Pravda: American capitalism gone with a whimper

[NavyDave]

And later on in the 11 o'clock news...in a desperate attempt to get someone to listen to their failed message....

11 o 'clock news? The State run stuff that blindly follows Obama and see no worng? Yeah I'm so going to watch that and the 6 o clock news on NBC,ABC,CBS CNN and MSNBC.

[NavyDave]

when you lack credibility people tend to dismiss your assertions (and the ones you present), get used to it

True I dismiss assertions by liberals, the godless,sheep and Obama koolaid drinkers.

[NavyDave]

I really do not think GM is a state-controlled nationalized entity in the truest sense. Also, State capitalism and Marxism are not always one-and-the-same. It's difficult for the workers to control an industry if the control and management is elevated to the State level, simply creating another controlling class, much like the bourgeois.

Some believe it will be a form of Corporatism

[Baculus]

Some believe it will be a form of Corporatism

That's already what we have in this nation -- a form of corporatism. It's antithesis to the Marx ideal that the workers would control resources and industry in a democratic, production level manner.

In the case of GM, it's not truly "nationalized," especially since thousands of workers are being fired as opposed to unions and workers taking over the company.

The company is still in the hands of capitalists.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I stopped at Marxism, I couldn't go any further without my brain leaking. I then tried to start again but I think the author was talking about my constitutional right to capitalism or my constitutional right to no government taxes or spending or something along those lines, so I stopped again before I wanted to put a pencil through my brain.

I got to the exact same word.

[Cheers, Beers and Mountaineers]

Another one of their "stories" is about secret aliens and UFOs. http://english.pravda.ru/photo/report/UFO-1584/

Great source.

At least they got pics of girls in thongs.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

True I dismiss assertions by liberals, the godless,sheep and Obama koolaid drinkers.

I mean... I don't know how, but you still surprise me, regularly. I really think you are insane.

[hokie4redskins]

Yeah, Marx could never fully describe how the state would "wither away." Ultimately, though, even Engels, decades after the Communist Manifesto was written, had admitted that their original philosophies were difficult to implement in practice. One just cannot assume that a managerial class is going to "wither away" with the State, especially if you NEED that managerial class to run an organization. Even if you have a democratically worker-controlled places of business, you still need SOMEONE to organize things, lest chaos ensues.

That is the entire irony of the situation -- Marx believed that the ultimate outcome of Communism would be a STATELESS society, in that the worker's revolutionary state was supposed to be a transitional, temporary measure

I have this strange feeling you're getting all your info directly from Wiki.

Stateless schmateless. No way communist ideals could be reached without a state authority to distribute every and all things evenly. An entity with that kind of power and control would never just fade into the background.

Regardless, you're essentially attempting to circumvent what socialism is because Marx was wrong on the end-goal of communism. The rise of state power and control in Marxist ideals is undeniable. You're arguing semantics and attempting to dismiss America's recent socialist tendencies simply because you rightly admit Marx was off his rocker.

[Jeeb]

I have this strange feeling you're getting all your info directly from Wiki.

Stateless schmateless. No way communist ideals could be reached without a state authority to distribute every and all things evenly. An entity with that kind of power and control would never just fade into the background.

Regardless, you're essentially attempting to circumvent what socialism is because Marx was wrong on the end-goal of communism. The rise of state power and control in Marxist ideals is undeniable. You're arguing semantics and attempting to dismiss America's recent socialist tendencies simply because you rightly admit Marx was off his rocker.

Cognitive dissonance is awesome.

[PeterMP]

Cognitive dissonance is awesome.

Putting together two big words in a row isn't allowed here.

[Loxley]

From a neutral and slightly inexperienced stance I believe there is some truth in the article. Although I couldn't read the whole piece some of it did echo true if I am to believe the newspapers and world news courtesy of the BBC.

[Baculus]

I have this strange feeling you're getting all your info directly from Wiki.

Stateless schmateless. No way communist ideals could be reached without a state authority to distribute every and all things evenly. An entity with that kind of power and control would never just fade into the background.

Regardless, you're essentially attempting to circumvent what socialism is because Marx was wrong on the end-goal of communism. The rise of state power and control in Marxist ideals is undeniable. You're arguing semantics and attempting to dismiss America's recent socialist tendencies simply because you rightly admit Marx was off his rocker.

Both Marx and Engels discusses this directly in the Communist Manifesto. This is what was written in 1848:

"When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. (This is the "state" -- Baculus.) Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class."

So, according to Marx, the social contract of the "state" disappears once a classless condition has been achieved.

This has nothing to do with Wikipedia: why use that when you can go directly to the source. Let me ask you this: Where are YOU getting your information? From some right-wing website? Have you actually read any socialist thinkers?

This is directly from a Socialist website:

"Marxism and anarchism do have different conceptions of the state, and, therefore, of what should be done about it. Both anarchists and Marxists seek a stateless society--the anarchists because in the state they see the root of all oppression and exploitation, and the Marxists because the state, as the instrument for the maintenance of class rule, must fall away when class rule is done away with."

And, quoting from the article, Engels, who is often forgotten, had this to say:

"All socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed."

Which, BTW, was the dispute between Marx. Engels, and anarchists such as Proudhon.

http://socialistworker.org/2009/03/06/marxist-view-of-the-state

[Larry]

This article has some nuggets of truth,

Could you point me at one? I didn't see one thing in the article even claiming to be a fact.

[Larry]

Dismiss the messenger because you cannot refute the message.

Same question, to you.

Could you point me at a single statement in that entire piece which is capable of being either true or false?

[Jeeb]

Same question, to you.

Could you point me at a single statement in that entire piece which is capable of being either true or false?

I really don't think it's possible to prove them wrong in their minds. I can't begin to imagine the mental gymnastics these two go through in their minds to justify their lack of facts or basic logic.

Must be nice to be able to think like that.

[Baculus]

Could you point me at one? I didn't see one thing in the article even claiming to be a fact.

The article hinted at an apathy and malaise among some elements of American society. I think this is true to a degree. But the article then took these "nuggets" and ran with it, forming it into the typical "AMERICA IS CRUMBLING" Pravda article.

I didn't want to comment on the article while completely dismissing it, though it is worthy of dismissal.

[DeanCollins]

It's a good thing that "capitalism", where wall street (and all who benefit from it) is permitted to execute the greatest legal swindle in history, is going away. It's too bad that NY can't go away with it. Personally I didn't cry all that much 8 years ago. Well I did for the innocent people but not for the brokerage firms and banks. This system of crooks buying the US govt. so they can rob America blind (I sure hope the Insurance industry is next) has to end.

[Oldskool]

Need to put "Pravda" in the title.

It's also an Op-Ed, something that most people are not catching. This was written by a Russian blogger.

Either way, it's pretty spot on. Russians and Europeans have dealt with faux socialism or outright communism before, so they have a better idea of what's in store than most of us do.

[Larry]

It's a good thing that "capitalism", where wall street (and all who benefit from it) is permitted to execute the greatest legal swindle in history, is going away. It's too bad that NY can't go away with it. Personally I didn't cry all that much 8 years ago. Well I did for the innocent people but not for the brokerage firms and banks. This system of crooks buying the US govt. so they can rob America blind (I sure hope the Insurance industry is next) has to end.

Oooooohhhhhhhhh kay. Right.

[Midnight Judges]

I got to the exact same word.

haha. Knowing the op I didn't even bother to read one word. Just wanted to skip right to the pwning lol.

[WinSkins]

Well, if I were to buy into this... I would claim that it was the rightists who killed capitolism... AIG, Fannie, Freddie, energy laws, deregulation that led to monopolies that were too big to fail that became oligarchies, etc.

However, since I don't believe capitalism is dead and rather think that the spirit of entrepeuneurship is still ticking with a strong pulse. I would say that only the spineless, lazy, uninspired, troglodytes who expected capitalism to be handed to them without effort on their part is dead. Capitalism is hard and viscious. Saftey nets are good. Regulations are a mixed bag. Protecting kids is a worthy endeavor.

Capitalism is still alive and well and we are nowhere close to a Marxist state.

Word

[DeanCollins]

Oooooohhhhhhhhh kay. Right.

you know your comment is pretty outrageous when even Larry won't bite :rotflmao:

[mjah]

When I saw that the author spelled "BurgerKing" without the space, I immediately cursed all the damned liberals and their everyone's-a-winner, feel-goodery school systems that lead the Russians to believe they can get away with being lax with their English spelling. Well, some of us still believe in preemptive land wars in Asia and proper spelling, buster.

Damned ex-Soviet op-ed Internet strangers. You give them an inch, and they assume they're entitled to an inch from everyone.

[hokie4redskins]

Both Marx and Engels discusses this directly in the Communist Manifesto. This is what was written in 1848:

"When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. (This is the "state" -- Baculus.) Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class."

So, according to Marx, the social contract of the "state" disappears once a classless condition has been achieved.

This has nothing to do with Wikipedia: why use that when you can go directly to the source. Let me ask you this: Where are YOU getting your information? From some right-wing website? Have you actually read any socialist thinkers?

This is directly from a Socialist website:

"Marxism and anarchism do have different conceptions of the state, and, therefore, of what should be done about it. Both anarchists and Marxists seek a stateless society--the anarchists because in the state they see the root of all oppression and exploitation, and the Marxists because the state, as the instrument for the maintenance of class rule, must fall away when class rule is done away with."

And, quoting from the article, Engels, who is often forgotten, had this to say:

"All socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed."

Which, BTW, was the dispute between Marx. Engels, and anarchists such as Proudhon.

http://socialistworker.org/2009/03/06/marxist-view-of-the-state

Wow, I can't believe I got NNT'd for this.

We both agree the state disappearing is a bunch of rubbish, right? I'm not sure where you're going with this one.

Yes, I'm well-read.

Anarchists and Marxists are pro-dissolution of the state until, of course, they're the ones in power. You're forgetting the state of nature aspect. To expect oligarchs (or anybody for that matter) to suddenly abandon their grip on power once they've reached their stateless utopia is lunacy. Ironically enough, Marxism doesn't work without serious state power and interference. Claims of "statelessness" make me laugh.

Again, I think we're in agreement, but you're deflecting from the point I'm trying to get you to address......which is the inherent and increasing power of the state as it veers toward socialism.

But whatever.

[DeanCollins]

Wow, I can't believe I got NNT'd for this.

"Any suggestion the people who wrote the rules and are asked to enforce them know them less than you will lead to an immediate temporary ban." :laugh: