|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 6:44 pm
My premise is simple- does it not seem, Kautskies claim that there would emerge an Ultra-Imperialist State was essentially right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-imperialismThat in this particular matter Lenin may well have been wrong? Quote: Ultra-imperialism, or occasionally hyperimperialism and formerly super-imperialism, is a potential, comparatively peaceful phase of capitalism, meaning "after" or "beyond" imperialism. It was described mainly by Karl Kautsky. "Post-imperialism" is sometimes used as a synonym of "ultra-imperialism", although it can have distinct meanings. Quote: Origin of the termThe suggestion of a possible "Ultraimperialismus" is normally attributed to Karl Kautsky, the leading theoretician of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) in the era of the Kaiserreich. Kautsky coined the term in 1914, but he had speculated on the issue several times in 1912 already. He postulated that in the field of international relations a "stadium [approaches], in which the competition among states will be disabled by their cartel relationship".[1] Thus, Kautsky’s Ultraimperialismus concept was shaped by the idea of cartels made up by states for the purpose of international policy. The basic idea of a possible pacification of imperialism did not really originate from Kautsky. The British left-liberal John Atkinson Hobson had written in 1902 in a similar context about a potential "inter-imperialism", which could be established by a "combination" of great powers ("combination" or "combine" then being used to designate cartels).[2] In 1907, Karl Liebknecht stated in his brochure Militarismus und Antimilitarismus that "a trustification of all actual and potential colonies among the colonial powers, so to speak […] a disabling of the colonial rivalry among the states [could take place in the future], as it occurred to some extent for the private competition among capitalist entrepreneurs in the cartels and trusts".[3] – On the eve of World War I these peace-loving social-democrats and liberals in Europe hoped that the great powers would – beginning with the British Empire and the Deutsche Reich – unite into a "states' cartel" or a "combination" of states giving the rivals organization and reconciliation.[4] Quote: Lenin's criticismLenin disagreed with Kautsky's approach. In an introduction to Nikolai Bukharin's Imperialism and World Economy, written in 1916, he conceded that "in the abstract one can think of such a phase. In practice, however, he who denies the sharp tasks of to-day in the name of dreams about soft tasks of the future becomes an opportunist."[7] Lenin developed Bukharin's theories of imperialism, and his own arguments formed the core of his work Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. He wrote that Kautsky's theory supposed "the rule of finance capital lessens the unevenness and contradictions inherent in the world economy, whereas in reality it increases them." He gives examples of disparities in the international economy and discusses how they would develop even under a system of ultra-imperialism. He asks, under the prevailing system, "what means other than war could there be under capitalism to overcome the disparity between the development of productive forces and the accumulation of capital on the one side, and the division of colonies and spheres of influence for finance capital on the other?"[8] Quote: Recent positions on the idea of ultraimperialismSome Marxists have pointed out similarities between the co-operation between the capitalist states during the Cold War and ultra-imperialism.[9][10] Martin Thomas of Workers Liberty claims that this "since the collapse of the Stalinist bloc in 1989-91, that 'ultra-imperialism' has extended to cover almost the whole globe", but that "rather than being a sharply polarised world of industrial states on one side, agrarian states on the other, with the industrial states joining together to keep the agrarian states un-industrial by force, it is a very unequal but multifarious system, with political independence for the ex-colonies, rapidly-permuting new international divisions of labour, and many poorer states exporting mostly manufactured goods."[11] Other commentators have pointed to similarities between Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri's theory of Empire and Kautsky's theory, although the authors themselves claim their theory is founded in Leninism.[12] Opponents of the theory of ultra-imperialism argue that, whatever similar forms may have existed during the Cold War, since its end, inter-capitalist competition has tended to increase,[13] and that the nature of capitalism makes it impossible for capitalists to make conscious decisions to avoid behaviour if in the short term it proves beneficial.[9] Now I would argue certain specifics of Kautsky's theory are plainly wrong- for example, we do not have an Ultra-Imperialist power by general agreement, but by a combination of agreement, economic power and military supremacy. In other words- we may have gone even more extreme then Kautsky's Ultra-Imperialist hypothesis with the US as a Super-Power that is far, far ahead of any of its rivals. This could be a good thing. It accomplishes many of the goals of Internationalism- in that we basically now have a world system, which makes Great Wars far more difficult. Instead of a Cabal of various Imperialist States, we have a singular, super-powerful Nation-State. Note that there has not been a major military conflict between First World/Industrialized Nations since the US emerged as the victor of the Cold War. This is probably because we have hundreds of military bases in tens of dozens of nations. Rulers, who would normally embark on wars of conquest, are unable to do so because they always have to consider what actions the United States will take in response. Likewise, because wars are being reduced, and under US influence democracy is spreading (as is a more liberal culture in general)- world poverty is declining: World Bank: Remarkable Declines in Global Poverty, But Major Challenges RemainWorld Vision: Global poverty declines significantly over two decadesThe Economist: Global poverty-
A fall to cheerThe Guardian: World poverty is shrinking rapidly, new index revealsThe Brookings Institute: Quantifying Poverty's Global Decline In any case, looking at the matter objectively, can any doubt that the US is in many respects an Ultra-Imperialist Nation? If so, does that not raise questions concerning the hypothesis of Lenin vs Kautsky?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 9:05 pm
I have issues with Lenin's theory of imperialism (in short, it is moralistic and not materialist) but Kautsky's idea of ultraimperialism doesn't fit, either. For one, the current period is not the logical result of capitalism but contingent on a couple of historical issues: the former Soviet Union making a bloc that was separate from European capital, and the USA being so ******** strong it could curb stomp any competitor.
With the Soviet Union gone and Eastern Bloc and Chinese capital incorporated into western capital there is no longer that overwhelming opponent who bars access to resources, labour, and markets. On the other hand, the USA's productive base has been declining relative to its economic and military position while China's has been growing. As china seeks military and political influence, and new areas for investment, it comes increasingly into conflict with the USA, the dominant power. In addition to this, as America's power declines relative to china, the power of Germany has been rising absolutely, and the power of Japan has been rising relatively to America. Both of these countries are starting to flex their muscles in their own areas of influence. We can expect that this will only bring increasing belligerence and conflicts in the future as the military and economic comparisons get closer, and the outcome of a contest of strength becomes increasingly uncertain.
About poverty: almost all the decrease in poverty is happening in china. If you remove china from the before and after stats, not much has changed at all. On the other hand it is well known that cuts to wages, welfare, healthcare, retirement and disability pensions, subsidies, education, and so on, things that impact the working class, all these things have been under attack and declining. What we see is not a rise in global living standards, but a shift (this shift will likely not be completed, because as labour costs in china rise, production has been moved to lower-wage parts of china, out of china altogether, or heavily mechanized to reduce labour costs.
Finally, about democracy, the claim is simply laughable. Regardless of if you take Lenin's question of 'democracy for which class' or aristotle's view of democracy as the rule of the poor, both views show that no democracy hat is useful to the working class has been established and that it doesn't matter to the working class if a government is parliamentary or autocratic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:47 am
Does it matter to you if an Ultra-Imperialist state effectively accomplishes many of the most essential goals of a one-world socialist government?
I mean people did complain about Rome, but when it fell they called it the Dark Ages. Now at days, with so many dictatorships armed with nuclear weapons, do we not need a Super-Power to keep the other nations in line? We cannot afford a single war, and I don't think a socialist revolution is going to occur in every single nuclear armed country any time soon. Such being the case, supporting an Ultra-Imperialist nation may be our only practical alternative.
If the US is out of the picture, Russia, China, India, Pakistan may all eventually start land grabbing and going to war. Disagree with me if you want, but ask yourselves whether or not you think what keeps these autocrats from declaring wars of conquest is the goodness in their hearts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:58 pm
I couldn't care less about a 'one world socialist government'. I care about communism, the abolition of capital. All the rest is just different forms of capital's domination.
People didnt call the period after the fall of Rome the Dark Ages until some enlightenment types wanted to contrast feudalism with the glory of Rome and other nonsense. What countries have nukes?
USA (you call it a democracy)
Russia (not much less democratic than the USA)
UK (you would probably call it a democracy)
France (you would probably call it a democracy)
India (you would probably call it a democracy)
Pakistan (you would probably call it a democracy)
Israel (you would probably call it a democracy)
China (you were jerking off over them 2 years ago, they also don't have the means to reliably hit the USA with nukes)
North Korea (doesnt have the ability to reliably his South Korea with nukes)
Maybe Iran soon (maybe).
Not that I care about the democratic credentials of any of those countries.
'If the USA is out of the picture'
So what? The USA is in a period of decline. That decline might be reversed, it might not. What does that have to do with what you or I want? Absolutely nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:26 pm
Dermezel, I understand where you are coming from in this argument (if we can really call it that). I totally agree that in many ways the US is helping to prevent global war and how ultra-imperialism has its benefits on the international level.
But I also have to agree with Le Pere. The US's impierialism has not nessesarily helped with international poverty or the abolision of capital. Through the US's thirst for more capital it has taken advantage of the less developed nations and, being a bourgeoisie nation, invested in factories and foreign labor. Thus created a deeper gap in the two classes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 5:44 am
Le Pere Duchesne I couldn't care less about a 'one world socialist government'. I care about communism, the abolition of capital. All the rest is just different forms of capital's domination. People didnt call the period after the fall of Rome the Dark Ages until some enlightenment types wanted to contrast feudalism with the glory of Rome and other nonsense. What countries have nukes? USA (you call it a democracy) Russia (not much less democratic than the USA) UK (you would probably call it a democracy) France (you would probably call it a democracy) India (you would probably call it a democracy) Pakistan (you would probably call it a democracy) Israel (you would probably call it a democracy) China (you were jerking off over them 2 years ago, they also don't have the means to reliably hit the USA with nukes) North Korea (doesnt have the ability to reliably his South Korea with nukes) Maybe Iran soon (maybe). Not that I care about the democratic credentials of any of those countries. 'If the USA is out of the picture' So what? The USA is in a period of decline. That decline might be reversed, it might not. What does that have to do with what you or I want? Absolutely nothing. Is the US a Super-Power? arbiter_51 The US's impierialism has not nessesarily helped with international poverty or the abolision of capital. But the primary goal is not to abolish capital. The primary goal is to make things better for people in general. Going from one claim- we need to abolish hereditary classes because of the immense harm they cause society, to another claim, we need to abolish all capital regardless of its utility, are two completely different claims. Capital as an economic tool probably does have its uses in any economic system. Quote: In classical economic schools of thought, particularly in Marxist political economy,[1] capital is money used to buy something only in order to sell it again to realize a financial profit. According to that definition even a socialist nation could use capital in order to get more goods and services, from other capitalist or socialist nations for its own ends. In any event, I do not see why abolishing capital itself is a necessary goal for improving society. I can see abolishing laissez faire capital or massive class inequality that is without social mobility or causes vast amounts of suffering, but capital itself is simply a tool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 6:18 am
"Is the US a super-power?" Yes, and it will probably continue to be a superpower once its decline has tapered off. I have said nothing about its superpower status, merely that others will become strong enough to challenge it shortly. "But the primary goal is not to abolish capital. The primary goal is to make things better for people n general." in another thread, I Capitalism is a social and economic formation characterised by the domination of capital. Capital is goods and money used to make more money. That capital is worked on by workers who use it to produce commodities which are sold for more money than was invested. For the society to be dominated by capital means there must be a class of people who have no capital of their own, nor any means of production to subsist on their own. That is, such a society needs a class of people who own nothing but their ability to work, and who are therefore compelled to sell their ability to work in order to live. These people engage in their life producing goods that they do not own, and which confront them as alien on the marketplace. Compare the farmer who grows his own food and sells any surplus on the market with the farm labourer who works on a farm, is paid a wage, and needs to buy the food. Their life activity is made separate from them, and we call this 'alienation'. The abolition of capital will make things better for people in general. "Going from one claim... to another claim..." Red herring, stop it. "According to that definition even a socialist nation could use capital in order to get more goods and services, from other capitalist or socialist nations for its own ends." Then that socialist nation would be capitalist. Capital is not a tool. Capital is a social relationship as I explained above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:44 am
Dermezel2 But the primary goal is not to abolish capital. The primary goal is to make things better for people in general. Going from one claim- we need to abolish hereditary classes because of the immense harm they cause society, to another claim, we need to abolish all capital regardless of its utility, are two completely different claims. How are those two opposed to each other instead of interlinked? The abolishment of capital is directly correlated to making things better for people in general. Or, at least, one can't go without the other. What are the reasons that lead you to say the opposite of this? (aside from that they 'are two completely different claims' reason that you gave there, which doesn't really explain the issue in my opinion).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 7:17 pm
Le Pere Duchesne "Is the US a super-power?" Yes, and it will probably continue to be a superpower once its decline has tapered off. I have said nothing about its superpower status, merely that others will become strong enough to challenge it shortly. "But the primary goal is not to abolish capital. The primary goal is to make things better for people n general." in another thread, I Capitalism is a social and economic formation characterised by the domination of capital. Capital is goods and money used to make more money. That capital is worked on by workers who use it to produce commodities which are sold for more money than was invested. For the society to be dominated by capital means there must be a class of people who have no capital of their own, nor any means of production to subsist on their own. That is, such a society needs a class of people who own nothing but their ability to work, and who are therefore compelled to sell their ability to work in order to live. These people engage in their life producing goods that they do not own, and which confront them as alien on the marketplace. Compare the farmer who grows his own food and sells any surplus on the market with the farm labourer who works on a farm, is paid a wage, and needs to buy the food. Their life activity is made separate from them, and we call this 'alienation'. The abolition of capital will make things better for people in general. "Going from one claim... to another claim..." Red herring, stop it. "According to that definition even a socialist nation could use capital in order to get more goods and services, from other capitalist or socialist nations for its own ends." Then that socialist nation would be capitalist. Capital is not a tool. Capital is a social relationship as I explained above.La pere you are contradicting yourself. Capital, even according to your definition is not a social relation. Capitalism, is. You are equating capitalism (the ownership of capital by a few) with capital itself. That is like equating feudalism with the existence of land. Capital, as the bold shows, can refer to goods (tools, such as factories) or money. The general consensus agrees with this definition as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_(economics)Quote: In economics, capital goods, real capital, or capital assets are already-produced durable goods or any non-financial asset that is used in production of goods or services. Your own definition states: ' That capital is worked on by workers". What are they working on if capital is not a tool? If capital is a social relation, how is your own definition coherent? "That capital is worked on by workers who use it to produce commodities which are sold for more money than was invested. " Becomes "That social relationship is worked on by workers who use it (the social relationship) to produce commodities which are sold for more money then was invested." That makes no sense. Workers do not work on "social relationships"- they work on factory equipment. Replace the words and it does make sense: "That factory equipment is worked on by workers who use it to produce commodities which are sold for more money then was invested." Your own definition says capital is "a good" that can produce more wealth- such as a factory or piece of factory equipment. Even Marx notes this: Quote: In classical economic schools of thought, particularly in Marxist political economy,[1] capital is money used to buy something only in order to sell it again to realize a financial profit. For Marx capital only exists within the process of economic exchange—it is wealth that grows out of the process of circulation itself, and for Marx it formed the basis of the economic system of capitalism. In more contemporary schools of economics, this form of capital is generally referred to as "financial capital" and is distinguished from "capital goods". Quote: A capital good (sometimes simply capital in economics) is a durable good that is used in production of goods or services.[1] Capital goods are acquired by a society by saving wealth which can be invested in the means of production. Individuals, organizations and governments use capital goods in the production of other goods or commodities. Capital goods include factories, machinery, tools, equipment, and various buildings which are used to produce other products for consumption. Do you honestly think we should abolish power plants and factories? Now if you mean "financial capital" that likewise has problems if you seek to abolish it: Quote: The other point I want to raise as a subject of study is something more theoretical and concerns the future. It's about the destiny of the market economy. When the combination of the planned economy and the market economy successfully achieves the goal of socialism, will the market economy perish or survive? I touched upon the negative aspects of the market economy, but a study of the market economy from the perspective I have just mentioned will make it clear that it has some important economic effects that cannot be replaced by other methods or mechanisms. Take the function of the market economy in adjusting demand and supply. You may be able to estimate the demand of shoes in a country without having to use market mechanisms. But, when it comes to demand for particular types and colors of shoes, you will have to count on market mechanisms for a long time to come in areas like this, even if you use a computer with high performance. Likewise, the market's judgment is useful in assessing or comparing labor productivity or corporate performance. In dealing with the question, "how much more value does skilled labor create than unskilled labor?", Marx said that it is measured by the market mechanism. In Marx's words, such value is determined by a "social process" behind the producers. What he meant was that there is this aspect of market mechanisms. It is very suggestive that the Soviet-style planned economy turned into a complete fiasco in this regard, as shown clearly by reports delivered by Khrushchev during the 1950s and 1960s at the CPSU Central Committee meetings. At one point, he stated that in the Soviet Union achievements of productive activities are measured by the weight of products; producing heavier chandeliers is evaluated as better job performance; heavier chandelier may increase the enterprise's earnings, but for whom?" On another occasion he said: "Why is furniture made in the Soviet Union so unpopular? It is because factories are producing heavy products. Foreign-made furniture is lighter and easier to use. In our country, achievement of production of most machineries is measured by the weight of products. Twice as much iron as that needed for machinery platforms is used; that way may enable the factories to achieve their goals, but they are only making products that can't be of any use. We need to establish new standards to measure achievements of factories." Such was the Soviet Union's level of study on standards for evaluating economic results 30 years after it abandoned the market economy. We have an interesting experience in relations to this issue. After the U.S. war of aggression against Vietnam ended and peace was restored there, we sent a delegation to Vietnam to study the Vietnamese economy and give them advice on economic reconstruction. The delegation visited farming districts. As you know, they grow rice in paddies. To assist in the mechanization of Vietnam's agriculture, the Soviet Union had sent in rice transplanting machines to Vietnam. Being a product of the Soviet-style planned economy, they were very heavy machines, so heavy that they sank into the mud of the paddies. The Vietnamese felt obliged to use the gift, and decided to use them by attaching two boats on both sides of the machine to prevent the planting machines from sinking. They could plant rice seedlings all right, but the attached two boats pressed down the rice seedling just planted. They finally decided to stop using those machines. This example shows how difficult it is to find a substitute for the market economy as a system to improve labor productivity and efficiency of economic activities. The USSR in attempting to abolish financial capital as a measurement of economic value resorted to measuring productivity in terms of weight- with all sorts of absurdities made manifest as various factories competed to make the heaviest products. Money works as a measurement of value. Attempts to replace financial capital as a tool for measuring value have had extremely limited success and often times lead to economic deformities and absurdities. Simply abolishing financial capital or capital goods may be undesirable from a utilitarian and humanistic perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:25 pm
Dermy, you aren't arguiing in good faith. You have read capital, you used to make posts which quoted like 15 pages from capital to explain how china is awesome and how we should vote for the Democrats to do the same thing in America. You cite my post to prove that capital is a thing, but you don't understand the structure of the post: It starts with the 'vulgar' notion of capital that pretty much everyone agrees on, and shows how when looking at it, that 'thing' isn't a thing at all, but a social relationship between an owner of property and a propertyless worker who is compelled to sell their body and mind. A pile of steel, a furnace, and anvils is not capital. It is only capital when it is used for the production of commodities which are sold at a profit. Marx points out that capital is value valorising itself, or put into more human terms, capital is value expanding itself. A power plant that produces power as a public good, not as a commodity, is not capital. A farm that produces food for the farmer, and not for sale on the market, is not capital. A farm that produces food for rations that people recieve as a human right is not capital. A farm that produces food that is taken to a common storehouse that people can take from as they wish, is not capital. A farm which produces food in order to be sold on the market that is capital. At the end of volume 1 of capital Marx illustrates this with an example taken from the colonisation of Australia, I will quote at length: Marx First of all, Wakefield discovered that in the Colonies, property in money, means of subsistence, machines, and other means of production, does not as yet stamp a man as a capitalist if there be wanting the correlative — the wage-worker, the other man who is compelled to sell himself of his own free will. He discovered that capital is not a thing, but a social relation between persons, established by the instrumentality of things. [4] Mr. Peel, he moans, took with him from England to Swan River, West Australia, means of subsistence and of production to the amount of £50,000. Mr. Peel had the foresight to bring with him, besides, 300 persons of the working class, men, women, and children. Once arrived at his destination, “Mr. Peel was left without a servant to make his bed or fetch him water from the river.” [5] Unhappy Mr. Peel who provided for everything except the export of English modes of production to Swan River! For the understanding of the following discoveries of Wakefield, two preliminary remarks: We know that the means of production and subsistence, while they remain the property of the immediate producer, are not capital. They become capital only under circumstances in which they serve at the same time as means of exploitation and subjection of the labourer. But this capitalist soul of theirs is so intimately wedded, in the head of the political economist, to their material substance, that he christens them capital under all circumstances, even when they are its exact opposite. Thus is it with Wakefield. Further: the splitting up of the means of production into the individual property of many independent labourers, working on their own account, he calls equal division of capital. It is with the political economist as with the feudal jurist. The latter stuck on to pure monetary relations the labels supplied by feudal law. “If,” says Wakefield, “all members of the society are supposed to possess equal portions of capital... no man would have a motive for accumulating more capital than he could use with his own hands. This is to some extent the case in new American settlements, where a passion for owning land prevents the existence of a class of labourers for hire.” [6] So long, therefore, as the labourer can accumulate for himself — and this he can do so long as he remains possessor of his means of production — capitalist accumulation and the capitalistic mode of production are impossible. The class of wage labourers, essential to these, is wanting. How, then, in old Europe, was the expropriation of the labourer from his conditions of labour, i.e., the co-existence of capital and wage labour, brought about? By a social contract of a quite original kind. “Mankind have adopted a... simple contrivance for promoting the accumulation of capital,” which, of course, since the time of Adam, floated in their imagination, floated in their imagination as the sole and final end of their existence: “they have divided themselves into owners of capital and owners of labour.... The division was the result of concert and combination.” [7] In one word: the mass of mankind expropriated itself in honor of the “accumulation of capital.” Now, one would think that this instinct of self-denying fanaticism would give itself full fling especially in the Colonies, where alone exist the men and conditions that could turn a social contract from a dream to a reality. But why, then, should “systematic colonization” be called in to replace its opposite, spontaneous, unregulated colonization? But - but - “In the Northern States of the American Union; it may be doubted whether so many as a tenth of the people would fall under the description of hired labourers.... In England... the labouring class compose the bulk of the people.” [8] Nay, the impulse to self-expropriation on the part of labouring humanity for the glory of capital, exists so little that slavery, according to Wakefield himself, is the sole natural basis of Colonial wealth. His systematic colonization is a mere pis aller, since he unfortunately has to do with free men, not with slaves. “The first Spanish settlers in Saint Domingo did not obtain labourers from Spain. But, without labourers, their capital must have perished, or at least, must soon have been diminished to that small amount which each individual could employ with his own hands. This has actually occurred in the last Colony founded by England — the Swan River Settlement — where a great mass of capital, of seeds, implements, and cattle, has perished for want of labourers to use it, and where no settler has preserved much more capital than he can employ with his own hands.” [9] [ X] How will we deal with economic planning without money? There's a few ways we could do it, to name what seem the most popular, there is accounting based on labour used, and accounting based on energy used. With that explained, it should be clear why the abolition of capital would help the vast mass of humanity much more than the 'humanitarian' managing of capital could hope to accomplish. Along with my other posts in this thread, I hope I have shown how US imperialism hasn't benefited the vast mass of humanity, and given its decline, won't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:26 am
I know you guys are probably going to hate me because of this but, in a sense, isn't capitalism good?
I mean, I know it forces the majority to be unhappy and leads to social unrest, but doesn't it progress technology in the long run?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:35 pm
arbiter_51 I know you guys are probably going to hate me because of this but, in a sense, isn't capitalism good? I mean, I know it forces the majority to be unhappy and leads to social unrest, but doesn't it progress technology in the long run? It also retards technological process. Think of anti-biotics for a moment. For all of their history, the possibility of bugs growing immune to them was accepted, however that wasn't much of a problem in practice because new ones were being made. With the reduction of the financial incentive, no new ones are being developed, so the same anti-biotics are used again and again and bugs are becoming resistant. Capitalism, however, certainly is 'progressive' compared to feudalism, and it was thanks to capitalism that we have both the technology to produce enough stuff for everyone, we have the actual machinery we can use to produce enough stuff for everyone, and we have a class that is both in a position to take over that machinery because it works on it, and has an interest in taking it over, because the class is dispossessed and owns nothing. Capitalism itself, however, well, it stunts people, it divorces them from their life's work, it subjects people to the most disgusting and degrading poverty, and so on. Capitalism, then, can be considered useful as the means to transition from Feudalism to Communism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 6:31 pm
Le Pere Duchesne arbiter_51 I know you guys are probably going to hate me because of this but, in a sense, isn't capitalism good? I mean, I know it forces the majority to be unhappy and leads to social unrest, but doesn't it progress technology in the long run? It also retards technological process. Think of anti-biotics for a moment. For all of their history, the possibility of bugs growing immune to them was accepted, however that wasn't much of a problem in practice because new ones were being made. With the reduction of the financial incentive, no new ones are being developed, so the same anti-biotics are used again and again and bugs are becoming resistant. Capitalism, however, certainly is 'progressive' compared to feudalism, and it was thanks to capitalism that we have both the technology to produce enough stuff for everyone, we have the actual machinery we can use to produce enough stuff for everyone, and we have a class that is both in a position to take over that machinery because it works on it, and has an interest in taking it over, because the class is dispossessed and owns nothing. Capitalism itself, however, well, it stunts people, it divorces them from their life's work, it subjects people to the most disgusting and degrading poverty, and so on. Capitalism, then, can be considered useful as the means to transition from Feudalism to Communism. But what you do that is disgusting and degrading helps the majority that purchases the products your employer sells and pays you to create. And if you don't like doing degrading labor or whatever, can't you start your own buisness and pay others to labor for you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 10:02 pm
arbiter_51 I know you guys are probably going to hate me because of this but, in a sense, isn't capitalism good? I mean, I know it forces the majority to be unhappy and leads to social unrest, but doesn't it progress technology in the long run? I do not see the conflict as between pure capitalism and command economy socialism. I see the possibility of Market Socialism, which is a market placed under democratic control and regulation. As for making things degrading, are you honestly saying that the modern day worker in the first world has it that bad? Most have houses, most have indoor plumbing, electricity, safe streets, a variety of foods on a daily basis ranging from pastas, to meats, to cheeses, to mexican. Most have color TVs, video games, microwaves, heaters, AC, cell phones, smart phones, DVD players, internet, kindle, etc. Maybe their work is not as glorious as that of, say a militia soldier in the People Army, or a KGB Spy or something else with Martial applications, maybe they are not all rulers as many wish they were, but I would hardly say their jobs are degrading so much as they are vital and peaceful. Le Pere Duchesne How will we deal with economic planning without money? There's a few ways we could do it, to name what seem the most popular, there is accounting based on labour used, and accounting based on energy used. With that explained, it should be clear why the abolition of capital would help the vast mass of humanity much more than the 'humanitarian' managing of capital could hope to accomplish. Along with my other posts in this thread, I hope I have shown how US imperialism hasn't benefited the vast mass of humanity, and given its decline, won't. I do not understand your fetishistic obsession with labor. You treat basic labor almost as though it were a magical force when in reality it is primarily technological advance, scientific methodology and critical thinking that has lead to modernity. Your whole premise is based on an ideology that says democratic reform is an impossible means to improving people's quality of life. This you will maintain despite the obvious benefits of the progressive movement in terms of Civil Rights Legislation and Child Labor laws. This same ideology likewise has argued that the existence of an Ultra-Imperialist state is impossible. In terms of these competing hypothesis Kautsky was right and Lenin was wrong. Your ideology is very wrong on a great many empirical matters, yet you still want people to die for it. Le Pere Duchesne and has an interest in taking it over, because the class is dispossessed and owns nothing. What are you talking about? Most workers and middle class person's own cars, and cell phones, and computers, dvd players, stoves, microwaves, fridges, houses (mortgaged perhaps but de facto owned in terms of how they are used). Their children have access to a publicly provided educational system. Now they have access to publicly subsidized health care. Currently they have a lot more to lose then their chains and this really irks you doesn't it? The fact that the vast majority of workers and middle class persons are comfortable and do not want to risk their lives in a revolution because they are comfortable. That is why you want the Democrats to fail and the Republicans to win- you'd rather they be uncomfortable, that the economy crash and they be driven into the arms of a Party wanting to promote violent revolution. You want them to feel destitute and hopeless and willing to die rather then be chained into their comfortable lifestyles. You really think the life of the average worker in the first world is so bad that they should be willing to die in order to change it? To surrender their democracy to despotism? To risk turning their neighborhood into a war zone? I'm sorry, but most workers would prefer to send their kids to school, and live a peaceful life, watch some TV and relax with their friends and loved ones over some beer and a couple steaks or burgers. That is what the average worker wants- a peaceful life where they might save enough for retirement and to send their kids to college. You honestly want them to pick up and gun and start shooting at cops instead? Over an ideology that is full of holes? Let's face facts- unless the workers hit rock bottom they will never join you. So having them hit rock bottom, whether you admit it or not, is in your ideological interests. You never stop to think if your ideology is wrong, even though the appearance of an Ultra-Imperialist nation blows a massive hole in Lenin's neat little theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 5:20 am
Dermy, you are arguing in bad faith. It's stupid. Stop it. You accuse me of a fetishistic obsession with labour, yet I've not displayed any. Especially not in the bit you were responding to. Stop with the red herrings. You said that attempting to replace finance capital as a tool of accounting leads to absurdities. I pointed out that we can work the accounts based on labour or energy used. Complaining that it isn't labour but technology that has lead to modernity is beside the point when discussing issues of accounting. It was also a rather minor point. My whole premise is... wait what? You are saying a bunch of things that I didn't say. I get that you are trying to either get me to agree to a nonsense position, or then disavow that position and you can claim some sort of victory, but it's just childish, As I said in my latest post in your nonsense thread about terrorism: I The state can be forced to give concessions to oppressed and exploited classes, but only within the limits of the economic system as a whole. To do away with the economic system, then, and make a new one, we cannot simply slowly reform one away and the other into existence. On the one hand, it would require such a huge amount of sustained pressure from the oppressed and exploited classes that a crisis would develop where those classes either see themselves as masters of the situation and attempt to remake society in their own interests, or the ruling class and the state fight back. And as I pointed out earlier in this thread, there has been a decline in the standard of work and life for workers in the advanced countries over the last three decades, along with a rise in those of workers in China. Nevertheless, saying that 'workers have it too good to revolt' is at best irrelevant, at worst wrong. Let's go with irrelevant for now. What does it mean if you are correct? That capitalism is able to guarantee some minor comforts to workers in the advanced countries? And? What does it even mean? You complain that I want them to give it all up but where have I said that? In other threads I have pointed out what is necessary if the working class is to overthrow capitalism and build communism. What I want, however, has no impact on any of that. Do I want communism? Yeah, does it change what needs to be done? No. Does it change the likelihood of what needs to be done actually getting done? No. Stop making up nonsense claims about what I believe and address what I actually say. Here we get back to the core of the matter: You say that this same ideology has argued that the existence of an ultra-imperialist state is impossible. What ideology? The claim that democracy can't alleviate some of the pain of capitalism? IDK maybe it does, but it's irrelevant to this conversation since it's not something I've argued, nor is it something Lenin argued. Lenin has his reasons for arguing against ultra-imperialism. Why don't you read his book on imperialism, not a wiki article, see if you agree with his arguments, and if not, come back and address them. Because right now you are bringing up all sorts of nonsense that has nothing to do with that question. Lenin says that the imperialists will be in conflict with each other, and for that reason will not come to an agreement for the mutual exploitation of the colonies because such an agreement must be based on a given relationship of forces and not on mutual interests as exploiters. Therefore, with a change in the relationship of forces, those with new strength will seek to assert it, those with less strength will no longer be able to enforce their will as before, and ultimately there will come a war because nobody can say exactly who has how much economic and military strength and how well they can use it. War will break out because the outcome is uncertain. Right now the outcome of a contest between Germany and America is certain: Germany will get its arse kicked so it won't start s**t. I have never read Kautsky's work on imperialiism, and I haven't read Lenin's book on imperialism in a few years, so my recollection might be off, but I recall that Lenin quoted Kautsky saying that ultra-imperialism would be the result of democracy and of mutual interest, where the imperialist powers would see that they are all in the imperialist game together, and work to cooperatively exploit the colonies as a super-imperialist power, and in this way war would be abolished. Your argument pretty much amounts to 'Lenin was wrong because one imperialist power is strong enough to beat up all the others' but that doesn't, IIRC, contradict what Lenin was saying at all. So...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
