Occupy London! Here we go again!

[[TW]Fox]

Without capitalism you wouldnt be sitting here sharing your utopian dreamworld visions with us, do you realise that?

 

[PermaBanned]

Without capitalism you wouldnt be sitting here sharing your utopian dreamworld visions with us, do you realise that?

What a strange statement. We do 'have' Capitalism, so it is impossible to tell what we would have if we didn't have that. You mean we would still 'have' Feudalism? I'm sure i don't need to remind you that nobody can tell the future, nor the present in an alternate timeline.

 

[FlyingPig]

A lot of this discussion is a bit pointless to be honest because "communism" is confused with Stalinism. All these oppressive regimes have very little to do with communism and Marx would turn in his grave if he saw the crimes committed in his name.

Here's what the good old man said in the Communist Manifesto:

"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

"In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

 

[Glaucus]

.

AcidHell... what the hell?

what do you mean.

You k ow jobs have to be filled in communism and with out a free Market. You have a lot less say on what you do, what you get and everything else.
So saying you don't won't to work in a dead end job and then say communism is better. Is frankly absurd.

 

[[TW]Fox]

What a strange statement. We do 'have' Capitalism, so it is impossible to tell what we would have if we didn't have that.

Plenty of luxury goods in 70's East Germany was there?

 

[PermaBanned]

what do you mean.

You k ow jobs have to be filled in communism and with out a free Market. You have a lot less say on what you do, what you get and everything else.
So saying you don't won't to work in a dead end job and then say communism is better. Is frankly absurd.

Have you been drinking?

 

[Glaucus]

Have you been drinking?

Why don't you actually try responding in a sensible way.

 

[StriderX]

He seems to have this idea that capitalism is about being a 'slave' and doing something you 'dont enjoy' so that 'one day' you can buy stuff, or something.

I suspect his views are mirrored by much of the protesters and go some way towards explaining what this is really about. Perhaps they want stuff without having to have a job?

The only slaves are people who don't understand the system, after all knowledge is the only freedom.

Its their own fault for not learning frankly, unfortunately the result is that considering how for lack of a better word stupid most of the population is...its easily abused.

Id call it unknowing slavery, except they have the choice not to be one (IE a worthless job in some office or low end job elsewhere being the result of not doing anything).

The abuse is that (as a perfect example) some of the most wealthy like the feeling of control and thus there's evidence for it, 2007/8 bailout in the US being that exact example.

Democracy was finally in control after years of plutonomy and the iron triangle, only to be struck down by greed and probably blackmail, the vote turned against to for the bailout within a very small time.

Its saddening that people just dont care to understand enough and waste their time with fruitless efforts that may well spawn homegrown terrorists (the threat is becoming a reality).

 

[Castiel]

It's been demonstrated once, arguably twice that some forms of Socialism in a closed system, under intense outside pressure from Capitalist super-powers don't result in the sort of post-Capitalist ideal society that they were supposed to. But even that is ignoring all the good that came from the Soviet Union.

Fox, i'm not sure how you have trouble reading my posts all of a sudden, so i can't really help you with your predicament.

AcidHell... what the hell?

If you may recall we discussed the relative veracity of The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists and how it is largely outdated and irrelevant in the modern world.

I am disappointed that you have returned to your blind acceptance of Marxist Communist ideals when it is clear that in practice they simply cannot work without significant authoritarian and relative enslavement of the masses. Communism is a dead end in the evolution of society and by no means is Capitalism perfect or even an acceptable blueprint on which to base society, however it is the best we have currently and Capitalism allows for individual freedoms that simply do not exist in Communist examples and without that individual freedom we cannot hope to evolve a system that surpasses either.

The goal should not be to remove one bad system for another proven bad system, the goal should be to create a new system, one that allows for personal freedom at the same time as equal wealth and resource distribution.

Communism doesn't allow that, neither does Capitalism.

 

[Castiel]

A lot of this discussion is a bit pointless to be honest because "communism" is confused with Stalinism. All these oppressive regimes have very little to do with communism and Marx would turn in his grave if he saw the crimes committed in his name.

We understand this perfectly, the point is that Marxist Communism does in practice lead to authoritarianism and relative enslavement of the many to service the few.

It simply is not practical, as has been proven time and again.

 

[Tefal]

better question is should there be equal wealth distribution?

From a purely utilitarian view point unequal wealth distribution and the competition it creates are a major driving force for advancement.

 

[PermaBanned]

Plenty of luxury goods in 70's East Germany was there?

A good **** load more than there were/would have been if the Tsar had never been overthrown.

We can't pretend to be a god here and know what would have happened if x didn't happen, because like many of the great questions in History - nobody frickin' knows the answer to that. Maybe if Stalin hadn't risen to power and Lenin or Trotsky had taken his place then the UK would have joined the Soviet Union and we'd all be living in a great era of prosperity. Maybe if Stalin hadn't risen to power and Lenin or Trotsky had taken his place then Hitler would have won WW2 and we'd all be Nazis (Godwin's law, i know i know ).

 

[[TW]Fox]

A good **** load more than there were/would have been if the Tsar had never been overthrown.

So you can't answer my question, what a suprise.

 

[FlyingPig]

From where I am sitting everything is ok. I have a perfectly comfortable life thanks and see no point in demonstrating when I have no reason to.

I have nothing against those who wish to protest against whatever they like and if I felt strongly enough about something I would probably join them, however in the absence of a viable alternative to capitalism I see little point in tilting at windmills.

That is fair enough, but surely it works the other way round too? All those people demonstrating may not know what they are for, but they surely know what they are against: the destroying of the welfare state, the lack of jobs, the decaying living standards, etc. You will always have the usual suspects joining demonstrations but there comes a point where the organised working class enters the scene and then you are talking business.
This is how all big changes happen: very confused and muddled protests without much leadership in the beginning, but give it a few years and let's see what happens.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Protesting against the lack of jobs seems a bit pointless. It's not as if people don't know there is an unemployment is it?

 

[Freakbro]

I think people are confusing their definitions here, the problem we have is not down to Capitalism per se, but Consumerism and with the advent of modern globalisation, the inability to sustain it at these levels.

Capitalism is just the economic vehicle we use to drive it forward, but as shown with China, they still have a communist political system but are embracing the economics of capitalism to drive forward consumerism.

Yes, we all want a better standard of living, for us and our children, but realistically this has to be balanced with a basis of sustainability, not just on exponential growth and ever increasing demand, which has led us to leverage the future earnings of a generation for the spending power of today.

 

[StriderX]

Protesting against the lack of jobs seems a bit pointless. It's not as if people don't know there is an unemployment is it?

Yes but the government is lying about the figures, i think its always obvious.

 

[PermaBanned]

Why don't you actually try responding in a sensible way.

I would love to but i am unable to comprehend your post.

If you may recall we discussed the relative veracity of The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists and how it is largely outdated and irrelevant in the modern world.

I am disappointed that you have returned to your blind acceptance of Marxist Communist ideals when it is clear that in practice they simply cannot work without significant authoritarian and relative enslavement of the masses. Communism is a dead end in the evolution of society and by no means is Capitalism perfect or even an acceptable blueprint on which to base society, however it is the best we have currently and Capitalism allows for individual freedoms that simply do not exist in Communist examples and without that individual freedom we cannot hope to evolve a system that surpasses either.

The goal should not be to remove one bad system for another proven bad system, the goal should be to create a new system, one that allows for personal freedom at the same time as equal wealth and resource distribution.

Communism doesn't allow that, neither does Capitalism.

We may have touched on it, and you may have tried to raise such a point, but the book, along with many other works prior and since will not fail to be relevant until we reach a point where the points they raise are acted upon.

Returning implies leaving then coming back. What made you think i had 'left'? Sure, i've avoided a lot of political discussions on here due to the pain of repeatedly banging my head on the keyboard, but that's not the same thing...

There are countless ways of implementing Communism and Socialism, the vast majority of which haven't been tried. At least one of them has to lead to the realization of Marx's dream. But please, and i'm genuinely not being sarcastic here, if you have any suggestions for a system that isn't Capitalist or Communist, or very closely related to either then i'd love to hear them.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Yes but the government is lying about the figures, i think its always obvious.

Yes, I think they've deliberately chosen to put out false figures. Good thinking there, they've definately done that. It's so cool thinking its all some great con isn't it, go anarchy woohoo

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Yes, we all want a better standard of living, for us and our children, but realistically this has to be balanced with a basis of sustainability, not just on exponential growth and ever increasing demand.

Indeed. and the question seems to be.. do we divide it all up equally, or get out there and fight for your own share?

I know I prefer the freedom to fight for the share I want (relative to how much others want 'it').

* However, just because you believe in the capitalist system (fighting for your own share, ie the profit motive), does not mean you don't also support tools such as government to ensure that those who cannot fend for themselves on a fair playing field don't get support or a leg up.