Thread: Why things will not change for the Egyption people.

We have heard alot of people describing what is occuring in Egypt as a revolution, this is incorrect.
What has changed in Egypt, the same economic system, which is controlled by the few exists, the same capitalist system where the basis of profit is the exploitation of man by man.

Will Bourgeoisie democracy change anything, so the people can vote for one capitalist or the other, thats like saying pick your oppressor, coke or doctor pepper.

Until the economic system has changed we will continue to see 30 thousand people starve everyday across the globe, we will continue to see the tears of the 246 million child slaves on this planet.

The workers need to take control of the means of production, rather than be subjected to wage slavery, creating surplus value for the capitalists who have power over our destinies.

But do not threat, peoples struggles are flaring up all over the globe.

INDIA ~ NAXALITES



GREECE ~ CELLS OF FIRE



NEPAL ~ CPN



CHINA ~ MAOISTS FIGHTING THE STATE CAPITALIST REGIME



EIRE ~ CIRA RIRA ONH



Afghanistan ~ afghan liberation organisation



MEXICO ~ EZLN



COLOMBIA ~ FARC ELN



PALESTINE ~ PFLP



The list goes on and on and on.

Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism is beating a retreat, and the forces of revolution are slowly starting to spread all across the globe, building and growing everyday.

For a free egalitarian system, where the walls of oppression and demolished along with racism, sexism and class society, in other words all the byproducts of capitalism.

SO SMILE

Best case scenario, Egypt ends up like Turkey, where the military is a secular, stabilizing force that keeps the civilian government in check, stops them from becoming too radicalized, but nevertheless protects its own hold on power. That isn't necessarily a bad thing though. They have the peoples support for now. If they are proactive (god I hate that stupid buzz word but I have to use it here) in a transition to a somewhat meaningful and transparent democracy, remove the emergency laws, and push human rights they will keep the support of the people and life can go on. They are in a good position to steer the country back on track seeing how they already control a large part of Egypt's industry.

Worst case scenario: They just devolve into another corrupt military junta that doesn't give a crap about their people e.g. Myanmar.

Froman, the guy's talking about capitalism rather than Egypt

To the OP- The fall of capitalism doesn't equal happiness and rainbows. You're being too idealist and, in my mind, capitalism, or at least a form of capitalism, is most likely the best option currently available.

Give it some time, say thirty years to a hundred years as a rough guess, and you will most likely get your wish, but it will be because human workers become unneeded rather than any ideological ideals. (Robotics and machinery will replace human workers, which will mean no wages, which will destroy consumerism from the total collapse of demand, which will kill capitalism as there will no longer be anyone who will buy their products = end of Capitalism and the need for a new freebie system of some sort.)

Will Bourgeoisie democracy change anything, so the people can vote for one capitalist or the other, thats like saying pick your oppressor, coke or doctor pepper

If democracy was to fall so low as to give a vote between coke or doctor pepper, then I'd argue that is the fault of the political system rather than the economical system, and that appropiate safeguards were not used.

Capitalism might seem ok if your not one of the tens of thousands who starve to death everyday, or the workers who are killed by cocacola for unionising, or if you have never had a cop call you a N*gger, or been raped walking through the subway, after experiencing a lifetime of Patriachy.

Capitalism is so ineficient, not to mention evil, yet if we look at things scientifically we see socialism and later communism, are inevitable.

The main contradiction in society is between those who have capital and property and rule the society and those who must work for a wage.

These two will struggle ending with the contradiction being resolved.

How on earth is capitalism the best we have?

Yet you coincidentally echo the views of Huey newton, founder of the Maoist Black Panther Party.

He said due to technological advances the American empire has spread into every nation and can control every corner of the globe and that this has lead to reactionary intercommunalism, where nations no longer exist, just territory of the empire, and that these nations cannot extricate themselves from capitalism as capitalism has permeated everywhere, national liberation and nationhood was obsolete.

This he said lays the possibility for revolutionary intercommunalism, where the whole planet can be one without borders, where we all operate the means of production in a classless stateless society, IE, communism.

He said the lumpen proletariat would be the dominant factor because more and more would get laid off due to the increase in technology, needing less and less workers, so the unemployed and criminal class etc would lead the revolution.

However He said this 30 years ago and he was clearly mistaken, the capitalists would not allow this as it would end in revolution by the masses.

However it will either way, as revolution and the masses siezing the means of production is a scientific certainty.

Also the freebie thing you speak of is known as Technocracy, basically communism.

Originally Posted by Mao+Fanon=Free

Capitalism might seem ok if your not one of the tens of thousands who starve to death everyday, or the workers who are killed by cocacola for unionising, or if you have never had a cop call you a N*gger, or been raped walking through the subway, after experiencing a lifetime of Patriachy.

Leaving capitalism would not aid those in places were it is simply impossible to get enough farm land/farm equipment to provide enough for the population. In fact, it would probably cripple them even more, as they wouldn't be able to afford the huge imports of foreign food.

Workers getting killed for unionising is something I haven't heard of and would be immediately dealt with if happening in any western country, (though we may turn a blind eye if it happens elsewhere).

A cop calling someone a N*gger has absolutely nothing to do with modern-day capitalism and the cop, if proved guilty, would face losing his job.

Getting raped is not to do with capitalism, and if proved guilty the rapist will be sent to jail.

Capitalism is so ineficient, not to mention evil, yet if we look at things scientifically we see socialism and later communism, are inevitable.

The main contradiction in society is between those who have capital and property and rule the society and those who must work for a wage.

These two will struggle ending with the contradiction being resolved.

Capitalism is not evil, and neither is it good. It is an economic system that will work according to the laws and boundaries that are forced upon it.

Most of those who have capital and property have gotten it by working. You may argue that they do not work nearly as hard as those who get paid peanuts, and that is something I think should be addressed by the political establishment. Personally, I think a yearly earnings cap at £500,000 with anything higher having by law to go to charity or investment would be a good way to lessen the gap slightly, but it's one of those things that probably wouldn't work unless agreed on an international level.

This he said lays the possibility for revolutionary intercommunalism, where the whole planet can be one without borders, where we all operate the means of production in a classless stateless society, IE, communism.

I'd be careful what you wish for, and inform you that we are already on route to this. Look at the EU, how it has effectively sneaked up on us under the guise of a trading organisation and seized power, and now rules over a substantial chunk of Europe. How democratic is the EU? They make 75% of our domestic laws after all. Well, the EU Parliament has no power whatsoever to create or repeal laws, the parliament functions more as a revision chamber, it is the EU Commission that makes and repeals laws, and the EU Commission has no democratic mandate whatsoever. If the world becomes a single state in the way that the EU is trying to create a single Europe, then you may just end up as faceless worker # 500,405 under the rule of the World Commission. In my mind, if world unity is to work, then power needs to be decentralised to local communities and democracy needs to switch to direct democracy.

He said the lumpen proletariat would be the dominant factor because more and more would get laid off due to the increase in technology, needing less and less workers, so the unemployed and criminal class etc would lead the revolution.

I'd hope that the political establishment would be just as aware of the death of capitalism as their constituents, and so they would be busy working out a new system.

In communism there is no such thing as money or state, you are saying things without knowing what communism entails, or socialism for that matter.

Your saying things, but not showing any sort of evidence, either scientific or statistical.

Originally Posted by Mao+Fanon=Free

In communism there is no such thing as money or state, you are saying things without knowing what communism entails, or socialism for that matter.

Your saying things, but not showing any sort of evidence, either scientific or statistical.

I define a state as anything that has a leader or enforces laws. A world-state would most likely have laws and a leader, and therefore I define it as a state. A communist state would most likely enforce laws and have a leader, and therefore I define it as a state. Plus, from past and present evidence, I have a pretty good oppinion on how communism tends to turn out (Though I accept that it is not bound by fate to always go wrong)

If I don't take the time to provide evidence for my beliefs then I apologise, but I'm meant to be writing and doing coursework rather than skiving off on WF

Originally Posted by Mao+Fanon=Free

Capitalism might seem ok if your not one of the tens of thousands who starve to death everyday...

We have tens of thousands on earth starving to death daily?

or the workers who are killed by cocacola for unionising, or if you have never had a cop call you a N*gger, or been raped walking through the subway, after experiencing a lifetime of Patriachy.

I thought the hierarchy of class and rank pretty much came hand-in-hand with the rise of civilization - in the fertile crescent or elsewhere?

Capitalism has allowed the rise of some freedoms for the average man as well. And I'm not going to lie to you and say I believe in the U.S. or in other high-income nations that the typical person is entirely free. Many things burden man and limit his freedom. Debt, family, intellectual limitations, city or national economic situation, political culture, etc.

But the ability to advance your station in life is more obtainable in the advanced economies of the democracies of the West and Japan than anywhere else.

I'll agree with you that evils have come with capitalism but they have come with communism and socialism as well. Today you have neurologists that are black males and white females in democracies that function economically under capitalism. So, it's not all doom. And neither the U.S. or U.K. are pure democracies anyways. Both are welfare-states to differing degrees.

No such thing as a communist state, communism is a stateless nationless classless society

We have only seen socialism, and degenerated workers states.

Gotta have money in a country otherwise society would fall into a decline lower than the Middle Ages.

Anyways... money is anything commonly accepted for payment of debt and trade.

So basically, OP wants communism/socialism over capitalism, from what I've read so far.

Here's my two cents:

Communism/socialism is a good thing because it gives out equal resources for all, except for those in government because whether you admit it or not, those in the government are the ones giving the resources, so there's no guarantee they'l give themselves the same amount they give the people. Nevertheless, this makes sure the ordinary citizens get equal resources and equal rights. The bad thing is, the citizens will have no idea how to get these resources once they get out of this state, and that the leaders tend to abuse the power (case in point being Stalin and Mao Zedong).

Capitalism is a good thing because this gives a free market out there, and the need for freedom. Whether freedom is absolutely acquired or not is not the question. The concern here is the concept of freedom the citizens acquire. Now, the bad thing about capitalism is just that. The rich capitalize, and the poor get capitalized on. This leads to that triangular status of the state, where the rich get fewer, but they get richer (upper triangle), while the poor get many, but they get poorer (lower triangle).

Having said these, is communism better than capitalism? Or is it the other way around? Either way, the type of government isn't the problem, it's those who run it.

On paper communism appears a Utopian dream. What could be better than building on egalite, liberte and fraternite? In practice, Orwell's Animal Farm provides the perfect mode for the outworking of it. Possibly the most successful example of communist socialism at work has been Cuba. Even then there is a hierarchy and a dictatorial regime. There is no man made system that doesn't have it's short comings. Capitalism exploits and socialism suppresses. Having seen every great philosophy fails when it falls into into practice by selfish and self seeking human beings, I'll side with those who look to a theocracy to bring about a real solution.

Originally Posted by Baron

Possibly the most successful example of communist socialism at work has been Cuba.

Naw, the Jesuit Reductions of Latin America and the pre-Colombian Inca civilization. Both were better than living in modern day Cleveland or Detroit and certainly far better than living in Haiti or most slums throughout the developing world.

Proponents of this type of college student/theoretical version of communism usually can't explain how it's implemented after the revolution, how and when the revolutionary party relinquishes power so there's a seamless transition to a "stateless" whatever-it-is. And so far, that's been the bugaboo. If you ask them any questions about the practical application of any of this, they usually just say -- well, there's no state, you see. I've had a few stoned dorm room conversations about this -- and I've found that junior communists are usually long on ideals and very short on details.

I am not a student lol.

And no, you just never bothered to read up on how socialism is ran.

Basically councils are formed by the workers which are elected by the workers of each workplace, these councils have power.

The stalinist state capitalism we saw in the USSR was not socialism but revisionist and ultimately capitalist.

After the Bolshevik revolution in the USSR and the revolution in the PRC, life expectancy almost doubled, education sky rocketed, women being klept like livestock was abolished, homosexuality legalised and abortion legalised, until Stalin got power, killed all the socialists and implemented socialism in one country.

Basically socialists want to see the means of production, that is the factories and workplaces, democratically ran by the workers.

I myself do not agree with the centralism of maoist and leninist ideas, I just take certain aspects of their theory, such as mass line, protracted peoples war in the third world and building liberated zones.

Basically, everywhere bar korea, where the DPRKs infrastructure was destroyes by american and british bombers, socialism has near doubled life expectancy and ended all backwards oppression of women and other minorities, like when the PRC invaded tibet, the monks rose up against the bhuddist theocracy which the Dalai Lama never speaks of




All the free tibet liberals dont ever hear of how the theocracy was hated by the tibetan poeople, whom joined the PRC to fight the oppressors.