Wallmart is efficient bust local petitbourgeois

MYSPACE SOCIalist Forum on Wallmart.
Posted: May 19, 2006 1:34 PM

VinceWrote:

JoaquinWrote:

>>Hasta la victoria siempre!!!!Wrote:

BromleyWrote:
I quite like walmart, I mean everything there is good value and they always have the things I want in stock. I am thoroughly against the small independant shops though as they think they can charges high prices and get away with it. I think we should get rid of all these fascist small shops and replace them with superstores like walmart which gives better choice to the consumer. This would be the obvious first step towards a socialist society.

this guy is joking right?

No, its quite logical.

its not that we're against big superstores, were against who owns them... means of production. superstores would still exist is a post-capitalist society, just without the exploitation of workers, ant-unionism, CEO's reaping the profits.

I agree. WalMart is very efficient and they are able gt products from all over the world into the most remote locations. I think that a central distribution warehouse model, similar to WalMart will be an essential feature of a post capitalist society.

I think it is a bourgeois insinuation into communism to assume that mom and pop retailers are any better than superstores.

Technorati could provoke Revolution

Myspace socialist forum.........
PETIT BOURGEOUIS IS NO FRIEND OF PROLETARIAT....

Posted: Feb 27, 2006 7:11 PM
It's hardly "liberal nonsense".

My position on small businesses is influenced by the Transitional Program and the failure of forced collectivization in the USSR - also by a little common sense. Expropriating and nationalizing every mom and pop store would be nothing but tyranny, and bad economic policy at that. At some point, small businesses will fade out of the picture all together, but it should be a gradual and voluntary transition.

Over 90% of farms in the US are already agribusiness, corporate controlled anyway. What has happened there, will eventually happen with retail.

USA will start THE REVOLUTION...

BOY,SOCIALISM IS A HARD WORK TO COME>>
Posted: Feb 8, 2006 1:19 PM
Hey!Wrote:

xxxx philth!Wrote:

What incentives for working hard do you have now?

That I will have a chance to make a shitload more money than other people if i do a kick ass job

also people become docters and engineers and stuff for the sole reason of making tons more money than say a factory worker

APOLOGIA DIALECTICA...
Oh boy, yeah. As an IT worker, I get to go into debt to pay for school, work 50-60 hours per week and then have to train my replacement.

In capitalism, it doesn't matter how hard you work or how kick ass you are. If management think they can replace you, they will.

The incentive/reward is not soley an illusion. Some lucky few get the reward - enough to convince the rest of us to keep slaving away. It's the carrot. The stick is that if we don't play the game, we go homeless.

The wealth we see around us today in the US is wealth that was wrestled away from the ruling class in struggle. Workers in industries that were paid starvation wages braved bullets and clubs to unionize and demand higher wages and better conditions.
Even the doctors and engineers benefited from this - they had to be paid higher than the flunkies they looked down upon (and a clue here: many of these professions don't actually make more than unionized workers and certainly don't have the benefits.)
And now.... now the ruling class is taking away those gains. Pensions are disappearing, more and more people don't have health care.

Fewer and fewer people are going to get the carrot and the stick is getting bigger.

Why socialism failed in Russia n East Europe

HISTORY MAKES SENSE
MYspace Socialist FOrum
Posted: Feb 7, 2006 8:17 PM
Hey!Wrote:
Whats the deal? I really like the general idea of socialism, but what happened to these countries, because it seems like it would suck to live there, and theres more poor people there than in our country... It seems like it has never really been successfully implemented on a large scale...

And also my ecenomics proffessor keeps telling me it wont work because workers don't have the motivation to work the hardest they can... especially highly technical jobs like doctors and stuff...

ANSWER APOLOGIA
I will try and be short because i'm pressed for time. It's not this black and white though. I'll do Russia.

There are a number of many reasons:

* The material means for socialism to flourish were not there. (Today in America, 3% from the top financial elite would be enough)

* Was still entirely agrarian and more-or-less feudal, they were operating in backwardness and isolation-- as opposed to developed capitalism which must be the precursor for socialism to work. The proletarian revolution can be the result only of the highest development of capitalism. It puts an end to capitalism. The revolutions in the eastern countries were the consequences of the beginning of capitalism in these countries.

* The country was ravished by civil war

* 14 capitalist countries were trying to overthrow the revolution

* The failure of the revolution to spread. It's failure to spread to Germany had a big impact. We all know what this led to (nazis taking power).

* The deaths of leaders like Liebnecht and Rosa Luxemburg.

* The advent of Stalin and his bureaucracy

Posted: Feb 7, 2006 8:21 PM

While Philth is 100% correct, i tend to try to shift the focus away from the popular appeal to popular knowledge - knowledge which is populated with bias and misunderstanding.

The USSR was not a 'failure' - its goal was socialism - in that sense alone it 'failed'. Compared to what any other country was doing or did in a similar situation, it was a triumphant success and was actually considered THE model to follow for billions of people and their 'representative' governments the world over.

But if you aim for the moon and miss, well baby, you're still one of the stars.

Religion and Marxism

JESUS IS a DIALECTICAL MATERIALIST
OLD MARXIST OPINION
May 18, 2006 5:15 PM
Subject: Religion and marxism
Body: ok i have notied there are a few questions about the role of religion, and its links to capitalism, so i thouht i'd post this again.

read this:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1905/misc/socialism-churches.htm

its an article by Rosa Luxemburg, about the history of christianity, how jesus was a communist, how the church betrayed this belief, and how the church is a tool of capitalist oppresion, its really good.

this one is a article by the great Alan Woods, a brilliant britsh trotskyist, this is pretty much like the Rosa Luxemburg, but this one mentions why Atheism should be followed by communists, why god does not exist, life after death, the church today, and how the origins of christianity are communist (the act of the apothles) its titled Marxism and religon. for those who dont want to read it because it is trotskyist, dont worry, you cant actually tell.

http://www.marxist.com/Theory/marxism_and_religion.html

article written by Lenin:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm

basically talks about how the church is used by the capitalists, to "spiritually oppress" them.

"Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man." Lenin