class collaboration, a fascist only concept?

[danyboy27]

i took a look of class collaboration on wikipedia, and i really wonder if its only associated with fascism?

i dont really understand the difference of it with the way society is organized right now, would it mean that most of western regimes are fascist??

[Vahanian]

well most goverments are close enough anyway

i just looked it up too its like the anti class struggle:(

[synthesis]

i took a look of class collaboration on wikipedia, and i really wonder if its only associated with fascism?

i dont really understand the difference of it with the way society is organized right now, would it mean that most of western regimes are fascist??

I think if you put even the tiniest fraction of thought into this subject, you could have figured this out for yourself.

Someone already explained to you that class collaboration is a term used to describe the opposite of class conflict. Class conflict is an inherent byproduct of capitalism; Fascism utilizes class collaboration so as to preserve capitalism in times of danger.

[danyboy27]

I think if you put even the tiniest fraction of thought into this subject, you could have figured this out for yourself.

Someone already explained to you that class collaboration is a term used to describe the opposite of class conflict. Class conflict is an inherent byproduct of capitalism; Fascism utilizes class collaboration so as to preserve capitalism in times of danger.

but if i dont agree with class struggle, its dosnt mean that i am a fascist eh?

[GPDP]

The concept of class collaboration is little more than propaganda, a world view that the masses are merely supposed to accept. In this view, the hierarchy of society is natural and desirable, and everyone has a place in it. Class struggle is thus seen as detrimental to society.

But of course, you cannot just will away the class struggle. There is a material basis for the existence of class conflict, and no amount of posturing or media blitzes that attempt to ram down our throats the idea that there is no rich and poor, no bourgeois or proletariat, but one united nation against another can get rid of that reality.

[Demogorgon]

It was a key concept of Mussolini's programme certainly, but try defining it in such a way that all fascists are included and all non-fascists not and you will tie yourself in knots.

I mean One Nation Conservatives in Britain and Red Tories in Canada go for something quite similar and whatever other faults they may have, they aren't fascists.

[Raúl Duke]

fascist only conceptI think the reason why it could be considered a "fascist-only concept" is cause it's probably clearly articulated in fascist ideology. In liberal ideology which most bourgeois republics are based on they prefer to give out the illusion of equality and prefer not to make mention of class much (unless for populist reasons). Although I think (not sure, but heard it somewhere)in Keynesian Economics they make a reference to "partnership" or "peace" "between capital and labor."


But of course, you cannot just will away the class struggle. There is a material basis for the existence of class conflict

This is true, thus why the fascists states had to use lots of violence and totalitarianism to keep a facade of class collaborationism.

[Bud Struggle]

Isn't Social Democracy class collaboration? The Bourgeoise create jobs for the Proletarians and contribute the vast amout of taxes to support the states social programs.

[Robert]

Yes. Good point, and it complements Kun's point above:


class collaboration is a term used to describe the opposite of class conflict. Class conflict is an inherent byproduct of capitalism

Class conflict may be an inherent by product of pure capitalism, but it's not inherent in social democracy. Wasn't J.K. Rowling on relief of some kind, sufficient to keep her minimally warm and fed while she quietly invented Harry Potter out of nothing and moved out of one class and into another?

We can keep the overwhelming majority of reasonable adult voters content by tinkering around the edges of the existing system with fiscal, monetary, and social policy. No discontent, no revolution.

Everyone sees this but commie malcontents.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So far, but the legitimacy of the capitalist system has been undermined quite a bit by this crisis. Most "voters" tend to be reformist and may even vote for economically right-wing parties, but (based on personal discussions and general observations) prefer more radical (read: populist) reforms than tinkering with taxation, subsidies, general spending ("tax and spend"), monetary policy, and international trade.

If real GDP per capita has increased since the dawn of capitalist production, why are there no statutory guarantees to match workers' wages and salaries against inflationary increases? This crisis has also exposed the bankruptcy of "social democracy"; we class-strugglists may not have fully "cashed in," but in a worse position are "social-democrats," especially of the European type. :)

[synthesis]

Isn't Social Democracy class collaboration? The Bourgeoise create jobs for the Proletarians and contribute the vast amout of taxes to support the states social programs.The really, really rich people, the shot-callers, they don't have to pay shit for taxes. There are exclusive attorneys who figure out every possible loophole in the system (and there are plenty) so that the vast majority of their income goes untaxed.

In any case, I wouldn't describe social democracy as class collaboration. Social democracy can be likened to a parent who gives a child what they want to calm them down. It's class pacification.

Fascism usually happens when that's not enough; it's more like beating the shit out of your kid with a belt while trying to get your other kids to ostracize them, even though they all want the same thing - to leave the fucking house.

[synthesis]

Class conflict may be an inherent by product of pure capitalism, but it's not inherent in social democracy.Well, it depends on how many concessions are granted by the owning class.

Social democracy is such a meaningless phrase that I wish it would go away entirely. Everyone from Lenin to center-right Christian parties have called themselves Social Democrats.


Wasn't J.K. Rowling on relief of some kind, sufficient to keep her minimally warm and fed while she quietly invented Harry Potter out of nothing and moved out of one class and into another?Who cares? The system produces exceptions from sheer circumstance and portrays them as the rule; that's how it survives. You keep telling the same stupid fucking story and you already know what we're going to say back to you - why bother?


We can keep the overwhelming majority of reasonable adult voters content by tinkering around the edges of the existing system with fiscal, monetary, and social policy. No discontent, no revolution.

Everyone sees this but commie malcontents.Yeah, we already did that, a long time ago. Now the people who are most exploited by the system - the system demands it - they aren't voters, not in our elections, anyways.

[synthesis]

but if i dont agree with class struggle, its dosnt mean that i am a fascist eh?Why the fuck would you ask that question? Do you have a concussion?

[Raúl Duke]

Yes. Good point, and it complements Kun's point above:

Class conflict may be an inherent by product of pure capitalism, but it's not inherent in social democracy. Wasn't J.K. Rowling on relief of some kind, sufficient to keep her minimally warm and fed while she quietly invented Harry Potter out of nothing and moved out of one class and into another?

We can keep the overwhelming majority of reasonable adult voters content by tinkering around the edges of the existing system with fiscal, monetary, and social policy. No discontent, no revolution.

Everyone sees this but commie malcontents.

Actually, I was going to agree with TomK and say yes that Social Democracy policies work towards "class collaboration" or pacifying the working class, etc . Another interesting thing is that both fascism and "new deal/social democratic policies" started (or expanded) during the 30s.

However, the age of social democracy in the west seems to be over since like the 80s.

[danyboy27]

Why the fuck would you ask that question? Do you have a concussion?

no but i am trying to figure out some stuff, and i want to be sure that nobody think that i am a fascist and finally decide to ban me for that.

i am looking for alternatives to class struggle, the principle like what i have to fuck up all the class over me so society can be happy sound fucking agressive. to agree that i would have to be angry, feel some hate toward the ones that are better off. i reconize there is inegality, that we should reduce those, but i dont think class struggle have to be constant.

[Robert]

You keep telling the same stupid fucking story and you already know what we're going to say back to you - why bother?

Actually, I was about to say the same to you, my embittered friend, for I find your posts as monotonous as you find mine.

Maybe one of us should not be in OI. I'm here because I'm a social-democrat-capitalist-enabler. What's your excuse? :laugh:

As for the story of JK Rowling, it is neither "stupid" nor "fucking." It's touching, endearing, and inspirational. And if you were to read less Marx and more Rowling, it would enrich your vocabulary.

[Bud Struggle]

However, the age of social democracy in the west seems to be over since like the 80s.

You could say that about Communism as a whole, too. ;)

[synthesis]

Actually, I was about to say the same to you, my embittered friend, for I find your posts as monotonous as you find mine.

I meant "you" in the plural sense. There's always some anecdote someone pulls out of their ass to try and justify the whole system. What I'm saying is that by extolling Rowling you are ignoring the "silent evidence" of every other single mother who has worked equally hard, is an equally good writer, yet never made the same connections or had the same opportunities.


no but i am trying to figure out some stuff, and i want to be sure that nobody think that i am a fascist and finally decide to ban me for that.

You're all good.

[Bud Struggle]

I meant "you" in the plural sense. There's always some anecdote someone pulls out of their ass to try and justify the whole system. What I'm saying is that by extolling Rowling you are ignoring the "silent evidence" of every other single mother who has worked equally hard, is an equally good writer, yet never made the same connections or had the same opportunities.

Yea, but there's a reason for that. That's how Capitalism works--it is all about someone starting with nothing and turning the world on it's head. Capitalism is about millions of INDIVIDUAL stories, none the same. Nothing about groups and hundreds of others.

The story of Capitalism is the story of the individual, not the masses. Capitalist turn as easily to the story of this one or that one as you Communists turn to the stories of the group.

And Rowling didn' succeed because she had "connections" or "opportunities" that other people didn't. She had real talent and she worked hard and fought the odds and one. And her story is the story of how Capitalism works.

[Plagueround]

Oh...it's this game again. I've come to think swearing off OI would be a bad idea...it might cause some impressionable youth to think you lot know what you're talking about.


Yea, but there's a reason for that. That's how Capitalism works--it is all about someone starting with nothing and turning the world on it's head.

And fuck everyone else! The guy who works in my factory for seven dollars an hour would open his own business if he wasn't lazy, as should everyone! Freedom! Wait...then I won't have any workers.


Capitalism is about millions of INDIVIDUAL stories, none the same. Nothing about groups and hundreds of others.Except for the groups and hundreds of others it subjugates and forces to trade their freedom for a wage, not to mention the ones that are forced into virtual slavery or have bombs dropped on their heads in the name of making sure merchandise and commodities stay cheap...well, except the commodities like food, which we dump into the ocean to keep the price up.


The story of Capitalism is the story of the individual, not the masses.Of course it is, which is what makes it such a fairy tale.

The story of the individual at the expense of the masses is hardly the story of the individual. Unless you're implying the capitalist could do everything without workers. You show me a true individual who doesn't rely on the masses, and I'll show you a person who likely lives alone in a forest or cave.

Even if capitalism does allow for some to obtain individualism, what a horrible individualism it is, centered around how much "stuff" they can accumulate...second only to those that cannot accumulate anything.


Capitalist turn as easily to the story of this one or that one as you Communists turn to the stories of the group.Every group is merely a collective of individuals, and right now individuals are rampantly being denied their right to enjoy individuality because they're too bust propping up those who own the things they toil for.


And Rowling didn' succeed because she had "connections" or "opportunities" that other people didn't. She had real talent and she worked hard and fought the odds and one. And her story is the story of how Capitalism works.And why, as advanced as we've become, should anyone have to endure this story of rags to riches, either in experience or anecdote? For every J.K. Rowling there are millions who will never see that type of fame, and that's fine. Nothing will change that. But there is no reason whatsoever anyone should have to be in the "rags" stage ever again, nor should anyone view the attainment of "riches" while others are starving as an enlightened and progressive path.

Since everyone around here is suggesting reading, here's mine, from a man who was one of the most true individuals history has ever witnessed. (http://libcom.org/library/soul-of-man-under-socialism-oscar-wilde)

[Robert]

And why, as advanced as we've become, should anyone have to endure this story of rags to riches, either in experience or anecdote? For every J.K. Rowling there are millions who will never see that type of fame, and that's fine. Nothing will change that. But there is no reason whatsoever anyone should have to be in the "rags" stage ever again, nor should anyone view the attainment of "riches" while others are starving as an enlightened and progressive path.I'll take that question for $50. No one "should" have to endure a rags to riches story. But that's not exactly where we are. Rowling was on welfare, yes, but she wasn't, I don't think, shivering in a rich man's doorway.

Second, you seem to be connecting her wealth with the misery of others. Sorry if I misunderstand you on this, but if you do, that's a tough case to make, I think. What does Rowling do with her money? She may have a more efficient charity in place than any agency the government could create. Maybe you're an anarchist, I don't know, in which case I really wonder what you would do for starving folks in remote areas.

[Robert]

Okay. I read the Wilde essay. It's thoughtful, moving and eloquent.

I really don't want to criticize beautiful writing, which it is, but ... it doesn't seem to acknowledge the existence of individual venality. I've got a problem with that.

[Plagueround]

I'll take that question for $50. No one "should" have to endure a rags to riches story. But that's not exactly where we are. Rowling was on welfare, yes, but she wasn't, I don't think, shivering in a rich man's doorway.

If I recall she was a waitress and had a home, I'm not sure as it's been some time since I began reading those books. But then, I don't know that the phrase rags to riches is one that is often used literally.


Second, you seem to be connecting her wealth with the misery of others. Sorry if I misunderstand you on this, but if you do, that's a tough case to make, I think.Not at all. However, one cannot deny that while Rowling is quite wealthy there are literally billions that live on less than a dollar or two a day, and thousands of them will be dead by the time this day is done. In comparison, I am quite wealthy compared to most of those people. It is not J.K. Rowling I have a problem with (especially as an aspiring writer myself), it is the system we have created that revolves around competition and hoarding of even the most basic of resources while we sit on top of rather obvious solutions that we could solve right now. Hell, you wouldn't even need socialism for most of them if people were a bit more compassionate or even interested, but looking forward, I honestly don't know what the alternative would be, other than staying on course and letting people die off.

To be quite honest, capitalism could shut me up on this subject right here and now if every millionaire and billionaire on the planet got together and said "hey, look. No more starving people. They're all fed. Got another one for me commie?" But you and I know they never would. It is with this knowledge that I promote what I see to be the best way forward from the problems we have now. If ever there comes a time where an ideology I find superior to libertarian socialism comes along, I'll be the first to come to this site and have myself restricted.


What does Rowling do with her money? She may have a more efficient charity in place than any agency the government could create.Who knows? Charity is nice and all, but it doesn't often create much in the way of a means for a person to sustain themselves. As I said, I think the solutions are there, and charities are often on the right track, but they lack the funding, humanpower, and scope to really tackle such problems.


Maybe you're an anarchist, I don't know, in which case I really wonder what you would do for starving folks in remote areas.That I would be. If you cannot figure out what an ideology based on mutual aid, solidarity, internationalism, and the abolition of hierarchy (but not organization) would do for those that are unable to provide for themselves due to famine or oppression, then I would guess, given the almost dismissive way that you wrote that, you don't know much about anarchism.

[salesman voice]If that was not your intent, let me know what you perceive or don't know about anarchists and I'll be more than happy to answer your questions or refer you to someone who can.[/salesman voice]

[synthesis]

Yea, but there's a reason for that. That's how Capitalism works--it is all about someone starting with nothing and turning the world on it's head. Capitalism is about millions of INDIVIDUAL stories, none the same. Nothing about groups and hundreds of others.

The story of Capitalism is the story of the individual, not the masses. Capitalist turn as easily to the story of this one or that one as you Communists turn to the stories of the group.

And Rowling didn' succeed because she had "connections" or "opportunities" that other people didn't. She had real talent and she worked hard and fought the odds and one. And her story is the story of how Capitalism works.

Yes, she fought the odds and won. We agree there. Most people who fight the odds will lose, and as a factory owner it is in your privilege and self-interest to have people "lose" because then they're stuck with you.

That's the system we want to replace. Your type has the propaganda down pat, and I'll admit that ours needs work. You've "updated" better than us. You realized that the "Protestant work ethic" just wasn't cutting it any more; now you need the "carrot-and-the-stick" approach. We haven't really figured out how to address that yet. But congratulations - you've found the right dosage of bullshit you need to keep the system going.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

I meant "you" in the plural sense. There's always some anecdote someone pulls out of their ass to try and justify the whole system. What I'm saying is that by extolling Rowling you are ignoring the "silent evidence" of every other single mother who has worked equally hard, is an equally good writer, yet never made the same connections or had the same opportunities.

This is my normal arguement for the nannystate.....


Capitalism is about millions of INDIVIDUAL stories, none the same. Nothing about groups and hundreds of others.

And most of them end shitty.
But the truth is there are no individual stories, there is -one- story. We all share that story, it's called the universe.


And Rowling didn' succeed because she had "connections" or "opportunities" that other people didn't. She had real talent and she worked hard and fought the odds and one. And her story is the story of how Capitalism works.

Works sometimes, most of the time it doesn't.
To claim something works in general it has to work 51% or more of the time. And every poor hobo is a failure of society, and there are more poor hobos than people like Rowling.

Of course my objection isn't the riches, only the rags. And the whole "work should not be forced" thing. but interestingly enough, Rowlings would have done her thing capitalism or no.

[TheCagedLion]

Yea, but there's a reason for that. That's how Capitalism works--it is all about someone starting with nothing and turning the world on it's head. Capitalism is about millions of INDIVIDUAL stories, none the same. Nothing about groups and hundreds of others.

The story of Capitalism is the story of the individual, not the masses. Capitalist turn as easily to the story of this one or that one as you Communists turn to the stories of the group.

And Rowling didn' succeed because she had "connections" or "opportunities" that other people didn't. She had real talent and she worked hard and fought the odds and one. And her story is the story of how Capitalism works.

Why is that 1 person more important than the 1000s of people who constitute the masses?

[ZeroNowhere]

And Rowling didn' succeed because she had "connections" or "opportunities" that other people didn't. She had real talent and she worked hard and fought the odds and one. And her story is the story of how Capitalism works.
Try an argument that's not based on a load of bollocks like free will next time, please?


The story of Capitalism is the story of the individual, not the masses.
Oh yeah, you're admittedly a supernaturalist. Generally it's more effective to bring this kind of thing up against so called 'atheist' neoliberals. Anyways, you're not convincing us non-supernaturalists here.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Uh, Rowling's billion dollars came from intellectual property and corporations. She did not work her arse off; she used capitalist law.

[RGacky3]

Isn't Social Democracy class collaboration? The Bourgeoise create jobs for the Proletarians and contribute the vast amout of taxes to support the states social programs.


Its not class collaboration, its State interferance for the sake of the workers (in theory).


You could say that about Communism as a whole, too.

About Leninism, Communism, in the real sense, is starting up, syndicalism is comming back, so is direct community action, maybe not in the US, but in Latin America, Africa, and other places (not to suggest that the US matters more than those places).


Yea, but there's a reason for that. That's how Capitalism works--it is all about someone starting with nothing and turning the world on it's head. Capitalism is about millions of INDIVIDUAL stories, none the same. Nothing about groups and hundreds of others.


That is the myth of the American dream, its a myth. Capitalism is'nt individual stories, its the story of class warfare, competition, power and ambition, exploitation, and maximizing profits.

Your romantic notion of what Capitalism is simply ignores the facts.


Maybe you're an anarchist, I don't know, in which case I really wonder what you would do for starving folks in remote areas.

It should'nt be our responsibility, they should'nt have to rely on us, if you want to be a good person great, but we are looking for a system where people doin't have to rely on "good people."

Now, about "class collaboration." Its again a myth, collaboration is impossible when one side has all the power and authority and capital, under those circumstances is called obedience.

[Bud Struggle]

Its not class collaboration, its State interferance for the sake of the workers (in theory). Yes, but everyone works together. No warfare.




About Leninism, Communism, in the real sense, is starting up, syndicalism is comming back, so is direct community action, maybe not in the US, but in Latin America, Africa, and other places (not to suggest that the US matters more than those places). And Fascism is making a comeback, too. these things come and go.




That is the myth of the American dream, its a myth. Capitalism is'nt individual stories, its the story of class warfare, competition, power and ambition, exploitation, and maximizing profits. I'm thinking that the American Dream is real and that class Warefare is the myth. I'm in and out of businesses all the time, and I really don't see the workers hateing their bosses and the bosses hateing their workers. If anything I see the climate getting more friendly between them--they'll pull together in these tougher economic times.


Your romantic notion of what Capitalism is simply ignores the facts. Has Communism EVER displaced Democratic Capitalism as an economic system in any country? It's replaced Feudalism (when it was doing such things) quite often--and on occasion it has replaced a autocratic dictator--but not Democratic Capitalism.


Now, about "class collaboration." Its again a myth, collaboration is impossible when one side has all the power and authority and capital, under those circumstances is called obedience.[/quote]

Do you ever SEE class warfare? Show me where I can find it.

[Bud Struggle]

To be quite honest, capitalism could shut me up on this subject right here and now if every millionaire and billionaire on the planet got together and said "hey, look. No more starving people. They're all fed. Got another one for me commie?"

And you know, it would have been nice if (while those dinosaurs still roamed the earth) the great Socialist/Communist nations of the world said the same thing.

If the Capitalists don't do it and the Communists don't do it--maybe it's against human nature.

[Bud Struggle]

Oh...it's this game again. I've come to think swearing off OI would be a bad idea...it might cause some impressionable youth to think you lot know what you're talking about. It's easier to get off heroin than to leave OI. :D




And fuck everyone else! The guy who works in my factory for seven dollars an hour would open his own business if he wasn't lazy, as should everyone! Freedom! Wait...then I won't have any workers. My point was that the real worldview of Communists and Capitalists are so utterly different. Capitalists immediately go for the Heratio Alger story, Communists immediately go for the "what about the others?" It's almost as if we were raised on two different planets.


Except for the groups and hundreds of others it subjugates and forces to trade their freedom for a wage, not to mention the ones that are forced into virtual slavery or have bombs dropped on their heads in the name of making sure merchandise and commodities stay cheap...well, except the commodities like food, which we dump into the ocean to keep the price up. Well, I agree it isn't perfect--yet. There are problems, inequalities. There certainly was in the Soviet Union and they TRIED. Right now they are trying in Cuba--EVERYONE (except their version of the Commie Club:rolleyes:) has to live on the same stipend, no "trade" is allowed (except renting out a room in your house and having a small restraunt on your front porch--both of which are heavily taxed) and there EVERYONE is poor.


The story of the individual at the expense of the masses is hardly the story of the individual. Unless you're implying the capitalist could do everything without workers. You show me a true individual who doesn't rely on the masses, and I'll show you a person who likely lives alone in a forest or cave. It's not Capitalism at the EXPENSE of the masses--it's Capitalism with the aid of the masses AND the Bourgeois. Individuals rely on the masses and the masses rely on the individual. The workers rely on the entrepreneur and the entrepreneur relies on the workers. Everyone working together.


Even if capitalism does allow for some to obtain individualism, what a horrible individualism it is, centered around how much "stuff" they can accumulate...second only to those that cannot accumulate anything. Communist is all about materialism--idalism plays a large part in (at least American) Capitalism--religion is a BIG factor with Americans.


Every group is merely a collective of individuals, and right now individuals are rampantly being denied their right to enjoy individuality because they're too bust propping up those who own the things they toil for. Preaching! ;)


And why, as advanced as we've become, should anyone have to endure this story of rags to riches, either in experience or anecdote? I did it--and it's a hoot, don't knock it if you haven't tried it. (FYI I'm much less rich than JKRowling.)


For every J.K. Rowling there are millions who will never see that type of fame, and that's fine. Nothing will change that. But there is no reason whatsoever anyone should have to be in the "rags" stage ever again, Well I agree no one should starve.
nor should anyone view the attainment of "riches" while others are starving as an enlightened and progressive path. As long as one is honest in his business dealings--there's nothing to be ashamed of.




Since everyone around here is suggesting reading, here's mine, from a man who was one of the most true individuals history has ever witnessed. (http://libcom.org/library/soul-of-man-under-socialism-oscar-wilde)


Well written, but don't forget Wilde gave up all that when he became older and wiser and converted to Catholicism. ;)

Seriously, he makes good sense in part of it--poverty is degrading, and poverty should be abolished, but as the Duke of Devonshire once said: "is a man no longer to have his bisket?"

[RGacky3]

Yes, but everyone works together. No warfare.

Nope, the workers are still trying to get more, so are the Capitalists, the only difference is the percieved role of the State.


I'm thinking that the American Dream is real and that class Warefare is the myth. I'm in and out of businesses all the time, and I really don't see the workers hateing their bosses and the bosses hateing their workers. If anything I see the climate getting more friendly between them--they'll pull together in these tougher economic times.


Well you did'nt answer my points, about what Capitalism is.

Class warfare is'nt about bosses hating workers or vise versa as people, its about the 2 classes having different interests, conflicting interests. Unless you realize that you won't understand class warfare.

The idea that the classes can "work together" is rediculous because both classes have clashing interest, and one class has all the power and authority.


It's not Capitalism at the EXPENSE of the masses--it's Capitalism with the aid of the masses AND the Bourgeois. Individuals rely on the masses and the masses rely on the individual. The workers rely on the entrepreneur and the entrepreneur relies on the workers. Everyone working together.


See my above post, the Capitalists gain more wealth and power, and the workers gain survival, maybe. Its profit for the bosses, slavery for the workers, they don't work together, one class rules the other is subservient.


Do you ever SEE class warfare? Show me where I can find it.

EVERYWHERE!!! Lay offs, pay cuts, strikes, walkouts, selecting manigerial positions, selective pay raises, union busting, wage negotiations, and so on and so on.

[danyboy27]

you perceive that has a class war, but at the end it has nothing to do with class. i dont think the buisness who lay off 30 000 worker do this on purpose to hurt the working class, but act more for self preservation of their buisness, not necessarly the protection of their class, beccause in their buisness there is probably other working class folks, and middle class, and rich.

[GPDP]

you perceive that has a class war, but at the end it has nothing to do with class. i dont think the buisness who lay off 30 000 worker do this on purpose to hurt the working class, but act more for self preservation of their buisness, not necessarly the protection of their class, beccause in their buisness there is probably other working class folks, and middle class, and rich.

Um, that IS class warfare. I think you're getting the wrong message here. We don't think that the attacks on the working class by the capitalist class are done deliberately, as if they're all sitting down, holding meetings about how best to screw over workers. It's merely a conflict of interests. Like you said, people are laid off by bosses as a way of preserving their businesses. In times of crisis, their profits, indeed their very survival comes at the expense of their employees. The bottom line comes first.

But there are indeed times when the ruling class comes to protect their class interests, most markedly when workers become conscious of what is truly going on. Why do you think the German bourgeois supported Hitler? Because they saw the communists as their biggest threat, and even know some of them did not agree with the Nazis, or even thought badly of them and their hateful ideology, they knew they could rely on them to fight off the communist movement.

[Plagueround]

Do any of the OIers that flat out disagree with the concept of class struggle realize that we've been saying all along that not many people are aware of their relationship to this power structure? Class struggle is not something you can simply wish away because you don't agree with communists. The theoretical basis for it goes far beyond us. Even folks on the other side of the fence see it as a reality, they just have different explanations as to why it occurs and what it represents.

GPDP just covered it quite well as I was typing this.

[danyboy27]

Um, that IS class warfare. I think you're getting the wrong message here. We don't think that the attacks on the working class by the capitalist class are done deliberately, as if they're all sitting down, holding meetings about how best to screw over workers. It's merely a conflict of interests. Like you said, people are laid off by bosses as a way of preserving their businesses. In times of crisis, their profits, indeed their very survival comes at the expense of their employees. The bottom line comes first.

But there are indeed times when the ruling class comes to protect their class interests, most markedly when workers become conscious of what is truly going on. Why do you think the German bourgeois supported Hitler? Because they saw the communists as their biggest threat, and even know some of them did not agree with the Nazis, or even thought badly of them and their hateful ideology, they knew they could rely on them to fight off the communist movement.

why all that hate toward the bosses and rich people then?

[Bud Struggle]

Um, that IS class warfare. I think you're getting the wrong message here. We don't think that the attacks on the working class by the capitalist class are done deliberately, as if they're all sitting down, holding meetings about how best to screw over workers. It's merely a conflict of interests. Like you said, people are laid off by bosses as a way of preserving their businesses. In times of crisis, their profits, indeed their very survival comes at the expense of their employees. The bottom line comes first. But under that definition there may be class warfare, but there is also warfare between every person on earth with every other person on earth. I love my wire but sometimes her interests are to go to the mall and mine are to go fishing--marital warfare! I like my neighbor, but sometimes he throws wild parties (that he doesn't invite me to!) Neighbor Warfare! How about my interests as an American vrs. those of the (for example) the French--National Warfare. How about when a worker buy a lottery ticket and 1,000,000 other Proletarians do to--mass warfare! Sometimes in life perople's "interests" diverge.

Class Warfare is one small segment of Universal Warfare.


But there are indeed times when the ruling class comes to protect their class interests, most markedly when workers become conscious of what is truly going on.

Everyone protects everyone of their thousands of interests. It's quite a natural human phenomenon. My interests will always be different than yours. Different members of different unions often have different interests. It's not warfare--it's just life.

[GPDP]

why all that hate toward the bosses and rich people then?

Depends on who you ask. Some of us do resent the individuals that make up the ruling class, while others make it a point to distinguish the individual ruling class members from the ruling class as a collective societal entity. I can't say I want to see Obama's head on a pike, for example, but I do want the institution of the US government destroyed.

See, the important thing here is to not get caught up in damning individuals, even if they happen to hold positions of tremendous power, and even if they abuse them to horrible ends. While I do believe those in power should always be held accountable for their actions (though of course, I'd prefer they and the power they wield be gone entirely), they are but figureheads of a system. And at the end of the day, our real enemy is the system, not so much the people who head it, though they do play a part in its function.

[GPDP]

But under that definition there may be class warfare, but there is also warfare between every person on earth with every other person on earth. I love my wire but sometimes her interests are to go to the mall and mine are to go fishing--marital warfare! I like my neighbor, but sometimes he throws wild parties (that he doesn't invite me to!) Neighbor Warfare! How about my interests as an American vrs. those of the (for example) the French--National Warfare. How about when a worker buy a lottery ticket and 1,000,000 other Proletarians do to--mass warfare! Sometimes in life perople's "interests" diverge.

Class Warfare is one small segment of Universal Warfare.

This is just silly. You're conflating what I said about interests, and you make it seem as if all conflicts of interests are warfare. Indeed, there will always be conflicts of interest, but not all of them result in the great mass of people being systematically denied their needs in one manner or another.


Everyone protects everyone of their thousands of interests. It's quite a natural human phenomenon. My interests will always be different than yours. Different members of different unions often have different interests. It's not warfare--it's just life.

It's the reality of life, yes - for now. I'm not prepared to accept the denial of the prospect of every human being having a fair chance at fully developing their own selves as some kind of natural, universal constant.

[RGacky3]

But under that definition there may be class warfare, but there is also warfare between every person on earth with every other person on earth. I love my wire but sometimes her interests are to go to the mall and mine are to go fishing--marital warfare! I like my neighbor, but sometimes he throws wild parties (that he doesn't invite me to!) Neighbor Warfare! How about my interests as an American vrs. those of the (for example) the French--National Warfare. How about when a worker buy a lottery ticket and 1,000,000 other Proletarians do to--mass warfare! Sometimes in life perople's "interests" diverge.

Class Warfare is one small segment of Universal Warfare.

Fortunately most different interests don't conflict with each other, nor are they in the situation of a master/slave relationship.

Your forgetting TomK, this is all aobut power and authority, you fail to recognise that.

[danyboy27]

so basicly, if i understand right, class warfare is here beccause there is a capitalist system, that both the rich and the poor want money, but since the rich got the upper hand to get that money, its not fair...

is it that what you call class struggle?

[RGacky3]

so basicly, if i understand right, class warfare is here beccause there is a capitalist system, that both the rich and the poor want money, but since the rich got the upper hand to get that money, its not fair...

is it that what you call class struggle?

in a way that I would describe to a 3 year old, kind of.

[danyboy27]

in a way that I would describe to a 3 year old, kind of.

are you insinuating something about my mental developpement?

[Plagueround]

so basicly, if i understand right,

Which you don't.


class warfare is here beccause there is a capitalist system,Class warfare in it's current incarnation is largely focused on the divisions created by uneven distribution of wealth. There were previous class struggles throughout history...these are the former modes of production humanity has gone through.


that both the rich and the poor want money,Not money, but resources. Money is largely a representation of how much power over available resources one has.


but since the rich got the upper hand to get that money, its not fair...I find "not fair" as an unsettling way to put it. As I see it, even if one does not agree with communism as the next stage or the best outlook, capitalism has several fundamental flaws that cause a great deal of suffering that necessitate it being done away with. We simply cannot continue doing what we've been doing. The constant need for economic growth as a motivator, the piling on debt to stop crisis, the strain put on the ecosystem by companies with profit motive over accountability, the continued rise in inequality, technology increasingly putting people out of jobs...I could go on for hours and probably have in my 1,000+ posts. "Not fair" is too crude in my opinion.


is it that what you call class struggle?I must ask. Have you ever attempted reading anything on the subject? Or are you just another "Do my research for me" OIer?

[danyboy27]

Which you don't.

Class warfare in it's current incarnation is largely focused on the divisions created by uneven distribution of wealth. There were previous class struggles throughout history...these are the former modes of production humanity has gone through.

Not money, but resources. Money is largely a representation of how much power over available resources one has.

I find "not fair" as an unsettling way to put it. As I see it, even if one does not agree with communism as the next stage or the best outlook, capitalism has several fundamental flaws that cause a great deal of suffering that necessitate it being done away with. We simply cannot continue doing what we've been doing. The constant need for economic growth as a motivator, the piling on debt to stop crisis, the strain put on the ecosystem by companies with profit motive over accountability, the continued rise in inequality, technology increasingly putting people out of jobs...I could go on for hours and probably have in my 1,000+ posts. "Not fair" is too crude in my opinion.

I must ask. Have you ever attempted reading anything on the subject? Or are you just another "Do my research for me" OIer?

i wasnt really looking for it, i misunderstood you on that, and by seeing your post i had some kind of enlightement on the subject, you stuff made sense to me, i understood your position on the subject.

BUT it dosnt mean i share your point of view, i only agree about the conflict of interrest part.

[funkmasterswede]

Yes, if you want to make communitarianism and civic republicanism equal to fascism.

[synthesis]

so basicly, if i understand right, class warfare is here beccause there is a capitalist system, that both the rich and the poor want money, but since the rich got the upper hand to get that money, its not fair...

is it that what you call class struggle?

It's not money, per se. It's ownership of the means of production, which are the means of producing things of value, such as factories and farms.

[ZeroNowhere]

why all that hate toward the bosses and rich people then?
What hate? “The mind is determined to this or that choice by a cause which is also determined by another cause, and this again by another, and so on ad infinitum. This doctrine teaches us to hate no one, to despise no one, to mock no one, to be angry with no one, and to envy no one.”

[Robert]

If ever there comes a time where an ideology I find superior to libertarian socialism comes along

That sounds like a perfect world someone has come up with where everybody is free to do whatever they want, so long as they don't impinge on the rights of anyone else, and that everyone's basic needs for food, shelter an energy will be simultaneously satisfied. Is that it? Pardon my skepticism.


you don't know much about anarchism.

Anarchism? What happened to libertarian socialism in the preceding paragraph? We're going to have libertarianism, socialism, and anarchism all at the same time?

[RGacky3]

Anarchism? What happened to libertarian socialism in the preceding paragraph? We're going to have libertarianism, socialism, and anarchism all at the same time?

Anarchism is a form of Libertarian Socialism, the 2 terms are very broad and essencially are almost the same thing.


are you insinuating something about my mental developpement?

No, I'm saying the way you described it woul be a very basic and simple way to put it, which is'nt bad, infact sometimes it takes a smarter person to explain something simply.

[danyboy27]

No, I'm saying the way you described it woul be a very basic and simple way to put it, which is'nt bad, infact sometimes it takes a smarter person to explain something simply.

well tanks you. i really hate complicated stuff, i always try to have the most simple version possible, its more easy to explain, and more easy to remember.

[Bud Struggle]

Your forgetting TomK, this is all aobut power and authority, you fail to recognise that.

So what's wrong with some people having some authority? In a factory bosses have little interest in lording over people for the hell of it. People get fired for two reasons, they don't do the work or there isn't enough work. Any other reasons are bad business. People get hired when there's more work than there are people to do it--bosses make some decisions, but believe me the market actually makes all the important ones.

Also as far as wages go, the market sets that. Fork lift operators are worth (for example) $15. and hour--everywhere (locally that is.) That is just what they get anywhere--if a forklift operator operator improves himself to do something else--he will be worth more. If he does more work than the average FL operator--he will make more. It's all market driven.

Bosses have minimal authority over any of this. They do have large amounts or responsibility, though. In this economic downturn it's easy for me to fire some people and downsize and ide out the storm, but that would be me shirking my job (that I earn good money for) so I'm out there working to make up the business that's been lost and keep all my people employed. That's what a boss does--keep people employed.

It's a freakin' two way street. Management takes care of workers, workers take care of management. Obviously there are bad mamagers, but there's also bad workers. It's best when everyone works together.

[Plagueround]

That sounds like a perfect world someone has come up with where everybody is free to do whatever they want, so long as they don't impinge on the rights of anyone else, and that everyone's basic needs for food, shelter an energy will be simultaneously satisfied. Is that it? Pardon my skepticism.

More so that those would be the primary ideals, ethics, and motivations that power human organization.

To speak broadly and not specifically to your reply, here's something I've notice about the OI. The insistence, whether conscious or not, to view human nature and thought as a static thing that's just taken some time to get into the spotlight. I know it's hard to imagine, but there are other motivations in life beyond the ones modern first worlders value.

As much as cappies seem to ramble on about human nature, not many seem to get that there is so much more to it than the current social paradigm. Think of human nature as more of a canvas with millions colors one can use to create almost anything, not as a yes or no computer program that people get coded when they are born. With no offense meant, anytime I hear someone who hasn't looked into the subject much talk about human nature, they're usually limiting themselves to what they know about current American culture.

Anyone who thinks I'm simply a Utopian dreamer hasn't been paying much attention.

[RGacky3]

So what's wrong with some people having some authority? In a factory bosses have little interest in lording over people for the hell of it. People get fired for two reasons, they don't do the work or there isn't enough work. Any other reasons are bad business. People get hired when there's more work than there are people to do it--bosses make some decisions, but believe me the market actually makes all the important ones.


The market is run by money, and the Capitalists/Corporations have all the money, plain and simple.

Whether or not you think the authority is justified or not is'nt the issue, the fact that it is there shows that class collaboration is impossible, an oxymoron, whether or not its justified is a different issue.


Management takes care of workers, workers take care of management. Obviously there are bad mamagers, but there's also bad workers. It's best when everyone works together.

Owners NEED the workers, the workers don't NEED the owners, the only reason the owners are there are because of property laws and Capitalism, which they need to keep their power, that is what its about.

[Bud Struggle]

The market is run by money, and the Capitalists/Corporations have all the money, plain and simple. So what if it is?


Whether or not you think the authority is justified or not is'nt the issue, the fact that it is there shows that class collaboration is impossible, an oxymoron, whether or not its justified is a different issue. Nope. It just shows there are different roles in human society just as there are in insect (I'm thinking bees here) society. It's natural.




Owners NEED the workers, the workers don't NEED the owners, the only reason the owners are there are because of property laws and Capitalism, which they need to keep their power, that is what its about.They would both starve without each other. The more we discuss this the more it's obvious that it's a symbiotic relationship.

Who cares if someone works about harder and gets rewarded with more responsibilities and reward? It works perfectly fine (when it works right--and yes there are abuses.)

[Plagueround]

They would both starve without each other.


I don't usually do this, but I'm going to.


LOL.

[Robert]

they're usually limiting themselves to what they know about current American culture. I have to start from where (USA) I am now (2009), not where the Russians were in 1917 before communism got "derailed," as the left appears to claim now. And I have to assume my people will only revolt if they hear the plan expressed in terms they currently understand and value.


Anyone who thinks I'm simply a Utopian dreamer hasn't been paying much attention. Any cappie here will listen to reasonable, coherent plans for non-violent social progress. Can the communists say the same?

[Plagueround]

I have to start from where (USA) I am now (2009), not where the Russians were in 1917 before communism got "derailed," as the left appears to claim now. And I have to assume my people will only revolt if they hear the plan expressed in terms they currently understand and value.

If we were speaking to each other in real life I'd probably have to start drawing pictures for you at this point. Because you, not me, want to keep referring to the Russian Revolution. Without demeaning anything anyone did or how they feel about it, fuck the Russian revolution. I'm talking about here and now.

What I'm trying to tell you is that other values are possible and currently exist all throughout the world. Even in America the values aren't homogeneous. People value different things and it is not simply the result of some sort of broad human nature you can encapsulate people in. But you can promote your values and they might start gaining acceptance, they may take root, and they may become the basis for the next social paradigm. Please do not misunderstand me when I say this, but the battle for the human mind has not been won by the pursuit on money. Capitalism, or more aptly Neo-Liberal Democracy, is not some sort of end game for humanity...well, unless we keep doing what we're doing and fuck things up too badly, but I have a bit more belief in people that that.


Any
cappie here will listen to reasonable, coherent plans for non-violent social progress. Can the communists say the same?I don't speak for everyone and you probably shouldn't either. As for your plan, I find it laughable that you suggest the capitalists can claim a non-violent high ground, or that we should now yield to those that own what was taken by force in the first place or we're the ones who are immoral. You can rant all you want about the past, but it is here and now that capitalist are the monstrous force responsible for millions of deaths due to starvation and war. Even in the past, they did a fairly good job of keeping up with the Stalin crew...

I've never been much for racial identities, but please, pause for a moment and think what it would be like to realize one half of your entire culture, which stood for thousands of years, will likely be eradicated in about 50-100 years due to the deliberate and hostile actions of the United States. Perhaps you can understand why bringing up history doesn't much help your argument?

However, I can only assume that you have not read my posts thoroughly because if you did you would know that I am not advocating violence against anyone...I simply accept that that's how things are likely to happen. Mine is a message of peace, but not one of getting down on one's knees and dying either.

As a side note, I'm working on an article that I'll post here soon that better articulates my thoughts on revolutions, and I think you'll be surprised. It'll be up soon, depending on how hard we get slammed at work next week (200+ new server cabinets coming in...it'll be a whole lot fun...)

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Um, that IS class warfare. I think you're getting the wrong message here. We don't think that the attacks on the working class by the capitalist class are done deliberately, as if they're all sitting down, holding meetings about how best to screw over workers. It's merely a conflict of interests. Like you said, people are laid off by bosses as a way of preserving their businesses. In times of crisis, their profits, indeed their very survival comes at the expense of their employees. The bottom line comes first.

Well, yes. That's an honest way of looking at it, but it is the truth. When nobody wants to buy Hummers anymore, the Hummer plant is going to lay off some people in order to survive. Or, in their case, simply die.


But there are indeed times when the ruling class comes to protect their class interests, most markedly when workers become conscious of what is truly going on. Why do you think the German bourgeois supported Hitler? Because they saw the communists as their biggest threat, and even know some of them did not agree with the Nazis, or even thought badly of them and their hateful ideology, they knew they could rely on them to fight off the communist movement.

So now we are to judge that all bourgeois, if put in a similar situation, would support a hitler in order to ward them off from their neighbors?

[#FF0000]

So now we are to judge that all bourgeois, if put in a similar situation, would support a hitler in order to ward them off from their neighbors?

Well, yeah. I mean, if you're a guy who actually owns things in a country that charges 9,323,473,923 marks for bread, wouldn't you want a strong-man in place to protect what (you think) is yours?

[Bud Struggle]

Well, yeah. I mean, if you're a guy who actually owns things in a country that charges 9,323,473,923 marks for bread, wouldn't you want a strong-man in place to protect what (you think) is yours?

Of course the Proletarians supported Hitler, too. And to think of it, they had an opportunity to have Communism, but they chose Nazism. Just goes to show, you can't really trust the Proletariat.

[Bud Struggle]

Originally Posted by TomK http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-collaboration-fascist-t100274/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-collaboration-fascist-t100274/showthread.php?p=1345782#post1345782)
They would both starve without each other.


I don't usually do this, but I'm going to.


LOL.

You've never been to Cuba, have you? ;)

[danyboy27]

isnt the whole german army, the german police and other nazi governement organs made of A bunch of unemployed hopeless working class folks who find work beccause of the obligatory labor measures?

and if i can recall, isnt the whole proletariat in germany that benifited from hitler working reforms, giving job to virtually every german citizen?

i think its far more complicated than a bunch of bourgeois who decided it was in their interrest to have the nazi around, people, all people saw a glimpse of hope to find work, being able to put food on their table, of being proud of their governement.

everybody felt in the trap, not only the bourgeois. Hell if i would have been in their situation, not knowing of all the atrocities that hitler was planning i would have been part of it at some extent.

[#FF0000]

Of course the Proletarians supported Hitler, too. And to think of it, they had an opportunity to have Communism, but they chose Nazism. Just goes to show, you can't really trust the Proletariat.

I'm sure that there were some plebeians who were alright with Caesar and that there are folks in Boston who like the NY Yankees.

And, for your information, Hitler's popularity amongst urban and industrial workers in Germany was 10% lower than the national average, so the Proletariat certainly liked Hitler the least. :mellow:

[GPDP]

Hitler himself was not very comfortable in Berlin. His strongest supporters not amongst the bourgeois and petit-bourgeois were those in rural areas, not so much in urban areas.

[Bud Struggle]

Hitler himself was not very comfortable in Berlin. His strongest supporters not amongst the bourgeois and petit-bourgeois were those in rural areas, not so much in urban areas.

But in the end he never could have made it without the good will of the Proletariat. They fed the army and the German industrial boom. And they supported him after he took power until the end.

Sebastian Haffner plausibly reckoned that Hitler had succeeded by 1938 in winning the support of "the great majority of that majority who had voted against him in 1933." Indeed Haffner thought that by then Hitler had united almost the entire German people behind him, that more than 90 percent of Germans were by that time "believers in the Führer."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,531909,00.html

For that matter Hitler was a product of the Proletarian class himself.

[danyboy27]

i would say not of the proletariat, but a product of their frustration.

like hamas

[synthesis]

But in the end he never could have made it without the good will of the Proletariat. They fed the army and the German industrial boom. And they supported him after he took power until the end.

How does that quote prove that they supported him "until the end"? It seems apparent to me that a lot of people were swindled by the name and rhetoric of the National Socialist party - the "alternative" to what was considered to be "Jewish Bolshevism" in a time and a place with a deeply-rooted sense of Antisemitism.

The crucial part is, how many supported Hitler after he proved his allegiance to big business?

[synthesis]

You've never been to Cuba, have you?

What a dumb thing to say. I thought we already agreed that a government can only do so much to change the conditions of a country.

It is pointless to compare Cuba to the West, for many reasons.

[Bud Struggle]

What a dumb thing to say. I thought we already agreed that a government can only do so much to change the conditions of a country.

It is pointless to compare Cuba to the West, for many reasons.

Cuba works REALLY hard at making every equal and actually does a pretty good job of it, the people that survive the best in Cuba though are the Capitalists, the guys that work the Black Market or make and sell things to tourists--the entrepreneurs make out well in any enviorns. And when Cuba falls--they will be the new Bourgeois.


The crucial part is, how many supported Hitler after he proved his allegiance to big business? Read the quote I supplied--90% of the German people supported Hitler--I would suppose that included a good number of the Proletariat, wouldn't you? :)

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Tom - Im sorry but your talking shit today.

1. Cuba still has classes because the workers dont own the means of production.
2. Its not a matter of the good left wing proles vs the big nasty right wing rich fuckers but that for a stateless classless soctiy to occur the workers must be incharge this nececatiy does not mean the workers are immune to acting like wankers.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Nope. It just shows there are different roles in human society just as there are in insect (I'm thinking bees here) society. It's natural.


Well in a bee hive none of the bees starve, and the bees minimum needs are met without issue. Our human hives aren't reaching this level of efficiency, ergo something must be done.



Any cappie here will listen to reasonable, coherent plans for non-violent social progress. Can the communists say the same?

Negative income tax. Socialized health care.
Kill corporate subsidies.

[Die Neue Zeit]

For that matter Hitler was a product of the Proletarian class himself.

Failed painters aren't proles unless they have an actual employer, though. :confused:

[danyboy27]

Failed painters aren't proles unless they have an actual employer, though. :confused:

lumpen proletariat?

[Die Neue Zeit]

But Marx made a distinction between workers and various under-classes. Some are proper lumpenproles, eeking out a living illegally while under the whip of some illegal pimp or other crime boss. Others act in a "leading" capacity and derive benefits: the lumpen bourgeoisie. Yet still others decide to live off of begging or cheating the system.


Any cappie here will listen to reasonable, coherent plans for non-violent social progress. Can the communists say the same?

Define "reasonable." :glare:

The first six demands in the Communist Manifesto are quite reasonable by modern standards:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

And these demands from a lesser known work (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm) in 1848, too:

- Legal services shall be free of charge
- In localities where the tenant system is developed, the land rent or the quit-rent shall be paid to the state as a tax (repeats #1 above)
- A state bank, whose paper issues are legal tender, shall replace all private banks (repeats #5 above)
- The introduction of steeply graduated taxes, and the abolition of taxes on articles of consumption (financed mainly by #1 above)
- Inauguration of national workshops. The state guarantees a livelihood to all workers and provides for those who are incapacitated for work (illustrates the failure of "social democracy" in guaranteeing "living wages" and benefits for all workers)

[danyboy27]

But Marx made a distinction between workers and various under-classes. Some are proper lumpenproles, eeking out a living illegally while under the whip of some illegal pimp or other crime boss. Others act in a "leading" capacity and derive benefits: the lumpen bourgeoisie. Yet still others decide to live off of begging or cheating the system.



Define "reasonable." :glare:

The first six demands in the Communist Manifesto are quite reasonable by modern standards:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

1.sound okay
2.actually exist in many countries.
3.insane
4.insane
5.mmkay, could have avoided that financial mess so yea
6.exist in some countries

actually, and maybe tomk could back it up, that at the end those rich folk dont really care about owning the mean of production. maybe all matter to them is to manage industries thy created and have big houses.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You forgot the second set of demands.

[danyboy27]

You forgot the second set of demands.

its all good in the hood.

[#FF0000]

actually, and maybe tomk could back it up, that at the end those rich folk dont really care about owning the mean of production. maybe all matter to them is to manage industries thy created and have big houses.

In the end, capitalists don't care about making profit. They only fight tooth and nail against laws that might protect employees, and do everything in their power to squeeze every last drop of labor-value out of their workers for the love of the game.

That's ridiculous.

[Bud Struggle]

for the love of the game.


You pretty much nailed it there. It really is the game. Now to be honest a businessman's relationship with his employees is really of minor concern in most cases--screwing workers over isn't uppermost on anyone's mind, but businessmen are businessmen for the game.

Making money is a really intoxicating sport.

[ZeroNowhere]

Sebastian Haffner plausibly reckoned that Hitler had succeeded by 1938 in winning the support of "the great majority of that majority who had voted against him in 1933." Indeed Haffner thought that by then Hitler had united almost the entire German people behind him, that more than 90 percent of Germans were by that time "believers in the Führer."
So wait, they had an opinion poll of Germans asking, "Do you believe in the Fuhrer?" Saying 'no' sounds like a pretty bad idea, tbh. Unless it's just pulling statistics out of one's ass.

[Bud Struggle]

So wait, they had an opinion poll of Germans asking, "Do you believe in the Fuhrer?" Saying 'no' sounds like a pretty bad idea, tbh. Unless it's just pulling statistics out of one's ass.

I think it's pretty hard to say that Hitler didn't have the full faith and credit of the German people. They bought into his sales pitch, that's all. Just like the Soviet citizens bought into Stalin. The difference is that the Germans because they were defeated woke up, it took the Soviets forty years to divest themselves of Stalin's influence.

[ZeroNowhere]

I think it's pretty hard to say that Hitler didn't have the full faith and credit of the German people.
Well, it's fairly hard to say that those opposed to him all expressed it.

[Bilan]

Maoists do it, but wont admit it.
So do social democrats and other bourgeois wanks.

[Die Neue Zeit]

its all good in the hood.


So do social democrats and other bourgeois wanks.

As I've said before, go try testing out the popularity of such proposals amongst "tax, subsidize, spend, and trade" social-democrats. Reformism fails even on its own conditions, and that is why you're seeing leftists "cash in" at the expense of social-democratic and liberal tendencies.

[RGacky3]

The market is run by money, and the Capitalists/Corporations have all the money, plain and simple.
So what if it is?

That equals tyranny, economic dictatorship.


Nope. It just shows there are different roles in human society just as there are in insect (I'm thinking bees here) society. It's natural.


The different roles are chosen by the Capitalists, they are not natural roles, they are dictated ones, that SAME argument was given for slavey.


They would both starve without each other. The more we discuss this the more it's obvious that it's a symbiotic relationship.

Who cares if someone works about harder and gets rewarded with more responsibilities and reward? It works perfectly fine (when it works right--and yes there are abuses.)

THe workers would'nt starve without the bosses, workers don't need people taking their money from them.

In a Capitalists system gaining more money has NOTHIGN to do with working harder, empirical evidence should show this clearly, nither does it have to do with responsibility.


You pretty much nailed it there. It really is the game. Now to be honest a businessman's relationship with his employees is really of minor concern in most cases--screwing workers over isn't uppermost on anyone's mind, but businessmen are businessmen for the game.

Making money is a really intoxicating sport.

Screwing workers is'nt uppermost on anyones mind your right, making money is, and making money, by definition REQUIRES screwing workers as much as possible. No ones saying capitalits are screwing workers for the fun of it, we are saying the system requires that, that IS the system, and it should be changed.

POWER is intoxicating.

[#FF0000]

You pretty much nailed it there. It really is the game. Now to be honest a businessman's relationship with his employees is really of minor concern in most cases--screwing workers over isn't uppermost on anyone's mind, but businessmen are businessmen for the game.

Making money is a really intoxicating sport.

Tom Tom Tom. None of us are saying that bosses willingly screw people over. There are bosses who are entirely pleasant and fun to be around. None of us are saying that bosses are necessarily shiftless and lazy and do no work. There are bosses who do plenty of work. None of us are saying that police or politicians are necessarily evil. A cop can be a cop and a decent guy at the same time.

We don't believe that people who make up the ruling class consciously want to commit violence against the lower class. We believe that happens anyway, not because the ruling class is made up of evil people, but because the way we do things just leads to things happening such as poverty, wars, union-busting, organized crime and violence...etc.

Just wanted to point that out. In a lot of your posts it looks like you're only taking things for face value.

[danyboy27]

Tom Tom Tom. None of us are saying that bosses willingly screw people over. There are bosses who are entirely pleasant and fun to be around. None of us are saying that bosses are necessarily shiftless and lazy and do no work. There are bosses who do plenty of work. None of us are saying that police or politicians are necessarily evil. A cop can be a cop and a decent guy at the same time.

We don't believe that people who make up the ruling class may not consciously want to commit violence against the lower class. We believe that happens anyway, not because the ruling class is made up of evil people, but because the way we do things just leads to things happening such as poverty, wars, union-busting, organized crime and violence...etc.

Just wanted to point that out. In a lot of your posts it looks like you're only taking things for face value.

well, fusegs already stated in a topic earlier that cops where generally murderer and rapist, i agree with you rosarch that most of you dont believe that, but the way some of your guy are violently outburst against cops and other state related profession might explain why Tomk and others are acting like this, since nobody actually oppose to what they say, they actually believe most of you are a bunch of fanatical person, wich is i am sure absolutly untrue.

[Enragé]

fascism is about class collaboration since it comes from a situation where there is a threat of revolution (fascism is the crushing of the revolution by uniting the bourgeoisie, large parts of the petty bourgeoisie, and small parts of the working class against the rest). In other words, it arises in a situation where the existence of classes is a part of common sense. Stable, western capitalism, simply denies the existence of classes, and therefore doesnt speak of class collaboration (except in terms like "The american people have to now come together and forget party lines, to build once again the america we love" or some shit rhetoric), at least not explicitly.

[RGacky3]

We don't believe that people who make up the ruling class may not consciously want to commit violence against the lower class. We believe that happens anyway, not because the ruling class is made up of evil people, but because the way we do things just leads to things happening such as poverty, wars, union-busting, organized crime and violence...etc.

You nailed it, thats exactly the point. The same way Fidel Castro is probably a really cool guy to hang out with (at least he seams like that), but that does'nt justify his power. We are against the institution of power and authority and privilege, not the people who occupy those positions, who may or may not be bad people.

[Bud Struggle]

You nailed it, thats exactly the point. The same way Fidel Castro is probably a really cool guy to hang out with (at least he seams like that), but that does'nt justify his power. We are against the institution of power and authority and privilege, not the people who occupy those positions, who may or may not be bad people.

You know, I'm kind of getting mixed messages from RevLeft on that subject.

A lot of people around here take this stuff pretty "personally."

[RGacky3]

You know, I'm kind of getting mixed messages from RevLeft on that subject.

A lot of people around here take this stuff pretty "personally."

Unfortunately some people don't assess the situation rationally instead they do so on emotion, which never ends well, or they start demonizing a group of people unjustifiably. When it comes down to it, its not about us against them, its about us against the system, they will defend the system, so it sometimes is us against them, but our aim is'nt to hurt people, its to end a tyrannical system.

[Plagueround]

You know, I'm kind of getting mixed messages from RevLeft on that subject.

A lot of people around here take this stuff pretty "personally."

Although I'm sure there are some here that genuinely see things as that black and white, I think it's more so when people get passionate about the subject, they tend to phrase things in such a manner, or perhaps they simply aren't good at expressing themselves.

I know I've been guilty of it in the past. I personally like every boss I've had except for two of the owners of the phone company I used to work for. They are, without a doubt, vile, wretched, greedy people...and their business is suffering now because of it.