Can Right Be Alright?

[CH405]

Of course, I hate the right wing as much as any other Marxist, but perhaps it's going to be a bit shaky?

I was thinking: maybe we can add some mildly right-wing aspects to our Marxist-Leninist world (laws against murder, theft, harmful drugs, etc)> What's your take on this?

[jake williams]

No. Marxism is pro-murder. It's because of dialectics.

[CH405]

No. Marxism is pro-murder. It's because of dialectics.

This is why we can't be taken seriously by the older audience.

[GracchusBabeuf]

http://z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/w/7/eating_babies2.jpg

We eat babies here.:)

[Nolan]

Come on. Murder is cool. Comrade Hitler says so, so it must be true. :)

[CH405]

Reported

[RHIZOMES]

Because in the USSR murder and theft were totally legal.

[CH405]

Because in the USSR murder and theft were totally legal.

The USSR had some right-wing aspects...

[Nolan]

Um. You spelled weepers wrong, troll. And proverb.

[Raúl Duke]

:lol:

[sarmchain]

Of course, I hate the right wing as much as any other Marxist, but perhaps it's going to be a bit shaky?

I was thinking: maybe we can add some mildly right-wing aspects to our Marxist-Leninist world (laws against murder, theft, harmful drugs, etc)> What's your take on this?
how the hell are laws against murder and theft "right wing" ??? :confused:

[GPDP]

what the fuck is going on in this thread

[Nolan]

how the hell are laws against murder and theft "right wing" ??? :confused:

Please don't feed the troll. They're gonna bring up something about communists "stealing" from capitalists.

[rednordman]

I Think the real question that needs posing here is whether it can be defined as specifically right-wing to have laws against murder, harmfull drugs, etc?

[Il Medico]

The USSR had some right-wing aspects...
Some?

[Nwoye]

communists have always been anti-life duh

[Durruti's Ghost]

1) There is nothing "right-wing" about laws against murder.

2) There is nothing "right-wing" about laws against theft of personal property, though I would question whether they would be necessary.

3) Drug abusers need help, not punishment.

...lol

[Dimentio]

As a serious reply to a totally unenlightened original post:

Right-wing (conservative) and left-wing (progressive) are social constructions, and dependent on the time period and its values, as well as on different places. I wouldn't say that tougher penalties for crimes are either left-wing or right-wing, but rather more or less authoritarian. The authoritarian-libertarian axis could be said to represent another dimension of the system (though most western countries tend to see a correspondence between libertarian social values and left-wing politics).

[Pirate Utopian]

I think I smell a troll I do.

[CH405]

1) There is nothing "right-wing" about laws against murder.

2) There is nothing "right-wing" about laws against theft of personal property, though I would question whether they would be necessary.

3) Drug abusers need help, not punishment.

Yes, they are, indeed, right-wing, since they limit freedom in exchange for security. Right vs left is security vs freedom.We like our freedom, and fascists like their safety. That's the bottom line.


Right-wing (conservative) and left-wing (progressive) are social constructions, and dependent on the time period and its values, as well as on different places. I wouldn't say that tougher penalties for crimes are either left-wing or right-wing, but rather more or less authoritarian. The authoritarian-libertarian axis could be said to represent another dimension of the system (though most western countries tend to see a correspondence between libertarian social values and left-wing politics).

Let's remember what we're talking about here. I'm implying "athoritarian" by saying "right". All rules imply athority other one's life, otherwise, they wouldn't be followed.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Yes, they are, indeed, right-wing, since they limit freedom in exchange for security. Right vs left is security vs freedom.We like our freedom, and fascists like their safety. That's the bottom line.


I would say left vs. right is more about progress vs. reaction, and that one of the elements of progress is greater freedom. If it were the only element, though, the most left-wing people in the world would be nihilists or primitivists--both of which I contend are reactionary.

[CH405]

I would say left vs. right is more about progress vs. reaction, and that one of the elements of progress is greater freedom. If it were the only element, though, the most left-wing people in the world would be nihilists or primitivists--both of which I contend are reactionary.

Ah, but what is progress?

Many would say that progress is technological or cultural advancement.

If this is true, then what we would consider to be "far-right" would be very left-wing, and vice versa.

All ideals of political ideology want progress, the only difference is the opinion on has to what progress is and how it should be obtained.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Ah, but what is progress?

Many would say that progress is technological or cultural advancement.

If this is true, then what we would consider to be "far-right" would be very left-wing, and vice versa.

All ideals of political ideology want progress, the only difference is the opinion on has to what progress is and how it should be obtained.

Progress as defined in a Marxist sense; "progressive" in the sense of advancing away from feudalism toward capitalism or away from capitalism toward socialism.

[CH405]

Progress as defined in a Marxist sense; "progressive" in the sense of advancing away from feudalism toward capitalism or away from capitalism toward socialism.

So fascism is progressive?

[Durruti's Ghost]

So fascism is progressive?

Umm... no. Fascism is a reactionary movement that seeks to "turn back the clock" to an idealized past. It's not a movement that advances capitalism at against feudalism or socialism against capitalism. It isn't progressive in the slightest.

[CH405]

Umm... no. Fascism is a reactionary movement that seeks to "turn back the clock" to an idealized past. It's not a movement that advances capitalism at against feudalism or socialism against capitalism. It isn't progressive in the slightest.

Really? Because I did research on Fascist history and almost all fascist countries advocate a "bright and glorious future under the Fuhrer/Duce/(place dicataor here)".

In economic terms, fascism is quite similar to socialism.

[Nolan]

In economic terms, fascism is quite similar to socialism.

Haha that's going in my sig.

[StalinFanboy]

I approve of this thread.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Really? Because I did research on Fascist history and almost all fascist countries advocate a "bright and glorious future under the Fuhrer/Duce/(place dicataor here)".

But that "future" they speak of is not a socialistic one; it is one in which the imagined glories of the past, of the idealized "nation", have been restored by purging said nation of unwanted, "foreign" elements.

This is all in theory, of course. In practice, governments led by fascists have simply been capitalist.


In economic terms, fascism is quite similar to socialism.

Hmm... let's see, smashing labor movements, murdering trade union leaders, encouraging class collaboration... You're right, fascism is super socialistic. :rolleyes:

[Nolan]

But that "future" they speak of is not a socialistic one; it is one in which the imagined glories of the past, of the idealized "nation", have been restored by purging said nation of unwanted, "foreign" elements.

This is all in theory, of course. In practice, governments led by fascists have simply been capitalist.



Hmm... let's see, smashing labor movements, murdering trade union leaders, encouraging class collaboration... You're right, fascism is super socialistic. :rolleyes:

Prediction:

"But the soviet union did that too! Glenn beck said so on the revolutionary holocaust!"

[CH405]

But that "future" they speak of is not a socialistic one; it is one in which the imagined glories of the past, of the idealized "nation", have been restored by purging said nation of unwanted, "foreign" elements.

This isn't "turning back the clock", but rather, trying to re-establish the integrity of a fallen people. This is why we have MLK Day!

This is all in theory, of course. In practice, governments led by fascists have simply been capitalist.

Not necessarily. Hitler, for example, was not capitalist. When he was 14, his mother died, and his father could no longer take care of him, so he had to work as a small-time painter in Vienna. He was actually quite socialistic.

Hmm... let's see, smashing labor movements, murdering trade union leaders, encouraging class collaboration... You're right, fascism is super socialistic. :rolleyes:

Communists have done that, too...


...

[Nolan]

...

:cool:

[StalinFanboy]

What does working for a small-time painter have to do with socialism?

[CH405]

What does working for a small-time painter have to do with socialism?

He was a small-time painter.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Prediction:

"But the soviet union did that too! Glenn beck said so on the revolutionary holocaust!"


Communists have done that, too...

:lol:

[Durruti's Ghost]

It's true that communists have committed reactionary actions at times. However, such reactionary actions have never been part of the political program of any communist--at least, not any real communists. I'm not interested in debating who is included in the group of "real communists", though. There's plenty of threads on that subject already.

[Nolan]

It's true that communists have committed reactionary actions at times. However, such reactionary actions have never been part of the political program of any communist--at least, not any real communists. I'm not interested in debating who is included in the group of "real communists", though. There's plenty of threads on that subject already.

You have a point. There were times - but they were isolated and based on necessity (and error, I admit), not ideology.

[CH405]

It's true that communists have committed reactionary actions at times. However, such reactionary actions have never been part of the political program of any communist--at least, not any real communists. I'm not interested in debating who is included in the group of "real communists", though. There's plenty of threads on that subject already.

So you admit that being reactionary doen not equal being right-wing?

[Panda Tse Tung]

This isn't "turning back the clock", but rather, trying to re-establish the integrity of a fallen people. This is why we have MLK Day!Re-establish? Was there ever? Integrity of the capitalists ought not to be confused with that of he working class.


Not necessarily. Hitler, for example, was not capitalist. When he was 14, his mother died, and his father could no longer take care of him, so he had to work as a small-time painter in Vienna. He was actually quite socialistic.This proves anything because? It only proves he was a painter.


Communists have done that, too...No they havent.

[Durruti's Ghost]

So you admit that being reactionary doen not equal being right-wing?

No, because a single reactionary action does not automatically make one a reactionary. You must also take into consideration the intentions behind and the effects of an action.
EDIT: And also, you know, all their other actions.

[CH405]

Re-establish? Was there ever? Integrity of the capitalists ought not to be confused with that of he working class.

It is the integrity of the people in general. You know that most people in the world are proletariat, right?

This proves anything because? It only proves he was a painter.

It proves that he was a proletariat, and that he supported the working class struggle.

No they havent.

Proof?


...

[CH405]

No, because a single reactionary action does not automatically make one a reactionary. You must also take into consideration the intentions behind and the effects of an action.
EDIT: And also, you know, all their other actions.

Indeed, but it does make one a hypocrite, and only the bourgeoisie support hypocrisy.

[StalinFanboy]

He was a small-time painter.
And? How does that make him a socialist?

[Nolan]

...

It proves he was a painter. Being a proletariat does not automatically make one a revolutionary leftist.

The burden of proof lies on the accuser.

[Nolan]

Indeed, but it does make one a hypocrite, and only the bourgeoisie support hypocrisy.

No, it means one is human and prone to error.

[CH405]

And? How does that make him a socialist?

If you read his book, Mein Kampf, you will find that he has great contempt for capitalism and the bourgeoisie.

[Panda Tse Tung]

It is the integrity of the people in general. You know that most people in the world are proletariat, right?

The proletariat is the majority and it's interests are fundamentally contradictory to that of the bourgeouisie. Thus there can be no integrity for the 'people in general'.



It proves that he was a proletariat, and that he supported the working class struggle.

Bo it proves he was petit-bourgeouisie. Also there we're working class people and are working class people in fascist movements. This is mostly caused by false consciousness. And does not prove Fascism is 'pro-working class'.


Proof?

Your reversing the burden of proof, you make claims you need to proof. How i can i prove something did NOT happen? By giving no sources? Well here you go all my non-sources:

[StalinFanboy]

If you read his book, Mein Kampf, you will find that he has great contempt for capitalism and the bourgeoisie.
sick?

[CH405]

No, it means one is human and prone to error.

Can it not be said that error can be evident in the form of hypocrisy?

[Panda Tse Tung]

If you read his book, Mein Kampf, you will find that he has great contempt for capitalism and the bourgeoisie.

Ffs, if anything Fascism only disaproves of Capitalism and the bourgeouisie in words. Which barely/not happened in Mein Kampf iirc. In practise it is a different story completely.

[CH405]

The proletariat is the majority and it's interests are fundamentally contradictory to that of the bourgeouisie. Thus there can be no integrity for the 'people in general'.

Hitler's fascism included the breaking down of class boundaries and glorifying the common man.

Bo it proves he was petit-bourgeouisie. Also there we're working class people and are working class people in fascist movements. This is mostly caused by false consciousness. And does not prove Fascism is 'pro-working class'.

Painters in Germany made little money, especially during Hitler's time. He was proletariat, and mostly associated with proletariats.

Your reversing the burden of proof, you make claims you need to proof. How i can i prove something did NOT happen? By giving no sources? Well here you go all my non-sources:

Actually, you are supposed to provide proof that the opposite occurred. Holocaust revisionaries have done this, and are quite successful.


...

[Panda Tse Tung]

Hitler's fascism included the breaking down of class boundaries and glorifying the common man.

There is no such thing as breaking down class boundaries when you still have a system of private ownership of the means of production.



Painters in Germany made little money, especially during Hitler's time. He was proletariat, and mostly associated with proletariats.

The amount of money one accumelates has shit to do with someones class.



Actually, you are supposed to provide proof that the opposite occurred. Holocaust revisionaries have done this, and are quite successful.

No i dont have to do anything. You claim Communists did all those things, prove it. Holocaust revisionists are only succesfull to those too lazy to study both aspects of the story. Also they give 'counter-proof' (not good one but un-important to the point) meaning that they counter proof given to proof the holocaust HAS occured. You have not proven ANYTHING has occured, so there is no counter-proof to give.

[CH405]

There is no such thing as breaking down class boundaries when you still have a system of private ownership of the means of production.

But it does when those who own the means of production to so through merit instead of heredity.

The amount of money one accumelates has shit to do with someones class.

Then what does constitute class in your eyes?

No i dont have to do anything. You claim Communists did all those things, prove it. Holocaust revisionists are only succesfull to those too lazy to study both aspects of the story. Also they give 'counter-proof' (not good one but un-important to the point) meaning that they counter proof given to proof the holocaust HAS occured. You have not proven ANYTHING has occured, so there is no counter-proof to give.

www DOT voxeu DOT org/index.php?q=node/1525

...

[Panda Tse Tung]

But it does when those who own the means of production to so through merit instead of heredity.

If i happen to be so lucky in the world of capitalism to run a succesfull business it does NOT give me the right to exploit people as wage-slaves. Nobody has this right whether by 'merit' (luck most of the time) or not.



Then what does constitute class in your eyes?

Ownership of the means of production.


www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1525

Sorry, but cant find any of the following:
"smashing labor movements, murdering trade union leaders, encouraging class collaboration."

[Nolan]

Glorifying the worker in state propaganda is not the same thing as seeking to give them control of the means of production.

[Durruti's Ghost]

the breaking down of class boundaries

Which, in Hitler's case, meant...ahem...class collaborationism. He sought to unite the bourgeoisie and proletariat under the banner of the State. He did not seek the overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat.

[CH405]

If i happen to be so lucky in the world of capitalism to run a succesfull business it does NOT give me the right to exploit people as wage-slaves. Nobody has this right whether by 'merit' (luck most of the time) or not.

Actually, under Hitler, workers enjoyed many state-funded luxuries, including higher wages and a "Stregnth through Joy" program.

Ownership of the means of production.

Hitler owned nothing of the sort whilst he was a painter.

Sorry, but cant find any of the following:
"smashing labor movements, murdering trade union leaders, encouraging class collaboration."

Implifications are a foreign language to you, aren't they?


...

[Panda Tse Tung]

Actually, under Hitler, workers enjoyed many state-funded luxuries, including higher wages and a "Stregnth through Joy" program.

Minimum wage was cut in half, many workers literally starved to death (source: blackskirts and reds, michael parenti).



Hitler owned nothing of the sort whilst he was a painter.

He did not own the equipment to make paintings?



Implifications are a foreign language to you, aren't they?

Those topics was what it was about, we're not talking about 'deaths' which is a completely different story. But about the working class.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yes, they are, indeed, right-wing, since they limit freedom in exchange for security. Right vs left is security vs freedom.We like our freedom, and fascists like their safety. That's the bottom line.

Huh?

[CH405]

Minimum wage was cut in half, many workers literally starved to death (source: blackskirts and reds, michael parenti).

This was just towards the end of the war, when the Allied powers bombed Germany's supply routes. Exploitation by the state had nothing to do with it.

He did not own the equipment to make paintings?

Do workers not own the equipment to create works of art from scratch?

Those topics was what it was about, we're not talking about 'deaths' which is a completely different story. But about the working class.

"Counter-revolutionary" implies working class heroes.


...

[Nolan]

...

That had nothing to do with it.

But I'll post this to own ya, troll.

http://sonic.net/~doretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/M%20P/Parenti%20on%20Fascism.html

[Panda Tse Tung]

This was just towards the end of the war, when the Allied powers bombed Germany's supply routes. Exploitation by the state had nothing to do with it.

If 1937 is the end of the war.



Do workers not own the equipment to create works of art from scratch?
No, my boss owns my equipment.


"Counter-revolutionary" implies working class heroes.
What are you talking about? Seriously...

[CH405]

That had nothing to do with it.

But I'll post this to own ya, troll.

(Lame, ameteur propaganda website)


I stopped reading when they said "False Rvolution".

[Panda Tse Tung]

That had nothing to do with it.

But I'll post this to own ya, troll.

http://sonic.net/~doretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/M%20P/Parenti%20on%20Fascism.html (http://sonic.net/%7Edoretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/M%20P/Parenti%20on%20Fascism.html)
Especially:



Who did Mussolini and Hitler support once they seized state power? In both countries a strikingly similar agenda was pursued. Labor unions and strikes were outlawed, union property and publications were confiscated, farm cooperatives were handed over to rich private owners, big agribusiness farming was heavily subsidized. In both Germany and Italy the already modest wages of the workers were cut drastically; in Germany, from 25-40%; in Italy, 50%. In both countries the minimum wage laws, overtime pay, and factory safety regulations were abolished or turned into dead letters. Taxes were increased for the general populace, but lowered or eliminated for the rich and big business. Inheritance taxes for the wealthy were greatly reduced or abolished. Both Mussolini and Hitler showed their gratitude to their business patrons by handing over to them publicly owned and perfectly solvent steel mills, power plants, banks, steamship companies ("privatization," it's called here). Both regimes dipped heavily into the public treasury to refloat or subsidize heavy industry (corporate welfarism). Both states guaranteed a return on the capital invested by giant corporations and assumed most of the risks and losses on investment. (Sounds like S&Ls, doesn't it?)



I stopped reading when they said "False Rvolution". Very mature. Clearly shows your open-mindedness towards other idea's.

[Nolan]

I stopped reading when they said "False Rvolution".

I stopped taking you seriously when you said "wheepers" and "provreb."

[CH405]

If 1937 is the end of the war.

Hitler's workers were quite happy in 1937. In fact, Germany before 1945 was in a golden age.

No, my boss owns my equipment.

But you do have the means to create (the computer you're using, for example). Does that make you bourgeoisie?

What are you talking about? Seriously...

Perhaps your comprehension skills lack.


...

[CH405]

I stopped taking you seriously when you said "wheepers" and "provreb."

Says the blatant racist.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Hitler's workers were quite happy in 1937. In fact, Germany before 1945 was in a golden age.

Have you actually talked to people who lived through that shit?



But you do have the means to create (the computer you're using, for example). Does that make you bourgeoisie?

Is it my way of making a living? No.



Perhaps your comprehension skills lack.

Perhaps your communicative skills lack.

[Nolan]

Hitler's workers were quite happy in 1937. In fact, Germany before 1945 was in a golden age.

No, it was getting its ass kicked by the USSR. Before that, the economy was doing somewhat well due to the spoils of war, yes.

[Nolan]

Says the blatant racist.


http://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/troll.jpg

[CH405]

Have you actually talked to people who lived through that shit?

Have you actually talked to people who lived through the USSR?

Is it my way of making a living? No.

Anyway, Hitler was not "petty bourgeoisie" because he had mo employees (Marx himself described the "petite bourgeoisie" as those who has one or a few subordinates). Hitler was a merchant, yes, but not bourgeoisie.

Perhaps your communicative skills lack

Perhaps your intelligence lacks.


...

[CH405]

(pic of himself)
your sig says "Destroying the Aryan race". That directly iomplies that you are prejudiced against Indo-Europeans.

[Nolan]

your sig says "Destroying the Aryan race". That directly iomplies that you are prejudiced against Indo-Europeans.

Nope. It's a parody of what your ilk claim we want to do. And to Hitler, "aryan" didn't mean Indo-Europeans.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Have you actually talked to people who lived through the USSR?
Yes, now back to the original question. Cause i know plenty of people who have lived through the fucking mess you call a paradise.


Anyway, Hitler was not "petty bourgeoisie" because he had mo employees (Marx himself described the "petite bourgeoisie" as those who has one or a few subordinates). Hitler was a merchant, yes, but not bourgeoisie.

Do your homework, he was petit-bourgeouisie.



Perhaps your intelligence lacks.

I doubt it, you dont seem to have extremely coherent positions. So it's 99% your communicative skill. Feel free to fill the other percentage with whatever you like.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Anyway, Hitler was not "petty bourgeoisie" because he had mo employees (Marx himself described the "petite bourgeoisie" as those who has one or a few subordinates). Hitler was a merchant, yes, but not bourgeoisie.

Actually, a petit-bourgeois is anyone who owns a sufficient portion of the means of production to be able to sustain himself/herself independent of a boss. S/he may or may not employ workers; however, s/he is distinguished from members of the bourgeoisie by his/her need to work the means of production s/he owns in order to survive. "Petit-bourgeois" does not necessarily mean "bad"; however, the interests of the petit-bourgeoisie are often at odds with those of the proletariat (though culturally they are often rather similar), and they can be quite reactionary at times.

[CH405]

Nope. It's a parody of what your ilk claim we want to do. And to Hitler, "aryan" didn't mean Indo-Europeans.

I was unaware of Marxists saying that Stalinists wanted to destroy the Aryan race...

And actually, Hitler had non-military SS in India, Nepal, and the Middle East to search for proof that the people indigenous to those lands are culturally linked to Germanic peoples.

[CH405]

[/B]

Actually, a petit-bourgeois is anyone who owns a sufficient portion of the means of production to be able to sustain himself/herself independent of a boss. S/he may or may not employ workers; however, s/he is distinguished from members of the bourgeoisie by his/her need to work the means of production s/he owns in order to survive. "Petit-bourgeois" does not necessarily mean "bad"; however, the interests of the petit-bourgeoisie are often at odds with those of the proletariat (though culturally they are often rather similar), and they can be quite reactionary at times.



Starting from the mid-19th century, the term was used by Karl Marx and Marxist theorists to refer to a social class that included shop-keepers and professionals. Though distinct from the ordinary working class and the lumpenproletariat, who rely entirely on the sale of their labor-power for survival, the petty is different from the haute bourgeoisie, or capitalist class, who own the means of production and buy the labor-power of others to work it. Though the petite bourgeois may buy the labor power of others, in contrast to the haute bourgeoisie, they typically work alongside their own employees; and although they generally own their own businesses, they do not own a controlling share of the means of production. More important, the means of production in the hands of the petite bourgeoisie do not generate enough surplus to be reinvested in production; as such, they cannot be reproduced in an amplified scale, or accumulated, and do not constitute capital properly. In modern usage "petite bourgeoisie", a class that lies between the workingmen and the capitalists, is often used, usually derisively, to refer to the consumption habits and tastes of the middle class and the lower middle class in particular. However, Marxist terminology relates the petite bourgeoisie exclusively to its relationship to the means of production and work rather than to tastes, habits of consumption, or lifestyle.


...

[Panda Tse Tung]

A. it's Wikipedia, not a source.
B. it contradicts everything you just said.

[Nolan]

...

That agrees with what Durruti said.

[CH405]

A. it's Wikipedia, not a source.
B. it contradicts everything you just said.

Since you distrust Wikipedia, then you must assume that the opposite is true.

[Nolan]

I was unaware of Marxists saying that Stalinists wanted to destroy the Aryan race...

And actually, Hitler had non-military SS in India, Nepal, and the Middle East to search for proof that the people indigenous to those lands are culturally linked to Germanic peoples.

And to hunt for the big bad jooz right?

[Durruti's Ghost]

Starting from the mid-19th century, the term was used by Karl Marx and Marxist theorists to refer to a social class that included shop-keepers and professionals. Though distinct from the ordinary working class and the lumpenproletariat, who rely entirely on the sale of their labor-power for survival, the petty is different from the haute bourgeoisie, or capitalist class, who own the means of production and buy the labor-power of others to work it. Though the petite bourgeois may buy the labor power of others, in contrast to the haute bourgeoisie, they typically work alongside their own employees; and although they generally own their own businesses, they do not own a controlling share of the means of production. More important, the means of production in the hands of the petite bourgeoisie do not generate enough surplus to be reinvested in production; as such, they cannot be reproduced in an amplified scale, or accumulated, and do not constitute capital properly. In modern usage "petite bourgeoisie", a class that lies between the workingmen and the capitalists, is often used, usually derisively, to refer to the consumption habits and tastes of the middle class and the lower middle class in particular. However, Marxist terminology relates the petite bourgeoisie exclusively to its relationship to the means of production and work rather than to tastes, habits of consumption, or lifestyle.

Note the bolded part.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Since you distrust Wikipedia, then you must assume that the opposite is true.
It being an unreliable source is not the same as it being untrue. Of course this concept might be hard to comprehend for a Nazi.

[CH405]

It being an unreliable source is not the same as it being untrue. Of course this concept might be hard to comprehend for a Nazi.

You calling me a Nazi shows your lack of information. Why don't you bring up reliable sources toprove your point?

[Nolan]

Panda, just shun the troll. :)

[Panda Tse Tung]

You calling me a Nazi shows your lack of information. Why don't you bring up reliable sources toprove your point? Lets see:
1. You think Holocaust deniers make a very good point.
2. You continuously defend Nazism and other Fascists.
3. You defend all the nice 'gains' of Nazi-Germany.

Thats enough for me, for all i care even if it's mere 'fascist sympathies' thats enough for me to dislike you.
And of course i have to prove my point once more, because now Wikipedia isn't reliable anymore to mr. Nazi (jay coherency, note that this same person 1 page ago quoted wikipedia). Because wikipedia worked in his disadvantage (even though he thought it did not; jay reading skills).
Just read Marx.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Panda, just shun the troll. :)
I should, but he pissed me off :p.

[CH405]

Lets see:
1. You think Holocaust deniers make a very good point.

Watch the movie, "Judea Declares War on Germany.

2. You continuously defend Nazism and other Fascists.

I'm trying to clear up many of the misconceptions about Nazism and Fascism that are unfortubately prevalent here on RevLeft.

3. You defend all the nice 'gains' of Nazi-Germany.

That's because Fascism is a system that supports the working class.

Thats enough for me, for all i care even if it's mere 'fascist sympathies' thats enough for me to dislike you.
And of course i have to prove my point once more, because now Wikipedia isn't reliable anymore to mr. Nazi (jay coherency, note that this same person 1 page ago quoted wikipedia). Because wikipedia worked in his disadvantage (even though he thought it did not; jay reading skills).
Just read Marx.

Just accept the fact that I'm a Communist like yourself and most other RevLeft users. It's like how some people here like the USSR and some people hate it. People have to realize sooner or later that it doesn't make me a fash.


...

[Kléber]

Why the hell is the OP not banned yet?

[Nolan]

Why the hell is the OP not banned yet?

Looks like the rulers are asleep when it counts....

[CH405]

Why the hell is the OP not banned yet?

Because the admins know what they're doing.

[StalinFanboy]

How the hell does fascism support the working class?

Last time I checked, under fascism working people are still working shit jobs and being exploited by the ruling class. Just because the ruling class may be replaced by a nationalist bureaucracy rather than the bourgeoisie doesn't make it any better.

[Jazzratt]

User was banned. Thread closed.

[Dimentio]

A bit sad that the thread was closed, because its an interesting and enjoyable experience to read through the spanking which this user has endured.