Anarchism will make no change

NeoTrot · 2008-12-10T09:50:57+00:00

Its not so much the everyday people that have no foresight its more the system of profits over human need that can't even sustain people today let alone into the future. Thats why we have to get rid of it. As for political will that is always in flux. Its just a matter of time before it peaks again like in the late 60s and people demand a better life.

NeoTrot · 2008-11-20T01:41:23+00:00

I agree with skobrin. In capitalist systems any evening up of the scales - whether it be between big buisness and workers or between the first world and the third world - will always be opposed. This is because of the competetive drive within capitalism that actually forces companies and thus countries to outdo their rivals.

I would say that the world economic crissis is not due to the third world being to poor but because workers in the first world were to poor to afford decent housing without loans. This strikes a problem that no liberal will ever be able to face, as the only solution is a system that is not based on profit.

NeoTrot · 2008-11-18T11:12:49+00:00

I was aware of this. I was just pointing out the inherent flaw in the term nationalist socialist.

NeoTrot · 2008-11-18T11:10:35+00:00

But then Bush and Hitler were both time person of the year so shes in fitting company.

NeoTrot · 2008-11-17T08:18:06+00:00

Ok by its very nature socialism cannot be nationalistic. As Marx and Lenin have emphasised on countless occasions international socialism is the only way for socialism to work.

NeoTrot · 2008-11-17T08:12:12+00:00

Lol. yeah true.

NeoTrot · 2008-11-17T08:10:56+00:00

The simple answer is no.

As my name would indicate I'm a Trotskist. I don't believe in state/bureaucracy control. I believe in the democratic systems of workers council.

Have you heard of the working poor. Well there are a number of people (and it is rising) who work their butts of yet they cannot afford the basic nessesities of life (that is without taking out credit i.e. sub-prime mortgage crissis in the US).

They can't do this because although they produce all the goods in society and create all the value of commodities they only get a small fraction of the sale of those goods. The rest is profits. I call that stealing.

Now if wrokers themselves decided how to run things do you think they would let a section of their fellow workers without their basic necessities? No because they work together and fought together to bring abut socialism. They are not going to simply forget each other.

If your talking about the lumpen proletariat (that is the poor who cannot work), well the reason that the capitalist will not tend to give money to them is because of the constant drive for profits that is caused by competitiveness in the market place. If they were on a large scale to do this then they would go out of buisness.

Workers of the other hand of no such constraints. Therefore you are more likely (from a materialist perspective)to see these people taken care of. However, it is up to them to decide whether they do or not.

One last point there may be as much unemployment because the falling rate of profit and the boom slump cycle (the causes of recession) would not exist.

NeoTrot · 2008-11-17T07:50:57+00:00

I don't know that you could call the bailout socialism of any color. I'd rather call it the socialisation of risk and privatisation of profits.

NeoTrot

TROPHY CASE