[Potemkin]

Yes, but Russia was industrialized beforehand or else they could have never fought in WWI.

And just how successful was Russia in WWI? Russian troops were being sent 'over the top' with no weapons. The soldiers were expected to pick up their fallen comrades' rifles. Many of the front line troops didn't even have boots to wear. All of these critical shortages of supplies, weapons and uniforms were what led to Tsarist Russia's catastrophic defeat in WWI, which led directly to the fall of Tsarism in February 1917. And these shortages were caused by Tsarist Russia's lack of industrial development. That problem had been solved by 1941.

If the industrial base is negligible beforehand and is of superpower status afterwards, I think it is reasonable to talk about a process of 'industrialisation' having occurred.

Superpowers don't mean anything in industrialization (though it did help).

What I'm saying is the fact that it is through industrialisation that The CCCP became a superpower. If you'd suggested to anyone in America or Britain in 1921 that the Soviet Union was a superpower, they would have laughed in your face. It was one of the most backward nations in Europe.

Oh, and I love how you marxists prance around the Five Year Plan as if it was the greatest economic reform plan of all time.

It was one of the most successful, as well as one of the most brutal and mismanaged, economic reform plans of all time. As I said, I have no time for Stalin, and I do not credit him with Russia's successful industrialisation. I credit the ordinary workers and peasants of the Soviet Union with that.

It may be morally just as reprehensible, but it is a different kind of process; strictly speaking, it is oppression rather than exploitation.

Except with exploitation, industrial reform can change it. With government opression no one an stop it.

Perhaps so, but that wasn't the issue. You claimed that exploitation continued under Communism, and I pointed out that this was not technically correct.

No, it is your relation to the mode of production which makes you exploitative, which is the same thing as saying that it is your class identity which makes you exploitative. You seem to believe that the fundamental mode of social relations is between individuals, whereas in fact it is between classes. A feudal lord cannot help but be oppressive to his peasants, no matter how 'nice' he may be as an individual. Likewise, the owner of a factory cannot help but be exploitative to his workers, no matter how 'nice' or humanitarian he may be as an individual.

Hardly. If that was true than you'd have to count out most modern industry.

How so? Modern industry remains exploitative, by its very nature.

A bureaucractic hierarchy is a social hierarchy. A class hierarchy is a different kind of social hierarchy.

That's what classes are! Social hierarchy!

No no no! A class hierarchy is a particular kind of hierarchy. There are others. For example, a racial hierarchy (eg, Nazi Germany) is not, strictly speaking, a class hierarchy, but is still a hierarchy. The caste system in India is not, strictly speaking, a class hierarchy. The Stalinist system was a bureaucratic hierarchy, not, strictly speaking, a class hierarchy.

But what is happening to the House of Lords is simple reform, now higher taxes upon the rich, that would be attack upon a class.

No, levying higher taxes on the ruling class is itself just simple reform. To expropriate the expropriators by taking all of their wealth, now that would be an attack on the ruling class. And Blair has not just weakened the power of the hereditary peers in the House of Lords, he has effectively ended it. In a sense, this can be seen as a revolution of the bourgeois class (represented by New labour, which is a bourgeois liberal party, not a socialist party) against the last remnants of feudalism in our political system. It really does qualify as a revolutionary act (though a bourgeois revolution rather than a proletarian revolution) against the hereditary aristocracy.

It's also a struggle of the lower classes against the ruling elite, who tend to be secular and Westernised.

But aren't some of the richest people in the world (And the ruling class in some countries) islamic fundimentalists?

'Rich' is not quite the same thing as 'ruling class' (it tends to be so in America, but not in countries like Saudi Arabia or Britain). Fundamentalists like Osama were frustrated by their lack of political power within their own countries, and have opted to try to overthrow the ruling elites of those countries by force. Most of their recruits are drawn from the disaffected lower classes.

But seriously, how can you call yourself a 'Libertarian' and not have read Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations'? I'm a fucking Commie, and even I've read it.

I'm not very libertarian, I mainly think that because I find myself agreeing with libertarians on more and more issues. But, I don't like my opinions spoon-fed to me.

There's a big difference between not accepting spoon-fed opinions, and being a fucking ignoramus. Nobody says that you must accept everything Adam Smith wrote as gospel truth, and neither do I accept everything Marx or Lenin wrote as gospel truth. You read what they wrote, and then you think about it and draw your own conclusions. If you don't even read what they actually wrote, you can't even begin to think about it.

[Attila The Nun]

And just how successful was Russia in WWI? Russian troops were being sent 'over the top' with no weapons. The soldiers were expected to pick up their fallen comrades' rifles. Many of the front line troops didn't even have boots to wear. All of these critical shortages of supplies, weapons and uniforms were what led to Tsarist Russia's catastrophic defeat in WWI, which led directly to the fall of Tsarism in February 1917. And these shortages were caused by Tsarist Russia's lack of industrial development. That problem had been solved by 1941.

And this differed in WWII? The only thing that changed was in WWII Hitler went deepe into Russia and therefore had to face the Russian Winter. Also, due to the famous (and idiotic) blitzfreig tactic, his troops were poorly supplied.

What I'm saying is the fact that it is through industrialisation that The CCCP became a superpower. If you'd suggested to anyone in America or Britain in 1921 that the Soviet Union was a superpower, they would have laughed in your face. It was one of the most backward nations in Europe.

They became a world supoerpower with their pushes upon the US and upon Europe and Asia. Not through industrialization (though one of the reasons US became a supoerpower was through indusrialization).

It was one of the most successful, as well as one of the most brutal and mismanaged, economic reform plans of all time. As I said, I have no time for Stalin, and I do not credit him with Russia's successful industrialisation. I credit the ordinary workers and peasants of the Soviet Union with that.

One of the most successful? You mean with its failed agricultural policy? Or with it's industrial policy which proved to be inefficient at the time of WWII?

Perhaps so, but that wasn't the issue. You claimed that exploitation continued under Communism, and I pointed out that this was not technically correct.

It's the same exact difference. And I prefer exploitation by privately owned companies anyday.

How so? Modern industry remains exploitative, by its very nature.

Explain.

No no no! A class hierarchy is a particular kind of hierarchy. There are others. For example, a racial hierarchy (eg, Nazi Germany) is not, strictly speaking, a class hierarchy, but is still a hierarchy. The caste system in India is not, strictly speaking, a class hierarchy. The Stalinist system was a bureaucratic hierarchy, not, strictly speaking, a class hierarchy.

Yes, but beraucratic hierarchy leads to hierarchy in society through ranks! And also, under the USSR, some people got paid more than others (and in other socialist countries).

No, levying higher taxes on the ruling class is itself just simple reform. To expropriate the expropriators by taking all of their wealth, now that would be an attack on the ruling class. And Blair has not just weakened the power of the hereditary peers in the House of Lords, he has effectively ended it. In a sense, this can be seen as a revolution of the bourgeois class (represented by New labour, which is a bourgeois liberal party, not a socialist party) against the last remnants of feudalism in our political system. It really does qualify as a revolutionary act (though a bourgeois revolution rather than a proletarian revolution) against the hereditary aristocracy.

Why do people insist on calling liberals bourgeoise?

That, and heavy taxes on the rich and then putting them in social programs is a little bit of redistribution if you think about it. Though, in some cases more extreme than others.

'Rich' is not quite the same thing as 'ruling class' (it tends to be so in America, but not in countries like Saudi Arabia or Britain). Fundamentalists like Osama were frustrated by their lack of political power within their own countries, and have opted to try to overthrow the ruling elites of those countries by force. Most of their recruits are drawn from the disaffected lower classes.

There are different types of fundimentalists. You can certainly call Saudi Arabia to be a fundimentalist theocracy (Though they did disagree on Bin Ladin on the first Gulf War, which is why he has a big grudge against them), but so is Al Queda. And, yes, they do tend to be of the lower classes, those who have been suppressed and duped into a fanaticism about destroying the west.

There's a big difference between not accepting spoon-fed opinions, and being a fucking ignoramus. Nobody says that you must accept everything Adam Smith wrote as gospel truth, and neither do I accept everything Marx or Lenin wrote as gospel truth. You read what they wrote, and then you think about it and draw your own conclusions. If you don't even read what they actually wrote, you can't even begin to think about it.

But, unlike marxism, communism, and socialism, libertarianism is not based around the words of one man. There are many libertarian authors, not just Smith (though he is one of the main ones).

[Potemkin]

And this differed in WWII? The only thing that changed was in WWII Hitler went deepe into Russia and therefore had to face the Russian Winter. Also, due to the famous (and idiotic) blitzfreig tactic, his troops were poorly supplied.

The German gains in WWI were comparable to their farthest advances in WWII. Have you ever read the terms of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk? Russia signed away about a third of its population. And the Germans fought WWI in Russia over several winters, just as they did in WWII. And the reaon why Hitler's troops were poorly supplied was that he had expected to win before the winter set in. This was reasonable when he was first planning Operation Barbarossa, but he had to delay the invasion of Russia because Mussolini was getting his ass kicked in Greece, necessitating Hitler diverting several divisions of German troops to bail him out. The Blitzkrieg ('lightning war') tactic was not idiotic - it was spectacularly successful in Western Europe, and achieved a very fast rate of advance in the first few months of the invasion of Russia. In fact, it was such a good tactic that America uses it to this day - it's now called "Shock and Awe". It worked pretty well against Saddam Hussein last year.

They became a world supoerpower with their pushes upon the US and upon Europe and Asia. Not through industrialization (though one of the reasons US became a supoerpower was through indusrialization).

What do you think enabled the CCCP to push upon the US, Europe and Asia? The power of positive thinking? Voodoo? It was the industrial development in the 30s which made it possible, and which gave the Soviet Union superpower status.

One of the most successful? You mean with its failed agricultural policy? Or with it's industrial policy which proved to be inefficient at the time of WWII?

The collectivisation of agriculture was not exactly one of the glowing successes of the first Five Year Plan, it's true. But the industrialisation component was very successful, though at a very high human price. And the Soviet Union won WWII.

Perhaps so, but that wasn't the issue. You claimed that exploitation continued under Communism, and I pointed out that this was not technically correct.

It's the same exact difference. And I prefer exploitation by privately owned companies anyday.

It's not the same. And if a striking worker is being beaten over the head by a policeman at a picket line, does he really care whether the policeman is being paid by the government, or is a hired goon of the capitalists? Both state oppression and private exploitation cause human suffering, though they are techically different phenomena.

How so? Modern industry remains exploitative, by its very nature.

Explain.

Because the owner of the means of production (aka capitalist) pays the worker less than the true value of his labour. The worker adds value to the raw materials he is supplied with by doing work on those materials to produce a commodity. The capitalist takes that commodity, with its added value, and sells it for much more than he paid for the raw materials (even factoring in other overheads associated with production). He then pays the worker a wage, which is less than the value the worker has added to the commodity. The surplus is then pocketed by the capitalist as his 'profit' which he has 'earned' because he owns the means of production. This is exploitation - living off somebody else's labour.

Yes, but beraucratic hierarchy leads to hierarchy in society through ranks! And also, under the USSR, some people got paid more than others (and in other socialist countries).

But that is still not a class hierarchy. The word 'class' has a very specific meaning - it is defined according to a person's relation to the mode of production. A caste hierarchy (eg, in India) is not the same as a class hierarchy. The fact that some get paid more than others is not proof that a class hierarchy exists. The hierarchy in the CCCP was a bureaucratic hierarchy, based on their relation to state authority rather than the mode of production.

Why do people insist on calling liberals bourgeoise?

I'm using the word 'liberal' according to its original, correct definition - somebody who favours liberalism in the economy and (by implication) in politics. Liberals, by every definition except the currently fashionable one in America, favour free trade and laissez-faire economics. For example, Ronald Reagan was a 'liberal'. Thatcher herself actually declared that she regarded herself as a nineteenth-century liberal. They are referred to as 'bourgeois liberals' because this ideology serves the interests of the bourgeois class (as opposed to the aristocratic class, who favoured mercantilism and tarrifs, or the working class, who tend to favour socialism). All ideology is class-based, and liberalism is the particular ideology of the bourgeois class.

That, and heavy taxes on the rich and then putting them in social programs is a little bit of redistribution if you think about it. Though, in some cases more extreme than others.

Yes, and 'little' is the operative word here. Progressive taxation does not a revolution make. Confiscating the entire estates of the aristocracy and the haute bourgeois class would be a revolutionary act; taxing them at 40% is not.

There are different types of fundimentalists. You can certainly call Saudi Arabia to be a fundimentalist theocracy (Though they did disagree on Bin Ladin on the first Gulf War, which is why he has a big grudge against them), but so is Al Queda. And, yes, they do tend to be of the lower classes, those who have been suppressed and duped into a fanaticism about destroying the west.

They haven't really been 'duped' - the existing elites in most Middle Eastern countries are the class enemies of the lower classes, and the poor and oppressed of those societies are right to fight against them. Where I differ from them is their ideology - radical Islam is not a truly progressive ideology, since it is based on a non-materialistic conception of history.

But, unlike marxism, communism, and socialism, libertarianism is not based around the words of one man. There are many libertarian authors, not just Smith (though he is one of the main ones).

The same is true of Socialism and Communism. Take a look at the far left some time - you'll find literally hundreds of parties and ideologies and programmes. In fact, this is one of the problems of the Left - it is splintered into myriads of mutually hostile groups. Trying to unify those groups without succumbing to mere Revisionism is perhaps the fundamental problem facing the Left right now.

And even before Marx, there were many different kinds of Socialism, from Proudhon to Fourier to the Fabians, and even after Marx there were many different kinds of Communism, from the Bolsheviks to the Mensheviks to the Trotskyites to the Council Communists, and so on and so on.

You really haven't read very much about anything, have you?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Nothing is assumed in the U.S. Constitution to be an eternal, unchanging truth.

Doesn't the Declaration of Independence start off with some nonsense about "We hold these truths to be self-evident...."?

So much for the argument's being about the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence does include (though it does not begin with) some glorious words about truths that the Founders of the U.S. held to be self-evident -- words which have inspired more positive change in the world than the total of everything ever written by every Communist who has ever lived -- but only the Constitution is "the supreme Law of the Land" (U.S. Const., Art. VI). The Declaration of Independence is not.

There was no support from the French in the War of 1812, and the Americans still defeated the British, only 30 years after becoming a nation.

I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but at that time, we were fighting the Napoleonic Wars against.... now, which country was it again... oh yes, FRANCE! Sounds like 'help' to me.

Britain attacked the U.S. on the high seas. France had nothing to do with that, its navy having been destroyed in the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. (By the way, the fledgling U.S. Navy won 13 out of 25 high-sea battles against the British Navy in the War of 1812 -- the highest success rate ever achieved by any navy that ever went up against the British Empire.) The land war was fought in Canada and in the U.S. France had nothing to do with that either, having lost Canada to Britain in 1763 and sold the Louisiana Territory to the U.S. in 1803. Relations between the U.S. and France had soured even before the War of 1812, and they were not patched up again until well after it. Britain blundered by deciding to start a war with the U.S. while it was fighting a war with France, and both the U.S. and France exploited that blunder, but neither did so with any intention of helping the other.

Russia was the only other superpower apart from America throughout the Cold War.

Militarily, yes; economically, no. The USSR's per capita GDP barely grew at all from 1952 to 2000, while the US's more than doubled. In 1950, 1970, and 1990, the US was at or near the top of the list of countries with the highest per capita GDP; the USSR did not even make the top twenty in any of those years. Russia/USSR's share of world GDP declined by more than half, from about 7% to about 3%, from 1890 to 1995, while the US's rose from about 13% to about 21%. The USSR's economic growth slowed steadily during the Cold War and was nonexistent while the Communists were still running the country: During the 1950s, its economy grew at 8-9% (which is hardly surprising: after World War II, the USSR's economy had nowhere to go but up); during the 1960s, at 5-6%; during the latter half of the 1970s, at less than 3%; and by the early 1980s, at 0%. That is nothing to crow about; it is a record of dismal economic failure over the long term.

Because the owner of the means of production (aka capitalist) pays the worker less than the true value of his labour. The worker adds value to the raw materials he is supplied with by doing work on those materials to produce a commodity. The capitalist takes that commodity, with its added value, and sells it for much more than he paid for the raw materials (even factoring in other overheads associated with production). He then pays the worker a wage, which is less than the value the worker has added to the commodity. The surplus is then pocketed by the capitalist as his 'profit' which he has 'earned' because he owns the means of production. This is exploitation - living off somebody else's labour.

Balderdash. The capitalist's profit is compensation for taking the risk of purchasing the materials and hiring the worker without any guarantee that the ultimate product will sell well enough to pay for the materials, wages, and "other overheads associated with production". That risk is substantial, which is why such a high percentage of new businesses fail. Of course, in the USSR, the government just commanded that certain things be made without any regard to whether anyone was going to buy them. That is one of the reasons that the USSR's economy went steadily into the toilet throughout the Cold War.

[Attila The Nun]

The German gains in WWI were comparable to their farthest advances in WWII. Have you ever read the terms of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk? Russia signed away about a third of its population. And the Germans fought WWI in Russia over several winters, just as they did in WWII. And the reaon why Hitler's troops were poorly supplied was that he had expected to win before the winter set in. This was reasonable when he was first planning Operation Barbarossa, but he had to delay the invasion of Russia because Mussolini was getting his ass kicked in Greece, necessitating Hitler diverting several divisions of German troops to bail him out. The Blitzkrieg ('lightning war') tactic was not idiotic - it was spectacularly successful in Western Europe, and achieved a very fast rate of advance in the first few months of the invasion of Russia. In fact, it was such a good tactic that America uses it to this day - it's now called "Shock and Awe". It worked pretty well against Saddam Hussein last year.

First of all, the land given in Brest Litovsk was not all the land the Germans had advanced to. And the tactic Hitler used, the Blitzkrieg, was only good in West Germany because of the relative small size of Belgian army, and the unpreparedness of the French army for the Germans to cross Belgium. Had the French built the Maginot Wall to strech across the Belgian border, then Germany could have never gotten into France.

:roll: What do you think enabled the CCCP to push upon the US, Europe and Asia? The power of positive thinking? Voodoo? It was the industrial development in the 30s which made it possible, and which gave the Soviet Union superpower status.

More like industrial developments in the 1940s/50s and technological developments, though the industrialization in the 1930s did give them something to start with.

The collectivisation of agriculture was not exactly one of the glowing successes of the first Five Year Plan, it's true. But the industrialisation component was very successful, though at a very high human price. And the Soviet Union won WWII.

I thought we already went over why the Soviet Union won WWII.

It's not the same. And if a striking worker is being beaten over the head by a policeman at a picket line, does he really care whether the policeman is being paid by the government, or is a hired goon of the capitalists? Both state oppression and private exploitation cause human suffering, though they are techically different phenomena.

But one is illegal by law, one isn't. That's the big difference.

Because the owner of the means of production (aka capitalist) pays the worker less than the true value of his labour. The worker adds value to the raw materials he is supplied with by doing work on those materials to produce a commodity. The capitalist takes that commodity, with its added value, and sells it for much more than he paid for the raw materials (even factoring in other overheads associated with production). He then pays the worker a wage, which is less than the value the worker has added to the commodity. The surplus is then pocketed by the capitalist as his 'profit' which he has 'earned' because he owns the means of production. This is exploitation - living off somebody else's labour.

But isn't the true value of his labour determined by what he makes, and, in that still, determined by the demand of the product and the supply of it?

But that is still not a class hierarchy. The word 'class' has a very specific meaning - it is defined according to a person's relation to the mode of production. A caste hierarchy (eg, in India) is not the same as a class hierarchy. The fact that some get paid more than others is not proof that a class hierarchy exists. The hierarchy in the CCCP was a bureaucratic hierarchy, based on their relation to state authority rather than the mode of production.

Explain mode of production.

I'm using the word 'liberal' according to its original, correct definition - somebody who favours liberalism in the economy and (by implication) in politics. Liberals, by every definition except the currently fashionable one in America, favour free trade and laissez-faire economics. For example, Ronald Reagan was a 'liberal'. Thatcher herself actually declared that she regarded herself as a nineteenth-century liberal. They are referred to as 'bourgeois liberals' because this ideology serves the interests of the bourgeois class (as opposed to the aristocratic class, who favoured mercantilism and tarrifs, or the working class, who tend to favour socialism). All ideology is class-based, and liberalism is the particular ideology of the bourgeois class.

Ah, so libertarianism. Too bad it has never been implemented.

Yes, and 'little' is the operative word here. Progressive taxation does not a revolution make. Confiscating the entire estates of the aristocracy and the haute bourgeois class would be a revolutionary act; taxing them at 40% is not.

It's quite in the socialist road.

They haven't really been 'duped' - the existing elites in most Middle Eastern countries are the class enemies of the lower classes, and the poor and oppressed of those societies are right to fight against them. Where I differ from them is their ideology - radical Islam is not a truly progressive ideology, since it is based on a non-materialistic conception of history.

They've been duped into thinking that they are fighting a holy war against "westernization".

The same is true of Socialism and Communism. Take a look at the far left some time - you'll find literally hundreds of parties and ideologies and programmes. In fact, this is one of the problems of the Left - it is splintered into myriads of mutually hostile groups. Trying to unify those groups without succumbing to mere Revisionism is perhaps the fundamental problem facing the Left right now.

And even before Marx, there were many different kinds of Socialism, from Proudhon to Fourier to the Fabians, and even after Marx there were many different kinds of Communism, from the Bolsheviks to the Mensheviks to the Trotskyites to the Council Communists, and so on and so on.

Fair enough.

You really haven't read very much about anything, have you?

How so very pompous.

[Potemkin]

Nothing is assumed in the U.S. Constitution to be an eternal, unchanging truth.

Doesn't the Declaration of Independence start off with some nonsense about "We hold these truths to be self-evident...."?

So much for the argument's being about the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence does include (though it does not begin with) some glorious words about truths that the Founders of the U.S. held to be self-evident -- words which have inspired more positive change in the world than the total of everything ever written by every Communist who has ever lived -- but only the Constitution is "the supreme Law of the Land" (U.S. Const., Art. VI). The Declaration of Independence is not.

The Declaration of Independence is relevant as being indicative of the underlying philosophy behind the Constitution. It was drawn up at almost the same time by almost the same people. Unless they had a change of heart in between drafting those two documents, they should be based on the same worldview.

And I use the word 'nonsense' to describe that worldview advisedly. It is not the case that "all men are born equal". In what way are they born equal? Are they equal at birth in terms of intelligence? or wealth? or good looks? Obviously people are not born equal - it is a myth promulgated by bourgeois liberals in order to justify the laissez-faire system of capitalism.

Russia was the only other superpower apart from America throughout the Cold War.

Militarily, yes; economically, no.

The Soviet Union was devastated by WWII, much much more than America. The USA did not have its cities bombed from the air or occupied by enemy troops. It did not have its factories looted and its workers rounded up and shot. It did not have its youngest and most productive workers transported to Germany as slave labour. America could therefore recover from WWII more quickly than almost any other combatant nation, since almost all of its infrastructure was still intact.

Because the owner of the means of production (aka capitalist) pays the worker less than the true value of his labour. The worker adds value to the raw materials he is supplied with by doing work on those materials to produce a commodity. The capitalist takes that commodity, with its added value, and sells it for much more than he paid for the raw materials (even factoring in other overheads associated with production). He then pays the worker a wage, which is less than the value the worker has added to the commodity. The surplus is then pocketed by the capitalist as his 'profit' which he has 'earned' because he owns the means of production. This is exploitation - living off somebody else's labour.

Balderdash. The capitalist's profit is compensation for taking the risk of purchasing the materials and hiring the worker without any guarantee that the ultimate product will sell well enough to pay for the materials, wages, and "other overheads associated with production". That risk is substantial, which is why such a high percentage of new businesses fail. Of course, in the USSR, the government just commanded that certain things be made without any regard to whether anyone was going to buy them. That is one of the reasons that the USSR's economy went steadily into the toilet throughout the Cold War.

So you're saying that the capitalist has the right to confiscate the surplus value created by the worker because he's taking a risk with 'his' money? I put the word 'his' in inverted commas, because the capital itself has initially been accumulated by confiscating surplus value. If I steal $100 and then gamble with it and win an extra $100, that extra $100 still doesn't belong to me any more than the initial $100 belongs to me.

[Hatred]

I am quite tired of this thread.

[Potemkin]

First of all, the land given in Brest Litovsk was not all the land the Germans had advanced to. And the tactic Hitler used, the Blitzkrieg, was only good in West Germany because of the relative small size of Belgian army, and the unpreparedness of the French army for the Germans to cross Belgium. Had the French built the Maginot Wall to strech across the Belgian border, then Germany could have never gotten into France.

True, the military incompetence of the French certainly helped Hitler's blitzkrieg, but it was the lightning speed of his advance which caught the French army on the hop (so to speak ), and enabled a quick and devastating victory, unlike the interminable trench warfare of WWI.

:roll: What do you think enabled the CCCP to push upon the US, Europe and Asia? The power of positive thinking? Voodoo? It was the industrial development in the 30s which made it possible, and which gave the Soviet Union superpower status.

More like industrial developments in the 1940s/50s and technological developments, though the industrialization in the 1930s did give them something to start with.

Even if you include the development during the 40s and 50s, it is still an extremely rapid process of industrialisation, and it was the industrialisation of the 30s in particular which enabled the CCCP to defeat Hitler.

I thought we already went over why the Soviet Union won WWII.

We did; we just didn't agree.

It's not the same. And if a striking worker is being beaten over the head by a policeman at a picket line, does he really care whether the policeman is being paid by the government, or is a hired goon of the capitalists? Both state oppression and private exploitation cause human suffering, though they are techically different phenomena.

But one is illegal by law, one isn't. That's the big difference.

To me, it makes no difference. The state decides what is legal or illegal, and the state is nothing more than an instrument of class oppression. It defends the rights of the bourgeois class over the rights of the working class, since it is controlled and run by the bourgeois class itself.

But isn't the true value of his labour determined by what he makes, and, in that still, determined by the demand of the product and the supply of it?

I believe in the labour theory of value, which you probably won't have heard of, not having read 'Das Kapital' (he said pompously ). The value of a commodity is not its market price but its use value. The raw material has little use value in itself; a lump of iron ore cannot be used for much except making other things which are useful, whereas a steel knife is useful. And these 'useless' things are made into 'useful' things by having human labour and skill applied to them. It is human labour which adds value, and it is this surplus value which is confiscated by the capitalist as his 'profit'.

Explain mode of production.

In the Middle Ages, there was a feudal, largely agrarian mode of production. The peasants (usually serfs who were owned by their local feudal lord) worked the land separately (in small strips) and produced food, part of which was confiscated by the Church and part by the local lord as their 'tithe' or 'tribute'. In return, the Church would supply for the peasants' spiritual needs, and the feudal lord would protect the peasants from bandits or other feudal lords. Each social class had a different relation to the mode of production, and this relation defined their social 'class'. This feudal mode of production eventually gave way to the capitalist mode of production, in which production was socialised - ie, instead of individual craftsmen working in separate cottages, all the workers are gathered together into large factories. Where the individual craftsmen had previously owned their own means of production, those means of production were now owned by the capitalists, the bourgeois class. It is that relation to the mode of production (ie, owning the means of production and having access to capital) which defines the bourgeoisie as a class. The workers' relation to the means of production (ie, owning only their own labour power) is what defines them as a social class. In a bureaucratic hierarchy, the members of the bureaucracy do not have a different relation to the mode of production than any other group in society; what differentiates them is their relation to the authority of the state. They are therefore not, strictly speaking, a class hierarchy.

Ah, so libertarianism. Too bad it has never been implemented.

No, not libertarianism. The classical bourgeois liberals do not want to abolish the government. They recognise the need to control and suppress the working class; the need to "keep the lower orders in their place". This means that they support the need for a small, but strong state to "maintain law and order" as they usually put it, by which they actually mean protect their own hereditary class privileges. The modern libertarians are just muddle-headed anarchists who want to keep their plasma TV sets.

Yes, and 'little' is the operative word here. Progressive taxation does not a revolution make. Confiscating the entire estates of the aristocracy and the haute bourgeois class would be a revolutionary act; taxing them at 40% is not.

It's quite in the socialist road.

Not really. Capitalism will never spontaneously evolve into socialism. No matter how much you tax the ruling class, they stubbornly remain the ruling class. There must be a discontinuity between capitalism and socialism, and we give the name 'Revolution' to that discontinuity.

They've been duped into thinking that they are fighting a holy war against "westernization".

'Westernization' simply means the domination of a vulgar, secular, bourgeois ruling class to whom nothing is sacred and who are enemies of the traditional values of their societies and enemies of the working people. The process of 'westernization' has nothing to offer the ordinary people of those societies. I'm not surprised the radical Islamic groups find it so easy to recruit followers.

You really haven't read very much about anything, have you?

How so very pompous.

Of course I'm pompous - I'm British. We're world famous for being pompous and condescending.

[Potemkin]

I am quite tired of this thread.

Then don't read it.

[Hatred]

I am quite tired of this thread.

Then don't read it.

But it keeps getting greeny and I think there's a new thread.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

The Declaration of Independence is relevant as being indicative of the underlying philosophy behind the Constitution. It was drawn up at almost the same time by almost the same people. Unless they had a change of heart in between drafting those two documents, they should be based on the same worldview.

I have not denied that the Constitution, as originally promulgated and ratified, contained (and still does contain) a fair bit of what you call bourgeois liberalism. But you wrote that the Constitution "'enshrines' the values of bourgeois liberalism for all time." My objection to that assertion was and remains that nothing in the Constitution is enshrined for all time, because the Constitution can be amended at any time into something that does not even resemble "bourgeois liberalism". If the people of the United States decide that they want a Communist government, they can amend the Constitution to provide for one.

You have consistently ignored the point about amendability, choosing instead to harp on what you perceive to have been the values of the Framers. I take that as a concession that the amendability of the Constitution means that nothing in it (with the possible exception of the guarantee of States' equal suffrage in the Senate) is enshrined for all time.

And I use the word 'nonsense' to describe that worldview advisedly. It is not the case that "all men are born equal". In what way are they born equal? Are they equal at birth in terms of intelligence? or wealth? or good looks?

Nothing in the Declaration of Independence even hints that "all Men are created equal" in any of those senses. (And the phrase is "created equal," not "born equal"; if you are going to put something in quotation marks, you should make sure that it is an accurate quotation of your source.) It says that all men are created equal in precisely the sense immediately thereafter specified -- in that they are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

The Soviet Union was devastated by WWII, much much more than America. The USA did not have its cities bombed from the air or occupied by enemy troops. It did not have its factories looted and its workers rounded up and shot. It did not have its youngest and most productive workers transported to Germany as slave labour. America could therefore recover from WWII more quickly than almost any other combatant nation, since almost all of its infrastructure was still intact.

That does not respond in any way to the fact that the economic record of the USSR from World War II to its collapse was one of dismal failure. It does not respond to the dramatic contrast in growth of per capita GDP, to the dramatic contrast in international rankings of per capita GDP, to the dramatic contrast in shares of world GDP, or to the steady decline in economic growth rates in the USSR under Communist rule from 8-9% in the 1950s to 0% in the early 1980s. If you have any response to those facts, please feel free to present it. If you do not, why not just say so?

So you're saying that the capitalist has the right to confiscate the surplus value created by the worker because he's taking a risk with 'his' money?

The capitalist does not "confiscate" anything. You have been reading too much propagandistic drivel spewed by proponents of a system that has been a dismal failure in try after try, because (among other things) it is fundamentally antithetical to human freedom, and not enough real economics. If there is any surplus value, the capitalist gets it, because that is the agreement reached between the capitalist and the worker. (And you may have noticed that many such agreements now include provisions for the worker to share in that surplus value -- stock options, profit-sharing agreements, etc.) And if there is no surplus value but rather a net loss, as happens in many cases, the capitalist, not the worker, suffers that loss.)

-------------------------

But it keeps getting greeny and I think there's a new thread.

Try remembering the name of the thread. That should solve your problem.

[Potemkin]

I have not denied that the Constitution, as originally promulgated and ratified, contained (and still does contain) a fair bit of what you call bourgeois liberalism. But you wrote that the Constitution "'enshrines' the values of bourgeois liberalism for all time." My objection to that assertion was and remains that nothing in the Constitution is enshrined for all time, because the Constitution can be amended at any time into something that does not even resemble "bourgeois liberalism". If the people of the United States decide that they want a Communist government, they can amend the Constitution to provide for one.

You have consistently ignored the point about amendability, choosing instead to harp on what you perceive to have been the values of the Framers. I take that as a concession that the amendability of the Constitution means that nothing in it (with the possible exception of the guarantee of States' equal suffrage in the Senate) is enshrined for all time.

Well, fair enough. It's just that my point was that the existence of a written Constitution has the effect (whether intended or not) of freezing a society's political and ideological development at a particular stage on history, in America's case the stage of 18th century Rationalist bourgeois liberalism. This is why most succeeding ideologies have been fixated on the concept of a crude 18th century Rationalism (eg, Ayn Rand) or a presumption of an original 'state of nature' in which the individual had absolute freedom (which is based on the 18th century Rousseauian idea of the 'noble savage'). American thinkers presuppose those 18th century ideas, and cannot seem to move beyond them.

Nothing in the Declaration of Independence even hints that "all Men are created equal" in any of those senses. (And the phrase is "created equal," not "born equal"; if you are going to put something in quotation marks, you should make sure that it is an accurate quotation of your source.)

Good point. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. However, it actually makes it doubly nonsense, since I don't believe in a Creator. The fact that the framers of the Declaration would use this terminology is more evidence that they were men of their time - it's essentially 18th century Deism.

It says that all men are created equal in precisely the sense immediately thereafter specified -- in that they are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

But why would they have these "inalienable" rights? If they are not born equal in terms of intelligence or wealth or ability, then why should they have the same rights? And what if one is not an 18th century Deist and doesn't believe in a "Creator"?

If you have any response to those facts, please feel free to present it. If you do not, why not just say so?

You're obviously a stats freak, and I don't have access to similar stats right now, so I'll just say one thing: I'm right and you're wrong! Na-na-na-na-nah!

If there is any surplus value, the capitalist gets it, because that is the agreement reached between the capitalist and the worker.

The 'agreement' between the capitalist and the worker is that the worker agrees to work and to hand over the surplus value he creates to the capitalist, and the capitalist agrees to pay the worker a fraction of the true value of his labour. The 'choice' facing the worker is to either work or starve (except that because of 'Commie subversives' like me, they no longer starve, but merely eke out a living on the breadline). The capitalist always has the whip hand, because he owns the means of production without which the worker cannot work, while the worker owns only his own labour power. And the capitalist makes sure it stays that way.

(And you may have noticed that many such agreements now include provisions for the worker to share in that surplus value -- stock options, profit-sharing agreements, etc.)

Not in Britain. I don't know how things are arranged in America, but there is a clear dividing line between management and workforce here. As well as eating in separate canteens, only the management get access to stock options or profit-sharing agreements.

And if there is no surplus value but rather a net loss, as happens in many cases, the capitalist, not the worker, suffers that loss.)

Unless you happen to be a fat-cat managing director of a failing company, in which case if the company fails you get a "golden handshake" of half a million dollars, a nice guaranteed pension, and you move on to become managing director of another company. While if you're a worker of that company, you lose your job and your pension.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Well, fair enough. It's just that my point was that the existence of a written Constitution has the effect (whether intended or not) of freezing a society's political and ideological development at a particular stage on history, in America's case the stage of 18th century Rationalist bourgeois liberalism.

Except, of course, that the radical changes which we have made to our Constitution over the ensuing 200 years demonstrate that we are not frozen in the 18th century.

The fact that the framers of the Declaration would use this terminology is more evidence that they were men of their time ....

And we are people of our time, which is why our Constitution looks much different now than it did then. And so does our society. Little things, you know, like universally available free public education, Social Security ....

The 'agreement' between the capitalist and the worker is that the worker agrees to work and to hand over the surplus value he creates to the capitalist, and the capitalist agrees to pay the worker a fraction of the true value of his labour. The 'choice' facing the worker is to either work or starve (except that because of 'Commie subversives' like me, they no longer starve, but merely eke out a living on the breadline).

Maybe you have breadlines in Britain, but I've only seen them here in old films.

I don't know how things are arranged in America, but there is a clear dividing line between management and workforce here. As well as eating in separate canteens, only the management get access to stock options or profit-sharing agreements.

Then it is evidently Britain that is more frozen in bourgeois liberalism than is America. (I am self-employed these days, but at my last job as an employee, I enjoyed a generous profit-sharing plan.) So much for the argument that America's written Constitution has frozen us there.

You're obviously a stats freak, and I don't have access to similar stats right now, so I'll just say one thing: I'm right and you're wrong!

Only in your imagination.

[Captain Hat]

You're obviously a stats freak, and I don't have access to similar stats right now, so I'll just say one thing: I'm right and you're wrong! Na-na-na-na-nah!

You are oh-so mature.

[Potemkin]

You're obviously a stats freak, and I don't have access to similar stats right now, so I'll just say one thing: I'm right and you're wrong! Na-na-na-na-nah!

You are oh-so mature.

Really? I thought it was a crushingly irrefutable argument.

[Potemkin]

Except, of course, that the radical changes which we have made to our Constitution over the ensuing 200 years demonstrate that we are not frozen in the 18th century.

No, clearly you've managed to drag yourselves as far as early 19th century laissez-faire capitalism.

And we are people of our time, which is why our Constitution looks much different now than it did then. And so does our society. Little things, you know, like universally available free public education, Social Security ....

Socialism, all of it! I never thought I'd see a right-wing American defend his system by pointing to things like universal free public education or Social Security....

Then it is evidently Britain that is more frozen in bourgeois liberalism than is America. (I am self-employed these days, but at my last job as an employee, I enjoyed a generous profit-sharing plan.) So much for the argument that America's written Constitution has frozen us there.

In fact, Britain is frozen in the transition between feudalism and capitalism. We still have a 'divine right' monarchy and an hereditary aristocracy, and the rigid dividing line between workers and management in the workplace is really a holdover from the old rigid feudal class divisions. Deep down, the bosses still regard the workers as medieval serfs. The idea that they should share their profits with the 'lower orders' is completely alien to them. This is why there must be a discontinuity, a revolution, rather than a continuous process of reform. Any reform process can be rolled back by the bourgeois class whenever they get tired of it. A revolution, by its nature, cannot be reversed. The bourgeoisie must be liquidated as a class, and the workers must seize control of the means of production.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

No, clearly you've managed to drag yourselves as far as early 19th century laissez-faire capitalism.

* * *

Socialism, all of it!

Well, which is it? Are we 19th-century laissez-faire capitalists? Or are we socialists? Are you incapable of remembering what you wrote in one paragraph by the time you write your next? Or do you suffer from some sort of bipolar disorder?

I never thought I'd see a right-wing American defend his system by pointing to things like universal free public education or Social Security....

Competent readers will observe that I expressed no view about whether America should have adopted universally available free public education or Social Security. I merely observed that the fact that we have done so -- be it right or wrong, wise or foolish -- demonstrates that we have changed substantially since our Constitution was originally adopted.

Competent readers will also observe that nothing in this thread indicates that I am "a right-wing American". It may appear that way to some, but only to those wedded to the profoundly stupid notions that constitute the core of Communism.

The bourgeoisie must be liquidated as a class, and the workers must seize control of the means of production.

Blah, blah, blah -- yeah, right. That way, Britain's economy can go down the crapper, just as the USSR's did while the Communists were running it. Fortunately, only a tiny minority of people still believes that Communism has ever been anything other than a failed system that leads inevitably to tyranny and economic collapse. Some people will never grasp that, but they aren't in charge of anything, which is a boon for humankind.

[Potemkin]

No, clearly you've managed to drag yourselves as far as early 19th century laissez-faire capitalism.

* * *

Socialism, all of it!

Well, which is it? Are we 19th-century laissez-faire capitalists? Or are we socialists? Are you incapable of remembering what you wrote in one paragraph by the time you write your next? Or do you suffer from some sort of bipolar disorder?

You got me there! I could blame it on trying to type a coherent response to a complex debate first thing in the morning before my daily intravenous transfusion of caffeine, or I could simply quote your great American poet Walt Whitman, who said on a similar occasion: "I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am vast; I contain multitudes."

I never thought I'd see a right-wing American defend his system by pointing to things like universal free public education or Social Security....

Competent readers will observe that I expressed no view about whether America should have adopted universally available free public education or Social Security. I merely observed that the fact that we have done so -- be it right or wrong, wise or foolish -- demonstrates that we have changed substantially since our Constitution was originally adopted.

Your position is logically correct. I apologise for imputing idea and opinions to you which you do not possess.

The bourgeoisie must be liquidated as a class, and the workers must seize control of the means of production.

Blah, blah, blah -- yeah, right. That way, Britain's economy can go down the crapper, just as the USSR's did while the Communists were running it. Fortunately, only a tiny minority of people still believes that Communism has ever been anything other than a failed system that leads inevitably to tyranny and economic collapse. Some people will never grasp that, but they aren't in charge of anything, which is a boon for humankind.

Communism isn't just a political movement; it is the historically inevitable end-product of capitalist development. If you want to prevent Communism, you would have to stop capitalism from developing any further. This is clearly impossible, and therefore, by the laws of historical development discovered by Marx, capitalism will eventually collapse because of its internal contradictions, and Communism will arise from its ashes.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

You got me there! I could blame it on trying to type a coherent response to a complex debate first thing in the morning before my daily intravenous transfusion of caffeine, or I could simply quote your great American poet Walt Whitman, who said on a similar occasion: "I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am vast; I contain multitudes."

Which may go a long way toward explaining why poetry has very little place in logical debate.

Your position is logically correct. I apologise for imputing idea and opinions to you which you do not possess.

Apology accepted. Please note that not having expressed opinions on a subject does not mean that I do not have them.

Communism isn't just a political movement; it is the historically inevitable end-product of capitalist development. If you want to prevent Communism, you would have to stop capitalism from developing any further. This is clearly impossible, and therefore, by the laws [sic, notions] of historical development discovered [sic, imagined] by Marx, capitalism will eventually collapse because of its internal contradictions, and Communism will arise from its ashes.

In fact, however, it is Communism that has crashed and burned. In Russia and Eastern Europe, it is effectively dead. Even in the People's Republic of China -- although its government remains a one-party dictatorship, the only system with which Communism is compatible, and a system inherently antithetical to human freedom -- Communism has, in practice, been abandoned.

[The Immortal Goon]

In fact, however, it is Communism that has crashed and burned. In Russia and Eastern Europe, it is effectively dead. Even in the People's Republic of China -- although its government remains a one-party dictatorship, the only system with which Communism is compatible, and a system inherently antithetical to human freedom -- Communism has, in practice, been abandoned.

The same was said of the Republic in Athens, Rome, Cromwellian England, etc etc...

-TIG