It is a crime the US has always denied - dropping germ bombs on North Korea. But in 1952 the bubonic plague, never known before in North Korea, broke out across the country. It claimed at the time that the United States was to blame. But the allegations were brushed aside as propaganda. Sixty years later however, new evidence has emerged that bioweapons may indeed have been used. Think twice before you dismiss something as "communist propaganda" next time.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Police State: The Militarization of the Police Force in the USA
Here is a nice video about how the American police force, from Florida to Wisconsin to California, is being militarized. It seems the police are being given military-grade weapons and tanks. Could this be a sign that the US is being turned into a police state? Watch the video and decide for yourself.
A Response to the Socialist Worker
The following is a response to the Socialist Worker article titled "Who made China's revolution?" dated October 12, 2009.
A lot of the things said in this article are accurate and quite correct. Unfortunately, there are some things that aren't correct. I disagree with some of the things the article says about Stalin, but not all of them. However, I don't intend to discuss Josef Stalin in this response. I will instead be correcting the erroneous views on Maoism that the Socialist Worker has propagated in the article.
Although I may have misunderstood the article in this regard, it seems to me that the article is trying to blame Maoism for China's turn to capitalism. Maoism did not turn China capitalist, it tried to do the opposite, but after Mao died Deng Xiaoping and his henchmen came to power and opened their arms to foreign capitalists and began to dismantle the "Iron Rice Bowl" (The IRB guaranteed the Chinese people jobs and benefits). The actions of Deng and the "capitalist roaders" were not Maoist at all, those actions were pure revisionism and treachery. Trotskyists will be quick to assume that the hijacking of China means Maoism doesn't work, but I must remind them of the fact that they believe Stalin hijacked the Soviet Union. So it seems we're even.
Due to the betrayal of the Chinese peasantry and workers, the international communist movement is now working on theories to prevent such a thing from happening again. Some advocate more criticism from below, others advocate a system with multiple proletarian and peasant parties.
The article also condemns the CPC-KMT (GMD) alliance. Although this alliance had its down side, the SW author seems to forget the fact that the KMT was quite left-wing at one point, but the rightists eventually carried out a coup of the KMT which caused many communists within the group to leave. The alliance was not such a bad idea, especially since many Chinese people demanded it, it just did not work out in the end due to the coup. The SW article also blames Stalin for encouraging the alliance and supporting the KMT. Indeed Stalin made this mistake, but he eventually made a self-criticism and admitted he was wrong.
Here is an excerpt from the SW article that I feel needs to be addressed more directly:
"This pattern highlights some of the defining features of Maoism: its orientation to the peasant class, its nationalism and its dependence on military power to gain political power. While the peasantry has a long revolutionary history, there is nothing inherently socialistic about it, as peasants' main concern is farming their own land. And while it is true that political power can grow out of the barrel of a gun, to paraphrase Mao, guns alone cannot bring about socialism."
While I agree that guns alone cannot bring about much of anything, the statements made in this paragraph show that the SW author knows absolutely nothing about Maoism. As a Maoist myself, I will give you a little MLM 101 lesson by breaking down this incorrect paragraph.
"This pattern highlights some of the defining features of Maoism: its orientation to the peasant class, its nationalism and its dependence on military power to gain political power."
First of all, Maoism advocates a strong worker-peasant alliance. Second of all, Maoism is not entirely dependent on the People's Army to gain power. In Nepal, for example, the UCPN (Maoist) has been working within the electoral system.
“The communist party and the revolutionary forces of every country must ready both hands, one for winning victory peacefully, one for taking power with violence. Neither may be dispensed with.” - Mao Zedong
The author also seems to be condemning anti-imperialist nationalism. I certainly hope this person doesn't consider his individual school of thought to be coming from Marxism-Leninism. Both Marx and Lenin supported anti-imperialist nationalism.
When it came to British imperialism in Ireland, Marx sided with the oppressed nation, Ireland.
“Hence it is the task of the International everywhere to put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly with Ireland.” -Karl Marx
Marx also supported the national movement of the Poles and the Hungarians in his day.
“…emphasis must necessarily be laid on their advocating freedom for the oppressed countries to secede and their fighting for it. Without this there can be no internationalism.” -V. I. Lenin, "The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up"
Here is another point from the article that must be addressed:
"While the peasantry has a long revolutionary history, there is nothing inherently socialistic about it..."
According to F. Engels, this statement is incorrect. Helping the peasants is one of the duties of communists everywhere.
"We . . . are decidedly on the side of the small peasant; we shall do everything at all permissible to make his lot more bearable, to facilitate his transition to the co-operative should he decide to do so, and even to make it possible for him to remain on his small holding for a protracted length of time to think the matter over, should he still be unable to bring himself to this decision. We do this not only because we consider the small peasant who does his own work as virtually belonging to us, but also in the direct interest of the Party. The greater the number of peasants whom we can save from being actually hurled down into the proletariat, whom we can win to our side while they are still peasants, the more quickly and easily the social transformation will be accomplished. It will serve us naught to wait with this transformation until capitalist production has developed everywhere to its utmost consequences, until the last small handicraftsman and the last small peasant have fallen victim to capitalist large-scale production. The material sacrifice to be made for this purpose in the interest of the peasants and to be defrayed out of public funds can, from the point of view of capitalist economy, be viewed only as money thrown away, but it is nevertheless an excellent investment because it will effect a perhaps tenfold saving in the cost of the social reorganization in general. In this sense we can, therefore, afford to deal very liberally with the peasants." - Engels
The SW author also seems to makes the mistake of boiling Maoist theory down into nothing more than "people's consciousness change things, not economic conditions." (He didn't say that verbatim, but it was implied though.) This is a blatant misunderstanding of Maoism. Does he honestly think the CPC intended to industrialize China with their minds alone? Mao's book "On New Democracy" has large sections dedicated to economics and politics, not just philosophy. I also recommend the SW author go to the Marx2Mao.com and read "A Critique of Soviet Economics" by Mao Zedong. He should also read "Maoist Economics and the Revolutionary Road to Communism: The Shanghai Textbook" before he talks about Maoist theories on change, economic conditions, and politics. There is nothing revisionist in those books!
One last thing. The SW author states that he thinks the Chinese Revolution basically neglected the workers, or that workers didn't play a big enough role in it. To him, I share this quote from Mao.
"The first step or stage in our revolution is definitely not, and cannot be, the establishment of a capitalist society under the dictatorship of the Chinese bourgeoisie, but will result in the establishment of a new-democratic society under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes of China headed by the Chinese proletariat." Mao Zedong, "On New Democracy"
I will also point out this quote from the SW article, which seems to contradict the SW author's point which I am addressing.
"[The Chinese Communist Party] became an organization concentrated on the coastal cities, and overwhelmingly working class. It achieved this size by leading strikes in Shanghai and Hong Kong against foreign companies after British and French troops had shot and killed demonstrators. In those few years the CPC helped to organize 20 percent of the 15 million workers in China into trade unions."
The Socialist Worker, whether it realizes it or not, is helping the imperialist bourgeoisie by claiming that socialist revolution is an exclusive club in which only industrialized nations can take part. This claim meets the imperialists halfway by indirectly discouraging attempts at socialism in oppressed countries, and also opening the door for more capitalist-oriented nationalist revolutions that will, by their bourgeois nature, end up doing business with the imperialists in many exploitative ways after taking power.
Sources:
"China Since 1945" by Stewart Ross
“Ireland and the Irish Question” by Marx and Engels
"On New Democracy" by Mao Zedong
"Red Star Over China" by Edgar Snow
"The Foundations of Leninism" by J.V. Stalin
http://www.isreview.org/issues/13/marxism_nationalism_part1.shtml
A lot of the things said in this article are accurate and quite correct. Unfortunately, there are some things that aren't correct. I disagree with some of the things the article says about Stalin, but not all of them. However, I don't intend to discuss Josef Stalin in this response. I will instead be correcting the erroneous views on Maoism that the Socialist Worker has propagated in the article.
Although I may have misunderstood the article in this regard, it seems to me that the article is trying to blame Maoism for China's turn to capitalism. Maoism did not turn China capitalist, it tried to do the opposite, but after Mao died Deng Xiaoping and his henchmen came to power and opened their arms to foreign capitalists and began to dismantle the "Iron Rice Bowl" (The IRB guaranteed the Chinese people jobs and benefits). The actions of Deng and the "capitalist roaders" were not Maoist at all, those actions were pure revisionism and treachery. Trotskyists will be quick to assume that the hijacking of China means Maoism doesn't work, but I must remind them of the fact that they believe Stalin hijacked the Soviet Union. So it seems we're even.
Due to the betrayal of the Chinese peasantry and workers, the international communist movement is now working on theories to prevent such a thing from happening again. Some advocate more criticism from below, others advocate a system with multiple proletarian and peasant parties.
The article also condemns the CPC-KMT (GMD) alliance. Although this alliance had its down side, the SW author seems to forget the fact that the KMT was quite left-wing at one point, but the rightists eventually carried out a coup of the KMT which caused many communists within the group to leave. The alliance was not such a bad idea, especially since many Chinese people demanded it, it just did not work out in the end due to the coup. The SW article also blames Stalin for encouraging the alliance and supporting the KMT. Indeed Stalin made this mistake, but he eventually made a self-criticism and admitted he was wrong.
Here is an excerpt from the SW article that I feel needs to be addressed more directly:
"This pattern highlights some of the defining features of Maoism: its orientation to the peasant class, its nationalism and its dependence on military power to gain political power. While the peasantry has a long revolutionary history, there is nothing inherently socialistic about it, as peasants' main concern is farming their own land. And while it is true that political power can grow out of the barrel of a gun, to paraphrase Mao, guns alone cannot bring about socialism."
While I agree that guns alone cannot bring about much of anything, the statements made in this paragraph show that the SW author knows absolutely nothing about Maoism. As a Maoist myself, I will give you a little MLM 101 lesson by breaking down this incorrect paragraph.
"This pattern highlights some of the defining features of Maoism: its orientation to the peasant class, its nationalism and its dependence on military power to gain political power."
First of all, Maoism advocates a strong worker-peasant alliance. Second of all, Maoism is not entirely dependent on the People's Army to gain power. In Nepal, for example, the UCPN (Maoist) has been working within the electoral system.
“The communist party and the revolutionary forces of every country must ready both hands, one for winning victory peacefully, one for taking power with violence. Neither may be dispensed with.” - Mao Zedong
The author also seems to be condemning anti-imperialist nationalism. I certainly hope this person doesn't consider his individual school of thought to be coming from Marxism-Leninism. Both Marx and Lenin supported anti-imperialist nationalism.
When it came to British imperialism in Ireland, Marx sided with the oppressed nation, Ireland.
“Hence it is the task of the International everywhere to put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly with Ireland.” -Karl Marx
Marx also supported the national movement of the Poles and the Hungarians in his day.
“…emphasis must necessarily be laid on their advocating freedom for the oppressed countries to secede and their fighting for it. Without this there can be no internationalism.” -V. I. Lenin, "The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up"
Here is another point from the article that must be addressed:
"While the peasantry has a long revolutionary history, there is nothing inherently socialistic about it..."
According to F. Engels, this statement is incorrect. Helping the peasants is one of the duties of communists everywhere.
"We . . . are decidedly on the side of the small peasant; we shall do everything at all permissible to make his lot more bearable, to facilitate his transition to the co-operative should he decide to do so, and even to make it possible for him to remain on his small holding for a protracted length of time to think the matter over, should he still be unable to bring himself to this decision. We do this not only because we consider the small peasant who does his own work as virtually belonging to us, but also in the direct interest of the Party. The greater the number of peasants whom we can save from being actually hurled down into the proletariat, whom we can win to our side while they are still peasants, the more quickly and easily the social transformation will be accomplished. It will serve us naught to wait with this transformation until capitalist production has developed everywhere to its utmost consequences, until the last small handicraftsman and the last small peasant have fallen victim to capitalist large-scale production. The material sacrifice to be made for this purpose in the interest of the peasants and to be defrayed out of public funds can, from the point of view of capitalist economy, be viewed only as money thrown away, but it is nevertheless an excellent investment because it will effect a perhaps tenfold saving in the cost of the social reorganization in general. In this sense we can, therefore, afford to deal very liberally with the peasants." - Engels
The SW author also seems to makes the mistake of boiling Maoist theory down into nothing more than "people's consciousness change things, not economic conditions." (He didn't say that verbatim, but it was implied though.) This is a blatant misunderstanding of Maoism. Does he honestly think the CPC intended to industrialize China with their minds alone? Mao's book "On New Democracy" has large sections dedicated to economics and politics, not just philosophy. I also recommend the SW author go to the Marx2Mao.com and read "A Critique of Soviet Economics" by Mao Zedong. He should also read "Maoist Economics and the Revolutionary Road to Communism: The Shanghai Textbook" before he talks about Maoist theories on change, economic conditions, and politics. There is nothing revisionist in those books!
One last thing. The SW author states that he thinks the Chinese Revolution basically neglected the workers, or that workers didn't play a big enough role in it. To him, I share this quote from Mao.
"The first step or stage in our revolution is definitely not, and cannot be, the establishment of a capitalist society under the dictatorship of the Chinese bourgeoisie, but will result in the establishment of a new-democratic society under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes of China headed by the Chinese proletariat." Mao Zedong, "On New Democracy"
I will also point out this quote from the SW article, which seems to contradict the SW author's point which I am addressing.
"[The Chinese Communist Party] became an organization concentrated on the coastal cities, and overwhelmingly working class. It achieved this size by leading strikes in Shanghai and Hong Kong against foreign companies after British and French troops had shot and killed demonstrators. In those few years the CPC helped to organize 20 percent of the 15 million workers in China into trade unions."
The Socialist Worker, whether it realizes it or not, is helping the imperialist bourgeoisie by claiming that socialist revolution is an exclusive club in which only industrialized nations can take part. This claim meets the imperialists halfway by indirectly discouraging attempts at socialism in oppressed countries, and also opening the door for more capitalist-oriented nationalist revolutions that will, by their bourgeois nature, end up doing business with the imperialists in many exploitative ways after taking power.
Sources:
"China Since 1945" by Stewart Ross
“Ireland and the Irish Question” by Marx and Engels
"On New Democracy" by Mao Zedong
"Red Star Over China" by Edgar Snow
"The Foundations of Leninism" by J.V. Stalin
http://www.isreview.org/issues/13/marxism_nationalism_part1.shtml
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Is God a Dictator?
Right-wingers and religious people in Europe and North America often like to complain about dictators. They are always going on about their "freedom." Unsurprisingly, many of them are Christians. Like any good religious person, they overlook the fact that their God is an autocratic tyrant who is worse than any dictator in history!
I know a lot of you religious and conservative people aren't smart enough to know what autocracy is, so let me define it for you. While I'm at it, I'll define monarch too.
Autocrat: a cruel and oppressive dictator
Monarchy: an autocracy governed by a monarch who usually inherits the authority
Think about it. Do you remember electing any god? What kind of democracy has a leader who will punish you for not believing in him or agreeing with him? Some will argue that God should be in power because he "created life." Did you ask to be alive? No you didn't, this cruel life on Earth was forced on you.
Jesus Christ is termed "King of Kings" in the Bible, particularly in the Book of Revelation, 17:14 and 19:16. Jesus says in the Book of Matthew, verse 28:18, that all authority on earth has been given to him. We can tell from this that Christ, the embodiment of God, is certainly far from being a constitutional monarch, let alone a democratic ruler. He is an absolute monarch, one of the oldest forms of autocratic oppressors.
The hallmark of almost all undemocratic forms of government is cruel and unusual punishment. In case you were unaware, cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited by the US Constitution. Oddly enough, American conservatives support cruel and unusual punishment when their dictator in the sky does it.
Revelation 14:11 “[referring to those who worship the beast] the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night.”
Matthew 13:41 "The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom everything that causes sin as well as all lawbreakers. And throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Isaiah 66:24 "And as they go out, they will see the dead bodies of those who have rebelled against me. For the worms that devour them will never die, and the fire that burns them will never go out. All who pass by will view them with utter horror."
According to the Bible quotes above, if you break God's insane laws you will burn, have your teeth broken, and have other unspeakable things done to you in Hell for all eternity. Seriously imagine how bad it must feel to be burning inside of a lake of fire for all eternity! That is a million times worse than any of the torments dished out by human dictators (which include water-boarding, rape, beatings, starvation, electrocution, and forced labor). On top of all that misery, you will have absolutely no rest! Even Hitler let the Jews sleep in the Concentration Camps! We can safely conclude from this that God is worse than Hitler!
While I'm at it, here is another thing to think about. Does anyone really deserve to be tortured day and night for all eternity? God's punishments don't fit the crimes. If you lived a life of sin, shouldn't you get a simple lifetime of punishment instead of an eternity? It is frowned upon when judges sentence people to death for stealing, so why is it acceptable for a "Holy" judge to torture someone forever and ever even though they only broke a few laws in one short lifetime?
Psalm 9:17 "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God."
Many dictators, Hitler for example, liked to conquer nations that refused to obey their imperialist wishes. The Christian god does a lot worse than this. Instead of doing normal oppression, he will torture the entire nation for all eternity in Hell. This is worse than anything Hitler or the Roman emperors could ever dream of doing.
1 Sam. 15:3 " [God said to his followers] Now go and attack Amalek and utterly destroy all they have and do not spare them. Kill both man and women, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (See also: Deut.2:30-35, 7:1-2, 7:16; Josh.6:21; 1 Sam.6:19; Jer.13:14)
This is reminiscent of the things the Nazis did to the Slavs. The Nazis destroyed the Slavic infrastructure and indiscriminately murdered civilians in the most brutal ways. This lead to the death of between 3.5 to 6 million Slavic civilians. What I'm trying to say here is that if God exists, which he doesn't, then he is the inventor of genocide, the original Nazi.
1 Corinthians 11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God."
1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law."
Genesis 3:16 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
There are many sexist passages in the Bible like the ones quoted above. The third one discusses how God punished all women for something that only one woman, Eve, did. How is this "just and fair?"
In Genesis 9:24-27, God's friend Noah placed a curse on the descendants of Ham, who are believed to be of African descent. These verses also encourage slavery. So not only has God allied himself with a racist, he is also pro-slavery.
In conclusion, the God of the Bible is a merciless, tyrannical, genocidal, racist, slave-driving, sexist, quasi-Nazi, and I think that is an understatement. If you wouldn't support a human tyrant doing any of these things, then why would you turn a blind eye to the tyrant in your religious books?
Despite my criticisms of his ideology, I believe the Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin had it right when he said, "Even if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him."
Now, here is something you might find interesting. It is an essay by Frederick Engels, the co-founder of Marxism, which debunks the Book of Revelations. Click here to read it.
I know a lot of you religious and conservative people aren't smart enough to know what autocracy is, so let me define it for you. While I'm at it, I'll define monarch too.
Autocrat: a cruel and oppressive dictator
Monarchy: an autocracy governed by a monarch who usually inherits the authority
Think about it. Do you remember electing any god? What kind of democracy has a leader who will punish you for not believing in him or agreeing with him? Some will argue that God should be in power because he "created life." Did you ask to be alive? No you didn't, this cruel life on Earth was forced on you.
Jesus Christ is termed "King of Kings" in the Bible, particularly in the Book of Revelation, 17:14 and 19:16. Jesus says in the Book of Matthew, verse 28:18, that all authority on earth has been given to him. We can tell from this that Christ, the embodiment of God, is certainly far from being a constitutional monarch, let alone a democratic ruler. He is an absolute monarch, one of the oldest forms of autocratic oppressors.
The hallmark of almost all undemocratic forms of government is cruel and unusual punishment. In case you were unaware, cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited by the US Constitution. Oddly enough, American conservatives support cruel and unusual punishment when their dictator in the sky does it.
Revelation 14:11 “[referring to those who worship the beast] the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night.”
Matthew 13:41 "The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom everything that causes sin as well as all lawbreakers. And throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Isaiah 66:24 "And as they go out, they will see the dead bodies of those who have rebelled against me. For the worms that devour them will never die, and the fire that burns them will never go out. All who pass by will view them with utter horror."
According to the Bible quotes above, if you break God's insane laws you will burn, have your teeth broken, and have other unspeakable things done to you in Hell for all eternity. Seriously imagine how bad it must feel to be burning inside of a lake of fire for all eternity! That is a million times worse than any of the torments dished out by human dictators (which include water-boarding, rape, beatings, starvation, electrocution, and forced labor). On top of all that misery, you will have absolutely no rest! Even Hitler let the Jews sleep in the Concentration Camps! We can safely conclude from this that God is worse than Hitler!
While I'm at it, here is another thing to think about. Does anyone really deserve to be tortured day and night for all eternity? God's punishments don't fit the crimes. If you lived a life of sin, shouldn't you get a simple lifetime of punishment instead of an eternity? It is frowned upon when judges sentence people to death for stealing, so why is it acceptable for a "Holy" judge to torture someone forever and ever even though they only broke a few laws in one short lifetime?
Psalm 9:17 "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God."
Many dictators, Hitler for example, liked to conquer nations that refused to obey their imperialist wishes. The Christian god does a lot worse than this. Instead of doing normal oppression, he will torture the entire nation for all eternity in Hell. This is worse than anything Hitler or the Roman emperors could ever dream of doing.
1 Sam. 15:3 " [God said to his followers] Now go and attack Amalek and utterly destroy all they have and do not spare them. Kill both man and women, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (See also: Deut.2:30-35, 7:1-2, 7:16; Josh.6:21; 1 Sam.6:19; Jer.13:14)
This is reminiscent of the things the Nazis did to the Slavs. The Nazis destroyed the Slavic infrastructure and indiscriminately murdered civilians in the most brutal ways. This lead to the death of between 3.5 to 6 million Slavic civilians. What I'm trying to say here is that if God exists, which he doesn't, then he is the inventor of genocide, the original Nazi.
1 Corinthians 11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God."
1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law."
Genesis 3:16 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
There are many sexist passages in the Bible like the ones quoted above. The third one discusses how God punished all women for something that only one woman, Eve, did. How is this "just and fair?"
In Genesis 9:24-27, God's friend Noah placed a curse on the descendants of Ham, who are believed to be of African descent. These verses also encourage slavery. So not only has God allied himself with a racist, he is also pro-slavery.
In conclusion, the God of the Bible is a merciless, tyrannical, genocidal, racist, slave-driving, sexist, quasi-Nazi, and I think that is an understatement. If you wouldn't support a human tyrant doing any of these things, then why would you turn a blind eye to the tyrant in your religious books?
Despite my criticisms of his ideology, I believe the Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin had it right when he said, "Even if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him."
Now, here is something you might find interesting. It is an essay by Frederick Engels, the co-founder of Marxism, which debunks the Book of Revelations. Click here to read it.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Toyota Bosses Ignore Safety Concerns
Six Toyota manufacturing employees are now claiming that they wrote a memo to the company executives in 2006 regarding the employees' concerns about vehicle safety issues.
"We are concerned about the processes which are essential for producing safe cars, but that ultimately may be ignored, with production continued in the name of competition," the memo from the concerned workers stated.
In the five years leading up to the 2006 memo, Toyota recalled over 5 million cars worldwide. This lead to many people within the company to become concerned, especially since Toyota had cut overhead while increasing output at the same time.
The Toyota executives simply ignored the memo and the concerns of their workers.
"They completely ignored us," said 62-year-old assembly line worker Tadao Wakatsuki. "That's the Toyota way."
"We used to test every one of our cars for safety and quality," Watasuki, founder of the All Toyota Labor Union, said to the press. "Now we do maybe 60%. The old 100% is a thing of the past."
The Union founder also had this to say:
"Our responsibility as a labor union was to point out these problems that Toyota should have known about. People were overworked; some were committing suicide... Of course, Toyota did nothing, but looking back we see how important this was. We just told them what we saw."
If capitalism and competition are so great at making products of good quality, then why is Toyota intentionally lowering its quality? If capitalism treats workers so well, then why are there reports of Toyota workers committing suicide? I think it is fair to say that the capitalists have lied to us.
Karl Marx said that competition only makes it harder for a company to make a profit from selling its products. So they must cut back on costs (usually labor and quality costs) in order to increase profit by saving money. Toyota is cutting back on safety testing and its relationship with its workers in its drive for greater profits. This will only result in Toyota's destruction, unless they are bailed out by their friends in some government (who will use taxpayers' money, unfortunately).
"We are concerned about the processes which are essential for producing safe cars, but that ultimately may be ignored, with production continued in the name of competition," the memo from the concerned workers stated.
In the five years leading up to the 2006 memo, Toyota recalled over 5 million cars worldwide. This lead to many people within the company to become concerned, especially since Toyota had cut overhead while increasing output at the same time.
The Toyota executives simply ignored the memo and the concerns of their workers.
"They completely ignored us," said 62-year-old assembly line worker Tadao Wakatsuki. "That's the Toyota way."
"We used to test every one of our cars for safety and quality," Watasuki, founder of the All Toyota Labor Union, said to the press. "Now we do maybe 60%. The old 100% is a thing of the past."
The Union founder also had this to say:
"Our responsibility as a labor union was to point out these problems that Toyota should have known about. People were overworked; some were committing suicide... Of course, Toyota did nothing, but looking back we see how important this was. We just told them what we saw."
If capitalism and competition are so great at making products of good quality, then why is Toyota intentionally lowering its quality? If capitalism treats workers so well, then why are there reports of Toyota workers committing suicide? I think it is fair to say that the capitalists have lied to us.
Karl Marx said that competition only makes it harder for a company to make a profit from selling its products. So they must cut back on costs (usually labor and quality costs) in order to increase profit by saving money. Toyota is cutting back on safety testing and its relationship with its workers in its drive for greater profits. This will only result in Toyota's destruction, unless they are bailed out by their friends in some government (who will use taxpayers' money, unfortunately).
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Obama Assimilated
Is Obama really a socialist? Or is he closer to John McCain and George Bush than you think? Is his health care plan really single payer? Check out this brief and entertaining video about Obama and maybe decide for yourself.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Why Maoism Works
Examples of working socialism
Under Mao their were favorable growth rates in the Chinese economy, and even the CIA acknowledged this. In less than four years, Maoist policies had turned small, private farms into cooperatives. This increased agricultural production. Then the People’s Communes were formed, and they more than doubled the food grain output. Poor and lower-middle peasants were big fans of these communes.
Industry became less lopsided and grew to meet the needs of Chinese national and military construction. Agriculture was mechanized rapidly also. By 1973, 90% of the counties in China had repair shops for agricultural machinery. Electricity consumption and tractor use increased. Land plowed by machines increased by 70 percent.
Chinese technology excelled and precision tools were built in China without outside help. China became the first country in the world to successfully synthesize insulin and build a working double internal water-cooling turbogenerator. China’s communications, transportation, commerce, banking, finance, cultural, and educational endeavors rapidly advanced. The cultural and educational level of the Chinese people increased too.
The Taching (Daqing) oil field, once an empty field of nothing, was set up in about three years. They didn’t have much equipment when doing it, but they established a first-class oil field. Construction on the oil field began in 1959. Under Mao, China was pretty much self-sufficient in oil products since 1963.
The Chinese currency was stabilized and more and more countries began to use it as a means of calculating prices in international accounting.
New values and ways of thinking and attitudes were forged. The Cultural Revolution changed the masses world outlook to a more united and socialist one. This crushes the old bourgeois lie of how people are naturally greedy.
Here is an unorthodox example (that has nothing to do with China). Canutillo was destroyed by the fighting going on in Mexico, then Pancho Villa took over Canutillo. He applied a collective system of work, and the town was repaired in less than three years. Three years was quick for back then. Canutillo became economically productive and self-sufficient in every respect. It had also acquired many conveniences that were modern at the time.
How Maoism Works and Leads to Communism
Workers and peasants democratically elect managers, and managers can be recalled by the workers. Managers also take part in labor. Government cadres take part in labor as well. This helps restrict bureaucracy, dogmatism, and bourgeois right. It also helps resolve worker-manager contradictions and helps eradicate the difference between mental and manual labor. Maoism also encourages criticism of bureaucrats and capitalist roaders in the Communist Party. An example is Mao Zedong’s “Bombard the Headquarters” comment and the big-character posters.
Strong, centralized leadership in economic planning must be combined with local initiatives. The central leadership must consult the local ones, and it must take into account local conditions. That is how it will come up with plans. The individual enterprises will have decentralized management, and will use state funds, based on what they need to do, to produce according to the state’s plan. Expectancies must not be set too high. Reasonable plans can often, but not always, be over-fulfilled. This will arouse the enthusiasm of the masses. The masses must discuss the lines of the plan, and mass movements must be launched.
“…trusts and factories have been founded on a self-supporting basis precisely in order that they themselves should be responsible…for their enterprises working without a deficit.” - Lenin
Private, small scale means of production (especially farms) are turned into cooperatives, then into communes. This will increase production. Due to the elimination of competition, enterprises better cooperate with each other. This better concentrates resources and manpower. It increases production, finishes projects and developments quicker, and can overcome weaknesses in the national economy. Through Marxist emulation in production, the ever increasing needs of the people are met and the level of technology is raised. Of course, the people could also request new technology be developed for whatever purposes.
Workers for agriculture are very important. The right number of agricultural workers must be secured before anything else. This is because agriculture produces a lot of food and raw materials for heavy and light industry. Maoism aims to mechanize agriculture in order to produce more and free up workers for other work, mainly expanding the other means of production. The mechanization of agriculture helps to eliminate the difference between urban and rural.
Industry must be distributed rationally in every area and the poorer areas better funded. To develop heavy industry, emphasis is put on expanding agriculture and light industry. Light industry and agriculture provide funds and markets for heavy industry and help make the development of heavy industry more stable. Light industry and agriculture also improve the livelihood of the people.
The state will regulate prices in money relations between agriculture and industry in order to restrict bourgeois right. The positive side of the law of value is used to set prices rationally and make plans based on actual conditions. The state must also improve production methods, lower production costs, and implement economic accounting. Democratic methods will be used to solve financial matters.
The production of value will be subordinate to the production of use value. This further restricts bourgeois right.
Unlike in capitalism, overproduction isn’t a problem because the consumption of the masses doesn’t go down. It steadily increases as national construction expands. This is because the socialist system creates jobs, to put it plainly. Production in the socialist state enterprise is not subject to fluctuations according to the level of prices and magnitude of profit. This is because the national plan decides how much to produce, and production plans are based on the growing needs of the people and state. Any losses are made up by planned subsidies. Only the amount of paper money needed for circulation will be printed.
Sources:
Maoist Economics and the Revolutionary Road to Communism: The Shanghai Textbook edited by Raymond Lotta
http://ojinaga.com/pinon/index2.html
Under Mao their were favorable growth rates in the Chinese economy, and even the CIA acknowledged this. In less than four years, Maoist policies had turned small, private farms into cooperatives. This increased agricultural production. Then the People’s Communes were formed, and they more than doubled the food grain output. Poor and lower-middle peasants were big fans of these communes.
Industry became less lopsided and grew to meet the needs of Chinese national and military construction. Agriculture was mechanized rapidly also. By 1973, 90% of the counties in China had repair shops for agricultural machinery. Electricity consumption and tractor use increased. Land plowed by machines increased by 70 percent.
Chinese technology excelled and precision tools were built in China without outside help. China became the first country in the world to successfully synthesize insulin and build a working double internal water-cooling turbogenerator. China’s communications, transportation, commerce, banking, finance, cultural, and educational endeavors rapidly advanced. The cultural and educational level of the Chinese people increased too.
The Taching (Daqing) oil field, once an empty field of nothing, was set up in about three years. They didn’t have much equipment when doing it, but they established a first-class oil field. Construction on the oil field began in 1959. Under Mao, China was pretty much self-sufficient in oil products since 1963.
The Chinese currency was stabilized and more and more countries began to use it as a means of calculating prices in international accounting.
New values and ways of thinking and attitudes were forged. The Cultural Revolution changed the masses world outlook to a more united and socialist one. This crushes the old bourgeois lie of how people are naturally greedy.
Here is an unorthodox example (that has nothing to do with China). Canutillo was destroyed by the fighting going on in Mexico, then Pancho Villa took over Canutillo. He applied a collective system of work, and the town was repaired in less than three years. Three years was quick for back then. Canutillo became economically productive and self-sufficient in every respect. It had also acquired many conveniences that were modern at the time.
How Maoism Works and Leads to Communism
Workers and peasants democratically elect managers, and managers can be recalled by the workers. Managers also take part in labor. Government cadres take part in labor as well. This helps restrict bureaucracy, dogmatism, and bourgeois right. It also helps resolve worker-manager contradictions and helps eradicate the difference between mental and manual labor. Maoism also encourages criticism of bureaucrats and capitalist roaders in the Communist Party. An example is Mao Zedong’s “Bombard the Headquarters” comment and the big-character posters.
Strong, centralized leadership in economic planning must be combined with local initiatives. The central leadership must consult the local ones, and it must take into account local conditions. That is how it will come up with plans. The individual enterprises will have decentralized management, and will use state funds, based on what they need to do, to produce according to the state’s plan. Expectancies must not be set too high. Reasonable plans can often, but not always, be over-fulfilled. This will arouse the enthusiasm of the masses. The masses must discuss the lines of the plan, and mass movements must be launched.
“…trusts and factories have been founded on a self-supporting basis precisely in order that they themselves should be responsible…for their enterprises working without a deficit.” - Lenin
Private, small scale means of production (especially farms) are turned into cooperatives, then into communes. This will increase production. Due to the elimination of competition, enterprises better cooperate with each other. This better concentrates resources and manpower. It increases production, finishes projects and developments quicker, and can overcome weaknesses in the national economy. Through Marxist emulation in production, the ever increasing needs of the people are met and the level of technology is raised. Of course, the people could also request new technology be developed for whatever purposes.
Workers for agriculture are very important. The right number of agricultural workers must be secured before anything else. This is because agriculture produces a lot of food and raw materials for heavy and light industry. Maoism aims to mechanize agriculture in order to produce more and free up workers for other work, mainly expanding the other means of production. The mechanization of agriculture helps to eliminate the difference between urban and rural.
Industry must be distributed rationally in every area and the poorer areas better funded. To develop heavy industry, emphasis is put on expanding agriculture and light industry. Light industry and agriculture provide funds and markets for heavy industry and help make the development of heavy industry more stable. Light industry and agriculture also improve the livelihood of the people.
The state will regulate prices in money relations between agriculture and industry in order to restrict bourgeois right. The positive side of the law of value is used to set prices rationally and make plans based on actual conditions. The state must also improve production methods, lower production costs, and implement economic accounting. Democratic methods will be used to solve financial matters.
The production of value will be subordinate to the production of use value. This further restricts bourgeois right.
Unlike in capitalism, overproduction isn’t a problem because the consumption of the masses doesn’t go down. It steadily increases as national construction expands. This is because the socialist system creates jobs, to put it plainly. Production in the socialist state enterprise is not subject to fluctuations according to the level of prices and magnitude of profit. This is because the national plan decides how much to produce, and production plans are based on the growing needs of the people and state. Any losses are made up by planned subsidies. Only the amount of paper money needed for circulation will be printed.
Sources:
Maoist Economics and the Revolutionary Road to Communism: The Shanghai Textbook edited by Raymond Lotta
http://ojinaga.com/pinon/index2.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
