The Communist Manifesto

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lonestar
"Textile worker" is not a "High paying manufacturing job".

It could be.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It could be.

Why? Why would it be? Because of an arbitrary decision that those are "good jobs"? Textile factories will go almost completely automated before it's worth paying a textile worker the same as an autoworker or a steelworker.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Because of an arbitrary decision that those are "good jobs"?

That would work.

Textile factories will go almost completely automated before it's worth paying a textile worker the same as an autoworker or a steelworker.

Isn't steelworking and autoworking completely automated? What's the difference?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Kidicious

That would work.

Isn't steelworking and autoworking completely automated?

No.

What's the difference?

One set of jobs are dangerous and requires skilled labor(Machinists, metallurgists, electricians, pipefitters etc.) and the other requires working a sewing machine.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Well, it wasn't really in his power to foresee certain developments. As to not thinking the capitalists would become smart or grow a conscience, again, the issue isn't about individual bad capitalists, but the nature of the system. Marx also discusses "bourgeois socialism" in the Manifesto, which was an actual current at the time, so one can hardly claim he didn't foresee it (technically I guess that's true, since it predated him).

Well... Marx himself, wasn't exactly working class

Marx also failed to foresee the rise of capitalist imperialism, and thought that capitalism and colonialism still had a positive role to play in the rest of the world.

Well, I suspect he thought Imperialist oppression as superior to the pre-feudal systems there (as long as there wasn't much genocide or whatever).

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Sandman


IIRC, they're for education. The bourgeoisie furnish the proles with education in order to prevail against the bourgeoisie in other countries and the aristocracy. In doing so it creates the seeds of its destruction. Or something.

You are possibly referring to dependency-theory (Prebisch, Cardoso...) or World-system-theory (cf. Wallerstein).

From wiki:

Dependency and world system theory hold, that poverty and backwardness in poor countries are caused by the peripheral position that these nations have in the international division of labor. Ever since the capitalist world system evolved, there is a stark distinction between the nations of the center and the nations of the periphery. Cardoso summarized the quantifiable essence of dependency theories as follows:

*there is a financial and technological penetration by the developed capitalist centers of the countries of the periphery and semi-periphery

*this produces an unbalanced economic structure both within the peripheral societies and between them and the centers

*this leads to limitations on self-sustained growth in the periphery

*this favors the appearance of specific patterns of class relations
these require modifications in the role of the state to guarantee both the functioning of the economy and the political articulation of a society, which contains, within itself, foci of inartuculateness and structural imbalance (Cardoso, 1979)

The periphery, being the poor countries, are in effect simply being exploited. Simple enough really. The elite in the rich countries appease the working class in their own country with all kinds of benefits (higher wages, social benefits etc) in order to gain their alliance. That way the enormous masses of the poor working class in the rest of the world are powerless.

That's from an international politics point of view so need to bear that in mind.

In fact Wallerstein's theory is one of the most thought provoking ones around there in my book. Marx still has relevance, but as times change, Marxism also changes. Basic principles can be applied in any era, right?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
In other words, after taking power a leftist government ran the country's economy into the groupd. Mugabe would be proud. Oddly enough, as many times as this scenario repeats itself we still have Che's running around.

Che

As I said, the capitalists began to tank the economy. In fact, the United States had a hand in this happening.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8.htm

Not that this is legible, but this is the famous memo where Nixon says to make the Chilean economy scream.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch26-01.htm

Kissinger's quote as to why they were doing this, "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people."

Challenging me on Chile is foolish, as it is an extremely well documented case of the U.S. destroying a country, finally resulting in a coup d'etat.

You should have gone after France, about which I know considerably less. As it is, in 1980, the French Socialist Party won the elections on a strong social democratic platform. Immediately, the economy began to nose dive, and they were forced to back off their plans.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


As I said, the capitalists began to tank the economy. In fact, the United States had a hand in this happening.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8.htm

Not that this is legible, but this is the famous memo where Nixon says to make the Chilean economy scream.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch26-01.htm

Kissinger's quote as to why they were doing this, "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people."

Challenging me on Chile is foolish, as it is an extremely well documented case of the U.S. destroying a country, finally resulting in a coup d'etat.

You should have gone after France, about which I know considerably less. As it is, in 1980, the French Socialist Party won the elections on a strong social democratic platform. Immediately, the economy began to nose dive, and they were forced to back off their plans.

You could add three other cases. In the early 1970s, there were four democratically elected socialist leaders in power. Salvador Allende in Chile; Gough Whitlam in Australia; Norman Kirk in New Zealand; and Harold Wilson in Britain. A few years later they were all gone.

Allende was overthrown in a US supported coup. Wilson resigned in odd circumstances, claiming that he'd been the victim of a dirty tricks campaign by his own intelligence agencies (going so far as to believe that a coup may have been planned – there's a good BBC doco about this on Google video). Whitlam's government was sacked in a "constitutional coup d'etat" of right wing shenanigans, without precedent in Australian politics. Only Kirk stopped being the Prime Minister in an ordinary way: he died in office (of natural causes), but even then he believed he was being bugged by his own Intelligence service (he'd pick up his phone and find other people talking on it, and stuff like that).

[onodera]

*Originally prepared for that other thread*

Actually, some poster in that "Death of a racist" thread was right, I don't know many real communists.
Most people I know that identify themselves as communists are either:
- clueless Trotskyites who usually are also antiglobalists, ecoterrorists, anarchists, libertarians, gay rights activists and radical feminists at the same time.
- Stalinists, who I refuse to call communists at all, as Stalinism was basically a nationalist socialism.

Teh USSR was a socialist country, and most CPSU members did not really give a damn about communism (There were some real believers in the communist ideals a hundred years ago, but only Bolsheviks were down-to-earth enough to carry out their plans). Likewise, modern CPRF promotes socialist, not communist ideals.

For communism to function, it has to be able to satisfy the demands of the society, and this requires appropriately scaled economies. In a primitive tribe, the demands are low, and a single tribe can build a communist society. In a modern first world society, the demands are exorbitant, and a communist society can be built only on a global or nearly global scale. Therefore, communists support globalisation. Globalisation also draws more people into exploitative capitalist relationships, thereby hastening the arrival of a revolution.

A global economy that is not profit-, but satisfaction-oriented, requires tremendous computative resources. A profit-oriented (capitalist) economy can be run by a multitude of independent agents, each trying to maximize their own profit by maximizing the demand for their goods. A satisfaction-oriented economy can be brought to its knees by such actions, and balancing the production to satisfy the demands of every participant (you might be satisfied in your first world country, but can the girl who sewed your shirt buy everything you have?) requires constant supervision. Without computer support, it is impossible.
You might say that this economy is unstable and therefore is worse than the current one, but modern fighter jets are also aerodynamically unstable; they are kept in the air by their computers and are superior to aerodynamically stable older jets.

Another problem that must be solved for communism to function is the direct democracy. Soviets (councils, if you want a translation) function very well as direct democratic institutions at a local scale (a village or a factory council, for example), but when applied globally, they lead to the emergence of a class of professional politicians, which, in a classless communist society, is an abomination. This means only a direct electronic democracy will work in such a society, and it also requires advanced computing support.

A direct democracy also requires high levels of education among the general populace. This means a greater importance must be placed upon compulsory education, without such bullsh*t as African studies or cheerleading, but with much greater importance placed on economy (micro, macro and world), geography, history and maths. People must be able to understand the domestic policies of the global government well enough to shape them.

Nationalism and fundamentalism are the enemies of communism, as it depends on uniting the nations and blurring the differences. Secularisation of the people is also important, as religious differences, however small, can foster the enmity between different groups.

This means that communism can be successully started in a technologically advanced country, where even exploited third world immigrants can get an education, where the level of secularisation is high and nationalism has been subdued. Right now this place doesn't exist, just like there was no place for a bourgeois capitalist society to emerge in 13th century.

To reiterate: communism requires advanced technology, planned economy, direct democracy, mass education, secularism and cosmopolitanism. Anyone can call himself a communist, but that doesn't necessarily make him one.

[Agathon]

I agree with most of what you say, but don't believe that democracy is necessary. At the very least there are some people who should be actively prevented from voting.

[Patroklos]

Challenging me on Chile is foolish, as it is an extremely well documented case of the U.S. destroying a country, finally resulting in a coup d'etat.

That is a direct result of illegally nationalizing US property, hense rightly placed at the feet of the leftests who violently imposed land redistribution.

The fact that the US didn't go along with the wholesale theft of their property is not a mark against it. The fact that the leftests knew what was going to happen and did so anyway shows they have no understanding of economics. Leftists lose.

Again, Wiki says it all, the land redistribution was a failure US embargo or not (as it violent land distribution always is).

Challenging me on Chile is foolish, as it is an extremely well documented case of the U.S. destroying a country, finally resulting in a coup d'etat.

In your head perhaps. Wow, you mean after stealing other people's property the former owners decided not to do buisness with them? That is not the capitalists turning off production, as the left nationalizes/redistrbuted the means of production (as well as making their nation unfavorable to trade and investment). You fail.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Agathon


You could add three other cases. In the early 1970s, there were four democratically elected socialist leaders in power. Salvador Allende in Chile; Gough Whitlam in Australia; Norman Kirk in New Zealand; and Harold Wilson in Britain. A few years later they were all gone.

Allende was overthrown in a US supported coup. Wilson resigned in odd circumstances, claiming that he'd been the victim of a dirty tricks campaign by his own intelligence agencies (going so far as to believe that a coup may have been planned – there's a good BBC doco about this on Google video). Whitlam's government was sacked in a "constitutional coup d'etat" of right wing shenanigans, without precedent in Australian politics. Only Kirk stopped being the Prime Minister in an ordinary way: he died in office (of natural causes), but even then he believed he was being bugged by his own Intelligence service (he'd pick up his phone and find other people talking on it, and stuff like that).

Let's not forget Manley in Jamaica.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
That is a direct result of illegally nationalizing US property, hense rightly placed at the feet of the leftests who violently imposed land redistribution.

Where does it say anything about violent imposed land redistribution?

The fact that the US didn't go along with the wholesale theft of their property is not a mark against it. The fact that the leftests knew what was going to happen and did so anyway shows they have no understanding of economics. Leftists lose.

You are only demonstrating my original point, in fact, you are making my case for me and opposing your original point, if there was one. When a party is elected that intends to carry out a serious reforms to the capitalist economy, the capitalists **** the economy over.

I win!

Again, Wiki says it all, the land redistribution was a failure US embargo or not (as it violent land distribution always is).

There wasn't an embargo. Among the actions the U.S. government took was to flood the market with copper, driving prices into the ground, which undermined Chile's economy, which was largely based on copper exports. Also, as wiki points out, it was resistance from the ruling class that made Allende's reforms fail.

You lose. I win. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

[Patroklos]

Where does it say anything about violent imposed land redistribution?

In the Wiki I quoted you.

"Following his election, indigenous and peasant forces across the country violently took control of ranches, forcibly fulfilling Allende's land redistribution promises."

You are only demonstrating my original point, in fact, you are making my case for me and opposing your original point, if there was one. When a party is elected that intends to carry out a serious reforms to the capitalist economy, the capitalists **** the economy over.

Other countries are not under any obligations to tailor their own trade policies to the elections in another whether they are capitalist, communist, fascist or any other. (indeed, if someone nationalized a communist's countries government corporation assets they would react the same way)

You were talking about the capitalists within the system in question, in this case Chile. The leftist gained power and the capitalists were violently deposed. At no time to the capitalists in Chile shut down production in retaliation as you state. On the contrary, after being violently deposed the lefists themselves who now had the means of production ran the economy into the ground.

There wasn't an embargo. Among the actions the U.S. government took was to flood the market with copper, driving prices into the ground, which undermined Chile's economy, which was largely based on copper exports. Also, as wiki points out, it was resistance from the ruling class that made Allende's reforms fail.

The Americans were totally within their rights to sell their copper however they wanted. And no American constitutes the Chilean ruling class Che. We are free, like any soverign nation, to trade as we see fit.

Resistance of the ruling class to having their legal property violently taken from them is NOT stopping production or sinking the economy. In fact the LAST thing the Chilean capitalists would want was for their economic fortunes to fail as the political fortunes do the same. Please find on instance of the caplitalists in Chile leaving their fields fallow and their factories idle in retaliation for the leftist win. You fail, as always.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Traianvs
The periphery, being the poor countries, are in effect simply being exploited. Simple enough really. The elite in the rich countries appease the working class in their own country with all kinds of benefits (higher wages, social benefits etc) in order to gain their alliance. That way the enormous masses of the poor working class in the rest of the world are powerless.

That's from an international politics point of view so need to bear that in mind.

In fact Wallerstein's theory is one of the most thought provoking ones around there in my book. Marx still has relevance, but as times change, Marxism also changes. Basic principles can be applied in any era, right?

I have two problems with that theory.

1) The capitalists didn't give higher wages and benefits to workers in the first world. Those workers fought for what they got. If anything by outsourcing production they have hurt industrial workers in the first world, not benefited them.

2) The new jobs that have been created in globalisation have largely been created by the "new capitalists" not the old owners and managers of the old industrial economy.