Economical essay: "The hawk’s shadow"

[rikbe]

Originally posted by red_fury
Ladies, I am still waiting for your reply ABOUT MY ESSAY

Be patient, till now they are still laughing too hard to write.

[VicBlack]

Plain and simple - I disagree. Reality and personal experience shows the opposite of what your essay purports to prove.

People who are afraid of life, work and failure generally subscribe to your type of thinking - thereby removing any personal responsibility for your own life and failure. If you want to live under a jailer, I suggest you commit a crime and get yourself locked up so the State can take care of you. Leave the rest of us out of it.

[rikbe]

Originally posted by VicBlack
People who are afraid of life, work and failure generally subscribe to your type of thinking - thereby removing any personal responsibility for your own life and failure.

Don't forget laziness, physical and mental.

[red_fury]

I disagree

Vic Black, please support your opinion with valid arguments.

[The_bolshevik]

[/quote]Originally posted by akhmetbek
Before anyone gets into a discussion,explane,how a socialists economy can survive without the slave labor? [/b][/quote]

Slave labour has actually nothing in common with socialism. In order to answer on this question I will have to answer some other things, because your question is a very abstract.

In socialism, economy is run by direct participation of ground layers of people in the state affairs and therefore also economy.

The problem of self proclaimed "socialist" (or "communist") states was that those who actually made decisions were lifted above the ground layers and made their decisions indpendently of working people which they supposingly represented. And this runs against the concept of socialism!

Trotsky called this phenomena bureaucratization of workers´ state. Workers´ state is in fact nothing but an organization of working people. For example if we have a union in capitalism which says that represents workers, but workers can´t make decisions in the trade union itself, then this union is bureaucratised, because the leadership, and therefore the organization itself, is alienated from the working people. The common result of this is well known example when workers want to strike, but union won´t support them, thus making the strike illegal.

In workers´ state, bureaucracy thus makes the layer of people which supposingly represent working people, but got totally independent of their base ground, working people, while at the same time possesing all authority of the organization, which in the case of workers´ sate also includes controling of army and police.

So what happened then is that state was run primarily in the interests of the bureaucracy, and only secondly in the interest of the working people. The result was that the bureaucracy had more and more benefits and wealth, and differences between bureaucracy and working people was bigger and bigger when time went on.

Trotsky also pointed out that bureaucracy was thus making mismanagement, which is well documented in his book Revolution betrayed. Bureaucracy also can´t correctly manage planned economy, because planned economy is not in any way comaptible with bureaucratization. Without people having control of the state, thus also having the ability to raise their voices, to protest, etc., the economy will be mismanaged.

And to keep economy running on the basis of mismanagement, they were forced to exploit workers on very different ways. But when more and more different branches of industry come into existance, running of industry on this basis becomes impossible and missmanagement is more and more evident.

Trotsky then (in 1930s) correctly predicted that when mismanagement will more and more deepen, people will start to get on the move hard, because life will become more and more intolerable. He pointed out 2 possibilities out of this kind of state of affairs, either people will organize in a real workers´ revolutionary party and overthrow the bureaucracy, or bureaucracy will be forced to abandon planned economy and denounce it as "bad", if they want to keep their privileges, turn peoples´ vision partly on nationalism, and return to capitalism, and try to loot as much as they can in the phase of transition and transform themselves in a new rulling class.

We could see both scenarios being implemented. For example Hungarian revolution of 1956 was a great example of how workers´ wanted to overthrow bureaucracy, and they actually did it for a few days, until 2nd Russian intervention. People in this movement were not moving towards capitalism, as capilist appologists now say, but actually created their own soviets, the book which well documents this is Peter Fryer´s book Hungarian tragedy, who was also eyewitness of the events so every single hour is documented.

The second scenarion (bureaucracy partly transforming itself in new rulling class in capitalism) is well known, thus needing no details to describe.

fury says so: Bolshevik- I wrote this essay AFTER reading "Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism"

I did not say that I disagree with you on this point, but you failed to show the correlation of imperialism and capitalism - how capitalism inevitably comes in its imperialist stage, and how capitalism is responsible for imperialist wars. This is well documented in the Lenin´s book, and that is why I said that you haven´t actually read it. So if I was being rude, then I appologize.

The main thing is that capitalism comes into its imperialist stage when national boundaries become too tight for its national market, so imperialist war is mainly fought for markets, or, in modern terms, so called spheres of influence.

I like how you say this, fury: "As previously mentioned- in a market economy are all individuals, although dependant of each other, in a constant competition- In order to achieve ones goals (making maximum profit) one needs to overcome his competitors, to push them backwards while moving forward. In simple words- one needs to make someone poor in order to become rich. This may seem as a normal behavior to some, those who are used to take advantage of others, but is it honorable?

A very good point. But you haven´t clearly showed at expense of who one becomes rich, at expense of their fellow class capitalist competitors? Not so. This is at expense of workers! And this should not be considered as normal behaviour to anyone, because this is a mere stealing of work! Of course, life of those which make profits and their well being in this way this is totally normal and also moral. Economic slumps and overall poverty are due to this very stealing of labour.

And as long as you will only be a dreamer nothing will change. Remember, Marx said that philosophers had hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways, the point however is to change it. If you really want to change something join a real revolutionary group (In Russia there exists a nice group of this kind - http://www.1917.com), and start doing political work.

comradely,

[akhmetbek]

OK,I see you've read a LOT of red garbage,your mama must be very proud...But the question still stands:HOW THE SOCIALISM CAN SURVIVE WITHOUT THE SLAVE LABOR??? For real bolshevics : an example _ how the f..ck GOLD mining became UNPRODUCTIVE after the big amnesty in 1954?

[The_bolshevik]

Originally posted by akhmetbek
OK,I see you've read a LOT of red garbage,your mama must be very proud...But the question still stands:HOW THE SOCIALISM CAN SURVIVE WITHOUT THE SLAVE LABOR??? For real bolshevics : an example _ how the f..ck GOLD mining became UNPRODUCTIVE after the big amnesty in 1954?

Don´t be so badly mannered in choosing words, noone wants to harm you.

The point is that in socialism the bigger part of surplus value does not go to capitalists in the form of profits, but to the society as a whole. Thus the surplus value could be used either for reducing of the working day (to 6 hours, and when productive forces grow working day could be shorter), for fast development of undeveloped areas, or for bigger salaries of working people.

I don´t see why socialism would even need slave labour. Remember that society as a whole would not be worth a single penny less without capitalists. If you want to demonstrate how socialism needs slave labour, then I will be the first to listen.

I think that I demonstrated quite good how bureaucracy mismanages the economy AS A WHOLE in degenerated workers´ state. Through direct looting, with not knowing people´s needs, and with financing big bureaucratic apparatus, which is far far bigger than in capitalist system of bourgeois democratic stage.

comradely,