The theoretical basis for the triumph of communism

[Darius871]

Originally posted by rmsharpe

What then would be the incentive to develop anything knowing that the potential profit from it is going to be expropriated?

Obviously you'd be dead by the time the expropriation happens. Unless your good-for-nothing spoiled heirs are the first concern. I just wanna get rich for me, baby, me.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles

Originally posted by Darius871
The real question is how long should capitalism be allowed to develop all these new goodies before we pull the plug?

No mode of production passes from the scene until all possibilities for it's continuation have been exhausted. In other words, capitalism will continue until it either collapses once and for all because of its own internal contradictions (such as environmental collapse) or it is overthrown by the worker class. The point at which it should be overthrown is when we can do it.

See that's the problem with you quasi-religious orthodox cats... way too much faith in the worker class' revolutionary potential. If they gave two ****s about their material well-being the revolution would have happened long ago. It's going to come from above or not at all.

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
They have that now. So you're saying they are prosperous now?

Yes, Cuba is truly a stone's throw away from paradise.

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by Darius871


Obviously you'd be dead by the time the expropriation happens. Unless your good-for-nothing spoiled heirs are the first concern. I just wanna get rich for me, baby, me.

Right, because people 100 years from now aren't going to be like us; they're going to be obedient stooges of a tyrannical collectivist nightmare. Keep dreaming.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Darius871
See that's the problem with you quasi-religious orthodox cats... way too much faith in the worker class' revolutionary potential. If they gave two ****s about their material well-being the revolution would have happened long ago. It's going to come from above or not at all.

If the worker class is doing so well it doesn't revolt, then obviously capitalism has not exhausted all its possibilities.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by rmsharpe

Yes, Cuba is truly a stone's throw away from paradise.

We're using your definition here. Perhaps you might wish to rethink such a loose definition that it defines current day Cuba as prosperous.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by rmsharpe

Right, because people 100 years from now aren't going to be like us; they're going to be obedient stooges of a tyrannical collectivist nightmare. Keep dreaming.

If you believe that the way people are today is the way people have always been, then yes, you'd find your caricature of people under socialism difficult to believe. If you'd ever bothered to study history, you'd know that human nature is not permanent and fixed, but rather socially created, and thus changes with the times. If people are greedy and avaricious today, it's because it is the best way to survive in this particular society. We adapt. When people democratically collectively make their own decisions, they will adapt to that also.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles

Originally posted by Darius871
See that's the problem with you quasi-religious orthodox cats... way too much faith in the worker class' revolutionary potential. If they gave two ****s about their material well-being the revolution would have happened long ago. It's going to come from above or not at all.

If the worker class is doing so well it doesn't revolt, then obviously capitalism has not exhausted all its possibilities.

No, what I'm saying is that they've been A) so inculcated with the "rugged individualist" spirit to the point of uber-macho masochism at best or the Freudian death-drive at worst and B) so lulled into complacency by pop culture that they won't lift a finger even if capitalism "exhausts all possibilities" (whatever that means). People just plain don't give a **** when there's a bare minimum of bread and circuses around, and even capitalism's worst years can still provide that bare minimum.

Hell, I've personally talked to people who made no bones about their tax dollars being specifically intended to throw a bone to people so they don't bother to riot, and the willingness to make that sacrifice will always be there. Nothing's going to change until technology reaches such a point that everybody can live in total luxury without having to take anything from anyone, regardless of whatever "internal contradictions" exist in these relative dark ages. Once we have robots doing everything, capitalists won't have any incentive to hoard and workers... well, they won't even exist.

[chequita guevara]

Ideology generally places a far second when immediate survival is on the agenda. Also keep in mind that the extreme conservatism and anti-communism of the 1950s was replaced with a Black and student rebellion in the 60s. The only thing that is constant is change.

[Kidlicious]

Darius,

One thing that I think you are missing is that the middle class will never accept living like the working class, not for very long anyway. When the capitalist system crashes it's the middle class that will be demanding change.

[Darius871]

Yeah, and we see where the 60's generation got us: yuppieville. Besides, that "rebellion" was more about social issues and psychological conformity than the economic underpinnings which remained and still remain the same.

Regardless, change or no change, contradictions or no contradictions, my point is that technological advancement, and AI/robotics in particular, will probably make capitalism downright obsolete far earlier than class consciousness would develop to the point of overthrowing it, so it's a moot point. The workers' give-a-**** will be broken for a couple more centuries, whereas technology's ability to provide every human's material needs (and then some) will probably only take one century at the pace we're going.

I know the image of oppressed masses charging the ramparts is a fun masturbatory fantasy, but technology will beat them to the punch in a very boring and self-propelled fashion.

[chequita guevara]

Some argue that, but then some argued that over 100 years ago. We are spectacularly more productive than before, but life still isn't free.

[Kidlicious]

The market doesn't have a century of life left.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
Some argue that, but then some argued that over 100 years ago. We are spectacularly more productive than before, but life still isn't free.

100 years ago even personal automobiles were a distant dream, and today we have computers the size of a pack of gum that would have been the size of the Pentagon 40 years ago. 100 years ago bacterial infections were virtually untreatable, and today decoding of the human genome is already in the rearview mirror. We're talking about a level of development that is still exponential versus a level of class consciousness that's remained stagnant for one and a half centuries, if not in decline. I'm betting on the cheetah and you're betting on the sloth.

Again, I know capitalism's fading into obsolescence with a whimper won't be as "fun" as a blaze of glorious revolution, but history isn't there for our personal amusement. It's just another deterministic set of cogs just like everything else.

Originally posted by Kidicious
The market doesn't have a century of life left.

Some argue that, but then some argued that over 100 years ago.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The market doesn't have a century of life left.

That's what they said 100 years ago.