No wonder Michael Moore loves the UAW

[CFZB]

It looks good on paper.

that made me LMAO.

 

[Lestat]

Socialism isn't the way to go

 

[spongebob]

Marx then responds to a number of criticisms from an imagined bourgeois interlocutor. He considers the charge that by wishing to abolish private property, the communist is destroying the "ground work of all personal freedom, activity, and independence"(96). Marx responds by saying that wage labor does not properly create any property for the laborer. It only creates capital, a property which works only to augment the exploitation of the worker. This property, this capital, is based on class antagonism. Having linked private property to class antagonism, Marx proceeds to investigate both antagonists with respect to their independence.

Marx first notes that capital is a social product, that is, capital only exists within some social system. The result of this is that capital is not a personal but a social power. Making property public then, as the communist wants to do, is not changing the private to the social; it is only modifying its already inherent social character.

Returning to the condition of the wage laborer, Marx argues that "the average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e. the quantum of the means of subsistence which is the absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer" (97). The proletariat, then, is absolutely dependent on the capitalist for his very survival. He does not acquire any property because his wage must be given immediately to his own subsistence. Communists want to ensure that the laborer exists for more than merely the increase of bourgeois capital. Labor should not be directed towards the accumulation of wealth on the part of the capitalist. Rather, capital, or property in general, should be directed toward the enrichment of the laborer's life.

Abolition of private property means, then, only the abolition of bourgeoisie property. The freedom which the bourgeois believe is underwritten by private property is a very narrow freedom, one available only to a very small subset of the population. Moreover, this form of property depends on its radically unequal distribution. The ultimate point, as Marx says, is that "communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that is does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriation" (99).

Marx also considers the criticism that a communist society would promote general idleness. This strikes Marx as laughable considering that in bourgeois society those who work do not acquire anything while those who acquire things do not work. In the end, the force of this charge, as with the force of all these other charges, presupposes the bourgeois system of property. As Marx says, "Don't wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property..." (100). He accuses the bourgeoisie of elevating to the status of immutable truths values which are only local and contingent. It is selfish conceit that blinds the bourgeoisie to the reality of the historical progress which Marx here seeks to elucidate.

Communists are also accused of desiring to destroy the family. To this Marx pleads guilty, reiterating his oft mentioned contention that the object of destruction is specifically the bourgeois exemplar. To the capitalist, a spouse and children are mere instruments of production, like the machines in his factory. Furthermore, the education he wishes for them simply perpetuates their subordination. A communist society would alter these relations, utilizing the educational system to end the exploitation that women, children, and the vast working classes suffer under capitalism. This is a self-conscious destruction of society, but only as a cleansing of the old in preparation for the new.

As for the suggestion that communists wish to abolish countries, Marx responds that this process is already occurring due to bourgeois efforts to expand free trade. Such globalization will continue as class consciousness develops across the proletariat of all nations. Marx even goes so far as to predict that antagonism between nations will vanish as class antagonisms fade away. Class defines one far more than nationality.

lol, brothabill, im not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. im not that smart bro.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

The Sun is setting on the Japanese economy, they are growing old.

China will soon rule the markets and the world, proving Marx's vision of how communism can work.
The US will eventually have to turn to such a system as it is inevitable that nations face revolution when the wealth power become too concentrated as it is here.

It is the workers that control the means of productions. By militarizing the worker class, the elite shall be put in their places when the revolution has begun.

The Revolution will Not Be Televised!

Do you really believe this?

(1) China is not Communist in any sense that Marx would define it. More like an oligarchy; there are Chinese billionaires.

(2) China is the exact opposite of how Marx envisioned population distribution; they are rapidly urbanizing.

(3) China is more likely to break apart than to gather significant additional strength on the world stage. (You heard it here first)

Why? China's regional governemnts have great power; and a fading sense of loyalty to the national governemnt. Urbanization is actually fueling this; regional governors are appropriating "public" land for private development, which is causing problems as (a) people are displaced and (b) regional governors get richer through selling influence.

They're not going to want to go back to fealty once their regions and provinces are economic powerhouses. I can discuss this point in greater detail if you'd like; I have some Chinese biz partners and friends in Hong Kong.

(4) China owns so much US debt that they need to keep trading with us on our terms.

China is more likely to become an oligarchy, then break apart.

Might not be pretty. But it will be televised.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

World Communism....

The only way we will survive as a Planet.

It was a winner in the USSR.

Well, except for the fact that they couldn't feed their own people and had to buy food from us, it worked great.

Jackass. I hope you get to live in a Communist country one day.

 

[CFZB]

Oh we will fight them.

 

[spongebob]

It looks good on paper.

lol.

 

[CFZB]

It was a winner in the USSR.

Well, except for the fact that they couldn't feed their own people and had to buy food from us, it worked great.

Jackass. I hope you get to live in a Communist country one day.

Um...i hope you do too?

 

[BrothaBill]

lol, brothabill, im not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. im not that smart bro.

No I hear ya and there is validity to everyone's comments and there positions as they view the economy and world through their own situation.
For me these are incredibly complex issues of society morality and economic issues as well as issues of the world as PW suggests.
I can argue all sides of these matters as everyone is right in certain areas.

The issue as I see it is that we must first choose a mission statement and idea that we work towards and then argue the details like this. It makes for great discussion though, but you wont find me on either side save for a moment. And you should know by now the subtle jokes with my posts LOL

 

[BrothaBill]

MTS:

Do you really believe this?

not really why