To be honest I am a Progressive Democrat

[tradeunionsupporter]

To be honest I am a Progressive Democrat with that being said can I only post in Opposing Ideologies ? To be honest I thought this forum was for everyone on the Left not just Communists.

[Holden Caulfield]

you will have to post in OI. it is a forum for revolutionary leftists, hence the name.

what exactly do you mean by a progressive democrat may I ask? Democrats if they were in england would be to the right of the Conservative Party so it wouldn't be very radical for you to be a progressive one of them in my eyes.

[IcarusAngel]

How come progressive democrats can't even stand up to Libertarian and conservative rhetoric anymore? They do nothing to argue for real, progressive change and in fact hamper efforts to move towards a better society because they say they are for freedom and equality, yet, under their leadership, we have more inequality and thus less freedom.

There really is no such thing as a 'progressive democrat' in the US anymore since the democrats sold out in the 80s.

[bcbm]

its cool, i am too

[tradeunionsupporter]

I don't agree with Communism and Socialism because I believe that individuals have the right to become Wealthy by being CEOS or Shareholders of Corporations. Also I can't be a Marxist because I am a Christian. I do however have respect for all of you in the sense that you care about Workers I just don't think Marxism is the way to go. I also don't mind posting in Opposing Ideologies.

[IcarusAngel]

There is nothing wrong with an individual getting somewhat ahead of another provided that it was a fair competition and the superior individual truly proved he was better capable of, say, running the resources. That's closer to 'natural inequality' which many people here (most?) do not have problems with.

The problem is in capitalism there is in capitalism the competition is between two runners, where the capitalist gets to start five feet away from the finishing line. This is because there is an inequality of conditions. This is wrong and prevents the truly superior from succeeding.

Furthermore, even though some individuals might receive more resources since they are contributing to the public good more, that gives them no right to have complete domination over the workers, as it exists now in capitalist countries. One or two corporations own vasts amounts of land and are virtually impossible to compete with due to their state protection and monopolistic practices.

You don't have to be 'marxist' to be leftist; there are many non-Marxian, leftist ideologies. There are also many Marxists who say they believe in the Christian concept of a 'god.' To be a leftist means you want to end domination of man by man, that you want to end non-egalitarian societies that are inefficient and ultimately unproductive i.e. Gilded Age style capitalism.

[Dejavu]

Welcome, I see you were greeted by some friendlies in the neighborhood. We shall commence shoving ideology down throat , now ! Eh Icarus? ;)

[tradeunionsupporter]

I am also an Internationalist in the sense I support Trade Unions in all Countries not just American Trade Unions I support International Trade Unions.

[IcarusAngel]

Well, since he didn't post in inmate's introductions I thought jumping right into politics was more than appropriate. Tradeunionist also sounds like he came here to learn.

What is your position on property tradeunionist? Do you understand how it can be tyrannical? That's another whole part of being a leftist, understanding that since we all need some property in order to survive it should be distributed in a fair way.


I recommend reading Bertrand Russell's The Principles of Social Reconstruction to ease your way into criticisms of private proeprty.

[Dejavu]

I think I'm a Nothingist now.

[Dejavu]

Well, since he didn't post in inmate's introductions I thought jumping right into politics was more than appropriate. Tradeunionist also sounds like he came here to learn.

What is your position on property tradeunionist? Do you understand how it can be tyrannical? That's another whole part of being a leftist, understanding that since we all need some property in order to survive it should be distributed in a fair way.


I recommend reading Bertrand Russell's The Principles of Social Reconstruction to ease your way into criticisms of private proeprty.

Cool, I'm gonna track you and call out when you spew ideology and when you write reason and facts. You know why? Because I care. :blushing:
libertarian love @ Icarus :):blushing::drool:

[tradeunionsupporter]

I came here to learn yes but I also came here because I have respect for Socialists because you support Working people. I support the right to private property. I really did not come here to debate I came here because I agree that Class is important.

[Skooma Addict]

I support the right to private property.

Do you think it is wrong to violate a persons right to property? For example, is it wrong for me to take something from you against your will?

[GPDP]

I think I'm a Nothingist now.

What does this entail exactly? Or are you just joking around?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Yes it is wrong.

[Dejavu]

What does this entail exactly? Or are you just joking around?

There is sarcasm here but also seriousness. Nothingism , try it.

[GPDP]

There is sarcasm here but also seriousness. Nothingism , try it.

Well, I won't say I'm a nothingist, but I will say I cannot classify myself squarely into any sect or tendency anymore. I used to call myself an anarchist, but while I still sympathize with anarchism, I cannot honestly keep calling myself an anarchist anymore. I am still a revolutionary socialist and communist, but further than that, I will not lock myself down into any one group within the left.

[Skooma Addict]

Yes it is wrong.

So if a group of people form some kind of racket in the area you live in, say the mafia for example, and they then force everyone to pay them money every year, you would say this is immoral, correct? Lets say the mafia tries to justify their actions by saying they will use the stolen money to buy new TVs for everyone, and they will pocket the rest. You would still view the theft as wrong, correct?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Yes

[Steve_j]

I think more importantly, what about seizing (or stealing if you will) the means of production to better the lives of the majority?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Also I can't be a Marxist because I am a Christian.I quote Reagan Youth "Jesus was a communist"

Also. You support people getting rich, but do you support them doing so at the expense of other people? Do you support a society where the top 1% holds more wealth than the bottom 95%?

You have to ask yourself. What is important?

What's important is preventing the exploitation of the proletariat. What is important is creating a free, equal and classless society.

Please read The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Research Marxism more. Hell, use wikipedia to do it if you have to. I feel your perspective would change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Also I can't be a Marxist because I am a Christian.
*ahem* As a Christian Marxist, I beg to differ. :)


I don't agree with Communism and Socialism because I believe that individuals have the right to become Wealthy by being CEOS or Shareholders of Corporations.
Hmm, but shareholders do not do any work whatsoever. They earn money from other people's work (the work of those employed by the company in which they hold shares) simply by holding on to a piece of paper that grants them "property rights."


I do however have respect for all of you in the sense that you care about Workers I just don't think Marxism is the way to go. I also don't mind posting in Opposing Ideologies.
Thank you. However, are you familiar with the main tenets of Marxism?


I support the right to private property.
Why do you support private property? Private property allows some people (those who hold enough such property) to gain money without working. Corporate shareholders are an example, but the same holds true for every capitalist. Let me explain. In capitalism, every employee works using means of production (i.e. tools, machines, and other such things) that are the property of his employer. The product of his work also becomes the property of his employer. In exchange for this, the employee receives a salary. But this salary has no connection with the actual value of the product that the employee produces, or with the work he puts into it.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. You see, labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and the amount of money they are willing to work for. Essentially, his wage depends almost entirely on what other people do.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. Profit comes from the difference between what the worker rightfully earns and the salary he gets. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.


So if a group of people form some kind of racket in the area you live in, say the mafia for example, and they then force everyone to pay them money every year, you would say this is immoral, correct? Lets say the mafia tries to justify their actions by saying they will use the stolen money to buy new TVs for everyone, and they will pocket the rest. You would still view the theft as wrong, correct?
Allow me to interrupt your silly little attempt to play the Socrates game by beating you to the punchline.

Tradeunionsupporter, you should know that Olaf is a supporter of extreme capitalism, and he is asking you all these questions because he wants to persuade you that the state is just like the mafia - and that taxes are like a racket.

This is nonsense, for many different reasons. The first that comes to mind is that the state is democratic - elected by the people - while the mafia is not. Secondly, everything Olaf might say about the state is also true about private landlords. Historically, taxes developed from land rents.

[Skooma Addict]

Tradeunionsupporter, you should know that Olaf is a supporter of extreme capitalism, and he is asking you all these questions because he wants to persuade you that the state is just like the mafia - and that taxes are like a racket.

This is nonsense, for many different reasons. The first that comes to mind is that the state is democratic - elected by the people - while the mafia is not.

No I am not, lol. I am seeing what he believes so I know what reading I should recommend to him.

[Skooma Addict]

Yes

So what is about the government that makes you think that it should be allowed to seize wealth?

[MarxSchmarx]

OP:



I support the right to private property. I really did not come here to debate I came here because I agree that Class is important.

I think you are confused. We are only opposed to "Private property" insofar as it creates wealth by virtue of ownership. We are not opposed to, say, considering one's toothbrush or even house "private property". What we are opposed to is people using their legal deeds on something to be able to derive a living off of the legal deed and nothing else. This is called parasitism, and to conflate it with, say, somebody who grows their own vegetables is at the heart of our critique of capitalism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

No I am not [going to claim the state is like the mafia], lol.

So what is about the government that makes you think that it should be allowed to seize wealth?
Olaf, you just said one thing and then did the exact opposite in the next post.

If I may give the communist answer: It's not the government that matters here, but the wealth being seized. We believe all the wealth of the capitalists was immorally acquired - stolen, in other words - from the working class. And we want to give it back to the working class.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Sorry to change the subject but I like that the Soviet Union banned Pornography and Prostitution.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Let me ask you all this under Communism will people still work since I have read there is no money under Communism.

[Dejavu]

Let me ask you all this under Communism will people still work since I have read there is no money under Communism.

Nobody will have to work under communism because everything they can possibly need will already be provided for.
You see, during the revolution , economic planners will be able to plan out superior forms of production in this 'transitional socialism' and create a post-scarce world. After that , the state withers away and communism takes its place.

[red cat]

Let me ask you all this under Communism will people still work since I have read there is no money under Communism.The existence of money is not a pre-condition for people to work. Money was absent in ancient societies too.

[RGacky3]

Nobody will have to work under communism because everything they can possibly need will already be provided for.
You see, during the revolution , brilliant economic planners , like here on Revleft , will be able to plan out superior forms of production in this 'transitional socialism' and create a post-scarce world. After that , everyone accepts communism. The end.

I love how I'm restricted, but this dude is'nt. :).



Let me ask you all this under Communism will people still work since I have read there is no money under Communism.


Depends how you define 'work' if you have a garden and you take care of it, is it work? Is fixing your house "work"? Is taking out the trash work? Under communism (which is defined as a classless stateless society, which by definition was not the USSR or any of the other socalled socialist states), there is no ownership, so everyone will essencially be their own boss, only in partnership with everyone else, or at least in partnership with those who are concerned with whatever is being done. So will their be work in the sense of doing work that someone else will profit from for a wage? No, but will you actually do things to make your life comfortable and nice? Probably, will that mean cooperating with other people? Probably too.

[Dejavu]

I love how I'm restricted, but this dude is'nt. :).

It is not forbidden to be humorous. However, it is a bit silly that you are restricted simply because of your pro-life stance. There are Christian socialists around here as well that are unrestricted while you are. :confused:

[tradeunionsupporter]

When I asked it will there be Work I meant will there be Jobs for wages and money under Communism.

[Dejavu]

When I asked it will there be Work I meant will there be Jobs for wages and money under Communism.

No, no wages or money. It would rather be based on gift economy. "From each according to their ability to each according to their need" sort of ethic.

[RGacky3]

When I asked it will there be Work I meant will there be Jobs for wages and money under Communism.


Who's gonna pay you wages when your working for yourself? When you cook yourself dinner, who pays you? No one, you get to eat dinner.

[Jazzratt]

Nobody will have to work under communism because everything they can possibly need will already be provided for.
You see, during the revolution , economic planners will be able to plan out superior forms of production in this 'transitional socialism' and create a post-scarce world. After that , the state withers away and communism takes its place.

And you burst into floods of tears whenever someone has the temerity to present a "strawman" (i.e criticism) of your market worship :rolleyes:

[Dejavu]

And you burst into floods of tears whenever someone has the temerity to present a "strawman" (i.e criticism) of your market worship :rolleyes:

No, this was exactly my point to construct a strawman and just dogmatically parade it as truth. I am actually reciprocating.

[Robert]

When you cook yourself dinner, who pays you?

When you buy the ingredients for your dinner, whom do you pay? With what do you pay? Or will we be giving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy) them to you?

Do you know what is involved in making bacon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon)? Or tofu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofu)?

[Jimmie Higgins]

When I asked it will there be Work I meant will there be Jobs for wages and money under Communism.

In communism as Marxists and anarchists understand it there is a classless and stateless society. No one knows exactly how future people will figure out the best way to run things, but radicals here have many different ideas about how it could possibly be done.

Asking about specifics in a future kind of society is kind of like someone in Maine in the 1810s asking about how job placement for former slaves would work if slavery is abolished.

As a socialist, I think immediately after a revolution there may be some kind of currency while democratically elected representatives from workplaces and communities work out how to prioritize the needs of different areas and industries and people. So there would be a lot of jobs that would suddenly become redundant (like selling advertising space or being a vendor that tries to convince stores to carry product X instead of identical competing product Y) while other jobs like teaching and professional training would be in high demand. In this temortary time, some jobs may have more work to do and I think probably people would decide some kind of reward or payment for volunteering to do extra hours.

Once mosty production has been transformed from a profit-making activity to a needs and wants-meeting activity then hours can be reduced equally and the goal of most workplaces would be (since it would be decided on by the workers at the site themselves) to make work more engaging and productive while making it as unobtrusive as possible. For example, why shoud one person always have to empty the office trash? Why not divide it up like households so that you have a rotating schedule where everyone who is able has to dump the office papers into the recycling once a month?

So to me, socialism and communism have nothing to do with everyone receiving the same low wage and everyone having identical rationed clothes or car or TV or whatnot, it's changing the basis of production for use and want and decided on democratically rather than a system based on the profit-motive and inequality.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

How can one be both pro-trade union and believe people have the right to get wealthy via trading and holding shares?

Its two opposing camps. Employees are usually the largest expense a company will have to deal with. Throwing in healthcare, more pay, pension, dental, no layoffs, shorter work week, workers comp, and not outsourcing to pakistan doesn't exactly bode well for shareholders. And thru that the govt.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I do however have respect for all of you in the sense that you care about Workers I just don't think Marxism is the way to go. I also don't mind posting in Opposing Ideologies.

Wow, that's the most polite burn I've ever seen in my life O_O

Also, you can be Christian and Marxist. I'm not (Marxist that is) but only because it's like the Kennedy family of radical politics; nothing really productive about it but it's been around along time, has alot of influence, and people love to kiss it's ass.

[#FF0000]

Also, you can be Christian and Marxist. I'm not (Marxist that is) but only because it's like the Kennedy family of radical politics; nothing really productive about it but it's been around along time, has alot of influence, and people love to kiss it's ass.

Every time you say this I feel compelled to point out that you know less than shit about marxism.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Every time you say this I feel compelled to point out that you know less than shit about marxism.

I know enough about it:


Dialectical Materialism and Thesis, Anti-Thesis, Synthesis formula of how that works itself out.


Marx is based alot on Hegel except that Marx was almost in starch contrast to Hegel's excultation of the State.


Marx never meant for a permanent worker's State to remain in power; his idea of revolution wasn't vanguardian but relied on the proletariat mass to rise up itself and directly seize the means of production. After this, a period of socialism under a worker's State was to take place so as to secure the proletariat's power; the final stage ending in communism with no class, no state, and the means of production owned by all.


Marx first put this revolution into detail via the Communist Manifesto and later detailed the economic aspects of the economic situation of that time in Capital Vol. 1. He died before finishing his work and Engels wrote Vol. 2 and Vol. 3 based off of Marx's notes and writings.


The most interesting aspect of Marx, for me anyway, is his analysis of history and how major changes in society happened. Whether through conflict between monarchies and the Church or serfs and land-lords, he made clear the economic function that motivated changes in politics/State, etc.

This might not be detailed but this is what I can tell you off the top of my head. I've also studied Lenin, Trotsky, the Russian Revolution, Mao, and a little bit of Fidel Castro. I'm not a Marxist now but there was a time when I was a very committed member of the YCL-USA and all I could talk about was communism. I hold nothing against it's advocates but from how I've seen it develop when applied on nation-wide scales, I think Marxism is not the path in which to seek a revolution. I couldn't say what that path should be since anarchism is very broad and ideas among anarchists differ from one extreme to the other depending on the issue.

[Pogue]

the philosophy of the wolf is the only answer :lol:

[Rosa Provokateur]

the philosophy of the wolf is the only answer :lol:

Nice :redstar2000:
http://www.stalkingtheflock.com/thewolf.html

[RGacky3]

When you buy the ingredients for your dinner, whom do you pay? With what do you pay? Or will we be giving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy) them to you?

Do you know what is involved in making bacon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon)? Or tofu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofu)?

Yeah I know, my point was that "work" in a capitalist sense, is not the only way to get things done.


I think Marxism is not the path in which to seek a revolution. I couldn't say what that path should be since anarchism is very broad and ideas among anarchists differ from one extreme to the other depending on the issue.

Whats your path? International hug day?

[Rosa Provokateur]

Whats your path? International hug day?

More along the lines of a hardcore April Fools Day but extended into a year instead of just a day. Pranks, vandalism, sabotage; all on major infrastructure and all in the most extreme ways possible.

[#FF0000]

More along the lines of a hardcore April Fools Day but extended into a year instead of just a day. Pranks, vandalism, sabotage; all on major infrastructure and all in the most extreme ways possible.

And then when the cops or military come down and try to stop all this, then we hug.

[Rosa Provokateur]

And then when the cops or military come down and try to stop all this, then we hug.

Why would we do that?

[#FF0000]

Why would we do that?

Wait are you saying you're dropping the pacifism bit? Or at least accepting that self defense is permissible?

[RGacky3]

More along the lines of a hardcore April Fools Day but extended into a year instead of just a day. Pranks, vandalism, sabotage; all on major infrastructure and all in the most extreme ways possible.

That accomplishes what exactly? Except for you being a clown.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Wait are you saying you're dropping the pacifism bit? Or at least accepting that self defense is permissible?

Depends on that they're using and how bad the situation is.

Self-defense can't be entirely ruled out as a tactic but if it has to be used it should be non-lethal and only as a last-resort; I would be more in favor of sabotage designed to stop their advance: taking out bridges, parking cars in their path and setting them on fire, etc.

[Jazzratt]

Depends on that they're using and how bad the situation is. I'd opt for using tear-gas, etc.

So what you propose is we deliberately fuck up the infrastructure that many working class people rely on and when the cops/military come calling we use tear gas (which, by the way, hurts like a motherfucker)? I take it that you're aware that 1) this will endear you to precisly no one and 2) the goons that come calling for you are likely to have gasmasks, teargas, batons and sadistic proclivities of their own.

[Rosa Provokateur]

That accomplishes what exactly? Except for you being a clown.

http://www.smeltproductions.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/joker.jpg

Your point?

[Rosa Provokateur]

So what you propose is we deliberately fuck up the infrastructure that many working class people rely on and when the cops/military come calling we use tear gas (which, by the way, hurts like a motherfucker)? I take it that you're aware that 1) this will endear you to precisly no one and 2) the goons that come calling for you are likely to have gasmasks, teargas, batons and sadistic proclivities of their own.

That's why I edited the post.

Not all infrastructure, just key infrastructure. Anything market-based or State-based. Stores could be left alone I suppose but it'd depend on their business.

[Pogue]

That's why I edited the post.

Not all infrastructure, just key infrastructure. Anything market-based or State-based. Stores could be left alone I suppose but it'd depend on their business.

Why is it that you only seem to be attracted to shit ideas?

[Rosa Provokateur]

Why is it that you only seem to be attracted to shit ideas?

Well it seems more workable than what we've been doing: organizing political parties, writing papers, doing graffiti, etc. I think a massive attack against the organs of both market and State would do alot of good as far as revolutionary action is concerned.

[Pogue]

Well it seems more workable than what we've been doing: organizing political parties, writing papers, doing graffiti, etc. I think a massive attack against the organs of both market and State would do alot of good as far as revolutionary action is concerned.

Yeh, we should atack it with all these people and weapons we have. Cos we totally wont get arrested and will acheive alot.

And of course this is all we need to do to fight a revolution to overthrow capitalism and the state, of course, how silly of me.

You sugegst the most ridiculous of things.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Yeh, we should atack it with all these people and weapons we have. Cos we totally wont get arrested and will acheive alot.

And of course this is all we need to do to fight a revolution to overthrow capitalism and the state, of course, how silly of me.

You suggest the most ridiculous of things.

Sabotage is most always done in ways designed to prevent apprehension so the fear of being caught, while realistic, shouldn't be over-riding and all-consuming.

I never said it was the end-all method, merely a way to help get things in motion and soften the State for the future.

I'm just coming up with what I can based on the knowledge I have. If you've got something better, by all means, go ahead.

[RGacky3]

Your point?

Your an idiot.


I never said it was the end-all method, merely a way to help get things in motion and soften the State for the future.

IT does'nt soften the state, and definately does'nt soften the ruling class, again, your just being a clown.


I'm just coming up with what I can based on the knowledge I have. If you've got something better, by all means, go ahead.

Community and industrial organizing, creating working class organizations that can counter the ruling class, syndicalism, community action so on.

[Comrade Gwydion]

So if a group of people form some kind of racket in the area you live in, say the mafia for example, and they then force everyone to pay them money every year, you would say this is immoral, correct? Lets say the mafia tries to justify their actions by saying they will use the stolen money to buy new TVs for everyone, and they will pocket the rest. You would still view the theft as wrong, correct?

Haha. Funny.

Tax = theft you're basically trying to say?
Well, luckily you missed me in the first strike: I do not support private property.

[h9socialist]

And you call yourself a "Junior Revolutionary?" You're kidding!

[Jazzratt]

And you call yourself a "Junior Revolutionary?" You're kidding!

No the board software assigns that name to him automatically.

[SouthernBelle82]

I don't agree with Communism and Socialism because I believe that individuals have the right to become Wealthy by being CEOS or Shareholders of Corporations. Also I can't be a Marxist because I am a Christian. I do however have respect for all of you in the sense that you care about Workers I just don't think Marxism is the way to go. I also don't mind posting in Opposing Ideologies.

LOL if you think you can't be a Marxist because you're a Christian I lol at that. I'm a Christian and I'm a Marxist-Leninist.