Let's not hate or envy the rich

[Elysian]

We oppose capitalism because we oppose war, exploitation, and bigotry. We shouldn't hate or envy the rich for two reasons: first, we become that which we hate. And if we build a society on this basis, it won't last long. This is why anything built upon hate, such as soviet union, never endures. They all collapse. Love endures, love never fails.

Second, the rich are doing what we do, albeit on another level. They cling to their luxury items, just as we cling to our iPads or whatever. It is not like we freely let go of everything we have, so why would the rich give up their hold on capital and power? Rich or poor, we all have the same desire - to own things, to have power over others, and the like. So it's hypocritical to blame the rich when we too have the same weaknesses.

Anyhow, socialism has failed because it was based upon hate and envy rather than on Marx's objective analysis, which has no place for petty human emotions.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Fuck that hippy shit.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ca/Heads_on_pikes.jpg/220px-Heads_on_pikes.jpg

[piet11111]

Its called class war for a reason.

also love the pic explosive situation.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

We oppose capitalism because we oppose war, exploitation, and bigotry. We shouldn't hate or envy the rich for two reasons: first, we become that which we hate. And if we build a society on this basis, it won't last long. This is why anything built upon hate, such as soviet union, never endures. They all collapse. Love endures, love never fails.

Second, the rich are doing what we do, albeit on another level. They cling to their luxury items, just as we cling to our iPads or whatever. It is not like we freely let go of everything we have, so why would the rich give up their hold on capital and power? Rich or poor, we all have the same desire - to own things, to have power over others, and the like. So it's hypocritical to blame the rich when we too have the same weaknesses.

Anyhow, socialism has failed because it was based upon hate and envy rather than on Marx's objective analysis, which has no place for petty human emotions.
Emphasis mine.

I beg to differ. I do not want an iPad or a Mercedes. I can afford neither. I do not want power over others. Nobody here does. And we certainly don't "envy" the rich. Typical capitalist apologist ad hominem. They will not 'give up' their power, nobody here believes that.

You say we should focus on "love" instead of "hate", then claim we should focus on a Marxian analysis devoid of emotions. You subscribe to a world of idealism, then claim we should focus on materialist analyses and intellectual positions.

Troll harder.

[Per Levy]

We shouldn't hate or envy the rich for two reasons: first, we become that which we hate.

wait are you saying that if we invy and hate the rich long and strong enough we become rich ourselfs? well excuse me im gonna hating for a while...

[Elysian]

Its called class war for a reason.

also love the pic explosive situation.

I don't deny class war. I am just saying if hate is the basis of class war, then a new class, namely the bureaucracy, will take over from the capitalist class and oppress the poor. Only the names change, the poor would still suffer.

[Lobotomy]

I don't deny class war. I am just saying if hate is the basis of class war, then a new class, namely the bureaucracy, will take over from the capitalist class and oppress the poor. Only the names change, the poor would still suffer.

Hate is not the basis of class war. Hierarchy is. The ruling class does not oppress us because they "hate" us. They oppress us simply because it works in their favor.

[Prometeo liberado]

I have beautiful couch that made my room look nice. As the years went by I had kids and this nice couch took up a lot of room but stopped serving its original purpose as it is now an antique and the kids can't play on it. The up keep on it is taking money out of my kids mouths. So I get rid of it. Throw it into the dustbin of history.
Now did I hate that couch?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Fuck that hippy shit.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ca/Heads_on_pikes.jpg/220px-Heads_on_pikes.jpg


-0rgnqj2dBk

[RGacky3]

We shouldn't hate or envy the rich for two reasons: first, we become that which we hate.

I'm become rich if I hate them????

Great.

But anyway of coarse I agree, it should'nt be emotional or based on hatred, it should be rational.

Also its very easy to try and be a tough guy saying "fuck the rich" or whatever, but it does'nt help anything.

Infact mkaing it personal is a HUGE mistake, I don't give a shit who the ruling class are, I don't want an institution of the ruling class, I don't hate the people in that position, I don't want ANYONE in that position.

[bcbm]

According to the report, 43 percent of households in America -- some 127.5 million people -- are liquid-asset poor. If one of these households experiences a sudden loss of income, caused, for example, by a layoff or a medical emergency, it will fall below the poverty line within three months. People in these households simply don't have enough cash to make it for very long in a crisis.



Nordstrom has a waiting list for a Chanel sequined tweed coat with a $9,010 price. Neiman Marcus has sold out in almost every size of Christian Louboutin “Bianca” platform pumps, at $775 a pair. Mercedes-Benz said it sold more cars (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mercedes-benz-reports-july-sales-of-21065-126594168.html) last month in the United States than it had in any July in five years.

...

The luxury category has posted 10 consecutive months of sales increases compared with the year earlier, even as overall consumer spending on categories like furniture and electronics has been tepid, according to the research service MasterCard Advisors SpendingPulse. In July, the luxury segment had an 11.6 percent increase, the biggest monthly gain in more than a year.

http://www.designlessbetter.com/blogless/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/guillotine.jpg

[Zukunftsmusik]

We oppose capitalism because we oppose war, exploitation, and bigotry. We shouldn't hate or envy the rich for two reasons: first, we become that which we hate. And if we build a society on this basis, it won't last long. This is why anything built upon hate, such as soviet union, never endures. They all collapse. Love endures, love never fails.

Anyhow, socialism has failed because it was based upon hate and envy rather than on Marx's objective analysis, which has no place for petty human emotions.

What a great objective, rational analysis. I say.

[dodger]

We oppose capitalism because we oppose war, exploitation, and bigotry. We shouldn't hate or envy the rich for two reasons: first, we become that which we hate. And if we build a society on this basis, it won't last long. This is why anything built upon hate, such as soviet union, never endures. They all collapse. Love endures, love never fails.

Second, the rich are doing what we do, albeit on another level. They cling to their luxury items, just as we cling to our iPads or whatever. It is not like we freely let go of everything we have, so why would the rich give up their hold on capital and power? Rich or poor, we all have the same desire - to own things, to have power over others, and the like. So it's hypocritical to blame the rich when we too have the same weaknesses.

Anyhow, socialism has failed because it was based upon hate and envy rather than on Marx's objective analysis, which has no place for petty human emotions.

Why are Christians such killjoys? When in power they banned dancing around the maypole and mince pies at Christmas. Now they want to ban class hatred.

We enjoy hating the rich. We like nothing better than to see them fall, disgraced, bankrupted et al.

It's one of the few innocent joys left to us. WOULD YOU EVEN DENY US THAT SMALL PLEASURE?

It is a victimless crime, all too often, if crime it be........????? Get a grip. Are you in training for the sainthood? Now we are to be instructed who to like and who to hate.

E L Y S I A N I have to say for the 3rd time.....You are.............. I N C O R R I G I B L E .:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
:cursing::cursing::cursing::cursing::cursing::curs ing::cursing::cursing::cursing:

[ВАЛТЕР]

Personally, I want to massacre the bourgeoisie. By any means necessary...

[RGacky3]

Personally, I want to massacre the bourgeoisie. By any means necessary...

If you murder every CEO in the country, nothin will change, new members of the board would step it up.

The point is its a stupid emotion. (btw, bourgeoisie is a social relation).

[Bostana]

http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/french/liberty.jpg

Lets just settle it the Old fashioned way.

[Veovis]

Les capitalistes à la lanterne!

rauZMrXqRu0

ETA: OK, so Rusty posted the German version up above, but I like the cinematic sequence, and the fact that Edith makes an appearance, too.

[GallowsBird]

It is a bit hard not to hate a group that has kicked you out of your home (shoot all landlords), put restrictions on access to education meaning to be well educated you have to be even poorer (university is still mostly for the well off), made it so you are unlikely to get richer, and generally kept you in the gutter.

Maybe some of "the rich" are OK, but as a class they would be more useful as compost as far as I am concerned.

[Elysian]

I'm become rich if I hate them????

Great.

But anyway of coarse I agree, it should'nt be emotional or based on hatred, it should be rational.

Also its very easy to try and be a tough guy saying "fuck the rich" or whatever, but it does'nt help anything.

Infact mkaing it personal is a HUGE mistake, I don't give a shit who the ruling class are, I don't want an institution of the ruling class, I don't hate the people in that position, I don't want ANYONE in that position.

That's my point. Fight against the system but without any hate. Most people become hateful and bitter. That doesn't help. In fact, nobody is going to listen to bitter people who rant all day about the rich. Provide people with solutions, live an exemplary life, focus less on ranting and more on action.

[Elysian]

It is a bit hard not to hate a group that has kicked you out of your home (shoot all landlords), put restrictions on access to education meaning to be well educated you have to be even poorer (university is still mostly for the well off), made it so you are unlikely to get richer, and generally kept you in the gutter.

Maybe some of "the rich" are OK, but as a class they would be more useful as compost as far as I am concerned.

The rich are not doing it because they hate the poor. They are doing it to protect themselves. But then, we all do things to protect ourselves.

[Bostana]

It is a bit hard not to hate a group that has kicked you out of your home (shoot all landlords), put restrictions on access to education meaning to be well educated you have to be even poorer (university is still mostly for the well off), made it so you are unlikely to get richer, and generally kept you in the gutter.

Maybe some of "the rich" are OK, but as a class they would be more useful as compost as far as I am concerned.

GallowsBird is right.

How can you not hate them?
These people don't give a rat's ass about you they wish the worst for you. Not one of them care about us. All they care about is money, how to make it, how save it, how to spend it, and how to steel it.

They namely steel it from the proletariat because this Capitalist Government allows them to. Walmarts been taking life insurance policies on their employees and naming themselves the benefactor. They make money off of someone's death.
Who Could do That?

So how can you not hate them?

[Veovis]

Provide people with solutions,

Shoot the rich


live an exemplary life,

by shooting the rich.


focus less on ranting and more on action.

Like shooting the rich.

[RGacky3]

It is a bit hard not to hate a group that has kicked you out of your home (shoot all landlords), put restrictions on access to education meaning to be well educated you have to be even poorer (university is still mostly for the well off), made it so you are unlikely to get richer, and generally kept you in the gutter.

Maybe some of "the rich" are OK, but as a class they would be more useful as compost as far as I am concerned.


Of coarse its natural to hate someone that did something to hurt you, that does'nt justify however a guy hating all balck people because he got robbed once by a black person.

A class is an institution, its a social relation, NOT a group of people.

[PhoenixAsh]

first, we become that which we hate.

So if I hate the rich enough I become rich? Sounds like a super duuper deal....seeing as I currently have about $50 to survive untill the end of March.



And if we build a society on this basis, it won't last long. This is why anything built upon hate, such as soviet union, never endures. They all collapse. Love endures, love never fails.

Riiiight. So explain breakups, divorces etc.


Second, the rich are doing what we do, albeit on another level. They cling to their luxury items, just as we cling to our iPads or whatever.

Mostly the working class is clinging on for dear live. I think the vast majority of the working class would LOVE to be able to cling on to an ipad. But unfortunately most can not afford that. Most have to make every penny count in order to pay the bills and get food on the table.



It is not like we freely let go of everything we have, so why would the rich give up their hold on capital and power? Rich or poor, we all have the same desire - to own things, to have power over others, and the like. So it's hypocritical to blame the rich when we too have the same weaknesses.

You DO understand that they are rich because most of us are poor don't you?

And what is more....they are not only clinging to their status...they are actively trying to expand it at our expense.



Anyhow, socialism has failed because it was based upon hate and envy rather than on Marx's objective analysis, which has no place for petty human emotions.

ehh....yeah sure buddy boy. :rolleyes:

[Bostana]

Of coarse its natural to hate someone that did something to hurt you, that does'nt justify however a guy hating all balck people because he got robbed once by a black person.

A class is an institution, its a social relation, NOT a group of people.

The rich have a tendency to do it more than once.
And most of them do it.
They lie, steel money, take money. They lay off half of their employees make the other half do 3x the work and have their wages stay at a flat rate.

[RGacky3]

First of all, its so easy just to be a mindless tough guy saying "shoot the rich," but it does'nt help anything, you can leave the emotional shit to Michael Moore, the intelligent thing to do is to deal with the systemic problems, the institutions, the class relations.

Again, sure hating individuals that have done stuff to you is understandable, the same with hating an instiution that put people in that position is not only understandable its appropriate.

But lets put it this way, if you happened to be rich, either born into it, or made it on the stock market or something, would you deserve to be hated as an individual? Most of you, if you had the opportunity, would love to be rich, or at least have enough money to not be forced into proletarianization.

[piet11111]

Just look at the republican presidential candidates and the things they say and realize that they are trying to appeal to the masses (yeah the most reactionary part of it but still) then imagine what views they hold that they feel that can not be expressed.

Look at what is happening to Greece and what they want to force on all of us.

Objectively speaking they are waging an all out assault on our living standards for the sake of preserving the system that allows them to make hundreds of millions of dollars.
And i bloody damn well deserve to hate them for it ! they earned it.

[RGacky3]

The rich have a tendency to do it more than once.
And most of them do it.
They lie, steel money, take money. They lay off half of their employees make the other half do 3x the work and have their wages stay at a flat rate.

And if you understood marxism you'd realize that they do that necessarily, its not like they do it out of some sort of immorality, or amorality, they MUST do that that.

If you were a capitalist you'd do the same.

[Bostana]

And if you understood marxism you'd realize that they do that necessarily, its not like they do it out of some sort of immorality, or amorality, they MUST do that that.

If you were a capitalist you'd do the same.

If I were Capitalist maybe.
But I have a Heart.

Where does Marx say that?

[RGacky3]

Where does Marx say that?

Its the basic idea of historical materialism.


If I were Capitalist maybe.
But I have a Heart.


Most Capitalists are totally detached from the results of their actions, the same way a guy buying clothes is detached from the fact that it was made by sweat shop labor.

The point is hating someone is rediculous, its a moral judgement, hating the institution is the reasonable position.

BTW


The rich have a tendency to do it more than once.


In the US there is a higher crime rate amung black people than white people, an ignorant person would say "see, that gives me the right to hate black people."

But if you were smarter you'd see the systemic background for it, i.e. systemic racism, insitutional racism, the poverty that is imposed on black and latino people at a higher rate, and the fac that poverty breeds crime in anyone.

An inteligent person understanding the way capitalism works would react the same way to rich people, you'd understand the systemic background behind their actions and not just say "they're assholes, I hate them."

[GallowsBird]

The rich are not doing it because they hate the poor. They are doing it to protect themselves. But then, we all do things to protect ourselves.

The fact they are indifferent about it doesn't make it any less bad; it makes it worse.

[Bostana]

Its the basic idea of historical materialism

Okay so let me know when you find where Marx supports this idea.




Most Capitalists are totally detached from the results of their actions, the same way a guy buying clothes is detached from the fact that it was made by sweat shop labor.
I remind you it's the rich people that create these sweatshops. Like Bill Bowerman and Philip Knight


The point is hating someone is rediculous, its a moral judgement, hating the institution is the reasonable position.

So wait we can't hat them but they can do whatever the Hell they feel like to us? That's stupid. They kill people and they know they kill people. They don't care they don't do anything about it. They just keep doing whatever the Hell they feel like.
I can't believe your sympathizing with them.



In the US there is a higher crime rate amung black people than white people, an ignorant person would say "see, that gives me the right to hate black people."

But if you were smarter you'd see the systemic background for it, i.e. systemic racism, insitutional racism, the poverty that is imposed on black and latino people at a higher rate, and the fac that poverty breeds crime in anyone.

Okay? What's this have to do with Race?



An inteligent person understanding the way capitalism works would react the same way to rich people, you'd understand the systemic background behind their actions and not just say "they're assholes, I hate them."

I understand the system, Do Whatever you can to make Money." In that case they treat the Proletariat like shit to make money. They don't even care. And yet you still approve of it.

[GallowsBird]

Of coarse its natural to hate someone that did something to hurt you,

It is. I am not saying, necessarily, that it is right (though I shall not lose sleep personally); but I think it is unlikely that the poor will stop hating the rich.


that does'nt justify however a guy hating all balck people because he got robbed once by a black person.

No it doesn't, however, while black people didn't become black by stealing pigments and making other people white the rich have become rich by making others poor. And thus I don't think this analogy fits.


A class is an institution, its a social relation, NOT a group of people.

It is a social relation and a group of people.

[Elysian]

First of all, its so easy just to be a mindless tough guy saying "shoot the rich," but it does'nt help anything, you can leave the emotional shit to Michael Moore, the intelligent thing to do is to deal with the systemic problems, the institutions, the class relations.

Again, sure hating individuals that have done stuff to you is understandable, the same with hating an instiution that put people in that position is not only understandable its appropriate.

But lets put it this way, if you happened to be rich, either born into it, or made it on the stock market or something, would you deserve to be hated as an individual? Most of you, if you had the opportunity, would love to be rich, or at least have enough money to not be forced into proletarianization.

The last line says it all. If one of these revlefters won the lottery, they'd ignore the poor completely and spend all the money on themselves. In short, they'd do what they accuse the rich folks of doing.

[Jimmie Higgins]

We oppose capitalism because we oppose war, exploitation, and bigotry. We shouldn't hate or envy the richWho said that hate and envy even matter? People are opposed to the system, people hate the way society is set up, might hate the people who uphold that system, but it makes no difference to actually replacing or not replacing the system. Do people take into consideration the personal emotions of slaves who rebelled in the US south or Latin America or the Caribbean? No, because it doesn't matter, getting rid of that state of affairs is the only issue in the big picture. Slavery apologists certainty and probably even those softly sympathetic to abolition denounced the anger and bitterness of slave revolts, but ultimately that was unimportant to the struggle to end slavery.


for two reasons: first, we become that which we hate.I don't know where this has ever really been true when you talk about class struggles. The Russian Revolution didn't fail because of anger or win because of anger (since there can be plenty of angry revolts that are too unorganized to actually change things) it failed because working class power was not maintained.


And if we build a society on this basis, it won't last long.Well there's a grain of truth in that. For workers to have Revolutionary consciousness they need to not simply be against capitalism or the current form of it, but to be consciously acting in their own interests as a class in order to replace capitalist rule with working class rule. But love or hate doesn't make much decisive difference and probably most people at a time of revolution would feel both a hatred for the oppressors and love for humanity and the possibility for a better way of living. But what really matters is how organized workers are and how conscious of their ability and the necessity for them to run society.


This is why anything built upon hate, such as soviet union, never endures. They all collapse. Love endures, love never fails.I'm sure the party bureaucrats LOVED their system. Again they didn't fail because of hatred, they failed because working class power wasn't maintained.


Second, the rich are doing what we do, albeit on another level. They cling to their luxury items, just as we cling to our iPads or whatever. It is not like we freely let go of everything we have, so why would the rich give up their hold on capital and power? Rich or poor, we all have the same desire - to own things, to have power over others, and the like. So it's hypocritical to blame the rich when we too have the same weaknesses.Bill Gates gives tons of money away. Guess what, he's still a ruling class ofey who uses his money to try and deform public education in the US. Besides is hanging onto personal possessions when an iPod might have cost me the same as a week worth of labor the same "greed" as the entertainment companies who want to prevent people from sharing music or the banks who want to remove people from their homes or the government and military who want to control the middle east so that US capitalism can have an edge over China? Is the "greed" of fortune 500 companies hording their money and downsizing or reducing the pay of their workforce the same as the "greed" of someone on welfare scamming the system to get more money or food or hording their own food? No, one is just survival or wanting to maintain your possessions which are scarce and the other is about domination and control and power. There's no equivalency.


Anyhow, socialism has failed because it was based upon hate and envy rather than on Marx's objective analysis, which has no place for petty human emotions.Is this why your trolling has failed too? The emotions people have in struggle are periphery and induvidual - some people react to adverse situations with anger, despair, determination, optomism or whatever. I think it's a total straw-man though to try and characterize marxism as being motivated or founded on basically petty negativity. People were fighting the rich and the system long before there were revolutionary socialists, anarchists and long before Marx. I think what Marxism adds though is an optimistic and humanistic answer to these pre-existing class struggles: if people work together they can end their common oppression in other words, workers of the world unite you have nothing to loose but your chains. That's a long way off from: workers of the world, despise the rich and grab their shit.

[dodger]

The last line says it all. If one of these revlefters won the lottery, they'd ignore the poor completely and spend all the money on themselves. In short, they'd do what they accuse the rich folks of doing.

The first thing I would do, Elysian, is buy you a brand new Halo/ Then get my coachman to give you a dam good hiding!!

[RGacky3]

Okay so let me know when you find where Marx supports this idea.


His class analysis states that classes will work in their self interest within class systems necessarily, and not only their self interest, but the nature of capitalism requires them to maximise profits constantly.


I remind you it's the rich people that create these sweatshops. Like Bill Bowerman and Philip Knight


Of coarse, poor people can't create sweatshops because they can't afford it. Thats like saying "all boating accidents happen in the water."


So wait we can't hat them but they can do whatever the Hell they feel like to us? That's stupid. They kill people and they know they kill people. They don't care they don't do anything about it. They just keep doing whatever the Hell they feel like.
I can't believe your sympathizing with them.


Its not sympathizing.

They can't do whatever they want to us, but the way things are is the direct result of capitalism.

You can hate them if you want, but its stupid, irrational and does'nt help anything.


Okay? What's this have to do with Race?


Its an analogy, the same reasoning you use against rich people as people is used against black people by racists.


I understand the system, Do Whatever you can to make Money." In that case they treat the Proletariat like shit to make money. They don't even care. And yet you still approve of it.

No, I don't approve of it. I am AGAINST capitalism, as long as you have capitalism you'll have capitalists.


It is. I am not saying, necessarily, that it is right (though I shall not lose sleep personally); but I think it is unlikely that the poor will stop hating the rich.


A lot of the poor don't hate the rich, many of them don't blame capitalism, they should though (blame capitalism).

BTW, its the same reasing Herman cain uses "if your not rich blame yourself," Its the SYSTEM, its SYSTEMIC. As long as you'll have the system you'll have capitalists.


No it doesn't, however, while black people didn't become black by stealing pigments and making other people white the rich have become rich by making others poor. And thus I don't think this analogy fits.


of coarse not, but what racists do, is judge people morally for things that are systemic, and they base it on race.

The rich have become rich by making others poor, which is the basic way to get rich in capitlaism, thats how capitalism works. So of coarse they do.


It is a social relation and a group of people.

Its not a group of people, its a social relation, now of coarse there are people that fulfill that role, some fulfill both roles, but again, its a role.

You take out all the cpaitalists in the world, and replace them with progressive leftists, but leave the system, you'll get the same results.

[The Young Pioneer]

Guys, guys, let's be a little more appreciative to OP.

After all, hatred and envy are sins- He's just trying to save our souls!!!!one!!!!

How nice.


:sneaky:

[RGacky3]

Its funny how when we talk about it being wrong to support freedom of speach and oppose political killings in the USSR or sending people to gulags for ideology we are called idealists, or moralists, and thats not the materialist way to look at it.

Yet something purely emotional and idealist like hatred for people who act necessarily within a capitalist system is something else, and we should just flush historical materialism down the toilet when it comes to that.

[Night Ripper]

Fuck that hippy shit.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ca/Heads_on_pikes.jpg/220px-Heads_on_pikes.jpg

What a bunch of sicks fucks. You think murder is justified because you are middle class?

[danyboy27]

The rich are not doing it because they hate the poor. They are doing it to protect themselves. But then, we all do things to protect ourselves.

If tomorow the rich would agree to step down and give back their corporation to the people who work in it i really doubt they would be in danger.

Its more than self-preservation my friend, they are doing it for sport, it became some sort of sick game to control the lives of all these peoples and that what you get when you let a fews individual control the lives of so many people at their fingertip, they become drunk and start killing people.

Do you think the workers like it when there is a lock-out or a factory occupation, when they are forced to eat scraps for weeks and waste their precious time in this earth outside in the cold of the picket lines?

Its self-preservation my friend, self preservation against the boss who find is jolly amusing to fire 10 worker so he can claim a profit increase of 15% and buy his fucking boat.

[Elysian]

If tomorow the rich would agree to step down and give back their corporation to the people who work in it i really doubt they would be in danger.

Its more than self-preservation my friend, they are doing it for sport, it became some sort of sick game to control the lives of all these peoples and that what you get when you let a fews individual control the lives of so many people at their fingertip, they become drunk and start killing people.

Do you think the workers like it when there is a lock-out or a factory occupation, when they are forced to eat scraps for weeks and waste their precious time in this earth outside in the cold of the picket lines?

Its self-preservation my friend, self preservation against the boss who find is jolly amusing to fire 10 worker so he can claim a profit increase of 15% and buy his fucking boat.

If it's as sadistic as you say, then perhaps there is a just cause. But I do not know, and I always thought it was owing to self-preservation, or because the system is forcing them to.

[Veovis]

If it's as sadistic as you say, then perhaps there is a just cause. But I do not know, and I always thought it was owing to self-preservation, or because the system is forcing them to.

Sadism or self-preservation - their motives don't matter. I know I won't shed any tears for the bourgeois parasites if they're strung up by their entrails and hung from the streetlamps. :lol:

[Veovis]

What a bunch of sicks fucks. You think murder is justified because you are middle class?

You're an 'anarcho-capitalist' right? Mob rule is right up your alley.

Or maybe those guys should have just changed their 'voluntary jurisdictions' before their heads were put on the pikes.

[Night Ripper]

You're an 'anarcho-capitalist' right? Mob rule is right up your alley.

Or maybe those guys should have just changed their 'voluntary jurisdictions' before their heads were put on the pikes.

Anarchism is not being ruled by a mob. I'm not sure where you got that idea from. Also, you should actually understand polycentric legal theory before spouting off.

[Veovis]

Anarchism is not being ruled by a mob. I'm not sure where you got that idea from.

No, but anarcho-capitalism is. As long as there are class antagonisms in society a state is necessary to keep them in check and act as an organ of oppression. If it is removed another one will pop up to take its place, be it a corporate oligarchy or some "privatized police force" that grows powerful enough to simply take control (hey, whatever's best for the bottom line, amiright?)

[RGacky3]

Anarchism is not being ruled by a mob. I'm not sure where you got that idea from. Also, you should actually understand polycentric legal theory before spouting off.

Anarcho-capitalism is basicaly somalia.

[Night Ripper]

No, but anarcho-capitalism is. As long as there are class antagonisms in society a state is necessary to keep them in check and act as an organ of oppression. If it is removed another one will pop up to take its place, be it a corporate oligarchy or some "privatized police force" that grows powerful enough to simply take control (hey, whatever's best for the bottom line, amiright?)

Can you say that again without all the jargon? Organ of oppression? Seriously?

[ngphuc2k]

Oh. but don't have

[Rusty Shackleford]

Les capitalistes à la lanterne!

rauZMrXqRu0

ETA: OK, so Rusty posted the German version up above, but I like the cinematic sequence, and the fact that Edith makes an appearance, too.
i wanted to do an edith version but i couldnt find the one that was just audio.

[danyboy27]

Can you say that again without all the jargon? Organ of oppression? Seriously?

You need a state to enforce property right precisely beccause of the conflict of interest between the worker and the exploiter.

No state=endless riots until 1 big corporation decide to create his own uniform version of authority based on guns, or until the worker takeover everything.

Worker and capitalists are 2 competing classes, without a verry verry big stick called the state, there would be nothing to stop us from running you over.

Too bad you moron put me in your ignore list, you could have learned something.

[eyeheartlenin]

Elysian wrote,
... We shouldn't hate or envy the rich for two reasons: first, we become that which we hate....

Forgive my saying this, but I have despised the rich for most of my adult life, and I am still poor, so I have to dissent from the claim that "we become that which we hate." :)

And I also think that a strong proletarian class consciousness, what you called, "building a society on that basis," is necessary in the struggle against the exploiting class. The overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the subsequent nationalization of the means of production, will provide an excellent basis for a new egalitarian society.

I believe Elysian's post is an accurate reflection of the fact that Elysian's politics are greatly influenced by religious faith, and it shows that particular mix (a little bit of leftist sentiment, plus a lot of religious rhetoric) is not a helpful guide to proletarian politics. It is also not true that workers or leftists are doing the same thing as the exploiting class. They are the exploiters, and we're the ones being exploited. Maybe an attentive reading of the Communist Manifesto would help to clarify that distinction, if experience itself is not enough to clarify it.

[danyboy27]

If it's as sadistic as you say, then perhaps there is a just cause. But I do not know, and I always thought it was owing to self-preservation, or because the system is forcing them to.

the system could engineer this kind of person that true, but that hardly an excuse for the way they play god.

a true leader should have has a goal to abolish his position, not to increase the power it have.

[piet11111]

What a bunch of sicks fucks. You think murder is justified because you are middle class?

Is wage slavery justified by not being the owners of the means of production ?

Also what middle class ? we are the proletariat !

And Rgacky the capitalists are not only making a cost benefit analysis the De Beers know damn well they are selling blood diamonds just to name 1 particular set of cappies by their name.

Then you can start with the insurance company's that hire specialists in order to weasel their way out of paying for procedures that their policy's cover.

Or the pharmaceutical company's that do everything they can to prevent their patented meds from coming into the public domain for cheap mass production.

Or the weapons manufacturers and especially those that make landmines and clusterbombs.

Capitalism kills no doubt about it and any means necessary to end it are entirely justified.

[Night Ripper]

Capitalism kills no doubt about it and any means necessary to end it are entirely justified.

Even murder? Torture? Where will you stop?

[Minima]

Poor people don't control the means of production, rich people do, to that degree, i pity poor people and resent rich people, but they're still people in the end. I don't blame poor people for being dehumanized and worked to death, but I sure as hell don't celebrate them for it.

The same goes with rich people. perhaps 'objectively' they all ought to be shot, but that should have nothing to do with hating them.

The Interrogation of the Good - Bertolt Brecht
Step forward: we hear
That you are a good man.
You cannot be bought, but the lightning
Which strikes the house, also
Cannot be bought.
You hold to what you said.
But what did you say?
You are honest, you say your opinion.
Which opinion?
You are brave.
Against whom?
You are wise.
For whom?
You do not consider your personal advantages.
Whose advantages do you consider then?
You are a good friend.
Are you also a good friend of the good people?
Hear us then: we know.
You are our enemy. This is why we shall
Now put you in front of a wall. But in consideration
of your merits and good qualities
We shall put you in front of a good wall and shoot you
With a good bullet from a good gun and bury you
With a good shovel in the good earth.

[NoMasters]

We oppose capitalism because we oppose war, exploitation, and bigotry. We shouldn't hate or envy the rich for two reasons: first, we become that which we hate. And if we build a society on this basis, it won't last long. This is why anything built upon hate, such as soviet union, never endures. They all collapse. Love endures, love never fails.

Second, the rich are doing what we do, albeit on another level. They cling to their luxury items, just as we cling to our iPads or whatever. It is not like we freely let go of everything we have, so why would the rich give up their hold on capital and power? Rich or poor, we all have the same desire - to own things, to have power over others, and the like. So it's hypocritical to blame the rich when we too have the same weaknesses.

Anyhow, socialism has failed because it was based upon hate and envy rather than on Marx's objective analysis, which has no place for petty human emotions.

Dude you aren't even rich or wealthy lol

[piet11111]

Even murder? Torture? Where will you stop?

Depends on context take for instance the most obvious example of the Tsar and his family being shot to prevent the white army's from freeing them and potentially reinstalling them onto the throne.

Is it regrettable that the children died ? in my eyes it is regrettable but the continuation of the monarchy would have been worse so the ends justified the means.
Fortunately for us its not a problem we have to deal with because the bolsheviks permanently solved it for us.
(and before anyone balks at my opinion ask yourself how often have you regretted the fate of the french aristocrats that faced the guillotine to instal a bourgeois regime or is that a historical blind spot for your favored ideology ?)

I admit i am quite comfortable with the old saying that the ends justify the means and that in the end if it serves the greater good its justified.
But i know i would not have been able to shoot the tsars kids but i also would not have been crying myself to sleep over it either.

[mykittyhasaboner]

OP is stupid and probably rich as fuck.

[Bostana]

His class analysis states that classes will work in their self interest within class systems necessarily, and not only their self interest, but the nature of capitalism requires them to maximise profits constantly.

Which is what made it wrong.
Marx says it was an exploitation of labour.




Of coarse, poor people can't create sweatshops because they can't afford it. Thats like saying "all boating accidents happen in the water."

What? when did I say something about the poor owning sweatshops. I said what the rich create sweatshops for the exploitation of Labour, which is what Marx taught.



Its not sympathizing.

They can't do whatever they want to us, but the way things are is the direct result of capitalism.

You can hate them if you want, but its stupid, irrational and does'nt help anything.

Making excuses for them is sympathizing.
Hatred fuels the need for a Revolution.




Its an analogy, the same reasoning you use against rich people as people is used against black people by racists.

The difference is Black people didn't kill the Rich. But the rich kill the Black people and the rest of the Proletariat at that.



A lot of the poor don't hate the rich, many of them don't blame capitalism, they should though (blame capitalism).

I know they Should

[Bostana]

Even murder? Torture? Where will you stop?

Capitalist do murder people.
They do it all the time when they reject people healthcare, lay off millions of people, steal from the Proletariat, Force people to do 3x the amount of work they were doing.

[Bostana]

What a bunch of sicks fucks. You think murder is justified because you are middle class?

So murder is justified for the Rich then?
Because you obviously don't care.

[Night Ripper]

Capitalist do murder people.
They do it all the time when they reject people healthcare, lay off millions of people, steal from the Proletariat, Force people to do 3x the amount of work they were doing.

So if I'm a doctor, I refuse to treat you and you die, that's murder?


So murder is justified for the Rich then?
Because you obviously don't care.

Murder in the sense that most sane adults define it, no. If by murder you mean "refusing to provide services" then yes, anyone can choose not to provide for another person.

[Bostana]

So if I'm a doctor, I refuse to treat you and you die, that's murder?
Depends if I wanted you to treat me and you refused to it is.




Murder in the sense that most sane adults define it, no. If by murder you mean "refusing to provide services" then yes, anyone can choose not to provide for another person.

Murder in the sense that they don't give a fuck they're killing people by starvation and unemployment.

[Night Ripper]

Depends if I wanted you to treat me and you refused to it is.

No it's not. Letting you die is not the same as causing you to die.

[Bostana]

No it's not. Letting you die is not the same as causing you to die.

So if ask a doctor to give me heart surgery that I needed and he refuses that isn't murder?

[Night Ripper]

So if ask a doctor to give me heart surgery that I needed and he refuses that isn't murder?

No. You were going to die anyways. The doctor is simply refusing to intervene in your natural death.

[Bostana]

No. You were going to die anyways. The doctor is simply refusing to intervene in your natural death.

By letting it happen

P.S. Your completely ignoring the fact that the rich still kill the Proletariat.

[Night Ripper]

Your completely ignoring the fact that the rich still kill the Proletariat.

Classes don't kill. People do.

[Bostana]

Classes don't kill. People do.

So when the C.E.O.'s dump toxic waste into a lake that kills people that's not murder? Or when he lay off millions of people to starve? But before they die they take out a Life insurance policy on his employees naming themselves the benefactor. So when they die they get Thousands of more dollars while the family with the dead relative get's nothing. Does this not seem wrong to you?

[Night Ripper]

So when the C.E.O.'s dump toxic waste into a lake that kills people that's not murder?

That's murder. It shouldn't be allowed. The problem is, the government owns the lakes so they can be bribed into allowing it even if the people around the lake don't want it.


Or when he lay off millions of people to starve? But before they die they take out a Life insurance policy on his employees naming themselves the benefactor.

What insurance company is dumb enough to fall for that? Also, it's wrong but not everything that's wrong is something that should be policed. Cheating on your partner is wrong but should you go to jail for it? No.


So when they die they get Thousands of more dollars while the family with the dead relative get's nothing. Does this not seem wrong to you?

Of course it's wrong. Like I said though, just because something is wrong doesn't mean you get to police it. Next you'll be arresting pretty girls for breaking hearts.

[eric922]

No it's not. Letting you die is not the same as causing you to die.
Perhaps not, legally. However, I really don't see any real ethical difference. If you are about to fall off a cliff and are clinging to a piece of grass about to fall and I just walk by and let you fall, did I kill you? No, but I am still responsible for your death, because I had the power to prevent it and choose not to.

[Bostana]

That's murder. It shouldn't be allowed. The problem is, the government owns the lakes so they can be bribed into allowing it even if the people around the lake don't want it.

They shouldn't allow it.




What insurance company is dumb enough to fall for that? Also, it's wrong but not everything that's wrong is something that should be policed. Cheating on your partner is wrong but should you go to jail for it? No.
Apparently they "fall" for it all the time.

http://consumerist.com/2007/07/walmart-took-secret-life-insurance-policies-out-on-employees-collected-after-their-death.html



Of course it's wrong. Like I said though, just because something is wrong doesn't mean you get to police it. Next you'll be arresting pretty girls for breaking hearts.

There's a difference between breaking hearts and starving people.

[Night Ripper]

http://consumerist.com/2007/07/walmart-took-secret-life-insurance-policies-out-on-employees-collected-after-their-death.html

How many of those people died because Wal-Mart fired them and they starved to death?


There's a difference between breaking hearts and starving people.

Cheating on your partner and allowing someone to starve are both immoral, correct? Why then should we allow one but not the other? Why don't you just make everything that's immoral also illegal?

[danyboy27]

That's murder. It shouldn't be allowed. The problem is, the government owns the lakes so they can be bribed into allowing it even if the people around the lake don't want it.

i dont see the problem, corporations and owner can be bribed has well. the fact that the lake is public of private dosnt change a dime.



What insurance company is dumb enough to fall for that? Also, it's wrong but not everything that's wrong is something that should be policed. Cheating on your partner is wrong but should you go to jail for it? No.
.
Walmart does that and a lot of big corporation do it.




Of course it's wrong. Like I said though, just because something is wrong doesn't mean you get to police it. Next you'll be arresting pretty girls for breaking hearts.
There is wrong, and there is dead wrong. dont you think killing should be policed?

[Bostana]

How many of those people died because Wal-Mart fired them and they starved to death?

I'm talking about the Insurance companies allowing them to do this. Do you not find this sick?
They when their employees are having bad health problems they take out the life insurance policy.




Cheating on your partner and allowing someone to starve are both immoral, correct? Why then should we allow one but not the other? Why don't you just make everything that's immoral also illegal?

One leads to painful death.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Let's all make a materialist analysis of why the Soviet Union fell everybody.

The Soviet Union was based on hate...

:lol:

[Night Ripper]

One leads to painful death.

So does your refusal to give up your spare kidney. Do you think you should be forced to donate your spare organs?

[Bostana]

So does your refusal to give up your spare kidney. Do you think you should be forced to donate your spare organs?

Why would I refuse?

[Bostana]

Let's all make a materialist analysis of why the Soviet Union fell everybody.

The Soviet Union was based on hate...

:lol:

You serious or just joking?

[eric922]

Wait I shouldn't hate the rich, but I thought my hate made me powerful?

[Night Ripper]

Why would I refuse?

What if you did? Should you be able to?

[Ostrinski]

You're just as dogmatic as those that try to inflame hatred on the premise that it will intensify the class struggle. We shouldn't be trying to alter natural developments. Insofar as we do this, we degenerate our analytical methods into idealistic idleness. Humans hate people who exploit and oppress them. It's a natural, practical development.

Elysian, you frozen pile of shit, could you look into the eyes of a rape victim and tell them not to hate their offender?

[Bostana]

What if you did? Should you be able to?

I should be able to but I don't know anyone who would refuse

[Night Ripper]

I should be able to but I don't know anyone who would refuse

Then we are at least part way there. I don't know anyone who would refuse to give a meal to a starving person but they should be able to.

[Bostana]

You're just as dogmatic as those that try to inflame hatred on the premise that it will intensify the class struggle. We shouldn't be trying to alter natural developments. Insofar as we do this, we degenerate our analytical methods into idealistic idleness. Humans hate people who exploit and oppress them. It's a natural, practical development.

I am saying that the Proletariat has a right to hate the rich who fire them just to increase their profits.

[Ostrinski]

I am saying that the Proletariat has a right to hate the rich who fire them just to increase their profits.Wasn't talking to you. But Ok.

[Bostana]

Then we are at least part way there. I don't know anyone who would refuse to give a meal to a starving person but they should be able to.

Yes and......

[Bostana]

Wasn't talking to you. But Ok.

O sorry didn't mean to come across as a Dick

[Night Ripper]

Yes and......

Good then we agree. End of discussion.

[Bostana]

Good then we agree. End of discussion.

What?
What does this have to do with The Bourgeoisie Class ruining the life's of thousands of Proletariats

[Night Ripper]

What?
What does this have to do with The Bourgeoisie Class ruining the life's of thousands of Proletariats

Uh oh, he's reverted back to his default programming. Call maintenance!

Just kidding. You're a good sport. I'm not interested in continuing with you. It's not going anywhere.

Have fun stormin' da castle.

[Bostana]

Uh oh, he's reverted back to his default programming. Call maintenance!

Just kidding. You're a good sport. I'm not interested in continuing with you. It's not going anywhere.

Have fun stormin' da castle.

You're not making any sense?

[Veovis]

So if I'm a doctor, I refuse to treat you and you die, that's murder?

Well, yes. Ever hear of the Hippocratic oath? At the very least you'd lose your license to practice medicine.

[kuros]

Fuck that hippy shit.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ca/Heads_on_pikes.jpg/220px-Heads_on_pikes.jpg
Are you suggesting that we should execute the ruling class?

[kuros]

Personally, I want to massacre the bourgeoisie. By any means necessary...
Barbarian.

[Conscript]

Are you suggesting that we should execute the ruling class?

They will be dissolved as a class. How much death is involved depends on how strong reaction...reacts. You're naive to think it should be any way otherwise.

[Pretty Flaco]

If I had the opportunity or chance to become bougie I'd take in a second. If anybody here says they wouldn't then they're bullshitting. Do I want to get treated like shit? No, I want to actually be somebody, be worth something, which in a capitalist society requires some cash. Or more like a hell of a lot of cash.

[Klaatu]

I want to ask the OP this question: "Why do the rich hate the poor?"

[Klaatu]

Luke 12:48
"...From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded. And from the one trusted with much, much more will be expected."

Matthew 19:24
"...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

[Elysian]

I want to ask the OP this question: "Why do the rich hate the poor?"

The rich don't hate the poor, since they feel that the poor aren't important enough to matter anyway.

[DinodudeEpic]

...Hate and overthrow the economic dictators.

They deserve it....

[bcbm]

The rich don't hate the poor, since they feel that the poor aren't important enough to matter anyway.


I never give money to homeless people. I can't reward failure in good conscience.

and even if it was true, since when do we look at the rich for our inspiration

[Elysian]

and even if it was true, since when do we look at the rich for our inspiration

I never said the rich are my inspiration. I am working class and identify with the poor. But I don't want us to succeed by becoming hateful. I want our success to be based upon love and peace. Is that too much to ask?

[Ose]

If the rich don't hate the poor, it's because the rich need the poor.


I never said the rich are my inspiration. I am working class and identify with the poor. But I don't want us to succeed by becoming hateful. I want our success to be based upon love and peace. Is that too much to ask?

As one poster so eloquently put it in another thread recently, fuck that hippy shit. Are you saying that we should love the bourgeoisie? It seems to me that that would only impede the fulfilment of our interests.

Hate isn't strictly necessary, but it can be a good motivator.

[bcbm]

I never said the rich are my inspiration. I am working class and identify with the poor. But I don't want us to succeed by becoming hateful. I want our success to be based upon love and peace. Is that too much to ask?

yes.

[RGacky3]

Which is what made it wrong.
Marx says it was an exploitation of labour.


Exactly, it was exploitation of labour, whether or not you think its wrong (I do) is a matter of your moral principles, Marx's point was that it does'nt work and leads to crisis due to self contradictions.


What? when did I say something about the poor owning sweatshops. I said what the rich create sweatshops for the exploitation of Labour, which is what Marx taught.


My point was saying "the rich create sweatshops" is meaningless, its like saying "boating accidents happen in the water."


Making excuses for them is sympathizing.
Hatred fuels the need for a Revolution.


No one is making excuses, what I am doing is understanding the system behind it, your making moral judgements and using it to lead to to an emotional irrational respose.

There is no point holding capitalists morally accountable, they are working rationally within the system that exists.


The difference is Black people didn't kill the Rich. But the rich kill the Black people and the rest of the Proletariat at that.


Your totally missing the analogy.


I know they Should

Yeah, blame capitalism, hating individual capitalists is cheap and backwards.

Its like waht Zizek said about the whole madoff thing, you focus on the individual capitalist, blame him as if its HIS moral failing, then you forget the whole system of incentives that put him there.

[bugsbunny]

If I had the opportunity or chance to become bougie I'd take in a second. If anybody here says they wouldn't then they're bullshitting. Do I want to get treated like shit? No, I want to actually be somebody, be worth something, which in a capitalist society requires some cash. Or more like a hell of a lot of cash.

If you are living in America or one of the Asian capitalist countries, you have a good chance. Just study hard (if you are in school), then work hard and save your money. This means less partying around. When you have enoough savings invest the money wisely either in your own business or in blue chip stocks. One day you will be rich enough not to work, making you a bourgeosie - someone who lives off his investments.

[RGacky3]

If you are living in America or one of the Asian capitalist countries, you have a good chance. Just study hard (if you are in school), then work hard and save your money. This means less partying around. When you have enoough savings invest the money wisely either in your own business or in blue chip stocks. One day you will be rich enough not to work, making you a bourgeosie - someone who lives off his investments.

Sure, and in feudalism anyone could become a noble, eventually.

Social mobility in the US is much lower than in europe btw.

[Veovis]

If you are living in America or one of the Asian capitalist countries, you have a good chance.

Bullshit.


Just study hard (if you are in school),What if you can't afford to go to school? What if you have a learning disability?


then work hardWhat if you're physically disabled?


and save your money.What if you have medical expenses or dependents to take care of?


This means less partying around.

Believe it or not, the vast majority of people are poor for reasons other than excessive partying.


When you have enoough savings invest the money wisely either in your own business or in blue chip stocks. One day you will be rich enough not to work, making you a bourgeosie - someone who lives off his investments.http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbjlo0Retv1qedl16o1_500.png

"That is one big pile of shit."

[Bostana]

If you are living in America or one of the Asian capitalist countries, you have a good chance. Just study hard (if you are in school), then work hard and save your money. This means less partying around. When you have enoough savings invest the money wisely either in your own business or in blue chip stocks. One day you will be rich enough not to work, making you a bourgeosie - someone who lives off his investments.

WoW,

You're still following the lie the Bourgeoisie Class has been telling us since the start of a Capitalist Nation.
When has that ever happened? When has someone who started up on a factory Plant end up on Wall Street? Name a time that has Happened. Because it never happens it is just a lie fed by the Capitalists so that way they can keep money they stole from the people and get away with it.

So in the end what you said is....
Bullshit

[Klaatu]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbjlo0Retv1qedl16o1_500.png

"That is one big pile of shit."

What a good mascot for the Republican Party!

[A Revolutionary Tool]

You serious or just joking?
I was just making fun of the OP who said at the end socialism failed because we shied away from Marx's objective analysis which has no room for petty moralism right after claiming the USSR fell because it was based on hate. If that's not ironic, I don't know what is.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

If you are living in America or one of the Asian capitalist countries, you have a good chance. Just study hard (if you are in school), then work hard and save your money. This means less partying around. When you have enoough savings invest the money wisely either in your own business or in blue chip stocks. One day you will be rich enough not to work, making you a bourgeosie - someone who lives off his investments.
No not really, at least not for the overwhelming majority of people in these countries. Capitalists love talking about how you not how everybody can do it. I'll give it to you, it is entirely possible for some people to do all of these things you say and end up at the top of the food chain. But it's entirely impossible for the majority of people to do so. Not because the majority of people aren't physically/mentally able to, but because the capitalist system depends on there being a proletariat that will do the work and a bourgeoisie that will exploit said labor. If everybody followed your advice shit wouldn't change much, you'd just be saying the guy flipping your burgers is a smart guy with a PhD in Business Administration or something.

[Anon4chan1235]

I kind of agree, do not hate the thief, punish them and correct the behavior.

[RGacky3]

The reason Capitalists exist are not because they are theives and they have bad behavior.

Their behavior is ABSOLUTELY appropriate, and logical given the system. Get rid of the system and their behavior will be impossible.

[Anon4chan1235]

I forgot to add this critical step: after you punish/rehabilitate the thief, you need to reappropriate their ill begotten gains.

[Ostrinski]

Is that too much to ask?Far, far, far too much to ask. Why the fuck should we listen to you? What natural authority do you have, to try and correct a natural thing? Whether or not people hate/don't hate the bourgeoisie is not an issue unless you are an idealist ball of grime. Hatred or lack thereof is not a factor in class consciousness, and it is not a factor in the development of a revolutionary situation. Elitist theomaniac wanker. You're no better than the religious right.

[RGacky3]

Far, far, far too much to ask. Why the fuck should we listen to you? What natural authority do you have, to try and correct a natural thing? Whether or not people hate/don't hate the bourgeoisie is not an issue unless you are an idealist ball of grime. Hatred or lack thereof is not a factor in class consciousness, and it is not a factor in the development of a revolutionary situation. Elitist theomaniac wanker. You're no better than the religious right.

He's a lot better than the religious right.

Obviously your allowed to hate whoever you want, does'nt make it a rational or healthy emotion.

There is nothing more idealist than hating the individual capitalists, as if its their personal character that is the cause of this and no the system.

[Night Ripper]

WoW,

You're still following the lie the Bourgeoisie Class has been telling us since the start of a Capitalist Nation.
When has that ever happened? When has someone who started up on a factory Plant end up on Wall Street? Name a time that has Happened. Because it never happens it is just a lie fed by the Capitalists so that way they can keep money they stole from the people and get away with it.

So in the end what you said is....
Bullshit

So because a crack baby never ends up as a billionare, you're going to ignore the fact that a large percentage of people get a higher education or earn a higher real income than their parents?

[Ocean Seal]

No, to say we should not envy the rich. To say we should not envy their freedom, to say that we should not envy the fact that if they do not work they will not go hungry. It is an absurdity to say that we should not envy the rich. That in itself is to keep us docile.

We should not hate the rich though, because in the era of "capitalism with a human face" it is simply not the most strategic option to do so.

[hatzel]

I happen to think that Stirner chanced upon the perfect word to describe the metaphorical womb of anarchic change: Empörung. This is a fact often lost on those who read him in translation, where the word is routinely translated (alongside his separate use of 'Insurrektion') as 'insurrection' or 'uprising,' leading to confusion. Whilst it certainly has this meaning, this term doesn't have the many nuances of the original German. In favour of this translation is the fact that the word 'Empörung' refers to some form of rebellion, and (through the word 'empor,' 'upwards') has the same sense of a rising up as the word 'insurrection,' allowing for its important use in reference to a personal act of exalting oneself. Despite this, the second (and, nowadays, more common) meaning of the word - from 'empören,' 'to appall' - as something akin to 'indignation' or 'disgust,' is obviously not (immediately) present in the English word 'insurrection.' It can perhaps be suggested in English by playing with the word 'revolt' (the peasants are revolting etc.), as in the similarity between 'revolution' and 'revulsion,' yet here the important suggestion of a rising up is absent. Given Stirner's penchant for playing with the meaning and form of words in his arguments, any attempt at translation is inevitably going to come across a number of problems, hence my preference for the original German term.

The significance of this? Well...envy I'm not all that interested in, because I don't have any desire to 'become' (like) the rich, nor are my politics geared towards achieving this - instead they aim towards something considerably greater than that. Hatred also doesn't really speak to me, not through some kind of 'we should all be friends!'-mentality, but because it all too often aims towards an impotent slave morality, giving far too prominent a place to the object of hatred whilst claiming to overcome it. But indignation-disgust-outrage-uprising-insurrection-revulsion-revolution, namely Empörung in its fullest sense...now that's something I can certainly see the worth of, arguably reaching beyond such lofty concepts as 'love' and 'hatred'...

[Rafiq]

Even murder? Torture? Where will you stop?

Until the blood lust of the revolution is satisfied.

You think anyone gives a fuck about your feelings? You're going to hand over your property or suffer the consequences.

[RGacky3]

Until the blood lust of the revolution is satisfied.

Blood lust is just as irrational and stupid as you consider morals based on empathy.

Blood lust is nothing more than an irrational and pointless reaction (btw, it seams its YOU that has the blood lust, not the speculative revolution).

[Rusty Shackleford]

oh my god you all have an insatiable bloodlust! they're just doing their jobs!

[Rafiq]

Blood lust is just as irrational and stupid as you consider morals based on empathy.

Blood lust is nothing more than an irrational and pointless reaction (btw, it seams its YOU that has the blood lust, not the speculative revolution).

It's a metaphor, figure of speech, etc.

How many people will be killed during the revolution by the proletariat? As much as necessary, for the revolution to be protected.

[Sinister Intents]

We oppose capitalism because we oppose war, exploitation, and bigotry. We shouldn't hate or envy the rich for two reasons: first, we become that which we hate. And if we build a society on this basis, it won't last long. This is why anything built upon hate, such as soviet union, never endures. They all collapse. Love endures, love never fails.

Second, the rich are doing what we do, albeit on another level. They cling to their luxury items, just as we cling to our iPads or whatever. It is not like we freely let go of everything we have, so why would the rich give up their hold on capital and power? Rich or poor, we all have the same desire - to own things, to have power over others, and the like. So it's hypocritical to blame the rich when we too have the same weaknesses.

Anyhow, socialism has failed because it was based upon hate and envy rather than on Marx's objective analysis, which has no place for petty human emotions.

can we ban this fucker, I find him annoying

[Ocean Seal]

Murder in the sense that most sane adults define it, no. If by murder you mean "refusing to provide services" then yes, anyone can choose not to provide for another person.

Well aren't you an asshole.
If you don't care about starving people, then why do you care about people being murdered? Is it just because you know that you will never starve?

[RGacky3]

It's a metaphor, figure of speech, etc.


Allright, but its a metaphor that convays sadism (even if not intended).


How many people will be killed during the revolution by the proletariat? As much as necessary, for the revolution to be protected.

I don't think you need any systematic killing for a revolution (of coarse other than an actual war).

But I know you probably feel otherwise.

Eitherway, its not murder if your killing someone in self defense, its not murder if your defending your community against a former oppressor.

[ozmanbg]

thnx for sharing +rep

[Per Levy]

We shouldn't hate or envy the rich for two reasons: first, we become that which we hate.

well i was hating the rich a lot in the last weeks and im still not rich, i feel cheated by the op.

[Rafiq]

Allright, but its a metaphor that convays sadism (even if not intended)./QUOTE]

Perhaps for Bourgeois-Moralists like yourself.


[QUOTE]I don't think you need any systematic killing for a revolution (of coarse other than an actual war).


Of course a systematic killing is necessary for a revolution to survive. Name me a successful revolution (As in, successfully overthrowing another class by another i.e. Bourgeois revolutions, Proletarian revolution etc.) that was carried out without systematic killing. Name me one.


But I know you probably feel otherwise.


This is not a matter of what I feel. It's a fact.


Eitherway, its not murder if your killing someone in self defense, its not murder if your defending your community against a former oppressor.[


We don't need petty moralist justification such as "Self defense" to liquidate the class enemy. It is not merely just about defending. It's about exerting authority over the former opresser.

[Night Ripper]

If you don't care about starving people, then why do you care about people being murdered?

Are you starving? If so, I'll make you a sandwich. If I'm out of sandwiches, I'm not going to pull out a gun on my neighbor and tell him to make you a sandwich. If he can't or won't, that's on him.

[Decolonize The Left]

lol u haven't been banned yet.

[Sinister Intents]

lol u haven't been banned yet.
yeah:crying: I do make horrible posts.... I feel like the worst user, I'm sorry for saying that, I'm usually stoned

[RGacky3]

Perhaps for Bourgeois-Moralists like yourself.


I'm pretty sure everyone makes the connectoin of

Blood-Lust and an actual lust for blood i.e. sadism.

I don't think that has anything to do with so called "bourgeois Moralism," .... Have you ever mett working class people? Most of them arn't authoritarian sadists.


Of course a systematic killing is necessary for a revolution to survive. Name me a successful revolution (As in, successfully overthrowing another class by another i.e. Bourgeois revolutions, Proletarian revolution etc.) that was carried out without systematic killing. Name me one.


The Spanish Revolution, (of caorse there was killing but it was'nt systematic), the Early russian revolution, the Hungarian revolt, the American revolution.

WHen I say systematic killings I mean an institution of political murder.

BTW, the revolutions that had such an institutions ended up having those institutions used as a form of class power i.e. the Communist party elite (the controlers of the capital and revenue) over the workers (the producers without control), and there we go, revolution is over.


This is not a matter of what I feel. It's a fact.


No its not, and it is what you feel.


We don't need petty moralist justification such as "Self defense" to liquidate the class enemy. It is not merely just about defending. It's about exerting authority over the former opresser.

Class is a SOCIAL RELATION, not people. When you get rid of the social relation the class does'nt exist, what your talking about convays a total missunderstanding of marxist class theory.

[RGacky3]

Are you starving? If so, I'll make you a sandwich. If I'm out of sandwiches, I'm not going to pull out a gun on my neighbor and tell him to make you a sandwich. If he can't or won't, that's on him.

First you gotta check it the guy starving used to be a capitalist or not ...If so you gotta shoot him.

But we all get it, your a tough guy :rolleyes:.

[Ocean Seal]

Are you starving? If so, I'll make you a sandwich. If I'm out of sandwiches, I'm not going to pull out a gun on my neighbor and tell him to make you a sandwich. If he can't or won't, that's on him.
I would expect a rugged individualist like yourself to so do.

The question is when a whole system prevents food from getting to everyone when there is plenty why do you stand in horror when the starving get together and kill those who are making them starve?

I mean surely both their actions kill.

[Decolonize The Left]

yeah:crying: I do make horrible posts.... I feel like the worst user, I'm sorry for saying that, I'm usually stoned

Huh? I was talking about night ripper. I don't really feel one way or another about you, but I'm sure no matter what you do you can't be as bad as this other guy.

- August

[Rafiq]

I'm pretty sure everyone makes the connectoin of

Blood-Lust and an actual lust for blood i.e. sadism.

It's a figure of speech. I called you a moralist because you took it too seriously.


I don't think that has anything to do with so called "bourgeois Moralism," .... Have you ever mett working class people? Most of them arn't authoritarian sadists.


Most working class people haven't found class conscious. What the fuck is your point?



The Spanish Revolution, (of caorse there was killing but it was'nt systematic), the Early russian revolution, the Hungarian revolt, the American revolution.


:laugh:

What a laugh.

1. There were systematic killings in Spain (Even though by definition, it wasn't a revolution anyway). You've your head up your ass.

2. The "early Russian revolution" doesn't fucking exist as something separate from the Russian revolution. You're cowardice bleeds through your post. You want workers control, etc. But you're not willing to struggle for it. "Coffee without the caffeine". The systematic killings were inevitable.

3. The American revolution was the worst one of all. Mass killings an executions, lootings, etc. Took place during the war. You're a fool.

4. The Hungarian revolution wasn't a revolution, as the revolt itself was unsuccessful. The process of officially taking power is not where the mass killings exist. It's where the class itself is in a position of power and secures it's power.


WHen I say systematic killings I mean an institution of political murder.


All of which exist in every revolution.


BTW, the revolutions that had such an institutions ended up having those institutions used as a form of class power i.e. the Communist party elite (the controlers of the capital and revenue) over the workers (the producers without control), and there we go, revolution is over.


There was not a real, massive proletariat in Russia anyway. The "Communist party elites" had to allow the capitalist mode of production to create proletarians. So what do you expect?

Besides, in regards to 20th century Communism, those institutions were used as a form of class power for the Russian Bourgeoisie only after they had to adopt the capitalist mode of production (i.e. Socialism in one country).

Which was a result of the failure of the revolution to spread.



No its not, and it is what you feel.


no YOU (:laugh:)



Class is a SOCIAL RELATION, not people. When you get rid of the social relation the class does'nt exist, what your talking about convays a total missunderstanding of marxist class theory.


A class is both a people and a social relation. It is, undoubtedly a collective group of people, and what defines the class they are in, depends on their relations to the mode of production. Of course it is people. The Proletarian class IS a collective interest. Link me some fucking Marxist theory which sais otherwise. That's right, you can't, because you're bastardizing Marxism to assert your own Bourgeois-Idealist conception of revolution dipped in Liberalism.

[RGacky3]

Most working class people haven't found class conscious. What the fuck is your point?


Yeah but your creating your almost platonic ideal of what you think working class people SHOULD believe and just arbitarily calling everything else bourgeois moralism.

Maybe working class people arn't sadists because they arn't sadists, and maybe it has nothing to do with your platonic ideals of what you think working class ideology SHOULD be.


1. There were systematic killings in Spain (Even though by definition, it wasn't a revolution anyway). You've your head up your ass.


There was no institution of it.


2. The "early Russian revolution" doesn't fucking exist as something separate from the Russian revolution. You're cowardice bleeds through your post. You want workers control, etc. But you're not willing to struggle for it. "Coffee without the caffeine". The systematic killings were inevitable.


I mean before the Cheka became an institution of terror.


3. The American revolution was the worst one of all. Mass killings an executions, lootings, etc. Took place during the war. You're a fool.


Do you get what I mean when I say institution?

In otherwords, killing people in war is one thing,

setting up an institution for the purpose of killing based on ideology is another thing.


There was not a real, massive proletariat in Russia anyway. The "Communist party elites" had to allow the capitalist mode of production to create proletarians. So what do you expect?


Why?

So to convince people to work in the factories they needed to exploit them????

Why?


Besides, in regards to 20th century Communism, those institutions were used as a form of class power for the Russian Bourgeoisie only after they had to adopt the capitalist mode of production (i.e. Socialism in one country).


The classical mode of production was before stalin.

But I suppose that would be right, considering there was a civil war going on most of the time before that.


Which was a result of the failure of the revolution to spread.


So unless the revolutoin spreads its IMPOSSIBLE to allow workers self manegement???


A class is both a people and a social relation. It is, undoubtedly a collective group of people, and what defines the class they are in, depends on their relations to the mode of production. Of course it is people. The Proletarian class IS a collective interest. Link me some fucking Marxist theory which sais otherwise. That's right, you can't, because you're bastardizing Marxism to assert your own Bourgeois-Idealist conception of revolution dipped in Liberalism.

When you take away the class relation then person does'nt exist.

There is no king without the institution of monarchy. Its a pretty simple concept.

[MotherCossack]

Huh? I was talking about night ripper. I don't really feel one way or another about you, but I'm sure no matter what you do you can't be as bad as this other guy.

- August

it is late.... and i am just having a quick shifty at stuff... browsing the web... browsing rev-left even.....
dont know why i ended up here... such a wind-up....
anyway you made me laugh... you and the stoned guy... like laurel and hardy...
THANKS.

i have to say since i'm here....
i detest the rich. they stole our stuff.
the privileged ... cant bear em...
if they was all on fire... you wouldn't catch me pissing on em...
[well, good*job really... being a girl]

them with it all....
they're what i call
having a ball
at the mall
that pile of money...
aint half tall.

all i got
is not a lot.
i jog on the spot
dripping snot
seeing them spend
god knows what

i'm a little poor folk
its not funny
its no joke

the rich better watch me
cos i want more
the rich better keep me
behind that door

[Elysian]

One thing is clear from this thread. Dodger and Mother C are related.:lol:

[Ocean Seal]

What Rafiq is trying to say to Gacky with regards to class existing even after an institution has faded can be explained as follows. If you are engaged in a revolution, and you get rid of the monarchy, it is idealistic to assume that the king and his nobles are no longer the king and the nobles. Sure they might have been kicked out of the castle, they might no longer collect rents, but ultimately, in a volatile situation the number one thing that they want is to become the king and the nobles again. Peasant profiteers, bourgeoisie (of all sizes), after the revolution might come and work in the factories, but they are elements which would welcome foreign intervention, they might try to start the counter-revolution themselves, and sabotage our attempt to build socialism.
I find that Rafiq is very correct in his post.

[eric922]

What Rafiq is trying to say to Gacky with regards to class existing even after an institution has faded can be explained as follows. If you are engaged in a revolution, and you get rid of the monarchy, it is idealistic to assume that the king and his nobles are no longer the king and the nobles. Sure they might have been kicked out of the castle, they might no longer collect rents, but ultimately, in a volatile situation the number one thing that they want is to become the king and the nobles again. Peasant profiteers, bourgeoisie (of all sizes), after the revolution might come and work in the factories, but they are elements which would welcome foreign intervention, they might try to start the counter-revolution themselves, and sabotage our attempt to build socialism.
I find that Rafiq is very correct in his post.
Yes, but my problem with Rafiq is, and it is very possible I'm interpreting his posts wrong, he seems to be fine with the systematic killing of people simply because they used to be members of the capitalist class. I despise the death penalty no matter who uses it. If there are counter-revolutionary elements that prove too dangerous to imprison then yes execution may be the only way to defend the revolution. However, to simply kill people because they were formerly members of the bourgeois is something I don't support and I'm willing to bet the vast majority of working class people don't feel that way, class conscious or not.

[RGacky3]

it is idealistic to assume that the king and his nobles are no longer the king and the nobles.

No its not, its not idealistic at all, its materialistic, no one gives a shit that they THINK they are kings and nobels, or they WANT to be kings and nobels, or something THINK they are kings and nobels, thats not how you define class relations if your a materialist, thats how an idealist would define it, you define it by their actual class relations.


asant profiteers, bourgeoisie (of all sizes), after the revolution might come and work in the factories, but they are elements which would welcome foreign intervention, they might try to start the counter-revolution themselves, and sabotage our attempt to build socialism.


What your reducing class relations to is an attitude, which is rediculously unmaterialistic, and idealistic.

Its like calling a some capitalist a worker since he acts like the workers and actively supports pro worker movements. Thats no how you define it, remember if you want to be a strict historical materialist, then BE a strict historical materialist.

[dodger]

One thing is clear from this thread. Dodger and Mother C are related.:lol:

What? Like bubble and squeak? Hansel and Gretel? Tom and gerry? Black and Decker? How are we related,Elysian? Mork and Mindy? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern? Troilus and Cressida? Tarzan and Jane? I see you have a 100 posts, crips and bloods? Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Any chance of you posting satanic imagery? Salome and John the Baptists HEAD? DANIEL IN THE LIONS DEN? HELP ME HERE....how are we related?

How are we related?...Bring me up to speed!

[Elysian]

What? Like bubble and squeak? Hansel and Gretel? Tom and gerry? Black and Decker? How are we related,Elysian? Mork and Mindy? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern? Troilus and Cressida? Tarzan and Jane? I see you have a 100 posts, crips and bloods? Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Any chance of you posting satanic imagery? Salome and John the Baptists HEAD? DANIEL IN THE LIONS DEN? HELP ME HERE....how are we related?

How are we related?...Bring me up to speed!

You are both weird.:)

[dodger]

You are both weird.:)

I am quite content for others to judge Dodger. I do think however MADAM COSSACK is far and away the sanest person to post here. Whereas "the Way of Weird" is the path of enlightenment chosen for you by Satan Himself.

Ely krishna--ely krishna DING-DONG--ELY-KRISHNA praise the Lord and pass the Prozac............ely-krishna...Do you understand the gibberish below?? I can't make head nor tail of it....though casting pearl before swine is to be avoided, would seem prudent not to.
++++++++++
The Gospel according to
St. Matthew
7

Judging Others
Lk. 6.3738, 4142
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

[Elysian]

I am quite content for others to judge Dodger. I do think however MADAM COSSACK is far and away the sanest person to post here. Whereas "the Way of Weird" is the path of enlightenment chosen for you by Satan Himself.

Ely krishna--ely krishna DING-DONG--ELY-KRISHNA praise the Lord and pass the Prozac............ely-krishna...Do you understand the gibberish below?? I can't make head nor tail of it....though casting pearl before swine is to be avoided, would seem prudent not to.
++++++++++
The Gospel according to
St. Matthew
7

Judging Others
Lk. 6.3738, 4142
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Boy, you get a free supply of weed every day, don't you?:thumbup:

[dodger]

Boy, you get a free supply of weed every day, don't you?:thumbup:

MY RECEPTORS SELF MEDICATE, Dodger don't have need for weed or any drugs pre or proscribed. What impudence. I have now lost track of how many times I have pointed to your incorrigibility. Consider yourself rebuked again......

Elysian you are incorrigible ....turn back from "te Way of Weird" before you lose your very soul or at least your weekly pocket money ALLOWANCE. Windows95 has all sorts of Satanic bugs, a tureen of Holy Water poured carefully into the back of the machine will sort your problems out.......................... T R U S T M E !

[Dogs On Acid]

Rich =/= Bourgeoisie

Some of you seem to forget that.

[Guy Incognito]

If you murder every CEO in the country, nothin will change, new members of the board would step it up.

The point is its a stupid emotion. (btw, bourgeoisie is a social relation).


Do you think so? Do you truly think that they're going to be jumping at the chance, if the people who did in their predecessors the last time are still around? I don't. I think things will change right goddamn quick. Sure, there would be a new CEO, but I doubt he'd be giving himself a multi-million dollar bonus and laying off more workers. Just sayin..

[marl]

I like what happened with the Anti-Party Group. They were put in charge of meaningless labor.

[MotherCossack]

What? Like bubble and squeak? Hansel and Gretel? Tom and gerry? Black and Decker? How are we related,Elysian? Mork and Mindy? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern? Troilus and Cressida? Tarzan and Jane? I see you have a 100 posts, crips and bloods? Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Any chance of you posting satanic imagery? Salome and John the Baptists HEAD? DANIEL IN THE LIONS DEN? HELP ME HERE....how are we related?

How are we related?...Bring me up to speed!


You are both weird.:)

oh but we are ... we are...

you see i am full of art.... dodger!

both wierd?? i'd like to think so.


life's rich tapestry.....an all that

[Ocean Seal]

Yes, but my problem with Rafiq is, and it is very possible I'm interpreting his posts wrong, he seems to be fine with the systematic killing of people simply because they used to be members of the capitalist class. I despise the death penalty no matter who uses it. If there are counter-revolutionary elements that prove too dangerous to imprison then yes execution may be the only way to defend the revolution. However, to simply kill people because they were formerly members of the bourgeois is something I don't support and I'm willing to bet the vast majority of working class people don't feel that way, class conscious or not.
No, I don't think that's what his post is saying. He's saying that a revolution will have systemic killings, but I don't think that he wants to kill ex-bourgeoisie on principle.


No its not, its not idealistic at all, its materialistic, no one gives a shit that they THINK they are kings and nobels, or they WANT to be kings and nobels, or something THINK they are kings and nobels, thats not how you define class relations if your a materialist, thats how an idealist would define it, you define it by their actual class relations.
This is not true, and its completely idealistic.
After the revolution does the elite college education that the ruling class received go away?
Do the business contacts that they had go away?
Does the desire of their business contacts to see them restored go away?
How about the factories which many people still claim that they own?
How about all of the small business owners and peasants who were expropriated?
What about profiteers like the Kulaks. Expropriate them, but they are still dangerous counter-revolutionary elements.
How about the people willing to work for them for future pay, knowing that the foreign bourgeoisie want to restore them?
All of this doesn't go away after you just have a piece of paper that says that the property doesn't belong to the bourgeoisie.



What your reducing class relations to is an attitude, which is rediculously unmaterialistic, and idealistic.
Its not an attitude, its something which exists and has consequences.



Its like calling a some capitalist a worker since he acts like the workers and actively supports pro worker movements. Thats no how you define it, remember if you want to be a strict historical materialist, then BE a strict historical materialist.
That's absolutely not what I am saying.

[RGacky3]

Do you think so? Do you truly think that they're going to be jumping at the chance, if the people who did in their predecessors the last time are still around? I don't. I think things will change right goddamn quick. Sure, there would be a new CEO, but I doubt he'd be giving himself a multi-million dollar bonus and laying off more workers. Just sayin..

He'd hire a lot more security ... But you get my point right?


After the revolution does the elite college education that the ruling class received go away?


No .... But so what?

Are you claiming they should be punished for potential thought crimes?


Do the business contacts that they had go away?


Yes, actually they do.


Does the desire of their business contacts to see them restored go away?


Probably not, but again, desire is'nt a concrete material social relation, its a potential idea ... I.E. Idealism.


How about the factories which many people still claim that they own?


Who gives a shit what they claim.


How about all of the small business owners and peasants who were expropriated?


I doubt small buisiness owners and peasants would get expropriated, infact that did'nt happen in the USSR for the msot part, Lenin gave peasents land making them small buisiness owners.


What about profiteers like the Kulaks. Expropriate them, but they are still dangerous counter-revolutionary elements.


Again ... Potential thought crimes.

NOT actual material social relations.


How about the people willing to work for them for future pay, knowing that the foreign bourgeoisie want to restore them?


No one would prefer to be a wage worker than to not be wage worker.


All of this doesn't go away after you just have a piece of paper that says that the property doesn't belong to the bourgeoisie.


No, but all you mentioned are just potential thoughts.

not actual social relations.


Its not an attitude, its something which exists and has consequences.


.... No it IS an attitude, your essencially redefining class as potential thought.

How do you know workers don't secretly want to be kings?, How do you know who wants what?

Social-Relations are concrete economic relations to means of production, NOT what people want, or how they see things.

[dodger]

On past experience Revolution, National Liberation will be protracted , bloody and hardly surprising if the ruling class yet again reaps the whirlwind. The pitiful sight of Germans in their 1,000's marching across Europe expelled from Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia in the main, brought no tears of sympathy. Though their plight was obvious. Popular hatred sealed their fate. Here and now it is not easy to see who we might hate. Traitors within our ranks, always. The authors of our misery? Who the hell might they be? Nobody seems to me, is in charge or control. In a real sense maybe we should gnash our teeth at ourselves, why do we not take responsibility?