Why is class war essential? [Archive]

yuon

26th July 2009, 13:25

http://www.revleft.com/vb/restriction-uprisei-t113415/index.html

The reason your restricted is because you believe class warfare is 'out dated'.
Oh? Supporting freedom, socialism, and all that is good, and opposing capitalism, the state, oppression, racism, sexism, and all that is bad, isn't enough?

You must also believe that class war is still an up to date method of bring about social change? I thought you only needed "class struggle" to get into the CC, I didn't realise rejecting it would get you restricted... In with all the capitalists, sexists, racists and so on.

Anyway, that isn't what this thread is about (merely what prompted it).
Why is class war such a precious ideal to so many "leftists"? Why do they get upset if someone says it isn't realistic, or that maybe, just maybe, Marx got it wrong?

I know the theory behind "class war". The working class (the proletariat in Marxian terms) comprise the vast majority of the population of country (and the world). They have the most to gain, and the means of gaining it. By working together, well, no one's going to stop them taking over.

Oh, and I agree. I just find it really strange that it's treated as gospel, and that detractors are treated as heretics. After all, if you're a follower of Marx (or, at least the early Marx, I understand he grew up a bit as he aged), you would say that class war, was inevitable. In which case, it doesn't matter if someone says it isn't going to happen, it's all a matter of time...

So, the question is really, why do you treat "class war" (or "class struggle") as such a sensitive topic? Why does it get your goat when someone (perhaps me), says "maybe, just maybe, our perfect society can come about by some other method"?

trivas7

26th July 2009, 15:32

This stupid idea is the greatest impediment to the adoption of collectivists' ideas. It doesn't pass the smell test for the vast majority of the working class. The history of the working-class movement in Europe has proved it wrong.

Dust Bunnies

26th July 2009, 16:22

Kwisatz Haderach

26th July 2009, 16:30

Demogorgon

26th July 2009, 16:56

The above post is a pretty good explanation. Class war might be a too dramatic, even confusing term. What you see most often is better called class antagonism or even just class friction. Every time you see any type of dispute amongst social classes or one attempting to get something from another, whether it be workers holding a strike or employers pushing for a change in the law to make it easier to dismiss workers you are seeing the process in action.

Different classes in capitalism have different interests and so, when one pursues their own interests they do so at the potential expense of another class. Hence the friction that results. This kind of friction is a constant throughout history and the driver of much change.

It is immature and silly to interpret "class war" as being a requirement to support violent warfare as the only way to achieve revolution. That is only one of many potential outcomes of class friction and if, all else being equal, that is your favoured one, then you have a problem. Rather understanding class conflict is about understanding society as it exists now, not in a potential revolution.

Robert

26th July 2009, 19:08

Of course, we need to encourage class struggle

Oh, no doubt. Of course.

KH, you will turn off twice as many people with that kind of patronizing talk as you will turn on. It sounds like: "we need to show these idiot proles how miserable they are because they are too stupid to know it unless we explain it to them."

That's how it sounds.

Hopefully that isn't what you mean.

New Tet

26th July 2009, 19:29

Class struggle (or "war," if you prefer) is not a method of bringing about social change. It is an unavoidable part of life in any class society. And it is the main driving force of change in human history.

Note: I did not say it should be. I said it is. Class struggle is not something that we need to create. It is something that exists whether we like it or not. Of course, we need to encourage class struggle, but even if we did not encourage it, it would still happen.

To my understanding, you can get restricted for denying the existence of class struggle, not the usefulness of class struggle.

I agree. Class struggle is a basic sociological principle as well as a method. The class struggle is the resulting antagonism between social classes that emerges out of the arbitrary division of labor's product.

The best way to handle the class struggle is to do it class consciously. That is, to enter into the struggle agaisnt capitalism with the aim of abolishing it and all its institutions in favor of a sane system based on social ownership of the economy, cooperation and majority rule.

trivas7

26th July 2009, 19:30

Kwisatz Haderach

26th July 2009, 19:34

Oh, no doubt. Of course.

KH, you will turn off twice as many people with that kind of patronizing talk as you will turn on. It sounds like: "we need to show these idiot proles how miserable they are because they are too stupid to know it unless we explain it to them."

That's how it sounds.

Hopefully that isn't what you mean.
Eh? No, that's not what I mean at all. What I mean is that we need to encourage workers to confront their bosses when they are angry or unhappy about some injustice.

In the normal course of events, some discontented workers will confront their bosses and some won't. We need to talk to the ones who won't, and persuade them to join the ranks of those who will.

We don't need to persuade anyone that they are miserable. They already know that. What we need to persuade them of is that something can be done about it.

New Tet

26th July 2009, 19:55

Class war substitutes for the battle bt good and evil in Marxist secular theology. Classes, being theoretical constructs, have neither interests nor pursuits; is it only individuals that have these. The end of class conflict substitutes for the kingdom of heaven in this secularized version of religion.

This is sophistry or, as we say here in the salt mines, pure horse shit.

The class struggle is no Manichean substitute, but a principle based soundly on demonstrable fact. The economic, social and political struggle among and between classes is so amply illustrated throughout history that to argue against its existence as an objective social phenomenon is akin to claiming, in spite of the evidence against it, that the Earth is flat.

The Marxian analysis of the class struggle does not ascribe "good" or "evil" qualities to the parties involved. It recognizes that what [animates] and informs the struggling parties is their own [subjective] material interest. To ascribe absolute moral value to the class struggle is absurd and un-Marxian.

Kwisatz Haderach

26th July 2009, 20:29

Class war substitutes for the battle bt good and evil in Marxist secular theology.
Really? And what exactly is the similarity between class struggle and the battle between good and evil?

Oh, right, they are both conflicts. Between two sides. Fascinating. Perhaps football games are also a substitute for the battle between good and evil, then?

Robert

26th July 2009, 20:52

26th July 2009, 21:23

We should sit down and have some iced green tea and cakey things like iced buns with the bourgeoisie instead.

Bud Struggle

26th July 2009, 21:50

We should sit down and have some iced green tea and cakey things like iced buns with the bourgeoisie instead.

In the United States to a good extent that's what's being done.

In most cases the Proletariat don't have a clue that they are any different than any Borugeoise. Except for the fact that the Borugeoise seem to have more money in most topical ways both sides are interchangable. Each gets an equal vote at the polling box and that gives then the illusion of equality--and it's a strong illusion.

The Proletarian may indeed be oppressed, but if you asked them about it 95% wouldn't know what you were talking about.

danyboy27

26th July 2009, 22:23

Eh? No, that's not what I mean at all. What I mean is that we need to encourage workers to confront their bosses when they are angry or unhappy about some injustice.

In the normal course of events, some discontented workers will confront their bosses and some won't. We need to talk to the ones who won't, and persuade them to join the ranks of those who will.

We don't need to persuade anyone that they are miserable. They already know that. What we need to persuade them of is that something can be done about it.

i have been poisonning my workplace with anti boss ressentiment during a fews month and what did i achieved? nothing. Rotten atmosphere, nothing work, epic fail.

then i decided to make them work together, i spoke to the boss and told them something was wrong, that they should learn to listen to their employee beccause happy worker make a better job, and make more money.

i encouraged my friends to speak out, and discuss with their bosses about the stuff that was not working etc etc etc. The result is just astonishing.

class war implies a CONFRONTATION, and from my experiance you dont want to have confrontation in a workplace, you want everything to work, you want everyone happy.

of course i am an evil social democrat and a capitalist so what the fuck do i know?

trivas7

26th July 2009, 22:27

The class struggle is no Manichean substitute, but a principle based soundly on demonstrable fact.
What demonstrable fact? You mistake your theory for reality.

Robert

27th July 2009, 00:59

iced green teaIced green tea? How about some red wine and fish? I do appreciate the offer, however. (Or was he making a commie joke?)

The Proletarian may indeed be oppressed, but if you asked them about it 95% wouldn't know what you were talking about.
Well, we have to explain the phenomenal success of country songs like "Take this Job and Shove it!" and "Walkin' Boss" (Yes, you're the boss, but I don't belong to you.")

The American working man, then, southern and western man at least, has the romantic fantasy of walking off the job and starting his own company or homesteading out west if he's getting screwed, not organizing or rising as one. Of course, the U.S. auto plant workers do have a tradition of striking and collective bargaining.

We know how that worked out for the workers at GM. I feel sorry for them, but do the Chinese?

The Chinese have already experienced revolution (the real kind), and I doubt they want to live through another one.

mikelepore

27th July 2009, 01:22

I wonder about the word "essential" in the topic header. It make it sound as though the class struggle is a concept. The class struggle is an observable fact that the workers movement didn't choose. It begins with the division of labor's product. Wages are correlated with the amount of wealth needed for workers to barely survive -- wages are not tied to the amount of wealth that workers produce. From the very first, the worker and the capitalist have diametrically opposite interests. Having begun with the division of labor's product, the class struggle branches out to other directions, such as politics, science, journalism, education, and the arts.

New Tet

27th July 2009, 01:34

What demonstrable fact? You mistake your theory for reality.

Labor and employer strikes are one. Walkouts another. Lockouts and layoffs yet another. Immigration politics (for and against) come to mind. and there are many others too numerous to list here so I'll leave you with the best and noisiest of demonstrable facts that prove the class struggle: revolutions.

Your flat Earth has suddenly curved.

yuon

27th July 2009, 08:40

Well what method do you think we will use to overthrow our oppressors? Sit down and have some tea with them and convince them to stop?

"There is a class war going on, and we're winning."-Warren Buffet I think
The point is, some people get so upset if the "class war" is denied. Why's that?

To my understanding, you can get restricted for denying the existence of class struggle, not the usefulness of class struggle.
Why would you be restricted for denying that? What a strange concept. If someone is otherwise a leftist, and just thinks that maybe the class war isn't actually happening, or even that it is happening, but won't cause revolution, people get really uptight.

What is so special about the concept?

@ mikelepore
I think that the title of the thread is misleading, I wasn't sure what to title it. Perhaps a better title is, "why the hue and cry when class war is denied?"

I want you to all know, I'm not denying the fact that there is "class struggle" going on, I just want to know why some people are so sensitive about it.

BobKKKindle$

27th July 2009, 08:42

Classes, being theoretical constructsI don't know what you mean by "theoretical construct". It's an empirical fact that in every existing country there is a small group of people who own the things that mankind uses to produce goods and services - the factories, offices, shops, and so on. This system of private ownership is closely tied to an economy based on commodity production, which means that all of the things that we currently produce are sold, instead of being given away for free. As a result, the people who do not own the things listed above need to find a way to receive money if they want to survive, and the only way they are able to do this is by selling their ability to labour to a member of the owning class. Thus, we can see that there are broadly two different groups in our society, the workers and the capitalists, which Marxists designate classes, each defined by the nature of its relationship to the means of production. This is important because the interests of these two groups are broadly oppossed to each other. It is in the interests of workers to recieve higher wages and better conditions, whereas it is in the interests of capitalists to keep their costs as low as possible, in order to maximize their profits. It is in the interests of the capitalists to retain the current system of ownership because their material privileges depend on private property being protected by the state, through armed bodies of men, whereas it is in the interests of workers to take control of the property that is currently owned by the capitalists. When these divergent interests give rise to social conflict (and the fact that it is social is significant - workers cannot pursue their interests by acting alone) whether in the form of a strike, or a revolution, we call that class struggle.

It's not complicated.

You must also believe that class war is still an up to date method of bring about social change?Well, the form of social change we want to obtain is a classless society. We think that the only way each individual can pursue their interests and exercise autonomy, instead of being subject to the control of alien forces, and placed in a position of dependency on others, is if we live in a society based on collective and democratic control of the means of production. So the question we have to grapple is how we get to that society. I don't think the capitalists will want to hand over their property voluntarily because they have so much to gain from the capitalist system. In fact, whenever the capitalists have faced any kind of threat to their position they have been willing to do anything necessary to maintain the status quo - in 1973 in Chile the capitalists supported the overthrow of a democratic government by the military, leading to a dictatorship, which silenced thousands of political dissidents, and implemented free-market policies, with workers suffering rising prices, stagnant wages, and mass unemployment. So, it would seem based on these historical experiences that the only way to get rid of capitalist rule is if we seize their property and then defend our gains by any means necessary, building our own institutions of class rule. In the short term, the only way workers can put pressure on the capitalists and extract concessions is by taking advantage of the fact that capitalists are dependent on workers for their profits - through strike action, or the threat thereof, which is also a form of class struggle. All of the major benefits that workers have extracted throughout the history of capitalism - the eight-hour day, minimum wage, the banning of child labour, the right to organize - have not been won by workers being nice to the capitalists, but through struggle.

Jimmie Higgins

27th July 2009, 09:07

The American working man, then, southern and western man at least, has the romantic fantasy of walking off the job and starting his own company or homesteading out west if he's getting screwed, not organizing or rising as one.And look how high wages are in the Southern "right to work states" where they get paid less than workers in northern areas with unions. Of course people don't go straight to collective struggle - we are constantly told through culture and academics and politicians and both liberals and conservatives that our problems are individual... if you don't like your job, you have to get another one (this is an example of the ideological part of the class war: "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" and all that other BS).

As Marx said, the ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the rulers of that age. People never go straight to revolution - the French Revolution began as an appeal to the King and his divine reason - it was only after people asked nicely and got nowhere that they decided that more steps needed to be taken. It's the same for most individual workers... until there is a fighting union movement or revolutionary movement that makes people believe that they can affect real change through strikes and their own actions and decisions, they will tend to go the path of least resistance within the rules of the existing game.

The fact that most people in the US working class (any working class) fantasize about:

1. Starting their own Business
2. Winning the Lotto
3. Becoming a sports or music superstar
4. Inventing something that they can patient and live off of
5. Marrying a rich person

Hmm, well I'm not professor of sociology, but if I were looking at a culture that fantasized about these things I'd say they weren't too happy about the arrangement of society. It sounds like most people would rather have controll over their own lives and own labor than have to sell it so other peoeple can get rich.

Again, I'm no sociology professor, but I am a Marxist and therefore a scientist of the working-class and a street-professor of rebellion; so I know first-hand that people want a different arrangement and so as a marxist I try and figure out the best ways we can start winning the class struggle.

Of course, the U.S. auto plant workers do have a tradition of striking and collective bargaining.Yeah, compare their wages before the CIO and sit-down strikes and labor militancy with a strong radical streak and immidiately after. Would you want to ba an autoworker in 1928 (no union or militancy) or 1949 (after the union was established)?

We know how that worked out for the workers at GM. Yeah, pro-Democract and pro-Business union leadership PREVENTED and DISCOURAGED militant action. With the line "What's good for the buesiness will help the workers in the long run" that people like you parrot endlessly, the UNION OFFERED WAGE REDUCTIONS to the industry before the industry even demanded them (there is a class war and thet's the union putting up the white flag)! This is what you get with no fight. When you fight, however, like the Republic Window and Door workers who sat-in and occupied their plant that was being closed, you win!

27th July 2009, 09:21

In the United States to a good extent that's what's being done.

Whatever you say, Bud. :tt2:

In most cases the Proletariat don't have a clue that they are any different than any Borugeoise. Except for the fact that the Borugeoise seem to have more money in most topical ways both sides are interchangable.

Well not any, but you do have a point, a lot wouldn't necessarily see themselves different to a lot of petite-bourgeoisie.

Each gets an equal vote at the polling box and that gives then the illusion of equality--and it's a strong illusion.

This is true.

The Proletarian may indeed be oppressed, but if you asked them about it 95% wouldn't know what you were talking about.

Indeed.

Iced green tea? How about some red wine and fish? I do appreciate the offer, however. (Or was he making a commie joke?)

Red wine and fish goes together? That's news to me!

The Chinese have already experienced revolution (the real kind), and I doubt they want to live through another one.

Well, we have to explain the phenomenal success of country songs like "Take this Job and Shove it!" and "Walkin' Boss" (Yes, you're the boss, but I don't belong to you.")

You just owned yourself. :tt2:

The American working man, then, southern and western man at least, has the romantic fantasy of walking off the job and starting his own company or homesteading out west if he's getting screwed, not organizing or rising as one.

I think you underestimate the amount of people that think starting a business is extremely tricky, for starters, further than that - I don't support small business owners particularly but of course we can understand people wanting to support themselves. Your point is kind of useless.

Of course, the U.S. auto plant workers do have a tradition of striking and collective bargaining.

Only the autoworkers? You've skipped a lot of stuff there.

We know how that worked out for the workers at GM. I feel sorry for them, but do the Chinese?

Wait, the Chinese feeling sorry for the workers at GM? Um probably..

The Chinese have already experienced revolution (the real kind), and I doubt they want to live through another one.

No they would rather die through it, you know an undead zombie revolution.

trivas7

27th July 2009, 14:33

Labor and employer strikes are one. Walkouts another. Lockouts and layoffs yet another. Immigration politics (for and against) come to mind. and there are many others too numerous to list here so I'll leave you with the best and noisiest of demonstrable facts that prove the class struggle: revolutions.

None of these prove the existence of class struggle: I can easily point to the fact that labor strikes are the exception, not the rule. Most societies are not in revolution, whatever you mean by that.

trivas7

27th July 2009, 14:37

I don't know what you mean by "theoretical construct". It's an empirical fact that in every existing country there is a small group of people who own the things that mankind uses to produce goods and services - the factories, offices, shops, and so on. [...]
None of this proves the existence of class struggle, which is a theoretical construct, despite your ignorance of the fact.

Pogue

27th July 2009, 14:39

None of this proves the existence of class struggle, which is a theoretical construct, despite your ignorance of the fact.

What is a strike if not evidence of class struggle?

trivas7

27th July 2009, 15:10

What is a strike if not evidence of class struggle?
What is a collaborative work environment if not evidence of social harmony?

RGacky3

27th July 2009, 15:12

In the United States to a good extent that's what's being done.

In most cases the Proletariat don't have a clue that they are any different than any Borugeoise. Except for the fact that the Borugeoise seem to have more money in most topical ways both sides are interchangable. Each gets an equal vote at the polling box and that gives then the illusion of equality--and it's a strong illusion.

The Proletarian may indeed be oppressed, but if you asked them about it 95% wouldn't know what you were talking about.

The proletariat know damn well they are different from the bourgeousie. They know in the workplace they know who owns their homes, they know who owns the corporations, and they know who the government listens too.

Everyone gets an equal vote, but polls show that most people realize voting for what it is, a ritual, that the real power is in the hands of money.

You ask the proletariat, in non marxist terms (without connotations), most of them know and realize whats going on. Most Americans (on real issues) are far left of what is considered mainstream (which only means the media and the elite).

None of these prove the existence of class struggle: I can easily point to the fact that labor strikes are the exception, not the rule. Most societies are not in revolution, whatever you mean by that.

Most bosses try and get the most out of their workers for the least and use them to make as much money as possible without regard for their well being, at the same time trying to keep them from organizing, thats class struggle, the problem is most of the time its one way.

The point is, some people get so upset if the "class war" is denied. Why's that?

Because denying it is first of all offensive (to those that suffer due to class oppression) and its rediculous.

If someone is otherwise a leftist, and just thinks that maybe the class war isn't actually happening, or even that it is happening, but won't cause revolution, people get really uptight.

Class struggle is the entire basis for socialist thought.

Pogue

27th July 2009, 15:31

What is a collaborative work environment if not evidence of social harmony?

I don't think such a place exists.

trivas7

27th July 2009, 15:44

Class struggle is the entire basis for socialist thought.
Exactly why it has such poor mindshare among workers.

Pogue

27th July 2009, 15:46

Exactly why it has such poor mindshare among workers.

But it doesn't. Like we said its an everyday reality, covered up with alot of lies by the ruling class.

Jimmie Higgins

27th July 2009, 18:51

None of these prove the existence of class struggle: I can easily point to the fact that labor strikes are the exception, not the rule. Most societies are not in revolution, whatever you mean by that.

One of the first lines of the Communist Manifesto is that in Capitalism, class war is a permanent feature, but it is sometimes hidden and at other times explodes out into the open.

The class struggle is like racism in US society - just because there is not a civil rights movement in say, 1940, doesn't mean that most black people didn't encounter housing or job discrimination. Just because black people weren't organizing doesn't mean they didn't hate their oppression.

So class struggle goes both ways: I like it when it is strikes and workers are winning concessions from their employers and feel confident to do so, but in capitlism, most of the time the class war is waged against workers. For the past 30 years, there has been a huge attack on the working class from the uling class: the tax burdon has been shifted away from the corporations and the rich and onto poor people (cuts in services and more regressive taxes) and wages have been pushed back at the same time. Now tow income houses have to striggle to get the equivalent of what a one-income house would have made in the 1960s.

When they cut welfare and give tax breaks and handouts to corporations, that's class war. When they cut income tax, but then raise fees on buses, tolls, and subways, that's shifting the burden of state expenses onto workers and the poor.

When companies say, well you have to take a wage cut or we'll go bankrupt, that's class war.

When Obama gives a trillion dollars to the banks with no conditions, but then threatens autoworkers, saying unless there's "Shared sacrifice" the auto industry won't get any federal relief money, that's class war on the workers.

trivas7

27th July 2009, 20:08

[...] For the past 30 years, there has been a huge attack on the working class from the uling class: the tax burdon has been shifted away from the corporations and the rich and onto poor people (cuts in services and more regressive taxes) and wages have been pushed back at the same time. Now tow income houses have to striggle to get the equivalent of what a one-income house would have made in the 1960s.

When they cut welfare and give tax breaks and handouts to corporations, that's class war. When they cut income tax, but then raise fees on buses, tolls, and subways, that's shifting the burden of state expenses onto workers and the poor.

When companies say, well you have to take a wage cut or we'll go bankrupt, that's class war.

When Obama gives a trillion dollars to the banks with no conditions, but then threatens autoworkers, saying unless there's "Shared sacrifice" the auto industry won't get any federal relief money, that's class war on the workers.
All these have everything to do w/ the fact that some in society use the powers of the state against honest workers, nothing to do w/ some so-called "class war".

Bud Struggle

27th July 2009, 20:54

The proletariat know damn well they are different from the bourgeousie. They know in the workplace they know who owns their homes, they know who owns the corporations, and they know who the government listens too. The worker's own their homes--they have the deed. and on top of that Fanny and Freddie (owned by the citizens of the USA) hold about 60% of the mortages in the country--the GREATEST majority being those of working class people. Where's the issue? And who owns the corporations? The workers again--in their pension plans and their 401s and their IRAs. The corporations owened, though not controled by the workers. But it xcan be controled by the workers--and maybe THAT'S the freakin' Revolution. And I may be just the monney manager to do it! (Bud Struggle--hero of the Revolution.) You have to think out of the box Gack. ;)

Everyone gets an equal vote, but polls show that most people realize voting for what it is, a ritual, that the real power is in the hands of money. If the voter's don't care, then they don't care--I'm not calling the workers idiots--you are. I have a great respect for the working man...you are the one that seem to be calling him a fool.

You ask the proletariat, in non marxist terms (without connotations), most of them know and realize whats going on. Most Americans (on real issues) are far left of what is considered mainstream (which only means the media and the elite). It's just that they are too stupid to do anything about it. :rolleyes: Are you sure your not a Trotskyist? :D

Class struggle is the entire basis for socialist thought.

Who cares if it dosn't produce anything?

27th July 2009, 21:09

You are an evil reactionary troll, but you do at least make me laugh Bud.

Everyone gets an equal vote, but polls show that most people realize voting for what it is, a ritual, that the real power is in the hands of money.

It's not a ritual in some countries, it's a "vote for us or we'll shoot you" ritual if it is anyway.

Bud Struggle

27th July 2009, 23:15

I don't know what you mean by "theoretical construct". It's an empirical fact that in every existing country there is a small group of people who own the things that mankind uses to produce goods and services - the factories, offices, shops, and so on. This system of private ownership is closely tied to an economy based on commodity production, which means that all of the things that we currently produce are sold, instead of being given away for free. As a result, the people who do not own the things listed above need to find a way to receive money if they want to survive, and the only way they are able to do this is by selling their ability to labour to a member of the owning class. Thus, we can see that there are broadly two different groups in our society, the workers and the capitalists, which Marxists designate classes, each defined by the nature of its relationship to the means of production. This is important because the interests of these two groups are broadly oppossed to each other. It is in the interests of workers to recieve higher wages and better conditions, whereas it is in the interests of capitalists to keep their costs as low as possible, in order to maximize their profits. It is in the interests of the capitalists to retain the current system of ownership because their material privileges depend on private property being protected by the state, through armed bodies of men, whereas it is in the interests of workers to take control of the property that is currently owned by the capitalists. When these divergent interests give rise to social conflict (and the fact that it is social is significant - workers cannot pursue their interests by acting alone) whether in the form of a strike, or a revolution, we call that class struggle.

It's not complicated.

Actually it is pretty complicated. All the "facts" you state are correct--but the conclusions are purely subjective. You could get the CEO of GM to state that there are two opposing groups of people: GM and Ford and each worker in each factory belongs to an opposing faction and that GM workers and Ford workers are at "war" with each other. And that would state reality exactly as it exists, too. And I guess you could find another fifty other "emperical facts" riddled all through this construct to find fifty other paradiems of what "reality" is. Sweet.

It's all subjective. There is no objectivity to worker struggles or Communism or class warfare-- but if that's your "idea of reality"--if that's your "lifestyle" well enjoy! Other's can enjoy similar but different lifestyles and beliefs just as easliy.

But it's pretty disingenuious to hoist YOUR particular beliefs on others. There is no difference between Christianity or Buddahism or Capitalism or Communism based on reality. All are belief systems based on some random facts that one can either draw conclusions to or not.

It's all lifestyle, everything is a subjective choice. There is no absolute reality or truth without God--and since he doesn't exist--we make up our beliefs (all based on random emperical data and facts) as we go along.

trivas7

27th July 2009, 23:29

Pogue

27th July 2009, 23:31

Actually it is pretty complicated. All the "facts" you state are correct--but the conclusions are purely subjective. You could get the CEO of GM to state that there are two opposing groups of people: GM and Ford and each worker in each factory belongs to an opposing faction and that GM workers and Ford workers are at "war" with each other. And that would state reality exactly as it exists, too. And I guess you could find another fifty other "emperical facts" riddled all through this construct to find fifty other paradiems of what "reality" is. Sweet.

It's all subjective. There is no objectivity to worker struggles or Communism or class warfare-- but if that's your "idea of reality"--if that's your "lifestyle" well enjoy! Other's can enjoy similar but different lifestyles and beliefs just as easliy.

But it's pretty disingenuious to hoist YOUR particular beliefs on others. There is no difference between Christianity or Buddahism or Capitalism or Communism based on reality. All are belief systems based on some random facts that one can either draw conclusions to or not.

It's all lifestyle, everything is a subjective choice. There is no absolute reality or truth without God--and since he doesn't exist--we make up our beliefs (all based on random emperical data and facts) as we go along.

But material reality would show that Ford workers and GM workers have a shared class interest, and the bosses have no alleigance to anything but profit. This is actually seen, in the world. Its been proven throughout history, everytime the working class revolts its supressed by the bourgeoisie.

Jimmie Higgins

27th July 2009, 23:54

Notice how the deneyers of class struggle never ask business to adapt to the needs of workers, it's always workers who are expected to adapt to the needs of business. Oh, workers should pool their money and buy their own business; workers should buy stocks; workers should do this or that. If there was no class war, then why don't you argue that there should be no restrictions on worker organization: no laws against solidarity strikes or wildcat strikes or factory occupations and so on.

Actually it is pretty complicated. All the "facts" you state are correct--but the conclusions are purely subjective. You could get the CEO of GM to state that there are two opposing groups of people: GM and Ford and each worker in each factory belongs to an opposing faction and that GM workers and Ford workers are at "war" with each other. And that would state reality exactly as it exists, too. And I guess you could find another fifty other "empirical facts" riddled all through this construct to find fifty other paradigms of what "reality" is. Sweet.There are different views on reality depending on what your social staus and interests are, but GM and FORD are just as aware of the class war as any socialist. Even Warren Buffet talks about needing to be "softer" in the class war or there will be fight-back from the working class.

Republicans also believe in the class war whenever anyone talks about taxing the rich - they just get quiet about it or deney it when they are shifting the tax burdon onto workers through regressive taxes and budget cuts.

It's all subjective. There is no objectivity to worker struggles or Communism or class warfare-- but if that's your "idea of reality"--if that's your "lifestyle" well enjoy! Other's can enjoy similar but different lifestyles and beliefs just as easliy.GM and Ford could be at war (they actually cooperate as much as they compete) but workers do not automatically benefit if one firm out-competes another firm. Profits for the US auto company went up from the early to late 90s, and yet workers did not see their wages or benefits increase proportionately.

But it's pretty disingenuious to hoist YOUR particular beliefs on others. There is no difference between Christianity or Buddahism or Capitalism or Communism based on reality. All are belief systems based on some random facts that one can either draw conclusions to or not.Not everyone is going to be a socialist or anarchist (at least not until we are basically on the verge of a revolution anyway) and so it's not like we're insiting that everyone has to agree to a certain set of tactics or the same view on what went wrong in the USSR or something. You don't have to be a socialist to see that there is class struggle in capitalist societies - many understand the class struggle and form capitalist think-tanks to win the struggle on that side. If there was no class struggle, why would business have paid so much and worked so hard to prevent Union card-check in the US? Why would strikes have been illegal for so long? Your arguments are completely a-historical.

It's all lifestyle, everything is a subjective choice. There is no absolute reality or truth without God--and since he doesn't exist--we make up our beliefs (all based on random emperical data and facts) as we go along.You don't need to believe in gravity to fall off a cliff either. Eveolution is a theory too, but good luck trying to heal viruses without trying to understand how they adapt to different treatments or evolve to spread through air instead of just through fluids.

trivas7

28th July 2009, 02:00

But material reality would show that Ford workers and GM workers have a shared class interest, and the bosses have no alleigance to anything but profit. This is actually seen, in the world. Its been proven throughout history, everytime the working class revolts its supressed by the bourgeoisie.
No, you're wrong, "material reality" doesn't demonstrate anything at all. Social Security and the 8-hour work week and other worker protection legislation would never have been enacted if it had been "proven" that different class had diametrically opposed interests. Marx was also wrong re the absolute pauperization of the working class.

Notice how the deneyers of class struggle never ask business to adapt to the needs of workers, it's always workers who are expected to adapt to the needs of business [...]
No, I haven't noticed anyone saying this, frankly.

Republicans also believe in the class war [...]
No, as a matter of fact Republicans aren't by and large not Marxists.

Eveolution is a theory too, but good luck trying to heal viruses without trying to understand how they adapt to different treatments or evolve to spread through air instead of just through fluids.Comparing Marxism to evolutionary theory is not to the point. Nothing has been proved by a Marxist analysis of society, unlike biology.

mikelepore

28th July 2009, 03:52

The following words are from Daniel De Leon's famous speech "What Means This Strike?", delivered at the site of the New Bedford, Massachusetts textile workers' strike of 1898 ...

***********************************************

You have seen that the wages you live on and the profits the capitalist riots in are the two parts into which is divided the wealth that you produce. The workingman wants a larger and larger share. So does the capitalist. A thing cannot be divided into two shares so as to increase the share of each.

If the workingman produces, say, $4 worth of wealth a day, and the capitalist keeps 2, there are only 2 left for the workingman. If the capitalist keeps 3, there is only 1 left for the workingman. If the capitalist keeps 3 1/2, there is only 1/2 left for the workingman. Inversely, if the workingman pushes up his share from 1/2 to 1, there are only 3 left to the capitalist. If the workingman secures 2, the capitalist will be reduced to 2. If the workingman push still onward and keep 3, the capitalist will have to put up with 1.

And if the workingman makes up his mind to enjoy all that he produces, and keep all the 4, the capitalist will have to go to work!

These plain figures upset the theory about the workingman and the capitalist being brothers.

***

Do you find that the fatter the capitalist, the fatter also grows the workingmen? Is not your experience rather that the wealthier the capitalist, the poorer are the workingmen? That the more magnificent and prouder the residences of the capitalist, the dingier and humbler become those of the workingmen? That the happier the life of the capitalist's wife, the greater the opportunities of his children for enjoyment and education, the heavier becomes the cross borne by the workingmen's wives, while their children are crowded more and more from the schools and deprived of the pleasures of childhood? Is that your experience, or is it not?

***

Between the working class and the capitalist class, there is an irrepressible conflict, a class struggle for life. No glib-tongued politician can vault over it, no capitalist professor or official statistician can argue it away; no capitalist parson can veil it; no labor faker can straddle it; no "reform" architect can bridge it over. It crops up in all manner of ways, like in this strike, in ways that disconcert all the plans and all the schemes of those who would deny or ignore it. It is a struggle that will not down, and must be ended, only by either the total subjugation of the working class, or the abolition of the capitalist class.

Thus you perceive that the theory on which your "pure and simple" trade organizations are grounded, and on which you went into this strike, is false. There being no "common interests," but only hostile interests, between the capitalist class and the working class, the battle you are waging to establish "safe relations" between the two is a hopeless one.

Jimmie Higgins

28th July 2009, 03:56

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
November 26, 2006, NY Times.
Ouch. Do you still want to argue that there is no class conflict?

No, you're wrong, "material reality" doesn't demonstrate anything at all. Social Security and the 8-hour work week and other worker protection legislation would never have been enacted if it had been "proven" that different class had diametrically opposed interests.Qua? What do you mean? These things were won because working class people fought for it.

Marx was also wrong re the absolute pauperization of the working class.Yes, Marx was wrong on the ridgedness of this - Luxembourg wrote some good stuff about credit and other writers have written about Imperialism and the post-war arms economy that address this. Capitalism has proven to be much more elastic than Marx thought and capitalism has also incorporated a lot of reforms and reformist policies than in Marx's day.

As for pauperization - I think we are seening that pendulum swing back the other way unfortunately (towards pauperization). Workers have lost ground in the last 30 years - I would love to have been a auto worker a generation ago and make the wages and have the security they used to have. Now, the union is broken and the jobs have moved to southern right-to-work states where autoworkers make significantly lower wages and have less protections.

No, as a matter of fact Republicans aren't by and large not Marxists.No they are not - but they still cry class-war whenever anyone suggests that maybe tax-cuts for corporations should be haulted.

Comparing Marxism to evolutionary theory is not to the point. Nothing has been proved by a Marxist analysis of society, unlike biology.I could find you quotes from the 1920s by capitalist economicists who said that the age of economic crisis was over. The same quotes from new economists in the 1960s (before the collapse in the 1970s) and quotes from economicists from the 1990s who said that the age of economic recession and depression was over (and that Alan Greenspan's farts smell like vanilla cupcakes). They were all wrong, Marx and the people after him have been much closer.

Socialism isn't a hard science, no. It is based on a scientific approach and has outlasted most economic and social theories.

Marx probably had more details wrong than right, but his overall observations have held up - most capitalist economicists would probably agree on that to a certain extent and every time there is a slump, suddenly you have Wall Street types saying things like: "Well Marx was wrong about politics, but he has some real insignts into the workings of the economy".

"The longer I spend on Wall Street, the more convinced I am that Marx was right," he said. I assumed he was joking. "There is a Nobel Prize waiting for the economist who resurrects Marx and puts it all together in a coherent model," he continued, quite seriously. "I am absolutely convinced that Marx's approach is the best way to look at capitalism."

trivas7

28th July 2009, 14:15

Socialism isn't a hard science, no. It is based on a scientific approach and has outlasted most economic and social theories.

What's scientific re it? On what empirical facts is it predicated?

Astrology has lasted thousands of years, that doesn't make it scientific.

Jimmie Higgins

28th July 2009, 20:09

What's scientific re it? On what empirical facts is it predicated?

The approach is scientific in that it is a study of history and change through material things that can be measured and observed. Change in history and governments in history according to marx's materialism is based on class conflict and governments are based around class based interests. Now compare this to the "great man" history we get in schools: Napoleon did X because that's who he was; Stalin's crimes were not from terrible politics and the desire to industrialize Russia and make it a powerful empire, it was because Stalin was a baddie; Hitler was so evil because his mother didn't love him. Or there's the history as it was presented in Marx's day: "The Queen is great because she was chosen by God and the flowers bloom because of her grace". All this is the history and sociology version of science in the Catholic Church during the middle ages.

Marx approches history and sociology scientifically and materially - so just as scientists sometimes only see part of the picture and get some things wrong, their approach is completely different and their approach allows us to at least begin to find out some more concrete facts.

Astrology has lasted thousands of years, that doesn't make it scientific.So have many things that are not scientific. I was not compareing apples and oranges (Marx's long-lastingness to the endurence of the popularity of Taffy, for example). I was compareing Marx's observations of the economy to other scientific approached to understanding the economy (apples to apples) and Marx's sience is better because in the long run his observations have held up much better whereas economists who don't believe in value coming from labor or the tendency for profit to decline over time have made much more serious false predictions such as predicting that economic slumps are the thing of the past or that investment "creates" wealth.

trivas7

28th July 2009, 20:37

The approach is scientific in that it is a study of history and change through material things that can be measured and observed. [...]
Nonsense. History isn't a methodology used by other scientific disciplines. OTC, history itself is the result of scientific methodology.

[...] I was compareing Marx's observations of the economy to other scientific approached to understanding the economy (apples to apples) and Marx's sience is better because in the long run his observations have held up much better whereas economists who don't believe in value coming from labor or the tendency for profit to decline over time have made much more serious false predictions such as predicting that economic slumps are the thing of the past or that investment "creates" wealth.Sorry, but Marx "observed" nothing; neither does scholarly study constitute a science.

Jimmie Higgins

28th July 2009, 20:44

Nonsense. History isn't a methodology used by other scientific disciplines. OTC, history itself is the result of scientific methodology.
Sorry, but Marx "observed" nothing; neither does scholarly study constitute a science.

Whatever killah, you don't believe in material reality, so it's not worth going on about. You still loose. The class war is real - the ruling class knows it, workers experience it and sticking your fingers in your ears does nothing to negate material reality.

Bud Struggle

28th July 2009, 23:03

Wow, your good, Bud Struggle! Nice post. :ohmy: Thanks!

But material reality would show that Ford workers and GM workers have a shared class interest, and the bosses have no alleigance to anything but profit. This is actually seen, in the world. Its been proven throughout history, everytime the working class revolts its supressed by the bourgeoisie. I'm not denying that anything you are saying isn't "real." The facts are true--but you interpret them as fits the particular way you see the world.

The facts I gave are "real" also. GM and Ford (and I'm using them as metaphors of any companies,) are in competition with one another for finite share of the market. If GM takes over too much of the market then there will be layoffs at Ford so in that respect the workers in each of these companies are in competition with each other.

Boh are completely "real" situations, both rely on "facts"--but how you interpret those facts is a matter of lifestyle choice. You can live in an understanding of the world (Communist lifestyle) that can only see "class struggle" in all of this and I can live in an understanding of the world that only sees corporate competition (Capitalist lifestyle) as being impotant.

Either way the facts are all true, but how we interpret them comes down to lifestyle choices. Nothing wrong with that.

Pogue

28th July 2009, 23:09

Thanks!

I'm not denying that anything you are saying isn't "real." The facts are true--but you interpret them as fits the particular way you see the world.

The facts I gave are "real" also. GM and Ford (and I'm using them as metaphors of any companies,) are in competition with one another for finite share of the market. If GM takes over too much of the market then there will be layoffs at Ford so in that respect the workers in each of these companies are in competition with each other.

Boh are completely "real" situations, both rely on "facts"--but how you interpret those facts is a matter of lifestyle choice. You can live in an understanding of the world (Communist lifestyle) that can only see "class struggle" in all of this and I can live in an understanding of the world that only sees corporate competition (Capitalist lifestyle) as being impotant.

Either way the facts are all true, but how we interpret them comes down to lifestyle choices. Nothing wrong with that.

But I don't think its about communist lifestyle. The reason I am in on this movement is not solely because I agree with an egalitarian view of the world, its because I recognised I was on the losing side of class oppression and I recognised class conflict exists.

Bud Struggle

28th July 2009, 23:19

Bud Struggle

28th July 2009, 23:39

But I don't think its about communist lifestyle. The reason I am in on this movement is not solely because I agree with an egalitarian view of the world, its because I recognised I was on the losing side of class oppression and I recognised class conflict exists.

I understand that. And you have a valid world view. But there are other EQUALLY valid world views, too. Other equally valid understandings of what is right and wrong. And that's the problem with killing off God. "God" is that only person that could have given us an ABSOLUTE value structure for ethics and morality. He was the only one that could take facts and interpret them as the only true and valid ethical structure.

Without "God" all ethical interpretations of facts are just proximate and ultimately your or my own personal opinion, nothing more.

FYI: If I was in your shoes I would be doing exactly the same as you. Your position is completely logical.

Pogue

28th July 2009, 23:40

I understand that. And you have a valid world view. But there are other EQUALLY valid world views, too. Other equally valid understandings of what is right and wrong. And that's the problem with killing off God. "God" is that only person that could have given us an ABSOLUTE value structure for ethics and morality. He was the only one that could take facts and interpret them as the only true and valid ethical structure.

Without "God" all ethical interpretations of facts are just proximate and ultimately your or my own personal opinion, nothing more.

FYI: If I was in your shoes I would be doing exactly the same as you. Your position is completely logical.

Thats the point, its logical, because its based in material reality, whereas believe in God isn't, or believe capitalism is working isn't.

Bud Struggle

28th July 2009, 23:49

Thats the point, its logical, because its based in material reality, whereas believe in God isn't, or believe capitalism is working isn't.

I'm not arguing for God here--I'm just saying that we can never "know" the real truth. All are values are based oun our own experience--and we all have different experiences. For you Capitalism doesn't work. For me, it works quite well. Nothing against you or me, we that's why we have such completely different world views. As I said if I had had your experience I would most certainly see the world as you do. That's why (besides for an occasional "hurray for my side" jabs,) I really do respect and admire the Communists on this board.

Still as a Capitalist I'm thinking with some time and some effort Capitalism could bring prosperity to the world. You on the other hand see a need for a change.

[Edit] As Matthew Arnold said on this subject:

...for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

RGacky3

30th July 2009, 21:52

The worker's own their homes--they have the deed. and on top of that Fanny and Freddie (owned by the citizens of the USA) hold about 60% of the mortages in the country--the GREATEST majority being those of working class people. Where's the issue? And who owns the corporations? The workers again--in their pension plans and their 401s and their IRAs. The corporations owened, though not controled by the workers. But it xcan be controled by the workers--and maybe THAT'S the freakin' Revolution. And I may be just the monney manager to do it! (Bud Struggle--hero of the Revolution.) You have to think out of the box Gack. ;)

The vast majority of workers don't own their homes. You can mince all you want and say all the workers have pensions which invest in corporations but that does'nt change the fact that about 5% own and control 95%, thats a fact, the workers pensions have no power or control. The Capitalist does, I can think about side the box and make little fun observations, like technically many workers do have money in savings and their bank invests that money in businesses so technically workers are business owners, but that does'nt change anything.

95% own and control 5%. The numbers and power that comes with it is what counts.

If the voter's don't care, then they don't care--I'm not calling the workers idiots--you are. I have a great respect for the working man...you are the one that seem to be calling him a fool.

They do care, they just don't see anything they can do about it, which is why the vast majority don't vote, and those that do generally vote just because one guy has some issues that he agrees with. Most people know that real power is with the money.

It's just that they are too stupid to do anything about it. :rolleyes: Are you sure your not a Trotskyist? :D

They don't have the power to, and everything in the system discourages solidarity and revolutionary thought, so really you can't blame them.

Your observation is like saying the slaves are to stupid to do anything about it.

Who cares if it dosn't produce anything?

Its produced dignity and better working conditions for millions of workers, and on the flip side has produced millions of dollars for a few Capitalists. Class warfare is a fact whether or not you decide to pay attention to it.

It's not a ritual in some countries, it's a "vote for us or we'll shoot you" ritual if it is anyway.

I understand that but Bud Struggle seams to think that America is the only place that matters in the world, so unfortunately when I talk to him I must talk in American terms (which is rediculous since Capitalism is global).

I'm not denying that anything you are saying isn't "real." The facts are true--but you interpret them as fits the particular way you see the world.

The facts I gave are "real" also. GM and Ford (and I'm using them as metaphors of any companies,) are in competition with one another for finite share of the market. If GM takes over too much of the market then there will be layoffs at Ford so in that respect the workers in each of these companies are in competition with each other.

Boh are completely "real" situations, both rely on "facts"--but how you interpret those facts is a matter of lifestyle choice. You can live in an understanding of the world (Communist lifestyle) that can only see "class struggle" in all of this and I can live in an understanding of the world that only sees corporate competition (Capitalist lifestyle) as being impotant.

Either way the facts are all true, but how we interpret them comes down to lifestyle choices. Nothing wrong with that.

It has nothing to do with lifestyle choices. Corporate competitions is important to the corporations. Whether or not a company looses market share has nothing to do with the workers, it has to do with the Bosses, so that all goes down to class warfare too, these workers get layed off because of the failures of the bosses, because the bosses are the ones in control. THAT is another form of class warfare, and should be responded to also by class warfare.

Capitalism will always have class warfare, competition is just another side of Capitalism. It has nothing to do with lifestyle it has to do with the age old question of who controls what. THATS what is about, which is something you hav'nt been able to grasp dispite being here a long ass time.

Still as a Capitalist I'm thinking with some time and some effort Capitalism could bring prosperity to the world.

Your an idiot, it does'nt matter if capitalism works for you as an individual, by its very nature capitalism works for a few and not the rest, Capitalism is not a theory based on principles, its a power system where principles were made up after the fact to defend the status quo.

Capitalism by nature will bring prosperity but only to a few.

Monarchy worked for some people too.

Ele'ill

31st July 2009, 18:30

Here's my input: It's not essential.

Bud Struggle

31st July 2009, 19:44

The vast majority of workers don't own their homes. You can mince all you want and say all the workers have pensions which invest in corporations but that does'nt change the fact that about 5% own and control 95%, thats a fact, the workers pensions have no power or control. The Capitalist does, I can think about side the box and make little fun observations, like technically many workers do have money in savings and their bank invests that money in businesses so technically workers are business owners, but that does'nt change anything. They don't want to use that power at this time. It's up to them. when they decide to use the power THEY ALREADY HAVE that will be the Revolution. Not some Molotov coctails out in the streets.l That's nonsense.

95% own and control 5%. The numbers and power that comes with it is what counts. Thet control, but they don'ty own. The shift will come when the owners decide to control.

They do care, they just don't see anything they can do about it, which is why the vast majority don't vote, and those that do generally vote just because one guy has some issues that he agrees with. Most people know that real power is with the money. The bourgeoise are in control for one and only one reason--THEY GOT OFF THEIR BUTTS and did something about their lives. The same reason that would make a revolutionary successful is that same reason that would make an entrepreneaur successful. And entrepreneurship is so much the better path. Bill Gates could have started the revolution--but he chose otherwise.

They don't have the power to, and everything in the system discourages solidarity and revolutionary thought, so really you can't blame them. You are whining. :(

Its produced dignity and better working conditions for millions of workers, and on the flip side has produced millions of dollars for a few Capitalists. Class warfare is a fact whether or not you decide to pay attention to it. Class warefare is a fact as much as any other random fact reflects reality. So what?

I understand that but Bud Struggle seams to think that America is the only place that matters in the world, so unfortunately when I talk to him I must talk in American terms (which is rediculous since Capitalism is global). That and the rest of the first world is all that counts right now for my life style. Your life style things differently--go to it Comrade! (FYI: only my lifesyle seems to matter to me at this point in history.)

It has nothing to do with lifestyle choices. Corporate competitions is important to the corporations. Whether or not a company looses market share has nothing to do with the workers, it has to do with the Bosses, so that all goes down to class warfare too, these workers get layed off because of the failures of the bosses, because the bosses are the ones in control. THAT is another form of class warfare, and should be responded to also by class warfare. Just as corporate warfare matter to coporation lifestylists so do worker rights matter to people who care about those kinds of things--and born again Christians have their particular agenda, too. So what?

Capitalism will always have class warfare, competition is just another side of Capitalism. It has nothing to do with lifestyle it has to do with the age old question of who controls what. THATS what is about, which is something you hav'nt been able to grasp dispite being here a long ass time. Fine--other people have equally important agendas. None is any more important than any other.

Your an idiot, Sure your not a Trotskyist? :D

it does'nt matter if capitalism works for you as an individual, by its very nature capitalism works for a few and not the rest, Capitalism is not a theory based on principles, its a power system where principles were made up after the fact to defend the status quo. so. You speak as there are eternal ethical principals that the world works on. There aren't. The strong will always dominate the weak. Call it Fudalism or Capitalism or Communism or Anarchism-there are always winners and loosers. That will be seen to.;)

Capitalism by nature will bring prosperity but only to a few. As if you know.:rolleyes:

Monarchy worked for some people too. It will always be such. Some people are just better than others. Let it go and ride with the flow!

Jimmie Higgins

2nd August 2009, 00:12

They don't want to use that power at this time. It's up to them. when they decide to use the power THEY ALREADY HAVE that will be the Revolution. Not some Molotov coctails out in the streets.l That's nonsense.Yes, trying to overthrow capitalism with a few Molotov cocktails is nonsense - few people here argue for that. I agree with you, workers have to decide they use the power they already have. You walk into work, then shut off the computer network at work, or shut down the production line and tell your boss: "listen it's nothing personal, but we don't like the way your people run things, it hurts us and is not in our interests, so I'm afraid we've voted and decided to let you go, here's a nice watch, thank's for Casual Fridays."

The bourgeois are in control for one and only one reason--THEY GOT OFF THEIR BUTTS and did something about their lives.You mean like chopping off the head of the English or French King and getting rid of the aristocracy - that's a great idea! You mean changing the system so that wage-labor could exist instead of aristocratic methods of production?

The same reason that would make a revolutionary successful is that same reason that would make an entrepreneaur successful. And entrepreneurship is so much the better path. Bill Gates could have started the revolution--but he chose otherwise. That's just silly - he could have been the best Basketball player in the world if he wanted too!:rolleyes:

Would you argue that? No, you would recognize the idiocy of that statement because being a great basketball player is based on material conditions... you need to be tall enough, you need the time to play and train, you need coaches that can teach you the lessons of their experience. To be a businessman you need to also look at the material conditions - most businesses fail, not because the people who run them are flawed or deficient (except for George W. Bush's businesses - HA, cheap shot!) but because of the conditions of capitalism. All the firms that are meging now - is that because one crooked bank was smarter than another - no it's because the market collapsed and now there is a monopolization and consolidation going on.

Your logic is like arguing that if a log in the ocean worked hard enough it could become a sailboat and navigate the ocean currents!

Fine--other people have equally important agendas. None is any more important than any other.Hitler and some guy in the Warsaw ghetto had different agendas - slaves and plantation owners have different agendas - workers and capitalists have different agendas. But because of the way these society is organized in these different examples, one individual/group is different than the other because one has all the power.

so. You speak as there are eternal ethical principals that the world works on. There aren't. The strong will always dominate the weak. Call it Fudalism or Capitalism or Communism or Anarchism-there are always winners and loosers. That will be seen to.;)Yes, there is class struggle and right now, workers are on the weak end because we lack organization and solidarity. But as someone said once, he who is first will later be last - and this is why we want to encourage workers to take power in their own interests.

Jimmie Higgins

2nd August 2009, 00:20

Some people are just better than others. Let it go and ride with the flow!Yes, all people are different and all people have much to bring to the table - so why wouldn't we want a society where everyone has free-time and full educational assistance to develop their skills and follow their interests?

Hell, why wouldn't we want a society where even existing scientists and so on can't cooperate because they are working for competing firms, or can't use some existing technology because it's owned by a different company? Why would we want our scientists spending all their time baking knock-offs of Viagra because it is profitable? Why do we want our artists making advertisements for Coke or Pepsi (as if anyone in the US or Europe doesn't already know)? Why do we want our designers making bendy toothbrushes?

And this is only how capitalism retards the efforts of people lucky enough to have the time or education to be a scientist or engineer. How many potential scientists or artists or whatever were never given the chance to develop their skills?

In capitalism, how many potential artists or doctors or scientists or just hilarious fun people were killed in the trenches of WWI or left to waste away in dead-end shit-jobs? How many people used their talents and skills for crime because they were poor? Once we can be free to run our own lives and not have to spend the majority of our waking hours making profits for a few, then humanity can begin to reach its potential.

Misanthrope

2nd August 2009, 01:29

Class war isn't instigated, it is there. Class war is as essential to achieving communism as the working class. Just like the working class, class war was created by capitalism.

RGacky3

2nd August 2009, 17:52

They don't want to use that power at this time. It's up to them. when they decide to use the power THEY ALREADY HAVE that will be the Revolution. Not some Molotov coctails out in the streets.l That's nonsense.

The ruling class has put a lot of time, money and effort in to obscuring any power they might have and destroying the source of that power which is solidarity.

Also if your refering to voting being the power thats rediculous, if that is what it is then the soviet union people wanted whatever they got.

Your argument could be the same argument defending slavery (the slaves wanted to be slaves, otherwise they could have revolted), or even the holocaust, (the jews just marched to their deaths).

Its a baseless argument and really rediculous.

Thet control, but they don'ty own. The shift will come when the owners decide to control.

actually based on wealth statistics they do own as well, and control more, if you don't actually believe me I will pull them up for you.

The bourgeoise are in control for one and only one reason--THEY GOT OFF THEIR BUTTS and did something about their lives. The same reason that would make a revolutionary successful is that same reason that would make an entrepreneaur successful. And entrepreneurship is so much the better path. Bill Gates could have started the revolution--but he chose otherwise.

Most of them come from priviledge to begin with, so that destroys your argument, also guess what, dictators also got of their butts too, that does'nt justify their control.

Class warefare is a fact as much as any other random fact reflects reality. So what?

Its a fact that reflects econonic and social reality, and reflects power structures. So what? Well those power structures are the basis of our society.

That and the rest of the first world is all that counts right now for my life style. Your life style things differently--go to it Comrade! (FYI: only my lifesyle seems to matter to me at this point in history.)

Yeah, because the millions in the world that starve, and the millions that never get a chance at a life because they have to slave for almost nothing, its just a life style right?

Btw, if only your lifestyle matters to you at this point then why are you here?

Just as corporate warfare matter to coporation lifestylists so do worker rights matter to people who care about those kinds of things

What your saying is tantamount to "well slavery matters to people who care about slavery, so what". If you don't care, why in hell are you here.

Fine--other people have equally important agendas. None is any more important than any other.

Well the socialist agenda challenges the power structure that dominates the world and puts 5% of the people in control of 95% of the resources and capital. So I think that agenda, the socio-economic, or the who controls what, is pretty damn important. Just because its not important to CNN, which is a commercial station, does'nt mean its not significant.

The strong will always dominate the weak. Call it Fudalism or Capitalism or Communism or Anarchism-there are always winners and loosers. That will be seen to.

Your one of the most hypocritical christians that exist, seriously, well I take that back, most christians are hypocritical.

BTW, if thats what you actually believe your contradicting yourself when you whine against dictators or stalin or whatever.

If thats what you believe, don't let me ever catch you *****ing about any sort of human domination.

I also take it that you don't believe in democracy if you believe that too.

As if you know.

Well look around ... Look whats causing it. Also its pretty much common sense, the more wealth and power someone has the easier it is to get more wealth and power, thus my common sense analysis.

It will always be such. Some people are just better than others. Let it go and ride with the flow!

Fine, I take it you find nothing wrong with Saddam Hussein, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, or whatever, somepoeple are just better than others, go with the flow.

Bud Struggle, I don't know why your here, you fail to understand basic principles, you repeat the old garbage and ignore the responces, you contradict yourself everywhere, you say the most rediculous and arrogant bullshit and refuse to back it up with anything substantial. So seriously, why are you here?

Bud Struggle

3rd August 2009, 01:24

Bud Struggle, I don't know why your here, you fail to understand basic principles, you repeat the old garbage and ignore the responces, you contradict yourself everywhere, you say the most rediculous and arrogant bullshit and refuse to back it up with anything substantial. So seriously, why are you here?

Gack, I speak the Gospel of the real world. I'm just telling you how life works and explaining how best we can all deal with it. You want to fantasize about being a monkey huntung blowgun warrier in the bowels of Mexico or a Spanish Revolutionary from a hundred years ago--or a Spanish Main PIRATE! fine. I represent the real world.

You live in a dream world.

ThorsMitersaw

4th August 2009, 05:20

because it is related to the topic at hand I will plug two pieces:

“Toward a Libertarian Theory of Class”
- Roderick T. Long
part1 (http://www.praxeology.net/libclass-theory-part-1.pdf) + part2 (http://www.praxeology.net/libclass-theory-part-2.pdf)

"Agorist class theory (http://www.agorism.info/AgoristClassTheory.pdf)"
- Wally Conger (Drawing on the unfinished work of Samuel Edward Konkin III)
- foreword by Brad Spangler�

RGacky3

4th August 2009, 16:21

Gack, I speak the Gospel of the real world. I'm just telling you how life works and explaining how best we can all deal with it. You want to fantasize about being a monkey huntung blowgun warrier in the bowels of Mexico or a Spanish Revolutionary from a hundred years ago--or a Spanish Main PIRATE! fine. I represent the real world.

You live in a dream world.

You don't have a clue about the real world. You still cling on to the fantasy that anyone can become rich and that justifies tyranny, you still cling on to the fantasy that the United States empire is somehow a force for good in the world. You have no clue how the world works.

I only mention those past examples to show that all the rediculous predictions people like you make are rediculous.

Our revolution is for the the real world and for the future, the mexican zapatista revolt and the spanish revolution were very different, the same will be for other revolutions.

Now why not actually respond to actual points instead of just saying shit without backing it up, ignoring proof contrary, and then repeating it.

Bud Struggle

4th August 2009, 17:50

Our revolution is for the the real world and for the future, the mexican zapatista revolt and the spanish revolution were very different, the same will be for other revolutions.

What in the world makes you think we are all going to end up Zapatistas? That being said--I may fly down there and see what the fuss is all about. I here they do a booming tourist business catering to vacationing revolutionaries.

http://globalexchange.org/tours/time090301.html

Reality tours can be grueling. In Chiapas, Lipoff and his 13 companions spent hours in dense briefings on indigenous-rights negotiations, Mexican elections, globalization, fair trade and biodiversity. Their $11-a-night hotel in San Cristobal de las Casas was spartan; little time was left for escapes to the colorful artisan markets and baroque churches of the 16th century city. On an overnight visit to Nuevo Yibeljoj, an impoverished community of displaced Zapatista sympathizers, the visitors lay their sleeping bags on bare planks, fought off mosquitoes and fleas and urinated behind bushes rather than face a stinking outhouse.

http://www.gadling.com/2009/03/04/into-zapatista-territory-exploring-the-mexican-state-of-chiapas/

Although San Cristóbal is the headquarters for the well-known left-wing revolutionary group called the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (popularized and supported by, among others, the band Rage Against the Machine,), outward signals of the group's influence in the town are limited. The group's initials in Spanish, the ubiquitous "EZLN", are spray-painted all over town, and you'll find countless vendors selling Zapatista-related memorabilia-- take some time to dwell on that irony-- with most items printed with the group's famous logo of a red star on a black background.

I hear for a few dollars you can get an authentic Subcommandante Marcos autographed pipe. :D

#FF0000

4th August 2009, 22:37

and you'll find countless vendors selling Zapatista-related memorabilia-- take some time to dwell on that irony-- with most items printed with the group's famous logo of a red star on a black background.

Communists aren't necessarily against the whole "trading shit for other shit" part of capitalism. They're against the whole "exploitation" bit.

So yeah there's no irony there at all and it's annoying when people say this sort of thing because it just shines a massive spotlight on their ignorance.

Misanthrope

4th August 2009, 22:39

@ BS.. (ironic)

Just because they aren't apologists for CEO's and business owners and aren't in love with capitalism doesn't mean they are sub-human. The EZLN calls for women's rights, native's rights and democracy in the Mexican government, what is wrong with that? Remeber that this is capitalism, y'know where the majority of society is forced to sell their labor? Just because a group of people don't believe in the economic system doesn't mean they aren't effected by it. Change your avatar, stop mocking those people, you don't know what they are their supporters go through. You didn't work for your situation, you were born into the richest country in the world, where struggle against the system you love so much has given you the ability to have a decent standard of living.

Pogue

4th August 2009, 22:43

Bud Struggle

4th August 2009, 23:01

Bud Struggle I'd reccomend you do not talk lightly about a group from your position of utter ignorance that some of us on this board know in much better detail than you. Some of the members of this forum have spent alot of time with that group and I don't think you really know enough to start treating it all like some sort of joke. Especially seeing as some comrades in the anarchist movement have been killed whilst in that region doing solidarity work. We've lost 2 comrades to that 'vacation', so don't fucking poke fun at something so serious.

I'll be there in the next month. I'll take four days to two week off and I'll see what the Zaps have to say and report back.

No fun being made here other than similar laughs of people making light of any other religious beliefs.

Please point me toward any threads about these guys.

Pogue

4th August 2009, 23:04

I'll be there in the next month. I'll take four days to two week off and I'll see what the Zaps have to say and report back.

No fun being made here other than similar laughs of people making light of any other religious beliefs.

Please point me toward any threads about these guys.

Typical middle class arogance. Your just going to walk in and ask them then are you? Yeh, its really that easy, and I'm sure they'd trust a wealthy American factory owner. Your such a pretentious twat.

Bud Struggle

4th August 2009, 23:09

t
@ BS.. (ironic)

Just because they aren't apologists for CEO's and business owners and aren't in love with capitalism doesn't mean they are sub-human. The EZLN calls for women's rights, native's rights and democracy in the Mexican government, what is wrong with that? Remeber that this is capitalism, y'know where the majority of society is forced to sell their labor? Just because a group of people don't believe in the economic system doesn't mean they aren't effected by it. Change your avatar, stop mocking those people, you don't know what they are their supporters go through. You didn't work for your situation, you were born into the richest country in the world, where struggle against the system you love so much has given you the ability to have a decent standard of living.

I'm going there. I'll take pictures. I'll report back. I did the same when I joined the IWW. I'll even buy you a pipe.

And remember this is RevLeft--we mock those we don't agree with. Just visit the religion forum to see. ;)

(FYI- I worked and my parents worked to get me where I am.)

Bud Struggle

4th August 2009, 23:14

Typical middle class arogance. Your just going to walk in and ask them then are you? Yeh, its really that easy, and I'm sure they'd trust a wealthy American factory owner. Your such a pretentious twat.

We'll see. I never even posted the things I saw and heard with the IWW. I'm nicer than you think.

Really.

Pogue

4th August 2009, 23:16

So you made your plans to get in then?

Misanthrope

4th August 2009, 23:17

I'm going there. I'll take pictures. I'll report back. I did the same when I joined the IWW. I'll even buy you a pipe.

And remember this is RevLeft--we mock those we don't agree with. Just visit the religion forum to see. ;)

(FYI- I worked and my parents worked go get me where I am.)

You will? awhhhh :tt1:

Yes but if you were not born in America and you were born in say Bangladesh and you worked the same amount of hours you wouldn't be as wealthy.

Bud Struggle

4th August 2009, 23:21

You will? awhhhh :tt1:

Yes but if you were not born in America and you were born in say Bangladesh and you worked the same amount of hours you wouldn't be as wealthy.

My parents came here POOR from Poland before WWII (make some money and planning to go back!)--Dad worked in a sneaker factory (making the toe caps for Keds,) me: cute and sparkley college boy.

Bud Struggle

4th August 2009, 23:22

So you made your plans to get in then?

To Mexico? Yea. The wife's looking at the arrangements.

Pogue

4th August 2009, 23:23

No, I mean into the Zapatista communities.

Forward Union

4th August 2009, 23:31

Although San Cristóbal is the headquarters for the well-known left-wing revolutionary group called the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (popularized and supported by, among others, the band Rage Against the Machine,), outward signals of the group's influence in the town are limited. The group's initials in Spanish, the ubiquitous "EZLN", are spray-painted all over town, and you'll find countless vendors selling Zapatista-related memorabilia-- take some time to dwell on that irony-- with most items printed with the group's famous logo of a red star on a black background. I hear for a few dollars you can get an authentic Subcommandante Marcos autographed pipe. :D

Well that comment was obviously written by a total fucktard because San Cristobal in the government subcapital of Chiapas. Not exactly the "capital" of the EZLN, which is poorley stocked, most shops selling a few eggs and some tinned beans. And I don't see any ironey. The poor starving beggers of San Cristobal need to sell things they can make or get hold of to visitors, candy, hammocks, mosquito repellent, or things of local significance, before 1994 that was rocks, "maya mud" wooden trinkets, now instead of carving Mayan gods to sell to western tourists, they carve zapatistas...

No, I mean into the Zapatista communities. To get into Zapatista territory his credentials would need to check out. He could of course pop into Oventic and buy some coffee from them and get a picture of a mural, but that is not quite the same. Any fat tourist with a camera can waddle into that one. He'd need to hand over his passport, some sort of membership credentials to some sort of organisation, and a signed endorsement letter by a Zapatista solidarity group. The Zapatista Junta are still not necessarily going to accept it. I have been rejected applications to Zapatista territory before, and a friend of mine imprisoned by them, and this was all above board with serious intentions.

All this will be made harder by the fact that the EZLN cut ties with the volunteer brigades in 2008 and is preparing for armed conflict.

Bud Struggle

4th August 2009, 23:32

No, I mean into the Zapatista communities.

That's what I'm looking into. I want to get into the actual areas. I'm looking to go as part of a Communist TOUR. Not as an individual factory owner.

I'll let you know as I go along. Believe me--I was, am, and always will remain a Proletarian kind'a guy.

I'll pass.

Let's see what this is all about--right?

Bud Struggle

4th August 2009, 23:37

Well that comment was obviously written by a total fucktard because San Cristobal in the government subcapital of Chiapas. Not exactly the "capital" of the EZLN...

Fine. Not the capital--but they're selling shit like the New York Stock Exchange.

Maybe RevLeft should launch a tour.

Who wants to go with me?

Havet

4th August 2009, 23:41

My parents came here POOR from Poland before WWII (make some money and planning to go back!)--Dad worked in a sneaker factory (making the toe caps for Keds,) me: cute and sparkley college boy.

Still, in america you had far more chances of increasing your life than in Bangladesh. That's the point thats being made. And even in Poland they had more chances of rising their standard of life than in Bangladesh.

Bud Struggle

4th August 2009, 23:47

Still, in america you had far more chances of increasing your life than in Bangladesh. That's the point thats being made. And even in Poland they had more chances of rising their standard of life than in Bangladesh.

All fine. But I'm not in Bangaladesh am I? I must behave as if I were in the place that I am. I would (should) ACT no differently no matter where I was. The outcomes may be a bit different.

What of it?

Forward Union

4th August 2009, 23:50

Fine. Not the capital--but they're selling shit like the New York Stock Exchange.

Maybe RevLeft should launch a tour.

Who wants to go with me?

I don't think you understand, you can't go on tour in Zapatista territory. You can go on tour to San Cristobal, see some zapatista things, go to Oventic, see some zapatista model village, it's interesting but nothing groundbreaking, people go there all the time.

It doesn't matter if you a "proletarian" kind of guy. They're peasants, not proles, and they don't particularly need you going there to take photos. In fact it's a risk, so they are more inclined not to do it. And as I have explained more, you don't even have the basic requirements that were set over two years ago, let alone any more that may have arrisen since recent events.

That said, I could write you a letter of recommendation for £1000. Though it may be cheaper just to start a thread asking questions about the Zapatista system, and I can try and answer them for you. That will only cost you £500.

Bud Struggle

5th August 2009, 00:04

I don't think you understand, you can't go on tour in Zapatista territory. You can go on tour to San Cristobal, see some zapatista things, go to Oventic, see some zapatista model village, it's interesting but nothing groundbreaking, people go there all the time. So lets SEE what these guys are up to. Let's put them under the Proletarian microscope. Let's SEE some Anarchism.

It doesn't matter if you a "proletarian" kind of guy. They're peasants, not proles, and they don't particularly need you going there to take photos. In fact it's a risk, so they are more inclined not to do it. And as I have explained more, you don't even have the basic requirements that were set over two years ago, let alone any more that may have arrisen since recent events. Don't you worry about little old me. I have all sort sorts micro cameras and old clothes from the '80s. And give me a month or so my hair can be as greasy and long as you'd like.

And if the Gackmeinster and Pogue think I haven't learned anything about Communism--here's just the chance for me to prove them wrong.

I can talk the talk.

Either of you gentlemen want to come along? (You have to promise--no killing me in my sleep! :D)

That said, I could write you a letter of recommendation for £600. Maybe. You're are a Commie after my own heart. ;)

[edit]

That said, I could write you a letter of recommendation for £1000. Though it may be cheaper just to start a thread asking questions about the Zapatista system, and I can try and answer them for you. That will only cost you £500.

Your prices went up :D :D :D

And you call yourself a Communist. :D

Forward Union

5th August 2009, 00:06

so lets see what these guys are up to. Let's put them under the proletarian microscope. Let's see some anarchism.

Don't you worry about little old me. I have all sort sorts micro cameras and old clothes from the '80s. And give me a month or so my hair can be as greasy and long as you'd like.

And if the gackmeinster and pogue think i haven't learned aything about communism--here's just the chance for me to prove them wrong.

I can talk the talk.

i dnt tnk i can kep speking, this thred are srs bussiness

Forward Union

5th August 2009, 00:12

Your prices went up :D :D :D

And you call yourself a Communist. :D

http://www.hsbcnet.com/treasury/images/zone2/investor-solutions/ftse100.jpg

Bud Struggle

5th August 2009, 00:32

We could do a RevLeft CRUSE! Rage Against the Machine as the ship house band:

"Far Across the Yucatan
The Subcomandante is waiting for me
To sail on distant seas
And start a Revoluuuuuution!"

Bada-Bing!

Forward Union

5th August 2009, 00:36

I hearby derail this thread.

Bud Struggle

5th August 2009, 00:37

I hearby derail this thread.

I can already hear the Mods yelling at us. :(

New Tet

5th August 2009, 00:37

Nonsense. History isn't a methodology used by other scientific disciplines.

What tripe!

In medicine, history is an important methodology to ascertain the origin and course of a disease in an organism. (you know the little charts they normally place at the foot of a patient's bed? It's often referred to by physicians and nurses as a 'history'.)

Likewise genetics! What is genetics if not the study of a thing, its past and and its present?

Sir, you take history much too lightly!

StalinFanboy

5th August 2009, 00:43

I have yet to see Bud Struggle say anything of intelligence. They sell things? Yeah, that's because we live in a capitalist society where people need money to survive.

Bud Struggle

5th August 2009, 00:49

I have yet to see Bud Struggle say anything of intelligence. They sell things? Yeah, that's because we live in a capitalist society where people need money to survive.

Oh I understand how it works--I just admire the IRONY of it all. After the Revolution we still can have a little bit of a sense of humor, can't we? ;)

StalinFanboy

5th August 2009, 00:54

Oh I understand how it works--I just admire the IRONY of it all. After the Revolution we still can have a little bit of a sense of humor, can't we? ;)
There's no irony at all. Despite the huge progress they've made in their communities, they are still part of the larger global capitalist market. Sounds to me like you have some sort of ridiculous fantasy version of what revolutionary struggle is. Not that I'm really surprised by this. It seems like you just come on here to talk shit, and say stupid things.

Bud Struggle

5th August 2009, 01:05

There's no irony at all. Despite the huge progress they've made in their communities, they are still part of the larger global capitalist market. Sounds to me like you have some sort of ridiculous fantasy version of what revolutionary struggle is. Not that I'm really surprised by this. It seems like you just come on here to talk shit, and say stupid things.

Sorry Comrade,

I'm just pointing out the facts. You could draw your own conclusions. But if these guys aren't in charge of their own lives and are selling trinkets to the Revolutionary vactioners--then the whole thing is like some ride at Disney World where you visit the "natives" and then move on to the next exhibit.

Either the Rebels are for REAL or not.

Pogue

5th August 2009, 01:08

Jesus fucking christ you talk such utter SHIT.

Bud Struggle

5th August 2009, 01:21

Jesus fucking christ you talk such utter SHIT.

You think?

I'm just taking things at FACE value. I'm taking EXACTLY the same criteria that you (Athiests and Communists) give to the world and applying it equally across the board. To EVERYTHING.

No holds barred. Little by little it reduces everything to meaninglessness.

This is the world you are wishing for, Pogue.

StalinFanboy

5th August 2009, 01:55

You think?

I'm just taking things at FACE value. I'm taking EXACTLY the same criteria that you (Athiests and Communists) give to the world and applying it equally across the board. To EVERYTHING.

No holds barred. Little by little it reduces everything to meaninglessness.

This is the world you are wishing for, Pogue.
You don't even make sense.

Pogue

5th August 2009, 01:56

Seirously, the muppet talks compelte shit, its what I've been saying all along.

5th August 2009, 08:54

And if the Gackmeinster and Pogue think I haven't learned anything about Communism--here's just the chance for me to prove them wrong.

I can talk the talk.

Either of you gentlemen want to come along? (You have to promise--no killing me in my sleep! :D)

It's doubtful you can talk Spanish, also it's more likely the Zapatistas will kill you in your sleep, they probably don't like factory owners much, even if you do have a "good working relationship" with your workers.

I can certainly imagine an Ace Ventura: when nature calls scenario at his factory though. Bud Struggle disappearing.. news of his disappearance hitting home at his factory.

And a workplace party being thrown ahem "in his honour". :cool: All on Revleft invited to dance over a picture of him.

RGacky3

5th August 2009, 15:09

Quote:
Originally Posted by RGacky3 http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-class-war-t113768/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-class-war-t113768/showthread.php?p=1509275#post1509275)
Our revolution is for the the real world and for the future, the mexican zapatista revolt and the spanish revolution were very different, the same will be for other revolutions.
What in the world makes you think we are all going to end up Zapatistas? That being said--I may fly down there and see what the fuss is all about. I here they do a booming tourist business catering to vacationing revolutionaries.

My quote, answers your questions.

I said we are NOT going to all be Zapatistas, revolutions will look different in different areas and cultures, the principles are the same (freedom is freedom everywhere), I specifically said I used those only as examples, not as a framework.

You don't read do you.

I hear for a few dollars you can get an authentic Subcommandante Marcos autographed pipe.

Its great they are making a living from tourism, although now everything goes to the people.

I'm going there. I'll take pictures. I'll report back. I did the same when I joined the IWW. I'll even buy you a pipe.

And remember this is RevLeft--we mock those we don't agree with. Just visit the religion forum to see. http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-class-war-t113768/revleft/smilies/wink.gif

(FYI- I worked and my parents worked to get me where I am.)

I have to agree with pogue here, typical wealthy dude arrogance, I'll spend a weekend in Chiapas and then understand report back.

Just imagen if other people did that to America, we'll check it out for a weekened see if its really free and report back.

The same type of guy that spends a week living in hostels backpacking in eastern europe and then thinks he understands poverty. Arrogance.

I was, am, and always will remain a Proletarian kind'a guy.

Yeah, and Al Gore is hip with the young people.

I can talk the talk.

Going on little vacatiosn is not talking the talk, and I would love to go if I had such freedom (i.e. money).

Oh I understand how it works--I just admire the IRONY of it all. After the Revolution we still can have a little bit of a sense of humor, can't we?

Sure, but if its not funny now, it won't be funny then, glen beck and you are not funny before or after any revolution.

Sorry Comrade,

I'm just pointing out the facts. You could draw your own conclusions. But if these guys aren't in charge of their own lives and are selling trinkets to the Revolutionary vactioners--then the whole thing is like some ride at Disney World where you visit the "natives" and then move on to the next exhibit.

Either the Rebels are for REAL or not.

I have yet to see what is wrong with the people in the Zapatista territories making a living for themselves. Also, coffee is the biggest industry for hte Zapatistas if I'm not mistaken.

Selling souveniers to tourists does'nt change the fact that its a free socialist society, with self governance and economic democracy.

I also have the feeling that if you do go down to Chiapas, you'll be the same arrogant dick you are here and most likely won't get far, but good luck anywho.

Bud Struggle

5th August 2009, 22:17

To get into Zapatista territory his credentials would need to check out. He could of course pop into Oventic and buy some coffee from them and get a picture of a mural, but that is not quite the same. Any fat tourist with a camera can waddle into that one. He'd need to hand over his passport, some sort of membership credentials to some sort of organisation, and a signed endorsement letter by a Zapatista solidarity group. The Zapatista Junta are still not necessarily going to accept it. I have been rejected applications to Zapatista territory before, and a friend of mine imprisoned by them, and this was all above board with serious intentions.

All this will be made harder by the fact that the EZLN cut ties with the volunteer brigades in 2008 and is preparing for armed conflict.

Well, actually thanks for this information. I may be able to buy a good deal of coffee from them I have friends in the canteen business and they might be interested in a new source of interesting coffee. Maybe a "Subcomandante Blend" I'll have to think about that. If I buy enough maybe they'll make me a "Hero of the Revolution or something. :)

I wonder if I could get anywhere with my Communist Party USA membership card. I'll have to check that out.

I'm not much interested in being in any "armed conflict" though. And FU--I'm not sure if I would "trust" your letter of recommendation. Thanks for the offer though.

And FYI: my ownership of a factory probably won't come up in conversation. ;)

Forward Union

5th August 2009, 23:02

Oh I understand how it works--I just admire the IRONY of it all. After the Revolution we still can have a little bit of a sense of humor, can't we? ;)

Being such a fan of Marcos you'd no doubt be familiar with his quote "The revolution must have an element of humor, or the new world will turn out square, and won't go round"

Forward Union

5th August 2009, 23:05

Well, actually thanks for this information. I may be able to buy a good deal of coffee from them I have friends in the canteen business and they might be interested in a new source of interesting coffee. Maybe a "Subcomandante Blend" I'll have to think about that. If I buy enough maybe they'll make me a "Hero of the Revolution or something. :)

They already ship the coffee internationally, Cafe Rebelde Zapatista. Purchasable here (http://www.ethicallyessential.coop/view_page.php?pid=20&ptitle=Cafe+Rebelde) Although it's impossible to tell, a percentage of zapatista produce goes to funding the people, the rest is used as tax for the EZLN. So, buy all you can afford ;)

I'm not much interested in being in any "armed conflict" though. And FU--I'm not sure if I would "trust" your letter of recommendation. Thanks for the offer though.Well that wont be happening any time soon, although the ERPI, EPR, and FARP all proclaim that there will be a civil war next year, and have produced videos of themselves training, some of the footage is here
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saAInfymQRs)

Bud Struggle

5th August 2009, 23:23

They already ship the coffee internationally, Cafe Rebelde Zapatista. Purchasable here (http://www.ethicallyessential.coop/view_page.php?pid=20&ptitle=Cafe+Rebelde) Although it's impossible to tell, a percentage of zapatista produce goes to funding the people, the rest is used as tax for the EZLN. So, buy all you can afford ;) Did just that! Freakin' cool. I'm going to serve the coffee (for free, of course--I mean you can't charge people for Anarchist coffee, can you?) to people who buy bread from my daughter's baking company.

Well that wont be happening any time soon, although the ERPI, EPR, and FARP all proclaim that there will be a civil war next year, and have produced videos of themselves training, some of the footage is here
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saAInfymQRs) Foward Union--you are a pretty cool guy, you are not one of those "all talk" Anarchists that you see running around this place. And FWIW: Even I, a Capitalist, thinks Mexico need a good Revolution or two the place politically and economically is a sewer.