The Coming Insurrection

[JTB]

I can't believe someone on this forum actually recommended that book. I read half of it and set it down. Its overall tone was that of a 15-year-old child and its assertion that becoming self-sufficient can mean to steal asnd shoplift- is that really the model upon which you base your ideal society, the victimization of those whom you have the ability to victimize? That makes you no different than the imperalists who robbed persons and nations of their resources and the colonialists/capitalists who victimize the poor simply because they can and because they want what others have.

Is not communism supposed to be based around cooperation and mutual benefit? Is that not the entire point of ending wage-labour and the dependence of the proletariat upon the bourgeoisie and replacing it with a system in which the labourers govern themselves, run their own factories, farms, and storefronts, and benefit together from their efforts instead of passing the fruits of their labours to another man simply because he invested capital years ago (in many cases, capital that was borrowed from a bank- capital that belonged to the labourers themselves was was the collective wealth of many proletarians who entrusted the bank with their limited funds?) and now uses the fact to claim a right to that which they produce?

And someone here actually recommends this book as anything more than the infantile ramblings of a group of immature punks who have no plans to form a functioning communist system, but merely seek to vent the anger they've been taught to feel at the current system while proposing only anarchy, chaos, crime, and the exploitation of the weak- the very thing of which they accuse the current system- as an expression of their empty rage?

And you wonder why the masses tend to view communism as they do, with a skeptical and weary eye?



There is no reason that the interminable subsidies that numerous relatives are compelled to offload onto their proletarianized progeny can’t become a form of patronage in favor of social subversion. “Becoming autonomous,” could just as easily mean learning to fight in the street, to occupy empty houses, to cease working, to love each other madly, and to shoplift.

[bcbm]

On the one hand, a commune can’t bank on the “welfare state” being around forever, and on the other, it can’t count on living for long off shoplifting, nighttime dumpster diving at supermarkets or in the warehouses of the industrial zones, misdirecting government subsidies, ripping off insurance companies and other frauds, in a word: plunder. So it has to consider how to continually increase the level and scope of its self-organization. Nothing would be more logical than using the lathes, milling machines, and photocopiers sold at a discount after a factory closure to support a conspiracy against commodity society.


The feeling of imminent collapse is everywhere so strong these days that it would be hard to enumerate all of the current experiments in matters of construction, energy, materials, illegality or agriculture. There’s a whole set of skills and techniques just waiting to be plundered and ripped from their humanistic, street-culture, or eco-friendly trappings. Yet this group of experiments is but one part of all of the intuitions, the know-how, and the ingenuity found in slums that will have to be deployed if we intend to repopulate the metropolitan desert and ensure the viability of an insurrection beyond its first stages.


How will we communicate and move about during a total interruption of the flows? How will we restore food production in rural areas to the point where they can once again support the population density that they had sixty years ago? How will we transform concrete spaces into urban vegetable gardens, as Cuba has done in order to withstand both the American embargo and the liquidation of the USSR?


the point is not that shoplifting or criminality generally are an "end," but simply an early means through which we can find each other and began to divorce ourselves from the world of work and proceed to use our skills and profits to produce for ourselves and build an actual material base from which to begin an ascent out of capital.


That makes you no different than the imperalists who robbed persons and nations of their resources and the colonialists/capitalists who victimize the poor simply because they can and because they want what others have.

i don't think stealing from the motherfuckers who constantly, blatantly and violently steal from us every day of our lives in the form of taxes, work and a million other degradations can be compared in any reasonable way to the horrors those same motherfuckers have wrought upon much of the world and, indeed, ourselves.


And someone here actually recommends this book as anything more than the infantile ramblings of a group of immature punks who have no plans to form a functioning communist system, but merely seek to vent the anger they've been taught to feel at the current system while proposing only anarchy, chaos, crime, and the exploitation of the weak- the very thing of which they accuse the current system- as an expression of their empty rage?

i don't think you were reading the same book.

[Conquer or Die]

Get a job.

[JTB]

the point is not that shoplifting or criminality generally are an "end," but simply an early means through which we can find each other and began to divorce ourselves from the world of work and proceed to use our skills and profits to produce for ourselves and build an actual material base from which to begin an ascent out of capital.



Stealing from another the fruits of their labour is not 'producing for ourselves'; it's doing the very thing for which you condemn the bourgeoisie.



i don't think stealing from the motherfuckers who constantly, blatantly and violently steal from us every day of our lives in the form of taxes, work and a million other degradations can be compared in any reasonable way to the horrors those same motherfuckers have wrought upon much of the world and, indeed, ourselves.

Those running the local gas mart are not the ones taxing you. You're showing your true nature, despite your lame attempts to mask it.

[JTB]

Eat a bullet
What is it with your ilk and the love of murder?

[Mindtoaster]

What is it with your ilk and the love of murder?

Knee-jerk anger at whats one of the most reactionary, ignorant and harmful comebacks around

Deleted my comment anyway

[JTB]

I fail to see what can be much more 'reactionary, ignorant and harmful' than calling for the deaths of those who disagree with you. Such totalitarianism and intolerance of dissent or disagreement seems to be a common theme here.


You people must have zero confidence in your ideology, if you seek to silence those who disagree instead of actually defending your views. It's very Stalinesque of you.

[Conquer or Die]

Knee-jerk anger at whats one of the most reactionary, ignorant and harmful comebacks around

Deleted my comment anyway

If that was directed to me then I'll laugh in your fucking face. This kid is here because he's bored and you think me telling him to get a job so he won't waste his time is somehow reactionary. Pathetic.

[Mindtoaster]

If that was directed to me then I'll laugh in your fucking face. This kid is here because he's bored and you think me telling him to get a job so he won't waste his time is somehow reactionary. Pathetic.

Considering that its an insult constantly used against the leftists (and the homeless, minorities, and the poor for that matter) and combined with you being restricted I thought you were directing that at BCBM for defending shop lifting

I deleted it


You people must have zero confidence in your ideology, if you seek to silence those who disagree instead of actually defending your views. It's very Stalinesque of you.

Yeah, because I was responding to a legitimate criticism and all

[bcbm]

Get a job.

i have two.


Stealing from another the fruits of their labour is not 'producing for ourselves'; it's doing the very thing for which you condemn the bourgeoisie.

i think it would be more appropriate to consider it taking back what is ours, since its the proletariat who produces those fruits, not the mega billionaire owners of whatever corp.


Those running the local gas mart are not the ones taxing you.

who said anything about the local gas mart? its generally easier and more productive to steal from larger stores, or to not even bother with stealing and just stick to scams.

and, once again, the point about stealing is extremely minor in comparison to the much larger point the text is making, which involves building our own productive forces.


You're showing your true nature, despite your lame attempts to mask it.

i haven't stolen anything in years, but i'm really interested to know more about my "true nature." :rolleyes:

[JTB]

Yeah, because I was responding to a legitimate criticism and all


You're not the first to speak of murder. Others have spoken of the 'suppression' of religion and dissenting ideologies and beliefs. This board leans heavy towards homicidal authoritarian systems, inspired largely by the Stalinist lineage.

In fact, those who call for peace and do not wish for mass death (such as myself) are branded 'traitors' or tools of the bourgeois and are 'restricted' (the greatest power possessed by those running these boards to silence all opposition while still being able to claim they don't ban everyone- only ban them from most of the board). It proves the worst people say about your ilk to be true.

[JTB]

i have two.



i think it would be more appropriate to consider it taking back what is ours, since its the proletariat who produces those fruits, not the mega billionaire owners of whatever corp.

Those who run the local gas shops or the every day owner-operators who run stores from which you steal are not the 'mega billionaire owners of whatever corp.' At most they are petty bourgeoisie, often times people who have barely managed to raise themselves above needing to labour alongside the proletariat.

They, too, are servants of the bourgeoisie. Victimizing them means they have no choice, if they are to survive, but to increase their process, making things harder on the poorest of honest people. You harm not only the shopkeeperrs, but also the poorest of the proletariat, then you claim to be just actors against the bourgeoisie. You are worse than the bourgeoisie- at least they admit to what they are and admit that they are guided only by greed and the pursuit of profit. You wrap your greed and your acts against the People up in pretensions bullshit and try to play the hero.

You are traitors.



and, once again, the point about stealing is extremely minor in comparison to the much larger point the text is making, which involves building our own productive forces.



Theft is not production. Is that not the very charge you levy against the bourgeoisie? You are hypocrites.

[this is an invasion]

I can't believe someone on this forum actually recommended that book. I read half of it and set it down. Its overall tone was that of a 15-year-old child and its assertion that becoming self-sufficient can mean to steal asnd shoplift- is that really the model upon which you base your ideal society, the victimization of those whom you have the ability to victimize? That makes you no different than the imperalists who robbed persons and nations of their resources and the colonialists/capitalists who victimize the poor simply because they can and because they want what others have.
First off, from a purely literary point of view, The Coming Insurrection is amazing. It's practically fucking poetry. It's pretty funny to say that it sounds like a fifteen-year old, when it was written by post-grad students.

Seriously, the only thing you got from this book is "steal and shoplift" and "victimize those whom you have the ability to victimize?" Theft is only proposed as a means of improving one's conditions (which a lot of poor and working people already do), it's not proposed as anything revolutionary. And honestly, you're pretty ignorant if you think stealing from something like a department store is the same as the atrocities committed by the bourgeoisie. And no where do they imply or say that we should fuck over those who have less power than us. I think the only fifteen year old here is you.



Is not communism supposed to be based around cooperation and mutual benefit? Is that not the entire point of ending wage-labour and the dependence of the proletariat upon the bourgeoisie and replacing it with a system in which the labourers govern themselves, run their own factories, farms, and storefronts, and benefit together from their efforts instead of passing the fruits of their labours to another man simply because he invested capital years ago (in many cases, capital that was borrowed from a bank- capital that belonged to the labourers themselves was was the collective wealth of many proletarians who entrusted the bank with their limited funds?) and now uses the fact to claim a right to that which they produce? No communism is the collective use and ownership of the means of production so that we may use our energy and labor to create the things we need and desire. It is about fundamentally changing the way the world operates. It has nothing to do with changing one group of bourgeois owners for more "prole" owners and continuing to produce things in a market setting.


And someone here actually recommends this book as anything more than the infantile ramblings of a group of immature punks who have no plans to form a functioning communist system, but merely seek to vent the anger they've been taught to feel at the current system while proposing only anarchy, chaos, crime, and the exploitation of the weak- the very thing of which they accuse the current system- as an expression of their empty rage?

And you wonder why the masses tend to view communism as they do, with a skeptical and weary eye?


It has become clear to me that you did not actually read The Coming Insurrection or research a bit on who wrote it.

Good day, tool

[this is an invasion]

Those who run the local gas shops or the every day owner-operators who run stores from which you steal are not the 'mega billionaire owners of whatever corp.' At most they are petty bourgeoisie, often times people who have barely managed to raise themselves above needing to labour alongside the proletariat.

They, too, are servants of the bourgeoisie. Victimizing them means they have no choice, if they are to survive, but to increase their process, making things harder on the poorest of honest people. You harm not only the shopkeeperrs, but also the poorest of the proletariat, then you claim to be just actors against the bourgeoisie. You are worse than the bourgeoisie- at least they admit to what they are and admit that they are guided only by greed and the pursuit of profit. You wrap your greed and your acts against the People up in pretensions bullshit and try to play the hero.

You are traitors.



Theft is not production. Is that not the very charge you levy against the bourgeoisie? You are hypocrites.

Jesus, are you unable to comprehend anything?

[JTB]

Jesus, are you unable to comprehend anything?

Personal attacks are not a rebuttal.

[this is an invasion]

Personal attacks are not a rebuttal.

There is nothing to argue against. You continue bringing up an irrelevant point. You either have no interest in real discussion on TCI, or you are completely incapable of debate.

[JTB]

You've tried everything you can to avoid addressing the matter at hand, yet you attack my ability to carry on meaningful discussion?

[Ravachol]

Those who run the local gas shops or the every day owner-operators who run stores from which you steal are not the 'mega billionaire owners of whatever corp.' At most they are petty bourgeoisie, often times people who have barely managed to raise themselves above needing to labour alongside the proletariat.
They, too, are servants of the bourgeoisie. Victimizing them means they have no choice, if they are to survive, but to increase their process, making things harder on the poorest of honest people. You harm not only the shopkeeperrs, but also the poorest of the proletariat, then you claim to be just actors against the bourgeoisie.


Taking that line, every assault on Capital is to be denounced as Capital will seek a way to maintain and increase it's profit margins over the backs of the working class. Re-appropriation and self-reduction can be very effective strategies when originating from class demands. The problem I have with most of the advocates of what TCI proposes is the individualist nature of these action. I strongly believe only collective action can bring about revolutionary change, a 'living communism' can only emerge from a collective process as opposed to individual illegalism. Still, that is no argument in favor of petty moralism. Are we going to condemn piracy (which shows all the signs of digital self-reduction) and squatting (which originated from a class demand no less) as well because they infringe on the absolute right to private property?

[Jimmie Higgins]

That's the book Glenn Beck promotes right - and like our new favorite Troll, he uses this book to try and discredit activists and revolutionaries? Never read it. But apparently my whole world-view is based on it now though:rolleyes:.

You've demonstrated that you are well versed in all the stock-criticisms and straw-men that right-wingers use to argue against working class radicalism,
but maybe you can get back to us when you read and understand some basics about our politics and various traditions.


assertion that becoming self-sufficient can mean to steal asnd shoplift- is that really the model upon which you base your ideal societyNope.

[Jazzratt]

I've never read it but I feel more qualified to comment on it than our 'friend' here because I at least read books.

I mean someone with as deeply seated anti-worker (and if his response to the abortion question in the Survey are his actual views, anti-woman) politics says this:


You are traitors.

They're either incredibly stupid or paying you a compliment.

[bcbm]

Those who run the local gas shops or the every day owner-operators who run stores from which you steal are not the 'mega billionaire owners of whatever corp.' At most they are petty bourgeoisie, often times people who have barely managed to raise themselves above needing to labour alongside the proletariat.

1. as already pointed out, i don't steal.
2. as already pointed out, those who do steal typically steal from massive retail outlets that are making a substantial profit and certainly represent the bourgeoisie.
3. as already pointed out, theft is not an end and, indeed, is viewed by the authors of tci as a temporary measure that is not and cannot be sustained forever.


They, too, are servants of the bourgeoisie. Victimizing them means they have no choice, if they are to survive, but to increase their process, making things harder on the poorest of honest people. You harm not only the shopkeeperrs, but also the poorest of the proletariat

most massive retailers have a budget for "shrinkage" that does not effect their employees. i also suspect insurrectionist communists are a statistically insignificant percentage of people who steal.


You are worse than the bourgeoisie- at least they admit to what they are and admit that they are guided only by greed and the pursuit of profit. You wrap your greed and your acts against the People up in pretensions bullshit and try to play the hero.

1. stealing from stores is not "an act against the people."
2. i believe being responsible for wars that kill and maim millions, operating a global system that condemns tens of thousands to die everyday from preventable diseases and so on is considerably worse than stealing a copy of "discipline and punish" from barnes & noble.


Theft is not production. Is that not the very charge you levy against the bourgeoisie? You are hypocrites.

1. why do you keep addressing me in the plural? i'm one person.
2. as already pointed out,

"On the one hand, a commune can’t bank on the “welfare state” being around forever, and on the other, it can’t count on living for long off shoplifting, nighttime dumpster diving at supermarkets or in the warehouses of the industrial zones, misdirecting government subsidies, ripping off insurance companies and other frauds, in a word: plunder. So it has to consider how to continually increase the level and scope of its self-organization. Nothing would be more logical than using the lathes, milling machines, and photocopiers sold at a discount after a factory closure to support a conspiracy against commodity society.


The feeling of imminent collapse is everywhere so strong these days that it would be hard to enumerate all of the current experiments in matters of construction, energy, materials, illegality or agriculture. There’s a whole set of skills and techniques just waiting to be plundered and ripped from their humanistic, street-culture, or eco-friendly trappings. Yet this group of experiments is but one part of all of the intuitions, the know-how, and the ingenuity found in slums that will have to be deployed if we intend to repopulate the metropolitan desert and ensure the viability of an insurrection beyond its first stages.


How will we communicate and move about during a total interruption of the flows? How will we restore food production in rural areas to the point where they can once again support the population density that they had sixty years ago? How will we transform concrete spaces into urban vegetable gardens, as Cuba has done in order to withstand both the American embargo and the liquidation of the USSR?"

[Os Cangaceiros]

the point is not that shoplifting or criminality generally are an "end," but simply an early means through which we can find each other and began to divorce ourselves from the world of work and proceed to use our skills and profits to produce for ourselves and build an actual material base from which to begin an ascent out of capital.

I heard a program on the radio recently about shoplifting. One of the people who called in said that when he was a kid he used to shoplift meat from supermarkets (yes, meat...it's one of the most popular items that people shoplift today, actually) and traded the meat he stole for weed.

Just a little anecdote about shoplifting bringing people together.

Anyway, the popularity of shoplifting has skyrocketed, with the current economic crisis and all. Supposedly it's doubled since 2000, and businesses lose billions and billions every year due to external losses.

In regards to TCI: I read it, and glorification of illegality wasn't the main theme of it. At all.

[bcbm]

The problem I have with most of the advocates of what TCI proposes is the individualist nature of these action. I strongly believe only collective action can bring about revolutionary change, a 'living communism' can only emerge from a collective process as opposed to individual illegalism.

huh? what tci proposes is almost the polar opposite of individualist.

[this is an invasion]

huh? what tci proposes is almost the polar opposite of individualist.
Yeahhhhhh.

TCI has almost nothing to do with individualist illegalism. If anything, they propose minor acts of collective illegalism. They are communists through and through.

[this is an invasion]

You've tried everything you can to avoid addressing the matter at hand, yet you attack my ability to carry on meaningful discussion?

RESPOND TO MY FIRST POST THEN, YOU FUCKIN LOSER.


You continue to bring up shoplifting in order to condemn communists as if 1) every communist shoplifts; 2) shoplifting is evil; 3) shoplifting is the main point of TCI and is their proposed method of revolution. Shut the fuck up, because none of this is true.

On top of that you blow things WAY out of proportion, lack any real class analysis, and your posts are beyond melodramatic. It is annoying as fuck. Seriously, we are traitors because SOME people shoplift? Turn off you computer, please.

[Ravachol]

huh? what tci proposes is almost the polar opposite of individualist.

Sorry I was being inaccurate. What I meant was that a lot of people (at least, to whom I have spoken) interpret what TCI proposes in a highly individualist fashion. TCI's proposals aren't individualist at all. Sorry for the confusion :p

[JTB]

anti-woman.
lol


saying you can't smash your newborn in the head with a rock is anti-woman?


lol

[JTB]

Rav,to condemn the Bourgeoisie as thieves who harm the proletariat and then advocate theft that harms the proletariat is the most blatant hypocrisy.

And it might not directly


Still, that is no argument in favor of petty moralism.


The condemnation of the bourgeoisie is a moral condemnation. Any time you claim that it is more than mere jealousy and a desire to steal that which other have and present your system as a matter of what is just, you engage in moralism and moral argument.

[#FF0000]

lol


saying you can't smash your newborn in the head with a rock is anti-woman?


lol

good thing that isn't what abortion is.

[Bud Struggle]

It seems to me that the Comming insurrection will most likely come from the Right. They have the Mojo at the present time.

[#FF0000]

In the U.S., maybe, but the Tea Party is losing steam anyway, if that's what you mean.

[JTB]

most massive retailers have a budget for "shrinkage" that does not effect their employees. i also suspect insurrectionist communists are a statistically insignificant percentage of people who steal.


Are you really that ignorant? Anticipated loss is considered as a cost when determine workers' pay and retail price. That it's not a line item on your paycheck doesn't mean it's not factored in.

1. stealing from stores is not "an act against the people."

By driving up the cost of goods in the store, yo make it harder for the poorest among you to provide for themselves and their families. Simply closing your eyes because you don't want to fac the matter doesn't negate the impact your actions have.


2. i believe being responsible for wars that kill and maim millions, operating a global system that condemns tens of thousands to die everyday from preventable diseases and so on is considerably worse than stealing a copy of "discipline and punish" from barnes & noble.


Many here are authoritarian 'communists' (not true communists, but authoritarians who've coopted the term). When they've gained power in the past, they've brought about the deaths of millions. You really should remember that when you levy charges against others.




"On the one hand, a commune can’t bank on the “welfare state” being around forever..."

Is not the common communist system effectively a warfare state, since it promises to provide all the people with what they require? Or are the infirm to be allowed to starve?

No man who is willing to work should starve simply because he in unable.

[#FF0000]

Is not the common communist system effectively a warfare state, since it promises to provide all the people with what they require? Or are the infirm to be allowed to starve?

No man who is willing to work should starve simply because he in unable.

good thing nobody on this forum ever said that. He is saying that a commune will be more than just a welfare state.

[JTB]

RESPOND TO MY FIRST POST THEN, YOU FUCKIN LOSER.


You continue to bring up shoplifting in order to condemn communists as if 1) every communist shoplifts
What the fuck are you babbling about? I've brought up TCI/TIC to criticize/TIC TCI because of what TCI/TIC advocates.


as if... 2) shoplifting is evil


If theft is not wrong, why do you keep complaining about the bourgeois 'stealing' the fruits of proletarian labour? You can't have it both ways. Both shoplifting and capitalist/colonialist exploitation ultimately bring further hardship to the poorest of people.

because none of this is true.



Again, if theft is not wrong, why do you keep complaining about the bourgeois 'stealing' the fruits of proletarian labour?

[#FF0000]

Is taking something back from someone who stole from you as bad as stealing in the first place?

[Ravachol]

Rav,to condemn the Bourgeoisie as thieves who harm the proletariat and then advocate theft that harms the proletariat is the most blatant hypocrisy.


bcbm and myself, amongst others, have pointed out that the kind of 'theft' advocated by TCI doesn't harm the proletariat in any significant manner. Are we to condemn strikes because they stop production for a while and thus deprive the proletariat of certain goods?



By driving up the cost of goods in the store, yo make it harder for the poorest among you to provide for themselves and their families. Simply closing your eyes because you don't want to fac the matter doesn't negate the impact your actions have.


You realise strikes and any other action against Capital does this as well? Capital is ALWAY going to cut into the material conditions of the working class to maintain it's own profit margins, regardless of what we do or don't do. Precisely that is the reason we are REVOLUTIONARIES, not reformists.



The condemnation of the bourgeoisie is a moral condemnation.


I sure hope not. Whilst there is moralist condemnation of the bourgeoisie, which I fully share, the main conflict is purely materialist in nature. The bourgeoisie, as a class, is parasitic with regards to the working class and deprives us of the fullness of our lives. That is class-interest pure and simple, not moralism.



Any time you claim that it is more than mere jealousy and a desire to steal that which other have and present your system as a matter of what is just, you engage in moralism and moral argument.

Jealousy? Since when are we subscribing to that argument? It could be equally argued that communism is based on 'jealousy' and guess what? We are. We're jealous of how one class thrives in wealth over the backs of our own, keeping us down with their institutions, their whips and their false prophets while we sweat and break our backs each day only to be deprived of the most basic necessities of life in most of the world. We are jealous, not because we desire a similar position but because we desire the dichtomy to be abolished and the yoke to be uplifted. That's materialist class-interest, not moralism.

[Bud Struggle]

In the U.S., maybe, but the Tea Party is losing steam anyway, if that's what you mean.

I think it's met resistance from the powers that be--they are making a case for themselves. The Left is dead in the water.

[#FF0000]

I think it's met resistance from the powers that be--they are making a case for themselves. The Left is dead in the water.

In other news, sky is blue, water wet.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Are you really that ignorant? Anticipated loss is considered as a cost when determine workers' pay and retail price. That it's not a line item on your paycheck doesn't mean it's not factored in.

The impact of shoplifting on the retail bottom line is significant but ultimately negligable in the grand scheme of things. Many stores don't even press charges against caught shoplifters, as the cost of taking them to court isn't worth it.


By driving up the cost of goods in the store, yo make it harder for the poorest among you to provide for themselves and their families. Simply closing your eyes because you don't want to fac the matter doesn't negate the impact your actions have.

The impact of shoplifting is non-existent compared to the impact of a declining currency value combined with stagnant wages, as far as making it hard for poor people is concerned.


Is not the common communist system effectively a warfare state, since it promises to provide all the people with what they require? Or are the infirm to be allowed to starve?

No man who is willing to work should starve simply because he in unable.

A "welfare state" means something within a specific context.

[Bud Struggle]

In other news, sky is blue, water wet.

Yea sorry. I would actually like to see a dialogue between the Radical left the Tea Baggers the Democrats and Republicans. Cappie that I am--I'd like to see what you can add to the discussion.

[JTB]

Strikes help improve wages, improving the proletariat's condition. Theft that drives up the cost of goods harms the proletariat's condition.

This is pretty basic stuff, Rav. You might want to take the time to learn more about the system.

[Glenn Beck]

Anyone else think it's hilarious that the guy that advocates socialism through parallel institutions and the mental "enlightenment" of the working class is taking a shit on TCI?

[this is an invasion]

What the fuck are you babbling about? I've brought up TCI/TIC to criticize/TIC TCI because of what TCI/TIC advocates. And you ignore the 100+ pages to complain about a small passage that says "we can steal to get things." It's such a small part of the book that you're entire thread would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that you seem to genuinely believe that theft is a major part of what TCI advocates.

Again, it is pretty apparent that either you have no interest in genuine discussion on TCI (and I'm going to continue to be hostile), or you are completely incapable of genuine discussion (in which case I will still continue to be hostile).




If theft is not wrong, why do you keep complaining about the bourgeois 'stealing' the fruits of proletarian labour? You can't have it both ways. Both shoplifting and capitalist/colonialist exploitation ultimately bring further hardship to the poorest of people. Because stealing a pair of shoes from a department store or a sandwich from a grocery store does not harm the proletariat. The continuation of a system that requires us to work for people that do not care for us, doing things most of us would rather not do, for a price that is less than what our labor is worth, so that we may purchase our existence back from them is what harms the proletariat. The two situations are in no way comparable. And before you say that some major companies take losses out of employees checks, I'll say that that is another example of how the interests of the bourgeoisie are in direct conflict with the proletariat

Shoplifting actually helps the working class on an individual level (and if carried out collectively, on a collective level) because it means that money can go further than if they were to purchase everything.




Again, if theft is not wrong, why do you keep complaining about the bourgeois 'stealing' the fruits of proletarian labour?
I care more about the fact that life is utter shit under capitalism. Exploitation is only a part of this.

Now fuck off.

[this is an invasion]

Strikes help improve wages, improving the proletariat's condition. Theft that drives up the cost of goods harms the proletariat's condition.

This is pretty basic stuff, Rav. You might want to take the time to learn more about the system.

the cost of goods doesn't really mean anything if people are willing to steal, does it?

[Bud Struggle]

the cost of goods doesn't really mean anything if people are willing to steal, does it?
But that's a write off. :) The government pays part of that cost--so it goes onto the bill of the general public.

The corporations don't pay for theft--you do. ;)

[this is an invasion]

But that's a write off. :) The government pays part of that cost--so it goes onto the bill of the general public.

The corporations don't pay for theft--you do. ;)

Not if I steal everything.

Anyway, what you're saying is a write off too. Of course the capitalists are going to take money out of our pockets. That's what they do.


EDIT: Misunderstood when I wrote this post what you meant by write off. Understand nao

[Ravachol]

Strikes help improve wages, improving the proletariat's condition. Theft that drives up the cost of goods harms the proletariat's condition.

This is pretty basic stuff, Rav. You might want to take the time to learn more about the system.

I suggest you refrain from patronising when you don't have a basic grasp of 'the system' :rolleyes: (whatever that may be) yourself lad.

First of all, a group of proletarians who steal from the bourgeoisie obviously improve their material conditions. Rent-strikes and Squatting as class-demands for the unconditional right to housing, are 'theft' just as well. The proletariat refuses to pay for something that is rightfully and unconditionally theirs but currently under bourgeoisie control, it's self-reduction and direct re-appropriation.
During food shortages, a group of proletarians robbing a store for food improve their material conditions.

Now that we have established that 'theft' can improve material conditions as well, there remains the question of how 'efficient' it is with regards to the revolutionary process.

Self-reduction and re-appropriation in whatever form (Squatting, Rent-strikes, refusing to pay for 'public' transport,etc) ought to be targetted at the Bourgeoisie, obviously. The bourgeoisie however, will compensate any loss of their profit margins by cutting into the material conditions of the working class, but as I've pointed out many times before (without any rebuttal from you whatsoever) this happens with EVERY assault on Capital.

Secondly, apart from directly improving material conditions, collective self-reduction builds class consciousness through the very fact that the working-class re-appropriates, as a class, from the bourgeoisie what is rightfully theirs anyway.

Nobody is proposing we all shoplift on our own because we 'have the right' to do that, but collective re-appropriations of goods by the working class are a class-based action. Factory takeovers are 'theft' just as well, not much different from collective re-appropriation of goods and we sure as hell ought to espouse that.

[Ele'ill]

But that's a write off. :) The government pays part of that cost--so it goes onto the bill of the general public.

The corporations don't pay for theft--you do. ;)


From my understanding- theft is written off only after it's been identified as theft. They cannot write off items that have been incorrectly ordered or destroyed in transit etc..

[Bud Struggle]

From my understanding- theft is written off only after it's been identified as theft. They cannot write off items that have been incorrectly ordered or destroyed in transit etc..

Under a different name it can be written off.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Anyone else think it's hilarious that the guy that advocates socialism through parallel institutions and the mental "enlightenment" of the working class is taking a shit on TCI?
I thought that was ironic. It's like a freegan dumpster-diver criticizing a vegan for lifestyle-ism.

[Ele'ill]

I thought that was ironic. It's like a freegan dumpster-diver criticizing a vegan for lifestyle-ism.

What's wrong with having a lifestyle?


Or is it just the fact that theirs is easy to point and laugh at because they adhere to it so well?

Sounds like jealousy to me :rolleyes:

[Jimmie Higgins]

What's wrong with having a lifestyle?


Or is it just the fact that theirs is easy to point and laugh at because they adhere to it so well?

Sounds like jealousy to me :rolleyes:Nothing wrong with being vegan or likeing to ride a bike or being a hip-hop head or punk-rocker... my problem is when people elevate these personal lifestyles to a strategy for liberation.

For one thing, it doesn't work. Capitalism is a system that exists regardless of most people's personal choices, so these choices can not really be a challenge to the system. It would be like if abolitionists didn't organize a boycott or anything but fought slavery by simply not buying clothes made with cotton.

Secondly, when people treat their personal choices as some kind of path to freedom, they become dogmatic and assholes about it. When they eventually realize that one person not eating meat can not stop the meat industry, they often then feel like they have to force everyone else to accept their lifestyle choice or they are part of the problem. They elevate riding a bike or eating some kind of food to a political statement and then consider all car drivers or people who eat oats as "the enemy" for example.

Lifestyles are fine by me, lifestylism is not (well at least it is not a road to systemic change).

[Ele'ill]

For one thing, it doesn't work. Capitalism is a system that exists regardless of most people's personal choices, so these choices can not really be a challenge to the system. It would be like if abolitionists didn't organize a boycott or anything but fought slavery by simply not buying clothes made with cotton.

I think the general idea is that boycotting never catches on enough to make much of a difference.

What it does do is get people thinking about how they can live differently- and that alternative systems of existence are possible.




Secondly, when people treat their personal choices as some kind of path to freedom, they become dogmatic and assholes about it. When they eventually realize that one person not eating meat can not stop the meat industry, they often then feel like they have to force everyone else to accept their lifestyle choice or they are part of the problem. They elevate riding a bike or eating some kind of food to a political statement and then consider all car drivers or people who eat oats as "the enemy" for example.

Yeah, I have a very low tolerance for my vices being turned into a personal attack against who I am- mainly because I am a very concious person and I do make an effort. On the other hand I have spent a considerable amount of time around people that genuinely do live off the grid. It is a hard but rewarding life and the issue becomes distinguishing between living that life yourself and getting others to follow. There seems to be a lack of movement building.

[this is an invasion]

Nothing wrong with being vegan or likeing to ride a bike or being a hip-hop head or punk-rocker... my problem is when people elevate these personal lifestyles to a strategy for liberation.

For one thing, it doesn't work. Capitalism is a system that exists regardless of most people's personal choices, so these choices can not really be a challenge to the system. It would be like if abolitionists didn't organize a boycott or anything but fought slavery by simply not buying clothes made with cotton.

Secondly, when people treat their personal choices as some kind of path to freedom, they become dogmatic and assholes about it. When they eventually realize that one person not eating meat can not stop the meat industry, they often then feel like they have to force everyone else to accept their lifestyle choice or they are part of the problem. They elevate riding a bike or eating some kind of food to a political statement and then consider all car drivers or people who eat oats as "the enemy" for example.

Lifestyles are fine by me, lifestylism is not (well at least it is not a road to systemic change).
No one is proposing any of that. Not even those who wrote TCI.

I'm not accusing you of doing this, but I feel like people use the "You're just a lifestylist" argument to write off certain groups of people so they don't have to really try to understand them. I see this primarily done with anarchists, especially insurrectionary anarchists. Every one of my friends that's interested in insurrectionary politics has long since grown out of crimethinc-esque politics. We are not under any illusions about the small lifestyle choices we make being anything other than lifestyle choices. Or things that we are forced to do (like dumpster diving because we don't always have money to buy good food).

[bcbm]

Are you really that ignorant? Anticipated loss is considered as a cost when determine workers' pay and retail price. That it's not a line item on your paycheck doesn't mean it's not factored in.

By driving up the cost of goods in the store, yo make it harder for the poorest among you to provide for themselves and their families. Simply closing your eyes because you don't want to fac the matter doesn't negate the impact your actions have.

my actions? what actions? and, again, the insurrectionary communists who steal are an insignificant minority in terms of what they may or may not steal. those costs will always be factored in because we live under a social system that guarantees poverty and hardship which forces people into crime, to say nothing of the aversion to work and so on that can funnel people there as well. it isn't the thieves who are ultimately responsible for "making life harder for the poorest," but the bourgeois who use some thieves as an excuse to pay shitty wages while they are making million dollar salaries and lord over such a disgusting economic situation that many have to steal in order to survive.


Many here are authoritarian 'communists' (not true communists, but authoritarians who've coopted the term). When they've gained power in the past, they've brought about the deaths of millions. You really should remember that when you levy charges against others.why should i remember that? i oppose all states, even the "communist" ones and i'm certainly not responsible for any of the deaths they caused. meanwhile, the capitalist system operates over the entire planet controlling nearly every aspect of life and is actively responsible for the deaths of millions every year, whether through war or malnutrition or disease or work.


Is not the common communist system effectively a warfare state, since it promises to provide all the people with what they require? Or are the infirm to be allowed to starve?

No man who is willing to work should starve simply because he in unable.i don't think a society without a state can be a welfare state.


I've brought up TCI/TIC to criticize/TIC TCI because of what TCI/TIC advocates.you might want to try understanding what that is for a start.

[Robert]

I feel like people use the "You're just a lifestylist" argument to write off certain groups of people

I'd like to get in on this, but I have never heard of either:

1) a "lifestylist" or

2) "people [who] use the the 'you're just a lifestylist' to write off certain groups of people."

Where in the world do you folks hear of these (to me) obscure warring factions? At anthropology seminars? I'm not making fun, I'm really curious.

(Now "lifestyle" I have heard of. Also "hairstyle." But "lifestylist"? Is it someone with a lifestyle? Or someone who wants to have a lifestyle. )

[bcbm]

Where in the world do you folks hear of these (to me) obscure warring factions? At anthropology seminars? I'm not making fun, I'm really curious.its a leftist thing, particularly within the anarchist milieu. the weak need internal enemies to war against as much as the powerful, it seems.

for jtb:


The question is not whether to live with or without
money, to steal or to buy, to work or not, but how to
use the money for increasing our autonomy from the
commodity sphere. And if we prefer stealing than
working, producing for ourselves than stealing, it is
not out of concern for some kind of purity. It is because
the flows of power that accompany the flows of
commodities, the subjective submission that conditions
the means of survival, have become exorbitant.
There would be many inappropriate ways to say what
we envisage: we neither want to leave for the countryside
nor gather ancient knowledge to accumulate
it. We are not merely concerned with the reappropriation
of means. Nor would we restrict ourselves to
the reappropriation of knowledge. If we put together
all the knowledge and techniques, all the inventiveness
displayed in the field of activism, we would not
get a revolutionary movement. It is a question of
temporality. A question of creating the conditions
where an offensive can sustain itself without fading,
of establishing the material solidarities that allow us
to hold on.
We believe there is no revolution without the constitution
of a common material force.

[Ravachol]

its a leftist thing, particularly within the anarchist milieu. the weak need internal enemies to war against as much as the powerful, it seems.

for jtb:

Am I the only one who sees the huge similarities between the theories espoused by Nihilist Communism, L'appel (Call), etc and Autonomist Marxism?

Also, 'lifestylism' is indeed an insult levelled all to easily although I must say that my experiences with some segments of the 'activist milieu' have included encounters with folks for whom 'being a revolutionary' was no more than a subcultural attitude devoid of any actual content or praxis, ie. a 'lifestyle'.

[bcbm]

Am I the only one who sees the huge similarities between the theories espoused by Nihilist Communism, L'appel (Call), etc and Autonomist Marxism?

i think the former two start, in one way or another, from the latter but their ultimate conclusions are fairly unique.

[this is an invasion]

I'd like to get in on this, but I have never heard of either:

1) a "lifestylist" or

2) "people [who] use the the 'you're just a lifestylist' to write off certain groups of people."

Where in the world do you folks hear of these (to me) obscure warring factions? At anthropology seminars? I'm not making fun, I'm really curious.

(Now "lifestyle" I have heard of. Also "hairstyle." But "lifestylist"? Is it someone with a lifestyle? Or someone who wants to have a lifestyle. )

Mostly at obscure anarchist gatherings. Where one irrelevant group can tell another irrelevant group that they are more irrelevant.

[this is an invasion]

i think the former two start, in one way or another, from the latter but their ultimate conclusions are fairly unique.

I haven't read NihCom yet, but I really want to. Same with Species Being.


Actually I haven't even read Call yet... :/

[bcbm]

I haven't read NihCom yet, but I really want to. Same with Species Being.


Actually I haven't even read Call yet... :/

nihilist communism (http://www.thinkerforum.com/essays/nihilist-communism/) and call (http://www.bloom0101.org/call.pdf) are both online, if you don't mind reading them in that format.

[this is an invasion]

I have a copy of Call floating around somewhere in my room. I think I've started it a few times, but haven't really got past the first few pages. I'm rereading TCI at the moment, as well as Letters of Insurgents, so maybe after I'm done with those I'll get around to Call.

[RGacky3]

would'nt nihilist communism be kind of an oxymoron?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I haven't read NihCom yet, but I really want to. Same with Species Being.


Actually I haven't even read Call yet... :/

Nihilist communism is kind of a depressing read, but it's a sober analysis of the state of the Left, I think.

Some of their conclusions smack of economic determinism, though.

[this is an invasion]

Nihilist communism is kind of a depressing read, but it's a sober analysis of the state of the Left, I think.

Some of their conclusions smack of economic determinism, though.

That's what I've heard.

[Ele'ill]

I can't believe someone on this forum actually recommended that book. I read half of it and set it down.

I generally read books all the way through regardless of how horrible they are. Some have surprised me.


simply because they can and because they want what others have.

If 'others', being corporations that feed state power, have what someone, not wants but needs, and they cannot obtain these vitally needed items in any other way without the contribution towards the same systems that tried to put them down to begin with, they are going to take what's theirs and determined so by their very existence as a free creature on this planet by any means necessary. What the corporations are doing is economic genocide through forced participation.





Is not communism supposed to be based around cooperation and mutual benefit?

Would you cooperate with your killer?






Is that not the entire point of ending wage-labour and the dependence of the proletariat upon the bourgeoisie and replacing it with a system in which the labourers govern themselves, run their own factories, farms, and storefronts, and benefit together from their efforts instead of passing the fruits of their labours to another man simply because he invested capital years ago (in many cases, capital that was borrowed from a bank- capital that belonged to the labourers themselves was was the collective wealth of many proletarians who entrusted the bank with their limited funds?) and now uses the fact to claim a right to that which they produce?


The passages you're referring to are most likely directed along the idea of breaking free from the world we know and creating our own ripples that will eventually encompass the oppressive ones.




And someone here actually recommends this book as anything more than the infantile ramblings of a group of immature punks who have no plans to form a functioning communist system,

Or maybe if you read the book and others like it you'd realize that they already have. Ever had opossum stew?




and the exploitation of the weak- the very thing of which they accuse the current system- as an expression of their empty rage?

The weak? :laugh:

So when the stereotypical bully finally gets stomped because they have been ignored and then decided to encroach on the weaker's circles, do you cry?



And you wonder why the masses tend to view communism as they do, with a skeptical and weary eye?

Not really. I know why and it has very little to do with this book. :)

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'd like to get in on this, but I have never heard of either:

1) a "lifestylist" or

2) "people [who] use the the 'you're just a lifestylist' to write off certain groups of people."In case you were being serious: It's short-hand for anyone who uses and sees a lifestyle choice as a path to liberation. I'd be suprised if you never came across a vegetarian who blamed meat-eaters for the problems of the meat-industry or felt that if everyone was a vegetarian, it would create a social transformation.

My problem with them is not the lifestyle itself, but the use of a "lifestyle" instead of organizing politically. I also don't like it because it is really prevalent in places like Berkeley CA. One of my immigrant co-workers once came up to me with a note that someone had left on their used 90s SUV (this co-worker lives in a house with a lot of people and commutes from East Oakland to work in posh Berkeley) that was parked along the street in Berkeley. The note said something like: "Gass-guzzler, you are the reason for the Iraq war. Sell your car and bike".

Yes, this immigrant is the reason for the Iraq war:rolleyes:. That's why I don't like life-stylists. Ultimately it attacks people who don't adopt X lifestyle as "part of the problem" rather than organizing for collective democratic action to take on the system itself - which unlike a low-income immigrant is the cause of economic crisis, the abuse of animals, the destruction of the environment, and war.

[Ravachol]

In case you were being serious: It's short-hand for anyone who uses and sees a lifestyle choice as a path to liberation. I'd be suprised if you never came across a vegetarian who blamed meat-eaters for the problems of the meat-industry or felt that if everyone was a vegetarian, it would create a social transformation.

My problem with them is not the lifestyle itself, but the use of a "lifestyle" instead of organizing politically. I also don't like it because it is really prevalent in places like Berkeley CA. One of my immigrant co-workers once came up to me with a note that someone had left on their used 90s SUV (this co-worker lives in a house with a lot of people and commutes from East Oakland to work in posh Berkeley) that was parked along the street in Berkeley. The note said something like: "Gass-guzzler, you are the reason for the Iraq war. Sell your car and bike".

Yes, this immigrant is the reason for the Iraq war:rolleyes:. That's why I don't like life-stylists. Ultimately it attacks people who don't adopt X lifestyle as "part of the problem" rather than organizing for collective democratic action to take on the system itself - which unlike a low-income immigrant is the cause of economic crisis, the abuse of animals, the destruction of the environment, and war.

It also, unknowingly, reproduces the liberal bullshit notion of the consumer as the ultimate arbiter of social construction. The idea that the consumer, by his or her choice what to consume or what not, can influence the full social framework.

[Ele'ill]

In case you were being serious: It's short-hand for anyone who uses and sees a lifestyle choice as a path to liberation. I'd be suprised if you never came across a vegetarian who blamed meat-eaters for the problems of the meat-industry or felt that if everyone was a vegetarian, it would create a social transformation.

Or a technocratic worker fetishist that blames vegans in say Germany for their own incompetent organizing prowess in the United States. :rolleyes:



My problem with them is not the lifestyle itself, but the use of a "lifestyle" instead of organizing politically. I also don't like it because it is really prevalent in places like Berkeley CA. One of my immigrant co-workers once came up to me with a note that someone had left on their used 90s SUV (this co-worker lives in a house with a lot of people and commutes from East Oakland to work in posh Berkeley) that was parked along the street in Berkeley. The note said something like: "Gass-guzzler, you are the reason for the Iraq war. Sell your car and bike".


Have you told this story on this forum before because this isn't the first time I've heard it.

What's interesting is the assumption that the idiot in your example is some how tied in and an automatic representative of this book and a movement pushing for us to further involve our personal lives in our struggle rather than being decked down in Gap and Nike smoking Camel lights while at an anti sweat shop demonstration- I've seen it and the word asinine doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

I wouldn't equate those involved in the recent burning of the dutch building as key examples of what anarchism and class struggle is and I wouldn't the clowns that did the same to the RBC.





Ultimately it attacks people who don't adopt X lifestyle as "part of the problem" rather than organizing for collective democratic action to take on the system itself - which unlike a low-income immigrant is the cause of economic crisis, the abuse of animals, the destruction of the environment, and war.

I'm sorry you feel personally attacked by other people making an effort to not support the industries that they violently oppose.

[Ele'ill]

It also, unknowingly, reproduces the liberal bullshit notion of the consumer as the ultimate arbiter of social construction. The idea that the consumer, by his or her choice what to consume or what not, can influence the full social framework.


Not at all- what it's saying is that you can make minor adjustments to how you live and cease to support some of the shit you hate. Why support it? It's not a physical act of revolution but it's defiantly more of a 'spiritual' liberation from that type of bondage.

[Ravachol]

I'm sorry you feel personally attacked by other people making an effort to not support the industries that they violently oppose.

Whoa, I sure hope as hell nobody feels offended by the personal choice not to support these processes of exploitation. I've (whilst not a vegan myself) defended veganism multiple times on revleft but I've also consistently pointed out that a consumer-choice (which is what lifestylism essentially is) doesn't strike a blow at capital at all as it's centre is located in the sphere of production.

[Ele'ill]

Whoa, I sure hope as hell nobody feels offended by the personal choice not to support these processes of exploitation. I've (whilst not a vegan myself) defended veganism multiple times on revleft but I've also consistently pointed out that a consumer-choice (which is what lifestylism essentially is) doesn't strike a blow at capital at all as it's centre is located in the sphere of production.


If there are people somewhere gloating about not buying nike and declaring it a strike to capitalism worth noting I think they're misguided. This is not the reason the vast majority of people do this.

Refusing to pay the companies that hurt is a wrench I've kept in my bag of goodies for a long time. It felt good at first and then it simply turned into the way I live. I can fight the system without supporting so much of it.

[bcbm]

would'nt nihilist communism be kind of an oxymoron?

not really. it just means that while desiring communism one finds the current activity of other pro-revolutionaries to be irrelevant at best and detrimental at worst and so is stepping back and "doing nothing" (hence the nihilism) as a means to re-evaluate their position and strategy.


What's interesting is the assumption that the idiot in your example is some how tied in and an automatic representative of this book

i don't think that is what they were saying?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Or a technocratic worker fetishist that blames vegans in say Germany for their own incompetent organizing prowess in the United States. :rolleyes:That's quite a stretch - make sure you don't pull something out of its socket.

See, this is the other problem with lifestylists - if you state a different opinion, they don't take it as a political argument, but somehow personal. Because they have taken a tactic and incorporated it into their lifestyle and personal identity, they get real touchy if you question the tactic.

By the way, I am not blaming lifestylists for anything, only arguing that it is not an effective way to promote and organize for self-conscious action by the working class - in fact, it blames many members of the working class.

And they certainty don't get in the way of the organizing I do, that's not my critique. And since I'm a worker, how is it I'm fetishizing anything - I have no money or connections, organizing is the only way for people like me to make any impact on society. What has a bigger impact - if I convince all my co-workers to ride bikes and eat out of dumpsters... or if I organize my coworkers and convince them that we need to strike and shut down the workplace. A fetish implies giving something more significance than it actually has - this precisely what life-stylists do with their personal choices... elevate their diet or activities to having revolutionary significance.


Have you told this story on this forum before because this isn't the first time I've heard it. Yes, I have told this story on here a couple of times. it happened the first week I started a job in Berkeley and stuck with me as my first impression of "politics" in "radical" Berkeley.

But I can also use the example of the East Bay Critical Mass that goes around to public gatherings and criticizes them for driving a car and blames them for the BP spill and the war in Iraq. One of them seriously claimed to me that oil was the problem and not imperialism and there were no major wars before modern society became oil-dependent. Why this approach is misguided is that the CM people are anti-war but rather than organize outward with people who do not follow their lifestyle, they write off everyone else and actually consider other anti-war people who drive to be "part of the problem".


What's interesting is the assumption that the idiot in your example is some how tied in and an automatic representative of this book and a movement pushing for us to further involve our personal lives in our struggle rather than being decked down in Gap and Nike smoking Camel lights while at an anti sweat shop demonstration- I've seen it and the word asinine doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.I did not intend to connect "the coming insurrection" to lifestyleism... I don't think they are strictly lifestylists from what I know of them. I made a comment that the OP who believes in creating "parallel" alternative societies criticizing TCI when they seem to believe a more insurrectionist variant of the same idea is like vegetarians criticizing vegans. It was just a quip - not meant to turn into a debate about lifestyle politics.


I wouldn't equate those involved in the recent burning of the dutch building as key examples of what anarchism and class struggle is and I wouldn't the clowns that did the same to the RBC.Fine, like I said my main problem with this kind of politics is that it elevates personal choices to politics... like Ravachol said, it actually has more in common with the arguments by liberals to "buy conscientiously or buy 'green'" and conservatives to "vote with your dollars" than to radical tradditions.


I'm sorry you feel personally attacked by other people making an effort to not support the industries that they violently oppose.I don't feel attacked, I actually don't give a fuck about people's personal lifestyles as long as they don't hurt others or consider people who do not adopt their personal lifestyle as "part of the problem". But I wish that people with good intentions and want a better world would keep their personal choices, personal and organize outwardly and politically with people who live different kinds of lifestyles.

There's nothing wrong with just avoiding the worst examples of capitalist industry because you just can't face handing money over to them, but when this becomes the means for making change, it is ineffective and potentially divisive (when your decision to not shop at wal-mart then becomes "Wal-mart workers, truck drivers and so on are part of the problem" for a hypothetical example).

[this is an invasion]

I did not intend to connect "the coming insurrection" to lifestyleism... I don't think they are strictly lifestylists from what I know of them. I made a comment that the OP who believes in creating "parallel" alternative societies criticizing TCI when they seem to believe a more insurrectionist variant of the same idea is like vegetarians criticizing vegans. It was just a quip - not meant to turn into a debate about lifestyle politics.


For the record, they don't believe in creating alternative societies. They are experimenting with ways to organize ourselves against capital.

[Ele'ill]

That's quite a stretch - make sure you don't pull something out of its socket.

I was being intentionally over-extended here- but then I've also been in some lengthy 'lifestylist' debates on this forum.


See, this is the other problem with lifestylists - if you state a different opinion, they don't take it as a political argument, but somehow personal. Because they have taken a tactic and incorporated it into their lifestyle and personal identity, they get real touchy if you question the tactic.

I only have a problem with other leftists declaring what my intentions are for my own actions and then basing a lengthy attack on these made up fables- which isn't what you're doing btw.




By the way, I am not blaming lifestylists for anything, only arguing that it is not an effective way to promote and organize for self-conscious action by the working class - in fact, it blames many members of the working class.

And they certainty don't get in the way of the organizing I do, that's not my critique. And since I'm a worker, how is it I'm fetishizing anything - I have no money or connections, organizing is the only way for people like me to make any impact on society. What has a bigger impact - if I convince all my co-workers to ride bikes and eat out of dumpsters... or if I organize my coworkers and convince them that we need to strike and shut down the workplace. A fetish implies giving something more significance than it actually has - this precisely what life-stylists do with their personal choices... elevate their diet or activities to having revolutionary significance.

Yes, I have told this story on here a couple of times. it happened the first week I started a job in Berkeley and stuck with me as my first impression of "politics" in "radical" Berkeley.

But I can also use the example of the East Bay Critical Mass that goes around to public gatherings and criticizes them for driving a car and blames them for the BP spill and the war in Iraq. One of them seriously claimed to me that oil was the problem and not imperialism and there were no major wars before modern society became oil-dependent. Why this approach is misguided is that the CM people are anti-war but rather than organize outward with people who do not follow their lifestyle, they write off everyone else and actually consider other anti-war people who drive to be "part of the problem".

I did not intend to connect "the coming insurrection" to lifestyleism... I don't think they are strictly lifestylists from what I know of them. I made a comment that the OP who believes in creating "parallel" alternative societies criticizing TCI when they seem to believe a more insurrectionist variant of the same idea is like vegetarians criticizing vegans. It was just a quip - not meant to turn into a debate about lifestyle politics.

Fine, like I said my main problem with this kind of politics is that it elevates personal choices to politics... like Ravachol said, it actually has more in common with the arguments by liberals to "buy conscientiously or buy 'green'" and conservatives to "vote with your dollars" than to radical tradditions.

I don't feel attacked, I actually don't give a fuck about people's personal lifestyles as long as they don't hurt others or consider people who do not adopt their personal lifestyle as "part of the problem". But I wish that people with good intentions and want a better world would keep their personal choices, personal and organize outwardly and politically with people who live different kinds of lifestyles.

There's nothing wrong with just avoiding the worst examples of capitalist industry because you just can't face handing money over to them, but when this becomes the means for making change, it is ineffective and potentially divisive (when your decision to not shop at wal-mart then becomes "Wal-mart workers, truck drivers and so on are part of the problem" for a hypothetical example).


I know there are people that like to yell at cars and essentially nitpick other leftists and their defense is that we don't know anything about them. I am sure we could run them into the ground as everyone is flawed.

I generally agree with your post and assumed this thread was going to turn into a lifestylism debate (again) which is why I mentioned something.

[RGacky3]

not really. it just means that while desiring communism one finds the current activity of other pro-revolutionaries to be irrelevant at best and detrimental at worst and so is stepping back and "doing nothing" (hence the nihilism) as a means to re-evaluate their position and strategy.

Is'nt desiring communism an ethical desicion, thus ruling out nihilism?

[bcbm]

nah

[Ravachol]

Is'nt desiring communism an ethical desicion, thus ruling out nihilism?

No, that would make communism idealist in nature. It is a material necessity for the working class which actually benefits materially from doing away with this society.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Strikes help improve wages, improving the proletariat's condition. Theft that drives up the cost of goods harms the proletariat's condition.

This is pretty basic stuff, Rav. You might want to take the time to learn more about the system.

You need to understand something.

The majority of those who steal, steal because they have to.

I'd steal if it meant i'd be feeding my family, clothing my kids, or whatever.

Get a job? Maybe I do have a job. Maybe I don't, maybe I was brought up in a poor family and couldn't go to college and did bad in school because I had to concentrate on helping my family survive.

JTB, you are the dumbest motherfucker on this forum. Peace out.

[RGacky3]

No, that would make communism idealist in nature. It is a material necessity for the working class which actually benefits materially from doing away with this society.

But if your a nihilist, if you have an opportunity to get ahead easier and leave your class behind you would do it? Also not doing anything is not going to help your condition.

Commmunists that are not part of the working class believe in it because of morality, that does'nt make it idealist.

[bcbm]

Also not doing anything is not going to help your condition.

on the contrary, it can be a great way to re-assess your condition and the elements maintaining it.

[RGacky3]

on the contrary, it can be a great way to re-assess your condition and the elements maintaining it.

Your own personal condition? Or that of your class in the long term?

[bcbm]

both.

[RGacky3]

But as a nihilist should'nt you not care about your class unless it benefits you directly?

[this is an invasion]

But as a nihilist should'nt you not care about your class unless it benefits you directly?

Which it does.

Regardless of whether someone is a nihilist, communism is in their self-interest if they are working class.

[JTB]

You need to understand something.

The majority of those who steal, steal because they have to.



Not in the West. Most steal because they don't want to make their way honestly.



Get a job?

Who brought that up? Not I. Dumbass. Go read the thread.


Maybe I do have a job. Maybe I don't, maybe I was brought up in a poor family and couldn't go to college and did bad in school because I had to concentrate on helping my family survive.

Do I care whether you have a regular job or not? Do I care whether you prefer to dumpster dive? Please show where I implied that I care.


JTB, you are the dumbest motherfucker on this forum. Peace out.
lol

Considering you're trying to attack me for something someone else said, you're in no position to question my intelligence. :laugh:

[bcbm]

care to discuss my last few posts to you?



Not in the West. Most steal because they don't want to make their way honestly.

source

[JTB]

lol


It's pretty much impossible to starve on the streets of America. At least in the 3 states in which I've lived on the streets. Never had any need to steal anything; plenty of free stuff for anyone willing to walk in and ask. Everyone I ever met had the same experience.

I notice that you do nothing to challenge the assertion you already want to be correct. Not surprising, though. Y'all have never cared about facts when they interfered with the ideology you've been taught to parrot.

[#FF0000]

lol


It's pretty much impossible to starve on the streets of America. At least in the 3 states in which I've lived on the streets. Never had any need to steal anything; plenty of free stuff for anyone willing to walk in and ask. Everyone I ever met had the same experience.

I notice that you do nothing to challenge the assertion you already want to be correct. Not surprising, though. Y'all have never cared about facts when they interfered with the ideology you've been taught to parrot.

so i take it you don't have a source then

[bcbm]

It's pretty much impossible to starve on the streets of America. At least in the 3 states in which I've lived on the streets. Never had any need to steal anything; plenty of free stuff for anyone willing to walk in and ask. Everyone I ever met had the same experience.

who said anything about starving? people also seem to like having access to things like, say, housing.



I notice that you do nothing to challenge the assertion you already want to be correct. Not surprising, though. Y'all have never cared about facts when they interfered with the ideology you've been taught to parrot.

my parents are liberatarian leaning republicans. when i was in school most of the teachers i encountered who shared their politics were democrats. who taught me to "parrot" a fairly unpopular brand of left-wing insurrectionary communism?

also, no response to the actual points made about two pages back?

[stella2010]

Get a job.

and have a kit kat

[Ravachol]

lol


It's pretty much impossible to starve on the streets of America. At least in the 3 states in which I've lived on the streets. Never had any need to steal anything; plenty of free stuff for anyone willing to walk in and ask. Everyone I ever met had the same experience.


Who said anything about starving? The full material wealth of the world belongs to the working class and ought to be taken back by it, not just some scraps to survive. Class struggle doesn't only occur when people are 'starving', it occurs whenever their material conditions are set back as the result of the intrinsic conflict arising from production relations under class society.



I notice that you do nothing to challenge the assertion you already want to be correct. Not surprising, though. Y'all have never cared about facts when they interfered with the ideology you've been taught to parrot.

Yeah, we're all brainwashed commiescum here, straight from behind the iron curtain *****! :rolleyes:

[bcbm]

Who said anything about starving?

jinx, you owe me a coke.

[Ravachol]

jinx, you owe me a coke.

Heh, should've read the thread better.

There ya go:

http://www.borev.net/coke.jpg

Or did you have another coke in mind? :p

[bcbm]

that'll do:cool:

i want those sideburns too

[JTB]

:lol:

You can't have it both ways. You can't say there should be no classes and no rule of one group by another yet want one class to have all the wealth and become the new ruling class


Inversion is not abolition, you dolts

[bcbm]

wtf are you talking about?

[Ravachol]

You can't say there should be no classes and no rule of one group by another


That is because we seek to abolish the 'other group', the bourgeoisie alltogether. There will be no classes and hence no class opressing another.



yet want one class to have all the wealth


Which is rightfully, to it's fullest, biggest, most lucious extend, theirs as the sole producers of social wealth.



and become the new ruling class

lolwut

[Dean]

Not in the West. Most steal because they don't want to make their way honestly.
Actually, I've always been rather honest in my contempt for private property laws.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

lol


It's pretty much impossible to starve on the streets of America. At least in the 3 states in which I've lived on the streets. Never had any need to steal anything; plenty of free stuff for anyone willing to walk in and ask. Everyone I ever met had the same experience.

I notice that you do nothing to challenge the assertion you already want to be correct. Not surprising, though. Y'all have never cared about facts when they interfered with the ideology you've been taught to parrot.

I don't feel this is true. Most people I know in their 20s and 30s who are liberal arts people,that is not having a specific technical skill and not interested in climbing the middle class corporate ladder, either were homeless or have been very close to it at some time. I know people who have faced semi-starvation such not eating anything for 3-4 days. I've been in that situation myself years ago. In Massachusetts 8.3 % of households have problems with "food security"

http://frac.org/pdf/foodinsecurity_2008_rank.pdf

[Os Cangaceiros]

Confining extreme poverty and hunger to "the streets of America" ignores the fact that the most severe impoverished areas in the US are in rural areas, especially in African-American communities in Arkansas/N. Lousiana and elsewhere in Appalachia.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't feel this is true. Most people I know in their 20s and 30s who are liberal arts people,that is not having a specific technical skill and not interested in climbing the middle class corporate ladder, either were homeless or have been very close to it at some time.

A question here would be--is this situation self imposed? If one "chooses" to be a "liberal arts" person and not learn any specific marketable skill, isn't one setting oneself up in life for this sort of problem?

If the choice is available (and true for may it isn't) for some people to become productive members of society in a tangible way and if people choose not to take that route--isn't their own fault?

Even a Communist society must have a limit on bad poets and untalented artists and musicians.

I have a degree in Classics and I play guitar in a coffee house on weekends and on occasion I even paint picture--but at the end of the day the end I make a living for my self and my family--and that comes first.

[Ravachol]

A question here would be--is this situation self imposed? If one "chooses" to be a "liberal arts" person and not learn any specific marketable skill, isn't one setting oneself up in life for this sort of problem?


This is a tricky argument as it validates the existing politico-economic system a-priori. Saying it is 'their own fault' implies that we have to operate and live according to the whims and demands of our employers, something that would be rather anathema to us as communists. Obviously posessing a set of 'usefull' skills is nice and necessary but under Capitalism what is 'usefull' is not always what is 'marketable'. There are plenty of 'useless' (Ie. non-value producing) skills in the area of capital-management that are perfectly marketable and plenty of highly 'usefull' skills that aren't marketable.

I, for one, happen to work in a very specific sector with, currently, a high demand and low supply thus making my skillset very 'marketable'. This might change however given circumstances (an increase in people learning the skillset, technological progress,etc.). This doesn't make my skills any less 'usefull'. I refuse to let the bourgeoisie and their system dictate 'usefullness'.

[Bud Struggle]

This is a tricky argument as it validates the existing politico-economic system a-priori. There is only reality, the rest pleasent as it is, is just wishful thinking.



Saying it is 'their own fault' implies that we have to operate and live according to the whims and demands of our employers, something that would be rather anathema to us as communists. Not just employers--according the real world where fror the most part we have to work to survive. Living as a "poet" is a luxury--in this or any other economic system. The Capitalist system affords a few--I would imagine that the Communist syste would afford us a few also. Though in past Communist systems artists were direct servants of the state--that may say something right there.



Obviously posessing a set of 'usefull' skills is nice and necessary but under Capitalism what is 'usefull' is not always what is 'marketable'. There are plenty of 'useless' (Ie. non-value producing) skills in the area of capital-management that are perfectly marketable and plenty of highly 'usefull' skills that aren't marketable. I think the same may be said for the Communist system. After the Revolution we will need more engineers than poets, for that matter we will need more garbage men than poets. And further--there is the matter of the quality of the poets work. Shouldn't "bad" poets be consigned to "other duties"?


I, for one, happen to work in a very specific sector with, currently, a high demand and low supply thus making my skillset very 'marketable'. This might change however given circumstances (an increase in people learning the skillset, technological progress,etc.). This doesn't make my skills any less 'usefull'. I refuse to let the bourgeoisie and their system dictate 'usefullness'. Being useful to the "market" and useful to the "people" will, I think, prove to be quite similar.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There will be no art in communist society. It will be one giant blandscape, filled with various shades of grey.

Oh, and


Being useful to the "market" and useful to the "people" will, I think, prove to be quite similar.

LOL!

[Bud Struggle]

There will be no art in communist society. It will be one giant blandscape, filled with various shades of grey.


Well judging from the fate of Communist art in its previous manifestations it has had difficult times. I'll spare you representations of previous Communist art.

But here's an interesting article from the the Central European Review on Stalin and his composers.

http://www.ce-review.org/99/1/music1_horton.html

[Edit] I wonder what post-Revolution art would actually look like. Would a protest song be: "I want to Own a Factory!" or "Stockroker Dreams"?

[Ravachol]

There is only reality, the rest pleasent as it is, is just wishful thinking.


You don't seem to understand my response. The matter we were discussing was whether it was 'their own fault', that's a moral question and requires a MORAL evaluation. Hence we cannot justify a system a-priory.



Not just employers--according the real world where fror the most part we have to work to survive.


Indeed, we do this not because we want to but because we need to survive. We must then ask the question, what conditions and system force us into a certain type of activity (work as we know it, with our surplus value being extracted by the bourgoisie, our activity being dirigated and directed by managers and other bosses' lackeys turning us into cogwheels producing not for need but for the profit of the bosses).



Living as a "poet" is a luxury--in this or any other economic system.


If you had actually read my post, you would have noticed I never advocated 'lving as a poet'. I merely objected to the fact that you shifted the blame from capitalism to members of the working class.



The Capitalist system affords a few--I would imagine that the Communist syste would afford us a few also. Though in past Communist systems artists were direct servants of the state--that may say something right there.


Haha, oh wow. You honestly believe that had anything to do with Communism? The USSR and consorts were, perhaps (depending on who you ask), socialism AT BEST, not communism.



I think the same may be said for the Communist system. After the Revolution we will need more engineers than poets


This will be out of real existing production needs, not because of marketability and other profit-driven nonsense.



Shouldn't "bad" poets be consigned to "other duties"?


Who decides who's a "bad" poet? Communism is about freeing up human activity to it's fullest extend and letting humanity discover it's full potential. This would mean that in full post-scarcity communism everybody has the possibility and is encouraged to develop themselves artistically and intellectually. Being a 'poet' and being a garbage-man won't be mutually exclusive.



Being useful to the "market" and useful to the "people" will, I think, prove to be quite similar.

You must be joking. For one, 'the market' doesn't exist except in the fantasies of capital-apologetes with little experience in real-world economics. Supply and demand, sure that'll exist under Communism as well. But there is far more to market theories than 'supply and demand'. The entire social framework operating under late capitalism creates false demands (through sign-value and social status based on socio-economic position), overproduction, crappy quality and what not. For example, managers, stock brokers and other lackeys of capital occupy highly 'marketable' positions yet they produce no use-value whatsoever except managing capital's operatoins. They will be an obsolete category under communism.

[Bud Struggle]

You don't seem to understand my response. The matter we were discussing was whether it was 'their own fault', that's a moral question and requires a MORAL evaluation. Hence we cannot justify a system a-priory. One has the moral obligation to survive in whatever conditions one is presented with. The fact that this society is Capitalist or Communist comes only after the fact.




Indeed, we do this not because we want to but because we need to survive. We must then ask the question, what conditions and system force us into a certain type of activity (work as we know it, with our surplus value being extracted by the bourgoisie, our activity being dirigated and directed by managers and other bosses' lackeys turning us into cogwheels producing not for need but for the profit of the bosses). Life forces us into certain types of activities is our need to survive. We need food, water, shelter. As I said these are of prime importance. People need to provide them for themselves in the best way possible--if one chooses not to do so within the given framework of their existance (provided that choice is given)--it seems to be their fault.


If you had actually read my post, you would have noticed I never advocated 'lving as a poet'. I merely objected to the fact that you shifted the blame from capitalism to members of the working class. My point is that it is every individuals job to take care of him/herself. There is no reason that it is society's responsibility to take care of people that choose not to take care of themselves. Now, society MAY do so if itso decides--but that is up to the members of that particular socety if they so choose to do so.


Haha, oh wow. You honestly believe that had anything to do with Communism? The USSR and consorts were, perhaps (depending on who you ask), socialism AT BEST, not communism. Well that all depends on who you talk to around here. Personally, I believe that the USSR, etc. is was Communism looks like in the real world--when it is actually put into practice. In theory it looks grand--but in real life, I only have what I have seen to go by.


This will be out of real existing production needs, not because of marketability and other profit-driven nonsense. I said they will prove to be similar, I think.


Who decides who's a "bad" poet? Communism is about freeing up human activity to it's fullest extend and letting humanity discover it's full potential. This would mean that in full post-scarcity communism everybody has the possibility and is encouraged to develop themselves artistically and intellectually. One would hope.


Being a 'poet' and being a garbage-man won't be mutually exclusive. Indeed they may be "garbage men" in more than one sense of the word. :D


You must be joking. For one, 'the market' doesn't exist except in the fantasies of capital-apologetes with little experience in real-world economics. Supply and demand, sure that'll exist under Communism as well. But there is far more to market theories than 'supply and demand'. The entire social framework operating under late capitalism creates false demands (through sign-value and social status based on socio-economic position), overproduction, crappy quality and what not. For example, managers, stock brokers and other lackeys of capital occupy highly 'marketable' positions yet they produce no use-value whatsoever except managing capital's operatoins. They will be an obsolete category under communism.

Well maybe. I'll have to see it to believe it. But there will always be some sort of supply and demand.

[RGacky3]

My point is that it is every individuals job to take care of him/herself. There is no reason that it is society's responsibility to take care of people that choose not to take care of themselves. Now, society MAY do so if itso decides--but that is up to the members of that particular socety if they so choose to do so.

Nor is it societies responsibility to protect Capitalists vast property rights and power structures to give them majestic lifestlyes, so we are trying to stop that. End property rights.

The arguments is'nt to take care of people, its to free people and give them a say over their own lives and a say in society.


Well that all depends on who you talk to around here. Personally, I believe that the USSR, etc. is was Communism looks like in the real world--when it is actually put into practice. In theory it looks grand--but in real life, I only have what I have seen to go by.


But thats retarded, how was it communist? How was it put into practice? Words have meanings, if I call an orange an apple, that does'nt make it an apple.


I said they will prove to be similar, I think.

Really? So if everyone had a vote, millions would choose to starve? and they would also vote to give more mansions and yacts to the rich?


Well judging from the fate of Communist art in its previous manifestations it has had difficult times. I'll spare you representations of previous Communist art.

But here's an interesting article from the the Central European Review on Stalin and his composers.

http://www.ce-review.org/99/1/music1_horton.html (http://www.ce-review.org/99/1/music1_horton.html)

[Edit] I wonder what post-Revolution art would actually look like. Would a protest song be: "I want to Own a Factory!" or "Stockroker Dreams"?

No one gives a shit, your arguing against a strawman.


Living as a "poet" is a luxury--in this or any other economic system. The Capitalist system affords a few--I would imagine that the Communist syste would afford us a few also. Though in past Communist systems artists were direct servants of the state--that may say something right there.


Its much easier to be a poet when you only have to work 4 hours a day rather than 8 or 10.

BTW were these past communist systems directly democratic? If not then they are not worth talking about.


Being useful to the "market" and useful to the "people" will, I think, prove to be quite similar.

So poor people don't need affordable housing and food, what we need, is more iphones.

[Ravachol]

One has the moral obligation to survive in whatever conditions one is presented with. The fact that this society is Capitalist or Communist comes only after the fact.


That's more of a material obligation than a moral one. Anyhow, one does not have the obligation to seek the means of survival within the confines of bourgeois law.



Life forces us into certain types of activities is our need to survive. We need food, water, shelter. As I said these are of prime importance. People need to provide them for themselves in the best way possible--if one chooses not to do so within the given framework of their existance (provided that choice is given)--it seems to be their fault.


This is exactly why communism is a material necessity. The process of changing the given framework (capitalism) through challeging Capital is living communism. If I force you into slavery and you refuse, it is not 'your fault' if I kill you, it is my fault for forcing you into slavery. We all ought to seek means to survive out of material necessity, yes. But by no means does that have to be within the framework of bourgeois law or it's socio-economic system.



My point is that it is every individuals job to take care of him/herself. There is no reason that it is society's responsibility to take care of people that choose not to take care of themselves.


Like the bourgeoisie leeching of the labor of the working class?



Well that all depends on who you talk to around here. Personally, I believe that the USSR, etc. is was Communism looks like in the real world


Hahahahahha



--when it is actually put into practice. In theory it looks grand--but in real life, I only have what I have seen to go by.


I suggest you first read up on what communism actually is before commenting on it.



I said they will prove to be similar, I think.


You completely sidestep my entire argument with a nonsensical oneliner. They will not prove similar at all. As I argued, a 'marketability' is driven by what is 'profitable' not what is 'necessary'. There are plenty of products, services and 'jobs' that serve no use but to re-produce Capital which are highly 'marketable' but which will disappear under communism alltogether.



Well maybe. I'll have to see it to believe it. But there will always be some sort of supply and demand.

I never argued against the existence of supply and demand but there is far more to markets than 'supply and demand'. All economic activity is about 'supply and demand', markets are a specific implementation in a specific framework of the concept.

[Bud Struggle]

That's more of a material obligation than a moral one. Anyhow, one does not have the obligation to seek the means of survival within the confines of bourgeois law. Well if they want to survive they have to. Besides, whaqt you believe is or is not a moral obligation is entirely subjective.


This is exactly why communism is a material necessity. The process of changing the given framework (capitalism) through challeging Capital is living communism. If I force you into slavery and you refuse, it is not 'your fault' if I kill you, it is my fault for forcing you into slavery. We all ought to seek means to survive out of material necessity, yes. But by no means does that have to be within the framework of bourgeois law or it's socio-economic system. Again, this is your opinion of how we "ought" to live. Some people choose to love within the Capitalist system, that would be their choice, too. We've come to the part where how we live and how society should behave is nothing more than personal opinion.


Like the bourgeoisie leeching of the labor of the working class? While I agree there are often abuses and ingeneral ROI is substantially higher than it should be for many large companies, Capital and management do serve a valuable purpose in building and creating business. Workers do not spontaniously create businesses or work for themselves.


Hahahahahha I only go by what history has taught me. If you posit that actual Communism may exist in the future--that's fine with me, but the way I see it that's nothing but speculation.


I suggest you first read up on what communism actually is before commenting on it. Oh, I know what Communism theoretically should be like, I also know what attempts at Communism have looked like when tried in the past--and between them I see a shadow. I truly wish Communism well though.


You completely sidestep my entire argument with a nonsensical oneliner. They will not prove similar at all. As I argued, a 'marketability' is driven by what is 'profitable' not what is 'necessary'. There are plenty of products, services and 'jobs' that serve no use but to re-produce Capital which are highly 'marketable' but which will disappear under communism alltogether. I know. I just think it is all so hypothetical that I'm not sure if it matters. I must admit that reading the different ideas proposed here on RevLeft about how such things will function after the Revolution by different Communist and Socialist factions is interesting.


I never argued against the existence of supply and demand but there is far more to markets than 'supply and demand'. All economic activity is about 'supply and demand', markets are a specific implementation in a specific framework of the concept. I agree, forces that create demand will be different--but people will still want the same things--and there will be shortages and abundances.

[Ravachol]

Well if they want to survive they have to. Besides, whaqt you believe is or is not a moral obligation is entirely subjective.

Again, this is your opinion of how we "ought" to live. Some people choose to love within the Capitalist system, that would be their choice, too. We've come to the part where how we live and how society should behave is nothing more than personal opinion.


Liberal nonsense. Communism is not a moral imperative. As I said, it is a material necessity to struggle against Capital. The interests of the working class and the bourgeoisie are directly and instrinsically opposed. If the working class wants to realise it's fullest potential, it is bound to come into conflict with the bourgeoisie and vise-versa.



While I agree there are often abuses and ingeneral ROI is substantially higher than it should be for many large companies, Capital and management do serve a valuable purpose in building and creating business.
Workers do not spontaniously create businesses or work for themselves.


The problem is we as communists oppose the entire model of the 'business'. You only prove my point that management simply serves to manage and operate Capital. Production can and should just as well be managed by workers themselves.




Oh, I know what Communism theoretically should be like, I also know what attempts at Communism have looked like when tried in the past--and between them I see a shadow.


If we look at the current realisation of Capitalism, that tells us just about enough. Secondly, Communism can never be realised in an authoritarian manner.



I know. I just think it is all so hypothetical that I'm not sure if it matters.


It's not hypothetical at all. Workers taking over factories, expropriating the bourgeoisie and forming worker's and neighborhood councils to run society (which happens with varying frequency and success throughout history and the world) are examples of living communism. The process of resisting exploitation itself matters to my material conditions, my wages, my rent,etc. The very process of maximising my material conditions as a member of the working class brings me in direct conflict with the bourgeoisie, it's about as far from 'hypothetical' as you can get.



I agree, forces that create demand will be different--but people will still want the same things


I doubt this. Some goods are merely bought because of the status their purchase gives, the so-called 'sign value'. This status is a result of a society where social status is linked to socio-economic status. Under communism, this will disappear.



--and there will be shortages and abundances.

Initially, yes. But the goal of communism is to allocate and direct resources towards establishing post-scarcity.

[Bud Struggle]

Liberal nonsense. Communism is not a moral imperative. As I said, it is a material necessity to struggle against Capital. The interests of the working class and the bourgeoisie are directly and instrinsically opposed. If the working class wants to realise it's fullest potential, it is bound to come into conflict with the bourgeoisie and vise-versa. Very true, if that's the economic and political paradigm you want to follow. If you want to follow a plethera of other economic plans--what you say rings hollow. I might suggest you look at some plans that don't have such a high failure rate, or maybe ones that are less "either/or" and don't have the same conflict and human suffering. But anyway you look at it Communism is one of hundreds of designs for the future.


The problem is we as communists oppose the entire model of the 'business'. You only prove my point that management simply serves to manage and operate Capital. Production can and should just as well be managed by workers themselves. I take it you haven't met many workers. :D Seriously, that's something I've tried a bit and it has alway caused squables and fights and resentments and lack of productivity. I hate to say it, but for the most part from what I've found without clear management directives workers often get themselves into a morass of personality conflicts.


If we look at the current realisation of Capitalism, that tells us just about enough. Secondly, Communism can never be realised in an authoritarian manner. Lots here on RevLeft would disagree with you. While I have a soft place in my heart for Anarchism--I just don't see people behaving in a way that could bring such a system about. We are closer to a Lord of the Flies behavior than one would think.


It's not hypothetical at all. Workers taking over factories, expropriating the bourgeoisie and forming worker's and neighborhood councils to run society (which happens with varying frequency and success throughout history and the world) are examples of living communism. The process of resisting exploitation itself matters to my material conditions, my wages, my rent,etc. The very process of maximising my material conditions as a member of the working class brings me in direct conflict with the bourgeoisie, it's about as far from 'hypothetical' as you can get. Hmmm, I would consider anything like that even remotely happening as completely hypothetical. I guess we can agree to disagree.


I doubt this. Some goods are merely bought because of the status their purchase gives, the so-called 'sign value'. This status is a result of a society where social status is linked to socio-economic status. Under communism, this will disappear. Now THAT is some wishful thinking as far as I'm concerned. It would be nice though. Good luck with it.


Initially, yes. But the goal of communism is to allocate and direct resources towards establishing post-scarcity. Well if you can get all the rest of Communism to work--I think this part would be no problem at all.

[this is an invasion]

Oh, I know what Communism theoretically should be like, I also know what attempts at Communism have looked like when tried in the past--and between them I see a shadow. I truly wish Communism well though.


We question if these were actual attempts at communism in the first place.

[Bud Struggle]

We question if these were actual attempts at communism in the first place.

Good point.

[Ravachol]

Very true, if that's the economic and political paradigm you want to follow. If you want to follow a plethera of other economic plans--what you say rings hollow. I might suggest you look at some plans that don't have such a high failure rate, or maybe ones that are less "either/or" and don't have the same conflict and human suffering. But anyway you look at it Communism is one of hundreds of designs for the future.


Again, you don't seem to understand communism is you see it as a 'design for the future'. It's the classless, stateless society RESULTING from the struggle between labour and capital BOUND to happen due to the nature of capitalism. It isn't a blueprint at all. Secondly, liberal moral relativism is rendered null and void here as, again, communism is not an idealist project, it's about the working class maximising it's material conditions, something we all want.



I take it you haven't met many workers. :D


Cute. As a worker myself and someone active in the labour movement i won't have to comment on that any further I guess..



Seriously, that's something I've tried a bit and it has alway caused squables and fights and resentments and lack of productivity. I hate to say it, but for the most part from what I've found without clear management directives workers often get themselves into a morass of personality conflicts.


Again, you seem to confuse management (molding labour activity to yield the highest potential profits) with administration (something that can be done by workers themselves and which will exist post-revolution as well). In Revolutionary Syndicalism, educating workers about the enitre production process and how to administrate it is a core feature of working towards worker's self-management. What we protest (apart from 'work' as opposed to labour) is the seperation of work and the administration of it creating a bureaucracy of managers who don't just 'administrate' the production process but who actively organise it to optimise profits for the bourgeoisie. These are completely different things. Also, administration of the production process can be done best by those directly involved in it, due to their affinity and knowledge regarding the process, Ie. the workers themselves. If you honestly think 'management' requires any special skills apart from organising work schedules and tasks in a manner that is most profitable you have never met a manager in your life.



Lots here on RevLeft would disagree with you. While I have a soft place in my heart for Anarchism--I just don't see people behaving in a way that could bring such a system about.


Care to back that up with arguments regarding actual anarchist positions? I can't really argue against opinions typed down out of the blue.



Hmmm, I would consider anything like that even remotely happening as completely hypothetical. I guess we can agree to disagree.


We can, but history has had many episodes of that happening. Even now (in a period of general class retreat) there are many places in the world (only look at Greece for a western-european example) where this is done on a small to medium scale. It requires the right material conditions, yes. But I have a feeling Capital's recurring (and intensifying) crisis will cause just that ;)



Now THAT is some wishful thinking as far as I'm concerned. It would be nice though. Good luck with it.


How so? Care to back that up with arguments instead of just an opinion? Under capitalism, the commodity and it's price resemble 'purchase-power'. Due to the nature of the socio-economic order the 'sign value' of goods allows one to show of this 'purchase-power'. In a different socio-economic order, this will decrease or disappear alltogether. Take primitive timocracies for example (not that I argue in favor of them, far from it) where wealth didn't mean much (although that changed with the rise of domestication) and social status was solemnly based on honour.



Well if you can get all the rest of Communism to work--I think this part would be no problem at all.

The point is, again, that there is not much of a 'the rest of communism', it isn't a fixed plan or blueprint. It's a system emering directly from the way we struggle as a class against our exploitation, the so-called 'living communism'. During these struggles, alternatives adequate to the times and location emerge to slowly replace capitalism with our own organs (sometimes effectively, sometimes not).

[Lenina Rosenweg]

A question here would be--is this situation self imposed? If one "chooses" to be a "liberal arts" person and not learn any specific marketable skill, isn't one setting oneself up in life for this sort of problem?




Sometimes its not a choice. Capitalism rewards some skill sets and not others. People who are good software programmers, good at some sort of financial analysis, and/or have chosen to do "the MBA thing", things useful to the ruling class, are well rewarded.There's nothing wrong with, and its often necessary to do, picking up a "marketable skill" to have a decent lifestyle, care for their family, etc.Its important to realize though that not everyone can do this. Some people can never be software engineers (including myself-I studied Java, C++, etc., I'm not good at it), lawyers or businessman.

I don't think skills valued under capitalism are the skills most useful to society. People who work w/the elderly,the handicapped, teachers, are far more useful to society than lawyers, accountants, MBAs, etc. but are usually paid crap wages.

We shouldn't blame people who are left out for not making themselves marketable and "getting with the program" and instead change the priorities of society.

I think artists, coffee house musicians, buskers, contribute much more to society than banksters or corparados.Most of the people I mentioned, hovering close to starvation or homelessness, were very talented, creative people and were highly skilled. Society didn't reward what they were good at.

I don't mean to appear whiny. Someone with a family should get marketable skills, etc,, that is admirable, i.e. "facing reality", but this isn't the be all of human society.

Even if one is not "fully marketable" (our lives become commodities) that should not be a reason to be pushed into homelessness.

[Bud Struggle]

Again, you don't seem to understand communism is you see it as a 'design for the future'. It's the classless, stateless society RESULTING from the struggle between labour and capital BOUND to happen due to the nature of capitalism. It isn't a blueprint at all. Secondly, liberal moral relativism is rendered null and void here as, again, communism is not an idealist project, it's about the working class maximising it's material conditions, something we all want. Here we are running into a bit of a problem. I certainly don't mind people thinking that Communism CAN be a force in the future or that we CAN build a Communist (or Anarchist) world if we all pull together like a team, but I really have trouble when someine predicts the future and says that it WILL happen. That's when I hear the doorbell ring in my mind and see the copy of Watchtower being handed to me.

There is no certain future. You can BELIEVE there will be a certain future just like the Jehovah Whitnesses, but it is just your belief--nothing more.


Cute. As a worker myself and someone active in the labour movement i won't have to comment on that any further I guess.. A little joke. And I'm a worker, also. I'm the son of a union member and I now work in a factory that I own along side my fellow workers.


Again, you seem to confuse management (molding labour activity to yield the highest potential profits) with administration (something that can be done by workers themselves and which will exist post-revolution as well). In Revolutionary Syndicalism, educating workers about the enitre production process and how to administrate it is a core feature of working towards worker's self-management. What we protest (apart from 'work' as opposed to labour) is the seperation of work and the administration of it creating a bureaucracy of managers who don't just 'administrate' the production process but who actively organise it to optimise profits for the bourgeoisie. These are completely different things. Also, administration of the production process can be done best by those directly involved in it, due to their affinity and knowledge regarding the process, Ie. the workers themselves. If you honestly think 'management' requires any special skills apart from organising work schedules and tasks in a manner that is most profitable you have never met a manager in your life. Well my attempts at worker administration have never worked out very well--and I would think if they could work out well management would have co-opted the idea (Capitalists are good at stealing other people's ideas id they make money.)


Care to back that up with arguments regarding actual anarchist positions? I can't really argue against opinions typed down out of the blue.
It's hard to give examples of successful Anarchism because they are few and far between. There of course was the example of 1930s Spain, which lasted a bit, but most of the other examples have been overgrown Communes of homogenous groups working together. All good, but hardly a world class phenomenon. Anarchism doesn't have "legs." Nothing wrong with that--the Austrian School (for example) doesn't have many people following it either--and I don't think they have much of a future in the real world either.


We can, but history has had many episodes of that happening. Even now (in a period of general class retreat) there are many places in the world (only look at Greece for a western-european example) where this is done on a small to medium scale. It requires the right material conditions, yes. But I have a feeling Capital's recurring (and intensifying) crisis will cause just that ;) Well there is a crisis in capital--because there ALWAYS is a crisis in capital that is exactly how it moves ahead, it changes it grows it sputters and then reinvents itself. There is a lot about Capitalism that could be better and slowel through internal and external pressures it is (inmy opinion) getting better. Yes there are some things happening in Greece, and I could see how you could see that would be a sign of some hope--and maybe it is. I just have my doubts.

Another problem I have is how countries that have had Socialist/Communist Revolutions--that were flawed--never healed themselves to become real Socialism. The USSR got in a rut and just stayed there for 50 years. China had to move towards Capitalism to grow and places like North Korea just went on it's merry way to monarchy. It bothers me that imperfect Revolutions never corrected themselves. And I can't believe any comming Revolution will be "perfect." Things have to be corrected and changed for Anarchism or Marxism or something similar to take hold.


How so? Care to back that up with arguments instead of just an opinion? Under capitalism, the commodity and it's price resemble 'purchase-power'. Due to the nature of the socio-economic order the 'sign value' of goods allows one to show of this 'purchase-power'. In a different socio-economic order, this will decrease or disappear alltogether. Take primitive timocracies for example (not that I argue in favor of them, far from it) where wealth didn't mean much (although that changed with the rise of domestication) and social status was solemnly based on honour. Well I'm not saying that Communism doesn't make sense--it makes perfect sense. If the human race was made up of logical, rational people doing the best for themselves or others (both ways point towards Communism) we'd all be comrades today--but there are too many currents and tides in the human psyche, too many whims and way too many "great men." Maybe in a small society like in Chiapas things could work out--but on a large scale, you get Stalin the Soviet Union. I could be wrong, I just don't see it as practical or workable.


The point is, again, that there is not much of a 'the rest of communism', it isn't a fixed plan or blueprint. It's a system emering directly from the way we struggle as a class against our exploitation, the so-called 'living communism'. During these struggles, alternatives adequate to the times and location emerge to slowly replace capitalism with our own organs (sometimes effectively, sometimes not). I understand that is how you see the world--I tend to see (at least the first world) as being post-Proletarian/Bourgeois. Those worker distinctions have been fading since Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto. I think it's a different world and there has to be different solutions than the old Capitalism v. Communism fight.

[Ravachol]

Here we are running into a bit of a problem. I certainly don't mind people thinking that Communism CAN be a force in the future or that we CAN build a Communist (or Anarchist) world if we all pull together like a team, but I really have trouble when someine predicts the future and says that it WILL happen. That's when I hear the doorbell ring in my mind and see the copy of Watchtower being handed to me.


I'm not saying communism is an inevitability, i've argued against such silly determinism myself before. What i'm saying is that it's a necessity and that the seeds of communism arise from the conditions under Capitalism. It's not a moral imperative but a material need. So it's not as much a matter of 'opinion' but the direction that capitalism pushes the working class into. Whether the struggle has a successfull conclusion is another matter.



Well my attempts at worker administration have never worked out very well--and I would think if they could work out well management would have co-opted the idea (Capitalists are good at stealing other people's ideas id they make money.)


Why would Capital co-opt an idea that necessarily means handing over the means of production to the workers? It would be, literally, suicide.
Also, there are plenty of successfull examples of autogestion, not to mention the fact that communism isn't only about autogestion but a full transformation of the economical sphere.



It's hard to give examples of successful Anarchism because they are few and far between. There of course was the example of 1930s Spain, which lasted a bit, but most of the other examples have been overgrown Communes of homogenous groups working together. All good, but hardly a world class phenomenon. Anarchism doesn't have "legs." Nothing wrong with that--the Austrian School (for example) doesn't have many people following it either--and I don't think they have much of a future in the real world either.


One idea behind Anarchism (especially Anarcho-Syndicalism) is that it isn't 'idealist' in nature at all. One is not required to know Bakunin, Malatesta and Rocker by heart to be an anarchist, it is only required to act like one. Acting like one, in turn, is the result of rather simple anti-autoritarian, democratic principles governing struggles in everyday life. Do you honestly believe every worker in the CNT was a 'conscious' Anarchist? One can behave like an Anarchist and thus be one without being a 'conscious' anarchist.



Well there is a crisis in capital--because there ALWAYS is a crisis in capital that is exactly how it moves ahead, it changes it grows it sputters and then reinvents itself.


Cutting in the material conditions of the working class along the way in order to sustain Capital.



I just have my doubts.


Oh well we agree on that one then, I have my doubts as well. There is no certainty whatsoever regarding the communist project (in whatever variety, Anarchist or otherwise).



The USSR got in a rut and just stayed there for 50 years. China had to move towards Capitalism to grow and places like North Korea just went on it's merry way to monarchy.


These were results of a myriad of complex factors, the primary (in my eyes) being that these projects were:

a) Autoritarian in nature, allowing a bureaucratic class to develop
b) Not emancipatory enough by substituting mass-struggle (initially or at some point) for spectacular vanguardism.



And I can't believe any comming Revolution will be "perfect."


Revolution, as I understand it, is not a 'moment' or a singular event. It is the process of uncompromising revolt. Learning from past mistakes is an integral part of this.



Things have to be corrected and changed for Anarchism or Marxism or something similar to take hold.


Spot on, I fully agree here.



Well I'm not saying that Communism doesn't make sense--it makes perfect sense. If the human race was made up of logical, rational people doing the best for themselves or others (both ways point towards Communism) we'd all be comrades today--but there are too many currents and tides in the human psyche, too many whims and way too many "great men."


These are, however, not the result of some mystical 'human nature', but the result of the hegemony reproduced through our social framework and institutions. Hence why building counter-power and a counter-hegemony is essential. We have to espouse a sort of active nihilism that re-asserts our own subjectivities.



Maybe in a small society like in Chiapas things could work out--but on a large scale, you get Stalin the Soviet Union. I could be wrong, I just don't see it as practical or workable.


Wow. That's a bit of a stretch. What has scale got todo with the communist project? Also, I don't see what Anarchist communism and Stalin and the USSR have to do with eachother.



I understand that is how you see the world--I tend to see (at least the first world) as being post-Proletarian/Bourgeois. Those worker distinctions have been fading since Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto. I think it's a different world and there has to be different solutions than the old Capitalism v. Communism fight.

Care to back that up? As long as private control over the means of production exists there will be (by definition) a working class and a bourgeoisie. I've heard the "we're past the proletariat!" drive-by 'argument' before, mainly from undergrad. art students but I've never actually heard anybody backing it up with solid reasoning. The very definition of the bourgeoisie and working class are tied to class society, a necessary feature of capitalism. So unless you claim we live in a post-capitalist, classless society (communism, perhaps? :p), I don't think your claim will hold.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm not saying communism is an inevitability, i've argued against such silly determinism myself before. What i'm saying is that it's a necessity and that the seeds of communism arise from the conditions under Capitalism. It's not a moral imperative but a material need. So it's not as much a matter of 'opinion' but the direction that capitalism pushes the working class into. Whether the struggle has a successfull conclusion is another matter. It's hard to argue with you definition here. I agree there is a material need, but if it comes to fruition--is an entirely different matter.


Why would Capital co-opt an idea that necessarily means handing over the means of production to the workers? It would be, literally, suicide.
Also, there are plenty of successfull examples of autogestion, not to mention the fact that communism isn't only about autogestion but a full transformation of the economical sphere. If it makes more money I think capitalism would co-opt anything. There aren't any rules in capitalism besides for what produces the greates return. All rules are imposed from the outside (OSHA, unions, etc.) There are no rules against letting the workers administer the business. In a way that is what Corporate CEOs do. They certainly don't own the company in most cases--they are hired workers of the owner--the stockholders. In that respect companies like Exxon are run by the "workers." I realize that isn't the Marxist interpretation--but it works.


One idea behind Anarchism (especially Anarcho-Syndicalism) is that it isn't 'idealist' in nature at all. One is not required to know Bakunin, Malatesta and Rocker by heart to be an anarchist, it is only required to act like one. Acting like one, in turn, is the result of rather simple anti-autoritarian, democratic principles governing struggles in everyday life. Do you honestly believe every worker in the CNT was a 'conscious' Anarchist? One can behave like an Anarchist and thus be one without being a 'conscious' anarchist. That very may well be the case--I've read about the CNT a bit and I really don't remember where ithe "ideas" came from. FWIW I think that is the one time that Anarchism actually worked.


These were results of a myriad of complex factors, the primary (in my eyes) being that these projects were:

a) Autoritarian in nature, allowing a bureaucratic class to develop
b) Not emancipatory enough by substituting mass-struggle (initially or at some point) for spectacular vanguardism. My problem is that those ersatz Communist never became REAL Communists. If the Revolution doesn't bring perfection immediately--are we doomed to whatever it doesn bring perpetually?


Revolution, as I understand it, is not a 'moment' or a singular event. It is the process of uncompromising revolt. Learning from past mistakes is an integral part of this. I hope so.


Spot on, I fully agree here. I think we agree on more than we disagree on.


These are, however, not the result of some mystical 'human nature', but the result of the hegemony reproduced through our social framework and institutions. Hence why building counter-power and a counter-hegemony is essential. We have to espouse a sort of active nihilism that re-asserts our own subjectivities. I'm not sure about that--but even if you say is true we are going to have change a lot of hearts and minds. That's not to say it can't be done--Capitalism changes hearts and minds everyday with commercialism--you can't go anywhere in the world without seeing a Coke sign.


Wow. That's a bit of a stretch. What has scale got todo with the communist project? Also, I don't see what Anarchist communism and Stalin and the USSR have to do with eachother. Yea, it is going a bit. Frankly I would dismiss Anarchism altogether if it wasn't for the CNT--they showed to could be done on a reasonable scale.


Care to back that up? As long as private control over the means of production exists there will be (by definition) a working class and a bourgeoisie. I've heard the "we're past the proletariat!" drive-by 'argument' before, mainly from undergrad. art students but I've never actually heard anybody backing it up with solid reasoning. The very definition of the bourgeoisie and working class are tied to class society, a necessary feature of capitalism. So unless you claim we live in a post-capitalist, classless society (communism, perhaps? :p), I don't think your claim will hold. True, it dosen't hold in terms of Marxist theory, but you can see how Marxist thory is a bit creaky in places--the rise of the technology workers, 1099ers, stockholding pensioners, stock holding workers, worker incentive bonuses, etc. You see the decline of the pure "worker" with the decline of unions. I tend to think that as time goes on these lines will be blurred even farther. It's hard to revolt against Exxon when your pension is invested in their stock and tied into their profitability and you get that check every month in the mail. As a matter of fact you would want Exxon to make even more money.

If there is to be a Communism in the future I believe it may be considerably different from any being imagined today.

[RGacky3]

If it makes more money I think capitalism would co-opt anything. There aren't any rules in capitalism besides for what produces the greates return. All rules are imposed from the outside (OSHA, unions, etc.) There are no rules against letting the workers administer the business. In a way that is what Corporate CEOs do. They certainly don't own the company in most cases--they are hired workers of the owner--the stockholders. In that respect companies like Exxon are run by the "workers." I realize that isn't the Marxist interpretation--but it works.


I disagree, there are no set in stone rules in Capitalism, but Capitalism is ruled and rules are set namely the rule of making money, and its essencially ruled by those with the money, and those with the money make the rules. Thats why there is no money to be made in affordable housing, because the rich institutionally are the ones that MUST be catered to.

As far as CEOs and stockholders, the CEOs are not the workers, because they control the company, not the stockholders, in reality very few stockholders (the ones on the board mainly) have any actual control over the companies wealth. Your analysis that Exxon is run by the workers is so far out of reality, its laughable.


That very may well be the case--I've read about the CNT a bit and I really don't remember where ithe "ideas" came from. FWIW I think that is the one time that Anarchism actually worked.

Its worked everytime its been tried, until a large military power from outside destroyed it through violence.


I'm not sure about that--but even if you say is true we are going to have change a lot of hearts and minds. That's not to say it can't be done--Capitalism changes hearts and minds everyday with commercialism--you can't go anywhere in the world without seeing a Coke sign.


It has nothing to do with hearts and minds, its dollers and cents.


True, it dosen't hold in terms of Marxist theory, but you can see how Marxist thory is a bit creaky in places--the rise of the technology workers, 1099ers, stockholding pensioners, stock holding workers, worker incentive bonuses, etc. You see the decline of the pure "worker" with the decline of unions. I tend to think that as time goes on these lines will be blurred even farther. It's hard to revolt against Exxon when your pension is invested in their stock and tied into their profitability and you get that check every month in the mail. As a matter of fact you would want Exxon to make even more money.

If there is to be a Communism in the future I believe it may be considerably different from any being imagined today.

Its not marxist theory, its ANY class theory, and infact, there never was a pure worker, as long as banks existed for people to put their savings in, the claim your making could be made. But holding stock doe'snt change a thing unless that comes with ACTUAL power, which it does'nt, infact its more centralized now than ever. Nowerdays Marx's saying that 10% control 90% of the wealth would be laughable conservative.

However far as Exxon, not its not, if Exxon became a publically owned company and worker run it would'nt hurt the pensions at all. Socialists are not out to destroy the economy they are out to democratize it.