Am I Turning Right?

[RedArmyUK]

First off , what a superb site, I do come here from time to time but never really log in.

Anyhow, I need to know if i,m turning into a right wing Tory.
Is it me or is Labour really spending way too much money on shit e.g (this is for people in the UK) The tons of government TV ads that seem to be on and the fact my interest rates on the small amount of savings I have are low due to the fact the government seems to want to help middle class scum bag idiots pay their mortgages on houses that were way over priced.

I could belt on with loads of other things that hack me off about Labour but i,d be here all day so in short am I turning right wing in thinking the government spend way too much??

[apathy maybe]

Labour aren't left wing.

Just 'cause you hate Labour, or the things they do, doesn't mean you are becoming right-wing.

Labour are a party of capital. They want to keep capitalism, they want the rich to stay rich, etc. etc.

Real left-wingers want to abolish capitalism. Do you?

[Rjevan]

Agreed, The Labour Party is no real left-wing party, they are some sort of "Tories light". I guess most communists in the UK don't love the Labour Party nor do I identify with the German SPD. This doesn't make you a right-winger.

[RedArmyUK]

Labour aren't left wing.

Just 'cause you hate Labour, or the things they do, doesn't mean you are becoming right-wing.

Labour are a party of capital. They want to keep capitalism, they want the rich to stay rich, etc. etc.

Real left-wingers want to abolish capitalism. Do you?


Capitalism in where the rich get richer and the so called middle classes look down on working class, then yes

But I have a small amount of savings (that I worked fucking hard to get and save) dose this mean i,m a capitalist in any small way?

[apathy maybe]

Capitalism in where the rich get richer and the so called middle classes look down on working class, then yes

But I have a small amount of savings (that I worked fucking hard to get and save) dose this mean i,m a capitalist in any small way?

A small amount of savings :lol:. Fuck no.

To be a capitalist (not in the ideology sense), means that you have to own a significant part of the "means of production". That is, own, factories, farms or other businesses. It could also mean owning a significant number of shares. (Much more than what you own.)

To be a capitalist in the ideology sense, merely means supporting capitalism as an economic and political system. Only ignorant people, crazy people, and people who get a lot from the system, support capitalism.

[*PRC*Kensei]

Capital is invested money, with the purpose to make more money.

But tbh don't listen to much about what these peeps tell you about classes. Caring about others, specially the weaker, is what matters.

[Rjevan]

But I have a small amount of savings (that I worked fucking hard to get and save) dose this mean i,m a capitalist in any small way?
No, of course not!
It's nothing but stupid anti-communist propaganda by the capitalists/fascists that communists want to take your hard earned money because everyone with money is a capitalist. This falls under the same fairytale like "Communists want to take away your houses, force you to live in community rooms with 20 other people, abolish families and socialise women."

A capitalist is someone who owns the means of production and ruthlessly opresses and exploits the workers in order to increase his profit, without careing for the situation of the average people.
This are we people we want to fight and we want to socialise the means of production and not the private property of some middle class people.

[RedArmyUK]

No, of course not!

This are we people we want to fight and we want to socialise the means of production and not the private property of some middle class people.



My hate is for the new 4x4 driving, credit card spending, middle classes.

Just so its noted :D

[ZeroNowhere]

Capital is invested money, with the purpose to make more money.
Then please explain commodity capital and productive capital, if you will.


But tbh don't listen to much about what these peeps tell you about classes. Caring about others, specially the weaker, is what matters.
What.


and ruthlessly opresses and exploits the workers in order to increase his profitYou make them sounds like heartless sociopaths or something.


without careing for the situation of the average people.
Um... What? So you're saying that no capitalists care for the 'situation of the average people'? How do you know this? And why is it that socialists so often get wrapped up in attacking the bourgeoisie's personalities?


This are we people we want to fight
Eh?
We seek to abolish capitalism, not 'fight' some people.
Though I have no problem with anybody fighting Al Gore. Somebody should get to that.


not the private property of some middle class people.
By 'middle class', do you mean 'petit-bourgeoisie', or 'income-based class crap'? And what do you mean by 'private property' here?


My hate is for the new 4x4 driving, credit card spending, middle classes.
Annoying rant about consumerism in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...
Though really, I have no issue with the '4x4 driving, credit card spending middle classes'. The middle class currently just refers to mainly richer working class members, and the occasional petit-bourgeois, so why the hell do you 'hate' members of the working class for... Having higher incomes, 4x4s and credit cards?

[Rjevan]

You make them sounds like heartless sociopaths or something.
Are they not? ;)


Um... What? So you're saying that no capitalists care for the 'situation of the average people'? How do you know this? And why is it that socialists so often get wrapped up in attacking the bourgeoisie's personalities?
No, of course not all capitalists but the "big" capitalists, the ones I think of (Joe Ackermann e.g.) certainly don't give a shit about anybody's needs than their own.


Eh?
We seek to abolish capitalism, not 'fight' some people.
I know but I doubt that the cappies will hand us the means of productions over if we just ask nice. ;)


By 'middle class', do you mean 'petit-bourgeoisie', or 'income-based class crap'? And what do you mean by 'private property' here?
I mean "normal" people like you and me (I hope your not working class, otherwise it's just me) and with private property I mean your armchair, your TV, you PC, your savings and these sort of things. Some anti-communists believe we'd like to socialise your toothbrush and I wanted to say that this is a little far fetched.

[ZeroNowhere]

Are they not?
No.


No, of course not all capitalists but the "big" capitalists, the ones I think of (Joe Ackermann e.g.) certainly don't give a shit about anybody's needs than their own.
So presumably you can read the minds of every capitalist? You know for sure that, say, Warren Buffet doesn't give a shit about 'ordinary people'?


I know but I doubt that the cappies will hand us the means of productions over if we just ask nice.What are the capitalists going to do alone, shoot money at people?


I mean "normal" people like you and me (I hope your not working class, otherwise it's just me) and with private property I mean your armchair, your TV, you PC, your savings and these sort of things.
Those aren't private property, those are possessions. Also, the 'middle class' and working class can and often do overlap, as is the case with my parents.

[brigadista]

its NEW labour - Bliar said himself it was a different party to the labour party - there is practically no difference these days between new labour and the tories...

[ZeroNowhere]

its NEW labour - Bliar said himself it was a different party to the labour party - there is practically no difference these days between new labour and the tories...
The old Labour Party wasn't socialist, so I don't see why it matters much.

[brigadista]

i did not say it was,,, :)

[RedArmyUK]

Annoying rant about consumerism in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...
Though really, I have no issue with the '4x4 driving, credit card spending middle classes'. The middle class currently just refers to mainly richer working class members, and the occasional petit-bourgeois, so why the hell do you 'hate' members of the working class for... Having higher incomes, 4x4s and credit cards?

These so called "middle classes" spend way over what they can afford.

Meaning now we all have to suffer, in lower interest rates so these pricks can stay in there big homes not get chucked on the street,, Boo fucking hoo you dug your grave now lay in it I say! don,t drag the rest of us sensible spenders down in your hole!!!

THATS WHERE MY HATE FOR THE GREEDY "MIDDLE CLASSES" COMES FROM!!

[Oneironaut]

I mean "normal" people like you and me (I hope your not working class, otherwise it's just me) and with private property I mean your armchair, your TV, you PC, your savings and these sort of things. Some anti-communists believe we'd like to socialise your toothbrush and I wanted to say that this is a little far fetched.

Property is divided into three classes:

1: Personal property: to use things (property) according to their nature
- you sit in an arm chair, you use a toothbrush to brush your teeth, you watch the television

*2: Private property: the legal right to enjoy the fruits of your private property
- this would mean if you have a farm, all the wealth created from the farm is yours
*if you employ people, the wealth produced still belongs to you as the owner of the farm and not your employees
- if you own the means of production (a factory for example), all the wealth produced in that factory belongs solely to you
*3: Private property: to use irrationally the fruits of private property
- you can use the wealth created by the second classification of property in anyway you choose
*this is the fundamental right of the bourgeoisie state


*Communists speak out against these classifications of property, not personal property

[Sam_b]

Meaning now we all have to suffer, in lower interest rates so these pricks can stay in there big homes not get chucked on the street,, Boo fucking hoo you dug your grave now lay in it I say! don,t drag the rest of us sensible spenders down in your hole!!!

Christ. Remember that these things have social causes first of all. Also remember that what is commonly recognised as the 'middle class' some Marxists would consider working class because many still have to sell their labour for a profit. I would suggest you read up on some Marx: you can, for free, at www.marxists.org (http://www.marxists.org).

If you haven't come across Marx before, the most obvious choice is The Communist Manifesto. However, this is merely a brief outline of theory. I would also reccommend looking at Wage Labour and Capital which addresses some of the concerns you've listed above.

[Pogue]

Christ. Remember that these things have social causes first of all. Also remember that what is commonly recognised as the 'middle class' some Marxists would consider working class because many still have to sell their labour for a profit. I would suggest you read up on some Marx: you can, for free, at www.marxists.org (http://www.marxists.org).

If you haven't come across Marx before, the most obvious choice is The Communist Manifesto. However, this is merely a brief outline of theory. I would also reccommend looking at Wage Labour and Capital which addresses some of the concerns you've listed above.

I don't think reading Marx would be a good idea. Reading a shorter modern day pamphlet would be more useful I feel.

[Sam_b]

Well H-L-V-S, if you can give me any examples of a modern-day pamphlet that deals with the idea of wage labour as concisely as Marx did in 1849 i'd love to hear it.

It amuses me slightly that you think reading Marx isn't a 'good idea'.

[nuisance]

Now, now lads. Lets keep this civil.

[Rjevan]

So presumably you can read the minds of every capitalist? You know for sure that, say, Warren Buffet doesn't give a shit about 'ordinary people'?
Please, believe me, Ackermann gives absolutely no shit about "ordianry people". I think of a certain type of capitalists who amuse in bordellos in Brazil, enjoy massive bribes and walk laughing, forming "V" with their fingers, into the court and then, oh wonder over wonder, the court declares them free because of some dubious procedural error (examples from a VW scandal in Germany).
Or managers who first fire thousands of workers and then ruin their company and get a bonus of a few millions for that.
Or Mr. Zumwinkel who, after having to pay 1.5 million € for evading taxes (I don't want to know what my penelty would be if I did evade 200€), goes to his castle at the Gardasee and complains bitterly about the German state.

Sure, not all capitalists are like that (there are even rumors that some have signs of humanity ;)) but many are and if you would go to them and ask them for 10€ because you are ill and can't afford to pay the "Praxisgebühren" to vist a medic they would roar with laughter and respond with "Well, who am I, Santa Claus? You could have been where I am now if you just had worked hard enough." They see it as their god-given right that they are rich and have the "Well, some people are poor, but this is life, so get over it and have fun. Is it my problem that they are poor? Should this ruin my good mood? No!"-attitude.


What are the capitalists going to do alone, shoot money at people?
No, shoot bullets.
They are not alone, they are never alone. They will always have the money on their side and thus the government (and thus at least parts of the army), their bodyguards and in the worst case the fascists on their side.


Those aren't private property, those are possessions. Also, the 'middle class' and working class can and often do overlap, as is the case with my parents.
Damn, blame my bad English when it comes to matters of economy, I meant possesion. :blushing:


Property is divided into three classes:

1: Personal property: to use things (property) according to their nature
- you sit in an arm chair, you use a toothbrush to brush your teeth, you watch the television

*2: Private property: the legal right to enjoy the fruits of your private property
- this would mean if you have a farm, all the wealth created from the farm is yours
*if you employ people, the wealth produced still belongs to you as the owner of the farm and not your employees
- if you own the means of production (a factory for example), all the wealth produced in that factory belongs solely to you
*3: Private property: to use irrationally the fruits of private property
- you can use the wealth created by the second classification of property in anyway you choose
*this is the fundamental right of the bourgeoisie state


*Communists speak out against these classifications of property, not personal property
Thanks, you made clear what I wanted to say. :)

[rednordman]

These so called "middle classes" spend way over what they can afford.

Meaning now we all have to suffer, in lower interest rates so these pricks can stay in there big homes not get chucked on the street,, Boo fucking hoo you dug your grave now lay in it I say! don,t drag the rest of us sensible spenders down in your hole!!!

THATS WHERE MY HATE FOR THE GREEDY "MIDDLE CLASSES" COMES FROM!! You know, if you really were a tory, you would say the same things and replace the word 'middle classes', with 'working classes'.

[redarmyfaction38]

My hate is for the new 4x4 driving, credit card spending, middle classes.

Just so its noted :D
OI!
that's my avatar! almost :)
no, btw, hating new labour and the rest of the parliamentary bullshit politiciaNS does not mean you are moving to the right, it's the conclusions you draw from that hatred that define your political position.
btw, lots of working class people like myself have a credit card, some of them even have a mortgage (in britain 72% of the population), does that make them "middle class" or just "deluded"?

[rednordman]

OI!
that's my avatar! almost :)
no, btw, hating new labour and the rest of the parliamentary bullshit politiciaNS does not mean you are moving to the right, it's the conclusions you draw from that hatred that define your political position.
btw, lots of working class people like myself have a credit card, some of them even have a mortgage (in britain 72% of the population), does that make them "middle class" or just "deluded"? Deluded im afraid to say. The more time goes on, the less i believe in the notion of middle class. Its just something more 'well to do' working class people believe in to make themselves feel superior and look down on the less 'well to do' working class people. Even hate them in many cases.
For the most part, a 'middle class' would consist of people whom did not really have to work as they already have an income from something that they have inherited. They only work because they want more money.
Lumpen or working class hero, well to do, or scroungers, where all in the same circuit. Its called the Rat Race.

[GPDP]

OP, look up the concept of "false consciousness".

[redarmyfaction38]

Deluded im afraid to say. The more time goes on, the less i believe in the notion of middle class. Its just something more 'well to do' working class people believe in to make themselves feel superior and look down on the less 'well to do' working class people. Even hate them in many cases.
For the most part, a 'middle class' would consist of people whom did not really have to work as they already have an income from something that they have inherited. They only work because they want more money.
Lumpen or working class hero, well to do, or scroungers, where all in the same circuit. Its called the Rat Race.
i actually agree, the "middle class", is a concept promoted by the bourgouisie, it is an illusionary class, a class of "well to do workers" rewarded for their allegiance to capitalism and their capitalist masters.
today,worldwide, that allegiance, that delusion is in question as the "well paid servants" of capital find themselves paying for capitals failures.
exactly as marx predicted.

[rednordman]

i actually agree, the "middle class", is a concept promoted by the bourgouisie, it is an illusionary class, a class of "well to do workers" rewarded for their allegiance to capitalism and their capitalist masters.
today,worldwide, that allegiance, that delusion is in question as the "well paid servants" of capital find themselves paying for capitals failures.
exactly as marx predicted. Well put. +at OP, your not a Tory. If you where a Tory, You would probably think that we are deranged or retarded for not dreaming of vast wealth and worshiping and defending the rich in a despotic fashion.

[Pogue]

Well H-L-V-S, if you can give me any examples of a modern-day pamphlet that deals with the idea of wage labour as concisely as Marx did in 1849 i'd love to hear it.

It amuses me slightly that you think reading Marx isn't a 'good idea'.

I don't think its a good idea for someone new to politics to read an 160 year old text written about conditions at the time in a highly out-dated political language. Unlike you I don't get a hard one over hero worshipping historic figures, I'd rather deal with the relevant and simple things which deal with working class people today. So I think an article on a website or a quick pamplhet written in modern language for modern workers is more relevant that some ancient text which wasn't even intended to be a guide to workers about what communism is, etc.

Try to use your imagination and think beyond what a few of your idols said, and stop being so stuck up.

[Sam_b]

So from that nonsense I take it you've never read Wage Labour and Capital then? Figures.

There's nothing worse than a patrionising attitude here, that the working class simply won't 'get' it because it wasn't written in this century. Its also telling that you have offered absolutely nothing in the form of these articles and pamphlets that you speak of here.

[Pogue]

So from that nonsense I take it you've never read Wage Labour and Capital then? Figures.

There's nothing worse than a patrionising attitude here, that the working class simply won't 'get' it because it wasn't written in this century. Its also telling that you have offered absolutely nothing in the form of these articles and pamphlets that you speak of here.

You're in the SWP and you talk to me about a patronising attitude? Why the fuck would an ordrinary working class reason want to read an 160 year old book written in a deeply political language? Its a fucking stupid thing to do. His language is that of intellectuals and philosophers and his books are about situations at the time. I'm saying that telling someone to read Marx is a stupid idea because to most people it'll be boring, meaningles so or unintelligible, and there are thousands of better things to read which make it all clearer.

I could link you to thousands of websites with articles and pamphlets which are simply put and understandable. You'd jus thave to go on the websites of AFed, IWW, SolFed, or even just wikipedia. I think that stuff which deals with issues today is a lot more relevant than what some philosopher had to say in the 1800s but I don't expect you and your clique to move on from fantasising about dead 'heroes' any time soon because its all your really good at.

[Sam_b]

So, again, you haven't read it, have you?


You're in the SWP and you talk to me about a patronising attitude?

Again, your baseless accusations against the SWP.

And your generalisations against Marx are unfactual, or baseless. Again, you can't just dodge by saying to look on Wikipedia for decent critiques of the wage system, and not actually source or link anything. I've given concrete reccommendations for this user to read, on this subject that he talks about. This gives you two choices: actually critique the content of the pamphlet without making ridiculous abstracts about it which are actually false, and link to something you think is better, or just shut up. Simple as that.

[Pogue]

So, again, you haven't read it, have you?



Again, your baseless accusations against the SWP.

And your generalisations against Marx are unfactual, or baseless. Again, you can't just dodge by saying to look on Wikipedia for decent critiques of the wage system, and not actually source or link anything. I've given concrete reccommendations for this user to read, on this subject that he talks about. This gives you two choices: actually critique the content of the pamphlet without making ridiculous abstracts about it which are actually false, and link to something you think is better, or just shut up. Simple as that.

What the fuck are you, the fucking Fuhrer? Who are you to tell me to shut up?

My critique of the SWP is pretty clear. They're paternalistic and control mad. But thats another issue for another day.

As I said, theres a number of things I think are better. There are better things on the SWP website than the writings of Marx. I'd say reading Socialist Worker is better than reading Marx, because its contemporary and relevant. Reading Organise or Resistance or Direct Action is better than reading Marx, because its contemporary and in plain, modern language. There's countless examples. In asking for specific examples you're falling itno the typical nerdy argument style where we get into semantics, bt I'll link it if your so desperate to get an answer. Like I said, if you do a google search of Solidarity Federation, Anarchist Federation, IWW etc you get websites full of pamphlets articles etc more relevant than Marx's writings.

[rednordman]

What the fuck are you, the fucking Fuhrer? Who are you to tell me to shut up?

My critique of the SWP is pretty clear. They're paternalistic and control mad. But thats another issue for another day.

As I said, theres a number of things I think are better. There are better things on the SWP website than the writings of Marx. I'd say reading Socialist Worker is better than reading Marx, because its contemporary and relevant. Reading Organise or Resistance or Direct Action is better than reading Marx, because its contemporary and in plain, modern language. There's countless examples. In asking for specific examples you're falling itno the typical nerdy argument style where we get into semantics, bt I'll link it if your so desperate to get an answer. Like I said, if you do a google search of Solidarity Federation, Anarchist Federation, IWW etc you get websites full of pamphlets articles etc more relevant than Marx's writings.Dont get me wrong, but you REALLY need to chill out. Personally, I would not at all discourage these types of people from reading marx, as I believe that these people should be encouraged to read these writers and to learn to expand their minds and see things out for themselves.

[Sam_b]

What the fuck are you, the fucking Fuhrer? Who are you to tell me to shut up?

Wow. This is an argument about what pamphlet to reccommend, not something high-and-mighty where its appropriate to compare people to fascists.

As I said before, I'm not the one looking for an answer: so why not link some articles for the poster here? And it's also not just the case of reading Socialist Worker: we're talking of a decent critique of the wage labour and class system and how they intertwine. Apparently you have a problem with my suggestion, which you have never read.

If I could also suggest one more thing - can the SWP crap. You have never been able to prove even one of your 'critiques' with any evidence, and it just comes across as bitterness at an organisation you were going to get involved in only a few months ago.

[BobKKKindle$]

Why the fuck would an ordrinary working class reason want to read an 160 year old book written in a deeply political language?

You obviously haven't read any Marx. If you had, you would know that many of Marx's writings - particularly the pamphlets he produced, such as those mentioned by Sam_b in this thread - are extremely concise and still represent the most effective and eloquent way to explain how capitalism leads to the exploitation of the working class, and why capitalism is a system that will always tend towards crisis. Marx's language isn't political at all - if by "political" you mean technical and/or archaic.

Incidentally, how's that critique of AI coming along?

[RedArmyUK]

You're in the SWP and you talk to me about a patronising attitude? Why the fuck would an ordrinary working class reason want to read an 160 year old book written in a deeply political language? Its a fucking stupid thing to do. His language is that of intellectuals and philosophers and his books are about situations at the time. I'm saying that telling someone to read Marx is a stupid idea because to most people it'll be boring, meaningles so or unintelligible, and there are thousands of better things to read which make it all clearer.

I could link you to thousands of websites with articles and pamphlets which are simply put and understandable. You'd jus thave to go on the websites of AFed, IWW, SolFed, or even just wikipedia. I think that stuff which deals with issues today is a lot more relevant than what some philosopher had to say in the 1800s but I don't expect you and your clique to move on from fantasising about dead 'heroes' any time soon because its all your really good at.


I,m glad i,m not the only one who would like to take a plain up to date look at (far) left ideals.

Don,t get me wrong there is a lot from the past that I like e.g The great Stalin,s take on how to treat Nazi POWs.

[Pogue]

Wow. This is an argument about what pamphlet to reccommend, not something high-and-mighty where its appropriate to compare people to fascists.

As I said before, I'm not the one looking for an answer: so why not link some articles for the poster here? And it's also not just the case of reading Socialist Worker: we're talking of a decent critique of the wage labour and class system and how they intertwine. Apparently you have a problem with my suggestion, which you have never read.

If I could also suggest one more thing - can the SWP crap. You have never been able to prove even one of your 'critiques' with any evidence, and it just comes across as bitterness at an organisation you were going to get involved in only a few months ago.

Perhaps the most telling thing is I didn't join, because I realised how shit it is.

I love how you use it against me the fact that I looked into your student organisation because I was interested in getting involved in radical student politics but after investigating it I actually decided I wouldn't join because its such a joke. Bitter? I think thats you. I didn't get rejected by the SWP, I rejected them, just as many people have because they have shit politics and a pathetic attitude.

I have read alot of Marx. Perhaps somewhere along the way I've read extracts from the book you're reccomending. I can tell from this that its hard to understand and out-dated and the fact still remains it was written 160 years ago. Do you think your everyday worker would take any interest in a work of highly intellectual political philosophy from the 1800s? No. Its simply not relevant. And you need to learn this, especially as you're in a group which spends so much time trying to crawl up the arses of dead Russians its become incredibly out of touch with ordinary people.

[Pogue]

You obviously haven't read any Marx. If you had, you would know that many of Marx's writings - particularly the pamphlets he produced, such as those mentioned by Sam_b in this thread - are extremely concise and still represent the most effective and eloquent way to explain how capitalism leads to the exploitation of the working class, and why capitalism is a system that will always tend towards crisis. Marx's language isn't political at all - if by "political" you mean technical and/or archaic.

Incidentally, how's that critique of AI coming along?

Not being a jumped up uni kid like you I don't spend my time writing arse wipe essays to please a few other jumped up uni kids in my spare time.

Hows supporting sexist, homophobic anti-semites coming along?

[Pogue]

Dont get me wrong, but you REALLY need to chill out. Personally, I would not at all discourage these types of people from reading marx, as I believe that these people should be encouraged to read these writers and to learn to expand their minds and see things out for themselves.

I'm not really in need of chilling out, and much less so do I need to be told to chill out by someone I don't know over the internet.

[RedArmyUK]

OI!
that's my avatar! almost :)
no, btw, hating new labour and the rest of the parliamentary bullshit politiciaNS does not mean you are moving to the right, it's the conclusions you draw from that hatred that define your political position.
btw, lots of working class people like myself have a credit card, some of them even have a mortgage (in britain 72% of the population), does that make them "middle class" or just "deluded"?

No (to me anyhow) having a credit card don,t make you middle class, I think I may have miss wrote, I should have put "my hate is for the NEW middle classes" The ones the BBC panda too, The people who cry now that they have no money and can,t pay bills, and yet they still live in a big house, have 2x cars (9 times out of 10 its a BMW mini for her and the 4x4 for him)
These same people now want to be classed as poor (now time are ment to be O so bad) so they can get the hand outs the poor get, but yet still want to hold on to the same life style!

[Sam_b]

Perhaps the most telling thing is I didn't join, because I realised how shit it is.

Nobody cares....

[NecroCommie]

Hey Redarmy UK: The "middle classes" have higher wages only due to their relations to the capitalist class. With "middle classes" being mainly workers, the abolition of capitalist class would also abolish these so called middle classes. If no one is rich enough to pay them more, they too have to become part of the proletariat.

And talking about "modern day" problems and working class is pointless. Would anyone care to enlighten me how is it exactly that modern day class relations are different to those of late 19th century. Enlighten so as to give any reason to change the fundamental theories of class struggle and capitalism.

Theory of evolution is much older than Marxist theories, yet I see very few creationists here.

[ZeroNowhere]

If no one is rich enough to pay them more, they too have to become part of the proletariat.
Um, what? If they're mostly workers, then how the fuck are they somehow not proletarian?


And talking about "modern day" problems and working class is pointless. Would anyone care to enlighten me how is it exactly that modern day class relations are different to those of late 19th century. Enlighten so as to give any reason to change the fundamental theories of class struggle and capitalism.
Do not tempt the ICC. It's not healthy. :D


Its just something more 'well to do' working class people believe in to make themselves feel superior and look down on the less 'well to do' working class people.
Um, not quite. It's a conception created by the bourgeois media and presumably think tanks, that feeds competition among the working class, as well as making people feel as if they have a stake in the system. Very similar to grading systems in schools, in fact. This being because one of the main purposes of said grading system is to make people know their place, look down on those below them and respect those above. The whole 'middle class' crap just continues this. In other words, rather than just a myth made by well-off workers to get to look down on people, it's a myth propagated by the media which serves the purpose of propping up the system and also of obscuring and hiding class struggle.


For the most part, a 'middle class' would consist of people whom did not really have to work as they already have an income from something that they have inherited. They only work because they want more money.
Eh? I don't think that that even describes the majority of the petit-bourgeoisie.


I don't think its a good idea for someone new to politics to read an 160 year old text written about conditions at the time in a highly out-dated political language.
Nobody was suggesting they do so either.


Not being a jumped up uni kid like you I don't spend my time writing arse wipe essays to please a few other jumped up uni kids in my spare time.

Hows supporting sexist, homophobic anti-semites coming along?
Stop.

[rednordman]

Um, not quite. It's a conception created by the bourgeois media and presumably think tanks, that feeds competition among the working class, as well as making people feel as if they have a stake in the system. Very similar to grading systems in schools, in fact. This being because one of the main purposes of said grading system is to make people know their place, look down on those below them and respect those above. The whole 'middle class' crap just continues this. In other words, rather than just a myth made by well-off workers to get to look down on people, it's a myth propagated by the media which serves the purpose of propping up the system and also of obscuring and hiding class struggle.


Eh? I don't think that that even describes the majority of the petit-bourgeoisie.
Funnily enough, alot of these 'petit bourgois' actually consider themselves as working class.
I was being very simplified there and must say that you have put it better than i have, no question. But then again, if i have of expanded on my point, I pretty much would have said what you have, as they are pretty similar points. I mean alot of working class people now like to think they are middle class, when really, there not. I do not care what job you have, earning £15-30 grand a year (in the UK) does not make you middle class (infact i question whether £40,000 pa does nowadays), unless you have something behind it (something big). All consumerism has done is create an illusion of wealth/class. So people will buy smart stuff which they usually cannot afford, and try to act as if they are 'middle-class'. That is why i put it like I did, of course you are correct that is a myth propagated by the media and ruling class.

[RedArmyUK]

Funnily enough, alot of these 'petit bourgeois' actually consider themselves as working class.
I was being very simplified there and must say that you have put it better than i have, no question. But then again, if i have of expanded on my point, I pretty much would have said what you have, as they are pretty similar points. I mean alot of working class people now like to think they are middle class, when really, there not. I do not care what job you have, earning £15-30 grand a year (in the UK) does not make you middle class (infact i question whether £40,000 pa does nowadays), unless you have something behind it (something big). All consumerism has done is create an illusion of wealth/class. So people will buy smart stuff which they usually cannot afford, and try to act as if they are 'middle-class'. That is why i put it like I did, of course you are correct that is a myth propagated by the media and ruling class.

Well,, They say you learn something everyday, 'petit bourgeois' was something I,d never heard of untill I just looked it up,, Maybe its them I hate :confused:

[StalinFanboy]

Nobody cares....
:laugh:

[rednordman]

Well,, They say you learn something everyday, 'petit bourgeois' was something I,d never heard of untill I just looked it up,, Maybe its them I hate :confused:In a sense, you could put it like that, as these types of people generally worship the god of status symbols, and will fork out silly loans to afford to pay for them. Differance is that the middle classes get much larger loans and morgages, as banks trust them more to be able pay it of (big mistake). Fair enough, you could also say the same about working class, just their loans and morgages are smaller.
In my opinion, when you state that you get pissed of with the people who get loans that they cannot afford to pay off, you really are getting pissed of with capitalism embodied, as this is the result of bad regulated free-market policies (capitalism almost at its final stage). Everyone attains credit for things that they will struggle to pay back in suitable time. Thus after a while, the whole thing collapses and the working classes have to pay for it, while middle/upper class people get luxury bonuses and like.

[ZeroNowhere]

In a sense, you could put it like that, as these types of people generally worship the god of status symbols, and will fork out silly loans to afford to pay for them.
Small business owners? That's bollocks, loads of them are forced out of business in a year or less, and aren't necessarily richer than proletarians. I don't see how they would suddenly worship status symbols or whatever.

[rednordman]

Small business owners? That's bollocks, loads of them are forced out of business in a year or less, and aren't necessarily richer than proletarians. I don't see how they would suddenly worship status symbols or whatever. Emm..I ment to say that for many, one of the reasons they go into owning a buisness is hope of being able to afford swanky stuff, its all part of thier dream of being successfull isnt it? (well I have not spoke to a capitalist that has indicated otherwise yet, all they do is defend the idea of being able buy what you like-then go full circle when talking about the working class)
When they realise that in reality, owning buisness is shite and only a few people get the lifestyle they dream of, they find otherways to afford to pay for it. Then inevitably they go broke or struggle to make a decent enough profit, it will at very best slow down even more the time it takes pay something off. My knowledge of economics is not good, but even I know that when you get this on a wide scale (neolibralism) its bound to cause problems.

[ZeroNowhere]

Um, but what's the issue with wanting to raise your standard of living?

[rednordman]

Um, but what's the issue with wanting to raise your standard of living?Absolutley nothing, but it cost money, and often too much to pay outright. This is the tricky part: How should a bank deal with people who blatantly cannot pay the loan off?, because by the sounds of things in the states the banks where literally giving loans to people who had very very bad credit rating, history etc etc, so there was no chance of paying them back. Class actually didnt have much to do with it, as it was mainly about people living above their means, and i imagine that this was relative to each class (the working class and middle class both living above their means).
The thing is, most jobs nowadays actually pay too poor for the price of living so people have to get loans out for alot of things (house/car/insurance etc), then you have to add in the fact that there is almost zero job security nowadays so no one is actually 100% certain that they are going to be able to pay off anything anyway. When that payment stops to the banks due to people going bust etc, it is obviously not a good thing as they (the banks) where counting on this money as soon as possible.
Capitalism is supposed to be all about economic freedoms and opportunities with plenty of products/food on the shelves, but due to the actual reality of employment due to capitalism, it quite frankly is anything but (apart from the products on the shelves, but it wouldnt suprise me if that changes soon anyhow).
The main thing that capitalism has had going for it is that it has raised the standards of living for alot of people in the west for the last 20 years, thus by some peoples opinion, exorcising the 'specter of marx'. Anyone was supposed to be able to attain anything, and afford anything not too delux by paying for it with credit and loans. The thing is, now it has all gone 'tits up' in quite a bad way, everyone is blaming everyone else and the level of inequality is rearing it ugly head again worser than ever.
So back to the first point, isnt capitalism going against its own ideals by stoping people from getting loans out for stuff that they really cannot afford to pay quickly? Frankly wouldnt this make people poorer anyway? or just realise how bad off they are without their consumer comforts to haze their sight? In my opinion all this haze is, is a smokescreen of neolibralism. It makes the working class think they are better off and living in better times than they really are. Without the banks lending to the working classes, capitalism is even shitter than most people could even imagine...unless your wealthy of course. But with the banks lending again, eventually it will all go tits up again. Its like a viscious cycle.
I dunno, im no expert, you probably know more than I do, this is just my take on things so far. Feel free to dig in.:D

[Pogue]

Nobody cares....

If you don't care why do you keep mentioning it? Grow up.

[Sam_b]

Remind me who brought up the SWP again?


You're in the SWP and you talk to me about a patronising attitude?

Oh, thats right.

[Pogue]

Remind me who brought up the SWP again?



Oh, thats right.

But if you don't care about me deciding the SWP is shit why do you keep mentioning the fact I expressed interest in joining the student section at one point, before hearing accounts from students about how shit it is and deciding against it?

[Sam_b]

Because I think its hilarious that a group that you seem (on here anyway) to hate with a passion was one you wanted to join. It all sounds like sour grapes, especially when you have never been able to give any real reasons apart from unsourced one-liners. Calling an organisation 'shit' just doesn't do the job i'm afraid. Neither does 'patrionising to workers'. Aah, but why?

I would say give it a rest as now you're trying your darndest to derail this thread (again, with no real answers to anything. Criticising Marx without any concrete critique, and then not being able to cite any publication thats better than the suggested article; and then a ridiculous 'you started it attitude' to try and hide this fact). However, as usual, I imagine you'll go for the last say, and will now fail to go for the jugular with other evidence-less slurs.

[Pogue]

Because I think its hilarious that a group that you seem (on here anyway) to hate with a passion was one you wanted to join. It all sounds like sour grapes, especially when you have never been able to give any real reasons apart from unsourced one-liners. Calling an organisation 'shit' just doesn't do the job i'm afraid. Neither does 'patrionising to workers'. Aah, but why?

I would say give it a rest as now you're trying your darndest to derail this thread (again, with no real answers to anything. Criticising Marx without any concrete critique, and then not being able to cite any publication thats better than the suggested article; and then a ridiculous 'you started it attitude' to try and hide this fact). However, as usual, I imagine you'll go for the last say, and will now fail to go for the jugular with other evidence-less slurs.

Once more, why would it be sour grapes? I didn't get rejected, I simply didn't go ahead with joining when I realised what the SWSS and SWP generally are like. If I wanted too, I'd just contact them now and say I want to join and it'd be done.

OK, we'll leave the SWP criticisms to another thread, but basically its that they're authoritarian, undemocratic, want to turn the workers into mindless drones to be controlled and support anti-semetic homophobic sexists.

Back onto Marx, and I've already explained why I wouldn't reccomend someone new to politics reading his works.
Because they don't best explain what communism is, or even capitalism.
Because they are out dated.
Because they are written in a complicated language.
Because some of his works are incredibly long and intended for political scientists and philosophers.
Because other people have explained his theories better.
Because he was writing about the world as it was in the parts he experienced 160 years ago and things have changed.
Because this historical text is hardly relevant to the lives of modern day workers.

etc etc.

I don't devalue Marx or his work, he was clearly incredibly important and intelligent, but its not the best thing to read if you're new to left wing politics or if you're an average person without any political or literary education who wants to find out why it is they just got sacked and are living on a pathetic benefit handout whilst some rich banker who fucked it up is on 700k a year. Marx didn't write about relevant stuff in a language everyone today could grasp.

[Sam_b]

Quelle surprise!


OK, we'll leave the SWP criticisms to another thread, but basically its that they're authoritarian, undemocratic, want to turn the workers into mindless drones to be controlled and support anti-semetic homophobic sexists.

Aah, but why?

Again, if you're going to criticise my choice of Wage Labour and Capitalism, its better if you could a) quote which parts of it you disagreed with, and b) reccommend something thats better on the subject.

If you're so cocksure of this work being 'complicated' and 'outdated', why not answer Bob's excellent rebuttal of this?

[Pogue]

Quelle surprise!



Aah, but why?

Again, if you're going to criticise my choice of Wage Labour and Capitalism, its better if you could a) quote which parts of it you disagreed with, and b) reccommend something thats better on the subject.

If you're so cocksure of this work being 'complicated' and 'outdated', why not answer Bob's excellent rebuttal of this?

Haha, why? I think thats the question every serious leftist is asking about the insane ideas of the SWP! You hit the nail on the head there mate!

Where is this Blobkindles response then? Normally I give up on his posts because he hasn't learn how to structure his pieces clearly yet.

[Pogue]

I,m glad i,m not the only one who would like to take a plain up to date look at (far) left ideals.

Don,t get me wrong there is a lot from the past that I like e.g The great Stalin,s take on how to treat Nazi POWs.

Oh look by the way, suprise suprise, regardless of the batshit Stalin comment, the OP actually agrees with me that a simpler text would be better. Do I win the prize?

[Pogue]

I'd say from experience myself Marx is hard to read. As I said, most workers and ordinary peeps wont want to read an 160 year old text about economics, they'd rather like to know in more modern and relevant terms what capitalism is, why it is leading to them being unemployed and how to replace it.

[Sam_b]

So, no actual critique of the work in question?

Again, you haven't read it have you? So then what gives you the authority to critique it?

If you were actually serious about it, you would justify your claims about this particular piece with evidence from it.

Unless you can bother yourself to answer these questions, I think i'm done here. I await your irrelevant and smart-arse reply.

[Pogue]

So, no actual critique of the work in question?

Again, you haven't read it have you? So then what gives you the authority to critique it?

If you were actually serious about it, you would justify your claims about this particular piece with evidence from it.

Unless you can bother yourself to answer these questions, I think i'm done here. I await your irrelevant and smart-arse reply.

So irrelevant you await it, so smart arse you want to see it, I love it!

I've read parts of it, chapters of it quoted in various books. I've read (if the term can be used) the Communist Manifesto and parts of Das Kapital. As I said, I found it out dated, out of context and generally not good reading material before bed or on the train. And from the people I talk too who disagree with me about capitalism, I don't think it'd be their cup of tea either, because its very hard to understand for most people, as I said. Its just not relevant or interesting to most people.