We side with the powerless

[RGacky3]

I thing this is the crux of the left vrs the right, and it is almost universally true.

We support the workers rather than buisiness, because the workers are the powerless, and the buisiness are the exploiters, (even though some of us are profressionals or middles class)

We support the poor rather than the rich, because the poor are the powerless, while the rich have the financial power (even though many of us are not poor)

We support Immigrants because they are the powerless and the state and exploitative buisinesses are the powerful. (even though many of us are natives)

We support homosexuals because they have been the powerless being oppressed by those with power. (even though most of us are straight)

We support the palestinians rather than the isrealis because they are the powerless and the Isrealis are the powerfull and the oppressors.

We support minorities because historically they have been the oppressed ones, and subject to racism, whereas europeans have been the racists and the oppressors, (even though many of us are white).

And so on and so forth. The fact is the right wing almost always sides with power, they sided with the aparteid government of south africa, they side with corporations, they side with anti-immigrant groups, they side with the rich.

If you just look at policy after policy, and (just for now) forget the reasoning and ideology behind them the outcome is almost universal, the left sides with the powerless, and right sides with the powerfull, and the ideologies are built around that.

For example many leftists are atheists, however the left will side with the muslims being oppresed in europe, the immigrants, and teh muslims in teh United States, why? Is it because they agree with the muslim faith? Or the ideology of the muslims? No, its because they are against the powerful oppressing the powerless, and there is absolutely no contradiction when we in turn side with muslim women who are oppressed by muslim men.

The same goes with the right wing, they will scape goat muslim people in the US, yet will support Muslim autocratic states in the middle east? Whats the common thread? They side with the powerful.

Those same types will many times be economic libertarians, and what are economic libertarians main battles? Always those that benefit the powerful. How many economic libertarians have you seen at pro-immigrant rights protests? Not that many, thats because their ideology is just their way to side with the powerful, the immigrants are the powerless, so they fight against them.

Leftists on the other hand fight for immigrant rights in western countries, yet at the same time fight multinational corporations in the third world, why? Because we side with the powerless, in third world countries we support local buisinesses and oppose foreign influence, because the foreing influence is an external power being imposed on powerless people, where as immigrants are powerless being being oppressed in the first world.

But heres the kicker, we as leftists can say loud and clear "WE SIDE WITH THE POWERLESS," and build our ideology around that.

Right wingers cannot say that, they have to come up with ideologies that allow them to support power yet seam to come from somewhere else, thats why you see right wingers always contradict themselves, thats why libertarians clearly don't care about liberty thats why racists rarely actually care about defending cultures, thats why the regligious right conveniently ignore msot of the bible, its because all of that is just a way to explain their love of power, and the powerful and their disdain for the powerless and the oppressed. Thats why right wingers never make sense, why their resoning never fits, why they are full of contradictions, its because they side with the powerful, and cannot admit it, while we side with the powerless and say it proudly.

[Bud Struggle]

DAMN Gack, you wrote a MANIFESTO! :)

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Thank you for this. It would be interesting to analyze right wing ideologies and their willingness to admit that they side with the rich.

Strangely enough, from my experience, individual right wingers and centrists often don't know that their ideology inevitably sides with the powerful at the expense of all others. They plainly DON'T KNOW that their ideology hurts the working class is unsustainable, and when you say it to them, they refuse to admit it. I've found that once I can convince them of this one fact, they become more open to leftism. Interesting isn't it?

[RGacky3]

Its just stuff on my mind.

Btw, this is'nt just socialists, this is general worldwide, depending on the context, and the conventional widsom.

For example American progressives will almost always support the powerless within the American context, European social-democrats and socialists the same, Latin American indigenous rights groups, socialists and peasant groups the same and so on.

The left wing was on the side of the Jews in early 20th century Europe, the right wing was generally anti-semetic, but nowerdays the right wing is on the side of Isreal while the left is on the side of palestinians, the difference is the context, the right supports power the left supports the powerless. The more you look at this more the more it becomes clear.

Infact some of the ultra right wing, people like rush limbough, I would argue, are beyond just general support for established power, and have a mild form of sociopathy.

The left winger will see a homeless man and ask "what got this person here," and feel sympathy. A right winger will see a homeless man and things "what a lazy bum," and feel superior.

I ultimately think that this is the big difference between right and left wing mentalities, and why world wide, the left wing far outnumbers the right, yet the the elite tend to be more right wing. (I don't have statistics on this, but its my general perception).

[RGacky3]

I've found that once I can convince them of this one fact, they become more open to leftism. Interesting isn't it?

I believe that these are the right wingers that are so out of the bombardment of propeganda that they recieve, I'd say those are most of right wingers, they've been given a narrative and they hav'nt challenged it.

Then there are some, that are simply out and out either mini-sociopaths, or simply acting in their material interests.

[Dean]

You have a good sense of leftist morality, and it shows in a lot of your posts.

[Decolonize The Left]

A smart right-winger would say that it's a sign of the powerless to take strength in moralizing over siding with the powerless in an attempt to gain the moral high-ground.
A smart right-winger would say that true power comes in not needing to take strength in slogans or moral parades, but that strength is taken through action.
A smart right-winger wouldn't be concerned with what you say as it means nothing when compared to what you do, and this right-winger is already consolidating his/her power against you as you speak.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Oh, and just to be clear, I don't side with the powerless. I side with those of my class because we are the most powerful both in strength and in number.

- August

[Bud Struggle]

Oh, and just to be clear, I don't side with the powerless. I side with those of my class because we are the most powerful both in strength and in number.

- August In theory--not in provible fact. There's a difference.

[Edit] I meant in strength--not numbers. They have the numbers. :)

[#FF0000]

Where would you be without workers, Bud?

I'd say that's pretty powerful.

[Bud Struggle]

Where would you be without workers, Bud?


I don't know. But I know where the workers would be without the Capitalists--they would be in Detroit and Cleveland and in Pittsburgh and in Scranton.

And in a lot of other towns and cities in the Rust Belt.

[ComradeMan]

I side with nice people.
;)

[Bud Struggle]

A smart right-winger would say that it's a sign of the powerless to take strength in moralizing over siding with the powerless in an attempt to gain the moral high-ground.
A smart right-winger would say that true power comes in not needing to take strength in slogans or moral parades, but that strength is taken through action.
A smart right-winger wouldn't be concerned with what you say as it means nothing when compared to what you do, and this right-winger is already consolidating his/her power against you as you speak.

- August

Yea, I was just going to post that!

[Decolonize The Left]

Yea, I was just going to post that!

But you aren't a smart right-winger Bud, a claim to which your previous post is ample evidence.

You missed my entire point, and that's ok as I assume many did. My point is that the moralizing of the OP, while admirable in his conviction, is useless in reality as it only furthers the standard that we are powerless when the reality is that we are vastly more powerful than you.

Given that all power is exercised, not possessed, our numbers create a vast network potentiality for the exercising of power, while your limited numbers cause your exercising of power to become stale and repetitive - signs of weakness. You are forced to fall back upon tired avenues for protection (the police, military, etc...), avenues which have been traveled many times and are too well known now.

The potential is on our side - the inevitable is on yours.

- August

[ComradeMan]

But you aren't a smart right-winger Bud, a claim to which your previous post is ample evidence.

I wouldn't describe Bud as a rightwinger and I think he was being ironic.

As for the rest of the OP, well- the heart is in the right place but it does sound a bit similar to an argumentum ad lazaram.

[Bud Struggle]

But you aren't a smart right-winger Bud, a claim to which your previous post is ample evidence. Fine.


You missed my entire point, and that's ok as I assume many did. My point is that the moralizing of the OP, while admirable in his conviction, is useless in reality as it only furthers the standard that we are powerless when the reality is that we are vastly more powerful than you. And my point--that you didn't get is that GACKY IS RIGHT and you are wrong. You only think that you are more powerful. You can't demonstrate it. Look at Egypt--a million out in the street and they are waiting for the United States to do something. Mubarak doesn't go and there a million people standing around in a square with their thumbs up their ass. And even if Mubarak does go--"democracy" will put in the chief of security and keep the same government as before. That's not power. The Left's only claim to fame is maudlin sentimentality. But good for you.


Given that all power is exercised, not possessed, our numbers create a vast network potentiality for the exercising of power, while your limited numbers cause your exercising of power to become stale and repetitive - signs of weakness. You are forced to fall back upon tired avenues for protection (the police, military, etc...), avenues which have been traveled many times and are too well known now. And the key word there is POTENTIAL. Power isn't power until it's used. That's the nature of power. And the Proletariate doesn't used it's theoretical power to any advantage--so it really doesn't exist, does it?


The potential is on our side - the inevitable is on yours. It is how the world has always existed since the beginning of civilization--there is no proof that the future will be any different. You are waiting for the Missiah called the Proletariat to flow down from heaven and change the world. It ain't gunna happen.

I may not be smart, but I'm a realist. You are just a dreamer.

[Decolonize The Left]

And my point--that you didn't get is that GACKY IS RIGHT and you are wrong. You only think that you are more powerful. You can't demonstrate it. Look at Egypt--a million out in the street and they are waiting for the United States to do something. Mubarak doesn't go and there a million people standing around in a square with their thumbs up their ass. And even if Mubarak does go--"democracy" will put in the chief of security and keep the same government as before. That's not power. The Left's only claim to fame is maudlin sentimentality. But good for you.

Those people in the streets have accomplished a great deal, and the point which you conveniently ignore is that they've done so largely without violence. I'll leave it to you to imagine what it would look like if they were violent...


And the key word there is POTENTIAL. Power isn't power until it's used. That's the nature of power. And the Proletariate doesn't used it's theoretical power to any advantage--so it really doesn't exist, does it?

Like potential energy, the potential power of the working class is always present. It is this potential power of the working class that causes the fear in the capitalist class - it is this potential power which exists which is why the left is isolated and kept at minimum influence by the state.


It is how the world has always existed since the beginning of civilization--there is no proof that the future will be any different. You are waiting for the Missiah called the Proletariat to flow down from heaven and change the world. It ain't gunna happen.

I may not be smart, but I'm a realist. You are just a dreamer.

I would think that you'd understand that I'm the last person to wait for a messiah or any gift from above. I would also think that you'd know by now that I don't dream about proletarian revolution or the like - I'm much more of a 'realist' than you understand.

The only thing which is true is that all things change and nothing is certain. Your entire position is founded upon the idiocy that some things don't change and some things are certain.

In short, your position is that of peeing into the wind and thinking it's rain.

- August

[Bud Struggle]

Those people in the streets have accomplished a great deal, and the point which you conveniently ignore is that they've done so largely without violence. I'll leave it to you to imagine what it would look like if they were violent... Yes they would have had a Revolutiuon.


Like potential energy, the potential power of the working class is always present. It is this potential power of the working class that causes the fear in the capitalist class - it is this potential power which exists which is why the left is isolated and kept at minimum influence by the state. And so, is that why the Left is gaining ground in the US? Is that why unions are gaing ground and is that why the gap between the rich and poor is lessening? Is that why New political parties are sprouting up ON THE LEFT and challenging the old Democratic Party to make it more Progressive? Is that why Liberals and Radicals rul the airwaves and people hunger to hear their words?

Is that why all of that is happening?


I would think that you'd understand that I'm the last person to wait for a messiah or any gift from above. I would also think that you'd know by now that I don't dream about proletarian revolution or the like - I'm much more of a 'realist' than you understand. I know you well enough. I was just being arch.


The only thing which is true is that all things change and nothing is certain. Your entire position is founded pon the idiocy that some things don't change and some things are certain. I agree with that point--and the Conservatives ARE gaining ground. Read CotR's Reagan thread--I make that point there that Reagan would be a Liberal by today's standards.


In short, your position is that of peeing into the wind and thinking it's rain.

- August :D

[ComradeMan]

Those people in the streets have accomplished a great deal, - August

What have they achieved in material terms?

Don't you think it's too soon to tell?

[red cat]

@ the OP :

After a socialist revolution the proletariat emerges as the most powerful class, and the bourgeoisie grows more and more powerless while trying to regain power. So, it is not always the powerless who get our support.

[#FF0000]

What have they achieved in material terms?

Don't you think it's too soon to tell?

1,000,000 people out in the streets protesting the government in Egypt is something.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

First of all, I appreciate the piece Gack, It was quite well written. The you have to add that many right wingers don't act the way they do because they think they are powerful and need to hold some powerless groups down. Though that's what happens nonetheless.

As for anybody mocking the revolt in egypt (which just saw its first large labor protests today incidentally), it should be said that such talk is ridiculous. The regime there is toast and the entire region has been shaken by the events. Mubarak has vowed to leave this september and will be held to it in my opinion. Shit bud, even the state run media is seeing the writing on the wall.

That being said, Bud makes a point. The military is going to be the deciding factor in all of this. It makes sense that someone who's really cozy with the military and given them billions over the years push them along.

[Milk Sheikh]

My point is that the moralizing of the OP, while admirable in his conviction, is useless in reality as it only furthers the standard that we are powerless when the reality is that we are vastly more powerful than you.


We are powerful as far as numbers are concerned. As far as real power goes (as in political authority, control over MoP and such), we are powerless. It's all a matter of interpretation.

[Skooma Addict]

I thing this is the crux of the left vrs the right, and it is almost universally true.

We support the workers rather than buisiness, because the workers are the powerless, and the buisiness are the exploiters, (even though some of us are profressionals or middles class)

We support the poor rather than the rich, because the poor are the powerless, while the rich have the financial power (even though many of us are not poor)

We support Immigrants because they are the powerless and the state and exploitative buisinesses are the powerful. (even though many of us are natives)

We support homosexuals because they have been the powerless being oppressed by those with power. (even though most of us are straight)

We support the palestinians rather than the isrealis because they are the powerless and the Isrealis are the powerfull and the oppressors.

We support minorities because historically they have been the oppressed ones, and subject to racism, whereas europeans have been the racists and the oppressors, (even though many of us are white).

And so on and so forth. The fact is the right wing almost always sides with power, they sided with the aparteid government of south africa, they side with corporations, they side with anti-immigrant groups, they side with the rich.

If you just look at policy after policy, and (just for now) forget the reasoning and ideology behind them the outcome is almost universal, the left sides with the powerless, and right sides with the powerfull, and the ideologies are built around that.

For example many leftists are atheists, however the left will side with the muslims being oppresed in europe, the immigrants, and teh muslims in teh United States, why? Is it because they agree with the muslim faith? Or the ideology of the muslims? No, its because they are against the powerful oppressing the powerless, and there is absolutely no contradiction when we in turn side with muslim women who are oppressed by muslim men.

The same goes with the right wing, they will scape goat muslim people in the US, yet will support Muslim autocratic states in the middle east? Whats the common thread? They side with the powerful.

Those same types will many times be economic libertarians, and what are economic libertarians main battles? Always those that benefit the powerful. How many economic libertarians have you seen at pro-immigrant rights protests? Not that many, thats because their ideology is just their way to side with the powerful, the immigrants are the powerless, so they fight against them.

Leftists on the other hand fight for immigrant rights in western countries, yet at the same time fight multinational corporations in the third world, why? Because we side with the powerless, in third world countries we support local buisinesses and oppose foreign influence, because the foreing influence is an external power being imposed on powerless people, where as immigrants are powerless being being oppressed in the first world.

But heres the kicker, we as leftists can say loud and clear "WE SIDE WITH THE POWERLESS," and build our ideology around that.

Right wingers cannot say that, they have to come up with ideologies that allow them to support power yet seam to come from somewhere else, thats why you see right wingers always contradict themselves, thats why libertarians clearly don't care about liberty thats why racists rarely actually care about defending cultures, thats why the regligious right conveniently ignore msot of the bible, its because all of that is just a way to explain their love of power, and the powerful and their disdain for the powerless and the oppressed. Thats why right wingers never make sense, why their resoning never fits, why they are full of contradictions, its because they side with the powerful, and cannot admit it, while we side with the powerless and say it proudly.

This is way too much of a generalization, and it gets to the root of another problem regarding the arbitrariness and vagueness of the terms "rightist" and "leftist."

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yeah, millions of people shutting taking to the streets across a country, defying/subverting formerly fearsome institutions like the state and the state's security services, defying paramilitary-style attacks by the government, driving a dictator from power and potentially changing the geopolitical landscape of the entire Middle East as similar events play out in surrounding nations like Yemen and Jordan...nope, nothing significant about that at all.

Also, just because something isn't a "communist revolution" doesn't mean that it can't be viewed positively by the left. No leftist is under the illusion that the average strike for higher wages is going to lead to communism, or even more communist militants. But we still support them, as our goal continues to be to take, and take, and take.


From these observations we were also able to draw some conclusions concerning working-class strategy for dealing with capital. Since capital is seen as social control through work and limited access to wealth (wage), the struggle is for less work and more access to wealth (money). This has been the character of struggle in recent years, and as it ruptures the productivity deal it attacks the basis of capitalist control. This is not a simply quantitative struggle or economistic one, because, by exploding the relations between work and income, it challenges the very nature of capital. Such struggle may be carried on in many arenas; only the real extent of working-class organization and power limits its ability to immediately abolish most work, to create unlimited access to wealth, and to channel rising productivity into the achievement of zerowork. The intensity of the struggle is dictated by the degree of power. When workers can organize sufficiently to directly appropriate wealth, they do so. At the same time, they struggle to obtain the kind of wealth they want -- the work conditions, the leisure time activities, and the use-values. In this sense, too, the struggle is qualitative as well as quantitative.

Even if a political action that significantly effects state power (which has certainly happened in the former French and USA client states of Tunisia and Egypt, respectively) is not carried out in our name, it's still admirable and beneficial to us because it shattered the normalcy of the brutal regimes, and represents a continuance in a long chain of revolt all linked to the same crisis of capitalism, spanning from Iceland to Yemen, which the left will take advantage of if it's smart (although I'm not optimistic about this point).

It's going to get worse before it gets better, too.

[RGacky3]

A smart right-winger would say that it's a sign of the powerless to take strength in moralizing over siding with the powerless in an attempt to gain the moral high-ground.
A smart right-winger would say that true power comes in not needing to take strength in slogans or moral parades, but that strength is taken through action.
A smart right-winger wouldn't be concerned with what you say as it means nothing when compared to what you do, and this right-winger is already consolidating his/her power against you as you speak.


Actually no he would'nt.

But yeah, strength is taken through actions, but what decides those actions, ultimately is your desire to strip down the power structure that oppress teh working class, within that power structure the capitalist class has the power, your siding with the powerless.

Sure there is an ideology behind it, and you say its a-moralistic (to be marxist), but you also side (presumably) with the powerless in instances where it has nothing to do with your self interest.

Face AUgustwest, your a good person. Your siding with the masses that are oppressed and subject to capitalist power.

The working class has power in numbers, but they don't control the machines of society, the power structures, so as of now, they are still, the powerless.


This is way too much of a generalization, and it gets to the root of another problem regarding the arbitrariness and vagueness of the terms "rightist" and "leftist."

YOu'd be my prime example of a right winger that generally sides with the powerful.


After a socialist revolution the proletariat emerges as the most powerful class, and the bourgeoisie grows more and more powerless while trying to regain power. So, it is not always the powerless who get our support

After the revolution the bourgeoisie does not exist as a class (except for crackpot maoist theories that use it to justify oppression of anyone that does'nt go along with party line).

In the USSR the left wing were the ones calling for less party control and more worker control.

[ComradeMan]

1,000,000 people out in the streets protesting the government in Egypt is something.

Like 1968 and all that.... but what really changed in material terms once everyone went home?
:(

[RGacky3]

Like 1968 and all that.... but what really changed in material terms once everyone went home?


Good things do happen Comrademan, all the time.

[ComradeMan]

Good things do happen Comrademan, all the time.

Thanks for the plattitude, now what has changed in material terms?

[RGacky3]

Since what time? You want me to make a list?

[Bud Struggle]

I see there being a real divide here between the Materialists (August's) point of view--which really isn't playing out well historically and the more Left Liberal POV (Gack's) which is really where the momentum is.

People do and will side with the powerless because of a idealistic moral causation.

[RGacky3]

I see there being a real divide here between the Materialists (August's) point of view--which really isn't playing out well historically and the more Left Liberal POV (Gack's) which is really where the momentum is.


Its not really a divide, we want the same thing, we fight for the same thing, August is just afraid of the world "moral" EVEN THOUGH he does what he does and supports what he does ultimately due to an ethical viewpoint.

materialism is a form of analysis, not a reason for action.

[Palingenisis]

@ the OP :

After a socialist revolution the proletariat emerges as the most powerful class, and the bourgeoisie grows more and more powerless while trying to regain power. So, it is not always the powerless who get our support.

"The strong only appear so because we are on our knees, let us arise!"

James Connolly.

[ComradeMan]

We are powerful as far as numbers are concerned. As far as real power goes (as in political authority, control over MoP and such), we are powerless. It's all a matter of interpretation.

"The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all." Ecclesiastes 9:11

;)

[Skooma Addict]

YOu'd be my prime example of a right winger that generally sides with the powerful.Your "us v them" worldview is too vague and arbitrary. You are assuming that anyone who agrees with you is siding with the poor, even though people who disagree may think they are siding with the poor. To use another example, I support gay marriage. So now I am siding with the "powerless" (even though gays aren't powerless) which is apparently inconsistent with being "right wing" ( which is a meaningless term). Peoples beliefs on specific issues will differ greatly, and trying to make such extreme generalizations will just result in meaningless groupings.

[Decolonize The Left]

Yes they would have had a Revolutiuon.

There are many in Egypt who are calling it a revolution. I am certain it is not a leftist revolution, but it is a progressive one none-the-less.


And so, is that why the Left is gaining ground in the US? Is that why unions are gaing ground and is that why the gap between the rich and poor is lessening? Is that why New political parties are sprouting up ON THE LEFT and challenging the old Democratic Party to make it more Progressive? Is that why Liberals and Radicals rul the airwaves and people hunger to hear their words?

Is that why all of that is happening?

Perhaps I was not clear earlier, and if this is the case then I apologize.

I was not speaking of the power of "the left." I was speaking of the power of the working class. The left is a political position, a grouping of ideological perspectives which aims at a certain goal. Such a thing cannot have real power in any significant sense - what can, though, is a group of people.


I agree with that point--and the Conservatives ARE gaining ground. Read CotR's Reagan thread--I make that point there that Reagan would be a Liberal by today's standards.

I am not particularly concerned with who's moving up or down by certain standards - the point that I was making is that the capitalist holds certain beliefs which are fundamentally false, and I don't mean re: capital and labor.
I mean that the capitalist believes that just because history has progressed as it has, that it will continue in like vein. This is fundamentally false as all that is certain is uncertainty.
Likewise, the capitalist believes that certain things don't change - like the "market." But this is also fundamentally false as all things change, constantly.

These two fundamental assumptions are why I made my quip about pissing and calling it rain.


What have they achieved in material terms?

Don't you think it's too soon to tell?

It's obviously too soon to tell all they've accomplished, but we can safely say that an enormous populace uprising has put a halt to business as usual, caused the uprooting of the government, possibly ousted a president, and certainly set the group for progressive amendments to their state. This isn't to mention the effect it has had on other nation-states.


We are powerful as far as numbers are concerned. As far as real power goes (as in political authority, control over MoP and such), we are powerless. It's all a matter of interpretation.

No, it isn't. What you have called "real power" is not such, it is completely and utterly dependent upon the consent of the vast majority of the population. The power of the working class is precisely why the state must appear so powerful, in order to attempt to control this power.

Remember that political authority is relatively meaningless in terms of real power, and that the means of production are controlled by the working class, they are merely owned by the capitalist class. But it is we who work the MoP, maintain them, and guard them.

The only power which the state maintains which the working class must confront is the possession of the legitimate use of force. Once the working class decides that this is no longer legitimate, it's all over.



But yeah, strength is taken through actions, but what decides those actions, ultimately is your desire to strip down the power structure that oppress teh working class, within that power structure the capitalist class has the power, your siding with the powerless.

As I said before, I'm not. The power structure of the capitalist class does not magically bestow power onto the capitalists - the working class still has most the power, it's simply not being exercised.

I am not siding with the powerless and I will not maintain this self-defeating moralist position. I am siding with myself and my fellow workers because we are the most powerful and it's in our interest to side together.


Sure there is an ideology behind it, and you say its a-moralistic (to be marxist), but you also side (presumably) with the powerless in instances where it has nothing to do with your self interest.

It has everything to do with my self-interest, and that of my brothers and sisters who labor beside me. I could give a fuck about "powerless" or whatever, I'm talking about life.


Face AUgustwest, your a good person. Your siding with the masses that are oppressed and subject to capitalist power.

You've never met me. I could be a total asshole... I'm not, but my point stands. I am not siding with "the masses." I am a member of the masses. I work two part-time jobs and live in a very small apartment. I side with myself and those who are like me.


The working class has power in numbers, but they don't control the machines of society, the power structures, so as of now, they are still, the powerless.

What does that even mean?
The working class controls all the machines of society - we run the whole fucking thing. We just leave when we're told and in the doors are locked we wait patiently outside until someone opens them...

The only thing we don't control is the army. The meeting between the working class and the army as a tool of repression is inevitable - we can only hope that when we meet those who wear the badges of the state understand that we bear them no ill-will and that we are their neighbors, the people who fill their gas tanks, their families and friends.


I see there being a real divide here between the Materialists (August's) point of view--which really isn't playing out well historically and the more Left Liberal POV (Gack's) which is really where the momentum is.

People do and will side with the powerless because of a idealistic moral causation.

Yes, they do. And then they leave the fight when they become disillusioned. Idealistic moral causation is weak.


Its not really a divide, we want the same thing, we fight for the same thing, August is just afraid of the world "moral" EVEN THOUGH he does what he does and supports what he does ultimately due to an ethical viewpoint.

materialism is a form of analysis, not a reason for action.

It is not true is that I'm afraid of morality and/or ethics. I am critical of how these things come into play and how they are enacted - that's all.

- August

[danyboy27]

Some capitalist, especially social democrats might argue that they are siding with the people by taking some of the wealth from the rich and distributing it more equally in society. same thing with certain conservatives that believe the role of the governement in a capitalist society is precisely to help powerless peoples.

Its true,we leftist side with the needy the most, but we are not alone in this fight.

[bloodbeard]

Its true,we leftist side with the needy the most, but we are not alone in this fight.

I actually like the term needy better than powerless.

[danyboy27]

I actually like the term needy better than powerless.

beccause needy people are hardly powerless.

a lot of egyptian are needy, but has we can see right now, they are far from being powerless.

powerless people are folks jailed for life for having a different political view than other, that powerless.

has long you have 2 leg, 2 arms and a brain and not physicly or psychologicly incapacited, you are not powerless.

[Dimentio]

Your "us v them" worldview is too vague and arbitrary. You are assuming that anyone who agrees with you is siding with the poor, even though people who disagree may think they are siding with the poor. To use another example, I support gay marriage. So now I am siding with the "powerless" (even though gays aren't powerless) which is apparently inconsistent with being "right wing" ( which is a meaningless term). Peoples beliefs on specific issues will differ greatly, and trying to make such extreme generalizations will just result in meaningless groupings.

I agree.

But I wonder why prominent Right-wing Libertarians so seldom speak out for homosexuals, females and people of colour? They usually only release vague statements against state repression, but mostly have treated these issues with indifference.

[Milk Sheikh]

No, it isn't. What you have called "real power" is not such, it is completely and utterly dependent upon the consent of the vast majority of the population.

Is it just a matter of consent, just saying no? If it were, wouldn't everyone say no? Fact is, workers may not have a choice. They may have to consent, albeit grudgingly - or they'll be in trouble.


Remember that political authority is relatively meaningless in terms of real power, and that the means of production are controlled by the working class, they are merely owned by the capitalist class. But it is we who work the MoP, maintain them, and guard them.

Fine, but a president - just one person - has more authority than thousands.


The only power which the state maintains which the working class must confront is the possession of the legitimate use of force. Once the working class decides that this is no longer legitimate, it's all over.

Sorry, could you explain?:(

[RGacky3]

When we are talking about "power" whos powerless who has the power, its all semantics, you guys KNOW what I mean, If your using August west's definition, Kings were not "in power" niether were emperors ... Or anyone, but then your just talking useless semantics.

But you know what I mean.


It has everything to do with my self-interest, and that of my brothers and sisters who labor beside me. I could give a fuck about "powerless" or whatever, I'm talking about life.


I take it you support third world struggles, homosexual rights, minority rights, immigrant rights and so on, I take it you would'nt brake a strike even if it would benefit you monetarily, thats due to your ethics.


Yes, they do. And then they leave the fight when they become disillusioned. Idealistic moral causation is weak.


THIS is the difference between strict materialists, and revolutionaries with principle and conviction.

LR7dNntU5oI

[Tommy4ever]

@ the OP :

After a socialist revolution the proletariat emerges as the most powerful class, and the bourgeoisie grows more and more powerless while trying to regain power. So, it is not always the powerless who get our support.


The traditional way of looking at Left vs Right is the Right try to preserve things as they are and the Left try to change things. So if you look at it that way then the socialists would start to become the Right wing of society as it changed in favour of the workers whilst the pro-capitalist elements would become the Left.

[RGacky3]

So if you look at it that way then the socialists would start to become the Right wing of society as it changed in favour of the workers whilst the pro-capitalist elements would become the Left.

Theres never been a (real, or populist) pro-capitalist element in a socialist society, even a leninist society, there have been pro-democracy elements, and yeah, those are the left.

[Tommy4ever]

Theres never been a (real, or populist) pro-capitalist element in a socialist society, even a leninist society, there have been pro-democracy elements, and yeah, those are the left.

What happening in Eastern Europe in the late 80s?

[RGacky3]

Pro democracy movements.

[Thug Lessons]

Pro democracy movements.

Yes, pure-hearted pro-democracy activists like Lech Walensa, whose first acts upon taking office were to institute a slash-and-burn privatization drive that led to his ouster and the election of former communist party members two years later.

[RGacky3]

Yes, pure-hearted pro-democracy activists like Lech Walensa, whose first acts upon taking office were to institute a slash-and-burn privatization drive that led to his ouster and the election of former communist party members two years later.

Lech Walensa was not the who movement, the leadership of those movements (unfortunately) got bought off and essencially run by US interests, and when the USSR fell, HUGE corporate interests ran in and started building things up.

But the movement itself, was not a pro-capitalist one, hell it started off with a Labor Unions.

[Tommy4ever]

Pro democracy movements.

:rolleyes:

Because none of those people wanted to bring down the economic system as well.

[Thug Lessons]

Lech Walensa was not the who movement, the leadership of those movements (unfortunately) got bought off and essencially run by US interests, and when the USSR fell, HUGE corporate interests ran in and started building things up.

But the movement itself, was not a pro-capitalist one, hell it started off with a Labor Unions.

Explain to me how a movement led by free-market shills and cronies for the US is anything but a pro-capitalist movement.

[Jazzratt]

But I wonder why prominent Right-wing Libertarians so seldom speak out for homosexuals, females and people of colour? They usually only release vague statements against state repression, but mostly have treated these issues with indifference. If I were to advance a hypothesis on this I'd say it's because their politics exist largely to serve the interests of the rich and, more specifically, those that own means of production - a group which has comparatively few members of repressed groups.

[Che a chara]

But I wonder why prominent Right-wing Libertarians so seldom speak out for homosexuals, females and people of colour? They usually only release vague statements against state repression, but mostly have treated these issues with indifference.

I think it might be because they want to be 'free' to discriminate against whoever they want and not be told who they can and can't do 'business' with. 'Free' to be intolerant and bigoted and not be answerable to society. this is why i despise libertarian thought.

right-libertarians seem to be steeped in traditional values.

Also, would it be fair to say that most right-libertarians would be very religious do you think ? in the USA this seems to be the case ....

they don't give a fuck or want to give a fuck outside their own wee bubble

[Revolution starts with U]

That's like saying "stop infringing on Mubarak's freedom to be a dictator."
Oh wait, that's basically what Limbaugh was saying on his show today (I listen while I shower, sue me)

[RGacky3]

Most serious right libertarians are not religious.

I'd split them up into 3 groups,

1. the gullible people that fall for the propeganda, many of them are middle class that have grievences and the libertarians give a plausible solution. (your average tea partier)

2. People for whome the libertarian theory fits with their sociopathic personality, they just have a disdain for poor people and oppressed people and an adoration for power (Ruch Limbaugh types)

3. People for whome libertarianism benefits them economically. (Koch Brother types)

[Che a chara]

Most serious right libertarians are not religious.

The Tea Party are the definite exception to that rule ....

[Skooma Addict]

If I were to advance a hypothesis on this I'd say it's because their politics exist largely to serve the interests of the rich and, more specifically, those that own means of production - a group which has comparatively few members of repressed groups.

That was a pretty stupid hypothesis.

The actual reason is because right libertarians generally believe that the groups mentioned don't have it that bad compared to what leftists believe.

[Skooma Addict]

Most serious right libertarians are not religious.

I'd split them up into 3 groups,

1. the gullible people that fall for the propeganda, many of them are middle class that have grievences and the libertarians give a plausible solution. (your average tea partier)

2. People for whome the libertarian theory fits with their sociopathic personality, they just have a disdain for poor people and oppressed people and an adoration for power (Ruch Limbaugh types)

3. People for whome libertarianism benefits them economically. (Koch Brother types)

I am seriously starting to think that you are delusional.

[Revolution starts with U]

Who's he leaving out? That's basically the jist, as I see it. All the other libertarians are "united libertarian left" or left-libertarians... you know those one's that are libertarians because they want to smoke weed

Or are you just afraid that he put you in the #2 column? :lol:

[Tommy4ever]

Most serious right libertarians are not religious.

I'd split them up into 3 groups,

1. the gullible people that fall for the propeganda, many of them are middle class that have grievences and the libertarians give a plausible solution. (your average tea partier)

2. People for whome the libertarian theory fits with their sociopathic personality, they just have a disdain for poor people and oppressed people and an adoration for power (Ruch Limbaugh types)

3. People for whome libertarianism benefits them economically. (Koch Brother types)


I am seriously starting to think that you are delusional.


He's largely right.

1. - When your told about the benefits of libertarianism constantly many people will buy into it, believing what they are told.

2. - I wouldn't call them sociopaths. This group is essentially that most American section of society that believe they can accomplish anything if they work hard enough and can one day become a bourgeios themselves. They think anything that gets in the way of what they have to gain from working hard and themselves is evil. Similar to group 1 in many respects but this groups has put a bit more thought into things.

3. - The actual bourgeiosie characters themselves who benefit from libertarianism. I would be shocked if they didn't support it.

Behind his overly emotive language RGacky was pretty much spot on.

[Skooma Addict]

Who's he leaving out? That's basically the jist, as I see it. All the other libertarians are "united libertarian left" or left-libertarians... you know those one's that are libertarians because they want to smoke weed

Or are you just afraid that he put you in the #2 column? :lol:

I don't really care what category a delusional person attempts to put me in.


1. - When your told about the benefits of libertarianism constantly many people will buy into it, believing what they are told.

People are not told the benefits of libertarianism constantly, or at least, not any more than many other political ideologies. Also, maybe libertarianism is beneficial.



I wouldn't call them sociopaths. This group is essentially that most American section of society that believe they can accomplish anything if they work hard enough and can one day become a bourgeios themselves. They think anything that gets in the way of what they have to gain from working hard and themselves is evil. Similar to group 1 in many respects but this groups has put a bit more thought into things.

Even though this attitude is not perfectly accurate, it is true for many people that hard work pays off. It is also a better attitude to have than the equally false belief that you are never going to get anywhere no matter how hard you work. Also, many non libertarians hold this belief.


3. - The actual bourgeiosie characters themselves who benefit from libertarianism. I would be shocked if they didn't support it.

This is wrong. Some wealthy people benefit greatly from govt intervention in the economy. Depends on the person.

[RGacky3]

The Tea Party are the definite exception to that rule ....

I said serious :P, most of them are not consistant libertarians.


People are not told the benefits of libertarianism constantly, or at least, not any more than many other political ideologies. Also, maybe libertarianism is beneficial.


they are CONSTANTLY being bombared with the supposed "benefits," and anyone who suffers under libertarianism who does not own property, or cannot meet "market" demands, is just lazy, or useless, or he can sell people "feeling good" (i.e. beg).

Also people like you have an obvious disdain for poor people, seeing them as worthless, or stupid, and you have an obvious admiration for the rich, seeing them as the productive part of society.

But heres the thing, EVERY thing libertarians such as your self actively fight for, just so happens to be the same as the chamber of commerse, and the banksters, interesting.

[Tommy4ever]

I don't really care what category a delusional person attempts to put me in.



People are not told the benefits of libertarianism constantly, or at least, not any more than many other political ideologies. Also, maybe libertarianism is beneficial.



Even though this attitude is not perfectly accurate, it is true for many people that hard work pays off. It is also a better attitude to have than the equally false belief that you are never going to get anywhere no matter how hard you work. Also, many non libertarians hold this belief.



This is wrong. Some wealthy people benefit greatly from govt intervention in the economy. Depends on the person.

We've already discussed how he is clearly not dellusional and was just being a bit overzealous in his word choice (sociopaths being the obvious exaple :p). So please keep your petty insults to yourself.

The section of the population that supports libertarianism does usually get bombarded with pro-libertarianist propoganda more than propoganda from other groups ie the Left.

For some hard work will pay off and they will be able to join the ruling classes. But for the vast majority of people it simply won't. The vast majority are not going to be magically transformed from a worker to a bougeiosie through any level of graft and effort. Meanwhile the belief that the poor are poor because they are lazy or unambitious is quite extraordinary. Who thought such beliefs could survive in the modern world? These are the people who are fucked over by the free market the most and they are the people we socialists can help the most.

I didn't make the sweeping claim that all the bourgeiosie are libertarian. I just said that this is the group of people who actually benefit from the ideology. Just like the fact that the majority or proletarians are not socialist despite the fact that this is the ideology that would suite their interests the most.

I realise that some wealthy individuals benefit from government intervention, but on the whole the freer the market the easier it is for the bourgeiosie to dominate the proletarian class.

[Jazzratt]

That was a pretty stupid hypothesis. Fuck you :)

Are you denying that your politics are constructed around the class interests of the bourgeoisie, seriously?


The actual reason is because right libertarians generally believe that the groups mentioned don't have it that bad compared to what leftists believe. So people from discriminated minorities don't have it bad at all compared to the usual targets of lolbertarian sympathy - that is overpaid fatcat twats who cry a fucking river every time they're asked to pay tax. Your lot are fucking delusional.

[Revolution starts with U]

I want to make like 5 accounts to thank that post 5x Jazz :lol:

[Revolution starts with U]

EDIT: Wrong thread

[Skooma Addict]

they are CONSTANTLY being bombared with the supposed "benefits," and anyone who suffers under libertarianism who does not own property, or cannot meet "market" demands, is just lazy, or useless, or he can sell people "feeling good" (i.e. beg).

Also people like you have an obvious disdain for poor people, seeing them as worthless, or stupid, and you have an obvious admiration for the rich, seeing them as the productive part of society.

But heres the thing, EVERY thing libertarians such as your self actively fight for, just so happens to be the same as the chamber of commerse, and the banksters, interesting.

Alright I actually do think you are delusional. I am not saying that as a random insult either. I honestly think you literally are delusional.

People are not constantly bombarded with such things. In fact, if a mainstream journalist were to say people who don't meet market demands is "useless" and "worthless" would be scrutinized immensely. I don't know where you get the impression that this is something people are constantly told. On no major news outlet is this reported (not even fox news). The vast majority of people also don't hold this belief.

I don't know where you get the impression that I have a disdain for poor people. I have the utmost respect for poor people and I hate seeing people in unfavorable circumstances (whether it be poor, low self-esteem, scared to be social with others, ect).

Also, it just isn't true that libertarians hold the same beliefs as bankers. Many libertarians want to abolish the federal reserve, even though most bankers would oppose this.

[Skooma Addict]

We've already discussed how he is clearly not dellusional and was just being a bit overzealous in his word choice (sociopaths being the obvious exaple :p). So please keep your petty insults to yourself.

I wasn't just trying to be insulting. I am serious.


The section of the population that supports libertarianism does usually get bombarded with pro-libertarianist propoganda more than propoganda from other groups ie the Left.


Proof? People who support a political ideology will obviously read up more on that ideology or adjust their news outlets accordingly.


For some hard work will pay off and they will be able to join the ruling classes. But for the vast majority of people it simply won't. The vast majority are not going to be magically transformed from a worker to a bougeiosie through any level of graft and effort. Meanwhile the belief that the poor are poor because they are lazy or unambitious is quite extraordinary. Who thought such beliefs could survive in the modern world? These are the people who are fucked over by the free market the most and they are the people we socialists can help the most.

Some people are poor because they are lazy, and some are poor because of circumstances beyond their control. Hard work will most likely not result in becoming a millionaire. However, as far as improving ones economic condition goes, hard work and dedication can go a long way. You also need to be strategic as well.


I didn't make the sweeping claim that all the bourgeiosie are libertarian. I just said that this is the group of people who actually benefit from the ideology. Just like the fact that the majority or proletarians are not socialist despite the fact that this is the ideology that would suite their interests the most.

Not all rich people would benefit from libertarianism. Many of them would actually lose out.

[Skooma Addict]

Are you denying that your politics are constructed around the class interests of the bourgeoisie, seriously?I deny that libertarians politics are constructed around the interests of wealthy people.

I personally disagree with libertarians on many things.

[Decolonize The Left]

Is it just a matter of consent, just saying no? If it were, wouldn't everyone say no? Fact is, workers may not have a choice. They may have to consent, albeit grudgingly - or they'll be in trouble.

I was saying that what has been described as "real power" (i.e. political power) is not real power. Our marxist background gives us the insight that economic power is real power, and given that the working class is the economic engine of society, we have the power.


Fine, but a president - just one person - has more authority than thousands.

Very true, but authority is not power. Authority becomes power when it is exercised by an individual over another. In itself, it's nothing. It requires others to respect it in order to function.


Sorry, could you explain?:(

Yes. I said:

The only power which the state maintains which the working class must confront is the possession of the legitimate use of force. Once the working class decides that this is no longer legitimate, it's all over.

So what is the power which the state maintains?
The possession of the legitimate use of force.
What do I mean?
The state (via the police and military) has possession (i.e. the claim the sole right to) of the legitimate (i.e. the state-sanctioned) use of force (i.e. violence).
What this means is that if you go out and beat someone, you go to jail. But if the military does it, it's called a part of war. If the police do it, they get a slap on the wrist, but no real punishment.
By taking possession of the legitimate use of force, the state cripples the people's ability to defend itself from abuses of the state. The people must then pursue avenues of legal action, which is of course governed by the state.

So when the working class takes back the legitimate use of force (i.e. takes up arms), the power has shifted.

- August

[Tommy4ever]

@ Skooma Addict:

Can you please stop calling people delusional. It is rude, baseless and un-called for.

I haven't seen Jazzratt post a single thing in this thread that could even vaguely be considered ''dellusional''. Indeed, your choice of childish insult is highly ironic coming from someone who claims that libertarianism is not an ideology that would hurt the poor and help the rich.

There are plenty of viable arguments for libertarianism. Fairness in society ain't one of them.

One final point ''some people are poor because they are lazy'' - :crying:

[Dimentio]

If people are lazy, we ought to explain what is causing their laziness.

Moreover, is "laziness" a crime so horrible that people deserve to die because of it?

[RGacky3]

People are not constantly bombarded with such things. In fact, if a mainstream journalist were to say people who don't meet market demands is "useless" and "worthless" would be scrutinized immensely.

Do you live in America? Ever heard of Fox news? RIght wing talk radio?

Those things are implied and all the time.


I don't know where you get the impression that I have a disdain for poor people. I have the utmost respect for poor people and I hate seeing people in unfavorable circumstances (whether it be poor, low self-esteem, scared to be social with others, ect).

Also, it just isn't true that libertarians hold the same beliefs as bankers. Many libertarians want to abolish the federal reserve, even though most bankers would oppose this.

First paragraph, I can only judge you by your previous posts, and almost ALL your solutions for poverty or people in need, is along the lines of "they need to pull themselves up by their own bootsraps" Which implies they are just lazy. You think if workers cannot afford to stay where they are they just just suck it up and move? If they get laid off? Well maybe they wern't productive enough. And so on, its a common thread.

As for your second paragraph, I'm talking about what libertarians actually fight for, sure in theory they want to get rid of the fed, but what they fight for is cutting medicaid.

[Skooma Addict]

Do you live in America? Ever heard of Fox news? RIght wing talk radio?

Those things are implied and all the time.
Yes I live in America. Do you? These things are not implied all the time because journalists want to keep their jobs. Not even on Fox news is this implied. I haven't listened to Rush, but even if he does say these things that is a far cry from saying people are being bombarded. Only a specific niche listens to Rush.



First paragraph, I can only judge you by your previous posts, and almost ALL your solutions for poverty or people in need, is along the lines of "they need to pull themselves up by their own bootsraps" Which implies they are just lazy. You think if workers cannot afford to stay where they are they just just suck it up and move? If they get laid off? Well maybe they wern't productive enough. And so on, its a common thread.

As for your second paragraph, I'm talking about what libertarians actually fight for, sure in theory they want to get rid of the fed, but what they fight for is cutting medicaid. You said I thought poor people were worthless and stupid. I do think allowing poor people to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" is admirable, but in many ways the govt makes this more difficult. I never said just because someone can't do it that they are therefore lazy.

My belief is that some poor people are lazy, while some are not. I have the same belief with regards to rich people. I think that some people are poor because they are lazy. But I still think there should be programs and laws to help the poor. Perhaps some people are disheartened because of their economic position and lose hope, and then come off as "lazy" to others.

Libertarians try to fight to end the FED. It is just that there is not much they can do.

[Revolution starts with U]

Nothing more hard-working than an inheritance of wealth and social networks :thumbup1:

[RGacky3]

but in many ways the govt makes this more difficult. I never said just because someone can't do it that they are therefore lazy.


So its either the governments fualt, or its their own fault?

Its not at all the fault of the market system?


Not even on Fox news is this implied.

I don't know what to say I hear it being implied all the time.