Post by ulstersocialist on Aug 2, 2008 6:52:40 GMT -5
leninsbane said:
By declaring Stalins system as "State Capitalism", you are declaring it a species of capitalism. If Stalin was a regression to czarist Russia, then he was a qusi feudalist, not a capitalist of any kind. Logic is Logic. Stalis did not allow private ownership, therefore there was no capitalism in Russia. Capitalism without private ownership...is not capitalism.
dont give me species. Going back to my bolshevism analogy, national bolsheviks have more in tune with fascists than they do with us. We will never work with them, it is a very different analogy.
Same way with anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism. They are worlds apart.
leninsbane said:
If you apply the term "Capitalism" of any sort post-Leninist Russia, with he absence of private ownership, and regardless of your own admission that he resembled czarist Russia, then you are intransigient.
no, because operating communism with a class system of any flavour is equally oxymoronic to operating communism with private ownership.
leninsbane said:
Simple. The pursuit of profit has lowered poverty and brought more prosperity to more people than any other system. According to your view, if I pay you 50.00 to catch some fish and then I sell the fish for 55.00, this is somehow an injustice.
such a generous proportion in favour of the worker seldom works in practice. Besides, it still dodges the argument that the fisherman put all the work in anyway.
leninsbane said:
Is nothing but willfull ignorance. Millions have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. They are not a "rigid" minority, lowerclasses frequently ascend to higher ones and vice versa.
but they still constitute a tiny tiny minority. Their compartive success is not reason enough for the misery of the majority.
leninsbane said:
You have not shown yourself capable of exposing any straw men. And I think any economist would be obscure to you. Look him up...1905...the LTV died before it started.
That doesnt let him off the hook for making an impossible prediction. As for the rest, if you really think that capitalism is sustained by media, internet and Fascists, perhaps its you who needs to explain.
actually, i think you'll find that 99.9% of the media is owned by wealthy capitalists. Also history shows that in times of crisis, the capitalists will turn to the fascists of a means of suppressing trade unionism and communist descent. Hence why Hitler got off so lightly after the Munich Putsch despite causing the death of 4 policemen.
Trotsky referred to fascism as 'the beourgiose battering ram'.
leninsbane said:
This is true. But all you did was offer an elaboration of my analogy. It was not a rebuttal to the idea of class consciousness rendering certain ideas irredeemable just for the fact they are espoused by a certain class.
You were dismissive of the extent to which class division lies though. As i said before, with all but the exception of a tiny minority it is the greater proportion of the proletarian living in comparitive misery.
You make the inter-class medium to be some sort of golden elevator when in fact it is an eye of a needle.
I will answer the rest of this later, i have to go and work for a theiving profit hungry capitalist now...
:
