Meaning of the 'Mid-West Rebellion'

[B0LSHEVIK]

The whole episode that began in Wisconsin and apparently caught on in a couple other states doesnt seem to impress me. It does seem to me somewhat selfish. Many of the people Ive heard from the protests always make a selfish point or points. Its always about me, or I'll, or we'll (as in the state employees) will have to give up things. You know? Its not about social justice. Or actual radical politics for that matter.

'But what about the right to collective bargaining? Huh?'

Its practically dead anyways. With 'right to work' legislation, which sounds great huh? You know, a right to work! Its already neutered unions. And besides, I tend to side with democratic agendas. The people of Wisconsin spoke in this past Novembers elections right? While riding on teaparty coattails many of the elected representatives that are the bad guys today were being hailed as saviors of America and freedom only 2-3 months ago. Could it be that these people fucked themselves maybe? I mean really, if you dont want a Republican agenda, dont vote for fucking Republicans!!!!

How many of those people at these rallies voted for the GOP themselves? How many are conservatives? Police? Firefighters? (whom arent affected btw). Not necessarily the most dependable revolutionary groups you know? I know, you want a small government. A government that doesn't provide 'free-rides' for afro-americans or latino-americans. That starves funds for the poorest communities right? Yea, cut THEIR spending.

Ultimately however, Im with those people too. I do hope they win their battle against their recently elected 'oppressors.' But the cynical side of me wants them to fail. So that other states follow suit. And then, maybe just then, Americans will start simmering and brooding. Like Lenin in 1916, waiting for the inevitable, an eruption of society.

We'll see.

[Red Bayonet]

It is true that most of these people come from the more privileged sector of the US working class. But, as communists,and in the interests of solidarity, we must support them anyway.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Most real movements begin with people coming face-to-face with the grim conditions that confront them in life. In that way it is "selfish". Hardly anyone except maybe bored college students wake up one day and say, "Hey, you know what this world needs more of? SOCIAL JUSTICE." Movements have a tendency to initially start out as a reaction from the lower classes due to an imposition or injustice that's imposed upon them, whether that's a wage hike/loss of benefits, seizures of their land, or rising prices for basic food items. When these things happen, the communist's role is to try and branch the struggle out into a larger project.

I don't see how the Wisconsin situation is that much different than any other rollback fight (such as similar recent events in European nations), except perhaps in scale.

[The Douche]

ITT: A communist shits on class struggle in favor of liberal movements around "social justice".


Cool story bro.

[ed miliband]

The whole episode that began in Wisconsin and apparently caught on in a couple other states doesnt seem to impress me. It does seem to me somewhat selfish. Many of the people Ive heard from the protests always make a selfish point or points. Its always about me, or I'll, or we'll (as in the state employees) will have to give up things. You know? Its not about social justice. Or actual radical politics for that matter.

Bollocks.

Do you think that Russian workers in 1917 were guided by "social justice"? That striking workers have never been guided by their own interests, interests that could be described as "selfish" (depending which side you are on)? Class struggle isn't polite and refined and cuddly.

[Blackscare]

If there is one thing that is absolutely true that the Miseans say, it's that the name of the game is self-interest. It just so happens that when you're in the ranks of the working class, your economic self-interest lies in standing side-by-side with other working class people, since that is when you have power.

[The Douche]

If there is one thing that is absolutely true that the Miseans say, it's that the name of the game is self-interest. It just so happens that when you're in the ranks of the working class, your economic self-interest lies in standing side-by-side with other working class people, since that is when you have power.

Word, I'm not a communist because I am motivated by abstract ideas about what is "fair". I am a communist because I am selfish, I want what is best for me and my friends/family, and because I am being realistic I know that I'm never gonna be the boss, so I need to abolish bosses.

[ed miliband]

If there is one thing that is absolutely true that the Miseans say, it's that the name of the game is self-interest. It just so happens that when you're in the ranks of the working class, your economic self-interest lies in standing side-by-side with other working class people, since that is when you have power.

Ever noticed how when anti-commies try to take apart communism theoretically they denounce communists as having too pure a vision of humanity (unselfish, gentle, kind, etc.); when they attempt to take apart working-class (or even middle of the road 'left') movements their first line of attack is that they are selfish, greedy, motivated purely by self-interest, etc.


Word, I'm not a communist because I am motivated by abstract ideas about what is "fair". I am a communist because I am selfish, I want what is best for me and my friends/family, and because I am being realistic I know that I'm never gonna be the boss, so I need to abolish bosses.

Have you read 'The Right To Be Greedy'?

[The Douche]

Have you read 'The Right To Be Greedy'?

Yeah, interestingly enough I have always kind of had an "ego-ist" line of thought, but I had never read that kind of stuff til recently, I'm hoping to get into some Stirner soon.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Bollocks.

Do you think that Russian workers in 1917 were guided by "social justice"? That striking workers have never been guided by their own interests, interests that could be described as "selfish" (depending which side you are on)? Class struggle isn't polite and refined and cuddly.

Actually, yes. They people were starving, the men butchered in fronts against other workers, egotistical aristocracy reigned supreme, So ,yes, I do think they wanted social justice (I dont think the unemployed hungry masses in 1917 Russia were clamoring over some premium hike). Just like the French plebeians wanted the aristocracies heads to roll in revolutionary France. Take Egypt for example too, it didnt exactly grow out of state servants mad about perks. And, from what Ive seen in other protests, state workers strike for something that benefits everyone else too. Like retirement age of all workers, or fair wages for all workers. Or better funding for all schools. These people in Wisconsin just voted for republicans, and are now shocked to see a republican agenda? If this is what the 'people of Wisconsin' wanted, let them have it.

And again, everyone here misses the point of my post. I even say at the end that I support them. People should read the whole thread instead of just assuming they know whats coming. And being selfish doesnt necessarily apply to 'Im selfish because I care about my class.' No, it doesnt work that way. Selfish means you only care about your standards. Would these people care if Wisconsin had pulled an Arizona and began hunting down 'suspicious' mexicans? Probably not.

Im all for class struggle, but let us be honest.

[The Douche]

And again, everyone here misses the point of my post. I even say at the end that I support them. People should read the whole thread instead of just assuming they know whats coming. And being selfish doesnt necessarily apply to 'Im selfish because I care about my class.' No, it doesnt work that way. Selfish means you only care about your standards. Would these people care if Wisconsin had pulled an Arizona and began hunting down 'suspicious' mexicans? Probably not.

Im all for class struggle, but let us be honest.

Word, son? Missed the point? What exactly is it that you think is wrong about unionized workers standing up for their gains? You sound like a really bourgie mother fucker with this whole


These people in Wisconsin just voted for republicans, and are now shocked to see a republican agenda? If this is what the 'people of Wisconsin' wanted, let them have it.



Its always about me, or I'll, or we'll (as in the state employees) will have to give up things. You know?

Yeah fool, thats what class struggle is. The bosses try to strip away the gains earned by the working class.


And besides, I tend to side with democratic agendas.

Yeah, cause you're a liberal, as demonstrated by your complete disdain for class struggle.


I mean really, if you dont want a Republican agenda, dont vote for fucking Republicans!!!!


I highly doubt the unions endorsed the republicans in the last election.


How many of those people at these rallies voted for the GOP themselves? How many are conservatives? Police? Firefighters?

Probably not many, but those who have will probably never do so again. Thats what class struggle does, it raises the level of class consciousness, people who once identified with the ruling class begin to identify their own class interests and fight for them.


Reevaluate your shit, dog.

[syndicat]

I'm not a communist because I am motivated by abstract ideas about what is "fair". I am a communist because I am selfish, I want what is best for me and my friends/family, and because I am being realistic I know that I'm never gonna be the boss, so I need to abolish bosses.

true as far as it goes. with the working class, we can only "get ours" by not being *narrowly* self-interested but only collectively-self-interested, that is, through mutual aid and solidarity. The broader the solidarity, the greater the power, the more we can win. Racism is an attack, a limit, to solidarity and limits what we could win. Solidarity isn't purely altruistic. It's about supporting others in struggle in a situation where you know you may need their assistance, and you know you can't get very far without a collective movement you are a part of.

[The Douche]

true as far as it goes. with the working class, we can only "get ours" by not being *narrowly* self-interested but only class-self-interested, that is, through mutual aid and solidarity as a class. Solidarity isn't purely altruistic. It's about supporting others in struggle in a situation where you know you may need their assistance, and you know you can't get very far without a collective movement you are a part of.

Your only weapon is those you work with etc etc, no doubt.

[Obs]

Actually, yes. They people were starving, the men butchered in fronts against other workers, egotistical aristocracy reigned supreme, So ,yes, I do think they wanted social justice (I dont think the unemployed hungry masses in 1917 Russia were clamoring over some premium hike).
I don't think you get it. The point is that any lofty, political ideal of "justice" or any other such nonsense took a back seat to more basic, chilling realisations like "if I don't take up arms, I and my family will starve." Political struggle is the result of one's conditions, and revolutionary action is the result of using inductive reasoning to understand the logical solution to improving one's conditions. Justice, and other ideals, do not play a part.

[B0LSHEVIK]

yeah, cause you're a liberal, as demonstrated by your complete disdain for class struggle

HOLY SHIT. Now Im a liberal against the class struggle? Funny you say the word liberal, because thats what most of these people in Wisconsin depend on, liberal democrats. Liberals btw, also probably gave them these gains in the first place. So, whos an enemy of liberals?

Ive seen in it my own community here in SE Los Angeles, Im pretty sure Madison WI isnt any better. Those in the public sector, are largely conservative. That being said, dont we all want democratic framework? Is this now bourgeois liberal hippy bullshit too? Well, they voted, got fucked, and are now shocked. Sure the union didnt endorse the GOP, in most certainest. But it also did a lousy job of educating the workers there too, again, in most certainest.

And AGAIN, I do support them, I just think that the whole situation is highly ironic.

[Obs]

Those in the public sector, are largely conservative.
See, again you're valuing abstract ideals higher than the actual, objectively observable effects of what's going on. Who cares if the striking workers claim to be conservative, if what they're doing is harming the bourgeoisie? Let them call themselves whatever the hell they want, as long as they keep fighting a class struggle. It's through their struggle their political identity comes to be, at any rate.

[B0LSHEVIK]

See, again you're valuing abstract ideals higher than the actual, objectively observable effects of what's going on. Who cares if the striking workers claim to be conservative, if what they're doing is harming the bourgeoisie? Let them call themselves whatever the hell they want, as long as they keep fighting a class struggle. It's through their struggle their political identity comes to be, at any rate.

Harming the bourgeoisies? Lol comrade, they are the bourgeois!

Ive noticed here in LA several 'public' employees who flip flop on votes, and would NEVER vote for a left wing party. If the dems promise some kind of perk they vote dem. When Republicans talk about cutting waste, these people rarely assume that they may be waste in the eyes of some people. So, as Wisconsin did November 2010, vote for patriotism, against Obama tyranny, and against spending! It happened here recently with the 'governator.'

I like to see people on streets always, Its just funny what people are trying to make out of this protest.

[The Douche]

Harming the bourgeoisies? Lol comrade, they are the bourgeois!

Unionised workers are the bourgeoisie!:rolleyes:

[Obs]

Harming the bourgeoisies? Lol comrade, they are the bourgeois!
I don't think you know what that means.

[Blackscare]

Yea, as much as I really hate what this person said, lets go easy on him/her, since after that little bourgeois remark, it's clear they don't really know anything about marxism. :(

[B0LSHEVIK]

Unionised workers are the bourgeoisie!:rolleyes:

Ummm, yes?

There is nothing wrong with being bourgeois. Lenin was bourgeois too right?

Its simply a fact.

[Blackscare]

Ummm, yes?

There is nothing wrong with being bourgeois. Lenin was bourgeois too right?

Its simply a fact.

LOL WAT


Bourgeois is the class of capitalists. To be bourgeois is to employ labor and extract surplus value from it. Lenin wasn't bourgeois :laugh:


Please, provide us with your definition of bourgeois so we can tell you where you got it wrong.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Yea, as much as I really hate what this person said, lets go easy on him/her, since after that little bourgeois remark, it's clear they don't really know anything about marxism. :(

Oh, I get it. These people are the have nots. Gotcha'.

[B0LSHEVIK]

LOL WAT


Bourgeois is the class of capitalists. To be bourgeois is to employ labor and extract surplus value from it. Lenin wasn't bourgeois :laugh:


Please, provide us with your definition of bourgeois so we can tell you where you got it wrong.


Bourgeois = people who own capital.

Land, Im sure most of these own a home. I seriously doubt most are renters.

They probably own stocks, 401k's retirement plans, etc. Thats pretty bourgeois to me.

[The Douche]

Ummm, yes?

There is nothing wrong with being bourgeois. Lenin was bourgeois too right?

Its simply a fact.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UJTKxrzdoHA/TSxzu_HuCkI/AAAAAAAAEpk/RXd8P2YiaCA/s1600/RAGE-face.jpg



But for real, I don't have the ability to keep going with this discussion, its absurd. I feel like I totally fell for a serious trolling.

[Blackscare]

Bourgeois = people who own capital.

Land, Im sure most of these own a home. I seriously doubt most are renters.

They probably own stocks, 401k's retirement plans, etc. Thats pretty bourgeois to me.

That's not what fucking bourgeois is, though. If you want to make up terms out of nowhere, then fine, but take it to a fiction forum. You "support democratic initiatives" or whatever, so you're clearly not a revolutionary. Really, if you think that the option to pull a lever and choose between one of two ruling class parties is "democracy", go hang out with the liberals.


The idea that you call yourself BOLSHEVIK and have anarchist symbols in your sig, and support some vague "democratic" process, tells me that you're a confused teenager who knows nothing about the Left. IF you remain loyal to any group that claims to be left wing, you'll probably wind up a MTW from your rhetoric.

[Obs]

Land, Im sure most of these own a home. I seriously doubt most are renters.
I think you'll find the vast majority of them have to pay their bank each month to let them stay in those homes. Which raises the question - who owns the home, then?


That's not what fucking bourgeois is, though. If you want to make up terms out of nowhere, then fine, but take it to a fiction forum. You "support democratic initiatives" or whatever, so you're clearly not a revolutionary. Really, if you think that the option to pull a lever and choose between one of two ruling class parties is "democracy", go hang out with the liberals.


The idea that you call yourself BOLSHEVIK and have anarchist symbols in your sig, and support some vague "democratic" process, tells me that you're a confused teenager who knows nothing about the Left. IF you remain loyal to any group that claims to be left wing, you'll probably wind up a MTW from your rhetoric.
Hey now, what happened to the Blackscare who said this:

Yea, as much as I really hate what this person said, lets go easy on him/her, since after that little bourgeois remark, it's clear they don't really know anything about marxism. :( ?

[B0LSHEVIK]

That's not what fucking bourgeois is, though. If you want to make up terms out of nowhere, then fine, but take it to a fiction forum. You "support democratic initiatives" or whatever, so you're clearly not a revolutionary. Really, if you think that the option to pull a lever and choose between one of two ruling class parties is "democracy", go hang out with the liberals.


The idea that you call yourself BOLSHEVIK and have anarchist symbols in your sig, and support some vague "democratic" process, tells me that you're a confused teenager who knows nothing about the Left. IF you remain loyal to any group that claims to be left wing, you'll probably wind up a MTW from your rhetoric.

I do believe in democratic socialism. Not capitalist parties, but true working class parties. Funny that you knock the very party that these people are clamoring to help them.

I also dont consider myself a revolutionary, for obvious reasons. The fact that you do because you post on a anonymous website amuses me.:laugh:

[Blackscare]

I think you'll find the vast majority of them have to pay their bank each month to let them stay in those homes. Which raises the question - who owns the home, then?


Hey now, what happened to the Blackscare who said this:
?

While I was typing that and before I reloaded this thread, he said something else. I really have little empathy so it's no surprise to see it run out so quickly on an anti-worker troll/imbecile.

[B0LSHEVIK]

So,

1) Owning homes (after you can afford a multi thousand downpayment) is not bourgeois.
2) Owning stocks and other gimmicks is not bourgeois. I wonder what the farmer in Mexico or Africa with only the rags on his back to his name has to say about that.
3) We must never, under any circumstance, critique any other movement, or else you're a liberal.
4) Im a teenager.

How very 'radical' these revlefters are. :rolleyes:

[The Douche]

So,

1) Owning homes (after you can afford a multi thousand downpayment) is not bourgeois.
2) Owning stocks and other gimmicks is not bourgeois. I wonder what the farmer in Mexico or Africa with only the rags on his back to his name has to say about that.
3) We must never, under any circumstance, critique any other movement, or else you're a liberal.
4) Im a teenager.
:rolleyes:

Oh my bad, you were looking for this website.

www.llco.org (http://www.llco.org)

[B0LSHEVIK]

Oh my bad, you were looking for this website.

www.llco.org (http://www.llco.org)

No, not really.

I know this thread has gone waaay off topic from the OP, even decimated by those intellectually incompetent into personal attacks and slurs.

But the point I was making was, in Wisconsin, isnt it ironic!!!???!!!

Everyone bought a ticket for the TeaParty express coming to town, now they got steam rolled and cant believe it.

[The Douche]

No, not really.

I know this thread has gone waaay off topic from the OP, even decimated by those intellectually incompetent into personal attacks and slurs.

But the point I was making was, in Wisconsin, isnt it ironic!!!???!!!

Everyone bought a ticket for the TeaParty express coming to town, now they got steam rolled and cant believe it.

No, jackass, I don't think its ironic that pro-union workers, people who probably are left/center liberals oppose anti-union legislation. And no, I don't think its ironic that other people who perhaps were/are conservative are standing in solidarity with them, I think its heart-warming and exciting.

[Os Cangaceiros]

1) Owning homes (after you can afford a multi thousand downpayment) is not bourgeois.

Around 68% of US households are homeowners. :mellow:

(Although that's a deceptive statistic, as many people make payments and don't own a house outright. It's a big culture thing in the USA to own a home, though...part of the reason that the housing bubble started.)


2) Owning stocks and other gimmicks is not bourgeois. I wonder what the farmer in Mexico or Africa with only the rags on his back to his name has to say about that.

The fact that other people in parts of the under-developed world are drastically worse off than people in the United States doesn't change wage relations. A teenager who works as a cashier at a grociery store could make as much as a surgeon working in sub-saharan Africa, but that doesn't change his or her relationship to the M.O.P. (unless you're a Maoist-Third Worldist)


3) We must never, under any circumstance, critique any other movement, or else you're a liberal.

Oh, there's plenty to critique, you're just doing it in a way that's kind of uninformed and liberal-ish, honestly. I'm half expecting a claim that anyone who doesn't buy fair trade coffee is bourgeois.

[B0LSHEVIK]

I really love the way everyone here has denounced liberals and liberalism. When, in reality, those people in Wisconsin are probably lousy liberal-democrats, appealing to the bourgeois democratic party to please not fuck them over. This isnt a communist thing in Madison, as a matter of fact, probably most of those people in Madison can be labeled anti-communist. Lets not try to make this whole episode into something its not.


you're just doing it in a way that's kind of uninformed and liberal-ish,

No Im not. People here have problems processing information and logic are trying to make me into public No.1. It just feels, sadly, that many Americans want so desperately to make this into something its not.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I really love the way everyone here has denounced liberals and liberalism. When, in reality, those people in Wisconsin are probably lousy liberal-democrats, appealing to the bourgeois democratic party to please not fuck them over. This isnt a communist thing in Madison, as a matter of fact, probably most of those people in Madison can be labeled anti-communist. Lets not try to make this whole episode into something its not.

Huh? What are people making the situation out to be?

The most I've seen people claim it to be is an opportunity. Which it is.

No one is born a communist. Most people cross over to radicalism from other ideologies, "lousy liberal-democrats" included.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Huh? What are people making the situation out to be?

The most I've seen people claim it to be is an opportunity. Which it is.

No one is born a communist. Most people cross over to radicalism from other ideologies, "lousy liberal-democrats" included.

Without mentioning names, some comrades here have almost made this out to be some 'awakening.' Its not. Not yet at least. And as in my OP, I wish them luck. But this is bitter sweet irony imo. I never denounced liberals, as a matter of fact I was the one denounced as a liberal.

[Sixiang]

Look at all of these pro tea party conservatives singing Woody Guthrie with Tom Morello.... oh wait.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kknr-advKkg&feature=player_embedded#at=403


And on a serious note, Tea Party members and union members/supporters face-to-face, in opposition to each other:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRsswnGUlbQ&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

[Pretty Flaco]

Oh those silly public sector workers wanting the right to collectively bargain. They're just silly suburban bourgeois kids who are whining over nothing when they need to man up! Unions? So bourgeois.

[PhoenixAsh]

Bourgeois = people who own capital.

Land, Im sure most of these own a home. I seriously doubt most are renters.

They probably own stocks, 401k's retirement plans, etc. Thats pretty bourgeois to me.


Bourgeoise is the class that owns the means of production. This is amongst other things capital...but not all capital is necessarily a means of production. A house is not the means of production....it does not produce anything....though this could be debatable if you run an unlicensed brothel. They all have one thing in common...they employ people...either themselves or others and benefit directly from their work.

Proletariat is everybody who does not own the means of production and need to sell their labour, to sustain themselves, for a wage.




So,

1) Owning homes (after you can afford a multi thousand downpayment) is not bourgeois.
Correct...its not a means of production.



2) Owning stocks and other gimmicks is not bourgeois. I wonder what the farmer in Mexico or Africa with only the rags on his back to his name has to say about that.What they have to say about it is pretty irrelevant. I can state I disagree with the definition of a word...but that does not make me right. To put it in an example: calling a car a duck does not make it so.

Words have definitions. Henbce language can be used to communicate. If you deviate from that definition then you have to give your subjective definition of that word. What you are doing is using the word in a competely different contextual definition...namely the liberal/capitalist definition of the word.

Burgeois in the context of this forum has a very well defined and specific meaning. what you make it out to be does not follow that meaning.

In Marxist theory merely owning stock is not burgeoise per se. Its owning large shares or a majority in a corporation.

Just as merely owning money is not necessarily burgeoise.




3) We must never, under any circumstance, critique any other movement, or else you're a liberal.Here...I fixed that sentence for you:

We must never ever critique other movements [with wrong assumptions and untrue arguments...especially by using liberal definitions of terminology in opposition to socialist terminology as the basis of that argument]....otherwise you are indeed a liberal.



I know this thread has gone waaay off topic from the OP, even decimated by those intellectually incompetent into personal attacks and slurs.Or those who do not inform themselves into the exact nature of terminology...



But the point I was making was, in Wisconsin, isnt it ironic!!!???!!!

Everyone bought a ticket for the TeaParty express coming to town, now they got steam rolled and cant believe it.No...in fact...as was pointed out earlier...several times...its actually the basis off class struggle.

...as its the basis of socialism to wake people up and open their eyes to the reality of the deceptions of capitalism and capitalist society and politics. Ridiculing people who have been misled for so long waking up and actually doing something about it is a bit reactionary and counter productive....seeing as you are then ridiculing class struggle.

And yes...by all reasonable accounts these people will probably retunr to the pipe dream later...but for now...they are the class struggle. and its our job to support them and try to get them to radicalise more...over and over and over again.



I really love the way everyone here has denounced liberals and liberalism. When, in reality, those people in Wisconsin are probably lousy liberal-democrats, appealing to the bourgeois democratic party to please not fuck them over. This isnt a communist thing in Madison, as a matter of fact, probably most of those people in Madison can be labeled anti-communist. Lets not try to make this whole episode into something its not.
I am not sure if you "get" it...in fact I am sure you don't...but not everybody involved in the class struggle is a line toeing commie. Did you think every worker in the Russian Revolution was a commie?

The group consisted of socialists, social democrats, anarchists, humanists, liberals, petit burgeoisie, lumpen, democrats, egocentrics, republicans, nihilists and even opportunist.

Class struggle is independent from political affiliation. More and more people waking up towards the machinations of capitalism is a good thing. It does not matter if they are commie or social democrat or liberal.


Without mentioning names, some comrades here have almost made this out to be some 'awakening.' Its not. Not yet at least. And as in my OP, I wish them luck. But this is bitter sweet irony imo. I never denounced liberals, as a matter of fact I was the one denounced as a liberal.Because you argue like one and use THEIR definitions of terminology....and because you stated so yourself:


I also dont consider myself a revolutionary, for obvious reasons.

And yes..this is an awakening...are these people in the streets protesting or not?

Its not an awakening to revolution...but its part of the class struggle all the same.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Just because some people make a decent living doesn't mean they are bourgeoisie. They still work for someone else for a living, and are lucky to make more than minimum wage. They have no control over the workplace and are low in the hierarchy, nor' do they own the means of production.

Having a decent paycheck is not bourgeoisie.

"oh dear god, they make more than $20k or $30k a year?! why fight for them then?!"
...moron.

[RED DAVE]

The whole episode that began in Wisconsin and apparently caught on in a couple other states doesnt seem to impress me. It does seem to me somewhat selfish. Many of the people Ive heard from the protests always make a selfish point or points. Its always about me, or I'll, or we'll (as in the state employees) will have to give up things. You know? Its not about social justice. Or actual radical politics for that matter.
Harming the bourgeoisies? Lol comrade, [the public sector workers] are the bourgeois!And you call yourself a bolshevik. You have no concept of Marxism.

RED DAVE

[ed miliband]

And you call yourself a bolshevik. You have no concept of Marxism.

RED DAVE


Some would say the latter is a prerequisite of the former.


[/shitjoke]

[Red Bayonet]

Oppose what your enemy supports.
Support what your enemy opposes.

[syndicat]

I really love the way everyone here has denounced liberals and liberalism. When, in reality, those people in Wisconsin are probably lousy liberal-democrats, appealing to the bourgeois democratic party to please not fuck them over. This isnt a communist thing in Madison, as a matter of fact, probably most of those people in Madison can be labeled anti-communist. Lets not try to make this whole episode into something its not.


well, you're saying, in effect, that won't support the struggle of people who don't already 100 percent agree with your "communist" politics.

so, how do you suppose that the working class comes around to radical or revolutionary conclusions? how do you suppose that revolution might come to be a possibility in this country?

you certainly don't understand class struggle and its relationship to authentic socialism.

[B0LSHEVIK]

well, you're saying, in effect, that won't support the struggle of people who don't already 100 percent agree with your "communist" politics.

so, how do you suppose that the working class comes around to radical or revolutionary conclusions? how do you suppose that revolution might come to be a possibility in this country?

you certainly don't understand class struggle and its relationship to authentic socialism.

Thats nonsense Synd. We've had enough good discussions via private messaging for you to know thats bullshit.

1) I never said 'lets not support the people in Wisconsin.' I said, isnt it funny that these people in Wisconsin 3 months ago were voting for teaparty candidates, feeling that they were 'losing their country' and fearing an 'Obama tyranny.' And now, look where thats got them. If anything comes out of this, hopefully it will be a lesson learned for the Wisconsin proletariat. Who knows, maybe they havent had enough.

2) How do I suppose working class people come to getting revolutionary conclusions?

By getting fucked. Thats how. People who earn concessions usually dont progress to the next stage, the revolutionary stage. Read what some of the people in Egypt and Libya say, people whom, had already been driven past the point of no return, when revolution is inevitable. "Im willing to die for change.' "My daughter has never known freedom.' 'I have nothing to lose.' Now thats a revolutionary talking, nothing to lose.

3) This is without a doubt, class war. But, these workers are bourgeois, the petty bourgeois that is. I never thought that the idea of calling first world workers bourgeois was so offensive.

Obviously these people dont control the whole of their means of productions, literally. But they probably own shares in GE, Boeing, Mcdonald-douglas, Big banks, Wall St, etc etc. Doesnt that make them by definition part owners of the means of production? What would Marx have said about 401k's? And what about IRA's? What about working people investing their hard earned small amounts of capital into these capitalist behemoths?

Oh, and those so-called 'revolutionaries' posting on revleft via their wi-fi connection, no wonder the world has always ridiculed the CPUSA.


One last thing.

Ive heard plenty of comrades here ridicule the big American unions, teamsters, afl-cio, etc etc. Everyone largely agrees that these unions are bourgeois. But not the members?

Ok....

[PhoenixAsh]

2) How do I suppose working class people come to getting revolutionary conclusions?

By getting fucked. Thats how. People who earn concessions usually dont progress to the next stage, the revolutionary stage. Read what some of the people in Egypt and Libya say, people whom, had already been driven past the point of no return, when revolution is inevitable. "Im willing to die for change.' "My daughter has never known freedom.' 'I have nothing to lose.' Now thats a revolutionary talking, nothing to lose.


Really? Because these protesters have been getting concession after concession and still they kept on. And yet...they have not radicalised to a point of socialist revolutionary theory and according actions....except for the workers who continued to strike. So basically your analysis is flawed and not up to the current events.




3) This is without a doubt, class war. But, these workers are bourgeois, the petty bourgeois that is. I never thought that the idea of calling first world workers bourgeois was so offensive. No, they are NOT

We have told you over, and over, and over, again and still you keep maintaining this false and utterly stupid notion that they as a group are petty-burgeoisie.


Thrid wordism is an offensive, racist and devicive ideology.



Obviously these people dont control the whole of their means of productions, literally. But they probably own shares in GE, Boeing, Mcdonald-douglas, Big banks, Wall St, etc etc. THIS is an assumption. But even if they do they are NOT burgeoisie. Because they in effect do NOT own the company unless they get a majority or large enough share to be allowed to vote. In effect they do not own the company and do not own the direction of the company. ...which is the current Marxist perspective on moving on from proletariat to burgeoisie.




Doesnt that make them by definition part owners of the means of production? What would Marx have said about 401k's? And what about IRA's? What about working people investing their hard earned small amounts of capital into these capitalist behemoths? Marx would have stated the exact same thing about it as he does now. These people do not rely on the work of others and ownership of means of production for their sustenance and support of life....unless they do so they are still proletarians. They do not own their own companies and they are not self employed....and hence they are not burgeoisie.




Oh, and those so-called 'revolutionaries' posting on revleft via their wi-fi connection, no wonder the world has always ridiculed the CPUSA.
You are a complete troll aren't you? What the fuck has a wifi connection to do with being revolutionary?



One last thing.

Ive heard plenty of comrades here ridicule the big American unions, teamsters, afl-cio, etc etc. Everyone largely agrees that these unions are bourgeois. But not the members?

Ok....
No they agree they sold out and became part of the system and as such became incorporated in the burgeoisie...the members are still dependent on their own labour and a wage in return for that labour and NOT the means of production....thus being still proletariat.

LEARN YOUR DEFINITIONS




In effect these protests and the current attempts to stifle the unions will radicalise them and estrange them from the government and political parties more and more.

[syndicat]

But, these workers are bourgeois, the petty bourgeois that is. I never thought that the idea of calling first world workers bourgeois was so offensive.

Obviously these people dont control the whole of their means of productions, literally. But they probably own shares in GE, Boeing, Mcdonald-douglas, Big banks, Wall St, etc etc. Doesnt that make them by definition part owners of the means of production? What would Marx have said about 401k's? And what about IRA's? What about working people investing their hard earned small amounts of capital into these capitalist behemoths?

you're simply accepting propaganda of the bourgois media. so who's being "bourgeois"?

the capitalists are those who make their living through their ownership of means of production or business assets. public workers do not make their living through ownership of means of production.

It's very unlikely that very many public workers in Wisconsin own shares in companies. when i was a teacher at UW Milwaukee, I certainly didn't make enough to buy stocks. the idea never occurred to me.

you seem to be buying into right wing propaganda about public workers making more money than those in private sector. this is not true. public workers on average make less than people working in the same or simililar occupation in the private sector.

many workers at various income levels have 401ks, which is a pension program for retirement. this is really the only sense in which workers "own" shares in companies. this is actually more common in the private sector, and occurs at all income levels of workers. but this is merely delayed income for retirement. the stocks and securities are controlled by money managers in the financial industry, not the workers who supposedly "own" them.


Ive heard plenty of comrades here ridicule the big American unions, teamsters, afl-cio, etc etc. Everyone largely agrees that these unions are bourgeois. But not the members?


calling the unions "bourgeois" is silly. the American labor bureaucracy is large and overpaid, but they're part of the bureaucratic middle class. they're not capitalists. and at the local level workers have more possibility of influence, there are member meetings, often local officers are workers themselves.

if the working class is to engage effectively in the "class war" you talk about they need to have unions they control to do this. how do you encourage this by denouncing those workers?

moreover saying that revolutionary transformation comes from "class war" is inconsistent with attacking workers as "bourgeois." you're contradicting yourself.

[B0LSHEVIK]

In effect these protests and the current attempts to stifle the unions will radicalise them and estrange them from the government and political parties more and more.

No argument there. But thats the point IM MAKING MY FUCKING SELF!!!!!!!!!

The protesters are not getting concessions, the concessions are to be made by the state of WI, and its given no concessions. Walker himself stated 'no compromise.' So, if you ask me, this a step towards radicalization. I hope.

Funny, I dont recall Marx talking about 401k's or hedge funds maneuvers. But I'll take your word.

So then, if these people are not bourgeois (and they are, Maosists should agree), what are they? Proletarians on par with Palestinians? Or with Libyans?

I think thats a stretch.

And to be honest, 90% of those dissing me are Americans who refuse to accept that as a labor force, we are petty bourgeois. Ive come to accept that, maybe we should all take a closer look.

[bcbm]

I said, isnt it funny that these people in Wisconsin 3 months ago were voting for teaparty candidates, feeling that they were 'losing their country' and fearing an 'Obama tyranny.' And now, look where thats got them. If anything comes out of this, hopefully it will be a lesson learned for the Wisconsin proletariat.

none of the tea party candidates here won with anything resembling a landslide victory, i don't know if you could really say that all the unions folks pouring out to support were voting for the tea party a few months ago.

[B0LSHEVIK]

you're simply accepting propaganda of the bourgois media. so who's being "bourgeois"?

the capitalists are those who make their living through their ownership of means of production or business assets. public workers do not make their living through ownership of means of production.

It's very unlikely that very many public workers in Wisconsin own shares in companies. when i was a teacher at UW Milwaukee, I certainly didn't make enough to buy stocks. the idea never occurred to me.

you seem to be buying into right wing propaganda about public workers making more money than those in private sector. this is not true. public workers on average make less than people working in the same or simililar occupation in the private sector.

many workers at various income levels have 401ks, which is a pension program for retirement. this is really the only sense in which workers "own" shares in companies. this is actually more common in the private sector, and occurs at all income levels of workers. but this is merely delayed income for retirement. the stocks and securities are controlled by money managers in the financial industry, not the workers who supposedly "own" them.



calling the unions "bourgeois" is silly. the American labor bureaucracy is large and overpaid, but they're part of the bureaucratic middle class. they're not capitalists. and at the local level workers have more possibility of influence, there are member meetings, often local officers are workers themselves.

if the working class is to engage effectively in the "class war" you talk about they need to have unions they control to do this. how do you encourage this by denouncing those workers?

moreover saying that revolutionary transformation comes from "class war" is inconsistent with attacking workers as "bourgeois." you're contradicting yourself.

Just by owning a 401k or retirement plan that is diversified, you probably own share in all kinds of companies you wouldnt like, you know?

Dude, Im not saying 'fuck them.'

Im saying Im with them, but acknowledge that these people in WI arent the most 'commie-friendly' either.

Thats where you're wrong, I didnt say JUST the workers in WI are bourgeois, Im saying ALL 1ST WORLD WORKERS ARE BOURGEOIS. Public or private in the US, you probably have more power with your credit card than most people do in Africa.

[Os Cangaceiros]

No argument there. But thats the point IM MAKING MY FUCKING SELF!!!!!!!!!

The protesters are not getting concessions, the concessions are to be made by the state of WI, and its given no concessions. Walker himself stated 'no compromise.' So, if you ask me, this a step towards radicalization. I hope.

Funny, I dont recall Marx talking about 401k's or hedge funds maneuvers. But I'll take your word.

So then, if these people are not bourgeois (and they are, Maosists should agree), what are they? Proletarians on par with Palestinians? Or with Libyans?

I think thats a stretch.

And to be honest, 90% of those dissing me are Americans who refuse to accept that as a labor force, we are petty bourgeois. Ive come to accept that, maybe we should all take a closer look.

fair trade coffee bro

[Thirsty Crow]

And to be honest, 90% of those dissing me are Americans who refuse to accept that as a labor force, we are petty bourgeois. Ive come to accept that, maybe we should all take a closer look.
I think that the bolded part speaks for itself, by means of its apparent paradox (what I mean is that the majority of the workers anywhere in the developed capitalist economies do not own the MoP, and nor do they command the labour of others).
What characterizes the petite bourgeiosie as a class is the necessity of direct labour alongside the ability to hire a wage earner and collect the surplus privately. Or so I've been told. Got a better, more meaningful definition?

[B0LSHEVIK]

none of the tea party candidates here won with anything resembling a landslide victory, i don't know if you could really say that all the unions folks pouring out to support were voting for the tea party a few months ago.

The fact that the state WAS a 'democratic' safe haven (lousy liberals right), points to how these guys came into power in the first place riding on a reaction against Obamas perceived 'socialist tyranny' I've been hearing about.

Now the fact that the majority in the state now oppose those they JUST VOTED FOR, is ironic.

I guess if you DONT WANT A REPUBLICAN AGENDA, DONT VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS.

Also, am I the only one who is aware that the GOP is known for such acts?

[B0LSHEVIK]

I think that the bolded part speaks for itself, by means of its apparent paradox (what I mean is that the majority of the workers anywhere in the developed capitalist economies do not own the MoP, and nor do they command the labour of others).
What characterizes the petite bourgeiosie as a class is the necessity of direct labour alongside the ability to hire a wage earner and collect the surplus privately. Or so I've been told. Got a better, more meaningful definition?

So nannies, landscapers, housekeepers, in general benefiting from cheap labor, etc doesnt count?

[Thirsty Crow]

So nannies, landscapers, housekeepers, in general benefiting from cheap labor, etc doesnt count?
Nannies? I'm not sure how these people organize their work in USA (since you're specifically referring to the US). If nannies are hired by an agency and sent out to a family - then they are clearly proletarian. On the other hand, self employment may be an option, and that makes a situation pretty complex.

But, can you explain what exactly do you mean by "benefitijng from cheap labour"? Whose labour?

[B0LSHEVIK]

Nannies? I'm not sure how these people organize their work in USA (since you're specifically referring to the US). If nannies are hired by an agency and sent out to a family - then they are clearly proletarian. On the other hand, self employment may be an option, and that makes a situation pretty complex.

But, can you explain what exactly do you mean by "benefitijng from cheap labour"? Whose labour?

I just noticed you're from Croatia.

In the US, a whole economic system has been developed on 'illegal' labor from people south of the border. From crops, kitchens, hotels, farms, streets, warehoues, etc, all are attempting to exploit people who come to the US looking for a better life.

From not even paying the bare minimum wage, to unsafe work conditions. People in the US (and others countries too) benefit from having a whole underclass of workers with no rights. Thats what I mean about US workers being petty bourgeois.

[bcbm]

the bosses in the us benefit from having a whole underclass of workers with no rights, which is why they're trying to push us all into that category

[Impulse97]

Bolshevik....Just leave.

If your not willing to learn then just go back to the DNC and let the Capitalists listen to your inane comments.:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:

[B0LSHEVIK]

the bosses in the us benefit from having a whole underclass of workers with no rights, which is why they're trying to push us all into that category

True.

But people deny their petty bourgeois when they're eating fruits and veggies picked by people who got underpaid by the bushel, not the hour.

[Thirsty Crow]

From not even paying the bare minimum wage, to unsafe work conditions. People in the US (and others countries too) benefit from having a whole underclass of workers with no rights. Thats what I mean about US workers being petty bourgeois.

Okay, so the lack of basic labour rights when it comes to immigrant labour is a factor that contributes the relative benefits of the "legal" labour force. But then, you are engaging in a moralistic (that is not to say that the plight of the immigrants and the relationship with the broader working class is a minor or unimportant point) reconceptualization of the term "petite bourgeoisie" which is, in my opinion, very dubious.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Okay, so the lack of basic labour rights when it comes to immigrant labour is a factor that contributes the relative benefits of the "legal" labour force. But then, you are engaging in a moralistic (that is not to say that the plight of the immigrants and the relationship with the broader working class is a minor or unimportant point) reconceptualization of the term "petite bourgeoisie" which is, in my opinion, very dubious.

Fair enough. But, by your own definition, a legal worker who works in the US and eats a meal prepared by someone being exploited is petty bourgeois. No?

And Im not saying Im not guilty myself. I just ate a pear from somewhere in california, that was in most probability picked by a comrade with no rights as a worker what so ever. Even these unions in the US denounce illegals as 'leechers' Ive heard those kind of statments at my union hall for crying out fucking loud!!!!

Were all petty bourgeois, some deny it, I just accept it.

[Thirsty Crow]

Fair enough. But, by your own definition, a legal worker who works in the US and eats a meal prepared by someone being exploited is petty bourgeois. No?

I don't think that consumption patterns have anything to do with one's class position. I've stated my opinion on this - the power to command others' labour, to hire a wage earner and to extract and pocket surplus value, in combination with the necessity of direct labour, is what makes people petite borugeois.


Even these unions in the US denounce illegals as 'leechers' Ive heard those kind of statments at my union hall for crying out fucking loud!!!!

Now, there's some serious solidarity issue. It is also tied in to a sort of a nationalist and/or racist sentiment, in my opinion
But that does not necessarily denote one's class position. Workers can hold reactionary, disgusting views too.

[syndicat]

Thats where you're wrong, I didnt say JUST the workers in WI are bourgeois, Im saying ALL 1ST WORLD WORKERS ARE BOURGEOIS. Public or private in the US, you probably have more power with your credit card than most people do in Africa.

and you're wrong about first world workers being "bourgeois." this is just silly. workers in the first world are paid more than workers earn in the third world. now, why is that? it's due to:

1. a longer history of re-investment of capital in first world countries, to build up labor productivity, which investment was off the backs of the workers.

2. higher labor productivity enables higher wages to be paid, but doesn't guarantee it, since it depends on struggle how much workers will get off their own productivity.

3. the history of labor struggle in the past in first world countries forced many concessions by state (social wage) and companies.

4. the capitalists in the first world are the dominant ruling elites worldwide and exploit the labor and resources of third world countries. but these profits go to the capitalists, not the workers, in the first world (and are shared with the capitalist and bureaucratic classes in the third world), and are only a small part of the profit of first world capitalists, which is mostly made off the labor of first world workers.

[B0LSHEVIK]

I don't think that consumption patterns have anything to do with one's class position. I've stated my opinion on this - the power to command others' labour, to hire a wage earner and to extract and pocket surplus value, in combination with the necessity of direct labour, is what makes people petite borugeois.

Ok, lets roll with that.

So an American family looks into daycare. The legit legal firm/lady charges $400 a week (no lie). The illegal nanny who will also clean the house and make dinner is asking for $250. They accept the illegal lady. Not petty bourgeois by your own definition?

The same idea applies to everything. Go to a restaurant that uses 'legal' labor, you'll probably end up paying more, correct? Go to one with illegals, you pay less correct?

Does this then not make us all petty bourgeois? (I dont know about Croatia, but in the US?)

[syndicat]

But, by your own definition, a legal worker who works in the US and eats a meal prepared by someone being exploited is petty bourgeois. No?


wrong again. the "petty bourgeois" are the small business owners, like someone who owns a mom and pop store or a small restaurant.

a worker is not exploiting someone because they consume products made by other workers who are exploited by their employers. in order to exploit someone, you first have to dominate them, that is, be a boss over them, where this power comes from you being the owner of the means of production, and that other person being forced to find jobs with businesses in order to make a living.

the fact that the workers in a particular place are being super-exploited, paid less than others, doesn't make a consumer of their services not a part of the working class, if they themselves are dominated and exploited by bosses/employers.

the working class is very heterogeneous and has various pay levels, and also some groups of workers have advantages or disadvantages in dealing with employers, such as being subject to racism, or being "illegal." this doesn't mean they're part of different classes.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Now, there's some serious solidarity issue. It is also tied in to a sort of a nationalist and/or racist sentiment, in my opinion
But that does not necessarily denote one's class position. Workers can hold reactionary, disgusting views too.

Which is what Im saying. Ive heard plenty of horrific comments that hurt from people who are supposed to be your union comrades.

I talk a lot of time from experience I guess. Those who are academics may not understand fully sometimes.

And from my experience, the majority of Americans (in SE Los Angeles btw) could care less about someone who looks just like you being treated like shit, because after all, fuck him, you were born American.

It is disgusting. I cant imagine that WI is any better, either.

[B0LSHEVIK]

wrong again. the "petty bourgeois" are the small business owners, like someone who owns a mom and pop store or a small restaurant.

a worker is not exploiting someone because they consume products made by other workers who are exploited by their employers. in order to exploit someone, you first have to dominate them, that is, be a boss over them, where this power comes from you being the owner of the means of production, and that other person being forced to find jobs with businesses in order to make a living.

So when you hire a illegal landscaper, an illegal nanny or construction worker, etc, you are not their boss?

[syndicat]

So when you hire a illegal landscaper, an illegal nanny or construction worker, etc, you are not their boss?

in order to not be part of the working class, someone who does this would have to actually make their living off of doing this.

there are various ways in which people may take advantage of others or act in oppressive ways towards them that are not part of the class division, such as someone beating someone up because they're gay. for someone to say "who cares about the illegals?", that is in the same league as people who are racist or gay-bashers.

now, a major part of the task for socialists is to try to convince people to be in solidarity with others of the oppressed & exploited, and to move away from condoning racist, sexist, homophobic sorts of behaviors. and one of the main ways that people in fact learn to stop doing that, and to grow into people who better appreciate others with a different situation, is through an increased level of working class struggle.

[PhoenixAsh]

So then, if these people are not bourgeois (and they are, Maosists should agree), what are they? Proletarians on par with Palestinians? Or with Libyans?

I think thats a stretch.

And to be honest, 90% of those dissing me are Americans who refuse to accept that as a labor force, we are petty bourgeois. Ive come to accept that, maybe we should all take a closer look.

You can only be bourgeoisie if you make a living by owning the means of production. If you do not you are proletarian.

and yes...proletarians in the US are on the same par as Libyans or Palestinians. This is simply the case because its a definition independent on the amount of income or prices and availability of luxury goods but on the economic relationships.

[PhoenixAsh]

Thats where you're wrong, I didnt say JUST the workers in WI are bourgeois, Im saying ALL 1ST WORLD WORKERS ARE BOURGEOIS. Public or private in the US, you probably have more power with your credit card than most people do in Africa.

The economic situation and reality in different countries is independent to which class you belong.

Again...ad nauseum...the definition of burgeoisie is if you make a living by owning the means of production...if you do not than you are proletariat. this is independent on the livingstandard you live in.

Ignoring this and making the comparison...as third worlidst do (which is now a position you take) is ignoring the underlying class analysis...and denies the economic relationship between bourgeoisie and proletariat. Its a devicive position which actually benefits the burgeoisie and capitalist system because it equates importance on class stuggle in specific areas instead of working towards the internationalist goal of socialism.

In fact...its actually saying to workers in a high living standard country; fuck you...you have to shut up because people in lesser and least developed countriess have it worse than you. The most vile tactic used by the current capitalists to somehow justify the continued state of class, social and economic inequality.

[Thirsty Crow]

So when you hire a illegal landscaper, an illegal nanny or construction worker, etc, you are not their boss?
No, you are a client buying a service.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Well ok, there will be no agreement, obviously, but, I will once more refute the claim that US workers have it the same as Palestinians or Libyans, for simple very apparent reasons.

US tax payers money is going to fund genocide, racism and oppression in these countries.

'I guess all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others,' huh?

[B0LSHEVIK]

Well ok, there will be no agreement, obviously, but, I will once more refute the claim that US workers have it the same as Palestinians or Libyans, for simple very apparent reasons.

US tax payers money is going to fund genocide, racism and oppression in these countries.

'I guess all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others,' huh?

[Thirsty Crow]

Well ok, there will be no agreement, obviously, but, I will once more refute the claim that US workers have it the same as Palestinians or Libyans, for simple very apparent reasons.

No one is arguing that the concrete living conditions are basically the same for these groups of people. The point is that both Libyan workers and American workers stand in relation to capital as workers (which implies a structural similarity of experience connected to the issue of labour in capitalism). The fact that the before mentioned concrete living conditions differ has no bearing on this fact of the shared position within the process of production.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

But people deny their petty bourgeois when they're eating fruits and veggies picked by people who got underpaid by the bushel, not the hour.
Is this a joke? Are you a tool? Oh wait, that's just elitism you spout!
So because someone eats a piece of fruit that was picked by exploited labor, which almost all produce is picked from, that makes them petty bourgeois? Actually, that makes them living in the fucking real world, where labor is exploitative, underpaid, and produced in harsh conditions. So by your definition, because you typed that sentence on a computer most likely built and manufactured in an exploitative Asian factory, you are automatically bourgeois!


Moron...

[syndicat]

Well ok, there will be no agreement, obviously, but, I will once more refute the claim that US workers have it the same as Palestinians or Libyans, for simple very apparent reasons.

in order for someone to be a worker in the USA or other "first world" countries, they don't have to have the same income levels or living situation or circumstances of life as 3rd world workers. even within the USA, there are great differences within the working class itself between the pay and other circumstances of working class people. an undocumented person working in a food processing plant in Vernon for minimum wage is in the same class as the native-born white worker who is working the checkout line at the local Ralphs supermarket or the native-born black worker driving an MTA bus (both of whom are union members).

moreover, within 3rd world countries there are also very great differences in circumstances between people at large plants with unions versus people who are forced to eek out a living in the socalled informal sector as a street vendor or whatever.

[syndicat]

duplicate post

[ckaihatsu]

The reason why a Stalinist / Maoist / Third Worldist position may be so attractive to some is probably because of the sense of moralism that one may feel due to "benefiting" from the general social environment of cultural (racial / ethnic / gender) imperialism -- particularly for those from a more-socially-dominant cultural demographic, like the archetypal tall blonde white male.

This is closer to *radical* theory which is probably the prevailing political sentiment around Madison, Wisconsin, these days....

Radical theory -- as distinct from a genuine class analysis -- mixes consumer and lifestyle moralities into its basic framework, thereby forfeiting an elemental grounding of definitions of exploitation and oppression on any *objective*, consistent basis. Instead, people are invited to take on their own personal "identity" that is formed from characteristics of their own physical makeup, from their personality, personal history, education, consumer choices, lifestyle, and from their immediate environment around them.

Instead of looking to all of human society as something regular and definable according to an objective definition, radical theory allows for a multiplicity of definitions of social reality based on individual assessments and descriptions, blending one's own creativity into it as well. With this interpretivist method a commonality of experience among these "ethnographers" *will* emerge, but the definitions of exploitation and oppression resulting from it will not adhere to an objective, definable standard, as a Marxist definition does.

Having found themselves born into positions of relative privilege, such people from culturally dominant backgrounds may derive their politics from their culture, and wind up feeling guilty from self-identifying on the basis of such cultural privilege. At the same time they will not go so far as to espouse an objective (Marxist) worldview, for fear of depersonalizing themselves and losing such personal-identity-based claim to that cultural privilege. Instead they will try to mitigate some of that privilege by redirecting social attention to the plight of those who are *under*-privileged in Third World parts of the globe.

Unfortunately this redirection of subjective attention makes for a less-than-rigorous approach to politics, and winds up being a soft-revolutionary Stalinism / Maoism / Third Worldism political orientation. It levels blame at *cultural* imperialism, and its privileged benefactors, as much as it does at any *economic* imperialism -- maybe even *more* so, since cultural factors are more readily apparent in everyday life than economic ones, arguably. The radical *cultural*-based worldview leads to identity-based lifestylism politics based in skirmishes over *cultural* matters rather than re-orienting to the entirety of a *class*-based analysis of exploitation and oppression.


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://postimage.org/image/34modgv1g/


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

http://postimage.org/image/1g4s6wax0/

http://postimage.org/image/2cvo2d7fo/