Socialism

[Le Rouge]

Look a bourgeois! :ohmy:

It depend on what kind of wage you make. I don't know how much you win, so i can't say if socialism would offer you material benefits.

[NewLeft]

Look a bourgeois! :ohmy:

It depend on what kind of wage you make. I don't know how much you win, so i can't say if socialism would offer you material benefits.

Comrade, socialism has something to offer for our good business owner friend. If they are interested in finding out what socialism has to offer, then they should support the revolution! They'll find out afterwards.

[Drosophila]

Human progress without greed/money as a motive.

[ColonelCossack]

I do not care about morality

Then why is your username, "socialjusticeactivist"?

[Rafiq]

I am a member of the upper middle class and I own my own business. What does socialism have to offer for me? I do not care about morality, I want a material benefit.

Thank you.

Join us, get outta our way, or suffer the concequences.

No offense but we really don't 'need' you.

[NewLeft]

Then why is your username, "socialjusticeactivist"?

lol Let's see.. "upper middle class business owner's social justice" = donating to charity to offset guilt for exploiting workers. :thumbup1:

[Rafiq]

I am a member of the upper middle class and I own my own business. What does socialism have to offer for me? I do not care about morality, I want a material benefit.

Thank you.

Here is what socialism has to offer you: joining the champions of history

[Sheepy]

There is a difference between the bourgeois and the petite bourgeois. In the regards of Shopkeepers and local family store owners, the petite bourgeois somewhat independent from the corporate machine just to make a living, rather than mass wealth. I consider them just as Proletarian in this case, and in socialism, their experience in service, management, and self-sufficiency may prove useful for socialist society.

Just my thoughts. What might be "offered" to you may differentiate, according to what you would do and what for.

[ColonelCossack]

You are in danger of fallen into the proletariat if you're petit-bourgeois, so if that were to happen, then socialism would certainly benefit you.

[workersadvocate]

Why should the working class supermajority give a crap about you?
Why should we suffer to allow you to continue to live off of exploitation of the fruits of our labor?
Give us working people a good reason (how about some material benefit :D ) why we shouldn't expropriate you and abolish your class stratification over us based on exploitation?
How about you, an upper middle class wonder, kiss our proletarian asses and submit to our workers' democracy for a change, and let us decide how much you are worth to us at any given time and how much liberty and material necessities to allow you, and make you conform to our culture and values and fashions instead? No matter what, your rehabilitation would be a far cry more humane then ever was afforded to our class by the exploiting classes of history. That is, unless you rebel against the rule of the working class...then your ass is gonna pay til you get to the graveyard of overthrown classes.

Material benefit incentive for the upper middle class to support socialism? We'll let you live if you fully betray your class and obey the rule of the working people. How's that?

[Veovis]

I am a member of the upper middle class and I own my own business. What does socialism have to offer for me? I do not care about morality, I want a material benefit.

Thank you.

Howzabout a one-way ticket to Gulag Gulch?

[Comrade Hill]

I am a member of the upper middle class and I own my own business. What does socialism have to offer for me? I do not care about morality, I want a material benefit.

Thank you.

You can start by joining the proletariat.

[NewLeft]

Howzabout a one-way ticket to Gulag Gulch?

LOL Upper middle class to gulag?? What do we do with the actual bourgeois.

[ColonelCossack]

LOL Upper middle class to gulag?? What do we do with the actual bourgeois.

Super Gulag. Or this; http://europeandcis.undp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3275894875_94e044a2b8.jpg

[Erratus]

Growing up, my mother would do the books for lots of small business (we are talking a dozen employees at the biggest, most are mom and pop places). Many of the owners do not draw salaries because there is no money to spare. Everyday is a fight to keep their business alive. They have often given up secure jobs in favor of running their own business because of the freedom and and ability to follow to dreams, to be cliche about it. But they started their business because they decided to have their work become part of their life and not just a job. I am not sure how well you relate to them, but small business owners will not be hurt in their essence, but liberated. They will not have to worry about making enough money to buy food this month, but can focus completely on their craft. Granted, they are not going to turn into giant businesses and make fortunes, but money will no longer be an issue that prevents them from doing what they love. Not sure if this is where you fit into though.

The biggest way that communism (since socialism is suppose to be more of a temporary thing, working to get to communism) will help you is by helping everyone. In capitalism, inventions are made not to progress human kind, but to make money. No company invests millions if they do not see profit in the near future for them. Instead, they focus on making things that we do not need (think paid programming at 1 am) because they believe they can make a profit. Communism would offer a focus of effort on needed technologies. Not to say that the two (progress and profit) never align, but they often don't. This means colonizing other planets over chia pets, and creating better, faster computers, as opposed to just giving an illusion of creating them. You would benefit from this by being able to have these new devices and technologies.

I noticed that your only other post is about environmentalism. This is one of the biggest things that I think socialism/communism would fix. Under capitalism, corporations go for the cheapest path. This is often not the environmentally friendly one. Cars come to mind on this issue. The government has been pushing car companies to make greener cars. The companies fight the laws to be passed and begrudgingly follow the ones that do manage to get by. Because devolving new technologies is expensive and they do not see where the profit will be. They might voluntarily try to make greener technology, but they only go far enough to use being green as a selling hook, which is not far enough. This basic ideas comes into play in many area than just cars. Socialism/communism would be the complete opposite. Because they are about the general good, and not what is good for a corporation, they would devote the energy used into making more profit into making greener cars (or greener whatever). This would be another example of you benefiting along with everyone else.

The big difference between capitalism and communism is that capitalism runs on competition. Corporations compete with each others, and where one wins the other loses (maybe not completely, but when a person buys a product from one company, they will not buy it from another). Workers also compete with each other. One gets the job, the other doesn't. People come together and work together to compete against others. Naturally, people fall into a mindset of "look after myself first" in this climate. Communism is completely different in that it is communal. People all work together, not against each other. We won't be fighting each other for enough to live comfortably with a few lucky winners getting extra. Communism/socialism doesn't promise you to get extra in favor of someone else. It promises that we will all get more through our joined efforts.

[workersadvocate]

I think we should demand they surrender and submit to workers' rule, or we working peiple should do to them precisely the worst kind of their brand of 'justice' they've done to the 'least' of our class worldwide.
Their class resistance to us should be repaid using their own repressive barbaric 'medicine', and we should hold that example out for all remaining enemies to see what's coming if they fail to surrender and instead continue repressing our class. They'll reap what they sow, in the same manner as they've used in history against us.

I'd love to believe the exploiting classes can be turned by rational debate, but that's not likely to motivate corrective action on the part of any of those greedy bloodthirsty monsters save a rare handful that betray their class.
They will respect the exercise of working class power when exercised at their own doorsteps like we ain't fucking around with them and their rule anymore. Whatever they've historically felt was okay to do in repressing us, is okay for us to repay in kind. Let their worst-off victims (including the dead ones) convict and sentence them.

If they are so smart, they'll get off their high horse, join and support the working class beforehand on our terms under our workers' democracy, avoiding the kinds of things that will be necessary if our class has to go looking for them during our rising.

[Veovis]

Super Gulag. Or this; http://europeandcis.undp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3275894875_94e044a2b8.jpg

The People's Razor :cool:

[#FF0000]

You won't have to run a fucking business, for one.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I am a member of the upper middle class and I own my own business. What does socialism have to offer for me? I do not care about morality, I want a material benefit.
Thank you.

What a society run by workers would mean for all people:

One, it would mean a better chance of your children and grandchildren actually having decent lives. Without imperialist competition you wouldn't have to worry about WWIII starting because the US, China, EU, and Russia are fighting to divide the world amongst themselves. With production not being organized around profit, there would be a much much greater chance at minimizing and reversing environmental destruction.

Living in a world without inequality means more safety on a day to day basis. People will be less crushed from debts and hopelessness about the future so the anger of drivers on the freeway or daily random violence would be much less than in modern US cities. Not to mention there wouldn't be gang conflicts over people trying to control black markets. A socialist society also wouldn't neglect people who are unable to work (as capitalism does unless reforms are implemented) and so people with severe mental problems would have decent places to live where they could be cared for. The sick would be taken care of and so families wouldn't have to worry about an illness causing total ruin for the family; the elderly wouldn't have to worry about poverty and being left alone when they get older and begin to have difficulty managing things.

Production based on need and want rather than profit would be much more stable and so people wouldn't loose everything because a bunch of banks or corporations are playing games with money.

A truly democratic organization of society would mean that there would be the possibility of eliminating oppression. Societies with a tiny ruling group at the top that needs to maintain the system that put them on top are always fearful of the exploited majority and so typically employ divide and rule strategies to keep people fighting over crumbs instead of uniting and potentially demanding a more equal arrangement of society. So if people aren't competing then we can eliminate racism and nationalism and sexism. This would also mean less repression since a majority-run society doesn't need as much coercion as a minority-run society.

[ColonelCossack]

The People's Razor :cool:

Yes... a razor blade... that's what it is!

[DinodudeEpic]

It was actually called the National Razor.

And, it was used by Jacobins on everyone that they disagreed with. (Ranging from monarchists to moderate liberals to proto-socialists to even other radical liberals.)

[Rafiq]

It was actually called the National Razor.

And, it was used by Jacobins on everyone that they disagreed with. (Ranging from monarchists to moderate liberals to proto-socialists to even other radical liberals.)

They used it on traitors and counterrevolutionaries. Go cry about it

[RGacky3]

They used it on traitors and counterrevolutionaries. Go cry about it

traitors to who?

Also counter-revolutionaries according to who?

[Rafiq]

traitors to who?

Also counter-revolutionaries according to who?

Traitors to the revolution...

If you oppose the Jacobins because "they were too harsh" chabces are you know nothing about French history or the Great Terror itself and is just talking out of your ass.

[RGacky3]

Traitors to the revolution...


According to who?

[Comrade Hill]

According to who?

The revolutionary left movement in France known as the Jacobins? How do you not know about this?

Read more on the socialist historian Albert Mathiez, who details the motives of the executions in his book "A Realistic Necessity."

He claims that the revolutionary and violent response to counter revolutionary royalist ideas coming from the Girondins was a "natural response" and "necessary evil."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror#cite_note-9

[RGacky3]

The revolutionary left movement in France known as the Jacobins? How do you not know about this?


My point exactly, so its really just THEM deciding who is counter revolutionary, which basically just means everyone they disagree with.


He claims that the revolutionary and violent response to counter revolutionary royalist ideas coming from the Girondins was a "natural response" and "necessary evil."


necessary for what? Paving the way for Napoleon?

[Rafiq]

http://maxcdn.fooyoh.com/files/attach/images/3004/141/953/004/Monkey_facepalm.jpg

:crying: I can't believe it. I can't believe someone this stupid actually exists.

[Comrade Hill]

My point exactly, so its really just THEM deciding who is counter revolutionary, which basically just means everyone they disagree with.


Yup.



necessary for what? Paving the way for Napoleon?

If that's how you choose to view it. I don't think they were aware of what he was planning, though.

[RGacky3]

Yup.


So basically you might as well say the Jacobins just executed people they did'nt like.

So saying they executed counter-revolutionaries is basically meaningless, because its arbitrary.


If that's how you choose to view it. I don't think they were aware of what he was planning, though.

Well, the "terror" model generally leads to that. Remember the stated goal of the French revolution, liberty, equality, fraternity.


:crying: I can't believe it. I can't believe someone this stupid actually exists.

I don't think anyone values your opinion on who is or is not intellegant, considering your posts are generally nothing more than the angry rantings of an angry middle class teenager and as such are full of self contradictions.

[Kitty_Paine]

They used it on traitors and counterrevolutionaries. Go cry about it

They used it on a lot more than that. Thousands were killed who were neither traitors nor counter-revolutionaries. It turned into a paranoid, chopping frenzy. You can't possibly think every person who was guillotined deserved it. They tried to cut fucking Thomas Paine's head off for shit's sake. Not to mention they killed Danton. But the topic is so disputed by historians as it is, I can understand why there is a disagreement here in the first place.

[RedScot24/11/1859]

And why would we want you to join the socialist movement? You are an obstacle to socialism that will be removed by force, in the end , you will likely be imprisoned or possibly killed in the revolution.

[Comrade Hill]

So basically you might as well say the Jacobins just executed people they did'nt like.

So saying they executed counter-revolutionaries is basically meaningless, because its arbitrary.


Give me a fucking break. What do you want me to say? That your statement is BETTER than mine is? :laugh: please quit wasting my time.



Well, the "terror" model generally leads to that. Remember the stated goal of the French revolution, liberty, equality, fraternity.


Okay, yes? And? Why do your posts lack so much context?

[RGacky3]

Give me a fucking break. What do you want me to say? That your statement is BETTER than mine is? http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-t166432/revleft/smilies2/lol.gif please quit wasting my time.


That saying "its ok because they only killed counter revolutionaries" is meaningless and you were wrong to use it as an answer.


Okay, yes? And? Why do your posts lack so much context?

Okay and it did'nt lead to that, it lead to Napoleon, so saying "it was necessary" is a nonsense statement.

[Comrade Hill]

That saying "its ok because they only killed counter revolutionaries" is meaningless and you were wrong to use it as an answer.

Okay and it did'nt lead to that, it lead to Napoleon, so saying "it was necessary" is a nonsense statement.

Alright you win.

Congrats. I'm done with this nonsense. I shouldn't even have gotten involved in this.


Why should my labor be valued the same as the labor of someone with fewer skills?

That depends on your definition of "value."

Please read this:

http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LTV-FAQ.html

There's nothing wrong with having intellectual "management" skills that help produce value. But one should not herald these skills as "more valuable" than other types of skills, and people shouldn't be rewarded for exploiting value out of workers.

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't think anyone values your opinion on who is or is not intellegant, considering your posts are generally nothing more than the angry rantings of an angry middle class teenager and as such are full of self contradictions.

:lol: I concur


Why should my labor be valued the same as the labor of someone with fewer skills?

Why should it not? I thought you said you weren't into the whole "morals" thing?
A better question would be: why do you fear allowing the entire workforce to decide your value, rather than you and a small group of your friends deciding it unilaterally?

[Veovis]

Where can I find a critique of Austrian economics from a socialist perspective?

"Capital" by Karl Marx

[Astarte]

The worst part about the reign of terror/purge period of revolutionary France is that once this mechanism was unleashed, even the most left Jacobins like Danton and Robespierre who hoped they could use these means as a policy for the greater good ultimately could not control them and in the end were themselves purged/executed and replaced by the reactionary Directory.

[KR]

So it seems a lot of people in this thread thinks the upper class should be executed or imprisoned. I'm just wondering, why is this necessary? Should't they just be allowed to live in the post revolutionary society like everyone else?

[NewLeft]

So it seems a lot of people in this thread thinks the upper class should be executed or imprisoned. I'm just wondering, why is this necessary? Should't they just be allowed to live in the post revolutionary society like everyone else?

It's a joke..

[KR]

It's a joke..
Problem is, as with many other "jokes", there are people actually advocating such things.

[Astarte]

Has anyone on this thread even made a distinction between petty bourgeoisie who rely on their own labor power and don't have any employees to speak of and the petty bourgeoisie who do exploit labor power? In this case revolutionary socialism has a lot to offer the "pettiest" layers of the petty bourgeoisie.

The petty bourgeoisie is a split and confused class - some, the ones who live off their own labor power, develop proletarian consciousness, some, the ones who exploit labor, develop a kind of full bourgeois consciousness with an acute acridity.

[RGacky3]

Originally Posted by Kier http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2333989#post2333989)
So it seems a lot of people in this thread thinks the upper class should be executed or imprisoned. I'm just wondering, why is this necessary? Should't they just be allowed to live in the post revolutionary society like everyone else?
It's a joke..

Reminds me of when right wingers say something racist/sexist or rediculously cruel, and call it humor, dispite the statement being devoid of any actual humor, and dispite the fact that they actually advocate similar things.

Like the chicken-shit rush limbaugh.


Why should it not? I thought you said you weren't into the whole "morals" thing?
A better question would be: why do you fear allowing the entire workforce to decide your value, rather than you and a small group of your friends deciding it unilaterally?

Exactly, Richard Wolff rightly points out that whenever people say its decided "by the market" when it benefits them at other people's expense be very skeptical, "the market" is'nt a thing generally, especially internally in a corporation (which does'nt work like a market at all). Strangely enough when poor people suffer its their own fault and not "the market."


Where can I find a critique of Austrian economics from a socialist perspective?

Kapital is great, the strange thing about Austrian economics is that they never actually address any of the problems Marx, Kaynes, the Insitutionalists and so on came up with, they just ignored them.


Has anyone on this thread even made a distinction between petty bourgeoisie who rely on their own labor power and don't have any employees to speak of and the petty bourgeoisie who do exploit labor power? In this case revolutionary socialism has a lot to offer the "pettiest" layers of the petty bourgeoisie.

The petty bourgeoisie is a split and confused class - some, the ones who live off their own labor power, develop proletarian consciousness, some, the ones who exploit labor, develop a kind of full bourgeois consciousness with an acute acridity.

I think the petty bourgeoisie is a class that should be used only in the macro analysis, once you get down to the micro it does'nt really work very well.

For example most "petty bourgeois" actually DO use their own labor power to create value, even if they hire labor as well, so its not so straight forward.

I think its important to think of class as a social relation, NOT as groups of individuals.

[soviechetnik]

For me,Socialism is about the rule of the People where the common citizen decides,Freedom...Social security and a state that cares for its people and their future...

[Shotgun Opera]

I am a member of the upper middle class and I own my own business. What does socialism have to offer for me? I do not care about morality, I want a material benefit.

Thank you.
You seem to have the wrong idea about Socialism.

People don't join for the benefits package, we don't have a loyalty points program and we don't have a rewards scheme. Supporting Socialism for the material gain seems to me like joining a nunnery for a shot at all the single women; it's grossly missing the point.

Those of us who are Socialist identify as such because we believe strongly in the power of Socialism to create a better world than the one we live in now, where people aren't driven to enslave each other for their benefit.

I guess I can applaud your honesty but I think you need to learn a bit more about Socialism before you start looking for a membership card.