[Pants-of-dog]

Things like Slavery, destruction of indigenous cultures and peoples are more cultural issue caused by old cultural thinking not economic theory/system.

Limiting wages, The ongoing theft of indigenous lands, limited freedoms of state owned Unions, Gov't support or tolerance of private security forces attacking citizens and workers etc were present under socialist systems as well and is not a systemic problem of a single economic theory/system.

Wrong, we currently live in a Mix economic system sliding to state capitalism, where we have capitalism as a base and build socialist pillars for the walls,

They may have started because of cultural origins during the mercantilist era, but they continued in the capitalist era because they made money for the capitalists. Capitalism loves slavery, cultural genocide, dictators, and union busting because these things make money, which is why some of these things are still happening in our global capitalist society.

[Rich]

Back in the day the left wanted to overthrow the western liberal order and replace it with Soviet style communism. This gave us a point of reference. It gave us something to compare. How can we compete with the left now? Because the choice is between the current order of things and a fantasy inside the lefties heads. Lefties on the forum constantly say capitalism this, capitalism that, but then we point out that many of the things that the lefties whinge on about were present in supposedly pre capitalist systems. So why are you blaming Capitalism? In fact many things have been vastly improved under capitalism, so capitalism gets blamed for things that it has seemingly improved.

I do not accept the capitalist system terminology at all. I don't think it has any real meaning. The Capatalist class includes people who are in the poorest ten percent of the world's population. Meanwhile the Working Class the proletaritat, the so called wage slaves includes people who are in the richest ten percent of the world's population. in fact if you include Footballers the working class includes people in the richest 1% of the world's population, maybe even the top 0.1%.

I remember in the nineteen eighties the lefties came out to defend the position of the print workers. They were enormously over paid. They were easily in the top five percent of the world's population by income. Even now the lefties love the train drivers unions, a hugely privileged group and I say that as someone whose Grandfather was a train driver.

[The Immortal Goon]

Like Rich and Bulaba, I'm tired of communists using definitions of capitalism that go back a century or two and are routinely used by academics and capitalists themselves. Those tricky commies are always using language as if it means something!

And yeah, Rich and Bulaba and I are really tired of people analyzing capitalism instead of praising it. Granted, there's a chapter in the Communist Manifesto that praises its revolutionary role and no Marxist disputes this, but more praise!

And finally, I agree with Rich and Bulaba--Where are the Marxists when it comes to globalization and wage issues? Nowhere! They never want to talk about that, or their feelings about capitalism. And they use real words to describe things. Criminals, all of them.

[JohnRawls]

I don't see how bribes to the working class constitute socialism.

You might call them bribes to the working class, i call it merger of the systems. The whole existance of a socialist system prompted change in the capitalist one over the centuries to overcome or decrease its shortcomings.

[The Immortal Goon]

Those are measures to increase the efficiency and power of the capitalist government. They do nothing to put power into the hands of the proletariat.

[JohnRawls]

Being fixated on the power of the proleteriat is overrated. Most of the western countries don't have an existing proleteriat because of automation and outsourcing which is not specifically bad.

[The Immortal Goon]

The proletariat isn't defined by, "bad," or, "good," but upon someone's relationship to the means of production.

[JohnRawls]

The proletariat in itself does not desire power or control, proletariat in itself desires a good life and fulfillment of its needs and wishes. If its achieved wihout giving full power to the proletariat then it is not an undisrable outcome (my opinion) Giving power to the proletariat is just another way of achieving what was said above.

[The Immortal Goon]

The proletariat is inherently alienated and exploited.

Further, it's just naive to think that history will stop working because you think the working class should just shut up and be happy with what it has.

[Dagoth Ur]

Getting power for the proletariat is the one and only way to guarantee that concessions made to us stick and aren't repealed a generation later. We cannot simply take a part of state/economic power, it is an all nothing game.

Also if workers were conscious of how their labor is greatly under-compensated for, and that profit is their earned money, they would not be so tolerant of how things are.

[Conscript]

John Rawls is correct, the interests of wage labor are what he describes. We just represent another set of working class interests, which desire emancipation.

[The Immortal Goon]

They all desire emancipation. Some slaves have just been beaten to the point that they'll accept a bed of hay instead of sleeping in the dirt as a glorious concession to their masters.

[JohnRawls]

I actually agree with Plato regarding this, communism/socialism didn't exist durring times of plato, well atleast the concept of it didn't but he was wise to say

Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequaled alike."

Also this, has a lot to do with communism, again it talks about democracy but, in general, the concept still applies.

Democracy is too responsive to the desires of a large middle class increasingly willing to disregard the muted voices of economically marginalized groups within its own borders. The criticism remains that the will of the democratic majority may not always be in the best interest of all citizens within the country.

Basically the proletariate deserves a form of equality but they do NOT deserve full equality in my opinion. Why Einsteine or Newton get the same treatment as a dishwasher or a dock worker?

Getting power for the proletariat is the one and only way to guarantee that concessions made to us stick and aren't repealed a generation later. We cannot simply take a part of state/economic power, it is an all nothing game.

Also if workers were conscious of how their labor is greatly under-compensated for, and that profit is their earned money, they would not be so tolerant of how things are.

Transfer of power from 1 part of society to another is usually brutal (revolutions). There are other ways of achieving your goals over time, which modern social democracy is a case in point. The proletariat does not have to put a gun to the heads of the upper class and keep it there indefinately for it to prosper and live a decent life. Again, being scared of your achievments being taken away does not merit you holding a gun to the head of the upper classes.

[Ludovic]

They all desire emancipation. Some slaves have just been beaten to the point that they'll accept a bed of hay instead of sleeping in the dirt as a glorious concession to their masters.

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite."

Socialist states beat the individuality out of people.

[ComradeTim]

Transfer of power from 1 part of society to another is usually brutal (revolutions). There are other ways of achieving your goals over time, which modern social democracy is a case in point.

Which is of course why the working class is seeing it's wages plummet, it's job and social security taken away and the elite controlling over 50% of the worlds wealth. Victory?

The proletariat does not have to put a gun to the heads of the upper class and keep it there indefinately for it to prosper and live a decent life.

Naturally. The upper class should be liquidated and the economic system changed to one that prevents such large accumulations of wealth.

Reformism always leads to the same conclusion.

"The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That's 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world's population. The bottom half of the world's population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world."

[The Immortal Goon]

Plato also went to Siciley to promote his conception of tyranny. It was a notorious failure to the point he had to come up with the goofy conception that he wasn't wrong, reality itself was wrong. The idea was more important than what actually was going on.

To which I say, why bother having a political ideology based on the idea that it won't work in the real world anyway?

Marx was a materialist. He wrote about Epicurous, who had the shocking doctrine that things that exist existed.

[Rich]

Which is of course why the working class is seeing it's wages plummet, it's job and social security taken away and the elite controlling over 50% of the worlds wealth. Victory?

Workers wages have increased substantially in recent decades. Western workers wages have stagnated, but they were part of the world's privileged.

[Vera Politica]

Workers wages have increased substantially in recent decades. Western workers wages have stagnated, but they were part of the world's privileged.

But this has not been commensurate with the increase in wealth produced by the workers themselves. Indeed, this wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of the (big) capitalist class. This is not about right or wrong. Workers need not have their production directed by the will of a minority of private citizens, disproportionately to their benefit, while being unable to meet their real social needs: food and financial security, childcare, healthcare, safe neighborhoods, culturally inclusive communities, access to cultural capital, access to social goods, quality air, quality food, etc. The members of the working class that have access to some or all of these (and whatever else I neglected to mention) still do not have control over their access to them despite producing the wealth of our societies. This is why every generation is at risk. It is in the interest of the working classes to wage a struggle against private ownership of the means of production so that they can direct production and distribution to meet their needs and not the needs of a minority. Democracy is not only about a vote in the ballot box, those who control production have a disproportionate say in how our society and communities are arranged. Working people must establish control over their communities, cities and countries. Certainly there may be natural forces out of our control which could lead to crises, etc., but this is not about natural forces but about social forces out of the workers's control. The latter are due to a particular social arrangement which the workers can dissolve and change.

Who do you side with? That is the only question; it is not about injustice or any other idealizations.

[DrSteveBrule]

Unchecked and unequal distributions in power results in mass suffering, regardless of the ideology that claims to give it legitimacy.

[Zerogouki 2]

Wherever you see rising economic inequality in a capitalist system, a close look will show subsidies, monopoly privileges, and other government favors - not free-market forces - are the root of the problem.

The real debate that we should be having is not between capitalism and socialism, but between free markets and politically-tilted ones.