Originally Posted by
power to the people
I had suspected that you were not actually human, but an invertebrate that had somehow managed to learn English, learn to handle a computer, and find WuTang-Corp. Now I know for sure that you're spineless.
You lay your trust in a class of people whose economic gains are not yours or mine, but their own. A class that expropriate profits to themselves while socializing the losses through taxpayer bailouts. Their profits are inherently our losses for the very reason that the value they extract is stolen from our labour as workers. We as workers, through our compliance, have them exploit us with the very means of production (factory, machines) that we built ourselves.
Today, companies overproduce clothing and tear it to shreds if it won't sell; we have grain companies that dump inventory into the ocean so as to not give away or give cheaply; we have bookstores that set books ablaze so as to not drive the price of their own profits down. The rich overproduce and destroy while the poor, who couldn't have helped being born into a poor family, see nothing from this system of commodity overproduction.
In America, the top 1% wealthiest own more capital than the bottom 95% combined. The top 1% also own more than 44% of all American assets. How many do you think earned the position through their own work and how many were born into it? They were all born into it. Just as the poor and homeless you see today were born into their economic position - except they outnumber the rich a million to one.
So with such disproportionality in this system of "equal playing field", how does one justify capitalistic inheritance of wealth/poverty? The market, as it stands, is fully in the favour and affixed to the benefit of only the same bourgeois lines that have been in existance for centuries. Many of these lines existed even times of feudalism, people whose ancestors were born into an aristocratic family of titled land owners granted feudal privileges by the monarch.
But supposedly capitalism provides and equal playing field of competition? It doesn't; it provides a more "legitimized" and economic platform for the same ruling lines that had existed to perpetuate its dominance on the rest of the population as they have been doing ever since the split of society into classes.
However, in the linear progression of man, capitalism is beautiful. It involved billion(s) more into the labour process, it abolished absolutist/feudal systems of governance. It, at least on paper, claims to provide us with equal right under law (or "under god") and thus in its introduction of competitive capitalism came to Europe and other countries (where it was not directly forced) as a liberator of nations.
Capitalism in its original form doesn't exist here anymore, however. Capitalism once advocated and practiced competition between producing forces. However competition can only exist for so long before it is replaced by monopoly.
Capitalism has been replaced by monopoly capitalism/imperialism since. Where competition once existed, it has been replaced my monopoly (monopoly and state also collaborate on many disgustingly profitable industries such as the military industrial complex and the prison industrial complex). We no longer have competing industries; hell, Coke and Pepsi are managed by the same bank, and they both receive funding for the fall of either one is equally unprofitable to the bank directors which run both. Furthermore, we have politicians, members of government and board directors who are tied to shady practices here and abroad (Iran-Contra scandal, immunity for cocaine distributors in ghetto communities).
Their position can not be overthrown through the system - they've already secured their position all finances continue to circulate back to them as they have their hands in not one industry, but just about every important one.
The only way is to overthrow our own subjugation is to overthrow them from the pinnacle of their hierarchy and make them equals. Remove their amassed wealth and give it back to the people they exploited it from. We abolish class oppression by abolishing classes.
The ideology of Marxism shows us that communism is not something that can be brought immediately after capitalism. Rather, an interim state must exist as a segue between the two. This segue we call socialism, where the means of production are entrusted by the state of democratically elected officials who then create a centrally planned economy where matters of housing, economy, wealth distribution and employment can become fully sustainable.
Once international revolution has defeated international capitalism, this is when we can begin to see the negation of socialist forces of production and a communist revolution may come to take its place.
That is not to say that communism is a form of utopia. There are internal contradictions which will exist, surely, and which may/will even come to negate communism. However I say all this optimistically for it is a long line in the progression of humankind.
Sense-A, you are downright silly if you think capitalism is the end of human beings. Many more systems have come only to be swept into the dustbin of history by a more advanced system of production which overwhelmed it with larger relation/productivity to labour. Capitalism will also come to meet the dustbin, don't be surprised. Definitely not in our lifetime, but we are seeing a lot of the precursors.
All power to the people.
(PS: You name Castro and Stalin when you speak of communism? Please. You should know by now no communist believes in any dictatorship but that of the entire proletariat)
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks