to yield.
Nowadays, the Commies don't scare anybody in the West. And since our western societies have no risk of major unrest or revolution anytime soon, the capitalists feel they can take back part of what they granted in the past decade. In France, there is a strong advocacy by the business leaders to give up much of our welfare State. They wield a huge power over our jobs and our prosperity, and they don't hesitate to use it for pressure. I expect the situation to be similar in every country whose welfare system is suffering.
Socialdemocrats can hardly do anything about it. Conservative Chirac and Socialdemocrat Schröder are deciding very, very similar policies when it comes to wrecking retirement funds, and healthcare. Socialdemocrat Jospin is the prime minister who privatized the most in our whole history.
And actually, the Socialdemocrats' acceptance of concession after concession will result in the rise of the far left. In its several possible engagements. Jospin suffered a huge electoral defeat because many left-wing voters, many disgruntled workers and unemployed, decided to vote for the radical left instead of him. Schröder is immensely impopular, and should a credible far left party emerge in Germany, he'll have trouble keeping many votes of his side. I expect Zapatero to suffer the same after one or two terms, since his economic policy will be extremely liberal, as opposed to what he should stand for.
The day the west will see a revolution, or the day we will see a surge of communist votes is still very far off. But should the socialdemocrats continue to bend over like they do, the rise will only happen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
I don;t see a distinction for classless, since in the absense of property all are drones. |
Well, I can't depict the classless society very well, since I never was interested in what I hold for a fairy tale, but the difference is that there is no State, no classes, and the system works harmoniously.
"Socialism" does require regulations, it does require a State.
And Socialism doesn't advocate the end of all private property. Only the property of the means of production. Your house remains yours, like your computer, your car, your watch and so on. I don't think communism calls for the abolition of personal property either, but don't quote me on that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
However, it is true the Social Democrats had great success into making capitalism palatable. And Social Democracy is the main reason why commies and all look-alikes are so few now.
But the fundamental flaw in social democracy is that the capitalists aren't stripped from their power. The capitalists have agreed with socialdemocratic reforms in the past decades, and the fear of the Reds was a very important reason for them to yield.
Nowadays, the Commies don't scare anybody in the West. And since our western societies have no risk of major unrest or revolution anytime soon, the capitalists feel they can take back part of what they granted in the past decade. In France, there is a strong advocacy by the business leaders to give up much of our welfare State. They wield a huge power over our jobs and our prosperity, and they don't hesitate to use it for pressure. I expect the situation to be similar in every country whose welfare system is suffering.
Socialdemocrats can hardly do anything about it. Conservative Chirac and Socialdemocrat Schröder are deciding very, very similar policies when it comes to wrecking retirement funds, and healthcare. Socialdemocrat Jospin is the prime minister who privatized the most in our whole history.
And actually, the Socialdemocrats' acceptance of concession after concession will result in the rise of the far left. In its several possible engagements. Jospin suffered a huge electoral defeat because many left-wing voters, many disgruntled workers and unemployed, decided to vote for the radical left instead of him. Schröder is immensely impopular, and should a credible far left party emerge in Germany, he'll have trouble keeping many votes of his side. I expect Zapatero to suffer the same after one or two terms, since his economic policy will be extremely liberal, as opposed to what he should stand for.
The day the west will see a revolution, or the day we will see a surge of communist votes is still very far off. But should the socialdemocrats continue to bend over like they do, the rise will only happen. |
It seems to me that your dream requires more than one major failing for it to be realised.
One, capitalism would have to suffer a catastrophe on a scale of the Great Depression, or worse. That could well happen, and the middle class could be severely affected and look for change. Where would they look?
Would they look to moderates who propose a Newer Deal, or would they look to radicals who would overturn the foundations of the comfort the middle class themselves enjoy in better times?
Your dream requires an implosion of capitalism to be accompanied by a complete failure of the political classes to take any action to ameliorate conditions. I find it unlikely that such a situation will ever come to pass.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
I like to think of communism in everyday matters such as workers rights and yes the maintanance of the welfare system.
high brow ideas never held much sway over me. what the future brings noone knows but the today it's reality, it's now and here.
and since i'm pretty sure that the capital will never give to the peoples/worker etc unless forced to, this gives communism always a reason d'etre to use a spiffor complimentary french phrase (cant put accents though).
apart from that communism is discredited but always a useful voice at least in greece.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Well, I can't depict the classless society very well, since I never was interested in what I hold for a fairy tale, but the difference is that there is no State, no classes, and the system works harmoniously.
"Socialism" does require regulations, it does require a State.
And Socialism doesn't advocate the end of all private property. Only the property of the means of production. Your house remains yours, like your computer, your car, your watch and so on. I don't think communism calls for the abolition of personal property either, but don't quote me on that. |
I'm meaning means of production when I say private property.
And I agree, no state and no regulation is a fairy tale.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
The same tune has been sung for quite a while now (since Marx wrote about it, in fact).
The thing is, "capitalist" societies have adapted, making compromises with socialism that have brought a measure of stability to the system. So the system Marx wrote about has evolved some. Given that, it is certainly reasonable to ask whether his analysis is still applicable (and that's even assuming it was applicable in the first place, which we capitalist pig dogs do not concede  ).
-Arrian |
Exactly...
Capitalism surely would have crumbled long ago if it was as inflexible as the version of it Marx attacked...
Arrian described the situation well...
When the revolution seems too close, the system gives in a little bit, and people get quiet...
Sort of an equilibrium...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
The masses in the US live a pitiful existence and don't even realise it.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-05-2004 05:39
What makes you think that we live a pitiful existence? 
|