Marx Was Right All Along

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#81
Absolutely not, it was not capitalism because it was fair trade, there was no capital being gained.
Well, objectively speaking, no...but they wouldn't be trading if both didn't feel they were getting back something they wanted/needed. They needed/wanted such item for their own GAIN.

Humans are social creatures, we are social by design. It was essential in the survival of mankind to work together, not against eachother for personal gain.
Well, I agree with this half-heartedly. I do agree that humans are social creatures, however working together can be misconstrued. If a group works together against another group, than this deflates the purpose...and personal gain = gain for that group.

That's basically the exact same shit I wrote just worded differently. What happens when you give both those kids shiny new objects, rather than just one?
The seed of capitalism is planted?
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#84
Absolutely not, it was not capitalism because it was fair trade, there was no capital being gained.

I disagree. Capitalism and fair trade are not mutually exclusive, and capital was gained because neither side will make a trade unless they feel they are gaining something in the transaction.


That's basically the exact same shit I wrote just worded differently. What happens when you give both those kids shiny new objects, rather than just one?


1 - Analogously: A never ending amplifying cycle were everyone must have everything in order to eliminate feelings of jealousy or envy, without any regard for the limitations of resources.

Which can even be seen today, where things like transportation, tvs, phones, refrigerators, health care, etc are all moving towards "necessities".

2 - In that actual scenario: usually a cycle trading off of wanting whatever object the other has at the given time.

I am sure everyone here has seen that. You give Kid A a toy and the other one gets jealous. So you give the EXACT same toy to Kid B, but no, they want the one the other kid A has lol. So you give Kid B something else, now Kid A wants what Kid B has.
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#85
Due to a major blunder in my Mod abilities (or lack thereof), haha, this post is actually 2-0-Sixx.....
See? All you communist bastards are the same! You want to censor and crontol us!!!!!!!!!!

:lick:

Do you agree or disagree with the statement, conditions create consciousness?
I beleive conditions can SWAY conciousness and force us to see thigns differently, however the word SWAY is key here, meaning that before an option was presented, we were in a mind set of something different...that is what i was referring to in ther temrs of nature. We ARE something by nature...but can be SWAYED by nurture.

Keep point in bold. this statement basically is denying human evolution and social evolution, as if we are stuck with the same mind set since the beginning and until the end of time.
See above.

Yes, absolutely. It was only 30 years ago when revolutionary consciousness existed in the US and throughout the world. As the economy continues to worsen, as the global trends continue, poverty increases, etc., so to will the level of consciousness of man, the workers. Real change will be demanded, not asked for.
I would love to see that day come.

The capitalist system that exists today cannot survive forever. I'm not saying it wont exist for another 50 years, because it most likely will, however it cannot maintain. It wont collapse on it's own, no matter how bad things get, it will need to eventually be pushed by the people.
Agreed.

In order for there ever to be a push, several things need to occur to reach that point - such as the want and desire of the people for real change (and in order for that to occur, things will have to get worse (which they will)).
I feel that people have wanted change since the 60's, as you have shown. It is 2009 and still, nothing.

If the working class does not eventually succeed in revolution and creating a democratic socialist society, the humanity will descend into chaos and brought back into barbarism (lots of the world already has in fact such as places in africa and asia).
In bold is the main thesis to this debate, IMO. You are correct...but how long? We keep waiting and waiting and waiting...still, nothing. Not to mention, the government has done a FINE job keeping the "sheep in the herd" so to speak. Can we agree on that ("Socialism BAD...make lots of money GOOD!)"?

I understand what you are saying and I tend to agree with it. I am only keeping what is already here in front of you so you can see that change has yet to happen in similar times of dispair (even if it is worse, the situation is still somewhat the same, ie shitty economy, poverty, high unemployment rate).

Ever heard the saying "everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die"? Kind of the same principle here...people want change, but no one is doing a goddamn thing about it.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#86
I feel that people have wanted change since the 60's, as you have shown. It is 2009 and still, nothing.
Not true at all. The revolutionary consciousness that existed in the 60's/70's changed a lot! The people demanded change and received change in return (not all of it, but some). Equal rights, an END to the Vietnam war, etc. All of that was accomplished by the people of the US and abroad (it truly was world wide). It wasn't a socialist revolution by any means, but a revolutionary state of mind nonetheless.

The reason it did not progress further is complicated, many reasons (for one the leadership of those movements, for the most part, were not revolutionary enough). Also due in part because the ruling class gave in to a number of the demands of the people, such as equal rights and ultimately ending the Vietnam war. I mean, more progressive changes occurred under Nixon than almost any other recent president, not because Nixon was some progressive leader, but because he (they) were forced to give in on a number of issues because of the very real threat of a complete revolution.



In bold is the main thesis to this debate, IMO. You are correct...but how long? We keep waiting and waiting and waiting...still, nothing. Not to mention, the government has done a FINE job keeping the "sheep in the herd" so to speak. Can we agree on that ("Socialism BAD...make lots of money GOOD!)"?
Yes, here in the states. But you must think globally too. The US isn't the world. How long? Who knows comrade. That all really depends on how much longer the US is able to continue as we are today. I'm sure the Iraqi oil (those trillions of dollars of untapped reserves) and invading Iran will extend the lifespan by a few decades at least. But what occurs in the rest of the world can also directly effect the US as well.

I don't really concern with my lifetime though. I'm looking at much larger picture. Like Marx didn't say this and this would happen in his lifetime, he accurately predicted what would happen a hundred years later. That's why I wanted you to try to look at the timeline of mankind and try to look at the larger picture, 50 years from now, 100, 1,000. Of course mankind will change. Of course society and consciousness will change, it is the inevitable. You are stuck in today's world, right now, today's level of thinking and understanding. But look throughout history how things change. Some times gradual, sometimes rather rapidly.


Ever heard the saying "everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die"? Kind of the same principle here...people want change, but no one is doing a goddamn thing about it.
I disagree. Millions of people across the world try to make a difference. Revolutions occur all the time. And things take time, little by little things change, it doesn't come over night. Even the Bolsheviks in Russia it took them over 25 years of fighting for revolution. The FARC rebels have been fighting a revolution for over 40 years, they are still fighting.