The Summer of Love

[Plane]

Perhaps because enough people are wrapped up in their cheap trinkets from China.

Keeping the peasants from revolting is an old art form.

Have you revolted yet?

If not, why not?

Why? I'm as bourgeoisie as you. Plus, there is no revolution before class consciousness is achieved. Capitalism has to do both its good and its ill beforehand.

The good it has done is to make the bourgeoisie a strong majority .


Or is that ill?

[BT]

Why? I'm as bourgeoisie as you. Plus, there is no revolution before class consciousness is achieved. Capitalism has to do both its good and its ill beforehand.

Hmmm. Those trinkets made in China are made by folks who own the means of production, no?

No.

Are they not the children of Marx and Mao?

[Michael Tee]

<<My union has terribly disorganised meetings , important decisions made in meetings are usually ignored by the national organisation , if it wern't so I think the Union would have been defunct long ago.

<<If a gang like that ran a workplace it wouldn't be a work place.>>

That is exactly what my dad used to say.  When I was 14 or 15, and began to learn about communism, I used to tell him the workers would take over his factory when the Revolution came.  My dad used to laugh at this.  He'd say it wouldn't take his workers two weeks to run the whole thing into the ground.  And he really liked his workers.

I worked in the factory too when I was older, and I don't think he was too far off the mark.  They were kind-hearted, good-natured people, with some real-life problems that the bourgeoisie would rarely if ever encounter, sons and husbands in jail, killed in the war, permanently injured on the job, etc.  None of them seemed to have much aptitude for business and management, but it who knows - - throw them into the pool and some might have become swimmers.  What it proved to me was the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat.  Taking over the factory was one thing, running it was something else. 

This was the reason for vanguard theory.  Left to its own devices, the working class, even if it won the Revolution, would inevitably go FUBAR.  Things they owned (the means of production, in effect the entire country) would have to be run for them by a dictatorship run by the vanguard of the proletariat, i.e., by the Communist Party.  The Party, as vanguard of the proletariat, would run the factory, but not on capitalist principles (greed, selfishness, private advantage) but on socialist ones (solidarity of the working class, from each according to his ability to each according to his needs, mutual aid and assistance.)

[_JS]

Why? I'm as bourgeoisie as you. Plus, there is no revolution before class consciousness is achieved. Capitalism has to do both its good and its ill beforehand.

Hmmm. Those trinkets made in China are made by folks who own the means of production, no?

No.

Are they not the children of Marx and Mao?

I'm sure you are not asking because you wish to discuss Chinese history.

They are capitalists, but you knew that when you asked the question. The system of wages, class division, and destructive policies against the working classes can all be found in China.

[BT]

They are capitalists, but you knew that when you asked the question. The system of wages, class division, and destructive policies against the working classes can all be found in China.

So the revolution failed?

[Plane]

<<My union has terribly disorganised meetings , important decisions made in meetings are usually ignored by the national organisation , if it wern't so I think the Union would have been defunct long ago.

<<If a gang like that ran a workplace it wouldn't be a work place.>>

That is exactly what my dad used to say.  When I was 14 or 15, and began to learn about communism, I used to tell him the workers would take over his factory when the Revolution came.  My dad used to laugh at this.  He'd say it wouldn't take his workers two weeks to run the whole thing into the ground.  And he really liked his workers.

I worked in the factory too when I was older, and I don't think he was too far off the mark.  They were kind-hearted, good-natured people, with some real-life problems that the bourgeoisie would rarely if ever encounter, sons and husbands in jail, killed in the war, permanently injured on the job, etc.  None of them seemed to have much aptitude for business and management, but it who knows - - throw them into the pool and some might have become swimmers.  What it proved to me was the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat.  Taking over the factory was one thing, running it was something else. 

This was the reason for vanguard theory.  Left to its own devices, the working class, even if it won the Revolution, would inevitably go FUBAR.  Things they owned (the means of production, in effect the entire country) would have to be run for them by a dictatorship run by the vanguard of the proletariat, i.e., by the Communist Party.  The Party, as vanguard of the proletariat, would run the factory, but not on capitalist principles (greed, selfishness, private advantage) but on socialist ones (solidarity of the working class, from each according to his ability to each according to his needs, mutual aid and assistance.)

With the whole group thrown in the pool , there would certainly be some who could swim and these could lead and become the vanguard leadership just as you say , the funny part is expecting this group to be an improvement on the group that ran the place as capitolists,

Capitolists can be idealists and understand kindness too , but some aren't and don't. Communists are no less human and are no less prone to greed and cruelty. So it becomes an improbability that the change would represent an improvement.

What tips the balance is the Communist refusal to acnoledge the reality of economics, being Communist is by definition being poorly breifed on economic matters.

[Xavier_Onassis]

What tips the balance is the Communist refusal to acnoledge the reality of economics, being Communist is by definition being poorly breifed on economic matters.

==================================================
The highest rate of constant growth in any economy in the world so far , everyone agrees, is the result of the government of the People's Republic of China. I would suggest that these particular Communists acknowledge and utilize a superior ability to brief themselves on economic matters.

You could say that the growth of the PRC was done by applying a large measure of capitalism, but this only indicates that the Communist leadership of the PRC understands and manipulates capitalism better than the government of any capitalist state.

[Amianthus]

The highest rate of constant growth in any economy in the world so far , everyone agrees, is the result of the government of the People's Republic of China. I would suggest that these particular Communists acknowledge and utilize a superior ability to brief themselves on economic matters.

You could say that the growth of the PRC was done by applying a large measure of capitalism, but this only indicates that the Communist leadership of the PRC understands and manipulates capitalism better than the government of any capitalist state.

According to JS, they're not communists:

Are they not the children of Marx and Mao?

I'm sure you are not asking because you wish to discuss Chinese history.

They are capitalists, but you knew that when you asked the question. The system of wages, class division, and destructive policies against the working classes can all be found in China.

[Xavier_Onassis]

They may not be Communists in terms of developing the economy, but they are Communists in many other aspects, such as urban development planning, education, and many other areas.

They do claim to be Communists, after all.

China is not a typical country. It has far too many people for that, and population control has to be a major concern of any government in China. It will not take too much time for everyone to see, in the next several decades, why China needed to restrict population growth, because India, which has a similar problem is not doing nearly so much, and will soon surpass China in population and starvation as well.

The PRC is also a geographically huge and diverse country. Communism has been more successful in the PREC than it ever was in the USSR, but then, the leaders of the PRC have the Soviet experience to build on. Also, Chinese society is far more collectivist by nature than anything in any part of the USSR.

I am not certain that JS is the ultimate authority in determining who is and who is not a Communist.

[Plane]

I am not certain that JS is the ultimate authority in determining who is and who is not a Communist.

Ted Koppell?
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/koppel/highlights/highlights.html

What tips the balance is the Communist refusal to acnoledge the reality of economics, being Communist is by definition being poorly breifed on economic matters.

==================================================
The highest rate of constant growth in any economy in the world so far , everyone agrees, is the result of the government of the People's Republic of China. I would suggest that these particular Communists acknowledge and utilize a superior ability to brief themselves on economic matters.

You could say that the growth of the PRC was done by applying a large measure of capitalism, but this only indicates that the Communist leadership of the PRC understands and manipulates capitalism better than the government of any capitalist state.

This makes my point well that the more they are well breifed on Economics the more they are Capitolists .

[Xavier_Onassis]

This makes my point well that the more they are well breifed on Economics the more they are Capitolists .

======================================
So a knowledge of economics makes one a "capitolist"?

I suppose your theory is that a lack of knowledge of economics makes one a Communist.

You have many interesting theories.

[Plane]

This makes my point well that the more they are well breifed on Economics the more they are Capitolists .

======================================
So a knowledge of economics makes one a "capitolist"?

I suppose your theory is that a lack of knowledge of economics makes one a Communist.

You have many interesting theories.

Well and succinctly put .

Thank you.

[Michael Tee]

XO sez:  <<You could say that the growth of the PRC was done by applying a large measure of capitalism, but this only indicates that the Communist leadership of the PRC understands and manipulates capitalism better than the government of any capitalist state.>>

plane replies:  <<This makes my point well that the more they are well breifed on Economics the more they are Capitolists.>>
===============================================================================

Well, doesn't that just beg the question, what IS a capitalist?  XO was merely referring to communists who understood and manipulated capitalist economies.  They didn't become capitalists, they merely manipulated the capitalist economies and adopted some of the techniques of capitalism, the better to serve communism in the long run.

Is a capitalist someone who has capital, who invests his capital for personal, private benefit and who personally reaps the profits thereof?  Or is a capitalist also a "communist" who believes basically in the people's ownership of the means of production, and in the dictatorship of the proletariat, and in "from each according to his ability to each according to his means," but analyzes developments in the capitalist world in order to sell to them, enrich the people, re-invest the profits wisely and continue to bring material improvements to the entire society?

[Plane]

XO sez:  <<You could say that the growth of the PRC was done by applying a large measure of capitalism, but this only indicates that the Communist leadership of the PRC understands and manipulates capitalism better than the government of any capitalist state.>>

plane replies:  <<This makes my point well that the more they are well breifed on Economics the more they are Capitolists.>>
===============================================================================

Well, doesn't that just beg the question, what IS a capitalist?  XO was merely referring to communists who understood and manipulated capitalist economies.  They didn't become capitalists, they merely manipulated the capitalist economies and adopted some of the techniques of capitalism, the better to serve communism in the long run.

Is a capitalist someone who has capital, who invests his capital for personal, private benefit and who personally reaps the profits thereof?  Or is a capitalist also a "communist" who believes basically in the people's ownership of the means of production, and in the dictatorship of the proletariat, and in "from each according to his ability to each according to his means," but analyzes developments in the capitalist world in order to sell to them, enrich the people, re-invest the profits wisely and continue to bring material improvements to the entire society?

Would you say that the Chinese have applied more ,or less, the principal "from each according to his ability to each according to his means," in recent times compared to previous times?

[Michael Tee]

<<Would you say that the Chinese have applied more ,or less, the principal "from each according to his ability to each according to his means," in recent times compared to previous times?>>

Of course not, I'd say they've obviously made a retreat from that principle, which I hope is merely a tactical retreat, temporary in nature and judiciously administered.