Marxism 101: Socialism and Communism

[etienne]

The average American employee works entirely too much and has absolutely nothing to show for it.  The problem with America is that it overworks people merely for the one percent to remain rich.

That is a 100% true statement.  But just remember, capitalism in the 3rd World is far worse, materially, for the average worker(slave).  ~663 million people, globally, ~1 in 10, lack access to safe water.

Water Facts:  http://water.org/water-crisis/water-sanitation-facts/

[Gilgamesh]

Does capitalism inherently cause the 3rd world to be in the condition it's in? Can capitalism exist without doing that?

[etienne]

Does capitalism inherently cause the 3rd world to be in the condition it's in? Can capitalism exist without doing that?

(See posts 282/283 & watch vid, it explains it perfectly)

But no, capitalism cannot exist w/o slavery which is an economic category essential to they system for primitive accumulation in particular, but not exclusively.  Euro industrial capitalism could not have happened w/o the invasion/colonialisation of Africa, then India, then they got into China(Opium Wars) and S America and the New World, SE Asia, etc.  The US has taken off from that, in particular requiring African slaves to build the cotton/textile industry which was the foundation of US economic development.  Without that, the US as we know it, wouldnt have happened.

Most of the slaves and resources come from the 3rd World, the "South"(hemisphere) and Europe and the US("North") could not exist w/o that labor and resources.  Capitalism always need slaves as a fundamental economic category to function.  They tend to call it "human trafficking" or "sweatshop labor" these days.

The concentration of surplus value in the form of profits is what drives capitalism.  Remove that and capitalism collapses and you remove slavery and 3rd Worldism.  But that means you essentially have to have a socialist revolution.

[Sylar]

Does capitalism inherently cause the 3rd world to be in the condition it's in? Can capitalism exist without doing that?

I assume the 'condition' of third world that you are talking about is in reference to low wage and terrible working conditions of employees in third world countries, and the exploitation of natural resources by industrialized countries.

Capitalism, with respect to that, can exist for it is not the cause of this condition. Does it contribute to it? Sure, but it is not the root cause. Corporations of industrialized countries are able to exploit third world workers and natural resources because they can. They can, not because of capitalism, but because of sociopolitical situation in those respective countries. The British occupied India for 400 years, but they would not have been able to had there not been local accomplices. In corporate sense, American corporations are able to build factories and employ low-wage workers in terrible working conditions because local government allows them to do so, usually at a profit. Local corruption and lack of solid governance is the root cause of terrible third world conditions.

You want to talk slavery, how about working conditions in Soviet Union:

Working conditions for a Soviet worker changed over time; for instance, at the beginning of the Communist regime the government pursued a policy of worker participation at the enterprise level.[8] During Joseph Stalin's crash-industrialisation drive, workers lost their right to participate in the functioning of the enterprise, and their working conditions deteriorated.[8] In 1940, for example, a decree was promulgated and became law stating that a worker could be arrested if he had three accumulated absences, late arrivals or changed jobs without the official authorisation.[8] Shock work, which meant that workers had to work past regular hours, was introduced alongside central planning.[8] During World War II the pressure on workers increased and it was expected of them to take on Herculean efforts in their work.[8] In the post-war years conditions did not improve but in fact worsened in some cases.[8] For instance, small theft became illegal; this had been allowed for several years to compensate for workers' low salaries.[8] The situation for the common worker improved during the post-Stalin years, and some of the worst measures approved by the Stalin regime to improve worker productivity were repealed.[8] Because of the lack of a stick and carrot policy under the Brezhnev administration, worker productivity and discipline decreased during the 1970s.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_working_class#Standard_of_living

All this in return for allowance from government, set at the helm. Not by your skill set -- by a government bureaucrat. You are slave to the government, in essence. No freedom to change jobs or pursue the life you want.

[etienne]

I assume the 'condition' of third world that you are talking about is in reference to low wage and terrible working conditions of employees in third world countries, and the exploitation of natural resources by industrialized countries.

Capitalism, with respect to that, can exist for it is not the cause of this condition.* Does it contribute to it? Sure, but it is not the root cause. Corporations of industrialized countries are able to exploit third world workers and natural resources because they can. They can, not because of capitalism, but because of sociopolitical situation in those respective countries**. The British occupied India for 400 years, but they would not have been able to had there not been local accomplices***. In corporate sense, American corporations are able to build factories and employ low-wage workers in terrible working conditions ****because local government allows them to do so, usually at a profit. Local corruption and lack of solid governance is the root cause of terrible third world conditions.
_________________________________________

* Wrong.  Capitalism necessitates slavery or low wage slavery as an economic category.  It is the cause.

**The sociopolitical situation stems from, grows out of the capitalistic economic situation.  Hand in glove.

***The "local accomplices" are also capitalists.  The countries are capitalist.

****The corporations wouldn't even be there in the 1st place if it were not able to use the local slaves and or low wage slaves, because slavery is an economic category of capitalism.

[Sylar]

Hey, I thought I was blacklisted. Welp, I think I might just rejoin that list after this.

* Wrong.  Capitalism necessitates slavery or low wage slavery as an economic category.  It is the cause.

Nothing wrong with low-wage so long it is a living wage. It is common sense to differentiate between wages earned by a factory worker and a doctor; both are necessary for society to function as it does, but one profession utilizes much more skill than the other. You categorize it as "slavery" but it cannot be more far off. Slavery is when these people have no choice in their job or career choice (notwithstanding residual impacts of historical events on contemporary communities, e.g. slavery and segregation policies, and economic plight of African Americans), like what happens in communist utopias. In capitalist society, you can strive to earn any wage you desire by developing the appropriate skillset. It is a system that incentivises ambition. It is the system that most resembles human nature and that's the reason why it is the dominant system, has been and will always be.

Many problems with capitalism, communism solves none of them without creating even bigger problems and we've got historic experiments in communism gone wrong to prove it.

Aren't you glad that you live in a capitalist society where you have the freedom to criticize it in favor of communist totalitarianism? If you were living in a communist society and dared to criticize it, you'd be so deep in a black hole not even your mother would remember she birthed you.

**The sociopolitical situation stems from, grows out of the capitalistic economic situation.  Hand in glove.

Not necessarily. Existence of poor communist states proves so. Venezuela: socialist and poor. Cuba: communist and very poor. North Korea: communist and poor as fuuuuuck.

More importantly, people in all three of these states are doing much, much worse than even the worst in capitalist states. Tell us, would you rather live in social democratic Sweden or in communist North Korea, considering you criticized the former's brand of socialism as 'capitalism'?

***The "local accomplices" are also capitalists.

Could be, or they can simply be corrupt government bureaucrats looking to make a quick buck without having anything to do with "means of production".

****The corporations wouldn't even be there in the 1st place if it were not able to use the local slaves and or low wage slaves, because slavery is an economic category of capitalism.

We need to remember what "low wage" means. It is a highly relative term, and those who are less wealthy will always exist. Those who are relatively poor have less skills and qualifications, and therefore are more prone to hold low wage jobs.

But does capitalism need low wage jobs for it to exist? The above remark that companies move to third world countries because labor is cheaper may make it seem true, but there is hardly any 'slavery' involved here. The people aren't slaves, they're voluntarily taking the job and generally making enough to live, a consistency of income that make working these jobs considerably more attractive than the alternative. I do not dispute that working conditions may be bad, but people are making the choice to work in those conditions because the alternative is even worse.

Consider this analogy. I am fortunate to have a job and job etiquette requires me to be well-groomed and clean, which involves taking a shower every day. I have a shower and a bathtub in my apartment, but I prefer to use the shower as it is quicker, more convenient, and wastes less water. I use it because it is there, but do I need it? No. I can easily just use the bathtub.

Similarly. companies may use low wage labor, but they do not need it. Evidence of this lies in the fact that companies aren't drawn to the cheapest labor, which would probably be some of the poorest African nations. These countries are too risky, with unstable governments, high degree of corruption, lack of law and order, etc. They seek stable and reliable countries with relatively low wage labor, but certainly not the lowest wage labor they can find.

Even more damning is the fact that low wage labor ultimately discourages innovation. Innovation requires long-term risk, but if you've got all the low wage labor you need then why delve into this risk at all? If labor was expensive, then there is an advantage to innovate new technology to do the job faster with less man hours, and productivity and overall wealth would increase. Admittedly, capitalism doesn't need innovation anymore than it needs low wage labor, but speaking in the long-term innovation is highly important for increased wealth. Innovation is something capitalism is particularly good at encouraging and taking advantage of, which disproves your claim that "capitalism cannot exist without low wage slavery."

Friendly tip for you: less dogma, more critical thinking.

[Baruch]

Per De Toqueville ... Americans are never poor, they are temporarily embarrassed millionaires .. the delusion!

[etienne]

Hey, I thought I was blacklisted. Welp, I think I might just rejoin that list after this.

Nothing wrong with low-wage so long it is a living wage. It is common sense to differentiate between wages earned by a factory worker and a doctor; both are necessary for society to function as it does, but one profession utilizes much more skill than the other. You categorize it as "slavery" but it cannot be more far off. Slavery is when these people have no choice in their job or career choice (notwithstanding residual impacts of historical events on contemporary communities, e.g. slavery and segregation policies, and economic plight of African Americans), like what happens in communist utopias. In capitalist society, you can strive to earn any wage you desire by developing the appropriate skillset. It is a system that incentivises ambition. It is the system that most resembles human nature and that's the reason why it is the dominant system, has been and will always be.

Many problems with capitalism, communism solves none of them without creating even bigger problems and we've got historic experiments in communism gone wrong to prove it.

Aren't you glad that you live in a capitalist society where you have the freedom to criticize it in favor of communist totalitarianism? If you were living in a communist society and dared to criticize it, you'd be so deep in a black hole not even your mother would remember she birthed you.

Not necessarily. Existence of poor communist states proves so. Venezuela: socialist and poor. Cuba: communist and very poor. North Korea: communist and poor as fuuuuuck.

More importantly, people in all three of these states are doing much, much worse than even the worst in capitalist states. Tell us, would you rather live in social democratic Sweden or in communist North Korea, considering you criticized the former's brand of socialism as 'capitalism'?

Could be, or they can simply be corrupt government bureaucrats looking to make a quick buck without having anything to do with "means of production".

We need to remember what "low wage" means. It is a highly relative term, and those who are less wealthy will always exist. Those who are relatively poor have less skills and qualifications, and therefore are more prone to hold low wage jobs.

But does capitalism need low wage jobs for it to exist? The above remark that companies move to third world countries because labor is cheaper may make it seem true, but there is hardly any 'slavery' involved here. The people aren't slaves, they're voluntarily taking the job and generally making enough to live, a consistency of income that make working these jobs considerably more attractive than the alternative. I do not dispute that working conditions may be bad, but people are making the choice to work in those conditions because the alternative is even worse.

Consider this analogy. I am fortunate to have a job and job etiquette requires me to be well-groomed and clean, which involves taking a shower every day. I have a shower and a bathtub in my apartment, but I prefer to use the shower as it is quicker, more convenient, and wastes less water. I use it because it is there, but do I need it? No. I can easily just use the bathtub.

Similarly. companies may use low wage labor, but they do not need it. Evidence of this lies in the fact that companies aren't drawn to the cheapest labor, which would probably be some of the poorest African nations. These countries are too risky, with unstable governments, high degree of corruption, lack of law and order, etc. They seek stable and reliable countries with relatively low wage labor, but certainly not the lowest wage labor they can find.

Even more damning is the fact that low wage labor ultimately discourages innovation. Innovation requires long-term risk, but if you've got all the low wage labor you need then why delve into this risk at all? If labor was expensive, then there is an advantage to innovate new technology to do the job faster with less man hours, and productivity and overall wealth would increase. Admittedly, capitalism doesn't need innovation anymore than it needs low wage labor, but speaking in the long-term innovation is highly important for increased wealth. Innovation is something capitalism is particularly good at encouraging and taking advantage of, which disproves your claim that "capitalism cannot exist without low wage slavery."

Friendly tip for you: less dogma, more critical thinking.

I figured since you actually wrote something, I'd read it.  "E" for effort..

*NEWS FLASH!  Knock-knock, anybody home?  Are you in there SyLAR?!  Guess what?  They ain't no fing "living wage" for SLAVES, you d-bag, wow, get a life.  Jesus Christ on a Scooter, 1st Worlders suck.  Slaves are slaves, they are "human trafficked".  Un fing real. 

*Shit gets innovated regardless of capitalism. 

*Keep "grooming"...on Iggy Island.

*Where coltan comes from:  "Democratic Republic" of Congo:

Plight of African child slaves forced into mines - for our mobile phones

http://www.laborrights.org/in-the-news/plight-african-child-slaves-forced-mines-our-mobile-phones

[etienne]

It is impossible to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends upon his not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair

[Atheon]

你不能从中文菜单订购？
Nǐ bùnéng cóng zhōngwén càidān dìnggòu?

I can.

Tip: if you're in a Chinese restaurant and the menu is only in Chinese, order the first item on the menu. It's the house specialty.

By the way, traditional characters are a lot prettier:
你不能從中文菜單è¨,購？

[etienne]

For the hard-of-thinking(brain challenged) 1st Worlders:

Subthread:  Where Your 1st World Shit Comes From

--Computers, cell phones, digital tvs, all digital electronics:

Coltan/Capacitors

Coltan (short for columbiteâ€"tantalite and known industrially as tantalite) is a dull black metallic ore from which the elements niobium and tantalum are extracted. The niobium-dominant mineral in coltan is columbite (after niobium's original American name, columbium), and the tantalum-dominant mineral is tantalite....Approximately 71% of global tantalum supply in 2008 was newly mined...Tantalum minerals are mined in Democratic Republic of Congo(64%), Africa.... tantalum capacitors are used in almost every kind of electronic device.

Congolese work for only $1 per day.  It is laborious, as miners walk for days in the forest to the ore, scratch it with hand tools and pan it....many Congolese leave farming because they need money quickly and cannot wait for crops to grow....Once their food is taken away or they can no longer grow food, people resort to mining to sustain themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coltan

Slavery is an economic category of capitalism


(I'll add to this subthread as we go)

[etienne]

I can.

Tip: if you're in a Chinese restaurant and the menu is only in Chinese, order the first item on the menu. It's the house specialty.

By the way, traditional characters are a lot prettier:
你不能從中文菜單è¨,購？

Hold it!  Wait a minute!  Did I just witness someone "one-up" The Spin(oza) Doctor?!  RE CHINA!?  Oh, this is going to get interesting!

[Baruch]

Atheon lives in Taiwan, and they use traditional characters there.  Spin isn't a problem, if you are a prima ballerina ;-))  I try to get people to stop choking on their own vomit ... would you prefer I use the Heimlich on you?

[Baruch]

Does capitalism inherently cause the 3rd world to be in the condition it's in? Can capitalism exist without doing that?

People have a higher standard of living, because they are lucky with parents or spouse ... or because of depredations of ancestors (see royalty).  Jealousy is what it is.  Individualist maniacs think they earned that all on their own, they feel entitled.  The individual does contribute ... if you don't move the food from the plate to your mouth, you might starve ;-0  But individualists are narcissists ... insane.  Hydrophobes aren't crazy about water, you can drown ... but the likelihood of that in the shower in the morning, is small.

[Baruch]

Applies to every ape man.  It isn't a matter of class.