The Question of Leftist Framentation

[Eran of Arcadia]

Moderator Action: The flaming and personal comments need to stop, now.

 

[Traitorfish]

Sorry dude, but noone forces the 3rd world to export stuff to the first. They do so because they ge paid alot more than their own country can pay them. We didn't "export" anything.

If anyone is to blame for the conditions of China, it is the Chinese. Don' blame the west for the CCP's failures.

Ok, you seem to have misinterprated my point, perhaps because of poor communication on my part. What I was trying to point out that we have not, in fact, reached some post-industrial utopia, and that our society still rests heavily upon the labour of an exploited working class, it's simply that the bulk of this class lives in the developing world, and under exactly the conditions which Marx observed. Simply because an individual nation appears to have advanced past the scenario which Marx faced does not actually mean that our economy or society have done- simply creating a semi-liberated, pan-national lower-middle class on the backs of a foreign working class does not remove the issue of class conflict, but merely serves to throw a bit of physical distance into the mix. When I described this class as "exported", I referred to the transference of our economic depenendency and exploitation to the third world, rather than, as you seem to suggest, having eliminated it altogether.

@At Traitorfish - I find it incredibly amusing that you are blasting capitalism and defending a leftist framework as a defense of the proletariat. Hilarious, mind you, that a leftist framework killed millions and marred China economically versus the rest of the world for decades. They basically hit the reset button for years thanks to the inevitable conclusion of totalitarianism and statism when the left meets "unity."

Now you most certainly misenterprate my point, although in this case, I suspect, it's largely your own fault. I defended nothing, and certainly did not make the slightest move to defend Maoism, Stalnist or any such abhorrent pseudo-socialist system. I merely sought to highlight what I felt to be a pertinent gap in Ecofarm's observations, and noted that our economic situation was not as far departed from that as Marx's day as we think, or might like to think. What conclusions you draw from that are largely, I feel, your own.
I certainly did not percieve myself to be actively involved in any form of "blasting", or to be actively "defending" anything much; granted, my post carried an implied critique of modern capitalism, but you'll note that I avoided any particular criticism, let alone the endorsement of an alternative. I fear that you may have mentally inserted just enough rhetorical fluff from your "Strawman Pinko" folder into my post to permit yourself to dismiss it in such a glib manner, and so rather entirely missed the point I was actually attempting to make.

 

[Bill3000]

Without the social oppression of the capitalist system (at his time, typically represented by Monarchs, Theocrats and Dictators), Marxism lost its purpose.

Wait, what? Did you even read the communist manifesto? Marx himself said that the landed aristocratic class was soon to become irrelevant; the fight there was between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracies in the liberal revolutions and the bourgeoisie won. The conflict was after that in the bourgeoisie liberal societies.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

That rather assumes that the "liberal western democratic world" exists in an economic vacuum. We have not eliminated our proletariat, merely exported it to the developing world- that would be "the rest" to your "some of the world". China, for example, is a fairly decent modern-day equivilent of the sort of state Marx was talking about- statist, heavily stratified, driven by exploitation of the proletarian class, yet with a swiftly growing, disenfranchised urban industrial class. That it is in the processing of shedding a decaying facade of pseudo-socialism is neither here nor there. Simply because authoritarian capitalist exploitation is not occurring across town from you, remember, does not imply that it is not occurring at all.
Regardless of whether Marx was right, wrong or dribbling insane, these realities cannot be ignored, wherever you sit on the political spectrum.

Very ironic, isnt it?
To think that a Commuist Party would tolerate such a smear on their iedology by privatizing the market.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

If by privatizing you mean "un-governmentalizing" it, then there is no contradiction in socialism to do so...

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

If by privatizing you mean "un-governmentalizing" it, then there is no contradiction in socialism to do so...

I was thinking more about the social aspects of such a change on the population and how it discredited the CCP as a whole.

 

[Merkinball]

Now you most certainly misenterprate my point, although in this case, I suspect, it's largely your own fault. I defended nothing, and certainly did not make the slightest move to defend Maoism, Stalnist or any such abhorrent pseudo-socialist system. - Traitorfish

Then what was the point of saying that America and the west still exploit the proletariat? Why mention those facts if not to lend some level of credence to Marxist ideologies?

I merely sought to highlight what I felt to be a pertinent gap in Ecofarm's observations, and noted that our economic situation was not as far departed from that as Marx's day as we think, or might like to think. - Traitorfish

Except that our economic situation on all levels is light years from that as Marx's day. The only way you arrive at your conclusion is if you look purely at wealth disparity. Which is, quite frankly, ********.

 

[Karalysia]

Our proletariat still exist. They have just been distracted by "shinies" fancy LCD tv's, iPhone's, laptops so for now they are content with their exploitation in the capitalist system. But that won't last forever. We still have some 10% unemployed, and when the economy tanks again, and it will such is the nature of the system, then we'll get more discontent. And all these toys won't be enough for them.

 

[lutzj]

Our proletariat still exist. They have just been distracted by "shinies" fancy LCD tv's, iPhone's, laptops so for now they are content with their exploitation in the capitalist system. But that won't last forever. We still have some 10% unemployed, and when the economy tanks again, and it will such is the nature of the system, then we'll get more discontent. And all these toys won't be enough for them.

Yeah, all that prosperity is just disguising how poor Americans are...

 

[capslock]

Our proletariat still exist. They have just been distracted by "shinies" fancy LCD tv's, iPhone's, laptops so for now they are content with their exploitation in the capitalist system. But that won't last forever. We still have some 10% unemployed, and when the economy tanks again, and it will such is the nature of the system, then we'll get more discontent. And all these toys won't be enough for them.

This reminds me of the discussion about Labron James, when he getting signed to the NBA. He was like 17 and some people were seriously upset over the NBA and media exploiting him for $$. He signed a ~40 million dollar contract and became one of the most famous people in America, lol. Thats the story of capitalist exploitation in America...

 

[Traitorfish]

This reminds me of the discussion about Labron James, when he getting signed to the NBA. He was like 17 and some people were seriously upset over the NBA and media exploiting him for $$. He signed a ~40 million dollar contract and became one of the most famous people in America, lol. Thats the story of capitalist exploitation in America...

Yes, because, clearly, that is exactly what people mean when they refer to borgoise exploitation of the productive classes.

What happened there, I think, is that a few people got over-excited about something trivial and misused certain words in a series of knee-jerk reactions. That one of those words is also used in the discussion of class relations is neither here nor there.

 

[capslock]

Well, it is what Karalysia meant in his quote. Read it again. The exploitation is hidden because everyone gets lots of cool stuff. Some people get LCDs, Labron got 40 million bucks.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, it is what Karalysia meant in his quote. Read it again. The exploitation is hidden because everyone gets lots of cool stuff. Some people get LCDs, Labron got 40 million bucks.

Um, yeah, fair point, actually. I spoke out of turn, there, I think. My apologies.

 

[Merkinball]

Our proletariat still exist. They have just been distracted by "shinies" fancy LCD tv's, iPhone's, laptops so for now they are content with their exploitation in the capitalist system. But that won't last forever. We still have some 10% unemployed, and when the economy tanks again, and it will such is the nature of the system, then we'll get more discontent. And all these toys won't be enough for them.

This is a great schtick post.

 

[Ecofarm]

Wait, what? Did you even read the communist manifesto? Marx himself said that the landed aristocratic class was soon to become irrelevant; the fight there was between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracies in the liberal revolutions and the bourgeoisie won. The conflict was after that in the bourgeoisie liberal societies.

I meant the fight between the boug and the prol, not the boug and the aristo. Marx didn't see these two working together to each other's mutual satisfaction and gain; that pulls the rug from his 'black and white' worldview. Today, it benefits the prol that some profit is capitalized by his employer and the prols rights are embedded in law protecting him from the exploitation and fraud that was status-quo in Marx's time. Today, employees purchase stock (ownership) in the capital at discount rates as a benefit of employment. Today is a brave new world encumbered only by the reactionary 'us and them' dogma of yesterday.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

In what meaningful way have the bourgeoisie and aristocracy ever cooperated?

 

[vesley1987]

By paying workers' salary?

 

[plarq]

Sorry dude, but noone forces the 3rd world to export stuff to the first. They do so because they ge paid alot more than their own country can pay them. We didn't "export" anything.

If anyone is to blame for the conditions of China, it is the Chinese. Don' blame the west for the CCP's success.

Fixed it for you.

 

[plarq]

If by privatizing you mean "un-governmentalizing" it, then there is no contradiction in socialism to do so...

But China under Mao is already "socialist" according to most broad definition. So un-governmentalizing is privatizing and capitalist restoration. This has been pointed out by Chinese left opposition a.k.a. neo-Maoists, in their political forums.

 

[Ecofarm]

Fixed it for you.

I would blame failures on the CCP and success on time. Things generally improve and, in the case of China, this is despite the CPP (not because of it).

People do this same BS with Stalin, etc. "But some things got better!" Well, things always get better in general (this is true even in Africa) and giving a tyranny credit for general progress that happens despite them is lame.

If I beat my kid everyday and force it to live in a shack outside, and that kid wins a spelling bee... do I get the credit?? No. And the CCP should not get credit for the advancements of the Chinese people. It should get only blame for holding them back, thus limiting the progress (not creating it).

Remember that person who got kidnapped for 18 years in the news recently? Giving the CCP credit for progress is like saying "well, look how well she speaks! Her kidnapper sure did some good things! Look at the progress he created"!

Giving a tyranny credit for progress is BS; I think you can see that now. Progress happens because of the people, not because of the government; government only holds us back - that's why it should be as small and uninfluential as possible.

We're going to let it happen again, aren't we?