new capitalism vs communism thread

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
How can you show that their position is untenable when there has never been a true Communist or socialist government.

It's called logic - you may want to practice it a little bit.

It's already been shown that Capitalism has decimated South America, the caribbean, and Africa?

There has never been a true "capitalist" (by the definition we're using, capitalist = schmooist) government either. Thus, your statement is patently false.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


Do you know of any books or links which explain how Trotsky led his men?

Here's a start:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trot...-mil/index.htm

It's from a collection of Trotsky's own writings on the subject (so not exactly impartial ). I have read a couple books on it by other authors, but I can't recall the titles... I'll do a quick google and let you know....

jon.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/index.htm

Edit: hrmm... I didn't realize that the link I posted didn't include all of his writing on the subject. The second one lists all of his online works, including several related to the military.

[Pax]

Originally posted by skywalker

It's called logic - you may want to practice it a little bit.

Your personal attack on my intelligence hurt my feelings so I'm going home. But first I voice my support for Spiffor and Azazel.

[Kuciwalker]

But first I voice my support for Spiffor and azazel.

As do I - it's fun arguing with them.

[joncha]

Originally posted by skywalker


So you want a military that is accountable, not to the people, but to itself? Unless you compell people to join the military, why should them having to take orders be a problem? The military exists to serve and defend the people, not its members.

Sorry, I wasn't clear on that. I meant accountable to both society and itself. If there is a conflict, society would decide democratically how to respond (through the council system I mentioned several pages ago). Remember, democracy would extend to all workplaces, including the barracks.

Once a course of action is decided upon, then the military would decide--again, democratically--how to act. This is the same as the US President and (theoretically, at least) Congress deciding on war and the Joint Chiefs deciding on how to do it, except that it's more democratic.

jon.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Can you give an example of a thirld country under capitalism that has prospered.

South Korea, Chile, Taiwan. The US could be considered a 'third-world' country when it was first formed.

[Pax]

Skywalker says no jacking so i'm off

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
A few questions for those who support democratic companies:

First, who decides the wages? The people doing the work, or people somewhere up in the chain (possibly even the legislature)?

In my opinion, that would be the accountable managers. A democratic company doesn't get rid of the management (much like a democratic country doesn't get rid of the government), but it makes the management accountable.

Second, can the decisions of the workers be overridden? What if they decide to just play Civ all day?

No. Just like the decisions of a Parliament shouldn't be overriden.
But in my model, the workers don't take each and every decision. WRT the company as a whole, they voice their opinion on most important issues, and they give orientations to the management. OTOH, workers should have a high say within their own department, wrt work conditions, efficiency of work, etc.

Third, should the military be similarly democratic?

I don't think so. The military, unlike any other institution, is all about immediate survival, and maximal efficiency simply in order not to get gutted.
However, much say should be given regarding the working conditions, individual demands from the soldiers should be accepted if possible, and we can imagine some extent of democracy in calmer missions.

Finally, in light of the third question, since the military is an organization that serves the state (and through it, the people), and since all of those other companies are organizations that serve the state (and people), why should the military have any different rules from the rest of them? Why should the rest of the companies have any different rules than the military? (Oh, and how would emergency services like firefighters and policement work, if there were different rules for companies and the military - like the military or like a company?)

Very few companies or public services are in the business of killing or being killed. Only the police is comparable to the military in this regard (and I don't think the police should be entirely democratic as well). Firefighters, like any other public service, should have clear objectives given by the State, but the firefighters should have as much leeway as possible in organizing themselves to reach these objectives.

[Spiffor]

Pax:
Don't be mad at Skywalker. This kind of jabs is common in the OT when people disagree. Your posting history in the OT, albeit short, has proven that you're an articulate poster with ideas worthy of being read, so don't get this kind of jabs too personally

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by joncha


Sorry, I wasn't clear on that. I meant accountable to both society and itself. If there is a conflict, society would decide democratically how to respond (through the council system I mentioned several pages ago). Remember, democracy would extend to all workplaces, including the barracks.

Once a course of action is decided upon, then the military would decide--again, democratically--how to act. This is the same as the US President and (theoretically, at least) Congress deciding on war and the Joint Chiefs deciding on how to do it, except that it's more democratic.

jon.

Why should the grunts decide strategy, rather than someone who has spent their life studying it? Remember, the point of a military isn't to be nice to its members, but rather to protect the state.

[joncha]

Originally posted by skywalker


Why should the grunts decide strategy, rather than someone who has spent their life studying it? Remember, the point of a military isn't to be nice to its members, but rather to protect the state.

Because they are the ones being asked to fight and die for it. There is also room for some give and take. There are officers. There are orders. However, those officers must have the confidence--and democratic support--of the soldiers fighting under them.

The American militia worked in a similar fashion, with elected officers. All was good, until the War of 1812. Many of the militias refused to cross into Canada for a war they cared nothing about, citing (rightly) that the role of the militia was to defend the Union from attacks, not to invade other countries. The powers-that-be changed that pretty darn quick, which basically put an end to any democratic tradition in the American military...

jon.

[Imran Siddiqui]

All was good, until the War of 1812. Many of the militias refused to cross into Canada for a war they cared nothing about, citing (rightly) that the role of the militia was to defend the Union from attacks, not to invade other countries. The powers-that-be changed that pretty darn quick, which basically put an end to any democratic tradition in the American military.

Which is why militia members should not vote on strategy. If the US could have taken a few Canadian cities, the peace could have come earlier carving a few years off the war.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Which is why militia members should not vote on strategy. If the US could have taken a few Canadian cities, the peace could have come earlier carving a few years off the war.

For conquest? I whole-heartedly agree. But that wasn't my point.

When the democratic militia system didn't fit with the aims of the elite, they turfed it for a more easily-controllable model. That's just an argument for why it should be entrenched as a right.

jon

[Pax]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Pax:
Don't be mad at Skywalker. This kind of jabs is common in the OT when people disagree. Your posting history in the OT, albeit short, has proven that you're an articulate poster with ideas worthy of being read, so don't get this kind of jabs too personally

No,
I was just joking

[Az]

^^^^
Bump

[Ned]

On vacation to American, one day Karl Marx asked a Southern slave owner to describe the enconomic conditions of a slave. The Southerner replied,

"From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."

And the rest is history.

[Az]

That's brilliant, Ned. did you think of it yourself?

[Provost Harrison]

Get real Az

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
On vacation to American, one day Karl Marx asked a Southern slave owner to describe the enconomic conditions of a slave. The Southerner replied,

"From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."

And the rest is history.

I've read a biography of Karl Marx, and I almost swear that he has never been to America. I could be wrong. Anyone know this?

[Provost Harrison]

It's true Tripledoc! Ben said so!

[Az]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Get real Az

Arghh! commie POS!

[Provost Harrison]

Got a problem with that

[Az]

no, actually.

[Ned]

You know, what you commies are talking about here seem more like what I understand to be the philosophy of Students for a Demcocatic Society. Communism, at least Marx's communism, required state ownership of the means of production. Thus all prior examples had this feature.

But SDS's seem to believe in common property and democratic decision making at the lowest levels.

BTW, the Roman Army was in a way the prototype army of your discussion. It decided by units who was to be their commander - thier Imperator. Ultimately, this Army, and not the people, determined all affairs of the Empire.

[curtsibling]

The main thing about commie students is that few of them are willing to do a day's work.

That is where the West and it's emphasis commerce actually works.

People work to better their lives.

In communism, people work to the end of their lives.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
BTW, the Roman Army was in a way the prototype army of your discussion. It decided by units who was to be their commander - thier Imperator. Ultimately, this Army, and not the people, determined all affairs of the Empire.

Yes but that was when the Roman Empire was in decline, when the Republic was so corrupt, it had seized to exist. At that point the Roman Army was no longer a people's army. It was a band of mercenaries from near and afar who had not a single red drop of patriotism in their veins.

A communist army is a people's army motivated by patriotism to defend the homeland.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by curtsibling
The main thing about commie students is that few of them are willing to do a day's work.

Why should Communists work to uphold the Capitalist order?

The main weapon of the working class is the strike. The communist considers himself in a perpetual state of strike until the Capitalists have realized their folly.

[Az]

Why should Communists work to uphold the Capitalist order?

Now that's a load of crap.

[Ned]

Tripledoc, some would say that the Roman Army control of society caused the decline.

[Tripledoc]

Did you know that in Europe alone 100.000 workers, and possibly their families too, are going to die, because they were told asbestos is a safe building material.

Asbestos is so dangerous that when the women washed their men's working clothes, the micro fibres would get into their lungs too.