Has anyone tried voluntary poverty ...

[Milk Sheikh]

... as a protest against the system?

Reducing consumption and protesting every day over various issues (homophobia, anti-immigration etc.) is much more pragmatic than 'online' activism.

We desperately need a Gandhi.

MS

[Omsk]

What is the point of this?Of course there were protest involving hunger strikes.I saw 4-5 in the last couple of years,and guess what,not much change,although some people ended up in a hospital.
I personally never participated in one,but i know a couple of people who did.
And,to be honest,in a country like mine,nothing will be achieved by useless protest's and 'online activity' people need to start working,working hard.

[Lord Testicles]

We desperately need a Gandhi.


No we don't.

[Summerspeaker]

In a sense my poverty is voluntary. I could theoretically get another job instead of doing Food Not Bombs and attending the endless radical community meetings/events. I'd still be barely scraping by, though. Rejecting bourgeois consumerism has obvious merit, but I don't understand how a few more deprived folks would threaten the system.

[Imposter Marxist]

No we don't.

I disagree, an anti-communuist pacifist is needed to take credit for any real struggles that go on. Also, he could write letters to the people of Palestine telling them to let the Israeli's occupy and kill them. Also, a bit of racism would help him.

[RGacky3]

Unless your allready famous and an important political figure its pointless, even you are, its still kind of pointless.

[Chairman Mike]

Even though voluntary poverty would not accomplish much on a larger scale, at least you would be bringing less consumerism into the world. If someone else sees what you're doing, they may follow your example. It's better to be true to what you believe in rather than preaching anti-consumerism but still going to McDonald's and shopping at malls.

[danyboy27]

... as a protest against the system?

Reducing consumption and protesting every day over various issues (homophobia, anti-immigration etc.) is much more pragmatic than 'online' activism.

We desperately need a Gandhi.

MS
Reducing consumption wont change nothing at all. storming public building and going after the top 2% will. General strike could also be a good mean of putting pressure for change.

Look at how the indian from india live, and tell me with a straight face that it stop the upper class to fuck them over.

The real issue is to raise public awarness, that the hardest part and the most important.

You want to do something for the revolution? talk to your co-workers, your collegues, your friends, and try to convince themabout the injustice we are going trought right now.

[Lord Testicles]

Even though voluntary poverty would not accomplish much on a larger scale, at least you would be bringing less consumerism into the world.

All you'd be doing is lowering your standard of living. Where's the point in that?


If someone else sees what you're doing, they may follow your example.

If someone else sees what you're doing they may think you're a prick.


It's better to be true to what you believe in rather than preaching anti-consumerism but still going to McDonald's and shopping at malls.

It's pretty disgusting if maoists advocate poverty. People have to eat so they'll buy food from capitalists (the same goes for clothes, pharmaceuticals, entertainment etc.) there is nothing wrong with that.

[Black Sheep]

Great idea, we want to make all people equally wealthy, so let's make ourselves workers poor to make a point. :sleep:

[Per Levy]

... as a protest against the system?

what for? the system wont care that one person is going to be voluntarely poor, and the poor would think that you are a fool.


Reducing consumption and protesting every day over various issues (homophobia, anti-immigration etc.) is much more pragmatic than 'online' activism.

pragmatic maybe, but, in my opinion, really useless, homophobes wont change their minds just because someone is poor to protest their homophobia, and rightwingerns wont change their views on immigration because of this "protest form" either.

[RGacky3]

I know Milky did'nt mean it this way, but a lot of lifestylists thinkg less consumption is something you should do, because not doing so somehow helps corporations.

Now I am by no means for consumerism, but just for your own personal well being.

However, consumerism does'nt change anything, what happens when you don't spend money is capitalists move away from production and instead move to finance, i.e speculating on the money your saving, or if your gettin stuff for free, they'll find a way to get it on the market.

Your not gonna beat the Capitalist at his own game, your not gonna lessen his power by trying not to participate in the system.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I've tried involuntary poverty.

[Summerspeaker]

Lowering personal consumption in order to support the cause makes sense and has a long radical tradition. Revolutionary leftists do this all the time. Surviving on less does also minimally reduce environmental damage.

[Black_Flag]

... as a protest against the system?

I don't see how in a system where those in power pretty much do nothing to help the involuntarily poor why they would give a shit about someone who is living in voluntary poverty.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't see how in a system where those in power pretty much do nothing to help the involuntarily poor why they would give a shit about someone who is living in voluntary poverty.
By withholding your money you are effectively witholding a miniscule portion of capital-to-be for a given enterprise.
If a significant group of people would deliberately reduce their spending, the eocnomy would face serious problems.

But that is not a viable strategy, no matter that it may be defended in theory.
All in all, I think that we cannot expect consumption-based actions and "programs" to be successful as a primary strategy.
However, I don't see a problem with such proposals if, and only if, they come out of a program of class struggle, clearly favouring workers' actions, both in the immediate economic (strikes etc.) and political spheres. If these conditions are met, the consumption-based ideas may function as a distant auxiliary in the broader class struggle.

[Che a chara]

I don't see the point really. If you want to do so just in principle then that's noble, but it would have absolutely no effect on the system and would just lead to a decrease in your own living conditions.

would it not be better advocating using that time to trying to exploit the system and agitating and educating yourself further in leftist ideals ?

[Dimmu]

I do it for moral reasons. It makes me sick when i see "anarchists" wearing branded jackets and t-shirts while talking on the newest mobile phone.

[Thirsty Crow]

I do it for moral reasons. It makes me sick when i see "anarchists" wearing branded jackets and t-shirts while talking on the newest mobile phone.
By barnded I presume that you mean "extra posh and fancy and well known brands". Only then would the combination (politics and personal style) be slightly werid. But I cannot see why would that sicken you.
I also cannot grasp why do newest cell phones used by anarchists represent such a big deal for you. žBut hell, it may got something to do with which anarchists you are talking about.

But I'd advise you not to get knee deep in anti-consumerism since consumption choices fetishism and lifestyleism is just around the corner.

[x371322]

I do it for moral reasons. It makes me sick when i see "anarchists" wearing branded jackets and t-shirts while talking on the newest mobile phone.

Yeah, I get totally pissed when I see so called "anarchists" eating food made by corporations... or living in homes made by corporations... or wearing clothes made by corporations... or using computers made by corporations (like the one you're on right now)... or listening to music made by corporations... or watching movies made by corporations...

I think you see where I'm going with this.

[Dimmu]

Yeah, I get totally pissed when I see so called "anarchists" eating food made by corporations... or living in homes made by corporations... or wearing clothes made by corporations... or using computers made by corporations (like the one you're on right now)... or listening to music made by corporations... or watching movies made by corporations...

I think you see where I'm going with this.

Yeah.. Ad-absurdum.

I do not advocate a compleate avoidance of goods produced by different corporations, because that would be an impossible in todays capitalistic world. What i support is that people should think before pruchasing stuff that they dont really need..

Do you really need 20 pairs of shoes? Or a new cell-phone when you old one was just fine. Do you really need an Nike shirt when other companies have a cheaper alternative?

I see that stuff everyday from so called leftists.

[#FF0000]

If I have some extra scratch for a nice thing, I am going to buy a nice thing.

Anti-capitalism isn't a lifestyle.

[Dimmu]

If I have some extra scratch for a nice thing, I am going to buy a nice thing.

Anti-capitalism isn't a lifestyle.

And of course the so called "nice" thing is only priced because the society made it so. Most of the time it has nothing to do with the quality of the item, they are still produced in a same sweat-shop in China.

[#FF0000]

And of course the so called "nice" thing is only priced because the society made it so. Most of the time it has nothing to do with the quality of the item, they are still produced in a same sweat-shop in China.

Yup. This is entirely true.

[Revolution starts with U]

Consumerism is not the problem, but merely a symptom of the larger problem. Our point is not to decide how business should be run. But who should run the business.
If the workers own the factories and there is still rampant consumerism, whatever. I'll still see it as a problem. But it's not my place to tell the workers how they shoudl work.

[danyboy27]

Yeah.. Ad-absurdum.

I do not advocate a compleate avoidance of goods produced by different corporations, because that would be an impossible in todays capitalistic world. What i support is that people should think before pruchasing stuff that they dont really need..

Do you really need 20 pairs of shoes? Or a new cell-phone when you old one was just fine. Do you really need an Nike shirt when other companies have a cheaper alternative?

I see that stuff everyday from so called leftists.

its not voluntary povrety, its common sense bro.
there are many capitalists in this world who have a similar lifestyle has you.

being smart about what you purchase is part of the creed of many many capitalists you know.

[Dimmu]

Consumerism is not the problem, but merely a symptom of the larger problem. Our point is not to decide how business should be run. But who should run the business.
If the workers own the factories and there is still rampant consumerism, whatever. I'll still see it as a problem. But it's not my place to tell the workers how they shoudl work.

I agree. But i personally consumerism as a problem. As long as the majority of people will try to fill the void by buying useless crap, nothing will change. This is just a tool used by an oppressive system to enslave the population.

I just try to consume as little as possible to set an example that you can actually live without buying shit every single day.

And how are you all going to try to change people to the "left" if you talk the talk, but do not walk the walk?



being smart about what you purchase is part of the creed of many many capitalists you know.

When i purchase new stuff such as clothes or food etc, i try to help the local business who is getting pushed out by a giant multi-national company. I do it even if i have to pay more for the product.

[Lord Testicles]

When i purchase new stuff such as clothes or food etc, i try to help the local business who is getting pushed out by a giant multi-national company. I do it even if i have to pay more for the product.

All you are doing there is helping small capitalists against bigger capitalists...

[Dimmu]

All you are doing there is helping small capitalists against bigger capitalists...

Like i wrote earlier. You cannot just not consume in today's world. So i rather do it this way. Because most of the time the small "capitalists" are just normal folks who try to make a living.

[Delenda Carthago]

If I have some extra scratch for a nice thing, I am going to buy a nice thing.

Anti-capitalism isn't a lifestyle.
This.We fuckin trying to have a revolution so everybody would get the wealth they produce, so everybody would live "rich".We dont try to have a revolution to live like monks.If people believe that "consumerism" is a bad thing, why you fight for wages raises?

[Dimmu]

This.We fuckin trying to have a revolution so everybody would get the wealth they produce, so everybody would live "rich".We dont try to have a revolution to live like monks.If people believe that "consumerism" is a bad thing, why you fight for wages raises?


From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

I do not believe that in a "post-revolution world" we will need to have numerous useless items when we can do just fine with one etc.

[Delenda Carthago]

All you are doing there is helping small capitalists against bigger capitalists...
Matter of fact, its progressive to buy from big corporations over petit bourgeois.

A. The capital cannot stay still. Either its expanding, or its dying.So the sooner the corporations find their limits, the sooner they will be crashed.

B. Petit bourgeois is a reactionary class by definition. They see their end in the progress of capitalism and no future for them in socialism.So what they want is a backwards capitalism. And this is why fascism was mostly based on this class against the workers.

C.Even if things would change volontaristicly like that, you would only make small coprorations big and when they would become big you would try to make them small again and then again from the start.This is not a revolutionary stance in no way.

[Milk Sheikh]

Buy items which are necessary; do not buy useless items. Simple. And please don't say this is relative, bla bla. You need bread to eat; you don't need to smoke packets and packets of cigarettes. That's how you determine what's essential and what's not.

This is especially true of first world people, even those claiming to be leftists; being greedy and advocating an end to greed is too hypocritical. Like I said, we need another Gandhi.

[thriller]

I know people that have, including family members. Problem is sometimes one gets sucked into the world of drugs when being homeless. Don't get me wrong, I think people should be able to decide what they want to put into their body. However if you are tweaked on speed for years and years, you are helping the capitalist system prove their "point" that homeless people are lazy drug addicts.

[Dimmu]

Buy items which are necessary; do not buy useless items. Simple. And please don't say this is relative, bla bla. You need bread to eat; you don't need to smoke packets and packets of cigarettes. That's how you determine what's essential and what's not.

This is especially true of first world people, even those claiming to be leftists; being greedy and advocating an end to greed is too hypocritical. Like I said, we need another Gandhi.

Exactly..I mean why the fk do you need a laptop, an Iphone and an Ipad when you could do fine with one? Why do you need that shirt with alligator on it when you could just purchase a shirt without a brand.

I do not advocate that we should not consume. AttackGr said that he wants a revolution so we could all be rich.. I personally want a revolution not for the sake of items we might get, but for the sake of people that need to work day in and day out doing their crappy jobs, getting their crappy wages and then buying crappy products that they dont need. I want a revolution where people will not strive to consume and get more and more shit, but where people will be happy with the things they have.



I know people that have, including family members. Problem is sometimes one gets sucked into the world of drugs when being homeless. Don't get me wrong, I think people should be able to decide what they want to put into their body. However if you are tweaked on speed for years and years, you are helping the capitalist system prove their "point" that homeless people are lazy drug ad

I dont think anyone means that we should take it "so far". :)

[danyboy27]

Buy items which are necessary; do not buy useless items. Simple. And please don't say this is relative, bla bla. You need bread to eat; you don't need to smoke packets and packets of cigarettes. That's how you determine what's essential and what's not.

This is especially true of first world people, even those claiming to be leftists; being greedy and advocating an end to greed is too hypocritical. Like I said, we need another Gandhi.

hoo for pete sake, purchasing cigarettes, cigar, liquor and chocolate, consuming those items dosnt mean you are greedy.

Pleasure and luxury are good things, overconsumption is a bad thing.

buying a tv isnt over-consumption, buying a radio or even a Ipod isnt over-consumption either.

drinking a bottle of wine a week isnt over consumption either.

[#FF0000]

Buy items which are necessary; do not buy useless items. Simple. And please don't say this is relative, bla bla. You need bread to eat; you don't need to smoke packets and packets of cigarettes. That's how you determine what's essential and what's not.

This is especially true of first world people, even those claiming to be leftists; being greedy and advocating an end to greed is too hypocritical. Like I said, we need another Gandhi.

Except we don't advocate people living like monks. People can have all the ipods they want because owning ipods doesn't lead to power over other people. Owning factories and the means of production does.

[RGacky3]

By withholding your money you are effectively witholding a miniscule portion of capital-to-be for a given enterprise.


and what are you going to do with it, put it under the pillow, if you have a bank account your making it avaliable.


hoo for pete sake, purchasing cigarettes, cigar, liquor and chocolate, consuming those items dosnt mean you are greedy.

Pleasure and luxury are good things, overconsumption is a bad thing.

buying a tv isnt over-consumption, buying a radio or even a Ipod isnt over-consumption either.

drinking a bottle of wine a week isnt over consumption either.

Exactly, Capitalism is'nt destructive because middle class people are having a bottle of wine every now and then hand eating some chocolate.

Look I have a normal phone, 1 lap top, and really not that much of anything, I'm not poor, but I choose to live simply because its just easier, and you can save money and its sensible, and I totally think you should'nt go wasting your money on consumerism, but thats not a moral or leftist position, its a practical one. I don't think I'm any more leftist than a guy like Noam Chomsky who probably has a nice house in a nice neighborhood, or even a leftist who really likes gadgets, it has nothing to do with anything.

Even if you just burn all your money, not keep it in a bank, not spend it, even then it can be argued your promoting deflation which actually hurt the working class. (its a stupid argument yes, but its just as good as the lifestylist one).

[Dimmu]

Exactly, Capitalism is'nt destructive because middle class people are having a bottle of wine every now and then hand eating some chocolate.

Look I have a normal phone, 1 lap top, and really not that much of anything, I'm not poor, but I choose to live simply because its just easier, and you can save money and its sensible, and I totally think you should'nt go wasting your money on consumerism, but thats not a moral or leftist position, its a practical one. .

I think we can agree on that. But i still think its a moral position because modern society is based on over-consumption.

[danyboy27]

I think we can agree on that. But i still think its a moral position because modern society is based on over-consumption.

Modern society is based on technology, not over-consumption.

[Lord Testicles]

I think we can agree on that. But i still think its a moral position because modern society is based on over-consumption.

Tell that to all the starving and homeless people.

[Dimmu]

Tell that to all the starving and homeless people.

Thats the case. You have the rich minority who can afford all the expensive junk while the rest are just dreaming of becoming millioners so they can be the rich.

I dont understand your argument.

[Che a chara]

I think we can agree on that. But i still think its a moral position because modern society is based on over-consumption.

I'd say more on over-production that doesn't see it's way to those who need it, despite these mass goods rotting on shelves and in warehouses.

[Dimmu]

I'd say more on over-production that doesn't see it's way to those who need it, despite these mass goods rotting on shelves and in warehouses.

But its from over-production the over-consumption is born.

[Summerspeaker]

Wow, this has become quite the argument. I feel a profound ambivalence. I can tell you for sure I'm jealous of leftists (and others) who have nice things and distrust anyone who lives as well as Chomsky. Exercising economic privilege feels like oppression to folks who have less. Whether this emotional reaction has theoretical validity I can't say.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I pretty much decided to, at least for a year, that's the goal, do what milk sheikh suggests and am not buying shit I don't need. Im not starving or anything but fuck I feel like a number of my colleagues are addicted to buying stupid shit and a lifestyle of debt and consumption.


Except we don't advocate people living like monks. People can have all the ipods they want because owning ipods doesn't lead to power over other people. Owning factories and the means of production does.


There's a difference between living like a monk and not not buying into a consumerist lifestyle. And it is a lifestyle change, to not partake of the eccentricities, as much as becoming a vegan is a lifestyle choice.

In our culture, for the working class, it is pretty much expected that during the holiday season individuals will rake up vast quantities of debt. Millions of peope are raised on an image of what they should strive to be, and it's to be a *****. The new car and iPod and smartphone and other uneeded consumer items that are seen as the new benchmark for not only sucess, but has come to define what happiness should be and look and feel like.

Obviously this applies less and less to the truly poor, it applies more to the dead culture that has been fed to those of us raised in the 'middle class' along with bullshit about how we earned what we got and poorer people did too.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The idea of borrowing large amounts of money to furnish a lavish lifestyle never appealed to me, because what's the point in only borrowing money only to pay it back later with interest? It strikes me as a much better idea to try just spending what money one actually has, and to only borrow small amounts from friends to cover brief shortfalls.

[Bud Struggle]

I do it for moral reasons. It makes me sick when i see "anarchists" wearing branded jackets and t-shirts while talking on the newest mobile phone.

I like it best when Anarchists are starving and naked, too. :)

[hatzel]

I like it best when Anarchists are starving and naked, too. :)

:(

[Bud Struggle]

:(

This is classic "feelgoodism." Nobody will know and nobody will care about any of this. You need to go out and change the world not starve to death silently in a cave to make the world a better place.

One person yelling in the streets is worth a million going hungry quietly at home.

[Sir Comradical]

Buy items which are necessary; do not buy useless items. Simple. And please don't say this is relative, bla bla. You need bread to eat; you don't need to smoke packets and packets of cigarettes. That's how you determine what's essential and what's not.

This is especially true of first world people, even those claiming to be leftists; being greedy and advocating an end to greed is too hypocritical. Like I said, we need another Gandhi.

Just out of curiosity, where are you from in India? I may even know you.

[Chairman Mike]

"All you'd be doing is lowering your standard of living. Where's the point in that?"

So what if I lower my standard of living? I'd be learning to live with less and buying only the things I need. I don't need a fancy car, name-brand clothes, cable tv, or anything that society tells us to have. I don't want to spend the rest of my life being a slave to mindless consumption. What is a standard of living anyway? Who makes them, and why do they matter? Just because people can have a tv in every room and a refridgerator does not make their lives better. It's just stuff. You can't base life on material possessions. Why spend thousands of dollars on big, cheaply made electronic items that eventually break or become obsolete when all that money could be going to food, clothing, or other basic necessities? People lived without all this stuff for thousands of years, so what's wrong with trying to live without them today?


"If someone else sees what you're doing they may think you're a prick."

Buddha never had much, yet people still look up to him. In fact, his teachings say to get rid of your possessions. I don't intend to reach some high status like him, but if people can see that they can be happy with less, then they won't think I'm a prick. And if they think I'm a prick, then fuck 'em.


"It's pretty disgusting if maoists advocate poverty. People have to eat so they'll buy food from capitalists (the same goes for clothes, pharmaceuticals, entertainment etc.) there is nothing wrong with that."

I'm not trying to advocate poverty. Poverty is when you can't support yourself to live.

Sure, there is nothing wrong with buying food, clothes, medicine, or even a little entertainment. The problem is that people buy too much of this stuff. People can grow their own vegetables, but still buy milk. You don't need to buy a $100 pair of jeans made by a certain brand where a pair of used jeans at a second-hand store are just as good. If they get a hole in them, then sew it back together. People also don't have to buy expensive pills for small illnesses when there are natural remedies that are much much cheaper. If someone has a serious illness that is life-threatening, then by all means use the pills. As far as entertainment, going to a movie is fine, but do I really need to buy it on bluray just to have a slightly clearer picture on a big hd tv that costs hundreds, if not, thousands of dollars? No. If I want to watch it again, I can rent it or download it.

The point I'm trying to make with all of this is that people spend too much money on junk they don't need. Yes we need food, but not McDonalds, Lucky Charms, or high sodium frozen dinners. Yes we need clothes, but not Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger, etc. Yes we need medicine, but natural cures work just as well if it's something small. Yes entertainment is fine every once in a while, but there are better and cheaper ways of entertaining yourself. Try reading a book, or go for a hike in the woods. Better yet, try starting your own garden. Not only would you be learning a skill, but you can reap the benefits of your labor.

[Summerspeaker]

Buddha never had much, yet people still look up to him. In fact, his teachings say to get rid of your possessions. I don't intend to reach some high status like him, but if people can see that they can be happy with less, then they won't think I'm a prick. And if they think I'm a prick, then fuck 'em.

You mileage may vary, but in my experience not spending money in the expected ways does meaningfully reduce social status and opportunities. This even (especially?) applies in leftist circles.

[Bud Struggle]

This whole idea like something dreamed up by the Koch brothers.

[Magón]

Why do you need that shirt with alligator on it when you could just purchase a shirt without a brand.

I'm wearing a plain white t-shirt right now, and on the inside collar, it has the Hanes brand logo on it.

[Decommissioner]

I fall in the middle of this. I am annoyed by people who are enthralled by the latest brands and gadgets, but I am also against people who think there is something radical in boycotting, depriving themselves of luxury, living "green" etc etc.

I personally do not find pleasure in consuming for the sake of consumption. I can see the validity in the argument that a lot of people do consume a little too much, however I do not believe being "anti-consumerist" serves not practical purpose, nor does it belong anywhere in the left.

I personally own a nice tv, a decent car, an ipod, two computers (one for leisure, and one to experiment with ie nerd stuff). I have a touchscreen phone, though only because my old phone broke and became obsolete (besides, what is wrong with having the convenience of gps, email, etc etc from your phone?) I don't feel any less of a leftist because of it. I personally know people who go dumpstering, eat raw food, do all the typical bohemian faux-left stuff, it just annoys me. Some of them wax having anarchist political values, most are just lifestylists without a clue. While they see people buying nice cars and living in decent houses as privelaged, I see people who can afford to live a "voluntary poverty" lifestyle to be privelaged.

I am always at least two paychecks away from real poverty. It sickens me when so called leftists try to take the moral high ground because they can afford to live their bohemian lifestyle, while I work hard just to keep my head above the water. I don't have the luxury of running back to mom or some lifestylist squat or commune. I can't afford "green" foods and to shop at more expensive all natural food stores.

In that sense, there is no such thing as "voluntary poverty". If you have a safety net, you are not impoverished. Real poverty is ugly, and no one would willingly choose it.

In the end, I am just normal. I have some consumer morals, I try not to shop at wal mart..but also, I do not feel guilty about shopping there if thats the only option available to me. No one should feel that guilt. It's not consumer choices that will overcome capitalism, it is worker choices. We are workers, not consumers (yes we are both, but our power lies in the fact that we are the working class).

People can live however they want, just don't assume your way of living is the "correct" or "revolutionary" way of living.

[NGNM85]

So far I've only experienced involuntary poverty. I don't recommend it.

[Zeus the Moose]

I like it best when Anarchists are starving and naked, too. :)

Leave your sexual fetishes out this :(

[Summerspeaker]

While they see people buying nice cars and living in decent houses as privelaged, I see people who can afford to live a "voluntary poverty" lifestyle to be privelaged.

And you're both right. :)

[Ele'ill]

I have not read this thread yet. I have been away being poor for real.


... as a protest against the system?

I have done this, when I was young. I don't dislike people who do it I am just anxious and impatient with their inevitable evolution towards bricking windows and rolling large objects into the street- at which point I'm then anxious and impatient with their inevitable evolution towards actual activism, involving various aspects of everything they've learned.


We desperately need a Gandhi.


Yes, it's called adbusters and pretty pictures/good intentions aside, it isn't working very well. We need a lot of things working together. Violent or non-violent isn't the issue. Success is the issue, movement is the issue, forward is the goal.

[Viet Minh]

Get a good job, make a lot of money, buy fairtrade, support charities, buy guns, fund revolution
????
profit! (in a non capitalist sense!)

[Ele'ill]

Get a good job, make a lot of money, buy fairtrade, support charities, buy guns, fund revolution
????
profit! (in a non capitalist sense!)

That would be the polar opposite of profit.

[Tomhet]

This seems absurd to me..
it actually seems defeatist, the ruling class lives the good life, by taking advantage of us..
Shouldn't we, y'know, take back what's rightfully ours?
If being a commie means I can't have nice things to an extent obv, and afford my highly expensive hobby, I'm out..
The working class can have it all..

[gorillafuck]

I haven't tried voluntary poverty because that would suck and I don't want to be impoverished.

[Viet Minh]

A bit ot but if you are unemployed, can you still be working class?

[ComradeTim]

A bit ot but if you are unemployed, can you still be working class?
Yes, working class doesn't mean you can find work.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I haven't tried voluntary poverty because that would suck and I don't want to be impoverished.

Impoverished in what sense? In the sense of true poverty would be a bit overdoing it and probably not even possibe for sane non-religious types. But impoverished in a different way, of having debt for the rest of your time working, which will be forever with the retirement funds the baby boomers are leaving us, and of inheriting the mores and customs of a culture that keeps the individual a subservient cog in the machine. And not only does ourselves more than necessary, it is also perpetuating a lifestye of pollution, obesity, and destruction that is eating away at the livable planet. The population of the planet is exploding, climate change is occuring at a rapid pace, food prices are ever rising, and we consume so much oil that a uprisingin libya is going to cause global problems.

It is obvious in this thread that the popular choice among members here is to sit and wait for the metaphorical Jesus to return and save us. A good position, but begs the question of whether that is in any way revolutionary.

[Thirsty Crow]

and what are you going to do with it, put it under the pillow, if you have a bank account your making it avaliable.

I'm not sure why this had to be singled out since the argument I made goes further.
But, yeah, I have a bank account and I can empty it of money. I don't see why would that be so hard since most of us don't have exactly much money on our accounts.

I cannot recall that anyone here explained just how buying "useless" stuff prevents/hinders the development of class consciousness (since that's the only basis I can imagine for the rabid anti-consumerist stance).
Someone care to explain?


Yes, working class doesn't mean you can find work.
That's absolutely correct.
Working class encompasses people who are forced to sell their labour power for a wage.

[Viet Minh]

Yes, working class doesn't mean you can find work.



That's absolutely correct.
Working class encompasses people who are forced to sell their labour power for a wage.

I meant more the 'underclass' (for lack of a better term) - people who refuse to work, in a welfare state people on benefits, sometimes drug addicts and petty criminals. I'm not judging anyone here, most of these problems are syptomatic of the unfair capitalist system creating disenfranchisement and lack of self worth etc. A lot of working class people would differentiate themselves from the underclass.
In Anarchist ideology though these people are left to fend for themselves, with no benefits. I think the creation of a leftist state might change peoples attitudes, but largely some social problems will remain.

[RGacky3]

But, yeah, I have a bank account and I can empty it of money. I don't see why would that be so hard since most of us don't have exactly much money on our accounts.


Yeah, but what would be the point? What would you do with it?

[Thirsty Crow]

Yeah, but what would be the point? What would you do with it?
C'mon, I'm not in the mood for repeating what I posted.

Theoretically, a well organized group of people (many people should be involved) could decide to alter their consumption patterns radically, which would amount to withholding capital which re-enters into circulation (because capital is accumulated by means of commodity sale) and thereby creating problems for capitalist accumulation.

But, once again, I don't think that this idea is practically sound. Nor is it desirable.

[Viet Minh]

C'mon, I'm not in the mood for repeating what I posted.

Theoretically, a well organized group of people (many people should be involved) could decide to alter their consumption patterns radically, which would amount to withholding capital which re-enters into circulation (because capital is accumulated by means of commodity sale) and thereby creating problems for capitalist accumulation.

But, once again, I don't think that this idea is practically sound. Nor is it desirable.

If everyone used the same bank, and withdrew all their money on the same day the bank would go bust. You'd need a huge number of people doing it though, and they would be risking everything

[Thirsty Crow]

I meant more the 'underclass' (for lack of a better term) - people who refuse to work, in a welfare state people on benefits, sometimes drug addicts and petty criminals. I'm not judging anyone here, most of these problems are syptomatic of the unfair capitalist system creating disenfranchisement and lack of self worth etc. A lot of working class people would differentiate themselves from the underclass.
For the sake of the argument, we can talk about specific segments of the working class, and that is precisely what you brought up as a topic - people whose experience differs in some respect to others'. But nevertheless, those groups you mention are part of the working class since the definition (at least the Marxist one) does not include the necessity of actual labour. The definition only stipulates that working class are forced to sell their labour power for lack of capital which would enable them to command labour of others (in other words, the existence of capital defines labour).

The value of isolating and describing the life experience of these groups with respect to their position towards class struggle is something different.



In Anarchist ideology though these people are left to fend for themselves, with no benefits. I think the creation of a leftist state might change peoples attitudes, but largely some social problems will remain.Anarchists do not advocate "self-reliance" when it comes to people who are, in one way or another, disabled and cannot work. The community should provide them means for a decent life.
But I believe that there may be differing opinions on the necessity of labour when it comes to other members of the community. In other words, some anarchists may advocate a system of free provision of goods no matter the labour input (if I'm not mistaken, anarcho-communists advocate gift economy), while others might advocate solutions such as labour voucher system which practically implies that all the members of a community are obliged to perform labour.
Anarchism isn't really a monolithic ideology.

[Viet Minh]

For the sake of the argument, we can talk about specific segments of the working class, and that is precisely what you brought up as a topic - people whose experience differs in some respect to others'. But nevertheless, those groups you mention are part of the working class since the definition (at least the Marxist one) does not include the necessity of actual labour. The definition only stipulates that working class are forced to sell their labour power for lack of capital which would enable them to command labour of others (in other words, the existence of capital defines labour).

The value of isolating and describing the life experience of these groups with respect to their position towards class struggle is something different.


Anarchists do not advocate "self-reliance" when it comes to people who are, in one way or another, disabled and cannot work. The community should provide them means for a decent life.
But I believe that there may be differing opinions on the necessity of labour when it comes to other members of the community. In other words, some anarchists may advocate a system of free provision of goods no matter the labour input (if I'm not mistaken, anarcho-communists advocate gift economy), while others might advocate solutions such as labour voucher system which practically implies that all the members of a community are obliged to perform labour.
Anarchism isn't really a monolithic ideology.

Okay thanks, I realise I sounded a bit judgemental, I didn't mean to be I was just unclear on certain issues. I've been unemployed for 2 years and I'm caught in the 'benefit trap' actually having less to live on if I go back to work in any of the places that will employ me (usually only part time temporary). Sorry to stray off topic, thanks for clearing that up! :)

[Thirsty Crow]

Okay thanks, I realise I sounded a bit judgemental, I didn't mean to be I was just unclear on certain issues. I've been unemployed for 2 years and I'm caught in the 'benefit trap' actually having less to live on if I go back to work in any of the places that will employ me (usually only part time temporary). Sorry to stray off topic, thanks for clearing that up! :)
Well, I can't see why you think you sounded judgmental. No need to worry :)

The point is that any revolutionary shouldn't regard those who do not perform actual labour here and now as something like parasites or "welfare queens". In fact, I'd bet that none of us do.

But things get trickier when we discuss the sketchy possibilities arising from a society which is not ruled by capital. The general assumption is that full employment is possible, and that implies the problem of renumeration for work.

[Viet Minh]

Well, I can't see why you think you sounded judgmental. No need to worry :)

The point is that any revolutionary shouldn't regard those who do not perform actual labour here and now as something like parasites or "welfare queens". In fact, I'd bet that none of us do.

But things get trickier when we discuss the sketchy possibilities arising from a society which is not ruled by capital. The general assumption is that full employment is possible, and that implies the problem of renumeration for work.

There was an excellent Anarchist Q&A that answered a lot of my questions, I shoulda bookmarked it! But I think generally if people were free to choose whatever job they wanted, almost all areas would be filled. Even in surprising areas, for instance 'dirty' jobs like sewage maintenance, people say they enjoy their work.

[RGacky3]

C'mon, I'm not in the mood for repeating what I posted.

Theoretically, a well organized group of people (many people should be involved) could decide to alter their consumption patterns radically, which would amount to withholding capital which re-enters into circulation (because capital is accumulated by means of commodity sale) and thereby creating problems for capitalist accumulation.



Anywhere you put your money, apart from under your pillow, its entering the market, thats what I'm not getting, if you spend less, and the rest is in the bank, its still in the market.

[Thirsty Crow]

Anywhere you put your money, apart from under your pillow, its entering the market, thats what I'm not getting, if you spend less, and the rest is in the bank, its still in the market.
I think we have a bit of a communication problem here.
That's what I proposed as a theoretical option (i don't support it as a part of class struggle; it's absurd, really): people withdraw money from their accounts as soon as their wages have been registered and stash them away.

But let's drop it. It's a silly idea.

[Lt. Ferret]

make your own food. make your own clothes. make your own goods. dont buy from them, voluntary poverty is only half of the coin. consume less from others, make more from yourselves.

learn from the anarchists. you guys just perpetuate capitalism. its pretty amazing what you can live without.

[#FF0000]

learn from the anarchists. you guys just perpetuate capitalism.

all this "involuntary poverty" stuff does is give the appearance of conviction, but it's really just posturing. sorry.

[Lt. Ferret]

all i gather from this board is you guys like your ipods, nike shoes, and rainforest crushing soy, and dont do anything to overthrow any aspect of capitalism.

im supposed to take this place seriously, why?

[#FF0000]

all i gather from this board is you guys like your ipods, nike shoes, and rainforest crushing soy, and dont do anything to overthrow any aspect of capitalism.

im supposed to take this place seriously, why?

because being a communist doesn't mean you have to be a self-righteous ascetic.

if i have extra $$$ after i pay my stuff off, i'm gonna get myself something to make the daily grind with a full time job, a full time class schedule, and full time insecurity just a little more bearable for me.

b-b-b-b-b-but my cred! :crying:

[RGacky3]

all i gather from this board is you guys like your ipods, nike shoes, and rainforest crushing soy, and dont do anything to overthrow any aspect of capitalism.


Thats because your either an idiot making assumptions, or don't know how to read.


im supposed to take this place seriously, why?

No one cares what you do or do not take seriously, your a clown, your not really someone who's respect people value, so by all means, don't take this place seriously.

[#FF0000]

it's p. rich that someone from the us military is making a big deal of cred i think

the military thing is gonna come up every single time.

[Bud Struggle]

This is like people who support Capitalism and don't even own a factory. :(

[Lt. Ferret]

because being a communist doesn't mean you have to be a self-righteous ascetic.

if i have extra $$$ after i pay my stuff off, i'm gonna get myself something to make the daily grind with a full time job, a full time class schedule, and full time insecurity just a little more bearable for me.

b-b-b-b-b-but my cred! :crying:


so really at the heart of it youre just a crybaby with a crappy job?

youre not a revolutionary. youre just bitter or jealous you cant have expensive things that your job cannot afford.

[Lt. Ferret]

Thats because your either an idiot making assumptions, or don't know how to read.



No one cares what you do or do not take seriously, your a clown, your not really someone who's respect people value, so by all means, don't take this place seriously.


are you really a union thug? what union thuggish things have you done? raised awareness? get real. youre the clown. what have you done? organized? how well did that go? you ever went toe to toe with the state? no?

and not only what have you done, but what will you do? being bitter is not a revolutionary act. buying capitalist products is not a revolutionary act. supporting the capitalist system is not a revolutionary act. why are you doing it?

[RGacky3]

are you really a union thug? what union thuggish things have you done? raised awareness?

Its a joke dumbass, based on the right wings portrail of union guys as "thugs."


youre the clown. what have you done? organized? how well did that go? you ever went toe to toe with the state? no?


What I've done is quite a bit, but it does'nt matter, because your a joke your in intelligent yet extremely arrogant, which makes for a combination that can only be described as a clown, and as such, I have nothing to prove to you, no one does, you don't command respect.


and not only what have you done, but what will you do? being bitter is not a revolutionary act. buying capitalist products is not a revolutionary act. supporting the capitalist system is not a revolutionary act. why are you doing it?

These questions and their false premisis and strawmen have been addressed over and over again and I'm not going to do it again, because if you hav'nt gotten it by now its for one of two reasons, A: Your to stupid to understand basic principles, B: You have no interest in an honest discussion. Either way tyring to prove something to you would be a waste of time.

As for being bitter I would'nt go there if I was you ;), considering your silly enough to go about posting your personal stuff online, your in no position to try and make personal attacks.

If you want to discuss economics, politics, or whatever then your welcome too, if your just here to waste time then buy a video game.

[RGacky3]

so really at the heart of it youre just a crybaby with a crappy job?

youre not a revolutionary. youre just bitter or jealous you cant have expensive things that your job cannot afford.

I'm pretty damn sure I make more money than you (not that it matters but since your bringing up personal attacks), your in the military, your a soldier, a pawn of the state, your a small man, that although being pathetic and weak, wants to put down other people you think you can and get away with, because it makes you feel better about yourself, you take every opportunity to put anyone down that you can, because ultimately your just a sad little dweeb that carries a gun for the government for a living.

[gorillafuck]

all i gather from this board is you guys like your ipods, nike shoes, and rainforest crushing soy, and dont do anything to overthrow any aspect of capitalism.Lol this isn't a vegan forum.

Yeah our criticisms of capitalism aren't one of "it makes products which is evil!" so I don't see how that's relevant. do you actually understand Marx's critiques of capitalism?


im supposed to take this place seriously, why?I don't see how a socialist not having an ipod would benefit the class struggle at all.

[Thirsty Crow]

I think Lt. Ferret might be referring to the idea of fighting consumerism as a cultural tendency which reinforces the ideological hegemony of pro-capitalist forces.
Consumerism here should be taken as something more than what people here have professed to. Instead, it should be understood as a cultural practice which is closely tied to the issues of personal identity formation (and, consequently, the formation of political persuasion) by means of fetishism of certain commodities (high-profile brands are a good example). People may ber influenced by these social-cultural tendencies to the degree that they identify themselves with the constructed image projected forth by the marketing sector.

Now, I'd support the cultural front of any radical organization in a potential fight against such tendencies. But Lt. is overdoing it in that he seems to conflate class consciousness arising from class struggle with consumption-based actions.

Such actions and programs (consumption-based) are problematic as a primary strategy for many reasons. It is very hard to achieve a decent degree of organizational influence and it is even harder to involve significantly large number of people in these actions (if they are to be successful, they'd need massive, and I mean MASSIVE, support in the form of conscious consumption choices).

Incidentally, I think that the underlying concept of "voting with one's wallet" is very dear to liberatarians when it comes to issues such as racist discrimination in their hypothetical world where state no longer exists - but the market and the capitalist enterprise do.
This is rather telling when counterposed to more or less traditional workers', unions' and revolutionaries' methods of struggle.

[Summerspeaker]

I don't see how a socialist not having an ipod would benefit the class struggle at all.

In theory, the socialist could instead spend the money/time on revolutionary propaganda (or whatever) to advance the cause. I know turn-of-the-century anarchist periodicals exhorted people based on this sort of reasoning. Prominent figures such as Ricardo Flores Magón and Voltairine de Cleyre lived by it. Later, Che opted for a lower salary as well as tirelessly (and publicly) participating in manual labor projects. The concept of self-sacrifice for the movement has a long history, broad cultural resonance, and an undeniable practical logic.

At the time, this narrative has profoundly oppressive implications. Industrious radical leaders invoke it either consciously or unconsciously to pressure comrades into unwanted and unpleasant work or to shame them for enjoying the good things in life. Worse still, opponents cynically employ the sacrifice narrative to harass leftists and discredit social transformation: "Why are you drinking that beer? Homeless folks are sober across this city! Don't you believe in sharing? This proves communism will never work. Greed is genetic."

I don't know how to strike the right balance. Policing consumption and insisting on asceticism obviously makes fail, but hailing the big houses and fat bank accounts of elite leftists as unproblematic also disgusts me.

[#FF0000]

so really at the heart of it youre just a crybaby with a crappy job?

Nah, at the heart of it I'm like most other people in the world who work hard and don't have time for your prolier-than-thou bullshit. I'm already broke. I'm not going to immerse myself in deeper poverty because it doesn't mean anything.


youre not a revolutionary. youre just bitter or jealous you cant have expensive things that your job cannot afford.i don't think this applies to many people but really it applies least of all to me. I don't really want many things.

[Chairman Mike]

Don't forget that most of the consumer goods sold in the U.S. are produced by people who make very little money, have to work in bad conditions, and work long hours. How can you call yourselves communists if you continue to support companies that does stuff like that to its workers?

[#FF0000]

Don't forget that most of the consumer goods sold in the U.S. are produced by people who make very little money, have to work in bad conditions, and work long hours. How can you call yourselves communists if you continue to support companies that does stuff like that to its workers?

man you are right. instead of buying the cheap wal*mart clothes i can afford, lemme go save up so I can buy a $40 American Apparel shirt that was made in America.

^^^^^^^^ this is the problem with that sort of thinking.

[#FF0000]

y'all realize Friedrich Engels was a part-owner of a factory later in his life, right

[Bud Struggle]

y'all realize Friedrich Engels was a part-owner of a factory later in his life, right

My hero!

[Chairman Mike]

[QUOTE=#FF0000;2045509]man you are right. instead of buying the cheap wal*mart clothes i can afford, lemme go save up so I can buy a $40 American Apparel shirt that was made in America.

^^^^^^^^ this is the problem with that sort of thinking.[/QUOTE


You could just buy a RevLeft t-shirt for $10 ;)

[#FF0000]

Nah, I could just buy a RevLeft t-shirt for $10 ;)

Now there's an option.

But seriously, the "sweat shop labor" thing really doesn't work because, really, it's pretty difficult to find much of anything that is affordable that wasn't produced through some distasteful means.

Which is why we all oppose capitalism!

[Chairman Mike]

Now there's an option.

But seriously, the "sweat shop labor" thing really doesn't work because, really, it's pretty difficult to find much of anything that is affordable that wasn't produced through some distasteful means.

Which is why we all oppose capitalism!

True true.

[Tim Finnegan]

We desperately need a Gandhi.
Without a powerful mass-movement behind him, Gandhi was just a bolshy lawyer in a robe. Which one of this is really, in itself, more crucial?


make your own food. make your own clothes. make your own goods. dont buy from them, voluntary poverty is only half of the coin. consume less from others, make more from yourselves... you guys just perpetuate capitalism. its pretty amazing what you can live without.
You realise that the raw ingredients for food, material for clothes, etc. are all produced under capitalistic conditions? You're still perpetuating capitalism by consuming them, just to a lesser degree. Arguably an improvement, but not exactly sainthood. (And, for the record, I do make a fair bit of my own food, because it's cheaper and healthier. That's not "voluntary poverty", that's just good sense.)


learn from the anarchists. And which "anarchists" would these be? One cannot casually conflate something like the CNT with something like CrimethInc.

[Amphictyonis]

Voluntary simplicity as a personal choice to minimize the corrosive emotional effects of capitalist consumerism/alienation/exploitation can be a good thing- as far as changing the system it's useless.

[Ele'ill]

all i gather from this board is you guys like your ipods, nike shoes,

I personally don't. I often buy second hand clothes- I shop at food coops and spend a lot of time thinking and acting in such ways to limit my impact as a person. This is not a revolution- it makes me feel better about myself- a sleep at night kind of thing. A revolution would aim to abolish undesirable industries and industry practices (because the whole system is going to change) I also have a friend who sometimes eats fast food, wears whatever clothes (new) that they think look ok and they're also an experienced and successful organizer. What's important is to raise awareness of how these industries are harming workers and the planet and why it's taking place. How do we fix this problem? Organize and educate. We can get rid of nike, gap, meat and fur but without an actual systemic change we're going to see the shit popping back up again through a new loophole and with a different name because that's what the current system encourages.



im supposed to take this place seriously, why?

You have horrifically lost enough arguments by now to have learned at least something useful, I'd hope.

[Amphictyonis]

Lol this isn't a vegan forum.

Yeah our criticisms of capitalism aren't one of "it makes products which is evil!" so I don't see how that's relevant. do you actually understand Marx's critiques of capitalism?

I don't see how a socialist not having an ipod would benefit the class struggle at all.

I'm not in agreement with the military poster but Marx's critique of capitalism took place before the transformation capitalism went through under the guidance of Edward Bernays and monopoly capitalists where they manufactured a world of "individualism via consumerism". I think fighting this mentality they created is not THE key element or perhaps even an element in setting the foundations for a future revolution but there does need to be a sort of psychological change as far as the way we view consumption and individuality. Many peoples idea of freedom has been defined as the freedom to "choose" between multi colored products, powders and gadgets. This is one of capitalism's strongest (metaphysical) pillars holding up the entire capitalist society. Being aware of this is important but I don't think attacking this aspect of capitalism by itself will rid the world of capitalism.

Again I don't agree with the military guys opinions but what do we think consumption would look like under an advanced communist system? I would assume it would take a more rational form, especially without 24/7 advertisements conning us into buying things we don't need or really want.


KKbHA76-Hi0

sZ8ZvYNlxiM

[Dr Mindbender]

... as a protest against the system?

Reducing consumption and protesting every day over various issues (homophobia, anti-immigration etc.) is much more pragmatic than 'online' activism.

We desperately need a Gandhi.

MS

We need redistribution, not under-consumption.

Reductionist claptrap.

[Amphictyonis]

We need redistribution, not under-consumption.

Reductionist claptrap.

Well, we also need to redefine what happiness is- under capitalism consuming has replaced all other forms....we see a sharp decline in community involvement, family involvement, actual socializing etc and most of our energy is focused on consumption. This has created a sort of separate society (each against each) where all too many people are in their own little worlds devoid of concern for the community or larger picture. Compare it to a rat on a wheel chasing a carrot. Tunnel vision....Consume! Consume! Consume! I will only be happy if I buy this product a capitalist has made for me! This inst to say the point of communism inst providing material needs and then wants for society it just means the way in which we view consumption and thus reality needs to change.

The trick, in an advanced communist society, would be figuring out what people want to consume after needs are met. It would be a healthier world if we actually decided what we wanted to do for 'fun', leisure or individuality rather than a capitalist. Some capitalists would argue we do pick and choose whats produced via competition but I feel we're more manipulated into buying things we don't need than most capitalists are willing to admit. WE should be in control of our consumption habits- as it is now consumption in advanced capitalist nations is pushed to the extreme in the name of profits. I think it's become a sort of trap where we enslave ourselves. Getting people to buy into the 'individualism' via consumption under capitalism was a big part of stopping the social movement in the 1960's.

HpLCjgWYsrY

I tend to agree with much of what Herbert Marcuse said but at the same time it's hard to get people to see this without coming across as some self righteous hypocrite on a moral crusade. Somewhat like a vegan who harshly criticizes people for eating meat. (I usually suspect most vegans secretly eat meat:) just as I still buy products capitalists make)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Dimensional_Man

[Milk Sheikh]

Without a powerful mass-movement behind him, Gandhi was just a bolshy lawyer in a robe. Which one of this is really, in itself, more crucial?


The man was the movement. His simple living and noble thinking influenced millions - hence the mass movement. Same thing should be done now, but we have too many hypocrites who wax lyrical about the ills of poverty whilst living in luxury homes.

[#FF0000]

The man was the movement. His simple living and noble thinking influenced millions - hence the mass movement.

Things don't work this way. This is simply wrong.


Same thing should be done now, but we have too many hypocrites who wax lyrical about the ills of poverty whilst living in luxury homes.I'm gonna go ahead and say 99% of people on here do not live in luxury homes.

I'm also not sure why a guy in a nice house can't say "poverty sucks and it's horrendous that anyone should have to live like that"

[Milk Sheikh]

Things don't work this way. This is simply wrong.

Since you say it's wrong, we must disregard historical fact and believe you.:rolleyes:


I'm gonna go ahead and say 99% of people on here do not live in luxury homes.
I'm also not sure why a guy in a nice house can't say "poverty sucks and it's horrendous that anyone should have to live like that"

Don't you see the contradiction? Consume what's essential and give the rest to the poor. For instance, you have the money to buy an i phone. Then don't buy it; instead, give that money to the poor. You're not gonna die without an i phone.

Not a permanent solution but much better than waiting for some leader/party to change the system, which realistically has no chance of happening any time soon. Get real, and stop living atop an ivory tower.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why should the onus fall on us to disperse our disposable income amongst the less fortunate, especially considering that most of us here are poor ourselves?

[Viet Minh]

Don't you see the contradiction? Consume what's essential and give the rest to the poor. For instance, you have the money to buy an i phone. Then don't buy it; instead, give that money to the poor. You're not gonna die without an i phone.

Not a permanent solution but much better than waiting for some leader/party to change the system, which realistically has no chance of happening any time soon. Get real, and stop living atop an ivory tower.

Charity isn't even a temporary solution, unless you are part of the elite who want to appease the masses and hold off revolution.

[Milk Sheikh]

Charity isn't even a temporary solution, unless you are part of the elite who want to appease the masses and hold off revolution.

I am not talking about charity but what many of us workers can do for other workers, at least for the time being. Cut down on needless expenses and give that to the less fortunate workers among you. If workers help each other that way, they not only get through tough times but also develop solidarity. Something good may out of all this instead of just typing on your PC about abstract nonsense like workers magically seizing the MoP.

[Milk Sheikh]

Why should the onus fall on us to disperse our disposable income amongst the less fortunate, especially considering that most of us here are poor ourselves?

Read my reply to l4l. If workers help one another in this way, they not only become somewhat financially stable but also develop a sense of camaraderie. Without this, no revolution can succeed.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am not talking about charity but what many of us workers can do for other workers, at least for the time being. Cut down on needless expenses and give that to the less fortunate workers among you.

That is charity, numbnuts! Just because you're not putting some spare change in a specially marked collection box doesn't mean it isn't.


If workers help each other that way, they not only get through tough times but also develop solidarity. Something good may out of all this instead of just typing on your PC about abstract nonsense like workers magically seizing the MoP.

My word, you would have thought that there were absolutely no revolutionary leftist organisations to join up and work with... oh wait, there are, and many Revlefters are members of same. You can't criticise people for doing the only thing they can do on a discussion forum - discuss things.

[Viet Minh]

On a personal level of course we can help each other out, especially those with similar political ideologies, but mainstream charity doesn't actually help anyone in the long term, in fact there are a lot of bourgeoisie who are very rich because of certain charities..

[Milk Sheikh]

That is charity, numbnuts! Just because you're not putting some spare change in a specially marked collection box doesn't mean it isn't.

Too bad you can't see the difference.


My word, you would have thought that there were absolutely no revolutionary leftist organisations to join up and work with... oh wait, there are, and many Revlefters are members of same. You can't criticise people for doing the only thing they can do on a discussion forum - discuss things.

Where are the results apart from your whining?

[RGacky3]

Too bad you can't see the difference.


When you give money to someone in need, thats called charity, theres no difference.


Where are the results apart from your whining?

If posting on a forum (apart from the other actions people here might take that you'd have no idea about because this is an internet discussion forum) is pointless, then fuck off, you don't contribute anything of value anyway.

[Tim Finnegan]

The man was the movement. His simple living and noble thinking influenced millions - hence the mass movement.
There's far more of mythology than of history to that.


Don't you see the contradiction? Consume what's essential and give the rest to the poor. For instance, you have the money to buy an i phone. Then don't buy it; instead, give that money to the poor. You're not gonna die without an i phone.
In what sense is that a resolution to the Marxist critique of capitalism?


Read my reply to l4l. If workers help one another in this way, they not only become somewhat financially stable but also develop a sense of camaraderie. Without this, no revolution can succeed.
That's why you form unions, cooperatives, and so forth. Just giving away your money to any old bugger isn't going to achieve anything.

[#FF0000]

Since you say it's wrong, we must disregard historical fact and believe you.:rolleyes:

You're already disregarding history by accepting the "great man" conception of it.





Not a permanent solution but much better than waiting for some leader/party to change the system, which realistically has no chance of happening any time soon. Get real, and stop living atop an ivory tower.

I don't like to play the "I am almost homeless" card but uh...

[RGacky3]

Same thing should be done now, but we have too many hypocrites who wax lyrical about the ills of poverty whilst living in luxury homes.

Really? Is that the problem? Theres so many radical leftist in Luxury homes? What planet are you living one?

BTW, there are tons of people that live simply and in poverty ... But strangely they arn't inspiring revolution.

[Milk Sheikh]

Really? Is that the problem? Theres so many radical leftist in Luxury homes? What planet are you living one?

BTW, there are tons of people that live simply and in poverty ... But strangely they arn't inspiring revolution.

I am not talking about people born into poverty. I am talking about people who voluntarily give up wealth, as Gandhi did. One man inspired millions, so if many rich and famous leftists could do that, imagine how many people are going to be inspired. People hate hypocrites.

[#FF0000]

One man inspired millions

lol

[Bud Struggle]

I am not talking about people born into poverty. I am talking about people who voluntarily give up wealth, as Gandhi did. One man inspired millions, so if many rich and famous leftists could do that, imagine how many people are going to be inspired. People hate hypocrites.

Finally! A workable plan to change the world.

[hatzel]

Finally! A workable plan to change the world.

Will you be giving up all your monies then, Bud, for the good of the revolution? :)

[Bud Struggle]

Will you be giving up all your monies then, Bud, for the good of the revolution? :)

Well if we all agree to it, then sure.

(Right after Donald Trump. :) )

[hatzel]

Well if we all agree to it, then sure.

(Right after Donald Trump. :) )

Well I'll definitely join in. I guess I don't really need my bag of coins...

[Tim Finnegan]

I am not talking about people born into poverty. I am talking about people who voluntarily give up wealth, as Gandhi did. One man inspired millions, so if many rich and famous leftists could do that, imagine how many people are going to be inspired. People hate hypocrites.
I must have missed the bit were India transitioned to socialism.

[hatzel]

I must have missed the bit were India transitioned to socialism.

Whilst technically a legitimate point, I do believe Milk Sheikh was claiming that this bald fellow inspired tonnes of people to do something. Presumably, he would argue, another bald fellow could inspire tonnes of people to do something else in the same way, and that something else might be something socialist. I don't know why it always has to be a bald fellow, though...:confused:

[Bud Struggle]

Whilst technically a legitimate point, I do believe Milk Sheikh was claiming that this bald fellow inspired tonnes of people to do something. Presumably, he would argue, another bald fellow could inspire tonnes of people to do something else in the same way, and that something else might be something socialist. I don't know why it always has to be a bald fellow, though...:confused:

Lenin was bald--I smell a Kabbaldahistic plot. :D

[hatzel]

Lenin was bald--I smell a Kabbaldahistic plot. :D

And Kropotkin, for example...I feel this little idea is actually better-supported by fact than pretty much every other conspiracy theory ever devised...

But yeah all this giving up up all your wealth stuff seems awfully Christian to me :rolleyes:

[Lt. Ferret]

I'm pretty damn sure I make more money than you (not that it matters but since your bringing up personal attacks), your in the military, your a soldier, a pawn of the state, your a small man, that although being pathetic and weak, wants to put down other people you think you can and get away with, because it makes you feel better about yourself, you take every opportunity to put anyone down that you can, because ultimately your just a sad little dweeb that carries a gun for the government for a living.


:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: hell yeah i waited two days and got this.

[Tim Finnegan]

But yeah all this giving up up all your wealth stuff seems awfully Christian to me :rolleyes:
I think the problem that a lot of non-leftists have is that their only previous encounter of substance with radical egalitarianism is through early Christian asceticism, and the two concepts have become so thoroughly tangled in their head that they are incapable of unpicking them.

[RGacky3]

I am not talking about people born into poverty. I am talking about people who voluntarily give up wealth, as Gandhi did. One man inspired millions, so if many rich and famous leftists could do that, imagine how many people are going to be inspired. People hate hypocrites.

How many actual rich and famous leftists are out there? Even if they were, why are they hypocrites? As was said before, leftists arn't fighting for people to be poor.

Also I'm pretty sure it was more than the voluntary poverty that was the inspiration.

[Viet Minh]

And Kropotkin, for example...I feel this little idea is actually better-supported by fact than pretty much every other conspiracy theory ever devised...


Its an early forerunner of S.H.A.R.P, kropotkin was a skinhead, Hitler was emo! :D

[Jimmie Higgins]

Don't forget that most of the consumer goods sold in the U.S. are produced by people who make very little money, have to work in bad conditions, and work long hours. How can you call yourselves communists if you continue to support companies that does stuff like that to its workers?
You eat anything grown in the earth? Well, someone was paid less than living wages at some point in that process. Come to the central valley agricultural towns in California where unlike much of the rest of the country farm-workers actually do have some legal rights and you'll see the poverty and exploitation behind the basic staple foods most people eat.

There's no way to "boycott" that kind of exploitation away, the real answer is to fight for workers to actually have more control over their conditions at work: not to be sprayed with pesticides, not to have to work hunched-over for hours in the heat, to actually have a share of the wealth they produce.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I am not talking about people born into poverty. I am talking about people who voluntarily give up wealth, as Gandhi did. One man inspired millions, so if many rich and famous leftists could do that, imagine how many people are going to be inspired. People hate hypocrites.

We'll leave that to the liberals. I already don't have much in the way of meaningful property, I rent, I take public transit (not out of principle) and I own some clothes, a couch, bed, shelves, books, DVDs (actually stole many of them or got bootlegs), and a computer and a lot of debt. I'd love an ipod, I'd love a house where I didn't have to worry that I might be foreced to leave (right now my apartment manager wants to combine my unit with the neighboring one so I may have to move in a few months though I have no desire to do so).

And there's no reason that modern industry and technology could not achieve this - we could all have i pods or something better, we could all have instant free access to any digital information, we could all have a home to live in and enough healthy and appealing food to eat - the only reason they do not have any of this is because it is not in the interests of the people who run and organize society at present.

Socialism is not necessarily about us having more stuff individually (I'd gladly give up all my DVDs if I could just stream them anytime I wanted onto my TV) and it's definately not about the working class having less - particularly necessities like a secure and safe home and good food and health-services and education. It comes down to who has the power in society and how we can organize production and our efforts collectively and democratically.

So what would celebs and rich leftists giving up money do? They should give their money to striking workers and so on if they want to give up some money, but beyond that, it's useless for the working class.

[hatzel]

I think the problem that a lot of non-leftists have is that their only previous encounter of substance with radical egalitarianism is through early Christian asceticism, and the two concepts have become so thoroughly tangled in their head that they are incapable of unpicking them.

Don't get me wrong, I love a bit of Petr Chelčický (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petr_Chelčický) :)

[Tim Finnegan]

Its an early forerunner of S.H.A.R.P, kropotkin was a skinhead, Hitler was emo! :D
A hipster (http://hipsterhitler.com/), actually.