The USSR was it a success? Real discussion

I have never in my entier life seen suce ignorance.......

matt how did i compare capitalists to imperialistic lords?

mattabesta wrote:

I have never in my entier life seen suce ignorance.......

Again you're left without argument, but insult. No one's gonna believe you if you just mudsling instead of coming up with more logical and coherent arguments than that of your opponent. Why don't you try debate for a change?

Also, i don't even know who you're talkin about, since you didn't respond to Inkus' post for, what, three days (and still you haven't).

Quote :

capitalists do not lower their prices too low because then they dont get that much profit even if they sell a lot of shtuff

They lower wages as much 'as possible' - its a virtual requirement

Quote :

they dont lower their wages too much because then the workers will not be able to work as hard or as much

Yes they pay whats known as a subsistance wage - after all a factory full of starving workers isn't much good to the capitalist is it ? - thats a given - I didn't think I needed to spell that out for you considering your such a bloody genius.

However they can only pay the subsistance wage for a set period before relocating to an area where the subsistance wage is less - 'due to competition'. Because of the natural limitations of human labor the capitalist is driven to the use of technology in order to produce more goods - faster - and cheaper.

The problem arises because capital cannot create value - only human labor can. ie the equality crisis 'causes' the falling rate of profit.


So much for you considering the implications -

sory for not responding i didnt see it. unlike you i have pepol talking to me in every thred so sometimes i dont get to everything.

LOLOLOLOL.

read marx's wage labor and capital, the chapter called by what are wages determined.

it says the opposite of you. you say competition makes wages fal. he say it makes it rise.

because supply and demand. when capital accumulates, theres more demand for labor so the capialists compete for hiring pepul and raise there prices.


lol at equality crisis causing tendecny of rate of profit to fal. marx invented the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. who am i gonna trust on what it is- you or him?

its cause by the decrease of the ratio of variable capital to constant capital, also knone as the organic composition of capital.

although the tendency of the rate of profit to fall means nothing. because its just the rate of profit, not the amount of profit.

Quote :

it says the opposite of you. you say competition makes wages fal. he say it makes it rise.

because supply and demand. when capital accumulates, theres more demand for labor so the capialists compete for hiring pepul and raise there prices.


lol at equality crisis causing tendecny of rate of profit to fal. marx invented the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. who am i gonna trust on what it is- you or him?

Competition would cause wages to rise for a time considering economic growth leads to higher living standards/higher subsistance wages ect - This does NOT mean that capitalist does not pay as little as he can - HE WILL TRY to pay as little as possible - wages are based on a limit set by the standard of living, the prices of commodities, the level of social services provided by the state and of course by class struggle.

The capitalist NEEDS to pay as little as he possibly can in the face of rising
living standards - he is CONSTRAINED - I think you deliberately miss the point. Capitalists also engage in underpricing which may result in a low profits. Because economic development may require a rise in wages the capitalist IS compelled to relocate to an area with a lower subsistance wage to maintain and maximize profits. Due to the limitations of human labor he turns to mechanized production - by increasing the ratio of machines in production relative to workers they create the "falling rate of profit"- it appears in an industry once labor has been sufficiently replaced by machines. because labor is the only source of value, it's replacement threatens value creation. As the profit rate begins to fall capitalist, experiencing fierce competition, still have no choice but to increase innovation to try to squeeze more profit out of their laborers, albeit at a declining rate. hence capitalist crisis

dud. the capitalists wil try to pay lower so al wil go to the lowest wage place. so the wage wil increse everywhere because the demand increses universally. if there is one place wher the wage is lower then the captialists wil go ther and increse it by competition.

I REPET THE FAILLING RAT OF PORFIT DOESNT MEAN PORFIT FALLS - IT MEANS RAT OF PORFIT FALS.

actually the porfits wil continue to increse just they wont increase as fast. the real reason for cirsis is because of luxemburgs economics thoery.

what you all ignore is that company owners are human and aren't just thinking about profit, when buisness is good workers usally get a bigger pay check becuse the owner/manager is a human you all asume that managers are evil demones who live on cash but not real pepole.

I mosl leykly assume none of you has a very good job becuse with your opinions to managers and owners you'll get fierd pertty quikly.

mattabesta wrote:

what you all ignore is that company owners are human and aren't just thinking about profit, when buisness is good workers usally get a bigger pay check becuse the owner/manager is a human

Hey, I wonder just what happened to all those poor workers in America during the early 1900s when the meat packing industry included bloodied organs and perhaps a human thumb or two in the sausages.

Oh, that's right. It never even happened because American economic growth "changed" all that. Workers never died from exhastion or got an arm or two amputated from disease. In fact, they didn't even need pay. Why? Because the economy WAS SO GRATE!!!!

Give me a BREAK mattabesta, corporation owners are NOT human. That's fucking FACT.

First you say this...

mattabesta wrote:

what you all ignore is that company owners are human and aren't just thinking about profit, when buisness is good workers usally get a bigger pay check becuse the owner/manager is a human you all asume that managers are evil demones who live on cash but not real pepole.

Then you say this...?

Quote :

I mosl leykly assume none of you has a very good job becuse with your opinions to managers and owners you'll get fierd pertty quikly.

Sometimes your logic (or lack there or) astounds me. We're well aware that they are people too. And i, myself, do not necessarily blame owners of big corporations since they are, more so than not, a product of society. That's why we think society must be completely reconstructed with the well being of all in mind, rather than the well being of some at the expense of others.

You defend these bourgeois because they are not just after profits, but that isn't a good enough reason to keep capitalism around. And if these people really cared about people, and not merely profits, this world would be a much nicer place to live in. I can only assume that your comfortable, isolated life has led you to the conlusion that there's nothing wrong with the way things are. This is obviously wrong. Some countries live very comfortably, but there are still plenty others with massive famine and hunger problems, disease epidemics, and dominating authorities controlling many, if not every aspect of their lives.

It really depends on what your standards are as far as goals. Based on the theoretical works of the people who lead the October Revolution and then lead the country up to it's now Capitalist system (namely Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin respectively), the goal was a Communist society. No classes, no state apparatus, the means of production in the hands of the people, and in this case the hands of the Soviet (workers' council) democracy. It's obvious that if these are considered the goal, then the USSR failed rather miserably.

Like I said, it's really contextual as to what you qualify as success. Did it improve Russia? Sure, Stalin encouraged massive industrialization and gave the USSR a powerhouse economy, and this economy was based on (at least) vaguely Socialist principles. But of course, this isn't Communism in the slightest -- industrialization is positive and develops the country for Communism (if I remember correctly Imperialist Russia was harshly underdeveloped, thus Lenin's extensive interest in the subject throughout his life and work).

So, was it a success in the sense like Liche said, if you compare Russia before the revolution, after the revolution, and after the fall of the revolution, then improvement is widespread and the Soviet revolution was a 'success' in that respect.

But was it a success in the sense of what the goal was in 1917, when Lenin wrote the State and Revolution and the October Revolution sparked off? Of course not. Not even close.

It was capitalist plain and simple. It had al the characteristics, priviate porpirty, surplus value, capital, rapid development of productive forces,etc

The only real good thing about USSR is that it was good in economy and helped fight Hitler (Even though Hitler was a ***** in military strategies)...and the negatives are too many to discuss.

Watermelon wrote:

If you want to read some good economics read Paul Mattick

better read John Holloway!!!