Muay Thai Training ,muay Thai In Thailand

Cindy The rappers in the Metro

Pink Discoloration Shower

Maria Luisa Enlightened One evening blue

Why Does People Like Torturing Breast?

explained in a dictatorship of the proletariat is the largest democracy.

The title may seem provocative to some and perhaps incomprehensible to others. This is a theoretical problem, no doubt, but is a major issue on the weight of a huge mistake that our purpose is starting to clear.
When Marx, in the famous Critique of the Gotha Program speaks of dictatorship of the proletariat, it is in a broad sense, which then has become blurred in performers, up to be upset:

between capitalist society and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the former on the latter. In this period is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat .

recap. For Marx, a State is, by definition, the organ of the rule of a class (or in some cases, a partnership of sorts) on society. Then, every state is ultimately a dictatorship.
political forms taken by this dictatorship are, however, different at each stage of development of society. Simply put: Not all dictatorships are the same (and boy are not, here is the crux of the matter!).
It would be idle to explain that extended over the feudal slave system was a step forward in history (slavery is changed by the easement), and, similarly, the transition from the feudal to bourgeois regime marked another major advance (changing the wage-labor servitude). Political forms adopted by the bourgeois state to obey, in his confrontation with feudalism, you need to assert the rights of the individual, to allow the free operation market, as we know.
is the need for the bourgeoisie that creates the institutional form of the bourgeois state, so that, in general, is known as the Democratic Republic. Are characteristic of that political form universal suffrage, parliamentary democracy and freedom of opinion and thought, primarily. These
democratic freedoms, none of which existed in the feudal system, are at the same time gains of the bourgeoisie, achievements of mankind. These are advances in the arduous journey from man to his freedom verdadera.Vistos dialectically, these advances are simultaneously liberating and limiting. Are liberating because they allow the individual access rights that the company had no precedent. But there are limitations because, at the same time allow to maintain the domination of the bourgeoisie over society and with it, the exploitation of man by man.

What Marx says is that all the democratic institutions, with everything that can be advanced, still maintain the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. All modern states, even the most liberal and least repressive of them are forms of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. They are, simply because the mere existence of the state is proof that there is a dictatorship of one class over others.
This statement, which may seem conviction of bourgeois democracy is, if we see the dialectical question, the more enlightened opinion. Marx, as we know, recognizes and highlights the tremendous progress of the bourgeoisie, while pointing out its limitations:

At each stage of development covered by the bourgeoisie is for a new stage of political progress (Communist Manifesto) .

As Berman says, capitalism is at the same time, the best and the worst thing that ever happened to mankind.

Now to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx says, for starters, there is a substantial difference between this and previous dictatorship, while the former were dictatorships of minorities on the vast majority, it is now to establish the dictatorship of the vast majority over a minority.
clarified that the dictatorship is, moreover, according to Marx, a transitional regime, ie, a dictatorship which is moving towards its dissolution (and this is another fundamental difference with its predecessors). But do not get ahead of ourselves yet the question of its dissolution, and be done to elucidate the features that should be the transitional regime.
If the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, being a minority, conquests as possible to establish universal suffrage, parliamentary democracy and, in general, human rights, is not it follows that the dictatorship of the proletariat, the dictatorship of the overwhelming majority, to strengthen, expand and increase these democratic freedoms to infringe instead?
He did not this happen in the regimes that tried to establish socialism in semi-feudal country because, as I said Marxist theory itself, it was impossible to move to socialism in countries where there is not yet the rule of the bourgeoisie, was not developed the proletariat.
But a true dictatorship of the proletariat, when it comes to settle, should not be, by definition, the largest of democracies hitherto known? Can such a broad democracy infringe the freedom of association, freedom of the press, universal and secret ballot, and all other freedoms that the proletariat shed his blood when he and the bourgeoisie, won the overthrow of the monarchy and the feudal nobility?
Not only can not and should not, violate those freedoms. It should and can make them larger! This, said the dictatorship of the majority over a minority, and is also a temporary dictatorship, en route to its dissolution.
human rights, the great achievement of the citizens, not only must be recognized and defended better than ever in the dictatorship of the proletariat, but expanded. What is inconceivable to think that can be trimmed in any way.
is true that Marx and Engels did not extend in clarifying the characteristics of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but if we follow the thread of his argument, as I have outlined here, the issue is not open to doubt.
There is, for the sake of a text that addresses, in our view, explicitly and definitively this false dilemma, rounding and clarifying what's Critique of the Gotha Programme was just a statement.
This is the Review Erfurt program, written by Engels in 1891:

is absolutely no doubt that our party and the working class can only come to dominance in the form of a democratic republic. The latter is even the specific form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, as he has shown since the Great French Revolution.

In the "History of the Bolshevik communist patido the USSR" (Foreign Languages \u200b\u200bPublishing House, Moscow, 1939) published with the approval of Stalin, it is recognized that
"Until the second Russian revolution (February 1917), Marxist all countries started from the view that the democratic parliamentary republic was the form of political organization of society most suitable for even transition period of capitalism to socialism "(p. 415, op. cit.)
was Stalin, as stated in the book and other texts of his, who was in charge of changing the concept, denying that the republic democreatica had that role. But Stalin will be discussed in a later release, more widely.

Salt And Bacterial Throat Infection

Towards another May 68? Response

If the three and a half million workers mobilized in France, the massive general strike, as well as the millions who went on strike in Spain, and before that in Greece, having as central theme its platform is the four-hour day, this new hint May 68 should be open, finally the path of liberation on of the world proletariat.
Because what is needed for those struggles, now scattered and defensive, be shown a true strategic victory, is going on the offensive. No more "I do not remove their retirement," "I do not remove the insurance," I lowered the wages "(claims purely defensive, amid a general loss of workers), but" we will win, damn, finally! "," we will defeat the exploiting class, and removed the right to what we have, "we dump in our favor correlation of forces. "

Blow English Subtitles Streaming

Schydlowsky (II)

3) Depreciation of machinery.

Schydlowsky The next argument is that productivity growth does not come free, requires new machines, or a new technology, which requires a payment (amortization, royalty, etc.), Therefore the benefits Innovation can not go only to workers.
is true that we need to write off machinery and royalties, but it is true that this criterion is to be distributed over the new production. The capital never tells the worker: "we have this over: I will take it only what you need to justify the machine, and the rest divided up between you and me. " So things do not work. What the capital is simply grab the ecedente all to himself, and continue to pay the worker the same wage. Not even have to show the employee how new surplus has been obtained. The employee is not entitled to it. Perhaps, if a union, you can get (after fighting hard for it) a modest increase in their wages. Increase, of course, also depends on how much new production surplus has been obtained, but simply how much you can boot to the strength of the employer.
If we are the example of the seamstress (who showed in our response to Rothgiesser ), we see that the eight additional poles obtained in the second half of the day, are, in principle, the capitalist (and , together with the four poles that were already theirs, do u total of twelve). From there, the seamstress will have to find a way to start something for themselves, which can only be achieved through struggle. And there, too, the capital may redeem the new technology. But both operations are unfavorable to the worker. Why?. Let's see.

miserable is disadvantageous party can increase the salary, because it can only be achieved with unions (non-existent in this new savage capitalism, for the vast majority), and only if the fight reaches its goal (which also occurs in all cases). Is unfavorable, as shown by statistics, because the share of GDP for capital gains is increasing, while the share of wages is decreasing (which Campodonico, in the case of Peru, called the " crocodile mouth "). Suppose, optimistically, that our costumer get a hefty increase ... 25%!. How much is that? Equal to the margin obtained from a surplus of twelve poles (four they were the utility company before, and eight have been added.) The other eleven are being held by the capitalist.
is unfavorable throughout the remainder of the additional production because it will get nothing, arguing that this part (which seems to hold Schydlowsky) should be used to pay off the technology. But the truth is that the depreciation of the new machine is always less than the surplus obtained. How do we know?. Very simple: because otherwise, the capitalist would not have to put new machinery.
If a machine is sold (as the machine Sewing in our example) capable of producing a seamstress than previously produced two, is precisely because this machine can save the capital's salary of the two seamstresses that were previously needed to produce the sixteen poles and because the employer knows that the depreciation of the new machine is less than the salary that you will save.
and is declining further as the cost of the machines is steadily declining (it is known, for example, that computers become cheaper by half every five years).
In short, it is not the capital read: "I will separate, of new surplus, part of the repayment, and the rest is divided up. " It says that capital is "all new surplus belongs to me, because that's the rules of the game. Even discounting all that new surplus increases that workers can obtain, and the amortization of the machine, everything else still remains in the hands of capital.

And stating that we are not discussing here whether such a thing is right or wrong. Suppose one considers that this is fair, so are the rules. Well, but the problem is not to be (or not) right. The problem is that, if the surplus is lagging (as shown) in the hands of capital (however that might be considered just that), are generated the codiciones to occur all the misfortunes that described in the video :
First : layoffs, because the employer disregarded one of the two seamstresses that were previously needed to produce the sixteen poles.
Second : unemployment (a result of dismissal).
Third : falling rate of profit (because accumulate in the hands of capital surplus, a growing portion of constant capital, and decreases in terms on the capital variable).
Fourth: As a result of the falling rate of profit, capital to pressure the worker to extend his journey, to intensify its work and cut their benefits ( the latter by way of precarious employment).

Good Wording For Male Friend

Response Schydlowsky Daniel Daniel Schydlovsky

1) The course lower prices.

Daniel Schydlowsky says that when there is increased productivity, we have the option to receive the increase in two ways: as more goods, or greater amount of leisure. He says he received more goods because prices are cheaper, and more leisure when you reduce the working day.
seems that if we have the opportunity to choose how we will get our increase in productivity, why would not accept that we are required to do by way of increasing our leisure, and could freely choose to receive a greater quantity of goods . Why think only of reducing the time when increases our productivity if we can build on that increase to consume more, improving our standard of living?.
The same argument has been advanced by Hans Rothgiesser , as mentioned in another post .
But is it true that we can receive more goods in proportion to our increase in productivity? Is it true that prices are cheaper in proportion to our increase in productivity, allowing us therefore eat more each time?

is not true, because, for starters, not all prices are cheaper. The worst thing is that cheaper prices are less for the poor, the needy. Why? Because the prices of food, housing and transportation are not decreasing. And if you do not have the good fortune to have access to free health and education, know that the prices of these services also tend to become cheaper. Any housewife knows that the prices of these things, which consumes almost the entire budget of the poorest, have not declined and, by contrast, tend to rise the more acute is the current global crisis, the more land intended crop to biofuels, the more capital looking to speculate on the corn and wheat, the more oil goes and the more scarce housing in urban areas. Yes
become cheaper, it is true, the prices of clothing, and more are reducing prices of electrical appliances and unnecessary items.
But for the great majority of workers, these items themselves are cheaper are precisely those smaller portion of their budgets represent, for the simple reason that the more tight is the budget of a family, ignores most expendable things and less of the essential.
However, these great masses of workers do increase their productivity, and they have done in gigantic proportions with the current technological revolution. Million workers worldwide are increasing so prodigious productivity of automakers, electronics, footwear, sporting goods, dishes, sweets, and so anything that is precisely what can least afford to buy. Perhaps, then, can be said that increasing productivity is offset by the increased consumption of goods?
And even for those who earn meager wages less, and who can afford the consumption of these items are not essential, is it true that the increase in consumption corresponds to the increase in productivity? Nor is, for the simple reason that, for the middle class, spending on food, health, transport, education and housing continues to occupy much of your budget.
So the benefit of falling prices , which has meant that occur Schydlowsky universally, is nonexistent for large masses, and only exists in part to others.
In case one or the other (non-existent or in part), the benefit does not offset the increase in productivity, at least it does for the vast majority of humanity, for the vast majority who are workers.

2) The cheap prices lowering wages.

Moreover, assuming that happens, eventually, lower prices for the things of first necessity, it is certain that this reduction would result by way of market mechanisms in a drop in wages.
In García's first administration had an opportunity to experience how it meets this law of value (very well explained by Marx and Engels), when, after years of price controls on milk, tickets and other urban necessities, wages had been depressed to unprecedented levels (30 per month was allowable wage at the time).
What happened in Peru at that time is the greatest empirical evidence that Engels was right when he said: "long Any reduction in prices of means of subsistence of the worker is equal to a value lower workforce and leads, ultimately, to a corresponding low salary. "
Which is explained by the law of value. For those not familiar with it, we can try a simpler explanation. If any of us are unemployed, urgency of finding work will be done the following question: "How much is the minimum I need to win to survive?". Then fix this (the lowest possible) that allows it to offer their labor at a price more attractive to the employer, competing for it with other unemployed who are struggling to get the same job. The tighter the number, the greater your chances of getting the job, considering that the employer, when compare to applicants of equal qualifications, decide undoubtedly take that, including costs less.
Anyone who has gone through this situation knows what we mean. If there were unemployment (specifically, the time reduction is the direct way to obtain full employment), things would be different. but as we know, unemployment is a permanent evil of capitalism. Fluctuates, but does not disappear.
So, as we see, by way of lower prices is not possible for the worker is compensated for the increase in productivity.
not true that "any of the two options," as DS, work.

High Definition Genitals

Raúl Leoni

Yes I know the picture is bad but I had

a motorized concern

next so I do not crabs.

Fred Meyers Job Application

video says the manifesto.

I received a comment from economist Daniel Schydlovsky. Well, I have not actually received it, but a third person, who was kind enough to send my video, which DS was pleased to see, and then comment. I take the liberty to publish the comment, then answer it:

Very interesting but not entirely correct.

When we have productivity growth in the bottom two options: to receive this increase in productivity in more goods or as much muzzle. Or, of course, a combination of both.

These options are implemented through two mechanisms: (a) fall in prices of agricultural crops, and (b) reductions in working hours.

Any combination works.

BUT we must also take into account that productivity growth usually does not come free, requires new machines, or a new technology or an innovation. All this requires a payment (amortization, royalty, etc.), Therefore the benefits of innovation can not go only to workers but must also go to the other factors of production.

This means that if the productivity is doubled, we can not simply cut in half the hours worked. Nor can we simply double the wages.

Then we have another complication: the increase in productivity is not the same in all products. What may seem simple when there is only one product in the sample becomes very complicated when there are many. If productivity in one product is doubled and all else remains constant, then there is a demand composition problem, as demand for the product whose productivity grew up, it will not replicate ... therefore inevitably require less hours of work in their production. These may occur with smaller number of workers or less hours per worker - that ends up being an issue of distribution, whose solution is often not easy or fair. As changes of Products are varied and unpredictable, and often even well-measured, adjustments that occur are full of friction, inequities and imperfections and take time.

lose income in the way not only workers but also employers, such as productivity grows at a single factory that moves to its competition.

This requires solving a system of simultaneous equations, well specified only in an ideal world. In practice, we know only imperfectly.

But back to the central point of the video. Society can surely be better organized. Much of unemployment can be reduced or avoided with better institutional arrangements and better economic policies. But none of this is simple and conceptually and in application. Let's see just how difficult it is applicable keyensianas well-known recipes for a hundred years to the current crisis. It is difficult for a variety of reasons ranging from lack of understanding of macro feedbacks, through the coordination problems that requires many things done at once, something difficult to achieve, to the political interests by making the opponent fall, albeit at the expense of common welfare (pay a cost "little" now, to benefit the most when "I" comes to power).

Well, dear Manuel, I have expanded in response to what you sent me ... maybe more of the account.

The issue certainly concerns me, as it should concern all of my profession! I wish we had easy answers .... Meanwhile, we have no go-inch improving the world .... If we persist, in the end we have improved a lot!

By the time a big hug,

Dani