This section is online for reference only. No new content will be added. no deletion either...
Go to Current Forums ...with millions of posts
     | Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 11:09 pm The American Caste System America society has historically been divided into the propertied class and the non-propertied class. With a little bit of luck, there was always the opportunity for a member of the non-propertied class to work hard and eventually join the other class and even retire comfortably his savings. When capitalists like Henry Ford realized that if he did not pay his workers enough to afford his cars, the market for his products would be very limited, this American dream became accessible to many more people. Recently, however this dream has evaporated. The competition from cheap labor abroad as well as the availability of a world wide market for American products, has made it all but impossible for the non-propertied to enter the propertied class. Blue collar workers who could formerly relatively easily buy a home and enter the propertied class will no longer be able to do so in the new economy. Those in the service industry and the working poor can not afford to even think about it. The classes have become so separated by the work they do, the company they keep and the neighbourhoods they live in, that they more and more resemble a caste system - a caste system determined by birth and circumstance rather than any other merit or qualification. This 'caste system' consists of six basic castes - four working castes and two non-working ones: The first Non-working Caste Those who don't (cannot) work [The Outcastes] -the uneducated, unemployable, addicts, handicapped poor, elderly poor. Many of these outcastes are minorities or in jail. The Working Castes Those who work primarily with their hands [Unskilled manual workers] - minimum wage, service industry (most of these are barely making it) . Those who work primarily with their hands [Skilled manual workers] - blue collar workers, trades people etc (many of these are insecure and constantly worried that they may fall into 1) Those who work primarily with their heads [White collar, mental workers] - office workers, engineers, first line supervisors, journalists, teachers, academicians, other professionals etc (many are struggling to get into 4, shocked when they fall into 1). Those who work primarily with their mouths [Management, verbal workers] - managers (middle and upper), newspaper/magazine editors, politicians, independent business owners, self-employed lawyers and doctors etc. These often imagine that they rule the world without acknowledging (or even realizing) that they have been bought and paid for the other non-working caste. The Second Non-working Caste Those who don't (don't need to) work [The CAPITALISTS] - Some of these actually do choose to work, but their income is primarily 'unearned' and comes from their invested capital. They essentially live off the labor of 1 through 4. (Owning a few stocks does not make you part of this group, it should be the principal source of your income.) The capitalists' main job is to remain invisible (unless they are politicians) and use their power and influence (they own the media as well as government leaders - both elected and appointed) to keep the four working castes suspicious and distrustful of each other and together learn to hate the other non-working group or some foreign threat ('evil empire', terrorists, drug traffickers, immigrants etc). There is of course some overlap, the very top people in (4) also belong to the capitalists group. These, who do work, are directors and CEO's of corporations, rich politicians, regents of universities, bankers etc. Even when they work, their income is principally 'unearned', i.e. derived from capital which utilizes other people's labor to generate wealth. In the case of CEO's and directors of corporations even their salaries and perks are disproportionately large compared to the actual work they do. The caste you become a member of is primarily determined by the caste of your parents. Sometimes with luck and hard work, you can climb into a caste higher than your parents', but this is becoming more difficult everyday. By the time you are in your late twenties, your caste has been determined for life. Most of the mobility that exists after that is between castes three and four. Members of three are the only ones who can move up in the caste hierarchy within their own lifetimes. (Professional sportsmen, musicians and other performers are of course rare exceptions). This possibility of upward movement, is the main reason that group three which consists of the intelligentsia of society, helping to form public opinion and initiating changes in society, remains loyal to the system. (The other reason is of course, that they may even be thrown out of the one they are in, as occurred in the McCarthy days.) They are busy trying hard to get into the managing group and dream of the wealth and prestige that they would acquire by moving into that apparent ruling class and eventually into the actual source of power which is that of the capitalists. This last dream is as realistic as the dream of a ghetto kid of becoming part of the NBA - it is possible but highly unlikely. As for the other castes, the very things that would help them to move up - affirmative action, student loans, affordable colleges are constantly under attack, making the caste system ever more difficult to break out of. Instead there are things like school vouchers, regressive taxes (especially payroll taxes), crime and drug infested neighbourhoods that ensure that the next generation will remain in the same caste or fall even further if that is possible. Capitalism and Democracy It is not clear when in history the confusion between capitalism and democracy started. It has been suggested by some that there was a deliberate decision after World War II to use terms like the 'free world', the 'free market', 'free enterprise' in order to imply that all these were synonymous with freedom and a democratically elected government. This has become so pervasive in the US that many people very likely think that a capitalistic state means a democratic one. If they don't believe that, they are at least led to think that capitalism is a prerequisite for democracy. The truth is that capitalism manages quite well (maybe even better) under non-democratic governments. All that capitalists want is that the state allows them to invest their wealth where they please and retain the additional the wealth generated from the labor of others. Whether the labor force (which is really most of the population) has a voice in the affairs of the state is besides the point. Capitalists and fascists are very comfortable bedfellows. Also to say that capitalism is a prerequisite for democracy, assumes that the only alternatives are failed ones like communism or state socialism. Other alternatives like employee owned and controlled corporations receive scant consideration if any. Capitalists and Entrepreneurs Similar to the confusion about capitalism and democracy, is the myth that all capitalists (or at least most of them) are entrepreneurs - constantly starting new ventures, taking major risks, helping the economy to grow and generally raising the standard of everyone else. The truth is very few capitalists are entrepreneurs who start their own enterprises. Most entrepreneurs are not very rich and usually start with just an idea and after sinking most of their savings in it, struggle to find funds from venture capitalists to make their idea into a business (in return handing these non-working partners a share in the new company). After the business becomes successful, the entrepreneur usually joins the ranks of the capitalists - any new ideas, products are usually those of his employees. His work hours are sometimes (not always) as long as before, but his income is disproportionate to his efforts and mostly from his equity in the company. If his former entrepreneurial spirit still exists, he may attempt to start another one with a fresh idea but usually prefers to expand his company by acquisitions. The capitalist is too comfortable to start a entirely new business, he would much rather acquire existing businesses or expand his business geographically or in similar fields (this principally through the efforts of his employees). An excellent illustration is Steven Jobs. When he started Apple (in a garage), he was a entrepreneur not a capitalist. When he started Next Inc. with some of his wealth (mainly because he was removed from Apple), he tried a second time as entrepreneur/capitalist. However, when he bought Pixar(after Next failed to succeed) for ten million dollars (according to newspaper reports for 'a song'), he was being a pure capitalist. Most of the billion dollars he made when Pixar went public ( a several hundred percent profit), was 'unearned'. The seasoned capitalist seldom puts all (or most of) his money in one risky venture. (The worker who risks the loss of a job when joining a new company is taking a far greater risk, since he has neither independent wealth to fall back on, nor the certainty of getting another job immediately, or even soon). The small business man who owns and operates a family run business is no capitalist, he is a worker like the rest of us, though he may be self-employed. Capitalists and Altruists The idea that the capitalist is really an altruist who makes his wealth available to society out of the sheer generosity of his heart, is so laughable that ordinarily it would not even need to be refuted. But this relatively new myth has been so successfully propagated by the minions of the capitalist that it needs to be mentioned. The only motive the capitalist has or has ever had was the accumulation of more capital and perhaps the exercise of power. Capital knows no loyalties (local or national), the goal of all businesses is the making of the highest profits at the lowest cost to the owner (the cost to the consumer or to the state which may be providing a subsidy is never an object). The environment, the community, the health and safety of workers are only considered when it is required by government regulations. Even the charitable foundations created or donations made, are for tax purposes or to create an image of a philanthropist after having ruthlessly destroyed or dominated a particular section of the society or some industry (as the foundations created by the Rockefeller family). Of course, some capitalists are decent human beings, but the system promotes the rise of the most 'ruthless, cunning, avaricious, self-seeking, lacking in sympathy and compassion'. Capitalists and Stockholders The argument often made today is that corporate stocks are so widely held today, especially by middle class Americans, that the owners of American corporations are really ordinary citizens. This argument is often used when a capital gains tax cut is proposed, implying that the main beneficiaries are not the rich and powerful. Though it is true that ownership of stock is now very common among ordinary men, the control of corporations is still in the hands capitalists and their hired management. The individual small stockholder rarely has much say in the business operations of the corporation. Sometimes he owns the stock through a mutual fund company, in which case he does not even control his ownership of the stock. Often he is the last one to know about adverse financial news and the one who loses the most. In any case the income he derives from the stock is never his primary source of income. He would gladly give up his stock earnings for higher wages or a more secure job. The idea that capitalism is these days really the domain of the common man is really a red herring put forth by the capitalist caste who take great pains to maintain a low profile. In any case this ownership of stocks is limited to groups 3 and 4 and rarely reaches the rest. Capitalism and Imperialism The less said about this the better, since it always ruffles many nationalistic (or, as they would have you believe, patriotic) feathers. Suffice to say that though there was imperialism before capitalism, it never reached the rapacious zeal with which capitalists, these days, devour the natural resources of the weaker nation, exploit its labor at subsistence (or below) wages, destroy its traditional industries or agriculture base and impoverish and decimate any indigenous peoples (if they are any left), all with the help of the U.S. government. Employers and Employees The relationship between employer and employees is really no better than has always been between lord/serf in a feudal society, master/slave in ancient times (or America in the last century) or landlord/tenant farmer in an agricultural society. That the conditions of employees (at least in the US) is better today than serfs and slaves is no thanks to capitalism. Those are merely hard won gains made due to establishment of democratic institutions, won through struggles by social activists, civil rights workers and labor unions. (A quick review of employees' conditions in some non-democratic capitalist states like Guatemala can tell the difference). However, be that as it may, the very relationship of employer-employee or owner-worker is dehumanizing, undemocratic, even unnatural. It is difficult to understand how people, who so easily accept democracy and political freedom, a natural human right, as important and necessary in society at large, see no harm in the autocratic and dictatorial way corporations or even smaller businesses are run. The idea is that if the worker does not like the way he is treated, he can always leave and work someplace else. As if getting another equivalent or better job is that easy for most workers. However many Japanese-style workers councils an employer sets up, the very imperatives of capitalism - to make the highest return on the employers investment, will never allow the relationship between employer and employee to be anything other than that of a owner to a machine, a profit producing resource. In this sense, it is even worse than that of a lord and his serf, where there was a relationship that may have lasted generations, a relationship not easily broken by a change in market conditions. The only new freedom the modern employee has, is to leave and choose another master if he can find one. That is the freedom, as they say, to starve. Capitalism and Conspiracy Theories Any talk of the true nature of capitalists and the economic and social system they promote, is often dismissed as a fanciful conspiracy theory. Even liberal thinkers scoff at the idea that the U.S. economy (and in turn the world economy) is run by a relatively small group of owners essentially for their own benefit rather than that of the population at large. The idea that this same group also controls many of the branches of government (including the national security apparatus - NSA, CIA, FBI, the Pentagon) is of course dismissed as ridiculous. Though there are many conspiracy theories that are quite hard to swallow, the capitalist caste not so much controls the government and economy from the outside, but that they are invariable in leadership positions in everyone of these institutions. The capitalists did not all meet in a large dark room to come up with a strategy to control the world. However, they all come from a similar background with similar goals and ideologies. With the use of their money and the power that goes with it, they have successfully marginalized any opposing points of view and ensured that the people with these views not only are not allowed to gain any significant position within these institutions, but that their views are rarely (if ever) heard via any form of mass media. Those who still have difficulty believing in the power and reach of capitalists without the existence of a national or international conspiracy should try thinking of some analogies - for instance there is no denying the existence of racism in this country, even though all racists are not part of a single conspiracy. The racists in the country did not all come together in some sinister,dark room. However, even if the racists have different individual targets (some hate Jews, other hate Arabs, many hate blacks), their outlook on life and how it should be is amazingly similar. Similarly, though capitalists may have different individual goals (those in the trucking business like low gas prices, those in the oil business like high ones), they are of a kindred spirit, and have pretty much the same idea of how the spoils of this world should be divided. Of course, just like organizations that cater to racists, there is no dearth of networking groups where members of the capitalist class can meet and discuss issues - the Business Council, the Committee for Economic Development, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission to name a few. Alternative to Capitalism Whenever someone mentions an alternative to capitalism, Americans seem to only see communism with a party boss ruling an inefficient, sluggish workforce making unneeded low quality products, ready to send anyone who raises his head to some distant concentration camp. Regardless of whether this scenario was ever true in former communist Russia, this is hardly the only alternative that has ever been proposed. Systems like anarchism (this is really not as bad as it made out to be by both capitalists and communists) are rarely presented to ordinary people. Collectivism also does not automatically imply a totalitarian state with state ownership of all property. As mentioned before, lack of capitalism also need not lead to loss of democracy. Any way, the last thing this country needs is another "ism" to compete with capitalism or the other well known "isms". Naming such a system invariably leads to the use of code-words etc to discredit it by vested interests in the status quo. It goes without saying, of course, that the principles of democracy (which, as stated before, are independent of capitalism) like free, fair and regular elections, freedom of expression and movement, right to private property etc etc should be preserved under any such system. The simplest (may be even simplistic) way to see the difference between capitalism, communism and a better alternative would be to put it in the same terms in which communism (as the Marxist ideal rather than the Stalinist abomination) is usually thought of: Communism - From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Capitalism - From each according to his need (vulnerability, helplessness), to each according to his power (ability, initiative and will to grasp and take). Nameless Alternative - From each according to his will (or choice), to each according to his labour (active effort). To achieve the first part we need to ensure the following: Availability of employment for all members of the society All jobs should be capable of providing the essentials for living - food, housing, health-care and education (for the entire family). Elimination of the unskilled labor caste (through training of its members and automation of its work) Democracy in the work-place - work-rules and work-conditions established in a democratic way (as opposed to autocratically from the top) To achieve the second part we need: Compensation commensurate with amount and type of work performed Adequate rewards for creativity and talent Adequate rewards for enterprise, initiative and risk-taking Full participation of the entire work-force in the profits as well as gain in market value of the business enterprise. Minimization of 'unearned' income (derived without any actual participation in the work) Democracy in the work-place - salary, bonuses, benefits at all levels assigned democratically by participation of the entire work-force (rather than just from the top). As can be seen the most important part of this is the idea of making the work-place a democratic one where all workers (including managers some of whom are often the hardest workers of all) participate in all aspects of the enterprise (especially financial ones). This kind of 'corporate' structure does not mean a business run by committees of workers any more than democracy means a nation ruled by committees of lay citizens. Democracy in the work-place means 'management' is answerable to employees before anyone else (board of directors, major shareholders or any other absentee owners). To ensure this, employees need to be able to control compensation for management as well as change(demote) managers if a significant majority sees need for such a step. Managers will be appointed by upper management and be able to direct and discipline individual workers as before. However, workers as a group will now evaluate, reward or remove individual managers. Major decisions like sale of the business (change in the same absentee owners) should be decided directly by the employees (by referendum where the employees have an option to buy the business at a substantial discount). All the above steps can be taken by passing appropriate legislation, but none of it can be successful without solidarity among the different types of workers. Solidarity between mental workers and manual workers has always been lacking in the US. Professional employees have been only too happy to benefit from the struggles of blue collar unions (like the 40 hour work-week, paid health insurance etc), but have always looked upon unionized labor with disdain and a sense of superiority. These mental workers (group 3) have to recognize that they are in same boat as the skilled manual workers (group 2) and need to work together to achieve common goals. Both groups of course, have to feel the same way about unskilled workers (group 4), the most neglected and unrepresented workers of all.. This does not really address the special problems of children, the elderly, the disabled and minorities. But only when the needs of the majority of the population (the work-force) are met in a fair and equitable fashion, will this majority be willing to consider the special needs of those even less fortunate. please check the ideals you believe in before you openly support it, in this case i mean---Madmac...and other liberals who share with them these despicable ideals of Capitalism,, It is time for the revival of Marxism....
|
| | Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 11:23 pm Faisal Abdi there's nothing wrong with thinking about how we can better ourselves. But I have observed, in my couple of years here on the planet, that when governments run things (like the Florida elections) they tend to do it inefficiently, because they don't really have much a stake in its efficiencies (the bureucrats that it). But when private inducstry runs things, it's looking to be efficient to make money. This doesn't always hold true, but it often does. The other problem is, the more you ask governments to provide individual security, the more government is allowed to intrude into our lives. Here in Germany the government is annoyingly intrusive. I have printed it here before, but I think it's worth repeating here. P.J. O'Rourke: "I visited a government class. There, a young man said how he didn't think it was fair that presidents of large corporations earn so much money when workers earned hardly any. Doubtless this is unfair. But corporations have share holders, boards of directors, workers and customers who are free to sell shares, hire or fire, quit, strike or boycot if they don't like the corporate pay structure. From whom will these individual freedoms be taken away and to whom will the power of deciding what's fair be given?? He wasn't sure "but it's not fair" he said.
|
| | Friday, January 19, 2001 - 09:36 am Faisal Abdi, You cleverly depicted a gloomy capitalistic picture, where you tried to denounce that capitalism commensurates with exploitation and caste system. And at the same time illuminated the benefits of communism in a more acceptable terms. Here is the question that I pose to you, Had all communistic societies been decieved, or they realized the failure inherent in their systems, and thus abandoned it? The base for capitalism is this, the human being is a social being by nature, and by trying to do the best for themselves they will eventually contribute to all society's progress without intending to do so. A prime example is Bill Gates of Microsoft, have we benefited from his greed to accumulate wealth by envisioning to reign the software market? Yes, he commited crime against society by being monopolistic, but Antitrust laws never let him out of the loop. And yet again, you and I wouldn't be sitting in front of our computers today and having this discussion, if it weren't for him and other capitalists. I didn't know that this was the invention of communism! Capitalism has never been a perfect system, but at least it is a better alternative to collectivism and bureaucracy, which tries to assimilate and curb diverse human abilities. Again, the predictions of Karl Marx that capitalism will end up in socialism has never been applied anywhere even in the Soviet Union, where they tried haphazardly to implement a communal system before that society transitioned from capitalism, as we know feudalism was reigning in SU by the time Leninism rather than Marxim was introduced there. Another important element in your argument is the confusion between economic system such as capitalism and political system such as democracy. You tried to confound between the slogans raised and reality in the cold war era to lure deeply rooted democracies such as India to apply capitalistic economic system. So that argument is baseless since democracy can exist without capitalism and vice versa, as it is apparently existent today in China, where capitalism is prospering and the political system is still totalitarian. However, the call for mixed capitalim and democracy is still resonant with world-wide audience, and no one can de-emphasize the importance of freedom of press and other democratic values could play in a capitalistic economic system. Also, you alluded that the in the new economy era, the worker is far more worse condition than in the old economy. I wonder if this statement upholds under scrutiny, New Economy by amateurish definition means the application of technology in business conduct, or what is called E-business. In this era the technology worker is the supreme force for change, and was concomitantly compensated for their efforts through stock options,lax work environments and other incentives. Before the new economy era the capital was the most important factor in all production factors, but the shift was apparent in this era where the technology worker became the most important factor. E-business start ups didn't need as much capital as old economy businesses, and as a result it was obvious that we are reignant in this era....and may we continue to do so after our recent slump.. Sagittarius
|
| | Friday, January 19, 2001 - 04:21 pm Saggitarius What are you suggesting then? What economic system would be more reliable than Capitalism or collectivism and bureaucracy?It seems your arguements presents an allumination of confidance on something you think fit better to be utilized.Give us the scoop.These economic dicussions are interesting i must say.By far - i conclude Capitalism works just good.
|
| | Friday, January 19, 2001 - 06:41 pm Anonymous, I am not suggesting by any means that capitalism is not working. However, my arguments are based on one simple reality, that economic systems are man made not god mandated. We tend to apply a system that fits well with well developed nations such as the US or Europe to a developing country without any modifications or adjustments in structure and functionality. If we are preoccupied with developing nations and what system should they adopt? The answer lies in analysing the socio-economic values of that society such as cultural and other factors that need to be adapted to harness the full potential of capitalism that is in accordance with local perceptions. There has never been a clear cut definition about capitalism, only that it allows private ownership of the means of production has been the guiding force. Thereby, there can be rooms for structural adaptation and orientation Sagittarius
|
| | Friday, January 19, 2001 - 08:00 pm You people must be over 40 right...and you must gather in coffee shops I presume since you are so captivated by such a boring topic. How cares about Marxism and have you even consider Weber's thought's. There is no progress in such discussions, it just seems relentless.
|
| | Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 03:55 am This kind of useless subject causes attrition to the progressive mind. I can't believe some somali women are so weak they have to show interest in atheism. May be they don't get that the whole Marxist ideology is based on atheistic beliefs and have deep respect for Darwinian flaws and never-to-happen theories of a bogus dogma. If any body is really familiar with the works of karl marx he would know that he dedicated his book(Das Kapital) to Darwin. Karl also made it clear that Darwin's theory of evolution provided a solid ground for materialism. It is violent, ignorant, brutal, dictatorship, selfish, self serving of the few that ruined many countries. Look at russia if you need a good example of what Marxist ideology can do to a whole people. I can't believe of all these communist failures and their despicable backwardness, some somalis would dearly spend their time in promoting their doomed theology and religion. I don't support blood sucking capitalism either. They have their own evils. But this was exponentially ridiculous. Hey Bored> You have a point in there. But remember, some young people are easily influenced by the conflicting ideologies of the world if they are insecure.
|
| | Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 02:30 pm I am sorry if i am misundrestood, lol,but you seem to be missing the point,,i havent said Marxism should be followed, all i did was to compare the two systems and find out the qualities inherent in them..I am shocked to see certain individuals pouring out their forte against something that isnt there. please,,,,.. Socialism: Socialists believe that the inequalities that exist in our society are unjust and that the minority of the population should not own the vast majority of the wealth. Socialists do, nevertheless, differ on ways by which this change should be achieved. Some believe that the change should be gradual, achieved through parliament and others believe that the change should be rapid, brought about through revolution. It is impossible to state "that at such and such a time socialism began". However, it is apparent that socialist ideas have been developing for hundreds of years. Modern socialism emerged as the world went through the process of industrialisation. From the 18th century the industrial revolution transformed Western Europe and North America from agricultural, trading nations to industrial nations. The metamorphosis of these country's economic structure led to great and complex changes in the lifestyle of their people. The average worker went form being a self-employed farmer to being an employee at a large factory. The working class was formed! People began to move away from the country and the population became centralised. Cities grew rapidly and overcrowding became an enormous problem. This new industrial workforce, the proletariat, worked and lived in appalling conditions. Poverty was rampant. The cities were havens for crime and disease. The tumultuous transformation affected not only the lives of the workers (factory fodder) but also craftsmen, such as handloom weavers, who were being forced out of business by factories which could produce the same product at a lower price. Much of the working class was confounded by the radical changes that were going on. Without anyone planning it, capitalism had emerged and began to flourish as there was no opposition to it. The factory owners became richer and low-skilled workers and the unemployed became poorer. Workers whose trades were less secure decided to form trade societies (the forerunners of trade unions). This allowed the proletariat who had nothing to trade but their labour, to sell their labour for the best possible price. By uniting, workers could achieve results that could not be achieved individually. Life wasn't easy for the trade unions in the early 19th century. In Britain, for example, many employers banded together to fight trade unions. There was also an increasing representation of employers' interests in the house of commons. By 1814 industrialisation had occurred in the majority of Europe, hence capitalism had sowed its seeds deep in society. It was in France (one of the first countries to industrialise) that opposition to capital and to the ruling class first developed. The saint-Simonians were among the most important opposition groups to capitalism at the time. They argued for the abolition of hereditary wealth and for the pooling of all land, machinery and capital in a social fund to be controlled by the state. For the next hundred years capitalism thrived. In opposition to this, trade unions grew in magnitude also. But it must be remembered that trade unions are not always socialist instruments. In an economic boom trade union's demands are usually met, which leads to trade unions allying themselves with the capitalists instead of opposing them. Shortly before the First World War British trade unions called many large strikes which resulted in the loss of millions of working days. When the war started, trade unions suspended any industrial action to allow the economy to work at maximum efficiency. During this period most private companies and factories fell into public control as part of the war-time effort. The success of the economy under state control during these "experimental times" demonstrated to some the inadequacy of capitalism. After the war public companies reverted to private ownership. In 1926 Britain came close to an anti-capitalist revolution. The TUC (Trade Union Congress) called a National Strike in response to wage cuts in the mining sector, but failed to anticipate the magnitude of the strike. Almost all industry in the entire country came to a halt. Clearly, the TUC had forged a revolutionary weapon without having any revolutionary intentions. In actual fact, the TUC were as afraid of a revolution as the Government. The TUC capitulated after nine days without winning any compensation. Nowadays almost all western countries have Labour (or gradualist, socialist) parties who believe in achieving either total or partial socialism gradually. These parties go in and out of government just like the Liberal (or conservative) parties. Karl Marx and Marxism: Karl Marx became the prophet and teacher of socialism whose writings transformed socialist thinking all over the world. Marx was a philosopher and an idealist who studied history and was greatly influenced by the writings of Georg Hegel, the famous German philosopher. In 1848 Karl Marx published, with the help of his long-time friend and collaborator Friedrich Engels, "Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei", more commonly known as "The Communist Manifesto". The Communist Manifesto was a summary of his entire social and political philosophy. The publication of this book occurred at a most propitious time. The book appeared on the eve of the 1848 revolution in France and less than one year before an attempted revolution in Germany. After the failure of the 1848 revolution in Germany he was expelled from his country of origin and moved to London. He later published "das Kapital" or Capital, an analysis of the economics of capitalism. Marxism, a doctrine developed by Marx and to a lesser extent by Engels, consists fundamentally of two interrelated ideas; a philosophical view of man and a theory of history. Marx believed that man should labour not only for himself as an individual but for society as well. Implied in Marxist philosophy is the notion that man being a social animal has his destiny indeed his reality inextricably linked with his society. Hegel's idea of human history evolving in a dialectical process of thesis, antithesis leading to synthesis was taken up by Marx and applied to social and economic policy. In a capitalist society the proletariat invests its labour so that the bourgeoisie (or upper-class) can make all the profits without investing any labour themselves. The disconnection of a worker from the end product of his labour leads Marx to his theory of alienation. Workers are alienated from the product they manufacture, having no control over what becomes of it. Finally workers are alienated from other human beings, with competition replacing co-operation. Marx's theory of history is an account of the different stages of government through history. His analysis describes capitalism as the first stage followed by socialism and finally communism. Marx believed that socialism is an unrealised potential in capitalism and once most workers recognised their interests and became "class conscious," the overthrow of capitalism would proceed as quickly as capitalist opposition allowed. The socialist society that would emerge out of the revolution would have all the productive potential of capitalism. People would be aided on the basis of social needs. The final goal, communism, toward which socialist society would constantly strive, is the abolition of alienation. A class-less society would be advantageous for the vast majority of the population. As the complexity of the social structure increases, more and more revisions were made to Marx's original doctrine Communism: Communism, a form of government, inspires some people with the zeal of a religion. Communism in theory stands for total public ownership and rejects private property and personal profit. In practice, however, the state determines how strictly the doctrine is applied in any particular country. Communism in Russia: The huge losses (both human and material) in the First World War intensified the revolutionary spirit in Russia. In 1917 Lenin led a small party of professional revolutionaries, the Bolsheviks, to power after the Tsar was overthrown. To achieve the transition from Capitalism to socialism and finally communism, Lenin used Marx's theory of "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". The most politically advanced section of the proletariat would form the communist party and lead the rest of the country forward. Since the Bolsheviks totally represented the people, all other political parties were abolished. The party: tolerated no opposition, owned all industry and property, had a powerful secret police, kept strict control over all levels of education and disallowed all liberal literature and art from entering Russia; not unlike the regime that the Tsars ruled by. What became apparent after a few years was that power stemmed from the top, just like under the Tsars. For the average Russian the repression continued! After Lenin's death in the late 1920's, Josef Stalin took control of Russia. It was under Stalin's command that the terrible political purges in the 1930's took place. Until his death in 1953, this dictator showed what Marxism-Leninism could mean in practice, which is vastly different than in theory. For about 15 years after the revolution farmers continued to own their own farms, islands of private ownership in a sea of state owned property. Stalin, after a long and bloody battle with farmers, put into practice the collectivisation of agriculture. This meant that farmers would go and work on huge state owned farms to earn a wage. Theoretically these large farms would make better use of land and machinery, but in practice these farms were inefficient and unproductive. The Bolshevik government actively discouraged all religious practice, handing out pamphlets and closing down churches. Schools were totally under the control of the communist party. Marxism was taught in schools like religion. There were programs such as the "young pioneers" for children under 14 and the "communist youth league" for teenagers and young adults which were set up to promote the involvement of young people with the communist party. At the conclusion of the Second World War Russian Forces pursued the last of the German troops into Germany and on their way occupied most of Eastern Europe. In these countries Stalin imposed communist regimes. These nations became known as the satellites of the USSR. Over the next 25 years there were many attempted revolutions that were mercilessly crushed by the Soviet government. Gradually these countries became increasingly independent of the Soviet Union until its demise in 1993. In January 1959 Fidel Castro became the head of a new revolutionary government in Cuba. Castro freed his country from the excessive US influence. In retaliation the US imposed a trade embargo on Cuba. As a way of protecting Cuba, Castro allied himself with the other super power, the Soviet Union, and within 3 years Castro was proclaiming "I am a Marxist-Leninist". The Cold War: As the USSR set up left-wing governments in most of Eastern Europe much of Western Europe feared that the "Red Army" may venture further west. In an effort to prevent this threat NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) was set up. In that same year the communist countries signed the Warsaw Pact. During 1949 the Soviet Union exploded its first nuclear bomb and in 1950 along with China it aided the North Koreans invasion of South Korea. The US helped South Korea defend the communist invasion resulting in an indecisive three year war. After some relaxation of the tensions between the two super powers, the Cold War reached a climax in 1962 when the Soviet Union secretly installed nuclear missiles in Cuba, less than 200km off the coast of Florida. After discovering the missiles President Kennedy gave an ultimatum to the Soviets; remove the missiles or risk nuclear war. After a long and agonising week Nikita Khruschev backed down. The world escaped Armageddon. Communism in China: In 1949, after a fifteen year war, the communists seized power in China. Mao Tse-tung took control of China and removed Chiang Kai-shek (the nationalist general) and his army. Chiang Kai-shek took refuge in the Chinese island of Formosa (present day Taiwan), thus creating what the Chinese government consider today its biggest problem with the West, particularly with the US. Mao's army consisted mainly of peasant farmers because the majority of China's people lived through agriculture. This came to be the fundamental difference between Russian and Chinese communism; Russia's form of communism was urban and factory-based while China's form of communism is rural and peasant-based. As communism took hold all over China landlords were expropriated and the land was divided amongst the peasants to start small farms. But, farming would only achieve improved efficiency if agriculture was carried out on a larger scale. Instead of employing collective farming as Stalin had done in Russia, Mao solved the same problem with more success and less bloodshed. Over the next seven years farmers worked in co-operative groups that increased each year in size and productivity. By 1958 these groups started to form vast communes in which 550 million people are said to have belonged. From 1966-69 the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China took place. It involved mass rallies, widespread "re-education" programs and the sacking of many communist party officials who were said to be corrupt. Mao was prepared to turn the entire country upside down in order to achieve a nation where the proletariat took power for themselves. He was determined not to let the Chinese communist party turn into a rigid centralised bureaucracy as the Bolsheviks had done. It was also essential to eradicate the bourgeois ideas that had been rooted in Chinese culture for so long. Capitalism: Capitalism is a political system in which factories, companies, land, etc. are owned privately in order to create profit for the owners. Prices of goods and services fluctuate depending on the desire of the consumer and the availability of the goods (the law of supply and demand). In a capitalist society their will be significant differences in wealth and power between those who have capital (machines, factories, ships, land, etc.) and those who do not. No one can say when capitalism first began. Clearly the development of capitalism was not revolutionary like that of communism. Instead it emerged gradually without anyone making a plan of what it should become. However, aspects of modern capitalism such as the stock exchange, banks and great disparity in wealth came about during the industrial revolution. In 1776 Adam Smith, a Scottish university professor, produced a book which described the workings of a capitalist society. He believed that a country's wealth depends on all people pursuing their own interests. If a person promotes his own interest he or she is unintentionally promoting his country's interest. Smith thought that governments should promote free trade and not interfere by protecting certain industries from competition. The only duty of governments, Smith wrote, was to provide services that couldn't be profitable like the building of roads, schools and churches. These policies were adopted by much of western Europe and continue to be fundamental components in the thinking of most right-wing governments today. Clearly Capitalism has its benefits; accelerated economic growth and prosperity and rapid progress in science and technology. But along with these came inequities; great disparity in standards of living, power concentrated into very few hands, dangerous working conditions, poor housing and unsanitary sewage systems due to rapid centralisation. Marx believed that capitalism would bring about its own demise. As capitalist companies competed against each other they would reduce in number. Due to fewer companies unemployment would rise and people would have less money to spend. This would mean that people could not buy the goods that the companies were producing. Finally in an attempt to find new markets, companies would go abroad only to come into conflict with other companies looking to go abroad and wars would begin as a consequence. The other faults, as Marx's sees it, are the advances in technology reducing the need for human labour and the economic "boom-slump cycle" which is evident in all capitalist countries. Nevertheless capitalist governments are in power in almost every country in the world and show little inclination to change their system. Conclusion: The war between capitalism and communism is an interesting one, with many battles and new developments still to come. I believe that the conflict between these different ideologies is by no means over. In theory both capitalism and communism have their advantages. In a theoretical capitalist society there is an extremely strong profit incentive which leads to the accelerated development of new products and technological advances which benefit not only those who are strong enough to succeed but also those who are left behind, through the famous "trickle down effect". In a theoretical communist society there is no unemployment, no inflation, higher productivity in times of crisis and no disparity in wealth, status and power. However, in practice the story is vastly different for both political systems. Capitalism in practice leads to high unemployment, alienation, the boom-slump cycle, poverty and crime. Communism in practice leads to political control, the suppression of free speech, limited travel, the repression of religion and restricted expression of the arts. Marx idea of the ultimate abolition of the state was in practice as far as it could be. My ideal society would be neither of these two extremes but something in-between, leaning towards the left. My system would operate basically on capitalist principals. Except that there would be strict limits on the profit that individuals or corporations could make. This would be achieved either through taxation or some other means. There would be a fairer distribution of the wealth of the country and greater opportunities for those at a disadvantage. These ideas are nothing new and neither is the notion of Utopia. Utopia, however, will never be anything more than a dream. Because of human imperfections there will always be conflicts between members of a society. As Adam Smith would have said "self-interest is the basic motivator of human action" a consequence of which is the unequal acquisition of wealth and power. So to finish I think that communism, if it could be made to function in its ideal manner, would be superior. But we live in a world which is, like it or not, filled with greed. The system then is fundamentally driven by greed (capitalism). In the end, I believe that capitalism was and will be inevitable, at least in some form. This finally is my position, i hope people should have misunderstand my position,,i am not a devil's advocate or a proponent of Marxism regimes, as well as pure capitalists regimes. i have drawn a fine line between the two for everyone to see and understand... As to those Visitor and the other one, you two seem to be scared of aging,,,,,i am a young man so is Mad mac,,,we are looking ahead with anticipation the day when we reach forties,,,Insha Allah...
|
| | Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 07:20 pm Faisal abdi. How do you know Mad Mac is a young man??. Just curious. Did he tell you how old he is??. He could be the oldest man in the forumss. I am wondering at how you guessed my phobia of aging?. Words don't convey the age of the people. Your Marxist discussion lead some to think you must be an old man from the communist era. I didn't think you were old. It is hard to find aficionados or devotees of communism these days. That was all. People make linkage between age and leninism/communism/marxism. It is thing of the past. May you meet Castro so you could discuss these things in a passionate manner with him. If you learnt the stuff for schooling purposes or it has an attachmnet to your major, then you have a reason. I find it hard to immagine people are still interested in those philosophies. It was surprising to see the name Karl Marx come up particularly in this somali forums. This place is full of surprises. What is next could be anyone's guess.
|
| | Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 07:25 pm mad mac dude is 39.DuH?
|
| | Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 12:20 am Whao Duh - impressed, memory like an Elephant. Indeed I am 39. Loosing my hair too. But I can dance a mean Salsa - so I can still get chicks. And I live Cuban and Puerto Rican Chicks. Sorry, I digress. Faisal Abdi Marxism is as dead as....dead. Any countries that look to the Marxist approach or centralized control and redistribution of wealth are on the road to hell. Bored and you other critics. If you don't like the topic of the thread, don't open it. Best advice I can give you.
|
| | Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 11:28 am Mad Mac I agree that communism is dead as fried chicken but we have to guard against it coming back. So I suggest we kill all the leftist intellectauls and I will start by offing this Faisal Character. No more commie bastards. Then we kill the liberals(jews in other words). Then we leave the good honest to goodness Americans who read their bible and bother nobody until they are bothered and the others whose heart is in the right place(most of the time) like you, and Their Somali friends.
|
| | Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 11:48 am today is ma last day. i am annoyed and frambasted by the lack of intellectual appreciation that appear all this place. Don'T you read? Can't you read the argument before you say what you think....? I am shocked, walaahi,,,truly shocked,,,,for i cant find one single man here who can argue a Well-reasoneD, and well formulated argument... I will never never again set my feet in somalinet's forumss,,,for reallllllllll As to you guys, all i can say is,,,,,"""try harder not to just say whatever that pops out of your mouths....,think and think not only once but thrice,,,look the argument from different points, analyse it, break it into simple statements, see the implication,what it purports to portray......To merely jump up with a conclusion that is based on nothing but your imagination is a great fault in intellect,,.. Somalinet,,,,byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee... All these days,,lol,,i was discussing with stones
|
| | Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 01:56 pm Faisal Abdi, What an outburst! At least an acedimician wouldn't have easily given up in such a dishonorable fashion as you did! Your writings were a disgrace to acedemic integrity in the first place. Merely compiling and copying interesting articles from well known authors would have at least given you some credit by invoking thoughtful responses from your readers. However, you failed to defend your ideals in an articulate manner when their were exposed to rejection. Let me painstakingly remind you some of your remarks "It's time for the revival of Marxism" in your first posting, and then you change your position in the second posting by saying "Capitalism is inevitable and people have misunderstood me" Now tell me, who's helpless! Furthermore, you unawarely post a very controversial issue, and when you get a dissenting view probing and rejecting your (compiled)views, you just made matters worse, by following up with a lengthy unrelated historical narrative that was not relevant at all to the core of discussion, Which sufficiently proves your ignorance and inability to engage in a productive discussion. On your behalf, I offer an apology to anyone whose integrity you touched. And my advice to you is, don't play with fire! If for any reason you feel self low esteem and tried to uplift it with inappropriate academic engagement, whose intellectual and educational background you obviously lack. Try something that may befit you and square with your ego. Finally, we say to you, have a nice journey...see you in next life, maybe then you'd have improved...
|
| | Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 05:04 pm I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but it needs to be said. When you enter a discussion, are you agreeing to anything? Not really. You don't agree to be fair, you don't agree to be nice, you just agree to do your best to put a point forward. But theres an old unspoken rule of war that should be recognized, respect for your opponent. Treat him as if his skills are equal to your own, don't make him suffer, just destroy. Every person who enters a discussion with you is worthy of this respect, do you give it to them? Have you ever said "gg" to a newbie after you argued with him him 5 minutes into the discussion with a 6 unit rush? If so, you have just broken the law of respect. Do you do things to your opponent that, while effective, may be upsetting, as they beleive that such a thing is an insult? If so, you've broken the law again. Why? Why have i done this to Sagatarius into 3 factions, the gamers, those die-hard people who beleive in actual fun, the newbies, the bright eyed if slightly arrogant children who cling to your legs in hope of learning, and the lamers, the rude, crude, mean hearted, disgusting individuals who make me for who i am,hell. If you can answer this, you think like me. Human nature is to hurt your opponent, not only physically, but emotionally too. People say, "Its just a game," but they overlook the fact of how good they feel when my words hit them hard, how they're a little bummed when they cant understand, and how they feel cheated when they argue with someone they KNOW they cant outperform. Emotions are involved in all forms of play, so they are involved in StarCraft, respect your opponent, and take to heart this lesson, i remembered, i don' t need to humiliate you. You talk of academics, damn,what an idiot you are. From the style and the flair you show here, you seem to be the worst uneducated idiot ever in these rooms. You are full of shame, i hate to say this. And i hate to see people talking about other people whom they have no knowledge of. Since when have you known me to accuse me of copying.? Ignorance, that is the first sign of ignorance. And please, read before you argue with me and pour out your wails to me, cause , damn, you seem not to understand a word of what i have written,. It is !!. I am who i am, and frankly i feel sorry for you. Your mentality is just similar to that of chicken that feeds da ••••,,,.. Next time, be careful not to open your mouth too wide, and believe me, ...You bubble and bubble and bubble about anything, eventhough you know nothing about it.Be objective , and respect others.. you assumed the role of Maccabre Judge in a chamber with his to be assasinators.. Words reach far, and the consequence can risk your integrity. IN REALITY, I WOULD HAVE CATEGORIZED YOU AS THE WORST , DAMNED FOOL, WHO CANT PUT TOGETHER TWO WELL FORMULATED ARGUMENT...bRO, LEARN HOW TO ANALYSE SIMPLE ARGUMENTS, I GUESS MINE WAS TOO ABSTRACT AS MY PROFFESSOR ONCE TOLD ME. hE FOUND IT HARD TO DECIPHER. wHAT ABOUT YOU? THAT IS WHY I HAVE SIMPLIFIED MY ARGUMENT FOR FOOLS LIKE YOU TO GET THE GIST OF IT.. It all comes to this......Somalis dont like to see a bro outperform them,,they do,,...is that the stle now?....You can do it too, bro..study hard and hard,,the rewards are better after... Dont be too jealous, as i can see you are, from the sentiment you are depicting here.... I am not too emeotional,,but rather i am to the point ,,and this serves to show you where you erred,,,return, i know with your dirty mouth, but dont forget ,,everyone has a mouth that is capable of uttering the most dispicable of all words...if you dross the fine line between argument against the point or character... I wonder why God has created such abundant fools everywhere? Perhaps he has his own plans ,,who knows!! I guess after all,,,Saggatarius, Shame on ye forever...
|
| | Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 08:18 pm Faisal Abdi, You bet I would be back.....I thought you're the one who left us..... Speaking of academic credentials, a wise man doesn't boast off a mirage he can't drink from. And if I may add, you don't know whom you're up against so just get a grip on yourself and no further damage done whatsoever. For nobody needs a smile so much as those who have none left to give! Sagittarius
|
| | Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 09:59 pm Xoogsade I can always count on you for the extremist approach. Man, you sound like you're to the right of Joseph McCarthy!! Faisal Abdi I'm not jealous, but your argument was prone to wandering and was more verbose than the original Communist Manifesto.
|
| | Monday, January 22, 2001 - 03:30 am Sagittarius. On behalf of people whose intelligence was urinated upon by this Feisal Character, may I accept your apology. You see, Feisal came here not to debate but to pass to us 'his OWN new and very exciting' message. I think he should have pointed out to us this link: http://members.aol.com/dxgude/capital.htm and there would have been less ado.
|
| | Monday, January 22, 2001 - 03:40 am And, Feisal has the audacity to say this to Sagittarius: 'Since when have you known me to accuse me of copying.?' Absolutely disgraceful.
|
| | Monday, January 22, 2001 - 04:00 am why faisel?why? sorry to say but you are a fraud.and i thought you were so smart. i guess you are , i would have never thought that you would waste your time copying something and then presenting it to us like it was your own piece of hard work. there is nothing worse than a fake. i am a sociology student myself and understood most of what was written but i had to learn to understand. do you know anything about marxism,capitalism or communism? i doubt i'll ever go into a page that you've written or believe anything that you say is your own.
|
| | Monday, January 22, 2001 - 04:14 am who trully is the smartest? not you fiesal.poison i hand it to you man. no words need to be said. the writings on the screen
|
| | Monday, January 22, 2001 - 05:12 am Faisal You are a fool liar. Atleast, you should have re-organised the sentences. my word, do the people who learn sociology and economics do these copying and pasting and claim to be original. Poisonous, well done for catching this theif. Come on guys, join the real world of computing professionals.
|
| | Monday, January 22, 2001 - 05:45 am I kinda like this Discussions but its too long.loool..Economics Globalisation should be discussed,and make it short.
|
| | Monday, January 22, 2001 - 06:09 am How one can be sooooooooooooo fake....lol.lol.lol Well done Poisonous and Sagittarius for revealing that shamefull impostor.. Poisonous, how did you get that link? loooooooool
|
| | Monday, January 22, 2001 - 06:41 am Feisal says: 'Words reach far, and the consequence can risk your integrity'. Absolute trash. What integrity is he talking about when he indulges in pure plagiarism. The real author of Feisal's purportedly original 'ideas' is a Kufaar called D. X. Gude and he writes extensively on a whole plethora of anti-wetern-system subjects, all of whose work is in public domain. If anyone wishes to debate about Capitalism, Socialism, Marxism et al it would only be fair to do it with the instigators of those ideas and not the fakes of Feisal's kind..... Meanwhile, I have this niggling feeling that Feisal is no more....that we have heard the last of him..... that having been busted, he will go underground, which is OK with me. It means less offence to our intellect. Last but not least, allow me to replay the killer blow that I dealt Feisal the Fake: http://members.aol.com/dxgude/capital.htm Beware ppl. 'Keywords' can put you in hot soup.
|
| | Monday, January 22, 2001 - 01:39 pm Poisonous, One can never be more appreciative of your sincere quest for truth, to expose the bad seed amongst us. And, that's one big reason I keep coming back to Somalinet since I discovered it not short while ago, there are genuine people with diverse backgrounds who can add something to our knowledge and experience, may we let those not to be interupted further. Fakes, impostors, arrogants, and the similars we leave them to you my dear friend..lol Again, thanx a bunch for your sincere act. Merci,
|