Living arrangements under communism?

[Fabrizio]

Would I be forced to live in a commune under the dictatorship of the majority, probably blackmailed/bribed by some government-funded, well-connected, hippy, party member matriarch...and be forced to do boring chores which previously a maid would do? And probably forced to do more for the crime of being a white male...in fact all white males would probably be treated as maids, correct?

Please answer, as I am trying to imagine such a future...it makes me appreciate capitalism more every day!:tt1:

[RGacky3]

nope, chances are depends on your neighborhood and the wealth and so on, you get a house, an apartment, or whatever. It just depends on how the neighborhood organizes it

For the rest of your shit ... well, probably not, but unfortunately no one will find you funny after communism either.

[Fabrizio]

I am not trying to be funny: don't you think that all the "o-p-p--p-p-ressed" groups are going to go for vengefullness after "teh revolution!!!11". You really don't think that those atrocities and humilliation will happen against us enemies of the people like has happened every time in history? Or is it just that you are so vengeful, you are happy for this to happen?

[RGacky3]

You really don't think that those atrocities and humilliation will happen against us enemies of the people like has happened every time in history? Or is it just that you are so vengeful, you are happy for this to happen?

Hopefully not, because imo, democracy works and most people are not vengeful people.

No one gives a shit that your a white male other than you btw.

[Fabrizio]

Hopefully not, because imo, democracy works and most people are not vengeful people.

No one gives a shit that your a white male other than you btw.

lol you think? how many examples of anti-white racism and feminazism should I find to contradict your claim? 1? Fifty? Ten thousand?

[RGacky3]

If you find 20% of leftist being either anti-white racists or man haters, then perhaps its a discussion, but I doubt you'll even find 1%, but sure, your a victim.

[Fabrizio]

Anyone is a potential victim. The higher up the ladder you are the more people are gunning for you.

And I'm not just talking about leftists. Every worker deep down hates his boss, and even if most don't have the balls for a revolution, if one was imposed by the vanguard, they would put the boot in. Likewise the poor, the unemployed, "teh o-p-p-p-pressed", etc. If there was a revolution, there would be a massive enslaving of all of us who do ok from capitalism, by these vengefull mob.

[RGacky3]

Anyone is a potential victim. The higher up the ladder you are the more people are gunning for you.


I suppose its possible.


And I'm not just talking about leftists. Every worker deep down hates his boss, and even if most don't have the balls for a revolution, if one was imposed by the vanguard, they would put the boot in. Likewise the poor, the unemployed, "teh o-p-p-p-pressed", etc. If there was a revolution, there would be a massive enslaving of all of us who do ok from capitalism, by these vengefull mob.

So 99% of the people would enslave 1%? Well that has NEVER happened before in real socialist revolutions or policies.

Yeah, in some monarchs were killed, and so on, imo that was wrong, but that does'nt justify keeping the order now.

[Fabrizio]

I suppose its possible.



So 99% of the people would enslave 1%? Well that has NEVER happened before in real socialist revolutions or policies.

Yeah, in some monarchs were killed, and so on, imo that was wrong, but that does'nt justify keeping the order now.

Why do you say only 1% of us is doing well under capitalism? I am talking about all the middle class, which is maybe 30%, higher in some countries. Especially white and male.

I have no doubt there would be a "special treatment" for us after any revolution...first because most the leftists hate such people, and I do not need to look far to prove it...and second because all the other mob hate us even more...they might repress it for now but in a revolution, this would become apparent.

Look at Zimbabwe, Cambodia, China, so many examples. Not just the evil party leaders did this, but many of the masses did these atrocities against the "petit bourgeois" spontaneously. Even if you wanted to stop them, could you?

[RGacky3]

Why do you say only 1% of us is doing well under capitalism? I am talking about all the middle class, which is maybe 30%, higher in some countries. Especially white and male.


The middle class would do better under socialism, the only people that would be not as well off woudl be the super super rich.


I have no doubt there would be a "special treatment" for us after any revolution...first because most the leftists hate such people, and I do not need to look far to prove it...and second because all the other mob hate us even more...they might repress it for now but in a revolution, this would become apparent

No one hates them, most of them hate the system, not the person, people that hate hte person are not intelligent enough to see the systemic problems.

As for the mob, well, then you better fight for socialism now and peacefully.


Look at Zimbabwe, Cambodia, China, so many examples. Not just the evil party leaders did this, but many of the masses did these atrocities against the "petit bourgeois" spontaneously. Even if you wanted to stop them, could you?

Zimbambwe, Cambodia, China were all violence directed by strong autocrats.

A better example would be the Zapatistas, or what happened in Bolivia, or the Spanish revolution, or the Ukranian one, or the Hungarian revolution, or the Argentine takeovers.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Would I be forced to live in a commune under the dictatorship of the majority, probably blackmailed/bribed by some government-funded, well-connected, hippy, party member matriarch...and be forced to do boring chores which previously a maid would do? And probably forced to do more for the crime of being a white male...in fact all white males would probably be treated as maids, correct?

If the job comes with a sexy uniform I might take it! :tt1:


Please answer, as I am trying to imagine such a future...it makes me appreciate capitalism more every day!:tt1:

Don't worry, you won't be forced to wear a short skirt and lacy tights. Unless that's your thing.

[Fabrizio]

The middle class would do better under socialism, the only people that would be not as well off woudl be the super super rich.

I don't believe this...I like my life under capitalism. Under communism I would be forced to live in a collective, matriarchal system, I would be forced to do the jobs which someone else decides is "socially useful", I would have to obey politically correct rules forcing me to lose my identity as a white, middle class, Catholic, man.

And how are you going to make the middle class better under communism if everyone has to become equal? Big house, nice job and 4x4 car for everyone? How could the planet sustain this?


Zimbambwe, Cambodia, China were all violence directed by strong autocrats.

Not only, the resentful masses there, took advantage to take revenge against the better off people, to take their things. Especially the anti-white racism in Zimbabwe. Mugabe did not just invent it (in fact the opposition under Morgan Tvangirai were asking him to take white lands BEFORE he did, they only switched sides once he started attacking them too).


A better example would be the Zapatistas, or what happened in Bolivia, or the Spanish revolution, or the Ukranian one, or the Hungarian revolution, or the Argentine takeovers.

Well I am from Argentina. You think it's ok for people who never took a risk, to take away forcefully a persons factory, which they built up from nothing, with all their hard work? And to leave the poor guy with nothing from night to day?

As for Spain, were they used to rape nuns? Bolivia where they want to destroy Santa Cruz and give all the money to Evo's friends in the high lands?

All the middle classes, white, Catholic people suffer here, because of these "revolutionaries"...Evo Morales is the Mugabe of South America.

[hatzel]

@Fabrizio

Didn't you used to be vaguely centre-left or something? :confused:

[Thirsty Crow]

It's funny to hear yet again the myth of the vengeful mob, whipped up to a frenzy by their intellectual masters.
In fact, this is, historically, completely false. Take the example of the Hungarian revolution during which some 600 people were executed for active organization against the rule of the working class, and then you see what happened when the reaction kicked in and gotten its dirty hands on Budapest. Hint: 20 000 dead, mutilation and torture out in the open, right in the streets.

So I think you've got it all wrong, who are the blood thirsty maniacs and butchers (well, apart from the organized butchery a la Stalin's Great Purge).

Hell, if you wanna know (I doubt it but I'll still tell you), other class societies have seen similar occurrences, as did the country where I live during the serfs rebellion, in which few landlords were flat out executed, but once the serf army was overwhelmed,all sorts of nasty shit started to happen. So forgive me for thinking that there's a pattern at work here.

[scarletghoul]

you will have to live on a commune and plant turnips all day, because that is our idea of utopia. you will be forced to sleep in a bunk bed under a fat man, and you will have to share everything with everyone else including your pants. this is your future, randy.

[Rafiq]

You will be forced to shun down your creativity and self interest for the interest of the collective lazy bums that is us.

All day you will be out in the field tending the goats. Books are all banned. Also, like comrade Zenga Zenga mentioned, your pants will also be my pants. You must share everything, because remember, Father Marx said "Abolish private property".

That also means you must abolish your private parts(penis), with a knife (Don't worry, it doesn't hurt that bad).

And if you complain, you must go to our gulag system.

[DinodudeEpic]

Who are all the socialist academics again.....

Marx-White male (middle class, but ethnic jew.)
Lenin-White male who was formerly nobility
Bakunin-white male formerly nobility
Proudhon-white male (Although poor.)
Luxemburg-white WOMEN! (born to a timber trader...middle class or poor?)
Trotsky-middle classish white male
Chomsky-middle class (Later wealthy) white male
Engels- rich white male

Only 2 of the revolutionaries above actually are poor. Only 1 is a women. 3 are middle class. 3 are formerly nobility though. But, 1 depends on the social class of a timber trader. All of them are white! (Note that I do not pick theorists from countries where other ethnicities are majorities.)

So, what is it about socialist/communist society being about matriarchy/anti-middle class/racial revenge? Even though every single socialist/communist in this thread rejects all of that? (Gender equality =/= matriarchy. In fact, matriarchy is just as bad as patriarchy.)

[CommunityBeliever]

I would have to obey politically correct rules forcing me to lose my identity as a white, middle class, Catholic, man.Its true. We on the far left are a part of a grand conspiracy to break down the white Christian male power structure:

aTD_DSU23IY

[Fabrizio]

Who are all the socialist academics again.....

Marx-White male (middle class, but ethnic jew.)
Lenin-White male who was formerly nobility
Bakunin-white male formerly nobility
Proudhon-white male (Although poor.)
Luxemburg-white WOMEN! (born to a timber trader...middle class or poor?)
Trotsky-middle classish white male
Chomsky-middle class (Later wealthy) white male
Engels- rich white male

Only 2 of the revolutionaries above actually are poor. Only 1 is a women. 3 are middle class. 3 are formerly nobility though. But, 1 depends on the social class of a timber trader. All of them are white! (Note that I do not pick theorists from countries where other ethnicities are majorities.)

So, what is it about socialist/communist society being about matriarchy/anti-middle class/racial revenge? Even though every single socialist/communist in this thread rejects all of that? (Gender equality =/= matriarchy. In fact, matriarchy is just as bad as patriarchy.)

My point is that in a real revolution, those groups who have always been less successful under capitalism (for whichever reason, we don't need to discuss here) will take the chance for revenge, and some tyrant will rise to the top by playing demagogy to them. And the middle class, white, christian male, will be the most enslaved of all the slaves (everyone).

Regardless of what the communists of today desire. Because it will be out of your hands.

[RGacky3]

FIrst of all, you won't be forced to do anything, you can go and live in the woods if you want, but if you want to be part of society you have to acccept the democratic process.

ANd I doubt people would live in collectives, considering we have enough resources for everyone to have a place to live.

Also White Christian males are not the power structure.

Capitalists are, (most of whome are white christian males which is really besides the point), so unless your the CEO of a furtune 500 company, a big investment banker, or a billionaire, you have nothing to worry about.

And yeah most people would be better off, because ANY type socialism or socialist policies have been tried (the USSR was'nt socialist considering there was no worker control of industry or democratic control of hte economy, but it even applies there), everyone other than the ruling aristocracy did better.


Well I am from Argentina. You think it's ok for people who never took a risk, to take away forcefully a persons factory, which they built up from nothing, with all their hard work? And to leave the poor guy with nothing from night to day?


They took the risk, the factory failed, and THEY got fired, the capitalist got a golden parachute.

BTW, most of the factories were abandoned and the "owners" only came back after the workers were turning a profit to claim it back (most did'nt get it back thankfully).

ANd yes it is ok, because they were the ones creating all the wealth, and I'm sure the Workers would give the capitalist a job if he asked.


As for Spain, were they used to rape nuns? Bolivia where they want to destroy Santa Cruz and give all the money to Evo's friends in the high lands?

All the middle classes, white, Catholic people suffer here, because of these "revolutionaries"...Evo Morales is the Mugabe of South America.

As for Spain, yeah, there was a war, terrible things happen in war.

Bolivia, has cut poverty, included tons of people in the democratic process and raised living standards for everyone.

If by "suffer" you mean are no longer able to shit on the poor and indigenous every day, then yeah.

If your afraid of having white privilege then sure, but I doubt anyone would get revenge on you, your probably not that powerful.

[RGacky3]

Terrible things happened in the American revolution, should America have just stayed under Britain?

We try and stop violence when we can, but revolution is neccessary to get rid of a system of violence.

[Nox]

it makes me appreciate capitalism more every day!:tt1:

I'm sure the 50% of the world's population living in poverty, along with all the people who care about them (a.k.a. communists) don't appreciate capitalism.

Especially seeing as it gets worse every day; the gap between rich and poor is constantly increasing so I have no idea why you appreciate it MORE every day :confused:

[Thirsty Crow]

My point is that in a real revolution, those groups who have always been less successful under capitalism (for whichever reason, we don't need to discuss here) will take the chance for revenge, and some tyrant will rise to the top by playing demagogy to them. And the middle class, white, christian male, will be the most enslaved of all the slaves (everyone).

Regardless of what the communists of today desire. Because it will be out of your hands.

Your point is that you have no point, besides outright stupid ant-communism, and recycling ideological bullshit in the form of "vengeful mob" and "commie tyrant" myths.

[scarletghoul]

you'll work hard with a gun in your back for a bowl of rice a day

[Thirsty Crow]

you'll work hard with a gun in your back for a bowl of rice a day
Two slices of bread and half a glass of water. Wouldn't want to waste good rice.

[Fabrizio]

I'm sure the 50% of the world's population living in poverty, along with all the people who care about them (a.k.a. communists) don't appreciate capitalism.

Really? So why aren't they protesting or supporting for anti-capitalist groups?

[Fabrizio]

Terrible things happened in the American revolution, should America have just stayed under Britain?

We try and stop violence when we can, but revolution is neccessary to get rid of a system of violence.

America was being forced to stay under another countries power. Today you have sovereignity and the people can choose whichever government they want. Does anybody stop the communists from campaigning? No...so there can be no comparison to the American Revolution.

[Fabrizio]

Your point is that you have no point, besides outright stupid ant-communism, and recycling ideological bullshit in the form of "vengeful mob" and "commie tyrant" myths.

Why is it a myth? I believe firmly that in the case of a revolution, the less successful groups will take advantage to subjugate those who are ok under capitalism. I see the resentment of these groups day to day, even under capitalism. Whenever political correctness gives them a "weapon", they use it. Why would a revolution not be one thousand times this?

[Dr Mindbender]

Would I be forced to live in a commune under the dictatorship of the majority, probably blackmailed/bribed by some government-funded, well-connected, hippy, party member matriarch...and be forced to do boring chores which previously a maid would do? And probably forced to do more for the crime of being a white male...in fact all white males would probably be treated as maids, correct?

Please answer, as I am trying to imagine such a future...it makes me appreciate capitalism more every day!:tt1:

Ive said it before, and i've said it again. There needs to be a distinction made between personal and private property. Your home, your car etc are not means of production. They cannot exploit other people such, therefore they are examples of PERSONAL property so they are yours to keep. Everyone will get their own personal, dignifed living spaces to own. The difference with things like offices, factories, schools and hospitals are that these ARE means of production. This is the sort of thing you couldnt personally own.



Why is it a myth? I believe firmly that in the case of a revolution, the less successful groups will take advantage to subjugate those who are ok under capitalism.

Yep i think Marx covered this in the communist manifesto when he talked about capitalism already having destroyed property for all but 1/10 of the population.

[Bardo]

I don't believe this...I like my life under capitalism. Under communism I would be forced to live in a collective, matriarchal system

Why does there have to be a matriarch? :confused:

Do you work right now? Do you work for someone else? Do you not have to work with others?




I would be forced to do the jobs which someone else decides is "socially useful", I would have to obey politically correct rules forcing me to lose my identity as a white, middle class, Catholic, man.


You won't be any more forced to do anything than you already are. You want to be a brain surgeon? We will provide you the means to do so, you want to be a carpenter? We will provide you the means to do so.

Also, no one is going to peel your skin off, castrate you, or trick you into not being a Catholic. Your identity is yours.









You think it's ok for people who never took a risk, to take away forcefully a persons factory, which they built up from nothing, with all their hard work? And to leave the poor guy with nothing from night to day?


He doesn't have nothing, he's entitled to the same as everyone else. Those who work are entitled to the fruits of their labor, people aren't machines to be rented and exploited.



As for Spain, were they used to rape nuns?


Yep, some people raped nuns. On the flipside, the nationalists slaughtered entire villages and raped daughters, sisters, mothers ect. One difference should be acknowledged here- as the front lines became more established, the republic started executing their own soldiers who were found guilty of commiting atrocities.


All the middle classes, white, Catholic people suffer here, because of these "revolutionaries".

:crying:

[NewSocialist]

Have the authorities given Anders Breivik Internet access or something? Seriously, what is this shit?

We get it, you're a proud white, *Christian*, male, capitalist utterly terrified by what horrors may befall you in a proletarian revolution. There's really no need to worry too much about it; unless you happen to become a violent counterrevolutionary, I doubt your life would be at risk. You may resent not being able to rent wage slaves any longer, but that's something you'll just have to learn to live with.

[RGacky3]

Today you have sovereignity and the people can choose whichever government they want. Does anybody stop the communists from campaigning? No...so there can be no comparison to the American Revolution.

Yes, actually they do stop them from campaigning, elections in the US are 100% bought and paid for, the US is one of the most un democratic countries in the industrialized world (if you compare public opinion to public policy, which is a measure of democracy).

The government, is'nt the real power anyway, unless we can vote for boards of directors we don't have democracy.

Either way, this thread is'nt about that, at this point I don't even know what its about.

[Kiev Communard]

Really? So why aren't they protesting or supporting for anti-capitalist groups?

Why do you think Medieval serfs were not always in rebellion, then? Simply - the impact of the ruling-class ideology is overcome only in the most significant crisis situation, until then the majority will still be non-revolutionary.

[RGacky3]

You can make the same arugment with slaves. Not only that but billions and billions of dollars are spent in propeganda, and keeping down resistance, btw, there ARE many political prisoners in the US.

A guy in the US got 2 years for protesting public land being sold to oil companies by making fake bids (how is that illigal btw), thats a political prisoner.

Not only that but vehicles to protest capitalism have been shut down over and over again, and when they do protest, it barely gets any media time.

[Metacomet]

It's so hard to be you.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Would I be forced to live in a commune under the dictatorship of the majority, probably blackmailed/bribed by some government-funded, well-connected, hippy, party member matriarch...and be forced to do boring chores which previously a maid would do? And probably forced to do more for the crime of being a white male...in fact all white males would probably be treated as maids, correct?

Please answer, as I am trying to imagine such a future...it makes me appreciate capitalism more every day!:tt1:

No, but I've had living arrangements in capitalism where I shared a one bath one bedroom apartment with 5 people (the old laundry room and living room became new bedrooms) because the hippie landlord who had connections to his father who owned a bunch of rental properties in town thought he could make more money doing that... and then I had to do a lot of boring chores like commute to work and lug my laundry to the laundry-mat while I worked at a hotel doing housekeeping.

[ComradeMan]

I'm sure the 50% of the world's population living in poverty, along with all the people who care about them (a.k.a. communists) don't appreciate capitalism.

I agree. I think the sentiment comes from a lack of internationalism and is one of the reasons I cautiously reject socialism-in-one-country, thus leaving me with the paradoxial Catch 22 of world socialism being unattainable without a whole blooming of socialisms-in-one-country and for this I lie awake at night.

The original point is valid- yeah capitalism does work fine, if you're a capitalist and intrinsically don't care about the non-capitalists or just take the dog-eat-dog cynical world view of that's how things have always been and always will be.

"Internationalist consciousness" is a term I use to describe the idea of I am not truly wealthy if on the other side of the world kids are starving. Unfortunately, even amongst the left sometimes, this idea of a "world community" is very lacking.

[Bitter Ashes]

My point is that in a real revolution, those groups who have always been less successful under capitalism (for whichever reason, we don't need to discuss here) will take the chance for revenge, and some tyrant will rise to the top by playing demagogy to them. And the middle class, white, christian male, will be the most enslaved of all the slaves (everyone).

Regardless of what the communists of today desire. Because it will be out of your hands.

*sighs*

You made me do this...

http://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt241/RevolverOcelotRS/Morganfreemancottancandy.jpg

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why is it a myth? I believe firmly that in the case of a revolution, the less successful groups will take advantage to subjugate those who are ok under capitalism. I see the resentment of these groups day to day, even under capitalism. Whenever political correctness gives them a "weapon", they use it. Why would a revolution not be one thousand times this?As opposed to what we have now, the "successful groups" who take advantage and subjugate the majority..? Tyranny of the majority (democracy) or Tyranny of the minority (capitalism, feudalism, fascism, etc)... pick which side you're on.

Considering that the majority of people, at least here in the US, have seen stagnation for a generation while the few thousands of the really wealthy have seen skyrocketing income growth and corporations have gained unprecedented profits... yes the 6 billion of us or so who don't do that well under capitalism will have to expropriate the power and wealth of the few thousands who really matter to the capitalist system.

And what's all this "those people" and "when political correctness..." awww, such quaint racism just like the White Citizen Councils in the 1950s... you're afraid progressive social change will lead to "black domination" aint ya.

[Robocommie]

Either way, this thread is'nt about that, at this point I don't even know what its about.

Sounds like it's basically "I'm white, male and I'm scared of minorities and women, and if there's a revolution they're all going to GET ME"

[Robocommie]

As opposed to what we have now, the "successful groups" who take advantage and subjugate the majority..? Tyranny of the majority (democracy) or Tyranny of the minority (capitalism, feudalism, fascism, etc)... pick which side you're on.

Sounds like he has. :D



And what's all this "those people" and "when political correctness..." awww, such quaint racism just like the White Citizen Councils in the 1950s... you're afraid progressive social change will lead to "black domination" aint ya.Gated community douchebags.

If we end apartheid, the Zulus will all kill us.

[Obs]

Sounds like it's basically "I'm white, male and I'm scared of minorities and women, and if there's a revolution they're all going to GET ME"

I should hope so, white men are fucking pigs.

[ComradeMan]

I should hope so, white men are fucking pigs.

Intelligent comment designed to win over oppostion and bait others....

[Nox]

When I saw that the OP was a fascist, I thought he was a troll.

When I saw that the OP was pro-life, I knew that he was an idiot.

[ComradeMan]

When I saw that the OP was a fascist, I thought he was a troll.

When I saw that the OP was pro-life, I knew that he was an idiot.

He isn't a fascist.

[Comintern1919]

I should hope so, white men are fucking pigs.

Ha, yeah. ... That was sarcasm, right :) ?

... I mean, that WAS sarcasm, right :( ?




He isn't a fascist.

Hm, but close to one. Nevertheless he has some pretty weird and disturbing views.

[ComradeMan]

Hm, but close to one. Nevertheless he has some pretty weird and disturbing views.

In RevLeft terms yes, in "mainstream" terms no. :crying:

[o well this is ok I guess]

Let's derail the thread
So what sort of housing would you guys expect to have in a communist society?

[Thirsty Crow]

I should hope so, white men are fucking pigs.
Didn't know I am a pig.
Though, I don't tend to identify as a "white man" so I'm not really "hurt" or anything by such a statement, but I'd like to point out that such generalizations are not needed.

[ComradeMan]

, but I'd like to point out that such generalizations are not needed.

Not only are they not needed they are counter-productive and in a sense "reverse-reactionary".


"This forum has had, and continues to have, a "zero-tolerance" policy when it comes to matters of racism, sexism, heterosexism/homophobia, anti-Semitism, national chauvinism and other forms of superoppression prevalent in capitalist society. This is a non-negotiable point."

[Comrade Jandar]

Matriarchal? What are you talking about? Communism is neither matriarchal nor patriarchal; and if even if that was true how much good has patriarchy done for the human race? Maybe we should try some matriarchy...

[Thirsty Crow]

Not only are they not needed they are counter-productive and in a sense "reverse-reactionary".


"This forum has had, and continues to have, a "zero-tolerance" policy when it comes to matters of racism, sexism, heterosexism/homophobia, anti-Semitism, national chauvinism and other forms of superoppression prevalent in capitalist society. This is a non-negotiable point."
Such comments would be reactionary only within the context of politics geared towards racial or ethnic domination, and it's pretty clear that Obs does not hold such views, so yeah.
Also, it'd be good to recognize that such comments come from a clear recognition of domination based on ethnicity/race, and as such are in fact overt expression (overt and overgeneralizing that's for sure) of opposition towards that kind of social and political hegemony.


Matriarchal? What are you talking about? Communism is neither matriarchal nor patriarchal; and if even if that was true how much good has patriarchy done for the human race? Maybe we should try some matriarchy...
Or maybe we should try full gender equality in every aspect of life?

[ComradeMan]

Such comments would be reactionary only within the context of politics geared towards racial or ethnic domination, and it's pretty clear that Obs does not hold such views, so yeah. Also, it'd be good to recognize that such comments come from a clear recognition of domination based on ethnicity/race, and as such are in fact overt expression (overt and overgeneralizing that's for sure) of opposition towards that kind of social and political hegemony.

Bullshit excuse dressed up in pseudo-situationist jargon in my opinion. Comments don't suddenly become reactionary in a certain context only.

[hatzel]

Fun fact: pigs are pink. Also they have springy tails. These are the official defining characteristics or a pig, and claiming anything else is a pig is speciesist and that totally sucks...let it be known!

[Thirsty Crow]

Bullshit excuse dressed up in pseudo-situationist jargon in my opinion. Comments don't suddenly become reactionary in a certain context only.
Wow, my posts were never, ever, accused of pseudo-situationist jargon. I'm impressed.
What makes you think that the post in question resembles situationist jargon? "Politics geared towards ethnic domination", also known as chauvinist, nationalist politics? I'm honestly curious.

Also, nope, that's not a bullshit excuse, but rather the only way to oppose the flood of reactionary "reverse racism" bullshit arguments, and incidentally your statement falls under the category of racists', nationalists' and fascists' most dear type of argument.
Every comment, especially ironic and laconic (is that the kind of jargon situationists' use?) like that one, depends on context, and a part of that context is the broader politics of whoever comments on something (that's also called clarification).

So, I suggest you take your "reverse reaction" to stormfront. (see how easy it is to make snide remarks about allegedly reactionary statements and arguments?).

[ComradeMan]

....

I'm not going to get into a big argument about this. To me this kind of language and comment is not acceptable, just as it is unacceptable to use sexist or homophobic language- even if it's only meant as a "joke" etc. In terms of the left it is counter-productive and thus counter-revolutionary. The only kind of generalisation or analysis that is appropriate to a leftist discussion is a class analysis generalisation- end of the story. And in a Europe with deranged nutcases and a rightwing on the rise the last thing the left needs to do is feed the rightwing propaganda machine by making inane and potentially racially charged comments on a public forum.

In addition to this, by playing into racial dichotomies you are doing nothing other than to entrench a bourgeois tool of oppression and means of dividing the proletariat.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yeah, can't someone give a cracker a break?

[Comintern1919]

I'm not going to get into a big argument about this. To me this kind of language and comment is not acceptable, just as it is unacceptable to use sexist or homophobic language- even if it's only meant as a "joke" etc. In terms of the left it is counter-productive and thus counter-revolutionary. The only kind of generalisation or analysis that is appropriate to a leftist discussion is a class analysis generalisation- end of the story. And in a Europe with deranged nutcases and a rightwing on the rise the last thing the left needs to do is feed the rightwing propaganda machine by making inane and potentially racially charged comments on a public forum.

In addition to this, by playing into racial dichotomies you are doing nothing other than to entrench a bourgeois tool of oppression and means of dividing the proletariat.

I agree. If it was fun or not, there are always people who take that serious and will think all are like that. When writing a pm, you may make such jokes, but not in the public.

[hatzel]

The only kind of generalisation or analysis that is appropriate to a leftist discussion is a class analysis generalisation- end of the story

Time to embrace the post-left, then, so that we can stop pretending that there is some unified bourgeois or proletarian 'interest,' 'outlook,' 'position,' 'behaviour' etc. that can be generalised :)

[ComradeMan]

I agree. If it was fun or not, there are always people who take that serious and will think all are like that. When writing a pm, you may make such jokes, but not in the public.

And then these stupid fucks ask themselves why the rightwing is swelling with young disaffected white males from the WORKING CLASS. But then realpolitik in terms of "street-intelligence" has never been the forté within the pseudo-intellectual left in my experience.


Time to embrace the post-left, then, so that we can stop pretending that there is some unified bourgeois or proletarian 'interest,' 'outlook,' 'position,' 'behaviour' etc. that can be generalised :)

Post-leftism is not revolutionary in my mind it's just utopian pipe dreams, albeit nice ones.

[hatzel]

Post-leftism is not revolutionary in my mind it's just utopian pipe dreams, albeit nice ones.

Revolution sucks, I suggest insurrection:


Revolution and insurrection must not be looked upon as synonymous. The former consists in an overturning of conditions, of the established condition or status, the State or society, and is accordingly a political or social act; the latter has indeed for its unavoidable consequence a transformation of circumstances, yet does not start from it but from men's discontent with themselves, is not an armed rising, but a rising of individuals, a getting up, without regard to the arrangements that spring from it. The Revolution aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and sets no glittering hopes on "institutions." It is not a fight against the established, since, if it prospers, the established collapses of itself; it is only a working forth of me out of the established. If I leave the established, it is dead and passes into decay. Now, as my object is not the overthrow of an established order but my elevation above it, my purpose and deed are not a political or social but (as directed toward myself and my ownness alone) an egoistic purpose and deed.

:lol:

[ComradeMan]

Revolution sucks, I suggest insurrection

Revolution is about having enough popular support and consensus that when there are 80 of you up in the Sierra Maestra you can pull it off. ;)

Insurrection's fail, if a revolution is not organised it will fail. If a revolution does not have popular support and consensus it will fail. The only way it cannot fail in material terms without popular support and consensus is through brutal oppression in which case it ceases to be a revolution, and fails.

That's why the first part is creating popular consensus and support and not alienating people with pseudo-intellectual bullshit spewed out by a load of pipe smoking beatniks or "German Ideologs" such as Sankt Max.
;)

[Obs]

Damn. Only on Revleft (and among racists) could a white guy get called a bigot for insulting white guys.

[ComradeMan]

Damn. Only on Revleft (and among racists) could a white guy get called a bigot for insulting white guys.

I didn't call you a racist, I called you out on your inappropriate use of racially charged and abusive language, and explained why from a leftist point of view. Think about the difference ;)

Leon Trotsky (15th May 1923) : "Abusive language and swearing are a legacy of slavery, humiliation, and disrespect for human dignity, one’s own and that of other people."

[hatzel]

That's why the first part is creating popular consensus and support and not alienating people with pseudo-intellectual bullshit spewed out by a load of pipe smoking beatniks or "German Ideologs" such as Sankt Max.

Aaaaargh, you're such a Marxxxist! :laugh: I'll try to forgive you, though :)

That doesn't mean I'll drop my 'pseudo'-intellectualism, mind you. The masses just aren't ready for us yet, and the chosen few aren't going to wait around for them to catch up! :rolleyes: Just ask Fabrizio (to get this whole thing back on something like the topic), he's not happy to wait for some consensus opinion to develop, that he'll disagree with (not like the consensus opinion will actually be domination by black women or whatever it is he's scared of), he wants to create his own perfect reality right now! With the help of the Green Party, of course...because they know where it's at...am I taking anything seriously? Am I taking myself seriously? I don't know...I blame the cidre, a word purposefully chosen to alienate those cretins who don't speak French :cool:

[ComradeMan]

Aaaaargh, you're such a Marxxxist! :laugh: I'll try to forgive you, though :)

Just basics really... but on a more serious note, that whole post-leftism stuff is just too riddled with individualism for my liking.

Anyway, don't worry- you're not on my purge list.

yet.... :lol:

As for Fabrizio, well- he could do well to learn not to make rash and unfounded generalisations with little evidence. It surprises me coming from a law student to be honest.

[hatzel]

that whole post-leftism stuff is just too riddled with individualism for my liking.

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?


As for Fabrizio, well- he could do well to learn not to make rash and unfounded generalisations with little evidence. It surprises me coming from a law student to be honest.
To link this in with my knowledge of the Italian legal system (despite Fabrizio's not being Italian, but I'm not talking to him, so it's okay), through the Meredith Kercher / Amanda Knox / etc. case suggests that rash and unfounded generalisations and little (if any) evidence is the raison d'être of whole court shindig, so I think Fabrizio will make a perfect lawyer :lol:

[ComradeMan]

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?

You're beginning to sound like a capitalist here.... You see how venomous those bourgeois ideas become? I prefer the old one-for-all and all-for-one way to look at things.


To link this in with my knowledge of the Italian legal system (despite Fabrizio's not being Italian, but I'm not talking to him, so it's okay), through the Meredith Kercher / Amanda Knox / etc. case suggests that rash and unfounded generalisations and little (if any) evidence is the raison d'être of whole court shindig, so I think Fabrizio will make a perfect lawyer :lol:

I'm not sure what you mean really. Perhaps this is the subject for another thread however.

[hatzel]

I'm not sure what you mean really

To be honest, I'm in a surprisingly similar boat...

But when exactly did Fabrizio go from left-leaning Green Party supporter to 'them women and ethnics wanna do me over'-guy?

EDIT: oh, and the other bit was quoting Hillel. I just left out the whole '...and if I am not for others, what am I?' bit for effect...

[ComradeMan]

To be honest, I'm in a surprisingly similar boat...

But when exactly did Fabrizio go from left-leaning Green Party supporter to 'them women and ethnics wanna do me over'-guy?

It seems like since he came to RevLeft.... :crying:

Yeah, he used to be a bit more left of centre. I blame liberals and he is in the UK- he's the New Labour generation, isn't he? :laugh:


EDIT: oh, and the other bit was quoting Hillel. I just left out the whole '...and if I am not for others, what am I?' bit for effect...

Ah..... well I quoted Dumas but we were on the same wave length afterall. ;)

[Fabrizio]

Yes, actually they do stop them from campaigning, elections in the US are 100% bought and paid for, the US is one of the most un democratic countries in the industrialized world (if you compare public opinion to public policy, which is a measure of democracy).

The government, is'nt the real power anyway, unless we can vote for boards of directors we don't have democracy.

If the people want to elect a communist government, they have complete freedom to, yes or no?



Why do you think Medieval serfs were not always in rebellion, then? Simply - the impact of the ruling-class ideology is overcome only in the most significant crisis situation, until then the majority will still be non-revolutionary.


[QUOTE]You can make the same arugment with slaves. Not only that but billions and billions of dollars are spent in propeganda, and keeping down resistance, btw, there ARE many political prisoners in the US.To these two, those were undemocratic systems where the people could not elect their leaders. In a capitalist democracy there is explicit consent to the system, plus the worker consents to a contract when he works.


A guy in the US got 2 years for protesting public land being sold to oil companies by making fake bids (how is that illigal btw), thats a political prisoner.

Not only that but vehicles to protest capitalism have been shut down over and over again, and when they do protest, it barely gets any media time.How are they shutdown? There are countless communist gorups and newspapers, I can see them here. Every American has freedom to read and join, yes or no?



No, but I've had living arrangements in capitalism where I shared a one bath one bedroom apartment with 5 people (the old laundry room and living room became new bedrooms) because the hippie landlord who had connections to his father who owned a bunch of rental properties in town thought he could make more money doing that... and then I had to do a lot of boring chores like commute to work and lug my laundry to the laundry-mat while I worked at a hotel doing housekeeping.

But you have a choice, under communism as I understand, there would be no family unit, so Iimagine, we would be living in communal living arrangements.


As opposed to what we have now, the "successful groups" who take advantage and subjugate the majority..? Tyranny of the majority (democracy) or Tyranny of the minority (capitalism, feudalism, fascism, etc)... pick which side you're on.

Nobody is subjugating or taking advantage. Cultures with work ethic, go forward, it is proved time and again.


And what's all this "those people" and "when political correctness..." awww, such quaint racism just like the White Citizen Councils in the 1950s... you're afraid progressive social change will lead to "black domination" aint ya.In every revolution, resentful, unsuccesful groups, take terrible revenge on succesful groups. From Russia, China, Cambodia in the past, to Zimbabwe Venezuela, Bolivia today.

You can have a communsit ideal which makes you idealize the "op-p-p-p-pressed" groups, but in reality none of the "masses" are idealist, they are raised in survival on the street -they will only use communist revolution to raise their own wealth at the direct expense of someone else. This is why the idea of communism will always turn into a new tyranny and ruling class, appealing directly to mob rule.


Matriarchal? What are you talking about? Communism is neither matriarchal nor patriarchal; and if even if that was true how much good has patriarchy done for the human race? Maybe we should try some matriarchy...

This is the kind ofpoltiically correct attitue I am talking about. Even if theoretically you do not want matriarchy or anti-white racism, or revenge, the communist instinctwill always cede to the "teh poors and op-p-p-p-pressed" in any argument, because of the kind of thinking demonstrated in this quote.

They will take advantage of all this to rise and rise, then one day you wake up, Mr. Educated Communist Intellectual, and you are in a Mao or Mugabe or Chavez prison, a non-human, while he lives in a mansion (and the masses will stay poor, but at least they have a white man to punch).

[Obs]

You can have a communsit ideal which makes you idealize the "op-p-p-p-pressed" groups, but in reality none of the "masses" are idealist, they are raised in survival on the street -they will only use communist revolution to raise their own wealth at the direct expense of someone else.

Please stop posting and go read some books. Or, hell, lurk on this forum for a while longer.

[Fabrizio]

Please stop posting and go read some books. Or, hell, lurk on this forum for a while longer.

I have read some books, including some by the guy in your avatar, who I consider to be a great thinker, even if I disagree with him.

Regarding what I posted, well history supports what I am saying, read any account of the revolutions I mentioned. But the best thing is to live it, I respectfully invite you live under a left-wing government, or to work under supposed "oppressed" groups or poor people, in order to see how they respond to power.

[RGacky3]

If the people want to elect a communist government, they have complete freedom to, yes or no?


They don't have that option.

BTW, people in the USSR have complete freedom to vote in non communist party candidates, but that freedom did'nt exist in practice, its the same in the US.


To these two, those were undemocratic systems where the people could not elect their leaders. In a capitalist democracy there is explicit consent to the system, plus the worker consents to a contract when he works.


There is consent to the system because no other choices are allowed. He only consenst to work because the only other option he has is to starve.


How are they shutdown? There are countless communist gorups and newspapers, I can see them here. Every American has freedom to read and join, yes or no?


Not when speach is not a "freedom" any more but a product, 100 poor socialists can put up posters, but 1 rich capitalist can buy 100 billboards, and covor those posters.

BTW, technically everyone in the soviet union could join different groups, which is why both the USSR and the US had to spend so much money on propeganda, in the US they've studied that propeganda, more of it is done in the US than ever was done in the USSR.


But you have a choice, under communism as I understand, there would be no family unit, so Iimagine, we would be living in communal living arrangements.


You obviously don't understand, because of coarse there would be a family unit.

What destroys the family unit is Capitalism, 2 parents forced to work, marketing to children and so on.


You can have a communsit ideal which makes you idealize the "op-p-p-p-pressed" groups, but in reality none of the "masses" are idealist, they are raised in survival on the street -they will only use communist revolution to raise their own wealth at the direct expense of someone else. This is why the idea of communism will always turn into a new tyranny and ruling class, appealing directly to mob rule.


That does'nt make any sense, if everyone is better off having a class-less system, and everyone is better of cooperating, thats what they'll do, would'nt they?

BTW, in the 1700s the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT was made saying why democracy was impossible.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If the people want to elect a communist government, they have complete freedom to, yes or no?No, people with a vested interest in maintaining the current arrangement and organization of society will quickly and decisively remove any bourgeois rights we currently have rather than allow themselves to be removed from power. This happened with revolutions against feudalism where anti-French rivals supported the King and tried to have him restored after the French Revolution, for example. When workers took over Paris and created the commune, the warring French and Prussians called a truce and teamed up to destroy the commune, former WWI allies and enemies joined forces to try and stop the Russian Revolution. When it comes to electoral challenges, the NAZIs were backed by sections of the German ruling class in order to prevent growth of the communist movement, the US helped overthrow elected socialist Allende and replaced him with Pinochet who murdered unionists and socialists, the US even tried to remove Chavez who was also democratically elected and he isn't even as much of a reformer as Allende. In Vietnam, the US government documents recorded that the Pentagon was worried that if Vietnam held elections, Ho Chi Minh would win, so even though there was an agreement by the US to hold nation-wide elections in Vietnam, the US backed a puppet in the South instead. If they are willing to prevent a democratic vote in Vietnam or other places, why the hell would anyone think that they would allow a similarly disastrous vote (in their view) at home?


How are they shutdown? There are countless communist gorups and newspapers, I can see them here. Every American has freedom to read and join, yes or no?That is true and the left-wing movement in general is weak right now - some of that is repression, some of that is bad politics and tactics on the left itself, and a whole lot of that is just the demoralization of the majority of workers (40% or so don't even bother to vote). There have been other times such as the early 20th century, the 1930s-40s and the 1970s when large numbers of Americans supported the left, and millions even supported revolutionary leftist politics. So this is relative and goes up and down and is not a reflection of support for the current system - in fact the last few elections have been "throw the bums out" elections with people voting more against Bush or against Democrats in Congress than "for" anything.


But you have a choice, under communism as I understand, there would be no family unit, so Iimagine, we would be living in communal living arrangements.There would still be families, they would just be based on mutual love rather than staying with your alcoholic dad because the alternative is homelessness. So in fact, I think there is more of a chance that people get to live with who they want or alone compared to capitalism where many people currently find themselves having to move back in with their parents as adults, or whose parents suffer health problems and lack resources and so they move in with their adult kids. The result of being economically forced to live together leads to situations where spouses stay with abusive partners because they have no other options or situations where the sick and elderly or children are abused by care-givers who resent having to care for them.

That's the problem with the nuclear family - that social problems all fall on family members because a profit-based society can give two shits about someone who falls into alcohol abuse and can not work, is injured and can not work, has mental problems or depression and can not work, etc. This causes stress and hatred and disfunction in families and that is what I want to abolish, not private residences or loving family bonds... capitalism destroys these things too much already (housing crisis and breaking apart families due to financial or job related stress).


Nobody is subjugating or taking advantage. Cultures with work ethic, go forward, it is proved time and again.If it's "culture" how do you explain inequality within "cultures". Since CEO compensation in the US has gone up 400% in the last decade or so, has the culture of CEOs improved 400 times in a decade? If so, what parts of their culture? I'm pretty sure that many of these CEOs listen to similar music to most workers (it's not the guilded age anymore, the new-rich don't pretend to like only "high culture" now).


In every revolution, resentful, unsuccesful groups, take terrible revenge on succesful groups. From Russia, China, Cambodia in the past, to Zimbabwe Venezuela, Bolivia today.The Russian Revolution initially lead to reforms for the oppressed, jews, women, homosexuals and national minorities. The US Civil War and the Radical phase of reconstruction disenfranchised the slave-owners but lead to greater rights for freemen and white poor people. Real popular revolutions based on solidarity lead to greater rights, not "revenge". In fact when repression occurs, most likely it is because of the defeat of the revolution (which then requires massive repression in order to defeat the popular will and restore the old order), the defeat of it's popular support (and therefore repression is employed by the new elite in order to secure their rule over society - like after the American Revolution with farmer anti-tax rebellions or National Liberation revolutions and many so called "socialist" revolutions that were not mass working class revolutions in fact).


You can have a communsit ideal which makes you idealize the "op-p-p-p-pressed" groups, Is that stutter some kind of Glenn Beck reference or something? What it all about?


but in reality none of the "masses" are idealist, they are raised in survival on the street -they will only use communist revolution to raise their own wealth at the direct expense of someone else. This is why the idea of communism will always turn into a new tyranny and ruling class, appealing directly to mob rule.Nothing about idolization - supporting struggles against oppression and for solidarity is a lesson from history... one learned not by intellectuals but learned primarily through militant unionists who discovered in practice that... an injury to one is an injury to all. In other words, they learned that oppression in our society is used to divide us and make us fight over crumbs, it is employed by the rulers of society as a divide and rule tactic. It's a tactic that has been used by ruling classes since at leas the Roman Empire. Unfortunately a lot of dupes fall for it...

[Jimmie Higgins]

They will take advantage of all this to rise and rise, then one day you wake up, Mr. Educated Communist Intellectual, and you are in a Mao or Mugabe or Chavez prison, a non-human, while he lives in a mansion (and the masses will stay poor, but at least they have a white man to punch).First, this is such a sad old argument against fighting oppression - it's one made by the Democratic Party against emancipation (you will be dominated by negros, they claimed) and then by the Dixiecrats and Redeemers and White Citizen Councils against integration ("negro domination"), by the KKK against worker reforms (Jewish/Catholic Domination!), and all the anti-gay bigots against including gay-bashing as a "hate-crime" ("the homosexual agenda!").

Second, the radical left doesn't even support "political correctness" because even the non-revolutionary left sees PC as papering over oppression or putting a smiley face over the inequalities of this system by simply censoring and hiding racism and sexism and so on. But for revolutionaries, all of us believe that we have to uproot the very foundations of oppression in this society, not give it a breath mint.

Third of all, the irony of your examples of "communism" leading to "mob rule" is that most of them were not the result of mass working class revolutions. In fact I'd argue that the reason these regimes are oppressive is too little mob (i.e. democratic and popular) rule, not too much! The ruling minorities brought to power through election or armed rebellion eventually used repressive measures on the population because they were going AGAINST popular needs. Political Correctness was not a result of the fight for civil rights, it came about more than 10 years after civil rights had ended and the movements went into retreat. I think it was a sign of liberals further retreating on the issue of systemic racism and oppression ... now most support the idiotic "color-blind society" arguments anyway, so the trajectory of establishment liberals was AWAY from fighting racism and oppression.

But anyway, if there is a real mass working class revolution in my life and if workers repress the Waltons by taking democratic control over Wal-Mart or whatever, then why is the repression of a few worse than the often violent and deadly repression of billions? Few people cry that the King of England lost his colonies in North America or India, few people cry that the slaveowners lost their property (also known as human beings who were brutally enslaved) though unfortunately historical revisionists and bigots do still cry about poor Slave-owners. It will be the same for future generations, their question will not be why did workers rise up, but why they didn't sooner just like today we don't understand how people put up with feudalism or kings for so long.

[Kiev Communard]

To these two, those were undemocratic systems where the people could not elect their leaders. In a capitalist democracy there is explicit consent to the system, plus the worker consents to a contract when he works.

The serfdom itself was initially found on 'free contract' between the lord providing protection for peasants in exchange for rent, and many slaves genuinely identified with their so-called 'good masters', viewing all talk of personal freedom as a naive utopia of a handful of 'brigands', so there was am explicit consent to such a system as well.

[ComradeMan]

I see the OP was banned. Weird, he didn't always use to be like that.

[ColonelCossack]

Really? So why aren't they protesting or supporting for anti-capitalist groups?


Why is it a myth? I believe firmly that in the case of a revolution, the less successful groups will take advantage to subjugate those who are ok under capitalism. I see the resentment of these groups day to day, even under capitalism. Whenever political correctness gives them a "weapon", they use it. Why would a revolution not be one thousand times this?

Stop contradicting yourself.

[gendoikari]

I see the OP was banned. Weird, he didn't always use to be like that.

how different did he become, could have been a right wing hack.

[CHE with an AK]

Living arrangements under capitalism?
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j318/Tredcrow/2011/morning.jpg