I am: I am
Join Date: May 31, 2005
Originally Posted by advent_child
I am farmiliar with MaRxism, and I believe it is a positive theory. HOWEVER! It has never been succesfully implemented. The U.S.S.R. was not founded on Stalinism, it was founded on Leninism, which was modified from Marxism. (so many isms) I have don't have much to argue against Marxism, as you apparently have nothing to argue for it. Marxism is a philosophy, not a laid out system of government which does not state where the balance of power lies, or how the prolitariat should control the nation (democratically, republically,through a brutal dictator the people can impeach only by military action). I am not against Marxism, but I am against the way in which Marxist societies (none of which are economically prosporing today) are implemented. Communist countries usually are rated very low in the "freedom of speech" area. Lastly, look at the Marxist Labor theory of value, which states an item gains its value by how much labor is put into making it. It is dead. It is replaced by the subjective theory of value, which states that an item aquires its value by how much a person desires it. And I checked the text book, which agrees with Wikipedia, that the words which "Utopia" were derived from translate to "No place."
"The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few."
Fine, I figured I could avoid this.
but you have given me little choice.
The Upper Class, the Lower Class, the bourgeoisie, the proletariat, the master and the servent, the opresser and the opressed.
that is what communism tried to abolish.
Communism saw to meet the needs of the proletariat and abolish the bourgeoise.
meet the needs of the opressed and abolish the opresser.
So, if you were to be blunt, communism could be discribed as an abolition of private property. "Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property!"
"But does wage labor create any property for the laborer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage labor, and which cannot increase except upon conditions of begetting a new supply of wage labor for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor."
No. your posetions remain yours.
A capitalist economy is not a purely personal thing is it. no no
it is based on the social status in production.
only but the united sction of all members of soceity, can capitalism be set into motion.
capital is therefore not only personal, but it is a social power.
When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property.
it is only the social character of the property that is changed.
it loses its class character.
"The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer. What, therefore, the wage laborer appropriates by means of his labor merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labor, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labor of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the laborer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it."
In bourgeois society, living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor.
In communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer.
In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in communist society, the present dominates the past.
In bourgeois society, capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.
And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom!
And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.
Perhaps, like so many people, what horrifies you about communism is the abolistion of private property.
But why does this scare you?
a very large percent of americans and democratic countries allready have a large percent of there citizens living without property.
If you rent your hourse, your office, lease your car these are all forums of private property owned byt the opresser, the man, the bourgeois.
in communism these things would be rightfully yours.
work for the better of the country, your car is your right.
your house if your right.
your land, and your tractor.
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 labor of others by means of such appropriations.
I'mma let you rest your eyes and mind now
give you some time to argue your point back.
remember now, there is no dictatorship in this forum of communism.
there is no evil to speak of.
this is marxism in all its equailty.
so if you start complaining stalinism, then I will agree with you.
but there is no reason to debate that, because we allready have an agreement on that.
""The New Law of Righteousness," that there "shall be no buying or selling, no fairs nor markets, but the whole earth shall be a common treasury for every man," and "there shall be none Lord over others, but every one shall be a Lord of himself.""