"That's the problem of society. If people cannot accept the downside of capitalism, then they should become socialist. . .they should go to eastern europe 20 years ago." - Marc Faber
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I think this well illustrates the idiocy on the right. He says that people who dont accept the downside of capitalism should travel back in time to the 1970s. What a bonehead. The downside of capitalism will always lead to revolution when it gets severe enough and there is no hope - NO MATTER HOW MANY FAILED AUTHORITARIAN COMMUNIST STATES THERE HAVE BEEN.
Your theory of this ``revolution`` is based on worker vs. capitalist. The problem is that the worker is a capitalist in a free society. Revolutions are always the people vs. the state.
"Your theory of this ``revolution`` is based on worker vs. capitalist. The problem is that the worker is a capitalist in a free society. Revolutions are always the people vs. the state."
Hi, Josh. Your reductionism is amazing. The American revolution was only partly a revolution against the state. If it was fully against the state as you say, the founders would not have set up another state after the revolution. Instead, the revolution was against the feudalist state and its policies - unfair taxes. The capitalist class had been struggling with the feudalist for centuries in England. The American revolution represented a clean break from feadalist politics and the rise of the bourgeosie. So, no, Josh, your simplistic view of events simply doesn't work.
So, has there yet been a revolution of the workers versus the capitalists? The French revolution was another revolution of the people versus the state, so was the Russian, even in Braveheart, the people versus the state. Does one government get replaced by another? Yes, but always one more representative and of less power. There is nothing in history to suggest there will ever be a revolution of the workers versus the capitalists.
"So, has there yet been a revolution of the workers versus the capitalists?"
Not sure of your point.
"The French revolution was another revolution of the people versus the state, so was the Russian, even in Braveheart, the people versus the state. Does one government get replaced by another? Yes, but always one more representative and of less power. There is nothing in history to suggest there will ever be a revolution of the workers versus the capitalists."
Yes, actually, there is. There is the American Revolution, French Revolution, Paris Commune, the long history of slave rebellions, the first round of communist revolutions and the long, sordid history of the exploitation of the regime that were overthrown. If capitalism does the same thing, history suggest that it too will be overthrown. History is the history of revolution.
Right, but the workers are not going revolt against Bill Gates, or any capitalist/entrepreneur. They revolt against the state, because it is the state that oppresses.
History is the history of revolution toward greater individual freedom, not toward communism.
"Right, but the workers are not going revolt against Bill Gates, or any capitalist/entrepreneur. They revolt against the state, because it is the state that oppresses."
I reject your conclusion that there is such a thing known as "the state" that is separate from people. The workers will revolt against the economy and against the state controlled by the capitalist class.
"History is the history of revolution toward greater individual freedom, not toward communism."
No, history is the history of class struggle, the struggle for one's freedom in context of exploitation (slaves, serfs), and the history of humanity returning to its tribal roots.
Post a Comment