The Best Government Money Can Buy

[cyu]

[I wonder if "scientists" or politicians are the better investment]

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/29/454853/senators-who-voted-to-protect-oil-tax-breaks-received-23582500-from-big-oil/

The 47 senators voting against the bill have received $23,582,500 in career contributions from oil and gas. The 51 senators voting to repeal oil tax breaks have received $5,873,600.

The senators who voted for Big Oil’s handouts received on average over four times as much career oil cash as those who voted to end them.

[cyu]

http://unitedrepublic.org/2012/big-pharma-gets-77500-return-on-lobbying-investment/

an average American can expect a ROI of 11 percent for investing in one Blue Chip stock in the Dow Jones Industrial Average in 2010. Meanwhile, Big Pharma has a ROI of 75,500 percent for the lobbying dollars it spends to bar the government from bargaining for cheaper drug prices through Medicare


http://www.republicreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ROI.jpg

Of course, that money that Pharma and the rest of the industries on the chart are making is at expense of taxpayers and consumers. But as long as we have a political system that bends to the whims of Big Money, the best ROI you can get is to be a lobbyist.

[cyu]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/17/millionaires-corporations-tax-breaks-sway-opinion

By protecting people, it stopped the winnowing process that would otherwise result in the survival of the fittest. the millionaires loved him. They saw themselves as winners of the evolutionary race

Today, sponsorship by millionaires and corporations explains why free-market thinktanks outnumber and outspend the thinktanks arguing for public services and the distribution of wealth.

the American Legislative Exchange Council claims, like most thinktanks, to stand for limited government and free markets. What this means in practice is lobbying against government action such as regulating tobacco and greenhouse gases. By an astonishing coincidence, it turns out to have been funded by the tobacco companies Altria and Reynolds American, by the oil giant Exxon and by the billionaire Koch brothers, who run a fossil fuel and chemicals empire

When these libertarians say freedom, they mean freedom from the rules that prevent their sponsors behaving as they wish: mistreating their workers, threatening public health and using the planet as their dustbin.

[cyu]

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/hedge-fund-billionaire-feds-move-fantastic-rich-4B11199524


the founder of hedge fund Duquesne Capital said that quantitative easing was inflating stocks and other assets held by wealthy investors like himself. But the price of making the rich richer will be paid by future generations.

"This is fantastic for every rich person. This is the biggest redistribution of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the rich ever. maybe this trickle-down that gives money to billionaires and hopefully we go spend it is going to work. But it hasn't worked for five years."

the Fed's policies have mainly juiced asset prices—and the wealthy hold most of the assets.

as of 2010, the net worth of Americans was still down 50 percent in 2010 from the pre-crisis peak. By contrast, the number of millionaires hit an all-time record in 2010.

The top 1 percent of Americans hold 35 percent of the nation's wealth. The top 10 percent of Americans own more than 80 percent of all stocks and more than half of all individual financial assets in the U.S.

the top 1 percent captured 95 percent of the gains during the recovery. Donald Trump said on CNBC last year that "People like me will benefit from this."

[cyu]

http://maplight.org/content/73351

The bill, H.R. 992, would severely limit Sec. 716 in Dodd-Frank, which requires banks that are eligible for Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to spin off their derivatives activities into separate corporate entities that would not be eligible for federal assistance.

Citigroup’s recommendations were reflected in more than 70 lines of the House committee’s 85-line bill. Two crucial paragraphs, prepared by Citigroup in conjunction with other Wall Street banks, were copied nearly word for word.

Representative Jim Himes, D-Conn., has received $66,450 from Citigroup, more than any other member of the House of Representatives. Himes is a co-sponsor of the bill.

Co-sponsors of the bill have received, on average, 16.8 times more money from Citigroup than have members of the House who have not signed on as co-sponsors.

Representative Randy Hultgren, R-Ill., the primary sponsor of the bill, has received $136,500 from the Securities and Investment industry, more than from any other industry.

[cyu]

http://worldtruth.tv/leaked-documents-reveal-us-diplomats-actually-work-for-monsanto/

In 2007 it was requested that specific nations inside the European Union be punished for not supporting the expansion of Monsanto’s GMO crops. Craig Stapleton, the United States ambassador to France, calls for ‘target retaliation’ against those not supporting the GM crop.

“Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices.”

Monsanto instating the company’s own Margaret Miller as Deputy Director of Human Safety and Consultative Services. After assuming this position, Miller reviewed her own report on the safety and effectiveness of rBGH.

the U.S. focused their efforts toward advisers to the pope specifically, due to the fact that many Catholic figureheads have openly voiced their opposition to GM foods.

[cyu]

The price of justice

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/06/jpmorgan-chase-to-pay-2-0-billion-to-avoid-bernard-madoff-investigation-reports/

the US bank used by Bernard Madoff who masterminded the biggest fraud on record, has agreed to pay about $2.0 billion to US authorities to avoid litigation

JPMorgan Chase, the biggest US bank by assets, was the main bank used by Madoff for more than 20 years.

the bank had agreed to pay up to close criminal and civil investigations by federal authorities

the bank was the target of recent bribery investigations by US authorities over its practise of hiring in China the children of people among the country’s ruling elite

[Remus Bleys]

So your sources are literally all nbc raw story Guardian and thinkprogress... lol, kinda liberal, don't you think?

[cyu]

kinda liberal, don't you think?


If you want to post your own ultraleftist take on these events, I'd love to hear them.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

So your sources are literally all nbc raw story Guardian and thinkprogress... lol, kinda liberal, don't you think?
amazingly enough it is possible to read an article to digest the information it contains (i.e the facts and figures) and then come to a different conclusion to the author.

[Remus Bleys]

If you want to post your own ultraleftist take on these events, I'd love to hear them.

So an "anarchist" (albeit reddit) calling someone an ultraleft. Hmm, never thought that would happen.

[cyu]

So an "anarchist" (albeit reddit) calling someone an ultraleft.
I consider myself a moderate. Anyone more supportive of capitalism I consider either a right-winger or deluded.

Do you have any actual points of theory you dare discuss?

[Remus Bleys]

What is a moderate?

[cyu]

What is a moderate?


Doesn't sound like you care to discuss what you actually believe. You're not afraid to do so, are you?

I would say any "normal" person should believe what I believe, without having to have been pushed to desperation or vengeance before adopting an "extremist" ideology. But if a person supports capitalism more than I do, they may believe themselves "moderate" but I would consider them either brainwashed / duped / indoctrinated / deluded or I would consider them a right-wing extremist, perhaps on the level of a mass murderer, genocidal maniac, or serial killer.

[Remus Bleys]

Doesn't sound like you care to discuss what you actually believe. You're not afraid to do so, are you?

I would say any "normal" person should believe what I believe, without having to have been pushed to desperation or vengeance before adopting an "extremist" ideology. But if a person supports capitalism more than I do, they may believe themselves "moderate" but I would consider them either brainwashed / duped / indoctrinated / deluded or I would consider them a right-wing extremist, perhaps on the level of a mass murderer, genocidal maniac, or serial killer.

I believe in the proletariat seizing political power and through its dictatorship implements communism. Anything other than this is a concession to capitalism.

Now answer my question. What is a moderate? You seem to mean it to mean capitalism and left liberalism.

[cyu]

I believe in the proletariat seizing political power and through its dictatorship implements communism.
How should it do so? Should employees be armed? Should all capitalists be executed?



What is a moderate?
Wasn't that already asked and answered? As the old saying goes, anyone that drives faster than me is a maniac, anyone that drives slower than me is a coward. Do you understand the meaning behind that?

If you want to ask what I would have employees do, then yes, I would encourage all employees to arm themselves. I would encourage them to engage in *armed* civil disobedience. I wouldn't just encourage them to take control of their own workplaces, I would also encourage them to take control of their local media outlets, and also to help protect their fellow workers in nearby companies.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

How should it do so? Should employees be armed? Should all capitalists be executed?


By any means necessary. If those things are necessary to achieve the toppling of capitalism, then yes, there is not a hint of doubt that it should be done by those measures.


Wasn't that already asked and answered? As the old saying goes, anyone that drives faster than me is a maniac, anyone that drives slower than me is a coward. Do you understand the meaning behind that?

I understand that you are an uppity liberal, yes.

[cyu]

If those things are necessary to achieve the toppling of capitalism, then yes, there is not a hint of doubt that it should be done by those measures.

Would you encourage the execution of all capitalists as well as those you accuse of being uppity liberals?

Why or why not?

[Remus Bleys]

If necessary yes. Though I seriously doubt that will be the case.
Also I don't think the great reaction that is reddit will ever be a serious threat

[cyu]

How would you decide when someone deserves to be killed and when they do not deserve to be killed?

[Remus Bleys]

I'm not going to decide. If one stands in the way of revolution, as liberals by definition do, then the Revolution will tear them to pieces.

[cyu]

I'm not going to decide.


So if you had a gun, you would never fire it?

[Remus Bleys]

So if you had a gun, you would never fire it?

Where did I imply that?

The real question, would you? If you oppose all violence you cannot be a revolutionary and should not be here.

[cyu]

Where did I imply that?



You claim you're not going to decide who deserves to die and who does not. So if it's not you deciding, who is deciding? If you have a gun, you still have to pull the trigger. If it's not you deciding to pull the trigger, who is deciding to pull the trigger?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

You claim you're not going to decide who deserves to die and who does not. So if it's not you deciding, who is deciding? If you have a gun, you still have to pull the trigger. If it's not you deciding to pull the trigger, who is deciding to pull the trigger?

The collective organisation, the movement, or a faction thereof, is deciding.

[Remus Bleys]

I'm not going to map out a revolution. That's stupid. But answer my question please.

[cyu]

The collective organisation, the movement, or a faction thereof, is deciding


Would you have a vote on it then? What kind of a vote? Majority vote? 2/3?



But answer my question please.


Which one? Whether I would support executions? The answer is no. Why then would I encourage employees to arm themselves, you might ask. The answer is that there is a difference between executions and other types of homicide.

If an execution implies that the victim is already your prisoner, and they already have no power over you, then I would oppose execution. On the other hand, if the person is in the middle of attacking you or anyone else, then they still are in a position of power. In such cases, I would support lethal action against them, if it is necessary to prevent biological harm.

So what would I do if someone who claims to be a leftist is about to execute a captured police officer? If I can't stop the self-described leftist verbally, then I'll shoot him before he can carry out the execution.

What do you believe is the best protection against http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag attacks?

[Remus Bleys]

Would you have a vote on it then? What kind of a vote? Majority vote? 2/3?
Fuck voting.



Which one? Whether I would support executions? The answer is no.Every great movement has bloodshed, to paraphrase marx.

Why then would I encourage employees to arm themselves, you might ask. nah I wouldnt.

The answer is that there is a difference between executions and other types of homicide.
One does not result in death, while the other does? Wait a gosh darn second, thats not true!
I would actually argue that death is "justified" (such a liberal concept) in some cases and not in others, but this is not because i attach a metaphysical standard that is based on there being a difference to how someone is killed. Form over Content and all that.

If an execution implies that the victim is already your prisoner, and they already have no power over you, then I would oppose executionThe red terror was in many cases very much necessary. I'm not going to go through and "justify" each death, but from the get go having a pre mapped out course of action, is quite frankly naive and utopian. You cannot go into Revolution with Reservations.

On the other hand, if the person is in the middle of attacking you or anyone else, then they still are in a position of power. In such cases, I would support lethal action against them, if it is necessary to prevent biological harm.Why only biological? Why not psychological harm? Why not social harm? what is "biological harm"? Is it just all types of harm? Why not just say harm?


So what would I do if someone who claims to be a leftist is about to execute a captured police officer? If I can't stop the self-described leftist verbally, then I'll shoot him before he can carry out the execution.
If, during a Revolution, I see someone about to kill a cop, I will kill that person. Why? Because I am a cop-lover!


What do you believe is the best protection against http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag attacks?false flag lol

[cyu]

Why then would I encourage employees to arm themselves, you might ask.
nah I wouldnt.

Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying the working class shouldn't arm themselves? If not them, then who?

EDIT: Nevermind, you probably just mean you wouldn't ask that.


Originally Posted by translation
If, during a Revolution, I see someone about to kill a cop, I will kill that person. Why? Because I am a cop-lover!


I'm sure there will be agents that attempt to infiltrate leftist movements (there have been plenty of news reports that they are already doing it). What do you believe would be the best way to neutralize them? I'm sure certain pro-capitalist agents (especially the Randroids) would gladly kill a captured police officer if it means they would win more trust and obedience from other leftists.


false flag lol

You don't believe capitalists would attempt to carry out false flag attacks in order to try to win sympathy?

[Remus Bleys]

So you went from liberal to conspiracy theorists? Okay, I'm bored and done with this discussion.
I mean, why not avoid all revolutionary and illegal activity, because those people could just be cops! Marx? Cop! Engels? Cop! Lenin? Cop! Luxemburg? Cop! Russian Revolution? False flag!

[cyu]

you went from liberal to conspiracy theorists?

I assume you think Amy Goodman is a liberal conspiracy theorist?
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/12/27/the_fbi_vs_occupy_secret_docs



I mean, why not avoid all revolutionary and illegal activity


Not sure what point you're trying to make there. Like I mentioned earlier, I would encourage employees to arm themselves and assume control of their companies and local media outlets. If they are attacked, then I would encourage them to defend themselves.

Again I ask, if there were pro-capitalist agents on revleft or in your favorite leftist organization, how would you neutralize them?

If a pro-capitalist agent that believed in some kind of Selfish Ideal infiltrated a leftist organization, do you think he would hestitate to kill captured police officers? [Note: simply posing this question could drive a wedge between Randroids and beat cops.]

[cyu]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-10/us-capitalist-democracy-or-oligarchy-janet-yellen-doesnt-know

During this week’s Senate hearings, Janet Yellen was asked by Senator Bernie Sanders if the U.S. was a capitalist democracy or has morphed into an oligarchy. it was stunning to note her unwillingness to answer the question.

I will give her some credit for not flat out lying about it. She inherently understands that the U.S. is a corrupt, shameful oligarchy, but as head of the institution most responsible for this transformation she simply cannot tell the truth. It is incredible that things have fallen so far that a U.S. Senator felt compelled to ask such a question, and even worse that such a powerful official couldn’t vehemently and decisively deny the claim.

[cyu]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-us-no-longer-democracy

policies supported by economic elites and business interest groups were far more likely to become law than those they opposed.

the preferences of the middle class made essentially no difference to a bill’s fate.

when the rich support a policy, it has a 45% chance of becoming law. And when they oppose it, it has only an 18% chance of being enacted.

[Creative Destruction]

Remus Blys is a bit of a dickhead, but i do wonder what your point is in link dumping all of this stuff is. it's not exactly a surprise, or news, that capitalists wield power in a capitalist society. what's your analysis here?

[cyu]

Just preaching to the choir ;)

Actually it is interesting to see this in mainstream media. We'd probably never have seen this in the Reagan years.

Not that this means The Revolution is at hand, but I often see the mainstream media as being experts at keeping their own @$$es covered. That is, they regularly support the status quo, but they have their fingers to the wind too. They'll never lead any revolutions themselves (unless either occupied by revolutionaries or their own union defies company executives) but just in case revolutionaries do show up in their executive offices, they don't want to look like they've only been complete and utter tools of the establishment.

[Creative Destruction]

it's not a new narrative for the mainstream media, really. like you noted, it happened in the Reagan years, but similar things happened while Carter was in office, when FDR was in office. hell, i remember some Republicans in the 90s whining about "money in politics" when the Democrats were starting to take a course against the labor movement, and for business friendliness (the so-called "New Democrats" like Clinton and Gore, who were really a bit more socially progressive hand-me-down Dixiecrats.)

they establish narratives all the time depending on the way the wind is blowing. right now, we have a Democrat in office, but we also have deeply intransigent right-wingers who have just taken over congress and still have a somewhat influential "Tea Party" base. it's not surprising in the least. they complain less when their guys are in office.

[OzymandiasX]

If you oppose all violence you cannot be a revolutionary and should not be here.

You're an idiot.

The moment we fire a single bullet under the guise of any form of social movement, the entire initiative will be lost for we will have been brandished terrorists and the public will turn on us. You are a fool if you truly believe violence is key to revolution.

[Lord Testicles]

You're an idiot.

The moment we fire a single bullet under the guise of any form of social movement, the entire initiative will be lost for we will have been brandished terrorists and the public will turn on us. You are a fool if you truly believe violence is key to revolution.

Proletariat: "Give us the means of production!"
Bourgeoisie: "No"
Proletariat: "Okay"

Congratulations! You've failed at revolution! Try again?

[OzymandiasX]

Proletariat: "Give us the means of production!"
Bourgeoisie: "No"
Proletariat: "Okay"

Congratulations! You've failed at revolution! Try again?

This is why we don't ask, we take. The moment they introduce the guns, we sit on our hands and wait for them to fire. As a single shot directed toward us in unprovoked violence will have a vastly greater affect than any shot we could take against them.

We are not trying to destroy the Bourgeoise, especially not physically, we are trying to unite the Proletariat. The Bourgeoise will naturally whither and die without an obedient mass of workers to do their bidding.

To control the people they must demonize the radical elements trying to liberate them, present them as violent criminals and terrorists then the movement will collapse before it has ever begun. Violence on our part would be a godsend for them.

And if this was a public movement, and Remus Bleys was a figure head, then this movement would already have been good as over.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Uhh taking property from someone is violence. If workers are on the sidelines answering opinion polls on whether they support a given action or not, that means you're not talking about revolution anyhow.

[OzymandiasX]

Uhh taking property from someone is violence.

That is extremely arguable. Especially here.

Violence is the act of inflicting harm, physically, emotionally, psychologically. Taking property is not an act of violence. Since objects are not biological beings. And the sense of ownership is a social construct. You do not own anything.


If workers are on the sidelines answering opinion polls on whether they support a given action or not, that means you're not talking about revolution anyhow.

There are phases in a revolution. I'm sure you've heard of critical mass. I don't understand how you intend to have a revolution without appealing to the masses. And it is likely that we have entirely different visions of the ideal society so this would naturally affect our desired approach.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

You're not committing violence against the property, but the person who owns it. I would say you probably have a flawed idea of revolution. One does not stand on a soapbox and demand revolution, or in your case occupy a factory and hold it hostage in exchange for communism. If the population is passive, you aren't going to get your critical mass as you say. You can appeal to the masses all you want, but if you're tying yourself to the delusional liberal belief in non-violence we can assume that you probably are tied to it in other ways that you haven't give thought to, in which case you're not really offering an alternative.

[OzymandiasX]

You seem to want believe that people own property (and yet I am the liberal, I'd dare to ask what philosophy is more integral to liberalism than the recognition and defense of private property.) And I will indulge that for the sake of argument, and continue to say that it would still not be an act of violence.

I have a "flawed" idea of revolution? How about, I have a different idea of revolution?

Yes, a revolution would be a very complicated process. My point being, one that should avoid violence at all cost.

"...tying yourself to the delusional liberal belief in non-violence we can assume that you probably are tied to it in other ways that you haven't give thought to, in which case you're not really offering an alternative."

I wouldn't link non-violence to liberalism. And that one value of mine does nothing to illustrate my political and social dispositions. And I'm not here to offer alternatives, but to criticize this obsession with violence.

If this emphasis on violence is as popular as it appears, then I fear we've already lost.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The state adheres to the belief that people own property, they have a gun to my head demanding that I agree. So whether or not I personally think someone can really own property is irrelevant. What is your new idea of revolution, you've already made it clear you have no interest in liquidating the ruling class. With that in mind it's hard to believe that it would extend beyond simple reform but I'll hold out for the possibility of surprise

[cyu]

The moment they introduce the guns, we sit on our hands and wait for them to fire. As a single shot directed toward us in unprovoked violence will have a vastly greater affect than any shot we could take against them.


I don't advocate going after the rank and file anyway (they have no decision making power to change the course of the revolution anyway, unless they join the revolutionaries). If riot police are in the streets, go after those who put out the call for riot police. If the national guard is called in, go after those who decided to call in the national guard. Don't engage their main force directly (that's just playing into their hands), go after those giving the orders.

Mayors, police chiefs, national leaders are public figures. You know their names, you know where they live. They have to operate a lot more carefully than their faceless minions. They also operate under much more fear than their minions, despite the fact that it is their minions who are ordered to risk their lives. It is much easier for anarchists to go after the establishment's chain of command. When large national powers engage in war, they often have an unspoken agreement to leave those near the top out of it, and let their cannon fodder do all the dying for them. Anarchists don't have the same kind of weakness.

The more hierarchical an organization, the more single points of failure they have. Faced with anarchist forces that attack only the chain-of-command, the only way to plug their weaknesses would be to adopt anarchist methods of organization themselves. But if they do that, the ideological battle is already half won.

[Subversive]

You're an idiot.

The moment we fire a single bullet under the guise of any form of social movement, the entire initiative will be lost for we will have been brandished terrorists and the public will turn on us. You are a fool if you truly believe violence is key to revolution.
That is why you don't fire a single bullet.

... You fire 10,000 single bullets, instead.

[OzymandiasX]

The state adheres to the belief that people own property, they have a gun to my head demanding that I agree. So whether or not I personally think someone can really own property is irrelevant. What is your new idea of revolution, you've already made it clear you have no interest in liquidating the ruling class. With that in mind it's hard to believe that it would extend beyond simple reform but I'll hold out for the possibility of surprise

Well, with that logic, none of what we believe is of any importance since the state does not believe it. And if you honestly think that this justifies violence, then you're truly confused, as the moment we start attacking them, they will roll the heavy armor out onto the streets and implement martial law.

But we're not talking about what the state believes, we're talking about what we believe and what we believe the people should believe.

What I believe is that the people should sit at home and do nothing, or read a book. That the most powerful gesture of protest in an economy that functions on obsessive consumption is to do nothing at all. Do not shop, do not watch television. Start a community farm so that we can feed ourselves when the economy inevitably collapses.

[OzymandiasX]

I don't advocate going after the rank and file anyway (they have no decision making power to change the course of the revolution anyway, unless they join the revolutionaries). If riot police are in the streets, go after those who put out the call for riot police. If the national guard is called in, go after those who decided to call in the national guard. Don't engage their main force directly (that's just playing into their hands), go after those giving the orders.

This is one of the reasons why they form hierarchies. We cut off one head, they replace them with another. That won't accomplish anything. And none of them are of any particular importance on their own. There aren't a handful of people who have vested interests in this economic structure. There are millions, especially in the west. And none of them would hesitate to carpet bomb Detroit at the slightest hint of a threat against their property or lineage.

The only problem is public support. But with a propaganda machine like this, I would not want to imagine the atrocities they could justify.


Mayors, police chiefs, national leaders are public figures. You know their names, you know where they live. They have to operate a lot more carefully than their faceless minions. They also operate under much more fear than their minions, despite the fact that it is their minions who are ordered to risk their lives. It is much easier for anarchists to go after the establishment's chain of command. When large national powers engage in war, they often have an unspoken agreement to leave those near the top out of it, and let their cannon fodder do all the dying for them. Anarchists don't have the same kind of weakness.

I understand what you're saying. But unless you want to kill several hundred thousand people in a few days. You must realize that after 10th person you assassinate, it would set into motion an extraordinary degree of militarization and covert operations. Not to mention, that the people are typically very sympathetic toward public figures. So ending their lives would simultaneously garner a great deal of disapproval from the people.



The more hierarchical an organization, the more single points of failure they have. Faced with anarchist forces that attack only the chain-of-command, the only way to plug their weaknesses would be to adopt anarchist methods of organization themselves. But if they do that, the ideological battle is already half won.

I would think the exact opposite. They would shuffle the hierarchy a little bit, but it wouldn't end anything. Especially not the military.

[Subversive]

Well, with that logic, none of what we believe is of any importance since the state does not believe it. And if you honestly think that this justifies violence, then you're truly confused, as the moment we start attacking them, they will roll the heavy armor out onto the streets and implement martial law.

But we're not talking about what the state believes, we're talking about what we believe and what we believe the people should believe.

What I believe is that the people should sit at home and do nothing, or read a book. That the most powerful gesture of protest in an economy that functions on obsessive consumption is to do nothing at all. Do not shop, do not watch television. Start a community farm so that we can feed ourselves when the economy inevitably collapses.
Yeah, and while you sit at home and do nothing, all the real revolutionaries in the world will actually create change.


The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
How then do you create change by 'sitting at home' and 'doing nothing'?

You want to create change by sitting around? Well good luck getting the majority of the world to just 'sit around' and stop functioning as a Capitalist society. Good luck getting the Capitalist mode of production to "just stop" by itself, all on its own and by means of a popular-movement where people just give up on life itself.

Good luck with that, yeah. You'll definitely get 'somewhere'.
Somewhere being alone, by yourself, doing nothing for the cause.

You know what else collapses with the economy when no one works for a while? Society.

Every child knows that a nation which ceased to work, I will not say for a year, but even for a week, would perish.
- Karl Marx

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_07_11-abs.htm

How is anyone to have food to eat, if no one is working the farms?
What books will anyone have to read at home if no one is writing them anymore? You may have some bourgeois stockpile now but where will you get more? The libraries and bookstores are closed, and you will have no money.
Don't suggest that they will sit at home with running water and electricity - because who will be running and maintenance those services?

You'll merely create a society of scabs - able to sell their labor at high-cost due to massive demand and empty supplies. While you become the lumenproletariat, the real proletariat become petit bourgois. How then is the class to become conscious?

You will sink the entire movement into a hole if you had your way!

Most revolutionaries do not want violence, absolutely do not condone violence for the sake of violence, but understand that violence is necessary for the sake of the revolution.
That social movement cannot grow, cannot live, cannot expand into a revolution without the need for violence.

You argue that the government will 'roll out the tanks' and 'implement martial law'.
How else will the majority then wake up to the oppression of the government if not for the extremes of government oppression!?

So long as the people support a government that wish to do harm to the people - the people will be harmed.
How do you expect to prevent this? If you could simply gain the support of all the people enough to even temporarily immobilize the Capitalist economy, why would you then not just utilize that power to abolish the oppressive government peacefully?

Your beliefs don't make any sense.

[cyu]

But with a propaganda machine like this, I would not want to imagine the atrocities they could justify.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, there are two primary fronts in the control of a nation: the military and the media. Any revolution would have to successfully target both in order to be effective.



But unless you want to kill several hundred thousand people in a few days.


Personally, I'm not even in favor of capital punishment, but I do believe violence is justified when used to stop violence (ie. self-defense). I wouldn't attack an official if he was just hanging out playing golf (although I wouldn't mind if some random punks ran off with his golf clubs), however, if an official is actively giving out orders to coordinate strikes against his people, then that is a different story.

[OzymandiasX]

@Subversive

Try not to focus on the word "nothing" since it is actually a very meaningful sort of behavior. And people would not literally do nothing but stare at walls, I meant behavior which does not feed the economy. Tilling your land does not help the economy if you keep the produce for yourself and offer it to others at no cost.

If you could consider the possibilities, I am confident that you would also find this be tremendously dangerous and revolutionary. This is assuming, of course, that people stop all other obsessive consumerist behavior. Millions of people buying only what they desperately need: toilet paper, soap, electricity (for a time). Creating, in essence, thousands of isolated neighborhood economies within a larger economy. This would cause the entire society to collapse from the inside out and lay the ground work for the sort of values which we need if we are to survive on this planet: sustainable, localized economies, not driven by narcissistic extravagance and waste.



As I've mentioned elsewhere, there are two primary fronts in the control of a nation: the military and the media. Any revolution would have to successfully target both in order to be effective.

And I haven't the remotest clue how any revolution could target either of those.


Personally, I'm not even in favor of capital punishment, but I do believe violence is justified when used to stop violence (ie. self-defense). I wouldn't attack an official if he was just hanging out playing golf (although I wouldn't mind if some random punks ran off with his golf clubs), however, if an official is actively giving out orders to coordinate strikes against his people, then that is a different story.

The problem is though that an official playing golf one day, is handing out orders the next. And population doesn't know any truth about the motives and intentions behind those orders.

[cyu]

And I haven't the remotest clue how any revolution could target either of those.


Might want to check out past political shifts in Venezuela and Libya for military tactics - not I would say they did everything right, but if you're looking for clues, there are clues there. As for the media, there have been media occupations in both Greece and Oaxaca - another good place to look for clues =]



The problem is though that an official playing golf one day, is handing out orders the next.


Watch him when he's playing golf. Watch him the next day as well. If he's too afraid to oppress his people because he is being watched, then you already have control of the chain of command.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Well, with that logic, none of what we believe is of any importance since the state does not believe it. And if you honestly think that this justifies violence, then you're truly confused, as the moment we start attacking them, they will roll the heavy armor out onto the streets and implement martial law.

But we're not talking about what the state believes, we're talking about what we believe and what we believe the people should believe.

What I believe is that the people should sit at home and do nothing, or read a book. That the most powerful gesture of protest in an economy that functions on obsessive consumption is to do nothing at all. Do not shop, do not watch television. Start a community farm so that we can feed ourselves when the economy inevitably collapses.

What the state believes is important as we all still live under it's influence. In a revolutionary situation we will confront the state directly in the world not on some metaphysical battlefield where our ideas themselves with fight for us. You still have a limited notion of violent revolution. You're viewing it as some minority force that lashes out and attacks local representatives of a state or class with the hopes of awakening people. Obviously that model has failed in the past and will continue to fail. But that failure isn't due to the use of violence, that model is doomed from the beginning because it's being put in motion by a minority group. Being in the minority is the issue, not the use of force.

What you're suggesting in return is contradictory. If only a handful of people drop out, it has the same effect as the violent minority faction blowing up a building or killing random people. There are already tons of people who have dropped out, but we can see that their example alone has not been enough to spurn the majority into abandoning the system.

If however you are in the majority, it makes no sense to simply resign. If you have the power of the majority, it makes more sense to simply side-step the existing system, allowing it to crumble, and begin creating the new world. If in the course of creating this new world a new minority faction dedicated to the old world begins lashing out at us, how should we respond? Turn the other cheek? Allow the old world to reassert itself when we have the power to stop it? It makes no sense.

Regardless of all that you have no explanation on how we would get to that majority in the first place, and the use of violence clearly has no role. The vast majority of the left practices non-violence either explicitly or implicitly while the state continues to dole out violence as it deems it necessary. But nothing about this situation has caused our ideas to gain ground with the rest of the population, so clearly the problem lies elsewhere. I find people who fetishize violence to be very irritating, but they are not responsible for the way things arer. The ruling ideology and the relations that lead to it are responsible. The goal is to find a way to subvert that ideology, which unfortunately has proven to be next to impossible.

[Subversive]

@Subversive

Try not to focus on the word "nothing" since it is actually a very meaningful sort of behavior. And people would not literally do nothing but stare at walls, I meant behavior which does not feed the economy. Tilling your land does not help the economy if you keep the produce for yourself and offer it to others at no cost.
Three problems with this concept of yours:

1. The Proletariat has to already be fully class-conscious and willingly participate in this passive aggression against Capitalist society - something which surely won't happen due to the fact the Proletariat's class consciousness is a growing force within the revolution and not a sudden global awakening overnight. It just isn't going to happen.

2. The government will easily forcefully take those goods, put people into jail, and brutally attack anyone who participates in this passive aggression. No government will stand idly by and watch as its economy crumbles, especially not a powerful bourgeoisie government.
So what will you do to continue your passive aggression once the government starts to 'roll out the tanks'? You have resolved none of the issues with overcoming a bloody revolution.

3. As I stated before, you have the issue of scabs and creating a scab-market. While the class-conscious among the Proletariat will choose to participate in this passive-aggression, the real harm is done by the lumenproletariat whom choose to ignore the movement and continue working for the bourgoisie, increasing their own position in the State. Goods will be scarce, so black-markets and real-markets will have massive prices for necessities like food and water, since most of it is confiscated by the government after the aggression of the Proletariat. The government, of course, will not willingly feed the Proletariat so as to continue their revolt. It would only be a matter of time until the governments starves the Proletariat back to work.

Do not for a moment think that any government will ever be above these tactics. It would not be historically accurate. Historically speaking, State-governments are willing to do anything to maintain power. That's the whole problem.



If you could consider the possibilities, I am confident that you would also find this be tremendously dangerous and revolutionary.

Would your movement be dangerous? Yes, absolutely - to the Proletariat, and only to the Proletariat.

To be honest, I can only see this theory as being a good precursor to 'The Hunger Games'.
Bourgeois #1: "Hey, let's teach them a lesson. Let's keep all the food for ourselves and every year we'll make a few of them fight each other to the death."
Bourgeois #2: "Sounds good! Let's make sure to film it on TV so they all know how ruthless humans can be and don't ever attempt to revolt again."
Bourgeois #1: "That's a great idea! This is just getting better and better."

I'll give you one thing, though. A movement like this may cause the government to oppress everyone enough to actually start a REAL revolution.


This is assuming, of course, that people stop all other obsessive consumerist behavior. Millions of people buying only what they desperately need: toilet paper, soap, electricity (for a time).
So how do you propose doing that? As I stated before, people don't just get magically 'enlightened' overnight.



Creating, in essence, thousands of isolated neighborhood economies within a larger economy.
Even supposing 'The Awakening' occurred overnight, how do you expect the government not to get involved and just take what they believe is owed to them and just throw lots of people in jail and enstate martial law?


This would cause the entire society to collapse from the inside out and lay the ground work for the sort of values which we need if we are to survive on this planet: sustainable, localized economies, not driven by narcissistic extravagance and waste.
Even supposing an overnight 'Awakening' and even supposing a 'friendly' non-intervening government, I really don't see how a bunch of neighborhoods are going to just up and build "sustainable, localized economies, not driven by narcissistic extravagance and waste". Something like that takes structure, planning, development, infrastructure, knowledge, resources, etc. etc. etc. And not just build it, but build it before they run out of necessities, like food and water, and therefore regress to some other system, likely a primitive one.

It's just not a feasible plan at all. Your revolution would sputter out with not much more than a murmur, like Occupy. Such leaderless, formless, direction-less movements never go anywhere, never truly aid a revolution.

If your theory could actually work, it would have already worked for Occupy, or prior to that all the passive-aggressiveness of the Vietnam War protesters, or tons of other movements which never went anywhere or did anything.

[OzymandiasX]

What the state believes is important as we all still live under it's influence. In a revolutionary situation we will confront the state directly in the world not on some metaphysical battlefield where our ideas themselves with fight for us. You still have a limited notion of violent revolution. You're viewing it as some minority force that lashes out and attacks local representatives of a state or class with the hopes of awakening people. Obviously that model has failed in the past and will continue to fail. But that failure isn't due to the use of violence, that model is doomed from the beginning because it's being put in motion by a minority group. Being in the minority is the issue, not the use of force.

It has always been the minority which has physically implemented the change, that isn't the problem. Even in the largest uprisings, the people on the field have been a mere fraction of the whole. For a successful revolution it must be a quantitatively large number of people on the field (not necessarily a substantial fraction), but representing and fighting for a sentiment approved by the majority of the people. For if it isn't supported by the majority then the establishment can fabricate accusations that it is an anti-democratic coup spearheaded by a terrorist organisation. And then not only would we face the wrath of the military but even the people would fight us as the allure of nationalism, which is already deep-seated, would lead neighbor to fight neighbor. Basically the Red Scare all over again.

The moment we resort to violence, that majority will be lost as we will feed the criminal/terrorist line to the people. So you would have to gain the majority before you ever use force, but once you have the majority you won't need the force for by then the hook will have been removed from the mouth and the state would have no power over the people. The entire instruments of propaganda would by that stage had to have failed. Once we have majority approval we could perform acts much more harmful to the establishment than mere violence. For violence is the desperate struggle of the weak, used when all other avenues of submission have failed.

If we want to delegitimize a force whose exclusive purpose is to exercise control, then disobedience is the single most powerful weapon in our arsenal. Mock the giant, and give people reason to believe that the state is not as powerful as it claims. Block major thoroughfares, and centers of economic activity. Destabilize the financial life line that feeds the system and provide to the people a tangible vision of a humane and just democracy. But the moment we give them reason to use force, i.e for self or national defense, then we have forsaken that weapon. At that point we would no longer be fighting a threat against the people, we would be the threat against the people.

If nothing else, we would have to wait for them to fire the first shot. Probably the first several shots.


What you're suggesting in return is contradictory. If only a handful of people drop out, it has the same effect as the violent minority faction blowing up a building or killing random people. There are already tons of people who have dropped out, but we can see that their example alone has not been enough to spurn the majority into abandoning the system.

Not at all. We are in essence talking about public relations here. I have no personal quarrels with blowing up a building, assuming no one gets hurt. But I imagine most other people do. A group of people willingly resigning from civilized life would not garner social outrage, blowing up a building would be the death nail of any idealist movement.


If however you are in the majority, it makes no sense to simply resign. If you have the power of the majority, it makes more sense to simply side-step the existing system, allowing it to crumble, and begin creating the new world. If in the course of creating this new world a new minority faction dedicated to the old world begins lashing out at us, how should we respond? Turn the other cheek? Allow the old world to reassert itself when we have the power to stop it? It makes no sense.

People view the opulence of the west and fantasize about the wonders such wealth could offer. This is why I believe that a tremendous shift in paradigm must precede any enduring change in the governing structure of society. Because we are driven by what we value. People now, and in Bolshevik Russia had self-important narcissistic materialistic values. If we seek material wealth, then we have no reason to dispose of capitalism. But this will be a problem only in so far as some have romanticized interpretations of capitalism.

Because power has dominated the world since time immemorial it has determined the mythologies and values which govern our lives. This will no longer be a problem upon the collapse of global capitalism. With the convenient dispersion of information over the internet, ages of propaganda and myth-building will collapse as the truth becomes common knowledge, as it has for us. But for the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and other totalitarian approaches to Socialism, they have had to combat with this competing mythology and form their own. Capitalism apparently had much more to offer to the ego-driven individual.


Regardless of all that you have no explanation on how we would get to that majority in the first place, and the use of violence clearly has no role. The vast majority of the left practices non-violence either explicitly or implicitly while the state continues to dole out violence as it deems it necessary. But nothing about this situation has caused our ideas to gain ground with the rest of the population, so clearly the problem lies elsewhere. I find people who fetishize violence to be very irritating, but they are not responsible for the way things arer. The ruling ideology and the relations that lead to it are responsible. The goal is to find a way to subvert that ideology, which unfortunately has proven to be next to impossible.

I imagine people vastly more versed on this subject than myself have tried to answer that question and have evidently failed as we continue to live in this prison.

Personally, I don't think we stand a chance in hell. Capitalism will inevitability collapse as we gut the planet inside out and rampant poverty and disease sets in as we consume the world's final drops of oil. It will be absolute and total chaos after this. And if any structured organization survives this, it will be in the form of authoritarianism, not a democracy. And I am very confident that the governments of this world are well prepared for such developments and this tiresome rhetoric about Middle Eastern terrorism has much to do with this very inevitability.

Bah, we have our dreams and it makes reality endurable.

[BIXX]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, there are two primary fronts in the control of a nation: the military and the media. Any revolution would have to successfully target both in order to be effective.



Personally, I'm not even in favor of capital punishment, but I do believe violence is justified when used to stop violence (ie. self-defense). I wouldn't attack an official if he was just hanging out playing golf (although I wouldn't mind if some random punks ran off with his golf clubs), however, if an official is actively giving out orders to coordinate strikes against his people, then that is a different story.
I'm sorry, but why is either official less deserving of being attacked in your eyes?

[cyu]

I don't think we stand a chance in hell.

If you are a defeatist, then you should be asking questions, not providing "answers".

[cyu]

why is either official less deserving of being attacked in your eyes?

This probably deserves it's own thread: What constitutes justifiable violence? What kind of people deserve to be executed, and what kind of people do not deserve to be executed? I have my own opinions, but like the age old debate over free will vs determinism, I consider it one of those timeless philosophical issues.

[Creative Destruction]

We are not trying to destroy the Bourgeoise, especially not physically, we are trying to unite the Proletariat. The Bourgeoise will naturally whither and die without an obedient mass of workers to do their bidding.

lmao. the point of "uniting" the proletariat is to destroy the bourgeoisie. that's the entire point of the proletarian dictatorship.

[Subversive]

This probably deserves it's own thread: What constitutes justifiable violence? What kind of people deserve to be executed, and what kind of people do not deserve to be executed? I have my own opinions, but like the age old debate over free will vs determinism, I consider it one of those timeless philosophical issues.
I apologize for going off topic here but:
No one "deserves" to be executed. It is merely the fate of the matter.

If someone is a murderer who refuses to stop murdering, the solution is to remove them from society for the better of society. This position is justifiable.
To believe that this individual "deserves" to be executed for some reason is unjustifiable. This sense of "deserving" something is arbitrary - subjective.
If a solution is available to convert murderers into honest men, then would this not be the favorable choice, always?

When speaking of morality, the philosophy of Ethics, we must always consider justifications, not arbitrary premises. Not this thing that Capitalist society calls "justice".

This concept of "justice" is a social construct designed by the aspect of property-relations. One might steal, so we steal back from them. One might damage, so we damage them. One might kill, so we kill them. Property for property - continuance of the Capitalist exchange.
All current, modern forms of imprisonment, punishment, judgment, they are all based on the premise of property and Capitalism - yet more systems to destroy and subvert the worker's interests.
"Justice" is a fiction. Does anyone ever look at the reality of the situation of humanity, at this world we live in, and think that it is, or can be, "Just"? It is a delusion.

Thus, the act of undermining "officials" must be taken at an individual approach. The only question being: "Is this option the best option to further the revolution and our class interests?" And in the perspective of individuality, this question merely becomes "Is this the best option to further my own personal interests?"

This is not a "timeless philosophical issue" so much as, in a time of revolution, merely the 'art of war'.

[OzymandiasX]

Originally Posted by OzymandiasX View Post
@Subversive

Try not to focus on the word "nothing" since it is actually a very meaningful sort of behavior. And people would not literally do nothing but stare at walls, I meant behavior which does not feed the economy. Tilling your land does not help the economy if you keep the produce for yourself and offer it to others at no cost.
Three problems with this concept of yours:


1. The Proletariat has to already be fully class-conscious and willingly participate in this passive aggression against Capitalist society - something which surely won't happen due to the fact the Proletariat's class consciousness is a growing force within the revolution and not a sudden global awakening overnight. It just isn't going to happen.

Well isn't class-consciousness a necessity for all theories of revolution, not just this one? And saying that this won't happen is absurd, you could just as rationally so no form of class-consciousness will ever happen and therefore there won't be any revolution of any form.


2. The government will easily forcefully take those goods, put people into jail, and brutally attack anyone who participates in this passive aggression. No government will stand idly by and watch as its economy crumbles, especially not a powerful bourgeoisie government. So what will you do to continue your passive aggression once the government starts to 'roll out the tanks'? You have resolved none of the issues with overcoming a bloody revolution.

This is just far-fetched. But, then, I hope they do. That would engender distrust in the entire population as this would paint the state in the very image which we, as the revolutionaries, would want the people to perceive the state: as a forceful, oppressive and unjust institution. Martyrdom is critical to the revolutionary process.



3. As I stated before, you have the issue of scabs and creating a scab-market. While the class-conscious among the Proletariat will choose to participate in this passive-aggression, the real harm is done by the lumenproletariat whom choose to ignore the movement and continue working for the bourgoisie, increasing their own position in the State. Goods will be scarce, so black-markets and real-markets will have massive prices for necessities like food and water, since most of it is confiscated by the government after the aggression of the Proletariat. The government, of course, will not willingly feed the Proletariat so as to continue their revolt. It would only be a matter of time until the governments starves the Proletariat back to work.

I believe the qualities and characteristics of the lumenproletariat are vastly exaggerated and misunderstood. People are pliable, especially in the lower-classes. And it's often the case that our immediate circumstances are vastly more reflective of our behavior than any enduring characteristic. Therefore I believe the real lumenproletariat represent a minor portion of the population, as most could change eventually. And if they do raise the prices through a black market, this would only lead to more of the proletariat to join us and they would in essence only be starving themselves. It is paramount to the effort during the initial stages to not break the law, if we use our land to grow food and distribute them at no cost, we would not be breaking any laws and would not offer any means for just government intervention.


Do not for a moment think that any government will ever be above these tactics. It would not be historically accurate. Historically speaking, State-governments are willing to do anything to maintain power. That's the whole problem.

Total agreement and understanding here. The only conflict is in the degree and timing of their aggression. You are overlooking the finesse and moderation with which western states have to exercise that force. See, they have impressed the idea onto the general population that the force they exercise is justified...predominately for defense. As long as we do not provide them with the means to justify their violence, they cannot use violence without discrediting themselves.

But then, I imagine that there wouldn't be much stopping them from fabricating causes out of thin air. But that would be risky on their part.



Would your movement be dangerous? Yes, absolutely - to the Proletariat, and only to the Proletariat.

To be honest, I can only see this theory as being a good precursor to 'The Hunger Games'.
Bourgeois #1: "Hey, let's teach them a lesson. Let's keep all the food for ourselves and every year we'll make a few of them fight each other to the death."
Bourgeois #2: "Sounds good! Let's make sure to film it on TV so they all know how ruthless humans can be and don't ever attempt to revolt again."
Bourgeois #1: "That's a great idea! This is just getting better and better."

I'll give you one thing, though. A movement like this may cause the government to oppress everyone enough to actually start a REAL revolution.

I am not picturing the course of events which would lead down that path. If anything self-sufficiency would liberate us from the tyranny of the market, not place us under greater risk. It seems your entire logic is driven by the assumption that the government will invade the lower-classes if we start growing our own food.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzymandiasX View Post
This is assuming, of course, that people stop all other obsessive consumerist behavior. Millions of people buying only what they desperately need: toilet paper, soap, electricity (for a time)


So how do you propose doing that? As I stated before, people don't just get magically 'enlightened' overnight.


Well, it doesn't have to be overnight. And it's definitely not magic. People change, their values change. But it does require time. And volatility and desperation catalyze radical thought.


Even supposing 'The Awakening' occurred overnight, how do you expect the government not to get involved and just take what they believe is owed to them and just throw lots of people in jail and enstate martial law?

They would have to justify it. I'm not proposing anything illegal. Not shopping, and growing food isn't against the law.


Even supposing an overnight 'Awakening' and even supposing a 'friendly' non-intervening government, I really don't see how a bunch of neighborhoods are going to just up and build "sustainable, localized economies, not driven by narcissistic extravagance and waste". Something like that takes structure, planning, development, infrastructure, knowledge, resources, etc. etc. etc. And not just build it, but build it before they run out of necessities, like food and water, and therefore regress to some other system, likely a primitive one.

You really are blowing this out of proportion. This would be maybe several blocks of a neighborhood, where a group of people with a common vision and understanding come together, maybe tear down their fences, grow food, and swear an oath to live in moderation. You're right, it would be tremendously primitive; permitted that they would keep whatever technology they already have and to purchase technology that would promote their economic independence. But if that's what it takes to hit the power structure where it hurts, then so be it.


It's just not a feasible plan at all. Your revolution would sputter out with not much more than a murmur, like Occupy. Such leaderless, formless, direction-less movements never go anywhere, never truly aid a revolution.

I don't doubt it. Because this sort of life style wouldn't appeal to most people. But technically it would work. As in it would definitely destroy the economy. But millions of people aren't going to do this.


If your theory could actually work, it would have already worked for Occupy, or prior to that all the passive-aggressiveness of the Vietnam War protesters, or tons of other movements which never went anywhere or did anything.

Any theory could work. It's a question of manpower and willpower. Why it doesn't work is significantly more complicated.

[BIXX]

This is not a "timeless philosophical issue" so much as, in a time of revolution, merely the 'art of war'.

That was kinda what I was getting at, thank you.

[OzymandiasX]

If you are a defeatist, then you should be asking questions, not providing "answers".

Questions were asked, I provided answers. I'm not ashamed to be a defeatist, and my inquisitive nature is not restricted by that stance. Answers are found in critiques and counter-critiques. Questions are implicit throughout: specifically regarding the merits of using violence.


lmao. the point of "uniting" the proletariat is to destroy the bourgeoisie. that's the entire point of the proletarian dictatorship.

No, the point of uniting the proletariat is to create a condition of existence vastly superior to the current one. The end or "destruction" of the bourgeoisie is a natural product of this.

[Subversive]

Well isn't class-consciousness a necessity for all theories of revolution, not just this one? And saying that this won't happen is absurd, you could just as rationally so no form of class-consciousness will ever happen and therefore there won't be any revolution of any form.
No, no. It's not the same. I, perhaps, left out the most important details in denoting the difference, because I assumed they were known, but I'll describe them now.

In your instance of a passive-aggressive revolt, any class-conscious individuals will be quickly and immediately stamped out by the continued productive forces and by scabs. In reality your movement is nothing but instances of 'strikes', except more diversified to a social-strata rather than a particular place of employment. The movement, however, has all the same hallmarks and problems, as well as additional problems.

For example, they are still susceptible to scab-workers and essentially don't even make any form of a real dent in the economy or society.
So what is their 'effort' good for? Nothing.
If they did make a dent in the economy then surely the government would make a dent in them, as well. They would be dispersed with not much more than a hand-wave by the governments, as was Occupy.

And where will they get the land to farm for their food? You are merely insisting that they are sponsored by bourgeois members of society, or that they start a Socialist-collective, so what sets this membership apart from any other Utopian-fantasy?

Furthermore, how is a farm-worked initiative, essentially a Strike-CoOp, going to invigorate the people to enlist more people to their movement?

A revolutionary force, on the other hand, is very different in every way.
They are individualized. There is no need for direct-cooperation, nor prerequisite resources. They are guided under a central goal, rather than under any farm-land, sponsorship, nor local commune.
Anyone can join, and anyone can leave, at any time. This decentralization easily allows a great influx of participants to the cause, by their own volition. It also allows cohesive efforts to be applied strategically, but hidden and subversive. They are not localized for government take-down.

Therefore, government oppression or retaliation against these forces comes in-masse. It is an oppression against all people everywhere, because the revolution acts in regards to all people everywhere. The ultimate result is the people recognizing the government oppression, authoritorian rule, and joining the cause to end it.

It is a powerful expression that allows the people the freedom to be guise themselves in the masses, to act for the masses. And in times of need they can act in adrenaline-filled outbursts of emotions, allowing their true-revolutionary-self to lash out. This form of movement is driven by passion - not fear - not collectivity - not peaceful resistence by the intelligentsia or the petit-bourgeois - raw and pure passion for the movement.

Do the Proletarians need to understand their true class-objectives in a time of revolution? No, not at all - they merely need to see the struggle, want to struggle, and, ultimately, to resist the struggle. Only within this form of movement, a true revolution, will the Proletariat realize itself as a true class.

Essentially, not a drop of blood would even need to be spilled.
But that blood will spill because everyone will be confused, everyone will be afraid - that is what passion does to you.
The Capitalists driven mad by their lust for power and their fear of losing it, the Proletarians driven mad by their enslavement and the sight of the coming dawn of freedom.

That does not mean that the majority cannot maintain their dignity, their self-respect, their civility. They will not become like dogs; only the dogs will be dogs; men will still be men. Strategy will have the greatest part in such a war; Strategy will be the means to prevent the earth from being spoiled by blood.

That is the remarkable difference between Utopian pipe-dreams and a true, a real, revolution; Sincerity and passion in the movement.



This is just far-fetched. But, then, I hope they do. That would engender distrust in the entire population as this would paint the state in the very image which we, as the revolutionaries, would want the people to perceive the state: as a forceful, oppressive and unjust institution. Martyrdom is critical to the revolutionary process.
Exactly. And that is the very same reason why breaking down the economy by a few conscious workers is never going to happen - you need movement in your movement.

As seen by things like Occupy and the sweeping attacks on police-brutality, they do nothing to actually change society. They formless, shapeless movements with no real goals. They have the passion but where is their sincerity? Their dedication? The government comes to stomp out their riots and what do they do? They go home. Why are these people not willing to FIGHT for what they believe in? Yes, because they lack direction, they lack form, they lack the sincerity to understand their cause.

That is what happen when you want to form a CoOp or Commune that simply insists on itself as if the movement were somehow pro-active. It is not an active movement. It simultaneously the resistance against oppression, and the oppression of resistance. You are denying true resistance against oppression by denying people the opportunity to be sincere about their resistance - you are pacifying them like sheep and herding them only to their slaughter. A movement doomed to itself.

I agree with you that violence, for the sake of violence, is also a movement doomed to itself. Terrorists will never garner the support of the people. You cannot expect the masses to want to uproot their families to become terrorists, to denounce their morals and obligations and simply insist on a movement for the sake of a movement.

But an objectified movement, violence for the sake of the cause, a movement supporting itself through the cause, passionate for the cause, and understanding of the cause - violence not against the people, but against the machine under which the people are oppressed; Violence not against the shackled man but against the shackles.

That is a movement that will garner the support of the masses. Violence will be overlooked, emptied into a higher moral obligation, and output to a more noble goal. That is something that people will uproot their families for - because it is something which their families insist upon as well - it is a drive, as passion, a cause, a reason for which their families must endeavor because it is their own future, as well.

A man can feed himself on a single fish for a day, or learn to fish today so he might have many fish tomorrow and every day after that.
The revolution, one in which does not reject violence but takes it upon itself as a burden of the revolution itself, is the man who teaches himself to fish.
The passive-aggression of fruitless labor, of profiting no one but the scabs, is nothing but the man who insists that a fish be simply plucked from the lake and put on his plate, as if there were no real work to be done but the effort he uses to eat it.
And what will he do when another man takes his fish? Will he even know what to do to get another? Will he know what it means to steal to feed his family? Or, will he then finally understand the real work that must be done?



And if they do raise the prices through a black market, this would only lead to more of the proletariat to join us and they would in essence only be starving themselves.
And by what means will the proletariat join an effort that only sees rising prices - a hardship on their families - and nothing being done about or against the government whom are doing the oppression?
Again, no, they will become a scab-worker. A worker whom takes on the jobs of all the other workers who refuse to work for the benefits they will receive, even if, underneath it all, they are still losing the same percentage of profits to the Capitalists. They will have no incentive to join such a resistance wherein the only thing being accomplished is the starvation of the people whom toil bourgeois-funded farmlands to produce mediocre supplies due to lack of technological support and available resources.


It is paramount to the effort during the initial stages to not break the law, if we use our land to grow food and distribute them at no cost, we would not be breaking any laws and would not offer any means for just government intervention.
What "Land"? The Proletarian has no land!
What Food can be grown on the lands of the imagination, or the lands owned by the Capitalist who expects payment for using his lands when no payment can be delivered?
Your movement cannot even be driven without the Capitalists, let alone deliver itself away from their hands.

If you are merely expecting bourgeois support to garner a Proletarian revolution, where are you going to find enough efforts to support this revolution? Whom will be the supporter? Will there even be enough?
The Capitalists have tied your hands and stripped you of the lands in which you hope to claim your own food, to toil your own fields. So then, without violence, how will you get it back? You will merely starve your movement from the very beginning. How then will you gain the support of the masses by starving yourself? Even Gandhi could not collect many supporters during his Hunger Strikes.

It is only the revolutionary-coward who thinks that the laws of Capitalism are sufficient enough to hold him.
What sort of revolutionary-man believes freedom is within reach but denies taking it for the fact that he fears the punishment if he is to be caught releasing his chains?



The only conflict is in the degree and timing of their aggression. You are overlooking the finesse and moderation with which western states have to exercise that force. See, they have impressed the idea onto the general population that the force they exercise is justified...predominately for defense. As long as we do not provide them with the means to justify their violence, they cannot use violence without discrediting themselves.
Discredit to whom? The Proletariat? The movement?
If we throw off our chains then why does another man fear catching them when he, too, wants freedom?

It is a revolution, and it will not begin with violence for the sake of violence. It will begin with a movement, a passion among people, one that has already grown and already developed, because it is the internal passion of the oppressed worker, the desire to no longer be bonded by Capitalist oppression; and ultimately, it will all begin with a strategy. A cohesive assertion of dominant authority: The People are not going to back down anymore.'
This strategy will not involve destroying people, undermining the efforts, breaking the cause. It will directly involve undermining the system, breaking the shackles, destroying whatever hurdles are put in the way. And all the while - it will continue the assertion: 'We will not give up. We will fight.'
And the cause will be known - it will be displayed - it will have moral justifications. It will not be treacherous to itself because it will be the embodiment of the People's interests. It must be, or it will never be a lasting movement.
The outliers, the "terrorists", will be those individuals acting on their own, in their own self-interests, and the People will see this. The People will be interested in the cause, not the violence, and will support what interests them, not what is treacherous to them. The self-serving nature of this movement will be a creative force to abolish unnecessary violence, as well as to abolish unnecessary compromise, and become self-sustaining.

In other words: The People will only support what efforts that they wish to support - thus furthering the just-cause and not the unjust-cause; supporting the violence-for-revolution, not the violence-for-violence. Supporting the efforts aimed to destroy the system, not the efforts to destroy the people.

And what would be the goal of your movement if an everyday-anarchist gets tired of farmwork and decides to blow something up? Is it suddenly the end of your movement? Do the people suddenly associate everything evil with the communes? I doubt that.
Nor will people associate the evils of one group with the goals and aspirations of a growing revolutionary society. They will be part of the movement, but they will not be the movement itself.

Bloody violence won't be the primary means of subversion in a revolution, unless war becomes necessary to everyone. The primary means of subversion in a revolution will be a tactical destruction or dissolution of government work-houses, of government institutions; any means of government power and authority.

It will all begin by breaking those shackles. The revolutionary forces might seem like 'terrorists' at first, but it will only be a matter of time until the government acts demonstrating their true nature to the people - demonstrating the need for revolution. No justifications will cover those tracks.

The Bourgeoisie governments will spill enough blood of their own, the Proletariat would not need, or want, to go out of their way to spill more.



But then, I imagine that there wouldn't be much stopping them from fabricating causes out of thin air. But that would be risky on their part.
The lumenproletariat will always be a 'thing', but the Proletariat itself is not as stupefied by government justifications as-is indicated by the current mindlessness of society today. This mindless embodiment, this prisoner-attitude, is merely the result of oppression. When the government-forces demonstrate their oppression, when the guards rattle the cages, the internal forces at work, the passion, will drive the man out of the zombie; it will breathe life back into him.

The lifeless husk that we see today is already awake to present conditions. Occupy, police brutality, and etc. These sort of things have existed for a while now. The next step for the Proletariat is merely to find a direction, to pinpoint the cause; and, importantly, for the catalyst of the revolution to appear. The awakening-element, the strategy of this movement, to pronounce itself. Again, to make the statement: 'We will fight and we will not give up.' The catalyst is merely the event which begins turning the cogs of a fully-realized movement.

Currently, we have not yet taken that step. There have been movements, yet not fully realized. We have been given the catalysts, but the movements were not primed - the wheels just spin in place.
The revolution only begins when the two are aligned in place.

Your movement, of a rather peaceful co-existence with the Capitalist, is nothing but Utopian. It is the spinning of a wheel, without an engine to run it. It expects both the engine to be placed, and for direction to be given without a driver. As if the workforce will merely follow the breeze and sail the course towards Utopia, towards realization through idealization. It will never work. It is pure fantasy.



I am not picturing the course of events which would lead down that path. If anything self-sufficiency would liberate us from the tyranny of the market, not place us under greater risk. It seems your entire logic is driven by the assumption that the government will invade the lower-classes if we start growing our own food.
No, my logic is that to grow your own food you must take Capitalist private-property, because the bourgeoisie are not just going to hand it to you on a silver platter so that your pseudo-revolution can occur, since the vast majority of Proletarians do not even own their own land so as to grow food, and if they do, do they have enough land to feed all the others? No.

The bourgeoisie must support you - which will never happen. Which simultaneously means that they will also destroy you, since you took their land and broke their laws, and you do not wish to get your hands dirty by fighting against them. So you will just give up - your entire movement will just die, fruitless and barren.

In any case, I have written more than I needed to and I have no more time to complete the response, so what I've already written should more than suffice.

[Bala Perdida]

No, the point of uniting the proletariat is to create a condition of existence vastly superior to the current one. The end or "destruction" of the bourgeoisie is a natural product of this.
You basically have that backwards. Grouping people together and telling them to exploit themselves just seems to make it easier for the bourgeoisie to slaughter them.

[cyu]

I'm not ashamed to be a defeatist
The difference between defeatism and other trains of thought is that defeatism isn't a solution at all. It is the lack of solution. Defeatism does not offer answers - what defeatism offers are the opposite of answers. There's nothing particularly wrong with pointing out possible ways various things might fail - those are all ways to make something stronger. You find a possible weakness, you find a mitigation or solution, and you get stronger. Thus pointing out weaknesses is vital to making plans stronger.

However, there's a difference between those who point out weaknesses / ask questions, with a goal of finding an answer - versus those who argue for failure but are not looking for answers.

One type of defeatist may just be like your typical person who engages in internet debate - they only seek to "win" the debate, regardless of what side they've chosen or have accidentally chosen. It is not so much a matter of learning something for them, it is not so much about sharing information for them, it is a matter of pride - they seek to "win" the debate because to admit defeat would be a blow to their self-esteem that they do not want to face. The only way to "win" a debate with people like this is to ensure they can leave the debate with a strengthened self-esteem, in whatever way possible - the actual details and points of the debate don't actually matter.

A second type of defeatist actually has ulterior motives. They may not actually believe what they are saying, however, they present their points in order to discourage action. Hillary Clinton may claim that "the Egyptian government is stable" but that is not defeatism. While it is meant to discourage action, it is different from those with similar goals as the military, who mix among Egyptian activists and try to divert effort away from effective action. Ironically, it is the actions opposed most by these type of "defeatists" that are the ones they personally believe would be most effective.

Not that I'm saying you fall into either of these categories, but if you're dealing with mass movements, these are just some things to watch out for.

[OzymandiasX]

Sorry for the late reply. Work doesn't afford me much time these days for such lengthy discussions.


In your instance of a passive-aggressive revolt, any class-conscious individuals will be quickly and immediately stamped out by the continued productive forces and by scabs. In reality your movement is nothing but instances of 'strikes', except more diversified to a social-strata rather than a particular place of employment. The movement, however, has all the same hallmarks and problems, as well as additional problems.

I understand what you're saying, and to some extent I agree. But scale is an important factor here. The first million people won't have much of an economic impact, (albeit they'd have a tremendous social and cultural one), as I assume that this approach would appeal the most to those who have little to lose from departing from our conventional material life. So I assume we would attract the homeless, the skill-less, uneducated, the unemployed, or those otherwise disillusioned. This would not even dent the massive breadth of the economy which even in it's prime leaves millions unemployed.


But in time, the volatility of the economy will disenfranchise a growing number of people. People who once held stable work, will lose that work and seek alternatives. But these are all grounded on assumptions and speculation.



For example, they are still susceptible to scab-workers and essentially don't even make any form of a real dent in the economy or society.


So what is their 'effort' good for? Nothing.

Well, the collapse of the capitalist economy will be a product of it's own inherent inefficiencies and flaws. Obviously the communal life style isn't going to do anything to target capitalism and cause it to fail. My proposition would function more as a final life line for the desperate and the disillusioned to escape from the shackles of an economy that will grow more merciless and apathetic to the human condition, not as an aggressive force in itself to undermine the global economy.


We would not lure very productive members out of the economy, those already out of the economy would find some respite in our midst and find new life. They would then, through their own faculties commit other acts, perhaps those which you have mentioned, which would promote the cause in more tangible ways.

I believe the self-sufficient communal environment is paramount to the life of any revolution, as it would serve to foster other, more productive, activities.


If they did make a dent in the economy then surely the government would make a dent in them, as well. They would be dispersed with not much more than a hand-wave by the governments, as was Occupy.

This guaranteed reaction on the part of the state applies to all forms of revolution. Unless you believe violence will quell further violence. The only thing violence on our part will accomplish is to legitimatize the violence of the state, nothing else.


And where will they get the land to farm for their food? You are merely insisting that they are sponsored by bourgeois members of society, or that they start a Socialist-collective, so what sets this membership apart from any other Utopian-fantasy?
This is a valid point. It would require an extraordinary degree of sponsorship.


Furthermore, how is a farm-worked initiative, essentially a Strike-CoOp, going to invigorate the people to enlist more people to their movement?
It wouldn't. It'd be a final resort for the desperate and weak-spirited. More synonymous with a sort of charity than a revolutionary force. But it would provide a physical stronghold for thought to flourish. A breeding ground for more meaningful activity. I'm picturing bunk beds lining rooms in a downtown Victorian cottage. In the back -- a thriving tropical garden trapped by concrete walls and chain link fences, dozens of interspersed aquaponic bins harboring many varieties of staple foods. The inside - a buzzing den of activity, debate and organization.


A revolutionary force, on the other hand, is very different in every way.
They are individualized. There is no need for direct-cooperation, nor prerequisite resources. They are guided under a central goal, rather than under any farm-land, sponsorship, nor local commune.
I understand the value of this, but we cannot accomplish anything without resources. And if we do not have resources ourselves then we need to acquire them somehow.


Anyone can join, and anyone can leave, at any time. This decentralization easily allows a great influx of participants to the cause, by their own volition. It also allows cohesive efforts to be applied strategically, but hidden and subversive. They are not localized for government take-down.

No one would be bound to the land. They enter under their own discretion and leave under their own discretion. The amount of participation is determined by the individual. And this wouldn't be centralized, with a hierarchy and leadership. These would form freely, collapse freely and the activities of every commune would be it's own. Of course they could organize with others if they wished, but that wouldn't be advisable for the very reasons which you have mentioned. It would make them very susceptible to government take-down.


Therefore, government oppression or retaliation against these forces comes in-masse. It is an oppression against all people everywhere, because the revolution acts in regards to all people everywhere. The ultimate result is the people recognizing the government oppression, authoritorian rule, and joining the cause to end it.

This remains true regardless of the approach. We do not lose our humanity or our sense of common brotherhood if we choose to detach ourselves from the cages of our imprisonment. If anything, our growing presence outside of the confines of civilization would lead others, who would otherwise be very doubtful about the quality of life outside of civilization, to consider it as a possibility.


It is a powerful expression that allows the people the freedom to be guise themselves in the masses, to act for the masses. And in times of need they can act in adrenaline-filled outbursts of emotions, allowing their true-revolutionary-self to lash out. This form of movement is driven by passion - not fear - not collectivity - not peaceful resistence by the intelligentsia or the petit-bourgeois - raw and pure passion for the movement.

Individualism as an expression of power is the hallmark of Capitalism. The impression that I have been left with following your description is that you believe the revolution will be spearheaded simultaneously by millions of disorganized reactionaries. I believe that reactionaries have a role to play in this, but I would definitely not place them at the forefront of the movement.

It is that very same passion of which you're speaking that would lead us to form communes. It is not necessary for passion to yield violence exclusively. We could use that very same energy to a more productive, if not benevolent, end. Hubs to feed the starved radical mind. The physical material world around us is immersed with elements that bog down and tires the intellect. A simple drive down a city highway and we're surrounded by the giant grinning faces of vanity, and senseless provocations to consume. We desperately need a retreat where we can find peers and forget about the outside and focus on a reality wholly separate from our own.



Do the Proletarians need to understand their true class-objectives in a time of revolution? No, not at all - they merely need to see the struggle, want to struggle, and, ultimately, to resist the struggle. Only within this form of movement, a true revolution, will the Proletariat realize itself as a true class.
Struggle requires a degree of social consciousness. Since we struggle toward an end. We don't struggle for the sake of struggle. We're not children sobbing for attention. There is an identifiable purpose to every social struggle: higher wages, shorter work hours, less oppression, less corruption, less privatization. And inherent to every cause is the recognition of competing class interests. Anyone who ever asks the question "Why?" in reference to any form of economic injustice naturally reaches that conclusion.



Essentially, not a drop of blood would even need to be spilled.
But that blood will spill because everyone will be confused, everyone will be afraid - that is what passion does to you.

Oh, most definitely. I'm not questioning the behavior of rouge elements. I'm simply stating that if the revolution ever takes an organized form, that the organization and it's members should never condone violence.



The Capitalists driven mad by their lust for power and their fear of losing it, the Proletarians driven mad by their enslavement and the sight of the coming dawn of freedom.
That's right.



That does not mean that the majority cannot maintain their dignity, their self-respect, their civility. They will not become like dogs; only the dogs will be dogs; men will still be men. Strategy will have the greatest part in such a war; Strategy will be the means to prevent the earth from being spoiled by blood.

No reason to reduce people down to one dimensional interpretations. A dog one day is a man the next, and vice versa. And strategy is precisely what I hope the communal life will offer.


That is the remarkable difference between Utopian pipe-dreams and a true, a real, revolution; Sincerity and passion in the movement.
So subjective. What I am presenting 5 people could accomplish in a week, with the proper resources. And millions could replicate around the world.


What you are presenting is chaos. Which I realize is a far more probable reality.


Exactly. And that is the very same reason why breaking down the economy by a few conscious workers is never going to happen - you need movement in your movement.

As seen by things like Occupy and the sweeping attacks on police-brutality, they do nothing to actually change society. They formless, shapeless movements with no real goals. They have the passion but where is their sincerity? Their dedication? The government comes to stomp out their riots and what do they do? They go home. Why are these people not willing to FIGHT for what they believe in? Yes, because they lack direction, they lack form, they lack the sincerity to understand their cause.

If anything, I would compare Occupy to what you are proposing. Since Occupy was fundamentally a reactionary product. An incoherent babble of people reacting to widespread indiscriminate injustice and violation of basic human rights. Thousands of people joining together to complain but with no apparent consensus on a solution.


At the bare minimum the people in the commune would have a very clear vision of what would need to change for an ideal condition of existence, and the fact that they are there would mean that they also had a common vision of how to reach that destination: a willful abstinence from obsessive consumer behavior.

I have theories on why Occupy failed. Predominately because it was never a true in it's intentions, it was simply a product of mounting angst. Those people weren't suffering. They felt voiceless and unrepresented. So they march onto the streets convince themselves that they live in a democracy then go home.


That is what happen when you want to form a CoOp or Commune that simply insists on itself as if the movement were somehow pro-active. It is not an active movement. It simultaneously the resistance against oppression, and the oppression of resistance. You are denying true resistance against oppression by denying people the opportunity to be sincere about their resistance - you are pacifying them like sheep and herding them only to their slaughter. A movement doomed to itself.
There would be no reason why the members could not do other things outside of farming, as long as they do not contribute to the economy in the process.


I agree with you that violence, for the sake of violence, is also a movement doomed to itself. Terrorists will never garner the support of the people. You cannot expect the masses to want to uproot their families to become terrorists, to denounce their morals and obligations and simply insist on a movement for the sake of a movement.

Right.


But an objectified movement, violence for the sake of the cause, a movement supporting itself through the cause, passionate for the cause, and understanding of the cause - violence not against the people, but against the machine under which the people are oppressed; Violence not against the shackled man but against the shackles.
If only it was that simple. But you seem to forget that the filter through which people acquire their information is not in our hands. A mere droplet of the ocean will perceive violence in such a romanticized fashion.


That is a movement that will garner the support of the masses. Violence will be overlooked, emptied into a higher moral obligation, and output to a more noble goal. That is something that people will uproot their families for - because it is something which their families insist upon as well - it is a drive, as passion, a cause, a reason for which their families must endeavor because it is their own future, as well.

There are many assumptions and hopes that must be made a reality before that approach would succeed. I doubt very much that violence will be overlooked in the near-term. Once we have peacefully acquired the majority and the state then starts knocking on our doors and tearing families apart and loved ones disappear in the middle of the night...violence will then not only be necessary but will be glorified and revered in the lower classes.


A man can feed himself on a single fish for a day, or learn to fish today so he might have many fish tomorrow and every day after that.


The revolution, one in which does not reject violence but takes it upon itself as a burden of the revolution itself, is the man who teaches himself to fish.

So it is your belief that revolution is sustained through violence? I believe revolution is sustained through the continued discussion and recognition of injustice. The death nail of revolution is apathy, not peace. And I do not perceive the social development of humanity through defined events in time. I think it is a liquid process. We are experiencing social evolution at this very moment in time and always have been since the day one man claimed authority over another. What we're talking about is catalyzing that evolution to form a climax with profound developments, like feeding a nearly starved pool of bacteria in a petri-dish and then watching it flourish into life and prosperity within a few seconds. And that requires knowledge, not violence. Maybe not even knowledge, but the capacity to foresee realities beyond the current and to fight for that reality; to not adapt to circumstances but to change circumstances. The very essence of human nature.


The passive-aggression of fruitless labor, of profiting no one but the scabs, is nothing but the man who insists that a fish be simply plucked from the lake and put on his plate, as if there were no real work to be done but the effort he uses to eat it.

And what will he do when another man takes his fish? Will he even know what to do to get another? Will he know what it means to steal to feed his family? Or, will he then finally understand the real work that must be done?


Once again, you're exaggerating the effects of the scabs. The vehemence with which you're writing about them borders on a form of racism. They are not predefined human beings with set character traits, they can change and will change should circumstances foster such change.


And by what means will the proletariat join an effort that only sees rising prices - a hardship on their families - and nothing being done about or against the government whom are doing the oppression?

Because prices are not a factor to those who do not play the game of capitalism. We would not be buying food on the commune, that's half the point of living there.


Again, no, they will become a scab-worker. A worker whom takes on the jobs of all the other workers who refuse to work for the benefits they will receive, even if, underneath it all, they are still losing the same percentage of profits to the Capitalists. They will have no incentive to join such a resistance wherein the only thing being accomplished is the starvation of the people whom toil bourgeois-funded farmlands to produce mediocre supplies due to lack of technological support and available resources.

You're missing the other half too. People who are disillusioned by the 8-6 grind, who see no progress or benefit in their labor. Who are experiencing rising food prices, and worsening quality of food. These are in part the people who would be attracted to the commune.

Scabbery is a problem when the condition of living under capitalism would exceed that of the commune, but for those who do not desire consumer goods, this is not a factor. The communal life would improve health in every aspect, would lead to greater happiness, a great sense of fulfillment and accomplishment and provide opportunities for personal enrichment.


What "Land"? The Proletarian has no land!
What Food can be grown on the lands of the imagination, or the lands owned by the Capitalist who expects payment for using his lands when no payment can be delivered?


Your movement cannot even be driven without the Capitalists, let alone deliver itself away from their hands.

Admittedly, this is a problem, albeit a temporary one. As a group we can afford many accommodations which we would not be able to afford as individuals. This includes land, and the resources necessary to develop that land.

We also should not overlook those individuals in the movement who do have wealth. They would be few, but it is not wholly impossible to conceive of a person who through whatever series of experiences has gained the sight to see the crimes which his peers have inflicted upon the rest of the world. These people would bring tremendous resources to the cause.


If you are merely expecting bourgeois support to garner a Proletarian revolution, where are you going to find enough efforts to support this revolution? Whom will be the supporter? Will there even be enough?
I am not claiming that it would be easy. I am only making the observation that their must be proletarian sympathizers in the bourgeois. And that among them exist some who would be willing to sacrifice their quality of life for an ideal.

I think our greatest challenge rests in the fact that we are not very articulate and lack the marketing skills necessary to attract such sponsorship. All the effective salesmen are capitalists; whereas the socialists are shy, self-conscious and stuttering introverts.


The Capitalists have tied your hands and stripped you of the lands in which you hope to claim your own food, to toil your own fields. So then, without violence, how will you get it back? You will merely starve your movement from the very beginning. How then will you gain the support of the masses by starving yourself? Even Gandhi could not collect many supporters during his Hunger Strikes.
One method was the one mentioned above. Another would be to simply take the land. Not anywhere close to any city, but in the depths of the wilderness where the state doesn't have the means to monitor possessions. Form a commune, till the land and supply the food to the homeless. In the process of supplying the food, provide them with the opportunity to join the cause.

Also, I really doubt violence would be a very effective means through which to require lost land.


It is only the revolutionary-coward who thinks that the laws of Capitalism are sufficient enough to hold him. What sort of revolutionary-man believes freedom is within reach but denies taking it for the fact that he fears the punishment if he is to be caught releasing his chains?
It isn't punishment that I fear, it is death. And not so much my own, but other peoples. If I kill someone in the name of the cause, the entire cause will face the wrath of the state.


Discredit to whom? The Proletariat? The movement?

If we throw off our chains then why does another man fear catching them when he, too, wants freedom?
The state would be discrediting itself in the eyes of the common people. It must preserve the visage of a just democracy. It is the same reason why they fabricate these absurdist claims about national defense every time they invade a foreign country or criticize the behaviors of other competing super powers.


It is a revolution, and it will not begin with violence for the sake of violence. It will begin with a movement, a passion among people, one that has already grown and already developed, because it is the internal passion of the oppressed worker, the desire to no longer be bonded by Capitalist oppression; and ultimately, it will all begin with a strategy. A cohesive assertion of dominant authority: The People are not going to back down anymore.'
You seem to believe that passion will naturally take the form of violence. I believe I agree, as some violence is inherent in these situations. The point I'm stressing is that we should not condone such violence.

I believe not supporting the economy is in itself a tremendous gesture of disobedience and a mark of authority. The prevailing mythology rests on the assumption that the people want to climb in material wealth. Millions of people rejecting that desire, quitting their work, not shopping and living a predominately agrarian life is very much a gesture of dominance. We are not playing their game anymore. We are creating our own world, from scratch; our own reality, with our own values and mythologies.


This strategy will not involve destroying people, undermining the efforts, breaking the cause. It will directly involve undermining the system, breaking the shackles, destroying whatever hurdles are put in the way. And all the while - it will continue the assertion: 'We will not give up. We will fight.'
None of this would be any less true in the communal approach. Think about it in a strictly economic perspective. A group of skilled workers who leave a work place, replicate this en masse, and you now have millions of people who are not contributing to the economy.

What is more important to the capitalist than making money? Nothing. We would literally drain them of the blood that keeps them alive. And of what value is money if you do not have millions of serfs to do your bidding? Money itself would at some point begin to lose it's value.


And the cause will be known - it will be displayed - it will have moral justifications. It will not be treacherous to itself because it will be the embodiment of the People's interests. It must be, or it will never be a lasting movement.The outliers, the "terrorists", will be those individuals acting on their own, in their own self-interests, and the People will see this. The People will be interested in the cause, not the violence, and will support what interests them, not what is treacherous to them. The self-serving nature of this movement will be a creative force to abolish unnecessary violence, as well as to abolish unnecessary compromise, and become self-sustaining.
These are hopes. At some point this will be true, but not in the beginning when the majority will have vested interests in preserving the status quo. And when the majority believe that the nation is a democracy and the state upholds justice.


In other words: The People will only support what efforts that they wish to support - thus furthering the just-cause and not the unjust-cause; supporting the violence-for-revolution, not the violence-for-violence. Supporting the efforts aimed to destroy the system, not the efforts to destroy the people.
The people support whatever they are told to support. In the beginning people are irrational and thoughtless. Then there is fear, fear leads them to ask questions, whoever supplies the answers controls the people. The state tells the people we are terrorists because we blew up a building, then we are terrorists. Regardless of the true motives or the intentions.




And what would be the goal of your movement if an everyday-anarchist gets tired of farmwork and decides to blow something up? Is it suddenly the end of your movement? Do the people suddenly associate everything evil with the communes? I doubt that.
They would, if that is what they are told. I am surprised that you retain such faith in the reasoning power of people after knowing full well with what ignorance most people perceive socialism and the true left. Most people are tremendously emotional and irrational. Who follow fads not only in subjective matters of fashion, music, and the arts, but also in matters of thought and fear.

There are people who value their sense of identify, these people reflect, often, about the elements which define their character, these are the people who with the proper exposure would join our cause. Then there are those who fear more than anything else the prospect of being alone in a cold and brutal world. That fear, which drives most people, is exploited and leads them to not question the circumstances of their existence. They submit at the slightest provocation to the rhetoric of whatever talking head it is that they worship. But more often it is a tide of belief that washes over the land, the rhetoric is repeated by multiple sources and cannot be linked to any one person. These people believe what their neighbors believe, not because of any sincere understanding or commitment to the ideas, but because they have formed a homogenized identity with their neighbors. Among conservatives it is a sense of nationalist pride, a commitment to God and family.

It is an image carved out and handed to them. They do not think about who they are. That is done for them.

And if the commune is accused of harboring terrorists, then that is what they will believe.


Nor will people associate the evils of one group with the goals and aspirations of a growing revolutionary society. They will be part of the movement, but they will not be the movement itself.
You must not be aware of the growing hatred directed at Islam. 1.3 billion people lumped together with a handful of terrorists.


Bloody violence won't be the primary means of subversion in a revolution, unless war becomes necessary to everyone. The primary means of subversion in a revolution will be a tactical destruction or dissolution of government work-houses, of government institutions; any means of government power and authority.
If that is what you target, then war is precisely what you will find.


It will all begin by breaking those shackles. The revolutionary forces might seem like 'terrorists' at first, but it will only be a matter of time until the government acts demonstrating their true nature to the people - demonstrating the need for revolution. No justifications will cover those tracks.
The acts of the government will be perceived as necessary for national defense. However criminal and atrocious, it will not shock this population of zombies.


The lumenproletariat will always be a 'thing', but the Proletariat itself is not as stupefied by government justifications as-is indicated by the current mindlessness of society today. This mindless embodiment, this prisoner-attitude, is merely the result of oppression. When the government-forces demonstrate their oppression, when the guards rattle the cages, the internal forces at work, the passion, will drive the man out of the zombie; it will breathe life back into him.
Well, then that is a degree of hope which I simply do not possess.


The lifeless husk that we see today is already awake to present conditions. Occupy, police brutality, and etc. These sort of things have existed for a while now. The next step for the Proletariat is merely to find a direction, to pinpoint the cause; and, importantly, for the catalyst of the revolution to appear. The awakening-element, the strategy of this movement, to pronounce itself. Again, to make the statement: 'We will fight and we will not give up.' The catalyst is merely the event which begins turning the cogs of a fully-realized movement.
The elements of our oppression are far too well organized these days for any form of coherent national awakening to not be seen well ahead of time by the state. The fact that the media discusses police brutality is intentional. They provoke us to the point of outrage, they pacify us with minor compromises and we praise the system of democracy and our allegiance to the system grows.

It's called faith building. A prayer answered by god. An investment, so that a few years down the line when they need truly outrageous forms of brutality, we will be complicit and understanding.


Currently, we have not yet taken that step. There have been movements, yet not fully realized. We have been given the catalysts, but the movements were not primed - the wheels just spin in place.

The revolution only begins when the two are aligned in place.
The more we bind ourselves to this society, the more liable we will become to temptation, to make mere compromises and to retain all the true elements of injustice and authority. All allegiances must be removed. All need and desire for what this system produces must end. The gears of capitalism are driven by desire. The needs we can satisfy in a commune. The insatiable appetite for material on the other hand is only satisfied by the industrial capacity made possible by capitalism.


Your movement, of a rather peaceful co-existence with the Capitalist, is nothing but Utopian. It is the spinning of a wheel, without an engine to run it. It expects both the engine to be placed, and for direction to be given without a driver. As if the workforce will merely follow the breeze and sail the course towards Utopia, towards realization through idealization. It will never work. It is pure fantasy.
Peaceful only to the degree that we not be harming anyone physically. But the communal life holds in utter contempt every single ideal that capitalism upholds: individualism, private property, entrepreneurship, narcissism, materialism, authority, hierarchy. It is the precise diametric opposite of capitalism and it's own form is a direct threat to it's existence if only we can garner the support and desire from a sufficient number of people to join us.


No, my logic is that to grow your own food you must take Capitalist private-property, because the bourgeoisie are not just going to hand it to you on a silver platter so that your pseudo-revolution can occur, since the vast majority of Proletarians do not even own their own land so as to grow food, and if they do, do they have enough land to feed all the others? No.
One person may not afford land, nor two. But as a group, with the proper diligence and foresight, we could afford a modest plot. And you would be surprised how many people even a small plot of land could support.


The bourgeoisie must support you - which will never happen. Which simultaneously means that they will also destroy you, since you took their land and broke their laws, and you do not wish to get your hands dirty by fighting against them. So you will just give up - your entire movement will just die, fruitless and barren.
I believe there are quite a few in the bourgeoisie who sympathize with our plight. Predominately intellectuals in the field of higher education. Even in business there are sympathizers. Personality is not bound in the same room with class, and character is not an immovable object. I have had the opportunity to acquire free land. But there were other conditions which I could not meet.


In any case, I have written more than I needed to and I have no more time to complete the response, so what I've already written should more than suffice.


For what it's worth, I'd like to thank you for your response. I've had very unpleasant experiences in the past, as I'm sure most here have, with similar lengthy conversations at other websites. At this stage I'd often find myself arguing over semantics and word usage and we would have wandered off into fifteen different tangents.

[OzymandiasX]

You basically have that backwards. Grouping people together and telling them to exploit themselves just seems to make it easier for the bourgeoisie to slaughter them.

That depends entirely on the context. In the west, violence must be concealed under the veil of defense otherwise it generates public outrage. Outrage which generates instability. In the more volatile political environments common in the disenfranchised underdeveloped countries, violence is needed to preserve a constant state of chaos through which leadership can be shuffled. But the wealthy and their families live in the west, and therefore they need to preserve security and for that they must preserve the illusion of democracy and justice. We must take advantage of this.


The difference between defeatism and other trains of thought is that defeatism isn't a solution at all. It is the lack of solution. Defeatism does not offer answers - what defeatism offers are the opposite of answers. There's nothing particularly wrong with pointing out possible ways various things might fail - those are all ways to make something stronger. You find a possible weakness, you find a mitigation or solution, and you get stronger. Thus pointing out weaknesses is vital to making plans stronger.

However, there's a difference between those who point out weaknesses / ask questions, with a goal of finding an answer - versus those who argue for failure but are not looking for answers.

One type of defeatist may just be like your typical person who engages in internet debate - they only seek to "win" the debate, regardless of what side they've chosen or have accidentally chosen. It is not so much a matter of learning something for them, it is not so much about sharing information for them, it is a matter of pride - they seek to "win" the debate because to admit defeat would be a blow to their self-esteem that they do not want to face. The only way to "win" a debate with people like this is to ensure they can leave the debate with a strengthened self-esteem, in whatever way possible - the actual details and points of the debate don't actually matter.

A second type of defeatist actually has ulterior motives. They may not actually believe what they are saying, however, they present their points in order to discourage action. Hillary Clinton may claim that "the Egyptian government is stable" but that is not defeatism. While it is meant to discourage action, it is different from those with similar goals as the military, who mix among Egyptian activists and try to divert effort away from effective action. Ironically, it is the actions opposed most by these type of "defeatists" that are the ones they personally believe would be most effective.

Not that I'm saying you fall into either of these categories, but if you're dealing with mass movements, these are just some things to watch out for.

I was not arguing for defeatism. I was recognizing an inevitability if we continued down our current path.

[Subversive]

Sorry for the late reply. Work doesn't afford me much time these days for such lengthy discussions.
Likewise, and I also keep forgetting which topic this discussion was in and not being able to find it.



For what it's worth, I'd like to thank you for your response. I've had very unpleasant experiences in the past, as I'm sure most here have, with similar lengthy conversations at other websites. At this stage I'd often find myself arguing over semantics and word usage and we would have wandered off into fifteen different tangents.
You're telling me! Yikes, it seems that is all I do on the internet anymore. People are either too ignorant to talk to about anything serious, completely insane and unapproachable, or are too preoccupied with wordplay and "winning the argument" that they can't move beyond semantics.

I'll admit I occasionally wander off on tangents myself, though. Like this one! :lol:



I understand what you're saying, and to some extent I agree. But scale is an important factor here. The first million people won't have much of an economic impact, (albeit they'd have a tremendous social and cultural one), as I assume that this approach would appeal the most to those who have little to lose from departing from our conventional material life. So I assume we would attract the homeless, the skill-less, uneducated, the unemployed, or those otherwise disillusioned. This would not even dent the massive breadth of the economy which even in it's prime leaves millions unemployed.
I don't even see how you could possibly even get a million of those people to join, let alone 10,000.
Movements are really hard things to accomplish, and generally only have a handful of actually 'active' participants. And for your plan to work people in the movement actually must, indeed, be active participants.

On the other hand, you get a few hundred revolutionaries in each city, causing chaos, and that has a significant effect on every level and doesn't require massive amounts of active participants.
Albeit the less revolutionaries there are the easier it is for the government to stamp out, but if the movement has enough social-support behind it then enough people will definitely join to at least get it noticed and have a major impact on things, not just socially and culturally, but politically and economically. And if the government uses force against a socially-supported movement, that only increases support.

This seems to be the biggest flaw in your philosophy - the requirement for active participation for continuance and success of the movement. How else do you actually make enough of an impact to elicit the Capitalists' attention and make them want to give in to serious demands? As you said, even a million people actively participating is not even going to make a dent in the economy (actually a million might do some harm). So what do you do everywhere inbetween zero and a million? And between a million and 10 million? At best it would be considered a Utopian fantasy, a handful of people driven to form communes. No one would take it seriously and it wouldn't gain much, if any, support. You'd probably never see more than a thousand or so people.

And, again, where do you get the resources to fund all of this? You have to have land to grow food, or else you're not really providing for yourselves. You can't live on 'hope'.
The 'homeless', 'uneducated', and etc. surely don't have any land to share or wealth to collectivize. So that definitely won't be where it is from.
And everyone with some wealth would be too skeptical to join, due to both the implausible nature of it and the fact they would inevitably be supporting everyone else. So it won't come from them, either.
So it's a "middle class movement" at best, if you can somehow win their support. And that's not just support - that is asking them to up and sell their homes, personal belongings, and uproot their entire families to move to some communes where they can actually participate in the communal living program. Without doing that they can't support themselves because they can't grow anything.

And what about disease and healthcare for everyone? The doctors and hospitals will still want real money, not vegetables. Unless you can get both doctors AND good equipment. And how do you get equipment? Money. So, once again, who is paying for it all?

It requires massive expenses to just go and build a new society, which is basically what you'd be doing to be able to have everyone growing their own food and etc.



But in time, the volatility of the economy will disenfranchise a growing number of people. People who once held stable work, will lose that work and seek alternatives. But these are all grounded on assumptions and speculation.
And when they lose work, they lose resources. Resources you need to build up that communal-living aspect of your movement.
Just more people to support for whomever is paying for it all.



Well, the collapse of the capitalist economy will be a product of it's own inherent inefficiencies and flaws. Obviously the communal life style isn't going to do anything to target capitalism and cause it to fail. My proposition would function more as a final life line for the desperate and the disillusioned to escape from the shackles of an economy that will grow more merciless and apathetic to the human condition, not as an aggressive force in itself to undermine the global economy.
So basically: A communal living program that is designed to "wait out Capitalism". I don't see that working, either.
Most communes dissolve due to political, economic, or social issues. Sometimes all of the above. So your communes will die out before Capitalism dies out. So what do you plan to do differently?

And, assuming you can outlast it, once the Capitalist economy dissolves you only have a massive influx of people you suddenly have to support. So what do you do? There probably isn't going to be enough food to feed everyone.

No, Capitalism will outlast your communes or else it will cause the death of your communes. No matter the case you won't outlast them.

That's all I have for now. I'll try to reply to more of the post another time.