How can a leftist survive with morals?

[Habash]

I battle with this question often. How do you survive within this mode of production while still holding on to your beliefs and values. As a leftist, I simply do not agree with the worker exploitation and the way money is made in this society. At the same time, if I don't join this mode of production and become part of it, I will never make enough money to live a dignified life.

Sure the answer is to want less and live within means, etc. but I've been broke for so many years now because I keep declining job offers from friends. Those job offers all involve selling financial instruments to legally con the working class out of whatever little money they have. Instead, I'm allowing myself to be exploited by other companies for my labor in exchange for low wages, just so I'm not the person doing the exploiting.

I can't see how I can make enough money to live ok without compromising some of my morals.

Just looking for insight from others on this, and how they deal with this dilemma. I'm particularly interested in the opinions of Anarchist-Communists cause I'm probably closest to that ideology.

[The Douche]

What kind of jobs are you turning down?

I would say there isn't much to be ashamed of if you stay away from hire/fire power.

[Habash]

What kind of jobs are you turning down?

I would say there isn't much to be ashamed of if you stay away from hire/fire power.

I worked in the mortgage industry for 2 years. Came in thinking I'm helping people own a home, instead I spent that time making money by locking homeowners in outrageous loans, and most are foreclosed now. I'd say that's worse than hire/fire power.

That was many many years ago, and that's precisely what made me realize I'm a leftist. I quit that job and all the money I was making because I was one of the very people I was fighting against. Since then, all job offers have had to do with something like that, i.e., getting money out of people without providing them with anything tangible (insurance and financial schemes).

[The Douche]

Welp, yeah, fuck loan officers.:confused:

[Prometeo liberado]

I think the key here keeping ones morals in tack. It is moraly wrong to not feed your family and clothe yourself of course. But when you do find yourself in a situation where you must survive then your only option to redeem yourself is through party work and agitation from within. Unionize where you can and learn as much as you can from your environment.
Change will not come from working in an office or wherever until the entire workplace is organized.You didn't create the Machine but with help you can begin to dismantle it.:)

[Revolution starts with U]

Start a homeowner's co-op! :lol:

[~Spectre]

Just by working in the U.S., you're helping contribute tax money to a military that has ended the lives of millions throughout the last few decades.

After that, the rest is pretty much detail.

[Aleenik]

Just by working in the U.S., you're helping contribute tax money to a military that has ended the lives of millions throughout the last few decades.

After that, the rest is pretty much detail.Ya, it's neigh impossible to not contribute to the capitalist cause. I wouldn't want to work at a loan office, but I'd do it if I didn't have a better job option.

[ArrowLance]

I just live in self-hatred.

[Ostrinski]

Leftism doesn't entail a lifestyle or moral code. Just serve your interests. There's really no way to live around it, unless you want to pack up and move into the woods.

[ArrowLance]

Leftism doesn't entail a lifestyle or moral code. Just serve your interests. There's really no way to live around it, unless you want to pack up and move into the woods.

How liberal of you!

Of course leftism entails lifestyle choices. You can't have a principle and not follow it. How are we supposed to make a difference if we call ourselves leftists and then go and exploit labour? We have to eat, it's true, but we can't forget that we are leftists.

Whatever self-hatred we feel for consuming goods made affordable by third world labour exploited by capitalists and supporting the system should simply be overwhelmed by our hatred for the system and those capitalists.

[Ostrinski]

How liberal of you!No.


Of course leftism entails lifestyle choices. You can't have a principle and not follow it. How are we supposed to make a difference if we call ourselves leftists and then go and exploit labour? We have to eat, it's true, but we can't forget that we are leftists.The premise here is the self-important notion that by abstaining from participation in the production cycle altogether, you're somehow making a difference - you're not. You and I are ants next to the entirety of the consumer population. I don't think joining the petite-bourgeoisie is incompatible with being a leftist. If you start a small business or something like that, it's not like you're setting the proletarian movement back or anything. Whether or not I want to open a book store does not decide on when the socialist revolution happens. Furthermore, The revolution isn't made by the left, or the morality of the left. The revolution is made by and for the proletariat. Never forget that.


Whatever self-hatred we feel for consuming goods made affordable by third world labour exploited by capitalists and supporting the system should simply be overwhelmed by our hatred for the system and those capitalists.Ok Robert Jordan relax. I don't hate myself. If you do, you should see a therapist. Do I hate the bourgeoisie? Yes. But it's not our hatred that drives the proletarian movement, it's the interests of the proletariat. Idealistic hipsterism is worthless and will show itself to be worthless when compared to the collective class consciousness of the working class.

[ArrowLance]

No.

Yes!



The premise here is the self-important notion that by abstaining from participation in the production cycle altogether, you're somehow making a difference - you're not. You and I are ants next to the entirety of the consumer population. I don't think joining the petite-bourgeoisie is incompatible with being a leftist. If you start a small business or something like that, it's not like you're setting the proletarian movement back or anything. Whether or not I want to open a book store does not decide on when the socialist revolution happens. Furthermore, The revolution isn't made by the left, or the morality of the left. The revolution is made by and for the proletariat. Never forget that.

Certainly joining the petite-bourgeoisie is incompatible with being a leftist. You can't say you oppose the exploitation of the working class and then go and exploit the working class. If you do that means either you don't actually believe that the working class shouldn't be exploited, or you don't care that the working class shouldn't be exploited.

Of course the Revolution isn't made by the left or the morality of the left and of course it is made by the proletariat, I'm not forgetting that.

I agree we don't hurt the system by abstaining from participation, but that doesn't mean we should act in self-interest ignoring all the principles which define our love and our belief in the Revolution simply because they may not directly damage the Revolution.



Ok Robert Jordan relax. I don't hate myself. If you do, you should see a therapist. Do I hate the bourgeoisie? Yes. But it's not our hatred that drives the proletarian movement, it's the interests of the proletariat. Idealistic hipsterism is worthless and will show itself to be worthless when compared to the collective class consciousness of the working class.

Idealism and hipsterism are worthless no doubt.

Why would I see a therapist? My self-hatred is healthy.

[Ostrinski]

Certainly joining the petite-bourgeoisie is incompatible with being a leftist.Engels, Sartre, Che - not leftists?


You can't say you oppose the exploitation of the working class and then go and exploit the working class. If you do that means either you don't actually believe that the working class shouldn't be exploited, or you don't care that the working class shouldn't be exploited.Whether or not you oppose or don't oppose it is of no consequence because capitalism is systematically flawed and proletarian revolution is inevitable. Of course, we reject exploitation on moral grounds. But this moral rejection is worthless. What isn't worthless is the understanding that the proletariat will become aware of its class interests - the real reason to support revolution if you are petite-bourgeois.


I agree we don't hurt the system by abstaining from participation, but that doesn't mean we should act in self-interest ignoring all the principles which define our love and our belief in the Revolution simply because they may not directly damage the Revolution.Again with touchy feely idealism. We can "love and believe" in revolution all we want, but the sentiment is worthless because it is of no practical value to the proletariat.


Idealism and hipsterism are worthless no doubt.Then why is your whole argument based on idealistic premises.


Why would I see a therapist? My self-hatred is healthy.ok i dont even know what this is supposed to mean

[pluckedflowers]

You can't say you oppose the exploitation of the working class and then go and exploit the working class. If you do that means either you don't actually believe that the working class shouldn't be exploited, or you don't care that the working class shouldn't be exploited.

I notice you consider yourself a Marxist. Where, pray tell, did Marx and Engels get their money?

[Revolution starts with U]

Is the idea that the Revolution to socialism (not revolution in general) is inevitable not the height of idealism? ... might as well believe in Revelations. When they say it "will be made by the collective class conscious of the proletariat" do you think that means somebody else? Do you not consider yourself a part of the proletariat?

Would it surprise me if half the members of this site as they gain a couple years become like Hitchens and turn their back on leftism? No... especially the leninists, they seem particularly quick to think the Revolution will just happen so they can betray it all they want.

Let's say your busines starts doing well, since you decided your personal well being was more important than the "collective revolutionary consciousness of the proletariat." Are you going to campaign against worker's rights? If not, why not?

You have 3 options:

1) Start a co-op
2) Start a revolution
3) remain a prole

The only other option is to become the enemy. Make your choice.

[Revolution starts with U]

Engels, Sartre, Che - not leftists?

It's questionable...


Whether or not you oppose or don't oppose it is of no consequence because capitalism is systematically flawed and proletarian revolution is inevitable.
Perhaps. Socialism, unfortunately, is not. It will take the tireless efforts of solidarity minded people to keep the Revolution out of the hands of despots and tyrants. Have you not studied your history?

[ArrowLance]

Engels, Sartre, Che - not leftists?

Whether or not you oppose or don't oppose it is of no consequence because capitalism is systematically flawed and proletarian revolution is inevitable. Of course, we reject exploitation on moral grounds. But this moral rejection is worthless. What isn't worthless is the understanding that the proletariat will become aware of its class interests - the real reason to support revolution if you are petite-bourgeois.

Again with touchy feely idealism. We can "love and believe" in revolution all we want, but the sentiment is worthless because it is of no practical value to the proletariat.

Then why is your whole argument based on idealistic premises.

ok i dont even know what this is supposed to mean

I'm sorry I can't talk about ideas without being an idealist.

[bcbm]

i drink a lot

[Ostrinski]

Is the idea that the Revolution to socialism (not revolution in general) is inevitable not the height of idealism?No, because it's not grounded in my (or anyone else's) ideal utopia wherein everything happens the way I want it to, it's grounded in the premise that humans are aware of their interests - the primary instinct of living things is to survive. The class-aware proletariat understands it is in their interest to overthrow the bourgeoisie and the capitalist mode of production and replace it with a production arrangement that is most practical to addressing the interests of the proletariat. Ergo, socialism will develop out of the contradictions within the capitalist mode of production.


When they say it "will be made by the collective class conscious of the proletariat" do you think that means somebody else? Do you not consider yourself a part of the proletariat?I am a student, so if I woke up tomorrow under a proletarian state, I would not a have a stake in class power. So no.


Would it surprise me if half the members of this site as they gain a couple years become like Hitchens and turn their back on leftism? No... especially the leninists, they seem particularly quick to think the Revolution will just happen so they can betray it all they want.http://th03.deviantart.net/fs71/150/f/2011/240/e/b/laughing_meme_guy_by_vixenwolfie-d485kw0.png


Let's say your busines starts doing well, since you decided your personal well being was more important than the "collective revolutionary consciousness of the proletariat." Are you going to campaign against worker's rights? If not, why not?Nah I don't own a business. I don't plan to start one. But if I did, idk what I'd do. That's all speculative.


You have 3 options:

1) Start a co-op
2) Start a revolution
3) remain a prole

The only other option is to become the enemy. Make your choice.I'll have the #2 with a side of fries and a medium coke.

[Ostrinski]

I'm sorry I can't talk about ideas without being an idealist.Sure you can. But you can talk about ideas without talking about lifestyles, love, and self-hatred (:confused:).

[ArrowLance]

I don't see how its idealist to be a marxist and act like one, but its not idealist to 'be' a marxist and not act like one. You can't say, "I don't believe! It is material Truth!" and then go along your way as if it were not truth and as if you must not act.

[pluckedflowers]

I don't see how its idealist to be a marxist and act like one, but its not idealist to 'be' a marxist and not act like one. You can't say, "I don't believe! It is material Truth!" and then go along your way as if it were not truth and as if you must not act.

No one here is denying that acknowledging the material realities highlighted by Marxist analysis have consequences for action. What is being denied is simply your particular understanding of what kinds of action they entail.

[ArrowLance]

Sure you can. But you can talk about ideas without talking about lifestyles, love, and self-hatred (:confused:).

Lifestyles are a symptom of conviction. When you know your convictions your actions will follow. Love is of course an emotion which we feel, very much intone with this topic of morals and leftists as persons. These things might not have much to do with leftism as a movement or ideology but very much to do with persons acting in that movement or under that ideology.

[ArrowLance]

No one here is denying that acknowledging the material realities highlighted by Marxist analysis have consequences for action. What is being denied is simply your particular understanding of what kinds of action they entail.

Brospierre said that we should act in our own-self interest to the degree that even exploiting others labour is acceptable. Is this a consequence of Marxist analysis?

[Ostrinski]

Lifestyles are a symptom of conviction. When you know your convictions your actions will follow. Love is of course an emotion which we feel, very much intone with this topic of morals and leftists as persons. These things might not have much to do with leftism as a movement or ideology but very much to do with persons acting in that movement or under that ideology.But people don't act under ideology, they act under interests. Also, I don't disagree with the first part of your post but it isn't related to the topic and thus doesn't contradict or back up anything.

[pluckedflowers]

Brospierre said that we should act in our own-self interest to the degree that even exploiting others labour is acceptable. Is this a consequence of Marxist analysis?

Brospierre pointed out that we already do act in our own self-interest and that being a Marxist does not entail breaking with this tendency. If it did, Marxism would indeed by an idealist, voluntarist ideology. It would also be a desperately naive ideology, since there is in fact no way to extricate ourselves from the system of exploitation that is capitalism this side of the revolution. If you don't want to exploit anyone or anything, you'd better drop the idea of starting a co-op, strip naked, and walk your bare ass to the nearest cave.

[Ostrinski]

In my defense, I never meant to imply that it was acceptable to exploit labor within any given person's moral understanding, but that

1. You can be a socialist even if you hold a petite-bourgeoisie social function.
2. It's futile to try to abstain from partaking in any part of the exploitation process.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

In my defense, I never meant to imply that it was acceptable to exploit labor within any given person's moral understanding, but that

1. You can be a socialist even if you hold a petite-bourgeoisie social function.
2. It's futile to try to abstain from partaking in any part of the exploitation process.

I'm unclear, are you saying that it is morally acceptable for you to be a petit bourgeoisie socialist but not a bourgieous one?

[Rafiq]

It's useless to live a moral lifestyle in a system that cannot survive without immorality. Attack the root of what prevents you from forfilling your "ethical" duty.

[Ostrinski]

I'm unclear, are you saying that it is morally acceptable for you to be a petit bourgeoisie socialist but not a bourgieous one?Other than the fact that that would be completely nonsensical, the bourgeois class is the only class whose interests are entirely threatened by a socialist revolution. Marxists define class by social function, not income level, and petite-bourgeois does not necessarily mean rich. There are many self-employed people who would benefit from a socialist revolution.

[Revolution starts with U]

No, because it's not grounded in my (or anyone else's) ideal utopia wherein everything happens the way I want it to, it's grounded in the premise that humans are aware of their interests
6000 years of human history prove that this is just an idealist want, devoid of any actual reality. People are aware of what they are paying attention to, not what actually benefits them. This is basically the homo economicus argument, only instead you posit a homo revolutionarus...

- the primary instinct of living things is to survive. The class-aware proletariat understands it is in their interest to overthrow the bourgeoisie and the capitalist mode of production and replace it with a production arrangement that is most practical to addressing the interests of the proletariat.
Oh do they? Why don't you tell all these soon to be Obama and Romney voters, because they don't seem very aware of this fact.


Ergo, socialism will develop out of the contradictions within the capitalist mode of production.

Revolution will develop out of those contradictions. Socialism will develop through the actions of those promoting and supporting socialism.

--------------------
That joke was funny, right? About the leninists, like Hitchens was, betraying leftism, like Hitchens did?
It's because all good jokes have a grain of truth. Wise man once said "you best check yo'self, before you wreck yo'self."

[Red Economist]

I am a marxist, but my position regarding the state is effectively anarchist. for the record, I have been studying from home and so haven't had a chance to put the ideas below into actual practice on my own, but do my most I can under the circumstances.


I can't see how I can make enough money to live ok without compromising some of my morals.

Morals are expensive because it means pulling yourself out of situations (which is costly) and turning down situations that would make you money (because they are immoral).

hence, saving money (to give yourself financial independence) is a must. a good stock of savings acts as a reserve in the event you want to opt-out.

equally avoiding debt is also a must as debt pressure forces you into situations you don't want to take inorder to make money. so I'd say being very good at managing money is the basis of any anti-capitalist ethical position. I've found that knowing what is in your narrow self-interest helps, even if you then decide not to do it because it is unethical.


Sure the answer is to want less and live within means, etc. but I've been broke for so many years now because I keep declining job offers from friends. Those job offers all involve selling financial instruments to legally con the working class out of whatever little money they have. Instead, I'm allowing myself to be exploited by other companies for my labor in exchange for low wages, just so I'm not the person doing the exploiting.

Wage labour is a part of the mode of production; hence taking a job means being exploited before the revolution takes place (in the Marxist sense that you do not recieve the full products of your labour, but some of it is private appropriated as profit, rather than 'moral' degredation in the liberal sense).

I can't say I've fully resolved this problem myself, as I haven't had a job yet. but in principle, I would say what counts is being in direct contact with the 'real' situation; any job which involves treating people like a statistic is too alienated to be 'humane' (i.e. management, finance, civil service, the military) and will dehumanise pretty quickly.

trying to be control of other people= exploitation, since it means using their labour for 'your' own purposes. the decisions your making in these circumstances however are driven by the mode of production, by profit, loss, etc, rather than your own moral capacity.

exploitation is not simply 'earning' money, as money changes hands infinitum as a medium of exchange. exploitation is directly dependent on the context and the way earning that money relates you to other people.(although I will have to test this out in future).

alienation is however true of all jobs by virtue of wage labour, but (I imagine) in some more than others. teaching, retail, health care, selling insurance etc, all involve direct personal contact with the people who buy the products and may therefore be more 'human' in the context of a 'working' relationship. i.e. your selling it, but you see the effects, rather than reading or presenting it in a board meeting.

getting away from alienation will be most important in my personal life, outside of the job in how you have relationships. I support the notion of 'Free Love', but it is controversial with 'other' 'normal' people, so I will end up having relationships with people who share my ideas. it is also a deeply psychological question because the kind of relationships you have is dependent on the ability to love unconditionally.

With regards 'wanting less', this is extremely difficult, as advertising and marketing appeals directly to our unconscious desires. personally, I read books on psychology (Erich Fromm being a favorite for understanding society, and Wilhelm Riech's 'The Sexual Revolution' as a starting point on relationships) and try to apply the lessons to my own life, whilst being aware that what I 'want' may not necessarily be what I need. it takes alot of getting used to.

In principle I would want to give up watching Television (which is ALL adverts or shows/documentaries trying to sell ideas/lifestyles etc), at a minimum because media is designed to create wants not satisfy them. it is however more of a question of resolving the psychological conflicts BEFORE this becomes possible since you won't then transfer the desire onto watching youtube vidoes or internet stuff. as of yet, I have reduced how often I watch TV to about an hour or two a day maximium using this approach.

the internet also provides a completely free source of media and helps reduce living costs; since you don't necessarily need to buy books, TV or satellite, radio, watch the News etc. it is also 'interactive' rather than 'receptive' like virtually all other media and hence involves more 'contact' with other people.

in essence, I'd say about minimsing alienation and it's dehumanising effects rather than 'obeying' moral absolutes. hope this is useful.

[Q]

I battle with this question often. How do you survive within this mode of production while still holding on to your beliefs and values. As a leftist, I simply do not agree with the worker exploitation and the way money is made in this society. At the same time, if I don't join this mode of production and become part of it, I will never make enough money to live a dignified life.

Sure the answer is to want less and live within means, etc. but I've been broke for so many years now because I keep declining job offers from friends. Those job offers all involve selling financial instruments to legally con the working class out of whatever little money they have. Instead, I'm allowing myself to be exploited by other companies for my labor in exchange for low wages, just so I'm not the person doing the exploiting.

I can't see how I can make enough money to live ok without compromising some of my morals.

Just looking for insight from others on this, and how they deal with this dilemma. I'm particularly interested in the opinions of Anarchist-Communists cause I'm probably closest to that ideology.

Being a communist is not about living your life according to some moral values, it is about trying to organise your fellow workers so they can feel self-empowered, to fight for their own interests as a collective. This is often a longterm task. If you are in a situation that you have to keep low for a while, due to having a temporary contract or whatever, then that is not at all a betrayal to communist principles.

[Hit The North]

To the OP

Really it is quite simple: if your job involves comanding and squeezing labour in order to exploit its surplus value then you are doing the work of capitalism. If your job involves being commanded and squeezed in order to produce surplus value, then you are adding to the ranks of those who's ultimate interest is in opposing capitalism and are best placed to do it. In between there are a whole host of different forms of hucksterism invented to relieve people of their money and the financial services are a main one. But you've realised this already. There are also plenty of jobs (teaching, youth work, nursing, etc.) who's key is not to produce profit, but to assist people in their lives. These kinds of jobs can give you a feeling of self worth as well as a living wage.

If, as a consumer, you feel better about consuming 'ethically' then do so. It might make a difference if it is organised as a campaign, as a personal lifestyle choice it will only make you feel better. But trying to feel better in this shitty system is a good thing in itself.

The problem is that capitalism is a relation between people, a network that brings everyone into interdependence. This means that it is inescapable and you have to deal with it as best you can.

[Hit The North]

I'm unclear, are you saying that it is morally acceptable for you to be a petit bourgeoisie socialist but not a bourgieous one?

I reckon it is always morally acceptable to be a socialist. Certainly more morally aceptable to be a bourgeois socialist than a working class Tory or other form of reactionary.

There have been plenty of bourgeois socialists, Robert Owen being one of the most famous. He thought that a benign class of industrialists could raise up the people and create heaven on Earth. He engaged in bourgeois manufacturing to try to prove his point.

There have been plenty of communists from bourgeois and petite bourgeois backgrounds, Marx and Lenin being two of the most famous. However, both were professional revolutionaries and not engaged in bourgeois or petite bourgeois activity.

There has been at least one communists who was from a bourgeois background and maintained bourgeois functions in the family firm, whilst at the same time functioning as an activist and propagandist in the international working class movement, the very famous Friedrich Engels. The thing I really like about Engels is that he sharply appreciated the contradictions of his circumstances and was never apologetic and never had to be, because politically he always backed the cause of labour against capital.

[Firebrand]

I don't really think its the case that you can't call yourself a leftist if you take part in exploitation, because there have been many bourgeois leftists and because just by living in the system you are supporting it. You can't avoid supporting capitalist exploitation, short of going off to live in a cave in the woods and that isn't really a productive solution. It's far better to be a part of the machine so that when the time comes you can stick a spanner in the works, rather than emerging from your cave when the revolutions happened and wondering what happened.

However I think there are some jobs which if you do them, change you on a fundamental level. If people are constantly hurting others in a blatent and unavoidably obvious way it can dull them to the pain of others. Things like joining the army or swindling poor people out of what little they have will either get to you to the point where you can't live with yourself if you don't quit, or change you to the point that you can't see that its wrong. Either way its not so much that as a leftist you shouldn't, but rather that in the long run it can turn you into someone you don't want to be.
If you are not ok with exploiting others in such a blatent way then ask yourself will doing so make you happy even if you are more financially secure. It's ok to compromise, everyone has to to live under capitalism, you just have to decide whether the compromise is worth it.
Either way its entirely down to what you are willing to do and what you feel you can't live without. No-one else can judge it, its all a matter of what you can live with.

[Firebrand]

But people don't act under ideology, they act under interests.

They don't always, they act under a bizzarre and fluctuating mixture of the two, and its right that they do. If the revolution isn't based on both the matierial interests of the working class and the altruism and idealism that most people feel for one another then it will be missing out half of human motivation. People instinctively want to help each other, the fact that capitalism acts against that is a major factor in causing people to turn against it. If the revolution doesn't take that as a part of itself then people will never support it wholeheartedly.

[Decolonize The Left]

I battle with this question often. How do you survive within this mode of production while still holding on to your beliefs and values. As a leftist, I simply do not agree with the worker exploitation and the way money is made in this society. At the same time, if I don't join this mode of production and become part of it, I will never make enough money to live a dignified life.

Sure the answer is to want less and live within means, etc. but I've been broke for so many years now because I keep declining job offers from friends. Those job offers all involve selling financial instruments to legally con the working class out of whatever little money they have. Instead, I'm allowing myself to be exploited by other companies for my labor in exchange for low wages, just so I'm not the person doing the exploiting.

I can't see how I can make enough money to live ok without compromising some of my morals.

Just looking for insight from others on this, and how they deal with this dilemma. I'm particularly interested in the opinions of Anarchist-Communists cause I'm probably closest to that ideology.

You need to let go of your moralizing and accept reality:
You live in a capitalist world economy. Therefore you cannot escape participating in said economy without extreme life choices that are generally undesirable.
So with this said, it is not your fault that you participate in this economy. You do not really have a choice. Once you relieve yourself of this absurd notion of guilt for something which is not in your control, you can rationally assess your life goals and what you want to do.

There are jobs out there, just not many at the moment. If you desire some sort of 'better' work, you may consider going to non-profit organizations and blanketing the non-profit job market with your resume. If you have experience, which you seem to, then you will likely be hired if you remain vigilant and persistent in your desire to find work.

Good luck and don't beat yourself up too hard. It's pointless and only serves the interests of the ruling class.

That goes for everyone who wants to wallow in their own pity: the ruling class wants you to be sad, wants you to hate yourself. It makes you weak and easy to pacify and control.

- August

[Red Noob]

This is where my tendency is the answer. Establishing well-planned worker communities (communes, collaboratives, cooperatives, ect.) where every worker is equally empowered.


edit:

The user above me said something about extreme life changing decisions that would be undesirable.
It is true that in practice, you'd probably face some financial struggle. You would have to go without luxuries for a while and such. But if you weight it out, it's a small price to pay for what you get.


Think about it. Nothing comes easy. Nothing. If it's good and beneficial, it's hard to get and you'll struggle. But the most determined will win.

You can keep selling your labor, you can exploit labor, or you can sell your labor for a while while saving up money with a few other workers and go even on self-emancipation. Your choice.

[tachosomoza]

Reject work, use alternative methods that the bourgeois has termed "less than legal" for making money.

[Decolonize The Left]

The user above me said something about extreme life changing decisions that would be undesirable.
It is true that in practice, you'd probably face some financial struggle. You would have to go without luxuries for a while and such. But if you weight it out, it's a small price to pay for what you get.


Think about it. Nothing comes easy. Nothing. If it's good and beneficial, it's hard to get and you'll struggle. But the most determined will win.

Yeah, that's easy for a lot of single young people to say. Some people have families, people who depend on them - some people are taking care of ailing grandparents or good friends who are sick.

For these people it's not possible to hi-diddly-ho down the mountain we go to be a co-op (who cares if we fail?). People have fucking responsibilities and for these people, just 'dropping out' of the system is not an option.

- August

[Red Noob]

Yeah, that's easy for a lot of single young people to say. Some people have families, people who depend on them - some people are taking care of ailing grandparents or good friends who are sick.

For these people it's not possible to hi-diddly-ho down the mountain we go to be a co-op (who cares if we fail?). People have fucking responsibilities and for these people, just 'dropping out' of the system is not an option.

- August

And if he's subject to any of those conditions, then you're right.

If he has nothing to loose, then why the hell not?


(who cares if we fail?)

Well-planned worker community. Not 'let's jump in and all go even on this'. A realistic plan that considers real conditions. Just like an engineer or architect or a business man factors in every little detail.

[Decolonize The Left]

And if he's subject to any of those conditions, then you're right.

If he has nothing to loose, then why the hell not?

I'm just saying that the working class has a lot to lose.


Well-planned worker community. Not 'let's jump in and all go even on this'. A realistic plan that considers real conditions. Just like an engineer or architect or a business man factors in every little detail.

I don't oppose co-ops at all, in fact I'm a huge supporter and proponent of communization in general. All I'm saying is that it takes an enormous amount of time and effort to form something productive like a functional co-op and a lot of people don't have the time or energy to do so.

- August

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm just saying that the working class has a lot to lose.

I thought they had "nothing to lose but their chains." But no, you keep buying into the bourgie trap, thinking the revolution will "just happen, spontaneously, with no actual involvment of any real people."

[Decolonize The Left]

I thought they had "nothing to lose but their chains." But no, you keep buying into the bourgie trap, thinking the revolution will "just happen, spontaneously, with no actual involvment of any real people."

*sigh*

We know that the working class doesn't have anything to lose but their chains. You try telling that to a dude who's worked for 30+ years at a job he hates to put his two kids through college.

Come on man...

- August

[Ocean Seal]

By being a wage-slave you inherently keep capitalism up and oppressing. If you want to do something against that try organizing workplaces, get linked up with an organization and so on. If you think that your job is terribly bad, and by the way that you've described it, it sounds that way, you should try something else. It might be hard, but try to find another job. That way you'll be happier. But for now just keep on trucking but then make the change and you'll be satisfied.

[Ostrinski]

6000 years of human history prove that this is just an idealist want, devoid of any actual reality. People are aware of what they are paying attention to, not what actually benefits them. This is basically the homo economicus argument, only instead you posit a homo revolutionarus...You're pretty much talking out of your ass right now. Please substantiate what you say. A baby knows when they are hungry, but has no conception of ideology.


Oh do they? Why don't you tell all these soon to be Obama and Romney voters, because they don't seem very aware of this fact.They aren't. Hence why I said class-aware.


That joke was funny, right? About the leninists, like Hitchens was, betraying leftism, like Hitchens did?
It's because all good jokes have a grain of truth. Wise man once said "you best check yo'self, before you wreck yo'self."Yeah except that you kind of sound like a Leninist. You obviously don't think that the proletariat is capable of operating organically.

[Zav]

If you're going to stay within Capitalism, then find a non-profit job and actually benefit society. If you can't do that, then join the Union and raise some class consciousness.
If you're not, and it is possible and enjoyable to be not, then get a bunch of comrades to do it with you and PLAN. Also, do things for the community around yours so they don't think you're a bunch of dope addicts, like cleaning a park, or helping out in a soup kitchen. If you have a skilled craftsman among you, hold free classes. If you need to you can trade goods. You'll have to be careful not to fuck anything up, as the 'authorities' won't like you.

[Revolution starts with U]

You're pretty much talking out of your ass right now. Please substantiate what you say. A baby knows when they are hungry, but has no conception of ideology.

See history. If you want to say people are aware of their intersts, fine. But they are not aware of what actually benefits them, unless they are paying attention to it. It's kind-of the definition of awareness; paying attention to things.



They aren't. Hence why I said class-aware.

And do you just expect them to become more class aware over time, through magic?
The only thing that will make them more class aware is the actions of other people getting them to pay attention to it. If you think "I know we want revolution, but just become a boss anyway" is going to do that.... let's just say I think you're highly mistaken.

Yeah except that you kind of sound like a Leninist. You obviously don't think that the proletariat is capable of operating organically.
Define organically. Do I think it will just happen like magic? Certainly not.
I can tell you what I think will happen, but it will take up too much space. Suffice it to say, I think we will either have socialism or systemic crash leading to despotism. I don't think socialism is a certainty that will just happen.

[ArrowLance]

I had already agreed that it was impossible to remove yourself from the capitalist mode of production, but if working in our self interest inside of the system is what brings about revolution then certainly the bourgeoisie are also revolutionary! They are half the contradiction needed to bring about the revolution which since is inevitable requires no action.

[ArrowLance]

Reject work, use alternative methods that the bourgeois has termed "less than legal" for making money.

I feel this is also legitimate. Although not revolutionary.

[black magick hustla]

nobody cares about your shitty principles. you are not going to get a medal for being "good communist".

[Revolution starts with U]

You're not going to get communism by being a good capitalist either.

[tachosomoza]

I feel this is also legitimate. Although not revolutionary.

Care to explain why not? I've always been of the opinion that illegalism is one of the most basic forms of revolution. Fascist collaborators have been applying it for years, as a matter of fact that is how they've funded a lot of their activities.

[ArrowLance]

nobody cares about your shitty principles. you are not going to get a medal for being "good communist".

Yeah, I'm just in it for the medals! You got me!

Doing illegal things just to survive is not the same as doing illegal things in the process of working for the revolution.

[Comrade Jandar]

As revolutionary socialists we tend to shy away from moralism and idealism. On the whole I think this a good thing. However I do think revolutionary socialists should still abide by certain principles and should not completely ignore morality. Engels actually addresses this in the Anti-Duhring.

"...we find the modern bourgeois morality and beside it also proletarian morality of the future...Which then is the true one? Not one of them, in the sense of absolute finality; but certainly that morality contains the maximum elements promising permanence which, in the present, represents the overthrow of the present, represents the future, and that is proletarian morality."

To me it is impossible to divorce morality from my stance as a revolutionary socialist. While I do believe that revolution does come from the material circumstances, it is still important have certain values or "proletarian morality." Practicing what you preach is not bourgeois or idealistic. There have been many leaders in the socialist movement who have parried criticism or accusations of bourgeois behavior and practices by hiding behind materialism and claiming their critics are idealists.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

How liberal of you!

Of course leftism entails lifestyle choices. You can't have a principle and not follow it. How are we supposed to make a difference if we call ourselves leftists and then go and exploit labour? We have to eat, it's true, but we can't forget that we are leftists.

Whatever self-hatred we feel for consuming goods made affordable by third world labour exploited by capitalists and supporting the system should simply be overwhelmed by our hatred for the system and those capitalists.

Perhaps one is not really a leftist if he/she exploits labour, but the original point made by the 'liberal' (:rolleyes:) is valid, obviously you have difficulty understanding.

A Marxian, class analysis of society entails some extremely simple understanding:

There are two classes; one rules, one is ruled.

Revolution happens when the ruled rise up, in whatever fashion, against the rulers.

Socialism happens immediately when the newly politically conscious, ex-ruled class begins constructing a society (composed of the political, the economic, the social and the cultural systems) that is, essentially, post-Capitalist, post-class and post-exploitation.

Whatever you or I think, it does not matter. If we are workers, we will look after our own class interest and try to survive and eventually revolt. If we are bourgeois, then equally we will look after our own class interests. Of course, as leftists, some of us who are not chained to our factory desks will apply a sense of moral idealism to our life choices; perhaps we won't become bankers, business owners or managers. But there is nothing noble in a bourgeois purposely proletarianising themselves, immiserating themselves in the poverty that is the life of the working class under Capitalism. That is simply dis-respectful and somewhat condescending to those who life as part of the working class without choice, throughout their entire lives.

[Revolution starts with U]

As revolutionary socialists we tend to shy away from moralism and idealism. On the whole I think this a good thing. However I do think revolutionary socialists should still abide by certain principles and should not completely ignore morality. Engels actually addresses this in the Anti-Duhring.

"...we find the modern bourgeois morality and beside it also proletarian morality of the future...Which then is the true one? Not one of them, in the sense of absolute finality; but certainly that morality contains the maximum elements promising permanence which, in the present, represents the overthrow of the present, represents the future, and that is proletarian morality."

To me it is impossible to divorce morality from my stance as a revolutionary socialist. While I do believe that revolution does come from the material circumstances, it is still important have certain values or "proletarian morality." Practicing what you preach is not bourgeois or idealistic. There have been many leaders in the socialist movement who have parried criticism or accusations of bourgeois behavior and practices by hiding behind materialism and claiming their critics are idealists.

I think what often gets lost in the fray is that morals and ideals are a material reality, and they, like all other material influences, will have an effect on the future. It is fallacious to think if everybody had the purest intentions things would work out for the better. It is equally fallacious to think everything will work out for the better if nobody had any good intentions.

This leads me to my next point:


Perhaps one is not really a leftist if he/she exploits labour, but the original point made by the 'liberal' (:rolleyes:) is valid, obviously you have difficulty understanding.

A Marxian, class analysis of society entails some extremely simple understanding:

There are two classes; one rules, one is ruled.

Revolution happens when the ruled rise up, in whatever fashion, against the rulers.

Socialism happens immediately when the newly politically conscious, ex-ruled class begins constructing a society (composed of the political, the economic, the social and the cultural systems) that is, essentially, post-Capitalist, post-class and post-exploitation.

Whatever you or I think, it does not matter. If we are workers, we will look after our own class interest and try to survive and eventually revolt. If we are bourgeois, then equally we will look after our own class interests. Of course, as leftists, some of us who are not chained to our factory desks will apply a sense of moral idealism to our life choices; perhaps we won't become bankers, business owners or managers. But there is nothing noble in a bourgeois purposely proletarianising themselves, immiserating themselves in the poverty that is the life of the working class under Capitalism. That is simply dis-respectful and somewhat condescending to those who life as part of the working class without choice, throughout their entire lives.

... Especially if they still save all their money, or some other such "hoarding."

But the point is not to proletarianize yourself, and live in squalor like worker's do under capitalism. Nor is it to bourgiousie yourself and live in exploited luxury.
The point is to become socialism. If you're good at mortgaging, but you are sick of the tricks engaged by the mortgage industry, you have a choice. Find some like-minded motivated people and find a way to offer people houses without all the tricks. Start a "micro-lending" type mortgage office, make it not-for-profit even, and worker owned. You can get yourself a comfortable life by standing by your principles, and being a shining example of just how socialism can work.

[Proteus]

I'm a philanthropist, I actively give away the fruits of my labour to make rich people richer whilst my children go without.

[Proteus]

"As Owen thought of his child's future, there sprang up within him a feeling of hatred and fury against his fellow workmen. They were the enemy - those ragged-trousered philanthropists, who not only quietly submitted like so many cattle to their miserable slavery for the benefit of others, but defended it and opposed and ridiculed any suggestion of reform. They were the real oppressors - the men who spoke of themselves as 'the likes of us' who, having lived in poverty all their lives, considered that what had been good enough for them was good enough for their children"

Robert Tressell, "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists"

[El Louton]

Unionise.

[Lanky Wanker]

Drug dealing is a good option to consider.

If you are at all in any position to start a co-op, I'd recommend that. If the jobs you've been offered involve exploiting people, I'm sure the worker-friendly co-op you use the stolen money to start up would make up for it later on. Produce something a bunch of rich, middle class snobs would pay extortionate prices for -- that way you and your comrades can live a decent life without exploiting anyone.