K some very intersting points here...
Ill start with the guy that asked who will take controll of everything, well the point of communism is that
the people themselfs have controll over thair fate, sure its not ideal and as someone ales said, utopia
is something none of us or our kids and or thair kids will ever see.
but i think it is much better then democracy, mainly because of a 1 very intersting sentance:
"Democracy is where 2 wolves and a sheep are voting", got my point here?
So as far as i see it, if 2 thirds of the nation want something, they will get it, no matter that the last third need.
Its even worse with a system where money involved, a good example is russian and ukraine
where people PAY to citizens so that they will vote for them... (i guess there is same thing is other countrys as well)
Now about Cuba, yes, they are poor, BUT cuba got one of the highest ranks on life duration (whatever its called)
you know.. people live longer, i considre it as a very important factor.
Another very iportant factor is that even thoough they are poor, 98% (!!!) of the people vote to keep socialism!
where did you ever saw such namber? ever? 98%! even the most popular president in the world got only like what? 71%?
and MrKorx said it very well, liberty is all cool as long as you can afford it!
I come from a middle class fammily and we cant afford much, yet we can live quiet good.
now imagine that 80% of the worlds population is in fact, POOR, so poor that they cant afford food!
So cool, the rich guys enjoy democracy, they can open businesses, crash down opposing bussineses
they can buy cool cars and lexury appt's, but what do i get? and you, the reader?
all we get is to know that tommorow yet again we wake up to yet another day where we will spend
most of it on a job that eventualy give us just enough to pay for bills, food, and maybe with 200$ left (if we lucky)
i dont know maybe some of you live better, but as for me, i bearly make it threw the month!
and its not like im the only one, in fact i dont know anyone who lives better then me...
Some intersting qutes:
For Marx, a person is exploited if they perform more labour than is necessary to produce the goods they consume. A person is an exploiter if they perform less labour than is necessary to produce the goods they consume. Exploitation is thus a matter of surplus labour, the amount of labour one performs over and above what one receives in the form of goods. Exploitation has been a feature of all class societies, and is one of the main features that distinguish one class from another. One class's power and control of the means of production enable it to exploit another class. In capitalism, Marx held that a labour theory of value is operative. This theory is that the value of a commodity is equal to the total labour time required for its production. Under that condition, surplus value (the difference between value produced and value received by a labourer) is an equivalent term for surplus labour. Under capitalism, exploitation takes the form of the capitalist pumping surplus value out of the worker.
In precapitalist modes of production, exploitation was achieved by direct physical coercion or the threat of it. In the capitalist mode the same result is achieved more subtly. Since a worker does not own any means of production they must "voluntarily" enter into an exploitive work relationship with a capitalist in order to receive the necessities of life. Their entry into exploitation is voluntary in the sense that they can choose which capitalist to work for; but they must choose to work for some capitalist or starve. They cannot escape exploitation. The voluntarism of exploitation in capitalism is illusory.
Marx believed that the identity of a social class is derived from its relationship to the means of production (as opposed to the notion that class is determined, for example, purely by income level).
Marx describes several social classes in capitalist societies, including primarily:
- Proletariat: "those individuals who sell their labour power, (and therefore add value to the products), and who, in the capitalist mode of production, do not own the means of production". According to Marx, the capitalist mode of production establishes the conditions that enable the bourgeoisie to exploit the proletariat due to the fact that the worker's labour power generates a surplus value greater than the worker's wages.
- Bourgeoisie: those who "own the means of production" and buy labour power from the proletariat, thus exploiting the proletariat. The bourgeoisie may be further subdivided into the very wealthy bourgeoisie and the petit bourgeoisie.
- Petit bourgeoisie are those who employ labour, but may also work themselves. These may be small proprietors, land-holding peasants, or trade workers. Marx predicted that the petit bourgeoisie would eventually be destroyed by the constant reinvention of the means of production and the result of this would be the forced movement of the vast majority of the petit bourgeoisie to the proletariat.
Marx also identified various other classes such as:
- Lumpenproletariat: criminals, vagabonds, beggars, etc. People that have no stake in the economic system and will sell themselves to the highest bidder.
- Landlords: a class of people that were historically important, of which some still retain some of their wealth and power.
- Peasantry and farmers: this class he saw as disorganized and incapable of carrying out change. He also believed that this class would disappear, with most becoming proletariat but some becoming landowners.
I pointed this because you can see that under capitalism, people are still not liberal even with democracy!
And as for me what i hate moustly about the second thing that i pointed out is that fact
that i am (based on this list) Proletariat, and if you read carefully, Proletariats are in fact, slaves.
"According to Marx, the capitalist mode of production establishes the conditions that enable the bourgeoisie to exploit the proletariat due to the fact that the worker's labour power generates a surplus value greater than the worker's wages."
and i bet all of you here are Proletariats as well.