JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
I don't understand what you're getting at here...? Are you talking about family planning and how it relates to finite resources? If so, I don't see how it could lead to genocide, no.
Black People And Capitalism DON'T Mix
- Thread starter Medicate
- Start date
I don't understand what you're getting at here...? Are you talking about family planning and how it relates to finite resources? If so, I don't see how it could lead to genocide, no.
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
Just to address a misconception about socialism/communism... it is not the condition of the state owning everything and handling distribution. That is a form of state capitalism.
Socialism/communism has to do with the ownership of the means of production moving from the hands of capitalists to the hands of the workers, and through that, the abolishing of classes (everyone becomes a worker) and the dissolution of the state (an instrument of bourgeois class rule over workers). In effect, it means worker ownership and operation of enterprises. Socialism/communism address the central contradiction of capitalism, which is the exploitation of the working class through the extraction of surplus value (the difference between the value a worker creates and the wages he/she receives). This is a fairly good breakdown as a starting point.
Given my earlier mention of models of market socialism, it is interesting to consider whether or not such a system would be a transitional step to communism (a stateless, classless society with free access to resources and goods) or the best we can do. At the end of the day, what is the real argument for bosses, and why should the working class tolerate this exploitation (the extraction of surplus value) inherent in the system? On a side note I also think that the internet could solve a big part of the availability of information problem with central planning.
At the end of the day, it is impossible to perfectly map out a socioeconomic system. I'm sure there will be a diverse set of socialisms/communisms in the world, just as there are a variety of capitalisms (private, state, crony, etc.). Some will work better than others and the weaker ones fall out of favor. Some could be market-based, essentially with worker co-ops as their backbone. Maybe others will operate on the basis of from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. But the central contradiction of capitalism will have to be addressed, one way or another.
This is the big argument of the 20th century and Karl Marx lost, FYI
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
History is not over. I'm sure pro-slavery advocates were saying this to anti-slavery activists at the beginning of the 1800s. "We had this debate in the 1700s, we still have slavery, you lost"Out of curiosity -- are you a wage laborer, i.e., do you go to work and receive a paycheck from your employer? Or are you self-employed or do you own a firm with employees?
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
I'm sure that anti slavery activists were saying the same thing and we still are to pro slavery advocates after they had lost the war
There was a war and you lost
Stop being nosy, that's the problem with socialists
Of this 7 billion, how many are currently working class and live in poverty and insecurity? The vast majority. And this is under global capitalism.
Life under socialism would be materially worse for the bourgeoisie just as life without white privilege/supremacy would be worse for. But for the vast, vast majority of people, life would improve significantly.
which country?
30,000 in the US makes you in the global 1%
Lets talk facts, my dude
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
Does everything just go over your head?
Let me break it down for you. When I said history isn't over, I meant that the future is unknown and something you write off as impossible today can very well happen tomorrow. In 1800, pro-slavery advocates may have legitimately thought they were on the right side of history, having beaten back anti-slavery noise from the American War for Independence-era. But the contradictions in the system tore apart the institution of slavery less than 70 years later.
The contradictions will be resolved somehow. The contradictions inherent in capitalism aren't going anywhere. And history isn't over yet.
If you aren't working class, then your position makes sense. Opposing socialism is in your material interests
But you are misguided and delusional if you are working class and oppose socialism. You act in a way that opposes your material interests.innovation doesn't happen when collectivism is in place.
Where are you getting this idea that there wouldn't be mass production? Holy fukk. And how many people around the world are dying of hunger, freezing to death, etc. NOW?
How many children are dying of starvation every single day in a capitalist world?
Capitalism creates (when regulated) enough inequality to spur innovation and YES some inequality.
this thread is why the CIA essentially had to go around murking people after WWII 
a lot of dummies out here
a lot of dummies out here
why aren't you focusing on regulations, not capitalism itself?Does everything just go over your head?
Let me break it down for you. When I said history isn't over, I meant that the future is unknown and something you write off as impossible today can very well happen tomorrow. In 1800, pro-slavery advocates may have legitimately thought they were on the right side of history, having beaten back anti-slavery noise from the American War for Independence-era. But the contradictions in the system tore apart the institution of slavery less than 70 years later.
The contradictions will be resolved somehow. The contradictions inherent in capitalism aren't going anywhere. And history isn't over yet.
If you aren't working class, then your position makes sense. Opposing socialism is in your material interests
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
which country?
30,000 in the US makes you in the global 1%
Lets talk facts, my dude
As I explained earlier in the thread, class does not boil down to income, but rather the relationship to the means of production.
I will grant that the working class in imperialist countries receives some benefit from imperialism, which the bourgeoisie grants to help hinder working class unity on a global level. It also dampens class struggle within the imperialist countries.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your last two sentences...like I understand the words, but I don't understand what you're trying to say
Lets not make these sorts of facile arguments brehs
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
Does everything just go over your head?
Let me break it down for you. When I said history isn't over, I meant that the future is unknown and something you write off as impossible today can very well happen tomorrow. In 1800, pro-slavery advocates may have legitimately thought they were on the right side of history, having beaten back anti-slavery noise from the American War for Independence-era. But the contradictions in the system tore apart the institution of slavery less than 70 years later.
The contradictions will be resolved somehow. The contradictions inherent in capitalism aren't going anywhere. And history isn't over yet.
If you aren't working class, then your position makes sense. Opposing socialism is in your material interests
i dont see what makes you think its over my head?
first of all there is no logical reason to think pro slavery advocates had won or where on the right side of history, slavery was a controversial topic starting from the continental congress, it was a long running dispute with no end in site, the civil war was just the final outcome of the controversy and the question of slavery in the us was never answered until the end of the civil war
the notion that the question of slavery was ever settled before 1865 is a falsehood or ignorance
nobody is disputing that capitalism has problems, what has been decided is that socialism is not the alternative and its not the answer to those problems, except for a few diehards like yourself the battle between socialism and capitalism has been settled with capitalism thoroughly winning
nothing you are saying changes the fact that your ideas are 100 years old and are the basis of decrepit collapsed systems that belong in the dustbin of history like the USSR, communist China, north korea, cuba and tanzania
if there is something better than capitalism, the person that will think of it is probably being born right now, but its definitely not something that was written 100 years ago by karl marx
If you aren't working class, then your position makes sense. Opposing socialism is in your material interests
that isnt my logic, im responding to the thread title and im saying that if black people dont like capitalism they should make sure they dont embrace something worse than capitalism like socialism
socialism is decrepit discredited system fromthe 20th century that will not give black people the tools to compete in a capitalistic world, and will leave black people poorer and more oppressed than we already are
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
So your position is that people need the threat of starvation and death constantly hanging over their heads for us to have innovation...?
How many potential innovations are lost because of people dying of hunger, inability to get an education, or even working in socially unproductive or otherwise undesirable (for those individuals) sectors and functions? There were some articles written on the large number of highly educated graduates going into finance, sucking talent out of things like engineering and medicine. Partly due to the extraordinary increases in tuition in the resultant student loan crisis (students go where pay is highest, not necessarily where they want to work... or even what they have the most skill and aptitude for).
Because capitalism is the root issue. I am not interested in piecemeal scraps or band-aids.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your last two sentences...like I understand the words, but I don't understand what you're trying to say
Lets not make these sorts of facile arguments brehs
You can read this for more context and information, particularly the 5th-to-last paragraph.
Slavery was controversial at the time, but it was a firmly entrenched institution. No one really saw it going anywhere in the near future. Yes, the Civil War was the final outcome of the controversy because the contradictions of the institution of slavery tore it apart at the seams, after 300 years.
Who decided that socialism is not the alternative? This is just like saying, oh, slavery wasn't abolished by 1800, so that shows that emancipation was not the alternative ("maybe just a gentler form of slavery is the solution. Stop whipping slaves and there won't be any class conflict between the slaveholders and the enslaved. It's the best that we can hope for!"). You're taking an arbitrary point in time (2014) and making this the end of history. History waxes and wanes. If the contradictions are still there, they will exacerbate and calm at various times throughout history. But they will have to be resolved at some point because the problems they cause will keep cropping up...
I mean, you can call it what you want. I defined socialism/communism earlier as worker's control of enterprises. If there's something out there that gets rid of the fundamental contradiction in capitalism (exploitation of workers through the extraction of surplus value) that isn't what I described and no one has thought of it yet (
)... then okay. Maybe that is what will take hold and handle this class contradiction.The choice is between socialism and barbarism and everyday now we see the world getting more barbaric, more people suffering and dying as the contradictions of capitalism become more exacerbated. You can say "your ideas are old" until you're blue in the face, but class analysis of history and society is as scientific and correct as social science gets. Newton and Einstein's ideas are also old. Doesn't mean they're wrong
. People come into conflict over resources and you can identify distinct classes based on their relationship to the means of production. You can also identify their material interests based on this relationship and explain and predict behavior from it.
Did you read what you linked?
Creating unions and organizing unions in a capitalist economy is similar to mass production in a social economy how? Not only are all the examples on a small scale but many of those countries subsidized their economies by raping the third world. You have yet to explain the incentive of highly educated, highly skilled people to work in the unfavorable conditions that come with working these kinds of jobs (power plants, rice fields, sweatshops)? Its like you lack any understanding of basic human psychology. And ironically, any technique that can sustain 7 billion people is a product of innovation spurred by capitalism.