Why capitalism?

Its called reality. They went bankrupt because the whole economy went to pieces with the currency devaluation. The owners had to pay their creditors, if they cannot pay, the factory belongs to the creditors, not whoever shows up and helps themselves to it. Anarchists who help themselves to what others have build obviously have an advantage there. Who could offer better taxi fares while earning more - the guy who steals a taxi or the guy who take out a loan to buy one? Obviously the former, but to believe that is somehow a brilliant new economic system is borderline brain dead.

In fact the most moronic part is that you say that anarchists can help themselves to private property, and then you turn the logic 180 degrees and complain that the owners have no right to take back a factory WHICH THEY BUILT because the anarchists ¨have invested in it" (not that any evidence of that is provided). Does investment give rights or not?

Stop pretending that theft is an economic system. And stop spreading lies about your anarchist fantasy world. If you want to start an anarchist business that somehow pays more and provides cheaper products, go ahead, but try to leave the part about STEALING OTHER PEOPLES PROPERTY out of it.

 

"In reality, communists actualy tryed to equalize payments, but someone it's needed to run things..."

You are thinking strictly within the economic confines of capitalism from which it is impossible to see anything else working. In communist society there will be no such thing as "payments". Commodities are only such because the "commodity" aspect parasitically attaches itself to a use value. In communism this aspect will simply be stripped from the use value. Take tapioca for instance. I dont love tapioca but my brother hates it. So communists really will try to equalize tapioca payments? lmao, I dont think so. My brother wont feel robbed if I eat so much tapioca that Im sick and he simply opts out of this one.
In communist society people will come to appreciate things for their qualities as useful items which people will consume in a manner which is far from equal but similarly far from comparable. There may be an intermediate stage in which the proletariat uses an imperfect system of exchange but it will be to this end of forming a system based upon consumption for need that it will take form. In this sense the Soviet system was much more like the capitalist system. It simply involved a change of rulers. From one bourgeoisie to another. There was no dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia.


"Another big problem which makes the "red bougeoisie" inferior to capitalistic upper classes is the totalitarianism of communism. Even Marx describes the beginning of his communist revolution through what he called the "proletarian dictatorship", the dictatorship of a class, which would be followed by a direct democracy..."

Before I deal with what Marx actually intended before the likes of you perverted his words, let me point to your fetishisation of the idea of democracy. You started by comparing the "red bougeoisie" and their capitalistic counterparts so let me first finish this to its conclusion. The one was totalitarian and the other is not? totalitarian is a very mysterious term and quite clearly one invented by western, bourgeois idealouges. It pertains to a society run by a dictator or a single party. But by this they dont mean a society run by two unaccountable parties running four year dictatorships (UK or USA maybe?) It also has very little to do with freedom. An economic dictatorship where a class has total domination via capital of the means of production is somehow less totalitarian than party oriented domination of the means of production. So please, tell me why the 200 million Russians living in poverty (compare that to the 20 million Russians in poverty in the Soviet era) should be so much happier with their non-totalitarian oppressors, murderers and rulers.
As to what Marx considered a "dictatorship of class". The modern epoch is that of the bourgeoisie. To Marx the modern state and is run by the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. That there is a vote for some proletarians does not change anything. The so called democracy would be illegal if it could change anything. The bourgeoisie however run the land in common and in unity. So too would a dictatorship of the proletariat be a democracy within the proletariat. Real democracy would give power to the majority inevitably. Real democracy IS the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Im not going to dignify the middle section of your post as you seem to consider the old eastern block as somehow representative of a "dictatorship of the proletariat". I have stated clearly how this was not so.

"Exactly like in a feudal society. But this means also a low quality upper class, compared to the winers of capitalism"
Tell me why a man on starvation wages should give a fuck about the "quality"
of the upper class?

 

"Stop pretending that theft is an economic system. And stop spreading lies about your anarchist fantasy world. If you want to start an anarchist business that somehow pays more and provides cheaper products, go ahead, but try to leave the part about STEALING OTHER PEOPLES PROPERTY out of it."


Gimme a fucking break. Rights are self-ordained. The bourgeoisie gave themselves rights. Oh but sure the rich are subject to the same laws against sleeping under bridges and the same laws against begging. It is not coincidence that the laws and morality of this world represents the interests of the ruling class. Give me one justification that does not invoke God or bourgeois institution.

As for proof that socialism is a more efficient economic system (if it is really needed), that was provided by the price of bread in paris in 1968...

 

It is the creditors falt for lending money to these theifs that leached profit out of the factories. You make a bad investment it is your falt. The goverment already paid the value of the factories many times over in hand outs.

The Anarchist without handouts from the goverment was able to out do the capitalist. The reason is in the math, Anarchist was able to support about 400 workers with the wages that use to go to the owners. Then they freed more money with getting rid of managment and replacing it with a democracy (one worker, one vote). They proved management is counter productive and efficiency is greatly increased when a factory has no management and instead is run via a democratic system.

Managers and owners are counter productive, yes it was their our falt for allowing owners and managment to exist in the first place but you don't fix this by putting the owners and managers back.

Think how much more efficent say GM would be if there was no CEO or managers and you'll see why the Anarchist of Argentina proved Capitalism doesn't work.

 

Right, most don't think of "poor slave owners, they are losing their investment" when slaves were set free. Same here, since the private ownership of the means of production is immoral once the revolution has won and these factories are set free, the people that owned these factories would be like those that owned slaves during slavery. You don't feel sorry for them since they should have known better.

 

Faceless and Psy Fox, those anarchists did just what any type of common owned business do in capitalism. They had actualy nothing to do with communism, they played by the rules of capitalism. And those enterprises didn't last enough to see if they are truely working.

Anyway before acusing me of twisting Marx's words, just read the guy's work. It's interesting, well written, you have nothing to loose. Also, because it's very easy to idealise communism while you have a prosperous life in UK and Canada, due to a well developed capitalistic economy, please emigrate to Cuba. Stay there at least a few years and then tell me about this whole bullshit about egalitarianism and social justice of real life communism.

About the only 20 million poor from USSR, please don't make me laugh! Did you forget the cold war and the use of propaganda as a weapon? Both sides lied to show their system was superior to the other. So, you cann't trust any official Soviet statistics or of some international organisation, but based on Soviet data. Let me remind you, statistics is a propaganda tool. Well, anyone living in this part of the world can tell you this: an unemployed in crisis times in Canada or UK had a better lifestandard then a well payed employed worker in USSR.

About "totalitarianism"... People, did you never ever informed yourself before talking? It's a word invented by Mussolini to describe his own idea of a "total state". The marxist socialist state was the most total ever, so the word is well placed and precise. I can understand partialy your confusion, because you don't know what you're talking about. You live in countries who didn't know dictatorship in recent times, so you lack the historical experience which will make you understand what a huge difference it is between ideal and reality, between your system which you consider opressive and true opression.

Oh, and by the way, the "proletarian dictatorship" actualy is an imposibility. Just as absurd as saying democracy is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. What is bourgeoisie in the first place. Look around, is the world you're living in the same as it was around 1848 when Marx elaborated his doctrin? If you think so, you should take an IQ test.

Anyway, I don't want to loose too much time with you, guys, so I'll stop. Maybe some day you'll realise that you are no better then neonazis or neofascists. They too idealise a murderous system and they are in full denial, just like you.

 

We already know Anarchism works from Spain, production continued effectively; workers in farms and factories proved quite capable of managing their affairs without coercion from above, contrary to what Capitalism dictates in that the parasitic owning/ruling class is needed to tell the workers what to do.

I'm talking about Anarchist Marxism. Arnachism in a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals, without a master and Marxism in a free access society. How is this murderous?

 

No, you're talking about the left wing anarchism, based on the philosophies of guys like Proudhon and Bakunin. Marxism supposes the world revolution, followed by the two steps evolution (socialism and communism)toward the final equalitarian anarchy. And also marxism supposes the fact that monopolistic imperial capitalism (the one who was developing in the mid and late 19th century) will naturaly evolve toward the world revolution (which didn't happened at all). I told you, read the guy's books!

What you're describing me is left wing anarchism, preceded by the the socialist utopia of Fourier (does the word "falanster" ring a bell?), who assumes the immediate achievement of anarchy by creating authonomous cooperatives of workers and farmers on total equalitarian basis. This could excellently work in theory, but in real life people aren't equal. They have not the same potential and they does not have the same goals in life.

And here comes the muderous part. Because the human nature is not appropriate for total equality and cooperation strictly for the common good (after all, the common good is just a way to get individual good) to aply this type of society to a the scale of an entire society you need to repress those the unconformists, those who aren't agreeing with the system. So you will be forced to create some kind of coercition aparatus, other wise the whole system will crumble. Look, the communist state wasn't just a dictatorship who was after polithical oponents. They had laws against unjustified wealth acumulation and laws to limit allowed wealth acumulation (I can qoute you many examples, but the message would become too long). But, the existence of this laws prouves the fact that even in the darkest type of communism there were people who were trying to get rich, to gain more freedom instead of equality (an equality as I already showed here, reserved to average people).

It is possible for a rather small group of people, with strong convictions, to live in this anarchist way. How long nobody can tell. But you cann't inforce it to whole societies and countries. Look also at biological and historical evolution. Communism works well for social insects. But their individuality isn't well defined, the common good is the only criteria. Maybe somewhere in the Universe exsits such beings, but who aren't just driven by their instincts, they are intelligent beings like us. Humans, on the other hand, are social animals but their individuality is very well defined. For humans the common good is just a mean, not a goal. So, humans will never ever leave again in a communist manner, unless their civilisation is not destroyed. Our specie lived that way before the invention of agriculture. Marx called this the "primitive commune". And he correctly noticed when economy developed, the society diversified and the natural biological inequality turned into social one. This moment was established by the archaeologists as being during the "neolithical revolution" when due to higher economical activities the community leaders started to act like a upper class. The lower classes appeared also then, people devirsifying upon crafts. Since then the human society evolved in many shapes and organisations. Even socialism appeared in ancient Peru, but like in later communism, it was mentained by force and it was static and less effective in situations out of the ordinary (which explains why Inca socialism was so easily overtaken by the Spanish conquistadores).

What is the conclusion of any honest analysis of the divers types of human societies evolved during time? That capitalism is the more effective yet invented. That Marx was wrong and capitalism will evolve beyond monopolism, colonialism and imperialism and there is no evolution toward communism and anarchy. History also teach us something else: to let things naturaly evolve (even those revolutions who truely changed things were the result of such evolution); other wise you will get the hell on Earth as marxists already did.

 

Part of my reply is in the quotation area.

 

Wrong as proven in Spain and Argentina, Democratic assemblies can do the job of a hierarchy.

From A.5.6 Anarchism and the Spanish Revolution Noam Chomsky notes, "a good example of a really large-scale anarchist revolution -- in fact the best example to my knowledge -- is the Spanish revolution in 1936, in which over most of Republican Spain there was a quite inspiring anarchist revolution that involved both industry and agriculture over substantial areas . . . And that again was, by both human measures and indeed anyone's economic measures, quite successful. That is, production continued effectively; workers in farms and factories proved quite capable of managing their affairs without coercion from above, contrary to what lots of socialists, communists, liberals and other wanted to believe."

There is less and less competion, you have corperations pushing laws to take away power from goverment, in order to distroy Democracy.

Fuck that, Capitalism is distroying the world. If Anarchism don't distroy capitalism, capitalism will distroy man.

 

Your problem and Chomsky's problem is that both of you are jumping to conclusions before the needed test of time and scale. Those naive idealistic experiments took only very brief time before the communist government of Madrid smashed them. Also they were just local experiments, they weren't inforced to whole societies.

And also, democracy means representation, representation means hierarchy. O workers assembley is just as democratic that a shareholders one is. If you try a direct democracy you will never have efficiency and econmy without efficiency is just a dead end.

Or to increase democracy, according to others (right wing anarchists). I'm not very sure about that, maybe in the US.

Did it crossed your mind that anarchism could destroy man as communism did? No artificialy created system ever succeded. Capitalism isn't an ideal uthopia, it's just the best known system.

 

Capitalism is not efficent, owners get more wealth for less work. Sure time is required for decision making but Argentina showed this time is insignificant as you mostly just need general conscientious leaving formal democratic assembles far enough apart to get lots of work done.

Has it every crossed your mind that Capitalism is a artificaialy created system. We didn't have capitalism during our hunter/gather time. Native Americans were not capitalist before we came.

 

"No, you're talking about the left wing anarchism, based on the philosophies of guys like Proudhon and Bakunin. Marxism supposes the world revolution, followed by the two steps evolution (socialism and communism)toward the final equalitarian anarchy. And also marxism supposes the fact that monopolistic imperial capitalism (the one who was developing in the mid and late 19th century) will naturaly evolve toward the world revolution (which didn't happened at all). I told you, read the guy's books!"

Firstly Marxism is not simply reducible to a set of dogmas. Marx contributed a lot mate and I for one (although I am not an anarchist) have no objection to any comrade using dialectical materialism, historical materialism and the surplus value threory (these three being the ACTUAL great contributions of Marx) and thus considering themselves Marxist. I have read a large amount of literature by Marx and I feel more than qualified to correct your silly misunderstandings which are really quite common. One of these is a marxist conception of capitalist imperialism. In fact the theory which you are alluding to was conceived by lenin. An alternative theory of what this imperialism is was actually given by Luxemburg. I do hope though in that above paragraph you were not credibly trying to suggest that all history ends here and socialism's prospects must only be judged on what HAS happened and not what is clearly latent within existent society. My good friend, if you had actually read the literature you would understand these contradictions and thus the sheer folly of what you are alleging.

"About "totalitarianism"... People, did you never ever informed yourself before talking? It's a word invented by Mussolini to describe his own idea of a "total state". The marxist socialist state was the most total ever, so the word is well placed and precise."

And so you use the usual, inelegant tactic of attacking the form of my arguement and not the content. Firstly, the states you are referring to were state capitalist and were not "marxist socialist" in anything but rhettoric. The only thing you are doing here is adding further credence to my arguement. That soviet totalitarianism had nothing to do with freedom or democracy compared to western society (this was the REAL content of my arguement). You fetishise this concept. Make totalitarainism the real "baddy" in the equation, divorced from any idea of freedom or democracy when we see that actually the totalitarian states offer no greater freedoms than these non-totalitarian ones. Now, go back and read what I was really on to.

I dont feel it necessary to seriously consider these terribly oppressive Eastern European states and Cuba. I dont consider them socialist. But, look at Cuba and compare its health/education system with anything else in latin america and you see where there is a problem in your reasoning... Now make the comparison between the Soviet backyard where the repression included sending tanks down roads occasionally and sporadic harrassment by state police. Then lets see america's backyard. 100,000 dead in nicaragua? oh my!

"Oh, and by the way, the "proletarian dictatorship" actualy is an imposibility. Just as absurd as saying democracy is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. What is bourgeoisie in the first place. Look around, is the world you're living in the same as it was around 1848 when Marx elaborated his doctrin? If you think so, you should take an IQ test."

There has been some seperation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat to the remote corners of thailand. nicely out of sight for ya? life isnt all roses in well developed britain either. There is a class divide, not of the same shape, sure, but it still remains that between the worker and the bourgeois. The owner of the means of production, and those who do not own the means of production. This democracy though which is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and yes, I and Marx would alledge that it is, is a total sham. In the UK there is Labour, Conservative and Liberal. None of these represent working class interests. Ditto the US of A. A whole bunch of anti-union legislation in both countries also makes it stifflingly hard to maneouvere as a class towards anything remotely democratic. This "democracy" is a facade. And while you grandly suggest that the dictatorship of the proletariat is impossible, you have totally failed to substantiate this. Please, I am intruiged, elaborate.

"That Marx was wrong and capitalism will evolve beyond monopolism, colonialism and imperialism and there is no evolution toward communism and anarchy. History also teach us something else: to let things naturaly evolve (even those revolutions who truely changed things were the result of such evolution);"

OK, so why was the dialectic wrong? In what respect will this contradiction resolve? All the evidence suggests the gap between rich and poor is growing. Hehe, you make allegations contrary to reality, I would love you to substantiate these claims. As for "natural", all these past revolutions had human actors, you can not seperate the human from society. I will fight for revolution and your superior knowledge of historical materialism *bows* will help you know that I wouldnt have ever done otherwise...

 

Well, Faceless, as much as you would try to correct me, this won't change the total lack of realism of the various socialist uthopias suffer of. Actualy it doesn't matter if Marx said something and Luxemburg mad a correction, while Lenin did a certain mistake. The whole communist theory is an interesting philosophy, but nothing more. Well, it's hard to explain to someone who didn't know any type of marxist socialism turned into reality, but it's simply against the human nature. If I'll start to explain you how human behaviour reacts under a communist system it'll take me too long. But I can I advise you is to make a comprative study between Spain or Portugal, who knew a long lived fascist regim, and any country you wish from the former "Eastern Block". Then you will discover very interesting similarities (both lived under a totalitarian government) but also huge differencies. And this should clarify many things to you and to people like you, because there is always a big gap between the theoretical and the practical level.

Also, what you don't seem to understand is you need totalitarianism to inforce communism to the entire society. I'm sorry to tell you but there is a huge difference between what a small group of idealists can do on a brief period (and they competing actualy with the mainstream society) and to turn the whole into communism. I explained this, so I won't get in it again.

Also, when you request me to compare former or today communist states with Latin America, this is just rethoric. Are Latin American countries relevant for the best developed type of modern capitalism? I don't think so. Why don't you take Western Europe, the US and Canada, Japan and several other countries in account? Look I'm not saying everything is perfect there, but compared to communist states or with those who have now to deal with the communist legacy, things are several hundred times better. And this goes for every field (so stop making associations between some real excesses of the US government and the realities of communist society). Also, when you mix here the US external polithics, this is inelegant and pure rethorics. Imperialism is a wole another topic and on imperial policies the US and the former USSR were just alike.

OK, there is no perfect democracy in the world. And while class separation is real, today the classes are too diversified to judge things in a marxist manner. In "good old days" when communism developped as a philosophy you knew who are the bourgeois (represented in UK by the Liberals), the great landowners (with the Conservative Party) and the workers and small farmers (with the Labour Party) But this was 100 years ago and more. Now, can you tell me where the bourgeoisie stops and where the worker class starts? You have now whole categories of free professionals, technocrats, people working in services, intelectuals, artists and others who are somewhere at the middle of the road or nowhere from a marxist point of view. The old class system it's no longer apliable, so you cann't talk about a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Especially with the universal vote in place (or the bourgeois are more numerous then the workers? I don't think so). Now the whole idea of the proletarian dictatorship... First of all a whole class cann't govern directly. And while in feudal and oligarchic systems (including soviet socialism), where the upper class is well defined and not very large, you might talk about the participation of all its members to government, with the working class (as well as with modern bourgeoisie and middle class) this isn't possible. So you need a representation, elected or not, exactly like in every modern democracy. But if you buid this on the form of a dictatorship, as Marx theorised and Lenin actualy tryed to do, the representatives of the assumed leading working class will turn into a separate beaurochratic class (which happened in USSR and the other communist countries) who will loose touch with the workers and will act more and more like a feudal upper class. Also, the workers from the heavy industry aren't prepared to knowngly assume such a part in the society. A leading class doesn't form through accident and executants usualy are just that. What communist ideologists lost from their view is the fact humans are determined only by economy and society, also by their genes. Some are natural leaders, some not. This doesn't mean you won't find natural leaders among the workers, far from it, but to suppose the worker class could govern efficiently as a class, means that the leading class in the society is formed by accident, which isn't true. In every bourgeois family you will find an ancestor who started low and got higher through its own capacity.

Marx was wrong because reality prouved him wrong. First of all, the rich doesn't become richer, and the poor poorer in highly developed capitalism. Remember, I'm not talking here about Latin America or Russia. Also, what you do with the middle class, who was just begining to develop on Marx's days and now represents at least 20% of the society in well developed countries? There is no real gap, just a large range of wealth levels, from Bill Gates to the homeless of Hyde Park. And I'm not separating human level from history, I'm saying a revolution happenes when you have the right conditions. There is no accident you have the English revolution in mid 17th century and the French revolution in 1789. In both cases you have a clear conflict between an old, tired, aristhocracy and a new dinamic bougeoisie who needed more freedom and more power for its own development. The same type of revolution wouldn't be possible around 1400 or in the same time but let's say in Russia where you lacked industry and bourgeoisie. The 1989 revolutions also weren't an accident. The communist system was tired, prouved ineffective. Gorbatchov's "perestroika" and Deng Xiaoping's turning toward capitalism prouved the failure of socialism in creating a satisfactory society. Capitalism has the advantage to be more dinamic and easily changeble then all the other systems tryed during human history. Maybe some day something more effective will appear and you will have a revolution. But you need a true evolution toward this, you cann't manipulate history at your will, as Lenin tryed. The idea of the working class becoming more aware and desiring more power to itself prouved to be a dead end. Maybe the developing middle class will someday generate something (remember, the old bourgeoisie was a middle class of its time), eventualy something like H.G. Wells's socialist technocratic uthopia or something totaly new, but those days are still ahead of us.

 

"Also, when you request me to compare former or today communist states with Latin America, this is just rethoric. Are Latin American countries relevant for the best developed type of modern capitalism? I don't think so. Why don't you take Western Europe, the US and Canada, Japan and several other countries in account?"

The reason that I chose those states to compare with Eastern European "Communist" countries is because they represent regions at similar stages of development. Pre-Soviet Eastern Europe was similarly semi-peasant in composition as Latin American capitalist dominated nations. The point is that your basis for the "evident" superiority of western capitalism over soviet state capitalism is constructed on an unfair comparison of the developments of backward, Tsarist Russia and already industrialised Britain or USA. I would say my comparison is therefore much fairer.

"Also, what you do with the middle class, who was just begining to develop on Marx's days and now represents at least 20% of the society in well developed countries?"

This and several other examples dotted about your posts represents the next western-centric problem in your reasoning. The bourgeiosie and professional classes of the western nations are not autonomous in any way from the proletariat labouring in other corners of the planet which you helpfully dismissed as not being the "best developed form of modern capitalism". The modern epoch of imperialism allows the bourgeoisie to grab huge profits from the proletariat in the underdeveloped world or other places of cheap labour, indeed there still IS a source of cheap labour even within these countries, and buy off large sections of the working class. This bribary effectively blunts the class struggle at home and allows the capitalists to carry on there exploitation safely in the knowledge that you and others like you will believe that there are no classes. This bribed class (also called the labour aristocracy) could indeed be 20% of the population. Indeed, Marxists have always accounted for these so called professional classes as unproductive hangers-on of the bourgeoisie (these were seen to include priests, civil servants, high class prostitutes etc.) They infact though DO NOT produce value according to the labour theory of value but only share via rent a part of the surplus value creamed from the workers. We do still live in a society seperated by the same class differences as in Marx's day but the form of this division has taken a global character. Capitalism has grown since then. Despite the blunted nature of class war in the western nations, it is not dead for one thing, is being carried out in other parts of the majority, underdeveloped world for another and capitalism still has internal contradictions, the rate of profit will still fall over time, and this will unfold as unlikely as it seems even in western capitalism.

"But you need a true evolution toward this, you cann't manipulate history at your will, as Lenin tryed. The idea of the working class becoming more aware and desiring more power to itself prouved to be a dead end."

What Lenin tried to do was to provide a platform for revolution in western europe. This failed as the german revolution failed and from then on in things got dire for Russia. The thing was, this was no workers revolution! It took centuries of development for the mercantilists though to get wings and destroy their old masters so now you feel righteous enough to dismiss workers revolution on the basis of but a few centuries of real capitalism? The workers have proven to be a very difficult class to control, more so than peasants or the young bourgeoisie. All through its history we have seen near misses. The miners in Britain in 1984, the workers of paris in 1968, venezuela today, lets not forget that the black panther marxist group, in its day, was considered to be the biggest threat to american internal security.

"Maybe the developing middle class will someday generate something (remember, the old bourgeoisie was a middle class of its time), eventualy something like H.G. Wells's socialist technocratic uthopia or something totaly new, but those days are still ahead of us."

The developing middle class are not going to become anything. They will rise and fall with the bourgeoisie. Understand first the nature of the production of value. It is the workers who produce this, the capitalists who take the surplus and the middle class are but a class who cream off something from the bourgeoisie. The mercantilists of old though were fully able to exist apart from the aristocracy. This petty bourgeoisie is capable of ahistorical utopianism only.

 

"The reason that I chose those states to compare with Eastern European "Communist" countries is because they represent regions at similar stages of development. Pre-Soviet Eastern Europe was similarly semi-peasant in composition as Latin American capitalist dominated nations. The point is that your basis for the "evident" superiority of western capitalism over soviet state capitalism is constructed on an unfair comparison of the developments of backward, Tsarist Russia and already industrialised Britain or USA. I would say my comparison is therefore much fairer."

No, it's not. If you might have a point when you are talking about Russia, you don't when it comes about Eastern Europe. Some of those countries like Czechoslovakya had already a higly developed heavy industry, others were industrialising already when WW2 started. Also, the land was owned mainly by peasents and not by the great landowners who are leading class in Latin America. In the '30s Countries like Bulgaria, Romania or Yugoslavia were at the same point or even better situated then Italy, Spain and Portugal. If you wish to see what their evolution might have been without socialism, look at those European countries and not so far as Latin America.

"Indeed, Marxists have always accounted for these so called professional classes as unproductive hangers-on of the bourgeoisie (these were seen to include priests, civil servants, high class prostitutes etc.) They infact though DO NOT produce value according to the labour theory of value but only share via rent a part of the surplus value creamed from the workers."

Wrong. You should include here also independent craftsmen, small and middle farmers, the small bussinesses, yes, professionals, and I'm sorry they produce value. Heavy industry isn't the only producer of value, this is one of the greatest flaws in the marxist theory. Even the socialist countries couldn't do without professionals (doctors, engineers, lawyers). You might look at the middle class as the upper level of the labour class, but not as a bribed level of worker class. And what bribery? Both the upper capitalistic level and the lower levels of society need them.

"The workers have proven to be a very difficult class to control, more so than peasants or the young bourgeoisie. All through its history we have seen near misses. The miners in Britain in 1984, the workers of paris in 1968, venezuela today, lets not forget that the black panther marxist group, in its day, was considered to be the biggest threat to american internal security."

Most of the mouvements you qoute have nothing to do with a true class struggle. The workers never truely thought to take power, they only craved for better employment conditions. 1968 is an excellent example. The workers refused to join the marxist students. There are examples even in communism. The 1977 miners mouvements in Romania were about the same thing (also the initial action of Solidarnoscy in Poland). Revolution started in 1989 when it was clear no change is possible otherwise. Until now capitalism prouved to be more easily changeble and this made it stronger. Of course there are contradictions, society wouldn't evolve without them.

"The developing middle class are not going to become anything. They will rise and fall with the bourgeoisie. Understand first the nature of the production of value. It is the workers who produce this, the capitalists who take the surplus and the middle class are but a class who cream off something from the bourgeoisie. The mercantilists of old though were fully able to exist apart from the aristocracy. This petty bourgeoisie is capable of ahistorical utopianism only."

Again wrong. A condition for a class to take the lead is to be independent, to have some experience in working on its own. If look even Marx's analysis of history you'll see what: the earliest aristhocracies evolved from the alfa individuals of the tribe and their families, who inforced their will to the others. In time they became either slave owners as in Roman and classical Greek society, either tributal prefeudal upper class, like in ancient Asia or barbaric Europe (also Aztec and Maya cultures), either a sort of pre-socialist elite (ancient Peru). Most of those societies evolved toward feudalism and if you look at the feudal class origins you'll find again people with courage and enterprise skills who made themselves leaders of their communities. The peasants opposed many times, but they were executants unprepared to take in charge. Along the feudal class, who being too rigid grow more and more useless and tired, evolved the bourgeoisie, again independent enterprising people. This started some 600 years ago and in roughly 250 years you alrady had the first bourgeois revolution in England. The worker class, the employees of the bourgeois, developped in the same time, but where is the truely proletarian revolution? Exactly like the peasants of the Middle Ages, the workers fight for better conditions, not for power. They are executants, they wouldn't know what to do with a leading position. As a class I mean.

 

Many pro-communists tend to live in wealthy or relatively wealthy countries.

 

Sweden and Denmark, as I recall, are members of the European Union (EU), and I believe all three listed above are members of the World Trade Organization (WTO). All of the above countries have engaged in extensive trade with foreign nations, and have opened up their markets to free trade.

Another point, which is often overlooked, is the level of education of a population: the three mentioned above are very educated, and thus can adapt to this hi-tech age.

 

The thing is, capitalism is good for our standard of living, but it is not sustainable. We are at the same point that the Roman Empire and Ancient Egypt (among others) were when at their highest, also right before they collapsed...

 

i think that people who are close-minded towad communism are either greedy or ignorant, people dismiss it without even knowing the truth about how the system works, its a shame that there hasnt ever been a truly successful communist nation in the world yet. all of them have eventually had a leader rise up as a dictator, which essentially converts them to a totalitarian society. it's the job of the proletariat to make sure that nobody rises up and takes control, they are supposed to be cut back to status quo, but in most communist countries the proletariat have been blind followers and trusted a leader to guide them.