General Strike in Oakland

[RGacky3]

http://socialistworker.org/2011/10/28/general-strike-call-in-oakland

I really hope this goes down, general strikes are always the begining of something.

[R_P_A_S]

good article.. thanks for posting. I asked on an other thread what was the demand for this strike? Is it just for one day? purely symbolic or what?

[RGacky3]

We will have to wait and see I think.

[R_P_A_S]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdoyw5PhzJc

[RGacky3]

mdoyw5PhzJc

Thanks man, great video. I hope this works. Shut it down.

Whats up with everyone stealing the IWW slogan nowerdays, give the old wobblies some credit.

[Bud Struggle]

good article.. thanks for posting. I asked on an other thread what was the demand for this strike? Is it just for one day? purely symbolic or what?

You nailed the problem.

[Jimmie Higgins]

From the other thread:


There are some demands (though not called "demands"). This might not be the exact wording that was proposed (I thought it was different, but things are kind of a blur these days), but this was on the website:

• Solidarity with the world-wide Occupy movement!
• End police attacks on our communities!
• Defend Oakland schools and libraries!
• Against an economic system built on imperialism, inequality and corporate power that perpetuates all forms of oppression and the destruction of the environment!

So, yes, it is more or less symbolic and more "points of agreement" about the strike. We also just passed resolutions to defend any workers who face discipline from their employers for participating.

So more or less it will be a show of support and flexing some muscle while the city and police are still on their heels. We should see it as an important next step, not the endgame. If it is at least decent it will show many more people that this is not just a "youth event" but actually a fight in the interests of the working class that can link up with the broader population in the city.

Personally I would have liked to see a demand like "defund the police to fund the 5 elementary schools Oakland is shutting down". Actually maybe just "defund and disarm the police/free education for all" :) But that might have been a harder fight to win 90% consensus.

Considering the resistance to any demands in this movement in general, these points of unity are a step forward. If people are arrested or face employer backlash at work, then those would be obvious demands for future actions.

[#FF0000]

You nailed the problem.

It's a one-day "testing the waters" kind of deal. They're gonna do this, evaluate how it went, what worked, what didn't.

[Bud Struggle]

It's a one-day "testing the waters" kind of deal. They're gonna do this, evaluate how it went, what worked, what didn't.

To what end? "We don't like what we don't like whatever that is?"

This looks more like kids taking a day off from school than people with actual concerns.

[ZeroNowhere]

To what end? "We don't like what we don't like whatever that is?"

This looks more like kids taking a day off from school than people with actual concerns.
How provocative.

[Commissar Rykov]

This is excellent to see though I am curious how much support the General Strike will get though.

[R_P_A_S]

OK fine.. so let this be a little show of force? and then plan for the real one.. nation wide..?

[RGacky3]

To what end? "We don't like what we don't like whatever that is?"

This looks more like kids taking a day off from school than people with actual concerns.

I don't know, it looks to me like the longshore men taking a day off work, but what would I know, I read.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't know, it looks to me like the longshore men taking a day off work, but what would I know, I read.


Hell, maybe I will, too!

[ZeroNowhere]

Hell, maybe I will, too!
OK.

[Jimmie Higgins]

To what end? "We don't like..."

We don't like this...

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/26/article-2053502-0E8853DF00000578-514_470x423.jpg
http://media.cleveland.com/nationworld_impact/photo/occupy-oaklandjpg-c61e888d60ad339d.jpg

And then this...
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m65/jimstaro/scott-olsen.jpg
...becoming this...
http://cbssanfran.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/scott-olsen-ap.jpg?w=300
OZLyUK0t0vQ
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/10/medium_cmugptcgwcq.jpg
http://www.neontommy.com/sites/default/files/users/user252/teargasoakland.jpg

And we certainty don't like this done to "ensure the safty of those staying overnight" as one of the most liberal mayors in the US said in justification for sending 18 police agencies against Oaklanders.

Welcome to the new era, they will attack us as they always do, but now it will no longer intimidate and disorient us, it is no longer a one-side class war. They push us and it will only make our side angrier and help people see the Democrats, the police, the media for which side they really stand on... and more importantly lead to people pushing back.

[Jimmie Higgins]

OK fine.. so let this be a little show of force? and then plan for the real one.. nation wide..?

The best thing for other people to do right now, is go to their local GAs and propose day of action rallies in their locations in solidarity with Oakland. Oakland brought in 18 police agencies, Mayor Quan met with national leaders to discuss how to deal with this situation... we need to be as networked in our occupations as they are in ours. What happens if they attack X location but then that leads to people shutting down the freeways in 6 other cities? It will make us more of a force to contend with and it will help people in other cities begin to feel part of a concrete movement. And will help win arguments about the role of the Democrats and police in cities not facing direct repression. And it will help other cities network and lay groundwork for possible nationwide actions or general strikes in their own cities.

[Bud Struggle]

We don't like this...




And then this...

...becoming this...
(photos)

And we certainty don't like this done to "ensure the safty of those staying overnight" as one of the most liberal mayors in the US said in justification for sending 18 police agencies against Oaklanders.

Welcome to the new era, they will attack us as they always do, but now it will no longer intimidate and disorient us, it is no longer a one-side class war. They push us and it will only make our side angrier and help people see the Democrats, the police, the media for which side they really stand on... and more importantly lead to people pushing back.

I'll agree. All that seems rather harsh. I seriously don't see any trouble with letting you guys march around and chant and sing and do whatever you want to do as long as you don't harm anyone.

[Judicator]

Let's hope they don't start any fires...

[citizen of industry]

I'll agree. All that seems rather harsh. I seriously don't see any trouble with letting you guys march around and chant and sing and do whatever you want to do as long as you don't harm anyone.

Totally off topic, but Bud, you are a strange cat. Why do you spend so much time on a forum for revolutionary leftists? I don't think it's a bad thing at all, quite the contrary, and I'm not criticizing, just curious. I can't imagine myself in the opposite situation.

And yep, people are marching around, chanting and singing and are peaceful. But the ruling class is terrified of their ideas and what they represent, so they resort to violence and cruelty. Was it Ghandi who said, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

[Bud Struggle]

Totally off topic, but Bud, you are a strange cat. Why do you spend so much time on a forum for revolutionary leftists? I don't think it's a bad thing at all, quite the contrary, and I'm not criticizing, just curious. I can't imagine myself in the opposite situation. I actually like to hear different opinions than my own. Besides I consider you floks as my friends.


And yep, people are marching around, chanting and singing and are peaceful. But the ruling class is terrified of their ideas and what they represent, so they resort to violence and cruelty. Was it Ghandi who said, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." People have a right to protest and march and sing a bit. I see nothing wrong with that--it's a freedom given by the US Constitution. Now if people go over the top, looting and killing like they did in England--yea, that should be stopped. But a bit of marching aroound?

[RGacky3]

I actually like to hear different opinions than my own.

You obviously don't, if you did'nt you would'nt bring up the same bullshit strawmen every single post.

[Bud Struggle]

You obviously don't, if you did'nt you would'nt bring up the same bullshit strawmen every single post.

Well as you keep thinking ever time a couple of hippies sit down and smoke a bong together it's the beginning of the Revolution...I certainly will be enjoying your posts. :)

[RGacky3]

Well as you keep thinking ever time a couple of hippies sit down and smoke a bong together it's the beginning of the Revolution...I certainly will be enjoying your posts. http://www.revleft.com/vb/general-strike-oakland-t163498/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

A: I never said that.

B: That has nothing to do with the fact that 90% of your posts are bullshit strawmen.

[Bud Struggle]

A: I never said that.

B: That has nothing to do with the fact that 90% of your posts are bullshit strawmen.

Touchy, touchy, touchy. :D

[RGacky3]

So calling out your bullshit is being touchy now? Seriously bud, you add nothing to the board, you obviously don't learn anything from it (based on your repeated bullshit strawmen), so just leave and do something useful.

[Bud Struggle]

So calling out your bullshit is being touchy now? Seriously bud, you add nothing to the board, you obviously don't learn anything from it (based on your repeated bullshit strawmen), so just leave and do something useful.

What is it with you and your personal attacks?

You really do have some issues you have to sort through, Brother.

[citizen of industry]

if people go over the top, looting and killing like they did in England--yea, that should be stopped. But a bit of marching aroound?

Article from the FS: http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/?q=node/1722


England

“Lost Generation” demands a future


Jason Combs


volume:
volume 32


issue 5


October 2011


imagestuff http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/sites/default/drupalFiles/32-5_england.jpg?1317085575


Youth joblessness exceeds 20 percent.



Mass media is portraying the rioting committed by thousands of people from London to Liverpool, Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester as a “crime” committed by “animals.”
Now that the show appears to be over, with 16,000 police having arrested more than 2,000 teenage “monsters,” and with harsh sentences and eviction notices being served in retribution, everyone is supposed to spare themselves the chore of asking what led to the uprisings.
A look at the root causes explains why the ruling class hopes society will swallow its version of events. England, as it turns out, is not immune to the mass strikes and protests that are sweeping the rest of the globe in opposition to neoliberal austerity measures.
Deep cuts approved by David Cameron’s Conservative Party government are gutting local communities, closing youth centers and slashing education allowances. Skyrocketing University fees are shuttering the doors of education to the poor. Unemployment is rising — in some cities more than 50 people chase every job vacancy.
With unemployment at 8 percent, minorities are hit hardest. One in five Blacks are without work, and this number is rising. Racist police are targeting people of color. Barely reported is that the riots erupted after police murdered Mark Duggan, a young Black father of four who was shot for no apparent reason other than the color of his skin.
The rioters, far from being “animals,” are young people with bleak prospects. Like all over the globe, this “lost generation” is fighting for its future. Add police brutality and murder to the mix and the riots make total sense. As for “crimes,” committed during the riots, how can people respect private property when they have none of their own? How can youth respect a state where police routinely harass minorities and poor people, and are never found guilty of deaths in custody?
The real criminals are global corporations and neoliberal governments that allow banks and big businesses to amass vast fortunes while the majority of society suffers.
Shame on the media for portraying pre-teen kids as monsters while defending baton-waving police and CEOs with bloated incomes who rape every corner of the planet.
Hats off to England’s youth for rejecting the philosophy that they should shut their mouths and go back to the ghetto quietly, rather than battle the system that oppresses them in any way they can.
Other education news:
For-profit colleges betray student hopes (http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/?q=node/1725)
Ethnic studies elicits “cult” charges (http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/?q=node/1720)
Save Our Schools! National conference and march defend public education (http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/?q=node/1733)

[RGacky3]

What is it with you and your personal attacks?


Its not personal at all to point you that you've been bringing up the same bullshit strawmen the entire time you've been here.

[Bud Struggle]

Its not personal at all to point you that you've been bringing up the same bullshit strawmen the entire time you've been here.


Gack, we're not Stalin and Trotsky frighting over the Soviet Union, we are just a couple of guys on an internet forum.

[Bud Struggle]

Article from the FS: http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/?q=node/1722

That's fine and all. But the rioters in England didn't say that. What you have is Socialism dot com putting a narrative on the riots. The rioters themselves really didn't express those opinions. And they were quite articulate about what they were doing.

[RGacky3]

That's fine and all. But the rioters in England didn't say that. What you have is Socialism dot com putting a narrative on the riots. The rioters themselves really didn't express those opinions. And they were quite articulate about what they were doing.

They did actually, its juts no one paid any attention to them.

XV0X0NGhu3w


Gack, we're not Stalin and Trotsky frighting over the Soviet Union, we are just a couple of guys on an internet forum.

And most people are here to learn, share knowledge ideas and analysis and have discussions, your obviously not doing any of those things.

[Bud Struggle]

And most people are here to learn, share knowledge ideas and analysis and have discussions, your obviously not doing any of those things.

Gack, All you share are your fantasies. And I kind of like that. But I certainly don't believe anything you say. :)

[RGacky3]

Gack, All you share are your fantasies. And I kind of like that. But I certainly don't believe anything you say. http://www.revleft.com/vb/general-strike-oakland-t163498/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

I suppose you would consider my posts on different economic analysis and the such fantasies considering you don't understand whats being talked about half the time.

[thriller]

Just wanted to shout Solidarity to the workers of Oakland!
If I could be anywhere right now, it'd be in the East Bay. Trying to get Wisconsin going for one, but people seem more concerned with recall elections.

[Bud Struggle]

I suppose you would consider my posts on different economic analysis and the such fantasies considering you don't understand whats being talked about half the time.

Well the problem is I don't believe in Communist theory. I don't believe that only the worker creates value. In this world (not the fantasy Communist world) capital creates value. So after that most of what you write is just you noodleing around. I'm sure it all works in your tight little system, but that's not how it works on planet earth.

I put in money, I open a business, I hire people, vola! I create business. The people that work for me come and go. I remain. It's my business I created it. See, I believe that. You believe the workers did it. I'll grant you the workers have something to do with it, they help. But in the end, they have no personality or stake in the business.

That's just how things work.

[#FF0000]

In this world (not the fantasy Communist world) capital creates value

(pssst. who created that capital)

[RGacky3]

Well the problem is I don't believe in Communist theory. I don't believe that only the worker creates value. In this world (not the fantasy Communist world) capital creates value. So after that most of what you write is just you noodleing around. I'm sure it all works in your tight little system, but that's not how it works on planet earth.


Most of my posts draw more from Keynsian or instititional economics than Marxian, and most of my posts on Marxian economics have more to do with the Macro picture (i.e. the internal contradictions of capital).

Capital by definition cannot create value (Not even austrian economists believe that), because capital by definition is dead. If you don't believe in Marxian theory, or socialist economic analysis, then argue against it with proper arguments.

Marxian analysis expalins the way the real world works ... and it does so in a way that explains the outcomes that come out of Capitalism.


I put in money, I open a business, I hire people, vola! I create business. The people that work for me come and go. I remain. It's my business I created it. See, I believe that. You believe the workers did it. I'll grant you the workers have something to do with it, they help. But in the end, they have no personality or stake in the business.


The only thing that makes your buisiness create any value is labor ... Now if your arguing that YOU create more value due to YOUR labor, thats another thing and totally irrelivant to economic analysis, it does'nt negate Marxian economics at all.

But again, this is just the same old bullshit, you've been here for years and still hav'nt learned the slightest thing, you don't contribute to discussions, you don't create good arguments, you hav'nt progressed in understanding, and frankly, your wasting your own time and everyone elses.

[Bud Struggle]

(pssst. who created that capital)

I'm not saying they don't have something to do with it. But the "they" are a nameless faceless interchangable group of people. It could be anyone doing their work--maybe even a machine could do it. On the other hand my name's on the front door and on the truck that delivers the stuff and when there is a problem it's my reputation that's on the line.

Workers just come and go. If they work hard and earn their pay, they stay for a while--if not they are gone.

[xub3rn00dlex]

Solidarity to the workers in oakland! I hope you guys stay safe today. Is there anyway to get updates on that situation by txt msg or something?

And P.S: capital does not create value. Labor creates value. Capital = iron ore, good luck creating value without a laborer.

[RGacky3]

I'm not saying they don't have something to do with it. But the "they" are a nameless faceless interchangable group of people. It could be anyone doing their work--maybe even a machine could do it. On the other hand my name's on the front door and on the truck that delivers the stuff and when there is a problem it's my reputation that's on the line.


The exact same thing can, and was said under monarchies and dictatorships ... Does'nt change shit, does'nt change the actual mechanics of the economy.

[Robert]

What I think you guys miss in your analysis is what really happens in the day to day management of a small business, or relatively small like I imagine Bud's to be (no offense, Bud), this compared to Microsoft or 3M or Dow Corning (though I respect them too).

The difference is that it's impossible in the analysis of a small business to parse out how much of the entrepreneur's contribution to the treasury of the business is his own blood, sweat, tears, fear, salesmanship, luck, outside financing, goodwill (trust built up from his previous services) and force of personality.

You see to have visions of wage slaves down in the shop breathing diesel fume while the boss is in Costa Rica sipping banana daiquiris under the swaying palms. It just doesn't work like that.

[RGacky3]

The difference is that it's impossible in the analysis of a small business to parse out how much of the entrepreneur's contribution to the treasury of the business is his own blood, sweat, tears, fear, salesmanship, luck, outside financing, goodwill (trust built up from his previous services) and force of personality.


Oh absolutely, but so what? If a king leads his troops into battle, it still does'nt change the fact that him having that type of poewr causes all sorts of problems.


You see to have visions of wage slaves down in the shop breathing diesel fume while the boss is in Costa Rica sipping banana daiquiris under the swaying palms. It just doesn't work like that.

Thats not at all the analysis, I'm sure boards of directors have a lot of stress as having all that power and having to control all the surplus. It does'nt change the underlying economic analysis.

[Robert]

Oh absolutely, but so what? If a king leads his troops into battle, it still doesn't change the fact that him having that type of poewr causes all sorts of problems.So? So the "bourgeois/proleteriat" dichotomy that forms the basis of much Marxist analysis is an over simplification of reality on the ground.

If you see employees in a shop founded by another worker as 1) soldiers in a 2) war in a 3) closed country led by 4) a king with 5) absolute powers and 6) no worker protections or freedom to leave, your analogy holds water.

But I don't see even one of those 6 assumptions as fact-based. I understand that the king-soldier is just a metaphor, but presumably leftists see it as depicting reality.

[#FF0000]

I'm not saying they don't have something to do with it. But the "they" are a nameless faceless interchangable group of people.

And that sure says something, don't it?

[#FF0000]

What I think you guys miss in your analysis is what really happens in the day to day management of a small business, or relatively small like I imagine Bud's to be (no offense, Bud), this compared to Microsoft or 3M or Dow Corning (though I respect them too).

The difference is that it's impossible in the analysis of a small business to parse out how much of the entrepreneur's contribution to the treasury of the business is his own blood, sweat, tears, fear, salesmanship, luck, outside financing, goodwill (trust built up from his previous services) and force of personality.

You see to have visions of wage slaves down in the shop breathing diesel fume while the boss is in Costa Rica sipping banana daiquiris under the swaying palms. It just doesn't work like that.

and literally none of this makes the ownership of property any less unjustifiable so

[RGacky3]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/occupy-oakland-port_n_1072955.html

Port is shut down.


So? So the "bourgeois/proleteriat" dichotomy that forms the basis of much Marxist analysis is an over simplification of reality on the ground.


Only if you don't understand marxist class analysis, Marxian class analysis is not oversimplified at all, infact a lot of his work (and its a LOT of work) was deep class analysis, but you would'nt know that because all you know is proletariat=factory workers in blue overalls and Bourgeois=fat cats with cigars. There is a lot more too it, and its an analysis of something very specific, i.e. the creation of goods and services.


If you see employees in a shop founded by another worker as 1) soldiers in a 2) war in a 3) closed country led by 4) a king with 5) absolute powers and 6) no worker protections or freedom to leave, your analogy holds water.


Its not an exact match, thats why its an analogy, my point is just because you say a buisiness owner takes risk, that has nothing to do with whether or not his control over the surplus is justified.

Infact a person's "risk" has NO corrolation to their compensation, or their control, if it ever matches its just coincidence. If risk was the major factor Coal Miners would be rich as hell.

Capitalists are not paid based on their contribution in value creation, nor is their control of the surplus, its 100% based on their ownership of capital.


But I don't see even one of those 6 assumptions as fact-based. I understand that the king-soldier is just a metaphor, but presumably leftists see it as depicting reality.

Your presuming wrong ... I'm just saying those arguments you give have nothing to do with reality, it does'nt matter what a capitalist does because theres no corrolation.

[Iron Felix]

So? So the "bourgeois/proleteriat" dichotomy that forms the basis of much Marxist analysis is an over simplification of reality on the ground.

If you see employees in a shop founded by another worker as 1) soldiers in a 2) war in a 3) closed country led by 4) a king with 5) absolute powers and 6) no worker protections or freedom to leave, your analogy holds water.

But I don't see even one of those 6 assumptions as fact-based. I understand that the king-soldier is just a metaphor, but presumably leftists see it as depicting reality.
Marxist analysis is an over simplification? That's a new one.

[W1N5T0N]

I'm not saying they don't have something to do with it. But the "they" are a nameless faceless interchangable group of people. It could be anyone doing their work--maybe even a machine could do it. On the other hand my name's on the front door and on the truck that delivers the stuff and when there is a problem it's my reputation that's on the line.

Workers just come and go. If they work hard and earn their pay, they stay for a while--if not they are gone.

Excuse me, but why the fuck are you on this forum?

[Robert]

Excuse me, but why the fuck are you on this forum?

Why are you on OI?

[RGacky3]

Probably because he wants to debate and discuss with pro Capitalists.

[Robert]

Bud Struggle gave a reasonable answer from the capitalist point of view.

If you guys are waiting for capitalists to express solidarity with the wrecking of Oakland's economy, you got a long wait in store.

[Robert]

Marxist analysis is an over simplification? That's a new one. I'm sure it resonated with millions at the time it was written. But to carry it into 2011 and claim:

"The guys with the white hats who own the company are bourgeois and the guys in the red hats in the shop are workers and we need revolution to eliminate all hats (classes) and that's that" is, yes, a juvenile oversimplification.

I already explained and showed why and I have witnessed it up close in the real world. If that ain't enough for you, tough shit.

[RGacky3]

Bud Struggle gave a reasonable answer from the capitalist point of view.

If you guys are waiting for capitalists to express solidarity with the wrecking of Oakland's economy, you got a long wait in store.


We expect people that come here to be here to actually have discussions, and care about learning or sharing ideas.


"The guys with the white hats who own the company are bourgeois and the guys in the red hats in the shop are workers and we need revolution to eliminate all hats (classes) and that's that" is, yes, a juvenile oversimplification.


Yes that is a juvenile oversimplification of Marxian class analysis and frankly shows you don't have a damn idea about what Marxian class analysis is about.


I already explained and showed why and I have witnessed it up close in the real world. If that ain't enough for you, tough shit.

What you've showed is that you don't know jack shit about Marxian class analysis.

[Revolution starts with U]

[QUOTE=Robert;2282156]
The difference is that it's impossible in the analysis of a small business to parse out how much of the entrepreneur's contribution to the treasury of the business is his own blood, sweat, tears, fear, salesmanship, luck, outside financing, goodwill (trust built up from his previous services) and force of personality.

[QUOTE]

Yes there is. Let the business democratically decide his contribution. Only a tyrant, in full knowledge of his oligarchical position, would not allow this.

[Ele'ill]

Bud is just Struggling with the imagery he's seeing of the old capitalist world getting smashed by the working class.

[Bud Struggle]

Bud is just Struggling with the imagery he's seeing of the old capitalist world getting smashed by the working class.

I'm all set for it. I wasn't elected the person who best exemplifies the Communist ideal at RevLeft--the Golden Che--for nothing. ;) :D

[Lenina Rosenweg]

What I think you guys miss in your analysis is what really happens in the day to day management of a small business, or relatively small like I imagine Bud's to be (no offense, Bud), this compared to Microsoft or 3M or Dow Corning (though I respect them too).

The difference is that it's impossible in the analysis of a small business to parse out how much of the entrepreneur's contribution to the treasury of the business is his own blood, sweat, tears, fear, salesmanship, luck, outside financing, goodwill (trust built up from his previous services) and force of personality.

You see to have visions of wage slaves down in the shop breathing diesel fume while the boss is in Costa Rica sipping banana daiquiris under the swaying palms. It just doesn't work like that.

Why do we need a boss at all? I've worked in retail sales and for many small businesses. In all these places I can really say the boss or manager or "entrepreneur" is utterly superfluous. The firm can work fine without a boss breathing down people's neck. Barbara Ehrenreich did a great expose of this world in "Nickel and Dimed"

In the US today the cult of the entrepreneur is built up big time. The "entrepreneur" is supposed to be a self sacrificing hero who creates jobs and opportunities for people. I do not buy into this. The vast majority of small businesses fail.Only a tiny majority of entrepreneurs get anywhere.
I've worked in the retail sector. It really really sucks.Small businesses actually only perform well (from a capitalist perspective)when some degree of worker self management is able to seep though the cracks. The employees themselves unofficially decide what to do.

The economy, and workers themselves would be vastly better without bosses or "entrepreneurs".

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Bud is just Struggling with the imagery he's seeing of the old capitalist world getting smashed by the working class.

I suspect he secretly stays up late at night watching videos of the Oakland protests with Tom Morello cranking full blast.

Bud Struggle understands socialism very well, I've read his earlier posts. In his heart of hearts he agrees with us. He's puzzled that we take socialism so seriously and he enjoys winding people up.



Barry Goldwater
In your heart, you know he's right

[Bud Struggle]

Why do we need a boss at all? I've worked in retail sales and for many small businesses. In all these places I can really say the boss or manager or "entrepreneur" is utterly superfluous. The form can work fine without a boss breathing down people's neck. Barbara Ehrenreich did a great expose of this world in "Nickel and Dimed"

In the US today the cult of the entrepreneur is built up big dime. The "entrepreneur" is supposed to be a self sacrificing hero who creates jobs and opportunities for people. I do not buy into this. The vast majority of small businesses fail.Only a tiny majority of entrepreneurs get anywhere.
I've worked in the retail sector. It really really sucks.Small businesses actually only perform well (from a capitalist perspective)when some degree of worker self management is able to seep though the cracks. The employees themselves unofficially decide what to do.

The economy, and workers themselves would be vastly better without bosses or "entrepreneurs".

Then please--go do it without him/her. Let's see some business built up without them.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Right now we are all locked into the capitalist mode of production and it is difficult to conceive of any other way to do things. Yeah to start a small business you have to draw up a business plan, go to a bank or the SBA, get financing, hire an accountant, hire workers and get as much work out of them while paying them as little as you can, advertise, etc. I've taught a class on business management. I've also had small businesses of my own.

People in our society are trained to think this is the only way of doing things. Its extremely difficult to run a small business. Its even worse to be an employee of a small business and try to survive below the poverty level.How about cooperative enterprises? How about distribution outside of a market system? How about a society beyond being forced to obey the need of capital to reproduce itself.

Again there are other possible ways of living which can be much more satisfying.

[Bud Struggle]

^^^^Good answer!

[RGacky3]

Wk0XtXaSpMk

jYoY2M5VRCg

Looks like Oakland is the radical epicenter of the oakland, Cenk is always the guy calling for moderation, but looks like Boots message is winning there.

[brigadista]

I'm not in the US but occupy Oakland is looking good .

[W1N5T0N]

for bud struggle:

http://libcom.org/library/capitalism-class-class-struggle-ex-dummies

;) and im sorry for flipping out a bit earlier, but marking workers as dumb, faceless, replacable machines just gets to me.

[RGacky3]

for bud struggle:

http://libcom.org/library/capitalism...gle-ex-dummies (http://www.anonym.to/?http://libcom.org/library/capitalism-class-class-struggle-ex-dummies)


Your wasting your time, the dude would'nt even watch a couple minute anamation explaining class struggle, there's no way hey's gonna read about it.

[Bud Struggle]

for bud struggle:

http://libcom.org/library/capitalism-class-class-struggle-ex-dummies

;) and im sorry for flipping out a bit earlier, but marking workers as dumb, faceless, replacable machines just gets to me.

Thank you. I know how it all works. I just don't particularly "believe" in that system that you described. Workers are people that sell their services fo a paticular amount of money every day. That is all they do. They are given raw materials and the tansform those materials into finished goods. For doing that service they are paid a wage. And that's it. They never take ownership of the raw material or the finished goods. They can either come back to work tomorrow or not. They are hied to do a job. Period.

The owner of the factory owns the raw materials, owns the finished product. When he sells the finished product he gets money and pays for the raw materials and pays the workers. Whatever's left over he keeps. That's all there is to business. Now if the workers want to start a factory where they ALL own the raw materials and share in the profits--they can do that. There is no law that says they can't. And good for them if they do. In Capitalism you really can operate any way you so choose.

Now as far as the Class Struggle thing goes--Class is an artificial way of looking at how society is structured--nothing wrong with that, every other way, including Capitalism is equally artificial. But at the present time, Class Struggle isn't high on the charts of most people.

Nowq that being said--there has been a big push to to sell that idea to people. The CPUSA in the 1930s worked hard to push the idea in America and the USSR for all its faults in implementing Communist economics also did try to sell the Marxian ideal--at least theoretically.

But in the end you can believe that society is structured any way you want--but until you get a majority of people, maybe a vast majority of people to blieve your way nothing is going to change.

Best of luck, though.

[RGacky3]

Thank you. I know how it all works.

No, you don't.


Workers are people that sell their services fo a paticular amount of money every day. That is all they do. They are given raw materials and the tansform those materials into finished goods. For doing that service they are paid a wage. And that's it. They never take ownership of the raw material or the finished goods. They can either come back to work tomorrow or not. They are hied to do a job. Period.


Ok, that does'nt dissprove the class theory at all.


The owner of the factory owns the raw materials, owns the finished product. When he sells the finished product he gets money and pays for the raw materials and pays the workers. Whatever's left over he keeps.

No shit, thats exactly what class theory says. All the value that is left over is from the labor.

If he was just buying and selling capital, there is no value created, only price differences due to market shifts, the only thing that creates value of of it is the labor, and thats the source of him taking what is left over.


In Capitalism you really can operate any way you so choose.


In anyway you can afford.


Now as far as the Class Struggle thing goes--Class is an artificial way of looking at how society is structured--nothing wrong with that, every other way, including Capitalism is equally artificial. But at the present time, Class Struggle isn't high on the charts of most people.


Have you seen whats going on in the world?


Nowq that being said--there has been a big push to to sell that idea to people. The CPUSA in the 1930s worked hard to push the idea in America and the USSR for all its faults in implementing Communist economics also did try to sell the Marxian ideal--at least theoretically.


There has been a bigger push to hide that idea and to demonize it.


But in the end you can believe that society is structured any way you want--but until you get a majority of people, maybe a vast majority of people to blieve your way nothing is going to change.


No, I can believe that society is structured in a way where fairies control everything with magic, but I would be wrong. Society is structured in a certain way, and Marxist analysis examines a large part of that and does so in a correct way, if you think any of his insights are incorrect tell me where they are incorrect (I mean actually incorrect, materially, not just morally, like "the boss deserves it because he works hard," is not a material critique).

If you don't "believe" Marxian analysis, it does'nt change the fact that its true.

[Bud Struggle]

No, you don't. Well as graffic said: "neither do you." :D


Ok, that does'nt dissprove the class theory at all. I didn't say it did.


No shit, thats exactly what class theory says. All the value that is left over is from the labor.

If he was just buying and selling capital, there is no value created, only price differences due to market shifts, the only thing that creates value of of it is the labor, and thats the source of him taking what is left over. The point is the worker got paid for his work. There is nothing more in the equasion for him. The worker made a deal for doing X and he got paid for it. He takes no wonership in the finished product.


In anyway you can afford.Workers should always be albe o poor their resources.


Have you seen whats going on in the world? Nothing that hasn't been going off and on for 100 years.


There has been a bigger push to hide that idea and to demonize it. If it were so obvious everyone would just seeit it and it wouldn't have to be sold.




No, I can believe that society is structured in a way where fairies control everything with magic, but I would be wrong. Society is structured in a certain way, and Marxist analysis examines a large part of that and does so in a correct way, if you think any of his insights are incorrect tell me where they are incorrect (I mean actually incorrect, materially, not just morally, like "the boss deserves it because he works hard," is not a material critique).

If you don't "believe" Marxian analysis, it does'nt change the fact that its true. It is true. Just like the Capitalist system is true. Sure Marx predicted some things right and some wrong. You could say that about any world class economist. Keynes certainly was more on the money than Marx was.

But Class Struggle? That is just a fiction. I talk to workers all of the time and most don't have a clue they are in a Class War. Sure the rich are a bit too rich, but for 90% of the workers--as long as they have enough there is no problem.

[RGacky3]

Well as graffic said: "neither do you." :D


I don't understand Marxian class theory? :laugh:


I didn't say it did.


Then its a waste of everyones time is'nt it :).


The point is the worker got paid for his work. There is nothing more in the equasion for him. The worker made a deal for doing X and he got paid for it. He takes no wonership in the finished product.


No shit, thats the way the system works, i.e. he is not paid based on the value he creates.


Workers should always be albe o poor their resources.


Considering most Americans have next to no disposable income, no they can't.


Nothing that hasn't been going off and on for 100 years.


Yup, and its getting bigger, and capitalism is failing more and more.


If it were so obvious everyone would just seeit it and it wouldn't have to be sold.


billions and billions of dollars spent on sidelining the issue, and a history of making it taboo to discuss.

What has to be sold is that Capitalism works fine, and that the worker/capitalist relationship is natural, and literally sold, they spend a lot of money and effort on it.


It is true. Just like the Capitalist system is true. Sure Marx predicted some things right and some wrong. You could say that about any world class economist. Keynes certainly was more on the money than Marx was.


Ehh, Not exactly, but most of Keynes analysis that are most relevant are just expansions of Marx's theories, its his solutions that are different.


But Class Struggle? That is just a fiction. I talk to workers all of the time and most don't have a clue they are in a Class War. Sure the rich are a bit too rich, but for 90% of the workers--as long as they have enough there is no problem.

No one gives a shit that you talk to workers all the time (everyone does, most people here are workers), and more and more people do not have enough.

[Revolution starts with U]

Bud Struggle just likes Rafiq because he reaffirms Bud's 1950s Red Scare hysteria about Commys having nothing to offer but a gun and a prison cell.

[Bud Struggle]

Bud Struggle just likes Rafiq because he reaffirms Bud's 1950s Red Scare hysteria about Commys having nothing to offer but a gun and a prison cell.

I like him because he is a realist. Not the "We're winning, we're winning, Capitalisn is doomed" nonsense spread by the poets, the dreamers and the little green frogs that abound in this place.

[Revolution starts with U]

I like him because he is a realist. Not the "We're winning, we're winning, Capitalisn is doomed" nonsense spread by the poets, the dreamers and the little green frogs that abound in this place.

Name something specifically...

[Bud Struggle]

Name something specifically...

Hey, quote me where I ever mentioned Red Scare or didn't distinguish between today's Communism and the Soviet crapola.

But to your point, the general talk that OWS is anything but a bunch of kids who used to Occupy their Mom's Basements. I don't take any of this seriously. Nice and fun, but these aren't guys to start a Revolution. I think you are wrong to think they are.

[Revolution starts with U]

Did I ever say they would? lol

I'm asking you to name what you like about Rafiq specifically. Why is he "more of a realist" than the rest of us? THe majority of his posts (in OI) are like "you're a liberal, and we're gona throw you in prison after the revolution."

[Bud Struggle]

Did I ever say they would? lol

I'm asking you to name what you like about Rafiq specifically. Why is he "more of a realist" than the rest of us? THe majority of his posts (in OI) are like "you're a liberal, and we're gona throw you in prison after the revolution."

No. He understand that "Communism" to a lot of people means the USSR--and you just have to live with that fact.

Also, he's not going to throw anyone in prison after the Revolution. Unless I sign he paperwork. :)

[W1N5T0N]

The way I see,

Boss couldnt do shit without his workers, yet still earns more than them.
They are equal agents in constructing the work/ doing the service.

Just saying, you have heard of surplus value?


Working for half an hour for a wage, whereas the boss justs earns all the money of the other half hour?

oh and basically what it all comes down to is that we (humans as a collective)probably have the tech and the people to stop hunger /thirst/ disease in 99 percent of the world.
But we wont do that now, because who has the water monopoly? Who owns the means of production of food? who controls agri-industry? Who owns the "patents" to certain grain strains? Who owns the piplelines, the coal mines, the energy produced in wind plants? And tell me, Who makes poor people pay for water, healthcare, basic necessities, who tries to extract CAPITAL from people who barely own anything? Who builds massive expensive penthouses next to slums? Who pays farmers to destroy a part of their crops rather than give it away for free to starving nations?


I will tell you, and you probably wont like the answer:

The Capitalists. (and in some occasions the government outsourcing to the capitalists)

So, basically capital interest is hindering the worlds real development.

[RGacky3]

Not the "We're winning, we're winning, Capitalisn is doomed" nonsense spread by the poets, the dreamers and the little green frogs that abound in this place.

No one has said any of that, not even close.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Robert;2282156]
The difference is that it's impossible in the analysis of a small business to parse out how much of the entrepreneur's contribution to the treasury of the business is his own blood, sweat, tears, fear, salesmanship, luck, outside financing, goodwill (trust built up from his previous services) and force of personality.

[QUOTE]

Yes there is. Let the business democratically decide his contribution. Only a tyrant, in full knowledge of his oligarchical position, would not allow this.

It indeed is not "impossible" but difficult.

But "democracy" does not make it any easier, since after all, there has to be a common understanding of value, worth ect ect in order to expect any sort of reasonable democratic process to take place. A content over which people can discuss.
So "democracy" is truly a vacant answer.
And of course after a "democratic" vote on the subject, the winners, the majority of the population, become those people whom you have reviled elsewhere -"the bosses."

[Revolution starts with U]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Revolution starts with U;2283671]

It indeed is not "impossible" but difficult.

But "democracy" does not make it any easier, since after all, there has to be a common understanding of value, worth ect ect in order to expect any sort of reasonable democratic process to take place. A content over which people can discuss.
So "democracy" is truly a vacant answer.
And of course after a "democratic" vote on the subject, the winners, the majority of the population, become those people whom you have reviled elsewhere -"the bosses."

Why would you need a common understanding of value? That's what the democratic process is all about; we will create a common understanding through deliberation of our differences.

If 99% of the population is "bosses," the concept of bosses has just become obsolete. Seriously if 99% of the people disagree with you... you're probably an asshole, and need to take a hard look at your positions.

[Robert]

Seriously if 99% of the people disagree....

Big "if".

[Baseball]

Why would you need a common understanding of value? That's what the democratic process is all about; we will create a common understanding through deliberation of our differences.

You need a common understanding for democracy to function; how do people communicate if they don't share the same language?

I
f 99% of the population is "bosses," the concept of bosses has just become obsolete. Seriously if 99% of the people disagree with you... you're probably an asshole, and need to take a hard look at your positions.

I see. Your conception of democracy is everyone agreeing with each other. All those famous 99% of the vote elections were thoroughly democratic in your eyes- the 1% who did not vote for a Castro or a Hoxha were probably assholes.

[Revolution starts with U]

You need a common understanding for democracy to function; how do people communicate if they don't share the same language?


Interpreters? Sign language/body language? Learn each other's language? You're right, but a common understanding can be created easily.


I see. Your conception of democracy is everyone agreeing with each other. All those famous 99% of the vote elections were thoroughly democratic in your eyes- the 1% who did not vote for a Castro or a Hoxha were probably assholes.
When did that ever happen? I'm saying in a real vote, with real counting, when has anyone:
recieved 99% of the vote
voted in a tyrant

?

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Revolution starts with U;2286232]Interpreters? Sign language/body language? Learn each other's language? You're right, but a common understanding can be created easily.

By same "language," I didn't particularly mean it literally. I meant everyone more or less understanding, and more importantly, agreeing, with the concepts which are being discussed.
Such as say, defining value.

It is true regimes which have claimed to have been socialist have created a "common understanding." However it is also true that many socialist on these boards object to the way in which it has been done.



When did that ever happen? I'm saying in a real vote, with real counting, when has anyone:
recieved 99% of the vote
voted in a tyrant

Then those 99% will split their vote and the 50% +1 become the "bosses."

[Revolution starts with U]

By same "language," I didn't particularly mean it literally. I meant everyone more or less understanding, and more importantly, agreeing, with the concepts which are being discussed.
Such as say, defining value.

Which can easily be created through a little delibaration.



It is true regimes which have claimed to have been socialist have created a "common understanding." However it is also true that many socialist on these boards object to the way in which it has been done.

Word. Unfortunate conclusions can come from the best of intentions: see, bourgiousie "liberty."



Then those 99% will split their vote and the 50% +1 become the "bosses."
True. But how is it better that some guy just declares himself the "boss" because he has a flag or a piece of paper saying "deed?"

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Revolution starts with U;2286261]Which can easily be created through a little delibaration.

One need only look at the chaos at OWS- or read a little history- to know often there is nothing easy about it.




True. But how is it better that some guy just declares himself the "boss" because he has a flag or a piece of paper saying "deed?"

Why isn't it? One would think that a committee of plumbers directing the installation and construction of sewer systems would be preferred than a committee of arborists.

[Revolution starts with U]

One need only look at the chaos at OWS- or read a little history- to know often there is nothing easy about it.

It is unfortunate that violence happens. But sometimes a bully must be stood up to.






Why isn't it? One would think that a committee of plumbers directing the installation and construction of sewer systems would be preferred than a committee of arborists.
The community of plumbers should impose their supposed expertise upon everyone else without their representation? Who will decide what constitutes being an expert?

[RGacky3]

No. He understand that "Communism" to a lot of people means the USSR--and you just have to live with that fact.

Also, he's not going to throw anyone in prison after the Revolution. Unless I sign he paperwork. http://www.revleft.com/vb/general-strike-oakland-t163498/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

Who cares, we arn't fighting for a word, we are fighting for principles, i.e. economic democracy and worker control.

I could give a shit what the word "communism" implies, what matters to me is what we are fighting for, you can call it "FrogAnusism" if you'd like, it does'nt make a difference to me.