ieyeasu

Newsflash--Every person in the United States, a capitalist state, can become that factory owner. The factory workers are only held by their own desire or lower degree of sentience. Even the uneducated have become wealthy in the United States.

Secondly, it is possible to with hold the product of your labor from the capitalist simply by not selling it. Is it possible, from your view, that even without the intention of mutual benefit, mutual benefit might occur?

I live in a capitalist country, and I plan on being that capitalist who creates the commodity item--despite the fact that I am now a poor person from a white trash family that works in a fast food restuarant. I am confident of my ability to do so due to two factors:

1. My success or failure is completely independant of others need for sustenance;

and

2. I have the degree of sentience to take advantage of the system.

Am I then, Bourgeoisie in the making?

moon

No, they can't. While it is true that there is some movement between classes, this is quite minimal, and always has been. There are vast barriers erected in order to prevent the poor from dragging themselves out of poverty. The reason for this is simple: capitalism requires a large pool of unskilled and semi-skilled labourers.

In the end, you have to look at the situation as it actually exists. Simply saying that a worker has the potential to become a factory owner is nonsensical. We are looking at the situation as it actually exists, where the vast majority has nothing but their labour power to sell, and they must sell it on the market in order to survive.

The question for you is, Whose side are you on? There is on ongoing fight between the workers and the owning class, broadly termed class struggle. You must chose sides; failure to chose sides is simply chosing the side of the established rulers.

ieyeasu

Well, then, seeing as how choosing the worker's side doesn't fit my bill, I guess I have to become a filthy rich bastard...

Thanks for the education of your views...In a while, I might read up and have more counter arguments--But right now, I have to work for my superiors.

Glad we were able to have a civil conversation--Hope its as civil when your revolution overthrows me.

Frankly, even middle class here in the states is pretty comfy...Can socialism provide that? Capitalism requires a great many worker bees, yes; but, under the correct guidance, capitalism creates very comfortable bees. Can socialism create wealth for all? Or is there really just not enough to satisfy all of our whims--according to moon?

John Hancock

ieyeasu
Sorry Moon's right but he doesn't know what bloodshed is. I'd like to avoid it. Of course I sometimes enjoyed it be a factory owner. A slow death is aFordable.

Martin Buber

PS using that gentleman's name in my cajoling is a bit obscene

Me and Me

Nothing

I don't judge a system by how good or bad it's believers are. I judge people by how good or bad they are. I judge economic and political programs and systems much differently and has nothing to do with it's believers.

I would still be a athiest if all believers were nice and kind and peaceful.

As for the system Capitalism, I don't like or dislike it, that is a waste of time, I look at it as an expired economic structure that is going more and more toward a socialist type of economy and seeing more and more sharp divisions and clashes between the working class. And taking from historical fact, of previous classes in societies, I recognize that they all gravitate toward each other(clash) and one has to be negated for the survival of the other. The working class being the largest will of course be the winner in this.

beyelzu

I too am not a rich man, but I am working on it. I intend to be extremely upper middle. which is a fine place to be, I started extremely poor. I wonder how many people would really support oons vision, I dont htink that very many will.

Grad Student Humanist

Play semantic games all you want, but all of those countries have democratic systems and governments which respect human rights, as opposed to those wonderful socialist utopias like Cuba, China, North Korea, etc.

99Percent

Actually capitalism itself has nothing against communism. People are still free to form their own communes and live in a communist way of life - if they want to.

In capitalism workers are completely free to start their own enterprises. They can own both the capital (machinery) and be their own bosses.

Its the communist who doesn't like capitalism and wants to overthrow it entirely, because at the root of their belief is the idea that the capitalist steal from the workers. This creates a conflict with the capitalist because for him this also means that the communist wants to steal his capital (means of production).

The real initiator of this unnecessary conflict is the communist not the capitalist.

emphryio

People have simply been indoctrinated concerning socialism.

Grad Student Humanist,

All countries that democratically elected socialists, or simply looked like they might be about to democratically elect socialists were thwarted by US intervention. Even many countries that simply were democractially electing liberal governents had the same fate.

Time after time, the CIA came in on the pretext of fighting the communist worldwide conspiracy and one way or the other destroyed democracy in these countries.

Only when the socialism came from a authoritarian regime was it secure enough to overcome US imperialism. (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, USSR, and Cuba). But they did manage to reduce Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia to a pile of rubble. They did manage to weaken Cambodia enough to allow a horrible minority faction (Kymer Rouge) to take power. And the economic sanctions against Cuba for the last 40 years have insured poverty.

But for democratically elected socialist governments it was much easier to simply overthrow said government.

This is the LAST TIME I'm giving the following links which at least give very brief summaries of the majority of the cases which I'm talking about. Buy William Blum's book Killing Hope if you want to know the entire appalling story.

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/CIAtimeline.html

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bl...Hope_page.html

BTW, Elwood lack of freedom to immigrate isn't a part of true socialism. True socialism increases freedom beyond that received from capitalism. Capitalism means the removal of government from the economy. Which also means the removal of democracy from the economy. Capitalism is more akin to a totaliarian state totally devoid of democracy.

Believing in true democracy means believing in socialism which has economic democracy. But in the current government doublespeak, capitalism is now being equated with democracy.

Krieger, thanks for the link.

Grad Student Humanist

I have many times acknowledged that the US has unjustly toppled socialist governments and have strongly condemned such actions. The US and other capitalist countries are not blameless. I am against the embargo and have signed petitions to that effect. But one thing has nothing to do with another. Castro's regime is an authoritarian dictatorship which doesn't respect the human rights of its citizens, jails political dissenters, prohibits free speech, prohibits citizens from leaving the island, curtails the free exercise of religion, and persecutes homosexuals and people with AIDS. None of this has anything to do with US imperialism which is wrong in and of itself. There are hundreds of Cubans in Cuban prisons or in exile who participated in the Revolution and then abandoned it when Castro showed his true colors. I refer you to the work of the great Cuban author Guillermo Cabrera Infante who was a one time supporter of the Revolution in the early 1960's. Another example is the brilliant novelist/poet Reynaldo Arenas who was a strong supporter of the Revolution during its early years. He was later forced to flee from Cuba during the Mariel boatlift since, as a homosexual, he was persecuted and silenced by the Castro regime. This is all documented in his autobiography. And these are but two examples.

Communists/socialists with integrity realize the moral bankruptcy of the Castro government and also condemn his and other such regimes. Perfect example: in the early 1970's Jean Paul Sartre and other socialist/leftist intellectuals condemned Castro and his regime when Castro jailed the poet Heberto Padilla for publishing Fuera del Juego, a book of poetry considered "subversive." Sartre also condemned the USSR for its actions in Eastern Europe, specifically Hungary. Sartre understood that the means don't justify the ends and I admire him for his stand much more than I admire those who (rightly) condemn the US and capitalism for its excesses and turn a blind eye to the abuses committed by communist regimes. The communist regime in Cuba evolved into a more oppressive regime as time went on. And even now, over forty years later, it is as totalitarian as ever even though it has firmly entrenched itself in power and eliminated all organized political opposition.

Castro is a dictator, plain and simple, and his regime is every bit as bad as the Batista regime which he toppled. Raising the standard of living in the country does not justify the abuses he's committed, nor does it justify the extravagant lifestyle he lives while Cubans are forced to wait in long lines in order to procure the basic necessities. So if anyone would like to argue that Castro and his regime isn't a communist one, well that would be a more honest response. But instead Cuba is held up as a model of socialist progress which discredits the communist cause and reveals the hypocrisy of its propagandists.

If there exists a communist state which hasn't oppressed its citizens and trampled on their human rights I would praise it.