Well, I relish a good fight, and since I am the only person in this thread with avowedly Marxist views, you'll have to bear with me.
I'll try to give you my view of your arguments in turn, i.e., I'll write a different post for each one of you (don't worry, I don't care about "rank", and I understand that OT posts don't count anyway).
Here goes...
Keoland,
1. a You may call the economic system in Portugal a "semi-fascist autocratic nation that followed the corporativist economic system (like Fascist Italy). Not capitalism at all."
Whew, long definition. Perhaps Portugal (and Fascist Italy) are uniquely original nations, but I don't think this is the case. You hopelessly mix politic and economic terms, and they describe different things. The important thing, as Lenin ably pointed out, is
kto kogo?, (I'm no specialist in Russian, but I think that it means something like "from whom to whom", i.e., who benefits?).
Surely you're not saying that after Mussolini, Hitler, or António de Oliveira Salazar took power, the socioeconomic system in their respective countries changed. Let me tell you something that may be new to you: you may have different political systems with the same economic system. For instance, England is a Constitutional Monarchy, Italy is a Parliamentary Democracy, South Korea and Taiwan for many years were thinly disguised dictatorships, yet they were/are all capitalist nations. This is historical fact, not fancy names.
As for "corporativist economic system", don't make me laugh. Let me tell you what corporativism really is. It means the militarization and control from above of the working class and other potentially dangerous enemies of the state: "vertical" labor unions, and other "beautiful" ideas. Do you really think that the bourgeoisie didn't have the economic power in Portugal before Salazar, or that it lost it under him, or even after that laughable "revolution"? If you think that any other class had the economic power, pray tell which one, maybe some "new" class invented only in Portugal, like this astonishingly original "semi-fascist autocratic nation that followed the corporativist economic system (like Fascist Italy)." No capitalism at all indeed!
1 b You already answered yourself, or rather that scumbag Soares did it for you: "The Mensheviks beat the Bolsheviks". I must add that in my opinion, that sad thing called PCP, like its Stalinist counterparts throughout the world, ceased to be revolutionary Marxists a long, long time ago, certainly long before you and me were born.
Something that nags me, I'll get it out before I forget it, you believe too much in words. Just because somebody or something is defined in one way (see 1 a,
supra) does not mean that in reality it is so. If that were true, there would be nobody in jail, they are all innocent!
Look at their hands, not at their mouths. God, I would love to play poker with you!
2. The last time I checked, I did not have power to allow or forbid profit. Much as I would like to restrict the obscene wealth of Bill Gates and other "captains of industry", they don't pay too much attention to what I say or think.
If by "you" you mean
you Communists, I'm sorry, I do not belong, and I have never belonged to any organization with the word "Communist" in their name (hear that, FBI?)
The Communists you talk with seem to be very primitive, from some backward country or era. What Marx posed is that the surplus-value created by the worker is appropriated by the capitalist. The abolition of the private property of the means of production does not mean that workers will no longer create surplus-value, which is clearly impossible, because the work process
inevitably means making something more valuable than what it was. However, this surplus-value is not "consumed" in its entirety by the worker, as you seem to imply. Part of it is set apart to allow for the reproduction of the means of production, another part is used to satisfy the human needs of the worker (not just food and lodging, but entertainment, culture, etc.), yet another part is set as a "social reserve", and so on. This is something so basic that I'm surprised that the many "Communists" you have spoken with don't know it. And please don't tell me that that was the way it worked in Portugal, because my point is precisely that Portugal
never was Communist. I'm sure that most non-Portuguese readers of your post would be surprised to "learn" (rather unlearn, because it was never true) that Portugal was Communist at any time in its history.
3. I am very sure that I am a Marxist. You certainly don't address my definition of what makes people different. Your infantile Portuguese Communists may think that being equal means sharing the same toothbrush, but I assure you that that is
not what Marx meant. Maybe you would care to read Marx some day and find for yourself what Marx really said, instead of hearing second-hand versions from pig-headed mediocrities.
4. My system, my system. By now, it should be clear to you that Portugal's is not a regime I ever identified with because it isn't and wasn't
ever Communist. Are you beginning to "get" it?
Pirate Scum
Maybe I should stop hijacking this thread and open one?
