Illuminati Confirmed!
Banned
Workers demanding better working conditions has nothing to do with the idea of communism. The commies just (successfuly) used the working man's demands to propagate their own ideology.
How do communists want to enforce their ideology?
The idea of communism comes from the conditions the working class was in, though.
Lol, capitalism at its best does nothing BUT use the working man to further their own goals. Woulda been fun to see voting bases if only rich capitalists voted towards capitalism.
That famous 1%
The logic of "we are well aware that our policies do nothing but put you in a grave UNTILL you get super-rich! Which is what you plan to become, right?" "RIGHT :O" "follow your dreams buddy! what do you do, mop floors?" "m-hm!" "you mop the fuck out of those floors man, you mop a billion fucking floors, and you WILL be rich!" "OH BOY :O"
That famous 1%
The logic of "we are well aware that our policies do nothing but put you in a grave UNTILL you get super-rich! Which is what you plan to become, right?" "RIGHT :O" "follow your dreams buddy! what do you do, mop floors?" "m-hm!" "you mop the fuck out of those floors man, you mop a billion fucking floors, and you WILL be rich!" "OH BOY :O"
Was this really where Marx got his ideas from? I just started to read Das Kapital.
Gonzalez
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Read up on the industrial revolution history as well, you'll see the context. Crowded cities, appalling working conditions, none of the things we take for granted for workers today.
Class consciousness, is an important topic.
Class consciousness, is an important topic.
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
Capitalism has loads of skeletons in its closet, too. Let's not kid ourselves. Sure, the Western world and parts of the developping world live in prosperity... but other people provide much of their goods. Those 200$ Iphones, cheap food imported from around the globe, 20$ shirts, and so on? All those dirt cheap natural ressources that keep our high-paying and much-beloved first and second sector jobs rolling here? Someone makes them, and they sure as hell aren't paid anywhere near the minimal US wage. They're not always grossly exploited to the point of being slaves in all but name, but their working conditions often aren't all that different from those we saw in the dawn of Europe's industrial age, which inspired communism and socialism.
Not that communism is a preferable alternative. It ended up being shitty everywhere it was practiced. Less so in some places like Cuba, but still not great.
Socialism is another thing, however, and nowadays pretty much every Western country has adopted socialist policies to an extent, even the US. Merging a capitalist economy and a kinda-sorta-socialist state (call it welfare state or whatnot) was one of the clearest political trends of the last century, and indeed one of the Western world's greatest achievements if you ask me.
Not that communism is a preferable alternative. It ended up being shitty everywhere it was practiced. Less so in some places like Cuba, but still not great.
Socialism is another thing, however, and nowadays pretty much every Western country has adopted socialist policies to an extent, even the US. Merging a capitalist economy and a kinda-sorta-socialist state (call it welfare state or whatnot) was one of the clearest political trends of the last century, and indeed one of the Western world's greatest achievements if you ask me.
Illuminati Confirmed!
Banned
And they don't pay nearly as much for goods and services either.
They are trying to get rich by doing what made Europe rich. The only logical choice of action. And if they're ready to accept such appalling working conditions, just imagine how much it must have sucked for them before all those businesses moved in.
It's easy to buy votes with welfare policies after several decades or even centuries of capitalism made your country rich enough to be able to afford it. But it leads to collapse in the long run.
Throatpunch
Banned
Capitalism is probably the best idea, it is proven that communism does not work, due to it being hijacked and transformed into a tyranny.
I see a lot of people here complaining about corporations utilising third world countries: if they are willing to accept such work, how do you think it was before they got there?
It seems to me that a lot of what capitalist countries do what consumers want, and consumers don't care about working conditions in Nike factories.
I hear a lot of people complain about first world countries being biased towards the top: If you wanna see someone that got from the bottom to the top, look up John Major, or JK rowling
I see a lot of people here complaining about corporations utilising third world countries: if they are willing to accept such work, how do you think it was before they got there?
It seems to me that a lot of what capitalist countries do what consumers want, and consumers don't care about working conditions in Nike factories.
I hear a lot of people complain about first world countries being biased towards the top: If you wanna see someone that got from the bottom to the top, look up John Major, or JK rowling
How many of you actually work under those said conditions? Like a shoe factory of nikey, or a bottle company of Coke? How many of you people actually had to work ever at an assambly line at all?
Gonzalez
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Never hurts to learn something new. Hope our right wing firends here appreciate the extreme neutrality of this video while they learn about some of the theories that explain third world exploitation. Hopefully if they are interested at all they can read up more about it.
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
Not anywhere near to make up for the difference. When they even have access to goods and services that are remotely comparable in the first places. To say nothing of the sometimes appaling or even dangerous working conditions, such as in Bangladesh when a factory crumbled, killing hundreds a few years back, or even just the incredibly long shifts of very hard/tedious labor that we escape here.
It's not that simple. Forced industrialisation is a thing. Sometimes, the only alternatives are working or starving. Making more efficient farms is great, but when it comes at the cost of ensuring many farmers are out of a job and forced to work in sweatshops, that has a cost.
I'm not going to address the third statement since that will take us way off topic. I'll just say I also decried the welfare state until my family found itself in dire need of it through no fault of anyone. It's not perfect by any means, but boy at some point in your life are you glad it's there.
AskWazzup
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Military spending was not the main problem, as USA did the same thing and was ok. There are two real main reasons:
Planned economy model:
Most information in the Soviet economy flowed from the top down. There were several mechanisms in place for producers and consumers to provide input and information that would help in the drafting of economic plans (as detailed below), but the political climate was such that few people ever provided negative input or criticism of the plan. Thus, Soviet planners had very little reliable feedback that they could use to determine the success of their plans. This meant that economic planning was often done based on faulty or outdated information, particularly in sectors with large numbers of consumers. As a result, some goods tended to be underproduced, leading to shortages, while other goods were overproduced and accumulated in storage. Low-level managers often did not report such problems to their superiors, relying instead on each other for support. Some factories developed a system of barter and either exchanged or shared raw materials and parts without the knowledge of the authorities and outside the parameters of the economic plan.
Overdependence on natural resources (which current Russia still has):
The major strength of the Soviet economy was its enormous supply of oil and gas, which became much more valuable as exports after the world price of oil skyrocketed in the 1970s. As Daniel Yergin notes, the Soviet economy in its final decades was "heavily dependent on vast natural resources–oil and gas in particular." However, Yergin goes on, world oil prices collapsed in 1986, putting very heavy pressure on the economy.[19] After Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in 1985, he began a process of economic liberalisation that moved the economy towards a market-oriented socialist economy. At its dissolution at the end of 1991, the Soviet Union begat a Russian Federation with a growing pile of $66 billion in external debt, and with barely a few billion dollars in net gold and foreign exchange reserves.[20]
Throatpunch
Banned
@Illuminati Confirmed! you really should not be so opposed to welfare, it really isnt the tool of dysgenics and scroungers, for the majority of people its a safety net for when things go pear shaped, to keep you above water while you look for another job. I am sure if you lost your job then you would be great full for a safety net. There are of course some scroungers, and they should be forced to get jobs, but we must also take into account the people it benefits. Also, some of your stuff like the Holocaust denial, nobody cares about here. You would be better going on Stormfront to advertise your opinions. I mean, I am a right wing person and I think you take it too far.
Thats a silly statement to make, the USA did the same thing and it was ok, because it had more money, it had a better economic base.
Military spending was the main problem because the soviets tried to keep up in an arms race, and they ran out of money. They figured out that it just was not possible to continue the way it was, because Reagan turned the defence budget into a kind of economic warfare. It eventually caused a collapse.
Throughout President Reagan's two terms (1981-1989), military spending was very high; however, he was able to accomplish it without breaking out into an economic sweat. Reagan's administration managed it while enjoying noticeably positive growth — albeit with massive budget deficits.
The Reagan years also saw the beginnings of a dramatic era of innovation. "Silicon Valley" came into its own. By contrast, the Soviet Union, and its military, was in an economic dilemma while attempting to stay in the race for preeminence, and their computing industry lagged far behind the West.
Actually it was everything to do with military spending.
Thats a silly statement to make, the USA did the same thing and it was ok, because it had more money, it had a better economic base.
Military spending was the main problem because the soviets tried to keep up in an arms race, and they ran out of money. They figured out that it just was not possible to continue the way it was, because Reagan turned the defence budget into a kind of economic warfare. It eventually caused a collapse.
Throughout President Reagan's two terms (1981-1989), military spending was very high; however, he was able to accomplish it without breaking out into an economic sweat. Reagan's administration managed it while enjoying noticeably positive growth — albeit with massive budget deficits.
The Reagan years also saw the beginnings of a dramatic era of innovation. "Silicon Valley" came into its own. By contrast, the Soviet Union, and its military, was in an economic dilemma while attempting to stay in the race for preeminence, and their computing industry lagged far behind the West.
Last edited:
AskWazzup
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
I am not saying that that was not a problem, i think it was not the main problem. The economy was entering stagnation in 1975, even before the Reagan administrations final nail in the coffin. It was a stupid inflexible economy that would have fared even worse in today's world (probably why no sane countries are using that model today). It prompted corruption, incompetence, technological backwardness (exp: avoiding computerization) and was too slow to react to ever increasing global changes. If they would have started some changes to that model before the 70', they might have been able to shoulder the additional load.
So, ok, after thinking about this, i might have jumped the gun with a strong statement, as the cold war militarization probably was the final blow to the economy, but the root of the problem in the impotent economic model (plus oild prices and the chernobyl accident) would still have been there and continued to get worse in any case.
Illuminati Confirmed!
Banned
So what? The west didn't have quality goods and services until we developed either.
If you are retarded enough to go industrialize even if it actually kills you, then you deserve to die. But fact is, all those places are much better off with this "exploitation" than they were before
Murder and theft are also very convenient at times, but that doesn't make them right.
Izak
I Shot The ALBATROSS
I doubt it's the workers choice to industrialise in those cases.
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
Man, get over yourself. You're comparing murder and theft to my father getting experimental treatments that might have saved his life from a rare cancer; it didn't work out in the end, but all the same, it would have cost my family a fortune if we didn't have the healthcare service we have in Canada. We're talking a sell-the-house level of fortune. My mom already sunk into depression and almost killed herself, if she was half ruined by the medical costs she would maybe have actually done it. But I suppose we all deserved it in your mind, didn't we?
I'm not even going to comment on the rest, because you don't seem aware of how these things work up from your pedestal. If you're in China and the government decides that your farm will become industrialized, thereby probably costing your you job and way of life, or that the nearby lands will be flooded to make a dam, you don't have a word of say in it. Same for the majority of the places where abusive labor practices are common, which so happen to very often be dictatorships where your pleas are at best ignored, at worst get you in jail. But we should be totally OK because that happened in Europe more than a century ago? What kind of ass-backwards logic is that.
I'm done here. This kind of rhetoric isn't worth my time. Welfare comparable to murder? Get your head out of your ass.
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I see so many lefties in the U.S. complaining about sweatshops yet they have their Iphones, Nikes, what the fuck ever.
Hey I know, we can use our/U.S. military or economic might and TELL/ORDER those sweatshops countries to pass laws that FORBID ALL SWEATSHOPS. That's right China and India whomever, fuck you. If you encourage any company, or you yourselves use sweatshops, we'll slap you silly. We might as well do the same with tax havens too. If any foreign country allows any other foreign countries companies to have tax breaks inside said foreign country, then we will punish you.
See how stupid that sounds. We bitch and moan about sweatshops yet to tell other countries to not allow sweatshops is imperialism.
In the U.S., the lefties expect U.S. companies to play fair, AKA not use tax shelters, when foreign companies do it all the time. Hey we can FORCE everyone to play fair with military might right? Oh noooos cry the lefties, we cannot tell foreign countries what to do. So essentially, we just tell our own companies to go get fucked.
Hey I know, we can use our/U.S. military or economic might and TELL/ORDER those sweatshops countries to pass laws that FORBID ALL SWEATSHOPS. That's right China and India whomever, fuck you. If you encourage any company, or you yourselves use sweatshops, we'll slap you silly. We might as well do the same with tax havens too. If any foreign country allows any other foreign countries companies to have tax breaks inside said foreign country, then we will punish you.
See how stupid that sounds. We bitch and moan about sweatshops yet to tell other countries to not allow sweatshops is imperialism.
In the U.S., the lefties expect U.S. companies to play fair, AKA not use tax shelters, when foreign companies do it all the time. Hey we can FORCE everyone to play fair with military might right? Oh noooos cry the lefties, we cannot tell foreign countries what to do. So essentially, we just tell our own companies to go get fucked.
Gonzalez
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Most used dismissive excuse ever.
Also, as always we get to see the arrogance of the evil empire. And yes, whenever you say things like "we can use our/U.S. military or economic might and TELL/ORDER (other countries) (do/not do) (something)", you are basically confirming what others say when they call the US an evil empire.
I live in a third world country, and in these last 12 years I learned that whenever we separate ourselves from the wolrd and start developing internal market instead of focussing on exports our economy starts developing. But as if a perpetual cycle trough our history, eventually every government that priorizes internal market over exports is branded as evil by the US and the neoliberals (Cristina Fernandez in Argentina, Dilma Roussef/Lula Da Silva in Brasil, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, etc.) and they use every tool, trade, economical, judiciary and the media, to bring those kind of govenrments down. In 12 years of internal market development our nation achived that in our third world nation people could afford cell phones, TV's, only complaining that they had to pay 100% tax for imported goods, and they were doing so well they could still afford to pay if a lot of the time, I'm talking things that in US dollars costed twice as much here than in the US, and this was the working class.
The adivce I would give to developing nations is this: Basing your economy on exports is bad business, all the goods leave and your population gets none of it. Develop internal market instead, things your own population will consume, and give them enough money to consume it. It's really that easy. Develop internal markets first, and once you have a good solid base of internal consumption, export surplus of things you don't use in exchange of things you can't produce yourself, but only and after only you have a good internal market base. There, problem solved, start doing it... that is of course if the internal elite of your nation allows it, if not, you better rid yourself of them somehow.
And this has to be done internally inside every nation, it will never come from outside, why would it, why would first world nations shoot themselves in the foot helping the third world consume what they would rather be consuming themselves.
Last edited:
Illuminati Confirmed!
Banned
Sure, I get it, theft is moral because it's convenient for you.
If you care for these people so much, maybe you should be glad that their countries are following a proven path to success. And how are capitalism and factory owners to blame for all these states being douchebags? If it wasn't for them, they would just be douchebags with a poorer people to exercise their douchebaggery upon.
Pretty much all of east Asia got out of poverty by having export based economies until they developed their own consumer markets. That's a far brighter example than South America, especially the epic failure that is now Venezuela.