Why does the West tolerate Israeli crimes?

[RedStar]

He didn't forsee the level of automation in question, wherein workers would cease to be an important input into industrial production. If workers aren't required, then they have no particular power.

They have power as fighters and revolutionaries.

Technology is what drives that, not "capitalism." Communism offers no means to cope with automation, since it's premised on the idea that workers, collectively, have a lot of power.

The way that technology is developing under the capitalist mode of production will be to the detriment of all but the owners. In socialism, the technology would be collectively owned and used for the benefit of all.

What you need is a new theory that is post-labor, and offers a way to distribute the fruits of automation into society in an efficient, productive way.

Collective ownership.

Moreover, the idea that "capitalism" can even be "overthrown" is in need of support. It's not clear that what you are suggesting is even theoretically possible, and won't simply result in a more perverse form of capitalism (like it did in the USSR).

I'm sure modern capitalism would have seemed alien to Julius Caesar.
And, the USSR was never "capitalist".

Working-class solidarity is not going to be strong enough to power a revolution when production can continue without workers. What will result is that we won't even have a "working class."

We will have a class of revolutionaries and fighters.

You should consider getting up to speed on this stuff, instead of regurgitating failed ideologies from a century ago.

More like successful ideologies. Also, Marxist thought is becoming more relevant than ever as the end of capitalism approaches.

I rather like Hugo Chavez's modern "Socialism In The 21st Century" theory as a means of achieving socialism.

[quadraphonics]

They have power as fighters and revolutionaries.

That is not enough to prevail over the capitalists, if said capitalists can operate the means of production without the workers.

The way that technology is developing under the capitalist mode of production will be to the detriment of all but the owners. In socialism, the technology would be collectively owned and used for the benefit of all.

Of course, that all follows from your definitions. But how can you have a revolution to establish socialism, if you can't disrupt the means of production? You'll be up against an opponent with industrial weaponry - how can you combat that?

Collective ownership.

Of course - but how is that to be achieved and sustained? If a capitalist doesn't need the participation of the workers to run the means of production, how can you stop them from monopolizing economic power (and so, the state)?

I'm sure modern capitalism would have seemed alien to Julius Caesar.

I'm also sure of that, and I'm also sure that this is among the reasons we don't look to Julius Ceasar for advice on how to run our modern societies.

And, the USSR was never "capitalist".

The point was that the result - moden Russia - is an even more debased version of capitalism than the ones the Marxists claimed to be resisting. Their project didn't result in Communism - it resulted in economic implosion, followed by a craven resurgence of capitalism: a gangster state with a sham democracy, a near-omnipotent ownership class, a hollowed-out media and a moribund workforce.

We will have a class of revolutionaries and fighters.

And since that class will have no means of disrupting the means of production, their revolution will go nowhere.

More like successful ideologies. Also, Marxist thought is becoming more relevant than ever as the end of capitalism approaches.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

I rather like Hugo Chavez's modern "Socialism In The 21st Century" theory as a means of achieving socialism.

Petro-dictatorship with a narcostate streak is your preferred "worker's paradise?"

What is it about naive idealists that causes them to go in for that particular flavor of Revolutionary Socialist bullshit? Is it just that Venezuela is sufficiently far away from any place that they have an actual grip on, that they can get away with believing the propaganda that Chavez produces?

[RedStar]

That is not enough to prevail over the capitalists, if said capitalists can operate the means of production without the workers.

Then we wage war on the capitalists. What's so hard to understand? I'm sure we can find a way to do it...

Of course, this is all assuming full mechanization indeed occurs before the collapse of capitalism or its replacement

Of course, that all follows from your definitions. But how can you have a revolution to establish socialism, if you can't disrupt the means of production? You'll be up against an opponent with industrial weaponry - how can you combat that?

The real strength of the masses are in their numbers

I'm also sure of that, and I'm also sure that this is among the reasons we don't look to Julius Ceasar for advice on how to run our modern societies.

The point being, we really can't be sure how things will turn up or how things are going to be.

The point was that the result - modern Russia - is an even more debased version of capitalism than the ones the Marxists claimed to be resisting.

I wouldn't go as far as to say modern Russia is worse than the Czar

Their project didn't result in Communism - it resulted in economic implosion

We have been over this. The Soviets had great economic success before the nefarious market reforms in the post-Stalin era

followed by a craven resurgence of capitalism: a gangster state with a sham democracy, a near-omnipotent ownership class, a hollowed-out media and a moribund workforce.

The funny thing is that you don't realize this pretty much fits the description of America, too. Don't be so surprised: this is the real face of capitalism, of a society where wealth is private and exclusive.

And since that class will have no means of disrupting the means of production, their revolution will go nowhere.

I doubt the combined efforts of 99% of society will not be able to overthrow the capitalists

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

Haven't been outside the US, I see.

Petro-dictatorship with a narcostate streak is your preferred "worker's paradise?"

What is it about naive idealists that causes them to go in for that particular flavor of Revolutionary Socialist bullshit? Is it just that Venezuela is sufficiently far away from any place that they have an actual grip on, that they can get away with believing the propaganda that Chavez produces?

How are you so sure it's not you buying into the bullshit propaganda of the United States? Venezuela has long been under the rule of foreign companies and corrupt governments supported by the United States. What's so wrong with a popular revolution?

Chavez is the good guy.

[Bells]

Redstar to Bells: "And you call yourself a communist?"

What? You're a communist Bells? First Geoff and now Bells. This place is way too funny.

I'm surprised you never knew or realised.

I have always been an extreme left socialist and communist. However, having said that, I also am the first to point out its flaws. People like RedStar, who worship it, are wrong. They are wrong because they fail to recognise its faults and instead, spend most of their time pointing out the evils of capitalism while extolling the virtues of failed communist systems like the former Soviet Union and Cuba (of all places), where communism was forced upon an unwilling populace and the leadership murdered large portions said populace and executed anyone who dared to criticise the system. In short, Communism should not be about forcing it with the threat of a gun. It doesn't work that way. It shouldn't work that way. History has taught us this repeatedly. The whole 'well the West did this and this too' argument also fails. Because it does not address the known and repeated faults of former communist regimes and current ones.

And it can never ever work on a large scale (ie country). It should only apply in small community groups, where they determine for themselves the distribution of wealth.

I mean look at North Korea as a prime example. People are starving to death. Yet the communist leadership lives the life of luxury. Wealth is distributed towards the armed forces and the select few who praise the political dictatorship. How in the hell can anyone praise communism when we have a full blown example of just how badly it fails right in front of us? It does not work on a large scale. It never has and it never will. It does not work on country wide scales because it is so easy to corrupt the system. It becomes a dictatorship and individual human rights becomes undesirable.

So yes, I am a communist. But I am also a realist.

Redstar, unfortunately, is not. He's just about the talking points and not the reality.

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Bells

Surprised? Well yes dear. Its never quite come up before and there was nothing to suggest such leanings. Both you and Geoff have fallen out of the red closet this week. Redstar seems to be an ideologue, holding to all the text book talking points and idealism. But why be a communist if you don't even believe it can work? What's the point? Redstar also doesn't seem to think it can work since he claims even socialist and communist countries are not "that".

Hmmm...I wonder how many more here are communists. I mean from the old guard that is. And then there's James R and his obsession with pottery gnomes. Strange times.

[RedStar]

I'm surprised you never knew or realised.

I have always been an extreme left socialist and communist. However, having said that, I also am the first to point out its flaws. People like RedStar, who worship it, are wrong. They are wrong because they fail to recognise its faults and instead, spend most of their time pointing out the evils of capitalism while extolling the virtues of failed communist systems like the former Soviet Union and Cuba (of all places), where communism was forced upon an unwilling populace and the leadership murdered large portions said populace and executed anyone who dared to criticise the system.

And, once again, you completely fail to provide any sources to back up these assertions. By the way, Cubans love Castro, and Cuba under Castro is one of the safest places in Latin America, has good health care, education, etc. You can thank the US for the economic woes of Cuba with its embargoes and sabotage

In short, Communism should not be about forcing it with the threat of a gun. It doesn't work that way. It shouldn't work that way.

That's how revolutions work, buddy.

I mean look at North Korea as a prime example. People are starving to death. Yet the communist leadership lives the life of luxury. Wealth is distributed towards the armed forces and the select few who praise the political dictatorship. How in the hell can anyone praise communism when we have a full blown example of just how badly it fails right in front of us?

North Korea stopped being even nominally communist ages ago. Their ideology of Juche is an explicit deviation from Marxism.

It does not work on a large scale. It never has and it never will.

Can you please explain why, or provide evidence? Or, define "work"? What does "work" mean? Several policies of the USSR did indeed "work".

It does not work on country wide scales because it is so easy to corrupt the system. It becomes a dictatorship and individual human rights becomes undesirable.

I see, so you are claiming socialism failed because it didn't conform to your bourgeois conception of "liberty", ignoring the actual material accomplishments of socialism.

So yes, I am a communist. But I am also a realist.
Redstar, unfortunately, is not. He's just about the talking points and not the reality.

No, more like, you completely ignore historical context and gloss over the various achievements of socialism. Nobody promised utopia. That's what you don't get. You're stuck in this world of idealism; you're stuck considering socialism a failure because it didn't conform to your ideals, your made-up morality. This is why Marxism is materialistic and anti-idealism.

By the way, if you can point to North Korea as an example of "communism doesn't work", all I need to do is point to the various capitalist states which have collapsed throughout history and presto! I win. See? Isn't using a single example while ignoring the rest of history fun?

[RedStar]

@Bells
Redstar seems to be an ideologue, holding to all the text book talking points and idealism.

Where were you when I was providing concrete historical arguments for socialism? I'm insulted to think you haven't been paying attention.

Redstar also doesn't seem to think it can work since he claims even socialist and communist countries are not "that".

No, I said discussion of communism is irrelevant because it is socialism which has been even attempted. And again, I defended the socialist accomplishments of the various revolutions. I never once said "that wasn't real socialism".

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Redstar why do you call liberty a bourgeois conception?

You're saying socialism hasn't been attempted and you're also saying communism cannot be until its international. So it sounds like a supposition, an ideology that has never really been carried out. What nation do you consider socialist? Scandinavia? No. Then where?

[RedStar]

Redstar why do you call liberty a bourgeois conception?

Liberty itself is not a bourgeois conception per se, but the modern conception of liberty and all that it encompasses (private property, for example) is a bourgeois conception and it is against working class interests. Idealism as an actual intellectual school of thought holds that the application and preservation of principles is more important than materialism, the school of thought that examines material conditions and context.

The prevailing ideals of society are those of the ruling class. When you uphold morals as a basis for criticism, you will, inevitably, be making judgements against the working class. For example, protecting the hoarding of food by the wealthy on the basis that "it is their property" is idealism; a materialist would see that there is a need for food on the part of the masses and there is an availability of food and therefore food out to fulfill human needs. Private property also, interestingly, leads to the idea that the use of force is wrong - but what is pertinent to understand is that it is only the use of force as it applies to the bourgeois class. Specifically they mean the use of force against their property or their class.

Moral arguments against socialism based on socialist history are usually weak, although not completely unfounded. What Pol Pot did, for example, is nothing short of murder. But that has no bearing on Marxism or materialist thought. And indeed, most of the communists I know, and many of the revolutionary leaders of the 20th century, were strong proponents of democracy.

Edit: Lucy, I never said socialism has not been attempted. It has, and some socialist policies have met success. Others failure.

The way Bells makes it out to seem, the USSR was this terrible failure from day one that accomplished nothing and was in exactly the same condition as the Czar left it in 1917. This is an intellectually dishonest position. Obviously, a lot of policies and goals did work. So let's examine history objectively and see what worked and what didn't and apply that to the future.

The "human nature" argument against socialism is one of the weakest and most meaningless.

Edit: Also, Lucy, if you are interested, you can read through this thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/since-bein...815/index.html

And various other informative discussions on the site

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Redstar: So you're saying that its up to the working classes to take what isn't there's and hold it themselves for themselves? Well sure, as a land owner you would have to use force. But what of other things Redstar like owning ones home or vehicle or anything for that matter. Property is more than just land isn't it? What else will the workers take for themselves? Where I come from that's called plunder, thievery and thuggery. I know a lot of middle class people who will feel that way too. And there are a lot of working class people who would find it beneath them to "plunder". The problem with your communist ideals is that its a turn off, I could never feel an attraction for it never mind want to live in such a society. Liberty includes the ability to control ones belongings, ones property.

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

"The Communists’ chief purpose is to destroy every form of independence—independent work, independent action, independent property, independent thought, an independent mind, or an independent man. Conformity, alikeness, servility, submission and obedience are necessary to establish a Communist slave-state." Ayn Rand

For all her faults the lady had a point.

[GeoffP]

Redstar why do you call liberty a bourgeois conception?

Feudalism is a bourgeois conception. We live in a system that is largely feudal, being little else.

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Feudalism is a bourgeois conception. We live in a system that is largely feudal, being little else.

And your answer to this is not reform, nor even radical reform but taking over everyone else's property for redistribution? Sorry I don't find that an alternative. I do believe we need to break the oligarchy and unregulated banks and reinstate the New Deal not to mention reigning in the Fed, universal health care and good free education sure we can start with that but the worker bloody revolution thing isn't happening.

Sorry but I would have to shoot both you and Bells if you came for my property. Sorry.

[RedStar]

Redstar: So you're saying that its up to the working classes to take what isn't there's and hold it themselves for themselves? Well sure, as a land owner you would have to use force. But what of other things Redstar like owning ones home or vehicle or anything for that matter. Property is more than just land isn't it? What else will the workers take for themselves? Where I come from that's called plunder, thievery and thuggery. I know a lot of middle class people who will feel that way too. And there are a lot of working class people who would find it beneath them to "plunder". The problem with your communist ideals is that its a turn off, I could never feel an attraction for it never mind want to live in such a society. Liberty includes the ability to control ones belongings, ones property.

No. Personal possessions are not the same thing as private property. By private property, Marxists mean the means of production. Things like your house, your car, socks, toothbrushes, televisions...these are personal possessions and can be exclusive.

Private ownership of the productive forces forces provides leverage for the owners to use against everybody else, hence why they should be socially owned and used for social consumption. Also, you assume in the first place that the wealth of the wealthy was justly acquired through hard work and fair trade - an idea that couldn't be further from the truth.

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

No. Personal possessions are not the same thing as private property. By private property, Marxists mean the means of production. Things like your house, your car, socks, toothbrushes, televisions...these are personal possessions and can be exclusive.

Private ownership of the productive forces forces provides leverage for the owners to use against everybody else, hence why they should be socially owned and used for social consumption. Also, you assume in the first place that the wealth of the wealthy was justly acquired through hard work and fair trade - an idea that couldn't be further from the truth.

Sure that's what you say now but it doesn't matter. If you take my land which is private property or my store or factory which is private property then its thuggery, plunder and thievery. There is wealth that has been acquired by hard work, sometimes by fair trade but not necessarily in terms of what we call "fair trade" as opposed to just having workers in another country. Even still I find the acquisition of such abhorrent. If you tell me you want to take away corporate personhood I'm all for that. If you tell me you want to take over Apple or Chrysler then yeah I do have a problem with that. If you tell me there is going to be a cooperative work environment such as Garden Supply Company which I adore that is owned by all of its workers then I'm on board and would support them as opposed to Lowe's garden center for example. Your sense of entitlement and the use of force is abhorrent.

Ever hear of Dr. Bronner? Read this: http://www.drbronner.com/drb_press_story3.html

I love that company its the only soap I keep in the house and I use it for absolutely everything (cleaning, washing clothes, car, body whatever). I support this company because I have a great admiration for the companies ethics. They never advertise, its always word of mouth, their environmentally sound and they treat their workers well and are very generous supporting various causes, not because they have to but because they choose to. As well as that the owners are only allowed to take a certain amount of their own profits, again not because they have to but because they choose to. I support business that has a sense of civic duty at every opportunity. What you would have is his employees boot him out and claim it all for themselves. That I find abhorrent.

[Repo Man]

@Bells

Surprised? Well yes dear. Its never quite come up before and there was nothing to suggest such leanings. Both you and Geoff have fallen out of the red closet this week. Redstar seems to be an ideologue, holding to all the text book talking points and idealism. But why be a communist if you don't even believe it can work? What's the point? Redstar also doesn't seem to think it can work since he claims even socialist and communist countries are not "that".

Hmmm...I wonder how many more here are communists. I mean from the old guard that is. And then there's James R and his obsession with pottery gnomes. Strange times.

You can be a communist/socialist without being a Marxist. To give one example, Bertrand Russell was a lifelong socialist, but he had very little good to say about the USSR, and nothing good to say about Marx.

It's completely possible that as we grow to understand what motivates humans, and economic activity, we may yet find a more perfect solution than anything that has yet been proposed or tried. But idolatry of nineteenth century philosophers is old and busted.

[RedStar]

Sure that's what you say now but it doesn't matter. If you take my land which is private property or my store or factory which is private property then its thuggery, plunder and thievery.

Who built the store or factory? The working class. Who works the large commercial farms? Workers. They generate all the value to begin with.

Your sense of entitlement and the use of force is abhorrent.

Property is force. And yes, I do believe the working class should be entitled to the value that they generate.

I love that company its the only soap I keep in the house and I use it for absolutely everything (cleaning, washing clothes, car, body whatever). I support this company because I have a great admiration for the companies ethics. They never advertise, its always word of mouth, their environmentally sound and they treat their workers well and are very generous supporting various causes, not because they have to but because they choose to. As well as that the owners are only allowed to take a certain amount of their own profits, again not because they have to but because they choose to. I support business that has a sense of civic duty at every opportunity. What you would have is his employees boot him out and claim it all for themselves. That I find abhorrent.

Irrelevant. Some feudal lords may have been kind or compassionate; it doesn't change how I feel about the institution. It is best if we move past this notion of private wealth and establish a society of shared wealth. Why shouldn't we? Why should we let the feudal lords hoard the wealth that the people need?

[RedStar]

You can be a communist/socialist without being a Marxist. To give one example, Bertrand Russell was a lifelong socialist, but he had very little good to say about the USSR, and nothing good to say about Marx.

It's completely possible that as we grow to understand what motivates humans, and economic activity, we may yet find a more perfect solution than anything that has yet been proposed or tried. But idolatry of nineteenth century philosophers is old and busted.

Utopian Socialism is a rubbish position. Marx was the first person to establish a material and empirical basis for socialism.

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

You can be a communist/socialist without being a Marxist. To give one example, Bertrand Russell was a lifelong socialist, but he had very little good to say about the USSR, and nothing good to say about Marx.

It's completely possible that as we grow to understand what motivates humans, and economic activity, we may yet find a more perfect solution than anything that has yet been proposed or tried. But idolatry of nineteenth century philosophers is old and busted.

I don't have a problem with anyone claiming socialism or communism. I do have a problem with someone telling me that one group has a right to plunder the gains of another (property in terms of land or business notwithstanding). Righting injustice, economic or otherwise is fair, I'm all for that. I like universal health care and even free education with the choice of private health and education, they can exist in tandem. I'm for a fair living wage. What I react to is this notion that no one has a right to property, that someone who opens a factory doesn't have a right to their property. I would also prefer as a consumer the right to choose a company that shows a civic ethic and not support companies that do not. Believe me I spend a lot of time on Naturalnews.com researching who is doing what and what my choices are in the marketplace.

[RedStar]

I don't have a problem with anyone claiming socialism or communism. I do have a problem with someone telling me that one group has a right to plunder the gains of another (property in terms of land or business notwithstanding). Righting injustice, economic or otherwise is fair, I'm all for that. I like universal health care and even free education with the choice of private health and education, they can exist in tandem. I'm for a fair living wage. What I react to is this notion that no one has a right to property, that someone who opens a factory doesn't have a right to their property. I would also prefer as a consumer the right to choose a company that shows a civic ethic and not support companies that do not. Believe me I spend a lot of time on Naturalnews.com researching who is doing what and what my choices are in the marketplace.

If anything, it is capital that is plundering labor.